Which denomination do I belong to?

[Augustin56]

Augustin56,

As a Calvinist, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are the original doctrines given mankind by Christ. The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of adding to and changing the teachings of Scripture, resulting in a system of beliefs that is far removed from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The claim that there was no other Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity is simply not true. There were numerous Christian communities that existed outside of the Roman Catholic Church, many of which held to beliefs that were different from those of Rome. The Orthodox Church, for example, split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD, but it traces its roots back to the early centuries of Christianity.

Protestantism did not begin in the 16th century; it is a continuation of the Reformation movement that began in the 15th century. The Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, sought to restore the church to its biblical foundations and to reject the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.

The doctrines of the Catholic Church are not based on Scripture but on human tradition and papal authority. This is evident in the fact that there are numerous Catholic doctrines that are not found in the Bible, such as the immaculate conception, purgatory, and the veneration of Mary.

The claim that personal interpretation of the Bible does not work because it has led to tens of thousands of Protestant denominations is a false equivalence. The differences between Protestant denominations are not on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ, the need for salvation through faith in Him, and the authority of Scripture. Rather, they are on secondary issues, such as church government, baptism, and the Lord's Supper.

The new information that Protestants claim to have received did not come from a new revelation or from personal interpretation of the Bible. It came from a careful study of Scripture and a rejection of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of suppressing and distorting the gospel message. It has persecuted those who dared to challenge its authority and has used its political power to enforce its doctrines. The errors of the papal system are many, and they have led millions of people astray.

I urge you to reconsider your position on the Roman Catholic Church and to embrace the biblical teaching that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Hey, Tulipbee! I support your right to disagree with me. It's okay.

I'm getting ready to go to Mass, so quickly...

IF, as you say, the Catholic Church has corrupted God's message, WHERE did any corrections come from 16 centuries later? ALL of God's message came FROM the Catholic Church, because there was NO other Christian Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Where would this new information come FROM? An angel? Jesus coming back, Himself? Where?

Is it possible that Catholic doctrine just doesn't agree with your (or Calvin, who arrived on the scene 16 centuries later) personal interpretation of Scripture? (See 2 Peter 1:20-21, where St. Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture with regard to creating doctrines (prophecy)).

Food for thought...

God bless!

 

[DuckieLady]

In the mystical town of Theologica, where discussions unfolded like chapters in an ancient tome, Aunty Jane stood as a beacon of unwavering commitment to the teachings of Christ. The air was thick with the exchange of ideas, and the stars overhead witnessed the unfolding dialogue.

As LadyofFireandLace expressed the challenges of deciphering complex discussions, Aunty Jane responded with a resolute stance. "Alas, the 'attention span' of a goldfish is now the norm for many who do not take a study of the scriptures seriously," she remarked. The words echoed the sentiment that delving into the profound truths of the Bible requires dedication and a genuine desire to understand.

In the midst of the cosmic conversations, the topic shifted to the ongoing discourse about the Catholic Church. LadyofFireandLace inquired if the discussions still revolved around that age-old controversy. Aunty Jane, with the conviction of a seasoned warrior, responded, "If you stop fighting for the truth, then you have surrendered to the lies. We choose what to believe, but at least it should be an informed choice that we make, rather than a convenient one."

At this juncture, a figure emerged from the shadows, a scholar named Calvinus, well-versed in the teachings of John Calvin. With a gentle yet profound tone, he began to share insights from the Institutes of the Christian Religion. "In the pursuit of truth, let us draw from the timeless wisdom of Calvin," he expressed. "For by a kind of mutual bond, the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit, so that the perfect religion of the Word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines."

As the imaginary stars twinkled overhead, Calvinus continued, "In Calvinism, the emphasis is on the sovereignty of God and the transformative power of His Word. It is a call to deepen our understanding and engage in genuine discussions about the profound truths of the Scriptures."

In the realm of Theologica, where kindness and respect were cherished virtues, the dialogue continued under the celestial tapestry. May the pursuit of truth be guided by the light of understanding, and may the exchange of ideas be marked by the kindness that Aunty Jane exemplified. #ChristianReflections

I actually quite enjoyed this

 

[Tulipbee]

Hey, Tulipbee! I support your right to disagree with me. It's okay.

I'm getting ready to go to Mass, so quickly...

IF, as you say, the Catholic Church has corrupted God's message, WHERE did any corrections come from 16 centuries later? ALL of God's message came FROM the Catholic Church, because there was NO other Christian Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Where would this new information come FROM? An angel? Jesus coming back, Himself? Where?

Is it possible that Catholic doctrine just doesn't agree with your (or Calvin, who arrived on the scene 16 centuries later) personal interpretation of Scripture? (See 2 Peter 1:20-21, where St. Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture with regard to creating doctrines (prophecy)).

Food for thought...

God bless!

**Calvinist Response to Augustin56:**

Greetings, Augustin56. As a Calvinist, I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue, and I respect your right to hold differing views. However, I must address the errors and mischaracterizations in your recent comment.

**1. Origin of Doctrinal Corrections:**

You question the source of doctrinal corrections that emerged during the Reformation if the Catholic Church had corrupted God's message. The answer lies in the authority of Scripture itself. The Reformers, including John Calvin, did not claim to receive new revelations or to rely solely on personal interpretation of the Bible. Instead, they engaged in a careful study of Scripture, comparing the teachings of the Catholic Church with the Word of God. Through this process, they identified areas where the Catholic Church had deviated from biblical truth.

**2. Absence of Other Christian Churches:**

Your assertion that there was no other Christian Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity is historically inaccurate. While the Roman Catholic Church held a dominant position, there were numerous Christian communities and movements that existed outside of its control. These groups, often referred to as the "hidden church," held beliefs and practices that differed from those of Rome. The Orthodox Church, for example, has a rich history that predates the Great Schism of 1054 AD.

**3. Personal Interpretation of Scripture:**

You caution against personal interpretation of Scripture, citing 2 Peter 1:20-21. However, this passage does not condemn personal study and understanding of the Bible. Rather, it warns against twisting Scripture to suit one's own desires or creating false doctrines. The Reformers did not engage in such willful misinterpretation; they sought to interpret Scripture faithfully, guided by the Holy Spirit and the principles of sound exegesis.

**4. Doctrinal Differences:**

You suggest that the differences between Catholic doctrine and Calvinist doctrine may simply be a matter of personal interpretation. However, this is a gross oversimplification. The Reformers rejected specific Catholic doctrines, such as the immaculate conception, purgatory, and the veneration of Mary, because they found no biblical support for these teachings. These rejections were not based on mere personal preferences but on a commitment to the authority of Scripture.

**5. Corruption of God's Message:**

Your claim that the Catholic Church has corrupted God's message is not a personal attack but a theological assessment based on the teachings of Scripture. The Reformers identified numerous ways in which the Catholic Church had distorted the gospel message, such as by emphasizing works-based salvation, promoting the authority of tradition over Scripture, and suppressing the truth about salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ.

**Conclusion:**

The errors of the papal system are not limited to doctrinal differences; they extend to historical inaccuracies, misinterpretations of Scripture, and the suppression of biblical truth. The Reformers sought to restore the church to its biblical foundations, rejecting the errors of Rome and embracing the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone.

I encourage you to engage in a deeper study of Scripture and the history of the Reformation to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. May God guide us all in our pursuit of truth and faithfulness to His Word.

 

[Tulipbee]

I actually quite enjoyed this

I am glad you enjoyed the story I wrote. I tried to capture the essence of a deep and meaningful discussion about faith and religion in a mystical setting. I wanted to convey the idea that engaging in thoughtful conversations about spiritual matters can be both enlightening and inspiring.

The characters in the story represent different perspectives and approaches to understanding religious truths. Aunty Jane represents a steadfast commitment to the teachings of Christ and the importance of studying the scriptures. Calvinus embodies the pursuit of knowledge and the desire to delve deeper into the complexities of theology. LadyofFireandLace symbolizes the challenges and doubts that many people face in their spiritual journeys.

Through their interactions, the characters explore various aspects of faith, including the role of tradition, the authority of Scripture, and the transformative power of God's Word. They also touch on the importance of informed choices and the need to engage in respectful and open-minded dialogue.

I hope this story encourages you to continue exploring your own spiritual beliefs and to seek out meaningful conversations with others who share your passion for understanding the profound truths of life.

 

[Tulipbee]

I

Reminds me of John Bunyan's writing style.

Years ago, I was on here and was in prayer and study consistently. It was my timing to do that.

Now, I have to live life more. I still have the time for prayer and study, but not necessarily for debate.

I suspect that many on here are retired and their children have left the nests, and perhaps that's why it's easier to find the time.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-11 makes it clear that there really is a time for everything. One person's priority in life might be preaching and another person's might be Proverbs 31.

Is it really obedience to God to stand back and criticise a mother who is taking care of her special needs child for not taking the time to read a rant? Mr. Duck is currently serving and preaching. Right now.

My real question is, how much does anyone know about the persn on the other side of their screen? And what makes an assumption okay?

**Calvinist Response to DuckieLady:**

**1. The Importance of Scripture and Study:**

* **Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 6, Section 1:** "Scripture is the only source of true knowledge about God and his will for our lives."

* **2 Timothy 3:16-17:** "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Calvinists believe that the Bible is the authoritative and sufficient Word of God, containing all that is necessary for salvation and Christian living. Studying the Scriptures is essential for understanding God's truth and growing in faith.

**2. The Sovereignty of God and Human Responsibility:**

* **Calvin's Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5:** "God's sovereignty does not negate human responsibility. We are still called to obey his commands and live according to his will."

* **James 4:17:** "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."

Calvinists believe that God is sovereign over all things, including the salvation of individuals. However, this does not mean that humans are absolved of their responsibility to respond to God's call and live in accordance with his commands.

**3. The Importance of Informed Choices:**

* **Calvin's Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 2, Section 1:** "True faith is not blind, but is based on knowledge and understanding of God's Word."

* **Acts 17:11:** "Now the Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

Calvinists believe that it is important for individuals to make informed choices about their faith. This involves studying the Scriptures, examining different viewpoints, and seeking guidance from trusted spiritual leaders.

**4. The Role of Debate and Discussion:**

* **Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 1:** "It is sometimes necessary to engage in debate and discussion in order to defend the truth and refute error."

* **Jude 1:3:** "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

Calvinists believe that debate and discussion can be helpful for clarifying truth, defending the faith, and promoting spiritual growth. However, these discussions should be conducted with humility, respect, and a genuine desire to understand and learn from others.

**5. The Need for Balance and Wisdom:**

* **Ecclesiastes 3:1:** "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven."

* **Proverbs 3:5-6:** "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths."

Calvinists believe that it is important to seek balance and wisdom in all aspects of life, including our spiritual pursuits. While studying the Scriptures and engaging in theological discussions are important, it is also important to remember that there is a time for everything. We should not neglect our other responsibilities, such as caring for our families and serving our communities.

In summary, Calvinists emphasize the importance of Scripture, informed choices, and balance in the Christian life. While debate and discussion can be helpful for defending the faith and promoting spiritual growth, these activities should be conducted with humility, respect, and a genuine desire to understand and learn from others.

 

[Philip James]

Not interested in anything but scripture…..

Dear Aunty,

you said: ".was what the RCC turned into even a small reflection of what first century Christianity revealed itself to be"

and I demonstrated that what the early Church practiced was recognizably what the Catholic Church practices today...

but that would contradict your narrative and so you dismiss it..

Pax et Bonum

 

[Philip James]

Rather, they are on secondary issues, such as church government, baptism, and the Lord's Supper.

secondary issues?

Hardly..

But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs,

but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out.

Pax et Bonum

 

[Philip James]

The errors of the papal system are not limited to doctrinal differences; they extend to historical inaccuracies, misinterpretations of Scripture, and the suppression of biblical truth. The Reformers sought to restore the church to its biblical foundations, rejecting the errors of Rome and embracing the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone.

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Pax et Bonum

 

[Augustin56]

**Calvinist Response to Augustin56:**

Greetings, Augustin56. As a Calvinist, I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue, and I respect your right to hold differing views. However, I must address the errors and mischaracterizations in your recent comment.

**1. Origin of Doctrinal Corrections:**

You question the source of doctrinal corrections that emerged during the Reformation if the Catholic Church had corrupted God's message. The answer lies in the authority of Scripture itself. The Reformers, including John Calvin, did not claim to receive new revelations or to rely solely on personal interpretation of the Bible. Instead, they engaged in a careful study of Scripture, comparing the teachings of the Catholic Church with the Word of God. Through this process, they identified areas where the Catholic Church had deviated from biblical truth.

**2. Absence of Other Christian Churches:**

Your assertion that there was no other Christian Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity is historically inaccurate. While the Roman Catholic Church held a dominant position, there were numerous Christian communities and movements that existed outside of its control. These groups, often referred to as the "hidden church," held beliefs and practices that differed from those of Rome. The Orthodox Church, for example, has a rich history that predates the Great Schism of 1054 AD.

**3. Personal Interpretation of Scripture:**

You caution against personal interpretation of Scripture, citing 2 Peter 1:20-21. However, this passage does not condemn personal study and understanding of the Bible. Rather, it warns against twisting Scripture to suit one's own desires or creating false doctrines. The Reformers did not engage in such willful misinterpretation; they sought to interpret Scripture faithfully, guided by the Holy Spirit and the principles of sound exegesis.

**4. Doctrinal Differences:**

You suggest that the differences between Catholic doctrine and Calvinist doctrine may simply be a matter of personal interpretation. However, this is a gross oversimplification. The Reformers rejected specific Catholic doctrines, such as the immaculate conception, purgatory, and the veneration of Mary, because they found no biblical support for these teachings. These rejections were not based on mere personal preferences but on a commitment to the authority of Scripture.

**5. Corruption of God's Message:**

Your claim that the Catholic Church has corrupted God's message is not a personal attack but a theological assessment based on the teachings of Scripture. The Reformers identified numerous ways in which the Catholic Church had distorted the gospel message, such as by emphasizing works-based salvation, promoting the authority of tradition over Scripture, and suppressing the truth about salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ.

**Conclusion:**

The errors of the papal system are not limited to doctrinal differences; they extend to historical inaccuracies, misinterpretations of Scripture, and the suppression of biblical truth. The Reformers sought to restore the church to its biblical foundations, rejecting the errors of Rome and embracing the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone.

I encourage you to engage in a deeper study of Scripture and the history of the Reformation to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. May God guide us all in our pursuit of truth and faithfulness to His Word.

Thank you!

1. Scripture is one of the two main transmissions of the Word of God. Strictly speaking, it is not the Word of God. The Word of God is not a book, but Someone, namely, Jesus Christ. The beginning of the Gospel of John says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." St. John is speaking here of Jesus Christ, not the book. The Catholic Church has carefully studied Scripture for 2000 years now, and did, indeed, write the New Testament. It also set the canon (list of books) for the Bible in the late 4th century at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. It is the Catholic Church that was the authoritative instrument God chose to give us the New Testament. The Church preceded the New Testament in writing, not vice versa. St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), not the individual personally interpreting His/Her Bible. IF there were any credibility to this approach, there would be ONE Protestant denomination, one set of consistent doctrines, with everyone believing the same thing. The opposite is true, however.

2. The Orthodox Church didn't exist before 1054 A.D. The East and West were one Church, the Catholic Church, before then. The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

Here is a short video that explains how the Great Schism happened, etc.

3. Regardless of what the Reformers intended, they did twist Scripture, creating the man-made doctrines that are the pillars of Protestantism, Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), neither of which can be found in Scripture. Why do you think there are 10's of thousands of man-made Protestant denominations? Because they all believe something different, and are all based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture. Anything they interpret that contracts what the Catholic Church has always taught, is in error.

4. Not so. Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation, wrote, “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.”[5] Luther firmly asserted here and in other sermons and writings that Mary was conceived without original sin so that she might become the Mother of God. With regard to Purgatory, it's solidly supported in Scripture. We can began a separate thread on that, if you like.

5. You're missing the point here, I think. Who gave the Reformers authority to do anything? Authority is "given" not "taken." Power is "taken." No one has the authority to contradict what has always been taught from the beginning. BTW, the Catholic Church does teach that we are "saved by grace alone."

When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his horse and said to him (in Acts (9:4), "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" Note that Jesus didn't say, "Why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was indeed doing, but, "...why do you persecute Me?" Jesus Christ identifies as one with His Church, which He promised to stay with till the end of time (Matt. 28:20). Either He has kept His promise, or He didn't. If He didn't, then we're all wasting our time.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Aunty Jane, it's delightful to engage in a conversation about the profound and distinctive elements of Calvinism that resonate with my understanding. Let me share a few aspects that draw me to this theological framework.

I can see why some might be drawn to this “theological framework”, as in many respects, it is a reflection of my own beliefs.....but from my study of the Bible for over 50 years, I would have to make some adjustments in Calvin’s interpretation of the scriptures….

If I may, I will take these one at a time...

1) Sovereignty of God: Calvinism emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of God. The acknowledgment that God is in control of all things, including salvation, provides a comforting assurance. It underscores the divine authority and wisdom that governs the universe.

The Sovereignty of God is absolute…no doubt about that…but I see the Edenic scenario as something that God allowed rather than caused, in order to see if his free willed children would obey him willingly, (which no doubt they would have if it were not for a rebel spirit who tempted the woman into disobedience for his own selfish reasons) and to deal with their choices in this specific time period, which I believe was set aside in order to bring about his original purpose for mankind on this carefully prepared, yet insignificant (in the big scheme of things) planet. Each issue raised in the exercise or abuse of free will could then be examined and sorted before God could go ahead with what he originally purposed for this earth, and all life upon it.

As with the selection of his elect, (chosen ones) I do not believe that God predetermines who will be saved and who will be damned before birth, because what is the purpose of life if it is only to experience a relatively brief period of existence in a sinful state, (that wasn’t the fault of Adam’s children) only to perish? That makes no sense to me. What makes sense is for God to allow a very important object lesson to teach all of his children (in heaven and on earth) the value of obedience, by contrasting the outcome of disobedience and defection from his love and protection, experiencing the results of the abuse of free will that has rendered life in this world far from the image that God intended at the beginning.
This is the life we find ourselves enduring, rather than enjoying.

Life is a precious gift, so why give it to those whom God already knew, didn’t deserve it?

As Universal Sovereign, Jehovah has the right to dictate the terms under which we receive that gift. If we are not free willed, then the garden of Eden scenario makes no sense. Putting the TKGE there in the garden in plain sight indicated that the rule he set regarding it had to be followed, (under penalty of death)....they were not forced to obey his directive….and they chose to disobey him of their own free will, knowing in advance the stated penalty.....they therefore had no excuse.

Satan had to have free will in order to rebel against his Creator first, and Eve had to have free will to believe the lie he told to get her to partake of the fruit, being used as the bait for her husband, who was his real target. The death of the human race came through the man, not the woman. (Rom 5:12; 1 Tim 2:13-14) If Adam had refused to join his wife, an entirely different outcome would have ensued.

Satan wanted worship and the only way he could procure it was to separate the humans from their God and take his place. Disobedience was the only cause of death in Eden. (Gen 2:16-17; Gen 3:2-3)
Access to the “tree of life” was not denied until sin had taken place. God removed the only source of continuing mortal life by evicting the humans from the garden, and posting his guards at the entrance so that no access was ever possible for them as long as sin was in the world.

The “trees of life” were not mentioned again until the Revelation. (Rev 22:1-2-3) They are connected to the healing of the nations when all things are to be restored to what they should have been in the beginning. (Isa 55:11)

 

[Aunty Jane]

2) Doctrines of Grace (TULIP): The TULIP acronym succinctly captures the five points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Each point contributes to a cohesive understanding of God's redemptive plan, highlighting His initiative in saving His people.

First there has to be something to be saved from…..so, what are we being saved from and why?

I don’t believe that humans are totally “depraved” (though some can be)....because the apostles were chosen by God after Jesus spent a whole night in prayer to his Father concerning their selection. If their role was predetermined then why was that necessary? They certainly had their faults like we all do, but depraved? I think not.

Judas was just greedy, but the remorse he felt in betraying his Master, was too little too late as he had partaken of the holy spirit in performing miracles in Jesus’ name, so to sin against the spirit was unforgivable.

God’s initiative to save his people was part of his purpose because he had to rescue them from the curse of sin and death which was the natural consequence of the original sin.…disobedience caused the death of Adam and his wife and their sad legacy was passed on genetically to all their offspring. (Rom 5:12)
Jesus came to “buy back” (redeem) what Adam lost for all his children. Most “Christians” don’t know how redemption works....only that it works. What are the mechanics?

3) Predestination and Election: The Calvinistic view of predestination underscores God's foreknowledge and sovereign choice in electing individuals for salvation. This doctrine emphasizes that salvation is entirely a result of God's grace, not based on human merit.

It is true that no human can earn salvation, and it is also true that God is “all knowing” and “all seeing”, but I do not believe in predestination of individuals.....only a predetermined plan of action to deal with the choices made by his free willed children, both in heaven and on earth.

Individual choice is the reason why we are told to preach....if each person was already predestined for life or death...what would be the point? (Matt 10:11-14) Why the ‘search and rescue mission’?
By allowing people to make their choices, God doesn’t have to exercise his foreknowledge in an active way....he allows the humans and his angels to make their own choices and warns them in advance of the consequences. He then judges them accordingly.
If this was not the case, then there is no basis for the judgment that is coming. Jesus comes to “separate the sheep from the goats”.....he is God’s appointed judge...a role that would be redundant if there was predestination.

4) Biblical Emphasis: Calvinism places a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture. The doctrines are derived from a careful and systematic examination of the Bible. The commitment to scriptural integrity and exegesis resonates with my desire for a solid foundation in faith.

This as you already know, is a valid point of agreement, but having said that, all scripture is from God and must therefore agree in its entirety. For the Catholic church to claim that they are the ones who brought the Bible into being is laughable, as I can guarantee that not a single word in scripture was written by a member of the Catholic church.

After centuries of withholding the Bible from the ignorant masses, (kept in ignorance and fed Catholic theology with no way to check the scriptures for themselves) “the church” was corrupted by its own power over the people....and we know that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. To examine Catholic doctrine in the light of scripture leaves one shaking their head.....none of their teachings finds support in the scriptures.
They are grafted in by misinterpretation and misapplication.

 

[Aunty Jane]

5) Reformed Theology: Calvinism is part of the broader Reformed tradition, which encompasses a rich theological heritage. The emphasis on covenant theology, the centrality of Christ, and a holistic understanding of God's redemptive plan adds depth and coherence to the overall theological framework.

When I was young, growing up in the Anglican church, it always bothered me that I did not want to go to heaven. I wanted to stay here on earth, which is where my heart wanted me to live....in the same conditions that Adam and his wife were first given....a beautiful paradise shared with all manner of living creatures.....I never knew why until I studied the Bible myself.

It was never God’s intention to take any humans to heaven originally. That possibility was introduced only after Jesus came as Messiah, and a clearer understanding of what God’s Kingdom was, and how it’s was going to govern the redeemed human race. Jewish belief always centered on an earthly future, by resurrection, not with an immortal soul that flitted off to somewhere else when a soul breathed its last breath.
The church adopted this belief from the platonic Greeks. The Jews adopted it too...but when you have an immortal soul, you never die, so how is resurrection possible for those who are not dead?
If “souls” go on living, you then have to invent places for them to go.....the church got very creative with this notion.....and “heaven and hell” emerged along with purgatory, and limbo to boot. These concepts were unknown to the original Jews, to whom Moses was used to convey his laws.

All God ever offered his people was “life or death”. They had to choose.
Deut 30:19-20...
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you as well as your descendants may live, by loving the LORD your God, by heeding his injunctions, and by holding fast to him; for that will mean life to you.”

Predestination would invalidate that statement from the Creator. They had to choose the course that would lead to life, (obedience to God) or choose the course that would lead to death.....it was an informed choice that they had to make. Their own actions and decisions would determine their future. We know what decisions they made as they are recorded for our education in the Bible. We learn as much from Israel’s bad example, as we do from any good decisions they made. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

6) God's Glory as the Ultimate Purpose: The Calvinistic perspective often echoes the Reformed emphasis on Soli Deo Gloria – the glory of God alone. It reinforces the idea that everything exists ultimately for God's glory, which aligns with my understanding of life's purpose.

I agree here too...the Son always obeyed his Father and all he did in his service was for the glory of the Father.

Phil 2:9-11...After successfully completing his mission as God’s humble servant, Jesus proved faithful unto death....
“For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

These are just a few glimpses into why Calvinism has become a spiritual home for me. The richness of its theological insights, coupled with a deep reverence for God's sovereignty, has profoundly shaped my understanding of faith. #CalvinisticFaith

I can see what attracts you to his teachings and I am in some agreement with his thoughts, but not fully, so I would not describe myself as a Calvinist.

I am a simple Bible believer who has found my spiritual home with a global brotherhood who all believe the same Bible truths. There are no disagreements causing divisions among us, for the simple reason that we accept the plain teachings of the Bible without embellishment and we understand the big picture concerning why we are here....what God has been doing for the last 6,000 years in response to the Edenic rebellion.....and where we will spend eternity.

We know what God’s Kingdom is, and we preach the “good news” about it in all nations and languages (Matt 24:14) because we all believe one truth...serve one God....and follow the teachings of his son, sent to earth as a man to teach us the truth about his Father, and to offer his perfect life for the one we lost in the beginning. But as Jesus warned.....his true disciples would be treated in the same way that he was (John 15:18-21)....as a heretic and an apostate to the accepted doctrines in “the church” system, descended from the original “weeds”, sown by the devil. In reality “the apple does not fall far from the tree”.....Christendom in its entirety, to us is part of the counterfeit “Christianity” that Jesus also warned about.....since their core teachings are all the same. They may be in disagreement about a lot of things....but their foundational doctrines are straight out of Catholicism....not the Bible.

Those are my thoughts offered to whomever may want to read them.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Then you deny history.

History is not kind to the RCC.....that history is one that should cause shame, not pride.
How much blood does she have on her hands just from the Inquisition alone, not to mention the wars of the nations when Catholics and Protestants were on both sides, and slaughtered their 'brothers' for political differences? Was this sanctioned by God...or "the churches"?

We can agree to disagree. What a great country we have where we can speak our minds, rightly or wrongly. For now, anyway.

Yes indeed....we are fortunate to have freedom of speech for now.....but while we still have that gift, let us not waste it.

The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the original doctrines given mankind by Christ.

Strange that I cannot find a single mention of any of them in the Bible. None of them were given by Christ...who told you they were?

There was no other Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Then, in 1054 A.D., the Orthodox splintered off, but retained Apostolic Succession. Protestantism didn't begin till the 16th century.

Yes, it was just as Jesus said...the "weeds" sown by the devil produced a counterfeit church that would come to dominate "while men were sleeping".....this was a spiritual slumber from which mankind would not wake up, until "the time of the end" when Jesus would appoint a "faithful and wise servant" to feed his entire household, their "food at the proper time". (Matt 24:45) That "food" is not contaminated by spiritual poison.

You have to ask yourself, if you have a different set of doctrines than the Catholic Church, where did they come from?

They came from the Bible....centuries ago, the church changed what the Bible said to promote their false doctrines....the RCC never spoke the truth in the first place. Whoever told you that apostolic succession was the road to truth, was feeding you a fairy story.
If you cannot find all the things I mentioned previously in the Bible, then don't you have to ask where your own doctrines came from?

Did Jesus come back and make some "corrections?" Or an angel (like the Mormon's seem to claim)? Where did this new "information" come from? Personal interpretation of the Bible? That clearly doesn't work since we have tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting Protestant denominations, all claiming to read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit, but coming up with different and contradictory interpretations.

No matter how many times you twist the Bible to make it say what you want to believe, that doesn't make any of it truth. The Bible explains itself if you let it.....it is one book, with one author, telling one story....from Genesis to Revelation.

The RCC was the embodiment of the "weeds", which simply evolved later into new strains with the introduction of Protestantism.....a rose by any other name or color is still a rose.....you can describe rubbish the same way....it all smells bad.

Tell me, where did this new information, contradictory to the original information, come from?

Daniel tells us where this "new information" comes from....but its not "new". Daniel told us what would take place in our day some 500 years before Jesus was born....he told Daniel...
"As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and knowledge will become abundant. . . . . Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand." (Daniel 12:4, 10)

By the 4th century, the RCC had made a whole set of "new" doctrines, that the first Christians would never have heard of.
What God foretold through Daniel, was a "cleansing, whitening and refining" of his worshippers in this "time of the end". What would be the point of "cleansing" if there was no contamination?....or "whitening" if there was no soiling?....or "refining" if there were no impurities to remove? He also spoke of an "abundance of knowledge" that would get his worshippers back on track before the "weeding" took place.

Does the RCC teach you about "the time of the end"?......and what it will mean for those who have not given heed to God's warning in Rev 18:4-5 regarding false worship?
Judgment starts with the house of God....
1 Peter 4;1-18...
"For it is the appointed time for the judgment to start with the house of God. Now if it starts first with us, what will the outcome be for those who are not obedient to the good news of God? 18 “And if the righteous man is being saved with difficulty, what will happen to the ungodly man and the sinner?”
What will happen to those who teach false doctrines and pass them off as Christ's teachings?

Matt :21-23...
"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew* you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"
Who will be on the receiving end of that rejection?....those Christ NEVER knew. "Never" means....."not ever".

 

[Augustin56]

History is not kind to the RCC.....that history is one that should cause shame, not pride.
How much blood does she have on her hands just from the Inquisition alone, not to mention the wars of the nations when Catholics and Protestants were on both sides, and slaughtered their 'brothers' for political differences? Was this sanctioned by God...or "the churches"?

Yes indeed....we are fortunate to have freedom of speech for now.....but while we still have that gift, let us not waste it.

Strange that I cannot find a single mention of any of them in the Bible. None of them were given by Christ...who told you they were?

Yes, it was just as Jesus said...the "weeds" sown by the devil produced a counterfeit church that would come to dominate "while men were sleeping".....this was a spiritual slumber from which mankind would not wake up, until "the time of the end" when Jesus would appoint a "faithful and wise servant" to feed his entire household, their "food at the proper time". (Matt 24:45) That "food" is not contaminated by spiritual poison.

They came from the Bible....centuries ago, the church changed what the Bible said to promote their false doctrines....the RCC never spoke the truth in the first place. Whoever told you that apostolic succession was the road to truth, was feeding you a fairy story.
If you cannot find all the things I mentioned previously in the Bible, then don't you have to ask where your own doctrines came from?

No matter how many times you twist the Bible to make it say what you want to believe, that doesn't make any of it truth. The Bible explains itself if you let it.....it is one book, with one author, telling one story....from Genesis to Revelation.

The RCC was the embodiment of the "weeds", which simply evolved later into new strains with the introduction of Protestantism.....a rose by any other name or color is still a rose.....you can describe rubbish the same way....it all smells bad.

Daniel tells us where this "new information" comes from....but its not "new". Daniel told us what would take place in our day some 500 years before Jesus was born....he told Daniel...
"As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and knowledge will become abundant. . . . . Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand." (Daniel 12:4, 10)

By the 4th century, the RCC had made a whole set of "new" doctrines, that the first Christians would never have heard of.
What God foretold through Daniel, was a "cleansing, whitening and refining" of his worshippers in this "time of the end". What would be the point of "cleansing" if there was no contamination?....or "whitening" if there was no soiling?....or "refining" if there were no impurities to remove? He also spoke of an "abundance of knowledge" that would get his worshippers back on track before the "weeding" took place.

Does the RCC teach you about "the time of the end"?......and what it will mean for those who have not given heed to God's warning in Rev 18:4-5 regarding false worship?
Judgment starts with the house of God....
1 Peter 4;1-18...
"For it is the appointed time for the judgment to start with the house of God.+ Now if it starts first with us, what will the outcome be for those who are not obedient to the good news of God? 18 “And if the righteous man is being saved with difficulty, what will happen to the ungodly man and the sinner?”
What will happen to those who teach false doctrines and pass them off as Christ's teachings?

Matt :21-23...
"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew* you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"
Who will be on the receiving end of that rejection?....those Christ NEVER knew. "Never" means....."not ever".

Yes, history. I would begin with the first part of the Church's history, Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Our Lord. Then, there was St. Peter, the one He chose to first lead His Church after He ascended to heaven. Peter denied Him three times. And the rest, except for St. John, deserted Him like cowards during His passion. Yes, this is the Church founded by Christ, and those were the men He chose. Sinners. Yet, He knew this. He didn't kick them out, nor did He found a new Church with different people.

The Catholic Church alone can trace her roots to the Apostles and Christ. Every other denomination was man-made and has schismed off of the Catholic Church, or from a line of churches that schismed off. And the further away they get from the Catholic Church, the further away they get from the doctrines of Christ.

The Catholic Church copied the Bible by hand for centuries, before the printing press was invented. IF, as you say, the Catholic Church "changed what the Bible said to promote their false doctrines" then no one has the correct Bible. There were no other denominations in the late 4th century when the Catholic Church set the canon for Scripture. Or are you claiming God reached a Big Hand down and handed someone a King James bible???

Again, the Catholic Church has preserved all of the doctrines given mankind by Christ for 2000 years now. The Catholic Church claims that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. No man-made docrines (like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, which you seem to believe) can be added.

Bottom line is, authority. Christ gave His authority to His Church, the Catholic Church, to teach and preach. He promised to remain with His Church till the end of time (Matt. 28:20). Either He did remain with it, or He didn't. And He wouldn't have been playing hide-and-go seek, or a guessing game. His Church was there for all to see, on a hill.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Yes, history. I would begin with the first part of the Church's history, Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Our Lord.

Yes, something foretold in the scriptures.
John 13:18-19…
”I am not talking about all of you; I know the ones I have chosen. But this was so that the scripture might be fulfilled: ‘The one who was eating my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ 19 From this moment on, I am telling you before it occurs, so that when it does occur you may believe that I am he.”
Jesus was quoting Psalm 41:9, written hundreds of years before Christ’s human birth.

The betrayer was not identified until the time arrived for Jesus to pay the ransom.

Then, there was St. Peter, the one He chose to first lead His Church after He ascended to heaven.

Peter was not chosen to lead the church…..Jesus gave Peter certain responsibilities, knowing his faults but showing him that he was still useful to him in the ministry that he assigned to all of his apostles. Revelation shows that the very foundations of the kingdom are based on the 12 apostles (Rev 21:14)….none more prominent than the others in their assignments. Gaining prominence was a very Jewish attitude as the apostles constantly argued over who among them was the greatest, so at every opportunity, Jesus tried to show that there was no prominence among those who serve God…”all you are brothers” he said. He also said to “call no man your father on earth”….something the RCC also failed to uphold. (Matt 24:8-10)

Peter denied Him three times.

Yes he did….Peter was by nature an impetuous man, but with a good heart. He succumbed to fear of man and on denying his Master three times, he wept bitterly at his failing. Jesus comforted Peter by giving him assignments to care for his sheep, but not in any prominent role. Peter must have been able to dispel his feelings of failure by Jesus showing him forgiveness and trusting him to carry out the assignment given to him as a shepherd of his precious sheep.
Peter was given the keys of the kingdom and was used to welcome the first Gentile convert and his entire family to Christianity. Later, the apostle Paul was used to declare the good news to people of the nations.

And the rest, except for St. John, deserted Him like cowards during His passion.

Yes, a good lesson for all of us to demonstrate the courage of our convictions….enough to stand up to the tyranny of any who would tell us to do what Christ never would….or would punish with death those who dared to question their authority or doctrines.
At no time did God ever give his church sanction to shed blood. The worst penalty given to Christians was excommunication….eviction would be enough so that the ‘leaven would not contaminate the whole lump’.
It also gave any erring one the opportunity to repent, and to come back to God on the basis of Christ’s blood.

Why did the church think that torture and murder were the traits of Christianity. The history of the RCC will go down in infamy, not pride. They overstepped Christ’s commands and example in so many ways.

Yes, this is the Church founded by Christ, and those were the men He chose. Sinners. Yet, He knew this. He didn't kick them out, nor did He found a new Church with different people.

Man’s failings are a product of his imperfection…his inherited sinful nature, but at no time did Jesus ever excuse it. We are all sinners and no man has the authority to forgive sins except God and his appointed judge. Forgiveness is based on repentance however, so where there is no genuine repentance, no forgiveness is possible. Can the church put people in a box to confess sins to an equally sinful man and gain absolution from him? Can the endless repetition of phrases and the mindless performance demanded by the church really provide forgiveness of sins, especially if the one granted that absolution is given license to go out and do it all again next week, only to return to the box and repeat the performance……you seem to have no idea about original Christianity if you think that your church is somehow a continuation of what Christ began….it is a complete departure, based on the teachings of men, not Christ.

The Catholic Church alone can trace her roots to the Apostles and Christ.

If you mean the early “church fathers”….then there is your problem right there…..the foretold apostasy that Jesus and his apostles pointed to, was already beginning back then. With the death of the last ‘restraining influence’ (the apostle John at the close of the first century) that apostasy had nothing to prevent what Jesus had foretold….the weeds began like all weeds do…seeds of contention and human ideas that crept in gradually “while men were sleeping”….this spiritual slumber was all that was needed to nurtue those seeds and make them grow strong, taking over the whole crop. The weeds were noxious….poisonous….and they all but choked the wheat out of existence for hundreds of years.
But this was also prophesied….they would “grow together until the harvest time” ….the wheat would still be present, but overtaken by these noxious weed-like Christians, drunk with their own power…..but with no authority for the way they wielded it. Monarchs would not make a move without sanction from the church. They became very much “in bed” with the world which made them “enemies of God”. (James 4:4)

The harvest time is fast approaching, and those who teach and accept the lies that Christendom promotes, will not stand. (Matt 7:21-23)

Every other denomination was man-made and has schismed off of the Catholic Church, or from a line of churches that schismed off. And the further away they get from the Catholic Church, the further away they get from the doctrines of Christ.

Yes…the ‘mother church’ has many daughters, who all took articles of their mother’s dirty laundry with them. They divorced themselves from the more obvious deviations of the RCC, but failed to discard the core of her belief system.…the worship of more than one god in the person of a godhead…something invented by the church and grafted into ambiguous scripture to form the very foundation of of the devil’s counterfeit religion.
They also retained belief in an immortal soul (something never taught in Jewish scripture)…and they invented a “hell of eternal torment” to engender fear and to maintain control.
The ‘daughters’ all retain these teachings.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Catholic Church copied the Bible by hand for centuries, before the printing press was invented. IF, as you say, the Catholic Church "changed what the Bible said to promote their false doctrines" then no one has the correct Bible. There were no other denominations in the late 4th century when the Catholic Church set the canon for Scripture. Or are you claiming God reached a Big Hand down and handed someone a King James bible???

I never said that they changed what the Bible said….they interpreted what the Bible said to mean what it never did…..what Christ never taught. They cleverly grafted their doctrines into scripture and taught these as gospel truth.
Take as an example the first of the Ten Commandments…..
”Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:”(Exodus 20:4-5 Catholic Douay)

Then there is this interpretation of that command to justify the idolatry that is clearly seen in the the RCC.….

”[4] "A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing": All such images, or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image-gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Ex. 25. 15, and etc.; chap. 38. 7; Num. 21. 8, 9; 1 Chron. or Paralip. 28. 18, 19; 2 Chron. or Paralip. 3. 10.”

What is this? Idolatry…plain as day.

Again, the Catholic Church has preserved all of the doctrines given mankind by Christ for 2000 years now. The Catholic Church claims that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. No man-made docrines (like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, which you seem to believe) can be added.

What about evidence of Roman “sun worship” cleverly grafted over with Catholic “son worship”?

Where does the nimbus originate? Not in scripture I assure you….it dates back to ancient sun worship practiced by pagan nations such as Babylon, Egypt and Rome.
There is a Babylonian sun wheel in the middle of St Peter’s Square with an obelisk in the centre, originally signifying a ray of the sun. It’s all there in plain sight…..the RCC isn’t hiding it’s roots.

Christ himself is the prime example of using scripture and only scripture to teach his disciples. (John 7:16-18) If the son of God had to defer to his Father in all that he taught, who decided to change that?….and by whose authority did “the church” invent its own unscriptural doctrines and pass them off as acceptable to God?

Bottom line is, authority. Christ gave His authority to His Church, the Catholic Church, to teach and preach. He promised to remain with His Church till the end of time (Matt. 28:20). Either He did remain with it, or He didn't. And He wouldn't have been playing hide-and-go seek, or a guessing game. His Church was there for all to see, on a hill.

Bottom line is….the RCC was never Christ’s church to begin with…..it was instituted by a pagan emperor long after the death of Christ and his apostles, who found a way to consolidate his religiously divided empire by instituting one state religion, which was a fusion of weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. Christ was never part of your church, and I am sorry for all those who have been victims of its lies and deceit. God will expose all the rot before he brings an end to the wickedness of this world.

True to prophesy, the true disciples of Jesus were the persecuted “few”, not the deceived “many”. (Matt 7:13-14; John 15:18-21)

Please make a truthful study of the activities and history of your church and see that the devil is using you to further his own ends.

 

[Shittim]

Then you deny history. We can agree to disagree. What a great country we have where we can speak our minds, rightly or wrongly. For now, anyway.

The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the original doctrines given mankind by Christ. There was no other Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Then, in 1054 A.D., the Orthodox splintered off, but retained Apostolic Succession. Protestantism didn't begin till the 16th century.

You have to ask yourself, if you have a different set of doctrines than the Catholic Church, where did they come from? Did Jesus come back and make some "corrections?" Or an angel (like the Mormon's seem to claim)? Where did this new "information" come from? Personal interpretation of the Bible? That clearly doesn't work since we have tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting Protestant denominations, all claiming to read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit, but coming up with different and contradictory interpretations.

Tell me, where did this new information, contradictory to the original information, come from?

the Book of the Acts of the Apostles tells of the original ecclesia, body of believers, Constantine may not have truly been Christian when he closed the pagan temples and created a "church" based om the Roman form of government, telling people if they wanted to go to heaven they had to go through his "church".
best wishes

 

[Augustin56]

the Book of the Acts of the Apostles tells of the original ecclesia, body of believers, Constantine may not have truly been Christian when he closed the pagan temples and created a "church" based om the Roman form of government, telling people if they wanted to go to heaven they had to go through his "church".
best wishes

Constantine stopped the persecution of the Church. He didn't change the Church, nor did He create a new Church.

 

[Shittim]

Nope, he opened the pagan temples for worship and created a "church" based on the Roman form of government. "His" church bears little resemblance to the meeting together in His name seen in Acts, and where Holy Spirit was invited and came in power.
best wishes

 

[Augustin56]

I never said that they changed what the Bible said….they interpreted what the Bible said to mean what it never did…..what Christ never taught. They cleverly grafted their doctrines into scripture and taught these as gospel truth.
Take as an example the first of the Ten Commandments…..
”Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:”(Exodus 20:4-5 Catholic Douay)

Then there is this interpretation of that command to justify the idolatry that is clearly seen in the the RCC.….

”[4] "A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing": All such images, or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image-gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Ex. 25. 15, and etc.; chap. 38. 7; Num. 21. 8, 9; 1 Chron. or Paralip. 28. 18, 19; 2 Chron. or Paralip. 3. 10.”

What is this? Idolatry…plain as day.
View attachment 40469 View attachment 40470

What about evidence of Roman “sun worship” cleverly grafted over with Catholic “son worship”?
View attachment 40473 View attachment 40474
Where does the nimbus originate? Not in scripture I assure you….it dates back to ancient sun worship practiced by pagan nations such as Babylon, Egypt and Rome.
There is a Babylonian sun wheel in the middle of St Peter’s Square with an obelisk in the centre, originally signifying a ray of the sun. It’s all there in plain sight…..the RCC isn’t hiding it’s roots.

Christ himself is the prime example of using scripture and only scripture to teach his disciples. (John 7:16-18) If the son of God had to defer to his Father in all that he taught, who decided to change that?….and by whose authority did “the church” invent its own unscriptural doctrines and pass them off as acceptable to God?

Bottom line is….the RCC was never Christ’s church to begin with…..it was instituted by a pagan emperor long after the death of Christ and his apostles, who found a way to consolidate his religiously divided empire by instituting one state religion, which was a fusion of weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. Christ was never part of your church, and I am sorry for all those who have been victims of its lies and deceit. God will expose all the rot before he brings an end to the wickedness of this world.

True to prophesy, the true disciples of Jesus were the persecuted “few”, not the deceived “many”. (Matt 7:13-14; John 15:18-21)

Please make a truthful study of the activities and history of your church and see that the devil is using you to further his own ends.

There is so much to disagree with here, based on your ideological anti-Catholicism, rather than objective truth, that it would take far longer than I have the energy or desire to address. If Iwere a younger man with more energy, and I thought that you might be open to objective truth, perhaps.