There is no "Trinity" and Jesus Christ is not God

[mariahloves]

Hi Mariah, many thanks. Are you currently in RCIA about to become Catholic? I notice it says “future Catholic” on your profile. Thanks be to God! When are you becoming fully Catholic?

You’re welcome.

Yes I am in RCIA right now and I will be baptised this Easter.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You’re welcome.

Yes I am in RCIA right now and I will be baptised this Easter.

May I ask what you were before, Mariah? Congratulations on the upcoming reception of the sacrament! It will, indeed, be a blessing. Though that baptism may take place only once on one day, remember it every day! A remembrance of your baptism every day will keep the lies and accusations of Satan away!

 

[mariahloves]

Yes, you’re absolutely right, Mariah. I realize that there are hundreds of denominations floating around out there. However, it is my contention that all of them have truth mixed with error, except for the confessions that I hold to. I do not believe that Baptists, Presbyterians, and Catholics are equally correct to the Lutheran confessions, or I wouldn’t be Lutheran. However, all of them have true Christians as members. The Roman Catholic Church claims its doctrines to be truth. It is up to individual Christians to discern truth from error, based on our available resources. Doctrinal error is a result of humanity, not the Spirit.

Non-confron question: Do you believe the Lutheran church to be the closest to the true Church and have the most Truth?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Non-confron question: Do you believe the Lutheran church to be the closest to the true Church and have the most Truth?

Yes. I believe that all of the teachings received from the Lutheran confessions (The Book of Christian Concord) are 100% accurate to the teachings of God’s word.

 

[mariahloves]

May I ask what you were before, Mariah? Congratulations on the upcoming reception of the sacrament! It will, indeed, be a blessing. Though that baptism may take place only once on one day, remember it every day! A remembrance of your baptism every day will keep the lies and accusations of Satan away!

I attended a Seventh-day Adventist church. Thank you I’m very excited

 

[TriuneUnity]

I attended a Seventh-day Adventist church. Thank you I’m very excited

Were you not baptized in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, or does Rome not recognize their baptisms? I’m woefully ignorant of the Adventists, other than their “sabbath” keeping.

 

[mariahloves]

Were you not baptized in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, or does Rome not recognize their baptisms? I’m woefully ignorant of the Adventists, other than their “sabbath” keeping.

I was never baptised, but SDA’s baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit so it would have been a valid baptism.

I would just like to add SDA’s remind me of Baptists except that they worship on Saturday, focus on tithing (sp?), and hold that Ellen G. White was a prophetess.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**I like to believe that the Holy Spirit has guided me to where I am, not myself and my own intellect. I’m glad you at least acknowledge we as individuals do have some say in it though, unlike a Calvinist with the irresistable grace and TULIP stuff and the lack of any human involvement whatsoever. Ultimately we all as human beings come to some conclusion about our faith and where we belong. Submitting to Rome is our choice. I don’t think anyone denies that. Submitting to Christ is our choice as well. But I do believe I have more of an assurance than yourself because not only of Matthew 16 but the last 2,000 years of Church history shows Rome at the helm and the major heresies, crises, and decisions of Christendom have been under the leadership of Rome. Even the iconoclasm crisis in Eastern circles was fought off by the pope. I look at history and see that nowhere in Christian history do we see the Lutheran vision of a priesthood of all believers functioning the way Lutherans see it. Nowhere in those early councils would they have condoned justification by faith alone with no element of personal responsibility or moral living, works, etc. No way the Fathers would’ve forsaken apostolic succession and viewed it as a nice added option if one wants. I don’t see the Fathers or great saints saying “sin boldly” or being iconoclasts like Carlstadt, or sitting idly by while guys like Zwingli turn the Eucharist into a joke thanks to your own revolution against Catholicism. The Fathers were not Lutheran in character at all. Luther’s sacramental theology is far from the Orthodox and Catholics as well. The Blessed Mother is a major component of Christianity for centuries and under Lutheranism she’s just a memory. Civil authorities have so much power in Luther’s vision and we all know how holy and reliablly Christian our civil authorities are like Biden, Obama, Pelosi, Schwarzenegger, Rangel, and the gang! Divorce is retooled under Luther as well.

I ultimately make the decision to be a Catholic, of course. But I look at Catholicism and submit to the papacy. Of course I must be the one to decide to be a Catholic. No one put a revolver to my head . The Holy Spirit must be on the side of one form of Christendom or the other, it can’t be on both sides. Otherwise the Spirit contradicts itself and morality becomes relative and blurry. I feel the Holy Spirit guided me to make my choice and my own rebellious streak, which I definitely have and fight/grapple with regularly, led me astray not once but several times.

Protestantism led to chaos. We see the results of it now. I cannot buy the idea that a group of German religious rebels were correct about sola scriptura while millions of Catholics with 2,000 years of apostolic succession, councils, saints, great popes, unity, and powerful theology are wrong. I don’t believe that God allows His Church to remain astray. And as for Galatians going astray etc. that was not THE Church universal but a local church falling into sin and error, which is possible. No one ever said that all individuals within the Church are infallible and holy, but the entirety of Catholicism is. My pastor could be dressing like J Edgar Hoover in a mini skirt and preaching the Village People Gospel and that wouldn’t mean the entire Church is in ruin.

When you say there is no objective truth saying that Catholicism is infallible, heck, there is no objective source saying Christ is God’s Son either. Something has to be left to the Holy Spirit. I think we sell ourselves short and minimize God when we take away the influence of the Holy Spirit and grant ourselves an intellect that is so lofty and gifted that we can come to all conclusions by ourselves. I still intellectually grasp with a couple issues about Catholicism but obedience is my lot, and I submit to where I feel the Holy Spirit has led me. **

My point here is that YOU still determined that, after reading Scripture and history, that Roman Catholicism was the truest expression of the teachings of Scripture. Therefore, your assurance based on Rome’s claim of infallibility is no more of an assurance than mine. YOU still had to make the decision to submit to the teachings of Rome and you are not infallible. Roman Catholic apologists claim that the infallibility of the magisterium gives them assurance that the doctrines taught are the doctrines of Christ. However, they still must decide through their own reasoning that Rome is, indeed, infallible.

**Studying, thinking, praying, and reading Scripture is how you believe the Church arrives at the truth. But who does the studying, thinking, praying and reading? You? Me? Joe Blow? It has always been councils, bishops, cardinals, popes, learned men of God in apostolic succession, not pastor Joe Bob at the local non denominational church whose own prejudices and non-inspired error lead him to false conclusions. The do-it-yourself home Christianity kit has a pretty poopy track record. Joseph Smith, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and the rest are living proof.**The promise of Christ that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church do not rest on the church, but on the promise of Christ. There are still, last time I checked, billions of Christians in this world and the Lord has not returned. Therefore, the promise is holding up just fine. If a church founded by Paul himself (Galatia) could fall into doctrinal error, who are we to presume that simply submitting to whatever the church hierarchy says is a guarentee of freedom from false teaching?

By studying, thinking, praying, and reading Scripture. The way the church has always decided what is true and what is not.

 

[JonNC]

=mariahloves;6340013]I wasn’t blaming God, rather I was trying to make a point with my question. God is not a God of confusion, therefore all confusion that is caused involving God is the direct result of humans.

Well said. I agree.

I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, where we go to church and rest on Saturday rather than Sunday. I always thought this was a sort of random thing to do and it was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of petty doctrines.

OK, I understand.

Blessings as you approach your Baptism.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

I like to believe that the Holy Spirit has guided me to where I am, not myself and my own intellect.

The Holy Spirit has led you to become a Christian, of that I am certain. However, the Holy Spirit does use human intellect in deciding matters of doctrine. Since sin indwells your intellect (and mine) there is no guarentee that we will be right on every point of doctrine. My point there is that your decisions about Rome are just as fallible as anyone elses. If Rome is correct in what it teaches, then your decision would be inerrant, but not infallible. Therefore, it’s impossible to know anything infallibly, because the only Being capable of infallibility is God.

But I do believe I have more of an assurance than yourself because not only of Matthew 16 but the last 2,000 years of Church history shows Rome at the helm and the major heresies, crises, and decisions of Christendom have been under the leadership of Rome. Even the iconoclasm crisis in Eastern circles was fought off by the pope.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

True. And one wonders what the point was? Catholics believe they have direct access to Christ as well and that not every lay person is a pastor. Just as Catholics don’t believe they can play priest at home, neither does the Lutheran. So what was the point of the “priesthood of all believers” at all?
The Lutheran idea is simply that each Christian has direct access to God through Christ. This is not a denial of hierarchy in the church, as every Christian is a priest but NOT every Christian is a pastor/elder/bishop. Luther only denied an infallible hierarchy.

I totally disagree with the concept of imputation. Could never stomach that teaching of Luther’s. Has no root in Scripture or the ECF’s, councils, or deposit of faith really. The whole dung pile with a wedding dress couldn’t be farther from what I view as how Christ saves us. And again, what did Luther really accomplish? Most Lutherans I talk to you on here like JonNC, we really agree that a person who doesn’t have true heart-felt faith in Christ won’t do any works anyway, like James says, and we’re back to square one. Nowhere in Scripture does it says “faith alone” except where James condemns the phrase. Abraham was credited by God as righteous and yet the action, the work, of offering Isaac, well, need I say more…
Nor did any early councils address it. To deny that we have a responsibility of moral living would be antinomianism, which we have always condemned. What we do condemn is a necessity of works in order to be reconciled to God. However, works are an equal part of our overall salvation as faith is. We simply deny the works aspect for justification (which is only one part of salvation).

I do know his purpose but loath the statement. It sounds truly like a Joe Biden type statement, probably one of the worst-phrased foot-in-mouth specials of all time!
You and I both know the purpose of Luther’s statement of that. Apologists have taken what was a pastoral letter and turned it into a theological treatise.

Zwingli was doing that long before Luther, and would have had Luther never uttered a peep against indulgences.

Are you sure, Matt? Vlad Dracul and Nancy Pelosi not the same person? Better re-think that bud! The problem with Luther’s view of “godly princes” and secular authorities is that, in his day, they were Christian!! The morality of his day was rational and had a compass anyway (thanks to Catholicism ). You didn’t have to worry if the Duke of your land would permit gay marriage or if the Earl would allow abortion on demand or reserach stem cells from fetal tissue obtained in fertility clinics unethically. Luther was short-sighted because of his age and couldn’t see how the secular authority would eventually become the liberal elite secularist anti-Christian bozos they are today. As far as Romans 13 when Paul talks about respecting authority we must keep in mind also that the early Christians refused to take oaths before pagan gods and worship the emperor and do other questionable, un-Christian activities. Obama wants to remove the conscience clause and force a pro-life Catholic to aid in an abortion in a hospital. Where does it end? Must we always obey secular laws? Vlad was an interesting guy! I like to call him Vlad the Impaler better!!
As noxious as the above figures are, they aren’t Vlad Dracul, either. The sword out of the church’s hands has been both a benefit to the church and the government. Just as Romans 13 would have it. Divorce is not retooled. It’s acceptable in cases of adultery and desertion… Just like Christ and Paul said.

And that is my only point. You made the fallible decision to submit to the papacy. There is still no objective infallible source for Rome’s infallibility, other than relying on Rome’s statements about itself, which assume infallibility, rather than verify it.

Big one!
The See of Rome is a local church, too.

Sure there is. Independent witnesses seeing Him alive after death. That lends credence to Him being God’s Son

That’s certainly true, as far as Calvin, Knox et al. Those who are given the gift of teaching and formulating creeds and confessions of what Scripture teaches is fine. However, it doesn’t give them an automatic sanction from God that what they teach is correct. The problem is there is an assumption that what bishops, cardinals, etc teach is always going to be correct. This leads to non discernment of what is and is not the truth.

The bottom line is from your vantage point we’re all piles of dung and lost and can’t know the truth and the popes and cardinals are no better so we’re all scratching in the dark hoping against hope we’re right really being clueless. Nothing productive happens. You make it sound as clear as day the truths of scripture and that the holy spirit will reveal them to us. But there is contradiction from all sides and no voice making it clear. The Bible is not self-translating and since, like you said, the Holy Spirit speaks to us but we have sin and get our wires crossed, what’s the point of the Holy Spirit? It’s communicating with defective equipment anyway so the short in the circuit prevents any meaningful truth from being properly communicated. In the end, it’s all a mess. The magisterium and visible historic church makes more sense to me rather than the chaos of the individual. The Holy Spirit won’t guide us to the four winds that contradict and someone must guide the ship. It’s really that simple IMO.

 

[mariahloves]

To get back to one of the subjects of my original post, about how the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Methodists etc. all use the Bible to support their position, it comes to my mind since hearing that JW’s use a very distorted Bible that Bible verisons actually contribute to varying doctrines as well. I wonder which verison some homosexuals try to use to support their position that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was one of hospitality…do any Protestants here agree that homosexuality when practiced within a loving, committed relationship is ok?

 

[TriuneUnity]

To get back to one of the subjects of my original post, about how the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Methodists etc. all use the Bible to support their position, it comes to my mind since hearing that JW’s use a very distorted Bible that Bible verisons actually contribute to varying doctrines as well. I wonder which verison some homosexuals try to use to support their position that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was one of hospitality…do any Protestants here agree that homosexuality when practiced within a loving, committed relationship is ok?

Well, the JW version is not simply another translation. It’s an entirely rewritten text. Versions of the Bible don’t really lend to different doctrines, as the wording of the translation may change, but the meaning is the same.

There is no such thing as a loving, committed homosexual relationship. Sinful behavior, by its nature is never loving! Granted, homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other in the damages it causes to our relationship with God. Societally, however, it’s a disaster.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well, the JW version is not simply another translation. It’s an entirely rewritten text. Versions of the Bible don’t really lend to different doctrines, as the wording of the translation may change, but the meaning is the same.

There is no such thing as a loving, committed homosexual relationship. Sinful behavior, by its nature is never loving! Granted, homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other in the damages it causes to our relationship with God. Societally, however, it’s a disaster.

Read John 1:1 from a christian bible now read it from a JW bible.The JW bible is the most corupt bible in the world and not JW one person know any Greek

 

[mariahloves]

There is no such thing as a loving, committed homosexual relationship. Sinful behavior, by its nature is never loving! Granted, homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other in the damages it causes to our relationship with God. Societally, however, it’s a disaster.

In your opinion (and mine too), homosexuality is a sin. However, not all Christians think it’s a sin. It seems they interpret the Bible different from you and I:

“The Holy Spirit links the abomination-towebah activity of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and 1 Ki 14:23-24 to shrine prostitution.” (From “Shrine prostitutes are never identified as homosexuals in the Bible”, gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html)

According to these Christians, God does not forbid homosexuality but temple prostitution which was popular during Old Testament times:

“Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are aimed specifically at prohibiting Israelites from becoming shrine prostitutes and engaging in the idolatrous worship of Molech and Ashtoreth.” (From “Shrine prostitutes are never identified as homosexuals in the Bible,” gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html)

Who is right, me and you, or them? There is no need for an arguement about how Christians for the past 2,000 years have regarded homosexuality as a sin, because then every Catholic here can use that arguement for the Church’s position on this or that.

They also have another interesting interpretation of the Bible:

“The Minority Gay Christian Viewpoint - David and Jonathan, Saul and all Israel, viewed Jonathan and David as a couple who formed an emotional, romantic, sexual bond, lasting some fifteen years, until Jonathan’s untimely death.” (From “David and Johnathon-The Greatest Human Love Story In the Bible,” gaychristian101.com/David-and-Jonathan.html)

BTW, this is also the site where I got the phrase “loving, committed homosexual relationship.”

Isn’t it possible that for the past 2,000 years, Christians have gotten it wrong and homosexuality is NOT a sin???

 

[TriuneUnity]

In your opinion (and mine too), homosexuality is a sin. However, not all Christians think it’s a sin. It seems they interpret the Bible different from you and I:

“The Holy Spirit links the abomination-towebah activity of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and 1 Ki 14:23-24 to shrine prostitution.” (From “Shrine prostitutes are never identified as homosexuals in the Bible”, gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html)

According to these Christians, God does not forbid homosexuality but temple prostitution which was popular during Old Testament times:

“Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are aimed specifically at prohibiting Israelites from becoming shrine prostitutes and engaging in the idolatrous worship of Molech and Ashtoreth.” (From “Shrine prostitutes are never identified as homosexuals in the Bible,” gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html)

Who is right, me and you, or them? There is no need for an arguement about how Christians for the past 2,000 years have regarded homosexuality as a sin, because then every Catholic here can use that arguement for the Church’s position on this or that.

They also have another interesting interpretation of the Bible:

“The Minority Gay Christian Viewpoint - David and Jonathan, Saul and all Israel, viewed Jonathan and David as a couple who formed an emotional, romantic, sexual bond, lasting some fifteen years, until Jonathan’s untimely death.” (From “David and Johnathon-The Greatest Human Love Story In the Bible,” gaychristian101.com/David-and-Jonathan.html)

BTW, this is also the site where I got the phrase “loving, committed homosexual relationship.”

Isn’t it possible that for the past 2,000 years, Christians have gotten it wrong and homosexuality is NOT a sin???

Here’s the thing, mariah… Those “churches” that interpret Scripture to say that homosexuality is not a sin usually don’t even accept the Bible to be the word of God, anyway. I know of no single church that accepts the Bible’s infallible, inerrant character, and claims homosexual behavior is not inherently sinful.