Posted on 06/15/2015 2:49:32 AM PDT by Cvengr
What is so astonishing in these threads is the depth of blindness the religion of Catholicism has achieved in their adherents! I suspect one or two of the respondents are in fact priests in that religion. Every Mormon male on such a thread is considered by that religion to be a priest, some even have two priesthood ‘stars’
Have you ever heard the little phrase regarding the spelling of ASSUME ... assumption is so destitute of Christian agape and filled with haughty catholicism’s poison as to disgusting. It is haughty presumption which asserts that because someone is not baptized into catholicism that they are not baptized at all. Reminds me of the foolishness PAul addressed regarding being baptized into Appolo, or Peter, or Paul.
As I once stated, I do not know for sure what dispensational is but it seems you believe that there will be a future rapture which is the first Resurrection.
Is that true?
It is a satanic deception to twist this remembrance into a cannibalistic ritual. To do this exposes catholicism as a religion not from God but from antichrist. Catholics follow these heresies at the peril of their immortal souls.
Thedogmatic adherence to the deception that their is only one first resurrection is easily handled by seeing the several instances of dead being raised again to life throughout the Bible. Were these 'the first resurrection'. Well, yes, for individually each is resurrected a first time, so all of them are resurrected a first time and so shall the event of the Rapture be a part of this first resurrection. But the bodies transformed in the Rapture miracle will not be in any second resurrection for they are given immortal bodies in their first resurrection.
If you call a cat; it will ignore you and keep doing what it wants; never acknowledging that you are there.
If you call a goat; it will ignore you and keep doing what it wants; while acknowledging that you are there and daring you to do something about it!
I am not making any kind of personal attack. I am saying the word "ignorance." He/She doesn't know what he is talking about and worse, when you lead them to the truth, they willfully turn and run from it.
He (we'll say...) doesn't take the time to see what the word "Eucharist" means -- just goes on his merry way. (See that the same word is used in Lk 17:16 as in Mt 26:27 - "eucharisteō.")
He tells me to read the account. As if...
"I disagree" he says. Oh! In favor of what? The answer is : What he's been taught. Not what is true. The book of Hebrews blows his magisterium to bits.
IF you are right and we are talking to Priests in training... then this might just be the last chance they have before their "Holy Orders" and a career of leading people away from the truth.
The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.
That does not say that one is saved by works does it?
If I depended on my works to be saved I would be lost, on the other hand if I say I am saved but deny every thing Jesus said I would be lost.
So I believe it would be best to just let God do the judging as I am not fit to do that.
The Goats are condemned , not because they did not work, but because they had never repented and believed>>>>>>>>>>
That could be but that is not what Jesus said.
They were not sheep because they did the work that God had ordained for them, they did the work because they were the sheep.
That could also be, but again is not the words Jesus used.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Why would I need to know them by their fruits? could it be because they are going to lie me?
If some preacher comes to me who will deny any obligation of helping his neighbor, I will know him by his fruits.
We have an insistent catholic on this thread who is unable to capture the essence of James regarding works to prove faith. The key is to discern of which perspective, man’s or God’s seeing proof James addresses. Clearly from the text surrounding the questioned phrase we know James is referring to how man can know if another man’s profession of faiths is alive or dead ... in the works of the man is the key TO MEN. Outward behavior is how men discern. God sees the inward parts.
That is true
Joshua 6
22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot’s house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.
23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.
There is not any doubt God knew the Woman`s faith but these men of Israel could only see it in her works, so she and all of her family were saved.
Her faith was in the God of the Israelites so she did the works required.
He had some maturity problems early in his career, but has matured well now. I saw him interviewed once. He said he grew up a Sabre fan and always wanted to play there, but once he got to Chicago, he said he didn't want to be anywhere else but Chicago.
A most excellent example! And we have the examples of Ruth, and Esther, also.
Scripture?
Or the Catholic church?
Well, it certainly can't be both. 😇
It is NOT a true sacrifice because Jesus didn't come to this earth so that we humans would have something to offer to God as a sacrifice for our sins in the same manner that the Jews brought their animals to the sacrifices at the Temple.
It's also not a true sacrifice because the catechism states that it's bloodless, which invalidates it as a sacrifice. Without the shedding of blood, there is NO forgiveness of sins. If there is no blood in the sacrifice of the mass, as the CCC states there isn't, then it's just participation in a useless killing. Also, they are now forced into a position of telling us just where the blood of Christ that they claim they are eating, comes from.
Also Jesus died on a cross, He was NOT offered up by a human priest on an altar, so that even the method of allegedly participating in the sacrifice of Jesus is wrong.
Jesus came to pay the penalty for our sin Himself, of His own accord. He stated clearly that no man takes His life from him but that HE lays it down or His own free will.
The Passover was a commemorative meal of remembrance of what God did in delivering the Israelites out of the hands of the Egyptians, and likewise, the Last Supper is, too.
I was simply instituted BEFORE the event instead of during or after.
*not as a removal of dirt from the body*.
IOW, NOT water baptism.
Oh, Els! Served up piping hot for some right now --
People that wait till the "judgement" to find out, have about a 99.99999% iron clad guarantee, of experiencing the fires of Hell. Waiting till the judgement, to find out, is not a wise thing to do. It can, and will, be hazardous to your eternal well being. That will not cut the mustard for me. Have a nice forever. 🔥😇
I never said that one is required to be baptized in the Catholic Church. Just that Baptism is required. The Catholic Church recognizes Baptism from other churches if done properly.
For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
Anyone can baptize someone.
Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals, baptize “in the name of Jesus.” As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian.
Both groups also reject the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, a heresy known as Arianism (after its fourth-century founder), and the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals claim that there is only a single person, Jesus, in the Godhead, a heresy known as Sabellianism (after its inventor in the third century; see the Catholic Answers tract, God in Three Persons).
There you go again. Insinuating that the words Paul wrote were not from the Holy Spirit. What’s up with that?
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.