Pride is an obstacle to Christian unity, pope says

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
You are stereo-typing. There will always be some bad mixed in with the good. The Bible addresses this with the wheat and tares.
Not all priests are evil. Not all Catholics are ignorant. There are actually some that love and worship God. Be careful how you judge them.
I'm not stereo-typing, I am stating the facts.

Pope Francis will not teach the nature of homosexuals. Instead he coddles them. The Bible says they are reprobates.

Matt Slick says this:


Romans 1:26-27 and Homosexuality

by Matt Slick | May 20, 2012 | Minor Groups & Issues, Homosexuality
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26-27, NASB).
Some argue that Romans 1:26-27 does not condemn homosexuality per se, but is instead condemning unnatural love. In other words, the verses condemn the act of going against what a person’s natural sexual orientation really is. So, if it is natural for a person to be attracted to someone of the same sex, then it would be “unnatural” for that person to go against his/her homosexual orientation. Is this argument sound? No, it is not.
Let’s take a look a closer look at these two verses.
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural [phusikan] function [xrasin] for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire [orexis] toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26-27, NASB).
The passage has several important words worth looking at, but for our examination, we’ll look at the words “natural function” (“natural use,” KJV). Let’s take a look at how different Bibles translate Greek into English.

  • “natural function” – NASB
  • “natural relations” – ESV, NIV, RSV
  • “natural use” – ASV, Darby, GNT, KJV, NKJV, YLT
  • “natural sexual function” – ISV
  • “natural intercourse” – NRSV
We are not talking about a person’s alleged natural sexual orientation. Instead, we are talking about “natural function,” natural use. If the text-only said “natural” and not “natural function/use,” then the homosexual’s argument might be stronger. But, the text doesn’t help them. If the word “natural” in this context means “natural sexual orientation” then why does Paul add the word “function” and not something like “preference” (Rom. 12:9, NASB), or “choice” (Rom. 9:11), or “inclination” (1 Cor. 11:16), or “desire” (Rom. 1:27; 10:1)? Furthermore, verse 27 says that the “men abandoned the natural function of the woman.” By definition, “men” and “woman” are gender-specific words. What is the man’s natural function of the woman? Sex! Is Paul saying the natural function of the man with the woman is really about natural desire of men with men? That would be ridiculous. Instead, the words are used in the context of sexual activity – a man’s natural function with the woman (v. 27). “Function” and “use” here are not about preference, but about sex.

The Greek Says…

The Greek for “natural function” are φυσικὴν χρῆσιν, phusikan krasis.
  • “natural” – phusikan, 1) produced by nature, inborn, 2) agreeable to nature, 3) governed by (the instincts of) nature1
  • “function” – Only two instances in N.T. Rom. 1:26,27. χρῆσις, εως, ἡ use made of anything, usage; more specifically of sexual intercourse function, sexual use (RO 1.26, 27)2
The issue is not one’s natural orientation or one’s natural preference, but of natural function. Preference is internal. Function, in this context, is biological and is related to design; which is why Paul tells us that the men gave up the natural function (“use” KJV) of the woman and burned for other men. There is nothing here about sexual orientation. It is about sexual function where the norm is male and female, not male and male, or female and female.
  • 1. James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. (electronic ed.; Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), G5446.
  • 2. Timothy Friberg et al., vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Baker’s Greek New Testament library, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000), 410.

Gotta love our host, Matt Slick

 

balshan

Well-known member
You are stereo-typing. There will always be some bad mixed in with the good. The Bible addresses this with the wheat and tares.
Not all priests are evil. Not all Catholics are ignorant. There are actually some that love and worship God. Be careful how you judge them.
No the poster isn't. I hate to tell according to scripture the bulk are. If you do not expose sin, you are part of the sin. Pell's testimony proved that for every paedophile priest there were 7 to 8 other leaders who knew about them and did nothing. That makes 8 to 9 leaders guilty of the sin if we do not ignore scripture. The ignoring of the abuse lead to more children suffering abuse, molestation etc. Think about the number of children who were abused that you know about they are only the tip of the iceberg.

There are not only child abusers, there are rapists, there are those who have children outside marriage. No need to be careful about judging them at all. We are to discern the fruits. The fruits are rotten.

We as believers are expected to be careful how we live, we are not to hid sin but to expose it. We are to protect God's gift children. You can talk all you like about pro life but being pro life is more than being anti abortion. We are to look after, provide for and protect all children.

Stop justify the RCC and its actions. Look at the facts. Many countries have done royal commission etc into child abuse in institutions. They are all revealing the truth.
 

mica

Well-known member
You are stereo-typing. There will always be some bad mixed in with the good. The Bible addresses this with the wheat and tares.
those were the top leaders of your 'church' spoken of in post #134! if the leaders are corrupt so will the followers be. those are men you claim to be successors of Peter and the leader of His church! are those people teaching and living according to God's word? absolutely not. yes, there will be tares in with the wheat. hopefully more 'tares' will become 'wheat' than don't. but if the tares are who you have leading and teaching you, it'll be the wheat that leaves in search of His truth. all you're left with is the tares.

Not all priests are evil. Not all Catholics are ignorant.
if they're not ignorant of scripture, they'll leave the rcc.

There are actually some that love and worship God. Be careful how you judge them.
they can't do that and teach / believe what the rcc teaches / believes. they contradict each other. any that actually do will leave the rcc.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
You are stereo-typing. There will always be some bad mixed in with the good.
And what do you do with rotting vegetables in your cooler? Say, "Oh, well. There will always be some bad mixed in with the good" and serve them to your guests?
The Bible addresses this with the wheat and tares.
Not all priests are evil. Not all Catholics are ignorant.
All? No. Haven't seen anyone here say ALL Catholics are ignorant. Do you have a reference? But when it comes to the Bible - or even what your CCC says - most Catholics are woefully ignorant. They have hired their spiritual "experts" and "leave the driving" to them. The RCC bus is going down a mountain road with switchbacks, and the driver will not use the brakes. In fact, the driver tries to run down those who are trying to warn them of their danger.
There are actually some that love and worship God. Be careful how you judge them.
Not all the inhabitants of Sodom were wicked, either. Where is Sodom today?

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
The "position" is adopted son/daughter. So why not say that?
adoption is not the only meaning for "all believers are united in their position in Christ"

united with Christ in His death and resurrections
Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his

united with Christ by one Spirti
1 Cor 1213 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves 4or free—and mall were made to drink of one Spirit


united in Christ in our standing before God:
Roman 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved
Romans 3:24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
The Bible commands us to fight against false teachers.

...​

And it was the Catholic Church, not Protestants, that brought down the great heresies.

Error cannot defeat error. Light triumphs over darkness.

Mark 3: 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
I'm not stereo-typing, I am stating the facts.

Pope Francis will not teach the nature of homosexuals. Instead he coddles them. The Bible says they are reprobates.

...
God will deal appropriately with those who abuse their authority.
How many kings of Israel were bad? Did that negate that the Jews were God's chosen people? No it did not.
But according to the reasoning here at CARM, it should have.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
And it was the Catholic Church, not Protestants, that brought down the great heresies.

Error cannot defeat error. Light triumphs over darkness.

Mark 3: 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?

duh
Because the name "Protestant" was not used prior to the 1500s
 

Grace

Well-known member
it was the Catholic Church, not Protestants, that brought down the great heresies.

Error cannot defeat error. Light triumphs over darkness.

Mark 3: 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?
"Protestants" You use that word as pejorative. Like the Scribes and the Pharisees who hated Jesus and His Apostles.

The "Protestants" exposed Catholicism's great heresies. Yes...we protest the false teaching of the Catholic church.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
"Protestants" You use that word as pejorative. Like the Scribes and the Pharisees who hated Jesus and His Apostles.

The "Protestants" exposed Catholicism's great heresies. Yes...we protest the false teaching of the Catholic church.
I use the word appropriately. You take the word as a pejorative because you choose to be overly sensitive and interpret everything as an attack.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
"Protestants" You use that word as pejorative. Like the Scribes and the Pharisees who hated Jesus and His Apostles.

The "Protestants" exposed Catholicism's great heresies. Yes...we protest the false teaching of the Catholic church.
Protestantism is a heresy itself and exposes nothing.
If anything, the old heresies are experiencing a "revival" due to Protestantism by its promotion of self interpretation of Scripture and its lack of respect for the authority of the pillar and foundation of the truth - The Church.
 

4Him

Administrator
Staff member
Protestantism is a heresy itself

How? Tell us what we believe that is heretical.
If anything, the old heresies are experiencing a "revival" due to Protestantism due to its promotion of self interpretation of Scripture and its lack of respect for the authority of the pillar and foundation of the truth - The Church.

The church, HIS church is the entire body of Christ....your church isn't the 'pillar and foundation of truth', since it is void of so much truth...
His church upholds HIS truths contained in HIS word.
I absolutely respect the leaders of my church, but I also test all things, hold to what is good, just as we are told to. No one is to blindly follow any man or any teachings...
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
God will deal appropriately with those who abuse their authority.
How many kings of Israel were bad? Did that negate that the Jews were God's chosen people? No it did not.
But according to the reasoning here at CARM, it should have.
And still you – pilgrim – defend sin, "and you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, so that he who has done this deed may be taken from your midst."
(1Co 5:2)

You and your church are in great danger because "you say, 'I am rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing,' and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked."

You also ignore Jesus' warning:
"Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent, ... or else I will come to you quickly and will remove your lampstand out of its place unless you repent. (Rev. 2:5)

As to wicked kings of Israel (yet again you defend evil!), you fail to see "In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years. Then he turned and rebelled against him. And the LORD sent against him troops of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and troops of the Moabites, and troops of the Ammonites. And He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He spoke by His servants the prophets. Surely at the commandment of the Lord this came on Judah, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Manasseh [who was long dead], according to all that he did; and also for the innocent blood which he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the LORD would not pardon." (2Ki 24:1-4)

So, who paid for Manasseh's sin? God's chosen people. To whom was it said, "You are not my people!"? God's chosen people. Who does the RCC claim to replace? God's chosen people. Yet somehow you have convinced yourselves that "He Who changes not," winks at your sin.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
How? Tell us what we believe that is heretical.


The church, HIS church is the entire body of Christ....your church isn't the 'pillar and foundation of truth', since it is void of so much truth...
His church upholds HIS truths contained in HIS word.
I absolutely respect the leaders of my church, but I also test all things, hold to what is good, just as we are told to. No one is to blindly follow any man or any teachings...
I feel that if inspired prophecies in the apostolic age had to be subjected to testing . . . then even more so should all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ever since it's inception, including all the teachings of the RCC today should also be put to the test. If the words of the prophets in apostolic times needed to be examined and evaluated in those days, then surely we ought to subject the words, church teachings, commandments, laws, rituals, etc., and include all of the Roman Catholic Church's self-proclaimed "Vicars of Christ," visions and voices of BV Mary, deceased RCC saints, etc., should be subject to even more intense scrutiny, just as well as non-RC preachers today should be scrutinized in the bright light of the completed New Testament. The same is true of every subjective experience and every emotion, experience and feelings - no matter how powerful they may seem - they do not determine what is true. Instead those things themselves must be subjected to the test.
 

Tertiumquid

Well-known member
If you read the history of the depreciation of Mary it might give you pause for thought. Luther himself had a love for Mary, her role and called her 'Queen of Heaven'. He wrote a book on the Magnificat. So the European Reformation is not the source. It was Henry the 8th and Thomas Cromwell in England who bore a real hatred of any sort of elevation of her, but you have to wonder if their dreadful misogyny played a part in that. In retrospect, they didn't.
Hi Stella,

1. Luther really isn't on your side. Saying Luther "loved" Mary lacks qualification. He certainly did not "love" Mary in the typical Roman Catholic 16th Century popular piety sense. In fact, he actively wrote against it. That Luther said nice things about Mary is not the same thing as Roman Catholic Marian devotion, both then and now.

2. Of the works of Luther that I've dealt with over the years, I rarely have come across Luther using the title "Queen of Heaven." The reason why is because "Queen of Heaven" was directly associated with the Salve Regina and the Regina Coeli. Both of these perpetuated the sort of medieval Mariolatry that Luther was against.

3. True, as you pointed out, there is an explicit writing in which Luther refers to Mary as "Queen of Heaven".... his treatment of the Magnificat, but that's the only explicit positive reference to "Queen of Heaven" that I'm aware of from Luther. In context, Luther allows "Queen of Heaven" to be a "true enough name" but qualifies it that even if this name is applied, Mary is not "a goddess who could grant gifts or render aid, as some suppose when they pray and flee to her rather than to God. She gives nothing."

4. I anticipate this response from a defender of Rome: Yes, Mary is not a goddess. We agree with Luther. The Mary of Luther and the Mary of 16th Century Roman Catholicism though are different, for in that view, Mary is someone to pray to and flee to who grants gifts... hence, what Luther would call, a goddess. According to Luther, by pouring more into the term "Queen of Heaven" (like the defenders of Rome do), "we can easily take away too much from God’s grace, which is a perilous thing to do and not well pleasing to her." When Luther here says "Queen of Heaven" "is a true enough name," he does not mean the same thing Rome's defenders do. If there's any agreement here between the defenders of Rome and Luther, it's only surface level.

Luther's exposition of the Magnificat was seen in his day as an attack against popular Marian piety and is a transitional work in Luther's Mariology (not entirely reflective of his later thought). In chronological order, Luther's 1521 admitting a use of "Queen of Heaven" is followed by 1522's "doing Christ a disservice" if one uses the title. Then for the rest of Luther's career, the Salve Regina and the Regina Coeli were to be avoided as blasphemous.

5. There used to be a person here on CARM that wrongly accused me of malicious cut-and-pasting. Lest anyone besides me engages in CARM-Snopes, the above comments were taken from a blog entry I wrote back in 2014 and fitted into the response above... thus I plagiarized myself.
 

mica

Well-known member
And it was the Catholic Church, not Protestants, that brought down the great heresies.

Error cannot defeat error. Light triumphs over darkness.

Mark 3: 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?
when will it 'bring down' its own heresies?
 

balshan

Well-known member
And it was the Catholic Church, not Protestants, that brought down the great heresies.

Error cannot defeat error. Light triumphs over darkness.

Mark 3: 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?
Wrong it was the RCC that has established and enable the spreading of heresies.
 
Top