Posted on 02/03/2017 9:58:51 PM PST by nickcarraway
Not at all. Clearly this former 'priest' never actually was a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul warned of wolves being amongst the flock, and John warned of Christ deniers who would depart. This is no surprise. This fellow knows better now, but it is too late. There is now an impassible gulf between his current abode and Heaven.
1 John 2:18-19
[18] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
[19] They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. …
(1) Roman Catholic
(2) Christ-professing non-Catholic
then implying that either could reject his/her profession.
First, the RCC dogma believes that one can receive salvation by baptism as an infant. No "free will" in that, is there? Furthermore, the RCC plan is to gain assent from the child's developing mind to further instruction, which supposedly secures the validity of the dogma. For most of these brainwashed children, it is impossible for them ever to consider that this process is invalid. Therefore they block out the gospel of abandoning their inherently sinful life by hearing and following the plan offered in the Bible. Their maintenance of security depends on obeying the rules of their religion, otherwise the endgame of reaching Heaven after physical death will not be realized. Consequentially, that person is never really saved, and is open to Satanic influence when he/she really looks at their religion closely with an open (but sinful) mind. And that's what happened to the writer of this article, if it is not just the figment of a troll's imagination. He allowed the appeal of Satan's Mohammedanism as compared to his Catholicism to break his Catechistic construct into pieces.
On the other hand, you propose that your reader suppose that the author was a professor of the Biblical doctrine of "being saved by Christ and born again in the spirit," an act of free will. FRiend, nowhere in the text of this article does the author claim having ever held that position. Nonetheless, it is possible for one to be led into making that kind of profession, yet actually never having possessed The God's free gift of salvation based on the exercise of one's free will in accepting the true Scriptural Gospel, and thus experiencing Spiritual rebirth into a new life, one of persistent, irreversible trust in the Person, Work, Word, and shed blood of the Biblical Jesus of Nazareth.
One outstanding modern example of such vulnerability is that of Charles Templeton (click here), the Canadian evangelist who introduced Billy Graham to the concept of mass evangelism. He blossomed as a "professor," engaged in theological studies and through them became an agnostic (definition = "I do not know"ism), and finally became an open atheistic rejector of The God and all His Bible stands for. Personally, I have seen just too many products of the Templeton/Graham/Bright methodology of evangelistic campaigns to have any confidence in the eternal value of that system. Actually, there is no real scriptural warrant for it.
And, yes, the person who wrote the above article, though having Romanist credentials, could never by Scriptural standards have possessed the salvation of God, nor the power of the Indwelling Spirit of Christ which He only gives the regenerated believer-disciple-priest and Friend of The Christ the ability to resist and overcome the advances of the Wicked One, with the sure certainty of Absolute Everlasting Life with Him.
And finally, the modern non-Catholic denominations, by virtue of their departure from the Gospel of Christ and endorsement of the "social gospel" (and its toleration of other religious systems), whilst still clinging to shreds of Catholic doctrines not shed in the Reformation, are still wide open to the venom of Mohammedanism, Hinduism, Africanistic blending, and all such crippling philosophies that will eventually destroy the Constitutional Government paradigm built by the Founders who signed the Declaration of Independence and ratified the Constitution of the United States of America.
And "praying that this person" would reverse? Well, he's dead, so that effort will not be fruitful; but pray for others and be an open witness to the Christ of the Bible, personally recruiting disciples and leading them into spiritual life?
Yes!
A Nigerian newspaper digs up a conversion that happened sixteen years ago.
Had a conversation with a young moslem years back him trying to convert me. Hard as I tried I couldn’t even get the little bugger to condemn the bastards who knifed those Jewish babies in their cradle.
I’ve had conversations with some myself. Even prior to 9/11 I heard them talk about Jews with words laced with a desire to murder. One told me he considers non-believers to be lower than animals. You can kill animals, right? There is no spiritual aspect to that ‘religion’. It’s all about how much they love themselves and hate everyone else.
Forget the reasons stated - it’s all about sex and male empowerment.
“I took the first bus to Cairo”.
Were there any unaccompanied Western women on that bus? Groping and sexual assault on Western women are a real problem on Cairo buses. I know one who has been there.
In both, his entire relationship with either religion is about personally liking it and thinking it is nice and whether it can move him to tears. In other words ... it made him feel good. He might as well be an addict who got bored of weed but ... but this heroin is so beautiful and feels wonderful!
No relationship to truth, principle or God. Just 'see how nice it is and can make you feel good.'
Why not just read a good book out loud with friends?
From no wives to many wives.
He’s delusional.
Appears to be a classic case of “Stockholm Syndrome.”
A CatholIc Brit with a Muslim name? Suspicious to me.
I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior; the truth, the light, and the way; and the son of God. I am also Catholic. I am also a Christian - though not a good one. A lot of anti Catholic bigotry on this thread. Such good Christians, taking it upon themselves to let God know who is save and who is not.
My answer to this question, which in various forms, comes up from time to time, is that the person was NEVER saved in the first place. A REAL Christian would not do this, but if they did, and then repented, they could have been saved all along. An action like this, without repentance, is a clear indication that such a person was never saved in the first place. Only God knows for sure.
There is a special hell or special place in hell for guys like this. Deliberately misleading (teaching) people with blasphemy from a position of spiritual authority.
“A lot of anti Catholic bigotry on this thread. Such good Christians, taking it upon themselves to let God know who is save and who is not.”
I am encouraged to hear about “born again” Catholics. I wish everyone, Catholic or otherwise, would be saved.
Yet we know from God’s own word, in Matthew 7: 13-14, that only a “few” will be.
The Narrow and Wide Gates
Matthew 7:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
**There is but ONE God. . .He evidently didn’t believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.**
So you’re saying that one must believe in three Gods? But then the Creeds teach that “each is God”, and that they are not three Gods, but one God. There are other unscriptural statements in the Creeds that attempt to define God, but one only needs to know this simple truth: the phrases “God the Son”, and “God the Holy Spirit”, are not found in the scriptures because they do not properly define God.
The Son is OF God. The Holy Spirit is OF God. God the Father is the original source of all things divine.
You are Maudeen of Free Republic, not Free Republic the Maudeen. Free Republic gives you an existence here on this forum. Free Republic was not born of you; your existence here was born of it.
The priest in this article had a faith built on sand. IMO, his tears were a proof that he was lost, and needed spiritual direction. Unfortunately he failed to see that the Word of God has all the answers, probably because he let his emotions guide him instead of the Truth.
A broken and contrite spirit is good, as long as it is accompanied by obedience to the Word.
I don’t know what church your friend attended but I’m afraid he has sincerely misinformed you about Catholics and the Holy Bible. Several passages from the Holy Bible are read during every mass and it is the same at every Catholic Church that day across the USA. If you attend mass every day you will hear the entire Holy Bible in approximately 3 years. I am a cradle Catholic and I attended Catholic school for 9 years and was never once instructed to not read the Holy Bible.
**But Islam has nothing in the form of Marian devotions**
Well, at least they have one thing right.
As far as the Mass ritual; I’ve yet to have any RC explain why the wafer needs to be consumed over and over, when it taken (by their own admission) for eternal life.
This I do know: that man has muddied the scriptural teachings in such a way that rituals and repetitive chants replace the simple Holy Ghost conviction to seek God directly in earnest heartfelt desire (think Hannah, for example, or later her son Samuel. They prayed direct. With words directly from their hearts).
Have you ever received one of those Christmas letters from a relative that was well written and seemed to be just for you.....until you realize by the wording that the writer is addressing multiple individuals, and that the message is a copy?
My dear Friend:
You need to attend to the very words of Christ Himself, as believed by His apostles, disciples, saints, and martyrs, and Church teaching for over 2000 years.
Christ Himself Made it Clear. in JOHN 6:53-66
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is
the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever. This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying who can listen to it?”
Jesus Doubles Down
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of
no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said tthe twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
EXPLANATION
There are two primary reasons why we must understand Jesus’ words, “eat my flesh,drink my blood,” literally. First, both the Jews and his disciples understood him literally and he does not correct them. In verse 52, the Jews respond, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” In verse 60, his disciples respond, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
You would think that if his audience was mistaken, and given gravity of this
teaching, Jesus would have clarified their literal understanding.
To the contrary, he affirms them.
In response to the Jews, Jesus reiterates the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood no less than six times in six verses (vs.53-58). He affirms his disciples’ literal understanding by letting them walk away (vs. 66).
The second reason to understand Jesus literally is because the Jews already had a metaphorical understanding for the language “eat flesh”
and “drink blood”—namely destruction.
For example, Revelation 17:16 uses the language of eating flesh to connote the destruction of the harlot, which symbolizes the burning of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If Jesus meant these words to be taken metaphorically, then the meaning would be, “if you destroy me, you will live forever.”
Obviously this is not what Jesus meant.
For these two reasons we must conclude Jesus meant his words literally and not metaphorically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.