Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?
As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.
Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.
Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
Now, in orchid.
So---you'd like to strip the word of God, from the [adopted] children?
Is that it? Oh, but do it in such a way to make out to be that it was their idea, that they were agreeing to this "giving it back"?
Look -- I was merely pointing out that your own style of presentation itself, was misleading usage.
Should I go back and map out for one and all, all the different books of the NT from which you extracted passage from here and there, blending them all together in unbroken narrative ---as if--- the manner you presented it was order (and context) which all of it could be found?
That was the problem.
Your intended usage (as far as that could be perceived) or how it comes across that you may have intended those passages apply -- are yet another "problem", but never mind the rabbit warren of all of that, for now...
I will not now being turning the scriptures back in (like an overdue library book?) to yourself, or any other.
If there is a problem with that -- then introduce me to the writers themselves if it be they be as super-Methuselah (and still living) and desire their own written works be returned to them -- and I would do so quite directly.
Meanwhile make your case (if you have one) in fair and clear usage of the scripture.
But if it's in that pale blue -- then why bother?
People are actually supposed to read that? Or is it more like I said --- most will just skip over it -- leaving your presentation(s) safe from close inspection as to your intended meanings?
If that is the way it is, then one may as well be talking to themselves (or the wall) for all the good it may do.
It should be patently obvious that just calling oneself the "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" is hardly a sure sign of actually being it. There IS no one, single human organization or entity that can be all those things 100%, which is why we know the REAL body of Christ, His spotless, unblemished, redeemed and sanctified bride is all those who have called upon the name of the Lord no matter what the shingle says on the outside of their meetin' house.
The closest I could find is:
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim. 2:2)
Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you. (2 Tim. 1:13,14)
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:9)
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)
I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another. (Romans 15:14)
Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. (2 Peter 1:12)
There's plenty more, but I think this demonstrates quite well that the "unbroken chain" is one of knowledge of the truth rather than some human-to-human transmission of an "office" of Apostle.
Will you please explain to me why you continue to assert "Luther removed books from the Bible" when it has been repeatedly shown ON THIS THREAD as well as the many times it has been said on other threads to NOT be the truth? It smacks of outright deception and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt to further clarify why you continue to say this when we know for a fact that Luther did not remove ANY books from the Bible. Once again, see HERE.
He asked, "Is it true that a million years is like a second to you?".
"Yes", said God.
"So would that mean that a million dollars is like a penny?", the guy asked.
"That's true", replied God.
"Well, can I have a penny?", he asked.
"Got a second?", answered God. ;o)
Yes, we KNOW that the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, but the "Apocrypha/Deutereocanonicals were already written in Greek - that's the way they came - so why would they even BE a part of the Septuagint since they didn't need to be translated??? That they were NOT in Hebrew was sufficient proof to Jerome that they didn't belong as part of the Jewish Old Testament and was why he said so in the prologues to them in the Latin translation he did (the Vulgate).
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
But God says:
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6)
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:16-19)
So much for the 12th century claim of squatter's rights:
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. ~ St. Ignatius of Antioch 110AD. [1]
That "they" used to murder dissenters by the cartload proves the points, well enough.
To put down rebellion is not murder.
Which leads us to Waldo and his merry band of outlaws damning souls to Hell with their dualist semi-pelagian heresy who had no authority from the bishops to preach. So they rebelled which protestants are wont to do. And so today we have protestant holding them up as some sort of shining example of proto-protestant. Even Waldo came back to the Catholic Church. If its the ascetic nature that is appealing then the protestant would do well to emulate St. Francis.
Later came the Lollards. They were persecuted, chiefly for their opposition to 'popery'. Oh, and having different ideas, ones which by-passed the sacerdotalism of the so-called 'priesthood' of the Romish Church.
More criminal heresiarchs. But of course speculative theology was welcomed and protected in the schools of the time. It's only when Wycliffe's acolytes used lollardy as a casus belli for rebellion against authority that they needed to be put down and rightly so.
That was Rome's last chance, in a sense. For after that came the the much larger and widely sweeping Reformation. The rest is history -- and a history which the RCC cannot CONTROL. The truth still gets out (much to their chagrin)
A history of relativism, materialism and self-deification which has led to the downfall of western civilization: "London isn't burning. It's burnt." Some truth. I'm more interested in the future. A future, which I suspect the generations that come after us, will reject the post-modern rationalism which prizes the supremacy of that which is preferred over that which is true. And like the rest of the heresies, Protestantism will be consigned to the dustbin of history. A future where the Catholic Church will remain for those who wish to return.
[1]Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 89–90). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Seems like they all get TAUGHT the same thing!
Pathetic?
Matthew 12:34
Speaking of challenges...
All Greeks know what is right.
Only Spartans do it.
Since you persist in posting this verse out of context; after you, and the entire readership of this and others threads have SEEN what it is referring to; I can only conclude that you are TRYING to deceive others.
Oh>
Then why did...
... they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Four what?
Shut UP!
You’ll mess up the meme!
How can you ACCUSE them of this??
LOTS of things are 'described there.
Chapter 15 is especially revealing...
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
The OFFICIAL ruling is: Poorly Catechized
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.