which thread?
ECT THE ARROGANCE & BLINDNESS OF THE PROTESTANT HERESY
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
which thread?
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
THE ARROGANCE & BLINDNESS OF THE PROTESTANT HERESY
Duh! And it's the same old story. Everybody's a heretic, the evil slander you all love labeling everybody with who doesn't belong to your cult. Everybody's a heretic who isn't sucking the corrupt kneecaps of Popery. A heretic, those who believe the Bible. What dire and damnable, utter foolishness. "Heretic!", as you tortured and burned God's children, burned His scripture, the blackest work of the devil, shame on you all!
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
You all say, "Don't bash Catholics!" Yet you still slander true, Spirit filled Christians as heretics, exactly as you did when you burned faithful Christians. You don't want to be bashed by the truth, mind you, by the record of your own crimes and demonic doctrines? Then stop showing up, like a badly corroded penny, with your "heretic" garbage and other foolishness.
Who's blind, and who's arrogant? The one who believes the word of God found in the Holy Bible, who knows the body of Christ, born of the Holy Spirit, is the only church, or the one who believes the traditions of evil men and doctrines of demons? And who is arrogant, but the flesh creature who would so abuse the faith of Jesus Christ and His apostles, stand against the eternal Creator, with a murderous history of doing things unthinkable to any child of God?
In 2016, you're just a tragic farce, waving that tattered flag of the devil. Islam is all the rage, these days. Maybe you should try a mosque.
Now you're just looking like a poor sport. Rather, you decided to identify with a sneering bit of snobbery. I didn't make you do that. Not so clever? It reads like Twain compared to the ham-fisted horsefeathers that sponsored it.
I never saw anyone give you that job.
The other guy. He's always an idiot, isn't he. And he's rarely clever at all.
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Incredible, dumb hypocrisy. They make a career of demeaning all others, soaked in that pride of life stench, then label anybody else arrogant? They define arrogance. There's really nothing anybody can say. It becomes mindless, and what can you say to the mindless?
Cruciform
New member
Thus merely proving my point.
Cruciform
New member
In order to deal with the widespread doctrinal confusion produced and promoted by the Protestant "reformers."
Last edited:
Cruciform
New member
They represent the early Church Fathers. I'm not sure which particular Fathers they're supposed to be.
Cruciform
New member
I don't recall Jesus telling slaves to "be the best slaves they can be," but St. Paul instructed masters to treat slaves justly and fairly (Col. 4:1), and told slaves to be submissive to their masters (Titus 2:9). Slavery was an accepted institution in Roman society. Paul did not attack it directly in his canonical epistles, but sought to improve the relationship between masters and slaves and stressed that both stand on equal footing in Christ (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:22-4:1). Here he implies that the dependability of slaves will help to advertise the gospel to the world (Eph. 6:5-9).
How does your question relate to the topic of discussion?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
- Not "traditions of men," but rather divinely-revealed and bindingly authoritative truth since, unlike your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect, the Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and whose teachings therefore carry Christ's own power and authority.
- Regarding the charge that the Catholic Church is a "sect," see this.
Either way, my observation remains both absolutely true and utterly unanswered by anti-Catholics. I find it interesting, however, that I have been posting the very same content for years on TOL, and have never once been banned until quite recently.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Indeed you did, and thanks for that. The anti-Catholics here, however, have thus far carefully avoided actually engaging with the content of the OP.
You do realize, I hope, that you can differ strongly with one Catholic without being anti-Catholic. :think: Unless he's the Pope, maybe.
Cruciform
New member
"Anti-Catholic," as in "opposed to the Catholic Church and her teachings." I assume that you're not in favor of the Church and her teachings, correct?
I'm a Presbyterian. Does that make me anti-Baptist, Methodist or Anglican? I don't think of it that way. Who is Christ to a Catholic? The same as he is to any Christian. There, in the salvific, we're joined in a truly catholic and apostolic church.
We put it this way:
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting."
Where we differ, well, God will sort that out as needed, in this life or the next.
You don't belong to an apostolic church. In what sense can your church be tied to the apostles and their successors?
I understand the Catholic (and Church of Christ) claim to a more exclusive relationship, but in the words of Southern mothers for generations, the only charitable response to that sort of statement is, "Bless your heart."
Here's a link that will help you understand the distinction between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity."
1. You neglected to post a link.
2. What was the original signification of the word "apostolic" when the creed which you cited was codified? It referred to apostolic succession.
Anyway, you made a statement and I provided clarity. If you read the article you had an answer. If you didn't you weren't after it. In any event, if you don't care for that answer then the best thing I can tell you is that you should probably never consider joining the Presbyterian church.
lain:
It came up in the cause of the discussion and you side stepped it. So then, is slavery acceptable?
fishrovmen
Active member
I think Robert Pate is the middle guy. He looks holy and righteous but he is lowering his "bible" looking for a trash can because he has his own doctrines and opinions and judgments.
:chuckle: Oh, that's odd. Sorry about that. Here you go.