List of Roman Catholic False Doctrines

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#21 Nov 19, 2013
Annoying Proxy wrote:
2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth
We are told to rightly divide the word of truth, which means we can divide it wrongly. The Catholics with their history of scandals certainly are capable of dividing the scriptures in a wrong manner. Follow them straight to hell if you want, fortunately we have the word from God which gives us a chance to divide it correctly. Without scripture in our hands and only the homosexual/pedophile church to follow we are headed to hell for sure.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.ht...
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Teaching contrary to scripture which the Catholic church does would be unprofitable and unrighteous.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God???? Show me one verse in the bible that says the bible was created by the Roman Catholic church or even mentions a Roman Catholic church. Scripture originated from God and the Catholics like Mike and Mark claiming otherwise are nothing but false teachers.
2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
I think this verse eliminates the Catholic claim they created the bible. They are men not God no matter whatthey claim. You are more than welcome to follow these perverts if you wish, your church.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Jesus never mentioned a Pope, a vicar of Christ , a Roman Catholic church, nor Mary worship.
If you ignore the Catholic rhetoric and study the schism you will see the Roman Catholics were the ones that demanded their bishop be supreme and caused the split. It was not that way from the beginning. They tried to kill everyone who wanted the scriptures to be placed in the hands of the common man. They failed to stop it, although they did succeed for centuries. Is that what Jesus came for?
Sproul paedocommunionist manure for the compost pile.
Annoying Proxy

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#22 Nov 19, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
You are going to make a wonderful Catholic! Welcome home!
He has been Catholic for some time, a double minded man unstable in all his ways. If you come to the conclusion you have been teaching falsely you should admit it and repent from that. To move from one false teaching to another isn't making much progress though.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#23 Nov 19, 2013
Annoying Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>He has been Catholic for some time, a double minded man unstable in all his ways. If you come to the conclusion you have been teaching falsely you should admit it and repent from that. To move from one false teaching to another isn't making much progress though.
Sproul manure. Would everyone prefer he switched to the Proxy's Paedocommunionists brand new denomination of defrocked Sproul Presbyterians? Maybe he would get a free $5,000 ticket to the Sproul Alaska Study Cruise.
Dave P

Wallingford, KY

#24 Nov 19, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
<quoted text>
Part of my reason for pulling off of here was I seen what Mike and Mark were saying. I had to go dig a bit more on this. This has been a battle in my mind for quite some time. We all pick up the Bible, read it, and draw certain conclusions we then attempt to make others believe – enter denominationalism. I am not in a position to believer all about the Catholic Church but I do understand the points Mike and Mark have made in regards to Sola Scriptura. It boils down to pride. I read the Bible, then I say it means this. If you disagree, you aren’t a Christian. This is how we have used the Bible thus the countless denominations.
Exactly! How many discussions have you and I saw over the last year or so where someone's "proof" was Bible verses out of context? Too many to count.

How can everyone's interpretations be valid? Or how can opposing interpretations both be correct? Or how can modern religion say that interpretation doesn't matter to begin with?

Why is everyone so unwilling to admit that some things about catholicism, some ideas may actually be good? Why are some reluctant to say protestantism, reformers may have gone too far just like they thought the catholics did?
Dave P

Wallingford, KY

#25 Nov 19, 2013
We are told to rightly divide the word of truth, which means we can divide it wrongly.

*Sproul, this is directed to a preacher, not "average Joe". But I agree, it can be wrongly divided.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Teaching contrary to scripture which the Catholic church does would be unprofitable and unrighteous.

*Would you not say every group is capable, if not outright, doing this? If not, who isn't teaching contrary? Name names.

Scripture originated from God and the Catholics like Mike and Mark claiming otherwise are nothing but false teachers.

*Agree scripture originated from God. Are you sure the catholics don't think this?

If you ignore the Catholic rhetoric and study the schism you will see the Roman Catholics were the ones that demanded their bishop be supreme and caused the split. It was not that way from the beginning. They tried to kill everyone who wanted the scriptures to be placed in the hands of the common man. They failed to stop it, although they did succeed for centuries. Is that what Jesus came for?

*This is name calling. Didn't Lutherans kill many Anabaptists back in the day too? Both acts are wrong.
Dave P

Wallingford, KY

#26 Nov 19, 2013
Annoying Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>He has been Catholic for some time, a double minded man unstable in all his ways. If you come to the conclusion you have been teaching falsely you should admit it and repent from that. To move from one false teaching to another isn't making much progress though.
You're thick Sproul. I'm not catholic.

Teaching falsely? You ever hear of growth, learning, etc? Or did you have it all figured out from day one? I guess you can't learn when you already know it all.

You put me in the catholic boat too quickly. But try this- convince me that YOU are right. What is your group? What do you believe? Presbyterian, calvinism, maybe wesleyan? Convince me and others your route is the right one.

Help me also to understand why my "current" teaching is false. Where did it go wrong?
Dave P

Wallingford, KY

#27 Nov 19, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
Sproul manure. Would everyone prefer he switched to the Proxy's Paedocommunionists brand new denomination of defrocked Sproul Presbyterians? Maybe he would get a free $5,000 ticket to the Sproul Alaska Study Cruise.
What, no false prophecy tour of the Holy Land, with a baptismal service in the Jordan sewage, er river?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#28 Nov 20, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
What, no false prophecy tour of the Holy Land, with a baptismal service in the Jordan sewage, er river?
Nope it's to Alaska and costs big bucks with the Sprouls on board to conduct the "study." Do you think the Sprouls are working for free?
Older and Wiser

Rolla, MO

#29 Nov 20, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
You are late coming to the party. Every single one of these "questions" have been dealt with numerous times but I've yet to see anyone from the Church of Christ denomination even acknowledge Daniel Sommer's influence on its existence. You also must be unaware that I grew up in the Church of Christ denomination and became a Catholic in my late 20's. There is nothing that you or anyone in the Church of Christ denomination can throw at me that will stick and I prevail in every discussion because history and the witness of centuries is on my side.
What did you do marry a Catholic & was forced to convert to Catholism?

It's clear, if you EVER WERE a member of the church of Christ that you did not have a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE - if you chose to convert to CATHOLISM...

If you continue on this path - YOU WILL NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!!!

Since you say every one of these 14 questions have been dealt with numerous time before - why don't you clue me in on a few of them???

While you're at it - I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT DANIEL SOMMER. You keep mentioning him - but you never say why. And don't just say he was instrumental in the Restoration movment.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU BEEF IS WITH DANIES SOMMER!!!
Older and Wiser

Rolla, MO

#30 Nov 20, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Old timer, at least 6 of that list can be cast out. I might do that tomorrow.
OK, clue me in on which 6 of the list can be cast out.

I'm waiting...

I'm waiting...

I'm waiting...
William

Birmingham, AL

#31 Nov 20, 2013
CAPS LOCK ON MEANS YOU ARE SHOUTING, AND THAT IS JUST RUDE AS HELL.

Please stop doing that. You can type on a keyboard in a normal conversational manner, like the rest of us.
Older and Wiser

Rolla, MO

#32 Nov 20, 2013
Dave P wrote:
10. Why does the Bible teach that there is one mediator instead of many?(1Timothy 2:5)
This is a lay-up. Old timer, how about going up a few verses to 1 Timothy 2:1? If we make intercessions for all men, aren't we mediators?
Maybe you should clarify.
What this scripture is saying is that - we should pray for other people (everyone).

The word MEDIATOR means praying on behalf of someone. Example: we pray that our President & leaders make good decisions etc. We pray that the victims of the earthquake can get food, shelter quickly & are able to rebuild their lives.

This scripture DOES NOT give us permission to pray to The Virgin Mary, the Angels, the dead Saints, or local Priests!!!

When we pray to/or behalf of the Virgin Mary, the angels, the dead saints or the local priests - WE ARE WASTING OUR TIME - and committing a sin...

Jesus is our ONLY mediator to God!!!

Here is another scripture which should clear up any misunderstanding about MEDIATORS.

(ACTS 4:12) "And there is salvation in NO ONE ELSE; for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven given among men by wihch we must be saved"
Older and Wiser

Rolla, MO

#33 Nov 20, 2013
William wrote:
CAPS LOCK ON MEANS YOU ARE SHOUTING, AND THAT IS JUST RUDE AS HELL.
Please stop doing that. You can type on a keyboard in a normal conversational manner, like the rest of us.
I use CAPS when I want to emphize a word or a point & I will continue to do so...
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#34 Nov 20, 2013
1. If God condemned clerical dress, per se, he would be contradictory. If you look at the passage, what Jesus is condemning is the Pharisees attitude of their pretentiousness, and their total lack of humility (v. 4-13). It is obvious that they used clerical dress in such a self-exalting way, and using it in that way obviously is sinful. However clerical dress in and of itself is not sinful. Otherwise God would have commanded sin in the Old Testament. He commanded Aaron to wear special garments in the Old Covenant. These garments are even considered holy!!!:

Exodus 29:1-3: "Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests--Aaron and Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 2 And “YOU SHALL MAKE HOLY GARMENTS FOR AARON YOUR BROTHER, for glory and for beauty.”“3 And you shall speak to all who have ability, whom I have endowed with an able mind, that they make Aaron's garments to consecrate him for my priesthood.

He made priests wear special garments in their priestly duties, that are full of glory and beauty, Exodus 28:39-41:

39 "And you shall weave the coat in checker work of fine linen, and you shall make a turban of fine linen, and you shall make a girdle embroidered with needlework. 40 "And for Aaron's sons you shall make coats and girdles and caps; you shall make them for glory and beauty. 41 And you shall put them upon Aaron your brother, and upon his sons with him, and shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests. 42 And you shall make for them linen breeches to cover their naked flesh; from the loins to the thighs they shall reach; 43 and they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister in the holy place.

Thus, God commanded special priestly clothes that are holy and beautiful, to be made. God condemns ostentatiousness, not the clothes themselves.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#35 Nov 20, 2013
2.

Actually, the passage says nothing about the issue of adoration. Take a look at it. But let us say that the passage teaches against the adoration of Mary. Of course, Roman Catholicism teaches against the adoration of Mary as well. So I don’t know how that shows that Catholicism is wrong, since we agree with Luke, that no one except God is to be adored. We do not worship Mary, as well documented in the Catechism, and all throughout history. The Church teaches unequivocally that only God is to be adored.

The Catechism says in its condemnation of idolatry to never divinize what is only human in its section on Idolatry (CCC 2112-2114):

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God.“2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith.“Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God.“Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, Satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God. 2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."

What does Luke 11:27-28 say about Mary? Does it downplay her role? I will let a Protestant, Margaret Thrall, a Protestant scholar, explains what Jesus means:

“What you have said is true as far as it goes. But the blessedness of Mary does not consist simply in the fact of her relationship towards myself, but (menoun) in the fact that she shares in the blessedness of those who hear the word of God and keep it, and it is in this that true blessedness,”.(Margaret Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 35.”

She is the woman who Jesus came through, for our own salvation. Jesus chose to come down through her. She said yes. By her saying yes, to the redeemer coming, our salvation (and her own salvation) is made possible. It is precisely because of his grace, that she was sinless, as the Orthodox Christians proclaim along with us. That is why she is full of grace, language used of no other person in the Bible (Kecharitomene), Luke 1:28.

That is why Elizabeth was so happy to see the Mother of God, when she said. Luke 1:42-48:
42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." 46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;

The Church teaches unambiguously that only God shall be adored. Mary, however, is the mother of God, and Scripture does declare that all generations shall call her blessed.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#36 Nov 20, 2013
3.

Catholicism likewise teaches that all Christians are priests. There is a universal priesthood of believers. This is the same as in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, there was as well, a universal priesthood of believers. This very language is taken from (1 Pet. 2:9, cf. Ex. 19:6) the Old Testament which shows that. The very fact that Peter is taking this from the Old Testament, shows that the fact that there is a universal priesthood does not exclude the fact of there being a Ministerial priesthood (See Ex. 19:22). They also had a Ministerial priesthood. Jesus commissioned the apostles to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). Jesus commissioned the apostles to celebrate the Eucharist the Body and blood of Our Lord (Mk. 14:24, 1 Cor. 11:23-29). He told them to continue to celebrate it. The Elders also anoint with oil, another sacrament, known in the Catholic Church as the anointing of the Sick.(James 5:14). These are priestly duties. Paul mentions that he has ministerial priestly duties, as distinct from the universal priesthood in the New Covenant when he writes: Romans 15:15-16:“15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” If St. Paul considers himself to be a priest, anyone who DENIES that "Christian" ministry is a priestly ministry has rebuked and disowned St. Paul!

As former Protestant James Akin writes:

The origin of the word In Greek, the word for elder is presbuteros. That word was transliterated into Latin as presbyter, which then in English became shortened to priest. That's why you never hear about "Catholic elders." It is because Catholic priests are Catholics elders. That's what the word "priest" means; it is simply a shortened English form of presbuteros. You can check any dictionary you want to confirm this. So obviously we can say that there is some kind of priesthood today because there are elders today.

For a detailed validation of the Biblical proof of the Ministerial priesthood, see the following link: The Bible and the Priesthood, James Akin
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#37 Nov 20, 2013
4.

It is obvious that in the context Paul is condemning the use of special Jewish laws, of Old Sabbaths. The new Covenant supplants the Old, and that is why the Old ones are no longer in effect. However, it can not be condemning the observance of special days, in and of itself. The Jewish law does not save. We must live a life of sonship, as God’s adopted sons (Gal. 4:5-7, cf., 1-11). In fact no law saves. It is purely his grace.(For a look at the issue of law and grace, please see this: Galatians 3, Works, Law, and Grace. Nevertheless, God did command the Old Testament Jews to keep the Passover, for example (Exodus 12:1-24, esp. v. 24). In fact that is what Jesus did in the Last Supper. It was in fact at the Passover, which Jesus showed that there was a New Covenant, in which his blood was to be shed for the salvation of many. He told the apostles to do this. By telling them to do this, he was telling them to observe this supper, the Eucharist, the true flesh and blood of Jesus (1 Cor. 11:27, John 6:51-58, Mk. 14:22-24). And the Church exactly did this in the New Covenant. See Acts 20:7. See 1 Cor. 11:23-29. He in no way would practice something that was condemned. In the Old Covenant, one was required to keep the Sabbath, and it would have been a sin not to, being one of the commandments. So observing special days, in and of itself is not sinful, otherwise God would have been commanding sin. Now in the New Covenant, he gave his Church the authority to bind and loose (Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18).
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#38 Nov 20, 2013
5.

The following that I get from James Akin’s site: What is a Saint?

Because of its unique development, during which the French-speaking Normans conquered the Germanic language speaking inhabitants of England, the English language has two different complexes of terms expressing this concept, the Germanic-derived "holy-" complex (giving us "holy," "holiness," etc.) and the Latin-derived "saint-" complex (giving us "saint," "sacred," "sainted," "sanctify," "sanctified," "sanctification," etc.), but the biblical languages (like almost all other languages) have only one complex of terms for these concepts. They are only different in English.

Thus the basic meaning of "saint" is "holy one." Anyone is a saint if he is in some sense holy or has in some sense been made holy (sanctified). Because of this, the term "saint" has a very broad usage in the Bible, even though this is sometimes masked in English translations which often translate the Greek or Hebrew terms for "saint" (hagios and qadosh, respectively) as "holy one." In Scripture, angels are referred to as saints (Dan. 4:13, 23), Jews as a people are referred to as saints (Eph. 2:19; cf. 2:12), and Christians are referred to as saints (2 Cor. 1:1, Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:2). Jesus is referred to as a saint ("the Holy One of God" or "the Saint of God," Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34, John 6:69), and even God the Father himself is ("the Holy One of Israel" or "the Saint of Israel," Ps. 71:22, 78:41, 89:18, Is. 1:4, Jer. 50:29).

The sense in which one may be called a saint varies with the amount of holiness or sanctification/sacredness a person has. Thus a Jew who does not follow God would be a saint in a minimal sense, in that he is a member of God's holy people, but he is not as much of a saint as if he were a Jew who devoutly followed God and possessed a greater degree of sanctification. In the same way, Christians here on earth are saints in that they have been partially sanctified already, but they are not saints in the same full sense as those who are in heaven, whose sanctification ("saintification") is now complete. Thus the term "saint" is used in the Bible both for Christians who are on earth (Col. 1:2) and in heaven (Rev. 18:20).
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#39 Nov 20, 2013
6.

ctually, the Catholic Church does not teach against immersion, and that is obviously a valid way for baptism. That said, neither of those passages say in order for a baptism to be valid, it must be done only in immersion. Actually, the Bible speaks quite clearly that other ways of baptism are valid as well. For example, when Ezekiel specifically speaks of the New Covenant, God says, Eze. 36:25-27:

25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Notice that in the new covenant, the water that is sprinkled brings the Holy Spirit. Obviously, it can not be limited to immersion. Another example, in Acts 16, when the jailer is baptized with his whole household (Acts 16:30-34). Paul goes with the jailer to his home, and baptizes the household there, in the middle of the night. There was no lake where they were immersed. In the houses back then, there were no facilities anywhere in a house, where they could get immersed. It is obviously that either sprinkling (as written by Ezekiel) or pouring could be the only way that the jailer and his family could get baptized. For a more detailed look at the issue, see the following: Baptism: Immersion Only?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#40 Nov 20, 2013
7.

this is to be taken literally, Jesus says Call ‘no man’ Father. He doesn’t specifically say, Call no ‘religious leader’ Father. What does the anti-Catholic call his mother’s husband? According to this narrow interpretation, if he called his mother’s husband a Father, or if he has any children, does he lets them call him Father? Would that not be violating Mt. 23:9? Or what about Mt. 23:8, where Jesus says to call no one teacher? If calling anybody a Father is forbidden, then on the same grounds no one should be called a teacher. See Mt. 23:8. I wonder if anyone calls him a teacher, and if he does, does he immediately correct the person, and quote Mt. 23:8, saying ‘Call no man teacher’. I wonder what you call the person who teaches anything? You can’t call anyone a teacher? This kind of interpretation, when one thinks about it is ridiculous, and anybody who holds literally to this is caught in a pile of contradictions.

What is Jesus actually condemning here? He is condemning the treating of one as a ‘father’ in the same sense that God is a Father. Or to regard a teacher in the same way as God. However, he of course does not prohibit calling people father. After all, one of the commandments is to honor your Father. The Bible is in fact quite clear that there are spiritual Fathers, and it is quite biblical to call such a one a Father (as long as one does not treat them as though, they are God, which Jesus rightly condemns). This goes back to the Old Testament, where a physical Father considers his son, actually to be a Spiritual Father, and in fact calls him Father (Judges 18:17-19), v. 19 - 19 And they said to him, "Keep quiet, put your hand upon your mouth, and come with us, and be to us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be priest to the house of one man, or to be priest to a tribe and family in Israel?".

The spiritual Fathers, in no way, are meant to replace God the Father, in Catholicism. In Acts 7, Stephen numerous times refers to Spiritual Fathers. Obviously, if he is on the verge of martyrdom, he is not contradicting Our Lord. However, they are Spiritual Fathers, who bring us the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 11:27). They nourish us in the faith. In his 1st epistle, John constantly refers to the people who he writes to as ‘my children’(1 John 2:1, 12, 18). Well, if they are his children, then John obviously is their spiritual Father, and refers to himself as their Father. He calls not only himself, but others as spiritual Fathers as well. As we saw in the debate, Paul calls Timothy his spiritual son,(2 Tim. 2:1-2). If he calls Timothy his spiritual son, he is thus calling himself a spiritual Father. We see this even more directly in 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 – I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. 15 For though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you have not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you.

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
Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left... (May '12) Jul 3 Barmsweb 48
How many of the 10 commandments have you broken? (Feb '12) Jul 2 Barmsweb 151
Johnny Robertson, when were you baptized? (Apr '15) Jun 29 Sig Fife 20
Looking Jun 29 Captain Hotdog 1
i want to be Christian.can i ? (May '15) Jun 29 Captain Hotdog 10
Pan Handling falls under the First Amendment Jun 20 Pan Handler 1
Speak Out Bassett Virginia !!!! (Jul '15) Apr '17 Bill 6

Bassett Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages