The faith in Christ is the faith of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Only those within Roman Catholicism who have faith in Christ are a part of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
JLB
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
The faith in Christ is the faith of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Only those within Roman Catholicism who have faith in Christ are a part of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
JLB
chessman
Member
I asked: Is unknown sin, sin?
It was really just a rhetorical question, with the obvious answer being YES. Not sure how anyone could answer otherwise.
Is known sin, sin??? Yes!
Is unknown sin, sin??? Yes!
Is late-night sin, sin??? Yes!
Is Sunday morning sitting-in-the-pew sin, sin??? Yes
Some might ask...
Is unforgiven sin, sin??? Yes!
Is forgiven sin, sin??? Yes!
I suppose you could change the meaning of the second sin (mid-sentence) and come up with an alternate answer. But I think that’s one of those logical fallacy thingie’s (forget the name).
To God.
It was really just a rhetorical question, with the obvious answer being YES. Not sure how anyone could answer otherwise.
Is known sin, sin??? Yes!
Is unknown sin, sin??? Yes!
Is late-night sin, sin??? Yes!
Is Sunday morning sitting-in-the-pew sin, sin??? Yes
Some might ask...
Is unforgiven sin, sin??? Yes!
Is forgiven sin, sin??? Yes!
I suppose you could change the meaning of the second sin (mid-sentence) and come up with an alternate answer. But I think that’s one of those logical fallacy thingie’s (forget the name).
chessman
Member
Imagine then how humorous it is to us folks who quote Paul’s epistle to Timothy, taking him at his word in the process; “overseer must be irreproachable, the husband of one wife, ...” when we run across folk who claim that he meant they must be a ‘husband’ of zero wives else they are a ‘concession’ as an overseer. And insert celibacy. In an ironic kind of way, it’s hilarious. One wife really means zero wives, husbands deprive your wives bodily, now that’s funny doctrine (in a departure from the truth, kind of way)
1 Cor 7:7-9 doesn’t say Paul was celibate.
Paul just got through telling husbands and wives “not” to deprive each other bodily (a told Timothy overseers must be husbands). Now that’s a hoot too.
ezra
Member
yup and this post is turning into a hoot ---------- no merit
Walpole
Member
It is quite humorous when you take text completely out of its context and isolated from the tradition in which it was written.
Again, marriage itself is not a requirement for clerics. Rather, St. Paul is telling St. Timothy that those clergy who are married MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, i.e., they cannot be divorced and remarried, which is a state of adultery.
Trying to make this instruction mean marriage itself is a requirement for the clerical state is self-refuting, since St. Paul was celibate as was Timothy. The Apostle would be contradicting his own teaching, as well as instructing Timothy to violate the teaching as well.
1 Cor 7:8 --> "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am"
Celibacy = the state of being unmarried
No, he told married overseers they must be the husband of ONE WIFE, i.e. not divorced and remarried (aka adulterers).
What's a hoot is that if marriage was a requirement for clerics, then St. Paul disqualified himself and violated his own teaching, as well as did Timothy.
Walpole
Member
The Scripture is clear, but you refuse to accept it. (So much for the "Spirit of Christ" teaching you individually.)
Large portions of the New Testament were written to refute Gnosticism. 1 Tim 4:1-4 is but one example. The Gnostics forbade marriage because they rejected procreation. (Amazing how even the pagans believed procreation was the teleological end of marriage.)
The Catholic Church is the last man standing in defending marriage. Only the Catholic Church continues to defend Christian marriage as heterosexual, open to life, exclusive and permanent. No other Christian church / sect or denomination teaches or even believes this. Not only do Protestants not believe this, they actually reject this.
Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism. (It is the only sacrament explicitly called a sacrament in the New Testament.)
Sorry bro,
I reject the teachings of the Catholic Church as doctrines that will lead a person to depart from the faith.
The true faith in Christ.
They deny priest's the right to marry, and promote the worship of Mary, as well as Necromancy, communicating with the dead.
This will be my last post about the Catholic Church.
I love Catholic people, but reject the teachings of Catholicism as Heresy.
JLB
That might depend on the person. At least three of my closest friends are recovering alcoholics but all three of them would be uncomfortable if they knew I avoided alcohol in their presence. In their view, their struggle with alcohol is something they are working out for themselves and not my burden. In fact, one of my friends will drink NA beer.
How do you think Romans 1:18-20 fit in with this?
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, NKJV
Actually, I don't believe this to be true for most Christian churches including Protestant can trace their history back to the same point. Just as the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox Catholic church split apart in the 11th century, Protestantism was another split from the Roman Catholic church that occurred in 16th century. This split was primarily due to what Martin Luther saw as heresies in the Church. For the record, my use of lower case and upper case C when I spell church is intentional.
Which question?