Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Catholics Be Christians?
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

Posted on 12/08/2009 11:41:52 AM PST by Gamecock

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740741-753 last
To: Petronski
Who do you think you're kidding?

Why don't you go and look at your post 368 and my 364 so we don't have to waste any more time.

741 posted on 12/10/2009 1:42:39 PM PST by Heliand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: the_conscience

I despise duplicity. “Let your yes, be yes, and your no, be no. Anything beyond that is from the evil one.”


742 posted on 12/10/2009 1:43:41 PM PST by Heliand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I wrote this totally fabulous response (trust me) and the confuser ate it, and I had to go to Church. Arrrgh. But it WAS terrific, conclusive, you would have read it and repented immediately.(I don’t know of what, but you would have repented ....)

IF I understand you (always a question) you are in a way entirely right. It is circular. You buy the package on the basis of more or less internal consistency and things of that kind, or not.

It’s like I used to get irritated when people would say, “No Pope has ever taught anything contrary to Church doctrine.” At least at first blush that’s like saying, “No Pope ever breathed in without inhaling.” If he’s TEACHING it, with all the bells and whistles, it IS church doctrine. And in a very attractive (to me) way, PapaBenXVI explicitly says in the intro to his book about Jesus something like,”Hey this is not all official. It’s just me here, thinking out loud.”

So the problem with your hypothetical is that it’s kind of incredible to us. IF it were to happen, it would be an earthquake, that’s fer shur.

The pope in the hypothesis would have to feel like IHS on the Cross, abandoned. We take Vatican I to mean that God protects the pope. If the pope got the idea that he was in error, and became convinced of that idea ... Wow.

Since the system IS circular, it seems the way to attack it is to find reductios ad absurdum, and the two ways to defend it are to demonstrate the internal consistency AND to try to find worse absurdities which woulkd follow from assuming it was wrong.

That’s the best I can do. I hope it’s (a) true and (b) responsive.

(BTW - I have no problem with “bloodline.”)


743 posted on 12/10/2009 3:38:24 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Heliand
Little children do not need to repent before baptism, because they have no personal sins to repent of, only original sin,

Exactly...And that's one of the reasons there is no baptism given to babies in the scriptures...

Repentance is a requirement of Baptism...Sorry you don't like that but that's what the God of Creation tells us in His scriptures...

and Christ has not limited his Gospel only to adults, but emphatically extends it even to babes in arms:

There is no incident of anyone preaching the Gospel to little babies in the scriptures, and likely for obvious reasons...

“Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” (St. Matthew 19.13-14)

There's no baptism in those verses...

“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (St. John 3.5) and “Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by baptism into death;

You guys make it a habit of ignoring the rest of the scriptures on Baptism...

Water does not mean Baptism...Baptism does not mean water...Water in John 3 has nothing to do with Baptism in water...

John the Apostle confirms this:

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

If baptize means water, then Jesus waters with the Holy Ghost...And John waters with water...Or baptizes with baptize...Or maybe waters with baptize...

This is one of the many proofs that baptize does not mean water...And water does not mean baptize...

There is a Spiritual baptism AND a water baptism...They are not the same...Spiritual baptism is required...Water baptism is not...

744 posted on 12/10/2009 5:27:02 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
That to me is unremarkable.

I would think it would be remarkable even to someone who believed it's true...

And that turns out to be about the role and nature of reason and especially the degree to which reason is corrupted by the Fall.

I don't think I'd blame it on the Fall...Adam and Eve were obviously very deficient in their reasoning before the Fall...You can't trust your own reasoning when it comes to the word of God...

Similarly, we can never hope to understand the Bible. Our role is to say, "Yessir!" without comprehension.

That's a pretty narrow view...Jesus says He brings understanding to those who are in Him...

ANYWAY, Whitehead to the contrary notwithstanding, we find that God, when contemplated by reason alone, is found to be outside of time or timeless, while comprehending time.

Why would a justified, sanctified Christian try to contemplate God based on his own reasoning when the scriptures that reveal God to us are readily available???

Therefore, to be glib, Mary (and all the blessed) have "all the time in the world" to hear, sort, and process petitions.

Under that premise when the final judgment takes place, Mary and the saints will be so far behind that those at the end of the line are out of luck...Their prayers will have never made it to God...

745 posted on 12/10/2009 5:50:06 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
And that's one of the reasons there is no baptism given to babies in the scriptures.

Then you (a) do not believe original sin prevents children from reaching heaven, or (b) you don't believe in original sin? In which case, why did Christ come?

Water does not mean Baptism...Baptism does not mean water...Water in John 3 has nothing to do with Baptism in water...

Well, that would be your interpretation of Scripture. Clearly mine is different. What makes yours the more valid one other than your own pride? It sure would be easier if Christ had left some authority to explain these things to us, wouldn't it, instead of having to bicker endlessly over the meaning of words.

This is one of the many proofs that baptize does not mean water...And water does not mean baptize...

"Baptizo" means immerse, wash, cleanse. You immerse in water. Water cleanses, giving the appropriate symbolism of cleansing the person of sin.

If baptize means water, then Jesus waters with the Holy Ghost

Precisely. Christ, acting through the person of the priest who is baptizing, infuses the Holy Ghost into the soul of him who is washed in the water. Jesus waters the soul with the Holy Ghost at the same time the body is watered with the waters of the baptismal font. Thus:

"I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness" (Ezekiel 36.25)

And that's one of the reasons there is no baptism given to babies in the scriptures.

And yet, circumcision was "a sign of the covenant between me and you" (Genesis 14.11) and a "a seal of the justice of the faith" (Romans 4.11), and was given to babies. So according to you, its no longer necessary to have such a sign of the covenant between God and man by way of, say, Baptism?

746 posted on 12/10/2009 6:32:59 PM PST by Heliand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Therefore, to be glib, Mary (and all the blessed) have "all the time in the world" to hear, sort, and process petitions.

Under that premise when the final judgment takes place, Mary and the saints will be so far behind that those at the end of the line are out of luck...Their prayers will have never made it to God...

Nah. They have all the time in the world between this instant and the next. They're always caught up. (It helps if you've done a little imagining about transfinite numbers.)

Why would a justified, sanctified Christian try to contemplate God based on his own reasoning when the scriptures that reveal God to us are readily available???

Wow! What a great question? it's kind of related to someone's question which was ALMOST, "Would Mary be an awesome theologian?" TO which I would answer, "I never read anatomy books when I'm making love. Mary has something BETTER than theology. She has the beatific vision. To do theology in that case would be like turning away from your lover to read a book on the physiology of sex."

Some of us just do it (philosophy and theology, not the other "do it"), and we find it beautiful and it prompts praise of and wonder at God.

Another way is that, though it's kind of a specious distinction, The Bible, Prayer, our Life with Christ tell us WHO God is. Theology tells us What God is.

And the utility, almost the only REAL practical justification (and the reason Dominicans and Franciscans, the great evangelical orders of their time, were so involved with the universities of medieval Europe) is that good theology under-girds the proclamation of the Gospel and its defense against its opponents.

Once it was suggested to me that sex was original sin. No, really. To know the Biblical affirmation of creation generally and procreation more specifically, that the command to multiply was given man "in the time of his innocency," that certain Platonists and Neoplatonists and Gnostics build their world system on the split between body and soul (rather than on the union, as we do), and so on and so forth, that's useful stuff to have under your belt when you're going up against someone who thinks sex is intrinsically sinful.

And, similarly, when you read Dawkins, who evidently persuades some folks, it's good to be able to show, without even cracking a Bible, that Dawkins's account of God and his account of Christian thinking about God is just completely, 100% WRONG!

That is the kind of thing that can get people back to looking in their Bibles.

You know, when I'm talking to a Dawkins junkie, I really don't care what denomination we're talking about. Just to get somebody to take seriously the idea that God could become a Man and that there might be a need for such a thing because what we do REALLY matters, just to get him to think for a minute that thoughtful people believe this stuff with their minds as well as their hearts ... that's a good thing.

If my imagined interlocutor as a result of our conversation decided to become a Baptist Of course I'd shoot him be delighted that he had welcomed the Lord Jesus into his heart and into his life. Clearly I'm a committed Catholic and I think it's the shizzle and all that. But I'll still call it a win if someone's heart is touched by the amazing and life-changing love of Jesus.

Maybe its just a certain quirk some people have, the theology/philosophy quirk. I know that compared to at least two guys I converse with a lot, I'm by no means expert. But I know of one of those guys that it was philosophy that led him to crack a Bible and it was theology that led him to say, "I need you in my life, Lord." So that makes it worthwhile, as far as I'm concerned.

747 posted on 12/10/2009 6:39:54 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: Heliand

Yes I was wondering if that was the case. I am glad to have been corrected.


748 posted on 12/10/2009 9:06:38 PM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: Heliand
Well, that would be your interpretation of Scripture. Clearly mine is different. What makes yours the more valid one other than your own pride? It sure would be easier if Christ had left some authority to explain these things to us, wouldn't it, instead of having to bicker endlessly over the meaning of words.

You can't be serious...'Baptize with water' in the same sentence and you want to believe they both mean water??? You need an 'authority' to tell you that they both mean water???

If an 'authority' told me they both mean water, I'd dump the authority...

Precisely. Christ, acting through the person of the priest who is baptizing, infuses the Holy Ghost into the soul of him who is washed in the water.

Surely you must realize this statement is totally non biblical...There is not a single incident in the scriptures of any man infusing another man with the Holy Ghost...

Is that one of those 'traditions' that Paul handed down that he didn't bother to write about??? Who did he tell that to???

Jesus waters the soul with the Holy Ghost at the same time the body is watered with the waters of the baptismal font.

Jesus has NEVER watered anyone's soul with the Holy Ghost...Your whole premise is un-scriptural...

Thus:
"I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness" (Ezekiel 36.25)

Eze 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

Did God bring you Catholics out from among the heathen and gather you into your own land??? Of course not...

Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Eze 36:28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God

Do you live in the land that God gave your Fathers??? Perhaps we should listen to what Peter has to say about it...

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

A like figure...NOT getting wet, but a clear conscience...Water baptism preceded Spiritual baptism...John baptized with water BUT Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit...

And yet, circumcision was "a sign of the covenant between me and you" (Genesis 14.11) and a "a seal of the justice of the faith" (Romans 4.11), and was given to babies. So according to you, its no longer necessary to have such a sign of the covenant between God and man by way of, say, Baptism?

No, not according to me...According to God...

Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

There will be no sign given...Not circumcision, not baptism...No sign...

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The scripture will trump and correct your catechism every time...Your catechism is nothing more than a commentary on what the scriptures say, and a poor commentary at that...

749 posted on 12/11/2009 6:09:16 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

What diatribe? The denomination being questioned/trashed is the Catholic church which preceded all other denominations and the adherants to that faith were termed to be Christians. The diatribe is in the questioning of the denomination that was the basis for all of the other Christian denominations. This is why the founding fathers gave us freedom to believe as we choose but also specified that the federal government could not make laws regarding a specific belief, denomination or sect. Fundamentalist dogmatic rants or questions about another Christian denomination, who is real and authentic and who is not is no different than what muslims do as a matter of course.

In case my beliefs might be in question; I am a believer and my beliefs are Christian, but I don’t follow or adhere to any denomination because denominations are contrivances of man and man’s prejudices. This “who is a real Christian” argument is one facet of those prejudices.


750 posted on 12/11/2009 10:32:42 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; RnMomof7; Alex Murphy; HarleyD; the_conscience

“Come Out from Among Them” by John Calvin.

Amen. Here’s a wonderful review of this book...

http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2001.html#BookReview

“Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Rev 18:4)


751 posted on 12/11/2009 11:23:51 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I think the important part of that scripture is the “MY”.

It is a called for the elect , God’s children, His sheep, to come out of her.
It is not a general call, it is specific. God wants to be at the center of our faith, our lives and our worship, He will have no other gods before Him.

He will not share His glory...

So His people are the called out ones


752 posted on 12/11/2009 1:24:43 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Personally, therefore, I do not judge. I have either greater or lesser hope. For example, I have greater hope for my Roman Catholic family members who ignorantly follow their leaders without thinking. Many times I find these to be at least open to discussion regarding the Gospel. However, I have lesser hope for people who are self-consciously Roman Catholic; that is, they understand the issues yet continue in the way of the Papacy.

Let me see...so if I am an unthinking, reflexive Catholic by rote I'm OK, but if I'm a learned, convinced, practicing Catholic I'm not OK.

Very clever. Untrue, too.

-Theo

753 posted on 12/16/2009 12:06:26 PM PST by Teˇfilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org - A Catholic Blog of News, Commentary and Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740741-753 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