Posted on 11/23/2023 8:17:44 AM PST by patriot torch
BTW, thank you for including Scriptural support to provide Biblical reference. Which is the foundation of Christianity.
John 1:1
King James Version
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
King James Version
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
When catholicism denies the True Word of God, not only are they rejecting the Word, but also reject the Word that was made Flesh and dwelt among us. This is why they replace Jesus with another head (the pope) And also why they replace the Worship of Jesus with the worship of Mary.
When all the man made ordinances are removed from the false doctrine, it’s left with an empty shell. That is why they distance themselves from Scripture.
Which is why Scripture is not the supreme standard that the Lord substantiated His ministry by, and opened the minds of the disciples so, (LK. 24:17,44, 45) though unlike Catholic popes and prelates, He, as well as men such as the apostles, could speak as wholly inspired of God. Instead, Catholicism elevates herself as alone being the sure, supreme sufficient standard (sola ecclesia), which Scripture, tradition and history only authoritatively consisting of and meaning what she says, which she says teaches that she alone is the sure, supreme sufficient authoritative standard.
Proving once again why catholics are taught to distance their beliefs from Scripture, all because their doctrine is man made according to “tradition” and nothing more.
No, all, for while linked to false teaching, Catholics profess (at least) many or most of what Bible Christians affirm and contend for (versus liberals, who degrade Scripture, and cults, which effectively elevate leadership above Scripture) including the apostle's and Nicene creed (except baptism for the remission of sins, versus the faith which baptism expresses being what purifies the heart: (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
It is distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
And if Catholics actually preached and taught what Peter did in the above verses, rather than salvation thru the very act of baptism rendering them good enough (for the time being) to enter Heaven, esp. as infants, and thus never being challenged to have their day of salvation, then we could actually have some fellowship of the Spirit. (Philippians 2:1)
St John’s Last Gospel ((John 1:1-14) is recited at the conclusion of every Traditional Latin Mass.
“And if Catholics actually preached and taught what Peter did in the above verses, rather than salvation thru the very act of baptism rendering them good enough”
_____________________________
So true. From an early age they are taught that the church saved them rather than the shed Blood at Calvary.
As well as being taught to place their faith in the roman catholic church rather than having to have their beliefs supported by Scripture.
“St John’s Last Gospel ((John 1:1-14) is recited at the conclusion of every Traditional Latin Mass.”
_______________________________
Matthew 15:8-10
King James Version
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
He was probably talking about you.
Sacraments?
Instituted by Jesus??
The Mass says He didn’t pay for all sin on the cross,
But the last thing Jesus said “It is finished”!!!
1 Peter 3:18
Also
“ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”
I'm not "hand-waving away" any conditions, I think those conditions you're referencing are deplorable. And I would encourage Catholics, if they have good reason to believe that a particular priest habitually commits grave sins (of _any_ kind), to find another priest for confession, and preferably for everything.
That doesn't change the fact that a priest who is a habitual sinner is still capable of administering valid sacraments. This was settled doctrine 1800 years ago in the Donatist controversy. Look it up.
It gives qualifications for church leadership, which they ignore.
Catholics don't ignore them (or at least shouldn't), but we don't choose our leadership, the bishops do. Do they ignore them? Yes, at least sometimes. Should they? Of course not.
Once again, that doesn't change the church's answer to the Donatist controversy 1800 years ago.
*Official* doctrine means NOTHING when it's not adhered to. It's just virtue signaling.
You're saying it's better to preach the wrong thing and do the right thing, rather than to preach the right thing and then fail to live up to your own standard?
I strongly disagree. God says "woe to those who call evil good" and he means it.
No, it's the church's response to the Donatist heresy 1800 years ago.
But let’s see ... the Inspired Word of God:
Let's see what the inspired Word of God also said:
21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” -- John 20:21-23
Sounds like the "power to forgive sins" was given to men right there, in clear and explicit terms, by God Himself in the flesh. And that's exactly how it was understood by all of Christendom until the 16th century.
It says nothing of the sort. It claims to be one-and-the-same sacrifice as Calvary.
It's just that your understanding of what a "sacrifice" is, is truncated and un-Biblical. The "sacrifice" doesn't end with the death of the sacrificial victim. In fact, since God is the Lord of time and all moments are present to Him, it is eternally being offered in heaven. The Mass simply makes that eternal sacrifice again present on earth.
I know you don't believe that, but don't lie about what we believe and then pretend that you're doing it out of Christian love. That Bible you claim to believe in says that love rejoices in the truth. What you posted is not the truth.
Thank you for not posting 12 pages of turgid prose and getting right to the point, Daniel.
You continue, however, to assume what you need to prove, namely, that the "NT church" ceased to exist at some point, should be spoken of in the past tense, and needs to be re-invented and reverse-engineered by fallible men who think the instructions (and, worse, the mandate!) for doing that are found in Scripture.
Actually, your argument was not only as regards the inadmissablity of women to Holy Orders but that of Rome being the solution to variant views, and thus reality of what the "living magisterium" that seemed to be a mystery to you has resulted in, and what Rome effectually teaches, and the fractured state of your amalgamated church which is half liberals (which you would have conservative evangelicals be brethren with), with a false gospel, warranted the bulk of my response.
You continue, however, to assume what you need to prove, namely, that the "NT church" ceased to exist at some point, should be spoken of in the past tense, and needs to be re-invented and reverse-engineered by fallible men who think the instructions (and, worse, the mandate!) for doing that are found in Scripture.
Meaning you continue, however, to assume what I never argued, and to the contrary I have often stated that a remnant of regenerated believers always existed (I was one), thus the one true church continued to storm against the gates of Hell to rescue souls that belonged in it.
For the only one true church is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) being the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes every believer into, (1Co. 12:13) as "living stones" in this "spiritual house," (1 Peter 2:5) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism esp. being mostly the latter.
And rather than being re-invented and reverse-engineered, in order to make the organic church more like that of the body of Christ, all that is needed is a further reformation than Rome was and is willing to pursue, as well as overall. By the end of the NT, only two of the representable churches were given a clean bill of health.
And we know what they had received and heard and were called to hold fast, and repent (or else the Lord would come on thee as a thief- Revelation 3:3)but what we read in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, not the uninspired prevaricating promulgations of presumptuous pompous prelates professing probity and protection from error.
As history shows, God has always guided and preserved His faithful remnant despite the failures of leadership, and lack thereof which today yet storm the gates of Hell in holiness with the holy gospel. This is essentially the present situational position of your own TradCaths such as who lack a living pope, with the present occupant of the chair being charged with being a material and formal heretic, and who claim that the Church that has already shut itself up since VCII and that the Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell nor does it preach "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."
The difference is that they look to a pre-V2 or Pope John XXIII as the true church, while we are to look to that of Scripture. We [the regenerate via the gospel of grace, of penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith in the Divine Son of God Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) who thus are "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21) and if dying in that obedient faith will go to be forever with Him at death or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)] while yet spread about in somewhat different tribes, have far less to lose and needful of obtaining than a church that is fundamentally perverse , thus with only a minute % who are regenerate.
In this basic regard, as I said in post 22, if Catholics actually preached and taught what Peter did in the above verses, rather than salvation thru the very act of baptism rendering them good enough (for the time being) to enter Heaven, esp. as infants, and thus never being challenged to have their day of salvation, then we could actually have some fellowship of the Spirit. (Philippians 2:1)
For I have been both as a Catholic, and well-know of the fundamental vast difference btwn the merely religious and the truly regenerate, and the basic unity in the gospel of grace and resultant experience. And with one difference being that the latter's focus and speech is that of the Lord (when not speaking of conservative values), and promotion and defense of Him, and not that of promotion of a one true organic church, much less under papal headship in Rome. Which is not that of Scripture.
*”That doesn’t change the fact that a priest who is a habitual sinner is still capable of administering valid sacraments. This was settled doctrine 1800 years ago in the Donatist controversy. Look it up.”
______________________________
How exactly is controversy settled within an organization that rejects the Written Word of God? And creates its own ordinances and commandments based upon tradition. And by what means? The office of priest is no longer a Biblical office in the New Testament. We have ONE High Priest, His Name is Jesus. A vote of those elected by man to an office that is unbiblical? (Bishop is a Biblical office. Cardinal is a bird, not a Biblical office.) Or by a mere sinner who the Catholic church proclaims to be infallible? Who elects the unbiblical office of Pope? Those sending smoke signals or God?
__________________________________
*”I strongly disagree. God says “woe to those who call evil good” and he means it.”
__________________________________
The roman catholic church is embracing the gay and trans lifestyle as well as protecting priests who abuse children. So they are not only endorsing the sin, but also covering it up. The Scripture you quote, Isaiah 5:20 applies to the system your endorsing.
*Let’s see what the inspired Word of God also said:
21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” — John 20:21-23
_____________________________
See post #33 Where I addressed the difference between a true Biblical calling of God to a True Biblical office. vs An unbBiblical calling to an unbiblical office.
Actually, reformation, not re-invention, is the issue, and it was not oral tradition that preserved the faith of a nation or restored it, but:
And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:14-15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go, enquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:18-21)
And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. And he caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers. And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers. (2 Chronicles 34:30-33)
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)And as for your recourse to "oral tradition," as said, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which can Rome presume its popes and ecumenical councils does, who thus must rely on self-proclaimed presumption of perpetual protection from error or at least from salvific error for its ordinary magisterial teaching. Which was not even promised to those who actually were affirmed to sit in the seat of Moses. Including the high priest.
*The Mass says He didn’t pay for all sin on the cross
It says nothing of the sort. It claims to be one-and-the-same sacrifice as Calvary.
It’s just that your understanding of what a “sacrifice” is, is truncated and un-Biblical. The “sacrifice” doesn’t end with the death of the sacrificial victim. In fact, since God is the Lord of time and all moments are present to Him, it is eternally being offered in heaven. The Mass simply makes that eternal sacrifice again present on earth.
_________________________________
Jesus Christ died once for all.
Hebrews 10:9-11
King James Version
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
The unbiblical TRADITION of transubstantiation continually places Jesus on the Cross. News flash, He is no longer on the Cross. He has risen. And the Biblical practice of Communion is a memorial. NOT a means whereas the roman catholic church is given power to raise Jesus from the dead every week. And IT IS NOT HIS ACTUAL BODY AND BLOOD. Are you a cannibal?
True, though Rome teaches that her system of salvation is all of grace, For while is imagined to that the act itself of trinitarian "Baptism, the sacrament of [usually proxy, of souls who cannot and need not obey (Acts 2:38; 8:37,37] faith purifies, justifies, and sanctifies" (CCC 1227) and "conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy" (CCC 1992) so that, grace, "infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life," (CCC 1813 )
yet
"certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized , such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence..." (CCC 1264) And since "Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected." Purification must be complete..." "This is exactly what takes place in Purgatory." (John Paul II, Audiences, 1999; http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_04081999.html) Since one "cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory) For one "cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory) even "through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments. (Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI) Which thus must presume that even the contrite criminal that was with Christ the day He died, had attained to this perfection, besides atoning during in this brief time for sins he may have committed after his baptism of desire.
It is quite the presumed insurance company.
Question I have concerning the unbiblical doctrine of purgatory...
According to another false doctrine within the false catholic religion is the unbiblical premise that the rcc has the power to save souls by sprinkling of water on an infant. (never mind that an infant is without acknowledged sin which would send a child to hell, but I digress)
Why does the rcc promote an unbiblical premise of purgatory? It’s advertised as if it’s a second chance lottery.
If, as the rcc believes, that an infant is “saved” by means of infant baptism, from original sin, than why is that considered inconclusive since purgatory is promoted as a second chance.
Hebrews 9:27
King James Version
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
If infant baptism saves (which it does not) than what is the need for purgatory?
*just a side note, any infant which dies before the age of accountability (which varies between individuals) is not condemned to hell simply because rome did not rain on them. Or for any other reason.
Once a person reaches the age of accountability then it necessitates one by Faith to confess that Jesus is Lord and died for the remission of sins for all who continue in Faith to believe the price paid at Calvary delivered them from sin. (original sin as well as personal sin)
Romans 10:9-10
King James Version
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
As for “sacraments”
Hebrews 10:3-5
King James Version
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
BTW, I know you addressed this in your previous post, but I guess this is better to be questioned of catholics.
25 Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.