Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
You wrote:
“If they didn’t know Christ, they probably will not be in heaven.”
So a two year old toddler who never knew Christ will burn in hell for ever?
“But that’s up to God. He knows their hearts. My point is that Christians will not be called Catholics in heaven.”
Yeah, actually they will be.
I didn’t say that, Vlad. I believe children will be in heaven. They don’t understand sin and aren’t accountable for that. Jesus loved children. He wouldn’t send them to hell. And no, they won’t be Catholics. They’ll be Christians.
Nope. I know the truth and the truth is that people who go to heaven will be called Christians (if they’re called anything, that is). Some will be Catholics, some won’t.
You wrote:
“The operative word here is doctrine. Doctrines are dictates from man.”
No. Again, and this is the second time I’ve had to tell you this verse, see 2 Timothy 4:3. We once again see that you do not know the Bible.
“How is it the Disciples ever managed before the organized religion of the catholics?”
And once again, Christ gathered and organized 12 Apostles, 70 disciples, taught and trained them for three years and commissioned them to carry out the Great Commission. They were clearly organized. They were organized by God Himself. I have made this irrefutable point several times and you have never once contested it. All you do is ignore it. Can’t you offer some sort of defense of your view? Can’t you show I’m wrong?
“Christ’s True Church started in Jerusalem.”
Yes, it did, and it didn’t stay only there. I doubt you live in Jerusalem today.
“Martin Luther had an epiphany. He wanted the church to get back to the Scriptures.”
No, he knew the Church always was there. He even said it. Martin Luther changes verses to satisfy his needs (especially Romans 3:28). He also dropped books from the Bible to satisfy his own needs. He even boasted at one students exam that he might burn the Epistles of James if Catholics kept using it against him! That is NOT going back to scriptures.
Did you know any of that? Look it up.
“You were as selective as I in what you answered.”
No. I responded to every paragraph. I won’t claim to have responded to each and every point or sentence, but I come rather close to exactly that. You skip almost all verses I mention, on the other hand!
“I have no issue with being baptized. I was baptized when I was a teenager, am I saved now? Even though I’m not catholic? There is no Scripture that says if you believe in Jesus Christ, but don’t get baptized, you are condemned to hell.”
Of course not, and no one is claiming that either. Why create a strawman that NO ONE on this earth believes in?
“If you believe that, then YOU are assuming something that isn’t there.”
And you’re wrong because NO ONE believes that. That is not the teaching of the Church either. That still doesn’t change 1 Peter 3:21 or Mark 16:16.
“Because I don’t take my orders from the catholic church I’m relying on myself? I never said I relied on myself.”
You don’t have to. Logically it is impossible to be otherwise. You have already stated your method for using scriptures and logically there is no reason to think that results in anything than self-reliance. Again, Martin Luther knew this to be the case almost 500 years ago shortly after he taught everyone to do what became his complaint!
“I put my faith in Christ, so I’m relying on Him. I can do that, can’t I?”
You can, but no one can say they are relying on Christ while eschewing His body. Christ sent the Church to teach. He did not send you.
“Or should I be clearing my faith in Him through the catholic church first?”
Again, if He sent the Church - and He did - then how can you ignore it? Here you are attempting to say you don’t rely on yourself and yet everything you say indicates you rely on yourself. Saying you rely on Christ is only your claim. No one can honestly say he is relying on Christ but using unorthodox doctrines and attacking His Church. That is a logical impossibility. And if someone believes he is really using the scriptures then how is it possible to not recognize the Church as the teacher sent by God?
“So I need their (church) permission to be able to believe that Christ died for my sins?”
No. And this is a bizarre point to even make. Again, where did you ever learn otherwise?
“So I should go to the nearest catholic church and ask them if it’s okay that I believe that Christ died for my sins?”
Again, no. And that too is a bizarre point to even make. Where did you ever learn otherwise? Perhaps you thin kyou’re being clever with these ridiculous questions, but you’re not. We could be talking about real issues, but in post after post you simply won’t do it.
“Yeah, right. God is my authority which is contrary to your misguided perception of the catholic church being the final authority.”
No. I have no misguided perceptions of the Catholic Church. God is the final authority, but HE sent the Church to teach on earth. You make the usual Protestant either/or mistake. You say it has to be either God or the Church. It’s both. God sent the Church.
Christ was given all authority by the Father (Matthew 28:18)
Christ expects us to observe all things He commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). Christ is the head of the Church, the Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). Because of that we are to submit to Him in all things (Ephesians 5:23-24). And to properly receive and be obedient to Christ we must receive His Apostles - remember, Apostle means ‘one sent’ (John 13:20). Thus, when Christ talked about ‘whomever I send’ in John 13:20 He meant the Apostles, and not just anyone. The Apostles were ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). And the Church - because Christ arranged and organized it this way - continued to observe His teachings in the doctrines taught by the Apostles (Acts 2:42). The Church is so powerful in her teaching of Christ that even the angels learn from her (Ephesians 3:10).
God sent the Church. To ignore that she is real, has teaching authority and cannot be eschewed without eschewing Christ is not only crazy but spiritual dangerous. Christ didn’t send you. He already sent the Church.
“John 14:16”
A promise to the Apostles, the Church at that time. When Protestants use this verse to apply it to any and all believers who come up with however many differing interpretations of scripture, they are simply taking out of context.
“II Cor 1:21-22”
Again, that was addressed to the early Church. Protestants are not members of the Church let alone the early Church. The verse you picked in no way excuses or legitimizes the fact that Protestants come up with thousands of differing interpretations of scripture.
“John 16:13”
Again, a promise to the Church. Christ was speaking of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the people in the upper room. After that it was the Church who helped people receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-18).
“Pray tell, where do you get your interpretation? From the Pope?”
From God through His Church. Remember, God sent the Church to teach. He didn’t send you.
“Get thee behind me, Satan.”
No, that’s what you implied when you said people were supposed to read the Bible in obedience to God. If that were the case then people who didn’t or couldn’t do it would on some level be failing in a responsibility to obey God. Maybe you should think more carefully about your words before you post them rather then calling me Satan. Not only would that be more effective for getting your point across, but it wouldn’t reflect so poorly on you. I’m not saying this to attack you or pick on you. It’s just common sense that calling people Satan is not going to help you here.
“Are you saying the catholic church is your mediator?”
I said teacher. The Church most certainly prays for me as you could or anyone else could.
“I Tim 2:5-6”
And who here is denying that Christ is the mediator sent by the Father? No one. You once again refute something no one contested. Lovely.
“I am more open to His Church. My dispute is with the catholic church.”
One in the same.
“Think about what you’re saying. No matter who teaches it?”
I already thought about what I was saying. That’s why I said it. Notice how I don’t say: “Get thee behind me, Satan” here? Yeah.
And the truth is the truth no matter who teaches it. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult, distort the gospel severely and revel in heresies of every kind. Yet, even when a JW says something that is true (on rare occasions) it is still true. When a Muslim says there’ one God - he’s right. When a Protestant says Genesis is inspired - he’s right. When a Jew says the Ten Commandments are God’s laws and not Moses’ creation - he’s right. Truth is truth no matter who says it. I have noticed before that anti-catholics recoil at the idea that truth is truth no matter what. What does that tell us?
“Then why do you have trouble with the Protestants?”
Protestantism is the problem. Protestants are merely believers in it and witting or unwitting sharers in its errors. Orthodox Christians agree with Protestants on many things. Protestants, however, believe in a false philosophy and a novel gospel. That’s the problem
“I am in the Body of Christ, yet you dismiss everything I say.”
Dismiss it? No. I simply tell the truth. I post verse and you routinely ignore them. That’s dismissing something. I explain how you’re wrong when you are and I agree with you when you’re right (which has been rare to say the least).
“How do you explain the Charismatic Catholics?”
I don’t. Why would I need to?
“Indifferentism? Is that a new word?”
Nope. It’s hilarious that you ask if this word is new but actually pick on me for looking up a word in the dictionary below. How’s the splinter in your eye? Still there? In the dictionary it says the word indifferentism (in English of course) was first used in 1827.
“You seem very bitter toward the Protestants. I am not a sell-out of the gospel of Christ. What’s the difference between the truth and Protestantism?”
Simple. One, the former, is entirely true while the latter is only partially true.
“Just use Scripture to back up what you’re saying, not something the Pope said.”
No. I will use whatever is true. How dare you tell me what I can and cannot use to make a case. Who do you think you are? Besides, I didn’t even post anything from a pope in post #402 so why even say something like that?
“You have to go to a dictionary to find the definition of faith?”
No. I had to go to a dictionary FOR YOU. You’re the one who kept think one use of “faith” was another. I made no mistake with it.
So you’re using Matthew 18 to excuse making phony apologies? Unbelievable.
“Why stop at two faiths? Why not go the distance and pull some more out of your hat?”
I never said there were two different faiths. I said there were two different definitions dependent upon usage. Here, let me demonstrate this, since this is apparently a revelation to you.
Here’s the Merriam Wesbter definition (actually only part of it):
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
Now, see the (1) definition? That’s what you thought I was questioning. I never did. What I was talking about was (2) definition. See the difference? It’s like this:
(1) “I have faith in God to protect me.”
(2) “I have studied the beliefs of the Mormon faith and found them to be lacking in coherence.”
Same word. Two different definitions. You said you’re a homeschooler. You’ve got have a decent dictionary in your house somewhere, right?
“One is doctrine and the other is faith. Are, these two faiths you have, scriptural?”
How scriptural is the word “Trinity”? It isn’t. The concept certainly is, but not every word in English and not every definition of every word in English is in the Bible nor should one expect them to be.
“Again, “One Hope, One Faith, One Baptism.””
Yes, and?
“I agree.”
See? We do agree on something.
“Says who? You? The Pope? The Bible says difference.”
No it doesn’t. The Bible says nothing positive about Protestantism, and in fact denounces the idea of novel gospels which Protestantism is since it began only in the 16th century.
“The catholic church hasn’t cornered the market on salvation. Good News is available to all.”
The Good News is open to everyone, but it is preached only by the Church. When Protestants preach, they only preach a portion of the gospel or they preach a 16th century novel gospel.
“Rom 3:23-24”
And no one here is contesting the fact that Christ is the Savior.
“How can you see the basics through all the bureaucracy and red tape?”
No bureaucracy or red tape has ever stopped me from seeing the truth. What sort of weird fantasies have you dreamed up about the Church? I once had to ask my pastor for a letter showing that I was a Catholic in good standing so that I could be godfather to a friend’s daughter. The priest in charge of the baptism lived in another diocese, and didn’t know me so he asked for the simple letter. It took a two minute phone call. Wow! What horrible bureaucracy I’ve had to go through!!! LOL! My gosh, your views of the Church are bizarre. Other than that, I can’t think of a single bureaucratic thing I’ve ever had to do other than take two minutes to register at new parishes when I’ve moved.
On numerous occasions I have encountered the unbelievable bureaucracy of the local, state and federal governments. Never once did any of it interfer with my seeing the basics of truth about US Citizenship. You almost make it sound like effort of any time frightens you: bureaucracy in the Church, using a dictionary, etc.
“No, dear, Christ established HIS Church.”
That’s what I just said.
“And membership is open to(dare I say it?) ALL who believe, not just catholics.”
Membership is open to all. All can become Catholic.
“Goodnight Vlad”
Good morning.
By the way, to homeschoolers I always recommend the following dictionaries. If you want something fast, light, but still rather complete and very useful at a great price get the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. Try to get the 10th and 11th editions for comparison when needed. One step up from that is the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2 vols. and runs at about $80 to 130. Then there is the microprint OED ($300) and the full 20vol. OED for ($1000).
You wrote:
“I didn’t say that, Vlad.”
No? What you said was this: “If they didn’t know Christ, they probably will not be in heaven.”
Thus, you believe 2 year olds who didn’t know Christ will go to hell, right? Or are you claiming there is a ‘place’ like Limbo as many Catholics have believed?
“I believe children will be in heaven.”
Some? All?
“They don’t understand sin and aren’t accountable for that.”
At what age and how would you know that that is the age?
“Jesus loved children. He wouldn’t send them to hell.”
I don’t think Jesus sends anyone to hell. People send themselves there through sin and lack of repentence. You do realize, however, that there are Protestants who believe anyone who is not a Christian according to their definition will burn in hell forever even if they are unfortunate, unbaptized infants, toddlers, etc.? I know of Baptists who have said exactly that.
“And no, they won’t be Catholics. They’ll be Christians.”
Once in heaven, they’re Catholics.
You wrote:
“Nope. I know the truth and the truth is that people who go to heaven will be called Christians (if they’re called anything, that is). Some will be Catholics, some won’t.”
No. All those who will one day be in heaven will be Catholic. There is no reason why they won’t be called Christians and Catholics. And you forgot they’re called saints too.
Thank you Vlad for enlightening me on the doctrines of the catholic church. I never had any idea the arrogance of this religion. If I change some things it sounds just like the mormon church. This air of supremacy and exclusiveness astounds me. You know, even Satan knows the Bible from front to back. There is a difference between knowing it and applying it. He knew how divisive religion could be and is taking full advantage of that fact. He wants to squelch the Truth. Martin Lutheran saw the catholic church take its eye off the ball and that’s why we had the Reformation, contrary to your opinion. I am tired of debating the points with you, well not really, there was no debate. You thought you were right all the time and I was wrong because I’m not catholic. I do know that last year my best friend’s daughter wanted to start going back to church (catholic), I was thrilled, I even bought her a Bible so she could understand His Word better. Now, when I see her next month, I’m going to ask her some very pointed questions and then let her know what God says about it, and not to be ruled by the dictates of the catholic church. It’s been real.
Thanks again Vlad
Thank you very much and your very welcome.
Romans 2:13-15 covers all who haven’t directly heard the Gospel. I don’t really want to mudsling,so I’ll leave the RC’s to themselves! I appreciate new posts by Quix,James,Mary and the yeomans work of NJADB. You guys have the stomach(deprogramming)for dialogues like these.
Dependence on the Saviour will lead you to Heaven,anything else will lead you to harm...Peace!
ps..thanks to the James who I couldn’t get his name right
re post 429.....John...James...I knew it was an Apostle:)
You wrote:
“Thank you Vlad for enlightening me on the doctrines of the catholic church. I never had any idea the arrogance of this religion.”
Clearly the arrogance is Protestantism. I would show surprise, if I didn’t already know from previous experience, that Protestantism is so strong in its arrogance it apparently sometimes convinces its adherents to eschew the use of dictionaries.
“If I change some things it sounds just like the mormon church.”
If I change some things in Protestantism it sounds just like Mormonism, or some parts of Islam, or other types of Protestantism (ironically).
“This air of supremacy and exclusiveness astounds me.”
Being able to use a dictionary - and having to demonstrate that fact for someone else’s benefit when a basic word’s definition is denied - is not an air of supremacy. I could see where some might take it as such, however.
“You know, even Satan knows the Bible from front to back.”
Yes, he does, but he twists it. I don’t twist scripture, but then again you called me Satan. I would never call you Satan. I also wouldn’t ascribe his ability to know the Bible to you either.
“There is a difference between knowing it and applying it.”
True. How does one apply it by ignoring Acts 22:16 or 1 Peter 3?
“He knew how divisive religion could be and is taking full advantage of that fact.”
I am sure that is true. Then again Christ came to divide. Martin Luther did too but toward different ends than Christ.
“He wants to squelch the Truth. Martin Lutheran saw the catholic church take its eye off the ball and that’s why we had the Reformation, contrary to your opinion.”
No, and it has nothing to do with my opinion. Martin Luther started the Protestant Revolution because he believed he knew better than everyone else. That’s why he rejected the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw” and threatened to burn it. Think about that. He rejected James and said he wanted to burn it. And you think he saw the Catholic Church take its eye off the ball? Luther was off his rocker.
“I am tired of debating the points with you, well not really, there was no debate.”
There always was on my side. I posted verses all the time in post after post and you usually ignored them. When you posted verses they often had nothing to do with what was being debated. On a number of occasions, for instance, you worked to refute things no one actually said.
“You thought you were right all the time and I was wrong because I’m not catholic.”
No. Opinions are erroneous because they are not based on truth. Taking verses out of context, posting myths rather than history (e.g. Luther’s motives, etc.) and refuting doctrines no one here espoused, or ascribing doctrines to someone when no one here espoused them simply got your side nowhere.
“I do know that last year my best friend’s daughter wanted to start going back to church (catholic), I was thrilled, I even bought her a Bible so she could understand His Word better. Now, when I see her next month, I’m going to ask her some very pointed questions and then let her know what God says about it, and not to be ruled by the dictates of the catholic church. It’s been real.”
And will you actually convey the real teachings of the Catholic Church or will you convey only your caricatures and fictions of them? I have no doubt you might be able to trick or fool your friend if she is poorly catechized (and the fact that she has been away from the faith for some time would seem to indicate that), but you’ll have to answer for your actions in that effort one day.
My experience will be different. Tomorrow I will get to visit a good friend of mine and study the Bible after Mass. He is a former Lutheran minister who came to realize that Protestantism was untrue. He believes that Protestantism may be the great apostasy spoken of in scripture. I think he might be right in that it is the beginning of it, but not the be all and end all of it. Over the years to come, with his growing ministry, he will be a source of inspiration for many non-Catholics. Already people are starting to convert because of what the Holy Spirit has worked through him. Another friend I hope to see soon is someone I helped convert. When I met him he was an agnostic after years of outright atheism. He is now helping to bring others into the Church through a ministry he helped create. In July I visited my old parish in another state. A number of the people in the parish are there, or are Catholic, because, at least in part, of me. All of these people love the truth. They didn’t put Protestantism before God. They chose the truth and the truth is a Person - Christ. And they knew they wanted as much of Christ as they could have on this earth and in heaven so they became Catholics. These people were not opposed to using dictionaries. Some of them argued with me for years (no joke). But they were all open to the truth. Will you be open to the truth when you talk to your friend? If using a dictionary bothers you then I don’t see how you could be.
...first time I’ve heard a dictionary being used as a tool for Salvation,but those RC’s are tricky!
The great apostasy will be the Whore of Babylon,of which I’m sure you are fully aware.
You wrote:
“...first time I’ve heard a dictionary being used as a tool for Salvation,...”
It wasn’t.
“...but those RC’s are tricky!”
Royal Colas?
“The great apostasy will be the Whore of Babylon,of which I’m sure you are fully aware.”
No, I’m not aware of it and it isn’t true. The Whore of Babylon is a person or collection of persons or an institution. The Great Apostasy, on the other hand, is an action, or a movement. They are inextricably linked but are not one in the same. To say the one will be the other is like saying the leftist movement will be the democratic party. One’s a movement, the other is a group of people. That is a direct word for word comparison with your statement.
Institution=Roman Catholic Amalgamate=????
Roman Catholic Church...hide in plain sight..Ecumenical whore of Babylon.....and democrats are leftists..D’oh!
Nope. I never forget that believers are called saints. I KNOW we are.
I’m not going to keep going round Robin’s barn with you, vlad. Enough.
“...first time I’ve heard a dictionary being used as a tool for Salvation,but those RC’s are tricky!
The great apostasy will be the Whore of Babylon,of which I’m sure you are fully aware.”
LOL. You do have a way with words. I love it!
“The Whore of Babylon is a person or collection of persons or an institution.”
I do believe that was the point.
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.