- Well, what heretical group do you belong to, Alex?
From another concurrent FR thread, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2712603/posts ;
- Restore the Holy Inquisition!
I'll take Foxe's book of Martyrs for $200, Alex...
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/04/2011 9:36:24 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 04/28/2011 8:24:27 AM PDT by Cronos
The problem I had was that what I had been told about Catholicism was simply not true; it was distorted teaching from Protestants who did not bother to discover the truth. ....
Over the last several years, I have known deep down that the Catholic Church must be more than I thought it was. I fought myself and denied all the signs I was seeing. I was afraid; even though I knew deep down there can only be one truth, I would always find something to dismiss Catholicism
At this time I had been a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for almost 10 years.. I had also been in a constant journey for God’s truth, studying his word as well as church history. The problem I began to see, however, was that my church had no authority for how it interpreted Scriptures. We claimed to be sola scriptura, and yet to hold office in the church you had to subscribe also to the full truth of the Westminster Confession of Faith
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
You can't be blamed for trying to put as much distance as possible between yourself and this heretical group.
Well, what heretical group do you belong to, Alex?
From another concurrent FR thread, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2712603/posts ;
I'll take Foxe's book of Martyrs for $200, Alex...
I don't know how you can take it. I can't take it at all, with its lies and rabid antiChristian prose. Our separated friends must take it intravenously, or at least holding their nose with massive quantities of sugar.
So when one aims to make inquiry, consult with the Lord, too. Don't leave Him behind. We seriously do not want a replay of those times.
The letter of the law kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Yet, Alex's group can't answer this without revealing that the group is not Christian.
- Does your group believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
- Does your group believe in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, The Only Son of God, Eternally Begotten of the Father, begotten, not made, ONE in being with the Father, through whom all things was made
- Does your group believe that Jesus Christ, God the Son became incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, was born of a virgin through the Holy Spirit. That God truly became human in Jesus Christ.
- Does your group believe as we Christians do, that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God or does your group believe that He was a spirit or ghost
- Does your group believe that Jesus Christ, God the Son was crucified, DIED and was buried or does your group believe that Jesus was not crucified or died, but was spirited away?
- Does your group believe that for our sake Jesus Christ our Lord, God and Savior rose again in fulfilment of the scriptures?
- Does your group believe that Jesus Christ, God the Son was crucified, DIED and was buried. And on the third day He rose again, ascended into heaven?
- Does your group believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life? Who is Lord and God and worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son?
The problem is that we have a number of leftist, anti-Christians here like Hank Kercheif (who got kicked out for being a commie, and finally admitting it), and for a long time we Christians (lutheran, catholics, orthodox, presybterian, baptist, anglican, pentecostal etc. etc) didn't realise hank and other's game of dividing Christians and fomenting intra-Christian fights.
Now we know better.
Just who is "my group", Cronos? Why don't you answer for me, using my own posts as your evidence, exactly how you think I would answer each of those questions?
If we're looking to identify those whom come misrepresenting themselves, being unbelievers themselves, and seeking to test, and sow doubt --- someone else comes to mind, other than our [hehheh] esteemed FR correspondent AM -- and/or those whom I think many may think of as being in "his group", whatever that is.
Ok, you were talking about divisiveness, not "sowing doubt", so I admittedly have changed the, ah, inquiry a little bit.
What AM says and does, is plainly enough out in the open. There is no real subterfuge, though the points of some complexity are apparently quite often lost on many. It's like there is a long running conversation, and his comments are often made in light of that.
As to one possibly flying a false flag, this other I'm thinking of, claims to be other than;
Roman Catholic
Lutheran
Episcopalian
Presbyterian (including OPC or any other variant)
Not in any way "Protestant",
not Baptist
Methodist
'Evangelical' of any sort, including
Pentecostal.
Not JW, or Mormon, either.
I was fooled for quite some time, then a couple of months ago had one of those "aha!" moments when reading what the poster had written. Just the other day, this subtle sophist doubt sower was appearing to be talking up a couple of the anti-theists side of things...
Now as to that FR contributor, I wonder if he's not in some way struggling with his own faith. I have my own struggles, but not simply believing that the Lord is quite whom "the book" says He is, isn't one of them, for I know that the Lord is quite real, and is able to make his Presence known, for He has in ways both large and small proven Himself to my own self, many times over. I'm fortunate in that, and quite grateful. I'd have long been a goner, if not for it.
You guys know who I'm talking about, don't you? If we want to play the "who is a heretic wolf-in-sheep's-clothing" game, while also seeking to create alliances (by defining who is who) then I invite you two gents to freepmail your best guess as to who this other person is. Then, we privately share notes.
...if we all three land on the same dime---we don't ever need to tell of it. It can be our little secret. Which also means, I cannot entertain guesses from others, nor should either of you. It would be a risky enough 'game', with just we three.
What do you two gents say to that?
....What AM says and does, is plainly enough out in the open. There is no real subterfuge, though the points of some complexity are apparently quite often lost on many. It's like there is a long running conversation, and his comments are often made in light of that.
Thank you for the kind words, BlueDragon. There's certainly been no reluctance on my part re discussing creeds, and nothing in my 10+ years of posting history that should shock anyone (except those muckrakers who insist that every one of my posts is "seething with anti-Catholic bigotry". My beliefs have always been out there, for anyone who really wanted to find them:
If there's one thing that Reformed Protestants are known for, it's their belief in creeds and confessions. And in general, Protestants believe that each person has a responsibility to "make a good confession" and speak their faith publicly, no matter how difficult the circumstances or bad the anticipated response (e.g. Luther's "Here I stand, I can do no other", etc.).
-- Alex Murphy, December 19, 2010The "2nd Confession" is the 1689 version of the Baptist Confession, right? There's a great deal of commonality with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is what I hold to myself. Glad to "shake hands" with a fellow Trinitarian believer!
-- Alex Murphy, July 4, 2010....the various creeds and confessions of the historic church have been a useful means of codifying and focusing key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy for Protestants....
....I would never suggest that a creed is a substitute for Scripture itself, nor would I suffer accusations that creeds are fabrications of doctrine. I would say that creeds are excellent summaries of where Scripture speaks to certain subjects, and exist as historic documents as to who took what side in ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes. IMO creeds were wisely formed to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) when testing or investigating the confessions of a professing believer, and continue to be smart tools for the churches' use today....
....By their very nature, creeds define what two or more groups' shared beliefs are, and they provide a useful way for both insiders and outsiders to test themselves on whether they really are doctrinally and congregationally unified.
-- Alex Murphy, May 2, 2009I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you have ever read any of my posts.
-- Alex Murphy to Cronos, August 12, 2010
public swearing to of creeds -- and yet this is not p.s.o.c. (I'm aware that my Baptist brothers in Christ have a reluctance to that, yet they hold to the same tenets of Christian faith), these are just basic doctrines of faith.
I'd be quite shocked if AM doesn't actually agree -- well, I wouldn't. One could have asked any of those banned from this site like OrthodoxPresbyterian or rjr_fan or hankkercheif (banned for espousing communist leanings)
RM -— here is Alex Murphy “carrying arguments from one thread to another” as you pointed out this should be “argued on the original thread”.
You can't answer that yourself?
Why don't you answer for me
uh, that is against the rules of the forum, reading minds and that sort.
Though, of course, your post does deviate from the questions:
It's quite simple to answer these -- all us Christians say YES to all of these points, they are the basics of the Christian faith.
- Does your group believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
- Does your group believe in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, The Only Son of God, Eternally Begotten of the Father, begotten, not made, ONE in being with the Father, through whom all things was made
- Does your group believe that Jesus Christ, God the Son became incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, was born of a virgin through the Holy Spirit. That God truly became human in Jesus Christ.
- Does your group believe as we Christians do, that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God or does your group believe that He was a spirit or ghost
- Does your group believe that Jesus Christ, God the Son was crucified, DIED and was buried or does your group believe that Jesus was not crucified or died, but was spirited away?
- Does your group believe that for our sake Jesus Christ our Lord, God and Savior rose again in fulfilment of the scriptures?
- Does your group believe that Jesus Christ, God the Son was crucified, DIED and was buried. And on the third day He rose again, ascended into heaven?
- Does your group believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life? Who is Lord and God and worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son?
not really — the RM was good enough to point out that one should not carry over arguments from one thread to another — as Alex’s post 108 does (to which I pointed out in post 110 to which you replied ;-P)
There is no point in discussing Calculus with a person if they don't agree that 2+2=4.
Similarly, if the poster does not believe that Jesus Christ is God, 100% God and 100% man, part of the One God, Father-Son-Holy Spirit, who became incarnate, died, was buried and rose from the dead, then how can we discuss detailed Christian dogma with such a person?
We can debate with him on why he does not believe Christ is God, but talking about the divine mystery will be useless without this basic agreement.
you and I can discuss these and other Christian matters because we agree on these basic tenets of Christian faith.
If the poster I asked does not believe these basic tenets, there is no point in him discussing details of faith, right? As much sense as a person who does not "believe" 2+2=4 trying to argue that Calculus is wrong.
There is no point in discussing Christian dogma with a Marxist -- we went through an entire rigamarole last year or in 2009 with a poster who kept trying to foment intra-Christian discord and was finally shown as a leftist. Similarly there are other leftists out here -- you can check their obsessive posting histories. You can also see that they do not tell you what they themselves believe -- quite surprising, right?
Remember that Catholics were barely 1.6% of the population during the Revolutionary war, yet they were quite adequately represented
John Caroll had initially been a priest before devoting himself to the Revolution
Fr. Pierre Gibault pledged the support of the region of S-W Indiana to the USA (to Col. George Rogers Clark)
You may have heard of the accomplishments of John Barry, a native Irishman who captained a number of ships during the war. Barry was the first to capture a British war vessel on the high seas; he also was wounded in a sea batter yet captured two British ships and fought the last battle on the seas of the Revolutionary war. He was George Washington's choice for commander of the US navy -- he was issued Commission Number 1 by Washintong and was not only the first American commissioned naval officer but also it's first flag officer
John Caroll says this about Catholic participation in the Revolutionary war (remember the country was only 1.6% Catholic):"Their blood flowed as freely, in proportion to their numbers, to cement the fabric of independence as that of their fellow citizens. They concurred with perhaps greater unanimity than any other body of men in recommending and promoting from whose influence America anticipates all the blessings of justice, peace, plenty, good orders, and civil and religious liberty"
However, I've just been reading a history of Poland by an English author -- very well written and a lot of the various things that we think about religion in the US and Europe need to be taken in context of the populations of those times
For instance, the population of Europe in the 1400s right up until the french Revolution was dominated by France.
France's population was 25% of ALL of Europe's -- maybe 20 million at the end of the 1700s.
England's was 6 million, Scotland 2, Ireland 2, Poland 10, Sweden 2-3, Germany 10-12, Italy 15
A lot of these wars of religion in the 1600s were between what we would now call battalions or regiments, not armies.
A lot of the religious practises that we see were also determined for political reasons (we of course know that the Church of England was set up as a compromise solution to keep the country in one piece) like the state of Maryland set up for Catholics, etc. etc.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.