MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,850
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Looks like "Luther" was engaging in special pleading with a touch of childish sacrasm rather than argument
Upvote
0
Protestant errors and inventions (5)
- Thread starter katholikos
- Start date
- Status
Looks like "Luther" was engaging in special pleading with a touch of childish sacrasm rather than argument
MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,850
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,850
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Why would we need any, we all have our own bibles
Besides, we come to worship God and HEAR his word.
Besides our hand missals contain the sacred scripture texts.
It's all most edifying and even more to the point it is all most worshipful.
except for the infant crying ...
Upvote
0
MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,850
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,850
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Okay, added the two Peter in Rome related errors/inventions.
I did get a chuckle out the meeting place bill-board thing
I did get a chuckle out the meeting place bill-board thing
- A bible with only 66 books.
- The list of books constituting the bible is implied by the books themselves.
- The King James Version of the bible is the only trustworthy bible in English.
- Jesus spoke in parables most of the time so his words are mostly metaphorical.
- Sola Scriptura
- Iconoclasm inconsistently applied. Reviving Islam's perspective of the wickedness of images employed in worship but doing so mainly to condemn Catholic and Orthodox practises but strangely ignoring the images in their own Sunday school books etcetera.
- No book but the bible; no creed save Christ.
- Prima Scriptura
- The ten commandments were changed by the Catholic Church. Probably in the middle ages.
- Personal interpretation of scripture as normative
- Scripture is perspicuous and where it may be obscure there will be some other place that is plain and speaks to the issue in the obscure passage making it plain and understood by any who are willing to read with care.
- No essential doctrine is brought into question by textual variations and obscure passages.
- Faith alone
- Grace is divine favour and nothing more.
- Justification is entirely forensic.
- Sanctification is subsequent to salvation in logical order as well as in the order of time.
- Arminianism.
- There is no distinction between venial and mortal sin because all sins are just sin.
- Total depravity
- Unconditional election
- Limited atonement
- Irresistible grace
- Perseverance of the saints
- Once saved always saved.
- Double predestination.
- Lapsarianism
- Supralapsaranism.
- Infralapsarianism/Sublapsarianism.
- Penal substitutionary atonement.
- Antinomianism. In Christianity, an antinomian is "one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation". ... Antinomianism in modern times is commonly seen as the theological opposite to Legalism or Works righteousness, the notion that obedience to religious law earns salvation. This makes antinomianism an exaggeration of justification by faith alone. --Wikipedia
- Ordinances/Anti-sacramentalism.
- Infant dedication (not baptism).
- Baptismal Submersion-ism.
- Nestorianism revived in some Protestant circles. Nestorianism is a Christological doctrine advanced by Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428–431. The doctrine, which was informed by Nestorius' studies under Theodore of Mopsuestia at the School of Antioch, emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius' teachings brought him into conflict with some other prominent church leaders, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, who criticized especially his rejection of the title Theotokos ("Bringer forth of God") for the Virgin Mary.
- Exclusive Credo-baptism-ism.
- Faith alone Regenerates.
- Believer's baptism is primarily a public testimony of one's faith.
- Covenant baptism as a sign and symbol of inclusion into the new covenant community.
- The Lord's supper as sign and symbol of Christ's presence. This error rejects the biblical teaching that in the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are the Saviour's body and blood.
- Dispensing with baptism and the Lord's supper altogether.
- Christmas is a pagan celebration to be avoided by dedicated Christians.
- Easter (also known as Pascha) is pagan and ought to be avoided by dedicated Christians.
- Birthdays are associated only with wicked people in the bible and ought to be avoided by dedicated Christians.
- Rapture theories:
- A pre tribulation rapture.
- A mid tribulation rapture.
- Errors about the seven churches in the Apocalypse of saint John.
- The seven Churches represent seven ages.
- The seven Churches prove that denominations existed in the first century AD.
- A future seven year reign of anti-christ
- Dispensationalism
- The sermon on the mount as "old testament teaching". This error teaches that Christ's teaching in Matthew chapter five through seven is not applicable under the new covenant.
- Prosperity gospel
- All Disease and sickness is from Satan.
- Temperance movement.
- Old covenant Dietary laws applied to new covenant Christians
- The papacy is the antichrist.
- A specific pope will be the antichrist.
- Michael the Archangel and Jesus being the same person.
- The seventh day as Sabbath obligation for all people in every age.
- Heaven being in the Orion nebula.
- Soul Sleep
- For a period of a thousand years the earth will be utterly desolate and only Satan and his angels will be on earth.
- Trail of blood Also known as Baptist successionism. It is the theory (unsupported by fact) that Jesus Christ is the founder of the Baptist denomination (Which in fact started around 1605 AD in England).
- Remnant church - a secret church that has always existed and is always apostolic yet is never visible and always matches the theology of its most recent advocates.
- Belief that there is conspiracy involving "The Jesuit oath". This error teaches that there is an oath that among other things is alleged to say "make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons". It is akin to the belief in "The Protocols of the Enders of Zion" as a real Jewish conspiracy to destroy non-Jews.
- Errors about indulgences:
- Indulgences forgive sins. This is more of a common error held by some Protestants because they either do not know what an indulgence is or because they believe anti-catholic propaganda. An indulgence does not cause any sins to be forgiven.
- The Catholic Church taught that indulgences were to be sold. This too is a common error held by some but not backed up by the facts of history. The Catholic Church does not and never did teach that one could buy an indulgence. But, alas, some unscrupulous people no doubt did sell them.
- Errors about the Blessed Virgin Mary
- The Blessed Virgin Mary was a sinner like everybody else is.
- The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of several children other than the Lord Jesus Christ.
- The Blessed Virgin Mary, human being and creature though she is, is some kind of pagan goddess.
- Saint Peter never went to Rome. Something to do with denying that saint Peter is the first pope.
- Saint Peter was not the first pope.
- Sermon centric worship.
- The sermon ought to be the focus of church-worship-services.
- The pulpit ought to be the focus of a church building's architecture and the table for use in communion ought to be to the side or located in a different part of the church because there is no altar in the church and no sacrifice is made in a church service.
- The One True Church is not a visible institution.
- The One True Church is made up of all true believers scattered throughout all denominations.
- The Catholic Church is not catholic it's ROMAN This error seems to make some folk feel good. I wonder if the Orthodox Church is not orthodox too ...
- Denominationalism.
- Rejection of the threefold office in the church.
- Rejection of clergy-laity distinction in the church.
- Seminary and Bible colleges damage one's faith and ought to be avoided.
- Pastors and elders need not be graduates of a seminary or an accredited bible college.
- Equivocating "worship" and "worship service" This error teaches that worship in a small group consisting of two or more is the same as the 'worship service' one would normally experience on a Sunday in a church [building].
- Christians need not (or ought not) be members of any church/denomination/group.
- Emerging church movement; Emerging churches are fluid, hard to define, and varied; they contrast themselves with what has gone before by using the term "inherited church." Key themes of the emerging church are couched in the language of reform, Praxis-oriented lifestyles, Post-evangelical thought, and incorporation or acknowledgement of political and Post-modern elements. ... -- from Wikipedia
- Representative Democracy as Church government.
- Seeker sensitive churches.
- Accountability partners.
- Altar calls. This particular practise is a little bit ironic in denominations that have no altar of any kind in their buildings.
- Church discipline effectively nullified because of the difficulty of enforcement in a multi-denominational community.
Upvote
0
[Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ]
[13] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is? [14] And they said, Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. [15] He said to them, But who do you say that I am? [16] Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:13-18 ESV)
What Catholics want people to believe is that the rock is Peter and also everyone who succeeds him in office, but its ridiculous that anyone let alone those who claim to be Christians can interpret it this way. How can the Christian Church be built on a man, and also someone who shortly afterwards denied even knowing Christ? Thats obviously a misinterpretation. Its plain from the context in any case that Christ is being referred to as the one on which the Church is built because Peter had just confessed that He was the Son of God.
From this ludicrous interpretation that Peter is the rock stems all the idol worship that ensues when Catholics get a glimpse of their popes. Its truly appalling to any true Christian to have to watch. The adulation with which hes greeted is evidence in itself that what is going on has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity but is totally pagan in origin.
Luther had this to say:"If the devil himself were to rule at Rome, he could not make matters worse. In fact, if he himself were ruling, we could protect ourselves against him by the sign of the cross and could flee from him; then he could achieve nothing. But now that the pope has surrendered himself to the devil as a monster embellished with God's Word, so that people have not been able to recognise him, this is the wrath of God. Now everything that his bitter, devilish, hellish grudge against Christ and His church could devise has happened; he became our idol, whom we adore, together with all his lies, blasphemies of God, and idolatries"
[13] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is? [14] And they said, Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. [15] He said to them, But who do you say that I am? [16] Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:13-18 ESV)
What Catholics want people to believe is that the rock is Peter and also everyone who succeeds him in office, but its ridiculous that anyone let alone those who claim to be Christians can interpret it this way. How can the Christian Church be built on a man, and also someone who shortly afterwards denied even knowing Christ? Thats obviously a misinterpretation. Its plain from the context in any case that Christ is being referred to as the one on which the Church is built because Peter had just confessed that He was the Son of God.
From this ludicrous interpretation that Peter is the rock stems all the idol worship that ensues when Catholics get a glimpse of their popes. Its truly appalling to any true Christian to have to watch. The adulation with which hes greeted is evidence in itself that what is going on has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity but is totally pagan in origin.
Luther had this to say:"If the devil himself were to rule at Rome, he could not make matters worse. In fact, if he himself were ruling, we could protect ourselves against him by the sign of the cross and could flee from him; then he could achieve nothing. But now that the pope has surrendered himself to the devil as a monster embellished with God's Word, so that people have not been able to recognise him, this is the wrath of God. Now everything that his bitter, devilish, hellish grudge against Christ and His church could devise has happened; he became our idol, whom we adore, together with all his lies, blasphemies of God, and idolatries"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Looks like "Luther" was engaging in special pleading with a touch of childish sacrasm rather than argument
Look, I gave only one small quote just to give a flavour, but Luther you can be sure explains his position in detail if one cares to consult his writings.
With regards to the nonsensical view that the True Church is the visible church of the popes I will just comment briefly by saying that in the Apostles Creed we say "I believe in the holy Christian (catholic) Church" because the true Church can't be seen with human eyes as no one can look into someone else's heart and see whether they have true faith or not. So it's only a matter of belief that the Church exists and not a matter of seeing with the eyes. Luther comments with regards to the church of the popes: "We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd".
<staff edit>
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,850
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Perhaps "Luther" did explain it all somewhere else but the quote from "Luther" in your earlier post was nothing but special pleading with a touch of childish sarcasm thrown in.
When you post a quote from "Luther" that explains his point of view then you will have something more substantive on the table. At the moment you have nothing substantive on offer and ought to pony up with the goods or leave the matter in its current state. It is not good to defend a doctrine of the faith using only a quote that has nothing substantive to say. And it is poor form for "Luther" to offer childish snipes at the pope of his day as a proof of "Luther's" point of view. We, in our day, ought not to walk that same path because we know better and the wreckage of people's lives, wars, and terrible suffering that we see in history ought to be a lesson that persuades us not to do what was done before.
I know, I know ... I broke your sentence but it was just so inviting to do so. If the "invisible church" was so hot then why didn't Jesus or any of the apostles put it out there? What I mean is this; the visible churches to which Paul and Peter and all the rest of the apostles spoke was never informed that they were really invisible or that Jesus came into the world to (inter alia) build an invisible church.
This is getting like a debate with one of Jehovah's witnesses about inserting "a" in John 1:1c. Surely you know that the Creed says "in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" (εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν·
. Misquotes aside, and your misquote is rather poorly done, if you want to argue in favour of "Luther's" perspective then let him say what he says about the creed without changing the creed into something that it isn't and never was.We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into existence,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heavens,
and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man,
and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried,
and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures
and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father,
and will come again with glory to judge living and dead,
of Whose kingdom there will be no end;
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver,
Who proceeds from the Father,
Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism to the remission of sins;
we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen -- Early Church Texts, Nicene Creed.
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into existence,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heavens,
and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man,
and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried,
and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures
and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father,
and will come again with glory to judge living and dead,
of Whose kingdom there will be no end;
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver,
Who proceeds from the Father,
Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism to the remission of sins;
we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen -- Early Church Texts, Nicene Creed.
When the argument is forced to depart from what the texts say (scripture and the creed) and becomes reliant on how one reasons to a particular conclusion without adequate foundations from the texts then one has abandoned sound argument altogether. What you've written above is special pleading, not an argument based on evidence.
Your stated conclusion is dependent on special pleading rather than demonstrated from the texts and sound reasoning and that being the case it need not be conceded as reasonable and ought to be dismissed as vacuous until you are able provide a substantive argument that supports it, one that is based on evidence in the texts.
Why post another quote from "Luther" that merely complains and insults rather than a quote that informs and offers sound argumentation? I hope that in the future you will offer something that has substance to it because blowing verbal razzes (as "Luther" does in this latest quote) at the Catholic Church fails to convince.
<staff delete. . .thread clean up>
I sincerely hope that your stated position is not intended to imply that the faithful in communion with the Catholic Church are not Christians.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
shturt678
Senior Veteran
Since we have mini-popes (example only, as I agape the pope) teaching a "different gospel," (I even agape the mini-popes) it would seem to me that we first and foremost need to clean up our own house then show our neighbor, ie, RCC, how clean it is, ie, dwindle the 'list' down to just a few.
Just ol' old dwindling light Jack, ie, maybe in need of chai tea?
btw not a doubt in my mind the RCC, including MC & Edward for sure (caring Christians), are "Christians."
Just ol' old dwindling light Jack, ie, maybe in need of chai tea?
btw not a doubt in my mind the RCC, including MC & Edward for sure (caring Christians), are "Christians."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
tadoflamb
no identificado
- Feb 20, 2007
- 16,415
- 7,531
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
I've never had to pay anything for what the Church teaches. Not so with the Alpha Course. If I wanted to find out what errors and inventions they were teaching without taking the course, I'd have to buy the program. No thanks.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
tadoflamb
no identificado
- Feb 20, 2007
- 16,415
- 7,531
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
<staff edit. . .for thread clean up>
I know, I know and those with true faith are scattered amongst the denominations and nobody knows who they are or what they believe or how to find them.
We got a real winner here.
I know, I know and those with true faith are scattered amongst the denominations and nobody knows who they are or what they believe or how to find them.
We got a real winner here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
steve_bakr
Christian
The nature of God is holy and mysterious and we cannot take a position that he has predetermined fixed and unchangeable events in the future. This argument would cause God to be removed from the freedom of free will and this cannot be the case.
Omnipotent, all-powerful, and all-knowing as God is, it would be a false apocalyptic to posit a deistic type of universe where a pre-programmed alocalypse plays itself out in the absence of free will on the part of God and man. God's intercession in human affairs and intersessory prayer would have no meaning.
Salvation as a dialectic between the free will of man and the free will of God is an essential element of Catholic theology. "The future is an open possibility." (Buller, The Theology of Karl Rahner)
Upvote
0
ImaginaryDay
We Live Here
- Mar 24, 2012
- 4,200
- 791
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Separated
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Funny you mention this. The 'booklet' (about 150 pages) costs about $19.95 and contains many of the errors on the list. I only perused through it. Very flashy though. The whole goal of it is to bring one to the 'Sinner's prayer', which I personally detest.
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I have never really read up on that too much.........
http://www.christianforums.com/t7449828-2/#post54319201
The Sinner's Prayer
Sinner's prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sinner's Prayer is an evangelical term referring to any prayer of repentance, prayed by individuals who feel convicted of the presence of sin in their lives and desire to form or renew a personal relationship with God through his Son Jesus Christ. It is a popular phenomenon in Protestant circles, and has been called "a hallmark of evangelical conversionism".[1] It is not intended as liturgical like a creed or a confiteor. It is intended to be an act of initial conversion to Christianity, and the only way to receive salvation.
The Sinner's Prayer, as popularly known today, has roots in Christian Protestantism. It probably evolved, in some form or another, in the early days of the Protestant Reformation movement, as a reaction against the Roman Catholic dogma of justification by means of meritorious works.[7] Others believe it originated as early as the eighteenth century revival movement.[2]...............
.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ImaginaryDay
We Live Here
- Mar 24, 2012
- 4,200
- 791
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Separated
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
With reference to my earlier post quoting Luther saying:
“Compare them, the holy church of Christ, and the mad church of the pope. The holy church of Christ says: I believe a holy Christian Church. The mad church of the pope says: I see a holy Christian Church. The former says: The church is confined to neither this place nor that place. The latter says: The church is here and there. The former says: The church does not depend on any person. The latter says: The church depends on the pope. The former says: The church is not built on anything temporal. The latter says: The church is built on the pope”
I explained in my last two posts the reasoning behind Luther’s comments above. I said to recap that It is a ludicrous interpretation of Matthew 16:18 to understand it as meaning that the Church is built on St Peter, and that we say in the Apostles Creed that “I believe in the Holy Christian (i.e. catholic with a small “c” Church” not that “I see the Holy Christian Church”. You then replied quoting the Nicene Creed which I hadn’t quoted from, so your comments aren’t applicable with reference to that. You’ve got your creeds mixed up or perhaps you’re not familiar with the Apostles Creed. In case you’re not here’s the text:
“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen”
You can see that the definition of the Church is the communion or community of saints. So only those who are saints (that is true Christians) are members of the True Church. In other words the Church is invisible because no one can know for certain who is a true Christian because we can’t see another's faith. That the Church is invisible and known only to God is confirmed by Scripture because Christ says “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”(Luke 17:20-21 ESV), and “But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” (2 Timothy 2:19 ESV)
<staff delete. . . thread clean up>
“Compare them, the holy church of Christ, and the mad church of the pope. The holy church of Christ says: I believe a holy Christian Church. The mad church of the pope says: I see a holy Christian Church. The former says: The church is confined to neither this place nor that place. The latter says: The church is here and there. The former says: The church does not depend on any person. The latter says: The church depends on the pope. The former says: The church is not built on anything temporal. The latter says: The church is built on the pope”
I explained in my last two posts the reasoning behind Luther’s comments above. I said to recap that It is a ludicrous interpretation of Matthew 16:18 to understand it as meaning that the Church is built on St Peter, and that we say in the Apostles Creed that “I believe in the Holy Christian (i.e. catholic with a small “c”
Church” not that “I see the Holy Christian Church”. You then replied quoting the Nicene Creed which I hadn’t quoted from, so your comments aren’t applicable with reference to that. You’ve got your creeds mixed up or perhaps you’re not familiar with the Apostles Creed. In case you’re not here’s the text:“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen”
You can see that the definition of the Church is the communion or community of saints. So only those who are saints (that is true Christians) are members of the True Church. In other words the Church is invisible because no one can know for certain who is a true Christian because we can’t see another's faith. That the Church is invisible and known only to God is confirmed by Scripture because Christ says “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”(Luke 17:20-21 ESV), and “But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” (2 Timothy 2:19 ESV)
<staff delete. . . thread clean up>
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
shturt678
Senior Veteran
Once us Protestants can grasp that most of us have diverse ways of God producing a justifying faith, and only one of the ways is valid, then we can interrupt MC's tea break, ie, think he's snoozing in our Lord for now.
My end point: We need to look within in light of IIThess.2:4; 10b in our own pysical churches, and allow the Holy Spirit to vacuum out the Antichrist. Then we can loan our vacuum cleaner to the RCC camp. Maybe MC even owns one?
Just ol' old cleaning Jack, ie, with a toothbrush
My end point: We need to look within in light of IIThess.2:4; 10b in our own pysical churches, and allow the Holy Spirit to vacuum out the Antichrist. Then we can loan our vacuum cleaner to the RCC camp. Maybe MC even owns one?
Just ol' old cleaning Jack, ie, with a toothbrush
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,850
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Your post, quoted below, is misquoting the apostles' creed. The apostles' creed says: And the bold & underlined text translates to "the holy catholic Church" (for those who are curious to know what it says in Greek it translates to αγίαν καθολικην εκκλησίαν in Greek) while the bold red text translates to "the communion of saints". The bold red text is a separate clause which refers to the communion of all the saints, living on Earth and in the heavens and in purgatory, who form the body of Christ through their union with him by baptism (Romans 6:3ff).
The grey text in my quote of your post is irrelevant to this reply. It's a matter of you opining about Catholics in an uncomplimentary way and quoting "Luther" doing the same and my previous comments (made in my previous reply to you) say all that need be said on the worth of such comments.
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; Creatorem coeli et terrae.
Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus (est) judicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam. Amen.
Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus (est) judicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam. Amen.
The grey text in my quote of your post is irrelevant to this reply. It's a matter of you opining about Catholics in an uncomplimentary way and quoting "Luther" doing the same and my previous comments (made in my previous reply to you) say all that need be said on the worth of such comments.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
