Posted on 12/27/2013 8:33:08 PM PST by Colofornian
...For eight years, I had been a professor at Brigham Young University...
I looked down on Christians...They had part of the gospel, but I had the fullness of it. I kept the laws and ordinances of Mormonism.
Three weeks before the end of his two-year mission, Micah called to tell us he was being sent home early—a horrific disgrace in Mormon culture. He had been reading the New Testament. There he encountered a different Jesus than the one I was taught about in Mormonism—a God of grace, not of works, so that no one can boast...
To a roomful of missionaries at his parting testimony, Micah had professed faith in Jesus alone and not the Mormon Church. He told them he had found a deep and genuine faith—one that didn't include Mormonism. It did not go over well. Church leaders told us that Micah had the spirit of the Devil in him, sent him home, and subsequently, back in Utah, invited us to bring him before the high council...
Micah pleaded, "Mom and Dad, please read the New Testament." We commenced. As I read, I became increasingly consumed by reading about the God of grace. I barely ate or slept. It's all I wanted to do.
...In John's gospel, I read, "These are the very scriptures that testify of me yet you refuse to come to me to have life." Salvation did not require the Mormon Church, only Jesus...
...on a chilly October evening in 2006, Michael and I settled in with Katie in our basement to watch the movie Luther. My heart pounded as I learned of the reformer's struggle against the Catholic Church. I seemed to be facing a similar struggle: Did I believe the Mormon system of obedience to laws and ordinances would secure my forgiveness?
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
I didn’t say that. Are you trying to mindread?
We don't hate you. However, your arrogance can be a boor. Protestants are like children who run away with the textbook and assume they know more than the teachers.
Here is the Catholic attitude toward Protestants:
Mark 9:38 John said unto him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us.No one who professes the Name of Christ is our enemy. Such courtesy is usually not returned on this forum, sadly.39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is for us.
one way or another, they still refused to follow the church which Christ Himself established....Luther was, of course, among the first to do so but individuals who split off later were no less misguided that was he.
With such eloquent spokesmen as yourselves, it's a wonder there can be any confusion over Catholic Doctrine on this forum.
Oh good! Pope fabian I has finally arrived to set us all straight with his authoritative pronouncements!
There are only two places where you will find the words "faith" and "alone" together in the Bible. The first is in the Book of James (2:24) where we see that man is justified by his works and not by faith alone. The second is in the Bible edited by Luther which promulgated the false doctrine of Sola Fide.
There are more... but that is a pretty big one, don't you think?
Sorry you're illin' Pgyanke and I hope you feel better soon.
Metmom is NOT wrong at all and I can testify that I experienced some of the exact same things she did. You even confirm in your post that there are "settled truths" which Catholics MUST believe and that is the gist of the argument.
Many things got added and changed over the centuries in the Catholic religion on the core tenets of the faith. Many of which compelled the Reformation. You say that settled truths MUST be believed and that is what Metmom is talking about. It is because they have been declared as de fide (of the faith) by the magesterium, then there IS no room for dissension or questioning. To dare do so brings down punishment and continued resistance to believing everything you are told DOES threaten everlasting condemnation in hell BY the very priests ordained to shepherd the flock of God.
It is disingenuous to say that anyone who questions what the Catholic Church teaches is "hating" the church or being a "bigot". It is also erroneous to presume that any of those questions are just merely wrong perceptions or "absolute nonsense" only asked because a person wasn't catechized properly. That is a huge cop-out and insult! Had the Roman Catholic Church remained faithful to the core tenets of the Christian faith, there wouldn't have been a need for the East/West split in the eleventh century OR the Reformation in the sixteenth. Those happened because the "settled truths" became unsettled and redone and new settled truths got added on. Instead of the church teaching what had always and everywhere been believed by everyone (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est), changes crept in under the guise of doctrinal "development". It's interesting that so many theologians of the church were allowed to question and think and their evolving conclusions were allowed to change things that had previously BEEN settled truths. But let a Catholic, or a former one, question these things today and they are castigated as heretics and schismatics. Quite the double standard!
It's no wonder really that Joseph Smith developed his own religion condemning all other Christian denominations, rewriting the Bible to fit his fevered imagination and passions and it is why his followers to this day have become convinced that the "true" faith was lost when Roman Catholicism became the state religion under the reign of Constantine. They presume all the other Christian faiths evolved from it and condemn us all thinking they alone have the "fullness of the gospel". How we KNOW what is the true faith is by the rule of faith GOD gave to us - His sacred Scriptures - and all claims of truth MUST be measured by it and not the whims and wishes of sinful men.
I don't know you at all.
Care to explain how the Canon of Scripture in the 4th Century is germane to my point about St Paul in his own time?
“Care to explain how the Canon of Scripture in the 4th Century is germane to my point about St Paul in his own time?”
You tell me. You brought up Paul when I was talking about Cyril, to which you replied that Paul can’t be believed as supporting anything about the authority of scripture, since the scripture was not yet finished being produced.
How does your argument apply to Cyril, long after the scripture was well produced? And, actually, had existed since the moment they were written, considering the extreme amount of times they were quoted by the 1st and 2nd century Christians. (Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus).
I somehow knew that you'd come up with your list of naughty popes again all of which proves that they were real people with real faults......yet, they were infallible in matters of faith and morals....isn't God amazing that He could do that???....and He did!!
But they sure do love him whenever they can quote-mine him for things he might have said that they agree with!
Quite simply, the Church does not conform to meet the beliefs of Her membership. This does happen on the Protestant side where hard truths are set aside for good fellowship. Many church-shop seeking a "comfortable" fit. If you wish you be Catholic, you accept the truths of the Church. What is so hard to understand about that?
There are settled truths within the Catholic Church or broadly in the rest of Christianity. There are certainly authoritative statements on this very thread of what a Christian MUST believe to be a Christian by yourself and others. What were you saying about double standards?
Many things got added and changed over the centuries in the Catholic religion on the core tenets of the faith. Many of which compelled the Reformation.
Doctrines and Dogma have never been corrupted (even despite deliberate machinations to do so) but practices have. Christ is building His Church. There have been growths and prunings. The faux disgust heaped on the Catholic Church by Protestant denominations which can't even agree amonst themselves is appalling.
It is because they have been declared as de fide (of the faith) by the magesterium, then there IS no room for dissension or questioning. To dare do so brings down punishment and continued resistance to believing everything you are told DOES threaten everlasting condemnation in hell BY the very priests ordained to shepherd the flock of God.
Bunk. Every child is taught the Catechism. Many question it. We answer questions. We ask questions ourselves. It is a process of faith and it is encouraged, not discouraged.
It is disingenuous to say that anyone who questions what the Catholic Church teaches is "hating" the church or being a "bigot".
We don't use those words for those who bring questions. We answer questions. We save those words for those heap scorn on the Church with slander. "Whore of Babylon" and other such sound familiar?
It's interesting that so many theologians of the church were allowed to question and think and their evolving conclusions were allowed to change things that had previously BEEN settled truths. But let a Catholic, or a former one, question these things today and they are castigated as heretics and schismatics. Quite the double standard!
No. What you quote here is demonstrably false. Again, we endeavor to answer questions. The net is full of Catholic answer sites. What I find offensive is those who left the faith in ignorance turning around to proclaim themselves subject matter experts. The falsehoods laid at the feet of the Church come from such as these. I once again quote Archbishop Fulton Sheen because he is so right: "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be." I blame the real schismatics (like yourself and Metmom on here) for these false perceptions.
How we KNOW what is the true faith is by the rule of faith GOD gave to us - His sacred Scriptures - and all claims of truth MUST be measured by it and not the whims and wishes of sinful men.
So on one hand, you presume to explain the Magisterium of the Church. On the other, you come up with this statement above. If you understood the Magisterium of the Church to even the most minor degree, you yourself would laugh at you own ridiculous assertion. By it, you make it seem that the whims of sinful men are the rules of the faith. Not by a long shot.
That isn't the point. We quote Luther to show that your own patron saint disagreed with you! His theology was far more in line with the Catholic Church than mainline protestantism today.
it’s commonsense! Actually it is pope however trying to tell people they have to have the church to find salvation..what a bunch of bs!
I said St Paul can't be believed as supporting anything about the authority of Scripture? Where? I simply pointed out that St Paul, when he exhorted his listeners to search Scripture for the truth of his testimony, was pointing to the Old Testament. What logical good would it do him to point to his own letters as proof of his own testimony?
You mix apples and oranges. Christ is proclaimed throughout the Old Testament to those whose eyes are open to see Him. The Apostles opened the eyes of the faithful and showed them their proofs.
How does your argument apply to Cyril, long after the scripture was well produced?
I'm actually laughing at your choice of champion. You have chosen a Catholic Bishop... a Doctor of the Church... in some misguided attempt to take down the windmill of the faith. I'm simply showing you that you are misreading him to try to use him this way.
The Catholic Church believes Scripture to be inerrant and free from contradiction. There is nothing in Church Doctrine or Dogma in opposition to Scripture. There are a few things you can't find proclaimed in Scripture... but then, neither was the determination that the gentiles didn't have to be circumcised (Acts 15). The Bible gives a clear model very early in the age of the Church (Acts 15) for developing Doctrine. They had the authority to bind and loose, on Earth and in Heaven. See my profile for more on the Church's authority.
What you find to be common sense took humanity millennia of study and prayer to comprehend. You stand on the pillar of Faith given through the Church and proclaim yourself wise.
That depends on what you consider "infallible" teachings, doesn't it? Got a list of all of them handy so we can check? Did it count, for example, when Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 declared in his Papal bull Unam Sanctum that, "outside of her (the Catholic Church) there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins" and that, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff"? Or did it not count as "infallible" because not everyone accepted it? It would help if you could produce the infallible list of all the infallible declarations of the infallible Popes to prove your assertions.
Sorry, but I guess you & CodeToad (post #178) still aren't aware of the general undercurrent that operates in this world...
#1...Mormonism is perhaps THE leading legalistic religion operating in the world today.
#2...The apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians because...
(a) he warned them to NOT re-embrace legalism...even calling them "bewitched" and "foolish" (Gal. 3:1) -- see Gal. 3:1-13 for Paul's other warnings vs. legalism;
and (b) that if the Galatians embraced another gospel from the one they proclaimed to them -- even if presented by an "angel" (like Moroni), that they would be under God's curse (Gal. 1:6-8)
So, with that as the backdrop, how does the apostle Paul describe man's basic condition in Galatians 4?
4 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. 8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?
So you see? Paul says we were all enslaved -- to elemental SPIRITUAL forces in the world and to gods who were no gods at all.
Mormons & other legalists are enslaved to gods who are not gods at all!
Escaping such slavery is indeed freedom in Christ!
“I’m actually laughing at your choice of champion. You have chosen a Catholic Bishop... a Doctor of the Church... in some misguided attempt to take down the windmill of the faith. I’m simply showing you that you are misreading him to try to use him this way.”
To respond to your absurdities about Paul first:
But as to your arguments against Paul. They are silly, since Paul and the Apostles all believed themselves to be writing scripture:
2Pe_3:16 As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
There was no period of time, 400 years later, waiting for someone to decide that this was Holy writ. The Apostles believed that their teachings were utterly divine, and that their epistles were equal to the Old Testament. Again, Paul quoting Luke along side Moses:
1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
So when you claim that Paul was only speaking of the Old Testament, you reveal your ignorance. Paul is speaking of the 4 Gospels, all the epistles of his fellow Apostles, and his own writings!
Furthermore, the end of John does not actually claim that scripture is “incomplete”. It only says that there were so many other deeds and wonders that could be written, that to attempt to write them all down would fill up all the books of the world.
Joh_21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus DID, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Does that mean that there are an infinite number of doctrines? Ridiculous!
Now to your response on Cyril:
That’s the problem. Your argument that I am “misreading” him is based on a claim against Paul, saying that the “scripture” was not enough back then because it was not complete. How do you apply that to Cyril?
If Cyril of Jerusalem teaches that nothing can be taught except it is shown out of the Holy scriptures, and that even he should not be believed, unless it is shown from the scriptures, how do you legitimately explain his meaning? You haven’t actually explained his meaning, but are hoping that we forget he said anything, and you’re even claiming him as a ‘Doctor of the church” as if that changes anything. Either he said what he said, or he didn’t. And, you’d be surprised how much is said amongst the church Fathers which your religion does not believe it. You honestly have NO clue about the teachings of the church Fathers! But I’ll help you find out, if you give me opportunity.
I have a relative that believes adamantly that he is Elijah the Prophet AND the new God the Father Almighty (GFA) since the “old” GFA messed up and the “board” in heaven removed him and named the family member the new GFA in charge. Of course, he is currently residing in a federal prison in the mental health section. Somehow, he can’t explain how he isn’t powerful enough to free himself yet. I kinda think JS,Jr. might have had some of those same delusions of grandeur. Sad, actually.
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.