the church

[TulipBee]

Oh, I did not know you are Catholic. That's great.
I guess you didn't really "miss" anything. It was posed as a question, and I didn't know you were Catholic. That's all.

The church is Catholic just as said in our creeds

 

[glassjester]

The church is Catholic just as said in our creeds

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

 

[glassjester]

If billions of people eat Christ at the same time, is he divided?

One bread, one body.

1 Corinthians 10:17

 

[glassjester]

I'am not Catholic. But they sure do have fancy churches! My brother got married in one and it was enormous.

You should check out our cathedrals.

They are beautiful.
True monuments to the glory of God.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Romanists Have Poor Understanding of Factual Church History

Romanists Have Poor Understanding of Factual Church History

The church is Catholic just as said in our creeds

Romanists like to alter historical meanings when it comes to the church universal:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ers-are-Lost&p=4557816&viewfull=1#post4557816

They just buy into Rome's mythologies concerning the historical facts:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...tions-of-Men&p=4587027&viewfull=1#post4587027

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ers-are-Lost&p=4560243&viewfull=1#post4560243

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ED-BY-CHRIST&p=4728494&viewfull=1#post4728494

AMR

 

[glassjester]

They just buy into Rome's mythologies concerning the historical facts:

As opposed to the cacophony of contradictory protestant doctrine that has no foundation in the teachings of Christ, His apostles, or His Church?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Romanists Like to Move the Goalposts When Pinned Down

Romanists Like to Move the Goalposts When Pinned Down

As opposed to the cacophony of contradictory protestant doctrine that has no foundation in the teachings of Christ, His apostles, or His Church?

Note the Romanist's attempt to move the goal posts from a discussion of the factual historical development of the visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride (the church militant) to matters of doctrine.

Rome's apologetic: When you cannot prevail on one topic, just quickly move along to something else.

Sigh.

AMR

 

[glassjester]

Note the Romanist's attempt to move the goal posts from a discussion of the factual historical development of the visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride (the church militant) to matters of doctrine.

Same goalpost. Your doctrine is totally unhistorical. It was invented in the sixteenth century, by a heretic.


On a side note, why do you talk past me, rather than to me?
Do you normally not address people directly?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Mr. Irreligion is a dimwit.

 

[TulipBee]

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

God knows what he is doing

 

[glassjester]

God knows what he is doing

Of course!

 

[glassjester]

Mr. Irreligion is a dimwit.

He doesn't seem to be.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

He doesn't seem to be.

There's dimwits and there's dimwits. Anyone who keeps spewing out pejoratives like "Romanist" and "Romanism" and then follows them up with idiotic statements is a dimwit. Good Grief G, the man is insulting you right to your face.

 

[glassjester]

There's dimwits and there's dimwits. Anyone who keeps spewing out pejoratives like "Romanist" and "Romanism" and then follows them up with idiotic statements is a dimwit. Good Grief G, the man is insulting you right to your face.

He's called me a Romanist.
Is that any worse than calling someone a dimwit? Maybe it is.

It may have been intended as an insult.
But I can't find it in myself to feel insulted by it.

 

[iamaberean]

I think that what He must have meant to say was "on THE BIBLE I will build My Church." lain:

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peter would build the church according to the knowledge God had given him as to whom Jesus was. That is Jesus is God in the flesh.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Same goalpost. Your doctrine is totally unhistorical. It was invented in the sixteenth century, by a heretic.

Romanists fail to read links provided in response to their claims. If they would they would know better. For if Reformed doctrine is a heresy of the sixteenth century then their claims of Augustine as one of their own are nonsense. This is what happens when your regula fidei is but Catholic Answers web sites and the like. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Mr. Irreligion finds time to spew out more ignorance. Maybe someday you'll become a Christian.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

"Romanism" is Normative but Pejorative to the Overly Sensitive

"Romanism" is Normative but Pejorative to the Overly Sensitive

He's called me a Romanist.
Is that any worse than calling someone a dimwit? Maybe it is.

It may have been intended as an insult.
But I can't find it in myself to feel insulted by it.

Indeed, you should not.

Romanist is but a normative term for Roman Catholics, just as Calvinist is a loose synonym for the Reformed that espouse a particular view of the doctrines of grace, among many other things particular to the Reformed, yet not held by all Calvinists.

Best to keep the following in mind:

All Reformed are Calvinists. (As in Baptists adhering to the LBCF)
Not all Calvinists are Reformed. (As in adherents to the Westminster Standards, Helvetic, Belgic, or Heidelberg Confessions).

The doctrines of grace claimed by the Calvinist were elucidated by not a few of the ECF a thousand plus years earlier than Luther or Calvin, and were formally codified fifty-four years after the death of Calvin at the Synod of Dordt. The acrostic, TULIP, a memory aid for the doctrines of grace, was actually first used by a nineteenth century pastor to help others remember the five doctrines. Unfortunately, the historically uninformed just erroneously assume Calvin "invented" Calvinism. Rather, Calvin just was one of the first to formally systematize these doctrines and much more using the full counsel of Scripture.

That some will take Romanism to be pejorative is just being overly sensitive.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanism

A Calvinist with the same over sensitivity as the Roman Catholic about the term "Romanism" would whine each time a Lutheran raised the label, since it was from their tradition that the word "Calvinist" first emerged over their issues with the Lord's Supper. Wisely, we do not start lighting the torches against our Lutheran brethren when the term is used.

That said, "dimwit" is but the desperate attempt of the choleric.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Catholic Crusader and Robert Pate Join Hands

Catholic Crusader and Robert Pate Join Hands

Mr. Irreligion finds time to spew out more ignorance. Maybe someday you'll become a Christian.

CC, meet Robert Pate.

Robert Pate, meet CC.

Strange bedfellows.

:AMR:

AMR

 

[Eagles Wings]

Mr. Irreligion finds time to spew out more ignorance. Maybe someday you'll become a Christian.

This gave me a good chuckle.

Even if one does not agree with AMR, suggesting he is ignorant and/or not Christian is evidence of histrionics.