Catholic: Can’t you read history you idiot!
Protestant: Can’t you read your Bible you pagan!
Catholic: Your epistemological independence belies your rebellion against the true church!
Protestant: Your quoting of a dead guy belies your following “the doctrine of men”!
Catholic: your mother was a hamster!
Protestant: Your father smelt of elderberries!
Catholic: Donatist!
Protestant: Pelagian!
Catholic: We should have burned more of you!
Protestant: We should have beheaded more of you!
Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by WestminsterMan, May 12, 2013.
Page 10 of 15
-
-
-
Just as the OT came to us through the prophets, so the NT came through the apostles and their close associates. The heretical RCC had nothing to do with it. The apostles and early churches preserved it. There was no "church", only "churches." The only "church" that existed was apostate, and eventually called the RCC. -
-
BTW, "Romanist" is not name calling; it's an apt moniker to describe the church which is based there and claims it is the only true church, the only one established by Christ, a claim which is a lie on its face.
I suggest you need to broaden your narrow, cultic horizon and read more. You might start here with my previous postings and the postings of others who have presented scripture, scholarship, and church history which destroys Romanist claims and debunks any theory of an apostolic succession of monarchial bishops which can be traced back to Jesus and the apostles.
It's funny how Romanists such as you, when challenged to defend your wild and baseless assertions, can only resort to trotting out uninspired writings of men 200 and more years removed from the NT and the earliest churches. Of course the reason you HAVE to do that is because you cannot appeal to scripture, as it utterly destroys your position. It is an incontrovertible scholarly-established FACT, which no Romanist can deny, that the scriptures know of only two orders of ministry, that of pastor and deacon, the words bishop/elder/overseer/presbyter/pastor being synonymous for one and the same office and thus used interchangeably. You cannot get around that fact, no matter how much post-scriptural writing that you pull out. I know these facts makes you writhe in the most violent way and twist your guts into a contorted mess, but scriptural truth is hard to swallow and digest for someone who puts his trust in uninspired men and hierarchies rather than the Word of God. May I suggest a few tablespoonfuls of Milk of Magnesia? It will help you digest the truth, even though it will destroy your man-made idols and systems on its way through you.
Do some studying, if you have the guts and integrity, and let's see if you can admit that what I have said about the two orders of ministry in the NT is true.
John Wesley, an Anglican priest who believed in apostolic succession early on, totally changed his mind after he read Lord King's account of the primitive church and thereafter called apostolic succession a fable.
I am so glad that we have scripture to refute all the man-made bull that came after. At least the Anglicans are honest enough to admit that apostolic succession was a historical development and therefore view it as for the benefit of the church and not of the essence of the church.
So, the vaunted apostolic succession upon which Romanism, and you, make such unsubstantiated claims stops dead in its tracks in the second century. It does not go back to NT times nor to the NT; the NT totally disproves it. And all you've got to support your foolishness are quotes from post-apostolic, uninspired writers. Scripture, being the writings of the apostles and thus the foundation document of the Christian faith, trumps your post-apostolic writings and destroys your argument.
I know you had to swallow a bunch of man-made tripe to convert to Romanism, but perhaps a good dose of a strong purgative would help you to keep it down and digest it while you deny historical facts and scholarship and scriptural truth, all the while sacrificing your integrity to do so.
Okay, I will stop and allow you time for a bathroom break. May I suggest that cherry-flavored Milk of Magnesia might be more palatable. -
It does not matter which level of degree TH has, his posts are based on facts. Yours are based on writings of a cult.
These are the facts. Jesus Christ promised to preserve His church. The Roman Catholic Cult does not preserve His church because it practices nothing in the Bible in relation to a saving relationship to Jesus Christ and faith. Cults do not preserve the church as Jesus Christ intended.
I do not know nor care what your level of education is. It might as well be third grade as a PhD in Theology. How worthless is that title from a seminary or whatever you call them when the principles they teach are based on a works salvation and worshipping created beings. You say you are an expert in history??? You do not even know when the RC cult ws founded.
And by the way, you, Walter, and Thinkingstuffed are the masters at calling others names. That is because your theology is weak, and cannot stand the standard of Scripture. The thing is, the term church history, or Catholic history or tradition, is meaningless, since the whole organization was founded for polticial convienience, not to accomplish the work of the Lord.
It is the local autnonmous churches that preserved the church. If Peter and Paul could be ushered to us today, they would take one look at RCC theology, compare it to Scripture and openly cry at what the Gospel had become as practiced by the largest Christian "church." No wonder the pathway is narrow. I believe if Peter or Paul were in Rome, they would march right up to the Pope's throne in the Vatican and puke on him. -
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm -
See the link I posted in response to DHK. -
-
Candles, holy water, beads, costumes, magic acts during the sacraments, elaborate sanctuaries, priests accepting the confessions when they are rotten to the core, praying to saints, etc ,etc do not fill of the gap the RCC has left in preaching the correct Gospel.
So tell us, what is of the Catholic church that we need to accept? The church was founded on a basis of political expediency, not to tell others about Jesus Christ. When your foundation is rotten, the whole organization is rotten, and to the core. -
I will not say anything against you because I know of your struggle, and I believe you are genuine. I also see the fruits of the Spirit in you. -
The RCC was founded on political motives, not out of a concern for lost souls. If it even exists, a concern for the lost is way down on their priority list. They are more worried about which direction to splash the holy water at the start of each service. -
-
Since that does seem more important to you that lost souls, lets put it this way. There is a chance that modern day Baptist churches do go back to Peter through local autonomous churches over the centuries. There is zero chance the RCC has a connection to the Apostles, because if they did, the church would have been founded on Biblical principles, not political motivation. The fact that going back to Peter is important to your cult tells everyone it is a cult. What difference does it make? What makes a difference is faith in Jesus Christ and preaching it. -
A note to all: I have started using the term "Romanist" to refer to the RCC to distinguish it from other churches which consider themselves "Catholic", such as the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics. I know the RCC would like to monopolize the term, but I refuse to let them do so because this is not factual.
-
-
Yet, I will continue to pray for you and love you all in spite of yourself.
Pac my brother!
WM -
Look – I know you can use it however you want, but it's still hateful and insulting to Catholics and this is why you are using it. You aren't fooling anyone. As I told you before; name calling is indicative of intellectual cowardice. Just keep it up – it makes you look foolish and only serves to reveal your true nature.
WM -
You have used your credentials several times to establish credibility. It is not unreasonable to ask for further details in order to understand reference points. A degree from Asbury or Gordon-Cornwll comes from a different context than Luther Rice or Southwestern Baptist. Was it a Southern Baptist Seminary, independent Baptist, or other? U.S or foreign?
It is a common question in the workplace, so why not ask it here? -
Something smells...:cool:
WM
Page 10 of 15