John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Shannon9791]

I go by the Word of God. I have said this to you before. I do not use private judgement this would go against what God says in His Word. I also don’t feel like im in a corner lol. I know what i know by the Word of God not by what any church or priest has taught me.

Who gave you the authority to interpret Scripture in the ways you see it? You say you know what you know by the Word of God, so did one day you just pick up the Bible and start reading and decide that what you think about it is right?

 

[RonaldH]

If you had a better understanding of the meaning/intention of the word Church… you might understand that the Catholic Church is actually still the only Church on the face of the earth.

When Christ introduced the word in Matt 16 it was the first use of the word Church in Scripture. (not used in the OT).

**Jesus declared He would build it **(not a man, and not an inventor of another form of faith, be it “ana-Baptists” or whatever.

He declared it would be His, not Calvin’s , Luther’s or whatever.

and He declared it to be singular, not Churches. The whole concept of this one Church as described in ACTS, as referenced by St Paul, and as universally understood by all the world for centuries was one Church. You can refer to it as “The Way”, as ACTS does, or as Catholic, as St Ignatius did around 100AD. But you cannot refer to it as Baptist, as Lutheran, as Pentacostal. Including the word Church into your faith community is your mistake. Granted the current use of church is quite common. The Yellow Pages will let anyone call their faith community a church.

But I would prefer to use words as they were meant when the human authors (no ana-Baptists there) were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write much (not all) of what was passed on them by the Lord Himself.

There will be One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism. There will be one New Jerusalem and one one Heaven.

You can call me or any Catholic arrogant. That might be true if we though I or we could convert you the the Church and faith Jesus gave us. But we can not. Only God can convert you. Our obligation is to defend His Truth, explain it as we can, and share it with you. I am very blessed to have been born into the Church of the Saints in Heaven, and with that comes more responsibility.

I apologize if you misunderstand the Faith, and call the defense of it ignorant. Obviously you have issues with all things Catholic and have walked away. Those in John 6 also walked away. The great gift of free will allows you to do just that.

I have the faith that allows me to believe in Christ… and more so, to believe in EVERYTHING He passed on to the Apostles.

Your Triune baptism makes you a member of the Body of Christ. You are part of the family. But you have chosen to live outside the House of God… kinda like being in the back yard in a tent, throwing verbal stones at the Church and her members.

.

Is it acceptable in this forum to disagree? You make statements extremely authoritatively. I believe you are wrong. Umm so, is it then a debate to try and convince someone against their will? During the Inquisition the Roman church killed millions of people under the conviction that contrary beliefs of heresay justify such inhuman action. I understand that the Roman church today regrets those years. How well of an historian are you? The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called “miraculous conversion” to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reigns of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine’s titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops). The Baptists have never truly allowed themselves to referred to as Protestants and even today they would trace their linage to the apostles, but what does that mean to you? I was raised as you, I believed as you, I was as proud of being a Catholic as you. You seem to find comfort in the church’s own declarations of truth, I understand that but it is not the one who says they are right that is right. God’s Word, sola scriptura can be the only measuring stick and it is my opinion the Roman church does not. I do not judge nor criticize you, every man shall give an account of themselves before Him.

 

[Shannon9791]

Is it acceptable in this forum to disagree? You make statements extremely authoritatively. I believe you are wrong. Umm so, is it then a debate to try and convince someone against their will? During the Inquisition the Roman church killed millions of people under the conviction that contrary beliefs of heresay justify such inhuman action. I understand that the Roman church today regrets those years. How well of an historian are you? The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called “miraculous conversion” to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reigns of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine’s titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops). The Baptists have never truly allowed themselves to referred to as Protestants and even today they would trace their linage to the apostles, but what does that mean to you? I was raised as you, I believed as you, I was as proud of being a Catholic as you. You seem to find comfort in the church’s own declarations of truth, I understand that but it is not the one who says they are right that is right. God’s Word, sola scriptura can be the only measuring stick and it is my opinion the Roman church does not. I do not judge nor criticize you, every man shall give an account of themselves before Him.

You have a skewed view of history. As has been asked on here many many times before, where can you find sola scriptura in the Bible? I think it’s about time you started coming with some references.

 

[theistgal]

During the Inquisition the Roman church killed millions of people under the conviction that contrary beliefs of heresay justify such inhuman action.

First of all, they didn’t kill “millions” of people - there weren’t millions of people around in Europe back then.

Second, every church has persecuted someone, as well as being persecuted themselves. Don’t throw stones unless you can prove that your church never persecuted anyone. We’re all sinners in the eyes of God.

Third, it’s “heresy”, not “heresay”. Unless you’re talking about “hearsay”, like the kind of evidence that you’re providing.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Is it acceptable in this forum to disagree? You make statements extremely authoritatively. I believe you are wrong. Umm so, is it then a debate to try and convince someone against their will? During the Inquisition the Roman church killed millions of people under the conviction that contrary beliefs of heresay justify such inhuman action.

There is no such thing as a “Roman Church” - it is the Catholic Church, of which the Roman/Latin Rite is only 1/23. The Church did not kill anyone, people killed people. Although, a friend of mine (who is not Catholic) points out that Europe would be predominately Muslim, had the Christians not fought back and refused to convert to Islam. It was a bloody time in history no matter where or whom you worshiped.

I understand that the Roman church today regrets those years.

There is no “Roman Church” and to continue to refer to the Catholic Church as “Roman” is not very polite. There are 22 other Rites that are just as Catholic, and many of them have representatives here on CAF.

How well of an historian are you?

It was through studying history that I left the Baptist faith community and became Catholic.

The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called “miraculous conversion” to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god.

This shows how little you know of history. Sounds like you’re getting your information about Constantine from the Trail of Blood. I just read a book on Constantine that tells a very different story from what you’re posting here.

Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reigns of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit.

No, what Constantine did was make it LEGAL to practice Christianity publicly. He did what the founders of the United States did in not establishing a state religion. Did you know that Pontifex Maximus means “Bridge Builder”? At any rate, it is NOT one of the Pope’s actual titles.

The popes also inherited Constantine’s titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops).

Actually, many bishops throughout the Church used that title as well, not just the Pope.

The Baptists have never truly allowed themselves to referred to as Protestants and even today they would trace their linage to the apostles, but what does that mean to you?

If a Baptist studied actual history and not the fabrication that is the Trail of Blood and/or Landmarkism, they would know differently. I did that very thing, and I found that the “links” to the Apostles in the Trail of Blood are, upon scrutiny, nothing like Baptists and if a Paulician, Waldensian or Montanist church opened up down the street, no Baptist would darken the threshold and would likely warn all their friends and fellow congregants not to even visit there.

I was raised as you, I believed as you, I was as proud of being a Catholic as you. You seem to find comfort in the church’s own declarations of truth, I understand that but it is not the one who says they are right that is right. God’s Word, sola scriptura can be the only measuring stick and it is my opinion the Roman church does not. I do not judge nor criticize you, every man shall give an account of themselves before Him.

If you were really raised Catholic as you say you were, you would know not to call it the “Roman church.” If you study the Bible you’ll see that it was never meant to be interpreted apart from the Apostolic Teachings. Sola Scriptura is not only unscriptural, it’s anti-Scriptural.

 

[josie_L]

I personally don’t think there is any sort of contradiction between the two. It makes perfect sense to say that you will be rewarded based on your works. Those that have been redeemed WILL do good works. If they have no desire to do so they really need to examine themselves.

Who are the people who have been redeemed? If the answer to your question is people who believe and have faith in the risen Lord, Jesus Christ, then, my next question would be, that being so, does this mean that everyone who believes and has faith in Jesus, does good works? Because I can tell you, that there are a lot of people who claim Jesus is Christ who do NOT do good works. Secondly, if they are not doing good works, then does that mean they will get their reward? It is through our acts of love (works) that we profess our faith. And we know for a fact that it is love that is greater than faith and hope. Without love we are nothing. That is also in scripture. In effect, if we do not have faith working in love, we have a dead faith. Can a dead faith save you? Scripture expressly states we are God’s fellow workers, that we were fashioned to do good works, that will be separated from the goats, that we will bear good fruit, unlike the fig tree that Jesus cursed. We are to follow the law that is emcompassed by a single command “love thy neighbor as thy self.”

1 John 2:3-6

"We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made **complete ** in him. This is how we know we are in him. Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

 

[MrS]

Is it acceptable in this forum to disagree? You make statements extremely authoritatively. I believe you are wrong. Umm so, is it then a debate to try and convince someone against their will? **During the Inquisition the Roman church killed millions of people **under the conviction that contrary beliefs of heresay justify such inhuman action. I understand that the Roman church today regrets those years. How well of an historian are you? The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called “miraculous conversion” to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. …
The Baptists have never truly allowed themselves to referred to as Protestants and even today they would trace their linage to the apostles, but what does that mean to you? I was raised as you, I believed as you, I was as proud of being a Catholic as you. You seem to find comfort in the church’s own declarations of truth, I understand that but it is not the one who says they are right that is right. God’s Word, sola scriptura can be the only measuring stick and it is my opinion the Roman church does not. I do not judge nor criticize you, every man shall give an account of themselves before Him.

If you have any access to history, you will find that the Spanish kept EXCELLENT court records and testimony records. Those records will show that perhaps… perhaps… as many as 3,000, and no more than 5,000 people were executed in the Inquisition. And not all were on “religious” charges.

There were approximately as many as 9 million people in that whole part of the world. Yet non-Catholics have declared the Church killed 9 Million. hahahahaha

Even one person, was one person too many.

now…

would you be able to give me some numbers of those executed by the Protestants on clearly religious charges.??? hhmmmm??

Another poster has corrected your misunderstanding of Catholic and Roman Catholic. But the Church which Jesus founded was born with His incarnation… and celebrates its public birth at Pentecost. Even protestant histories attest to that.

312 was simply the year in which the persecutions of the Church were ordered to cease, and the Church became a recognized religion. Kinda hard to stop a persecution, or recognize an entity that did not exist, wouldn’t ya say?

Baptists cannot trace their history past the start of their history. They may have adopted some… some… of the beliefs of early Christianity… but they are one of the new kids on the block.

Their claim of longevity, as “declared” in the River Of Blood has been easily refuted… probably 9 million times

.

 

[ppasa316]

Who gave you the authority to interpret Scripture in the ways you see it? You say you know what you know by the Word of God, so did one day you just pick up the Bible and start reading and decide that what you think about it is right?

God has given us the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. Like i said before its not my way its Gods Word. The Bible is pretty easy to understand. I listen to other Godly Men like John MacArthur, My Pastor and read commentaries to make sure that i am not off base. Like the subject of purgatory. So how do you interpret the Scripture. Are you a Berean or do you just agree with everything you hear.

 

[ppasa316]

Sure, ok., fine. Let’s go to Scriptures. But before we do, can you assure me that your interpretation of the Scriptures will be infallible? I mean, for you to explain Scripture to me you will have to convince me that you have the absolute, correct, definitive commentary on the verses you choose to discuss in order for me to believe you.

In other words, you will have to convince me that your teachings or oral tradition is absolutely, positively correct. And just remember that when you do give me your explanation of whatever verses you choose to discuss, your explanation will be extra-biblical; translated, not found in the Bible. You will then be setting yourself up as THE infallible magisterial teacher for the rest of us, Protestants included.

But, if you choose to take this route, you will be denying probably the most important dogma of all of Protestantism, that of private judgement.

So, you see, you and the rest of our esteemed non-Catholic Christian brethren posting on these threads have really painted yourselfs into a corner.

Do you understand any of this? Again, I question your epistemology (How do you know what you know?) :hey_bud:

You send me a private message for this. If you were that smart you would have seen that i have already reponded to this message. LOL No More private messages unless you have a topic to speak about with scripture to please. LOL:thumbsup:

 

[Pixie_Dust]

God has given us the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture.

Where is that in the Bible? Chapter and verse, please.

Like i said before its not my way its Gods Word. The Bible is pretty easy to understand. I listen to other Godly Men like John MacArthur, My Pastor and read commentaries to make sure that i am not off base. Like the subject of purgatory. So how do you interpret the Scripture. Are you a Berean or do you just agree with everything you hear.

So then, what do you do when John MacArthur, your pastor, and commentaries have different interpretations?

If the Bible was really as easy to understand as you say it is, there wouldn’t be 30,000 protestant denominations, each with conflicting and contradictory doctrines, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit in their understanding of the Scriptures. Whose Holy Spirit do you listen to then?

 

[MrS]

God has given us the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. Like i said before its not my way its Gods Word. The Bible is pretty easy to understand. I listen to other Godly Men like John MacArthur, My Pastor and read commentaries to make sure that i am not off base. Like the subject of purgatory. So how do you interpret the Scripture. Are you a Berean or do you just agree with everything you hear.

The Bereans TESTED what they HEARD by checking the OT to see if there was any contradiction…

The never said, nor did St Paul even imply that the Bereans believed **only **what was clear in the OT.

.

 

[MrS]

Where is that in the Bible? Chapter and verse, please.

So then, what do you do when John MacArthur, your pastor, and commentaries have different interpretations?

If the Bible was really as easy to understand as you say it is, there wouldn’t be 30,000 protestant denominations, each with conflicting and contradictory doctrines, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit in their understanding of the Scriptures. Whose Holy Spirit do you listen to then?

Well, we know one thing for sure… at LEAST all but one of them is wrong.

.

 

[rtconstant]

It’s ironical isn’t it? Papal infallibility and the Papacy brings such terror to some non-Catholic Christians, yet they want us to reject one Pope only to accept another

God bless

This is at the heart of the issue. Authority, is the basis for all the disagreements between Protestantism and the Church. Who, has it, and who wants it?

It is no accident that the Reformation took place at the close of the middle Ages when, States were solidifying and the middle class began to grow. As prosperity spread more people got more control over their individual lives. As nations became more centralized, and xenophobic, they resented outside influences. As wealth became more abundant people became more jealous of what they had. This is why Christ said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

When one has power, even a little they want to hold on to it. These changes in the times weakened the concept of Christendom. So as the the dream of a unified Christian realm died Protestantism was born. At the root of Protestant ideology is self government, and council. Even the Bible which is supposedly the “rule of faith” ultimately is made subject to the opinions, feelings, and interpretations of the individual Protestant. Each Protestant wanted to be a Pope.

Notice that while Luther and Calvin were condemning the Papacy they were setting themselves up as the final arbiters of proper belief. Luther took it upon himself to decide what books, should be in the Bible. Calvin would kill theologians for disagreeing with him. It is interesting that probably the single most affective reformer during the reformation was King Henry VIII. He was possibly the most honest as well. He didn’t even pretend to have any doctrinal problem with the Church, he simply did not want anyone having authority over him. He was a sign of the times.

When a doctrine is to hard some denomination will just drop it. If being active in your Faith is to difficult then just forget about it and say “Faith” is all it takes. If you think you ought to be rich, then just start believing that God owes you wealth if you have right amount of faith. If really don’t want to do anything just say God has already decided if you’re going to go to Hell or not, so just sit back and if you happen to be saved then yay, if not, well you couldn’t do anything about it to begin with. Maybe if you like attention you can say that one must be able to “speak in tongues” like you can? Maybe if you don’t want you Church to share its money with other Churches in your denomination you can just declare yourself independent and make a weak claim that all things should be handled by “local congregations alone”. Maybe if you really don’t like any authority you can even say the Bible is in error and just define your own religion on a day by day basis. Or maybe call yourself a prophet, or a bishop, or an Apostle!

Yet even with all of that Protestants will still Ironically accuse the Church of following the “traditions of man”, while they follow traditions invented by themselves, or their pastors.

 

[rtconstant]

God has given us the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. Like i said before its not my way its Gods Word. The Bible is pretty easy to understand. I listen to other Godly Men like John MacArthur, My Pastor and read commentaries to make sure that i am not off base. Like the subject of purgatory. So how do you interpret the Scripture. Are you a Berean or do you just agree with everything you hear.

So then I would have to assume that the Holy Spirit speaks just to you. Because there are a whole lot of Protestants with different beliefs than you. Why won’t the Holy Spirit teach them infallibly like he has you?

 

[Protestant101]

Who gave you the authority to interpret Scripture in the ways you see it? You say you know what you know by the Word of God, so did one day you just pick up the Bible and start reading and decide that what you think about it is right?

It is not “private judgment” in the biblical sense, to read the Bible and then tell others what you have read, and how you see it. This is where Catholics are very wrong.

Jesus Himself encouraged people to go through this process. But if I tell you where, I will have to endure a litany of accusations regarding “private interpretation.”

 

[Protestant101]

This is at the heart of the issue. Authority, is the basis for all the disagreements between Protestantism and the Church. Who, has it, and who wants it?

When one has power, even a little they want to hold on to it. These changes in the times weakened the concept of Christendom.

Nothing can weaken the “concept” of Christianity; it is easy to see how God has always been in control of the affairs of the nations; and of His people.

Authority is indeed the issue at at stake here. Roman Catholicism is aggressively pursuing authority over all religions and nations.

With Roman Catholic leadership; there is no such thing as “ecumenism.” Or “unity.” All they are talking about is submission to the Pope.

 

[Protestant101]

Where is that in the Bible? Chapter and verse, please.

So then, what do you do when John MacArthur, your pastor, and commentaries have different interpretations?

This kind of thing should never be a problem. It is normal for some to see things differently - it is also normal for them to discuss it, and decipher wherein lies their differences. Being at a different level of understanding is not wrong - nor can you relegate this kind of thing to just Protestants, and your “denomination” dogma. The same kind of differences occur within Catholic Churches too. How To Interpret The Bible is a lifelong study - and I am glad to belong to a Church where people are accepted, at all their various stages of understanding.

This whole thing about “30,000” denominations is a fine strawman;(as well as grossly unproven and embellished) but it is really only a pretense for the “authority” that Catholics desire. I think that if people realized just how much; and what kind of authority Catholicism really wants - they would definitely accept the “Lifejacket” Protestants give them, before they get to the other side of the Tiber.

MacArthur tried to throw out the “Lifejacket” to Catholics in his ministry. I have always appreciated him for his efforts there.

 

[JustMe88]

For those who keep posting about the “millions” of deaths during the inquisitions:
There were two major Inquisitions, the Medieval Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition. Although there are no exact numbers, scholars believe they have estimated Inquisition deaths reasonably accurately. There were not as many deaths as the popular press claims. Numbers have often been inflated to as high as 9 million by the popular press, with absolutely no scholarly research. This figure is completely erroneous. A broad range of scholars, many of whom were not Catholic, have carefully studied the Inquisitions. They looked at all the existing records and were able to extrapolate. In the Medieval Inquisition, Bernard Gui was one of the most notorious of the medieval inquisitors. (so much so that the sick modern pornography industry has turned him into a hero). He tried 930 people out of which 42 were executed (4.5%). Another famous Inquisitor was Jacques Fournier who tried 114 cases of which 5 were executed (4.3%). Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD)

According to public news reports the book’s editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people). Most of these deaths occurred in the first decade and a half of the Inquisition’s 350 year history. In Portugal of the 13,000 tried in the 16th and early 17th century 5.7% were said to have been condemned to death. News articles did not report if Portugal’s higher percentage included those sentenced to death in effigy (i.e. an image burnt instead of the actual person). For example, historian Gustav Henningsen reported that statistical tabulations of 50,000 recorded cases tried by nineteen Spanish tribunals between 1540-1700 found 775 people (1.7%) were actually executed while another 700 (1.4%) were sentenced to death in effigy (“El ‘banco de datos’ del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición española, 1550-1700”, BRAH, 174, 1977). Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that “in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances” (The Holocaust in Historical Context, 1994).

During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all “guilty” sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn’t even know about it. The Inquisition was not applied to Jews or Moslems, unless they were baptised as Christians.

If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church. This is about 20% of the number of war related deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2 years since the US responded to 9/11.

Another thing to note is that the Spanish Inquisition, in a wrong way, may have saved some lives. In many European countries in the 16th century, religious wars were the cause of tens of thousands of deaths. But in Spain, there was political and religious unity as a result of the Inquisition, and there was no such war.

Nevertheless, the Inquisition tortures and death were inexcusable. I echo the voice of John Paul II “Forgive us Lord, Never Again”

 

[JustMe88]

This kind of thing should never be a problem. It is normal for some to see things differently - it is also normal for them to discuss it, and decipher wherein lies their differences. Being at a different level of understanding is not wrong - nor can you relegate this kind of thing to just Protestants, and your “denomination” dogma. The same kind of differences occur within Catholic Churches too. How To Interpret The Bible is a lifelong study - and I am glad to belong to a Church where people are accepted, at all their various stages of understanding.

This whole thing about “30,000” denominations is a fine strawman;(as well as grossly unproven and embellished) but it is really only a pretense for the “authority” that Catholics desire. I think that if people realized just how much; and what kind of authority Catholicism really wants - they would definitely accept the “Lifejacket” Protestants give them, before they get to the other side of the Tiber.

MacArthur tried to throw out the “Lifejacket” to Catholics in his ministry. I have always appreciated him for his efforts there.

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the 30,000 number. Whenever I have heard the figure it is said to include demonimations and independent churches (like some of the mega churches in the South).

Authority is the biggest stumbling block for most protestants, myself included for many years. Especially as Americans, we bristle at the idea of a “supreme leader”. It goes against our democratic ideals.

The RCC has lasted 2000 years despite the failings and frailties of it’s leaders. Despite many years of corrupt pontiffs. That tends to be a strong argument that it is the Church of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Is it acceptable in this forum to disagree?

NOt at all! The disagreements are why we are here!

You make statements extremely authoritatively.

The teaching of Jesus is 100% authoritative.

I believe you are wrong. Umm so, is it then a debate to try and convince someone against their will?

No. Everyone should be free to reject the teaching of Jesus.

During the Inquisition the Roman church killed millions of people under the conviction that contrary beliefs of heresay justify such inhuman action.

YOur figures are a bit off, and it was not “the Church” who killed them but ruthless men who claimed to be Catholic.

I agree, they used heresy as a justification for heinous acts.

I understand that the Roman church today regrets those years.  How well of an historian are you?

Perhaps better than you are a grammarian.

The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D.,

It seems that your history is as off as your grammar. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and it was started by Jesus. You may be referring to the decrimminalizaiton of the faith.

Apparently you have been indoctrinated by anti-Catholic polemics that have little basis in history. You are correct, though, there was an Emperor named Constantine,and there was a Bishop of Rome. However, the Emperor had no authority to do anything with the appointment of bishops.

However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire –

The family of Constantine was never involved in the Catholic priesthood.

that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine’s titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops).

The Roman Bishop assumed secular authority when the seat of the Empire was transferred to Constantinople. This authority over the secular matters of the region did not make them Pagan, or the Church Pagan. For what it is worth, though, I think taking the title was a a mistake.

The Baptists have never truly allowed themselves to referred to as Protestants and even today they would trace their linage to the apostles, but what does that mean to you?

It means that the Baptists have an erroneous self perception.

I was raised as you, I believed as you, I was as proud of being a Catholic as you. You seem to find comfort in the church’s own declarations of truth, I understand that but it is not the one who says they are right that is right.

If this is true, then it makes sense that you have fallen away from the faith.

God’s Word, sola scriptura can be the only measuring stick and it is my opinion the Roman church does not. I do not judge nor criticize you, every man shall give an account of themselves before Him.

No, Ronald. Sola Scriptura is an extrabiblical heretical doctrine. It is not “the only measuring stick”. I respect your opinion (even though it appears to be based upon misinformation) that the Roman Church is not the “measuring stick”. You may come to find, if you stay here, that you have been given a great deal of wrong information.

[/QUOTE]