Posted on 01/26/2018 1:04:07 PM PST by GoldenState_Rose
We are in a time of the first ever mass conversions of Muslims,” Father Mitch Pacwa SJ told me in a phone interview. “God is doing a mighty work among them.”
Pacwa said that mass conversions are happening even in very fundamentalist countries. There is rapidly growing number of conversions especially on the edges of the Muslim world in the western and southern parts of Africa, he said. “Africa is now growing predominantly Christian despite crackdowns,” Pacwa said.
Some of the noteworthy countries he mentioned include Iran, reported to have 3 million Christians, and Indonesia with reports of 2 million a year converting.
“In Mongolia, the president opened the country to Christians and there’s even an archbishop,” Pacwa said. “They built a Catholic school there too. If I was younger, I would have gone.” He said that the desire for a Western education was the impetus to open up the country to the Catholic Church.
There are even conversions happening in many strict Muslim countries, according to Pacwa. He did not want to go on record with particulars for fear of increased retribution. Mass conversions are also being reported among refugees that are filling up the Christian churches left empty by Europeans. Many wonder if those are authentic conversions or just a response to improving their chances for amnesty, but time will tell.
Signs of this conversion are showing up in the U.S. too, Pacwa said. “I was about to celebrate Mass at a Maronite church in San Diego and I said hi to a man who introduced himself as Achmad. I asked if he was a Christian. He said: ‘Yes, I was recently baptized.’ He said he from Morocco. Christians do not have the name Ahmad—that’s a form of Mohammad.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Very true....I have lots more.
Catholics can try to use all kinds of semantic games and get into ridiculous hair splitting differences between worship and adulation, etc.
But God's command deals with the physical and seen which cannot be denied, instead of weasel words which can be.
The command is this.....
Exodus 20:4-6 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
It doesn't say to not worship, which I have no doubt God knew people could deny with their hair splitting definitions.
It DOES say to *NOT BOW DOWN*.
That can be objectively seen and determined.
And there are plenty of images on the internet of Catholics doing exactly that.
And I remember well seeing people do it in the very Catholic churches I used to attend.
Remember it well ... the poster’s screen name, too. The rewards we receive at the Bema seat DO adorn the walls of the New Jerusalem ... according to the Revelation of John.
.
Who authored this analysis of the Koine?
I’m always bemused by the Revisionist’s facile rationalizations for ignoring parts of the Bible that don’t square with their dogma, but abandon those same rationalizations when applied to similar circumstances. (cf. “context” with regard to “keys to the kingdom, proper dress of women, divorce, et al)
Furthermore, one does not “prove” the “final authority” of the Bible by assuming it with the charge “unbiblical.”
In a very real sense, this has been like trying theology with a cultist. They are so fixated on “not losing,” they rarely attempt a critical evaluation of their own reasoning.
If you can get past the fact that Jesus left us a Church, not a book, I suppose you can get past anything.
When the weight of evidential Scriptural warrant is the basis for doctrine, with a willingness to go where its Truth leads, then God can progressively open our eyes to see more than we would otherwise.
And so also notice what it does not teach. Along with Romans, Hebrews is the most extensive doctrinal book of the NT epistles, and an steady eloquence that is without rival. Held to be authored by Paul (though absent of his authorial self-identification seen in the rest) , with the only compelling evidence for that being the words of Peter in 2 Peter 3:15, it was likely a formal address which was then transcribed.
The main theme is the superior (key word "better") nature of the new covenant, with its better high priest, sacrifice, promises and salvation, with its purpose being an exhortation to persecuted Hebrew believers to persevere (key word "endure") in the faith in the light of the encouragement the new covenant realities provide, and the warning against neglecting "so great salvation."
Faced with the latter, OSAS apologists typically assign the warnings to unbelievers, yet contextually they are written to brethren who are thus warned about departing "from the living God," by unbelief, "drawing back into perdition," versus continuing in the faith and receiving the promises.
However, this same book also is contrary to the Catholic gospel which is critically contrary to that of Scripture. For it is one thing to personally penitently believe in the Lord Jesus for salvation on His account and thus be justified by heart-purifying faith which is imputed for righteousness, and so be "in Christ," "in the faith," "accepted in the Beloved," yet deny such can even die in final apostasy, and it is another thing to never personally penitently believe in the Lord Jesus for salvation on His account, but believe that the act of baptism as an infant made one actually good enough (formally justified by infused charity) and thus fit for Heaven, and need to attain the condition of perfection of character here or in RC purgatory in order to enter Heaven. And who believe the merits of Rome will help them then to obtain.
Such thus typically never have a person day of salvation of coming to Christ as convicted, needy, damned and destitute sinners who must cast all their faith on the Lord Jesus to save them by His merits, and thus be baptized and live it out. Instead RCs are led to believe that by the grace of God they will actually become good enough to be with God.
Reference is listed.
Sorry...missed that.
Not a problem! Wallace has forgotten more Greek than I’ll ever learn.
“ facile rationalizations for ignoring parts of the Bible that don’t square with their dogma, but abandon those same rationalizations when applied to similar circumstances. (cf. “context” with regard to “keys to the kingdom, proper dress of women, divorce, et al)”
Friend, I’ve no doubt all humans are drawn to discount what contradicts their beliefs and that which makes them uncomfortable.
Every educated Bible teacher I’ve known for 40 years in many settings, including churches and two seminaries, starts with a hermeneutic that demands consistency.
Most teach every verse in every book in the Bible, explaining as they go.
As an observer of Romanism and former member, your description applies equally or greater to almost every Roman belief.
Never is a consistent hermeneutic applied.
Never is truth limited to what Scripture teaches in its entirety.
Always the Roman belief starts outside the Scriptures and seeks justification by piecing phrases and verses out of context.
My experience and even Ratzinger’s criticisms of Romanism bear this out.
In the entire lifespan of Romanism, they have never produced an official commentary on the entirety of Scripture. Why.
They've only had 1700 years to do so.
Once you put something down on paper there becomes a record. I think the RCC, because it has changed so much, and continues to change, is afraid to do this. It would provide a clear record of their change...something they want to be able to deny.
Did Jesus tell the disciples that He would ask the Father and that He would send the Spirit so they would remember all that Jesus wants even us to know? THAT is how we got the NT. So yes Jesus gave us the New Testament epistles, not the catholic church.
On bowing: the Biblical context often affirms "bowing," as a form of respect, illustrated by dozens and dozens of OT instances in which godly people bowed to people, places, and things, yet without being guilty of idolatry. What is condemned is idolatry, not merely "bowing".
Similarly, on "Father": the Biblical context often affirms calling human men "fathers" as a form of respect, illustrated by dozens of NT instances in which godly people (like Apostle Paul and the msrtyr Stephen) called men "father" without being guilty of disobeying Christ. What is condemned is settning up a rival to God's authority, not rightful respect to fathers, masters and teachers.
But do you want to understand? it seems not, because you've never engaged with these points even though this discussion has been going on for years.
So excuse me, right now I have something else to do.
Like ignoring my above cited comparisons? ;-)
But seriously, I know you’re talking about good godly people. Nevertheless, they’re not going to find inconsistencies if they’re not looking for them (1Thes 5:21), regardless of what they “demand.”
One of my big reasons for “crossing the Tiber” after 22 years as a Scripture-only-Protestant was all the extra-biblical rationalizations, and presumption in applying those inferences as if they were Scripture itself. Not to mention the profound lack of substantive guidance for living AFTER salvation; so much so that the “he must not have been saved in the first place” lament known to all “born again believers” is an unrecognized refutation for everything they profess and preach about salvation.
It says *not bow down* and *call no man farther*.
Now if Catholics wish to weasel out of obeying the clear concise command of God, then they will continue to rationalize sin of which your arguments are a wonderful example.
So you choose Catholicism with its *sacred tradition* that does the very thing you claim you are rejecting in Protestantism?
Or are you saying that *all the extra-biblical rationalizations, and presumption in applying those inferences as if they were Scripture itself*, is what you wanted and so crossed the Tiber to get?
You just cannot make this stuff up.
You seem to forget Catholicism doesn’t make the claims of biblical sufficiency the revisionist sects did when they broke away.
Catholics are not limited to finding authority for its actions in the Scriptures; Revisionists are, and it seems to me you can’t get past the idea, metaphorically speaking, that the President of a foreign country does not exercise the same powers and authority as your own President.
One of my big reasons for “crossing the Tiber” after 22 years as a Scripture-only-Protestant was all the extra-biblical rationalizations, and presumption in applying those inferences as if they were Scripture itself.
1. If someone imposes extra-biblical rationalizations (and that is at least half of what Rome teaches), and applies these as if they are Scripture or authoritative, they are teaching falsehood.Not to mention the profound lack of substantive guidance for living AFTER salvation;2. Your characterization of protestant teaching as "Scripture-only-Protestant" is not true. In addition to the authority of Scripture, God has also given every believer the Holy Spirit to guide them into truth. In addition to the Holy Spirit's guidance and the Sacred Scripture, God has given the church leaders - pastors and teachers, gifted the the same Spirit that indwells each believer, inspired the Scripture and given spiritual gifts to the church. In addition, God has given elders to guide the church.
I have much to agree with you here. In many evangelical churches, there is more emphasis on salvation than living a life that honors God.That said, Romanism is equally guilty of the same complaint. It is the substitution of a non-biblical sacramental system of false righteousness and ritual, mixed with paganism. None of that pleases God.
"so much so that the “he must not have been saved in the first place” lament known to all “born again believers” is an unrecognized refutation for everything they profess and preach about salvation.
Disagree, FRamigo.Christ Himself said some seed springs up quickly and then dies out. He says to gather the wheat with the tares at the end of the age.
The Biblical message is that not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord, didn't I..." is one of His. That will never change until He returns to sort it out.
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.