Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?
As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.
Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.
Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
Chapter and verse that explains how God demands we purge ourselves from evil, as if we are even capable of it?
Besides, doesn't your God forgive? Mine does. He doesn't hold my sin to my account but shows me true mercy by forgiving me and crediting to my account all the righteousness of Christ Himself.
That gives me the privilege of not only avoiding hell, but going straight to heaven without any further effort on my part, which can't pay for my sins anyway.
probably, other than a reference as to what todays sermon would cover, there was NEVER a mention of biblical passages, the weddings had nothing to do with the Sacrament of Matrimony, and the few "communion services" that I witnessed had to do with a wafer and some wine/grape juice in a tiny paper cup...the remnants of which were left in the pew.
Elsie:Do you know WHY this is so?
Because the JOY of the Lord is our strength.
Catholics have very little concept of joy in their religion.
well, there is a commandment to keep holy the sabath, Christ founded a church which established what was expected of thier followers and that the way to keep the sabath holy was to attend Mass....under penalty of sin for not doing so.
I keep telling you that being a Catholic is not easy.....just worth it.
I posted the references in 2486; this next is Matthew 11 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, 17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Where did Jesus give the commandment to keep the sabbath holy?
Who imposed the penalty of sin on not attending church on Sunday besides the Catholic church?
Chapter and verse please.
straight to heaven....if you are six years old and baptized, I guess it is possible....other than that I wouldn't count on it too much. I realize that Christ died for our sins, but He expected us to knock off the sinning....we didn't and I believe that we have some responsibility for not having done so.If not, then we could do anything we pleased, after all Christ died for our sins so let's take advantage of that and have a ball...I don't think it works that way, neither do any Catholics.
Worth it? To not even be sure at the end if you're going to make it into heaven or not?
All that for nothing?
Bondage to religion when Jesus came to set us free and give us abundant life is NOT worth *it*, whatever *it* is.
The vast majority of your posts have no references and posting the references in a different post doesn’t help any.
Your post #2465. Excellent work and a clear repudiation of the false catholic teaching regarding the papacy. Without that claim the papacy and the whole thing collapses.
somewhere around the forth commandment given to Moses....you did say that you studied scripture didn't you??
I don't know why you'd say that. My post 2435 explains the relationship between these parallel verses in great detail.
That is just one of the posts you failed to deal with.
I can't answer ever question posed to me since I work a couple of jobs.
I do appreciate that, but if you have time to make many posts you must make time time to respond to them to be considered worthy of exchange.
I try to answer the strongest arguments. .
Really, then as said, you have some questions to answer from before.
We're actually in agreement. We agree that Jesus holds "the key of David" in Rev 3:7,
That is good, but it means you engaged in enlisting a text to support Peter as having the keys, sandwiching it btwn two texts that you invoke as placing the keys in the hands of Peter, and which the unsuspecting would understand as referring to Peter, as Rv. 3:7 is nowhere even mentioned in the rest of the long post.
I try to share Her Teaching, as "the pillar and foundation of truth."
One after another. And just how does 1Tim. 3:15 translate into the church being the supreme infallible authority on Truth? It is amazing what RCs can extrapolate out of a word that basically simply denotes "support" and other that is only used once and is similar and or a reinforcement of support.
Do you agree...,
Before you begin, what you need to do is not simply validate the giving of "keys" by Is. 22, which is not in contention, but that Peter is the fulfillment of Is. 22, as the first of a line of assuredly infallible popes. But which simply is not shown or taught in Scripture, yet which was developed and then read into Scripture, which as a servant Rome makes it to be, is compelled to support her.
What Avery Dulles said about the centralization of the papacy applies here.
“The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200; http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm)
Do you agree, as a matter of historical fact, that in the Davidic kingdom, referred to in Isaiah 22, the King would transfer the keys of the House of David from one "palace administrator" (or majordomo, prime minister or vice-regent) to another?
As was the manner of those in authority, even as Joseph under Pharaoh. The question is who fulfills this?
This chapter contains two prophecies, one concerning the invasion of Judah and Jerusalem, not by the Medes and Persians, but by the Assyrian army, under which they served; and the other of the removal of Shebna, an officer in Hezekiah's court, and of the placing of Eliakim in his stead...
Isa_22:8 then follows the prophecy of the deposition of Shebna, who is described by his name and office, Isa_22:15 whose pride is exposed as the cause of his fall, Isa_22:16 and he is threatened not only to be driven from his station, but to be carried captive into another country, suddenly and violently, and with great shame and disgrace, Isa_22:17 and another put in his place, who is mentioned by name, Isa_22:20 and who should be invested with his office and power, and have all the ensigns of it, Isa_22:21 and should continue long in it, to great honour and usefulness to his family, Isa_22:23 yet not always, Isa_22:25. - Gill
Concerning Eliakim as administrator we see little,
Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder. (Isa 36:3)
The office to which he succeeded is described as (= "over the household"), according to Delitzsch and others a "major domus" (comp. I Kings iv. 6, xvi. 8, xviii. 3; II Kings x. 5, xv. 5), the incumbent carrying the title , connected with the Assyrian "saknu" (a high officer: Cheyne, "The Prophecies of Isaiah," ii.153). This designation occurs also in the feminine form (= "caretaker"), used of Abishag (I Kings i. 2, 4), and it is met with on a Phenician inscription ("The Soken of the New City": "C. I. S." I. i. 5; Hastings, "Dict. Bible," p. 685b).Eliakim is clothed with long tunic and girdle: the key of the house of David is laid on his shoulder (comp. Rev. iii. 7), and he is proclaimed "father of the people." According to R. Eleazar ben Pedat, "tunic and girdle" were the insignia of the high priest's office (Lev. R. to v.). But R. Eleazar does not regard "soken" as a title....Eliakim sprang from a family of no social standing: his elevation to dignity conferred distinction on his "father's house" (Isa. xxii. 23, 24). - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5577-eliakim
Gill (who is familiar with rabbinical writings) further comments,
Kimchi thinks [Eliakim] was the same with Azariah the son of Hilkiah, who might have two names [as often occurs], and was a ruler over the house of God in the times of Hezekiah, 1Ch_6:13 [ And Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah] this man, by the character given him, was a good man, a faithful, diligent, and constant servant of the Lord, and therefore he delighted to raise him to great honour and dignity: he did not seek great things for himself, nor did he thrust himself into the office, but the Lord called him to it in his providence, and put him into it; he did, as Kimchi observes, put it into the heart of Hezekiah to appoint him governor in the room of Shebna.
This man was a type of Christ; his name agrees with him which signifies, "my God will raise up"; that is, the dead by him, 1Co_6:14 and so does the character of a servant, frequently given to Christ in this book; see Isa_42:1 nor did Christ take any office to himself, but was called unto it by his Father, Heb_5:4.
But if the prophecy here seems to extend beyond what Eliakim would be able to have fulfilled, if anyone fulfilled it in fulness it would be Christ spiritually, for as said, His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (Is. 9:6) that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7)
Nowhere do we see Peter set forth as an exalted king, with a glorious throne to his father's house.
Do you agree that, as a matter of historical fact, the "palace administrator" would wear around his neck a pouch containing an over-sized key, representing his office and earthly authority?
Possibly. Again Gill,
.. In allusion either to magistrates carrying a key on their shoulder, hanging down from thence, having a hook at one end of it fit for that purpose; or having one embroidered on that part of their garment: or one carried before them by their servants. It regards either the keys of the temple; or rather the key of the king's house, which it was proper should be delivered to him as treasurer and steward of it; the Targum takes in both,
As King of the eternal House of David (Rev. 3:7), the Kingdom of God, Jesus gives the "key of David," or the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter...
Yes, as regards the use of the keys being given to Peter, but not alone but to others who also salvifically confess the Lord Christ. However, it did not make Peter King of the eternal House of David, "being a glorious throne to his father's house," which is what Is. 22 promises but certainly is not manifest with Peter.
The power to "bind and loose" is a phrase which comes from the rabbis and refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.
Indeed, but as said, that is is nothing new nor exclusive to Peter. In the OT we see,
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; (Deuteronomy 17:8)
And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: (Deuteronomy 17:9)
And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: (Deuteronomy 17:10)
And on a lower level,
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8)
The elephant issue here that remains is that while the role of the magisterium is to be upheld by us, a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is absolutely foreign to Scripture, but which you can only attempt to compel Scripture to support.
But the Apostles weren't given the "keys of the kingdom." In the Davidic kingdom, the keys represented the office of the "palace administrator" who has the "authority" to "be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah." The vice-regent held full plenary authority in the king's absence.
Wrong. "Key" represents authority, and "keys of the kingdom of heaven" is that of authority of the kingdom - nort over all as a royal king - which is indeed given to all, in varying degrees. Thus the promise to cast of devils etc., and to heal is to believers in general, for "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." (1 Corinthians 12:7)
Nowhere is Peter shown exercising power unique to him.
Finally, you seem to adhere to a false dichotomy, that the Church was either built on Peter's confession of faith, or on Peter himself, as the keeper of the keys. The two ideas are not logically opposed.
I was aware of that, but it also does not mean they are not in opposition, and indeed they are, as it remains that only Christ be affirmed to be the rock and stone upon which the church is built, and most abundantly so.
In summary then, as did the Davidic kings, Jesus, as the King of the eternal and redeemed Davidic Kingdom, His Church, gives the "key of the kingdom," representing the authority and office of the "vicar," or representative of Christ on earth, to Peter, as recorded in the Bible, an office that has been in continuous existence to this day.
In-credible. What Christ warned of - exercising dominion as kings - is what Rome has presumed to do by invoking rule under a physical kingdom and ignoring what the NT reveals about Peter to the contrary. In summary, Is. 22 refers to a certain time period and to a different person, while only spiritually applying to Christ in its fulness, while there is no manifest perpetuation of Peter's office, nor any unique apostolic power to it, nor is assured infallibility promised or essential.
Neither Peter or a papacy is even mentioned after Acts 12, nor are the churches reminded to look to or obey Peter as the supreme head over all the churches anywhere, even in the church epistles or to the 7 churches of Rv. 2+3. Meanwhile, holy Peter is the only apostle to be publicly rebuked by another apostle, and only refers to himself as "a servant," "an elder," "an apostle." The perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome remains invisible in Scripture.
Further .
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
Amazing. So your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium?
I am aware of the Ten Commandments.
Show us where Jesus reiterated that command in the Gospels.
You did say that Jesus commanded it.
It ought to be somewhere in one of the Gospels. Where?
1. I am plenty enough familiar with Scripture. As I explained before, it’s about those who aren’t.
2. As bb pointed out before, combining passages of Scripture to make them say something they don’t lacks integrity. My opinion is that it more than smacks of dishonesty.
3. Irrelevant.
4. No and also irrelevant. It’s simply a convenient system for reverencing passages of Scripture so people don’t waste their time looking for it.
For the record, you have rarely even posted the BOOK of the Bible the passages are found in.
If you have gone to the trouble of finding the passages of Scripture yourself to post them, it takes precious little extra effort to add the reference so that people both know that the words are not mine and that they can find them easily if they wish to investigate further. And I DO know that. I do it all the time.
It’s simply common courtesy, thinking of someone besides yourself.
that pretty much sums it up, unless I hear otherwise, I will stick with Catholic 2,014 year old teachings from the book that they wrote.
if God gave me a direct order, and He did, I wouldn't expect His son to have to remind me of it...I'd already know to keep holy the sabath
Then it helps. :-)
Thank you for making me smile and laugh;
A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance: but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken.
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.
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.