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 ...
Sounds more like the rop.
After all the confusion I thought it best to write that before, not after, I was stoned. I was a little late.
Yet rare is the RC who will affirm the carnal means of doing so which Rome sanctioned and set rules for in so doing (which early Prots had to unlearn). Would you also support the torture of suspected "heretics" and even witnesses, and the killing of the former (even if the numbers may have been exaggerated).
And of requiring Catholic rulers to exterminate the heretics, or else his subjects are no longer subject to his authority?
How would you know that ? It seemed to me to be doing just that after you had seemingly done the same thing. It is my understanding you, for purposes of this forum, can hate Catholicism and call it dishonest, etc., turning such hatred on Catholics is supposed to be forbidden because there are Catholic Freepers; using words like "dishonesty" is wrong as RM explained. It seems to me if people were actually walking in the Spirit we would not be having this conversation. In my view it is a shameful caricature of how genuine Christians are commanded to behave. I have no recourse but to forgive everyone who wrongs me, so I forgive and ask God not to judge anyone on my behalf for written or unwritten insults and curses.
Indeed, as they simply do not need to find something in Scripture, while it and tradition only is and means what they autocratically say. How can they or other like cultist be wrong?
It was at the word of Peter in the power of the Holy Spirit. He was no imposter. There is no blame. pay special attention to the phrase " hearing these words" which Ananias heard from Peter. Upon hearing the word of judgment from Peter both Ananias and Sapphira fell down physically dead. Biblical judgment from the mouth of an apostle in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not murder. 5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. 7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?” She said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.
How can you fail to see (unless you do not want to) that the issue is not the right to exercise spiritual discipline, but the basis and means by which it is done?
In the NT church the only means of discipline, outside the passive means of disfellowship, was by spiritual means, not the use of the sword of men against theological dissenters.
This meant that leadership had to rely upon God to confirm that their judgment was right by Him executing the judgment, versus earthly physical punishment of the disobedient, which is what Rome ordained and promoted, and early Prots had to unlearn. Meanwhile the just use of the sword of men against immoral acts by the State was sanctioned.
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:20-21)
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)
But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) (2 Corinthians 10:2-4)
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)
Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:20)
But as with Islam, Mormons, Jim Jones,m etc, whenever man and or another revelation is made higher than Scripture, then both the bodies and souls of men are in danger of them.
Or ignorance or sophistry. See above.
You are confusing roles. Peter did not do the sentencing. He just conducted the trial. They were found guilty. But for all anyone knows, they might have repented on the spot, and lived. But God acted independently to end their lives, which He had authority to do, and still does now among believers who have gone too far with some unresolved offense.
Think of those who fell ill, or died, as a result of being cavalier about their mistreatment of fellow believers in the context of the Lord’s Supper. This was also the act of God, as God has a right to do, but was never enacted by the sword or other instrumentality of men. Nor can one ever extrapolate from what God our Creator does to what we are also able to do as a matter of right. We are not God. Peter was not God. And he didn’t step on God’s jurisdiction. He never uttered a word about what should happen to Ananias and Saphira as a result of their sin. He clearly left that right where it belonged, in the hands of God.
Peace,
SR
Yet metmom had told you, in response to your post affirming the right of ecclesiastical discipline,
That the HOLY SPIRIT slew Ananias and Sapphira does NOT justify the RCC taking up the sword.
Thus you could see what the issue was, but rather than clarifying that you only defended the validity of ecclesiastical discipline, even death by spiritual power, you doubled down in asserting the authority and power of the church delivering a man over to death.
It should have been obvious that the issue was the church killing souls by physical means, even if some did not correctly express that (physically killing versus killing by physical means).
But i do see that finally you finally said, "I make no allowances for anyone else, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Other, or Jewish taking a life in the name of God," though you do for Rome, but apparently only by spiritual means.
Can you affirm that popes were always wrong in compelling Catholic rulers to exterminate those whom Rome considered heretics, and in legislating torture of both witnesses and suspects of heresy? And killing some that it convicted of theological dissent?
but required me to purge myself of that evil
Are you saying you can get into Heaven by the merit of your own actions?
Magistorium? Roman Traditions? Pagan goddess worship? Pre-PTSD from eons of “perfecting” in a celestial torture chamber?
brought to you through the efforts of the Catholic Church...
I don’t have any problem with the practice of having heretics removed from our midst.
Does that mean you petitioned Rome concerning Pelosi, Kerry, many Kennedys, etc...?
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.