Posted on 09/19/2013 2:18:47 PM PDT by NYer
Wrong! Conversion is not life long. Conversion is a one time event. Sanctification is a life long event.
Of course this statement intrigued me as most Catholic doctrine does these days. I looked up conversion on New Advent and found this statement:
It is amazing that Catholics believe that the first step in conversion is to investigate the credentials of the Church, much like studying a recipe. So Hahn is right from a Catholic perspective but wrong from a scriptural view where we are born again into Christ. I don't recall Paul sitting down to study whether Christianity was true or not.
Egad. It amazes me how Catholics can take something so simple and make it so complex. Then again-perhaps I'm not surprised.
Your non-snarky response up thread struck a chord with me. I didn’t know that was happening. Probably I didn’t notice thread titles attacking protestants.
I try never to do that, unless it’s a blatant anti-Catholic thread, and even then I most always scroll right on by, because I’ve heard it all forever as a Catholic. Boring for me.
I think you have a point though. I wouldn’t like it either if there are really that many thread titles bashing protestants.
We are not suppose to use the scriptures to inflame others, any more than we are suppose to cast our pearls before swine. That goes for all us believers together.
I think these religion threads should all be caucus only. Without caucus, these threads are an open invitation for incitement, for starting a food fight, in which I am not participating.
I use FR for politics, where we are mostly in lock step. Some of these folks you never see anywhere else on the forum, but live for smack down and smack back over something on which they are clueless anyway. Some on both sides do this.
Anyway it’s disgusting for civilized adults to entertain this stuff at all, on God and faith of all things, and give dissension a platform. Not a class act to even participate.
Thx for bringing this to my attention. I think to caucus is the answer. We have to be gracious and inquiring there, and people appreciate that.
Outta here. Back to politics. :)
Are you going back to the Old Testament and “an eye for an eye” mentality?
I certainly hope not.
Look at us, we are THE church unlike you unsaved heathen protestants
is the take from a lot of these thread headline on the religion forum
I try to ignore them but sometimes I can’t
wait a sec
I had a non-snarky response?
That must have been an oversight on my part. :p
You are of course referring to the KJV, NKJV, Youngs literal, and NIV. The prot translations.
Yes, that is the part where he calls himself a “young man.”
Mark 14:51-52
&;D.
You completely misunderstand my statement, and “in danger every day of losing my salvation” is unscriptural as well.
Thank you, Salvation. Is that not one of the most beautiful renderings ever, among Catholic sacred art. Very wonderful. Thx.
You also misunderstand: sanctification is precisely the lifelong learning and depending of my faith. I have decided to follow Jesus, accepting the salvation He bought for me. If I have to crucify Him repeatedly, I make a mockery of His sacrifice “once for all”
Depending= deepening. We are arguing the same side, my brother.
So according to my count, you only got one out of four correct
Seriously many scholars believe that much of both Mathew and Luke was taken from the Gospel of Mark which is believed by most to have been wrote by the attendant of Peter, so i don,t think it would be too far off to think Mark may have also been a fisherman.
So if much of Mathew and Luke were copied from Mark as many say, then i assume that the Gospel came from the ones called the ignorant fishermen.
It has already been proven by both Catholics and many protestants that assumptions become fact in the minds of many and they teach it to be so.
No, this is not an attack, this is just a disagreement on a particular doctrine.
Yep, trust the local Priests to read the Bible for you, they would never lead you awry. Those English translations are a sin!
I do not understand your sentence: “If I have to crucify Him repeatedly, I make a mockery of His sacrifice “once for all.”” How do ‘we crucify Him repeatedly?’
Every time we say that somehow we have to re-earn our salvation, as by thinking we could lose it by failing to do something, we set him back on the cross. Once for all means that when we accept him as Lord, we accept that He has paid the penalty and doesn’t ever have to do it again. When we ask repeatedly for salvation, we say His sacrifice wasn’t good enough for our sin.
Matthew wrote for the Jews. It may look like he followed Mark’s outline, but really Mark has more detail.
If you read Matthew, you will see how many times he quotes the Old Testament.....totally differeent style of writing.
Luke traveled with St. Paul for awhile, and he wrote for the Gentiles. He also has many stories/parables/preachings of Christ that none of the other Gospels have. Remember, he promised to give Theopholius “an orderly account.”
If any Gospel writer may have been influence by St. Peter, it would have been Mark in my estimation. A lot of details, even though his Gospel is the shortest.
...my ongoing conversion, combined with sanctification is indeed a process, im always making progress, with His grace, but it is so frustrating sometimes....Yes! I agree; frustrating to be sure. When someone converts, I can almost hear Jesus say, "Good job; now prove it."
If any Gospel writer may have been influence by St. Peter, it would have been Mark in my estimation. A lot of details, even though his Gospel is the shortest.
Does any one know for a fact?
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.