The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[BreadOfLife]

When you start seeing that I am disagreeing with how you are applying His words to mean, then you will see I was not being dishonest.

So how does a priest or a Pope avoid not exalting themselves in the manner of the scribes and Pharisees by the titles they are called by?

Proof? No one called Peter, Father Peter. No one called Paul, Father Paul. Paul never referred to Peter as the Pope in any of his writings. Peter did not address Paul in his writings as Father Paul in spite of Paul testifying how he related to believers under his care which was by example as a father to his children rather than as a ruler to be called as such. So it is in this as exalting themselves in public places in churches as spiritual leaders by titles that leaves much to be desired. The CC rule more than they serve. They are served more than to serve. Kissing his ring, really? How is that not like the Pharisees and the chief rulers in public places?

You keep referring to Abraham, Isaac, as the forefathers of the nations of Israel as if that justifies calling spirit leaders by that title, when it does not. If you say that it does, then Jesus can't bad mouth the scribes and the Pharisees, but He did. So you are stuck, brother.

So no. It is not a hyperbole when the scribes and the Pharisees were being called Rabbi, Master, and Father. You keep using references of a position in the body of Christ which does not mean they were called that. Rabbi is an honorary title for someone being a teacher and so not the same thing.

BTW scripture reproves the Catholic Church for saying Rabbi means Teacher.

John 1:38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

So when will the Catholic Church correct that oversight after all these years of reading the Bible and claiming to have the correct interpretation?

Your entire argument falls flat on its face because you refuse to see that Jesus WAS using hyperbole when speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees. They were exalting themselves ABOVE God - our Father and Teacher in Heaven.
That was Christ's whole point. It wasn't about calling a person "Father".
The guy who sired me is my FATHER - but not abve my Father in Heaven.

You are either being purposely obtuse - or you really are that dense.

 

[Enow]

Your entire argument falls flat on its face because you refuse to see that Jesus WAS using hyperbole when speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees. They were exalting themselves ABOVE God - our Father and Teacher in Heaven.
That was Christ's whole point. It wasn't about calling a person "Father".
The guy who sired me is my FATHER - but not abve my Father in Heaven.

You are either being purposely obtuse - or you really are that dense.

Okay then. Tell me the difference between the scribes and the Pharisees from the Pope and the Catholic priests to prove to me that the CC is heeding Jesus's words in application in their service to Him if they wind up being called by those same titles they were being called by.

 

[BreadOfLife]

2 Corinthians 1:18 But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. 19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. 20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

You are confusing that passage above with Matthew 5:33-37 below. Those are 2 different subjects altogether. The above reference is about God's promises in Christ Jesus whereas the ones below is warning believers nit to make a vow, not even to swear by it to mean it, because we cannot make one hair white or black as only God can do God's work in us.

Matthew 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

My mistake.
HOWEVER - the passage above doesn't make the claim YOU are making either.
It doesn't say that everything Christ promised to everybody applies to "everybody."

Read it in plain English:
2 Cor. 1:18-22
But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No.” For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me and Silas[a] and Timothy—was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.” For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God. Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

THIS is why the KJV is so dangerous in the hands of uneducated people.
You simply don't understand that language.

Jesus taught the crowds - and Jesus instructed His inner circle.
His message to the crowds is universal. His instructions to His inner circle are for the Leaders of His Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay then. Tell me the difference between the scribes and the Pharisees from the Pope and the Catholic priests to prove to me that the CC is heeding Jesus's words in application in their service to Him if they wind up being called by those same titles they were being called by.

The Pope and the Bishops don
t place themselves above Gos.
One of the Popes official titles is, "The Servant of the Servants of God."

He is OUR servant.

 

[Enow]

My mistake.

Understandable when you are responding to many different posters, making you glance at a verse in a post without actually reading that verse. It can happen when you want to get on top of all those replies to you, but thank you for reading the reference for the progress of our discussion.

HOWEVER - the passage above doesn't make the claim YOU are making either.
It doesn't say that everything Christ promised to everybody applies to "everybody."

I am going to keep your reference out of the quote so I can point out something you are overlooking.

Read it in plain English:
2 Cor. 1:18-22
But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No.” For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me and Silas[a] and Timothy—was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.” For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God. Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

This is a letter to the body of believers at Corinth. It reads to me all the promises of God are yes to them as well as to the spiritual leaders.

THIS

is why the KJV is so dangerous in the hands of uneducated people.
You simply don't understand that language.

I understand the use of the terrn YOU in those passages.

Jesus taught the crowds - and Jesus instructed His inner circle.
His message to the crowds is universal. His instructions to His inner circle are for the Leaders of His Church.

This is Paul writing to the believers at Corinth. That is proof that what Jesus had taught His inner circls of His disciples applies to all believers wishing to follow Him and serve Him as His disciples.

John 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 

[Enow]

The Pope and the Bishops don
t place themselves above Gos.
One of the Popes official titles is, "The Servant of the Servants of God."

He is OUR servant.

You are typing fast.. a lot of typos, but no worries, I think I know what you mean.

~~~>>>The Pope and the Bishops don't place themselves above God.
One of the Popes official titles is, "The Servant of the Servants of God."

He is OUR servant <<<<<<~~~~~~~~~~

So why is there a line in a public place for people to come up to the Pope on a throne to kiss his ring? How is it he is serving others by that? How can that not be seen as a scribe or a Pharisee in loving the chief places in public? How is he not the spotlight in public gathering? Is that how John the Baptist behaved as the prophesied voice in the wilderness when he decreased so that He may increase? How is that serving Jesus Christ when he is the one elevated in public's spotlight? How can he avoid this appearance of evil ?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Understandable when you are responding to many different posters, making you glance at a verse in a post without actually reading that verse. It can happen when you want to get on top of all those replies to you, but thank you for reading the reference for the progress of our discussion.

I am going to keep your reference out of the quote so I can point out something you are overlooking.

Read it in plain English:
2 Cor. 1:18-22
But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No.” For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me and Silas[a] and Timothy—was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.” For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God. Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

This is a letter to the body of believers at Corinth. It reads to me all the promises of God are yes to them as well as to the spiritual leaders.

I understand the use of the tern YOU in those passages.

This is Paul writing to the believers at Corinth. That is proof that what Jesus had taught His inner circls of His disciples applies to all believers wishing to follow Him and serve Him as His disciples.

John 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Not ONE part of 2 Cor. 1:18-22 makes your case that every promise Christ made applies to EVERYBODY.
You are reading things into this passage that simply aren't there.

Tell me something - WHY didn't Christ give final instructions to the crowds before ascending to Heaven in Acts 1
- At Pentecost - WHY did the Holy Spirit NOT descend upon the crowds - but only to the inner circle or so in the Upper Room?
- WHY did Christ only send out the Seventy-Two and NOT the crowds in Luke 10?
- WHY did He only appear to His inner circle on the night of His Resurrection - and NOT the crowds?
- WHY did Jesus only instruct His Apostles at the Last Supper and NOT the crowds?
- After many of His followers left Him after the Bread of Life discourse (John 6:66) - WHY did Jesus turn to the TWELVE and say, "Do you also want to leave?" Why didn't He address the rest of the crowd??

Jesus differentiated between the crowds and the leaders of His Church - but YOU don't approve.
That's YOUR problem . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are typing fast.. a lot of typos, but no worries, I think I know what you mean.

~~~>>>The Pope and the Bishops don't place themselves above God.
One of the Popes official titles is, "The Servant of the Servants of God."

He is OUR servant <<<<<<~~~~~~~~~~

So why is there a line in a public place for people to come up to the Pope on a throne to kiss his ring? How is it he is serving others by that? How can that not be seen as a scribe or a Pharisee in loving the chief places in public? How is he not the spotlight in public gathering? Is that how John the Baptist behaved as the prophesied voice in the wilderness when he decreased so that He may increase? How is that serving Jesus Christ when he is the one elevated in public's spotlight? How can he avoid this appearance of evil ?

Because, UNLIKE the Pharisees who placed these kinds of requirements before the people - kissing the Pope's ring is NOT a requirement but merely a sign of respect.

A person who lives for the glory of God will always glorify Him.
My mom just died a couple of weeks ago and the outpouring of love, respect and tributes was overwhelming. Hundreds of people from church and social media bombarded us with stories of her "greatness" and charity, etc. ALL of it was done for the Glory of God - even if somebody out there thought she did it for herself.

If YOU don't believe the Pope glorifies God - again, that's YOUR issue.

 

[Enow]

Because, UNLIKE the Pharisees who placed these kinds of requirements before the people - kissing the Pope's ring is NOT a requirement but merely a sign of respect.

This is why he must decrease if He is to increase.

2 Corinthians 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. 7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. 11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

Somehow you all treat the Pope more than you ought to and you treat him more when Paul was nothing in God's ministry to others.

A person who lives for the glory of God will always glorify Him.

But if he shares in the spotlight of that glory of God by authority that should be the Word of God alone, then that is not the same thing.

My mom just died a couple of weeks ago and the outpouring of love, respect and tributes was overwhelming. Hundreds of people from church and social media bombarded us with stories of her "greatness" and charity, etc. ALL of it was done for the Glory of God - even if somebody out there thought she did it for herself.

She neither sought accolades nor those tributes for how she served Him and that is a true servant of God, brother.

If YOU don't believe the Pope glorifies God - again, that's YOUR issue.

Granted, only because he is in that elevated position that I find it hard to see him as a servant, but as a ruler that loves the tribute given to his position as Pope. Notice all the parade of people thronging in to touch him like some rock star? You don't see anything wrong with that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is why he must decrease if He is to increase.

2 Corinthians 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. 7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. 11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
Somehow you all treat the Pope more than you ought to and you treat him more when Paul was nothing in God's ministry to others.

But if he shares in the spotlight of that glory of God by authority that should be the Word of God alone, then that is not the same thing.

She neither sought accolades nor those tributes for how she served Him and that is a true servant of God, brother.

Granted, only because he is in that elevated position that I find it hard to see him as a servant, but as a ruler that loves the tribute given to his position as Pope. Notice all the parade of people thronging in to touch him like some rock star? You don't see anything wrong with that?

And if you think that the Pope "seeks accolades" for what he is doing - virtually EVERY Pope can be quoted as NOT wanting this "honor". They served out of love for God and the needs of the Christian world.

Being crippled by such an anti-Catholic bias as you are - YOUR viewpoint is unrealistic . . .

 

[Enow]

And if you think that the Pope "seeks accolades" for what he is doing - virtually EVERY Pope can be quoted as NOT wanting this "honor". They served out of love for God and the needs of the Christian world.

Being crippled by such an anti-Catholic bias as you are - YOUR viewpoint is unrealistic . . .

Billy Graham did not want to be given the credit by Christians for leading others to salvation but he can't avoid it when he is the one that leads them to make a commitment to follow Christ at that altar call. And that altar call is the opposite of what Billy Graham preached as the gospel.

He said that it is not by going to church every Sunday that is going to save you. It is not by keeping the ten commandments that is going to save you. It is all those who call upon the name of the Lord. That is the gospel he preached, but the altar call is the opposite.

"If you are not sure you are saved, come forward and make a commitment to follow Christ." Now think about that for a moment. When someone comes forward, they are seeking the assurance of their salvation by keeping that commitment to follow Him when they make it. Now think about all those things He taught us to do for them to keep that commitment to follow Him by to gain assurance of that salvation. Going to church every Sunday... keeping His commandments which are higher than the commandments of the Old Covenant. Wow.

It is no wonder why Billy Graham said he doubted Jesus would receive him in his interview with Tony Snow, because he said he was not always a good Christian. It is by that commitment is why he judged himself for why he has no assurance of salvation.

I believe he is saved and in Heaven, but he is going to wish he had not look to his own power to gain assurance of salvation which was the opposite of what he had preached and he led many astray by that altar call itself. Fans of Billy Graham continues to give their accolades and Franklin Graham has not changed the altar call either.

And I cannot see fans waving and shouting praises to the Pope as not accolades. Switch him out with a rock star, would you be able to see my point? Kissing his ring... is giving him more respect than he deserves. You cannot see that because it has always been that way in your point of view.

Put that ring on Martin Luther or Jack Chick, will you see my point then? So how is that not elevating him to a position of "authority" over all Catholic churches as a ruler like the scribes and the Pharisees were doing in Judaism?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Billy Graham did not want to be given the credit by Christians for leading others to salvation but he can't avoid it when he is the one that leads them to make a commitment to follow Christ at that altar call. And that altar call is the opposite of what Billy Graham preached as the gospel.

He said that it is not by going to church every Sunday that is going to save you. It is not by keeping the ten commandments that is going to save you. It is all those who call upon the name of the Lord. That is the gospel he preached, but the altar call is the opposite.

"If you are not sure you are saved, come forward and make a commitment to follow Christ." Now think about that for a moment. When someone comes forward, they are seeking the assurance of their salvation by keeping that commitment to follow Him when they make it. Now think about all those things He taught us to do for them to keep that commitment to follow Him by to gain assurance of that salvation. Going to church every Sunday... keeping His commandments which are higher than the commandments of the Old Covenant. Wow.

It is no wonder why Billy Graham said he doubted Jesus would receive him in his interview with Tony Snow, because he said he was not always a good Christian. It is by that commitment is why he judged himself for why he has no assurance of salvation.

I believe he is saved and in Heaven, but he is going to wish he had not look to his own power to gain assurance of salvation which was the opposite of what he had preached and he led many astray by that altar call itself. Fans of Billy Graham continues to give their accolades and Franklin Graham has not changed the altar call either.

And I cannot see fans waving and shouting praises to the Pope as not accolades. Switch him out with a rock star, would you be able to see my point? Kissing his ring... is giving him more respect than he deserves. You cannot see that because it has always been that way in your point of view.

Put that ring on Martin Luther or Jack Chick, will you see my point then? So how is that not elevating him to a position of "authority" over all Catholic churches as a ruler like the scribes and the Pharisees were doing in Judaism?

Soooo, it's "okay" for Billy Graham to have tens of thousands of screaming fans because he has dedicated his life to bringing people to the Lord - but it's NOT okay for the Pope to have tens of thousands of people looking for his leadership??

Can YOU say, "Hypocrisy?"

By the way - I always liked Billy Graham . . .

 

[Marymog]

Billy Graham did not want to be given the credit by Christians for leading others to salvation but he can't avoid it when he is the one that leads them to make a commitment to follow Christ at that altar call. And that altar call is the opposite of what Billy Graham preached as the gospel.

He said that it is not by going to church every Sunday that is going to save you. It is not by keeping the ten commandments that is going to save you. It is all those who call upon the name of the Lord. That is the gospel he preached, but the altar call is the opposite.

"If you are not sure you are saved, come forward and make a commitment to follow Christ." Now think about that for a moment. When someone comes forward, they are seeking the assurance of their salvation by keeping that commitment to follow Him when they make it. Now think about all those things He taught us to do for them to keep that commitment to follow Him by to gain assurance of that salvation. Going to church every Sunday... keeping His commandments which are higher than the commandments of the Old Covenant. Wow.

It is no wonder why Billy Graham said he doubted Jesus would receive him in his interview with Tony Snow, because he said he was not always a good Christian. It is by that commitment is why he judged himself for why he has no assurance of salvation.

I believe he is saved and in Heaven, but he is going to wish he had not look to his own power to gain assurance of salvation which was the opposite of what he had preached and he led many astray by that altar call itself. Fans of Billy Graham continues to give their accolades and Franklin Graham has not changed the altar call either.

And I cannot see fans waving and shouting praises to the Pope as not accolades. Switch him out with a rock star, would you be able to see my point? Kissing his ring... is giving him more respect than he deserves. You cannot see that because it has always been that way in your point of view.

Put that ring on Martin Luther or Jack Chick, will you see my point then? So how is that not elevating him to a position of "authority" over all Catholic churches as a ruler like the scribes and the Pharisees were doing in Judaism?

I wish it was as easy as calling upon the name of the Lord to become saved. If it was that simple the bible would be A LOT shorter....

Page 1 of the Bible: Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved.
Page 2 of the Bible: The End

 

[Enow]

Soooo, it's "okay" for Billy Graham to have tens of thousands of screaming fans because he has dedicated his life to bringing people to the Lord - but it's NOT okay for the Pope to have tens of thousands of people looking for his leadership??

Can YOU say, "Hypocrisy?"

I was citing Billy Graham as another example of a saint being given accolades for why no saint should seek that position, but he can't avoid it because his altar call is an apostate calling; meaning the opposite of what he preached the gospel about in how we are all saved, for why he was given credit because he led them all to make that commitment to follow Him in keeping that commitment for the assurance of salvation. Billy preached the gospel but did an about face when he gave that altar call whereby commitkeepers are laboring in unbelief for by that commitment no flesh shall be justified for by that commitment is the knowledge of sin. That is not living by faith in Him and all His promises to us to help us to follow Him when they look to themselves in resorting to their own power in keeping that commitment to gain the assurance of salvation.

By the way - I always liked Billy Graham . . .

I'm sure you did when his organization made a promise to Catholics not to convert any Catholics away from their denomination. Even former Catholics were encouraged to go back to their Catholic Church after having made that "commitment to follow Christ" for the assurance of their own salvation.

Think of what is involved in fanfare. Then you know where they both went wrong.

 

[Enow]

I wish it was as easy as calling upon the name of the Lord to become saved. If it was that simple the bible would be A LOT shorter....

Page 1 of the Bible: Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved.
Page 2 of the Bible: The End

Well, it is that simple for why little children are free to come to Him for all they can do is trust the Lord by taking Him at His word. Mark 10:13-15

Now that we have been reconciled to God thru Jesus Christ by believing in Him, that foundation is laid, that seal of adoption is forever, but how we build on that foundation will be judged as per 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 on whether or not we are received as vessels unto honor in His House to participate of the firstfruits of the resurrection OR we are cut off ( denied ) and be resurrected after the great tribulation as vessels unto dishonor in His House.

How we live this reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ will be judged in when and how the saved believers will be resurrected as.

 

[RogerDC]

I know there is no such thing as a perfect church

Yes there is … Eph 1:22-23 says the “Church” is the “fullness” of Christ - Christ is perfect, so therefore his Church is also perfect. The Church is perfect because it is guided by the Holy Spirit “into all truth” and cannot teach error - however, none of the Church’s individual members are perfect, as we are all sinners.

 

[RogerDC]

The fact that the CC bothered to list those books as Apocrypha makes me wonder if they knew why as if separating them from the rest of scripture.

Here’s an interesting fact that you need to consider: Three-quarters of the OT quotes that appear in the NT were taken from the Septuagint (Greek translation) version of the OT, which was compiled hundreds of years before Jesus walked the earth. That means the writers of the NT who quoted from the Septuagint considered to it be the inspired canon of Scripture. The Septuagint contains the seven deuterocanonical books (which Protestants reject and call “Apocryphal”), so if it’s okay for the NT writers to accept those seven books as inspired, it’s okay for me.

But that is entirely different when the CC has been adding traditions to the churches. That is not keeping the traditions the churches had already received from Paul, let alone Peter.

I think you’ve got that wrong. The Scriptures command the Church to keep the traditions established by the apostles (2Thess 2:15), but which Scripture that says the Church cannot add to the traditions already established by the apostles? I can’t find one. If there is no such Scripture, the Church if free to add traditions while still keeping the original apostolic traditions.

the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes

What was their doctrine?

If the Lord can't help you see the truth in His words that the CC have not been keeping the traditions handed down by Paul & Peter, but creating their own; hence Eucharist and Mass, then I can't help you, brother, but I pray that He will someday.

The Lord helps Catholics see the truth in His words every day, because the Catholic Church is the Word of God. And thanks for the offer, but Catholics don’t need your “help” - His sheep know his voice; they will not follow the voice of strangers (John 10:4-5).

 

[RogerDC]

If He says for you not to be called Rabbi nor Master and goes on with an example for you also not to call any one "Father" then He is referring to NOT being like the ruling Pharisees, but God rules over you and the fellow believers.

The Church is the Word of God and therefore her appointed bishops and priests rule over me in spiritual matters. Because they represent God, I am happy to address them as “Father” in the spiritual sense. Furthermore, Paul called himself a spiritual “father” to those under his care.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth......... 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

So how do you apply 1 John 2:27 when the CC demands they can only teach you the correct interpretation of His words? Do you believe the apostle John over the CC or not?

I believe the apostle John and I believe the CC, but I don’t believe you.

If the Holy Spirit teaches you “all things” (1John 2:27), why do need to read the Bible? ... and why does Christ provide “apostles … prophets … evangelists … pastors and teachers” (Eph 4:11)?
Furthermore, if the HS teaches you “all things”, why are there other believers who disagree with your doctrine?

You’ve misinterpreted these words from the passage you quote above - “ye need not that any man teach you” - which says the Holy Spirit (“the anointing”) will show (“teach”) the believer who the “antichrists” (v.1) are.

 

[RogerDC]

To imply the Holy Spirit would teach no error thru any one living in sin when the apostle John just gave His words that they could not do the truth when they are not in fellowship with the Father & the Son, makes the doctrine of the infallible Pope a lie.

The sins of a Pope are the result of his own free will and God does not usually interfere with anyone’s free will. There are exceptions to this rule, however. God will not stop a Pope from committing personal sins - however, the Holy Spirit will prevent a Pope from teaching doctrinal errors in his official capacity as Pope; the sins of a Pope are completely irrelevant to that process. A Pope does not have a be Impeccable (sinless) to be Infallible - in fact, a Pope can be the worse sinner on earth but still be Infallible (ie, the Holy Spirit will prevent that Pope from teaching error). This is a concept you fail to understand, but criticize nevertheless.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

To imply the Holy Spirit would teach no error thru any one living in sin when the apostle John just gave His words that they could not do the truth when they are not in fellowship with the Father & the Son, makes the doctrine of the infallible Pope a lie.

Try as you might to twist the Scripture you quoted, it doesn’t imply God cannot make a sinful Pope make infallible decisions re doctrine.

How do you know the Popes you claim were “living in sin” didn’t repent?

If you keep holding to that doctrine, the you can't criticize any believer living in sin when they teach others.

The doctrine of Infallibility only applies to the Pope, not to other Christians.

Incidentally, why would have to be taught by another believer? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit teach you “all things” (1John 2:27)?

The church has been instructed to cast out as in excommunicate any unrepentant brother and not have fellowship with him.

Really? I read this: “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (2Thess 3:14-15).

Or else child molesting priests need not be reproved. Need not be moved to another parish where they can continue molesting children. How many Catholics cry foul?

Just about all of them.

How do they not look down on their superiors handling the matter?

They do.

Saint Peter the Apostle | History, Facts, & Feast Day​

"St. Peter the Apostle, original name Simeon or Simon, (died 64 ce, Rome [Italy] ), disciple of Jesus Christ, recognized in the early Christian church as the leader of the 12 disciples and by the Roman Catholic Church as the first of its unbroken succession of popes. Peter, a Jewish fisherman, was called to be a disciple of Jesus at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry."

There’s absolutely nothing in that quote that supports your (false) assumption that Catholics believe Peter was Infallible as soon as he became a disciple of Jesus.

How else did Satan make Peter say that?

So, you’ve read Matt 16:23 literally and concluded that Peter was possessed by Satan. That’s hilarious. There is no biblical account of Jesus casting Satan out of Peter, so are we to assume Peter continued as an apostle while possessed by Satan?

 

[RogerDC]

Explain how these saints can still be a part of the kingdom of heaven then.

Sorry, I don’t know what you mean.

If there was such a thing as one true Church …

Are you saying the one true Church does not exist? If the one true Church doesn’t exist, then the Holy Spirit has failed miserably and Christianity is a chaotic, confused mess and a farce.

If there was such a thing as one true church, it would be mentioned in the book of Revelations

What makes you say that?

A church can go astray

Ya got that right! - there are thousands of so-called churches that have gone astray … all the non-Catholic ones. But Jesus promised that his one, true Church would not go astray, when he said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16).

but Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone for why He is the Head of the Church and thus over the Head of every individual believer

… which is what the Catholic Church teaches.

; not the Pope nor the priest, and certainly not the CC as the head for you to be led by her when the Church is led by Jesus Christ. That is the example for the Church to do, and not take the place of Jesus Christ for following Him since He alone is the Good shepherd of every believer.

Your Bible says Christ appoints “apostles … pastors and teachers” (Eph 4:11), who are obviously leaders of the Church and have authority over others. Jesus appointed Peter to be the shepherd of the Church (John 21:16-18).

At least you can understand why the Catholics left in becoming "Protestants", granted, they did not prune everything Catholic away when they had left. They should have kept on going in proving everything Catholic by the scripture but they didn't.

No Catholic doctrine needs to proven by the Scriptures. The mere fact that a doctrine is taught by the Catholic Church means that doctrine is the infallible word of God. Jesus didn’t say, The Scriptures will guide you into all truth - he said, The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth (John 16:13).