ECT Why shouldn't I convert from Evangelical Protestant to Catholic?

[Cruciform]

You usually just give a post number or say, "Already Answered." But you never say, "I refuse to address your points concerning Acts 16:30-31 because I have no answer." Instead, you do your best to leave the impression that my points about a particular passage from the Bible has been answered, even though you refuse to address that particular passage.. Again, all you do is run and hide from verses which contradict the teaching of Rome.

Good grief. Try to follow this. Here's what I posted in #1737:

"I have decisively answered your basic position in Posts #1727 and #1731 above. Your personal interpretations of the Bible are therefore entirely irrelevant, since you derived them from a recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which is decidedly NOT that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15), and so whose opinions carry no doctrinal authority whatsoever."​

Now which part of this statement do you not understand? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Now which part of this statement do you not understand?

I understand it all. But you have said absolutely nothing to support your view that my interpretation of Acts 16:30-31 is in error.

Anyone can assert that a person's interpretation of any verse is in error but proving it is a entirely different thing. And so far all you have done is to run and hide from that passage.

If you want others to believe your assertion that my interpretation is in error then you must show your proof. Just because you assert it means nothing!

You are fooling no one. Everyone can see that all you have done since I brought up that passage is to run and hide from it.

 

[Cruciform]

I understand it all. But you have said absolutely nothing to support your view that my interpretation of Acts 16:30-31 is in error.

What I actually said was that your interpretations of the Bible are irrelevant, and so they are, precisely for the inescapable reason stated in Post #1737 above.

 

[Old man]

What I actually said was that your interpretations of the Bible are irrelevant, and so they are, precisely for the inescapable reason stated in Post #1737 above.

So if it's not catholic it's irrelevant? You poor deceived fellow, hard to believe that a person could be so brainwashed and indoctrinated into the catholic man made religion as you show to be.

 

[Cruciform]

So if it's not Catholic it's irrelevant?

If it fails to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15), it's irrelevant. But don't worry, all you have to do now is demonstrate that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18). Go ahead, then, and post your proof.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[republicanchick]

skimming thro these posts

I think i may get a headache...

I'm so glad i am not searching for absolute truth anymore.. You don't need to search for the absolute truth RE the Church when you are... already THERE



:sheep:

 

[turbosixx]

skimming thro these posts

I think i may get a headache...

I'm so glad i am not searching for absolute truth anymore.. You don't need to search for the absolute truth RE the Church when you are... already THERE



:sheep:

I would like to challenge your understanding of truth and mine in the process. You up for it? I would talk to catholics I know personally but they don't know anything.

 

[lifeisgood]

So if it's not catholic it's irrelevant?

Yes.

I have stated more than once that in heaven there will be NO catholics, NO protestants, No evangelicals, NO pentecostals, NO buddists, No lutherans, etc. ad nauseum.

ONLY those who have been accepted in Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary, but they don't believe me.

 

[Interplanner]

Just a sidenote: do you happen to know any background on why the hit by Coldplay 'When I Ruled The World' uses the papal imagery in the video production?

 

[Old man]

If it fails to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15), it's irrelevant. But don't worry, all you have to do now is demonstrate that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18). Go ahead, then, and post your proof.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

And just what proof do you have that it was the Roman Catholic Church in 33 A.D. other than the RCC makes that claim and takes it unto themselves for themselves and by themselves.

For one thing, you can't find one Scripture that points to the WEEKLY observance of Sunday. Throughout Acts the Apostle Paul preached on the Sabbaths, Sabbath after Sabbath to both Jews and Gentiles.

The Church of God was established by the Apostles in the very beginning, only later came the Catholic's along who infiltrated God's Church and polluted it with their pagan Babylonian traditions. The Church of God and a remnant has always survived through the centuries, even through the Catholic's murderous Inquisitions which of course they deny and try and hide.

Anyway, your so called one historic church is just a conglomeration of heathen traditions, symbols, icons, and idols of which there is not one word of found in the NT, no statues of saints to bow down before, no statues to kiss the foot of, no pope or priest to bow and scrap before and on and on and on is the non-Biblical man-made catholic cult's traditions and doctrines you call a church.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I would like to challenge your understanding of truth and mine in the process. You up for it? I would talk to catholics I know personally but they don't know anything.

She doesn't really know much, either. It would be better to converse with one of the Catholics who is well-versed in their doctrines and traditions. Those are few and far between.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

skimming thro these posts

I think i may get a headache...

I'm so glad i am not searching for absolute truth anymore.. You don't need to search for the absolute truth RE the Church when you are... already THERE

:sheep:

Seriously? You're one of the most nominal Catholics on TOL. Just a blindly indcotrinated minion.

Tell me the "absolute truth" of Theology Proper from the Latin Scholastic period of your greatest theologians, and tell us all every detail of innascibility, fontal plenitude, paternity/filiation, spiration/procession, and all the other minutiae of Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology, etc.

You haven't and can't even examine the alleged "absolute truth" you claim to embrace. You know nothing; not even how to challenge or confirm whether Catholicism IS the "absolute truth" or not.

There's nothing more sad. Sincere naivete is exactly that. Many proponents of many religions are just as you, presuming they've found the "absolute truth" and knowing nothing on any meaningful scale.

At least let some of the more knowledgable Catholics defend Latin tradition. You only hurt the cause, and the Gospel in the process.

 

[turbosixx]

She doesn't really know much, either. It would be better to converse with one of the Catholics who is well-versed in their doctrines and traditions. Those are few and far between.

Yep. My wife grew up catholic and went to catechism and all that. She didn't learn the bible she learned the teachings of "the church". When I met her she was looking for a place to worship and even being ignorant of scripture she still could see the catholic church was not right. Her eye's were opened when she started learning the truth.

 

[Cruciform]

Just a sidenote: do you happen to know any background on why the hit by Coldplay 'When I Ruled The World' uses the papal imagery in the video production?

No idea.

 

[Cruciform]

And just what proof do you have that it was the Roman Catholic Church in 33 A.D....

You admit, then, that you in fact have no such proof for your own preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, correct?

 

[Bright Raven]

Does anyone know if this guy ever converted?

 

[God's Truth]

I would know according to the test that the apostles give us to know whether or not we are "in the faith," that is, by whether or not our beliefs and behavior comports with the authoritative teachings delivered by the apostles and bishops to the faithful (1 Jn. 4:6; cf. Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15). If I am affirming and following the teachings of the Church (apostles/bishops), then I know I am "in the faith," and that the Spirit is at work in my life. Merely claiming that I have the Spirit means nothing.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You are in the Catholic faith, and not the faith that God speaks about.

 

[turbosixx]

Does anyone know if this guy ever converted?

I would think he did. He was already talking like a catholic.

 

[Cruciform]

You are in the Catholic faith, and not the faith that God speaks about.

...declares one who rejects the central and defining doctrines of the Christian faith, and who therefore cannot himself be considered a Christian.

 

[God's Truth]

...declares one who rejects the central and defining doctrines of the Christian faith, and who therefore cannot himself be considered a Christian.

The Catholic church is apostate from Jesus' teachings.