Posted on 06/13/2013 10:02:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Given that the Church in Rome was founded by St. Peter, I can’t see it.
Yes mother.
Will say this again...Unity among believers is in Christ Jesus....regardless of their denomination or church association....who leads or who they call themselves.
But I will surely differ with you...there are many differences among the catholic churches....indeed. I would venture saying most catholic denominations do not agree with their gay bishops...nor with the the leaders who include voodoo and various other rites within their denomination..and fully credited by the leadership of the catholic denominations.
Don’t believe I’m old enough, but :::headpat::::
<....”So how does one determine this?”.....>
Right question!..one you would not be asking were you connected to those who do know how to determine this.
DO you have a special brand of candy? That way we can be sure to know the ‘real’ christians from the fake ones.
“Right question!..one you would not be asking were you connected to those who do know how to determine this.”
If you had the answer you would be able to answer the question.
So what is it Caww? How does one determine this?
Now Catherine of Aragon...be careful accepting the Mother role...I understand catholics see Mary as their mother in charge.
Are you or are you not in unity with fellow protestan Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson?
I normally avoid these discussions as people do not focus on the correct things that make a church the church. However this needs to be addressed, if nothing else as a way to stop you from slandering everyone.
"Vicky" Is not a Christian. it's a self proclaimed homosexual. The two are mutually incompatible.
Protestants are no more in unity with them than Pope Francis is just another homosexual priest molesting altar boys.
Now, are those faggot priests who molested all those kids Catholics? or have they turned their back on God and the church they supposedly belonged to and excommunicated themselves?
So if you can tar all protestants with a faggot non-Christian, then you can be tarred with those faggot child molestors.
Get on to the real issue. We are not called to be Protestant or to be Catholic. We are called to be Christian. You don't have to be a member of any certain church (as all Christians together form the one true Church).
Do you, JCBrekenridge, believe the Jesus is the Son of God and that He suffered, died, was buried and rose again in payment of your sins, and have you accepted that atonement for your sins. Have you made Jesus YOUR Savior? If so, then we are brothers in Christ no matter what church you attend. If not you need to get saved, hell is too hot and eternity lasts too long to play around with this.
The bible never once asks what church someone belongs to, only WHO they belong to. (that is, salvation is an individual issue, not a communal issue)
So, we can continue pissing on each other with trivial and unimportant questions ("My steeple's taller than your steeple". "My 'church' was founded before yours was" etc) or we can get out there and make the world a better place by bringing souls to Jesus.
“Your definition of Apostasy is hypertechnical”
It’s the correct definition. Apostasy refers to doctrine not the conduct of the members.
“One can Apostatize by continued sin”
One can personally apostasize through sin, yes, but has already been explained, the Church cannot.
“The Catholic Church through the Counter Reformation implicitly recognized its organizational sin and reformed.”
Yes and the organizational sin was not a doctrinal apostasy. They reaffirmed what had always been taught and went forwards. This is contrary to the protestants who committed doctrinal sins and apostasised.
“It is a great question whether or not God recognized its reformation.”
Alright, let me ask you a question.
If I were to prove to you that every protestant church does not teach today what they once taught previously, would you believe that protestants have apostasised?
(”My steeple’s taller than your steeple”. “My ‘church’ was founded before yours was” etc)
You omitted “my church was founded by Jesus” v “my church was founded by a bipolar German monk” v “my church was founded by a murderous king”
Spiritual things are spiritually discened.
The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
A natural man’s understanding is shut to them,...must be opened by a divine power,.... and a superior spiritual light must be thrown into it;.....at most he can only know the literal and grammatical sense of them,....or only in the theory,... notionally...and speculatively,.... not experimentally, spiritually, and savingly.
’ “Vicky” Is not a Christian.’ “
Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson claims to be a Christian.
“Protestants are no more in unity with them”
He is a Protestant. Many protestants are in unity with him. I gave a list. The ECLA, the ECUSA, the PCUSA and the UMC are all in unity with Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson. All of these organizations believe that he is a representative of Christ here on earth.
All of these organizations are protestant.
So tell me. How does one determine who is protestant and who is not? Is Vicky correct or are you correct? This is the question I asked right out of the gate.
What is the essential definition of ‘protestant’?
So far, I see only one and it applies equally to you as to Bishop Gene Robinson - you define yourself as ‘not Catholic’. Through boolean logic.
There is no unity on doctrine. I can point to any doctrine and find someone who is a protestant who disagrees. This renders the concept of Christian ‘unity’ a lie. There is no unity among Protestant Christians.
“So if you can tar all protestants with a faggot non-Christian”
He says he’s a Christian. He has made his profession of faith in public, and his personal testimony. Many, many, many other protestants agree with him and not you.
“Get on to the real issue. We are not called to be Protestant or to be Catholic. We are called to be Christian. You don’t have to be a member of any certain church (as all Christians together form the one true Church).”
So what you are saying is it doesn’t matter if you are a member of Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson’s church. It’s all ok, because he and his members form the true church.
“Do you, JCBrekenridge, believe the Jesus is the Son of God and that He suffered, died, was buried and rose again in payment of your sins, and have you accepted that atonement for your sins. Have you made Jesus YOUR Savior?”
I can no more make him my saviour than I can make my father my father. He IS my saviour and has always been my saviour. I can only acknowledge that which is true. He suffered and died and redeemed all of us from the Cross.
“If so, then we are brothers in Christ no matter what church you attend. If not you need to get saved, hell is too hot and eternity lasts too long to play around with this.”
That was what I was asking. I know I have a somewhat flippant tone - but this is a crucial question.
Now I have one for you - what do you think of the Nicene Creed? This is where your formula originates.
“The bible never once asks what church”
Nonsense. The Bible explicitly states that Christ built his Church to proclaim the gospel to all nations.
“with trivial and unimportant questions”
It’s not trivial. That’s my point. Visible Christian unity is very, very important, even more so given folks like Vicky Gene Robinson.
We need all the faithful Christians who remain true to Christs teachings in unity with one another and not with Vicky.
It’s not about ‘making the world a better place’. This world is doomed. The boat is sinking and we have to swim.
“Spiritual things are spiritually discened.”
Not scripture.
“The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Also not scripture.
“A natural mans understanding is shut to them,...must be opened by a divine power,.... and a superior spiritual light must be thrown into it;.....at most he can only know the literal and grammatical sense of them,....or only in the theory,... notionally...and speculatively,.... not experimentally, spiritually, and savingly.”
Also not scripture either.
Jesus provides a concrete answer to this question:
Matthew 7:16-20
“By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”
Now is it a coincidence that God commands man to ‘be fruitful and multiply - fill the earth and subdue it?’
Like Jesus says - by their ‘fruits’ you shall know them. These are not two separate issues they are one and the same.
Nice try.
There’s a reason the ECUSA is at the vanguard of these changes. I wonder if any of the other freepers can see it.
Actually you missed it and the point.....but not surprisingly so.
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.