Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
In their lust for unity the Emergent Church and post-evangelical “Protestants” are right now embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. But the issue is simple: If, as taught the Church of Rome, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without “the new birth in baptism” then we are now in hopeless contradiction with the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)
Speaking The Truth In Love
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for the Roman Catholics who may read this work in Christ from Apprising Ministries. I personally am former member of the Church of Rome and care very deeply about those, such as the majority of my own family line, who are trapped in this apostate man-made system of religion known as Roman Catholicism. I also fully realize that what I say may sound “unloving” and possibly even “harsh.” However, there is just nothing that I can do about that. By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.
(Excerpt) Read more at apprising.org ...
I strongly recommend the Protestant Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel and published by Eerdmans. The lengthy article (pages 398-447, Volume I) links "authority" with being "sent" in both NT Greek and usage and in the word Shaliach (which apostolos seems to translate in the LXX.)
And while I'd agree that we all have an apostolate and are called and even "sent" to be "witnesses", I don't see how the Pauline corpus can be understood as saying everyone has the same kind or degree of apostolic authority. Again the I COR12 passage seems to apply.
The article points out that Apollos is never called an apostle, and Timothy is called an adelphos and a synergos tou Theou, but NOT an apostolos.
While the original apostles are witnesses of the Resurrection, not all witnesses are called apostles.
In short, it ain't so clear.
It's not?
Luke 1:41
"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."
Maybe, if we don't see an explanation it's best not to build a doctrine/dogma around it. I think it's clear there are some things that are way beyond our abilities.
So then you’re going to stop believing in the Trinity? You’re also going to have to throw out the hypostatic union - i.e., Jesus is both man and God.
There are most definitely matters we have to simply take on faith (de fide), I agree! But that which we take on faith requires a definition, because we can’t believe in something that isn’t defined in some way - even if assent to that definition requires faith and not human logic.
We will never - not even in heaven - understand God totally, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying to get to know Him.
Well, I’m not going to go 12 rounds with you on this, but I would like to know how you know St. Paul’s usage in Titus 3 is defined as you say it is. It is not elaborated on in the Scripture cited, so, since there is no self-referencing of the passage in Scripture itself, the definition you use must come from a different source. This makes Scripture not as “perspicuous” as the Reforemers alleged, and seems to be perilously close to creating one of the “traditions of men” that elsewhere you make a point of pushing away from. I’m not trying to argue so much as I’m trying to see the thought process here.
Notice that the Holy Spirit came after the baby leaped?
Are you going to just misrepresent what I've said as is so typical on these threads?
Not every baby, like John the Baptist comes to earth in the spirit of Elijah. Elijah had so much of the Spirit that he bequeathed Elisha double, and I’m sure had plenty to spare. More than enough even to infuse Elizabeth. Or are you contending all of us come to earth in the Spirit of Elijah? If not, your thesis does not hold.
The following goes back a few years but it is a good example of a Catholic bashing thread. Oops, my mistake. I should have noted it was a Protestant bashing thread.
Thomas A. Droleskey on the Lies of Protestantism
This is the nature of the beast. If you don't like just stay away.
Sure the baby lept.
Luke 1:41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
(42) Then she spoke with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
I don't see any non believers being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I don't see a sacramental system dispensing Grace. I do see Faith and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
"Tradition" is meaningless as history.
That comment alone qualifies you as a Wise Old Owl :)
It was an example, Reggie, to get you to think about how oral tradition can be included in the forming of Christianity. But since you asked, why don't you try Encyclopedia Britanica?
Because we care about them and want to rescue them from error that could cost them their salvation.
Me, too! I have a wonderful church family but I am a part of the family of God and His daughter who is precious in His sight.
Every man/woman is born of water, it’s the natural way. Don’t we come usually after the mother’s water breaks in the womb?
My oh my ... how sanctimonious of you.
Thanks for your kind words.
The old, at least, is obvious. LOL.
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.