Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am sure that there are many many more errors and inventions to be added. So many that I believe the post length limit would easily be exceeded if all of them were listed.
In humans there is space and time. Therefore we do not teleport back to the time when Christ layed His life down for His sheep. It was a one time for all time meaning it does not need to happen again and again. He shed His blood as it dropped on the ground for my sins. Good enough for me. His broken body was also for me.. Good enough for me. For what He did was Holy. What we are are sinners saved by the blood He shed.To God, there is no space and time. The Sacrifice exists now, it exists in the future, it exists in the past. Christ's sacrifice works in the past, the present, the future. We celebrate the sacrifice of Christ. Our worship of Him is a re-presentation of His one sacrifice. It is not a past event.
I clipped your post so as to avoid forays into soul sleep theology, which is one of the errors in the list - I think it is
#53 Soul Sleep: Death is an unconscious, sleep-like state. When Jesus Christ comes again, He will resurrect the dead who believe in Him and will take them to heaven. The dead who are unbelievers will be resurrected 1000 years later.Anyway, "let the dead bury their dead" doesn't help you with your claim that the dead are asleep (unconscious) in Christ.
In humans there is space and time. Therefore we do not teleport back to the time when Christ layed His life down for His sheep. It was a one time for all time meaning it does not need to happen again and again. He shed His blood as it dropped on the ground for my sins. Good enough for me. His broken body was also for me.. Good enough for me. For what He did was Holy. What we are are sinners saved by the blood He shed.
Because all men are fallen, and he had no choice. (Why would Jesus appoint Judas an apostle when he knew Judas would betray Him?) Humanity demanded the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. When one comes to join the Church they profess belief in Christ, and all He said, part of which is that Peter would be the leader of His church. You believe that's flawed? Well then!
I've shown texts where Jesus promised the Holy Spirit and sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. Why would he leave it to mere humanity?
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church.
Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.
John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals.
John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith.
John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will "guide" the Church into all truth.
Jesus appointed apostles, right? When Judas killed himself, the first thing the apostles did was appoint a successor.
Paul, who was appointed by Christ (and ordained by the other apostles), writes to Timothy, whom he appointed bishop. This shows succession. So since Christ appointed Peter to be his representative on Earth, when Peter was martyred, the Church in Rome did the same thing-appointed a successor.
Matt 16:18-20.
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.The language there comes from Isaiah 22.
Souls do not die. Bodies die. The Saints in heaven are alive.
Dear Isatis, neither you nor I need worry too much about that because we are not likely to meet him face to face. And your protestant vocal chords and protestant tongue will probably never utter those sounds
This may fall under No. 14, OSAS... Reduction-ism, the cheapening of Grace. Because one is "saved" forever they believe that they can no longer sin; so it becomes a licence to sin.
That "re-presentation" thing is one of the least convincing examples of religious double talk IMO.
1. Why, exactly, does the Father need to be constantly reminded that the Incarnation and Crucifixion occurred? Is he THAT forgetful? And
2. If it's just a re-presenting of that one sacrifice, it can't BE a separate sacrifice with the quality or nature of a real sacrifice. Yet the claim is that it obtains the same benefits as any real sacrifice would--releasing souls from Purgatory, for example.
In humans there is space and time. Therefore we do not teleport back to the time when Christ layed His life down for His sheep. It was a one time for all time meaning it does not need to happen again and again. He shed His blood as it dropped on the ground for my sins. Good enough for me. His broken body was also for me.. Good enough for me. For what He did was Holy. What we are are sinners saved by the blood He shed.
I could rebuke the pope if I felt it necessary. What's your point?
Besides, everyone knows it is NOT the same. Everyone says it is NOT the same. It is sans blood.
Primarily because brother MoreCoffee decided to toss in various aberrant beliefs and practices common only to the outer fringes of Protestantism.
Why would Christ setup His church on a fallen man when He could set it up on Himself? Why would it be necessary to procfess Peter as the head when Christ never made that decleraion?
Our point of contention is not Christ being with His church, or the leading of the Holy Spirit. It's the protection from error theory that you present which is non-existent. To keep someone from teaching error the Spirit would have to force that individual to speak truth. That would be against God's nature as God does not interfere with man's freedom of choice.
It's easy to see within the protestant tradition just what results. Hence, we're on our third round of protestant errors and inventions with no end in sight. Strange that protestants are so good at detecting error within others groups with no real mechanism to discern the Truth in their own.
Is this really what Truth Incarnate intended for His Church?
You guys are forgetting about we Virginians! Surely the camp meetings of yore were errors and inventions. All that love, shouting, evangelism, circuit riding, spending hours on end around the mourners bench. Just not Catholic I tell ya!
Mourner's Bench? I never heard of that one. Thanks.
For the same reason Christ might enlist a fallen man (or woman) to start another protestant denomination. Why is it so hard for the protestant mind set to see that God enlists human beings to continue His work on earth? I know He doesn't have to, but He did and does invite us into the vineyard.
One reason I have a greater respect for the SDA than your average protestant denomination is that they do believe themselves to be 100% doctrinally pure. At least that's what one SDA here on GT has led me believe. Never-the-less, without the charism of infallibility, or protection from error, it's easy to see within the protestant tradition just what results. Hence, we're on our third round of protestant errors and inventions with no end in sight. Strange that protestants are so good at detecting error within others groups with no real mechanism to discern the Truth in their own.
Is this really what Truth Incarnate intended for His Church?
Yeah, I agree. There is no one all-encompassing set of doctrines. Which, in and of itself, contradicts the prayer of unity Christ prayed to His Father in John 17. Whereas, if you want to know 'what Catholics believe', you go to the Catechism. There's a lot of practices that are useable by Catholics but aren't necessary. Regading bread actually bleeding, this is a fact, and is documented to have happened. Our belief in it as a miracle is not required.If there were a "the Protestant Church."
The point is that your unfunny list of acts and beliefs doesn't describe Protestantism. It describes SOME, a few, Protestants--just like Catholics believe amulets and "holy water" can ward off demons, burying a statue of St. Joseph upside down will get your house sold, or the bread actually bleeds when the priest raises it up for people to worship.
If the Protestant Church had some self-definition of itself this wouldn't be an issue. But since it only exists invisibly and can only exist invisibly that can't happen. Therefore, while it's easy to see where Protestantism begins, it's more difficult to discern where it ends. Thus the question: When is a protestant not a protestant?
When referring to the 'outer fringes of protestantism', in the face of the absence of a formal answer from the 'Protestant Church', is it safe to assume that those on the 'outer fringes of protestantism' are those whose beliefs and practices are those who have deviated most from the Catholic Church?
If not, then where's the standard? What's authentic protestantism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?