The leader of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ, not the Pope, and He mediates His leadership through the Holy Spirit, given to all who receive Him by faith, but good try.tom55 said:
The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help
- Thread starter hatedbyall
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
If we all have the faith and are filled with the Holy Spirit how can we all have different interpretation's of the bible?Michael V Pardo said:
Is the Holy Spirit confused?
Both my questions are pretty simple. Either you have an answer or you don't:Michael V Pardo said:
If we all have the faith and are filled with the Holy Spirit how can we all have different interpretation's of the bible?
Is the Holy Spirit confused?
Anti-Catholic motto: When the facts of history are stacked against you, write your own or find one that fits the agenda.
Official usage of the term "Pope" was applied to bishops and eastern patriarchs, and later applied to the Bishop of Rome, but that does not mean the office of Pope was invented. The office was established by Jesus Christ. I've seen the exaggerated list of bad popes, we would admit to maybe 10, but not 50. Bad popes in no way affects the infallibility of Church doctrine. None of them signed any teaching anyway, and none of them ran off inventing their own churches. They stayed in the Church where sinners belong. Even if somehow Satan himself were to become pope, he would do a lot of damage, but he could not teach an error. The Holy Spirit wouldn't let him. It is impossible for the Church to teach error, if you believe the Bible. Jesus builds the Church, He doesn't build something that would later fall apart. Scraping the bottom of the historical barrel for rotten apples to discredit the whole barrel has never worked.
The sola scriptura mindset makes it impossible to comprehend infallibility, no matter how eloquently or frequently it is explained, or how much proof text is used. Infallibility does not come from popes, bishops or councils. "I shall be with you always..." not: I shall be with you when I get back from my vacation in 1517.
The moral deficiencies of the original Protestant so-called "reformers" were the MOTIVE, for their apostasy. It was not merely that they were sinners. They were sinners who apostatized BECAUSE of their sins.
If Henry VIII did not want to divorce his sacramentally married wife, marry his chippie mistress, steal Church lands and use the money to pay off his personal debts, England would still be Catholic. Henry VIII made himself 'head of the Church" in England. He had more mistresses than wives and he killed several of those. He used his 'religious authority' to ignore the teaching of Our Lord and Savior on divorce and serve his own lusts. he was also guilty of greed, egoism, cruelty, murder, extortion, and irreligion.
If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship…
Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her. He was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess. He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein.
If Zwingli the priest had not been a sex crazed rogue who seduced the young women in his congregation... and frequented prostitutes...
If Calvin had not been an egomaniac who had murderous intent towards anyone who disagreed with him and in fact executed many people under horrendous conditions. he treated the Genevans so badly that they through him out of town, but in the social chaos that ensued they invited him back so he could use his form of dictatorial repression to stabilize the social disaster the 'reform' had created. And there are the credible charges of his own private vices.
If Knox had not been part of the assassination team that murdered Cardinal Beaton...
- Cranmer was Henry's foil to destroy the Church. He had a secret wife in Germany while he pretended to be a celibate priest.
All in all they were total moral reprobates and hypocrites. Forgive me for not finding them worthy to challenge Historic Christianity, especially when their false doctrines were at the service of their personal vices.
The faults of the so-called "reformers" are central to their apostasy.
To turn around and complain that some Catholics may not have been nice is besides the point. No matter how mean some of them were, they stayed in the Church. Jesus said that he had come to save sinners, not righteous people. In light of that, claiming that Catholics were sinners therefore someone needed to found a new Church makes no sense! Sinners need to be in THE Church and no other.
Official usage of the term "Pope" was applied to bishops and eastern patriarchs, and later applied to the Bishop of Rome, but that does not mean the office of Pope was invented. The office was established by Jesus Christ. I've seen the exaggerated list of bad popes, we would admit to maybe 10, but not 50. Bad popes in no way affects the infallibility of Church doctrine. None of them signed any teaching anyway, and none of them ran off inventing their own churches. They stayed in the Church where sinners belong. Even if somehow Satan himself were to become pope, he would do a lot of damage, but he could not teach an error. The Holy Spirit wouldn't let him. It is impossible for the Church to teach error, if you believe the Bible. Jesus builds the Church, He doesn't build something that would later fall apart. Scraping the bottom of the historical barrel for rotten apples to discredit the whole barrel has never worked.
The sola scriptura mindset makes it impossible to comprehend infallibility, no matter how eloquently or frequently it is explained, or how much proof text is used. Infallibility does not come from popes, bishops or councils. "I shall be with you always..." not: I shall be with you when I get back from my vacation in 1517.
The moral deficiencies of the original Protestant so-called "reformers" were the MOTIVE, for their apostasy. It was not merely that they were sinners. They were sinners who apostatized BECAUSE of their sins.
If Henry VIII did not want to divorce his sacramentally married wife, marry his chippie mistress, steal Church lands and use the money to pay off his personal debts, England would still be Catholic. Henry VIII made himself 'head of the Church" in England. He had more mistresses than wives and he killed several of those. He used his 'religious authority' to ignore the teaching of Our Lord and Savior on divorce and serve his own lusts. he was also guilty of greed, egoism, cruelty, murder, extortion, and irreligion.
If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship…
Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her. He was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess. He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein.
If Zwingli the priest had not been a sex crazed rogue who seduced the young women in his congregation... and frequented prostitutes...
If Calvin had not been an egomaniac who had murderous intent towards anyone who disagreed with him and in fact executed many people under horrendous conditions. he treated the Genevans so badly that they through him out of town, but in the social chaos that ensued they invited him back so he could use his form of dictatorial repression to stabilize the social disaster the 'reform' had created. And there are the credible charges of his own private vices.
If Knox had not been part of the assassination team that murdered Cardinal Beaton...
- Cranmer was Henry's foil to destroy the Church. He had a secret wife in Germany while he pretended to be a celibate priest.
All in all they were total moral reprobates and hypocrites. Forgive me for not finding them worthy to challenge Historic Christianity, especially when their false doctrines were at the service of their personal vices.
The faults of the so-called "reformers" are central to their apostasy.
To turn around and complain that some Catholics may not have been nice is besides the point. No matter how mean some of them were, they stayed in the Church. Jesus said that he had come to save sinners, not righteous people. In light of that, claiming that Catholics were sinners therefore someone needed to found a new Church makes no sense! Sinners need to be in THE Church and no other.
I apologize, I've been giving you a spiritual answer to test your understanding.tom55 said:
A person can be born again at any time in their life, assuming they understand their sin and God's gift in Christ, and in an instant they are transformed. However, understanding anything, including what the Lord has said, requires knowledge, both of scripture and of the world. Prior to salvation, some people know a great deal about the world, but nothing about scripture. Others know a great deal about scripture, but very little about the world (their heads are in the book, which is good, but their eyes don't see all that is around them.) Still others know very little about anything.
The proper way to interpret scripture is to understand its context, trust in what the Holy Spirit is telling you, and verify that the meaning agrees with the body of scripture (some interpretations are really just applications, but we can't always tell the difference.)
When we receive His Spirit, our minds remain trained by our education and knowledge of the world (our world view) which varies widely across the planet and across time. Consequently our understanding of scripture changes as we grow and mature in Christ. Its not unusual for preachers of the word to modify their view of a particular passage of scripture when they review it at different times in their lives, because their understanding of everything changes both with experience in the world, and with the "renewal of their minds" which comes in the working out of our salvation day to day and our ongoing study of scripture under the guidance of His Spirit. The more mature we become spiritually (not physically), the closer is our understanding to the author's. He teaches us what we need to know for salvation and for righteous living, the rest is just gravy. This also means that the Lord reveals what we need to know in His time, not our own, and He never gives us more than we can handle. Teaching in the church helps to bring us "up to speed" with the general understanding of the church that we attend, but human teachers make mistakes because their understanding is always limited by what the Holy Spirit is teaching them. The RCC has tried to get around this by an established dogma emanating from the Vatican and a historically recent doctrine of Papal infallibility (there was no reason for such a doctrine prior to the wide spread publishing of scripture in various languages.) Unfortunately, the Vatican placed itself in a box delineated by error through that same doctrine. The Pope can't reverse the declarations of another Pope or even his own without revealing the farcical notion of Papal infallibility.
Funny, I thought that was the Roman Catholic motto. Who hides historical documents in the Vatican and makes the majority of them unavailable to the public?kepha31 said:Anti-Catholic motto: When the facts of history are stacked against you, write your own or find one that fits the agenda.
I don't have a clue what you just said. The best I can get out of it is that you believe in relativism?Michael V Pardo said:
I THINK your answer is the Holy Spirit is confused since "human teachers make mistakes because their understanding is always limited by what the Holy Spirit is teaching them". That statement to me says that the Holy Spirit reveals some truths to me but doesn't allow me to know the whole truth because our minds remain trained by our education and knowledge of the world (our world view) which varies widely across the planet and across time. Consequently our understanding of scripture changes as we grow and mature in Christ." Since we are not talking about "our understanding of scripture" this statement makes no sense in regard to the question of is the Holy Spirit confused. Your answer is confusing.
Its not unusual for preachers of the word to modify their view of a particular passage of scripture when they review it at different times in their lives, because their understanding of everything changes both with experience in the world, and with the "renewal of their minds" which comes in the working out of our salvation day to day and our ongoing study of scripture under the guidance of His Spirit. It sounds like you believe the Holy Spirit is confused and allows preachers to change their view of scripture. That is a bizarre way to look at the Holy Spirit in my opinion. Your statement means there is no truth in scripture because it can change over time as I get older and more mature. Completely illogical belief and not based on scripture.
I'm sorry that I'm beyond your comprehension, but I've dumbed it down as much as possible. If you're looking for reasons to disbelieve God or to justify yourself, then you'll fit in just fine where you're going. I was raised and confirmed there, but I'll never go back.tom55 said:
The only relativism that I believe in is found in Einstein's theories on physics (Einstein's book on Relativity is written for laymen if you have an interest in such things.) People have misapplied these where there is no relevance, but my world is full of absolutes. I feel sorry for a generation that hasn't been taught how to think, but it wasn't any of my doing. The world wants cattle, the RCC wants sheep, but few people have time for men.
May you grow in His grace and in His knowledge, time will reveal what is true and what isn't, and there's at least a thousand years left of that, though some will learn later rather than sooner.
The logic of Michael Pardo:Michael V Pardo said:
One word of warning. Don't put yourself in a box. For instance if somebody asks you if the Eucharist is His body and blood like Jesus said it was you tell them what you believe. Or if Baptism saves you or is just a symbol OR if gay marriage is condoned in scripture OR if abortion is ok. Tell them what you believe at that time. This is very important.....Make sure you let them know that you have the option of changing your mind as you get more mature and read more scripture. Remind them that Scripture is not God's spoken word and the truth. Be sure to tell them that the truth is relative to ones maturity level and how much they read scripture.
If what you wrote was "dumbed down" for me then I will wait until you are sober so we can have a logical conversation.
Hey, I think that you've got it.tom55 said:
The Lord primarily holds you responsible for what you know, not what you don't know, and the only admonition He gives with regard to teaching is that not many of us should be teachers as they will be held to a higher standard.
200 years ago, the intellectual elite of Europe were claiming that books like Daniel and Isaiah were written after the fact, after the events occurred. They didn't know that a young boy would climb into a cave and find the first of a set of scrolls collectively called "the dead sea scrolls" and cause the public's view on scripture to radically change, but God did. If understanding didn't change we'd all still be in the dark ages.
I don't anticipate any further conversation with you logical or otherwise, as I've completed my testimony on this site and written (or typed) everything that the Lord would have me say, and then some. So have a nice life while you can; the days are getting shorter and our time was never meant for this.
i have known many many protestants in my time and i can't name ONE who is what you would call (a sane person would call) a saint...Michael V Pardo said:
I look @ Mother Teresa... now, there is someone who really BELIEVED, even when it was very hard to continue believing certain things about God... etc... Most protestants i have known or heard of, save Franklin Graham and a few others live for self and the world (and some for the flesh as well). Many condone abortion in certain situations... ditto divorce/re-marriage and etc...
the word Saint should not be used so lightly... it makes the word meaningless
Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual.Michael V Pardo said:
As a 16 year old and having studied scripture for 2 years I interpret scripture, with the help of the Holy Spirit, that abortion is not murder and gay marriage is valid in the eyes of God.
As a 55 year old and having studied scripture for 39 years I interpret scripture, with the help of the Holy Spirit, that abortion is murder and gay marriage is not valid in the eyes of God.
Both the 16 year old and the 55 year old are right in their belief. Such is the logic of Michael Pardo. Relativism!!
AS a 16 year old you may have had the Spirit of Christ, but I doubt it, and it isn't clear that you know Him now. Relativism, as you define it is a farse. My world is full of absolutes, but if you want to continue making ignorant statements, feel free. Its your reputation that you're damaging, not mine.tom55 said:
That is not my definition it is the dictionary, theologians and philosophers definition.Michael V Pardo said:
How can you say you doubt that the 16 year old had the Spirit of Christ? That is not for you to decide. That for God to decide. Couldn't we also say that the 55 year old may not have had the Spirit guiding him? Joseph Smith and Mohammad thought that they had the Holy Spirit guiding them.
Your words ARE NOT full of absolutes. Your words are relative to YOU and how YOU read scripture and your maturity level according to YOUR OWN THEORY. Your reputation is in fact damaged when you say the scripture is relative to the person reading it. Relativism is a theory that was destroyed by Christian theologians/philosophers long ago.
Your theory says there is no absolute truth in scripture because it is relative to the reader. The 16 year old with little life experience, the 30 year old with more life experience or the 55 year old with even more life experience all get a different TRUTH from scripture. They read scripture how it relates to them which means there is no truth in scripture except THEIR truth.
yeh, it is really something when people who dont even know you try to tell u that u dont know Jesus.
But then there is the fact that sometimes a person is right... Catholics are right to say that noncatholics really do NOT know Jesus -- b/c have never BEEN WITH HIM in the REAL PResence--
so Catholics are right when they say noncatholics who have never spent much time in the Real Presence do not know him
This is the greatest Gift God has given us, yet few find... that narrow way (Mt 7)
But then there is the fact that sometimes a person is right... Catholics are right to say that noncatholics really do NOT know Jesus -- b/c have never BEEN WITH HIM in the REAL PResence--
so Catholics are right when they say noncatholics who have never spent much time in the Real Presence do not know him
This is the greatest Gift God has given us, yet few find... that narrow way (Mt 7)
The Lord said that you would be judged by your fruit, and so you are.
the good news is that there are some that are alive in the RCC, and these, if they aren't excommunicated by the leadership, will help to guide you into all truth.
the good news is that there are some that are alive in the RCC, and these, if they aren't excommunicated by the leadership, will help to guide you into all truth.
Phoneman777
Well-Known Member
- Jan 14, 2015
- 7,298
- 2,570
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Unfortunately, you are right that the majority of Protestantism has cast aside the Bible and prefers "popes" to tell them what to do, but in the beginning it was not so. Protestantism was founded on the idea of SOLA CHRISTOS (ONLY CHRIST) without the want or need of some sinful "pope" who thinks himself to be "vicar of Christ".ScaliaFan said:
Historically, the only "pope" the Papacy has ever accused Protestantism of possessing was what it so maliciously and contemptuously referred to as our "Paper Pope" but since the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then I thank the RCC Papacy for their left handed compliment and suggest you exchange your Roman Pontiff for the same, friend.
Phoneman777
Well-Known Member
- Jan 14, 2015
- 7,298
- 2,570
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
SISTER Teresa did more harm than good to the world by pointing people to the Pope rather than to Jesus alone.ScaliaFan said:
- Status
Similar threads
