“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.
RE: No, you’re just a Protestant. No Protestant is “catholic” by definition.
Nope, Protestants are NOT ROMAN Catholic by definition. The term “Catholic” means UNIVERSAL. As long as one believes in Jesus Christ and His teachings one IS by definition, a member of the catholic (universal) church.
RE: You don’t get to make that determination. The Catholic Church does.
In which case, the CATHOLIC church did make the determination by virtue of the Lord of the Church — Jesus Christ Himself.
RE: He believed in a false gospel. I never doubted he believed in Jesus and was baptized.
Which goes back to the original question which you never answered — what is the true gospel?
I’m still waiting....
RE: No. You must believe in the true gospel to be a Christian in the fullest sense of the term.
Agree. In which case, heretics are NOT Christians. Not in the fullest sense of the word.
RE: You can, however, be a Christian and have false beliefs - even about the gospel - as Protestants demonstrate every day.
NOT NECESSARILY. It depends on the ESSENTIALS of what one believes or denies. Gnostics are not Christians because they DENY an essential of the Christian faith — the INCARNATION of Jesus Christ. They say they are Christians and they practice baptism but John says THEY ARE NOT OF US.
So, simply having false beliefs is not the criteria — it is the ESSENTIALNESS of the false beliefs that differentiates a Christian from a non-Christian.
RE: “Gnosticism was considered a heresy (Ireneaus fought against it in his work AGAINST HERESIES).”
Yes, and?
AND THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT CHRISTIANS EVEN AS THEIR BELIEFS WERE FALSE. They were also considered HERETICAL.
So, a heretic ( one who denies ESSENTIAL Christian belief ) CANNOT BE Christian ( as per John’s epistle ).
RE: 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!
But you said one can have heretical beliefs and still be Christian. So, I guess the question becomes — HOW SERIOUS and ESSENTIAL a heretical belief should be.
I would then say believing in a FALSE GOSPEL qualifies as being a serious heretic, one who CANNOT BE Christian.
So, it goes back to my question TO YOU — what is the gospel?
Since you said Kennedy believes in a FALSE GOSPEL.
I want to understand how FALSE his belief is to you.
RE: St. Patrick was Catholic. He believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the authority of the pope.
Well, I believe in the authority of the Pope — IN SO FAR AS HIS TEACHNGS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCRIPTURE. Does that make me a Roman Catholic?
I believe the Pope’s authority derives from GOD’s word, if He teaches God’s word faithfully, then he has God’s authority. But then I believe that authority applies to every person as well.
As for the REAL PRESENCE in the Eucharist, can you cite me a writing of St. Patrick that shows us that he believes that?
RE: No. To say that anyone who does anything - no matter how good - has received acclamation for it by the faithful is simply untrue.
Says who? YOU? Well that’s just you.
RE: Also, the saints who were acclaimed as such were known to lived lives of heroic virtue.
And so? What about those other Christians who have lived lives of heroic virtue that men do not know of but God knows of? Why can’t they be acclaimed?
RE: 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.
Canonization is only a process for those who MEN KNOW ABOUT.
It is not necesssary for considering someone a true saint.
There are MANY Saints we do not know of that are true saints in God’s eyes.
RE: Which isn’t your puny, latter day, 16th century or later, invented sect. It’s the Catholic Church.
If one is faithful to the ORIGINAL teachings of the apostles as given in scripture, it is NOT your puny, latter day invented sect. It IS the faith as originally given by Jesus Himself.
RE: 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.
Nope, it is your premise that is false. One does not need men’s acclamation, one need’s GOD’s acclamation whether men know it or not.
RE: he 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:
I never said St. Patrick was not catholic, I simply question your definition of the word — catholic as exclusive to those who go to the church that you go to.
Catholic is the Greek phrase (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general”. One is a member of Christ’s CATHOLIC church by virtue of belief in Him and His teachings.
“For whosoever BELIEVES in Him HAS everlasting life” ( John 3:16 ).
St. Patrick is catholic, yes, but so are those who are NOT in the ROMAN catholic church.
RE: He believed a false gospel. Yes, and?
And it begs the question -— WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
You have to DEFINE it for us to determine whether your statement is right or wrong.
RE: No, it was an objectively true statement and irrefutable in fact
If it is an objectively true statement, then you should be able to tell me — WHAT IS THE TRUE GOSPEL? You have been avoiding the question and thus far, doing a very good job of NOT ANSWERING it.
Here is what the apostle Paul said about the gospel:
1 Corinthians 15 ( I use the Douay Rheams version ):
Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; [2] By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: [5] And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.
Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. [7] After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. [8] And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. [9] For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. [10] But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
[11] For whether I, or they, so we preach, and so you have believed.
_________________
OK, that is what St. Paul preached as THE GOSPEL.
Why in your opinion, does Kennedy NOT believe in that?