Posted on 03/09/2011 1:30:07 PM PST by NYer
Statistics don't bear that out. Four to one conversion rate. Four RCs become Protestant for every Protestant who becomes RC.
And considering that there are already twice as many Protestants in this country as Roman Catholics, those are pretty impressive numbers.
So we are comparing a nonbeliever who doesn’t know any better with a bunch of folks who, according to you, heard a passage today that warns them not to gloat?
I feel sorry for the nonbeliever. I am even more amused with my co-workers.
TWENTY times?!? (No, they don’t have twenty times the membership; maybe 5 times if that.) Twenty times, and we’re all about the money?
The sacrament of confession, BTW, does not involve a fee.
____________________________________________
What that says to me is that the Papists are tight with their money and the PCA gives joyfully, out of gratitude with what has been done for them by Christ.
PCA money supports missions, charities, etc. The PCA has more missionaries per capita than the very mission oriented Southern Baptist Convention.
I guess what I am trying to say a church much smaller that the Catholic church you are referring to is pumping much more money into God’s work. But then again, the Catholic Church does have much larger lawyer bills.
Bloke.
Thought I was the only person to use the word.
Talked to the wife last night about this and she said she’ll talk more on this issue when she gets back later
Oh, a couple of more distinctives. In the PCA individual churches own their building. They finance it themseleves. They pay the power, the mortgage. The individual church pays the teaching elder. Very little money is sent up to the denominational Headquarters and none of it maintains a palace or art collections.
Ever noticed how the Evangelical churches seek 'converts' among christians? The ignore the very scripture they proclaim:
Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation, but as it is written: "Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand."
Romans 15:20-21
And Antoninus is right -- don't count on keeping all of them. Francis Beckwith, Jesse Romero, Jeff Cavins -- and those are only the reverts I know of because they've written books and do apologetics.My 2 cousins, myself and my brother left the Roman church for Christ. The 4 of us beats your 3 list.
Clearly not Rome. The Jews were the custodians of what we call the Old Testament beginning some 1400 years before Jesus was crucified. In these 39 books, most of the foretelling, foundational doctrine was delivered such that we would even recognize Jesus as the One promised. This is why Paul notes the honored place Israel holds.
Paul's work is self-identifying and the balance was commonly used by the end of the first century. Let's see...this puts the entire book available to churches 200-300 years before the words Roman Catholic were even used. Hmm.
If Rome had truly put together the Bible, there would be no Roman Catholic Church.
They just don't mesh, hence the need for traditions and doctrines of men, and magisterium, blah, blah.
They just don't mesh, hence the need for traditions and doctrines of men, and magisterium, blah, blah."
Now that is a classic statement. How true and appropriate! Thank you for posting it. The two are in such opposition, it is obvious if a person read the one, they would never attend the other.
Very good point.
If I am not mistaken (I might be), the PCA is a wrongheaded organization nearly as darkened as Rome. But, it was "headquarters" to which I referred. If you need us to post some of the gold-dripping chandeliers, paintings, clothing, jewelry, furnishings of the Vatican, we'll be glad to oblige. Then the problem might be clearer.
What I am arguing is that there is no such thing as Apostolic succession. Rome manufactured this out of whole cloth. How do we know? Read the Book. It is not there, nor is the priesthood (other than the priesthood of all believers), the sacraments, the adoration of Mary, confession to other men, penance, pergatory or most of the other superstitious rites performed in a misguided attempt to secure the forgiveness which comes from simple faith in Christ, alone.
Thanks Quix for Dr Veith’s video. It did a nice job with many puzzle pieces.
Sure.
He certainly knows his topic and has abundant sources in their own words.
The problem is that they did.
They put the entire bible together back in 380. This is historical fact.
They just don’t mesh with protestant understanding because Luther tossed out books that HE didn’t like. So when you ask whether Catholics follow the bible, that’s really the wrong question to ask.
The question is why do sola scripturists use Luther’s Canon?
“The Jews were the custodians of what we call the Old Testament”
Answer the question. Did the Jews put the bible together? Yes or no?
Yes, of course it was Jews. Some before Jesus, some after Jesus. Are you under the misconception that Rome wrote it?
“Are you under the misconception that Rome wrote it?”
That was not the question I asked.
I asked specifically who put the bible together. You don’t seem to be understanding exactly what I am asking so I will spell it out.
The bible is a collection of books with many different authors, written at many different times throughout history.
As it is now, OT and NT together, who put all these books in one volume and published it? What was the name of this volume?
You say you are a sola scripturist. That you believe in the bible alone, so these should be simple questions.
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.