No you just showing the world your "hate" face, you are the perfect reason as to why people shouldnt join religions. they might become aggressive, ooh i get it you created that site.
Who founded your church?
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are arguing against yourself. I agree, but if this is the case, we are all apostates, according to Catholic doctrine that says we must obey the commandments to remain saved.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Jesus stated explicitly that we CANNOT love Him unless we keep His commandements (John 14:15).
If YOU believe that we can remain saved and STOP loving Christ - please show me where the Bible makes this claim.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Ummmm, I'm NOT the one who referenced that site for doctrinal purposes. YOU did.
I completely understand why you don't want anybody here to know about it because it is so wacky - but just a few minutres ago in post #760 - YOU posted the following about "aggressivchristianity.net", home of the "Shin Ra Na" sect:
"I did warn yot o stay away from that site, the truth upsets you its your own doing."
I have challenged everybody here to visit that site to see for themselves where YOU get your bizarre teachings . . .
It is delusion to think you are immune to the same seductions the apostles themselves were and are unable to succumb to those seductions in the form of Nicolaitan doctrine that pervades Catholicism.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: (Revelation 3:17)
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9)
It is quite obvious you are unwilling to hear rebuke, and reproof. It is quite obvious you do not see the humanity of the church fathers and their failures and instead you have painted them with delusional eyes. I Love their writings, but I also see their humanity and their ability to err, as to err is human. I Love Luther, but see error in him, much of this led to Hitler and the silence of the church regarding Hitler, I love Calvin and yet think his doctrine of Limited atonement is horrible. I Love Wesley yet see that fundamentalism has fallen into the cult of textualism and not been able to hold onto what made them unrebukable as a church. I Love the Pentecostals for bringing back the gifts of the Spirit and divine revelation but see them as also lacking the vital gift of the discernment of spirits thus opening the door to seducing spirits such as kundalini.
Look at the life of the apostles themselves, Paul rebuked Peter for Hypocrisy, James encouraged Paul to take the Nazerite vow to show his Hebrew background, Paul and Barnabas split up so that the gospel could go in opposite directions in the world. Paul fought with his own thorn in his side, He fought against those who wanted to follow him or those who wanted to follow Apollos Pointing them instead to the cross and Christ and to God who grants the Growth. Read 1 Corinthians 3, Read Matthew 23:4-12, Read 1 Peter 2:9-10.
did you catch this? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? (1 Corinthians 3:5) the very premise and title of this post speaks of this Nicolaitan nature of your arguments, denying the Holy Spirit is given to all who believe. Do You see this yet? Or are you still blind to it?
What You are perhaps not getting is the revelation of the Truth does not end, He, Jesus, is the truth, and he continues to reveal the truth to us as the truth grows in us. We all Know in part is what Paul said, That truth has been revealed progressively through history to the church. Jesus said I have many things to share but you cannot bear them yet. (John 16:12), which means some of the truths were not completely revealed to the apostles themselves, though they are the foundation of those beliefs. This Progressive revelation has continued thru the ages, so that the Truth does not change But our understanding of the fulness of the Truth as revealed by the Holy Ghost grows to fulness. So the real question for you is does your church have the whole truth or a partial truth, and are you willing to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches in this day and age, or are you living in the past. We serve a living God, not one confined to building but one who is omnipresent in all who love Him. Not one confined to a single understanding but one who is continually revealing Himself to the People.
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
What you are missing, is that He leads us together into all Truth and that apart from the Church you will fall into all kinds of error...
Your hubris is astounding... you set yourself up as judge of your brethren with nothing but your own fantasy to guide you... You have been warned...
Welcome to the ignore list...
Interesting...if I sin in my mind, against one of the commandments, in your doctrine, I'm damned until such time as the spirit convicts me and I repent. Therefore I have zero assurance of salvation. I get the doctrine, and I've heard preachers teach we can live without sinning, if we try really really hard, which would be the only way to assure we weren't inadvertently damned. But I've never met anyone who lived above sin, so...we aren't saved and unsaved every day by every errant thought, we have assurance that Christ will never leave us, unless we deliberately leave him, not every time we sin. If people really believed what you are teaching, the priests could never keep up with all the confessions.
But they don't. Instead, Catholics seem to think that being baptized as a baby was really all that was needed.
Well you must be a part of it you forever promote it, never se me promoting it,, so keep it up might be good for you..
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Hello Renniks,
I hope you don't mind if I but in here
The assurance of salvation is abiding in Him! We certainly have that if we are abiding in His grace!
Examination of concience and repenting of those things the Spirit convicts us of is crucial in cooperating with Him and growing into the fullness that is Christ!
It is by His Grace, and strengthened by His Grace that we are able to keep running that race!
And yes, sometimes, in His mercy, He fills some our brothers with His Grace and displays His power through them! And they are our heroes who have blazed the path before us, and they help us run that race!
As we help each other... (no man left behind and all that!), and we trust and hope in the mercy and LOVE of our Lord and Saviour for us....
and we tremble as we approach Him, yet emboldened by the Holy Spirit come to the Throne of Grace, through the veil, that is His Flesh...
You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!
Peace be with you!
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Ummmmmm, that's why YOUR perverted doctrines echo theirs - not mie.
I belong the Christ's Church - not "General James Greene's" paramilitary cult . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And once again, we're going in circles.
I've already explained all of this o you and what the Bible says about being "saved" . . .
The Scriptures assure us that we as Christians are ALREADY SAVED (Rom. 5:1, 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8)
This is Initial Salvation – God give us the initial grace to believe.
However, because Salvation is a LIFELONG process – it ALSO says that I am BEING SAVED (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, 7:1, Phil. 2:12, Heb 12:14). This is Ongoing Sanctification – God is sanctifying us throughout our life as we cooperate with his grace.
Because of this, I have the hope that I WILL BE SAVED (Matt. 24:13, Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).
This is Final Sanctification/Salvation – We die and go to heaven having endured to the end.
It's not about "being saved" and "being unsaved".
Salvation is a process - NOT a one-time, slam-dunk event.
No you believe the catholic church and its fables, if you where in Christ you would not be so angry and aggresive and you wouldnt be promoting those web sites and you would have the truth because He is the truth and you would be free, but you dont want to be free
Unless you happen to die with unconfessed sin. You have no idea whether you will really be saved, because maybe you missed confessing some sin you forgot about. Hope isn't the same as assurance.
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
John 5:24
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
You don't name the dogma, you just make stupid insulting assertions.
Nicolatius was a bishop turned heretic/pervert and was automatically excommunicated from the historic Church. There is no evidence this evil cult lasted, just the garbage you make up. Try citing a primary source to support your psychotic hatred; it looks to me that everyone is a Nicholatian except you. Even better, try citing a recent educated historian with a real degree and not the wanna-be lunatic preachers on you tube. That's the challenge: cite reliable historic sources or stop the lies. Yes, LIES.
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
I see you are not up to my challenge. Your lies appeal to ignorant people, that's why you don't post sources. Ignorance may be bliss but it is never illuminating. Being ignored has nothing to do with being ignorant.
Primary Sources
A ‘Primary Source’ is a document that was written or an object which was created, in the time period in which you are working. A ‘first hand’ item. A diary can be a primary source if the author experienced the events they recall, while a charter can be a primary source of the act it was created for. Photographs, while beset with problems, can be primary sources. The key thing is they offer a direct insight into what happened because they were created at the time and are fresh and closely related.
Secondary sources can include history books, articles, websites like this one (other websites might be a primary source to ‘contemporary history’.) Not everything ‘old’ is a primary historical source: plenty of medieval or ancient works are secondary sources based on now lost primary sources, despite being of great age.
Tertiary Sources
Sometimes you will see a third class: the tertiary source. These are items like dictionaries and encyclopedias: history is written using both primary and secondary sources and shrunk down to the basic points. We've written for encyclopedias, and tertiary is not a criticism.
Reliability
One of the primary tools of the historian is the ability to study a range of sources and assess which is reliable, which suffers from bias, or most commonly which suffers from the least bias and can be best used to reconstruct the past. Most history written for school qualifications uses secondary sources because they are effective teaching tools, with primary sources introduced and, at a higher level, as the dominant source. However, you can’t generalize primary and secondary sources as reliable and unreliable.
There is every chance a primary source can suffer from bias, even photographs, which are not safe and must be studied just as much. Equally, a secondary source can be produced by a skilled author and provide the best of our knowledge. It’s important to know what you need to use. As a general rule the more advanced your level of study the more you'll be reading primary sources and making conclusions and deductions based on your insight and empathy, rather than using secondary works. But if you want to learn about a period quickly and efficiently, selecting a good secondary source is actually best.
Primary and Secondary Sources: Their Meaning in History (thoughtco.com)
Last edited:
You Obviously have not read my comments here, and do not see this Nicolaitan doctrine. Let's start with the word itself. Nico-Laitan means to conquer or rule over the Laity. This is simple word etymology. But as with many names in scripture there is a deeper meaning to the name, for example Israel, or Emmanuel.
Second Point, they were guilty of committing Balaam's error as per Revelation 2:14-15. Balaam's error/doctrine is to prophecy for personal gain. Notice it says the "doctrine of Balaam" there: So this a doctrine, not merely a cult. it is a doctrine that elevates one class of People over the Laity, thus leading them to idolatry by putting a stumbling block in their church. this doctrine has infested the Catholic church, and is contrary to what Jesus taught, for example in Matthew 23:4-12, and which Peter taught and which Paul rebuked the Corinthian church for, which is man worship, and making man an intermediary between God and man, which solely is the role of Christ Jesus.
The Point being you have no logical counter arguments to these scriptures I have raised to prove my point so you resort to name calling and false accusation. Rather than having an intelligent conversation, a dialogue as some here have done to their credit you instead resort to demonizing and accusing of lies and of making things up, and threatening to report my post and have it removed, which is why I said this is mighty Nicolaitan of you. This is how Nicolaitans silence opposition. this is how they oppose the truth, by belittling it rather than having intelligent dialogue.
Thirdly, Just because a problem is addressed in the first century does not mean the heresy is not valid today. Look at Gnosticism which still exists out there in the form of freemasons and other fraternal orgs. It is alive and well, and still influencing people. The fact that Nicolaitanism was mentioned as a problem within two churches speaks of the pervasiveness of the doctrine, how it infiltrates those churches.
Now let us look at the idolatry of the Catholic Church. Transubtantiation says that a states that the Pancake that is made by Nuns in a convent becomes the body of Christ and is held up in the Mass and worshipped as Christ.... this is the definition of an idol, a symbol of God made by human hands and imparting deity to it. The crucifix which is prayed to has a representation of Christ on it, and much like the brazen serpent of the old testament, has become an idol to many Catholics. the statues of Mary that are adored and worshipped, and the prayers to Mary are a form of idolatry. All these things are condoned by the priestly class and used to maintain their exceptional standing as somewhere between God and the Laity, But the true church has ONE mediator between God and Man, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)
So as You can see, My point is a well founded one, not based on some Youtube "lunatic Preacher" but based on scripture and good hermeneutics. it is founded upon the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles themselves, and Points to a serious flaw in the Catholic church and the other churches that needs to be addressed, which is the doctrine that leads two classes of Christians the elite and the masses. The difference between what myself and others are doing here is that I am pointing them to Christ Jesus, you are pointing them to men and doctrines of men, and your cunning craftiness as well as others here is on full display for all to see.
Can you bear the meat of the Word yet?
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. (1 Corinthians 3)
Or are you still living in infancy, and having a temper tantrum?
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Similar threads
