Posted on 04/08/2004 1:40:06 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Rosalie and Michael (not their real names) are a Catholic husband and wife from the Northeast who run an upscale hair salon in the South; they have long been what might be called "perpetual parish shoppers," ever looking for a church community that perfectly fits their spirituality.
Not long after Rosalie began attending an evangelical Christian mega-church whose spirituality emphasizes Biblical fundamentalism, church members directed her to a plethora of Internet sites aimed at revealing to Catholics the "truth" about the Catholic Church.
One example of the sort of misinformation present on such sites: The back of the pope’s chair in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome is inscribed with an upside-down cross — proof that the pope is allied with Satan, right?
Perhaps a poorly catechized Catholic like Rosalie would fall for that explanation, but others will remember that St. Peter asked to be crucified upside-down because he did not feel worthy to die in the same way his Lord did.
(Excerpt) Read more at osvpublishing.com ...
Ohh. There is only one way to heaven and that is to be born again. Being Catholic does not preclude being born again. If your dad believed in the Lord Jesus Christ then he was born again.
Now typically in P vs C debated it becomes easy to start saying the other believes a different gospel and therefore the wrong one and therefore is not saved. I don't go there simply because I was a flaming athiest and amazingly ignorant back when I was 21. When I got saved, I was born again. But I was still very very ignorant. That ignorance didn't change the fact that I was saved when I believed.
Catholics know far far more about the Lord than I did when I first got saved, but I was still saved.
I think I'm rambling.
I've spent a lot of time debating technicalities with Catholics, some of them not very kind spirited too. Then once in a while I stray to a creation vs evolution thread or I consider a Muslim and I start to realize how much I have in common with many Catholics. Sure, we both know CINO's aplenty but there are a lot of Catholics with quite a bit of faith.
I also know Methodists who go so far as to get their kids baptised and yet confess that they simply do not believe in Jesus.
Heh heh ... a common tactic here on FR.
Friend, is it possible for me to say anything without being thought to be speaking under my own authority? If you can claim that everything held by the Catholic church has the authority of 2000 years of history starting from Peter and carried through time to now, then obviously I don't have a leg to stand on. All I have is a bible. That is my only authority. This leads us to the crux of our differences. I find a different set of beliefs in the bible than I see in Catholicism. So how does one decide what is right, the bible or "2000 years of Catholic history"? I find my own words fail to make the case for the bible in this question. The bible alone makes it's case against the Catholic Church's authority. I am confident it it's authority.
Forgive me for losing track but was it you who said that Christians already knew all that stuff about the pope and Mary so Paul didn't write about it? If that was the case than the seat of pope and the spiratual significance ascribed to Mary by Catholics would have been clearly mentioned in Acts or maybe even in the gospels.
matt:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
What are you trying to say here? The bible says to go out and preach the gospel. Are they preaching whatever they want? The Gospel is what we find in the bible, if it is not, then it is another gospel. You will find some pretty big differences between what the bible says is needed for salvation and what the RCC holds. When we find a difference, we should trust the bible, not the RCC.
Matt 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;
John 21:25And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
This last verse especially proves that there is not some source of other information that we are to trust. It says specifically that Jesus did so many things that it could not be contained. Since the verse says that all the things He did could not be contained why in the world use it as a verse to prove that the bible is insuffient and that the RCC or some other source of tradition is needed. It says that He did infinite things and that only this small set has been recorded so how do we trust that this small set is the set we need. Simple, by considering what it says about Who wrote the bible.
Have you ever read about Joseph, Jacob's 11th son? It's in Genesis.
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.