The Errors of Protesantism
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Brooklyn, NY

#41 Jun 30, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
Candles are one thing. Beeswax candles for liturgical use are something else entirely. There is an Orthodox monastery in South Carolina that makes them. Catholic Churches are supposed to use beeswax candles but few do except on special occasions due to the cost. So I order from Saints Mary and Martha Monastery. I recently got a pound of incense from the Prinknash Abbey in England...not too shabby! My house smells like the 4th Century sometimes.
Try opening the doors to air it out. That should help. Are you a college student, by chance?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#42 Jun 30, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
<quoted text>Mark, you need to check with your doctor about getting your medication adjusted.
Perfection must be such a burden.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#43 Jun 30, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
<quoted text>Try opening the doors to air it out. That should help. Are you a college student, by chance?
I graduated from college quite sometime ago. Are you a tenured professor at the Sproul Family Seminary for the Defrocked?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#44 Jul 1, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for keeping this fresh.
No problem ;)

Colossians 1:18

One church.

One Head.

No pope.

www.roysecitycoc.org

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#45 Jul 1, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem ;)
Colossians 1:18
One church.
One Head.
No pope.
No elders either.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46 Jul 1, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem ;)
Colossians 1:18
One church.
One Head.
No pope.
www.roysecitycoc.org
Thanks for keeping this fresh.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#47 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
The Bible Only Error:
Protestants who claim to follow Holy Scripture literally, practice a false man-made doctrine which they have labeled Sola Scriptura or "Bible Only", a term virtually unknown before the Protestant revolt of the early sixteenth century.
In other words, they say that the Bible is all they need or want because they claim it contains everything necessary for salvation. Anything outside of the Bible is immaterial and should simply be ignored or discarded. By taking such a narrow view of salvation history, they have boxed themselves in to a limited knowledge of Christianity.
This grave limitation exposes them to increased and compounded error, because for them to believe in anything, therefore, they must be able to find it in the Bible.
However, the very doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself, is not to be found anywhere in Holy Scripture.
That being the case, how could anyone practice it and not be accused of hypocrisy?
Sola Scriptura has failed this most basic test. It is not Biblical. It is certainly not historical before the Protestant revolt. It could not possibly have worked before the invention of the printing press when Bibles became plentiful. It could not possibly have worked when 95% of the masses were illiterate. From the evidence I have presented in this essay, it simply could not, and does not, and never will work. Protestantism fabricated this false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura simply because they have nothing else to work with.
Since Scripture is not self authenticating, and is not self teaching*, and does not specify which books within it are inspired, how can the Protestant know that the book to which he holds is inspired at all?
*Acts 8:30-31, 2Peter 3:16
Sola Scriptura has failed this most basic test. It is not Biblical.
It is certainly not historical before the Protestant revolt.
It could not possibly have worked before the invention of the printing press when Bibles became plentiful. It could not possibly have worked when 95% of the masses were illiterate. it simply could not, and does not, and never will work.
Protestantism fabricated this false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura simply because they have nothing else to work with.
Instead of thanking Heath for keeping this fresh, its probably about time for some of us to tackle this monstrosity one piece at a time.

First major issue-this in itself is nothing more than an OPINION PIECE. Notice the lack of scriptures to back up the points made. Only two were mentioned- the Ethiopian eunuch and Peter saying Paul's writings are hard (NOT IMPOSSIBLE BTW) to understand. The implication here is that one cannot understand scriptures unless an "educated guide" is on hand to teach them (RCC).

Problem is, we see contradictory evidence to such in scripture. Paul's letters for the most part were general letters written to congregations, NOT "BISHOPS" or leadership. The letter to the Ephesians is addressed to the saints, not leadership. And Paul says:

"For this reason I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you gentiles- if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, WHEN YOU READ, YOU MAY UNDERSTAND my knowledge in the mystery of Christ).... Ephesians 3:1-4.

Paul did not say when someone reads and explains it you, or when I and the church teach it to you. He simply said, when you read you may understand.

There will be more. OT figures, and most importantly Jesus, expected people to read and understand scriptures themselves.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#48 Jul 1, 2013
http://thriceholy.net/literacy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_educa...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_school

These are a few sites to get started on the path. Not every ancient was a dumb uneducated villager. And, even if 99% were illeterate, these words come to mind.

"You have heard that it was said... but I say to you."

"The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do". THAT sounds like catholicism.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#49 Jul 1, 2013
Matthew 23 we usually read that the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. As if they were correct and proper in doing so.

HOWEVER, the Greek text and tense says differently. It says that the scribes and Pharisees seated themselves in Moses' seat- in other words, they usurped authority that they did not truly have and put themselves in a place of authority that they had no claim to.

I believe catholicism has done the same thing.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#50 Jul 1, 2013
Also, if you read some of the articles about literacy, especially Greek and Roman, you may notice some interesting things. Especially about pedagogues- which, if anyone is familiar with languages, knows that word appears in Galatians about the law, which was a pedagogue to lead us to Christ.

Would Paul use such terminology to people who would not understand? Would he tell people in Ephesus that they could read and understand if they could not read in the first place? Why would Jesus write letters to 7 churches if they couldn't read it?

The primary audience must have had ability to read it. Did the world get dumber? And if it did, why?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#51 Jul 1, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of thanking Heath for keeping this fresh, its probably about time for some of us to tackle this monstrosity one piece at a time.
First major issue-this in itself is nothing more than an OPINION PIECE. Notice the lack of scriptures to back up the points made. Only two were mentioned- the Ethiopian eunuch and Peter saying Paul's writings are hard (NOT IMPOSSIBLE BTW) to understand. The implication here is that one cannot understand scriptures unless an "educated guide" is on hand to teach them (RCC).
Problem is, we see contradictory evidence to such in scripture. Paul's letters for the most part were general letters written to congregations, NOT "BISHOPS" or leadership. The letter to the Ephesians is addressed to the saints, not leadership. And Paul says:
"For this reason I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you gentiles- if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, WHEN YOU READ, YOU MAY UNDERSTAND my knowledge in the mystery of Christ).... Ephesians 3:1-4.
Paul did not say when someone reads and explains it you, or when I and the church teach it to you. He simply said, when you read you may understand.
There will be more. OT figures, and most importantly Jesus, expected people to read and understand scriptures themselves.
There's that small matter of the unity of doctrine among the apostles. If St. Paul had been promulgating sola scriptura , he would have been in conflict with the practice of the rest of the apostles.

Most of the apostles never wrote a single line of Scripture; instead they transmitted the deposit of faith orally. Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the written teachings of Paul or Peter or John?

None of the other apostles taught sola scriptura. In fact, John said, "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face" (3 John 13). Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John 12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior to oral Tradition?

The already flimsy case for sola scriptura is further weakened by Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 11:2 where he praises the Christians in Corinth for holding fast to the traditions just as he had handed them on to them. It's clear from the context that he was referring to oral Tradition because the Corinthians had as yet no New Testament Scriptures, 1 Corinthians being the very first letter Paul had sent them. Prior to this letter all his teaching had been oral.

The same is true in the case of the Ephesians to whom Paul said, "I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God" (Acts 20:27). This statement undercuts sola scriptura. Paul remained in Ephesus for over two years teaching the faith so diligently that "all the inhabitants of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord" (Acts 19:10), yet his epistle to the Ephesians is a scant four or five pages and could not even begin to touch upon all the doctrines he taught them orally.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Manassas, VA

#52 Jul 1, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfection must be such a burden.
Not really. It is quite enjoyable, once you get used to it. I know it is hard for you to understand but it is very fulfilling, unlike your humdrum life.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Manassas, VA

#53 Jul 1, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
I graduated from college quite sometime ago. Are you a tenured professor at the Sproul Family Seminary for the Defrocked?
No, I was a flunky. I spent to much time sniffing incense and snorting beeswax during my college years.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#54 Jul 2, 2013
Olethros wrote:
<quoted text>No elders either.
True, when no one is qualified.

1 Timothy 3
Titus 1

www.roysecitycoc.org
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#55 Jul 2, 2013
The Error of Bringing GOD Down to Our Mere Human Level:

1) The Blessed Virgin Mary could have not been immaculately conceived.
2) She could not have been ever virgin.
3) She could not have been assumed into Heaven.
4) There was no miracle of the loaves and fishes, as each of the 5000 had a sandwich in his pocket.
This rejection of a genuine Biblical miracle leads to another related rejection:
5) "This is My Body" could not possibly be His real body, for it would be used up in no time in millions of communions, so it has to be a symbolic gesture.

These and many more denials of Catholic teaching come from Protestant scoffers and doubters as they attempt to transpose Divine miraculous happenings into mere human undertaking.
What these scoffers and doubters are really saying, is that,'He who has created the universe and everything in it out of nothing, and sustains it all by virtue of His will, found it to be impossible do these things'.
In their denial of the examples which I have listed, Protestants have done nothing other than to impose limits upon an unlimited GOD.

The scoffers and doubters with their narrow and limited insights, ignore these words of GOD,
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Manassas, VA

#56 Jul 2, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
The Error of Bringing GOD Down to Our Mere Human Level:
1) The Blessed Virgin Mary could have not been immaculately conceived.
2) She could not have been ever virgin.
3) She could not have been assumed into Heaven.
4) There was no miracle of the loaves and fishes, as each of the 5000 had a sandwich in his pocket.
This rejection of a genuine Biblical miracle leads to another related rejection:
5) "This is My Body" could not possibly be His real body, for it would be used up in no time in millions of communions, so it has to be a symbolic gesture.
These and many more denials of Catholic teaching come from Protestant scoffers and doubters as they attempt to transpose Divine miraculous happenings into mere human undertaking.
What these scoffers and doubters are really saying, is that,'He who has created the universe and everything in it out of nothing, and sustains it all by virtue of His will, found it to be impossible do these things'.
In their denial of the examples which I have listed, Protestants have done nothing other than to impose limits upon an unlimited GOD.
The scoffers and doubters with their narrow and limited insights, ignore these words of GOD,
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9
Since when did the Blessed Virgin Mary become God?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#57 Jul 2, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
True, when no one is qualified.
1 Timothy 3
Titus 1
www.roysecitycoc.org
So if you had elders and somebody got sick would they go to pray over the sick person and annoint him with oil in the name of the Lord?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#58 Jul 2, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
<quoted text>Since when did the Blessed Virgin Mary become God?
I admire you calling her Blessed. The Bible says to do that.

Nobody said Mary was God and you lie if you say that.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#59 Jul 2, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
The Error of Bringing GOD Down to Our Mere Human Level:
1) The Blessed Virgin Mary could have not been immaculately conceived.
2) She could not have been ever virgin.
3) She could not have been assumed into Heaven.
4) There was no miracle of the loaves and fishes, as each of the 5000 had a sandwich in his pocket.
This rejection of a genuine Biblical miracle leads to another related rejection:
5) "This is My Body" could not possibly be His real body, for it would be used up in no time in millions of communions, so it has to be a symbolic gesture.
These and many more denials of Catholic teaching come from Protestant scoffers and doubters as they attempt to transpose Divine miraculous happenings into mere human undertaking.
What these scoffers and doubters are really saying, is that,'He who has created the universe and everything in it out of nothing, and sustains it all by virtue of His will, found it to be impossible do these things'.
In their denial of the examples which I have listed, Protestants have done nothing other than to impose limits upon an unlimited GOD.
The scoffers and doubters with their narrow and limited insights, ignore these words of GOD,
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9
You jump to illogical conclusions and make assumptions that aren't accurate.

1. There are a few that deny the immaculate conception of Jesus. Most of us believe Jesus was immaculately conceived. But to say MARY was immaculately conceived-simply put, where's Biblical proof? When did God say it was so? The RCC saying Mary was immaculately conceived carries no weight.

2. She could not have been a virgin- most Christianity literally believes she was a virgin. UNTIL after the birth of Jesus. Then the Bible record is clear that she had normal relations with her husband and had other children.

3. Assumption into heaven- where's the proof, besides "We say so"?

4. Only the very liberal theologians deny the miraculous work of Jesus. None on these threads, none I personally know, deny the miracles Jesus performed.

I think no one here puts limitations on what God can do. However, I have heard professed Catholic Bill O'Reilly say several times that you can't believe what's in the Bible. Perhaps he puts limits on God. Perhaps he doesn't believe in miracles.

Denying the claims about Mary and communion isn't doubting the miraculous works of God. It's doubting the spurious interpretation and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#60 Jul 2, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
You jump to illogical conclusions and make assumptions that aren't accurate.
1. There are a few that deny the immaculate conception of Jesus. Most of us believe Jesus was immaculately conceived. But to say MARY was immaculately conceived-simply put, where's Biblical proof? When did God say it was so? The RCC saying Mary was immaculately conceived carries no weight.
2. She could not have been a virgin- most Christianity literally believes she was a virgin. UNTIL after the birth of Jesus. Then the Bible record is clear that she had normal relations with her husband and had other children.
3. Assumption into heaven- where's the proof, besides "We say so"?
4. Only the very liberal theologians deny the miraculous work of Jesus. None on these threads, none I personally know, deny the miracles Jesus performed.
I think no one here puts limitations on what God can do. However, I have heard professed Catholic Bill O'Reilly say several times that you can't believe what's in the Bible. Perhaps he puts limits on God. Perhaps he doesn't believe in miracles.
Denying the claims about Mary and communion isn't doubting the miraculous works of God. It's doubting the spurious interpretation and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
Protestants believe every possible combination of things so you have to paint with a large brush when talking about them.

Research the Immaculate Conception. It has nothing to do with Jesus.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) Jul 22 William 3,351
i gotta doo doo!!! Jul 1 Captain peckerlips 1
I like to get on some buttseckz.. I aint gay.. ... Jun '16 Captain peckerlips 1
Who got da biggest pecker in all uh Furrum? Jun '16 Captain peckerlips 1
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun '16 Kevo8263 32
Sarah Smith nude ! (Jul '12) Jun '16 sarasmith 2
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May '16 Anonymous 38

Bassett Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages