Pope backs civil unions

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
no they don't. where'd you get that? the rcc? other catholics? many prots aren't even believers in Christ and have no idea they should have Him in their life. others have heard they should but have no idea how, when or why.

right. there are lots of 'pastors' everywhere who aren't believers and teach whatever they've been taught to teach instead of the truth of it - just like catholic priests do.

how many divisions are there in the rcc now?

what's that? something you made up?
are you guided by the holy spirit?
again you can't answer questions and just change the topic.

typical catholic tactic.
 

mica

Well-known member
In 1cor12: 27-29 and eph4:11-12), Paul makes clear that apostles have the highest level of authority in the Church which is based on the decree of Jesus in john20:21, as the Father has sent me, I also send you. Jesus send his apostles on this divine mandate (matt28: 16-20) and promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This promise he gave only to his apostles in the upper room at the Last Supper (John 16:13). This promise extends to the apostles’ ongoing successors as well, for “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists . . . for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (eph4: 11-12). Jesus is the head and all the faithful belonging to the one body is organized and united to it (v. 15-16).
wrong. it's given to all born again believers.
matt 3.11

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

catholics lack those.

Paul is saying otherwise . He requires the bible and sacred/apostolic tradition in 2thess2:15,... to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing... “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

There is a big difference between the Catholic faith and Mormonism. This is not the proper thread to discuss it further.
His church of born again believers are His living teachers. they are the ones who are given the Holy Spirit.

as for faith coming from what is heard, catholics don't hear much of His word because the rcc doesn't teach it. reading a few verses to you isn't teaching it. what it teaches you isn't the truth of His word.
 

ramcam2

Member
again you can't answer questions and just change the topic.

typical catholic tactic.
there are no divisions in the catholic church. it is just one church with the pope in rome as head. those that label themselves sa catholics but do not have the pope in rome as head do not belong to the catholic church.

now your turn, are you guided by the holy spirit?
 

ramcam2

Member
wrong. it's given to all born again believers.
matt 3.11

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

catholics lack those.


His church of born again believers are His living teachers. they are the ones who are given the Holy Spirit.

as for faith coming from what is heard, catholics don't hear much of His word because the rcc doesn't teach it. reading a few verses to you isn't teaching it. what it teaches you isn't the truth of His word.
baptize with the holy spirit (matt 3: 11) does not mean guided by the holy spirit (gift of infallibility) . it means the grace of the holy spirit will come to you for the forgiveness of sins.

another thing, born again is not found in the bible. what is near to it is 'born anew' from water and spirit in john 3: 3-5.
 

mica

Well-known member
there are no divisions in the catholic church. it is just one church with the pope in rome as head. those that label themselves sa catholics but do not have the pope in rome as head do not belong to the catholic church.

now your turn, are you guided by the holy spirit?
go back to 1241 and answer the other questions.
 

mica

Well-known member
baptize with the holy spirit (matt 3: 11) does not mean guided by the holy spirit (gift of infallibility) . it means the grace of the holy spirit will come to you for the forgiveness of sins.
no, it doesn't mean one is infallible. it is to all who are born again and includes forgiveness.

another thing, born again is not found in the bible. what is near to it is 'born anew' from water and spirit in john 3: 3-5.
catholic word games...

the HS is the Living Water
 

mica

Well-known member
there are no divisions in the catholic church. it is just one church with the pope in rome as head. those that label themselves sa catholics but do not have the pope in rome as head do not belong to the catholic church.

now your turn, are you guided by the holy spirit?
if your pope isn't their pope then they aren't part of the CC - it depends on allegiance to your pope, not to Christ to be part of what you claim is His church.

so whose 'church' is it really? catholics make it clear it isn't His church.
 

ramcam2

Member
if your pope isn't their pope then they aren't part of the CC - it depends on allegiance to your pope, not to Christ to be part of what you claim is His church.

so whose 'church' is it really? catholics make it clear it isn't His church.
it is jesus christ's church (matt 16: 18) and he gave the keys of heaven to peter (v.19) as the first earthly leader.
 

ramcam2

Member
no, it doesn't mean one is infallible. it is to all who are born again and includes forgiveness.


catholic word games...

the HS is the Living Water
not what the verse is saying... John3: 3 Jesus answered him, Believe me when I tell thee this; a man cannot see the kingdom of God without being born anew.[1] 4 Why, Nicodemus asked him, how is it possible that a man should be born when he is already old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and so come to birth? 5 Jesus answered, Believe me, no man can enter into the kingdom of God unless birth comes to him from water, and from the Holy Spirit.
 

ramcam2

Member
go back to 1241 and answer the other questions.
most bible alone christians say they are guided by the holy spirit in their private interpretation of the bible. if you are not one of them, i respect that. in other words, you can err in your private interpretations.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
not just simply teachings but the revelation of God to his son, Jesus, and taught by Jesus to the apostles. this is why the term apostolic/sacred traditions to distinguish it from the traditions of men. where can we find this apostolic/sacred traditions? it was orally passed on before most of it were were put in writing.

read your bible, jesus passed this divine mandate with the guidance of the holy spirit only to his apostles and their successors, not to every christian believers.
No one denies the fact that Jesus and the Apostles taught orally. But, the teaching of the non-Roman Catholic church is that the oral revelation that God wanted preserved is contained in the Scriptures. It is the Holy Scriptures alone which are the revelation of God to those who do not adhere to the teachings and beliefs of the church of Rome. What this means is that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition that's independent of Scripture.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
No one denies the fact that Jesus and the Apostles taught orally. But, the teaching of the non-Roman Catholic church is that the oral revelation that God wanted preserved is contained in the Scriptures. It is the Holy Scriptures alone which are the revelation of God to those who do not adhere to the teachings and beliefs of the church of Rome. What this means is that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition that's independent of Scripture.
My church is going through Exodus. In chapter 23 or so, Moses tells the Israelites (CofI) what the Lord had said; they say, "We'll do it!" After that, the Bible says that Moses wrote down the covenant to which the CofI had agreed. Why did he write down the covenant? Perhaps to have a record to point to when people said, "Oh, the Lord didn't say that!" or "We never agreed to that!"?

--Rich
 

Mik

Well-known member

RayneBeau

Well-known member
My church is going through Exodus. In chapter 23 or so, Moses tells the Israelites (CofI) what the Lord had said; they say, "We'll do it!" After that, the Bible says that Moses wrote down the covenant to which the CofI had agreed. Why did he write down the covenant? Perhaps to have a record to point to when people said, "Oh, the Lord didn't say that!" or "We never agreed to that!"?

--Rich
And perhaps they not only wanted to have a record to point to when people said, "Oh, the Lord didn't say that!" or "We never agreed to that!"; or possibly it was because God foreknew that in the future, the Roman Catholic Church would claim that the teaching of sola Scriptura was unhistorical, or that it contradicted the universal teaching of the early Church. But the facts do not support that claim.
Sola Scriptura was the universal teaching of the Church Fathers and for the church as a whole up through the latter part of the middle ages in that it believed that all doctrine must be proven from Holy Scripture and if such proof could not be produced the doctrine was to be rejected.
The statements of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great are representative of the Church throughout the entire patristic age. The fathers taught that all teachings must be validated by the written Scriptures. And furthermore, they taught that the extent of the authority of any teacher, be he bishop or layman, was limited to Scripture. They do affirm the authority of the Church, but an authority grounded in fidelity to Scripture, not principally to succession.
So, therefore, according to the Church fathers, the Church is subject to the final authority of Scripture and is to be disregarded if it moves outside of that authority in its teaching. And I think it is interesting to note also that the term sola Scriptura did not originate with the Reformers but was a term commonly employed by theologians for centuries preceding the Reformation. The Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura is not a novel doctrine but the reaffirmation of the faith of the early Church. It is both biblical and historical.
 

ramcam2

Member
No one denies the fact that Jesus and the Apostles taught orally. But, the teaching of the non-Roman Catholic church is that the oral revelation that God wanted preserved is contained in the Scriptures. It is the Holy Scriptures alone which are the revelation of God to those who do not adhere to the teachings and beliefs of the church of Rome. What this means is that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition that's independent of Scripture.
The bible like other religious writings (the koran for example)... will you believe it is inspired if the book claims inspiration? jesus said, John 5: 31 If I testify in my own behalf, that testimony of mine is worth nothing; We cannot be sure of what the bible is if we rely on the authority of the bible alone. There are any writings that were not included in the canon of the bible, how did the early christians decided on the books that are inspired to be included in the canon? Did they rely on the authority of the bible? i do not think so, there was no bible yet during those times. There has to be an outside authority other than than the bible.
 

mica

Well-known member
The bible like other religious writings (the koran for example)... will you believe it is inspired if the book claims inspiration? jesus said, John 5: 31 If I testify in my own behalf, that testimony of mine is worth nothing; We cannot be sure of what the bible is if we rely on the authority of the bible alone. There are any writings that were not included in the canon of the bible, how did the early christians decided on the books that are inspired to be included in the canon? Did they rely on the authority of the bible? i do not think so, there was no bible yet during those times. There has to be an outside authority other than than the bible.
you've never heard of the Bereans? never read a post on here about them checking Paul's teachings?
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
not what the verse is saying... John3: 3 Jesus answered him, Believe me when I tell thee this; a man cannot see the kingdom of God without being born anew.[1] 4 Why, Nicodemus asked him, how is it possible that a man should be born when he is already old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and so come to birth? 5 Jesus answered, Believe me, no man can enter into the kingdom of God unless birth comes to him from water, and from the Holy Spirit.
I think Peter and John knew a bunch more than the ECFs
and their students
1 Peter 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible, by the word of God,
which liveth and abideth for ever.​
 
Top