Posted on 03/16/2014 6:29:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We live in a time of the anti-hero. Too often, the good guys are the bad guys and vice versa. Celebrities are often held up as heroes, until we learn too much about them.
But to see a true hero, look at the real St. Patrick, who has a day dedicated in his honor. Unfortunately, many people only observe his holiday, March 17, by drinking themselves silly, which is totally contrary to the spirit of the man who Christianized Ireland.
In fact, Patrick shows what God can do through someone who is committed fully to Him.
Thomas Cahill, author of the book, How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe, notes that Patrick and the Irish came at the moment of a cultural cliff-hanger and played a key role in helping to save civilization.
In the 5th century, barbarians overran the Roman Empire---which was the repository of much of Western civilization---until it finally collapsed. Meanwhile, through the missionary work of Patrick (387-461), the gospel was brought to Ireland; and numerous men became monks as a result, who meticulously copied manuscripts of the Bible and of many of the writings of antiquity.
Cahill writes: “For, as the Roman Empire fell, as all through Europe matted, unwashed barbarians descended on the Roman cities, looting artifacts and burning books, the Irish, who were just learning to read and write, took up the great labor of copying all of Western literature---everything they could lay their hands on.”
He notes, “These scribes then served as conduits through which the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian cultures were transmitted to the tribes of Europe, newly settled amid the rubble and ruined vineyards of the civilization they had overwhelmed.”
Cahill adds, “Without this Service of the Scribes, everything that happened subsequently would have been unthinkable. Without the Mission of the Irish Monks, who single-handedly refounded European civilization throughout the continent in the bays and valleys of their exile, the world that came after then would have been an entirely different one---a world without books. And our own world would never have come to be.”
The man at the center of all this was St. Patrick.
Many of the details of his life we learn through a document he wrote late in his life, Confession. This was not a book of confessions of his sins, but rather a statement of his beliefs. It is autobiographical in nature.
Patrick (to the surprise of many) was not Irish by birth, but rather grew up in England as a nominal Christian. He said in Confession, “I did not know the true God.”
At the age of 16, marauding Irish pirates laid waste his city and captured slaves, including Patrick. Later he would write of this: "As a youth, nay, almost as a boy not able to speak, I was taken captive, before I knew what to pursue and what to avoid."
Patrick said, “I was taken into captivity to Ireland with many thousands of people---and deservedly so, because we turned away from God, and did not keep His commandments."
For six years, he worked as a slave for a landowning chief. Cahill notes that during this time, Patrick had two companions---hunger and nakedness.
While he served as a shepherd, he remembered his prayers of his youth and came to know God truly through Christ. After six years of captivity, he was able to providentially escape from Ireland.
The late Dr. D. James Kennedy notes, “[Patrick] vowed revenge---the noble revenge of sharing the gospel with the people who held him captive. He believed that he had been called by God to return to the land of his slavery.”
So Patrick, after some theological training, eventually returned to Ireland where he spent the rest of his life (about thirty years) as a missionary. Patrick may well have baptized about 120,000 souls. Some scholars note that he was the most successful missionary since the Apostle Paul.
Patrick wrote this, "Daily, I expect murder, fraud or captivity…but I fear none of these things because of the promises of heaven. I have cast myself into the hands of God almighty who rules everywhere.”
There’s a famous prayer attributed to Patrick that was inspired by him---although in its present form, it was likely written later. This beautiful statement of faith is called “St. Patrick’s Breastplate.”
Here is a portion of the prayer: “I arise today through God’s strength to pilot me: God’s might to uphold me, God’s wisdom to guide me…Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me…”
So remember the next time you see someone get drunk on St. Paddy’s Day, they dishonor the memory a great hero of the faith and of the ages.
RE:
YEP, That’s what I am getting so far from vladimir. Essentially, because I said so, therefore, it must be so.
RE: No, Protestants are Protestant by definition.
Actually, Protestants are not necessarily Christians either. It depends on what you confess and what you believe. But I can say the same of people who call themselves Roman Catholic.
RE: To say they aren’t “ROMAN Catholic by definition” might make them Melkite Catholics or Maronites or Eastern Orthodox. Notice how you said they were not Christian by definition? You apparently have a lower opinion of Protestants than someone might first think – and you’re one of them.
A Christian (by scriptural definition ) is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ, not some label you attach to them as in the above labels you use.
So, what makes someone a follower? Simple -— Jesus Himself gives the criteria : “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say?” (Luke 6:46 ).
So, Someone who OBEYS the Lord’s teachings IS a Christian, regardless of how you label them.
RE: Protestants believe in heresies so they do not believe all that is necessary to be in the Church. They have sects, tens of thousands of them, but no Church.
Errr... you keep using the word “heresy” without bothering to define the word.
As for sects, tens of thousands of them, you need to show me what each individual sect or denomination confesses and believe in. I don’t call every one of them heretical simply because you use the word “sect” to describe them.
WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE? <-— that is the criteria, not what vladimir says.
RE: Great. You’re going to be waiting until the thread dies out. Get comfy.
This tells me one thing— You either : 1) Don’t know what the gospel is; or 2) Are simply using the word without knowing what it means; or 3) You are avoiding answering it for fear you might mis-define it.
But we have all the time in the world... this thread need not die out and I am a patient man. I’d like to wait for your definition of the gospel....
RE: Being “NOT OF US” does not stop a Protestant from being a Christian. It means he is not a Christian in the fullest sense and is not in communion with the Church.
Well, it looks like we need to define our terms again — What is “the Church”?
I don’t agree that Protestants (those who believe seriously in scripture ) are not in communion with the CHURCH of Christ.
I don’t know how you define it, but here is the Biblical definition :
The church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Ephesians 1:22-23 says, “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” The body of Christ is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) until Christ’s return.
The body of Christ is comprised of two aspects:
1) The universal (i.e. catholic) church consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13). This verse says that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and has received the Spirit of Christ as evidence. The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2) The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle … and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches—what we call local churches. A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.
THAT is the Biblical definition of the church. What is yours?
RE: No, the question should be: why belong to a heretical group or why embrace any heresy like Protestantism?
No, the question is how do you define “Heresy”?
You have used several words which you don’t bother to define.
Here they are : The Church, Heresy, Gospel.
RE: Nope. One is catholic only when he is Catholic. No Protestant can be Catholic because he is a Protestant.
You are equivocating again.
By “catholic” you are equating the term with ROMAN Catholic.
I don’t believe you can claim the word “catholic” (Universal ) as your own.
You can call yourself a Protestant and NOT be in the catholic (universal ) church by virtue of your unbelief. Likewise, you can be baptized into the ROMAN catholic Church and not be a member of the “catholic” church by virtue of your unbelief. How many Roman Catholics are now atheists or converted to Islam? These people are not members of the catholic church any longer by virtue of their unbelief.
RE: Nope, only yours. No acclamation means no canonization by acclamation. That is irrefutable.
Calling it irrefutable does not make it so.
Let’s make it even better -— No canonization, or no acclamation DOES NOT MEAN one is not a Saint.
And by that, I again go back to scripture, not vladimir’s definition.
The word “saint” comes from the Greek word hagios, which means “consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious.” It is almost always used in the plural, “saints.” “…Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:13). “Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda” (Acts 9:32). “And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons …“ (Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use, and that is “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus…” (Philippians 4:21). In Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural “saints” compared to only one use of the singular word “saint.” Even in that one instance, a plurality of saints is in view: “…every saint…” (Philippians 4:21).
The idea of the word “saints” is a group of people set apart for the Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly character of saints: “that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints …” (Romans 16:2). “For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12). “But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (Ephesians 5:3).
So, a virtuous Christian does not don’t need to be canonized, or acclamated to be a Saint. All one needs is for GOD to see you as one.
The fact that St. Patrick is recognized as a Saint by ALL Christians ( not only by those of the Roman Catholic persuasion ) is a GOOD THING. It simply means he meets the BIBLICAL criteria of being a Saint, which EVERY Christian ( be he in the Roman Catholic church or not ) can aspire to become.
RE: The only Catholics are Catholics. No Protestant is a Catholic. St. Patrick was Catholic.
Correction : True Christians are ALL Catholics (members of the UNIVERSAL church ). St. Patrick was Catholic, true, but so are many virtous Christians who are not baptized in the ROMAN catholic church.
RE: He didn’t. I already said why.
Actually the emphasis is on the word “I”, which is your own peculiar definition of what the gospel is ( which you still refuse to say ).
I go by what St. Paul said. And since Kennedy believes in what St. Paul defines as the gospel, I have to conclude that
your statement is WRONG.
RE: Vladimir998 putting heretics in their place is some good stuff.
AS if you did not notice, I asked vladimir to define the word “heretic” for me. He has thus far, not done so.
He simply restates and reuses the word as if his saying so makes it so.
Maybe you can be more helpful and define it for us.
I’ve never seen a Catholic present a Gospel...For something to be the Gospel it has to be found in the Gospel...
“A heresy is belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious Christian doctrine. Which then begs the question — what is ORTHODOX Christian doctrine?”
Please learn the correct use of the phrase “begs the question”. It does NOT mean what you think it means.
“We already have the answer -— Beliefs that are TAUGHT IN GOD’s WORD — Scripture.”
Who is “we”?
“These beliefs are summarized and formalized in our standard confessions of faith — the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed.”
Not exactly. Homoousian is in keeping with scripture but could never be called merely a summary or formalization of it.
“So, you call James Kennedy’s beliefs heretical, I challenged you to show me where in his teachings or in his public confession of faith he taught or confessed to heretical teachings.”
Anything that he taught that was Protestant was heretical. Take your pick.
“You have not shown me anything. You simply made a statement as if that satisfy the criteria. It does not.”
It does. Protestantism is heresy. There is no other possibility.
“So, yes the question demands an answer.”
But it doesn’t beg one.
“Actually, Protestants are not necessarily Christians either. It depends on what you confess and what you believe. But I can say the same of people who call themselves Roman Catholic.”
So now you’re talking about Protestants who aren’t Christians while earlier you falsely accused me of saying Protestants aren’t Christians?
“A Christian (by scriptural definition ) is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ, not some label you attach to them as in the above labels you use.”
I was the one who pointed out that a believer in Christ who was also baptized is a Christian. You insisted that was not the case if that person is a heretic.
“So, what makes someone a follower? Simple -— Jesus Himself gives the criteria : “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say?” (Luke 6:46 ).”
You have done this at least two or three times now: you post a verse that actually shows that – by your own definition and proof texts – you are not a Christian or follower of Jesus. You contradict yourself again and again.
“So, Someone who OBEYS the Lord’s teachings IS a Christian, regardless of how you label them.”
And there you go again writing yourself out of Christianity.
“Errr... you keep using the word “heresy” without bothering to define the word.”
I already know the definition. I don’t need to define it. If you need it defined, it means you’re not ready for this conversation – which has been self-evident for several hours now.
“As for sects, tens of thousands of them, you need to show me what each individual sect or denomination confesses and believe in.”
No, actually I don’t. They’re all Protestant sects. That’s all that is needed.
“I don’t call every one of them heretical simply because you use the word “sect” to describe them.”
All Protestant sects are heretical. It is inevitable.
“WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE? <-— that is the criteria, not what vladimir says.”
They believe in Protestantism – which is heresy.
“This tells me one thing— You either : 1) Don’t know what
the gospel is; or 2) Are simply using the word without knowing what it means; or 3) You are avoiding answering it for fear you might mis-define it.”
None of the above. I don’t mind if it bothers you.
“But we have all the time in the world... this thread need not die out and I am a patient man. I’d like to wait for your definition of the gospel....”
Get comfy.
“Well, it looks like we need to define our terms again — What is “the Church”?”
What you’re not in.
“I don’t agree that Protestants (those who believe seriously in scripture ) are not in communion with the CHURCH of Christ.”
1) It doesn’t matter what you believe. Since you are not in the Church, and don’t believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no reason to think that you have a clue.
2) Protestants do not “believe seriously in scripture”. They seriously believe in their heresies.
“I don’t know how you define it,”
I define it correctly.
“but here is the Biblical definition :”
And not surprisingly you made the same mistake that all Protestants make.
“ A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers.”
Completely false. Baptists do not believe in infant baptism. Lutherans do. Both claim to believe in sola scriptura and sola fide yet they differ widely on something as essential as baptism – what it means, who receives it, why it matters. Christ and the Holy Spirit simply don’t operate that way.
“The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.”
No. Although all baptized Christians have some connection to the Church, not all are members of the Church. Some directly reject it in fact.
“THAT is the Biblical definition of the church. What is yours?”
The correct one. Yours is not the Biblical definition. Yours is merely the Protestant definition.
“No, the question is how do you define “Heresy”?”
No. Heresy has already been defined. It is not how I define it. It is not how you define it. It is why do you continue to embrace it?
“You have used several words which you don’t bother to define.”
I don’t need to. I already know the definitions. If you don’t know those definitions, that is your problem and reflective of the fact that you are just a Protestant and Protestantism is synonymous with heresy.
“Here they are : The Church, Heresy, Gospel.”
I am in the Church, follow the Gospel, and leave all the Heresy to you since you embrace it.
“You are equivocating again.”
No. Things are what they are. You apparently want things to be what they aren’t. A Protestant can never be “catholic” because if his beliefs became “catholic” he would instantly cease to be a Protestant in belief.
“By “catholic” you are equating the term with ROMAN Catholic.”
Completely false. I directly equate catholic with Catholic as is proper.
“I don’t believe you can claim the word “catholic” (Universal ) as your own.”
What you believe doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church is catholic. Protestant sects are just heretical sects and not catholic in any sense of the world.
“You can call yourself a Protestant and NOT be in the catholic (universal ) church by virtue of your unbelief. Likewise, you can be baptized into the ROMAN catholic Church and not be a member of the “catholic” church by virtue of your unbelief. How many Roman Catholics are now atheists or converted to Islam? These people are not members of the catholic church any longer by virtue of their unbelief.”
Once again you attack a belief no one holds.
“Calling it irrefutable does not make it so.”
Nope. But it is irrefutable – and that’s why I called it so.
“Let’s make it even better -— No canonization, or no acclamation DOES NOT MEAN one is not a Saint.”
No kidding.
“And by that, I again go back to scripture, not vladimir’s definition.”
You mean that once again you will attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds. And this time you plagiarize a website to do it while claiming you’re going “back to scripture”: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS418US418&q=%E2%80%9Csaint%E2%80%9D+comes+from+the+Greek+word+hagios%2C+which+means+%E2%80%9Cconsecrated+to+God%2C+holy%2C+sacred%2C+pious.%E2%80%9D+It+is+almost+always+used+in+the+plural%2C+%E2%80%9Csaints.%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9C%E2%80%A6Lord%2C+I+have+heard+from+many+about+this+man%2C+how+much+harm+he+did+to+Your+saints+at+Jerusalem%E2%80%9D+(Acts+9%3A13).+%E2%80%9CNow+as+Peter+was+traveling+through+all+those+regions%2C+he+came+down+also+to+the+saints+who+lived+at+Lydda%E2%80%9D+(Acts+9%3A32).+
Why are Protestants so dishonest?
“So, a virtuous Christian does not don’t need to be canonized, or acclamated to be a Saint. All one needs is for GOD to see you as one.”
Again, why do you attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds.
“The fact that St. Patrick is recognized as a Saint by ALL Christians ( not only by those of the Roman Catholic persuasion ) is a GOOD THING.”
Not all Christians recognize St. Patrick as a saint.
“It simply means he meets the BIBLICAL criteria of being a Saint, which EVERY Christian ( be he in the Roman Catholic church or not ) can aspire to become.”
It’s amazing how much time you spend making points that do not need to be made.
“Correction : True Christians are ALL Catholics (members of the UNIVERSAL church ). St. Patrick was Catholic, true, but so are many virtous Christians who are not baptized in the ROMAN catholic church.”
Correction: no Protestant can be Catholic.
“Actually the emphasis is on the word “I”, which is your own peculiar definition of what the gospel is ( which you still refuse to say ).”
No the emphasis is on “already”. And I have no “peculiar” definition of what the gospel is. I only hold to the true definition. Only Protestants or other heretics can have a peculiar definition of the gospel by definition.
“I go by what St. Paul said.”
No, you don’t. You go by what most Protestants say St. Paul said.
“And since Kennedy believes in what St. Paul defines as the gospel, I have to conclude that
your statement is WRONG.”
What you conclude is immaterial since you’re a sectarian and holder of heresy.
“For some reason vladimir998 does not want to tell us. Can either of you tell us?”
I pay no attention to those multi-millionare televangelists,
James Kennedy made a fortune off his Coral Ridge Ministries.
I don’t think that was exactly the message that Christ preached.
Thank you both for fighting the good fight. I’m betting that you both will agree with me that our “fight” is not against the freepers here on this thread who call themselves Catholics, but rather it is against the evil one. I have prayed all day that I might be able to find some common ground between us and them ..... common ground in at least the basic message of the Gospel (the Good News of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and His Grace). None of them was willing to testify as to what their belief is other than to tell us that it is because it is and always has been so and we Protestants are heretics because we aren’t Catholic and thus not able to understand what Christianity really is.
Let’s face it, they very well may not know what the scriptures teach, they may not have ever had a “conversation” with Jesus or felt the comfort, and strength of the Holy Spirit. They may know only scattered verses that are tossed out at Mass rather than the excitement of delving deep into precept-by-precept study of Gods living Word. They may only know what their Priests and Bishops and Popes want them to know. They may in some cases not be capable of quoting the Word because of some evil blocking them from doing so. That saddens me, because despite everything, I still can see some good deep down in them, or they would not be FReepers.
Today I came very close to understanding something that has bothered me for many years. I never could understand how the Roman Catholic church could have labeled Protestants as heretics just because they would not bow to the Pope and then actually burned so many Protestant martyrs at the stake even as they were declaring their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I almost could understand this kind of evil coming from the men at the top, but what about the masses of average people who were cheering them on as these saints burned alive. Today, I came very close to seeing how it happened. I saw how these masses of people closed their hearts and minds to the Word of God, and blindly following the teaching and orders of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, all the while stubbornly saying, “we are right because we are right, because we are Catholics, and that is just the way it is, and we won’t listen to anyone who says it isn’t so.”
Addition to my above post.....
(sorry, the tears just made me forget to add this)
I bet Saint Patrick would agree with us that there is nothing that should stop us from proclaiming the gospel every chance we get, and no one so lost that there is not a chance that they might hear and be saved.
“So, you call James Kennedy’s beliefs heretical”
Like the vast majority of multi-million dollar televangelists James Kennedy worshiped money.
Woa there, NKP_Vet! I just can't let this vile statement sit here without contesting it. Have you ever, even once listed to Rev. Kennedy or visited his church? Do you really know anything about him? I have, and I can attest first hand of the deep commitment to Christ that this man had.
Rev. Kennedy was not a televangelist in the style of Falwell, Jim Bakker, Pat Roberson (all who I detest). He broadcast his church services/sermons over the air for outreach to millions more people. What started as a tiny church meeting in an Elementary School cafeteria in the late 50's. They grew, built a modest church sanctuary seating around 500, in the early 60's. That is where I visited several times.
Now listed carefully, because this is where you will find out why they became a "mega-church". In 1978 Coral Ridge left the denomination known as the Presbyterian Church, U.S. and joined with the more theologically conservative denomination known as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). I know about this first hand too because by then I was a member of the PCA church in Birmingham, AL that began the PCA. Millions of Presbyterians all over the country were fed up with the liberal leanings of the Presbyterian Church, U.S. and wanted to focus back on the Bible and Christ. Because this was such a passion with so many conservative Christians, most all of these early PCA churches very quickly became huge as conservatives flocked to them and supported them and grew them.
I'm going to copy/paste (for accuracy and time restraints)something here about Rev. Kennedy's politics. Listen carefully because it will sound familiar to us here at Free Republic.....
Mr. Kennedy stayed largely in the background as men like James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family spoke to Americans about the need to curtail abortion rights, gay rights and the teaching of evolution. But over the last decade, he, too, grew more openly active, creating the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, which held conferences that taught people to how to get involved in the political process. The center closed in April.NOTHING in this man's life even hinted that he "worshiped money" as you so callously stated. He didn't live in a palace as your Pope does, he did not live the lifestyle of the rich and famous, wearing a miter-crown with people kissing his ring and bowing before him. Instead Rev. Kennedy bowed humbly before Christ, gave of his money and life to others and so is now (since his death in 2007) wearing his "crowns" in heaven.Mr. Kennedy opened the Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington to equip evangelicals on Capitol Hill to be more effective in government. He was also instrumental in establishing the Alliance Defense Fund, an increasingly active Christian counterweight to secular civil liberties groups.
“For decades, Dr. Kennedy has been a passionate defender of biblical truth in a culture that increasingly forgot it,” Dr. Dobson said in a statement. “He was a giant in the battle to restore traditional values in our nation.”
Mr. Kennedy worked with other evangelicals to articulate the core beliefs of what would become the religious right. Mr. Kennedy asserted repeatedly that he was not a theocrat. But in his book “Character and Destiny: A Nation in Search of Its Soul,” written with Jim Nelson Black, Mr. Kennedy said: “How much more forcefully can I say it? The time has come, and it is long overdue, when Christians and conservatives and all men and women who believe in the birthright of freedom must rise up and reclaim America for Jesus Christ.”
RE: So now you’re talking about Protestants who aren’t Christians while earlier you falsely accused me of saying Protestants aren’t Christians?
My DISAGREEMENT with you is calling heretics Christians. They CANNOT BE if John’s epistle is to be taken seriously. Someone who refuses to adhere to the essential tenets of the faith cannot by definition, be a Christian.
So, calling someone a heretic and still saying he is a Christian is incorrect.
RE: I was the one who pointed out that a believer in Christ who was also baptized is a Christian. You insisted that was not the case if that person is a heretic.
Yes, a heretic, someone who DENIES the essentials of the Christian faith CANNOT be Christian even if he were baptized.
If a baptized person denies the faith ( for instance, become atheist or a Muslim or denies that Jesus Christ is God ), then he cannot be considered Christian EVEN if he were baptized Christian.
He needs to be converted ( or re-converted as the case may be ) in order for him to be considered Christian.
Hence, the Aryans, who denied the deity of Jesus Christ, or today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses who do the same, cannot be considered Christians.
RE: You have done this at least two or three times now: you post a verse that actually shows that – by your own definition and proof texts – you are not a Christian or follower of Jesus. You contradict yourself again and again.
I post the verses in the Bible as the BASIS or the STANDARD by which we ought to define our terms by. That’s all.
St. John says of one heresy ( Gnosticism ): “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.”
The gnostics heretics claim to believe in Jesus, claim to be his followers, claim to believe in His teachings, YET, DENY his humanity (the Incarnation) ( as opposed to the other heretics, Aryans who denied His deity ). What did John say about this heresy?
“They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.”
So, heretics who John calls Anti-Christ and one who “is not of us” are NOT Christians.
Therefore, a heretic is NOT a Christian.
My issue with you then is your saying that a heretic can be a Christian. Not according to St. John he can’t.
RE: And there you go again writing yourself out of Christianity.
In what way? I strive to obey Christ and His word. I take what he said over what YOU say.
RE: I already know the definition. I don’t need to define it. If you need it defined, it means you’re not ready for this conversation – which has been self-evident for several hours now.
I highly doubt that you know the definition. If you did you would not avoid defining it for us. You’d rather write long responses when a simple definition would help, but NO, you would drone on and on without defining the terms you use.
RE: No, actually I don’t. They’re all Protestant sects. That’s all that is needed.
No, that is NOT all that is needed.
Again, what do the sects teach? If their teachings are in accordance with scripture, what’s the problem?
RE: All Protestant sects are heretical. It is inevitable.
Again, DEFINE heresy. I just showed you my definition based on Biblical and historical understanding of the word.
Your use of the word is meaningless unless you tell us exactly how you understand it.
RE: They believe in Protestantism – which is heresy.
IF they believe in Jesus Christ and His word, how can that be heresy?
That sweeping statement you make makes for LAZY logic.
RE: None of the above. I don’t mind if it bothers you.
Heck, I’m not bothered. It just tells me a lot about your lame arguments than anything else.
RE: Get comfy.
I am thank you. We have all the megabytes in the world for this thread.
RE: What you’re not in.
If it is only vladimir ( who refuses top define his terms) saying so, then I’m glad I meet the opposite of what he says :)
RE: 1) It doesn’t matter what you believe.
TRUE, and the same can be said of what YOU believe. It matters what SCRIPTURE says.
RE: Since you are not in the Church
Why not? I believe in Jesus Christ, I obey His word, I follow the teachings of His apostles. Your “since” is a non-sequitor.
RE: and don’t believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ,
Again, what is the gospel of Jesus Christ? You keep using the word without defining it.
RE: there is no reason to think that you have a clue.
There is every reason to think that I am the one who has the clue and not you.
The apostle Paul told us what the gospel is in His letter to the Corinthian Church.
The only question now is this — do you adhere to HIS definition of the gospel?
Honestly, I don;t know because you have not told us what your idea of the gospel is.
RE: 2) Protestants do not “believe seriously in scripture”. They seriously believe in their heresies.
Again, define heresy as you conceive it. You keep using the word without defining it.
RE: I define it correctly.
Where? All you’ve done is AVOID defining it.
RE: And not surprisingly you made the same mistake that all Protestants make.
Which is what?
RE: Completely false. Baptists do not believe in infant baptism.
SO? Where in scripture can you show me infant baptism? All instances of baptism areof people who PROFESS their faith.
RE: Lutherans do.
Again, so? I have no quarrels with that tradition. How one baptizes is not an issue when it comes to heresy. Where in the history of the church councils that condemn heresy are the mode of baptisms made an issue of?
RE: Both claim to believe in sola scriptura and sola fide yet they differ widely on something as essential as baptism – what it means, who receives it, why it matters. Christ and the Holy Spirit simply don’t operate that way.
Lutherans DO Not quarrel with Baptists on baptism. They might disagree on the mode of baptism, but they do not call each other heretics for one practicing it one way and one practicing it the other way.
And as for St. Patrick, can you show me any instance where he baptized infants? His writings mention baptism of ADULTS ( Like Enda ). It never mentions his baptizing infants. Cormac was Enda’s son who was born before Enda was baptized. I find it strange that there is no mention of the bpatism of Cormac at all.
RE: No. Although all baptized Christians have some connection to the Church, not all are members of the Church. Some directly reject it in fact.
I will agree to the word “some”. It applies to those who are baptized Roman Catholic as well. I know of Roman Catholics who have become atheist. I know of some who have converted to Islam. They CANNOT be members of the church universal.
RE: The correct one. Yours is not the Biblical definition. Yours is merely the Protestant definition.
Well, I have cited scripture. Which scripture do you cite that shows my understanding to be wrong?
The least you could do is cite some passages. I’m waiting as usual .... ( in vain I bet ).
RE: No. Heresy has already been defined.
Then surely for the benefit of those who read this exchange, it would be a matter for you to state it for our edification.
RE: It is not how I define it. It is not how you define it. It is why do you continue to embrace it?
How do I know if me or you are embracing it or not unless you define it?
RE:I don’t need to.
Oh yes you do. Unless you do it, your accusations are meaningless.
RE: I already know the definitions.
Well, prove it by defining it.
RE: If you don’t know those definitions, that is your problem
But I just defined it in my previous post. You haven’t told me whether you agreed with it or not. And if you don’t, you ought to tell me where my definition is wrong and most importantly — WHY.
RE: and reflective of the fact that you are just a
Protestant and Protestantism is synonymous with heresy.
Where in the Bible does it say that?
It is just as meaningless as my saying — You are a ROMAN Catholic and ROMAN Catholicism is synonymous with heresy.
RE: I am in the Church, follow the Gospel,
Again, what is the gospel? I point you towards 1 Corinthians 15 as St. Paul tells us. Do you agree with that?
RE: and leave all the Heresy to you since you embrace it.
Define heresy for us, otherwise the above statement is just babbling.
RE: No. Things are what they are. You apparently want things to be what they aren’t.
Nope, I want YOU to clarify what you mean when you use a word. We cannot know whether things are what they are or how they should be unless you define your terms.
RE: A Protestant can never be “catholic” because if his beliefs became “catholic” he would instantly cease to be a Protestant in belief.
I will agree that a Protestant cannot be ROMAN catholic. But if the word — catholic means the universal church of believers (and it does), then yes, Protestants who believe in Jesus Christ and strive to follow His teachings are catholic ( Not Roman Catholic ).
RE:Completely false.
Absolutely true.
RE: I directly equate catholic with Catholic as is proper.
Nope, you equate catholic with ROMAN catholic, which is not exactly proper.
RE:What you believe doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church is catholic.
To be more correct — all true believers in Christ REGARDLESS OF DENOMINATION are catholic. And what is “true believer” is not something you or I can exactly determine. Only God in his omniscience knows.
RE: Protestant sects are just heretical sects and not catholic in any sense of the world.
Again, DEFINE HERESY. You keep using the word but keep avoiding its definition. And oh yeah, I’m comfy, this thread has mega bytes. I can wait.
Well, since you have not defined what constitute heresy, the statement is only made by your own authority. That’s all.
And if you want to cite any modern Pope who claims Protestants are heretical, I’d like to hear from you.
RE: Once again you attack a belief no one holds.
I don’t attack people for what they themselves tell me.
I KNOW of Baptized Roman Catholics who have become atheist and muslim, that is not an attack, that is ( to use your words ) — They way things are. They themselves user the term “atheist” and “muslim”. I simply acknowledge what they say.
Nope. But it is irrefutable
Well, I refute you nonetheless.
RE: and that’s why I called it so.
Yes, and the “I” in the above sentence is YOUR opinion. Holds as much water as a bucket full of holes.
RE: No kidding.
Yes, no kidding.
RE: You mean that once again you will attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds.
I use scripture. The onus is on you to show me where my understanding of scripture is faulty.
RE: Why are Protestants so dishonest?
I could also ask the question — why is Vladimir so afraid to define his terms?
RE: Again, why do you attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds.
Then I have to ask — why do you attack people who are not of your denomination as heretics or preaching a false gospel without bothering and even REFUSING to define your terms?
RE: Not all Christians recognize St. Patrick as a saint.
Which “Christian”? Can you name some?
RE: It’s amazing how much time you spend making points that do not need to be made.
Simply — it is in order to clarify what I mean and what I believe. I could also say this — It’s amazing how much time you spend using words like heresy and gospel without defining what you mean by these terms.
RE: Correction: no Protestant can be Catholic.
Correction : No Protestant can be Roman catholic, but Protestants CAN be catholic. And not all those baptized as Roman Catholics are Catholics.
No the emphasis is on “already”.
Nope I emphasize the word “I” because that is what YOU opine.
RE: And I have no “peculiar” definition of what the gospel is.
You refuse to define it, and that’s peculiar in itself.
RE: I only hold to the true definition.
Which is what? we’re close ... tell us please. I’d like to see how it holds up to Saint Paul’s..... Yes, I’m comfy and I;m waiting....
RE: Only Protestants or other heretics can have a peculiar definition of the gospel by definition.
Well, what is a heretic and what is the gospel?
RE: No, you don’t. You go by what most Protestants say St. Paul said.
Can you tell me what St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that I or other Protestants don’t adhere to?
re: What you conclude is immaterial since you’re a sectarian and holder of heresy.
Since you have not bothered to define heresy, I still conclude that my conclusion is MATERIAL.
RE: Like the vast majority of multi-million dollar televangelists James Kennedy worshiped money.
You have just made an accusation which you need to back up with evidence. Otherwise you violate the 9th commandment.
RE: Like the vast majority of multi-million dollar televangelists James Kennedy worshiped money.
You have just made an accusation which you need to back up with evidence. Otherwise you violate the 9th commandment.
“During his lifetime, Coral Ridge Ministries grew to a US$37-million-a-year non-profit corporation with an audience of 3.5 million.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/d_james_kennedy.htm
RE: “During his lifetime, Coral Ridge Ministries grew to a US$37-million-a-year non-profit corporation with an audience of 3.5 million.
So, it grew due to donations from people who feel that the ministry helped them. What did Kennedy and his staff do with that money? Did Kennedy enrich himself? Or did he put the money to good use?
I know of many Catholic Schools whose endowment have grown over the years TAX FREE. That tells us nothing about whether the head of these schools worship money or not...
“Did Kennedy enrich himself? Or did he put the money to good use”
Guarantee you that Kennedy died a rich man and that money came from preaching.
Catholic priests are not rich and plenty of them have to make a vow of poverty and have ABSOLUTELY nothing but the meager salary the church provides them.
Father Benedict Groeschel comes to mind. He’s a Capuchin Franciscan priest and best selling author who has NOTHING. He lives the life of the monk, like the rest of the priests in his order, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. The world is full of Catholic priest who have hardly any earthy possessions.
RE: Guarantee you that Kennedy died a rich man and that money came from preaching.
OK, can you show me us evidence of that?
Since you guaranteed it, you can at least show us the evidence. A mansion, a yacht, a jet that he uses personally perhaps?
RE: Catholic priests are not rich and plenty of them have to make a vow of poverty and have ABSOLUTELY nothing but the meager salary the church provides them.
I never attacked Catholic priests ( although there have been news reports of a few who were caught stealing money ). So you don’t have to make comparisons. There are greedy and virtuous people in every denomination. Let’s stick to your accusations of Kennedy allegedly loving money.
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2007/09/religious-right-leader-d-james.php
Dr. James Kennedy was a very welthy man. His book sales alone made him rich.
God never said there was anything wrong with making money as long you didn’t have a love of money and worshipped the dollar over him. Dr. Kennedy did a lot good in this world. He was an outspoken defender of the unborn and the institution of marriage. I use to like hearing his sermons on TV.
RE: Dr. James Kennedy was a very welthy man. His book sales alone made him rich.
_________________________________
The issue is not really how much money he made from the books he wrote. If people find the books he wrote useful and helpful, of course they are going to buy them and it goes without saying that he should receive the royalties. That’s after all, how our market society works
The issue is WHAT DID HE DO WITH THE MONEY HE EARNED?
Did he use them to further spread the gospel? Did he use them to help others? If the answer is yes, then he is being a good steward of the money he earned.
The Bible does not warn about earning money, it warns about LOVE of money. *THAT* is what we have to prove regarding James Kennedy.
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.