Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Stemming from this comment
>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<
Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.
Who’s shocked?
Do you believe the Catholic Church has the power to damn you to Hell?
For future reference, there's a link on Petronski's homepage to your catechism.
The meaning of “co-redeemer” is quite clear, for those with eyes to see.
It is not the Catechism of the Catholic Faith.
It is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I read it in context and it is strange to say the least.
Only piece of Scripture I can place the idea in is John 10:34, when Jesus quotes the O.T. in Psalm 82:6.
You are misunderstanding the Catholic position. We do not become another god but are united (become partakers) with the one God. This is a real participation, not just an imputation. We can rightly discuss the distinctions between these two but do not misrepresent what we really believe.
As you see, however, we are both trying to base our beliefs on Scripture; we just disagree on its meaning. So in the end it comes down to the question of by what authority do you insist that I must accept your interpretation of Scripture?
That is a reference to 2Peter 1-4 that says this. "4 Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire." So, divine nature is from Peter. If anyone has a problem with it, perhaps it should be taken up with him.
The RCC seems hung up on morphing this creation into God Himself when Scripture is very clear that we remain sinners until our death. Mercifully, if we have been covered by the blood of Christ, all our sins have already been forgiven on the cross (Hebrews 10.)
The unmerited gift of the Holy Spirit indwells and leads Christ's sheep by the grace of God alone. Christ's sheep do not become Christ; they are led by Christ and redeemed by Christ through the grace of His imputed righteousness.
Nope, sorry. I don’t have a photographic memory and therefore use Google.
Since you do know the Catechism so well it won’t be hard for you to give the proper reference next time. Thanks! It’s great when someone is willing to back up what they are saying so that we can see it in context.
Do Protestants consider Catholics to be Christians?
Of course.
The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
However, if you were referring to the Roman church members, instead of Catholics, the answer is, as others replies have said, some are, some aren't. Being a Christian is an individual matter, and has nothing to do with church membership.
I understand, of course, that the Roman church considers itself to be THE catholic church. But you should understand that its members are the only ones who believe this. While most others use the term Catholic carelessly, the word does have meaning, and that meaning does not change when the word is capitalied,
The original post WAYYYYY back at the beginning had no reference. I had to do a Google search with quotes. Blame Google. But if the link at 460 had been put in originally, we wouldn’t have a problem.
If we expect that a poster quoting on any other thread has to give a proper link, then here it is expected too. Sorry, no link from someone who is being less than “Happy” about Catholics, gotta have a link for me.
And try 2 Peter 1-4. That is a footnote.
>>So in the end it comes down to the question of by what authority do you insist that I must accept your interpretation of Scripture?<<
Amen!
You are absolutely correct! I should have said Roman Catholics.
I apologize. If the Mod would be so kind as to correct this, I would appreciate it
When did you delete 2nd Peter 1:4?
Nice to see you admit you do not.
Thank you for our daily dose of Calvinist error. I’ll put it in the cabinet with the other emetics.
Illumination & further revelations always need to be compared to previous revelation.
Example: The Bereans
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)
It's noble to be open to God's truth. However, not just anything could or should pass for "revelation." If it counters what existing revelation says--and it's up to us to examine the Bible daily to see if what XYZ says is true--then we need to reject it.
Don’t apologize to him for trying to rename Christ’s Church.
It's there:b'SHEM Yah'shuaNAsbU 2 Peter 1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and
magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers
of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
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.