Posted on 11/27/2012 4:05:51 PM PST by greyfoxx39
Again, you have taken a phrase out of my comment and run with it on a path it was not intended to take. It is irritating. Please, address my actual comment and not the part you can twist to criticize "Protestants". Here's what I said:
Rev. Wylie points out that such "unity" is because of the compelling nature of the dogmas of the RCC throughout its history as well as the absence of genuine liberty when ones eternal salvation is put on the line. WRT the thread, many Mormons are brought up in the faith and, as another put it, its all they have known since childhood so they should be given a "pass" on not investigating their beliefs further.
My point, which was concerning the myth of unity in the Roman Catholic Church, is that there IS no true freedom if one has been convinced by those over him that they must depend upon them in order to go to heaven. And that really IS the gist of the same issue that Mormons must face as well. We can pretend that everyone is free to choose whatever they want to believe, but no one is saying that - least of all, me. The Scriptures are very clear what a man must do to be saved (believe on the Lord Jesus Christ). That "freedom" is hindered by GOD'S own requirements and only makes sense that HE is the one who controls the universe and makes the "rules". When others try to amend those rules with ones of their own confection - like magesteriums, they really are taking from God what belongs to Him alone and imposing additional rules on those below them. These souls, then, are NOT free to pick and choose whatever they please because they are never allowed that option. It has been drummed into them since birth that the Catholic Church alone is the only way to salvation and, until Vatican II, it was denied that there even WAS any other way. That coupled with the church infallibly declaring herself as infallible, leaves no room at all for voluntary submission.
So, this unity that is boasted of as a defining and indispensable mark of the "True Church" and that in the Church of Rome alone are these marks to be found; and therefore that she, to the exclusion of all other societies, is the holy Catholic Church, is one of coercion and not freedom. This, to me, lumps Catholicism into the same box as other religions, like Mormonism, that compel their members to submit to the confession that "I believe whatever the (whatever religion or cult) believes and teaches.". Your redefinition of freedom for Catholics being "freedom to obey" does nothing to prove there is genuine unity there - and that WAS the point.
So, would you call disagreement about the Popes after Pius X being legitimate (SSPX) a "delicacy on top" or would that be one of your "fundamentals"? Or, how about those who deny the findings of Vatican II like Protestants can be saved? Or, those who object to the Mass being said in the vernacular? Where is the line drawn on what is "fundamental" and what is not?
Is this really what you believe is different about "Anabaptists" and Evangelicals? I don't know where you got this from, but it is WAY off. Evangelicals believe that salvation is by grace through faith that results in a changed heart and works are a sign of genuine faith. They believe that at conversion God purges ALL a person's sins - past, present and future - by Christ's blood and changes that person at his very core, giving him a new, spirit nature, freeing him from the enslavement of sin and enabling him actually to live a righteous life through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit as well as him being justified, where Christ's righteousness is credited (imputed) to his account by faith. We also believe in "believer's baptism" instead of infant baptism. Now if the Anabaptists believed this, they were right because it is Biblical.
Thanks for your well reasoned and informative posts covering factually a number of points relating to several belief systems that were a bit muddied until you weighed in.
Bb — stop trolling
“how about those who deny..”, “who object to the..” —> bb, poor bb, you do realise the difference between those who argue this and the difference between Lutherans who believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and your group which doesn’t, right?
Sorry but that is wayy off from what they believe
Why don't you actually read http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/ or indeed the Bible or anything before commenting on what you don't know?
Sorry but that is wayy off from what they believe
Why don't you actually read http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/ ?
The Anabaptist Church says
Anabaptist interpretation of Scripture is centered on the teachings of Christ and his call to discipleship. The rest of Scripture is then viewed through this lens and interpreted so as not to contradict the teachings of Christ, the head of the church.So the baptist Church says that it follows a Christ-centered approach whereas ahem r, according to the anaBaptists follows a Paul centered approach
This produces different conclusions than when interpretation is centered on the writings of Paul as often seen in Evangelical teaching.
A Christ-centered interpretation maintains that Christ's teachings can be followed with God's enabling grace and must be followed if an entrance into the kingdom of God is to be gained.
A Paul-centered interpretation tends to overemphasize man's sinful nature and makes man utterly helpless in the pursuit of good. Consequently, many of Christ's teachings are considered unattainable in the present. In fact, some who interpret the Bible this way postpone the validity of Jesus' teachings to some future time. God's mercy and forgiveness is emphasized in this system rather than careful obedience.
hey - if you got an objection, take it up with the Anabaptists
Evangelicals believe children are lost until they accept Christ. Their focus therefore is on getting the child saved. Many of their children will say the sinner's prayer by the age of 7. To me, child evangelism does not differ much from infant baptism.
you now want to argue with Baptists about what they believe?
Then go ahead and argue.
NL — it’s incredible how people think they know more about say Baptists or Catholics than the followers themselves, right?
Mormonism says that there were Semitic people in pre-Colombus America and that they had mighty cities etc. and that the native Americans are descendents
Now, the Native Americans have no Semitic genes, their languages are completely non-Semitic, their culture and history dates back a long time yet has no relationship to Semites and there is zero archaeological proof
Ergo,the entire religion is based on a provably false premise, there is no point in discussing the philosophy of this false premise
In contrast, let's take Scientology and Islam -- Scientology is based on some millenia old extra-terrestrial event. There's no way to prove or disprove that based on where we are
Islam is based on a historical set of teachings -- one can argue that Mohammed never existed, but was a compilation of people. Even then it doesn't affect Islam as the philosophies are wider
however Mormonism is based on the "fact" that there were Semites in pre-Columbus America
That is a false premise, hence everything else is not worthy of discussion as a religion -- their theory of salvation is as relevant as a cargo-cult worshipping Prince Philip of Edinburgh as God.
Really, so question: so your cult will accept those who don't believe that Jesus Christ is God?
Christianity asks for that -- or are you saying that the fact that Christianity asks for this basic dogma is wrong?
Really, so question: so your cult will accept those who don't believe that Jesus Christ is God?
Christianity asks for that -- or are you saying that the fact that Christianity asks for this basic dogma is wrong?
Really, so question: so your cult will accept those who don't believe in the Triune nature of the Godhead?
Christianity asks for that -- or are you saying that the fact that Christianity asks for this basic dogma is asking to submit?
Really, so question: Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans all say that you must believe the beliefs in the Nicene Creed -- so are you saying they are cults?
placemark
A “valid” baptism is in the Triune formula, namely if a person is baptised “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” — you a non-Catholic can do it and The Church recognizes various any Christian baptism as valid if in this triune formula — which is why we do not consider Mormon baptisms as valid.
Really, so question: Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans all say that you must believe the beliefs in the Nicene Creed -- so are you saying they are cults?
Note, mitch, that's what bb's saying in italics
Tery --> that's not completely true. Many of those born outside have a misconception of the Church, but in religious dogma matters they are not fixed. They get different messages preached to them constantly but quite a few change their minds every now and then
Also, it's not quite right to blanket describe all non-Catholics that way.
Tery --> that's not completely true. Many of those born outside have a misconception of the Church, but in religious dogma matters they are not fixed. They get different messages preached to them constantly but quite a few change their minds every now and then
Also, it's not quite right to blanket describe all non-Catholics that way.
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.