Cruciform
New member
- That's patented nonsense which merely displays your ignorance, since Christianity itself is a historical faith.
- The statements in my previous post weren't directed to you anyway.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
ECT THE FOLLY OF PROTESTANT SECTARIANISM
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
oatmeal
Well-known member
II Timothy 2:15
II Peter 1:20
John 5:39
John 8:31-32,36
John 1:17
John 14:6
John 17:17,19
Galatians 3:1;4:16
Matthew 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Acts 8:35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Cruciform
New member
Now go ahead and indicate which of these biblical texts says anything whatsoever about supposedly being, as you claim, "required to leave the CC."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
oatmeal
Well-known member
CHRIST’S LOVE FOUNDED A CHURCH
Man’s Pride Invented Denominations & Sects
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18)
Well, actually He did.
The RCC had forsaken scripture for 1600 years.
It took the reformation for the scripture to be taught in spite of the RCC's lack of interest in it.
Cruciform
New member
So you keep claiming, but have yet to actually demonstrate.
Just another wholly unsubstantiated assertion. Try again.
:darwinsm:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
Yes the first assembly was in Jerusalem and the Holy Spirit guided them. We are co-workers with the Spirit, but with insistence on an institution leading and men leading, there is danger for God to get lost in the mix.
The highlighted portion indicates why your study is grossly incomplete.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Cruciform
New member
And yet Jesus Christ himself chose to found a visible, historic, and hierarchical Church, ordaining the apostles to guide and teach in his own name and by his very authority (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6), and who went on to ordain successors to their ministry (bishops) to carry on the ordained leadership of Christ's Church right down to our own day.
See this.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
In what way, exactly, is my study of the history of the Christian faith (ecclesiastical history) supposedly "incomplete"? Go ahead and list the books that I have supposedly not read that you think I need to study.
Your study has been limited to ecclesiastical history. World history covers a far broader range and look at how the church influenced the world and how the world influenced the church. You have only studied half of what you need to.
Cruciform
New member
Where did you ever get that idea? I certainly never stated any such thing. Try again.
Oh, I don't know, I think I got that idea because that is what you said.
Cruciform
New member
Go ahead and cite the number of the post in which I supposedly say that "my study has been limited to ecclesiastical history."
Cruciform
New member
I'd put my study of the Bible over the past four decades against yours any day, friend.The bible [I couldn't resist]
Last edited:
Site the post where you weren't bragging about your study of ecclesiastical history. You were so intent on proving that you have studied church history that you never mentioned anything else. Your grasp of church history does leaf one to wonder if you have looked into any other historical studies.
Cruciform
New member
No more "bragging" than you were in recommending all the books you've supposedly read. Don't bother with the ad hominems. You're only showing your lack of any actual argument whatsoever.
In any event, your utter inability to cite the number of the post in which I supposedly said that my study was "limited to ecclesiastical history" is noted. :yawn:
How is this a basis for your ridiculous assumption that ecclesiastical history is ALL I ever studied? Nice Non Sequitur Fallacy on your part.
Already answered---and corrected---in previous posts.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+