Posted on 03/30/2010 10:38:29 AM PDT by NYer
Let me ask you a question that has been bothering me. You consider some of us heretics and yet you banter on and on and on with us. Either you think you can convert us or you just can’t resist defending you lost religion??? (which needs a LOT of defending)
Very good. And she was canonized in 1920.
And how many in the inquisition?
Unknown. There are some estimates, most of them actually very low.
Certainly.
You consider some of us heretics and yet you banter on and on and on with us.
It's not banter. It's debate. The give and take of ideas and philosophies.
Either you think you can convert us or you just can’t resist defending you lost religion??? (which needs a LOT of defending)
There is always hope that we can bring the lost sheep back to Christ. I don't need to defend the Faith. The Church will go on regardless of my efforts. But I feel called to do so - to defend the Church against the heretic, the apostate and the pagan. If in my own imperfect way I can serve Christ, then I will do so. I'd rather serve Christ than the lord of this world, which many posters here demonstrably do.
For the record here, it was also on the ‘protestant’ side. Martin Luther and John Calvin were both responsible for the physical persecution and deaths of thise who did not agree with them - those they called ‘heretics’. Ana-Baptists were just one of the groups of people persecuted by Luther and Calvin.
Wasn't that you critiqueing writing style? Physician... And, the Levitical Law contains much more than prohibitions against homosexuality. How about mixing cloth? How about eating shrimp? Why the pick and choose?
And any "Presbyterian" group that claims to be biblical (many don't these days) but embraces homosexuality is just as wrong as Rome manufacturing sacerdotalism. Paul noted in the letter to the Romans that it is against our normal design and thus part of the rebellion against God. It is in the same group of sins as disobedience to parents. Their error does not justify Rome's hermeneutical error. We would call them demonic also.
But, interestingly, the RCC (sorry about the extra C last time) does not advocate executing the homosexual, although that is the penalty under Mosaic Law. And they don't advocate executing their own priests for rape of children...unless Ratzinger has changed his position. This would be a more consistent use of the Law. Again though, pick and choose.
And perhaps we are using "repudiate" in two different ways. The normal sense of the word is "reject, or deny". Again, I do not reject the Sermon on the Mount any more than I reject the Levitical Law. I embrace them both as "tutors" the way Paul describes them, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith, but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor". Gal. 3:23, 25
Any ordinary understanding of these verses would tell you that the Law serves a very good purpose, as did the stringent requirements of the Sermon on the Mount. Recall, Jesus is telling the Jews if you even call your countryman a "fool", you are worthy of hell fire. Is that your Gospel Mark? Have you ever muttered that under your breath about me? I confess that it happens a few times the other direction. But, we are no longer under the Law or law.
Even the so-called "Lord's Prayer" (a name made up and added to the margin notes of Bibles, but nowhere in the text), ends with "forgive us our debts (exactly) as we forgive our debtors. For if you do not forgive others, your Father in heaven will not forgive you." Is that your Gospel Mark? Do you get forgiveness of all of your sins EXCEPT the sin of non-forgiveness and then burn in hell or spend 10,000 yrs. in purgatory. Do you make it crystal clear to those parishoners around you that this is the high bar of the Law, according to Jesus? Do you tell them to sell all of their possessions, take up their cross and follow Him, like say you do?
Do you tell them to tear out their eyes, cut off their hands if they cause them to stumble? Do you tell the priests that diddle little kids that because they caused one of them to stumble, it is now better that a millstone gets tied around their necks and they be cast into the sea? Do you actually teach this harsh Gospel? This is not a "repudiation" of the Gospels, it is a recognition of the real message Jesus was getting at...we are broken beyond repair, unless He steps in.
Somehow you have concluded this makes us antinomian or renegades. Nothing could be further from the truth. We hunger for righteousness, we want it to be a real part of our lives. But, we understand that we are far away. The only way we stand worthy before God is that we are clothed in the righteousness of His Son.
Somewhere along the line, the RCC begins to break down and become more Calvinistic than they would like to admit. They see that there is a disconnnect between their lives and the requirements that they hold up. Instead of casting themselves wholly upon Christ alone, the way Paul and Peter taught, they manufacture a whole series of sacraments, absolution, the eucharist (I know this is a sacrament) and others which confer grace. Grace is no longer grace, unmerited favor, but wages in exchange for doing, thinking, saying something. We, OTOH, have no where else to go, but to Christ. You tell me which pushes you closer to God?
"Get thee behind me satan."
Ouch. Those words were used by Jesus to rebuke Peter for not catching that Jesus had to go the cross. Man's efforts, whatever those might be, were simply inadequate to rescue his soul. Peter's good intentions notwithstanding, his thinking was from the pit. We submit that Rome is in the same boat. They likely mean well, but teaching the man-centered gospel they do makes their words directly from the pit, also.
Absolutely. Persecution was the way of the day. The persecution of Baptists did not end in Europe - all major Protestant groups including the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists et al, had no end of fun going after the Baptists. When the Quakers dared to split from the Calvinists, they were mercilessly tormented. Of course, we pure at heart Catholics were also on the receiving end for the first 200 years after the Revolution; nasty Protestants...
Yes.
And, the Levitical Law contains much more than prohibitions against homosexuality. How about mixing cloth? How about eating shrimp? Why the pick and choose?
The early Church chose. From the time of the Apostles, the Church began to define what was the doctrine and what were the disciplines. Jesus began the changes to the Mosaic Law and enabled the Church to continue the change from Judaism to Christianity.
But, interestingly, the RCC (sorry about the extra C last time)
What is the RCC? Do you mean the Catholic Church. RCC is not the Catholic Church.
does not advocate executing the homosexual, although that is the penalty under Mosaic Law. And they don't advocate executing their own priests for rape of children...unless Ratzinger has changed his position. This would be a more consistent use of the Law. Again though, pick and choose.
The Church has come to understand that the death penalty is wrong according to the words of Jesus. Again, Jesus supersedes Moses.
And any "Presbyterian" group that claims to be biblical (many don't these days) but embraces homosexuality is just as wrong as Rome manufacturing sacerdotalism.
Over 90% of Presbyterians and other Reformed groups in the United States are not Calvinist. When this country began, over 90% of all Protestants in the United States were Calvinist. Why? I don't know about an entity called Rome manufacturing sacerdotalism, but Jesus created a special group of men whom He enabled to forgive sins, preach the Great Commission, and ordain others. Most Reformed groups require their pastors to be trained in some fashion, do they not?
And perhaps we are using "repudiate" in two different ways. The normal sense of the word is "reject, or deny". Again, I do not reject the Sermon on the Mount any more than I reject the Levitical Law. I embrace them both as "tutors" the way Paul describes them, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith, but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor". Gal. 3:23, 25
But Jesus did not preach the Levitical Law. He preached His own Law and His Own commandments. When you read the Sermon on the Plain, there are no qualifiers or other statements that would allow one to skate by. The Two Commandments of Christ are not suggestions. You may consider Jesus' words whimsical tutoring, but we consider it Gospel.
Recall, Jesus is telling the Jews if you even call your countryman a "fool", you are worthy of hell fire. Is that your Gospel Mark? Have you ever muttered that under your breath about me? I confess that it happens a few times the other direction. But, we are no longer under the Law or law.
We are still under the laws and commandments of Jesus. Believe it or not, I have never called you a fool either silently or out loud. I do not consider you one at all. On the contrary, I consider you a considerable opponent. The Gospels, on the other hand repeat and repeat and repeat the idea of Judgement for one's deeds. Paul reiterates that Judgement. If there is no code of conduct, then how can one be Judged? If there is no responsibility for conduct, then how can one be Judged?
Even the so-called "Lord's Prayer" (a name made up and added to the margin notes of Bibles, but nowhere in the text), ends with "forgive us our debts (exactly) as we forgive our debtors. For if you do not forgive others, your Father in heaven will not forgive you." Is that your Gospel Mark? Do you get forgiveness of all of your sins EXCEPT the sin of non-forgiveness and then burn in hell or spend 10,000 yrs. in purgatory.
The Pater Noster (in English, the Our Father) is not normally referred to as the Lord's Prayer in Catholicism. And it follows the text of Matthew 6 very closely. Not sure where you're going here. And yes, we take it very seriously that if we do not forgive others, then God will not forgive us. By the way, there is no time in Purgatory, and Purgatory and Hell are mutually exclusive.
Do you tell them to tear out their eyes, cut off their hands if they cause them to stumble? Do you tell the priests that diddle little kids that because they caused one of them to stumble, it is now better that a millstone gets tied around their necks and they be cast into the sea?
If they don't repent, well, yes. The Gospel message is heavy with the themes of forgiveness, repentence and the imitation of Christ.
This is not a "repudiation" of the Gospels, it is a recognition of the real message Jesus was getting at...we are broken beyond repair, unless He steps in.
Jesus is there knocking at the door. If you believe that Jesus is exclusive, then you do repudiate the Gospel message of God reaching out to all men. Man cannot reach for God unless God reaches him first. Agreed. What we do not agree on is who is contacted. Calvin says some men only. Jesus and Paul and Peter and James say all men.
Somehow you have concluded this makes us antinomian or renegades. Nothing could be further from the truth. We hunger for righteousness, we want it to be a real part of our lives. But, we understand that we are far away. The only way we stand worthy before God is that we are clothed in the righteousness of His Son.
Jesus enables us to walk the Via of Christ. In that we agree. By adopting the horrific doctrine of limited atonement, you limit what Jesus has done and reduce His Work to less than perfection. By adopting the horrific doctrine of unconditional election, you repudiate all the instructions that Jesus has given us and teach that it does not matter what one does, since nothing can prevent either salvation or damnation under that theology. All of the commandments of Jesus do not matter under this theology. Not your fellow man, nothing. You either get the limo ride or you don't. Period.
By adopting the horrific doctrine of irrestible grace, you once again deny man's free will and deem him not responsible for any of his deeds. Therefore what will he be Judged upon? Many Calvinists have told me - upon Jesus's Crucifixion. Jesus is going to Judge some people upon His own Crucifixion? That is an evil statement.
Somewhere along the line, the RCC begins to break down and become more Calvinistic than they would like to admit. They see that there is a disconnnect between their lives and the requirements that they hold up. Instead of casting themselves wholly upon Christ alone, the way Paul and Peter taught, they manufacture a whole series of sacraments, absolution, the eucharist (I know this is a sacrament) and others which confer grace.
This goes back to the Jesus and the Apostles. The Sacraments come to us from 2000 years ago. And Baptism, Absolution and the Eucharist are explicitly Scriptural.
Grace is no longer grace, unmerited favor, but wages in exchange for doing, thinking, saying something.
Grace is God's aid to us, to enable us to be saved. Hardly wages. Remember the parable of the vineyard:
Matthew 20: 1 1 "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 2 and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.' 5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise. 6 Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' 7 They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.' 8 3 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.' 9 When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. 10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.' 13 He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. 4 Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? 14 5 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? 15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?' 16 6 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last." Man's efforts, whatever those might be, were simply inadequate to rescue his soul. Peter's good intentions notwithstanding, his thinking was from the pit. We submit that Rome is in the same boat.
Since you have demonstrated that there are some discontinuities between your understanding of the Faith and the real Faith, it is possible that your submission is flawed.
They likely mean well, but teaching the man-centered gospel they do makes their words directly from the pit, also.
Our Gospel is centered on Christ.
Matthew 22: 37 He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
This is the core of Christianity. No limited atonement. No limited election. No limited salvation to the high school student council. Only unconditional love. Only with God's Grace shall we even step onto the first rung of that ladder. Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II were two of the finest Christians that I have been privileged to have seen (from afar, of course). They imitated Christ far far better than I could possibly dream of. That is Christianity.
Any new reports on converts here as people swim the Tiber?
Can It Be? (Testimony of a former Jehovah's Witness) Man Who "Died" 5 Times Is Becoming Catholic [Jeremy Feldbusch] (Thousands to Enter Church at Easter)
EWTN - The Journey Home - Monday March 22 - Fr. Donald Calloway
Mystery, Meditation, Media: An Interview with Matt Swaim - (Former Presbyterian)
The Reasons for G.K. Chesterton's Conversion
Fr. John Corapi's Conversion story - March 6 at 10pm on EWTN
Responding to the Pope’s Anglican Invitation (priest relates journey from Pentecostalism) [Father Douglas Grandon ]
In the Breaking of the Bread (conversion story of Tim Drake)
Australia's Traditional Anglicans Vote to Convert to Catholicism
Church of England Bishop Converts to Rome [Bishop Paul Richardson}
From Krishna to Christ: The Conversion Testimony of Father Jay Kythe
Ex-Protestant at home in Byzantine Catholic Church {Father James Barrand]
In Iraq, soldier finds a new faith (Muslim converts to Catholic faith)
Why I Left Anglicanism [Fr. Longenecker]
EWTN - The Journey Home - Oct. 26, 2009 - David Twellman, former United Methodist
Senior Anglican bishop reveals he is ready to convert to Roman Catholicism, Rev John Hind
Book: "You Have Not Chosen Me, But I Have Chosen You..." (23 Surprised Converts)
Newt Gingrich on Catholicism and JPII
Mickey Rourke thanks God and Catholic faith for 'second chance'
Catholic convert and political commentator Robert Novak passes away
Why Newt Gingrich Converted to Catholicism
Reading Into the Church [Deal W. Hudson]
Gnarly: from abuse victim, to prostitute, to surfer, to minister [Mary Setterholm]
Cathedral rector’s priestly journey began with early conversion [ Fr. Bob Clements]
The Great Philosopher Who Became Catholic [Mortimer J. Adler]
The Greater Blessings [David Mills]
EWTN - Journey Home - June 22, 2009 at 8pm - Dr. Jay Budziszewski - former Episcopalian
Cardinal says Catholics humbled by Anglicans' decision to join church
Catholic convert from Oregon coast becomes a priest (former Evangelical)
EWTN - The Journey Home - June 15, 2009 - Marcus interviews a Muslim convert [Talat Strokirk]
(All Saints) Sisters Doing It For Themselves (Anglican House converting en masse)
Journey Home to the Catholic Church: I Have Jumped into the Tiber to Swim Across (UK minister, Fr. Jeffrey Steel )
EWTN - Journey Home - June 8, 2009 at 8pm - Fr. Jay Toborowsky, Jewish convert
EWTN - Monday 8pm - Journey Home - Jerry & Yolanda Cleffi (former Assembly of God)
Exclusive: Newt Gingrich Opens Up on Catholic Conversion and Embracing 'Overt Christianity'
Mom’s Gift From Pope [Heidi Sierras]
The Journey Home - April 27 @ 8pm - Doug Grandon former Episcopal clergyman
EWTN - The Journey Home - April 20 - Msgr. Keith Barltrop, former Baptist
Journey Home - Monday April 6 - Kenneth Howell, Former Presbyterian minister
Newt Gingrich on his conversion to Catholicism
Gingrich Keeps Quiet on Catholic Conversion (received into Church over the past weekend)
Exclusive: Newt Gingrich conversion details; plans release of JP2 documentary
“150,000 new or returning Catholics”
Catholic Church prepares for tens of thousands of U.S. converts
Gingrich to Become Catholic During Easter Season
Faith Journey Leads United Methodist from Pastorate to Catholic Priesthood
From Atheist to Catholic (‘Unshakable’ Rationalist Blogged Her Way Into the Church) [Jennifer Fulwiler]
Former Episcopal bishop discusses his new life as Catholic priest [Father Jeffrey N. Steenson]
The Newt Evangelization: Gingrich to become Catholic
Conservative Episcopal bishop resigned to become Roman Catholic priest (New Mexico) Rev. Jeffrey Steenson
Converted Muslim Tells Story Behind Papal Baptism
EWTN - The Journey Home - December 1 - Dr. Steven C. Smith (former Willow Creek)
Former Socialist senator who converted to Catholicism calls for end to abortion [Mercedes Aroz]
Young New Yorker leaves police force to become priest [Nicholas Fernandez]
Interesting Deathbed Converts
Hollywood screenwriter returns to Cleveland, turns life over to God [Joe Eszterhas]
A Journey in Prayer {Randy Hain} [Ecumenical]
ECUMENIC] Our Conversion Experience (SDA to Catholic) [Brandon and Tara Ogden]
An open letter to Mr. Stephen A. Baldwin, Actor, and “born again” Christian [ Victor R. Claveau, MJ "
Sick person who suffered accident recounts conversion after traveling to Lourdes [Ecumenical] [Antonio Escobedo Garcia]
Welcome Home! Anglo-Catholic Sisters on the Road to Rome [Ecumenical]
Former Anglican Bishop, Catholic Convert, Jeffrey Steenson on Anglocatholicism [Ecumenical]
Jeffrey Steenson: Why I Became Catholic [Address to Anglican Use Conference]
Tony Snow Dead at 53, A Tribute to a Catholic Journalist [Tony Snow - Catholic Convert]
A Sexual Revolution (One woman's journey from pro-choice atheist to pro-life Catholic) [Jennifer Fulwiler]
C of E bishop will defect to Rome
Assyrian bishop explains his journey into communion with the Catholic Church
Virginia Tech tragedy leads bereaved mother on journey back to faith [Marian Hammaren]
Journey Home - EWTN at 8pm - Dr. William Bales, former Presbyterian Minister [Ecumenical]
First the Protestants, Now the Cults: Will We (the Catholic Church) Be Ready? [Open]
Six Million African Muslims Convert to Christianity Each Year [OPEN]
EWTN - The Journey Home - May 19 - Tom Cabeen, former Jehovah's Witness [Ecumenic]
A TRIUMPH AND A TRAGEDY [James Akin]
Alex Jones: the evangelical who became a Catholic deacon
Mary and the Problem of Christian Unity [Kenneth J. Howell, Ph. D.}
How the Saints Helped Lead Me Home [Chris Findley]
Who is Mary of Nazareth? [Kenneth J. Howell, Ph. D.}
A story of conversion at the Lamb of God Shrine
EWTN - Journey Home - 4/7/08 - Rosalind Moss - Former Jew & Evangelical Christian
Our Lady’s Gentle Call to Peace [Joan Tussing]
Coming Out of Sodom (Reversion Experience of Once-Active Homosexual) [Eric Hess]
Our Journey Home [Larry and Joetta Lewis]
Book on Mary turns runaway youngster immersed in drugs and crime into a priest
Dr. Robert C. Koons (former Lutheran) - Journey Home - Monday 3/31 - Conversion Story
The Story of a Convert from Islam – Baptized by the Pope at St. Peter's [Magdi Cristiano Allam]
How Do We Know It’s the True Church? - Twelve Things to Look For [Fr. Dwight Longenecker]
"Have you not read?" The Authority behind Biblical Interpretation [Robert Sungenis]
New Catholics ‘ on fire’ for faith
New faith pulls Hot Springs family together (Baptists join Catholic Church at Easter Vigil) [Danny Morrison and family
SciFi Writer, John C. Wright, Enters Catholic Church at Easter Vigil (conversion story)[John C. Wright]
"What is Truth?" An Examination of Sola Scriptura [Dwight Longenecker’family]
LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM [Fr. Brian Harrison]
Pope baptizes prominent Italian Muslim [Magdi Allam]
My Journey of Faith [Marco Fallon]
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church [Robert Koons]
Thousands in U.S. to Join (Catholic) Church - Many Feel They Have Found a Home
TURN ABOUT (Carl Olson, former Evangelical and Monday's guest on EWTN's Journey Home)
Former Southern Baptist Pastor Now a Traveling Crusader for the Catholic Church [Michael Cumbie]
All Roads Lead To Rome (A Southern Baptist's Journey into the Catholic Church)[John David Young]
Allen Hunt, Methodist Minister ...Journeys Home (Catholic, Re: Real Presence)/a>
The Challenges and Graces of Conversion [Chris Findley]
An Open Letter...from Bishop John Lipscomb [Another TEC Bishop Goes Papist]
Unlocking the Convert's Heart [Marcus Grodi]
His Open Arms Welcomed Me [ Paul Thigpen}
Why I'm Catholic (Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholic Church)
From Calvinist to Catholic (another powerful conversion story) Rodney Beason
Good-bye To All That (Another Episcopalian gets ready to swim the Tiber)
Bp. Steenson's Letter to his clergy on his conversion to the Catholic Church
Bishop Steenson’s Statement to the House [of Bishops: Episcopal (TEC) to Catholic]
Bp. Steenson's Letter to his clergy on his conversion to the Catholic Church
Bishop Steenson Will Become a Roman Catholic
Married man considers turn as Catholic priest
Pavarotti returns to the Catholic faith before dying
Searching For Authority (A Methodist minister finds himself surprised by Truth!)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part VI: The Biblical Reality (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part V: The Catholics and the Pope(Al Kresta)
The Hail Mary of a Protestant (A true story)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part IV: Crucifix and Altar(Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part III: Tradition and Church (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part II: Doubts (Al Kresta)
Conversion Story - Rusty Tisdale (former Pentecostal)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part I: Darkness(Al Kresta)
Conversion Story - Matt Enloe (former Baptist) [prepare to be amazed!]
THE ORTHODOX REVIVAL IN RUSSIA
Conversion Story - David Finkelstein (former Jew)
Conversion Story - John Weidner (former Evangelical)
12 Reasons I Joined the Catholic Church
Conversion Story - Tom Hunt
The Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism: The Converts
John Calvin Made Me Catholic
Journey Home - May 21 - Neil Babcox (former Presbyterian) - A minister encounters Mary
Going Catholic - Six journeys to Rome
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church
A Convert's Pilgrimage [Christopher Cuddy]
From Pastor to Parishioner: My Love for Christ Led Me Home (to the Catholic Church) [Drake McCalister]
Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church
Patty Bonds (former Baptist and sister of Dr. James White) to appear on The Journey Home - May 7
Pastor and Flock Become Catholics
Why Converts Choose Catholicism
From Calvinist to Catholic
The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church
Famous Homosexual Italian Author Returned to the Church Before Dying of AIDS
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
laetare (commentary on ordination of married Anglican convert to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles) Father Bill Lowe
Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge
Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome
Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi
He Was an Evangelical Christian Until He Read Aquinas [Rob Evans]
The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
FORMER PENTECOSTAL RELATES MIRACLE THAT OCCURRED WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD
Interview with Roy Schoeman - A Jewish Convert
Church Is Still Attracting Converts [Jim Anderson]
"Since you have demonstrated that there are some discontinuities between your understanding of the Faith and the real Faith, it is possible that your submission is flawed."
There is no question that a difference exists between my understanding of the message of the Bible and yours (or your organization's, since you are compelled to adhere to the party line). But, your remarks do not demonstrate that it is my understanding which is flawed. You quote a passage and then essentially say, QED you are wrong.
Let me say, the challenge we face is to harmonize the entire Bible. This is what a good hermeneutic does. It must deal with the fact that the message of the Bible is changing as it unfolds. OTOH, your hermeutic tacitly claims that those passages which are addressed to the Jews directly (the Torah, w'Nebiim, w'Kethubim and the Gospel accounts up to the crucifixion) are easily picked and chosen because the "early church" did so. This may be true, but does this do justice to the text?
I propose to you to consider how many Jews had the right use of the Mosaic Law? Not how many did it faithfully, but how many recognized as Paul did that it was a tutor to lead them to the mercy of God? He did not until he was knocked from his horse and blinded. How many recognized with Peter that they did not, could not, do the Law? Even Peter did not until confronted by Paul in Galatia (Gal. 1 - 3) Very few, I submit. That leads me to think that irrespective of what view those you claim were the "early Church" held(really just those whom you have been taught believed in a papist worldview), many were utterly, totally screwed up (read Acts 15). Much of the so-called "early Church" taught heresy (simon the sorcerer, the Judaizers, Peter in Galatia, the troublers of Phillipi, Pelagius, etc.). Their opinions are incidental to the argument of the text itself.
The power of the Pauline epistles lie in his speaking directly to us Gentiles (the word simply means "all other nations") now grafted into the Messiah, "at the cross" when the blood was shed. This is the plain teaching of Eph. 2. Here and in the letter to the Romans, Paul explains how the entire message of the Bible has been faith alone is the vehicle God used to rescue His people, beginning with Abraham (but likely included Adam and Noah). And faith is an undeserved gift, not a transaction of exchange.
Paul step by step explains the demands of the Law (and law of conscience for Gentiles) has been to force men (called of God) to see their failure. This is the tutorial work of Law/law, it is not to direct behavior. Good behavior is the natural outcome of the indwelling Spirit and couples with the continual failure of our flesh. We don't perform any ceremonies/sacraments to overcome this situation.
But, you deny this tutorial role of Law/law. Your hybridization of works/grace results from wrongly (but sincerely) attempting to harmonize the demands of Jesus' teachings about salvation by works for Jews (pushing the mirror into their faces), while ignoring the fact that we Gentiles were not on stage until the enmity of the Law was torn down at the cross. Read in order, the world changes and the text makes perfect sense.
But, here is a monster point. Your organization needs the obligatory load of the Law to be left active and blended into grace. It gives them the power, guilt, control needed over people. If they are right, then they are doing the right thing to inflict religion upon people. But, if we are right...then your organization is heretical and blasphemously teaching a salvation not contemplated by the Scriptures in total. We argue that understanding the Book is a therefore a precursor to recognizing any group's authority. If they are in harmony with the story line, they may speak. If not, they are meaningless. Rome has it reversed. They possess the power to tell what this story should mean (rather than what it means to the ordinary reader). That gives them authority over the story.
We who place the text before their authority conclude that a proper hermeneutic carefully follows the development of the story line, watching for our entrance onto the stage of the world. Thus, you quoting a passage, any passage, of Jesus teaching Law to Jews is an improper use of the Bible. You are simply reading another's mail, just as if I read Isaiah and claimed it is my country to which he refers. To prove you/I as a Gentile must "do" what He is referring to (do you take sacrfices to temples? do you observe the Sabbath? etc.), we contend you must first determine if your hermeneutic is proper...and according to Paul's clear explanation of the entire story, you cannot. You may call this a "kalidescope of Paul", but that is an epithet to detract from his substantive argument. Paul claims to be the Apostle to you and I and decodes the integration between the Jews being a picture of man's inability to produce personal righteousness and God drawing some into repentence. You dismiss it as a misuse of Paul. But, that is only true if your organization has the right to misuse the normal sense of his argument and treat the Scriptures as an encyclopedia of spiritual thoughts.
Paul makes it clear that repentence is not of failure to perform goodness (it is that, but a whole lot more). It is repentence from the sin of relying upon ourselves to generate the kind of righteousness that dwelt only in the Son of God. That we would think we possess the equipment on board to duplicate what is needed to stand before a holy God is sin of the highest degree. The Catholic Church implies (if not directly teaches) that men are called to do just that. Jesus is sort of the "make up" feature for however far short I fall. But, the heavy lifting is mine.
The reformed perspective says that this is, according to Paul, so monumentally far off the message as to miss it entirely. We are short of personal capacity as to make Catholicism qualitatively impossible, not quantitatively in need of effort. You and I must address who's view of Paul's contentions guides the proper hermeneutic. Is the Bible just an encyclopedia of spiritual facts, equally applicable (or selectively applicable) or does it unfold a story which comes along and includes all of mankind at certain points in the story.
I can’t believe Mark is still arguing with your truth and logic. He really has his feet cemented into that concrete block. He only has Roman, man made text, to argue scriptural truths and will not take off the blindfold. Oh well, he is not alone there, sadly to say. That must be where the word “sheeple” came from.
Certainly. Let us proceed.
There is no question that a difference exists between my understanding of the message of the Bible and yours (or your organization's, since you are compelled to adhere to the party line).
Oh dear, and we were starting off so nicely. The lesson of the Ethiopian eunuch much be learned, if not now, then at our Judgement. Jesus did not leave us any written words, nor did He cause any words to be written that we know of. All the NT was either bishops writing to their flock, or the remembrance many years later of Matthew and John (who apparently knew and walked with Christ) and Mark and Luke (who apparently knew and walked with Peter (Mark) and Peter and Paul (Luke)). We have the oral tradition that was in full force long before anything that we have today was written down. Jesus created His Church, not a book. The Church created that book.
"Since you have demonstrated that there are some discontinuities between your understanding of the Faith and the real Faith, it is possible that your submission is flawed."
There is no question that a difference exists between my understanding of the message of the Bible and yours (or your organization's, since you are compelled to adhere to the party line). But, your remarks do not demonstrate that it is my understanding which is flawed. You quote a passage and then essentially say, QED you are wrong.
Let me rephrase. I attempted to say that your understanding of the Catholic Faith is demonstrably what the Catholic Faith really is. In this post (and certainly in future posts), I shall attempt to demonstrate.
Let me say, the challenge we face is to harmonize the entire Bible. This is what a good hermeneutic does.
Correct. But remember that we place higher emphasis on the words of Jesus than we do an OT clerk.
OTOH, your hermeutic tacitly claims that those passages which are addressed to the Jews directly (the Torah, w'Nebiim, w'Kethubim and the Gospel accounts up to the crucifixion) are easily picked and chosen because the "early church" did so. This may be true, but does this do justice to the text?
The text of Scripture is given the emphasis and importance that the early Church did. For instance, the words of Jesus (our Lord and Saviour) matter infinitely more than anything from the pen of the worthy, but human Chronicler.
I propose to you to consider how many Jews had the right use of the Mosaic Law? Not how many did it faithfully, but how many recognized as Paul did that it was a tutor to lead them to the mercy of God?
Don't know. The Mosaic Law was not simply tutoring the Jews for God's mercy, it was a way of life that they would be judged on.
He did not until he was knocked from his horse and blinded.
Paul was apparently given a revelation from God. It appears different from the Revelation of John, or the Revelation of Peter and the dozen or so other Revelations that were circulating.
That leads me to think that irrespective of what view those you claim were the "early Church" held(really just those whom you have been taught believed in a papist worldview), many were utterly, totally screwed up (read Acts 15).
papist? Come on now. I use the term Reformed and Calvinist and capitalize them, as you well know. I am not speaking of screwed up individuals in the Church or those who were screwed up making certain statements. That is the magisterium that is constant, not individuals. Augustine made extra-magisterial statements that he later retracted, for instance. Origen and Tertullian made statements that the Magisterium rejected.
Much of the so-called "early Church" taught heresy (simon the sorcerer, the Judaizers, Peter in Galatia, the troublers of Phillipi, Pelagius, etc.). Their opinions are incidental to the argument of the text itself.
Simon Magus was never part of the Church; the Judaizers were otherwise Christian who were eventually rousted out of the Church. Peter was wrong on occasion and was corrected by the other bishops. That is the strength of the Church and where the various other claimants to the title of Christianity do not have that strength. Example - the Anglicans, the ELCA, the Methodists and 90% of the Presbyterians and other former Reformed in the United States.
The power of the Pauline epistles lie in his speaking directly to us Gentiles (the word simply means "all other nations") now grafted into the Messiah, "at the cross" when the blood was shed.
Follow the timeline. Peter converted the first Gentile; Paul spent most of his first years in the Jewish communities. Paul was a bishop speaking to his flock. Not our Lord and Saviour. We must look at his words through the prism of Jesus, not the opposite. Else we risk turning into those who follow a man (Paul) versus God.
Here and in the letter to the Romans, Paul explains how the entire message of the Bible has been faith alone is the vehicle God used to rescue His people, beginning with Abraham (but likely included Adam and Noah). And faith is an undeserved gift, not a transaction of exchange.
Faith is an attribute of the individual, nothing else. Adam rejected God in the Garden. Noah and Abraham did not. But the nation of Israel rejected God at almost every turn and every event in their long history. Yet God persisted even in their unbelief. Remember that God showed Himself in many ways to the Jews over the centuries and hardly faith alone.
Paul step by step explains the demands of the Law (and law of conscience for Gentiles) has been to force men (called of God) to see their failure.
Now we seriously part ways. Paul does no such thing. Paul emphasises behaviour of the Christians in his flock. The Corinthians are seriously screwed up and he chastises them.
This is the tutorial work of Law/law, it is not to direct behavior.
The Sermons on the Mount and Plain are definitely to direct behaviour. The Two Commandments are exact Commandments. Matthew 25 speaks to Judgement upon the fruits of the individual. Notice the order - the fruits are done, and then the Judgement occurs. The Reformed position reverses the order.
But, here is a monster point. Your organization needs the obligatory load of the Law to be left active and blended into grace. It gives them the power, guilt, control needed over people. If they are right, then they are doing the right thing to inflict religion upon people. But, if we are right...then your organization is heretical and blasphemously teaching a salvation not contemplated by the Scriptures in total.
If there is any doubt, one must go back to the words of Jesus. Peter is made Steward by Jesus. He instructs Peter to feed his sheep. The Apostles then experience Pentecost and head out to evangelize the world. Their actions. They are doing and not being done to. Jesus created His Church and taught and taught and taught. Not wrote and wrote and wrote. If the Reformed were correct about the indwelling Holy Spirit, then there would be no need for Scripture, or anything else for that matter. The indwelling Holy Spirit would simply take over and give the Reformed elect individual all that he would need. But that does not happen, simply because each man is responsible for his own conduct and responsible for accepting or rejection the talents and Grace of God.
Rome has it reversed. They possess the power to tell what this story should mean (rather than what it means to the ordinary reader). That gives them authority over the story.
It is not Rome. It is the Catholic Church. We wrote Scripture, we chose it (and the particular version of it), and we translated it first into Latin and then brought it to the world. The Venerable Bede was the first to translate any of it into English, for what it's worth, in the 800s.
We who place the text before their authority conclude that a proper hermeneutic carefully follows the development of the story line, watching for our entrance onto the stage of the world. Thus, you quoting a passage, any passage, of Jesus teaching Law to Jews is an improper use of the Bible. You are simply reading another's mail, just as if I read Isaiah and claimed it is my country to which he refers.
But when you read Paul, it is a bishop writing to his flock, and not the words of Jesus Christ, our Saviour.
Paul claims to be the Apostle to you and I and decodes the integration between the Jews being a picture of man's inability to produce personal righteousness and God drawing some into repentence. You dismiss it as a misuse of Paul. But, that is only true if your organization has the right to misuse the normal sense of his argument and treat the Scriptures as an encyclopedia of spiritual thoughts.
We treat Paul correctly - as a bishop. A number of the Apostles went to the Gentiles. Thomas, for instance, went to India.
Paul makes it clear that repentence is not of failure to perform goodness (it is that, but a whole lot more). It is repentence from the sin of relying upon ourselves to generate the kind of righteousness that dwelt only in the Son of God.
It is not either. Repentence is the understanding that one has failed, the admission of it, and the resolution to stop doing that particular sin.
That we would think we possess the equipment on board to duplicate what is needed to stand before a holy God is sin of the highest degree. The Catholic Church implies (if not directly teaches) that men are called to do just that.
Negative. Wherever did you get this idea?
Jesus is sort of the "make up" feature for however far short I fall. But, the heavy lifting is mine.
Negative again. This is not Catholic teaching and never has been. The poster "Footsteps" kinda illustrates a little more of the Catholic perspective. Not exactly, but a lot closer than what you posted here.
The reformed perspective says that this is, according to Paul, so monumentally far off the message as to miss it entirely. We are short of personal capacity as to make Catholicism qualitatively impossible, not quantitatively in need of effort. You and I must address who's view of Paul's contentions guides the proper hermeneutic.
Yes, but remember that we revere Paul, along with Peter as the greatest of the apostles. How can we do that if, as you claim, he is that far off in his meaning? Answer: he isn't. The NT is harmonized and both James and Paul are Scripture.
Is the Bible just an encyclopedia of spiritual facts, equally applicable (or selectively applicable) or does it unfold a story which comes along and includes all of mankind at certain points in the story.
Scripture is the word of God. It is events, stories, teachings and things that the Church was inspired to include for us for all time. It is not the only documentation available to us from the Church - the Catechism (the descendent of the Didache) tells us what the doctrines of the Church are, and explains Scripture. Remember too, that the Didache was written in the first century and actually was considered Scripture by many until the Church decided that it wasn't.
We Christians reject the 'truth and logic' of those who simply pile on and say 'me too'. Do you have any truth and logic to contribute yourself?
He only has Roman, man made text, to argue scriptural truths and will not take off the blindfold.
If you wish, I can introduce you to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You seem unaware of it.
Oh well, he is not alone there, sadly to say.
There are many of us who have rejected the lord of this world. I don't care if you're sad that I do not follow your master.
That must be where the word “sheeple” came from.
Luke 16: 19 12 "There was a rich man 13 who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. 20 And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. 22 When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and from the netherworld, 14 where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.' 25 Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. 26 Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.' 27 He said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.' 30 15 He said, 'Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 31 Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"
Both Peter and Paul raised men from the dead. Why would you resist being freed from your unChristian fetters?
So much to discuss, so little time.
First, the Church did not "create" anything. The OT existed since the time of Moses (circa 1400BC), the writer of the Penteteuch. The additional books came along througout the next millenium, until the period of silence (400BC). No prophet arose following Malachi, until John the Baptist irrespective of the "Adventures of the Macabee Family" and other interesting, but non-canonical, books. No Catholic ever touched the Old Testament and contributed absolutely nothing to its identification or recognition as Scripture. The Jews were the first and only guardians of the Scripture until the first of the epistles began to be written.
Call me sensitive, but there is a distinct tone of superiority from the Catholics that seems to "own" the Old Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rome owes what little it understands to the underpinnings of the Jewish text.
More later. But, re read your post. It drips with Rome's self-importance. I would expect a more even handed treatment from you.
The NT chronicles its own creation.
The OT existed since the time of Moses (circa 1400BC), the writer of the Penteteuch. The additional books came along througout the next millenium, until the period of silence (400BC). No prophet arose following Malachi, until John the Baptist irrespective of the "Adventures of the Macabee Family" and other interesting, but non-canonical, books. No Catholic ever touched the Old Testament and contributed absolutely nothing to its identification or recognition as Scripture. The Jews were the first and only guardians of the Scripture until the first of the epistles began to be written.
I beg your pardon. I meant the NT only. Christians used the Septuagint exclusively, regardless of the anti Christian Council of Jamnia.
Call me sensitive, but there is a distinct tone of superiority from the Catholics that seems to "own" the Old Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rome owes what little it understands to the underpinnings of the Jewish text.
We actually owe everything to God. The OT is to be read through the prism of the NT and the rest of the NT is to be read through the prism of the Gospels. We were given the word of God from the Word of God (Jesus). We will not accept its dilution by men, however holy.
More later. But, re read your post. It drips with Rome's self-importance. I would expect a more even handed treatment from you.
If you read my clarification of the OT and its place in Scripture, does that make a difference?
The Lord: All I asked was that you received me in your heart and know that I died for your sins. All other human good is like filthy rags to me.
You, on the other hand insult me, a born again Christian who loves the Lord by insinuating that I am heathen, unlearned about the Bible and lost for eternity.
You should let the Holy Spirit work through you and pray before you speak. You not only grieve the Spirit but many others out here. And that my friend is a sin. Now go say your Hail Marys and confess.
Since you have given no indication that you prefer the blather of Jesus, I must ask you whose blather you prefer? Calvin's? Luther's? Zwingli's? Joseph Smith's? Mary Baker Eddy's? Joe the janitor's? We Catholics much prefer the blather of Jesus. It is after all, the basis of Christianity. Oh I forgot: do you claim to be Christian? If so, on what basis?
Paraphrasing some scripture
I prefer the real thing.
Matthew 7: 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' 23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.' 24 12 "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. 26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
How is your spiritual flood insurance? Got Jesus?
Matthew 25: 1 1 "Then 2 the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 3 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones, when taking their lamps, brought no oil with them, 4 but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 Since the bridegroom was long delayed, they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 At midnight, there was a cry, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' 7 Then all those virgins got up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' 9 But the wise ones replied, 'No, for there may not be enough for us and you. Go instead to the merchants and buy some for yourselves.' 10 While they went off to buy it, the bridegroom came and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked. 11 4 Afterwards the other virgins came and said, 'Lord, Lord, open the door for us!' 12 But he said in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.' 13 Therefore, stay awake, 5 for you know neither the day nor the hour.
Since you seem to prefer a Sleep Number bed, we Catholics will fetch our own oil.
Matthew 25: 14 6 "It will be as when a man who was going on a journey 7 called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; 8 to another, two; to a third, one--to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately 16 the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. 17 Likewise, the one who received two made another two. 18 9 But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money. 19 After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. 10 He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 22 (Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; 25 so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.' 26 His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! 11 So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? 28 Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten. 29 12 For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 13 And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'
I trust that you have been keeping your dental appointments.
Matthew 25: 31 14 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, 32 and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' 37 Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' 40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41 17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' 44 18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' 45 He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' 46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Perhaps if you smuggled a telephone book in, the floggings might be less painful. That drop of water on the tongue might be pretty significant as well. Baaaaaa.
Pray tell.
I think that you have accepted the Lord and are more than likely saved but are carrying a bunch of useless baggage on your back (Catholicisms man made rules) for nothing.
More than likely saved? You think? For nothing? I follow the words of Jesus as outlined in Scripture.
Mark 8: 34 He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said 8 to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. 35 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel 9 will save it. 36 What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? 37 What could one give in exchange for his life? 38 Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
I proclaim the words of Jesus from the rooftops. I am not ashamed of them. I do not recognize any individual man's right or authority to interpret them for me. Not Calvin and not Luther and not Zwingli and not any of their illegitimate offspring.
I'm sure you are a good person and really care about others (who believe the same way you do)
Nice slam. Kiss your mother with that mouth?
You, on the other hand insult me
I do not think it possible to insult you.
a born again Christian
If my mother had wheels, she'd be a wagon, too.
who loves the Lord by insinuating that I am heathen, unlearned about the Bible and lost for eternity.
I don't know what you love, I don't know if you are lost for eternity, but your demonstrated Biblical knowledge is fairly sparse.
You should let the Holy Spirit work through you and pray before you speak.
How do you know that He isn't and that I am the instrument of your instruction? Read Scripture, my friend and quit lecturing without either knowledge or context.
You not only grieve the Spirit but many others out here.
Speaking for God, now? Does your hubris have any boundaries?
And that my friend is a sin.
I cannot believe that you are so unrecognized as a prophet of the Lord. Perhaps I need to turn to:
Mark 1: 14 After John had been arrested, 8 Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God: 15 "This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." 16 9 As he passed by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea; they were fishermen. 17 Jesus said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." 18 Then they abandoned their nets and followed him. 19 He walked along a little farther and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They too were in a boat mending their nets. 20 Then he called them. So they left their father Zebedee in the boat along with the hired men and followed him. 21 10 Then they came to Capernaum, and on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.
Jesus has the authority, not any ragtag remains of the ruins of the Reformation or the rubble of the Restoration. Go back to the source: Jesus.
Now go say your Hail Marys and confess.
I do not take or eschew action at your bidding. Take your own advice instead.
I think that you have accepted the Lord and are more than likely saved but are carrying a bunch of useless baggage on your back (Catholicisms man made rules) for nothing. ....Now go say your Hail Marys and confess.Confession being one of the Sacraments GOD gave us. Hmmmm......
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.