A Historical Dare to Protestants

[Thorwald]

If this is enough history for you, then you are very intellectually shallow.

Of course there were many population groups that were not “God’s Children”!

However, all those described in scripture as belonging to the One Body of Christ were Catholic, and still are!

The scriptures attest that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. They did not always do so. Jesus authorized them to retain sins also. We see this clearly in the account of Ananias and Sapphira. Their sins were retained because they did not have a firm purpose of amendment. The results of sins that were retained are no different now than they were when they were recored in the book of Acts.

The one thing that bothers me, is the introduction of sin soon after God makes things holy. Your assumption that all that is believed upon by the Catholic Church, is holy, may not be so. Let us review Biblical history;

1. After The Lord God Almighty begot His Son (Jesus Christ), He created the angels. Soon we find that one of them wanted to be ‘The Christ’, leading to the creation of satan.
2. God created Adam & Eve (son and daughter of The Lord God Almighty). Before they could reproduce, they sinned,
3. After the flood, one of Noah’s sons sinned, by looking upon Noah’s naked body.
4. The Israelites began to sin in the desert, while Moses was receiving the 10 commandments from God.

We see all kinds of interventions made by The Lord God Almighty, on behalf of man, and soon after, man sins again. How can we be sure, that Roman Catholicism is as righteous as you claim it to be, when history seems to lean in the opposite direction. Satan must have infiltrated it at some point, just as he has affected the Protestant religion. Look at the different ‘churches’ referenced in the book of Revelation. None are identical in their ‘report card’. Just a thought.

 

[guanophore]

You are exactly correct on that. Just as with the proud Jews of Jesus’ day who thought they were ‘children of Abraham’ because they could trace their lineage or prove the absence of foreskin, yet were far away from the kingdom, so today only and all those who hold to the Christ and the gospel of the Scriptures are part of His church. Those who say otherwise do so out of blind allegiance and/or an attempt to vainly protect a vested interest that does not exist

How did you arrive at such hostility toward your father’s Church?

The people I was referring to are anyone who embraces teaching which cannot be supported in God’s Word.

What you are saying is that anyone who arrives at a different understanding of the Scriptures than you is in error.

You seem to be unaware the Catholic faith was committed the Apostles, whole and entire, before a word of the NT was written. It was supported by Christ, just as it is today.
Catholics believe that Jesus is God’s Word.

  Calling Bible reading a sin, for instance, which the RCC did for about 900 years, until they suddenly had a new revelation. Dig yourself out of that one while I attend to a few other posts.

You have been misinformed about Bible reading and the Catholic Church. The Church has always believed and taught that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. It is a sin to interpret the Holy Writings produced by the Church apart from the teachings of the Church. It was then, and it is now. This is no 'new revelation". T’he scriptures reflect the beliefs of the Church, and the two are not to be separated.

May I ask where you pick up the misconceptions you say here?
Why do you call yourself catholic daddy when it is so obvious that you do not like what you perceive that the Church teaches?

Apparently his father was a poorly catechized and poorly practicing Catholic. He seems to be here to work that “catholic daddy” out of his life.

I would say almost all the people who post here as RC, if you check what they say when that topic comes up, they are attempting to explain having “been saved” away.

Well, we read it differently don’t we?

Regarding your fear of being caught in that II Peter 2 situation? Don’t ever sing the hymn, “Blessed Assurance”, because you have none. You need to take a Sharpie and mark through all those verses where Jesus and Paul give us assurance, like the last ten verses of Rom 8. Or you could ask someone how to know for sure that if you die today or tomorrow or fifty years from now, you will be with Jesus in Paradise.

I find it rather presumptious that you should come to a Catholic fourm, with all your unresolved hostility toward the Catholic Church, and presume to tell catholics “what you need to do”.

Why should Catholics not be permitted the verses of the Holy Scripture that were written by, for and about Catholics?

I am sorry that your Catholic Daddy did not have “blessed assurance”. Perhaps he, like my own Catholic Daddy, worried about his salvation right up to the grave?

The truth is that “Jesus is mine” is a modern fudamentalist invention. Scripture does not support this concept. We can belong to Him, but He cannot be posessed by us.

 

[guanophore]

You have your answer. You can’t see it there and you won’t recognize it anywhere else.

But I have news for you. The penence you perform is both unbiblical and powerless to provide atonement for your sin. And it comes from an unauthorized source.

What penance is it you imagine I perform?

What makes you think that penance is “unbiblical”?

Penance is, indeed, powerless to atone for sins. Only the blood of Jesus can do that.

Participation in His sufferings can cover a multitude of sins, and make amends for wrongs committed.

What is the “source” of penance?

Why is the “Source” unauthorized?

**Provide proof **for the ridiculously ignorant claim that the Church deemed it a sin to read Scripture.

This is an unsubstantiated lie that is unsupported by history.

I’m waiting . . .

Don’t be too hard on catholic daddy. He fell into this ridiculous ignorance in search of the Truth. It has happened to a lot of us.

There are so many great ones and I have posted them here before, but let’s start with Jesus’ words:
“Truly truly I say to you, he who hears my words and believes him who sent Me has ETERNAL life, and WILL NOT COME INTO CONDEMNATION, but HAS PASSED from death unto life.”. That one itself should be enough, but it’s just the beginning.

He also says that those who believe in Him will OBEY his COMMANDMENTS!

Those that obey the commandments will not be condemned.

How about this from Rom 8–
“There is therefor now NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jeusu.”
How can you believe that verse and not know that you are saved and secure?

Because we understand that to be “in Christ” means to obey His commandments, and some after making a profession of faith, fail to do so.

If there remains zero condemnation for one of God's saved children, how could they ever again be lost.

You have misunderstood the meaning of the passage. To be “in Christ Jesus” means that one has died, and their life is hidden with Christ in God. As you well know, there are those who have made a profession of faith that do not remain “in Christ”.

Lastly, just look at the last part of Rom 8, from vs 28 to the end of the chapter. It is ridiculous to think that Paul is not celebrating the eternal security of the believer there.

If Paul gave in to the temptations he described in Ch. 7 of Romans, Paul himself would no longer be “in Christ.”

 

[guanophore]

He wasn’t talking about his salvation, my friend. He was talking about how his life will stack up for rewards. He had full assurance of his salvation and Roman Catholics don’t. Why? Paul had different doctrine than they do.

I know that this is what you have been taught about this passage, but the language just does not support it. One who is judged with regard to rewards does not need to be “aquitted”. This is a legal term used for a court of law, not a court of rewards. Acquitted means that charges are not held against a person- case dismissed. People that are acquitted a reward. They get excused from punishment reserved for the guilty.

Paul hoped for what he did not see. He ran the race so as not to be disqualified. Those who are disqualified are not eligible for prizes, cd.

Those whose names are “blotted out” of the book of life don;t get rewards either.

Paul was Catholic, and his writings represent the Catholic faith. There is no contradiction between the Scripture, and what Paul passed on to those he ordained as Catholic bishops and priests. The “difference” is your perception. When the eye is sound, the whole body is full of light.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Jesus was a Protestant. Thats easy to see in the Bible. Your “history” is no more credible than the 50 other versions of “true history” held so dear by so many other religions and denominations. You keep making the claim, but cannot supply clear proof. Only Catholic denominationally oriented dogma.

Protestants have existed as long as Catholics. And the Bible does not say that Peter was a “Pope.”

oh man…Jesus wasn`t a protestant and the Good Sheperd never will be a rebeller, He was correcting the pharisees, but He never had intentions to seperate Himself from the Jewish religion. He came to fullfill it. He Himself said salvation comes from the Jews. So no…Jesus dose not protest, now Martin Luther protests, Calvin Protest, JW protest ect…

The word Trinity is also not in the Bible, and Jesus never said “I am God worship” me in the Bible directly. But yet, thanks to the Catholic Church that existed before the Bible had those belifs. The fact other apostles called Simon Peter, is sufficent evidence that Peter was the Pope. Simon was the rock that Jesus build HIS Church upon. During the 1 century only the Catholic Church existed, not your denomination…

 

[Benjamin8o8]

…and we already provided evidence. Bill Pick showed all of you a historical list of ALL denominations. But none of you guys tried to refute it, you just ignored and simply changed the subject. very sneaky.

 

[Tomster]

…and we already provided evidence. Bill Pick showed all of you a historical list of ALL denominations. But none of you guys tried to refute it, you just ignored and simply changed the subject. very sneaky.

Sneaky AND typical. Not addressing the issue and changing the subject sheds light on the weakness of their position.
I think the reason they do this is, perhaps, that they might be afraid of contradcting another Protestant’s position on the essential/non-essential issue.

 

[catholic_daddy]

How did you arrive at such hostility toward your father’s Church?

What you are saying is that anyone who arrives at a different understanding of the Scriptures than you is in error.

You seem to be unaware the Catholic faith was committed the Apostles, whole and entire, before a word of the NT was written. It was supported by Christ, just as it is today.
Catholics believe that Jesus is God’s Word.

You have been misinformed about Bible reading and the Catholic Church. The Church has always believed and taught that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. It is a sin to interpret the Holy Writings produced by the Church apart from the teachings of the Church. It was then, and it is now. This is no 'new revelation". T’he scriptures reflect the beliefs of the Church, and the two are not to be separated.

Apparently his father was a poorly catechized and poorly practicing Catholic. He seems to be here to work that “catholic daddy” out of his life.

Well, we read it differently don’t we?

I find it rather presumptious that you should come to a Catholic fourm, with all your unresolved hostility toward the Catholic Church, and presume to tell catholics “what you need to do”.

Why should Catholics not be permitted the verses of the Holy Scripture that were written by, for and about Catholics?

I am sorry that your Catholic Daddy did not have “blessed assurance”. Perhaps he, like my own Catholic Daddy, worried about his salvation right up to the grave?

The truth is that “Jesus is mine” is a modern fudamentalist invention. Scripture does not support this concept. We can belong to Him, but He cannot be posessed by us.

Guanophore it is patently obvious that you simply will not lose an argument, whether you are wrong or not! So…you have that going for you, which is nice. As to people being wrong when they disagree with ME, I listed a couple dozen powerful teachers here previously. They are just, as you know, a tiny part of the hordes of godly theologians, teachers, pastors and evangelists who teach the exact same thing I am teaching. This is what the Holy Spirit reveals to His Churches. And the result is thousands upon thousands of healthy churches around the world, busy evanglelizing the lost, baptising them, and equipping the saints.

As to what I said about the RCC prohibiting Bible reading, you know it is true, and they believed a person with the Holy Spirit inside them was still incapable of interpreting Scripture. The RCC HAD to tell them what it meant. YET John says someone who has Christ HAS “the anointing”. He says in I Jn 2, “the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you.”. Maybe that’s one of the vss the RCC didn’t want us pesky Christians reading??

Now…let’s address your quote that reveals the horrible heart of most of our disagreements…You said that the notion of “Jesus is mine” is a ‘fundamentalist invention’. I am not trying to be mean, but according to what GOD says in His word, you just revealed that you know a lot about history but you don’t know Him. John clearly says this in
I John–

“He who HAS THE SON has LIFE, and he who does not HAVE THE SON does not have life! These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.”

Those whe “HAVE THE SON” (ie, can legitimately sing “Jesus is mine”) are the ones (the ONLY ones) who HAVE LIFE. You see, this is not a fundamentalist invention, this is the declaration of the Word of GOD.

You need to ask yourself, based on Scripture, if you have life. I’m not talking about knowing the RCC, knowing history or knowing about the Bible. Those who have the Son HAVE LIFE (and KNOW they have eternal life. You don’t even think we can know it for sure!) and those who do not have the Son simply DO NOT HAVE LIFE. They have NEVER been BORN (that’s how you get life on this planet) AGAIN. (They just got wet!)

That, my friend, is simply the heart of the matter, and YOU pointed it out. Ask God to reveal his Son to you so you can receive HIM (not a system, not Mary, not the saints). Then you will be able to sing “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine. Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!” And you won’t be lying. You will be honestly rejoicing! Please prayerfully consider what I have shared with you.

 

[guanophore]

1. That is an interesting dance around some pretty telling idolotry evidence.

There is no need to “dance”, Not your daddy’s catholic boy. The Catholic Church teaches according to the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, that worship of anything or anyone other than Almighty God is idolatry. Catholics would be in mortal sin for such behavior, and would fail to attain heaven.

1. It IS interesting that the ONLY mention of a “Queen of Heaven” in the Bible is in that verse quoted. Of course you know that it is thought by not a few that the same spirit behind the Queen of Heaven mentioned in scripture is also behind the Queen of Heaven NOT mentioned in Scripture yet promoted by the RCC.

There are a couple errors in your thinking here. One is that the Catholic faith is “bible based”. A church that is “bible based” must find all of it’s doctrines (supposedly) in the Bible. The Catholic faith comes from Jesus Himself, and was delivered whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The Apostles knew that Jesus was the King of Heaven, and that Mary was His mother. To understand the relationship, you must study the role of the gebirah in Hebrew culture. You can get a glimpse if you look at the way Solomon treated his mother.

Of course, yes, I know that there are many that misunderstand the Scripture and the Teachings of Jesus, and do not understand the honor of His choice for His mother.

The other error is that this understanding of Mary is not “Roman” as you seem to believe. all the Churches planted by Apostles have this understanding from them about the role of Mary, some who have no love lost on Rome.

Do yourself a favor, go to the Orthodox forum, and convince them that they are mistaken about Mary, and that they have been led astray by demons - the same ones that fostered the “queen of heaven” mentioned in scripture. Let us know how you do.

 

[guanophore]

The one thing that bothers me, is the introduction of sin soon after God makes things holy.

As well it should! Our fallen sin nature continues to “bother” us as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are grateful that God is greater than our sins, and that He is able to preserve what He has planted in us.

Your assumption that all that is believed upon by the Catholic Church, is holy, may not be so.

What the Catholic Church teaches comes from Jesus. Are you saying that He taught something “unholy”?

Let us review Biblical history;

1. After The Lord God Almighty begot His Son (Jesus Christ), He created the angels. Soon we find that one of them wanted to be ‘The Christ’, leading to the creation of satan.

This sounds like history according to Thorwald to me! You cannot support such a statement with scripture.

1. God created Adam & Eve (son and daughter of The Lord God Almighty). Before they could reproduce, they sinned,
2. After the flood, one of Noah’s sons sinned, by looking upon Noah’s naked body.
3. The Israelites began to sin in the desert, while Moses was receiving the 10 commandments from God.

We see all kinds of interventions made by The Lord God Almighty, on behalf of man, and soon after, man sins again. How can we be sure, that Roman Catholicism is as righteous as you claim it to be,

I never made any claim that “Roman Catholicism” is righteous.

However, The reason that the Catholic Church is Holy is because Jesus made her that way. If you cannot understand that Jesus gave His life to purify His Bride, then you have a deficient view of the Church.

when history seems to lean in the opposite direction.

What history is that, pray?

Satan must have infiltrated it at some point, just as he has affected the Protestant religion.

Satan surely does know who to attack. He has been attacking the Church since the day it was born.

Look at the different 'churches' referenced in the book of Revelation. None are identical in their 'report card'. Just a thought. :)

You are confusing the sinful behavior of fallen men with the Holy and Pure Bride to which they are attached. It is wrong to lay the sins of men blamefully at the feet of Christ. God does not will that men should sin.

 

[distracted]

I find it hard to believe that any Christian ‘hates’ anyone. Anyone who hates another person, has no God in them (per the N/T scripture). We 'hate evil acts and words, only.

i read in this book about a woman who was having some trouble finding an address… was driving aroiund and stopped on side of road to read map or something… This woman stopped beside her & she asked (through closed window of the other car) if she could help her find her way. The woman refused to roll the window down. To back up, the lost woman had a bumper sticker on her car saying something about how she followed the pope. The woman in the other car started mouthing something and the lost woman realized she was mouthing the words “I hate the pope”.

I just thought this was interesting. … i guess some people can’t just disagree with someone, they have to hate him.

 

[Thorwald]

As well it should! Our fallen sin nature continues to “bother” us as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are grateful that God is greater than our sins, and that He is able to preserve what He has planted in us.

I agree. It is written, that God has ways to keep the righteous/godly, righteous/godly until the end (and visa versa). Even the apostle (I think Paul), mentioned that his heart was with God, but the body can sin, as we can be 'taken by surprise by satan. An example of this, is if a person stubs their toe. Does this person immediately thank God for letting satan tempt them, or does this person utter an ‘ungodly’ exclamation?

What the Catholic Church teaches comes from Jesus. Are you saying that He taught something “unholy”?

What I am saying, is that the Word of God is holy, but our interpretaion may not be correct, nor all of the ‘activities’ that we carry out in order to worship God. (ie. I am sure that Aaron’s sons meant no harm in adding incense to the offering, but God killed them.) We see babies being baptized, when baptism in the scripture is used only after a person accepts Christ as saviour, after asking for forgiveness for their sins, and desires to start a new life as a Christian.

This sounds like history according to Thorwald to me! You cannot support such a statement with scripture.

I do not understand your response. Jesus states that, “before the world was, I am.” He also states, that He is looking forward to returning to the glory that He had, before the world was. Satan wanted to become “God” (which includes The Lord God Almighty and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ). We know that satan would know that he couldn’t become The Lord God Almighty, and since Christ is a Son of God, and satan is a son of God (created lower than Christ), what is your problem? We can tell from the book of Job, that satan had to have permission from The Lord God Almighty, before he could tempt Job. He was also told, that he could not break a single bone of Job. What do you find offensive in my posting?

I never made any claim that “Roman Catholicism” is righteous.

You claim that the RC Church is holy. It stands to reason, that all of its teachings and activities must be holy (righteous/godly). God has nothing to do with the evil works of satan. I don’t understand what you are trying to say in the above statement.

However, The reason that the Catholic Church is Holy is because Jesus made her that way. If you cannot understand that Jesus gave His life to purify His Bride, then you have a deficient view of the Church.

You make a very big assumption, that “HIs Bride” is totally equivalent to “The Catholic Church”. I don’t find any such scripture to back this up.

What history is that, pray?

The Biblical history that I itemized at the beginning of my posted thread.

Satan surely does know who to attack. He has been attacking the Church since the day it was born.

Satan attacks “people”. Each person will be judged in the end.

You are confusing the sinful behavior of fallen men with the Holy and Pure Bride to which they are attached. It is wrong to lay the sins of men blamefully at the feet of Christ. God does not will that men should sin.

I would never in my life, blame Christ for mankind’s evil. Where did you get such a notion?

 

[jblake]

guanophore;:

The problem arose from Him standing against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

You are forgeting that the Bishop of Rome, under Canon law, should have excommunicated the Bishop of Rome, and virtually all of the clergy of that time, for the continual, and unrepentant acts of simony that they committed.

jonathon

 

[catholic_daddy]

There is no need to “dance”, Not your daddy’s catholic boy. The Catholic Church teaches according to the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, that worship of anything or anyone other than Almighty God is idolatry. Catholics would be in mortal sin for such behavior, and would fail to attain heaven.

There are a couple errors in your thinking here. One is that the Catholic faith is “bible based”. A church that is “bible based” must find all of it’s doctrines (supposedly) in the Bible. The Catholic faith comes from Jesus Himself, and was delivered whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The Apostles knew that Jesus was the King of Heaven, and that Mary was His mother. To understand the relationship, you must study the role of the gebirah in Hebrew culture. You can get a glimpse if you look at the way Solomon treated his mother.

Of course, yes, I know that there are many that misunderstand the Scripture and the Teachings of Jesus, and do not understand the honor of His choice for His mother.

The other error is that this understanding of Mary is not “Roman” as you seem to believe. all the Churches planted by Apostles have this understanding from them about the role of Mary, some who have no love lost on Rome.

Do yourself a favor, go to the Orthodox forum, and convince them that they are mistaken about Mary, and that they have been led astray by demons - the same ones that fostered the “queen of heaven” mentioned in scripture. Let us know how you do.

One of the truest things you have ever said is that “the Catholic church is not Bible based.” It is the reason you have to make up reasons for your sick obsession with Mary that is foreign to Scripture and prophetically cursed in the OT passage denouncing worship of the Queen of Heaven!!

No amount of copping out by pleading with us to believe that errrrrrrrr…stating that Jesus founded what is now the Roman Catholic Church will let you off the hook. No sir, the RCC is definitely not Bible based!!! But not to worry, you’ll just claim bogus divine privilege and then negate key scripture.

One more thing–I love Roman Catholics. But I have a mountainous disdain for teaching that prevents souls from knowing true salvation by grace through faith in the FINISHED and all-sufficient work of the cross. It is a “another gospel”. A gospel of amazingless grace.

 

[Protestant101]

If this is enough history for you, then you are very intellectually shallow.

Actually, I think that a lot of people who have taken martial arts develop this kind of thinking about others. But one thing they should know is that there are many styles of “fighting” and a weak spot in every one of them.

Speaking of “intelligence” you might want to consider ALL of the possiblities that could exist, regarding God’s use of “one” in the Bible. Which text/texts from the Bible are you referring to when you say “one Church?”

 

[catholic_daddy]

You are forgeting that the Bishop of Rome, under Canon law, should have excommunicated the Bishop of Rome, and virtually all of the clergy of that time, for the continual, and unrepentant acts of simony that they committed.

jonathon

Their lamstand had already been yanked out of its place long befor that. That’s why there were and have been so many abuses. Actually both the cause and result.

 

[Matariel]

One of the truest things you have ever said is that “the Catholic church is not Bible based.”

It isn’t; it’s Jesus-based. The Bible canon was formed 300 years after the Church already existed. But the Bible is the Book of the Church.

It is the reason you have to make up reasons for your sick obsession with Mary that is foreign to Scripture and prophetically cursed in the OT passage denouncing worship of the Queen of Heaven!!

Um… you did know that that Old-Testament reference was a reference to Astarte, don’t you? Mary wasn’t even born yet back then.

One more thing–I love Roman Catholics. But I have a mountainous disdain for teaching that prevents souls from knowing true salvation by grace through faith in the FINISHED and all-sufficient work of the cross. It is a “another gospel”. A gospel of amazingless grace.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said: “Millions of people hate what they the believe the Catholic Church to be, not what it really is.”

How true.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Well, okay, you were right about the g. That is something we can agree on then. I have actually heard of two of those men, Billy Graham and Charles Stanley, I know some Lutherans who like them. Correction, three, isn’t Franklin Graham, Billy’s son?

Obviously I care, you apparently read my signature.

**
Hi Allhers,

Yes, Billy Graham passed his Multimillion dollar Business along to his son Franklin! You have to respect Billy Graham. He was a super salesman, he would have even been a super car salesman if that was what was what he choose to sell! **

Stupidest quote on the Internet this week!

Protestant101:

"Jesus was a Protestant. Thats easy to see in the Bible. "

**
Hi Prot, So you think Jesus protested against his own church? OK! Does that also make Him His own Anti-Christ? Please go back to your cult leaders and tell them You missed something and need to re re-taught in Lies101! **

Protestants have existed as long as Catholics

**1517AD verses 33AD, Only off by almost 1,500 years! Your delusions are getting worse. Are you also paranoid? Your cult has been aroung since only 1863 right? **

 

[catholic_daddy]

It isn’t; it’s Jesus-based. The Bible canon was formed 300 years after the Church already existed. But the Bible is the Book of the Church.

Um… you did know that that Old-Testament reference was a reference to Astarte, don’t you? Mary wasn’t even born yet back then.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said: “Millions of people hate what they the believe the Catholic Church to be, not what it really is.”

How true.

Of course I knew that wasn’t immediately referring to Mary. But God has a way of forshadowing things to come. When Daviid said “My God my God why hast thou forsaken me”, Jesus hadn’t yet come on the earthly seen yet either. But pagan mother and child worship is an ancient, demon-inspired practice.

 

[catholic_daddy]

You are forgeting that the Bishop of Rome, under Canon law, should have excommunicated the Bishop of Rome, and virtually all of the clergy of that time, for the continual, and unrepentant acts of simony that they committed.

jonathon

Their lampstand had already been yanked out of its place long before that. That’s why there were and have been so many abuses. Actually both the cause and result