Posted on 11/21/2004 2:48:08 PM PST by atari
Im catholic, but I wasnt raised in a religious household.
Im totally clueless about most Protestant denominations especially, and If any would tell me the differences between them, or point me to a site that would help, that would be great. :-)
">>How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb? Depends.
Evangelical Fundamentalist: It's not in God's infallible word that we are to change the lightbulb"
Correction:It's not in his infallible word to change or not change the lightbulb...there-fore as long as it doesn't cause your fellow Christian to stumble...you may change it. Indeed changing the light-bulb may help him not to stumble...ehh...especially in the dark!
REAL evangelical fundamentalists are more pragmatic than you think...we are commanded to be so!"having the wisdom of serpents and the malice of..." and all that!
>>May God here and now strike me dead if the Roman Catholic Church is the sole arbiter of Crist Jesus on earth.
It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God..""
Like a can of worms?
baptists point them out to get them going.
Jesus, Peter and the Keys.
Catholic Doctrine in Scripture.
The Papacy.
Also, Karl Keating wrote a good one titled "Catholicism and Fundamentalism".
Being a "bible only" guy for so long, it was good to see the proof pointed out in the scripture. It was irrefutable.
1 posted on 11/21/2004 3:48:09 PM MST by atari
No membership in any denomination will save you.
You can only be saved by a relationship with the creator of the universe.
You can only approach the creator of the universe,
if you cover yourself with the blood of the Lamb of G-d.
All you have to do is ask Y'shua to be your L-rd and Savior
and you can cover yourself with the blood of the Lamb of G-d.
The instruction book for this is the Word of G-d.
NAsbU 2 Samuel 22:3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence
His willing bondslave
chuck
I went to my first Presbyterian service a week ago and the person who led us in prayer prayed for the Iraqis but not for our troops. Big turnoff.
Paul was celibate; St. Peter was married.
Jesus said (Matthew 19:12):
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.
Other modern translations use the phrase others have renounced marriage. One might argue that Jesus was merely describing this state of affairs, not sanctioning it, but this is made implausible by His concluding comment, He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.
But if it is to be denied that Jesus taught the desirability of celibacy for those called to it, there can be little doubt about St. Paul's position, expressed in great detail in 1 Corinthians 7:7-38:
7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion . . .
20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called . . . . .
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
28 But if you marry, you do not sin . . . Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . .
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33 But the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord . . .
38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
These verses form the scriptural rationale for the much-maligned Catholic requirement of celibacy for priests, monks, and nuns. St. Paul's argument is clear enough, for anyone able to receive it. The celibate priest can singleheartedly devote himself both to God and his flock. The practical advantages of having more time and not being burdened by multiple loyalties are obvious to common sense.
Why, then, is this disciplinary requirement (it is neither a dogma nor irreversible, although it is firmly established in Catholic Tradition), so confusing? I submit that it is a lack of belief in the power of God to assist one in such a difficult life-choice (especially given the present sexually-crazed atmosphere). Opponents of celibacy often simply assume, like Luther, that a life without sex is utterly impossible, whereas our Lord Jesus and St. Paul undeniably teach the contrary, and the desirability - even preferability - of celibacy for those so called. One must make a choice for or against the biblical teaching. If sexual abstinence is impossible and "unnatural," men and women are reduced to the level of mere beasts, devoid of God's image and strengthening power, utterly unable to control their appetites and passions. This is not the Christian view!
It needs to be stressed at this point that no one is forced to be celibate. It is both a matter of personal choice, and, on a deeper level, an acceptance of one's calling, as given by God. Paul acknowledges both the divine impetus (1 Corinthians 7:7,20) and the free will initiative of human beings (7:35,38). These two are not contradictory, but rather, complementary. In other words, if a man is called to celibacy (and further, to the priesthood in the Latin, Western Rites), he will be given both the desire and the ability to carry out this lifestyle successfully (see Philippians 2:13). If one is not called, like most of us, to celibacy and/or the priesthood, then he or she ought to get married (1 Corinthians 7:7,9,20,28,38).
Perhaps what offends me most deeply about the RC church is you insistence that YOU are The Church that Christ founded.
Each Sunday at Mass, after the priest has read the Gospel, he holds up the Book of the Gospels and proclaims "This is the truth!". Do you agree that the Bible is "the truth", as revealed by God?
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20).
For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).
This alone causes me actual revulsion and emotional anger. I would have to call it blasphemy
This revulsion for the church created by Christ, is something you must bring to Him to resolve.
The Body of Christ is His church and it has NOTHING to do with buildings, Popes, denominations or bureaucratic hiearchies. I know this to be a fact. I know it because everything Christ taught in His Word supports it and His Spirit within me echoes it as FACT.
Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians. We know this for sure: The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because his truth is one. The conclusion? The "Bible alone" theory must be false.
Keep in mind that the Church came before the New Testament, not the New Testament before the Church. Divinely-inspired members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament, just as divinely-inspired writers had written the Old Testament, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and interpret the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Such an official interpreter is absolutely necessary if we are to understand the Bible properly. (We all know what the Constitution says, but we still need a Supreme Court to interpret what it means.)
The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors "into all truth" (John 16:12–13).
You are in danger of hell's fire if you attempt to bar the smallest child from the Kingdom with your papist unchristian system.
Here you go again, accusing the Catholic Church of paganism; yet, not once have you provided any scriptural evidence to support your statement.
Instead of the Jack Chick tracts or whatever else has poisoned your mind against the Catholic Church, I would challenge you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church , ALL of which is scripturally based. Then, post your accusations, using the Bible, as your point of reference. Regardless of your perceptions about the Catholic Church, she stands ready to welcome you.
I would recommend a detailed "word study" of the word ROCK
in the scriptures that Y'shua used.
It will not support the roman church's position.
NAsbU 2 Samuel 22:2 He said, "The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence.
His willing bondslave
chuck
I'm not tempting. I mean it. If this mess of an organization is the true church..... I don't want to live. Eternity can't be much better fi this is the case either as what sort of 'god' is running things?
Slpooy translation. "Peter" means "pebble", not "rock". The "rock" is the confession of Jesus as the Christ. The church is built upon the confession, not Peter. That verse doesn't establish a pope.
The "true" church for these is something they think up themselves and form little Groups of Latter Day Seats.... in which they sit on Thrones and have big auditoriums and have television channels in which they sit on thrones and ask for money... I wouldn't call them 'churchs'
First; rent "Meaning of life", by the Monty Python group
Second; Love God with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbor as much as your self.
Third; Realize this (life) is just a test, grading on a curve will follow.
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.