Catholic Mary

How childish. You have made an accusation against me that you are not able to prove. You claim that I am an idolator yet you cannot provide a single post of mine that proves this lie of yours. I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT I BOW TO ANYTHING OR PRAY TO ANYTHING BUT GOD, I HAVE QUESTIONED AND PROVIDED WHAT I HAVE READ IS THE CATHOLIC POSITION ONLY!!

Again, I know what and who I worship, and it isn't idols. You conclude because I question your ridiculous reasoning about what Catholics do that I must be guilty. Either dig up a post where I said I worship idols or stop you FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

Mature Christians don't behave the way you do. You show not one ounce of humility in your posts. Grow up. Do you really expect to convince anyone with your belittling and mocking? And, once again, you need to let others fight your battles for you on anti-Catholic threads that you start. You couldn't even form your own thought in the responding to 'Alive In Christ's' post and you didn't even bother to put quotes around AiC's exact words. Think for yourself!

 

Thanks for a kind and considerate post. Unlike what I've been hearing from Moriah. What Moriah is saying is that I must be bowing to and worshipping idols because of my questions and statements about what I understand to be the Catholic positions we have been discussing. Moriah stated, 'you defend idolatry so YOU are an idolator'. First Moriah concludes that providing the Catholic position equals defense of and then says I must be an idolator. Ridiculous!! I have asked Moriah repeatedly to point me to my posts where I have stated that I bow to or worship anything but the Lord God Almighty. Moriah can't. I simply will continue to study and pray that the Holy Spirit reveal the truth. Bullying tactics by people like Moriah are really pathetic and sad to watch on a Christian forum like this. Only dealt with it with one other poster though. The rest have been gracious and kind.

 

Here is another thing that is very very normal in catholicism, when it is clear they are engaging in in-false worship.
(Mary, the saints, etc)

They will say...

Oh no!! We are not worshipping Mary. We *venerate* Mary! See? Its a completly different word!"

(except of course that the attention given to these ones is extremely WORSHIPFULL in nature)

Or...No! we would never worship the great saints of the past"

As they go overboard with worshipfull prayers and masses and holy days etc etc filled with exceedingly inapropiate worship of these mortals.

Again, I was a catholic for many many years untill God opened my eyes and pulled me out.

I cant be fooled. I have seen it all with my own eyes.

And this is only American Catholcism. From what I have heard about and seen Via TV, it is 100 times worse in many contries far from here.

(South America, Mexico, Europe, etc etc)

I have seen all of this heretical stuff with my own eyes.

 

Interesting. Over the past five years I have attended two nuptial masses, one funeral mass and two regular Sunday masses. I realize this does not make me an authority on the matter, but the only time I have heard any mention of Mary was during the penitential rite near the beginning of the mass where the people recite a prayer that includes language something like this:

This hardly sounds like Mary worship but maybe I have not been there during the Mary worshipping masses.

 

I am posting the truth. You believe things not explicitly said in scriptures. BTW the Trinity is Catholic and the Catholic Church made it Orthodox.

Not at all. I've shown you the comparison of your beliefs that aren't explicit in the bible and the Catholic beliefs not explicitly stated in scriptures. So in that I can't show you explicitly where in scriptures some marian dogma comes, neither can you about certain of your beliefs. As I pointed out. It is clear that you purposely refuse to see my point and their application to your question though anyone else without a dog in the fight can clearly see it.

 

The trinity is taught in the Bible, explicitly taught in the Bible. You are taking the absurd approach that "If English was good enough for Paul then it is good enough for me," but Paul and the apostles, and their successors didn't speak English. Thus it is obvious that "trinity" is not found in the Bible. Oh the naivete of your argument!!! The truth of the trinity is taught in the Bible and it has nothing to do with the RCC. We can all demonstrate it for you if you wish. We can prove it to you from the Scriptures. There is plenty of Biblical proof for the trinity.

You have not shown one belief of ours that is not in the Scriptures. I can go through the Catechism and show you one belief after another that is not only unscriptural but anti-scriptural. Note the difference. But you can't do that with a Baptist statement of faith.

You give ridiculous statements that have nothing to do with the Bible: cars, toaster ovens, TV's, etc. Those are the type of things you mention. The same things as pews, and others that you mentioned--Irrelevant to the Bible. People in eastern countries sit on mats on the ground; people in western churches sit on pews and some sit on chairs. It is their choice. It is not unbilblical; it is extra-bibical, outside of the realm of the Bible as is Math and mechanics, cars, and hardwood floors.

However, regarding Mariam doctrines, they are of the spiritual--spiritual doctrines which are blasphemous anti-biblical doctrines which must be dealt with the Bible. They bear directly on one's faith and doctrine. And if you can't demonstrate them from the Bible then your faith is false and you believe in false doctrine. Your belief is that Mary is an intercessor that is enabling you to get to heaven; whereas Jesus said that He is the only way to heaven. That is false doctrine, and with that doctrine alone one condemns themselves eternally for they are not putting their complete trust in Jesus Christ, as is required by the Word of God and Christ Himself.

 

No it is not. It is infered but not explicit.

Your problem here is the word Trinity comes from Latin not english and even in greek Paul didn't refer to a greek equivelant.

Ie it is not explicit but infered.

Take a deep breath and calm down. We are discussing. I have my faith you have yours. I don't expect your faith to change but I do want to put some accuracy out there. I don't want you to have a heart attack while at your computer. Though you may have no regard for my person despite our differences I have regard for yours. I don't want you injuring yourself.
However, I can claim lack of education on yours and purposefully turning a blind eye to a contrary claim.

Not explicitly its wasn't. And didn't become solidfied orthodoxy until Nicea.

all you can demonstrate is that the bible infers it.

You still haven't shown the scripture for the items I asked you about.

Start another thread and do just that. But I'll bet it'll be limited to Marian dogmas. For I can express scripture for just about any one else.

They are relevant to your faith and so it is and this is a way to show you can't find scriptures to support your beliefs that are extra biblical.

 

RCC Doctrines as reagrds to Sotierology deny the Gospel of Christ, that one is made right with God thru the Graceapplied to us by the Cross, received by faith, NOT ANY additional sacraments/means of grace required, as the cross is fully sufficient in and by itself!

Trent reinforced that it is NOT by fith/Grace alone, so ONLY way RCC can get their doctrines would be by elevationg tradition tolevel of Bible, and Apsotolic succession, for its NOT in bible alone!

And why take the RCC for traditiona nd succession, why not the Lormons and others churches caliming added revelation to the Bible alone?

 

You really need to read the catachism. You have no idea what catholics teach with regard to soteriology.

Let me give you a small example

 

Like you said, that's a small example.

There's a huge difference between Catholic statements of belief, and what Catholicism actually teaches.

And you know this. So do we.

 

Does the RCC than repudiate trent, declaring that saved by grace alone, thru faith alone is wrong?

Why must we "co assist" God by partaking addition sacremental graces, IF Cross is fully sufficient?

Why MUST one become rightious enough in order to have God justify in, as one MUST have enough meritorious merit obtained from partaling of sacrements, IF RCC really believes that faith alone in the work of Christ on the Cross alone justifies a sinner before God?

indeed, RCC says doctrines, but apply different meanings to the terms...

the RCC makes SAME claims as the Mormon church, applying different meanings to biblial terms...

What makes RCC right, and Mormons wrong?

 

This statement makes zero logical sense.

Is the Earth flat?

Agree or disagree with your premise, your reasoning for such in the bold has no basis in logic.

 

It is taught. You know it; or are you in a state of unbelief?

It is not my problem at all. I don't have to deal with etymologies of words, nor words that are lost in translations. Both are weaknesses. You have to deal with that problem.
Again, what is your purpose in bringing up this doctrine. It is part of the Baptist statement of faith. Are you showing your unbelief in it?

It is explicitly taught. Again you have a problem with unbelief which is quite astounding since you now claim to be a Catholic. Are you now an Atheist?
[FONT=&quot]To say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument. The incarnation is not in the Bible either. Yet both are taught. Your inference is that you don’t believe in the Trinity. Is this true? Why? If it isn’t true then it must be a Biblical doctrine, correct?[/FONT]

My claim is that I believe in the Trinity; your claim therefore is that you don't? This is really unbelievable!

So you claim that the Apostles didn't know what they were talking about.

Why make a claim that you cannot prove. Why demonstrate on the board that you deny orthodox doctrine and have accepted the position of an atheist?

Precisely what Biblical doctrines are you speaking of? Give me the URL of a Baptist Statement of Faith and show me what is not Biblical.
I will show you what is not Biblical in your Catechism. Why, the RCC even believes Muslims are saved (a non-Miriam doctrine) !

Purgatory, Limbo, Indulgences, Infallibility of the Pope, Celibacy of the Priesthood, extreme unction or last rites, penance, praying of the rosary, the stations of the cross, praying to the "saints," justification by faith alone (denial thereof), belief in salvation by works, baptismal regeneration, salvation via RCC only, salvation via new birth defined by baptism, infant baptism, and there are still many more. All of them heretical.
These are found both in the Catechism and in Vatican II. I have both.
Again, show me in a Baptist Statement of Faith any heretical doctrine. You cannot.

I am sorry to deflate your arguments, but toaster ovens are not relevant to my faith.

 

Jesus claimed that His Father was God, John claimed Jesus also was God, Peter claimed HS was also God...

If NOT the truth of God in 3 seerate distinct persons, yet still ONE God, what is it?

 

Of course it is the trinity. It is clearly taught in the Bible. TS just doesn't want to admit it. He believes that the RCC "discovered" this doctrine. He, as a Catholic, wants to take the credit.

 

Guess that he would also want to claim that the RCC "gave us" the canon /Bible , Eh?

 

You like to chase rabbits. I will explain catholic thought in your termonology because you don't want to research so I explain it so you can.

Trent basically said if you're not living the faith you don't have faith. You have to walk the talk. Basically. Saved people don't ignore their salvation and live with free license. And the RCC believes Christ sacrifice (not our faith alone) Justifies us. The bible never mentions faith alone except in James. If you don't walk the talk you don't have faith. Period.

the Catholic Church defined the terms of faith. Its the protestants and the mormons who redefine things. Ie we came first you came later.

 

As a matter of fact it did. And perserved it for 1500 years. Just so you could take out books and cut and past what you wanted.