Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

PeaceByJesus · Jan 6, 2018

The following is a "delayed transmission" due to being sidelined for a few days because of different forum posts, and with over 16'' of snow in this populous city I needed some time out anyway.

However, I intend this to be my last post you as do not think more should be needed in the light of what i have already said at length, by the grace of God.

Arsenios said:
Patently false, unless your definition of the word "DEMONSTRATION" (above) disagrees with its English significance... Paul was simply and empirically describing his entire ministry as being this DEMONSTRATION of the Spirit and of Power (need I add "from on High"??)... Paul was NOT seeking to be this "manner of person"... Paul IS this manner of person - And even more so this day... "For to Live: God. To die, Gain." You know the place he wrote these words... So that his words were NOT some supreme authority, but adjuncts to the demonstration of the Spirit and of Power...

Wrong: Read the text. His speech and preaching were not mere assistants, but they were in DEMONSTRATION of, the Spirit and of Power, demonstrating this.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

Paul could speak the word of God with power because he determined not to know any thing among the hearers, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified, (1 Corinthians 2:2) thus speaking not not enticing words of man's wisdom but preaching in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. The word of God itself is powerful, and will never return without fulfilling its purpose, whether for salvation or judgment, but when spoken by a man filled with the Spirit of God who spoke it then their can be a greater manifestation of this revelatory means expressing the heart of God and the condition of man before Him.

Thus as being the word of God, Paul's words were of supreme authority, and likewise his letters were said to be weighty and powerful. (2 Corinthians 10:10) As he also was in person when manifesting supernatural power such as in both healing and in discipline, but which is different than expressly revealing the Truth of God which enlightens the eyes and by which faith and progressive obedience is enabled.

Then you are at odds with the Scripture you cited from Paul who denies your claim as I demonstrated above... Paul did not have elegance of words...

Which is more misrepresentation. Where did i say Paul had elegance of words, or where does his speaking and preaching being in demonstration of the Spirit and of power mean elegance of words?

Based on what Paul said was in demonstration here then without his words there would have been no revelatory demonstration of the Spirit and of power. while to set the latter against words would be another false dichotomy.

The Ancient Faith of Christ has always and ever discipled this encounter with the Living God, and its transformative impact on the human person, and secondarily, on any local culture...

Certainly, but which is communicated, and both miracles and words must be subject to the test of Scripture so that we do not have Joe Smiths claiming to hear from God and getting away with it. The Lord and His apostles and writers etc. were not abundantly referencing Scripture as authoritative to fill space.

And besides: Who wants to know ABOUT God and Christ and Paul and the Blessed Virgin and the rest... I mean, knowing about them is a START... But I want to KNOW them, not merely know ABOUT them...

Which is just the type of thing i am talking about. You want to "know" the Blessed Virgin, but nowhere at all do we see believers praying to or otherwise developing an ongoing relationship with created beings in Heaven, as instead it is only and always with the Lord. And from what i recall, , two-way communication from created beings from each realm required both to somehow be in the same realm and was not that of asking intercession before God. Only pagans prayed to someone else in heaven and had an ongoing relationship with such.

Thus when tested by Scripture your ongoing relationship with Mary and others is to be rejected, and reveals the danger of rejecting Scripture as the supreme standard.

In addition, we who are born again do indeed progressively grow in the knowledge of God via devout study of His inspired word, as God reveals His character, and will and ways therein, and He guides us by His Spirit in our everyday in obeying His word. Thus for instance, while God commands earnestly contending for the faith, the Lord can direct us to where we should.

But never having been truly born again usually means they have a low view of Scripture, is not being a the living and powerful word of God.

We are speaking of the unworldly Kingdom of Heaven into which we ENTER in a Mystery of the Faith of Jesus Christ which He discipled to His disciples... You are talking about arguing over a Book we wrote at God's behest from within this Kingdom...

Your demeaning view of Scripture is consistent with your elevation of alternative specious esoteric visions. The word of God, which again, Scripture most assuredly is, is not of this world! "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."(Psalms 119:89) Not is a second or third rate or superfluous authority. "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalms 138:2)

All I said is that the written is not God,

Not in person, but the word of God is inseparable from God, it being an expression of Himself. To deny or demean the word of God is to do that to God. And Scripture is the assured word of God, versus what you hear in your dreams.

and that God is supreme over what He has caused to be written by His Holy Ones.

..
Which is another specious dichotomy. God and His pure express expression go together, as the Father and His Son, the express image of His person, also got together. In position, yes, as the God is the one sending His word, as the Father sent the Son.

You call THAT marginalization?? I mean, OK - I guess from YOUR perspective of the supremacy of the written over God Himself, for Whom we wrote it, you can perhaps be right...

Once again you resort to misrepresentation. I did not say God;'s word was over God Himself, nor is a vision of God. But both God and His pure expression go together, while His word is the only express comprehensive revelation, and Scripture is the wholly inspired preserved authoritative word, the supreme objective standard for what is of God, by which dreams and visions are tested God. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

Your exaltation of dreams and visions as supreme over the written word is too much akin to atheist's "golden compass" being superior, in rejection of the supreme objective standard for what is Truth.

For us, it is a key feature of the Faith of Christ and the Services He prescribed for worshipping Him...

That seems nice to allow that, but how about,

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)

And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the Lord their God. (Nehemiah 9:3)

And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:10-11)

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)

And his discipling of the Cross of Christ in Power and the Spirit is unto purification of the heart in suffering and straits by which man can know God... As John wrote: "And this IS Life Eterenal: To KNOW the One true God..." That KNOWING GOD IS Salvation in the 2000 year old Orthodox Catholic Faith of Christ...

And just why do you think this is opposed to Scripture being the means for that? The two are not opposed despite your contrast recourse to this false dichotomy.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

Which is pure balder-pucky - His words were crude and simple and used only to demonstrate the Spirit and the Power of God... I would not be surprised if he had a lisp...

What arrogant disrepect! It is the living and powerful word of God you demean, and "used only?" Rather, his words, as said, themselves were said to be be weighty and powerful, (2 Corinthians 10:10) and which he was in person when manifesting supernatural power such as in both healing and in discipline but which is different than revealing the Truth of God which enlightens the eyes and whereby faith and progressive obedience is enabled.

And far from just to demonstrate the Spirit and the Power of God is some sort of miraculous way, they were also inspired of God as Divinely didactic, expressing God and His will and ways as the the author of 66 books.

God is KNOWN only by and encounter with God, and Christ IS the Truth, and in that encounter, you will KNOW the Truth inasmuch as you possess purity of heart...I am telling you the Truth, my Brother...

And once again with your usual false dichotomies, you set this as opposed to knowing God and purity of heart by the enlightening word of God, which again, Scripture assuredly is.

Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21)

And BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psalms 119:11)

I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. (Psalms 119:99)

Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. (Psalms 119:127-128)

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

Paul preached the Cross of Christ, which is repentance unto purity of heart, where-in one even CAN come to encounter Christ-God to their betterment...

Preaching the Cross, as seen from his letters, means preaching which that extends to, and is the normative means of enlightenment unto salvation and purity of heart, by the supernatural working of God's grace who opens the heart, and grants repentance, and gives faith.

The unrepentant Judas received Communion and got the Giver of that Communion siezed and crucified for 30 pieces of unrepentant silver...
Jean Val Jean was purchased for a pile of silver from the Gendarmes...
And found Salvation... Not a bad purchase...

We bring the Doctrine of Theosis, of the Divinization of the human being by God in the Mystery called Salvation - "Of God the Gift!" - To the western world... And it is more than amply attested in Scripture... Yet is unknown among most Christians we encounter here...

Which again is not that of a faith grounded in the assured word of God, the Scriptures, but appeals to esoteric knowledge, which is your apologetical recourse in order to justify Catholic distinctives which are not what we see manifest in the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed, even if not as far gone as Rome.

IF you were a Berean, you would read the Scripture to see if what I bring is true... But instead, you look to Scripture knowing it is not, to find some way to deny what is true...

Which is simply a "no true Scotsman fallacy, that since I do not agree with you i must not be searching the Scriptures rightly, under the premise that all who do would agree with you. And as such your recourse in the light of reproof is ad hominem mind reading.

And you get a little wild in name calling and trashy words... No big..

Meaning telling you like it is, exposing your sophistry.

But what I am showing to you is attested by two thousand years of the History of Christianity... Throughout all the Apostolic Churches...

Argumentum ad antiquitatem, since you like Latin. Antiquity does not make it right, unless antiquity is right, but the standard for correct antiquity is the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed, which does not manifest all your Catholic distinctives. Praying to every angel and saint in Heaven with your priests is not going to help that.

And you cling to your exaltation of the Bible as a substitute for God - in His Own Body on earth...

Which means now you resort to a false charge while to be consistent then I can charge you with clinging to your exaltation of your church Bible as a substitute for God. Yet one cannot cling to God and not cling to the only wholly inspired substantive express revelation of Him. once know, which the veracity of church teaching is subject to.

A vision which you exalt, can also be revelatory, but Scripture far more comprehensive in scope and depth of overall revelation, and to which the validity of visions and preaching is subjected to testing by. Thus it is the supreme standard.

Do you really believe that Christ failed to establish His Body upon the earth?

What is it with your constant false dichotomies? Why must you make Scripture as being the supreme revelatory standard opposed their being a church?

And that only what His believers wrote is supreme?

Because nowhere is it promised that everything a church says will necessarily be of God, nor is oral transmission the most reliable means of long-term preservation, and God manifestly chose writing, as shown.

And that only the printing presses finally got it right, and then only when one could prove one's self right?

No, the printing presses are not the ones who finally got it right, but the God who inspired the preaching and writing of His word got it right the first time, which does not mean the preachers/publishers of it always did so without error, and thus must be examined in the light of evidence. The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it. (Psalms 68:11)

So I'm sorry I failed you...
Please pray for me...
God Bless You...
Arsenios

It is a failure in both doctrine and logic, both of which the Lord taught, and not reliance upon dreams and vision as a substitute for His word and the preservative writing of it. .

Now with about a foot of snow predicted it should be a busy day. Sorry I have not been as meek as 2 Timothy 2:25 calls for in the interest of conversion. Bye.

PeaceByJesus · Jan 6, 2018

The following is a "delayed transmission" due to being sidelined for a few days because of different forum posts, and with over 16'' of snow in this populous city I needed some time out anyway.

However, I intend this to be my last post you as do not think more should be needed in the light of what i have already said at length. Thanks be to God.

Darrel Slugoski said:
I suspect you do believe that others can loose their salvation .

Which is simply more evidence that you largely ignore what was told you, for in fact i said in response to your question about this that,

I see Scripture as clearly warning believers as believers against having an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, drawing back unto perdition, back into bondage, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, falling from grace, etc., (Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 10:38,39; Galatians 5:1-5) and to have "wickedly departed" (2 Samuel 22:22) from the Lord, committing the "great transgression," (Psalms 19:13) and thus being unable to repent, reprobate, (2 Corinthians 13:5) as shown in a post on another thread.

Thus God works to chastens wayward members to repentance, unto "Godly sorrow" which "worketh repentance unto salvation" (2 Corinthians 7:10) lest they be condemned with the world, (1 Corinthians 11:32) Last edited: A moment ago 9 minutes ago

It is either your pride , hate for the Catholic church,

Resorting to ad hominem spurious mind reading is simply an admission of defeat, since you have yet to make one valid argument in defense of Rome (and just so you know, personal attacks, including heart-reading, can get you cited. Attack the nature of the argument if you must, but not the person, though the former reflects on the latter).

or the fact that other evangelicals would disagree with you and that would prove a point I have been making all along .

Which is more of the same, for you want to charge me with avoiding answering a question when in fact i did, substantively, and thus your last charge is as fallacious as your prior ones. Nowhere did i claim we agree 100% on everything, but that those who esteem Scripture as being the accurate and authoritative word of God testify to the most unity in basic beliefs, in clear contrast to Catholics. It is you who has not admitted that fact.

I am more of a sola scriptura guy and literalist then you . When Christ says " everyone will be salted with fire " and mention 1 Cor 15: 10-17 it is going to happen . Call it whatever you want

.
It is you who is merely calling Scripture what you want, since all your proof texts were exposed as invalid. Moreover, 1 Corinthians 15:10-17 is not even talking about any fire or suffering at all, but refers to the resurrection and being changed in an instant into a glorified body, and not a process of postmortem 'purifying' punishments” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina) commencing at death.

There are scriptures that are literal, like John 6, which you would have to say is symbolic

I do not have to say that at all, except that is the only interpretation is easily conflated with the rest of Scripture. See here by God;s grace.

to avoid Catholic implications . Its the only time Christ did not explain and allowed all the disciples, except the 12 , to leave over a comment he made . Each person and Church will interpret scripture according to their beliefs and agenda , Claiming they have the right interpretation of the Word of God . I know that is not a false statement and a real dilemma

.
And Rome does the same, while contrary to the premise that the historical stewards of Scripture must necessarily be followed over those who dissent from it, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

I will move on to the next challenge .

Hope you learned something here.

Darrel Slugoski · Jan 6, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
The following is a "delayed transmission" due to being sidelined for a few days because of different forum posts, and with over 16'' of snow in this populous city I needed some time out anyway.

However, I intend this to be my last post you as do not think more should be needed in the light of what i have already said at length. Thanks be to God.

Your correct I have not been able to refute do to my lack of knowledge in using a computer . I need to add more, and felt my answers were inadequate . I will do so now. I have to learn to copy paste I like I am attempting now.

Which is simply more evidence that you largely ignore what was told you, for in fact i said in response to your question about this that,

I see Scripture as clearly warning believers as believers against having an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, drawing back unto perdition, back into bondage, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, falling from grace, etc., (Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 10:38,39; Galatians 5:1-5) and to have "wickedly departed" (2 Samuel 22:22) from the Lord, committing the "great transgression," (Psalms 19:13) and thus being unable to repent, reprobate, (2 Corinthians 13:5) as shown in a post on another thread.

Thus God works to chastens wayward members to repentance, unto "Godly sorrow" which "worketh repentance unto salvation" (2 Corinthians 7:10) lest they be condemned with the world, (1 Corinthians 11:32) Last edited: A moment ago 9 minutes ago

I agree with your statement . My question was simple . Do you believe in once saved or can someone loose their salvation ? ( answer either yes or no ) I see her if i am interpreting right that yes you believe a person can loose it and regain it . And if this is correct you share something in common with the Catholic church .

Resorting to ad hominem spurious mind reading is simply an admission of defeat, since you have yet to make one valid argument in defense of Rome (and just so you know, personal attacks, including heart-reading, can get you cited. Attack the nature of the argument if you must, but not the person, though the former reflects on the latter).

I will do better. I have not personally attack any one . I have said in many posts I respect and considered all here a Christian . I am attaching the fact Protestantism is divided in interpretation of scripture . I felt you are side steppin this as a issue and not really acknowledging it .No where in scripture does God say this is all right . Christ prayed that we should be ' one just as they are one .'

John 16: 12 I have much more to tell you ,but you can not bear it now , but when he comes the spirit of truth , he will guide you to all truth"Truth can not be divided . If some eaglecals believe they can not loose their salvation verses ones that do . There is conflict , and truth demand a right answer. There is only one right that is true .

Which is more of the same, for you want to charge me with avoiding answering a question when in fact i did, substantively, and thus your last charge is as fallacious as your prior ones. Nowhere did i claim we agree 100% on everything, but that those who esteem Scripture as being the accurate and authoritative word of God testify to the most unity in basic beliefs, in clear contrast to Catholics. It is you who has not admitted that fact.

" in clear contrast to Catholics " is a is a overgeneralization , We do sare more in common in beliefs with Protastance . Jack Van Impe read the Catechism of the Catholic church and said "I can say amen to many things in the CCC , of course I cant agree on everything..." All must be centered on Christ . If you too the time to read it you would say the same I am sure . If read without hate .

.
It is you who is merely calling Scripture what you want, since all your proof texts were exposed as invalid. Moreover, 1 Corinthians 15:10-17 is not even talking about any fire or suffering at all, but refers to the resurrection and being changed in an instant into a glorified body, and not a process of postmortem 'purifying' punishments” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina) commencing at death.

We would have agree to disagree . I think I can do a better job in response ( I hope I am typing this post correctly /pasting inserting my comments ) But I will respond back to your past posts, so you don't have to put so much effort by writing again .

I do not have to say that at all, except that is the only interpretation is easily conflated with the rest of Scripture. See here by God;s grace.
.
And Rome does the same, while contrary to the premise that the historical stewards of Scripture must necessarily be followed over those who dissent from it, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

What date did this occur ? We were the only game in town . However I will answer to this in My Rome defense .

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Who was the itinerant preacher we followed ? Yes I have learned something/a lot from you . So I would lie another stab at his. I can respond to the past or move onto Romes defense .

Hope you learned something here.

Darrel Slugoski · Jan 6, 2018

I tried typing at response to you last post . Inserting my comments I don't know if it worked if not I will try again. If I get this right at some point I can respond more effectively . I did well on your last post so I don't know if it came through . Give me a few days and I can prove I can respond to you better .

Darrel Slugoski · Jan 6, 2018

I added my comments to your response ( refer to the past 2 posts) , which I inserted my comments .But I think I am still doing something wrong . If you let me figure this out I will give you a better run more your money /time

Major1 · Jan 6, 2018

Darrel Slugoski said:
I added my comments to your response ( refer to the past 2 posts) , which I inserted my comments .But I think I am still doing something wrong . If you let me figure this out I will give you a better run more your money /time

Here is a suggestion. Why not accept the comments from PeacebyJesus as correct Bible teaching and then you can save all that time you are spending trying to get it right in doing something else????

Darrel Slugoski · Jan 6, 2018

Because they are not right and I can give a better response . I owe it to myself , no one owes me this . I would leave with no respect for some people here , who would not give me this chance . I ask for assistance so , I am not sure if I will get a response from them . So I am asking if you could give me that information in how to insert quotes (others ) into my response . I am asking this as a fellow Christian could you help me.

Darrel Slugoski · Jan 6, 2018

Major1 said:
Here is a suggestion. Why not accept the comments from PeacebyJesus as correct Bible teaching and then you can save all that time you are spending trying to get it right in doing something else????

I will start my defense of the Church of Rome. There are many biblical and historical reasons for being sure the Church of Rome is the one established by Christ Lets test the evidence. I ill use scripture and the words of the early Church fathers who were in fact the first Christian bishops .

No Protestant Church can trace its founding as far back as the Catholic Church And the doctrines have remained consistent . The Church must be visible in each century , why

1 Christ said that his followers are a " the light. a city set on a hill cannot be hid " Mat 5:15 so God didn't create a invisible Church making it impossible to find .
2 Chist said " nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand and gives life to all the house" Matt 5:15 . He wants our" light to shine before men" Mtt 28:20. So in history there were christians in history who were present and shining the light of Christ and witnessing to others . You would of course disagree that they were Catholics .
3 this light ( Christians ) have been sharing the gospel . Christ said to them " lo I am with you always to the close of this age" Matt 28:20. these christian were , from that moment onward , supported by Christ Today you will find the Catholic Church around the world teaching it peculiar teachings : The real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic , devotion to Mary , the authority of the Bishop of Rome , Prayers for the souls of the dead ,confession ,baptism, authority of Tradition heaven/hell, the atonement ......... Go back 500 years you will find that Church and after 500 years all forms of protestantism ( lutheranism,baptists ...) all vanish but you will find this catholic Church ( with its teachings )You will find it almost everywhere.
You will see the big C Catholics complete with the bishop of Rome, the seven sacraments , the Mass defending it peculiar teachings .This , rightfully imperfect Church run sometime by both great Bishops and some bad ones teaching the same thing .

Now being near to the first century all the Apostles have been martyred John is a old man .We are at the close of the apostolic age .We see the Catholic Church in seed form ( mustard seed form Luke 13:18-19) )developing a ne theological vocabulary on the fly . Christ promised his church would grow . What is IMPORTANT is to recognize the very same teachings as now.For example

Look at Pope st Clement 1 issues a letter of encouragement and admonition i 80 ad " Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien to the elect of God, which few rash and self willed persons have inflamed .accept our Council and you will have nothing to regret.....If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him the Lord, through us, let them now that they will involve himself in trans gressionsand no small danger . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the holy Spirit , you will root out the wicked passion of Jealousy."
This is a good example of a quote from St Clement, Bishop of Rome , exercising authority over another established Church .Other examples of this include;
St Ignatius 170-110 " Ignatius...to the Church which hold the presidency ,in the location of the country of the Romans,worthy of God worthy of honor worthy of...,because you hold the presidency in love named after Christ and named after the Father.You {the Church of Rome } have envied no one ,but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoyed in your instruction may remain in force"
St Irenaeus 187 ad " matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language , while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. But since it would be too long to enumerate in succession of all the Churches we shall confound all those who ,in whatever manner whether through self satisfaction or vain glory,or vain glory ..assemble other then where it is proper , by pointing out there succession of bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized by the two most glorious apostle , Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles . With that Church , because of its superior origin , all other churches must agree,that is all the faithful in the whole world and its in her that the faithful have maintained the apostolic tradition.

These are just representative quotes . I can have the Church fathers quote many of the early church Fathers understanding Eucharist , Purgatory which are amazing and direct . These men were around in the beginning of the founding of the Church. To deny that their words are of no value in understanding of how the early church fathers view scripture and Apostolic succession ( from their own words ) is a denial of evidence and history .

What people do here is deny any Catholic evidence at any cost .

bbbbbbb · Jan 6, 2018

Darrel Slugoski said:
I will start my defense of the Church of Rome. There are many biblical and historical reasons for being sure the Church of Rome is the one established by Christ Lets test the evidence. I ill use scripture and the words of the early Church fathers who were in fact the first Christian bishops .

No Protestant Church can trace its founding as far back as the Catholic Church And the doctrines have remained consistent . The Church must be visible in each century , why

1 Christ said that his followers are a " the light. a city set on a hill cannot be hid " Mat 5:15 so God didn't create a invisible Church making it impossible to find .
2 Chist said " nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand and gives life to all the house" Matt 5:15 . He wants our" light to shine before men" Mtt 28:20. So in history there were christians in history who were present and shining the light of Christ and witnessing to others . You would of course disagree that they were Catholics .
3 this light ( Christians ) have been sharing the gospel . Christ said to them " lo I am with you always to the close of this age" Matt 28:20. these christian were , from that moment onward , supported by Christ Today you will find the Catholic Church around the world teaching it peculiar teachings : The real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic , devotion to Mary , the authority of the Bishop of Rome , Prayers for the souls of the dead ,confession ,baptism, authority of Tradition heaven/hell, the atonement ......... Go back 500 years you will find that Church and after 500 years all forms of protestantism ( lutheranism,baptists ...) all vanish but you will find this catholic Church ( with its teachings )You will find it almost everywhere.
You will see the big C Catholics complete with the bishop of Rome, the seven sacraments , the Mass defending it peculiar teachings .This , rightfully imperfect Church run sometime by both great Bishops and some bad ones teaching the same thing .

Now being near to the first century all the Apostles have been martyred John is a old man .We are at the close of the apostolic age .We see the Catholic Church in seed form ( mustard seed form Luke 13:18-19) )developing a ne theological vocabulary on the fly . Christ promised his church would grow . What is IMPORTANT is to recognize the very same teachings as now.For example

Look at Pope st Clement 1 issues a letter of encouragement and admonition i 80 ad " Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien to the elect of God, which few rash and self willed persons have inflamed .accept our Council and you will have nothing to regret.....If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him the Lord, through us, let them now that they will involve himself in trans gressionsand no small danger . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the holy Spirit , you will root out the wicked passion of Jealousy."
This is a good example of a quote from St Clement, Bishop of Rome , exercising authority over another established Church .Other examples of this include;
St Ignatius 170-110 " Ignatius...to the Church which hold the presidency ,in the location of the country of the Romans,worthy of God worthy of honor worthy of...,because you hold the presidency in love named after Christ and named after the Father.You {the Church of Rome } have envied no one ,but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoyed in your instruction may remain in force"
St Irenaeus 187 ad " matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language , while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. But since it would be too long to enumerate in succession of all the Churches we shall confound all those who ,in whatever manner whether through self satisfaction or vain glory,or vain glory ..assemble other then where it is proper , by pointing out there succession of bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized by the two most glorious apostle , Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles . With that Church , because of its superior origin , all other churches must agree,that is all the faithful in the whole world and its in her that the faithful have maintained the apostolic tradition.

These are just representative quotes . I can have the Church fathers quote many of the early church Fathers understanding Eucharist , Purgatory which are amazing and direct . These men were around in the beginning of the founding of the Church. To deny that their words are of no value in understanding of how the early church fathers view scripture and Apostolic succession ( from their own words ) is a denial of evidence and history .

What people do here is deny any Catholic evidence at any cost .

If history is the chief criterion of spiritual truth, then you really ought to serious consider Hinduism. They have been around way longer than your denomination.

Arsenios · Jan 7, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Wrong. Read the text. His speech and preaching were not mere assistants, but they were in DEMONSTRATION of, the Spirit and of Power, demonstrating this.

Here's the text (from your post):

"I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

Click to expand...

How do you understand these words? "To know among you only Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." What does that look like? A bloody speared and scourged and dead Jew hanging on a cross... Can you give an example of how this might be put forth by Paul as you understand the matter?

"And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling."

Does this mean that Paul was weak and fearful and trembling in that weakness and fear in his preaching to them?

"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom",

And he had no elegant speech using human persuasion, yes?

"but in DEMONSTRATION of the Spirit and of Power:" (1 Corinthians 2:2-4)

So his words were but in DEMONSTRATION of the SPIRIT and of POWER... This clearly indicates that he was not persuading anyone, but was demonstrating the Spirit and the Power of the Spirit and explaining his deeds with words...

Your idea that his words were the Power cannot avoid denying thereby that the words were used to explain the very Power that you think IS the words... He is doing deeds of Power and of the Spirit, and using words to explain what he is doing...

The words are ABOUT the DEEDS, and not vice versa as you seem to insist...

Have you ever witnessed a deed of power from another person in your own soul? This is what Paul was doing... And he did it from weakness... "My Strength is perfected in your weakness..." Remember that quote?

Arsenios

Arsenios · Jan 7, 2018

Darrel Slugoski said:
Because they are not right and I can give a better response . I owe it to myself , no one owes me this . I would leave with no respect for some people here , who would not give me this chance . I ask for assistance so , I am not sure if I will get a response from them . So I am asking if you could give me that information in how to insert quotes (others ) into my response . I am asking this as a fellow Christian could you help me.

Click reply, and the entire post comes up in the reply box as a quote. It begins with [quote="Darrel Slugoski, post: 72190719, member:405185... followed by another bracket ( ] ) instead of my three periods... And it ends with [/quote... which is followed similarly. So regard this: } as a ], and when you get to a place in the text that you wish to reply to, type: {/quote} [using brackets instead of those {}s}] Then you can type your reply... And when you wish to restart his post, just put in {quote} again, and close it with {/quote} when you wish to comment...

You can PM me with more questions if you have any...

Arsenios

Arsenios · Jan 7, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
The following is a "delayed transmission" due to being sidelined for a few days because of different forum posts, and with over 16'' of snow in this populous city I needed some time out anyway.

However, I intend this to be my last post you as do not think more should be needed in the light of what i have already said at length, by the grace of God.

Wrong: Read the text. His speech and preaching were not mere assistants, but they were in DEMONSTRATION of, the Spirit and of Power, demonstrating this.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

Paul could speak the word of God with power because he determined not to know any thing among the hearers, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified, (1 Corinthians 2:2) thus speaking not not enticing words of man's wisdom but preaching in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. The word of God itself is powerful, and will never return without fulfilling its purpose, whether for salvation or judgment, but when spoken by a man filled with the Spirit of God who spoke it then their can be a greater manifestation of this revelatory means expressing the heart of God and the condition of man before Him.

Thus as being the word of God, Paul's words were of supreme authority, and likewise his letters were said to be weighty and powerful. (2 Corinthians 10:10) As he also was in person when manifesting supernatural power such as in both healing and in discipline, but which is different than expressly revealing the Truth of God which enlightens the eyes and by which faith and progressive obedience is enabled.

Which is more misrepresentation. Where did i say Paul had elegance of words, or where does his speaking and preaching being in demonstration of the Spirit and of power mean elegance of words?

Based on what Paul said was in demonstration here then without his words there would have been no revelatory demonstration of the Spirit and of power. while to set the latter against words would be another false dichotomy.

Certainly, but which is communicated, and both miracles and words must be subject to the test of Scripture so that we do not have Joe Smiths claiming to hear from God and getting away with it. The Lord and His apostles and writers etc. were not abundantly referencing Scripture as authoritative to fill space.

Which is just the type of thing i am talking about. You want to "know" the Blessed Virgin, but nowhere at all do we see believers praying to or otherwise developing an ongoing relationship with created beings in Heaven, as instead it is only and always with the Lord. And from what i recall, , two-way communication from created beings from each realm required both to somehow be in the same realm and was not that of asking intercession before God. Only pagans prayed to someone else in heaven and had an ongoing relationship with such.

Thus when tested by Scripture your ongoing relationship with Mary and others is to be rejected, and reveals the danger of rejecting Scripture as the supreme standard.

In addition, we who are born again do indeed progressively grow in the knowledge of God via devout study of His inspired word, as God reveals His character, and will and ways therein, and He guides us by His Spirit in our everyday in obeying His word. Thus for instance, while God commands earnestly contending for the faith, the Lord can direct us to where we should.

But never having been truly born again usually means they have a low view of Scripture, is not being a the living and powerful word of God.

Your demeaning view of Scripture is consistent with your elevation of alternative specious esoteric visions. The word of God, which again, Scripture most assuredly is, is not of this world! "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."(Psalms 119:89) Not is a second or third rate or superfluous authority. "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalms 138:2)

Not in person, but the word of God is inseparable from God, it being an expression of Himself. To deny or demean the word of God is to do that to God. And Scripture is the assured word of God, versus what you hear in your dreams.
..
Which is another specious dichotomy. God and His pure express expression go together, as the Father and His Son, the express image of His person, also got together. In position, yes, as the God is the one sending His word, as the Father sent the Son.

Once again you resort to misrepresentation. I did not say God;'s word was over God Himself, nor is a vision of God. But both God and His pure expression go together, while His word is the only express comprehensive revelation, and Scripture is the wholly inspired preserved authoritative word, the supreme objective standard for what is of God, by which dreams and visions are tested God. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

Your exaltation of dreams and visions as supreme over the written word is too much akin to atheist's "golden compass" being superior, in rejection of the supreme objective standard for what is Truth.

That seems nice to allow that, but how about,

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)

And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the Lord their God. (Nehemiah 9:3)

And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:10-11)

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)

And just why do you think this is opposed to Scripture being the means for that? The two are not opposed despite your contrast recourse to this false dichotomy.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

What arrogant disrepect! It is the living and powerful word of God you demean, and "used only?" Rather, his words, as said, themselves were said to be be weighty and powerful, (2 Corinthians 10:10) and which he was in person when manifesting supernatural power such as in both healing and in discipline but which is different than revealing the Truth of God which enlightens the eyes and whereby faith and progressive obedience is enabled.

And far from just to demonstrate the Spirit and the Power of God is some sort of miraculous way, they were also inspired of God as Divinely didactic, expressing God and His will and ways as the the author of 66 books.

And once again with your usual false dichotomies, you set this as opposed to knowing God and purity of heart by the enlightening word of God, which again, Scripture assuredly is.

Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21)

And BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psalms 119:11)

I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. (Psalms 119:99)

Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. (Psalms 119:127-128)

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

Preaching the Cross, as seen from his letters, means preaching which that extends to, and is the normative means of enlightenment unto salvation and purity of heart, by the supernatural working of God's grace who opens the heart, and grants repentance, and gives faith.

Which again is not that of a faith grounded in the assured word of God, the Scriptures, but appeals to esoteric knowledge, which is your apologetical recourse in order to justify Catholic distinctives which are not what we see manifest in the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed, even if not as far gone as Rome.

Which is simply a "no true Scotsman fallacy, that since I do not agree with you i must not be searching the Scriptures rightly, under the premise that all who do would agree with you. And as such your recourse in the light of reproof is ad hominem mind reading.

Meaning telling you like it is, exposing your sophistry.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem, since you like Latin. Antiquity does not make it right, unless antiquity is right, but the standard for correct antiquity is the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed, which does not manifest all your Catholic distinctives. Praying to every angel and saint in Heaven with your priests is not going to help that.

Which means now you resort to a false charge while to be consistent then I can charge you with clinging to your exaltation of your church Bible as a substitute for God. Yet one cannot cling to God and not cling to the only wholly inspired substantive express revelation of Him. once know, which the veracity of church teaching is subject to.

A vision which you exalt, can also be revelatory, but Scripture far more comprehensive in scope and depth of overall revelation, and to which the validity of visions and preaching is subjected to testing by. Thus it is the supreme standard.

What is it with your constant false dichotomies? Why must you make Scripture as being the supreme revelatory standard opposed their being a church?

Because nowhere is it promised that everything a church says will necessarily be of God, nor is oral transmission the most reliable means of long-term preservation, and God manifestly chose writing, as shown.

No, the printing presses are not the ones who finally got it right, but the God who inspired the preaching and writing of His word got it right the first time, which does not mean the preachers/publishers of it always did so without error, and thus must be examined in the light of evidence. The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it. (Psalms 68:11)

It is a failure in both doctrine and logic, both of which the Lord taught, and not reliance upon dreams and vision as a substitute for His word and the preservative writing of it. .

Now with about a foot of snow predicted it should be a busy day. Sorry I have not been as meek as 2 Timothy 2:25 calls for in the interest of conversion. Bye.

Long posts like this are counter-productive...

Concentration of focus in stingy words is a good thing...

Arsenios

Major1 · Jan 7, 2018

Darrel Slugoski said:
I will start my defense of the Church of Rome. There are many biblical and historical reasons for being sure the Church of Rome is the one established by Christ Lets test the evidence. I ill use scripture and the words of the early Church fathers who were in fact the first Christian bishops .

No Protestant Church can trace its founding as far back as the Catholic Church And the doctrines have remained consistent . The Church must be visible in each century , why

1 Christ said that his followers are a " the light. a city set on a hill cannot be hid " Mat 5:15 so God didn't create a invisible Church making it impossible to find .
2 Chist said " nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand and gives life to all the house" Matt 5:15 . He wants our" light to shine before men" Mtt 28:20. So in history there were christians in history who were present and shining the light of Christ and witnessing to others . You would of course disagree that they were Catholics .
3 this light ( Christians ) have been sharing the gospel . Christ said to them " lo I am with you always to the close of this age" Matt 28:20. these christian were , from that moment onward , supported by Christ Today you will find the Catholic Church around the world teaching it peculiar teachings : The real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic , devotion to Mary , the authority of the Bishop of Rome , Prayers for the souls of the dead ,confession ,baptism, authority of Tradition heaven/hell, the atonement ......... Go back 500 years you will find that Church and after 500 years all forms of protestantism ( lutheranism,baptists ...) all vanish but you will find this catholic Church ( with its teachings )You will find it almost everywhere.
You will see the big C Catholics complete with the bishop of Rome, the seven sacraments , the Mass defending it peculiar teachings .This , rightfully imperfect Church run sometime by both great Bishops and some bad ones teaching the same thing .

Now being near to the first century all the Apostles have been martyred John is a old man .We are at the close of the apostolic age .We see the Catholic Church in seed form ( mustard seed form Luke 13:18-19) )developing a ne theological vocabulary on the fly . Christ promised his church would grow . What is IMPORTANT is to recognize the very same teachings as now.For example

Look at Pope st Clement 1 issues a letter of encouragement and admonition i 80 ad " Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien to the elect of God, which few rash and self willed persons have inflamed .accept our Council and you will have nothing to regret.....If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him the Lord, through us, let them now that they will involve himself in trans gressionsand no small danger . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the holy Spirit , you will root out the wicked passion of Jealousy."
This is a good example of a quote from St Clement, Bishop of Rome , exercising authority over another established Church .Other examples of this include;
St Ignatius 170-110 " Ignatius...to the Church which hold the presidency ,in the location of the country of the Romans,worthy of God worthy of honor worthy of...,because you hold the presidency in love named after Christ and named after the Father.You {the Church of Rome } have envied no one ,but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoyed in your instruction may remain in force"
St Irenaeus 187 ad " matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language , while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. But since it would be too long to enumerate in succession of all the Churches we shall confound all those who ,in whatever manner whether through self satisfaction or vain glory,or vain glory ..assemble other then where it is proper , by pointing out there succession of bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized by the two most glorious apostle , Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles . With that Church , because of its superior origin , all other churches must agree,that is all the faithful in the whole world and its in her that the faithful have maintained the apostolic tradition.

These are just representative quotes . I can have the Church fathers quote many of the early church Fathers understanding Eucharist , Purgatory which are amazing and direct . These men were around in the beginning of the founding of the Church. To deny that their words are of no value in understanding of how the early church fathers view scripture and Apostolic succession ( from their own words ) is a denial of evidence and history .

What people do here is deny any Catholic evidence at any cost .

The bottom line truth is.....There is NO defense at all for the Church of Rome!

The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?”
If the teachings and doctrines of any Christian church are not Biblical then it can not be a Christian church.

If a teaching is Biblical, it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles.

Darrel Slugoski · Jan 7, 2018

bbbbbbb said:
If history is the chief criterion of spiritual truth, then you really ought to serious consider Hinduism. They have been around way longer than your denomination.

History is only one component. There must be a scriptural defense .

No Church or christian has ever done the full will of God. God warned us the would always be " weeds among the wheat" and wolves is sheep clothing " within the Church . The Apostles were not perfect , one denied Christ (3 Times) , one hung himself/betrayed him, one doubted, there were conflicts in the early Church (Acts), Other Churches we reprimanded by Paul for disobedience , Paul reprimands Peter......................doesn't sound like a perfect church even from the beginning.

Christianity is younger that Hinduism .

It all depends on how you define whats Bibical . Lutherans who have sacraments of Baptism and Communion, Presbyterians baptize infants are therefore not Christian according to you . However their defence for these practices are Biblical according to them . And us .

With the early Church Fathers comments show how the Roman Church was viewed by the first Christians . True I must go to scripture to prove it . All I am saying is the early Church had a precedent in belief about Rome . A parshall defence and historical evidence . I will add scripture references.

I believe and the Church teaches you are fully Christian . I am doing this to show we do have a defense only . You may be even more holy then I . So may God bless you . Nothing I say here is out of arrogance but to defend my Church from hate and ignorance .

Darrel Slugoski · Jan 7, 2018

Arsenios said:
Click reply, and the entire post comes up in the reply box as a quote. It begins with [quote="Darrel Slugoski, post: 72190719, member:405185... followed by another bracket ( ] ) instead of my three periods... And it ends with [/quote... which is followed similarly. So regard this: } as a ], and when you get to a place in the text that you wish to reply to, type: {/quote} [using brackets instead of those {}s}] Then you can type your reply... And when you wish to restart his post, just put in {quote} again, and close it with {/quote} when you wish to comment...

You can PM me with more questions if you have any...

Arsenios

Thank you, brother . I am back to defend the Church of Rome. I believe God will unite our Churches , but you must defend you Orthodox faith here . I will not take offence .You may win over some to your Orthodox faith and if so I would be happy .

Darrel Slugoski · Jan 7, 2018

Arsenios said:
Long posts like this are counter-productive...

Concentration of focus in stingy words is a good thing...

Arsenios

Not only is it unhelpful it would take a scholar to understand some of it .

Albion · Jan 7, 2018

Darrel Slugoski said:
I will start my defense of the Church of Rome. There are many biblical and historical reasons for being sure the Church of Rome is the one established by Christ Lets test the evidence.
No Protestant Church can trace its founding as far back as the Catholic Church And the doctrines have remained consistent .

That seems to be a weak start. Not only are there dozens of churches that trace their beginnings back to the Apostles, but the doctrines of the Catholic Church certainly have not remained consistent. She even has a term for the changes--"development of doctrine."

1 Christ said that his followers are a " the light. a city set on a hill cannot be hid " Mat 5:15 so God didn't create a invisible Church making it impossible to find .

What do you think your church means when it speaks of "the communion of saints?"

Today you will find the Catholic Church around the world teaching it peculiar teachings : The real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic , devotion to Mary , the authority of the Bishop of Rome , Prayers for the souls of the dead ,confession ,baptism, authority of Tradition heaven/hell, the atonement

Well, most of those are believed and taught by a variety of churches and ALL of them are taught by some church other than the RCC except for the "authority of the Bishop of Rome" which of course wasn't taught by Christ or the Apostles, either.

What is IMPORTANT is to recognize the very same teachings as now. For example...This is a good example of a quote from St Clement, Bishop of Rome , exercising authority over another established Church

It might be considered an example of Clement trying to throw his weight around among the other churches and bishops, but that does not mean that anyone else considered him to be the Pope.

These are just representative quotes . I can have the Church fathers quote many of the early church Fathers understanding Eucharist , Purgatory which are amazing and direct . These men were around in the beginning of the founding of the Church.

Go ahead. And make sure that any quotes are from the first century or else you cannot claim that "these men were around in the beginning of the founding of the Church."

Fidelibus · Jan 7, 2018

Major1 said:
Here is a suggestion. Why not accept the comments from PeacebyJesus as correct Bible teaching and then you can save all that time you are spending trying to get it right in doing something else????

Interesting thought Maj1. What if PBJ's (Not peanut butter and jelly btw) comments are not correct? Have you, will you, are you going to accept his comments, interpretations and bible teachings as absolute and without error? Besides, why should we care what you “think”? You might be willing to gamble your salvation on PBJ' fallible interpretation of the Bible, but why should we?

Now here is a suggestion for you Maj1.... instead of spending time posting myths and fallicies on what the Catholic Church does not teach through anti-Catholic web-sites and or Pastors, try something novel, and get it right by going to official Catholic web-sites and/or Pastors!

Fidelibus · Jan 7, 2018

Major1 said:
The bottom line truth is.....There is NO defense at all for the Church of Rome!

Say's who?

The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?”

Where in the Bible does it say this?

If the teachings and doctrines of any Christian church are not Biblical then it can not be a Christian church.

Again, where in the Bible does it say this? Or is this what you call..... Uh-hem...... "Inspired Truth?"

If a teaching is Biblical, it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected.

Oh.... you mean like the un-biblical/man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura...... (The Bible Alone)?

God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles.

How do you know this Maj1? By what authority do you (an admitted fallible human being) think you have, to be able to tell us this? Or is this more of this Inspired Truth you keep talking about?

Major1 · Jan 7, 2018

Darrel Slugoski said:
History is only one component. There must be a scriptural defense .

No Church or christian has ever done the full will of God. God warned us the would always be " weeds among the wheat" and wolves is sheep clothing " within the Church . The Apostles were not perfect , one denied Christ (3 Times) , one hung himself/betrayed him, one doubted, there were conflicts in the early Church (Acts), Other Churches we reprimanded by Paul for disobedience , Paul reprimands Peter......................doesn't sound like a perfect church even from the beginning.

Christianity is younger that Hinduism .

It all depends on how you define whats Bibical . Lutherans who have sacraments of Baptism and Communion, Presbyterians baptize infants are therefore not Christian according to you . However their defence for these practices are Biblical according to them . And us .

With the early Church Fathers comments show how the Roman Church was viewed by the first Christians . True I must go to scripture to prove it . All I am saying is the early Church had a precedent in belief about Rome . A parshall defence and historical evidence . I will add scripture references.

I believe and the Church teaches you are fully Christian . I am doing this to show we do have a defense only . You may be even more holy then I . So may God bless you . Nothing I say here is out of arrogance but to defend my Church from hate and ignorance .

I do not accept the idea that what is being said to you about the RCC is out of hate or ignorance.

Most of the people here that are talking to you were in fact Catholic believers at one time so the thought of ignorance is not valid at all.

There are several Catholic believers who in fact act angry most of the time and always make personal comments, the Protestant believers who post information to you are doing it out of a heart of love in that they want you to know the truth of the Scriptures so that you might grow in faith and knowledge of God's Word.

Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads