Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
Salvation has always been by faith.
Romans 4
Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What did he discover about being made right with God? 2 If his good deeds had made him acceptable to God, he would have had something to boast about. But that was not God’s way. 3 For the Scriptures tell us, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.”[a]
4 When people work, their wages are not a gift, but something they have earned.
5 But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners.
9 Now, is this blessing only for the Jews, or is it also for uncircumcised Gentiles?[c] Well, we have been saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God because of his faith. 10 But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised!
11 Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. 12 And Abraham is also the spiritual father of those who have been circumcised, but only if they have the same kind of faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13 Clearly, God’s promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God’s law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith. 14 If God’s promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless. 15 For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)
16 So the promise is received by faith. It is given as a free gift. And we are all certain to receive it, whether or not we live according to the law of Moses, if we have faith like Abraham’s. For Abraham is the father of all who believe. 17 That is what the Scriptures mean when God told him, “I have made you the father of many nations.”[d] This happened because Abraham believed in the God who brings the dead back to life and who creates new things out of nothing.
No wonder the Catholic church is in such a mess.
The Word of God is not subordinate to ANY man or organization.
The Catholic church did NOT *produce* it.
And it stands alone just fine on its own apart from any man or men's interpretation by its very nature as the Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed Word.
Jesus said this about the word.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Hence, the early Church grew and prospered before the New Testament appeared. Paul did not need a New Testament to evangelize the Galatians. The Church did not "come along later and fill it in". First came the Church, then came Scripture.
The NT is not the whole so Scripture. They had the OT in those days so they DID have Scripture.
So your attempt to invalidate Scirpture as necessary for spiritual growth fails.
It makes the man of God "complete", only when its authentic meaning is understood. When it is separated from the Church which produced it, things are "left out", since the authentic meaning is lost. False understandings of Scripture do not make a man "complete". Quite the contrary. Can you say "Prosperity Gospel"?
False teaching does not invalidate the effectiveness of the word. You proved nothing.
Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13).
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
Show us where Paul says that tradition trumps Scripture.
What “oral tradition” do you keep that is not found in scripture but that you can prove the apostles taught?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
YOUR church does.
It teaches that baptism removes sin and saves the individual. So the infant that is baptized at 1 month old, is considered saved even though that infant has no capacity to understand the gospel and exercise saving faith.
No faith is required on the part of that baby so the Catholic church ends up teaching that salvation can be forced on someone who doesn't even know what's going on and without their consent.
Y'all? Well yes, I guess I am one of those. I am from the southern part of Davao, and I have been to the north. I have been to Butuan City.
I belong to the OTC, the body of Christ. Now, do I attend a local fellowship, with other members of the OTC (body of Christ)? Yes I do, sometimes twice on Sunday, sometimes during the week. I usually have a Thursday Bible study, where I invite ONLY Catholics. No Muzzies, no Mormons, no JWs, no INCs, no Quiboloys, Only Catholics. Of course, I always tell them, that they can absolutely, positively, 💯%, have assurance of salvation.
I don't know if you have any assurance of salvation, like I do, and other born again believers do, but if you don't, that's on you. Try it, you will like it. 😁😄😀🙃😇
At the rate this is going, the Catholic church is going to be whittled down to only ONE faithful adherent, One True Catholic.
And guess who that’s going to be?
Roman Catholiciism is ‘a nother religion’; it is not Christianiy but it is Mariology and Magicsteeringthem traditions.
I hope and pray God will open the eyes of those on this thread.
:-)
Only for someone who doesn’t want to believe it.
Prove to me that the Trinity is correct.
I don’t see the word *trinity* in the Bible anywhere.
You asserted: “... the present Catholic Church is the same as that established by Jesus Christ. This is an historical fact.” THIS is a lie, a lie so heinous that it has established a religion made to look like Christianity but is fact a paganized copy. HISTORY records the paganism inveigling which has created the catholiciism you defend so arduously.
HOW can they make claims like this with NO evidence shown to back it up?
We PROTS are used to it; but to treat the Holy Spirited guided folks who ELECTED Francis to the pope position as though they did ZERO checking is just; shall I say; just like the liberal Democratic party and Trump!
That's YOUR opinion.
I admitted that I left the Catholic church.
He never did and he's still in the office of the pope and your opinion about him doesn't mean squat if the church does not deal with him and take action to depose him and ex-communicate him.
He's yours whether you like it or not.
True.
It took a while before Rome got around to doing any COUNTER reforming on it's own.
UHhhh...
...haven't you left out one very important person to you Catholics?
It could not be more clear.
It says what it says.
Just because someone sets up conditions for acceptance beforehand that they KNOW cannot be met, doesn’t invalidate the teaching.
it just gives people an excuse to reject what has been proved true on no other basis than they don’t like it.
You can only be disappointed if you don’t get what you are expecting.
I am not expecting any answer as none is EVER forthcoming.
Then WHY did Rome leave THIS in the book it assembled so long ago??
<>BR>
Luke 12:53
They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
He's a sneak, unlike you.
I can prove the reliance upon Scripture far more than you can Tradition. The Catholic cannot even tell us what Paul told the churches in his messages. But I can show you Scripture. You cannot show me Paul’s oral teachings.
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.