Spotting Heretics

[Brakelite]

a circus indeed.

Great strawman. Be so kind as to point out the poster, even any reformer, who claimed to formulate doctrine without consultation to God. I thought Jesuits were more subtle than this.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

a circus indeed.

Boy are you ignorant if biblical principles:

“…he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them” (Deuteronomy 17:18-19)

“…give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (1 Timothy 4:13)

Reading the Bible is consulting with God!

What twisted logic are you peddling here?!

This is precisely why churches like yours should be avoided: to prevent from being turned into a Bible denier.

 

[Marymog]

Because the manner in which those 'words from scripture' is formulated is in the form of a prayer to a dead person. Since when has such a practise been 'biblical', and since when do Catholics defend their traditions by referencing scripture? I thought the infallible word of the king trumped scripture to form tradition. Why not just admit the fact that catholicism is not a biblical religion. It's a man made religion based on tradition. Which makes it a non Christian religion. Jesus never said, in any of His teachings, it is said. He said, it is written.

Got it. You have been taught by your men that dead people who's souls are in heaven can not pray for us......even though a person whose sole is stuck in a sinful body hear on earth can pray for us! Since the human body has ears it can hear our request for prayers. But a soul in heaven doesn't have ears so it can't hear us. And there is no example in Scripture of communicating with dead people while praying. Well, except in Luke 9....but other than that...there is none.

Also, you don't have to keep repeating your hatred for Catholics. We get it...you have been very clear on that. You are a broken record. And your 'it is said' compared to 'it is written' theory has nothing to do with this discussion sooooooo why on earth did you bring that up. It makes no sense. Everything that is written in Scripture is said!

 

[Brakelite]

Boy are you ignorant if biblical principles:

“…he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them” (Deuteronomy 17:18-19)

“…give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (1 Timothy 4:13)

Reading the Bible is consulting with God!

What twisted logic are you peddling here?!

This is precisely why churches like yours should be avoided: to prevent from being turned into a Bible denier.

And Catholics have the cheek to deny their church suppressed the Bible during the dark ages. For goodness sake, that's why they were dark. And here they are still attempting to denigrate scripture and make it secondary in principle to their own traditions and teachings. Don't know why they don't ditch it altogether.

 

[Marymog]

Possibly the most poignant, and honest statement in this entire thread. The Catholic religion is not a Bible based religion. It is based primarily on man's interpretations. The Catholic Church is like ancient Israel. They have desired, and placed, a king over them to fight their battles and tell them what is truth. KJV Hosea 13:9-10
9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.
10 I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes

You crack me up. Thanks for your interpretation of Scripture....Oh, wait. Did your interpretation of that passage come from man?

 

[Brakelite]

Got it. You have been taught by your men that dead people who's souls are in heaven can not pray for us

The Bible... Oh wait. Waste of time quoting the Bible when you're traditions are more important right? You practise your religion, I'll practise mine. Just don't burn me to death for doing so.

Also, you don't have to keep repeating your hatred for Catholics

Repeat? I wasn't aware I had even started.

 

[Brakelite]

You crack me up. Thanks for your interpretation of Scripture....Oh, wait. Did your interpretation of that passage come from man?

I interpreted it??? I simply pointed out a common practise between catholicism in having a king over them to tell them what is truth, and ancient Israel who did the same... Both with similar results.

 

[Jim B]

Not a big secret, The Word of God begins with an Oral introduction, and over time was Written, Copied, Distributed, Added to, Written, Copied, Distributed, Compiled from leaf to Book, Printed, Copied, Distributed, Affordable, Purchased, Given away, and for years has been the number one selling Book.

Scripture Alone, written hundreds of years Before Jesus was sent to Earth, was taught by Jesus Himself to go search, Verify what He taught.

Follow the time-line through history, to the compiling of Leaf to a BOOK, of Scriptures, called the Bible. The time-line of common men learning to read, having access to THE BOOK. And common men having A SOURCE Jesus Himself referenced AS SUITABLE for VERIFYING what men were taught ORALLY, whether or not it be TRUE.

Bible Alone IS NOT about Oral Teaching being rendered obsolete.
Bible Alone IS ABOUT ONE TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE to VERIFY what men are taught.

(At the exponential rate of corruption increase upon the face of the earth, observing the last 50 years, even newer Bibles have (sadly) become corrupt and adopted by many Churches and Individuals.)

Bible Alone is based in Scriptural Authority and Profitability.

2 Tim 3:
[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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Jim B]

Not a big secret, The Word of God begins with an Oral introduction, and over time was Written, Copied, Distributed, Added to, Written, Copied, Distributed, Compiled from leaf to Book, Printed, Copied, Distributed, Affordable, Purchased, Given away, and for years has been the number one selling Book.

Scripture Alone, written hundreds of years Before Jesus was sent to Earth, was taught by Jesus Himself to go search, Verify what He taught.

Follow the time-line through history, to the compiling of Leaf to a BOOK, of Scriptures, called the Bible. The time-line of common men learning to read, having access to THE BOOK. And common men having A SOURCE Jesus Himself referenced AS SUITABLE for VERIFYING what men were taught ORALLY, whether or not it be TRUE.

Bible Alone IS NOT about Oral Teaching being rendered obsolete.
Bible Alone IS ABOUT ONE TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE to VERIFY what men are taught.

(At the exponential rate of corruption increase upon the face of the earth, observing the last 50 years, even newer Bibles have (sadly) become corrupt and adopted by many Churches and Individuals.)

Bible Alone is based in Scriptural Authority and Profitability.

2 Tim 3:
[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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I agree with most of this, but there is one statement that I disagree with: (At the exponential rate of corruption increase upon the face of the earth, observing the last 50 years, even newer Bibles have (sadly) become corrupt and adopted by many Churches and Individuals.)

We have an abundance of translations available today and the great majority of them are excellent. Regardless of one's maturity in Christ there is a translation that is well-crafted, readable, and understandable.

I would rank the King James Version near the bottom for most people, as it was created by a secular king to justify his rule and is written in a dead language that is easily misunderstood. Two examples...

Romans 8:1...

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." KJV

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." NET
"Therefore there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus." NASB
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" NIV
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." ESV

(Translator's note: The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M."

2 Timothy 3:17...

"That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." KJV

"that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work." NET
"so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work." NASB
"so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." NIV
"that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." ESV

There are many other examples of the misleading wording of the KJV, but these should suffice.

Say hello to your KJV "unicorn"!

 

[Taken]

The Bible... Oh wait. Waste of time quoting the Bible when you're traditions are more important right? You practise your religion, I'll practise mine. Just don't burn me to death for doing so.


Repeat? I wasn't aware I had even started.

Nothing new.
Verify what you are taught BY MEN, with Scripture.

Nothing new.
Catholicism teaches Verify what you are taught BY MEN, with other MEN; (And a few Catholics are more that happy to list the long list of “of letters, of documents, of Counsels, of Creeds, of Catechism, of Priests, of Popes, “even list some Protestants” expressly exalting Catholics;
“of other men”...as their source”.

Nothing new.
Some Catholics, rely on their Catechism, “as a carte’ blanch” reference to SCRIPTURE.
Examine that closely...WHAT the Catechism OFTEN declares IS Scriptures VERIFICATION....is so convoluted with double talk, it does NOT verify with Scripture...but in fact Verifies with the MEN writers of the Catechism.

Catechism - claimed to have first begun as a Letter, (aka called the Didach’e) supposedly claimed written about the year 65-80, by an unknown author, supposedly lost, discovered 1056, whereabouts unknown, discovered 1873, published 1883.
Since has been added to, revised and changed, added to and Pope declared in the 1990’s Official Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Nothing suspect there...

 

[Illuminator]

Because the manner in which those 'words from scripture' is formulated is in the form of a prayer to a dead person.

Since when has such a practise been 'biblical',

See pg. 29, post# 571, for a SCRIPTURE ALONE analysis of the Hail Mary prayer. It stands unrefuted.

and since when do Catholics defend their traditions by referencing scripture?

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

I thought the infallible word of the king trumped scripture to form tradition.

Infallibility is another term you cannot comprehend; hair-brain comments like this proves it. This link provides an explanation that your man made traditions blinds you from seeing.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

Why not just admit the fact that catholicism is not a biblical religion.

That's as dumb as saying the Betty Crocker Cookbook has no recipes, or, Betty Crocker can't cook.

It's a man made religion based on tradition.

A stupid insult. The Bible teaches that the BIBLICAL rule of faith is Teaching Authority (Magisterium) Scripture and Sacred Tradition, all working in harmony. One is not "above" the other. That's just fear mongering nonsense from prejudiced, ignorant anti-Catholics.

Which makes it a non Christian religion. Jesus never said, in any of His teachings, it is said. He said, it is written.

That would rule out ALL the oral preaching of the Apostles, which is all over the place in Scripture.
ORAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION - Scripture Catholic
Sola Traditio? What a joke.
Did Jesus or any of the Apostles read from a copy of the New Testament???
Whenever Jesus said "it is written", He explained what the Scriptures meant, He didn't let the Scriptures speak for themselves. If you cross reference to the O.T. to what OT scriptures Jesus was referring to, none of them support sola scriptura. The "it is written" argument to support SS falls apart in a heap.

 

[ScottA]

Possibly the most poignant, and honest statement in this entire thread. The Catholic religion is not a Bible based religion. It is based primarily on man's interpretations. The Catholic Church is like ancient Israel. They have desired, and placed, a king over them to fight their battles and tell them what is truth. KJV Hosea 13:9-10
9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.
10 I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes?

Indeed, much of what Israel stumbled with has been repeated by the church...and some are even proud to claim it with boasting.

 

[Marymog]

I interpreted it??? I simply pointed out a common practise between catholicism in having a king over them to tell them what is truth, and ancient Israel who did the same... Both with similar results.

Thanks for your interpretation.

 

[Illuminator]

Boy are you ignorant if biblical principles:

“…he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them” (Deuteronomy 17:18-19)

Sooo, the LAW is the sole rule of faith? Seriously???

“…give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (1 Timothy 4:13)

Nope. Paul is training Timothy for the office of bishop, he is not teaching that each Bible reader has such authority.
TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.

Reading the Bible is consulting with God!

What twisted logic are you peddling here?!

This is precisely why churches like yours should be avoided: to prevent from being turned into a Bible denier.

A Bible denier is one who refuses to believe that God would protect His Church from teaching error.

And is any church and any teacher to be rejected who strays from God’s words, as Paul commands? That is the fundamental issue.

Sure; this is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

Dave, where does Paul say that he derived his apostleship in any way from Peter or the other apostles?

I gave several passages showing that Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails)...

...In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Sooo, the LAW is the sole rule of faith? Seriously???

“…whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

There nothing more to talk about here.

 

[Taken]

I agree with most of this, but there is one statement that I disagree with: (At the exponential rate of corruption increase upon the face of the earth, observing the last 50 years, even newer Bibles have (sadly) become corrupt and adopted by many Churches and Individuals.)

Say hello to your KJV "unicorn"!

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[marks]

Got it. You have been taught by your men that dead people who's souls are in heaven can not pray for us.....

And you've been taught by your men that they do.

What did God say about us trying to communicate with dead people?

Much love!

 

[marks]

What is that supposed to mean?

Derision that the KJV used the word "unicorn" to translate the word that means "one horned"? As if there were no such thing as an animal with a single horn?

IDK . . .

Much love!

 

[amigo de christo]

Ferris knows WHICH men are teaching him the truth. Not HIS men. And more and more as time goes on. I do not belong to an official denomination. That would be impossible for me to do since after all these years of learning I now realize that no one official organization possesses the full truth. As I've been saying, I do not believe there is any one identifiable organization of believers in the world at this time that officially represents Christianity truly and accurately as in the time of the Apostles. The whole truth is scattered across the spectrum of our various doctrinal creeds. There is probably even bits of truth in your church. But to say your church possesses the whole truth and nothing but the truth is simply not true.

Even the very deadly and false religoins have partial truths , BUT NOT THE TRUTH .
the CC is dangerous and as such let no man woman or child dare to enter into any kind of covenant with her .
Its time for the learned to get up and do all to help those who are in dire and grave danger .
As well as its time to exhort the simple truth in that bible by which if folks would take heed , learn , then they would grow up
and no longer be led astray by the doctrines of deceptive wolves all over christendom . Its not a complicated walk at all .
ITS MEN who complicate the walk , cause in the heart of man lies nothing good and it changes stuff in order
for self gain . THAT Is why we have seen such destructions of deadly doctrines getting taught in the place of TRUE BIBLE DOCTRINE

 

[amigo de christo]

And you've been taught by your men that they do.

What did God say about us trying to communicate with dead people?

Much love!

Rest assured while i still have breath in my lungs i would have no man pray to me , but to GOD alone .
And if i do die first , LET NO MAN EVER ONCE PRAY TO ME . I CANT HELP YA , PRAY TO GOD in JESUS NAME .