Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: unlearner
Not nearly so much danger of idolatry as there is in accepting the heresy of Self and Self Alone as preached and taught by those who who pretend the anti-Christ, anti-Chistian, Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is the complete Bible and by doing so assert that while the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect the Word of God from the inclusion of error, they personally can recognize error the Holy Spirit cannot recognize.

Such folks are worshiping their own Most High and Holy Self, an idol if there ever was one, but their own pride and enthroning of their Self keeps them from recognizing the strong delusion they're under.

An idolater accusing others of idolatry is the epitome of spiritual blindness.

18 posted on 10/12/2013 11:45:36 AM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Rashputin
heresy of Self and Self Alone

You changed it from "Christ and Christ Alone". Why would you want to worship anyone else?

20 posted on 10/12/2013 12:24:48 PM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Rashputin

The difference is that if I am committing idolatry or in danger of dong so I do want to be corrected for it. The fool hears not reproof, not unlike the supposedly infallible but truly indefensible positions being promoted in the name of Mary and the Church.

“as preached and taught by those who who pretend the anti-Christ, anti-Chistian, Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is the complete Bible and by doing so assert that while the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect the Word of God”

Catholics don’t generally use the Bible to defend Catholic doctrine, as I have found repeatedly here. Occasionally they use it as a springboard but never build their arguments around its authority because they always come back to the Catholic church being a higher authority than the Bible. The Bible itself declares there are people who add to and take away from scripture. If the Catholic church was the means of preserving God’s written word, then the church would not have maintained two sets of books so to speak.

By protecting God’s word, do you mean burning people at the stake like William Tyndale because the Catholic church was protecting people from learning the scriptures in their own language? Did the Catholic church try to stop that simply because it was the wrong time? And is now it okay that the Catholic church has an English version of the Bible which had nothing to do with Tyndale and other heretics seeing the need for the common man to be able to learn God’s word in their own language? Please tell me. I am trying to comprehend.

Tyndale was a pharisee so the Catholic church had to burn him a the stake just like Jesus taught and showed in the way He treated Pharisees, right? Just like Jesus did to Nicodemus and Paul, who were Pharisees, right?

And I should not be offended that the Catholic church burned Tyndale and many other heretics at the stake and never acknowledged and repented of this as sin, right?

How many hail Mary’s does it take to atone for burning people at the stake anyway?

By “Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is the complete Bible” do you mean Textus Receptus (the received text) as opposed to the single non-contradictory text preserved by the Catholic church? Which ONE would that be? The Latin Vulgate? Codex Vaticanus? Codex Sinaiticus? Codex Alexandrinus?

So I am an idolater BECAUSE I will not bow to Rome or Mary?
I thought I had heard all the arguments before, but that is new.


23 posted on 10/12/2013 1:12:30 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson