The Apostolic succession

[§outh§tar]

The current Pope has not proclaimed anything beyond that which was taught before him.

In that case you admit that the Bible IS the final authority on God's revelation? And consequently the Pope is a dangerous heretic to say otherwise?

I'm sure this outlined somewhere in canon law, but I will try my best. The Pope has the ability to proclaim doctrines that are in the deposit of faith to be binding on believers(which implies infaliability). This is rarely done.

The Pope has the ability (implying God given authority) to "proclaim doctrines". Regardless of what you term "deposit of faith" (I hae no clue what this even means), I would like to see the Scriptural basis for this claim.

True, for the most part, the Pope is just an ordinary believer.

Except that "grace and power" flow through him. Well then, what sets the Pope apart?

They are not exactly the same but are close. Someone who hears Christ's voice and hears it as true has done correctly. But it's possible to believe that the writings are true, yet not hear Christ's voice. The Pharisees would be a typical example, but we end up to doing this sometimes.

You are such a twister of words I cannot even believe it! Look at John 3:16

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[1] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

There is an OVERWHELMING amount of Scripture which disproves your point utterly. You can NOT believe the writings are true, yet not hear Christ's voice. Show me Scripture that says that!

The Pharisees would NOT have persecuted Jesus if they did believe the Scriptures, that is totally illogical!

John 7

47"You mean he has deceived you also?" the Pharisees retorted. 48"Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law--there is a curse on them."

Not only did they reject him, they said there was a curse on the citizens who did believe. You can NOT refute this as they did make a DIRECT reference to "the law".

I don't think this is good substitution. Someone who disobeys Christ's words has done badly, but someone who disobeys the Holy Spirit's words has done worse.

What on earth are you talking about?

John 16
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

OBVIOUSLY "what he hears" refers to what He hears from Christ and therefore the substitution CAN be made as what He is saying IS what Christ is saying.

Ok, where does it explicitly say you believe in salvation by faith alone? No matter how much "evidence" you bring up, there will aways be someone who quotes something else. There will always be arguments that salvation is of faith, by faith but not just faith.

Well how about you open your Bible to John 3:16 and see what the verb is...

And if you are citing some ridiculous arguments, I would like to see what some of these arguments are that I may refute/accept them by Scripture.

Now a saying that I've come across that's hinted within the Bible and I believe true is "Love is the culmination of the virtues." The rationale was that if someone denies Hope, they deny Love; denies Charity, they deny love; and denies Faith, they deny Love. Deny Love and all the virtues are gone. Yet because this is not in the Bible, I could never believe it's true. I could say its likely to be true, but a final decision could never be made.

Well that's just a sorry excuse because Romans 5:3-4 speaks of such a thing and therefore saying "a final decision could never be made" is just an excuse for not wanting to look. In fact, I suggest you look at the whole chapter to prove my point.

The exact problem with the Trinity is that although there is persuasive and ample proof texts of the doctrine within the Bible, there's no guarantee(assuming sola-scriptura) in the logical process used nor the possible translation; the logical process and reasoning to prove anything from the Bible is outside of the Bible.

That is the MOST ridiculous thing I have heard you say. How can you say there is "ample proof" and then CONTRADICT yourself by saying "there's no guarantee"?

The "logical process and reasoning" used to "prove anything from the Bible" IS FROM the Bible. Did you somehow miss the verse I gave you concerning the Holy Spirit? Are you somehow ignoring the very verse YOU gave me from 1 John 2:27?

You are refuting your OWN arguments!

Hence, a deranged person could start defining good as bad and bad as good. He can do this because such terms are not defined from the Bible, and any things mentioned as good could be redefined. The Bible is not closed to this respect: the definitions of the words used to express God's thoughts are not included.

That is a RIDICULOUS statement! Scripture denies such an assertion many a time.

1 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

You CANNOT tell me that you do not see the phrase "thoroughly equipped". This means it is lacking NOTHING. There is no way around this to prove your errant statement. Furthermore:


Matthew 7
6By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Unless you are going to call Jesus a liar and say that we don't know what "good fruit" and "bad fruit" are referring to and we cannot see the analogy because "such terms are not defined from the Bible" when it is EVIDENT here that they are, otherwise He would not give us this saying.

Ideally, however, the Bible should be used to assure someone of the truth that they've been given. It's a good witness to the faith, and God is able to speak through words within the pages. It's not the only way that He speaks, but since the source is Himself, the Bible is good to this regard.

This is very amusing considering your last couple of statements are heretical and VERY alarming. Not to mention you begin with the adverb "ideally". I will once again use Scripture:

John 5

24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Romans 10

17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

OBVIOUSLY you HAVE to hear the word, therefore it IS the final authority. You cannot believe in Him without hearing the word as the verse CLEARLY says. Therefore having believed in Him, why would you look for a difference source than what the Word has revealed?.

Some of your questions deserve entirely new threads. But I should be able to answer this one. Baptism. You cannot baptise yourself, but there's clear scriptural evidence that both the baptism of repentence and the baptism of the holy Spirit cleanses sins. The Holy Spirit is able to detect those who are doing so falsely: no one's upsurping the Holy Spirit's power.

I did not ask you anything about Baptism. Furthermore, it is of no matter that the questions "deserve entirely new threads".

It seems as if you do not want to answer the questions. Simply answer them in this same thread, regardless of length, not forgetting to also address this post. I only expect you to be as thorough as I have been with you.

In Christ,

 

[okinrus]

There is an OVERWHELMING amount of Scripture which disproves your point utterly. You can NOT believe the writings are true, yet not hear Christ's voice. Show me Scripture that says that!

I'm afraid you can.

In that case you admit that the Bible IS the final authority on God's revelation? And consequently the Pope is a dangerous heretic to say otherwise?

No, the Pope would still not be a heretic. The word heretic is not defined by the Bible. Conventual use of the term "heretic," means someone who knew some essential truth yet rejected it. Using the word "heretic" is very strong charge . It should never be time when it's used in conversation, even if the other person truly is a heretic.

The Pope has the ability (implying God given authority) to "proclaim doctrines". Regardless of what you term "deposit of faith" (I hae no clue what this even means), I would like to see the Scriptural basis for this claim.

The position of Pope is a job, and like any job it requires certain things that must be done. The exact requirements of the office of Pope are outlined in the canon law, but I've not read them. I do know, however, that to declare a doctrine that is binding upon all Catholics requires that the doctrine be within the deposit of faith(probably defined in the canon law) and the Pope must say that he's declaring a doctrine which is ex-cathedra. There are probably more requirements. The point is that even the Pope's job is restricted somewhat.

Except that "grace and power" flow through him. Well then, what sets the Pope apart?

Why do you keep insisting that I prove to you that grace and power flow within him? If you can show that grace and power flows within you, you will then understand that only that which is the Source of the grace and power can prove beyond reasonable doubt.

There is an OVERWHELMING amount of Scripture which disproves your point utterly. You can NOT believe the writings are true, yet not hear Christ's voice. Show me Scripture that says that!

The Pharisees would NOT have persecuted Jesus if they did believe the Scriptures, that is totally illogical!

Yes, you can believe that the writings are true. Evidently Satan believed the Scripture he quoted from was true. He still commits sin while trying to tempt Jesus.

That is the MOST ridiculous thing I have heard you say. How can you say there is "ample proof" and then CONTRADICT yourself by saying "there's no guarantee"?

The ample proof is based upon our understanding of the words and the logical process that proves the doctrine. Precise details such as the Father and Son and Holy Spirit being cosubstantial cannot be proven beyond "textual doubt."

The "logical process and reasoning" used to "prove anything from the Bible" IS FROM the Bible.

No, it's not. The logical process and reasoning are gifts that God has given us.

Did you somehow miss the verse I gave you concerning the Holy Spirit? Are you somehow ignoring the very verse YOU gave me from 1 John 2:27?

No

You CANNOT tell me that you do not see the phrase "thoroughly equipped". This means it is lacking NOTHING. There is no way around this to prove your errant statement. Furthermore:

(You're arguing past the extent that even most believers of sola-scriptura believe.) You cannot put that much emphasis on two words. In fact, you cannot even put that much emphasis on the entire text: that would mean that Christ would not have to be crucified but just create the Bible.

IMHO it's reasonable(but not something that I believe) to say that God has revealed everything mankind needs of doctrine is contained in the Bible(and that specific guidance to each person will be given by God). It's not reasonable to say that a finite text compares in any way to God.

Even Martin Luther, the originator of the doctrine, says in sermon on the "Parable of the Wheat and the Tares" Matt 13-24:30
<blockquote>1. The Saviour himself explained this parable in the same chapter upon the request of his disciples and says: He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the children of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil; and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. These seven points of explanation comprehend and clearly set forth what Christ meant by this parable. But who could have discovered such an interpretation, seeing that in this parable he calls people the seed and the world the field; although in the parable preceding this one he defines the seed to be the Word of God and the field the people or the hearts of the people. If Christ himself had not here interpreted this parable every one would have imitated his explanation of the preceding parable and considered the seed to be the Word of God, and thus the Saviour's object and understanding of it would have been lost</blockquote>

Incidently, the parable before this says this should force you to make distinction between hearing and believing.

Unless you are going to call Jesus a liar and say that we don't know what "good fruit" and "bad fruit" are referring to and we cannot see the analogy because "such terms are not defined from the Bible" when it is EVIDENT here that they are, otherwise He would not give us this saying.

No, a healthy person has the knowledge of good and evil, and should be able to correctly judge, notwithstanding he has corrupted his knowledge. Yet to say that the Bible contains all the knowledge of good and evil is a bit much. Moreso, the Bible doesn't even says it contains this knowledge, though it provides guidance.

OBVIOUSLY you HAVE to hear the word, therefore it IS the final authority. You cannot believe in Him without hearing the word as the verse CLEARLY says. Therefore having believed in Him, why would you look for a difference source than what the Word has revealed?.

Yes, but there's a distinction between these words that are consistently applied in the Scripture. "Ever hearing but not listening." Yes, you would have to hear but someone outside hears. For instance, Relevation tells us that Jesus knocks and whoever opens the door is given victory. Now you are correct that someone would have to hear the knock, but they would also to open the door. So we actually have three cases: someone doesn't hear the knock, someone hears but does not open, and someone hears and opens. I think these cases are all expressed upon the parable above Matt 13:24

 

[okinrus]

SouthStar, I'll try to answer your questions that I think need a new thread one at time(and I mean very very long time gap with new threads because I'm currently quite busy). Organizationally, it would just create a mess to debate each specific one, and the level of detail in showing something "not at a glance" is a bit more difficult. It's not the length that I'm woried about.

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm afraid you can.

Come on okinrus, you know me better than that. I get agitated when I bring compelling proof to the contrary and then you give me that sort of answer. Address my points please.

No, the Pope would still not be a heretic. The word heretic is not defined by the Bible. Conventual use of the term "heretic," means someone who knew some essential truth yet rejected it. Using the word "heretic" is very strong charge . It should never be time when it's used in conversation, even if the other person truly is a heretic.

... I asked you whether he was or not. Stop trying to pin it on me. At least answer the questions. And remember to call a spade a spade.

The position of Pope is a job, and like any job it requires certain things that must be done. The exact requirements of the office of Pope are outlined in the canon law, but I've not read them. I do know, however, that to declare a doctrine that is binding upon all Catholics requires that the doctrine be within the deposit of faith(probably defined in the canon law) and the Pope must say that he's declaring a doctrine which is ex-cathedra. There are probably more requirements. The point is that even the Pope's job is restricted somewhat.

Again, you have addressed none of my points except to say that you don't know because you haven't read. Simply answer the question, Christian to Christian. Google isn't that far away.

Why do you keep insisting that I prove to you that grace and power flow within him? If you can show that grace and power flows within you, you will then understand that only that which is the Source of the grace and power can prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Why do I keep asking you to prove it? Did you stop for a moment to think that YOU are the one who made that claim and therefore it is not for me to prove it? Again, you are twisting it, and avoiding the question. Simply answer it.

Yes, you can believe that the writings are true. Evidently Satan believed the Scripture he quoted from was true. He still commits sin while trying to tempt Jesus.

Again, you have bypassed all my points and made another baseless claim. If what you said was true, then Satan would believe that despite his attempts, he is going to fail and therefore there is no need to even try because in the end, he will end up in the lake of fire.

There is also NO Scriptural basis of what you have just said. Unless you have Scripture that proves that Satan believes in the Bible. Which is even more of a moronic point because Satan cannot possibly believe in the Bible without believing in Christ. And like John 3:16 says, whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

Unless you want to show me scriptural basis saying otherwise? And while you're at it, I hope you would at least kindly address my other points as well from the previous post.

The ample proof is based upon our understanding of the words and the logical process that proves the doctrine. Precise details such as the Father and Son and Holy Spirit being cosubstantial cannot be proven beyond "textual doubt."

No, it's not. The logical process and reasoning are gifts that God has given us.

Pardon me, but for lack of a better word, that is a stupid excuse. When the Bible says after Christ is risen, we will recieve the Holy Spirit, there is NO logical process you can use to say we won't recieve the Holy Spirit. Not only that but it would be in direct contradiction of the text, since you are by such action, NOT using the Holy Spirit, due to the fact that you would be rejecting what Scripture has evidently said.

Not only that but scripture refutes such a ludicrous claim:

John 14
25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Note, Jesus says the Holy Spirit, NOT "the logical process". I would bother providing more scriptural evidence but it seems you always fail to address them. I hope you will address these and the previous issues in your next reply.

No

Then address my points please.

(You're arguing past the extent that even most believers of sola-scriptura believe.) You cannot put that much emphasis on two words. In fact, you cannot even put that much emphasis on the entire text: that would mean that Christ would not have to be crucified but just create the Bible.

Well that's a silly way of interpreting the text, because in that case, there would be no need for the gospel of Christ when they already had the old testament.

I would like you to read Romans 3:21- for evidence of this.

IMHO it's reasonable(but not something that I believe) to say that God has revealed everything mankind needs of doctrine is contained in the Bible(and that specific guidance to each person will be given by God). It's not reasonable to say that a finite text compares in any way to God.

Well, especially, after all the points I have raised, why do you not believe so? Did I mention the Bible is not an infinite text?

----
As to its origin, the Bible is ultimately from God. Mankind alone could not have written it if he would and he would not have composed it if he could. The Holy Scriptures are the word of God!

The psalmist declared, “Thy word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119:11; cf. 119:89,105,130). Our Lord himself announced that “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4). And Paul had words of praise for the saints at Thessalonica in that they received the gospel message, not as the word of men, “but, as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thes. 2: 13).

Paul reminded Timothy that “every scripture is inspired of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). The expression “inspired of God” (literally in the Greek Testament, “God-breathed”) suggests that the divine Author of the sacred writings breathed into the minds of his select pensmen the exact message he wanted conveyed to mankind. And the biblical writers happily acknowledged this; they did not claim originality for their productions.

David, for example, affirmed: “The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was upon my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:2). Jesus declared that David, “in the Spirit,” referred to the coming Messiah as “Lord” (Mt. 22:43 - cf. also Acts 1:16). Paul wrote that the things “we [apostles] speak [are] not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth” (1 Cor. 2:13). This is what scholars refer to when they speak of the verbal inspiration of the Bible; they mean that the very words of the Scriptures are God-given.

http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/sevenTruths.htm
-----------

I would like for you to address these points as well.

Even Martin Luther, the originator of the doctrine, says in sermon on the "Parable of the Wheat and the Tares" Matt 13-24:30
<blockquote>1. The Saviour himself explained this parable in the same chapter upon the request of his disciples and says: He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the children of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil; and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. These seven points of explanation comprehend and clearly set forth what Christ meant by this parable. But who could have discovered such an interpretation, seeing that in this parable he calls people the seed and the world the field; although in the parable preceding this one he defines the seed to be the Word of God and the field the people or the hearts of the people. If Christ himself had not here interpreted this parable every one would have imitated his explanation of the preceding parable and considered the seed to be the Word of God, and thus the Saviour's object and understanding of it would have been lost</blockquote>

Incidently, the parable before this says this should force you to make distinction between hearing and believing.

What on earth is this about? I did not speak of any "doctrine" or the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. What more, you have conveniently ommited the rest of the chapter, which I suggest you go read.

No, a healthy person has the knowledge of good and evil, and should be able to correctly judge, notwithstanding he has corrupted his knowledge.

That is exactly what I said. Further evidenced by Romans 2:14

Yet to say that the Bible contains all the knowledge of good and evil is a bit much. Moreso, the Bible doesn't even says it contains this knowledge, though it provides guidance.

I would like you to show me where I made this claim.

Yes, but there's a distinction between these words that are consistently applied in the Scripture. "Ever hearing but not listening." Yes, you would have to hear but someone outside hears. For instance, Relevation tells us that Jesus knocks and whoever opens the door is given victory. Now you are correct that someone would have to hear the knock, but they would also to open the door. So we actually have three cases: someone doesn't hear the knock, someone hears but does not open, and someone hears and opens. I think these cases are all expressed upon the parable above Matt 13:24

What is your point/argument against me here? I fail to see how this ties in to my response.

What more you have failed to address my request for you to answer the list of questions. Please do so in your next reply, also not neglecting to fully address my previous response and this one. You are skipping around the responses whenever I refute your claims.

In Christ,

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Now you are siding with the Church's Satanically inspired view that the Word of God, by IMPLICATION ALONE, not even bringing evidence from within to assert It's authority and settle the matter, is FULLY sufficient for AND I QUOTE:

2 Tim. 3:16
"...profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Secondly, I did not say that central organization was unnecessary, not did I say it is not, for that matter. But if there IS to be a leader underneath Christ, surely it is only logical that this would be by HIS choosing as opposed to a secular government system, am I correct? And is this not evident in the case of David and Saul?

1 Peter 2:13
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

As far as I am concerned there is a difference between "ordinance of man" and "insitution of God", do you not agree?

**************
M*W: Please... don't get me started on defending the RCC! I am NOT a Christian!

Furthermore, are you implying that without a Pope, the Church of God would cease to be united? Do you forget in the time of David that there was a priest set over Israel named Samuel? And do you remember that he served a function other than mere pomp, especially regarding adherence to the scripture which "the Church" now disdainfully disregards and throws to the wind.

Do you NEED a Pope to "respond to humanitarian and moral needs"? Or do you presume that the instructions in the scriptures concerning "true and undefiled religion" is but secondary?

And as for the Bible not "explicitly" saying there should not be a leader, you are the one claiming that "grace and power flows" through the Pope, which surely you must understand, implies the Divine hand is upon his seat? And yet you provide no scriptural proof of such but to assert that "central organization" was necessary. Also as I previously mentioned, the Bible has specifically named Jesus as the High Priest, negating any man's claim over authority over the "central organization" which unifies the Church.

Moreover and even more shockingly, you say that the mercies of God, even the fruits of the Spirit, are not SUFFICIENT to unify the Church, even though Scripture CLEARLY says otherwise. Now this puts you in a dilemma, do you therefore say that Scripture is wrong?

*************
M*W: SourStar, you are so misled. I am averse to Christianity, but when you post, I feel I must defend it against my consciousness! Protestantism is a lie. Catholicism is a lie. Peter and Paul are liars. Jesus was a liar. How far back to you expect me to go? You are a living liar. You believe in those people. I hate Christianity with all my heart, but if you start degrading it when you are a measly protestant, I will defend the Catholic Church. Protestants have no souls and no salvation. At least Catholics believe they are saved. Personally, I don't need Catholicism, but I will defend the authority of the Church against people like you who have no salvation. I don't believe in any of it anymore, but I don't want you, of all people, to denigrate the only source of Christian religion. I don't believe it, but I will defend it for those who do. Protestantism cannot be explained or even forgiven. Even though I don't belive in Christianity, I will defend those who do, but only if they are Roman Catholics. I'm too far gone away from the RCC, but it takes only one step at a time. One of these days, I'll be making sense even to okinrus.

 

[§outh§tar]

I am entirely shocked by your post.

What therefore is the problem if they are both lies?

You are contradicting yourself by defending one "lie", just so you can uncover another.

I hope you will come to see that there is no cause for division among either of us and it far more fruitful to love one another.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: SourStar, you are so misled. I am averse to Christianity, but when you post, I feel I must defend it against my consciousness! Protestantism is a lie. Catholicism is a lie. Peter and Paul are liars.

Unless if the Spirit of God tells you to say that someone is a liar, you do not have the authority to do so.

 

[Leo Volont]

One should have some sympathy for Medicine Woman's skeptism regarding the Christian Religions. Did not Christ Himself say that there would be Wolves in Sheeps Clothing, Weeds mixed in the Wheat, and a Wide Way that would lead to Destruction. Were in all of this is there an injunction of Blind Obedience to a Church that would be founded by Christ's Persecutors (Paul and his gang).

For myself, although I acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Bishops is Antichurch of Paul, there are elements and organizations within the Church which vindicate Christ's Prophecy that the Weeds would never totally choke out all of the Wheat.

And yes, Medicine Woman is correct regarding the Protestants. The War of Rebellion of the Protestants killed millions of Catholics and destroyed Catholic Civilization which had been the Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Protestants have lead the way toward the Satanic Secularization of divisive Nation States. Their War has cause every subsequent War. There can be no Good in a Tree that has brought such Evil Fruit. Satan, the First Rebel, must have inspired this Most Terrible and Deadly Rebellion.

Also, the Prophet Simeon had Prophecized the Protestant Rebellion -- he said that Mary's Heart would be stabbed with a Sword and that thereby we would know their Secret Hearts. It was a mystery to all those who attempted to formulate a coherent Protestant Doctrine, but it seemed as though all the mostly Deadly Protestants in the Field automatically began to Preach hatred of Mary the Blessed Virgin. Today it continues, and no Protestant can speak three sentences together about Mary without insulting Her and twisting The Sword.

 

[§outh§tar]

First of all let me say my arguments should in no way indicate that I am Protestant. I do not even wish to be called Protestant.

As for Leo Volont and his registered madness...

What on earth are you prattling on about a Prophet Simeon? And the Protestant War has caused every subsequent war? How silly is that?

There can be no Good in a Tree that has brought such Evil Fruit.

What kind of foolish statement is this? In that case there is no good in Christ simply because there have been many injustices commited in His Holy name.

And for your information, Paul was more of a man than you will ever be.

 

[okinrus]

One should have some sympathy for Medicine Woman's skeptism regarding the Christian Religions. Did not Christ Himself say that there would be Wolves in Sheeps Clothing, Weeds mixed in the Wheat, and a Wide Way that would lead to Destruction.

She's going beyond skeptism by making such comments.

For myself, although I acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Bishops is Antichurch of Paul, there are elements and organizations within the Church which vindicate Christ's Prophecy that the Weeds would never totally choke out all of the Wheat.

Well, you really should be praying for the priests and the bishops.

And yes, Medicine Woman is correct regarding the Protestants. The War of Rebellion of the Protestants killed millions of Catholics and destroyed Catholic Civilization which had been the Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Protestants have lead the way toward the Satanic Secularization of divisive Nation States.

There were atrocities committed by Catholics as well as Protestants. It's really an ulgy period of time.

Their War has cause every subsequent War. There can be no Good in a Tree that has brought such Evil Fruit. Satan, the First Rebel, must have inspired this Most Terrible and Deadly Rebellion.

Protestanism had some influence on the creation of secularism, but secularism really already existed within Catholic countries well before the revolution. (ie., if you read decameron, it's tells quite a few tales that are very much secular in nature).

Also, the Prophet Simeon had Prophecized the Protestant Rebellion -- he said that Mary's Heart would be stabbed with a Sword and that thereby we would know their Secret Hearts.

When Christ was stabbed by the centurion, at the moment His death was manifest, Mary felt Christ's pain.

 

[§outh§tar]

oh and okinrus, you still have to answer to my comments. not getting off the hook that easily..

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Unless if the Spirit of God tells you to say that someone is a liar, you do not have the authority to do so.

*************
M*W: Fraid so. God gave me a mouth and the ability to use it however I see fit. Christianity is a lie. There, I've said it again. My point, which I failed to make clear, was that I don't believe in christianity anymore, but when I hear ignorant protestants defame the RCC out of their ignorance, it makes me angry. I took the time to learn it. I spent many years teaching it, and I don't regret what I had formerly done in the name of Christianity, because at that time, I believed Christianity to be the truth. What angers me is hearing someone who knows absolutely nothing about the RCC and defames it. That is quite different than my situation. I know about Catholicism. I've lived it and believed in it. What I believe now is based on the truths I have learned about the RCC, and it is not based on my simple ignorance about the doctrines of the RCC as in SourStar's case. I will say this, now that I have come to know you and the extent of your committed beliefs, and I respect for you and your devout beliefs and commitment to your faith. At one time, my faith in Christianity was as steadfast as yours. I know where you're coming from.

 

[Jenyar]

@ stretched

I must totally disagree with what Jenyar is saying.
See here both of you:
http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/2004_05.htm

Good article. But how does it differ from what I've been saying, except that it's less "tolerant"?

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Quote Jenyar:
"I see what you mean. Now you're careful to "taint" that experience with doctrine or religion that might diminish God instead of glorifying Him?"

Yup, that is kinda on track. Moreover I have irreconcilable differences with most mainstream religions and especially Christianity. As you might have noticed. But for me these debates are about learning, for I know well that I know very little.

Allcare.

 

[stretched]

Yo SouthStar,

Yup, thanks for the link. What is your standpoint? When I read your debate with Okinrus (who is a cool dude!) I see two interpretations of ONE book, and I question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit in action. Part of my issue with the multi-denominational reality of Christendom is the seeming lack of spiritual guidance in working towards unity.

Jenyar,
It seems sadly that dogma and doctrine do bulid walls between mankind and God.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

It seems sadly that dogma and doctrine do bulid walls between mankind and God.

It also breaks them. "Dogma" and "doctrines" are just the results of discussions like this one. To just throw them out is to undo all the effort, thinking and agreements reached to get to them. You prune a tree, you don't pull it out roots and all and plant a new one when it starts growing in all directions!

Discussion will, and should, never end. Walls are erected for security and broken down for progress. We live in such a world.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar Friend,

Quote J:
"It also breaks them. "Dogma" and "doctrines" are just the results of discussions like this one. To just throw them out is to undo all the effort, thinking and agreements reached to get to them. You prune a tree, you don't pull it out roots and all and plant a new one when it starts growing in all directions!

Discussion will, and should, never end. Walls are erected for security and broken down for progress. We live in such a world."

You are groovy dude!

Allcare.