Posted on 11/09/2001 12:18:53 PM PST by Romulus
Indeed. [An aside: Why seek the living to malign the dead? Are the living dead and the dead living?]
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Evidently, something was worth more to Newman than position or reputation in his own church.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
For my part, I would rather be in the church built by Jesus than in anyone else's own church.
Try reading what the Word of God says. I've posted it to you. I believe my last post was 90. You failed to respond.
Now, if Billy Graham were to go out and commit murder tomorrow, the response would be, "Well, he was never really saved, anyway."
Like I said, you don't understand what the Bible says about Salvation. A simple question: Why did God save man? The answer is 3 words.
Which reminds me that the differences between Islam and diluted, deracinated elements of contemporary Christianity are the matter of this thread, despite your obsession with hijacking it to advertise your supposed salvation.
Anyone who reads me for longer than a day or two knows my views on the Catholic Church. Even if you did not, my handle ought to be a hint. Good day to you.
Ten Commandments in Islam.
Took almost 15 seconds to search and find.
Your bigotry is amazing. Funny how the Rabbis of the Jewish tribes on the Arabian Pennisula were prophesying that God would send a messenger to the Arabs before Mohammed showed up.
The nice thing about being an athiest is that you have a blind faithlessness. You must believe that something came from nothing in a random event. And you must believe that you yourself are god in that you claim to know that which only God can know. From nothing to nothing; going nowhere in between.
Are you telling me that you would simply roll over and kiss your sweet nothing goodbye if a terrorist had it in mind to kill you (his peculiar idea)? Would you be willing to harm him to save yourself?
Yes. And add to that my family and country.
Next question.
I think you have it pretty much backward. Calling it a sacrament does not make so as it is an outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace. A true sacrament can only be a reflection of God. Your self-justification falls upon your own face. You see, justification is by the election of God and not the election of man as you believe. None of the RC sacramental ceremonies reflect the election of God. Thus, the Baptist have a true Baptism that reflects the regenerative washing of the Holy Spirit done prior to any confession of faith.
BTW, the RC is very much like Islam. It has been bragged about on FR for weeks now and I believe we have a picture of the pope kissing the Koran right here on this thread!
And add to that my family and country. Next question.
Don't mind if I do: How do you distinguish the former from the latter?
This, BTW, is one more in a long list of bogus anti-Catholic claims. The Pope does not wear his title on his miter. The claim, which you didn't post, says that the "Pope's title," "Vicarius Filii Dei" ("Vicar of the Son of God") adds up to 666. But that's not used as a Papal title; the ordinary title is "Vicarius Christi" ("Vicar of Christ"). Now, obviously, since Christ is the Son of God, calling the Pope "Vicarius Filii Dei" is theologically correct, and has been used as a descriptive, but not as a formal title. You know you're into tinfoil hat territory when you have to invent a Papal "title" to pin 666 on the Pope.
(And don't get me started on connections between the Papacy and Revelation 18. Suffice it to say that people who make those connections don't appear to actually read Revelation.)
I've never heard of the source you give. As far as I know, this claim comes from Ellen Gould White, the founder of 7th Day Adventism. I believe the name of her book is The Great Controversy, or something like that.
The accusation can be thrown back at Mrs. White, BTW. The Roman numerals in her name, if you turn the "U" in "Gould" back into its archaic "V" form, and the "W" in "White" back into its archaic "VV" form ... gives 666.
Other schemes give 666 for Martin Luther and many others.
Cardinal Manning says, "The Catholic Church is either the masterpiece of Satan or the kingdom of the Son of God." Cardinal Newman says, "a sacerdotal order is historically the essence of the church of Rome; if not divinely appointed, it is doctrinally the essence of antichrist."
I think both of these distinguished clerics are being a bit over-dramatic. The Mormons make many of the same claims as we do (as far as authority, sacerdotal and otherwise), except that they claim the true church needed to be "restored" through Joseph Smith. The Orthodox make almost exactly the same claims; they claim we broke off from them. Are all three the "kingdom of the antichrist"?
Scripture is pretty clear about what constitutes "antichrist" ... the denial that Jesus is the Christ, the denial that Jesus is God in the flesh. Rome flunks the test. The Orthodox flunk the test. You (as far as I know) flunk the test.
Have you ever looked at a Catholic Bible?
I'm looking at one right now; Exodus, Chapeter 20, verse 4, where it says, "You shall not carve idols for yourselves..." So obviously that commandment hasn't been deleted.
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.