- Topic
In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself. if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."
I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread. Here's the first one:
Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church. These are historical, textbook facts.
I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html
fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful. I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.
I have to do my research, I can't agree that the RCC is Christ true church, Or any other church out there that claims to be no matter what the religion.
This is why, church, dogma, denominations and so on is not so relevant. God loves all who come to him. Loads of Catholic will make it and loads of non denomination will make it to heaven. This I can say I believe. I love the way Catholics worship aside from the saint and Mary issue.
Even if the CC turns out to be the. Woman sitting on many water, it. Is still far better than Wmscog’s doctrine. I knowFTOS will get me on this comment but that’s ok.
This is why, church, dogma, denominations and so on is not so relevant. God loves all who come to him. Loads of Catholic will make it and loads of non denomination will make it to heaven. This I can say I believe. I love the way Catholics worship aside from the saint and Mary issue.
Even if the CC turns out to be the. Woman sitting on many water, it. Is still far better than Wmscog’s doctrine. I knowFTOS will get me on this comment but that’s ok.
Kim wrote:
I have to do my research, I can't agree that the RCC is Christ true church, Or any other church out there that claims to be no matter what the religion.
Kim, I understand its a scandalous idea. Men are so weak and sinful, and the Catholic Church has proven that. For the Catholic Church to be the true Church is almost as scandalous as it was for a Jew to believe that God could become a man! Just as God chose to become a man, so he chooses to work through sinful men. Even for the forgiveness of sins he chooses to work through sinful men.
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
-John 20:22-23
Sarah2013 wrote:
This is why, church, dogma, denominations and so on is not so relevant. God loves all who come to him. Loads of Catholic will make it and loads of non denomination will make it to heaven. This I can say I believe. I love the way Catholics worship aside from the saint and Mary issue.
Even if the CC turns out to be the. Woman sitting on many water, it. Is still far better than Wmscog's doctrine. I knowFTOS will get me on this comment but that's ok.
Sarah, other than "lol" and "brb" I'm no good at abbrevations on the web! What does FTOS mean?
I don't see how dogma and therefore denominations can be irrelevant. Not if Christ is the truth and He promised the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. I mean, Protestants and Catholics believe totally different things on how we are saved, and even which books belong in the Bible. How can that be irrelevant to Christ who calls Himself the truth?
Please explain the difference in beliefs as far as Protestant and Catholics. FTOS means From The Other Side. Cool Lad. Lol.
Dear Irenaeus, The last I checked as a former Catholic, we believe in Jesus is God and the way to salvation. Protestant, I believe, agree on that also. They just don’t believe in praying to the saints, Mary, and purgatory. Is this the difference you are talking about? I belong to no church. I mean no church. I am just a follower of the man named Jesus of Nazareth.
With respect, i have to say that I disagree a little on the One Holy and Apostolic/Catholic church.
Martin Luther taught, "faith alone," and "scripture alone."
For Luther faith alone means that works (our own actions) have nothing to do with whether or not we are saved. Catholics believe we are saved by grace received in baptism and nutured or restored through the other sacraments, like confession of sins to a priest, and receivng Holy Communion, annointing of the sick, etc. Some Protestants take faith alone to mean that all one needs to do is say "the sinners prayer' and their salvation is guarunteed. Catholics teach that serious sin can cause us to loose saving grace and possibly be damned.
Luther taught that "scripture alone" was the rule of faith, where the Catholic Church views the inspired word as part of a larger tradition of traditions handed down from the Apostles, which would include oral traditions, extra-biblical teachings of the early Church, and Christian practices, all of which hold different levels of authority for the Christian community. For the Catholic these traditions are preserved and clarified by a living authority which proclaims the truth. This authority is the communion of Catholic Bishops, with the Pope in Rome as their head.
Also, Martin Luther removed six old testament books from the bible and unjustly labeled them apocryphal.
The problem with saying matthew 16 means roman catholic, eastern orthodox, ethiopian orthodox, lutheran, etc is church is the people not a governing body nor a building
The apocrypha were labeled such before jesus
Simon, look at Matt 18:15-18
“If your brother or sister sins,go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Which Church do we take the sinner to? First Baptist? Second Presbyterian? Latter Day Saints? Once we get them there, who decides? The pastor? The parish comittee?
Christ must have left an authority, or governing body. It's clearly Peter and the other Apostles. If he meant for His Church to be a Kingdom that would endure on this earth, they must have successors. Otherwise this advice from Christ in Matt 18 is worthless. Hence apostolic succession! Otherwise we're orpahns left to fend the truth for ourselves.
Simon wrote:
The apocrypha were labeled such before jesus
The deuterocanonicals were always included in the Septuagaint version of the Old Testament, which was adopted almost universally by the first Christians.
It means the people
The Church means the people? I agree, but somebody has to be in charge.
If you meant the people have to decide on what is to be done with the obstinate sinner, then what happens if they disagree and can't decide what should be done? What if they can't even decide on whether or not the sinner has truly sinned? What if they can't agree what the truth is in the matter? Do they split the congregation? Which congregation is correct?
The Church is not just her authority, but that doesn't mean authority isn't crucially important.
This pasage requires a clear authority.
Your church rejects books from the lxx off hand 3rd and 4th maccabees so inclusion in lxx.clearly doesn’t make something scripture
your argument rules out the catholic church. There isn’t always agreement among bishops /cardinals or successive popes
You once had over a year of no pope just because of it
My point was the first Christians did not reject those books as apocryphal. Ultimately the authority of the Church decided which books were inspired. I wouldn’t say we even “rejected” those that weren’t included. They are just not as important to us.
Just because all don’t agree doesn’t prove anything. The point is there is a mechanism in place to make binding decisions. In some things the Church allows a great deal of liberty. And there was never not a pope in such a way that the apostolic succession needed to be refounded or anything like that. We have a clear authority which can clarify what must be believed and what differences in opinion are acceptable, and this authority will always be able to perpetuate itself. Even the Avignon schism could not destroy the papacy. The Church weathered that storm triumphantly. Note I don’t dismiss it as if it weren’t a problem, but im the grand scheme of things it was a short lived problem that did not overcome the Church, because Christ promised she would not be overcome.
The promise was to the people not the structure.
Btw your making special pleading
I don’t see how you can separate them.
What do you mean by “special pleading”? Am I breaking a forum rule?
After looking it up and reading about that fallacy, I can only deny that I am doing that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.