This is why we are here............

balshan

Well-known member
We have gone over this several times -- Luther had NO AUTHORITY to lay hands on men because he wasn't a bishop in communion with Christ's Catholic Church.
We have gone over this several times, your leaders have no authority because they do not meet the scriptural requirements for leaders. Your institution has proven by its fruit it is not the church founded by Jesus. Actions/fruit tells us the spirit behind an institution and a little yeast contaminates the whole loaf.
 

balshan

Well-known member
That would be the 'Church throughout' mentioned in Acts 9.
Nowhere in acts does it say that the real church is going to harm the sheep. Your institution is not in acts or any other scripture. Yep Saul was chosen by God. Your leaders are not Ananais, he met the scriptural requirements for leaders. He just confirmed what God had already done.

Acts 9 does not mention an institution that harms the sheep, teaches false doctrines, install evil leaders, hides sin etc.
 

Doug

Well-known member
James 5:
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
And the reason followers of Catholicism are here is to attempt to prevent others from finding salvation through Jesus Christ.
 

balshan

Well-known member
The bible as a whole I have read. The works of Zwingli, Calvin, etc. I have NOT
Sorry this reply is for arch. Have you read the catechism? How much of it? Have you read the ECFs or do you just grab quotes from them? Have you read any of the lives of the saints? Have you read the writings of Brother Lawrence or say Aquinas? How much of their writings have you read? So you follow men.
 

A new day

Well-known member
Have you read the catechism?

Very, very little of it. I've quoted a few things as I come across topics of discussion. But to sit down and study it...and read the whole enchilada ... um no, not really all that interested in it.

Have you read the ECFs or do you just grab quotes from them?

No, I see a lot of mention of them since I started posting here. I have no idea what of what these folks wrote, other than what has been posted on this forum. Perhaps these are/were required readings in religious schools. I did not attend any religious school, I am in the u.s and attended public schools when growing up; in which the teachers are not allowed to teach religion.

And neither have I attended any church that quoted them. The pastor opens his bible, the congregation opens their bibles and a the sermon begins. The pastor reads passages from Scripture and expounds on them in his sermon.
 

balshan

Well-known member
hmmm, you got a reply from me anyway.... ;) :LOL:
It was an extremely good reply. Sorry about that but I confused the two posts and did not notice that I had pushed reply for the wrong poster. So sorry. But you show that we follow scriptures. That we are aware of others views and writings but do not need to follow them, unlike the RCs. You clearly show the difference and that they follow men.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
We have gone over this several times -- Luther had NO AUTHORITY to lay hands on men because he wasn't a bishop in communion with Christ's Catholic Church.
Well, I also answered you! He didn't need your church's authority to ordain ministers. Your church excommunicated him, remember? Plus, he wasn't ordaining Catholic priests, but ministers of the Gospel in the nascent Lutheran church ( and no, he did not like its being mamed after him). His authority came from God, because he preached the truth, the TRUE Gospel, which your church had buried for centuries under man-made doctrines.

Your church leaders recognize marriages in Protestant churches. Therefore, your church leaders must think their ministers had authority to perform marriages. So, from where did they get their authority to do that, hmm?
 
Last edited:

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Yes, really!!!

Acts 9:31-32 The CHURCH THROUGHOUT all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace. It was being built up and walked in the fear of the Lord, and with the consolation of the holy Spirit it grew in numbers.

As PETER was passing THROUGH EVERY REGION, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Yes, really!!!

Acts 9:31-32 The CHURCH THROUGHOUT all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace. It was being built up and walked in the fear of the Lord, and with the consolation of the holy Spirit it grew in numbers.

Where does this say the ROMAN Catholic church? Was the church headquartered in Rome then, and headed by one man, a pope? Do you see the word "ROMAN" in this verse???? I certainly do not!

As PETER was passing THROUGH EVERY REGION, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda.
So? Paul passed through a lot of regions as well, spreading the Gospel. In no way does this verse prove that the ROMAN Catholic church existed back in the first century AD. It is only your church's arrogance and pride that makes it boast that is existed back then.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Where does this say the ROMAN Catholic church?
Like saying where is 'The Way' written in the word Lutheran :rolleyes: --The 'Universal/Catholic Church' is the same through Apostolic Succession.
Was the church headquartered in Rome then,
It could just as easily been Antioch
In no way does this verse prove that the ROMAN Catholic church existed back in the first century AD.
It was/is the ONLY Church established by Christ!!!
It is only your church's arrogance and pride that makes it boast that is existed back then.
The truth shall set you free [Jn 8:32]
 

Bonnie

Super Member
and you still don't understand the laying of hands in Christ's Church

Yes, I do, and the RCC isn't "Christ's church." It stopped being His church centuries ago, when it added so many man-made doctrines "teaching for doctrine the precepts of men" and turned aside from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Yes, he most definitely did -- use this example for the Anglicans

'Apostolicae Curae'​

On the Nullity of Anglican Orders​

Pope Leo XIII - 1896
I don't give a flying tiddly wink what the Anglicans do! Why should I? But IF your church accepts Protestant marriages as valid, then that means your church must recognized that their ministers had the authority to perform the marriage ceremonies for them. Otherwise, it would say that all the couples married by Protestant ministers would be invalid and they would all be living in sin.
 
Top