Posted on 01/22/2012 2:16:36 PM PST by Gamecock
I've read/heard a number of conversion stories of Protestants that go something like this: They were ardent evangelicals, studied at X prestigious Reformed seminary, etc. But then some Catholic asked them a "gotcha" question, e.g. where the Bible taught sola Scriptura, that they didn't have an answer to, and then they ended up converting to Catholicism, interviewed on EWTN, and so forth.
As I see it, anyone who gets caught up on such a basic question probably wasn't particularly well trained ("catechized") in the Reformed faith to begin with.
Interesting because I don't see that as a *gotcha* question and was not trained at any seminary.
As I see it, anyone who gets caught up on such a basic question probably wasn't particularly well trained ("catechized") in the Reformed faith to begin with.
Well, I don't see that as a matter of training. I see it as a matter of whether one thinks the word of God is all we need for spiritual growth and is authoritative or not.
IMO, The Bible contains enough material for me to deal with the rest of my life. I could not exhaust what it has to say and teach me about God. I don't see the need for worrying about stuff outside Scripture for this reason.
If it's not verifiable by Scripture, it's either not true or suspect.
If it IS verifiable by Scripture, then it can be found in Scripture and therefore is redundant.
I believe you are mistaken over the meaning of OSAS.
"Once Saved" has nothing to do with what one claims. It has everything to do with being saved by the Lord.
If you are ONCE saved by the Lord you are SAVED. Verstehen?
OCAC (once catholic always catholic) is hypocritical. Someone can claim they are Catholic and then go off and murder someone, have an abortion, tell untruths, post falsehoods.
And it's all good. Just repent before they die and get a Catholic funeral (or not; like Ted Kennedy who still got a Catholic funeral) and some time in purgatory and viola, you're good to go.
Council Of Nicea 325
CANON VI.
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Forgetting for the moment that there is no evidence Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as an equal, not as the leader of the Church.
I'm trying to find out who participated in these early Councils...for I've not known evidence yet that these were Roman Catholic...or how much influence they had. Probably like our political system they all tried to weigh the representation favorable to what they adhered to, both politically, and in this case, religiously.
As much as people want separation of church and state it was always crossing into the other from the get go. And it will be so as the world systems line up now.
I do realize that once the Reformation gained the influence it did Roman Catholics saw they were loosing power and began their own Counter Reformation to fight against it...especially when they couldn't stop the scriptures getting into the common mans hands...and thus formed the 'Council of Trent' ....this to reestablish their dominance.....they appointed a commission of Cardinals to clean up the church and to reestablish that the Roman Catholic Church was "The Only True Church of God" when in reality they were seeking the power and control and wealth they were fast loosing.
Fear and intimidation did not work and maintaining their power..and especially after the printing of the scriptures in layman's languages.....they even sought to publish their own scriptures (roman catholic) but unfortunately took it from just one source... the Latin Vulgate.... and with it all the corruption therein. I think it was called the Douay Rhimes bible...and if I recall it was just the New Testament..at least at first.
But these Councils need a closer look IMO at who was represented there...in those early years. I am already quite satisfied that Peter was not in Rome as catholics say....if they ever admitted the truth of that then the whole Priesthood would fall and so would their claim to infallibility...for their entire institutional hierarchy rests on Peter and what they claim of him.
you didn't follow scripture during the revolution (not reformation) and you still don't
Ya!
Since I am predestine by God to worship Him as a Roman Catholic, you will need to take up this issue with God.
Gee, I didn’t know that Catholics believed in predestination.
This may come as a surprise to some, but you can believe in free will and once saved always saved.
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.