From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

http://www.catholic-convert.com/ ^ | February 26, 2015 | Steve Wilson

[NKP_Vet]

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote: “There are not over a hundred people in the United State who hate the Roman Catholic Church; there are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.”

I was one of those who hated because of what I wrongly believed about the Catholic Church. The reason I had these beliefs was due to being told what to believe about the Catholic Church from those who were told what to believe about the Catholic Church. No one was willing to find out what the bottom line was concerning the Catholic Church. Everything said about the Church was taken as truth while it seemed no one was delving into what the truth really was.

What about these Catholics? They worshipped Mary. They had a religion but not a relationship with Jesus Christ. They said they believed in God but really their belief couldn’t be the same, could it? The Bible says in James 2:19 KJV “Thou believest that there is one God; Thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble”.

So do Catholics have a belief such as the devils? When most Catholics are asked if they have been “born again” or “have accepted Christ as their Savior”, their main response is “I believe in God” or “I am a good person”, or “I’m Catholic”. Also, they have all these rituals, Saints, Statues and what about the Pope is he really standing in for God? Another big item, are they cannibals when they eat the bread and drink the wine during communion? Why do they leave Jesus on the cross, don’t they realize Jesus has risen from the dead?

For the rest of Steve’s story, click at link.

[verga]

I disagree. Putting quotes around the 'Devil' is denoting a different Biological father than 'Adam'. He was given ample opportunity to put in the word "spiritual" any time he wished.

According to forum rules I can only take meaning from what he puts on the page. ANYTHING else is mind reading and is strictly forbidden on FR.

He did not use the term "spiritual" until well after SR offered him that opportunity.

[Resettozero]

According to forum rules I can only take meaning from what he puts on the page.

To claim everything else is "mindreading" is a stretch of that rule. But I do believe in holding FReepers to the apparent meaning of what they post unless it is disclaimed as a joke, sarcasm, or something.

[Syncro]

I disagree. Putting quotes around the 'Devil' is denoting a different Biological father than 'Adam'.

I was hoping you would understand nuances, one of the subtle tools of communication.

Oh well.

It's not "mind reading" it's comprehension.

According to forum rules I can only take meaning from what he puts on the page.

But you didn't apparently.

It's ok, I see where you are coming from.

[2nd amendment mama]

Placemarker

[editor-surveyor]

.
Find one heretical belief!

Everything I have ever posted is solidly backed up by the scriptures that I posted.
.

[Springfield Reformer]

It's not impossible that Eve had twins by 2 different fathers since it doesn't speak of Adam 'knowing' his wife for the second child...

I'm not buying it.  Genesis 4:1 contains a number of interesting facts:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
(Genesis 4:1)

Just giving that passage an ordinary reading, as if we were reading about any other human couple, it is very clear that the birth of Cain is set up as a direct consequence of Adam having relations with Eve.  "knew," "conceived," "bare." Action, intermediate result, final result.  Very straightforward.

This is problematic, because every version of the "two seed" or "serpent seed" theory with which I am familiar presents Cain as the serpent's child.  Even if you wanted to argue for twins, this passage makes Adam the father of Cain, unambiguously, and so that would mean the "serpent twin" would have to be Abel, which no one believes, and is flat out absurd.  So clearly the theory is in trouble.

Furthermore, assuming a twin birth is simply unnecessary.  Hebrew has a word for twin, "taom," and the same author, in describing real twins, uses it:

And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.
(Genesis 25:24-26)

The fact that Abel is mentioned right away in Genesis 4:2 without referring to Adam is just the author relying on immediate context.  The reader is supposed to know that Adam is the father, because the two births are mentioned in such close proximity.  But the gap between them could easily have been nine months or more. It doesn't say what happened between because nothing important happened during that interval.  So we can't build anything from that.

As for her reference in verse 25 to Seth being the replacement seed for Abel, again, it is unnecessary to assume strange parentage of Cain, especially since that's been locked down in verse 1.  Much easier to see it in roughly the same way Jacob and Esau or Isaac and Ishmael were handled. One carried the line of the promised seed to come (Christ), and the other did not.  So the difference in nomenclature reflected the sovereign choice of God, not the genetic origins of the individuals.

So, as I said, the "two seed" or "serpent seed" theory looks bogus to me.  But the Sci-Fi people love it. I won't mention it here, but a quick Google search yields some pretty disturbing results.  Just sayin .... 

Peace,

SR

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “what did God do to cover the sin of Adam and Eve?” <<

.
He sent his son to die for their sins.

That is all he did for their sins.

Everything else he did was to deal with their conviction of guilt.
.

[Syncro]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3263031/posts?page=920#920

Kinda shreds your tagline huh?

I see you read every post.

You’re welcome

[verga]

Thank you.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3263031/posts?page=700#700

And look carefully.

You will see ‘fathers,’ not fathers.

Have a glass of wine!
.

[verga]

And that proves my point.

thank you for admitting your error.

[PieterCasparzen]

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ speaks on the topic of people having one of two spiritual fathers, God or the devil, the “father of lies”:

John 8

“39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

[editor-surveyor]

.
#920 does absolutely nothing to my tagline, and this entire discussion reinforces it well.

How many here managed to make complete fools of themselves over post #700?

It didn’t trip you or redleghunter up, but those looking for a nonexistent wedge jumped over the cliff.

This stuff is exactly what the tagline is all about.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
LOL!

My error?

Time to give up and be honest.
.

[Syncro]

Checkmate.

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3263031/posts?page=933#933

Oh, and you imo.

Also, your first sentence:

I didn’t think that would go over your head

[daniel1212]

If meant in the sense of Jn. 8:44, the they were not true spiritual brothers. However, contrary to the serpent seed theory taught by such cultic groups as the "Shepherd's Chapel," the Holy Spirit clearly teaches that Cain was a child of Adam and Eve, just as Able was, (Gn. 4:1,2) and refers to them as brothers. (1Jn. 3:12)

However, one can be a child of God and hold to such a fringe doctrine. a

. The issue of Adam and Eve and sexual relations has also seen some other strange views, if not as radical as the serpent seed. Harding says, "some of the Fathers [as Athanasius and John Damascene] were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin." (Harding: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm)

For John of Damascus wrote,In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed416 . But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves417 . And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return418 , when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed419 . So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children420.

...God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” — John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XXIV; http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/cat_stjohndamascus_exact_exposition_Orthodox_Faith_bk04.shtml

In addition, Augustine taught that,

the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm

For the belief was, as Harding (above) holds, before they sinned, Adam and Eve had perfect command of their passions (reproductive actions].

But having lost that due to the Fall, then men as Augustine held that martial relations must involve carnal sinful lust, and even interprets Heb. 13:4 which states that the marriage bed is undefiled (unlike under the Law) to simply mean if it is free from adultery!

(If this was painful I do not think it would be considered iniquitous. But as per the logic that a function which at the last is uncontrollable is sinful, perhaps another yet daily bodily function of relief which can uncontrollable (if you cannot find a bathroom) is also sin.)

Tertullian argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,'' partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor.'' An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.]

Jerome saw marriage as so inferior (at the least) to virginity, celibacy and continence, that he presented a false dilemma engaged in specious reasoning to support him, teaching,

"It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil." (''Letter'' 22). On First Corinthians 7 he reasons, "It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil."

"If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray.

You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer.

his too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

So much for 2 x 2 evangelism!

[Elsie]

That trip to town where they lost track of Jesus is the last time Joseph appears in the narrative. Correct?

It seems to be.

He's apparently gone by the time Jesus' ministry is going on.

[Elsie]

Yup!

[Elsie]

There are some of us however who do accept the idea that the sin of Eve was fornication with the devil...We could be wrong but it seems plausible...

THIS is a new one!

[Elsie]

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Elsie 4:25 And Joseph never knew his wife; and he went away sorrowing.

(Every word of the above verse is found in the bible.)