Protestant saying hello

[wisdomseeker]

I think this definition is good one for your question:
The kingdom of God is the rule of an eternal sovereign God over all creatures and things (Psalms 103:19; Daniel 4:3). The kingdom of God is also the designation for the sphere of salvation entered into at the new birth (John 3:5-7), and is synonymous with the “kingdom of heaven.”

The kingdom of God embraces all created intelligence, both in heaven and earth that are willingly subject to the Lord and are in fellowship with him. The kingdom of God is therefore, universal in that it includes created angels and men. It is eternal, as God is eternal, and it is spiritual—found within all born-again believers. We enter the kingdom of God when we are born again, and we are then part of that kingdom for eternity. It is a relationship “born of the spirit” (John 3:5) and we have confident assurance that it is so because the Spirit bears witness with our spirits (Romans 8:16).

Thank you! you just described the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

:bowdown:

 

[johnnydigit]

guanophore;3468641]
JA4. Jesus came and He set up a kingdom, if His kingdom is not the Church what do you think it is?

“oh well… it wasn’t THAT kind of kingdom he set up, it was that one other one… er something, ya… oh wait i know, the one in heaven, not on earth, silly! it’s at hand? well… he didn’t mean it was here, he meant it was about to happen. yeah, i knows it. that’s how i sees it, and that’s how it is. i knows it because the wholly spirits indwelleth withins me.”

 

[justasking4]

Thank you! you just described the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

:bowdown:

Then were back to my question: where in the NT is the church referred to the kingdom of God?

 

[justasking4]

“oh well… it wasn’t THAT kind of kingdom he set up, it was that one other one… er something, ya… oh wait i know, the one in heaven, not on earth, silly! it’s at hand? well… he didn’t mean it was here, he meant it was about to happen. yeah, i knows it. that’s how i sees it, and that’s how it is. i knows it because the wholly spirits indwelleth withins me.”

i noticed these statements below your comment:

"HEY, THAT’S NOT BIBLICAL!

“Pray the Rosary everyday.” -Our Lady of Fatima

“Make frequent visits to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and the devil will be powerless against you.” -St. John Bosco"

Are you saying these things are not Biblical? If yes, then you would be correct…

 

[jmcrae]

Thats just it. Its my understanding that when catholics defend their church they are doing so believing they are correctly interpreting what the catholic church teaches.

So, if you ask a child about a principle of Mathematics, for example, and he explains it wrongly, do you then assume that Mathematics is an unreliable discipline of science?

Where does the idea come from that the “Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit”?

Acts 2.

Not so. The catholic church is one of the worst violators of this principle. If it took this principle seriously and let it guide it in the formation of doctrine and practice it would never arrive at many of its unbiblical doctrines and practices.

The Church has no “unbiblical” doctrines or practices.

So you agree then that the unity that Christ prayed for is absent in the catholic church also since this is also true of the catholic church? Surely we would agree that catholics themselves are not in perfect unity with the catholic church?

Nobody on earth is. The members of the Church who are in Heaven are, of course, perfectly united with it. Here on earth, though, we are all trying to be Catholic, with varying degrees of success.

So the bottom line is that you and other catholics have no source you can go to if you want to know the correct interpretation of a verse or passage?

Personally, I use the footnotes in my Douay Rheims Bible, which are cross-referenced to various Papal encyclicals. I also use my common sense and rely on Church teaching. If the Church says that Mary is immaculately conceived, then the strange salutation of St. Gabriel - “Hail, full of grace” - suddenly makes perfect sense.

Even though you believe that the Scriptures are to be understood as a whole, you cannot tell if the details are used properly to fit the whole since you don’t know the correct individual meaning of a given verse. This puts you at a serve disadvantage in understanding the scriptures and it also points to why so many catholics are incapable of discerning the doctrines and practices of their church is biblical or not.

If you know your Catechism well and participate in the liturgies of the Church, especially the Mass, then it will not be difficult for you to discern the meaning of the Scriptures.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Then were back to my question: where in the NT is the church referred to the kingdom of God?

you just gave the references, or wasnt you?

:knight2:

 

[wisdomseeker]

Then were back to my question: where in the NT is the church referred to the kingdom of God?

Mat. 13: 24, 18, 31, 36, 44, 47, 51, Mustard seed, parable of Yeast,

Luke and Marks

 

[wisdomseeker]

i noticed these statements below your comment:

"HEY, THAT’S NOT BIBLICAL!

“Pray the Rosary everyday.” -Our Lady of Fatima

“Make frequent visits to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and the devil will be powerless against you.” -St. John Bosco"

Are you saying these things are not Biblical? If yes, then you would be correct…

No JA4, that is not what he said. perhaps we should change your name to UNABLETOSEETHELIGHT.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3469584]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Thats just it. Its my understanding that when catholics defend their church they are doing so believing they are correctly interpreting what the catholic church teaches.

jmcrae
So, if you ask a child about a principle of Mathematics, for example, and he explains it wrongly, do you then assume that Mathematics is an unreliable discipline of science?

Of course not. I would then re-explain the principle and have him try again. This is part of the problem with catholic doctrines. It has what it believes to be the answer but when you apply the principle to their answer they don’t jive in many cases.

Quote: justasking4
Where does the idea come from that the “Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit”?

jmcrae
Acts 2.

In what verse leads you to think this?

Quote: justasking4
Not so. The catholic church is one of the worst violators of this principle. If it took this principle seriously and let it guide it in the formation of doctrine and practice it would never arrive at many of its unbiblical doctrines and practices.

jmcrae
The Church has no “unbiblical” doctrines or practices.

When i say something is unbiblical i mean that its not mention, taught or exhorted in the Scriptures. Take for example Mary’s assumption. Its not mentioned or even hinted at in the NT and is therefore an unbibilical belief.

Quote: justasking4
So you agree then that the unity that Christ prayed for is absent in the catholic church also since this is also true of the catholic church? Surely we would agree that catholics themselves are not in perfect unity with the catholic church?

jmcrae
Nobody on earth is. The members of the Church who are in Heaven are, of course, perfectly united with it. Here on earth, though, we are all trying to be Catholic, with varying degrees of success.

So they very thing catholics accuse protestants of (no unity but chaos) is not even found in the catholic church.

Quote: justasking4
So the bottom line is that you and other catholics have no source you can go to if you want to know the correct interpretation of a verse or passage?

jmcrae
Personally, I use the footnotes in my Douay Rheims Bible, which are cross-referenced to various Papal encyclicals.

Do you know if there is an online edition of this with the footnotes? i checked briefly and did not find this bible with the footnotes.

I also use my common sense and rely on Church teaching. If the Church says that Mary is immaculately conceived, then the strange salutation of St. Gabriel - “Hail, full of grace” - suddenly makes perfect sense.

This is what makes discussing these doctrines so difficult to discern if they are biblical or true is that they do appear to be rational i.e. common sense but lack bibical truth. If you were to look the phrase “full of grace” in a greek lexicon you would not find in the meaning the idea that she was without sin her entire life.

Quote: justasking4
Even though you believe that the Scriptures are to be understood as a whole, you cannot tell if the details are used properly to fit the whole since you don’t know the correct individual meaning of a given verse. This puts you at a serve disadvantage in understanding the scriptures and it also points to why so many catholics are incapable of discerning the doctrines and practices of their church is biblical or not.

jmcrae
If you know your Catechism well and participate in the liturgies of the Church, especially the Mass, then it will not be difficult for you to discern the meaning of the Scriptures.

i don’t know about you but all the catholics i know in my personal life (including some priests) who have gone to mass hundreds if not thousands of times don’t strike me as being that knowledgeable of the scriptures. Perhaps this is just my expierence and not reflective of other catholics.

---

 

[guanophore]

Thats just it. Its my understanding that when catholics defend their church they are doing so believing they are correctly interpreting what the catholic church teaches.

I am sure that we all do our best. The fact is, however, that there is one standard, and those of us that fall short of it are not Catholic to that extent. You have suggested that we use the commentary of scholars who do not adhere to the doctrines as a standard, and this is not a good method to use to evaluate the teaching of the Church.

If you mean by “This Teaching comes to us from Jesus through the Apostles, and that is why it is infallible” is the NT Scriptures then i agree. I don’t agree if by it you mean all its Traditions that cannot be found in the NT.

There is One Deposit of Faith that has come to us both in the Written and Oral form. It is not that the Sacred Traditions are 'not in the NT", it is more a matter of how what is written in the NT is to be understood and applied. All the doctrines of the Church are also found in the Scriptures. It is not appropriate to separate the two.

Where does the idea come from that the “Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit”?

When Jesus breathed upon the disciples, and said “receive the HS”, the HS began to dwell within and among the believers. Jesus promised that this Spirit would guide them into all truth.
The Apostles did not need to rely upon their own fallible minds and souls to keep the Word pure, because the HS was there watching over the Word to perform it.

That would be great if only that were true. It has already been demonstrated a number of times where the catholic church has erred in a number of areas.

I think you are confusing the actions of fallible men, joined to the members of Christ’s Body, with the Infallible, Holy, and pure Bride of Christ. He upholds Her in HIs truth, and that is why she is pure.

If not, then perhaps you perceive error where none exists, as seems to be the case when you state that the sons of Ishmael do not worship the God of Abraham.

That is absolutely true. That’s why any claim of infalliblity by any church is absurd.

You are mixing apples and oranges, ja4. Fallible men can do perfect things. This is how God used fallible men to write, preserve, and canonize the Bible. Fallible men can make infallible decisions, too. This is not done by their own power or ability, but by the grace of God. When you say things like this, you indict your own Scriputure, which came through fallible men. You also show that you are unaware of the true nature of the Church, since you deny that She has divine, holy, and pure elements.

No the scriptures are not in error but i could be just as you could be since no man is infallible. However this statement in Acts 9:5 is not specifically referring to the church but to the followers of Christ.

3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. Acts 8:3

Acts 9:1
9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord,

Acts 9:3-7
4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

You are wrong, ja4. The community of the disciples of the Lord is the Church, and the Church is the Body of Christ. Jesus identifies Himself completely with the Church.

Col 1:18
18 He is the head of the body, the church;"

This distinction needs to be kept in mind since if we say it is a direct reference to the church then this would bring shame on the name of Christ (look at the history of the catholic church). Secondly, the church is also composed of unbelievers who in reality are not of the true church i.e. those who have truly professed Christ.

I agree that a distinction needs to be kept in mind that the Church is much more than just the fallible members of her that are here on earth. I also agree that believers, when they do not follow the commandments, do bring shame to the name of Christ. however, to lay this at the feet of Christ is wrong. And secondly, there are no unbelievers in the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and one can only be a member of the body by grace, through faith. Yes, there are people that sit in the pews that don’t believe. They are not part of the Body. This is why we say it is a mystical body, only the Lord knows who are His. Unbelief automatically places one outside the Church.

Not so. The catholic church is one of the worst violators of this principle. If it took this principle seriously and let it guide it in the formation of doctrine and practice it would never arrive at many of its unbiblical doctrines and practices.

The Catholic method of arriving at doctrine is certainly different than the modern innovation of Sola Scriptura. All the doctrines of the Church come from Jesus through the Apostles, including the Scripture, which came after the Teachings. They may seem unbibilical to those that do not understand one, or the other.

So you agree then that the unity that Christ prayed for is absent in the catholic church also since this is also true of the catholic church? Surely we would agree that catholics themselves are not in perfect unity with the catholic church?

The unity that Christ prayed for does exist. Those that are not in unity on the Doctrine are not in perfect unity. To a greater or lesser degree, our separated brethren are more or less a part of that unity. The perfected part of the Church has no disunity whatsoever.

So the bottom line is that you and other catholics have no source you can go to if you want to know the correct interpretation of a verse or passage?

The bottom line is that Jesus taught the truth as a unified whole, not by verses, or passages. When Catholics want to know what is correct, we can go confidently to the TEachings of the Church, which preserve what Jesus taught.

Even though you believe that the Scriptures are to be understood as a whole, you cannot tell if the details are used properly to fit the whole since you don’t know the correct individual meaning of a given verse.

Sure we do! Each individual verse and passage is correctly understood when it is seen in the light of the Teachings of Jesus.
The TEachings came first, and the Scripture after, but they are both from the same infallbile source. That is why there is no contradiction betwee the two.

This puts you at a serve disadvantage in understanding the scriptures and it also points to why so many catholics are incapable of discerning the doctrines and practices of their church is biblical or not.

Knowledgable Catholics have the advantage of knowing that NONE of the Doctrines of the Church are “bible based”. All of the Teachings come from Jesus. Some of these have been committed to writing in the NT, and other Apostolic writings. It is the Teachings that formed the NT, and not the other way around.

 

[jmcrae]

i don’t know about you but all the catholics i know in my personal life (including some priests) who have gone to mass hundreds if not thousands of times don’t strike me as being that knowledgeable of the scriptures. Perhaps this is just my expierence and not reflective of other catholics.

They don’t have it memorized in the King James Version, and they don’t know the verse numbers, but they certainly do know the stories.

If you ask them to tell the First Joyful Mystery, for example, they will give you Luke 1:26-38, pretty much word for word. But if you say, “Recite Luke 1:26-38” then, true - they won’t know what you’re talking about, most of the time. But they do know it off by heart; they just don’t know it by verse numbers, and oftentimes, they don’t even know that it’s also in the Bible, since they learned it as part of their prayers.

 

[guanophore]

This is part of the problem with catholic doctrines. It has what it believes to be the answer but when you apply the principle to their answer they don’t jive in many cases.

Have you considered that your principles may be faulty?

In what verse leads you to think this?

John 14:17
17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. "

John 16:13-15
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

When i say something is unbiblical i mean that its not mention, taught or exhorted in the Scriptures. Take for example Mary’s assumption. Its not mentioned or even hinted at in the NT and is therefore an unbibilical belief.

We see it differently.

So they very thing catholics accuse protestants of (no unity but chaos) is not even found in the catholic church.

There are also some Protestants who embrace the unity. Unity is found in conformity with the Truth. To the extent that one is in unity with the Truth, one is Catholic. This unity is lacking in some who call themselves "catholic’ but do not embrace the Truth. There are some who do not call themselves “Catholic”, but embrace the Truths, and to that extent unity exists.

. common sense but lack bibical truth. If you were to look the phrase “full of grace” in a greek lexicon you would not find in the meaning the idea that she was without sin her entire life.

Fortunately, the Church gets her doctrines from Divine Revelation, and not from the lexicon.

i don’t know about you but all the catholics i know in my personal life (including some priests) who have gone to mass hundreds if not thousands of times don’t strike me as being that knowledgeable of the scriptures. Perhaps this is just my expierence and not reflective of other catholics.

Is this why you are so hostile and antagonisitc toward Catholics? Were you hurt and disappointed by those who claimed to have the “fullness of truth”?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i don’t know about you but all the catholics i know in my personal life (including some priests) who have gone to mass hundreds if not thousands of times don’t strike me as being that knowledgeable of the scriptures. Perhaps this is just my expierence and not reflective of other catholics.

you need to understand catholics most of them live by faith and not because they know everything about Sacred Scriptures and Priests do not like to argue about Scriptures it is not what they are there for it. they are to celebrate mass. Priests are humble and they donot go around showing off how much they know.

:knight2:

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i don’t know about you but all the catholics i know in my personal life (including some priests) who have gone to mass hundreds if not thousands of times don’t strike me as being that knowledgeable of the scriptures. Perhaps this is just my expierence and not reflective of other catholics.

you need to understand catholics most of them live by faith and not because they know everything about Sacred Scriptures and Priests do not like to argue about Scriptures it is not what they are there for it. they are to celebrate mass. Priests are humble and they donot go around showing off how much they know.

:knight2:

The issue is not about showing off but knowledge of the scriptures. Both sides of the church --protestant and catholic have a very low rate of knowledge of the scriptures. What this leads to in many cases are unbilical beliefs and practices that are not in harmony with Christ. To be igorant of the Scriptures is to be ignorant of Christ. I think it was Jerome who said this and he was the great translator of the Scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3470630]
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is part of the problem with catholic doctrines. It has what it believes to be the answer but when you apply the principle to their answer they don’t jive in many cases.

guanophore;
Have you considered that your principles may be faulty?

Not in the cases i have addressed with you and others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
In what verse leads you to think this?

guanophore;
John 14:17
17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. "

John 16:13-15
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

The question had to do with the HS being soul of the church in Acts 2.
Does the catholic church interpret these passages in John as the HS being the soul of the church?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
When i say something is unbiblical i mean that its not mention, taught or exhorted in the Scriptures. Take for example Mary’s assumption. Its not mentioned or even hinted at in the NT and is therefore an unbibilical belief.

guanophore;
We see it differently.

Thats an understatement and we both cannot be right. Its very easy to check the scriptures on this one and i suspect by now you know its not in there…

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
So they very thing catholics accuse protestants of (no unity but chaos) is not even found in the catholic church.

guanophore;
There are also some Protestants who embrace the unity. Unity is found in conformity with the Truth. To the extent that one is in unity with the Truth, one is Catholic. This unity is lacking in some who call themselves "catholic’ but do not embrace the Truth. There are some who do not call themselves “Catholic”, but embrace the Truths, and to that extent unity exists.

I thought unity was only possible under the pope and protestants that i know reject the pope. So how can you say they have unity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
. common sense but lack bibical truth. If you were to look the phrase “full of grace” in a greek lexicon you would not find in the meaning the idea that she was without sin her entire life.

guanophore;
Fortunately, the Church gets her doctrines from Divine Revelation, and not from the lexicon.

Its with lexicons and other tools that are the guides that help to determine if the “doctrines from Divine Revelation” claims are true or not. There is no getting around this principle and to ignore it is to set yourself to believe what is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i don’t know about you but all the catholics i know in my personal life (including some priests) who have gone to mass hundreds if not thousands of times don’t strike me as being that knowledgeable of the scriptures. Perhaps this is just my expierence and not reflective of other catholics.

guanophore;
Is this why you are so hostile and antagonisitc toward Catholics? Were you hurt and disappointed by those who claimed to have the “fullness of truth”?

No. i’m deeply troubled by how so many catholics have been as Paul laments in 2 Corinthians 11:3 when he writes these words"… But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

To see all the unbilical doctrines and practices that Jesus never taught promoted in the catholic church as the “fullness of the truth” shows how deep the deception is. Even when presented with the truth about these things there is a strong resistance. This is what is tragic…

 

[wisdomseeker]

The issue is not about showing off but knowledge of the scriptures. Both sides of the church --protestant and catholic have a very low rate of knowledge of the scriptures. What this leads to in many cases are unbilical beliefs and practices that are not in harmony with Christ. To be igorant of the Scriptures is to be ignorant of Christ. I think it was Jerome who said this and he was the great translator of the Scriptures.

as catholics we dont need to worry about unblibical believes and practices for Our Lord Jesus left us a Church under Peter and his successors after him that we would have a sound doctrine for ever until Our Lord comes back according to His promise. you see, we are safe within the catholic church because of we can rest assure that Our speaks the truth.

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14).

In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

As you see we have nothing to worry about. Our Lord is in charge through His Church which guide and protect us. now is for those who are constantly in a mission to remove catholics of their faith they should be concerned, very concerned.

:bowdown2: :getholy:

 

[wisdomseeker]

Not in the cases i have addressed with you and others.

The question had to do with the HS being soul of the church in Acts 2.
Does the catholic church interpret these passages in John as the HS being the soul of the church?

Thats an understatement and we both cannot be right. Its very easy to check the scriptures on this one and i suspect by now you know its not in there…

I thought unity was only possible under the pope and protestants that i know reject the pope. So how can you say they have unity?

Its with lexicons and other tools that are the guides that help to determine if the “doctrines from Divine Revelation” claims are true or not. There is no getting around this principle and to ignore it is to set yourself to believe what is false.

No. i’m deeply troubled by how so many catholics have been as Paul laments in 2 Corinthians 11:3 when he writes these words"… But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

To see all the unbilical doctrines and practices that Jesus never taught promoted in the catholic church as the “fullness of the truth” shows how deep the deception is. Even when presented with the truth about these things there is a strong resistance. This is what is tragic…

JA4 the Scripture was written to the catholics not to some religious group that came about with a rebellious monk. wht are you going to do? continuing to ignore the True Church? The Bible is a catholic Book. are you going to continue to ignore the early Fathers writings and history?
i have one thing to say to you repent, humble yourself and surrender to the catholic church while still time. the ark may close its door then will be to late for you.

 

[justasking4]

as catholics we dont need to worry about unblibical believes and practices for Our Lord Jesus left us a Church under Peter and his successors after him that we would have a sound doctrine for ever until Our Lord comes back according to His promise. you see, we are safe within the catholic church because of we can rest assure that Our speaks the truth.

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14).

In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

As you see we have nothing to worry about. Our Lord is in charge through His Church which guide and protect us.

:bowdown2: :getholy:

If what you say is true then what do you think of these warnings from the Scriptures:
Acts 20:28-31
28 “**Be on guard for yourselves **and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29 “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
31 “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

Or take 2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

You are not as safe you have been led to believe since the Scriptures that false teachers would come in among the believers. They can be priests, bishops, popes or a catechism teacher.
Keep in mind that Jesus never promised to protect the church from error. If He did these warnings from the apostles would be absurd.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If what you say is true then what do you think of these warnings from the Scriptures:
Acts 20:28-31
28 “**Be on guard for yourselves **and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

notice the Church.

29 “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
31 “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

a warning to the catholics, that among us wolves would come. could be protestants sects that came and is trying to remove the children of God from His church?

Or take 2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

again warning to catholics.

You are not as safe you have been led to believe since the Scriptures that false teachers would come in among the believers. They can be priests, bishops, popes or a catechism teacher.
Keep in mind that Jesus never promised to protect the church from error. If He did these warnings from the apostles would be absurd.

Martin Luther, wesley, calvin and many others.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Posted by JA4
You are not as safe you have been led to believe since the Scriptures that false teachers would come in among the believers. They can be priests, bishops, popes or a catechism teacher.
Keep in mind that Jesus never promised to protect the church from error. If He did these warnings from the apostles would be absurd.

Please do not blasphem against Our Lord. His Church is protect from error when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. why would be absurd? is it not what is happening now many has gone out of His Church to only acuse Our Lord of failing in His promise. how blasphemous can this be. oh! you make my soul weep.

---