Posted on 11/13/2023 9:37:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
So TWO wrongs...?
I don’t think so.
Would you say the same if he’d joined the Mormons?
Yes.
You don’t know anyone’s heart.
And just from experience, whenever you say “always”. “never”, “everyone”, “no one”, “all, “none” - ANY absolute, you are likely making a mistake.
But not always. (LOL)
So yes. We can evaluate the validity of a person’s statement in regards to salvation.
It’s the ONE TRUE CHURCH....because Ebby says so (The book of EbbTide 1:1)
The same “true church” you rail against and with post after post after post?
I personally view you as FR’s harshest critic of the “RCC”.
I can only imagine the outcry if Christians posted as much against Rome as some RCs do.
Well the fact that Jesus said the Holy spirit WILL teach you tells us that there was more to be learned.
Some Catholics are Catholic-o-phobes.
I personally view your views to be worthless.
I have no idea what "Nee Testament Christianity" is, but it is certainly closer to NEW Testament Christianity than the 30,000 various protestant sects that didn't exist before the 1600's, and now lecture everyone else on the "correct" way to be a Christian.
We got it all wrong for 3/4ths of Christianity's existence, apparently.
When you cite the discredited 30k denomination stat you forfeit the argument.
Roman Catholics like to claim a long existence as if that somehow validates their claim to accuracy. Time means nothing in these matters. I could argue the Reformation came along to restore the church from the theological errors of Rome….and there were many and many remain. So the work isn’t done.
And if you’re playing the time card other beliefs can claim a longer existence.
The issue though is who aligns with Scripture in their beliefs? When Roman Catholicism is closely examined in this regard it is found wanting.
Which simply recourse to a standard RC fallacious polemic, for beginning with "tens of thousands of “Christian” sects, and even cults," exampling "an inherent flaw in “Sola Scriptura,” this is misleading and false, and a failing argument. For,
1. Liberal Prots do not actually hold to SS, since they do not uphold the integrity and authority of the Scriptures. Thus the evangelical movement began in response to liberal revisionism.
2. Cults do not actually hold to SS, for like as with Catholics, their supreme authoritative source for Truth is effectively that leadership to which a form of ensured veracity is imputed.
3. If unity is the credential for authenticity, than cults win. But as with Catholicism, they have unity in error. 4. The NT church actually began in dissent from the RC model of determination and assurance of doctrine being based upon the authority of the historical magisterial stewards and judges of express Divine revelation, as instead truth-seeking souls followed itinerant preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. 4. The premise of a Roman Catholics being more unified than SS believers is simply fallacious, for dissent and agreement therein abound among those she counts as members, while those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired supreme authority (classic evangelical types) have long testified to being far more unified in key basic beliefs and morals than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.
5. The unity among the faith evangelicals is that of "fellowship of the Spirit," (Philippians 2:1) with a shared realization of regeneration of the Spirit, thus the focus is on Jesus, not a church, and in para church ministries they are found working together.
Thus this is of superior quality than that of Rome. For at best all she can claim is a unity in error, and or organization, while she manifestly considers even proabortion, prosodomy public figures (Ted Kennedy Catholics) as members in life and in death, and which treatment manifest Rome's interpretation of her doctrine and laws. And which "living magisterium you are to follow, and not be like the TradCaths who dissent from modern clarifications of past church teachings by it.
6. While along with basic unity, there are doctrinal division among classic evangelicals, yet the major problem is that of carnality in the West. And you must own these liberal RCs, and would essentially have us do that same by joining Rome, or become part of one of your fractured groups. All claiming to represent the true members of a imaginary one (and unholy), Catholic Church.
Wouldn’t Jesus prefer if His Church was One, as He so often prayed? And if he wanted One Church, would he not establish it so that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it?
Certainly, but not unity in error, and besides her paper unity but fragmented reality, Catholicism has tragically become as the gates of Hell for most of her members! I was a practicing one.
And would not that Church, holding the keys to the Kingdom, and the power to bind and loose, be the one to whom he sent the Paraclete to show them all Truth, so that there would be a Unity of understanding of those Scriptures
Just what incense are you smoking? Catholics overall tend to be very ignorant of Scripture as well as their own churches teaching. And have not fellowship of the Spirit, as relatively very very few have experienced Biblical regeneration. And I speak as a former weekly and holy day mass-going RC, and altar boy, CCD teacher and lector - the latter two after I actually became manifestly born of the Spirit thru penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith in crucified and risen Lord Jesus, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and has since personally spoken to (or tried to) thousands of Catholics in the US.
And as for your magisterium being the solution to disunity, as another one poster wryly stated of V2,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org with some detail, while we have a more charitable description by a novus ordo priest:
It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism....
Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council...
“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. ..They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way...
The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age... Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.” - Is Catholicism about to break into three? Crux Catholic Media Inc. ^ | Oct 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3778496/posts
And thus you have FR articles as,
Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope …
On the road to Emmaus, he didn’t read the scriptures to the disciples, He explained them to them.
Indeed, in "all the Scriptures" and soon opened up their minds to understanding them, exampling SS with Scripture as the sure and supreme standard, not ancient oral tradition, though . Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes ans ecumenical councils do.
Next: They all knew the words perfectly well, but He had to open their eyes to the meaning(s). Today, many believers know the scriptures very well, far better than a sinner like me does. But I spent years looking for the Truth and who could explain the Scriptures to me.
Then you either need a actual sound source of teaching, which Rome clearly does not quality as, and or a good husband, ("and if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home" - 1 Corinthians 14:35) - presuming you were actually born again When I finally came to deep personal repentance and faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save me on his acct. by His sinless shed blood, as a lost damned sinner who was destitute of any thing that could save me as a mass-going RC., then I had great hunger to know what the Bible meant.
And as the Lord provides, I was made aware of a rock station that became evangelical radio instead. And as truck driver, I had ample time to listen. And while i listened daily to a variety of preachers, from John MacArthur to Chuck Smith, Swindoll, McGee, and even some Pentecostals, the main constant messages was the same, and I had no real problem with debatable things. Glory to God.
Yet I stayed as a weekly and holy day mass-going and serving RC for about 6 years, until, as I increasingly saw the contrast btwn what I saw in the Bible versus the Rc churches I went to (which included finding Bible studies and prayer groups) and as I sought to witness to others daily, I prayed to God that if it was His will to go to a different church, then He would show me. Which He manifestly did the next day, which led me into evangelical fellowship, though I must seek to follow the Truth wherever it leads, even if it means disagreement, but which does not break basic unity of the Spirit, in Truth.
Since then I have come to know far more about Rome than before, and can say that the assertion that it is the one truth church is untenable in the light of Scripture. Besides other issues, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
It finally dawned on me (was revealed) that there could only be on Church, one teaching Authority, and one faith, as God Himself is One, and as Jesus commanded us to be one. There is only one candidate for that institution, which can trace it’s succession all the way back to the Apostles.
Nomn-sense. The NT church varied much, but none, not one of them is evidences as being RC. And nowhere does the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed mention any apostolic successor for any apostle - even though the apostle James who was martyred: Acts 12:1, 2 - except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (Acts 1:15-26; :cf. Rv. 21:14), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used to select popes. And the apostolic successor are the presbyters, (not RC priests).
Meanwhile, the only one true church is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) being the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes every believer into, (1Co. 12:13) as "living stones" in this "spiritual house," (1 Peter 2:5) while organic fellowships in which they normally express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
Thank you for the time and effort you put into your response. I appreciate it and will consider it prayerfully.
First, though, let me assure you that I am not in search of a good “husband” as I am not now nor ever have been, a homosexual. And I am happily married to a wonderful woman who is my faithful partner is a sacramental union.
I will also say that I am probably closer to a traditionalist, as you define it, though I was not a Catholic or even a Christian at the time of V2, and was only vaguely aware of as an agnostic school kid.
I do not confuse the teachings in error of Popes or Bishops to be de Fide, nor do I consider them “TheChurch. The Body of Christ is the Church,
Those who hold fast to His teachings and obey His commandments are The Church.
I am sorry you left the Church. I will pray for you that God will guide you on your journey to Him. I will leave it at that. Peace.
Amen!
See reply #124 - they still do!
I would.
Many folks caught up in Mormonism for a long time don’t know just what they have bought into.
Any drowning person will grab onto a small branch, not knowing the falls are just ahead.
How many of us 'Christians' did this before crying out, like Peter, "Save me!"
Matthew 14:30
More than what?
Well bless yer pea-pickin’ heart!
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.