Spotting Heretics

[EloyCraft]

John 14:6.
That is "Christ Crucified", that is John 3:16, and 2 Corinthians 5:19,....it is the Gospel of the Grace of God, when its PREACHED., like im doing right now in this Post.

Paul calls this, "the preaching of the Cross". = Romans 1:16, this preaching of The Cross, which is THE GOSPEL, or what Paul refers to as "MY Gospel".... is the "power of God, unto Salvation".

And its as "infallible" as God's Son.

Final answer.

Is it infallible teaching? Answer, Christ Crucified, Paul taught. That is a logical fallacy. It's called 'Appeal to authority' because you can't declare your teaching infallible.
So if that is a definitive infallible interpretation of scripture Infallible as the Word you say. Meaning what the scriptures mean to you and God is the same. You think like Jesus admonished Peter for not thinking like. Thinking like man not like God.


Final answer.
I mean what you just declared closes that text to any further understanding. You sure you want to define that scripture?That scripture has nothing more to teach eh?


Final answer.
Not belief in Jesus or Salvation for that matter? OSAS you allow to separate Christ's body? Believing that you can lose salvation gets you tossed into outer darkness? Something every Christian believed for the first thousand years is actually condemnation. Who da thunk?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

You might have to dismantle fundamental structures of your belief system to remove the structures dependant on Catholic corruption.

What do you think I might believe that is dependent on Catholic corruption?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Non -Catholic. Why not non-Lutheran? Non-Mormon?
Or non whatever you want to call it. Does not being them matter ?

Because in this and similar discussions the line of demarcation drawn by Catholics is Catholic vs. Protestants, meaning 'Protestants believe this'. And so I want to distinguish myself as 'someone who doesn't believe Catholic doctrine' rather than 'someone who believes Protestant doctrine'. Catholic error was carried over into and remains in many Protestant churches. I reject the error of both.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

And when Paul said eating the bread is a participation in the body of Christ it really wasn't a participation in the body of Christ. That is simply fascinating! I honestly don't know what to say.

Get the argument right.
What participating in the body of Christ means is what is in dispute here, for a person is indeed participating in the body of Christ when he eats the bread and drinks the wine at the table of Christ. That is what Paul says. But that does not mean you are literally eating the body of Christ, any more than participating with demons at the table of demons means you're literally eating demons.

"I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot partake in the table of the Lord and the table of demons too." 1 Corinthians 10:20-21​

 

[EloyCraft]

What do you think I might believe that is dependent on Catholic corruption?

There are many you add to scripture habitually. Most protestants consider them just as sacred. One that attached to the end of sentence s "" the finished work of Christ." That is not necessary for us or you.That was an accusation of " crucifying The st over and over. So .... another is " not by works but faith, l st a man boast, every time the opportunity rose. Then tradition of men. Ferris, here's really at the heart of your! Traditions dependency on Catholic corruption.
If the Catholic Church is what it says , that it's Teaches what's true as guardian of the teaching for 2 millennia. You would have no reason for staying non-denominational I can tell you it is the only Church that acts and thinks of itself just as one would expect Jesus' Church would. It is visible and tangible it offers the very same gifts as Jesus did. It's not shy to admit to act in Christ's authority and Power. We know that is offensive to some, but what can ya do ?
When someone is accused of sin that they aren't guilty of ...ever. The accused will here all the sin their false accuser is guilty of. Centuries of anti Catholic fallicies of reason have put blinders on blinders. Like and abused child the centuries of an; unhealthy! Relationship with truth has strained mental mechanisms to cope weren't supposed to be in protest mode fo generations let Alone centuries.
Catholics are idolaters who let pagans practice corrupt them. That inability to understand what you see is what it looks like when indigenous religions devotion is directed towards it's true object. I know I don't have to look away from anywhere truth might be.. I love truth wherever it's found. Anyway your conversation is peppered with affirmation of Catholic corruption. @Wondering is a breath of fresh air because I experience the fraternal bond of shared faith around him. The Catholic Church is corrupt in his view but not the scourge of Christ's faith, He isn't as wounded and it shows because he is able to approach the discussion with less bias and in him there is a glimmer that is open to Catholic! Teaching.
Sorry so windy this. peace and Grace.

 

[Wrangler]

You just deny every scriptural defense of Sacred Tradition by changing its meaning into a dirty word. "Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word

No one said tradition is a dirty word. Calling it sacred does not make it so. THE argument is whenever anyone hold tradition OVER the word of God. And this most especially applies to Roman Catholic heretics.

 

[EloyCraft]

Because in this and similar discussions the line of demarcation drawn by Catholics is Catholic vs. Protestants, meaning 'Protestants believe this'. And so I want to distinguish myself as 'someone who doesn't believe Catholic doctrine' rather than 'someone who believes Protestant doctrine'. Catholic error was carried over into and remains in many Protestant churches. I reject the error of both.

Because in this and similar discussions the line of demarcation drawn by Catholics is Catholic vs. Protestants, meaning 'Protestants believe this'. And so I want to distinguish myself as 'someone who doesn't believe Catholic doctrine' rather than 'someone who believes Protestant doctrine'. Catholic error was carried over into and remains in many Protestant churches. I reject the error of both.

Which Catholic beliefs are corrupting protestant Churches? They carried over by Luther or Calvin?

 

[EloyCraft]

No one said tradition is a dirty word. Calling it sacred does not make it so. THE argument is whenever anyone hold tradition OVER the word of God. And this most especially applies to Roman Catholic heretics.

You've been fed a lie about tradition to groom you to believe Jesus had condemned tradition. Do you even know what a tradition of men is ?Sorry I butted in

 

[Wrangler]

You've been fed a lie about tradition to groom you to believe Jesus had condemned tradition. Do you even know what a tradition of men is ?

Yes, and I have eyes to see so have spit out the lies of the so-called sacred tradition of men.

 

[Behold]

Is it infallible teaching? Answer, Christ Crucified, Paul taught. That is a logical fallacy.

Yes, its absolutely truth, that Christ died on the Cross and was later resurrected from the grave.
Its absolutely FACT that Paul preached this deed, completed by God, as The Gospel.

He called it "My Gospel".

Is it yours, EloyCraft?

 

[EloyCraft]

Yes, and I have eyes to see so have spit out the lies of the so-called sacred tradition of men.

My question should be easy for you then. I know I would be afraid of sinning against truth if I'm going to claim what somebody holds true is wrong without understanding what it is.

 

[Wrangler]

My question should be easy for you then. I know I would be afraid of sinning against truth if I'm going to claim what somebody holds true is wrong without understanding what it is.

The beginning of wisdom is to have fear of YHWH. This affords confidence in those who claim his words are or ought to be subservient to theirs, their traditions, etc.

 

[EloyCraft]

Yes, its absolutely truth, that Christ died on the Cross and was later resurrected from the grave.
Its absolutely FACT that Paul preached this deed, completed by God, as The Gospel.

He called it "My Gospel".

Is it yours, EloyCraft?

Whether or not the Scriptures are Holy is not relevant to a discussion about infallible teaching. If you believe the bible is inerrant why would there not be a way to benefit from it? If it was taught before why would there not be a way to benefit from that?

 

[EloyCraft]

The beginning of wisdom is to have fear of YHWH. This affords confidence in those who claim his words are or ought to be subservient to theirs, their traditions, etc.

From the guy that doesn't understand what a tradition is so isn't able to grasp what Jesus taught about it either

 

[Behold]

Whether or not the Scriptures are Holy is not relevant to a discussion about infallible teaching.

Thank you for your opinion.

However, The fact is, the scriptures are truth, "thy word is TRUTH"... and what you think about that is not relevant to anyone but yourself.
You just dont realize it yet.

 

[EloyCraft]

Yes, its absolutely truth, that Christ died on the Cross and was later resurrected from the grave.
Its absolutely FACT that Paul preached this deed, completed by God, as The Gospel.

He called it "My Gospel".

Is it yours, EloyCraft?

You share in Christ's suffering and offer up your Sacrifice to the Father with Jesus? Do you believe that like Jesus Sacrifice, our suffering has power to redeem people around us ? That's the cross as Paul taught.

 

[EloyCraft]

Thank you for your opinion.

However, The fact is, the scriptures are truth, "thy word is TRUTH"... and what you think about that is not relevant to anyone but yourself.
You just dont realize it yet.

I believe the written form of the Word is true. But it can't teach infallibly. You're confusing the two

 

[Behold]

You share in Christ's suffering and offer up your Sacrifice to the Father with Jesus? Do you believe that like Jesus Sacrifice, our suffering has power to redeem people around us ? That's the cross as Paul taught.

What you are sharing is not related to Pauline Theology, or the New Testament.
Its some type of Martyr's complex theology. that is really just one more religious speech that defines absolute Legalism.

Also..You have never shared in Christ's sufferings that are related to paying for sin.
Show us your nail scarred hands, or whip marks.
Who are you trying to kid ?
You talk self righteousness, that is really offensive to the Cross of Christ.

Also, Paul taught that its by Christ's suffering, on the Cross, that we can come to God by this Sacrifice.
You'll never get there any other way then this... John 14:6

 

[Behold]

I believe the written form of the Word is true. But it can't teach infallibly. You're confusing the two

The bible is Truth.

Men who want to sin in judgment of the Bible, created the idea of "infallibility".
Men are stupid like that..
Religious men are even worse.

 

[EloyCraft]

What you are sharing is not related to Pauline Theology, or the New Testament.
Its some type of Martyr's complex theology. that is really just one more speech that defines absolute Legalism.

Also..You have never shared in Christ's sufferings that are related to paying for sin.
Show us your nail scarred hands, or whip marks.
You talk silliness, that is really offensive to the Cross of Christ.

Also, Paul taught that its by Christ's suffering, on the Cross, that we can come to God by this Sacrifice.
You'll never get there any other way then this... John 14:6

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister
What good is it to