Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
Why?
-A8
Would you care to cite some examples?
Oh my! Is that the postion of the Catholic Church Campion, or is that your opinion? I hadn't heard this before. Isn't the kingdom of Heaven within us?
-A8
Someone who goes from being a Presbyterian to Pentecostal to Roman Catholic doesn't strike me as quite understanding the faith. To be fair, this is the problem I alluded to earlier with the synergistic view. Many confused Presbyterians THINK they understand the monergistic Reformed position but don't. They would never head to Rome if they truly did.
Scott Hahn represents a good person who believes in the synergistic view. They're confused as to what they believe. The Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination.
So, your basic contention is that Catholics who become Calvinists are thinking clearly, and Calvinists who become Catholic are simply confused?
All you know is that St. Paul writes of the reception of the Precious Blood following the reception of the Body at the Last Supper when Christ himself gave the Eucharist. You cannot even point ot any particular time gap. The rest is your plain conjecture not based in any scripture. The Orthodox don't reserve the elements today, and they beleive in the Real Presence. The priest simply consumes the unused parts.
Thanks for that link. I went to Mary and saw that she is considered the ark of the new covenant. I will take more time later to read more there. That was another new concept to me.
You are relying here on a pagan to understand a Catholic Sacrament. Any number of non-Catholics today likewise do not believe in the Real Presence, we won't name any names...
Yes, I had a terrible time about this. You have to wade though so much gibberish before you can get to the historical positions. Nothing like trusting in the scripture to God's glory. Sola scriptura. :O)
LOL!!!!
I never thought of it quite that way but...yes. I would also say the same about synergistic Protestants.
We are saved by the grace of God. We were slaves to sin, we now become slaves to righteousness because of God simply changing out nature. This is the clear teaching of scripture. If one does not understand this, they are confused.
Particularly when combined with the documentary evidence of later Ante-Nicene Fathers of your own sacred Tradition. Right?
And even those of Jerome and Eusebius. Right?
Who unequivocably declare that Simon Magus went to Rome in 42 AD. Right?
And while the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that what Jerome and Eusebius said about Peter in their respective statements was without foundation, it did not say the same about Simon Magus in their statements. Right?
And the followers of this Simon the Magician in Rome [for perhaps 25 years] were called Christians. Right?
And who decides this? Shouldn't everyone who reads scripture (especially the same translation) arrive at the same conclusion?
You must think I am very confused. :-)
What do you think about the following? We want truth. If we just believed everything we heard, we might learn a lot of truths, but we would also accept many falsehoods (which we don't want). But if we don't believe anything we hear, the although we will successfully avoid treating falsehoods as true, we won't acquire truth. And acquiring truth is what we want. So we have to steer between gullibility (credulousness) on the one hand and close-mindedness on the other. If we merely listen to those with whom we already agree, we won't ever be challenged to discover whether we are wrong. This is why cults often forbid contact with those outside the cult. That kind of intellectual protectionism preserves error. But for this very reason, a genuine truth-lover never puts up a wall to challenges or opinions contrary to his own. He welcomes contrary opinions. He voraciously reads the opinions and arguments of those with whom he disagrees. Why? Because doing so is a win-win situation for him. If he finds out that he was wrong, then he has gained truth, which is a win for the truth-lover. But if in the process of reasoning or debating he is able to show that the other person's position is wrong, then he is confirmed in the truth of his own position, and that again is a win for a genuine truth-lover.
So, whether Hahn moved from Presybeterian to Pentecostal to Catholic, or whether he was a cradle Catholic, it shouldn't matter as regards whether we (as genuine truth-lovers) should be willing to listen to his evidence and argumentation. And likewise, genuine truth-loving Catholics should be willing to listen to the evidence and argumentation of Protestants. Right?
-A8
No, I should have just stayed out of this! I just know that there is great anomosity between Catholics and Protestants here and it saddens me.
I have no animosity toward Protestants at all (I am married to one), I am very saddened by the anti-Catholic bigotry some display here. If there are Catholics who display the same bigotry toward Protestants, then I despise that as well.
I can only speak for myself. I have no "animosity" toward Protestants. I was raised Protestant, and so much of what I know about God and Christ I learned as a Protestant from Protestants. I'm extremely grateful for that, and deeply indebted to all the Protestants who poured their lives into mine, to ensure that I knew God.
But, I want to ask you a question. What do you think we should do about the division between Catholics and Protestants? Obviously a Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?" isn't going to solve the problem.
Don't you think that the best thing to do about it, is to dialogue with each other, exactly what we are doing here?
-A8
You found some conradiction between the Catholic Encyclopedia and Justin Martyr? What is it?
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.