Where does it say that George Washington was the First President?
Just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Why Calvinist, Catholics, Muslims, Others are Lost
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Where does it say that George Washington was the First President?
Just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Cruciform
New member
Right here and here.
There you go "thinking" again. I'll go with the apostolic testimony of Christ's one historic Church over your anti-Catholic fabrications any day. Back to Post #420.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Most Christians consider the Bible to be the word of God.
The Bible is a closed book. The reason for this is because the full revelation of Jesus Christ and his Gospel has been fully revealed in the New Testament.
Now, along comes the Catholic church and says, no, we have further revelation. I don't believe in your revelation.
Cruciform
New member
Rather, Luther dumped Christ's one historic Church in favor of his own fallible ideas and opinions---just like you have.
No Luther dumped the Catholic church because he discovered Romans 4:5.
"But to him that does NO WORKS, but believes on him that justifies the UNGODLY, his faith is counted for righteousness"
Luther and the reformers could not find enough grace in their hearts to stand before a holy God in the judgment.
Will you be able to find enough grace in your heart to stand before a holy God in the judgment?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It is not schism to break away from an apostate church, as was Romanism in the thirteenth century and forward. It is a schism to remain in an apostate church that refuses to repent and reform, since to remain in an apostate church is to separate from the true church of Jesus Christ.
For schism to be valid there would have to be a valid church to be separating from by the believer. Protestants, in protest, do not concede the name church to Romanists, a group that has clearly repudiated the teachings of Holy Writ.
AMR
I believe the separation was Rome's decision....Luther was chucked out
Sure he was after he nailed his thesis on the door of the Catholic church.
Cruciform
New member
...a text which the Catholic Church had already been believing, interpreting, and teaching for fifteen centuries before Luther ever managed to stumble onto the scene.
I'll ask again, since you have yet to provide an answer:
"What doctrinal authority did Luther possess to impose his theological opinions on the Church that, for example, Arius and Pelagius did not?"
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Luther's church, therefore, must have been an "apostate church," since the vast majority of his fellow Protestants ultimately broke away from Luther himself to form other "churches" (sects), from which others broke away, and so on, down to our own day. Result: 50,000+ conflicting and contradictory recently-invented man-made non-Catholic denominations and sects to date, with more being concocted every week. Probably best for Protestants like yourself not to bother trying to comment on the subject of "schism"---a reality that lies at the very heart of the Protestant phenomenon. The irony is just too glaringly obvious.
I'll ask you this as well, since you have yet to provide an answer:
"What doctrinal authority did Luther possess to impose his theological opinions on the Church that, for example, Arius and Pelagius did not?"
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
...just like Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Apollinarius, Sabellius, etc...
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Just keep repeating the Romanist's party line, despite having been corrected time and again. A rush like yourself is always in mire (Job 8:11).
Once again, please see here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.p...epeating-the-same-errors-over-and-over-again/
AMR
Cruciform
New member
Not so far. In any case, for your purposes, just insert the phrase "lots-and-lots." (More than one is too many, after all [Mt. 16:18].)
Your inability to provide a sensible response to the rest of my post (#434) is noted. Here, I'll ask yet again:
"What doctrinal authority did Luther possess to impose his theological opinions on the Church that, for example, Arius and Pelagius did not?"
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform has me on ignore. Would someone like to ask him if he denies the 23 Eastern orthodox churches as Catholic?
Stuart
Of course they are Catholic. Eastern orthodox is as Catholic as it gets.
Cruciform
New member
Given that they have refused ecclesial fidelity to the Bishop of Rome, the EO churches are in fact not formal members of the Catholic Church. That being said, the Catechism offers this conclusion:
838 ...With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+