The only issue I have is that they roll 'infant baptism" into it. Romans 5 is straight forward, the most of the Bible. There is original sin by Adam, and death to all because of it.
Last edited:
Catholicism vs. Biblical Christianity
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
Agreed. It's as if the death of Christ only covers Adam's sin, or all past sins of the baby's ancestors, and the baby, as he grows, has to do penance to pay for the rest of his sins.
You highlight the wrong portion of that verse.
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
The doctrine of Original sin is blasphemy, Nick! God DOES NOT hold a child guilty of his parent's sin.
Ezekiel 18:19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Whatever consequences of sin were passed from Adam to the rest of his race was dealt with at the cross and God knew in advance that He would be dealing with that aspect of Adam's rebellion in that manner. Otherwise, He would never had permitted Adam and Eve to reproduce at all. He'd have simply ended their lives then and there.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Same. Waiting for something interesting to get discussed. Everything so far has been really boring, starting with the obv illogical thread title, begging the question ofc, that Catholicism ISN'T Biblical Christianity, which is begging the question.
Like there IS NO "vs" lol. Catholicism IS Biblical Christianity.
Last edited:
The question is are people condemned in the concept of original sin, as they call it. Paul seems to say so.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Of course he also says death entered through Adam and spread to all because all sinned. So it doesn’t really matter, however he says everybody is condemned because of Adam.
Romans chapters 5 and 6 are arguably the most important in the Bible for us today.
I just showed you PROOF otherwise, Nick, including from Paul's own writing.
Look at the passage you yourself just cited. The eight words that immediately precede the verse you quoted....
"sin is not imputed when there is no law. "
God is just. That is all you need know in order to toss "Original Sin" out the window. Just forget it. It's false! Romans 5 teaches the opposite of the doctrine of Original Sin! It's about what God did to undo the problems inherited from Adam. They are universally applied such that no one will ever be punished by God for any sin other than that which they themselves have committed.
That isn't to say there weren't any consequences for Adam's race that came because of his rebellion, which Romans 5 does discuss but none of it has to do with God holding people, especially babies, guilty of sins that they did not commit. That would be a mockery of justice and it would blatantly contradict not just God's word but the actual words that came out of God's own mouth...
Ezekiel 18:19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”
(I could have quoted the entire chapter. This specific issue is what it talks about from beginning to end.)
The choice you're left with is this....Is the doctrine of "Original Sin", which no one believed at all prior to Augustine, true?
OR
Is the bible's depictions of a just God true.
It's either Augustinian doctrine or Christianity.
The third and only other alternative is that they are both false.
Last edited:
This idiotic claim is false by Catholicism's OWN standard!
Just one of 551,217 examples....
- Scripture (affirmed by Catholicism as God's Word):
- Catholic Doctrine (Council of Trent, Canon 9):
Derf
Well-known member
It seems there are some "vs". Like:Same. Waiting for something interesting to get discussed. Everything so far has been really boring, starting with the obv illogical thread title, begging the question ofc, that Catholicism ISN'T Biblical Christianity, which is begging the question.
Like there IS NO "vs" lol. Catholicism IS Biblical Christianity.
"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" vs "Mary was sinless from conception".
Few understand grace--Many believe its automatic if they believe, but that is not a truth.
Grace= All sin and none deserve eternal life. All deserve death. Yet Jesus promised some will never taste death. Who are these?=The ones brought through the tribulation and Armageddon may never taste death. Members of the little flock bought from the Earth during the tribulation will never taste death.
Those deserve death since Gods judgement for sin= death, but they will get grace-Why? The #1 reason why is because they live now 24/7-365 doing Jesus' Fathers will( Matt 7:21) over self, just as Jesus does, in this satan ruled system of things. Not such an easy task to do. Its those who God declares righteous even though they still sin. They learn, apply, and obey= Every utterance from God to the best of their abilty as Jesus teaches=Man must live by Every utterance.
These trust in Christ( Matt 7:21-23) yet will hear those words as judgement.
Thus Catholicism and all her branches( protestants) fail 100%
Right Divider
Body part
You're not playing with a full deck.
Its proven fact-Catholicism altered the bible in the 4th century to fit their false council teachings. The only translating left when the protestants translated was Catholicism translating( Latin Vulgate--Codex sinacticus)= both 4th century works)-- The protestants tried to fix things bgut had no clue as to the alterations that prevented them from fixing the errors in teachings.
Yes it is.
The first three sentences are true. The rest is more or less made up nonsense that ignores whole swaths of scripture.
The solitary fact anyone needs to know to explode what you've said here into dust is simply that the Body of Christ and Israel are not the same thing.
Entirely false.
You may not even be a saved believer. You seem clearly to have believed another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).
It is, in fact, an utterly and completely impossible thing to do. Thus grace, even under the gospel you seem to be preaching.
You definitely are not saved. You have believed the wrong gospel. You'd might have made a good Jew!
The phrase "trust in Christ" can mean a lot of things. You are preaching legalism which is a false gospel. Paul, who is not only the only Apostle to the Body of Christ, but also the only person throughout the scripture that teaches people to follow him as he followed Christ and calls the gospel "my gospel" and who was sent, by divine revelation to the Apostles in Jerusalem for the purpose of explaining his gospel to them (Galatians 2:2), after which they agreed with Paul that they would remain in Jerusalem (setting aside the "great commission") and minister to Israel while Paul would preach his gospel to the gentiles (Galatians 2:6-9).
What is this gospel that Paul preached?
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Says the guy who trusts his flesh to earn his salvation for him.
Your Oneness Pentecostalism is showing, and it’s not a good look. This kind of hyper-suspicious, revisionist nonsense is textbook cult mentality. The idea that true Christianity vanished after the apostles and magically re-emerged with your group isn’t just arrogant, it’s embarrassingly idiotic.
You toss out terms like “Codex Sinaiticus” and “Vulgate” as if you’ve done your homework, but it’s clear you have no clue what they are or how they relate to the history of Scripture. Catholicism didn’t rewrite the Bible in the 4th century, and the Reformers weren’t duped pawns stumbling through a rigged translation. That whole narrative is a conspiracy theory wrapped in theological delusion.
Watch any documentary about a cult, S1. It doesn’t matter which one, just go watch the first one you can find and listen to the language, watch the eyes of the believers. Note how confident they are in their tiny, fabricated version of reality. You, just like everyone else who isn't caught up in that cult, will feel it in your gut that something’s deeply wrong.
Now realize that YOU ARE THEM!
The wide-eyed fanaticism, the smug dismissal of everyone else, the blind loyalty to your sect’s fantasy version of history, it’s the same spirit. The doctrines are different but it's the same delusion.
You’re not standing for truth. You’re parroting nonsense. The only thing more tragic than your ignorance is how proud you are of it.
Last edited:
I shared the teachings of Jesus that are in every translation on Earth. And you say they are error. You best relook sir.
In the write ups about the 4th century= recorded history facts. Jerome told the Catholic leader that Gods name belongs in the NT. But all of a sudden in almost 7000 places Gods name was removed and replaced with titles. They had no right to remove Gods name where God willed it. That is an alteration to mislead. And it does just that.
As well, write ups say-Constantine took the codex sinaticus and made alterations.
Any who read the bible clearly see Catholicism can't even understand some simple bible milk. How will they understand the deep things?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Liar.
Goofy stupidity. We still have the text in its original language and it's been translated hundreds of times in hundreds of different languages by scores of different sets of people for as many different reasons. It has been preserved - by God - in such a way as the corruption you suggest couldn't possibly succeed.
The claim that "Constantine took the Codex Sinaiticus and made alterations" is historically inaccurate on multiple fronts:
- Codex Sinaiticus was written after Constantine's time
Constantine died in AD 337. Codex Sinaiticus is generally dated to the mid-4th century, around AD 350. While that places it in the general era, there is no evidence that Constantine himself commissioned it, handled it, or altered it. - There is no historical record of Constantine altering biblical manuscripts
Constantine did commission fifty copies of the Scriptures for churches in Constantinople (according to Eusebius), but we do not have any direct identification of those copies. Codex Sinaiticus is not linked to those commissions by any known documentation. Nor is there any credible evidence that Constantine made theological or textual changes to the biblical text. - Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in the 19th century
It was rediscovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in the mid-1800s at St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula. No historical sources prior to that time claimed Constantine altered the text or deposited it there. - Conspiracy theories often conflate Constantine’s political influence with biblical corruption
Some fringe claims suggest Constantine tampered with Scripture to suit political or theological goals (e.g., suppressing Gnostic texts or promoting Trinitarianism). While Constantine did exert influence on the direction of the church (notably through the Council of Nicaea in AD 325), there is no evidence he edited biblical manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus.
You are a lunatic that can't think himself out of a wet paper bag. Worry about your own ocean of stupidity. Catholics can take care of themselves.
All Greek translating today was translated out of Catholicism translating.
Thats strange--write ups say Constantine took the codex sinacticus and altered it.
Then it must have been constantin you mentioned who altered it. Easy to get those 2 names confused.
Last edited: