What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[Rev Randy]

So if I disagree what then?

Banishment to Kansas for one week.

 

[SwordFall]

Keep repeating that if you need to convince yourself.

But really, you can't take seriously that your church has never changed any belief. And if it has changed any, it must mean that either the old way or the new one is...wrong.

Much of what you would point at as 'wrong' are nothing more then theologians and trials & errors.

Catholicism is a progression. It has room to error and yet, on the grand scale of things, be correct. In the end, she always wins out theologically and ecclesiastically.

That is the very nub of the problem. If there is any change at all, as you say, either the old position or the new position must be wrong. They both cannot be right. The doctrine of Purgatory is a classic example.

Purgatory has always been a belief, it just took time for it to be properly recognized into official doctrine.
As with almost everything theological with the Church. She doesn't just 'make things up'. That is the 'nub' of the issue with anti-Catholics, can't be honest within their convictions.

 

[MrMoe]

I disagree with the assumption that the Bible is an easy-to-apply rulebook to keep for times of emergency judgment of your neighbor. I don't need to bring up scripture when I already have, in that Christ warned us about judging our neighbors.

why do you disagree?

here's why I disagree with you

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness


John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

^ Jesus himself said that one

I don't wish to debate that subject.

You don't have to debate it but I hope you agree with it. If you don't please explain why

Since evil proceeds from the heart, and if one is judging the way he ought, wouldn't he be judging the motives of the heart, like Christ, who knew what was inside of others?

Yes Jesus had that power but you don't. you have no right to second guess a persons motives if you don't know what's in their mind
I don't think God would look to kindly on someone tarnishing another mans character or reputation by accusing them of something that they weren't doing

In other words, we ought to be concerned with the motives of others. It's not that we always know, so we test the spirits.

yes I've been trying to test your motives by asking you questions giving you scripture

. You ignore the scripture were Jesus tells us to judge and tell me I'm in big trouble if I judge

. You ignore most of the questions I put to you that are meant to get a straight answer from you.

. You say there are scriptures that say to cover a neighbours sins but the ones you have shown have nothing to do with covering sins


. When I give you something you can't refute you simply say "I don't buy "*ignored*" or "I don't wish to debate that subject"

. You have judged my motives with nothing but your own perception of what you think my motivations are

You've given me nothing of substance so far.
Like that cartoon rooster Foghorn Leghorn once said "I'm cutting but you ain't bleedin"

This doesn't help me any.

I even gave you the direct quote I was referring to. If you can't figure it out then there's nothing else I can do.

The conversation is way too fractured and complicated at this point.

Ok here is the question again for you.

if you judge according to the bible and you tell your child they are doing wrong, is that love? Or is not telling them and letting them continue sinning because you don't want to hurt their feelings, showing love?

Someone who is hopefully qualified to judge, and is appointed to a position of authority, like a police officer or a real judge, not just anyone, like an angry mob.

Good news, there are judges and police in this documentary and zero angry mobs.
Watch the video and tell me what you think.
Do you think the judgment is fair?
Do you think the victims are justified in their actions?

I believe putting people in danger of imprisonment for selfish motives is wrong.

could you give me an example?

Let me cut to the chase. Generally speaking, we have systems of rule and law to take care of the world, inside and outside of churches, and authorities are appointed for the purpose of administering judgment. I have no qualms with that unless a law is unjust.

so you think the punishment dealt or that should be dealt out to paedophile priests in the documentary is unjust?

So you disagree with this: Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land? ?

But if one tries to take the law into his own hands when he has not been appointed for that task, and when he could otherwise make use of the proper channels, then he usurps authority, as is the case with mob justice.

You keep bringing up mobs like they are a common occurrence.
we're aren't talking about punishment here we're talking about judgment

Now, what was it that you said on that subject?

This is what I'm saying:

Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

we must follow the laws of the land and that includes pedo priests

All I am doing for the most part is discussing the truth of your words (or lack thereof) and the truth in scripture, and I hope for your case that your judgment is incorrect, but now do you understand that the measure you use will be measured back to you?

yes and you will be too

In any case, the important point is this: it is out of pride that we want to exalt ourselves to make ourselves judges of our neighbors, but God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4:6),

So when a parent corrects their child it is out of pride?
So when a judge judges its out of pride and not to seek justice?

and clearly you will reap what you sow: excessive judgments will create your own punishment where you cannot walk accordingly, and if you do not practice what you preach, that is none other than hypocrisy, which is the antithesis of justice, the reward of faith (Hab 2:4).

Judging and punishing are not the same as I stated before

and yes hypocrisy is bad like the judge not verse you keep quoting which is in reference to hypocritical judgment but not refraining from judging.


...Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. -Luke 12:1[/quote]

I agree but I don't see what this has to do with what anything
You keep going off into these rabbit trails and confusing and fracturing the argument. Stay on topic plz

This isn't about political correctness, this is for your own good. You're not the most terrible person I've ever run into but if you ignore the plainly stated words of Christ, the end won't be good.

1 Corinthians 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.

Paul was referring to believers when he said, ourselves. He was writing to the churches after hearing there was divisions in the churches.

The following verse says this:

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 1 Corinthians 11:32

It's not referring to unbelievers, since:

Proverbs 16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits

This is the humanists mind set that says "I'm a pretty good person so don't judge me" That's not the way a Christian should think

1 Corinthians 31-32 are saying the exact opposite of what your telling me will happen if I judge according to the word of God.

it's saying if we judge ourselves (in ourselves and our fellow Christian brothers & sisters) we won't be judged by the lord Jesus as harshly

 

[MrMoe]

.

Gladly

Thanks for answering my questions......well half of them

Why are you so judgemental of some people's actions???

I wasn't, I was making an observation. Big difference

 

[Root of Jesse]

.



Thanks for answering my questions......well half of them



I wasn't, I was making an observation. Big difference

My bad. Some people's tone on this question is that it was the most vile thing he could do, and how could he be 'infallible' and kiss the Quran. Some Catholics criticized him for this as well.

 

[Root of Jesse]

<snip>
if you judge according to the bible and you tell your child they are doing wrong, is that love? Or is not telling them and letting them continue sinning because you don't want to hurt their feelings, showing love?

It is wrong not to correct your child. In fact, it would be sinful not to do so.

<snip.
so you think the punishment dealt or that should be dealt out to paedophile priests in the documentary is unjust?

So you disagree with this: Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land? ?

If it can be proven, a pedophile priest should be punished. (I'm speaking of today here, in the past were different circumstances and methods) I wonder how many 'pedophile priests' you think there are??

Regarding obeying the law of the land, we have a principal regarding unjust laws. For example, in China, where after one child, women who get pregnant are forced to have abortions, this is unjust, and the Church advocates against this law. Likewise, in WWII, Nazi's persecuted Jews, and the Catholic Church refused to do so, in fact, hiding them and helping them to safety. Sex offenders are totally vile, and there's nothing unjust about lawa against sexual predation.

You keep bringing up mobs like they are a common occurrence.
we're aren't talking about punishment here we're talking about judgment



This is what I'm saying:

Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

we must follow the laws of the land and that includes pedo priests



yes and you will be too




So when a parent corrects their child it is out of pride?
So when a judge judges its out of pride and not to seek justice?




Judging and punishing are not the same as I stated before

and yes hypocrisy is bad like the judge not verse you keep quoting which is in reference to hypocritical judgment but not refraining from judging.


...Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. -Luke 12:1

I agree but I don't see what this has to do with what anything
You keep going off into these rabbit trails and confusing and fracturing the argument. Stay on topic plz





1 Corinthians 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.

Paul was referring to believers when he said, ourselves. He was writing to the churches after hearing there was divisions in the churches.

The following verse says this:

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 1 Corinthians 11:32

It's not referring to unbelievers, since:

Proverbs 16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits

This is the humanists mind set that says "I'm a pretty good person so don't judge me" That's not the way a Christian should think

1 Corinthians 31-32 are saying the exact opposite of what your telling me will happen if I judge according to the word of God.

it's saying if we judge ourselves (in ourselves and our fellow Christian brothers & sisters) we won't be judged by the lord Jesus as harshly[/quote]

In my experience, most people who commit a crime would like mercy, and most victims would like justice. Judging and not judging does not speak to objective guilt. If a person runs a red light, he's guilty, objectively. If he's rushing his wife to the hospital to give birth, and runs a red light, he's still guilty of the crime, with extenuating circumstances.

When Christ says not to judge, he's speaking of hearts, not actions. We cannot see inside hearts. Even the pedophile priest may have a pure heart with an addiction he can't control. This doesn't make him less guilty, but it does possibly allow him mercy.

 

[Nanopants]

why do you disagree?

here's why I disagree with you

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness


John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

^ Jesus himself said that one

The error of unjust judgment can be described as a neglect of justice, mercy and faith (Mat 23:23). If scholars of the law can make that mistake, as was demonstrated, then the assumption that scripture is a list of easy-to-apply rules for judgment of your neighbor is false. It has been shown that it is not easy to apply, and that those who judged Christ were judged, just as He said.

You don't have to debate it but I hope you agree with it. If you don't please explain why

Unless someone appointed you as a judge and I'm required by law to answer to you, I don't have to do anything I don't want to.

Yes Jesus had that power but you don't. you have no right to second guess a persons motives if you don't know what's in their mind
I don't think God would look to kindly on someone tarnishing another mans character or reputation by accusing them of something that they weren't doing

Everything Jesus did was as an example to those who follow Him, and some people are given gifts of discernment (Heb 5:14).

yes I've been trying to test your motives by asking you questions giving you scripture

. You ignore the scripture were Jesus tells us to judge and tell me I'm in big trouble if I judge

. You ignore most of the questions I put to you that are meant to get a straight answer from you.

. You say there are scriptures that say to cover a neighbours sins but the ones you have shown have nothing to do with covering sins


. When I give you something you can't refute you simply say "I don't buy "*ignored*" or "I don't wish to debate that subject"

. You have judged my motives with nothing but your own perception of what you think my motivations are

You've given me nothing of substance so far.
Like that cartoon rooster Foghorn Leghorn once said "I'm cutting but you ain't bleedin"

Ok, but there seems to be an awful lot of finger pointing going on here. Now, given that I've plainly stated my case, that words and actions proceed from the heart, that by my words you were given no reason to think I've done any wrong, then where are these suspicions coming from? Has the Spirit of God led you to these thoughts?

I even gave you the direct quote I was referring to. If you can't figure it out then there's nothing else I can do.

So you're addressing my claim that the assumption that I've made an assumption is an assumption?

Ok here is the question again for you.

if you judge according to the bible and you tell your child they are doing wrong, is that love? Or is not telling them and letting them continue sinning because you don't want to hurt their feelings, showing love?

Judging "according to the Bible" isn't clear enough to address the points I've already raised, since Christ's adversaries attempted to judge Him according to some of the same scripture. One must first be just to judge justly, so one ought to seek justification and a deeper understanding of it before seeking to judge, don't you think?

Good news, there are judges and police in this documentary and zero angry mobs.
Watch the video and tell me what you think.
Do you think the judgment is fair?
Do you think the victims are justified in their actions?

No thank you.

could you give me an example?

I don't care to.

so you think the punishment dealt or that should be dealt out to paedophile priests in the documentary is unjust?

So you disagree with this: Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land? ?



You keep bringing up mobs like they are a common occurrence.
we're aren't talking about punishment here we're talking about judgment



This is what I'm saying:

Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

we must follow the laws of the land and that includes pedo priests



yes and you will be too

I like to be careful about who or what I listen to, so I don't care to watch documentaries and what not unless it comes from a trustworthy source. As stated previously I also have personal experience to appeal to, and I don't wish to revisit it. The crux of my argument is and has been against the unjust judgment carried out by numerous christians I have personally encountered, not about pedophilia itself, and your documentary is not going to dissuade me from that.

So when a parent corrects their child it is out of pride?
So when a judge judges its out of pride and not to seek justice?

Not necessarily, though it can be.

Judging and punishing are not the same as I stated before

and yes hypocrisy is bad like the judge not verse you keep quoting which is in reference to hypocritical judgment but not refraining from judging.

...Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. -Luke 12:1

I agree but I don't see what this has to do with what anything
You keep going off into these rabbit trails and confusing and fracturing the argument. Stay on topic plz

Even if you think you refuse to punish someone, a community addicted to judgment, constantly accusing one another of everything everyone is guilty of themselves, would be a punishment in and of itself leading to destruction. Scripture is clear about the necessity of being faithful to one another, including covering others' shame, and if we are not, then we are unfaithful, and if unfaithful, adulterous, murderous, and transgressors of the law we use to carry it out.

1 Corinthians 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.

Paul was referring to believers when he said, ourselves. He was writing to the churches after hearing there was divisions in the churches.

The following verse says this:

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 1 Corinthians 11:32

It's not referring to unbelievers, since:

Proverbs 16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits

This is the humanists mind set that says "I'm a pretty good person so don't judge me" That's not the way a Christian should think

1 Corinthians 31-32 are saying the exact opposite of what your telling me will happen if I judge according to the word of God.

it's saying if we judge ourselves (in ourselves and our fellow Christian brothers & sisters) we won't be judged by the lord Jesus as harshly

Here's another word from Paul:

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. -Rom 2:1

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MrMoe

Since the question was about god given power and authority and what it would take to lose that power and authority
I chose something that I know God would despise as an example to see what Catholics would say and see if they had scripture to back up their claim if they said the priest would not lose his God power to forgive or retain sins.


I think the majority of people would agree that hiding a known paedophile and keeping him in a position of power and trust would not be loyalty to Christ. I hope you agree too.
​

Originally Posted by Nanopants

So if I disagree what then?
​

Banishment to Kansas for one week.

Or even worst, banishment to the Vatican in Rome



.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Or even worst, banishment to the Vatican in Rome



.

I could accept such banishment...are you paying?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Or even worst, banishment to the Vatican in Rome

​

I could accept such banishment...are you paying?

I am sure if ya contact yer Pope, he would gladly fund yer way over there

Vatican Mailing Addresses

His Holiness, Pope Francis PP.
00120 Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano

OR
His Holiness Pope Francis
Apostolic Palace
VATICAN CITY, 00120

OR

His Holiness Pope Francis
Vatican City State, 00120
Pope Francis does not have a public E-mail address

.

 

[Rick Otto]

"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another" Pope John XXIII VCII

The CC has acknowledged in Mysterium Ecclesiae that over the centuries there has been changes in the way the teaching has been presented. It recognized the "historical conditioning" which affects the way in which her faith has been expressed. The CC for the first time to my knowledge acknowledged that at an earlier period a dogmatic truth might be expressed incompletely or imperfectly and only later when considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge recieve a fuller and more perfect expression.



Distinguishing the substance of the doctrine from the way it is expressed, many Catholic theologians after vatican II would see the substance as being that God has assigned to the church a necessary role in the divine economy of salvation. Christ is the one mediator and his body the church has a subordinate but necessary role of mediation in the salvation of mankind.

Im not sure if this would invalidate the doctrine of infallibility as I understand it. How do you understand the doctrine of infallibility?

As I understand it, the word "infallible" does not allow for incompleteness or imperfection, by definition.
Also as I understand it, the word "perfect" by definition does not allow for the possibility of anything perfect being more perfect.
Something is perfect or it is not.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by pathfinder777

"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another" Pope John XXIII VCII

The CC has acknowledged in Mysterium Ecclesiae that over the centuries there has been changes in the way the teaching has been presented. It recognized the "historical conditioning" which affects the way in which her faith has been expressed. The CC for the first time to my knowledge acknowledged that at an earlier period a dogmatic truth might be expressed incompletely or imperfectly and only later when considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge recieve a fuller and more perfect expression.



Distinguishing the substance of the doctrine from the way it is expressed, many Catholic theologians after vatican II would see the substance as being that God has assigned to the church a necessary role in the divine economy of salvation. Christ is the one mediator and his body the church has a subordinate but necessary role of mediation in the salvation of mankind.

Im not sure if this would invalidate the doctrine of infallibility as I understand it.
How do you understand the doctrine of infallibility?
​

As I understand it, the word "infallible" does not allow for incompleteness or imperfection, by definition.
Also as I understand it, the word "perfect" by definition does not allow for the possibility of anything perfect being more perfect.

Something is perfect or it is not.

Sounds logical to me...........
So I would assume there is no such thing as an inperfect perfect thing/person?

Rev 3:2
&#8220;Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die,
for I have not found your works perfect before God.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7790827-10/#post64604349
Fallible Infallibility

.

 

[everready]

Would this be considered Catholic bashing?


Founders of "Mainline" Churches Knew Who Anti-Christ Was

Issue Date: August/September 1984
The following quotes show just how far the churches of today have strayed from the wisdom of their founding fathers.

Martin Luther
(1483-1546) (Lutheran)
"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 2, pg. 121 by Froom.

John Calvin
(1509-1564) (Presbyterian)
"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt...I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from "Institutes" by John Calvin.


Cotton Mather
(1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from "The Fall of Babylon" by Cotton Mather in Froom's book "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 3, pg. 113.


John Knox
(1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from "The Zurich Letters" pg. 199 by John Knox.


Thomas Cranmer
(1489-1556) (Anglican)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from "Works" by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.


John Wesley
(1703-1791) (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers...He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped...claiming the highest power, and highest honor...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from "Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms" by John Wesley, pg. 110.


Roger William
(1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vessals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to changed times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

Quoted from GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE by Woodrow.

Hope this isn't off topic.. and i apologize if it has already been posted..

 

[MrMoe]

It is wrong not to correct your child. In fact, it would be sinful not to do so.

yes I agree

If it can be proven, a pedophile priest should be punished. (I'm speaking of today here, in the past were different circumstances and methods) I wonder how many 'pedophile priests' you think there are??

I have no idea, but I know several priests have been exposed over the years

Regarding obeying the law of the land, we have a principal regarding unjust laws. For example, in China, where after one child, women who get pregnant are forced to have abortions, this is unjust, and the Church advocates against this law. Likewise, in WWII, Nazi's persecuted Jews, and the Catholic Church refused to do so, in fact, hiding them and helping them to safety. Sex offenders are totally vile, and there's nothing unjust about lawa against sexual predation.

I agree

In my experience, most people who commit a crime would like mercy, and most victims would like justice. Judging and not judging does not speak to objective guilt. If a person runs a red light, he's guilty, objectively. If he's rushing his wife to the hospital to give birth, and runs a red light, he's still guilty of the crime, with extenuating circumstances.

I agree with this too

When Christ says not to judge, he's speaking of hearts, not actions. We cannot see inside hearts. Even the pedophile priest may have a pure heart with an addiction he can't control. This doesn't make him less guilty, but it does possibly allow him mercy.

Exactly. Only God knows our true motivations and intentions so only he can judge righteously

 

[MrMoe]

The error of unjust judgment can be described as a neglect of justice, mercy and faith (Mat 23:23). If scholars of the law can make that mistake, as was demonstrated, then the assumption that scripture is a list of easy-to-apply rules for judgment of your neighbor is false.

The funny thing is that in many translations justice is translated as judgment

For example:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (KJV)


Since justice and judgment are basically the same. Jesus is rebuking them for not judging which goes against what your telling me and agrees with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:31

It has been shown that it is not easy to apply, and that those who judged Christ were judged, just as He said.

They judged according to the flesh

Unless someone appointed you as a judge and I'm required by law to answer to you, I don't have to do anything I don't want to.

you don't have to do anything, but if you want to engage in a debate you should at least listen to the other persons side of the argument

Everything Jesus did was as an example to those who follow Him, and some people are given gifts of discernment (Heb 5:14).

Luke12:54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

Discernment isn't a sixth sense. it's based on logic and reason. Discernment isn't making assumptions. It isn't second guessing a persons motives and intentions

Saying "He used paedophile priests in his question therefore he must have an ulterior motive" is not discernment

anyway biblical discernment is simply the ability to know right from wrong and see the truth.

What is biblical discernment and why is it important?

How can I increase my spiritual discernment?

Also Hebrews 5 is not saying discernment is a gift exclusive to some Christians, it's saying the opposite

Heb 5: 11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God&#8217;s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. (NIV)


Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil (KJV)


it means newbies to the word of God should be fed with milk like babies since they have trouble understanding/discerning.
Paul was chastising them because they should have been teachers by then but they themselves still needed to be taught
Heb 5:14 means anyone who studies the word can gain good discernment

Ok, but there seems to be an awful lot of finger pointing going on here

I was pointing out the obvious

Now, given that I've plainly stated my case, that words and actions proceed from the heart, that by my words you were given no reason to think I've done any wrong,

well you accused me of having an ulterior motive for asking my question. Something you have yet to prove

then where are these suspicions coming from?

What suspicions? you've clearly done the things I've listed

Has the Spirit of God led you to these thoughts?

logic and reason led me to those thoughts

So you're addressing my claim that the assumption that I've made an assumption is an assumption?

No. This is the statement you made:

If all you can pin me on is that I've made an assumption, then, OK, but I'd add that the assumption that I've made an assumption is itself an assumption.

You were accusing me of making an assumption that you had made an assumption. That wasn't the case

Here is the definition of an assumption: A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

I can directly quote you on where you made an assumption(proof). So what I was saying wasn't an assumption.

Judging "according to the Bible" isn't clear enough to address the points I've already raised, since Christ's adversaries attempted to judge Him according to some of the same scripture

One must first be just to judge justly, so one ought to seek justification and a deeper understanding of it before seeking to judge, don't you think?

No thank you.

You still haven't given a good reason

I don't care to.

Again if you're going to be in a debate you need to engage in it. if you can't give me an example I'm just gonna assume it's because you don't have one.

I like to be careful about who or what I listen to, so I don't care to watch documentaries and what not unless it comes from a trustworthy source.

it's a documentary that means it's purpose is to show the facts. So I really don't see how it is untrustworthy.

As stated previously I also have personal experience to appeal to, and I don't wish to revisit it. The crux of my argument is and has been against the unjust judgment carried out by numerous christians I have personally encountered, not about pedophilia itself, and your documentary is not going to dissuade me from that.

I'm not trying to persuade you on changing your views on what happened to you I'm trying to show you the judgment on pedophile priests is not unjust

Not necessarily, though it can be.

so does the judgment become invalid if they judged out of pride?

Here's another word from Paul:

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. -Rom 2:1

yes this is talking about hypocritical judgment like the "judge not" verse

This takes nothing away from the verse I just gave you about judging ourselves so that we aren't judged

 

[Albion]

How about these Roman Catholic errors?


Denying the cup/wine to lay persons at Communion.

Having altar boys speak for the congregation during Mass.

Not allowing any role for the laity in the worship service.

Requiring Sacramental Confession prior to weekly Holy Communion.

Conducting the worship service in a language not understood by the people.


There's no question about them being errors because the Roman Catholic Church has now changed its teachings on all of them and adopted the Protestant usage and belief in every case.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How about these Roman Catholic errors?


Denying the cup/wine to lay persons at Communion.

Having altar boys speak for the congregation during Mass.

Not allowing any role for the laity in the worship service.

Requiring Sacramental Confession prior to weekly Holy Communion.

Conducting the worship service in a language not understood by the people.


There's no question about them being errors because the Roman Catholic Church has now changed its teachings on all of them and adopted the Protestant usage and belief in every case.

Looks like Roman Catholicism has been going thru it's own "reformation", which can't be all bad

http://www.christianforums.com/t7515165/
Was the "Reformation" a failure?



.

 

[Rev Randy]

How about these Roman Catholic errors?


Denying the cup/wine to lay persons at Communion.

Having altar boys speak for the congregation during Mass.

Not allowing any role for the laity in the worship service.

Requiring Sacramental Confession prior to weekly Holy Communion.

Conducting the worship service in a language not understood by the people.


There's no question about them being errors because the Roman Catholic Church has now changed its teachings on all of them and adopted the Protestant usage and belief in every case.

There is no question that the list is not true. I can point to one major blunder right off the bat. But not being Catholic I'll leave that to them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Albion

How about these Roman Catholic errors?.......................

​

There is no question that the list is not true. I can point to one major blunder right off the bat.
But not being Catholic I'll leave that to them.

Me too........



.

 

[Albion]

The list is of course accurate. But I was also interested to see if the Round Table would actually take the cue and swing into action. And guess what? ::