the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian!

[Mr.Right]

Anyone who believes that salvation is a work in progress is denying the power of God.

It's not denying the power of God. The power of God produces a radish in a couple of weeks. It also produces a mighty oak in a century.

Still, the best way to describe salvation is a way of life.

Salvation is a gift of God. Not of WORKS; least any man should boast. And since it is a free gift, there is noth

You still haven't answered my question. How did the thief on the cross make it to heaven the day he died? Did Jesus give him a get out of purgatory free card?

I did answer the question, shortly after you asked it. Go back through last night's post if you are truly interested.

More like you dodged it. Tried to tell me a day wasn't really a day. Answer the question. If there is a purgatory, why did the thief on the cross go straight to Heaven?

Read what I said about Paradise.

Answer the question, please. I'm not going to look for something you posted yesterday.

 

[JWBooth]

If only these "Christians" were more like their Christ...

You won't be yawning when you are in hell, Booth. You're a wicked man and you need to repent while there is still breath in you to do it with. You're going to hell if you do not repent and call upon the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive you and to save you. That is the truth and if I didn't give it to you I would have your blood on my hands. Thank God that won't be the case now.

Hey sparky, you might go find you a mirror and work on that mote.
As for me, I'm good for I am among the forgiven, as for your Sadducean tendency to beat upon others, I'll pass.

 

[Meriweather]

Salvation is a gift of God. Not of WORKS; least any man should boast.

An inanimate object (works) is not capable of producing anything. Works is not a creator nor a benefactor. God is both Creator and Benefactor. As far as I know everyone understands this. Who is saying a work can create heaven? How do they see a work, an inanimate object, creating heaven?

Works go hand-in-hand with discipleship because Jesus commanded these works and commanded that we follow him, acknowledge him. Are those who refuse to do this disciples? Or is refusing a form a denial? As you see, boasting isn't the proper word. We either acknowledge we are disciples, or we deny it.

 

[ninja007]

I understand that but God doesn't. There is one grace mentioned in scripture, not 2 or 3 or 4.

Do you believe in sanctifying grace or grace that helps you through a tough ordeal?

grace is grace. It does not matter what I believe or teach but what the Word teaches. I ask you again- can you point me to different TYPES of grace in God's Word?

 

[ninja007]

Salvation is a gift of God. Not of WORKS; least any man should boast.

An inanimate object (works) is not capable of producing anything. Works is not a creator nor a benefactor. God is both Creator and Benefactor. As far as I know everyone understands this. Who is saying a work can create heaven? How do they see a work, an inanimate object, creating heaven?

Works go hand-in-hand with discipleship because Jesus commanded these works and commanded that we follow him, acknowledge him. Are those who refuse to do this disciples? Or is refusing a form a denial? As you see, boasting isn't the proper word. We either acknowledge we are disciples, or we deny it.

Believers are MUCH MORE than just disciples; we are sons of God and heirs to His riches in Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

grace is grace. It does not matter what I believe or teach but what the Word teaches. I ask you again- can you point me to different TYPES of grace in God's Word?

You might consider Acts and the grace that prompted Apostles to act on that first Pentecost. This can be compared to 1 Thessalonians where the Apostle asks that God makes us holy. Actual grace to perform a needed task; sanctifying grace so that we may be holy.

 

[Meriweather]

Believers are MUCH MORE than just disciples; we are sons of God and heirs to His riches in Jesus.

Whatever else we are, we are also disciples, with the responsibilities that entails.

 

[Penelope]

This may upset, MRO, but you are wrong.

I've presented evidence. Where is yours? I can show you ten things that the Catholic Church teaches that are the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.

I realize that this may upset a lot of people, but it is the truth. If you value your soul, you will read this and come to your own conclusions.

The Roman Catholic Church is Not Christian

If not for the RCC you'd have no Bible, and no Christianity, there were so many sects of Christianity that the RCC put the foundation on it. You might be a Jew or Muslim if not for the RCC. Yes it use to be the whore of Babylon, as when Rev was wrote (one of about 20 I read) and put in the bible , Rome was prosecuting the Christians, but not so anymore.

The Whore of Babylon is actually a oxymoron, the Jews loved Babylon, so it couldn't of been too bad.

Would you like to talk about the KKK now or Henry VIII?

 

[Penelope]

My description is based on the word of God. The Catholic faith is not.

You don't belong to organization, other than the Church of Mr. Right, and you decry the RC. You seem engaged in self worship. OK.

I belong to Christ. I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. This isn't about me. It's about God's truth, revealed through Scripture.

The bible was never meant to be taken literally, such as the exodus never happened, the Jews were never in the Egypt of today, the slave story , all false.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian!"

Ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

Then why don't you refute what that article says? You cant. That's why.

The refutation was already provided. It involves straightforward logic. This explains why you refuse to recognize it.

I saw no refutation. Only opinion. In order to refute my argument, one would need to quote Scripture. No one has done so. Try again.

No need. You don't see it because you choose to be blinded. To logic and fact and reality.

The refutation was straightforward logic and no resort to your spin on "scripture" changes the actual definition of what a Christian is.at

And don't imagine that anybody missed the fact that YOU ducked that refutation.

You can't un-define what a Christian is (i.e., one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and who seeks to follow His teachings). You also cannot refute the FACT that Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that their faith calls on them to follow the teachings of Jesus. Therefore you are entirely unable to refute the conclusion that Catholics ARE, by definition, Christians.

Two truthful premises, and a valid logical argument forming one entirely correct, accurate & valid syllogism and conclusion.

In short, your OP is simply and flatly wrong and you are unable to overcome its refutation.

 

[Mr.Right]

"the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian!"

Ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

Then why don't you refute what that article says? You cant. That's why.

The refutation was already provided. It involves straightforward logic. This explains why you refuse to recognize it.

I saw no refutation. Only opinion. In order to refute my argument, one would need to quote Scripture. No one has done so. Try again.

No need. You don't see it because you choose to be blinded. To logic and fact and reality.

The refutation was straightforward logic and no resort to your spin on "scripture" changes the actual definition of what a Christian is.at

And don't imagine that anybody missed the fact that YOU ducked that refutation.

You can't un-define what a Christian is (i.e., one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and who seeks to follow His teachings). You also cannot refute the FACT that Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that their faith calls on them to follow the teachings of Jesus. Therefore you are entirely unable to refute the conclusion that Catholics ARE, by definition, Christians.

Two truthful premises, and a valid logical argument forming one entirely correct, accurate & valid syllogism and conclusion.

In short, your OP is simply and flatly wrong and you are unable to overcome its refutation.

No one, yourself included, has tried to refute anything mentioned in the article. Why is that. The article listed what Catholicism teaches and how it contradicts what the Bible teaches. Can no one refute it? Will anyone even try?

 

[JWBooth]

Perhaps because the article is a flame throwing bomb as opposed to the opening of a rational, reasoned discussion.

 

[Mr.Right]

Perhaps because the article is a flame throwing bomb as opposed to the opening of a rational, reasoned discussion.

Then you should have no problem refuting it. Would you care to try? You would be the first.

 

[JWBooth]

Perhaps after work. You know what that is, right? When the grown ups go out and earn the means to let you sit around and play all day?

 

[Mr.Right]

Perhaps after work. You know what that is, right? When the grown ups go out and earn the means to let you sit around and play all day?

I'd love be working, but I'm 100 percent disabled. Multiple Sclerosis. Anymore smart ass remarks you'd like to make?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian!"

Ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

Then why don't you refute what that article says? You cant. That's why.

The refutation was already provided. It involves straightforward logic. This explains why you refuse to recognize it.

I saw no refutation. Only opinion. In order to refute my argument, one would need to quote Scripture. No one has done so. Try again.

No need. You don't see it because you choose to be blinded. To logic and fact and reality.

The refutation was straightforward logic and no resort to your spin on "scripture" changes the actual definition of what a Christian is.at

And don't imagine that anybody missed the fact that YOU ducked that refutation.

You can't un-define what a Christian is (i.e., one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and who seeks to follow His teachings). You also cannot refute the FACT that Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that their faith calls on them to follow the teachings of Jesus. Therefore you are entirely unable to refute the conclusion that Catholics ARE, by definition, Christians.

Two truthful premises, and a valid logical argument forming one entirely correct, accurate & valid syllogism and conclusion.

In short, your OP is simply and flatly wrong and you are unable to overcome its refutation.

No one, yourself included, has tried to refute anything mentioned in the article. Why is that. The article listed what Catholicism teaches and how it contradicts what the Bible teaches. Can no one refute it? Will anyone even try?

The article is mere opinion. The SCRIPTURES do not "define" the term "Christian." YOU are unable to honestly refute the simple, accurate, honest and straightforward definition of "Christian" which I have used twice now.

Since that definition is fair, accurate and proper, it is the key to the discussion.

YOU cannot distinguish between the basic beliefs of Christians (under that definition) and the basic beliefs of Catholics under that definition. Thus, you cannot honestly, accurately or validly contest the conclusion. Catholics ARE Christians.

Your original post premise and conclusion stand irrevocably refuted.

You're welcome.

 

[Mr.Right]

Then why don't you refute what that article says? You cant. That's why.

The refutation was already provided. It involves straightforward logic. This explains why you refuse to recognize it.

I saw no refutation. Only opinion. In order to refute my argument, one would need to quote Scripture. No one has done so. Try again.

No need. You don't see it because you choose to be blinded. To logic and fact and reality.

The refutation was straightforward logic and no resort to your spin on "scripture" changes the actual definition of what a Christian is.at

And don't imagine that anybody missed the fact that YOU ducked that refutation.

You can't un-define what a Christian is (i.e., one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and who seeks to follow His teachings). You also cannot refute the FACT that Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that their faith calls on them to follow the teachings of Jesus. Therefore you are entirely unable to refute the conclusion that Catholics ARE, by definition, Christians.

Two truthful premises, and a valid logical argument forming one entirely correct, accurate & valid syllogism and conclusion.

In short, your OP is simply and flatly wrong and you are unable to overcome its refutation.

No one, yourself included, has tried to refute anything mentioned in the article. Why is that. The article listed what Catholicism teaches and how it contradicts what the Bible teaches. Can no one refute it? Will anyone even try?

The article is mere opinion. The SCRIPTURES do not "define" the term "Christian." YOU are unable to honestly refute the simple, accurate, honest and straightforward definition of "Christian" which I have used twice now.

Since that definition is fair, accurate and proper, it is the key to the discussion.

YOU cannot distinguish between the basic beliefs of Christians (under that definition) and the basic beliefs of Catholics under that definition. Thus, you cannot honestly, accurately or validly contest the conclusion. Catholics ARE Christians.

Your original post premise and conclusion stand irrevocably refuted.

You're welcome.

And yet you still refuse to try to refute anything from the article. I don't care what you think about it. Can you refute it? Just pick one thing it said and use Scripture to refute it.

 

[Meriweather]

No one, yourself included, has tried to refute anything mentioned in the article. Why is that. The article listed what Catholicism teaches and how it contradicts what the Bible teaches. Can no one refute it? Will anyone even try?

I think you may have missed or skipped over another of my posts. I did refute it. I noted it was a Protestant site that presented incorrect premises of Catholic teaching. I recommended reading information from a Catholic site. You responded by continuing to present incorrect/deliberately wrong information from still other Protestant sites.

I can present information from any number of websites that the moon landings never took place. Likewise, you are presenting information from websites about teachings Catholics never taught and do not follow.

Your sites/information have been refuted all along.

 

[Mr.Right]

No one, yourself included, has tried to refute anything mentioned in the article. Why is that. The article listed what Catholicism teaches and how it contradicts what the Bible teaches. Can no one refute it? Will anyone even try?

I think you may have missed or skipped over another of my posts. I did refute it. I noted it was a Protestant site that presented incorrect premises of Catholic teaching. I recommended reading information from a Catholic site. You responded by continuing to present incorrect/deliberately wrong information from still other Protestant sites.

I can present information from any number of websites that the moon landings never took place. Likewise, you are presenting information from websites about teachings Catholics never taught and do not follow.

Your sites/information have been refuted all along.

I'm asking someone, anyone, to refute something that was actually stated in the article. Why can't anyone do that? All I get is people saying it's BS. Select one thing the article says and tell me why you think it's wrong. How hard is that?

 

[Meriweather]

I'm asking someone, anyone, to refute something that was actually stated in the article. Why can't anyone do that? All I get is people saying it's BS. Select one thing the article says and tell me why you think it's wrong. How hard is that?

I've already said if you present HERE one of these premises at a time, one that most concerns you, I will be happy to discuss it here with you without using links.