Sola Scriptura - does this foundation make you a heretic

[epostle1]

The writers of sacred scripture did not have ultrasound, advanced microscopes, pregnancy test kits and X-ray machines. They knew that conception took place, but they didn't understand WHEN.

Psalm 139:
13 For it was you who formed my inward parts;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb. (it says nothing about breathing)
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
that I know very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes beheld my unformed substance.

It wasn't until 1928 that microscopes were developed enough to view conception, so how were they to grasp conception 3-4000 years ago?

 

[epostle1]

This is directed at any human based agencies. The spirit is given to believers so, unless a believer using scripture alone cannot receive the spirit....

Does that mean that no Christian had the spirit until the 4th century when the whole Bible was fully realized? Or do you adhere to Bible origin fantasies?

 

[epostle1]

You can deny my response and you can even deny the spirit guided truth revealed by scripture
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I fully agree with these verses, what I disagree with is the constant abuse by sola scripturists when they exclude verses 13 & 14. It's because those verses demolish the SS position.

2 Timothy 3:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:
1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses, still taught today.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although you use it to prove your case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

As I showed scripture has not failed anyone who can discern its message. All that is needed was already given in the apostles time to keep the faithful and the warnings for what to expect when any attempt would be made to add to it;

Colossians 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

There are bad traditions we must avoid, and good traditions from God we must follow. Claiming all traditions are bad is not what the Bible teaches. Attacking Sacred Tradition with straw men fallacies is standard for a sola scripturist, which is in itself a man made tradition. See my signature for a definition.

 

[KBCid]

The writers of sacred scripture did not have ultrasound, advanced microscopes, pregnancy test kits and X-ray machines. They knew that conception took place, but they didn't understand WHEN.
Psalm 139:you knit me together in my mother’s womb. (it says nothing about breathing

God who inspired the writers of sacred scriptures did not need any of our technologies. They were the designers.
As has already been shown breathing is not when life begins. Adam the first of mankind alone was given life from God directly. Let's journey even deeper into the subject.
Let us look at the Hebrew words of the verse in debate. First we will show the translated words in modern English;
Gen 25:7 ...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
Now the Hebrew;
Neshemat chayyim

Now we both know that God is spirit and thus does not breath a breath. So, there was no actual transference of air being depicted in the above verse.
In ancient Hebrew, words were used in symbolic ways. In the above verse the Hebrew symbolism shows that God transferred life from himself to the inanimate physical body of man and did not command it into existence the way they made other parts of creation.

In Hebrew the soul can be defined by three names, nefesh, ruach and neshama. Neshama is a cognate of nesheema, which means literally breath thus, neshama being synonymous with ruach which is also translated as spirit, wind, breath, and mind, spirit of God, divine spirit and several other things as well is the symbolic wording used in describing the spirit of man being directly given to man from God.
The Hebrew word chayyim is in fact a plural word (To make a Hebrew word plural, you add -im to the noun) for life and should actually be lives. Thus, technically the verse would be properly translated as breath of lives.

So, When God gave life to man through Adam he actually gave lives... all lives that would ever pass through mankind. As I noted in an earlier post God only notes this transference of life / spirit to Adam alone and says nothing about performing the same act in the formation of Eve. So any argument that life requires the giving of breath / air means that Eve is essentially the walking dead because God never gave her any breath.
The truth is that God transferred in 1 act all the lives to ever exist through man into Adam and since that time life has been in the blood as it is written.

Life is transferred from Mother to Child long before a child ever takes a breath of air.

 

[KBCid]

Does that mean that no Christian had the spirit until the 4th century when the whole Bible was fully realized? Or do you adhere to Bible origin fantasies?

Who asserts that scripture was not fully realized until the 4th century?

 

[KBCid]

I fully agree with these verses, what I disagree with is the constant abuse by sola scripturists when they exclude verses 13 & 14. It's because those verses demolish the SS position.

Or so you would like to believe.

(14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition))
(knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium))

2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Hmm same verse with 2 different statements....
The ones that this is directed at learned from the apostles directly who were commissioned to teach during their life on earth and who also wrote the continuing scriptures that would be taken to the ends of the earth. When the apostles began their teaching there was no tradition. Thus, there can be no reference to any tradition unless one would like to refer to the traditions from the OT.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although you use it to prove your case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

Actually.....
The man of God is historically God's special representative, one whom God has personally chosen and sent. Note that Timothy was a believer that Paul was teaching and not one of those originally chosen and sent.

There are bad traditions we must avoid, and good traditions from God we must follow. Claiming all traditions are bad is not what the Bible teaches. Attacking Sacred Tradition with straw men fallacies is standard for a sola scripturist, which is in itself a man made tradition. See my signature for a definition.

Who would claim that all traditions are bad? What sacred tradition has been attacked?

 

[epostle1]

Who asserts that scripture was not fully realized until the 4th century?

Let's not confuse inspiration with canonization.
Inspiration occurred at the moment they were written.
Canonization means they were proven to be inspired, and made binding on the whole Church. Scripture was not just assumed to be inspired.

In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today. Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible's self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity. The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

New Testament Period (c.35-90)
In this period there is little formal sense of a Canon of Scripture

Apostolic Fathers (90-160)
Summary: The New Testament is still not clearly distinguished qualitatively from other Christian writings
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture
Acts Scarcely known or quoted

Irenaeus to Origen (160-250)
Summary: Awareness of a Canon begins towards the end of the 2nd century
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use phrase New Testament

Gospels Accepted
Acts Gradually accepted

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)
Summary: The epistles and Revelation are still being disputed

Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397)
Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed.

Sources; ALL PROTESTANT
1) Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 194-98.
2) Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3) Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.


Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.

 

[KBCid]

Let's not confuse inspiration with canonization. Inspiration occurred at the moment they were written.
Canonization means they were proven to be inspired, and made binding on the whole Church. Scripture was not just assumed to be inspired.
In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books.

No one was confusing anything.
Who has the power to canonize? Can pagans canonize?
Scripture was binding from the moment it was spoken and kept on being binding when it was written by those who God commissioned to do it.
Who cares what protestants can or can't do since they have come through a line of churches that has been moving further from Christ as time has past since the apostles finished their commission?
If you believe that those bad little protestants who broke away from the church you adhere to owe their allegiance to that church because you believe that your church at some point in history decided what is scripture then by all means you go spank them good.
I can and have read / translated all the ancient texts available in their original languages and depend on the spirit to divide inspired from conspired. God states his canon through the spirit.

 

[epostle1]

Or so you would like to believe.

(14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition))
(knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium))

2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Hmm same verse with 2 different statements....

The essence of the meaning is the same. You are splitting hairs with a different translation. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, is a simplified definition of Tradition that doesn't fit your preconceptions. Changing the meaning of Tradition (straw man) is constantly done by sola scripturists.

The ones that this is directed at learned from the apostles directly who were commissioned to teach during their life on earth and who also wrote the continuing scriptures that would be taken to the ends of the earth. When the apostles began their teaching there was no tradition. Thus, there can be no reference to any tradition unless one would like to refer to the traditions from the OT.

There is nothing in scripture that says the Apostles taught scripture alone.

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

That's the correct definition of Tradition, you are forced to make it mean something totally different.

Actually.....
The man of God is historically God's special representative, one whom God has personally chosen and sent. Note that Timothy was a believer that Paul was teaching and not one of those originally chosen and sent.

Note that Paul was passing his office to Timothy because he had the authority to do so. Just because a bishop wasn't originally chosen and sent does not mean they had no authority.

Who would claim that all traditions are bad? What sacred tradition has been attacked?

You do it every time you erect a straw man with false definitions. I've spoon fed you, plus a parallel definition in my signature, but you will make the same mistake in a while from now because a sola scripturist can't help themselves.

 

[epostle1]

God states his canon through the spirit.

Yes but was it without human beings? Was it like POOF!, there's a Bible!

 

[GodsGrace]

The essence of the meaning is the same. You are splitting hairs with a different translation. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, is a simplified definition of Tradition that doesn't fit your preconceptions. Changing the meaning of Tradition (straw man) is constantly done by sola scripturists.
There is nothing in scripture that says the Apostles taught scripture alone.

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

That's the correct definition of Tradition, you are forced to make it mean something totally different.
Note that Paul was passing his office to Timothy because he had the authority to do so. Just because a bishop wasn't originally chosen and sent does not mean they had no authority.


You do it every time you erect a straw man with false definitions. I've spoon fed you, plus a parallel definition in my signature, but you will make the same mistake in a while from now because a sola scripturist can't help themselves.

Kepha, I agree but disagree.
What you say above is true and tradition was passed on.
1 Corinthians 11:2 tells us that we are to keep the ordinances that Paul had delivered to us.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us to heed the traditions that have been passed down.

This is all well and good.
I have a problem with changes that were made after the pre-Nicene fathers. For instance, Augustine decided that infants should be baptized.
What gave him such power when the other ECF did not even agree with him? I've never understood this.

I DO understand why infants are baptized, but I don't agree with it because God, being a just God, will not hold anyone responsible for their sin unless they're aware of it. This also goes for persons with mental problems such as autism, etc.

I do wish the CC had remained as it was in the pre-Nicene era.
There is so much to be learned from these men. I quote them many times but I'm told they're not inspired. Which is interesting -- as if those that teach wrong doctrine are.

Just a thought.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes but was it without human beings? Was it like POOF!, there's a Bible!

I agree with KBCid most times.
But, yes, I do have a problem with this idea that the Holy Spirit inspires this and that.

Then why doesn't the Holy Spirit inspire all to believe the same?
The Holy Spirit guides us and helps us. Our learning must come from those much more theologically inclined than we are. I'm told this is wrong because I'm learning from men and not the Holy Spirit.

What a mess.

 

[KBCid]

The essence of the meaning is the same. You are splitting hairs with a different translation. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, is a simplified definition of Tradition that doesn't fit your preconceptions. Changing the meaning of Tradition (straw man) is constantly done by sola scripturists.
There is nothing in scripture that says the Apostles taught scripture alone.

Tradition
2. Theology - a doctrine believed to have divine authority though not in the scriptures, in particular.

Mark 7:9-13 9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition...
....13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

Timothy was never an apostle. Paul cannot pass on the such a position since apostles are chosen by God.
Timothy was a believer who was charged with doing what any believer could do.... pass on the teachings of the apostles
2 Tim 1:11(Paul) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
2 Tim 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word
4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist,

Even in Paul's time there were people in the churches who were turning from the correct path and Paul sought to keep the word as true as it was given but, men just like the Pharisees like to take what is pure and add to it and the churches right from the beginning were already following the path of the Pharisees and it can be seen today in how the pure word of God has been changed to fit what man thinks it should be.

Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

 

[KBCid]

Yes but was it without human beings? Was it like POOF!, there's a Bible!

The human beings that were the inspired writers of each of the scriptures were the ones to poof them into existence. What man does with them after they come into existence is where contention lies.
The Jews who God committed his oracles to in order to keep them pure and without blemish considered it ok to add their own ideas and traditions to be kept along with that pure word and as Christ said by your traditions (added to the original pure inspired word) you have made the word of God of no effect and have added so much crap to it that it is now a huge burden to those seeking to do what is right.
The church you adhere to is no different, what began as a pure inspired set of scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit was taken by men with no inspiration and added to and has been adjusted to make it of no effect for those who seek the pureness of Christ.

Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

 

[KBCid]

I agree with KBCid most times.
But, yes, I do have a problem with this idea that the Holy Spirit inspires this and that.
Then why doesn't the Holy Spirit inspire all to believe the same?
The Holy Spirit guides us and helps us. Our learning must come from those much more theologically inclined than we are. I'm told this is wrong because I'm learning from men and not the Holy Spirit.
What a mess.

It is written;
John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

The sheep of Christ's time became scattered as time went on and the purity of their way was diminished as they died and others adopted new traditions and understandings However, as Christ said his sheep know his voice. If we love the Father and Christ and desire with our whole heart to know and follow that path then we become better able to discern that which comes from them and that which does not.

In order for one to get the proper understanding from the Holy spirit one must first have the Holy spirit. Many are led by that which is not the Holy spirit and are fed truth with the bit of leaven that are lies and because much of the message contains truth they accept the whole message as truth.

Here is one thing a person can count on to come from Holy inspiration.... The spirit will NEVER give a message that would in any way counter what has already been inspired so, even if someone such as you or I at the beginning of our learning about Christ and the Father who wouldn't have had the Holy spirit to help and guide us we could still study the record and begin to discern what God is like and what we could expect to come from them. As we persist in learning and turning from that which God hates then they will turn toward us and help us to do what we and them desire.

God has been gifting you with ability to discern things which you know would not have come from them and which is why you question those who would assert their authority over you. We appear to agree on many points because we are seeing the same telltale signs / fruits that are simply not from the God we love.

 

[GodsGrace]

It is written;
John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

The sheep of Christ's time became scattered as time went on and the purity of their way was diminished as they died and others adopted new traditions and understandings However, as Christ said his sheep know his voice. If we love the Father and Christ and desire with our whole heart to know and follow that path then we become better able to discern that which comes from them and that which does not.

In order for one to get the proper understanding from the Holy spirit one must first have the Holy spirit. Many are led by that which is not the Holy spirit and are fed truth with the bit of leaven that are lies and because much of the message contains truth they accept the whole message as truth.

Here is one thing a person can count on to come from Holy inspiration.... The spirit will NEVER give a message that would in any way counter what has already been inspired so, even if someone such as you or I at the beginning of our learning about Christ and the Father who wouldn't have had the Holy spirit to help and guide us we could still study the record and begin to discern what God is like and what we could expect to come from them. As we persist in learning and turning from that which God hates then they will turn toward us and help us to do what we and them desire.

God has been gifting you with ability to discern things which you know would not have come from them and which is why you question those who would assert their authority over you. We appear to agree on many points because we are seeing the same telltale signs / fruits that are simply not from the God we love.

Yes. It's useless for me to pursue this conversation.
I'm an arminian.
Some are calvinists.
How could this be?
I can come up with scripture supporting arminianism.
They counter it with their own.
I believe it's incredibly wrong.
They think I am.

I often think Catholicism is good in that it does state plainly what its doctrines are based on theological study.
(although there are some that I cannot find in scripture)

 

[KBCid]

Yes. It's useless for me to pursue this conversation.
I'm an arminian. Some are calvinists. How could this be? I can come up with scripture supporting arminianism. They counter it with their own. I believe it's incredibly wrong. They think I am.
I often think Catholicism is good in that it does state plainly what its doctrines are based on theological study. (although there are some that I cannot find in scripture)

ARMINIANISM is a teaching regarding salvation associated with the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). The fundamental principle in Arminianism is the rejection of predestination, and a corresponding affirmation of the freedom of the human will. Shortly after his death, the followers of Arminius (later called Arminians) presented a statement to the governing authorities of Holland in which they set forth five articles of doctrine. These were: (1) that the divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute; (2) that the Atonement is in intention universal; (3) that man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith, but requires God's help to attain this faith; (4) that though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort it does not act irresistibly in man; (5) that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace. In essence, the Arminians maintained that God gives indispensable help in salvation, but that ultimately it is the free will of man which decides the issue.

And this is why we meet on so many points. I do not proclaim to be of any specific religious specification because every designated religion I have researched has had truth mixed with error. The above specifics defined as ARMINIANISM do not have any errors mixed with their finite points that I can discern.
With the help of the Holy spirit I have been taught what I know and strangely every point expressed above is in direct accord with that teaching.

On the other hand we have the declarations of man;
The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ. The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ." (Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. (The pope can modify divine law) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary)

"The authority of the Church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by it's own authority." (Canon and Tradition. page 263)

"The doctrines of the Catholic Church are entirely independent of Holy Scripture." (Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine. Rev. M Muller, page 151)

 

[GodsGrace]

ARMINIANISM is a teaching regarding salvation associated with the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). The fundamental principle in Arminianism is the rejection of predestination, and a corresponding affirmation of the freedom of the human will. Shortly after his death, the followers of Arminius (later called Arminians) presented a statement to the governing authorities of Holland in which they set forth five articles of doctrine. These were: (1) that the divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute; (2) that the Atonement is in intention universal; (3) that man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith, but requires God's help to attain this faith; (4) that though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort it does not act irresistibly in man; (5) that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace. In essence, the Arminians maintained that God gives indispensable help in salvation, but that ultimately it is the free will of man which decides the issue.

And this is why we meet on so many points. I do not proclaim to be of any specific religious specification because every designated religion I have researched has had truth mixed with error. The above specifics defined as ARMINIANISM do not have any errors mixed with their finite points that I can discern.
With the help of the Holy spirit I have been taught what I know and strangely every point expressed above is in direct accord with that teaching.

On the other hand we have the declarations of man;
The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ. The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ." (Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. (The pope can modify divine law) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary)

"The authority of the Church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by it's own authority." (Canon and Tradition. page 263)

"The doctrines of the Catholic Church are entirely independent of Holy Scripture." (Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine. Rev. M Muller, page 151)

I also have looked into the doctrine of many churches and beliefs.
I used to be Catholic. I studied all their doctrine too.
It's from knowing Jesus that I come to my conclusions and with the help of a couple of churches that taught me well.

You said that the Pope has the power to change what Jesus taught.
I'd like to know one teaching of Jesus' that the pope has changed. I can't think of any just off-hand. But, like I've said, I don't really want to be in the position of defending Catholicism although they could surely use some since so much mis-information abounds.

Changing the Sabbath to Sunday:
We Christians all THINK Jesus was resurrected on Sunday.
HE is our new Sabbath, so it seems like an honorable thing to change the day we're to celebrate and honor God.

To be perfectly frank, the church I have the most problem with is the reformed church --- the Calvinist churches. We should stop demeaning the Catholic church, which has a correct understanding of God, and begin to undermine the Calvinist churches which should disappear from the face of God's earth. Heresy, if heresy there ever was.

 

[KBCid]

I also have looked into the doctrine of many churches and beliefs. I used to be Catholic. I studied all their doctrine too.
It's from knowing Jesus that I come to my conclusions and with the help of a couple of churches that taught me well.. You said that the Pope has the power to change what Jesus taught.

GG I gave a reference that the CC "believes" they have the authority to change the teachings of Christ.
I am firm in my understanding that no such authority exists.

I'd like to know one teaching of Jesus' that the pope has changed. I can't think of any just off-hand. But, like I've said, I don't really want to be in the position of defending Catholicism although they could surely use some since so much mis-information abounds..

Let us begin with this answer in your next question.

Changing the Sabbath to Sunday:
We Christians all THINK Jesus was resurrected on Sunday.
HE is our new Sabbath, so it seems like an honorable thing to change the day we're to celebrate and honor God.

You THINK Christ was resurrected on Sunday right. Now all I would ask is what scripture states this.
All the scriptures I have dealt with in the original languages state that Christ was already risen by the time they discovered he was no longer dead on the first day of the week. Would there be any particular reason why he could not have risen on the Saturday prior to the first day of the week? Since all Jews including every apostle were honoring the Fathers seventh day rest there would have been no one going to look right? Christ states that he is the lord of the Sabbath right? so let's look at the context of what he meant when he made that statement;
Mark 2:23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Christ's remark about being the Lord of the Sabbath day was in regard to what was considered lawful to do on it not whether it was falling on the right day of the week. I would further note that if there had been any intent by Christ to change his Fathers Holy day of rest that would have been the perfect time to let all the faithful know.
Now of course if Christ were to have authorized such a change then wouldn't it have been prudent that all the apostles follow it? and yet in verse after verse none of the apostles ever alludes to any change in their understanding of what day of the week that they held to be the Sabbath. Acts 13:14, 27, 42–44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; and 18:4. Acts 13:42–44
So if Christ had changed his Fathers holy day to another why would it take hundreds of years to be forced into effect.... in fact the better question would be why would it have to be forced.

“On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3, trans. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed. (New York, 1902), 3:380, note 1.)

The Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364 decreed, “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ” (Strand, op. cit., citing Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 2 [Edinburgh, 1876] 316).

According to this church if I observe Saturday I am cut off.... how Christian does that sound to you?

To be perfectly frank, the church I have the most problem with is the reformed church --- the Calvinist churches. We should stop demeaning the Catholic church, which has a correct understanding of God, and begin to undermine the Calvinist churches which should disappear from the face of God's earth. Heresy, if heresy there ever was.

I have agreement with you that the churches who split off from Catholicism are in error but, my basis on this understanding is that when they split off they still carried along some of the error that had been already inherent with the original church and they just continued to go further into error.
The Jewish nation showed us that no church of God is immune to the influx of error when the will of man can be used to alter its intent and the CC has had a long time for alteration to infuse itself within it.

I have this perspective not because I am out to get anyone but rather as I review history and see how the fruits have manifested from the interactions between church and people I do not see the God I love in them.

 

[KBCid]

Holy War
Further information: Holy war § Christianity, and Crusades
In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II declared that some wars could be deemed as not only a bellum iustum ("just war"), but could, in certain cases, rise to the level of a bellum sacrum (holy war).[36] ...
Thomas Murphy examined the Christian concept of Holy War, asking "how a culture formally dedicated to fulfilling the injunction to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' could move to a point where it sanctioned the use of violence against the alien both outside and inside society".
The religious sanctioning of the concept of "holy war" was a turning point in Christian attitudes towards violence; "Pope Gregory VII made the Holy War possible by drastically altering the attitude of the church towards war... Hitherto a knight could obtain remission of sins only by giving up arms, but Urban invited him to gain forgiveness 'in and through the exercise of his martial skills'." A holy war was defined by the Roman Catholic Church as "war that is not only just, but justifying; that is, a war that confers positive spiritual merit on those who fight in it".

The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy[46] The Spanish Inquisition is often cited in popular literature and history as an example of Catholic intolerance and repression. The total number of people who were processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560–1700—about 2%—the approximate total would be about 3,000 of them were put to death. Nevertheless, it is likely that the actual death toll was higher, keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively.[citation needed] It is likely that between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed.[47] About 50 people were executed by the Mexican Inquisition.[48] Included in that total are 29 people who were executed as "Judaizers" between 1571 and 1700 out of 324 people who were prosecuted for practicing the Jewish religion.[49]

In the Portuguese Inquisition the major targets were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated to be around 40,000.[50][51] One particular focus of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions was the issue of Jewish anusim and Muslim converts to Catholicism, partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than they were in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted to their previous religions. The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[52] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and Rabbi Isaac S.D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed, and another 64 were burned in effigy (this sentence was applied to those who had fled or died in prison; in the latter case, the remains were burned in a coffin at the same time as the effigy).[53] Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those who were tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[54]

The Roman Inquisition, during the second half of the 16th century, was responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes relating to religious doctrine or alternate religious doctrine or alternate religious beliefs. Out of 51,000 — 75,000 cases judged by the Inquisition in Italy after 1542, around 1,250 resulted in a death sentence.[55]

The legal basis for some inquisitorial activity came from Pope Innocent IV's papal bull Ad extirpanda of 1252, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.[63] By 1256, inquisitors were given absolution if they used instruments of torture.
Christianity and violence - Wikipedia

Does this sound like Christ like behavior or thinking?