Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels
The Wanderer ^ | 10/10/02 | Paul Likoudis

Posted on 11/18/2002 8:34:02 AM PST by pseudo-justin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 401-414 next last
To: pegleg
That wasn't my point. Actually, I didn't even read the questions. I read the first line about my bad punctuation (capitalization) meaning that I didn't respect catholics, so I hit the reply button immediately and responded.

1. Do you believe it is possible to know the Truth rather than guess about it? 2. Would you agree this is the reason Christ left us the Church , which scripture clearly tells us is the pillar and foundation of Truth? 3. Do you ever consider the Catholic position when you are comparing opinions?

1. It's not a guess. It's a process of evaluting choices that I learned through a 20 year career in the Army.
2. You get some distance with the Church sayings of Jesus. Those are biblical facts. Ideally, a church will be properly operating. The churches in the book of revelation tell us that some churches are closer to the truth than are others. Those that were failing were obviously not correct in the things the Lord was chastising them over.
3. I consider the catholic opinion if I know it. There's some things I know fairly well. Family and Army career has opened insights into other things. The things I like best about the catholic church are: (1) I like having a place where the buck stops. (2) I like the separation of male and female ministries. (3) I like the organizational commitment to educating their younger generations. (4) I like their follow-through on pre-marital, membership, confirmation, catechetical, etc. programs. (5) I like catholic charities. (6) I like their stand on abortion. (7) I like the separate orders with particular emphases. (8) others

So do I sound like some kind of rapid, unreasonable guy?

I don't like the marian theologies, the opulence, the transsubstantiation theology (as I understand it), the celibacy theology, others that I can't remember at the moment.

281 posted on 11/20/2002 8:32:15 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I don't know how you can be "full of grace" and "full of sin" at the same time?
282 posted on 11/20/2002 8:40:05 PM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
How can you be full of sin and carry the Son of God within you, imparting your sinful human nature to Him? Don't make no sense.
283 posted on 11/20/2002 8:44:44 PM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Great post. I think I'll bookmark it too! LOL!
284 posted on 11/20/2002 9:40:31 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: xzins
St. Peter's is no more opulent than the mega-church (Baptist) in Plano, Texas. But that aside, St. Bernard of Clairvaux agreed with you about the wealth of the manasteries. But I wonder what you think about his solution. He set his monasteries in wastelands, built humble chapels, and he and his monks set about improving the land and praying. Imagine a boot camp that does not end, so that the average monk lived only seven years. But the monks gladly followed Bernard, including his own brothers, and would have gone to hell and back for him. What do you think? Acceptable? That's as much a part of Catholic history as cardinals in ermine and many of the men that we Catholics idolize as saints lived such lives.
285 posted on 11/20/2002 11:02:24 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
If you check through my posts you see that I'm an "equal opulence reviler."

Bernard set a good example. But I already said I like the separate emphases of the different orders...see post #281

286 posted on 11/21/2002 5:02:53 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It's not a guess. It's a process of evaluting choices that I learned through a 20 year career in the Army.

This sounds like a dodge xzins. You stated previously you had an opinion regarding premillennialism and the answer was fuzzy . This does not sound like you know. My question had to do with knowing rather that guessing at Truth. Based on your response I take it you don’t think its possible to know the Truth. This is not the message of the gospel.

You get some distance with the Church sayings of Jesus. Those are biblical facts. Ideally, a church will be properly operating.

Another dodge. I wanted to know if you agree that Christ left us the Church to teach and defend the Truth.

The churches in the book of revelation tell us that some churches are closer to the truth than are others. Those that were failing were obviously not correct in the things the Lord was chastising them over.

The Churches in Revelation had the Truth and some were being chastised for not being faithful to it.

I consider the catholic opinion if I know it.

Do you ever seek the Catholic teaching if you don’t know it?

So do I sound like some kind of rapid, unreasonable guy?

Not at all.

I don't like the marian theologies, the opulence, the transsubstantiation theology (as I understand it), the celibacy theology, others that I can't remember at the moment.

I guess that’s the bottom line isn’t it? You don’t like.

Could it be you don’t understand? Could it be you do understand but don’t agree? The point I have been trying to make is the Bible does tell us where to find the Truth.

287 posted on 11/21/2002 5:18:47 AM PST by pegleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
St. Peter's is no more opulent than the mega-church (Baptist) in Plano, Texas.

I saw the Plano mega church while I was visiting my sister last summer. She said Ross Perot was a member there. It looked more like a convention center to me. It was quite impressive.

288 posted on 11/21/2002 5:25:32 AM PST by pegleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: pegleg
This sounds like a dodge xzins. You stated previously you had an opinion regarding premillennialism and the answer was fuzzy . This does not sound like you know. My question had to do with knowing rather that guessing at Truth. Based on your response I take it you don’t think its possible to know the Truth. This is not the message of the gospel.

It's no dodge. I said that the premill theology was pretty strong. 70/30 is a strong case. PRE-TRIB at 51/49 is not very strong.

The resurrection is 100% or 100/0. There are the primary doctrines of the church that are clearly in the realm of certainty. You can maintain if you wish that premillennialism is a necessary doctrine for salvation, but I don't think so.

The church response is not a dodge. The universal church is mystical. On earth we have believers combined in various churches and those are connected in Christ to one another. They can form various unions and highlight different emphases.....a denomination is really little different than is an "order" within your church. Little more than a different emphasis. The churches in Revelation had STRAYED from the truth, proving thereby, that there was no infallibility extant within them.

You didn't mention what I do like.

What do you like about the Methodist Churches? Tell me all you know about it and all our historic particular emphases?

289 posted on 11/21/2002 5:26:56 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
So you deny that Christ had a human nature?

Not at all. We make a distinction between human nature and sin. It all goes back to having a proper understanding of the Incarnation.

Jesus was fully human, with a human nature like ours. But He was not subject to Original Sin, because it is contradictory, as pegleg explained above.

What we call "Original Sin" is a description of the lack of fellowship with God that resulted from Adam's Fall. Since Jesus is God, He can hardly be said to have a "lack of fellowship" with God.

Therefore, Jesus had no Original Sin.

SD

290 posted on 11/21/2002 6:16:47 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: pegleg; RnMomof7
Do you think Adam and Eve were born with sin also?

Yes, but they were our representives in that garden when they fell all of us fell..Mary contributed the flesh and human nature of Jesus ..the part that was tempted in all ways as we are ..yet unlike the first Adam He did not sin..

Thank you. You just contradicted your statement that Only Jesus Christ the Son of God was born without sin.

Technically, Adam and Eve weren't born. They were created.

291 posted on 11/21/2002 7:01:03 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It's no dodge. I said that the premill theology was pretty strong. 70/30 is a strong case. PRE-TRIB at 51/49 is not very strong.

Still not a definite answer, it’s just an opinion.

The resurrection is 100% or 100/0.

Excellent, something we can agree on.

The church response is not a dodge. The universal church is mystical.

It’s also visible an authoritative.

On earth we have believers combined in various churches and those are connected in Christ to one another. They can form various unions and highlight different emphases

Yes. They are called Rites within the Catholic Church. The doctrine is the same though.

.....a denomination is really little different than is an "order" within your church. Little more than a different emphasis.

This is where we part ways. It is not possible for the Church that Christ established to teach different doctrine. He said he was the way, the Truth and the life. Truth is the Truth and it does not change. Doctrines regarding the Real Presence, a male only ordained priesthood, regenerative baptism, divorce, remarriage, Church authority, etc. are not negotiable. The teachings were given by Christ to the Apostles and have been preserved in Christ’s Church since Pentecost.

The churches in Revelation had STRAYED from the truth, proving thereby, that there was no infallibility extant within them.

The teachings the Churches received were infallible Truths. The fact that Churches strayed does prove the Church is not infallible. It does prove however that its members are not infallible.

You didn't mention what I do like.

I think its wonderful you recognize these things as good and necessary and they are preserved within Catholicism. How many of the items you mentioned are true in the Methodist Church?

What do you like about the Methodist Churches? Tell me all you know about it and all our historic particular emphases?

I know you don’t have to go very far back in Christian history to find the origin of your Church. It was founded by John Wesley in the 18th century. What I like about the Methodists is you teach free will and Christian charity. What I don’t like is like many mainline Protestant denominations, you continue to split and fracture and become more secular rather than holding to spiritual truths.

292 posted on 11/21/2002 7:32:08 AM PST by pegleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I let you off too easily:-) Catholicism doesn't rest on Marianism as much as on the Real Presence. What have you learned of that from the Fathers.
293 posted on 11/21/2002 7:32:37 AM PST by WriteOn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Technically, Adam and Eve weren't born. They were created.

Technically all of us are created.

294 posted on 11/21/2002 7:56:08 AM PST by pegleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: pegleg
Technically, Adam and Eve weren't born. They were created.

Technically all of us are created.

Would you agree that Adam and Eve were not born?

295 posted on 11/21/2002 8:08:41 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Would you agree that Adam and Eve were not born?

Sure if you would agree we are all created by God.

So maybe the way I should have phrased my questions was:

Do you think Adam and Eve were created without sin?

296 posted on 11/21/2002 8:25:43 AM PST by pegleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: pegleg
Do you think Adam and Eve were created without sin?

Yes, of course. I think we are all created without sin.

297 posted on 11/21/2002 8:27:02 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Yes, of course. I think we are all created without sin.

Actual sin yes, original sin no. With the exception of Adam, Eve and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

298 posted on 11/21/2002 8:37:17 AM PST by pegleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: pegleg
Do you think Adam and Eve were created without sin?

Yes, of course. I think we are all created without sin.

Actual sin yes, original sin no. With the exception of Adam, Eve and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Well, you asked me what I thought. Jews do not believe in a doctrine of original sin.

299 posted on 11/21/2002 8:54:07 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: pegleg
You have just made my point..you place Mary on the level of Jesus ..Thank you for playing
300 posted on 11/21/2002 9:06:34 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 401-414 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson