Arch Stanton
Well-known member
yes, you always misrepresent Christ's Catholic Church... won't be fun
No "Papacy" in Augustine's Sermon 295
- Thread starter Theo1689
- Start date
- Status
You don't even know Christ's real church, his catholic church is not your evil tree the RCC. STOP blaming Jesus for the harming of the flock.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
You haven't been to Christ's Catholic Church in years.... no Eucharist for you
I was not in Christ's church when I was younger, when I was a child. I was in the evil tree, being taught lies. Now I am in the real church, Jesus does not allow the flock to be harmed. You can follow your blind guides, they only lead you to one place. If you don't want the truth posted about your institution then not make those false claims.You haven't been to Christ's Catholic Church in years.... no Eucharist for you
The real church is a light, your institution is a black hole.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
You were when you became a Catholic.
No I wasn't and I didn't become a Catholic by choice. You institution is not His catholic church, your institution was founded by the father of lies and that is why it teaches false doctrines and the blind guides lie and do not tell the truth. This has been going on for centuries.
I am now in His church.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
You were given a gift from God and you have thrown it away
you are in imperfect communion with His Church... if you are ok with that --
No I threw away the poison that I was thrown into by satan the founder of the RCC.You were given a gift from God and you have thrown it away
you are in imperfect communion with His Church... if you are ok with that --
I am now in perfect communion with Jesus and that is what I want.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
great proof
Willoughby C. Allen [Anglican]: The International Critical Commentary --
"The figure of the gates of Hades suggests the metaphor of the keys. There were keys of Hades, Rev 1:18; cf. 9:1; 20:1. The apocalyptic writer describes the risen Christ as having the keys of Hades, i.e. having power over it, power to enter it, and power to release from it, or to imprison in it. In the same way, 'the kingdom of the heavens' can be likened to a citadel with barred gates. He who held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude. In Rev 3:7 this power is held by Christ Himself [quotes Rev 3:7]...The words are modelled on Is 22:22, and express supreme authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which can be contested by none...It would, therefore, be not unexpected if we found the Messiah or Son of Man described as having the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. This would imply that He was supreme within it. But it is surprising to find this power delegated to S. Peter...To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom. The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. If S. Peter was to hold supreme authority within it, the other apostles were also to have places of rank...To 'bind' and to 'loose' in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to 'forbid' and 'allow,' to 'declare forbidden' and to 'declare allowed'...The terms, therefore, describe an authority of a legal nature. If he who has the keys has authority of an administrative nature, he who binds and looses exercises authority of a legislative character....Further, the position of v. 18, with its description of the Church as a fortress impregnable against the attacks of evil (the gates of Hades), suggest irresistibly that 'the keys of the kingdom' mean more than power to open merely, and imply rather authority within the kingdom. And this is confirmed by the 'binding' and 'loosing' which immediately follow...What were the keys thus given? Even if we identify the kingdom with the Church, it is not entirely satisfactory to suppose that the Lord simply foretold that S. Peter was to take a prominent part in the work of opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. His share in that work, though a great, was not an exclusive one....The motive must have been to emphasise the prominence of S. Peter in the Christian body as foretold and sanctioned by Christ Himself...They [the apostles] had left all to follow Christ; but when He sat on the throne of His glory they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 19:18. And amongst them Peter was pre-eminent. He was protos, 10:2." (Allen, The International Critical Commentary [orig 1909, 1985], page 176ff)
still waiting for you to show me the verse where all the apostles received the keys
Mt 16:19 I will give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
and you need a date? move the goalposts much?
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
No, you have a church who claims to be an infallible living interpreter that never, ever infallibly interprets Scripture. On the other hand, we have God actually speaking to us. Could I misunderstand what God is saying, sure. But without an actual argument, you have no reason whatsoever to disparage God speaking to his Church in Scripture.
BTW, if all we have is the individual's personal fallible interpretation of Scripture, then all you have is the individual's personal fallible interpretation of the magisterium. Whether the words are written in a book, or spoken by a priest, each can be equally be misinterpreted.
Because they've tried in the past, and they ended up with egg on their face.
When and where have these verses been infallibly defined?
"what is theologically certain"—In other words, your Church cares more about protecting their traditions than listening to God.
God Bless
PS: Don't think I forgot about you refusing to interact with the teaching of Saint Paul.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
A true nonresponse from one who can't deal with the truth. "Are modeled upon" is not the same as the necessary connection you need to justify your Church. In Matthew 16, there is no Chamberlain, no Steward, and in Isaiah 22 there are no keys, just one key. That's not what anyone would define as a necessary connection as to justify Papal authority.
I don't need a verse to doubt your unjustified assertion. Frankly, it's utterly silly for you to suggest I need one given that you are the one making the positive argument.
I need more than a generic statement that Peter will get something in the future to tell me that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, the Bishop of all Bishops. Frankly, it doesn't matter if Peter was given the keys exclusively, even though there is no biblical reason to believe such. Such doesn't justify a perpetual bishopric of all bishoprics. You arguing for an inch and taking a mile. Such is the height of irrationality.
No, I need something, anything to say that the other Apostles were not given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven like Peter.
God Bless
it is not the claim of the church but the promise of her founder that the holy spirit will guide her, that the gates of hell will not prevail, and that he will be with her till the end of time. when you admitted that the bible is inspired, you implied admission to the infallibility of the catholic church.
we have the catechism to guide us when we are in doubt while you have your fallible personal interpretation of the written word.
the church has no record of official interpretation of the verses in the bible. what we have are only a few verses. It is not true that the church have tried in the past to officially interpret all verses in the bible.
the few verses officially defined were made by the council of trent. here it is:
1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.
the church has no official interpretation of rom4:8. the blessed man is the sinner who repents and asks pardon for his sins. here, paul is saying that our sins will not be counted against us once God forgives us of your sins. God's forgiveness is not merely a legal declaration but the objective guilt from sin has been removed. one is 'made clean and whiter than snow' (psalm51: 9). when God reckons someone as righteous, there is actually a change in what the sinner is. God's declaration and the transformation by grace are not exclusive of each other.
1Thess521
Well-known member
the Bible is NOT inspired : Scripture is
"gates of Hell" does not mean infallibility ;
it means the power of death:
and you know it
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
You didn't understand my critique, you as a lay person have just as much of an ability to misinterpret the magisterium as I do Scripture. The Holy Spirit's guiding equally applies to my understanding of Scripture as to your claimed magisterial understanding. Leaving us at an impasse. An Impasse that cannot be bridged with the hubris declarations of Rome. An impasse that can only be passed with a careful analysis of Scripture and Tradition as to arrive at the Truth. So far, the Catholic narrative isn't looking so good.
No, I have the Holy Spirit guiding my interpretations of Scripture, and you have the fallible personal interpretation of the catechism.
If you have no record of official interpretation, then how do you know "we have are only a few verses"? I didn't say "the church have tried in the past to officially interpret all verses in the bible." Perhaps you should listen better.
Thanks for the information. Thats still 400+ years ago and two other ecumenical councils,
1) John 3:5—So Trent proved it was not guided by the Holy Spirit by misinterpreting John 3:5. Good to know.
2) Somehow all of Transubstantiation is crammed into Luke 22:19?
3) Somehow the entire doctrine of the priesthood in crammed into 1 Corinthians 11:24?
4&5) Are you guys trying to contradict yourselves? The Power to forgive sins is the power of the Keys that you claim were only given to Peter, not all the apostles?
6) See, every so often, Catholics can interpret Scripture in accordance with what the words in the text actual mean.
7) Outside of the Amish and Quakers, who denies ordination? As I said, a broken clock is right twice a day.
FYI, in talking with Catholics, it is quite common for them to bring up the idea of multiple valid interpretations of the same passage. Are you saying that the above are the only valid interpretations of these passages, or are you saying the Church is claiming these are valid interpretations of these passages, but there could be others? For example, my Catholic friend Michael would say my interpretation of the birth by water = physical birth, and brith by Spirit = regeneration in John 3:5 is valid. He would simply claim the Church is also valid to see baptismal regeneration in John 3:5.
Yes, your right: "the blessed man is the sinner who repents and asks pardon for his sins." But, Rome says our venial and mortal sins are counted to us. That's the whole point of penance, confession, last rites, and purgatory. Do you see the issue that brings other catholics pause when interpreting this verse?
God Bless
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
or, you could actually look at what the bible says.... Mt 16:19 ?
Jesus is not the founder of your institution at all. The promise is made to all real believers, not your institution that Jesus would have nothing to do with. Every time RCs say Jesus founded their institution - they are saying He founded an institution that teaches false doctrines, an institution that replaces Him with Mary, an institution that adds to His word, goes beyond His word and takes away/ignores His word, an institution that lies and that alone shows who the real founder of your institution is, and a institution that harms the sheep. This reveals that Jesus never founded the RCC, that is a false RC claim.
Who cares what a false institution defines, their word cannot be trusted because they are proven liars.
That is not referring to an leadership that harms the sheep, teaches false doctrines and lies. Your institution does all that and worse.
You could look at Eph 2:8, 5:8, 1 cor 5:11, matt 15:14, Matt 7:8, acts 17:11,rev 22:18+, deut 4:2, deut 12:32, leadership requirements tim and titus. So many verses that the RCC just ignore.
Last edited:
when you say the bible is not inspired, are you referring to the old and new testament books that christians are using which we call as 'bible or the written word of God'? if not, what book/bible are you referring to that is not inspired?
it means the power over 'spiritual' death, the complete separation of your spirit from God (Eph. 2:1, 2:5, 4:18). so it makes sense Christ’s Church will never steer us into hell by teaching heresy. are you implying the writings, 1 and 2 peter, are not inspired?
it is so easy for you to always say that but cannot tell us the name of the church jesus did established in jerusalem, 33ad.
A new day
Super Member
On the day of pentecost, those who believed the gospel message, were called believers. Acts 9 is the first mention of believer's belonging to "the way". "The way" is mentioned again in Acts chapter19, Acts chapter 22, Acts chapter 24, in connection with those who believed the gospel message. The early followers of Christ referred to themselves as followers of the Way because of Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 that He is “the way and the truth and the life.” In Acts 11 the believers in Antioch, spoke so much about Christ, that the people living in Antioch, began calling believer's Christians. By Acts 26, the title "Christian" was well known throughout the Roman world
Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”
1 Peter 4:16
However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
Nothing in Scripture about early believers being called Roman catholics.
- Status