RE: False. I am not “ROMAN Catholic”. I am just Catholic.
Well, in which case, welcome to the club... I am a member of the catholic ( i.e. UNIVERSAL ) church too.
As for not being ROMAN catholic, I’ll have to determine that from the ensuing statements that you make.
RE: I never said it did. I said BELIEVING IN CHRIST AND BEING BAPTIZED did. I suggest you spend more time actually reading what I post rather than making things up out of thin air.
Well, if BELIEVING IN CHRIST AND BEING BAPTIZED makes one a Christian, then James Kennedy IS Christian. He has DONE BOTH.
RE: Nope. Believing in a false gospel makes someone a heretic. Believing in Christ and being baptized makes you a Christian.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. You MUST believe in the TRUE gospel to be a true Christian.
Gnosticism was considered a heresy (Ireneaus fought against it in his work AGAINST HERESIES).
The Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs.
Here is what the apostle John said against this belief masking as being Christians:
(1 John 2: 18-20 )
“Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”
The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind; and we would still be lost in our sins. Yet, they claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.
So, based on what the apostle John wrote, being a heretic does NOT make one a Christian. They DO NOT BELONG to Christ.
RE: No, but St. Patrick was Catholic. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Nope, Patrick was catholic in the sense that he was a member of the UNIVERSAL ( catholic ) church in the sense that he preached the orthodox, scriptural Christian faith.
Anybody who confesses to Patrick’s faith IS a member of the catholic (universal) church.
RE: He didn’t have to be. He was canonized by acclamation. That was common in his time.
Well in this case, any faithful Christian who faithfully preaches the gospel and lives for Christ is by virtue of his faith, a saint, canonized by acclamation ( whether the Roman Catholic church officially canonizes him or not ).
RE: So? As I said, St. Patrick was canonized by acclamation. That was all that was needed.
Well if so, then I repeat -— any faithful Christian who faithfully preaches the gospel and lives for Christ is by virtue of his faith, a saint, canonized by acclamation ( whether the Roman Catholic church officially canonizes him or not ).
RE: R-I-G-H-T. You’ve already admitted one error (”OK, I admit poor choice of words”)
When one chooses words poorly, one admits it. That does not necessarily mean that other things one says is in error as well.
RE: I never said “those whoa re not ROMAN Catholic [are] non-believers in the Gospel”.
But you said James Kennedy ( a none Roman Catholic ) did not believe in the gospel. It was there in your post above.
RE: So, even when I write very clearly - and that’s all the time - you can’t help but “misunderstand” and “misquote” me.
Again, why is James Kennedy not a believer in the gospel?
I’ve asked you this several times, I’m still waiting for an answer...
RE: I know. And I’m still going to ignore it. My reason is simple: I see you are already completely inventing out of whole cloth things I’ve never said or believed.
Again, I am asking you for you to CLARIFY what you mean by the term “Not believe in the gospel”.
So, I’m still waiting.... why are you ignoring my attempt at seeking clarification?
RE: Nope. I will merely continue to post what I want, when I want, where I want, and how I want - within the rules of the board. Based on your misrepresentations of what.
Well, I guess based on the above response you are making, your statement that “James Kennedy does not believe in the gospel” is just that, a personal belief no one can take seriously.
“Well, in which case, welcome to the club... I am a member of the catholic ( i.e. UNIVERSAL ) church too.”
No, you’re just a Protestant. No Protestant is “catholic” by definition.
“As for not being ROMAN catholic, I’ll have to determine that from the ensuing statements that you make.”
You don’t get to make that determination. The Catholic Church does.
“Well, if BELIEVING IN CHRIST AND BEING BAPTIZED makes one a Christian, then James Kennedy IS Christian. He has DONE BOTH.”
Did I ever say otherwise? No. He believed in a false gospel. I never doubted he believed in Jesus and was baptized.
“Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. You MUST believe in the TRUE gospel to be a true Christian.”
No. You must believe in the true gospel to be a Christian in the fullest sense of the term. You can, however, be a Christian and have false beliefs - even about the gospel - as Protestants demonstrate every day.
“Gnosticism was considered a heresy (Ireneaus fought against it in his work AGAINST HERESIES).”
Yes, and?
“The Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs.”
And they were wrong, of course.
“Here is what the apostle John said against this belief masking as being Christians:(1 John 2: 18-20 )”
John denounced false teachers - just as he would have denounced D. James Kennedy.
“The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent.”
And not at all at issue here so I have no idea why you’re going on and on about it.
“So, based on what the apostle John wrote, being a heretic does NOT make one a Christian. They DO NOT BELONG to Christ.”
1) I never said being a heretic MAKES ONE A CHRISTIAN. The idea that you just spent time and energy to refute something no one ever claimed is hilarious!
2) Gnosticism denied the Trinity, the Incarnation, and numerous other basic Christian doctrines.
“Nope, Patrick was catholic in the sense that he was a member of the UNIVERSAL ( catholic ) church in the sense that he preached the orthodox, scriptural Christian faith.”
St. Patrick was Catholic. He believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the authority of the pope. He believed in a priesthood (he was celibate as well), and sacraments in the Catholic sense. The Church was most decidedly “UNIVERSAL ( catholic )” for it was after all the Catholic Church. Even Protestants have had to admit that St. Patrick was Catholic: James McGoldrick has an excellent chapter about exactly that: http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Successionism-James-Edward-McGoldrick/dp/0810836815
“Anybody who confesses to Patrick’s faith IS a member of the catholic (universal) church.”
Which isn’t your puny, latter day, 16th century or later, invented sect. It’s the Catholic Church.
“Well in this case, any faithful Christian who faithfully preaches the gospel and lives for Christ is by virtue of his faith, a saint, canonized by acclamation ( whether the Roman Catholic church officially canonizes him or not ).”
No. To say that anyone who does anything - no matter how good - has received acclamation for it by the faithful is simply untrue. Also, the saints who were acclaimed as such were known to lived lives of heroic virtue. They need not have ever “preached” a moment in their entire lives. Preaching is no more necessary for canonization that it is for justification of sanctification.
“Well if so, then I repeat -— any faithful Christian who faithfully preaches the gospel and lives for Christ is by virtue of his faith, a saint, canonized by acclamation ( whether the Roman Catholic church officially canonizes him or not ).”
And you’re still wrong - as I already demonstrated. Most people, even those who go to heaven, are never acclaimed a saint after their deaths. No acclamation means no canonization by acclamation. Your premise, therefore, is inherently flawed.
“When one chooses words poorly, one admits it. That does not necessarily mean that other things one says is in error as well.”
But since you have made other errors - as with your flawed premise above - we can all see the direction your error filled posts are going.
“But you said James Kennedy ( a none Roman Catholic ) did not believe in the gospel. It was there in your post above.”
He believed a false gospel. Yes, and?
“Again, why is James Kennedy not a believer in the gospel?”
Shouldn’t you ask him that? He’s dead so I don’t think you’ll be finding out soon.
“I’ve asked you this several times, I’m still waiting for an answer...”
No, you asked perhaps once before this post - when you asked me to elaborate. And I did so. The question is answered. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the answer.
“Again, I am asking you for you to CLARIFY what you mean by the term “Not believe in the gospel”.”
I already stated - in very simple, short sentences for your convenience - all that is needed for clarification on that point.
“So, I’m still waiting.... why are you ignoring my attempt at seeking clarification?”
I didn’t. Maybe you should read the thread. See post #8.
“Well, I guess based on the above response you are making, your statement that “James Kennedy does not believe in the gospel” is just that, a personal belief no one can take seriously.”
No, it was an objectively true statement and irrefutable in fact.