| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/23/2010 11:12:46 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Hate mongering article |
Posted on 02/23/2010 5:41:42 AM PST by bogusname
Mother Teresa was a great, living Christian testimony to Protestant power in action in the midst of the most filthy, lowest, abjectly hopeless areas of extreme human poverty offered on God's good earth.
ph
Can’t you just turn the other cheek regardless of whether it’s the heat or the stupidity?
Actually, there are "denominations" of Christianity and there is at least one cult among them that calls itself "Christian".
Then there is the Church that Christ founded. Choose well.
Sitetest, I agree 100% with what you wrote.
Agreed, although I might be inclined to give the original poster another chance after a time out to allow for reflection.
Maybe since everyone seems to think change is bad and in the old days it was better, They like to stay with the traditions they are comfortable with?
Jesus founded the catholic church, not the Roman Catholic church, that did not exist until Constantine. He is the father of the Roman church, not Christ.
He took a church that had a biblical basis and added to it all manner of pagan practices that Catholics today call "tradition"
You don’t need to be a member of a church to be saved. Ask the thief who died on the cross with Jesus.
I do not agree. Seems like I have heard this argument before about what FR condones.....The original poster stated why he left...just because some do not like his reasons, does not mean he should be denied the opportunity to state why he left. Perhaps some folks are being too sensitive and not grounded enough in their own beliefs to weather the storm of opposing comments.
Scripture tells me that God has a people everywhere. I believe there is a saved remnant within the RC church.
Do I think that most will eventually leave, yes I do.. but many will do as the saved Catholics I knew did, they went to mass on Saturdays and to a protestant church on Sundays to be taught.
Most Catholics have very strong cultural and social ties to the church and they want to stay for various reasons.. There are most certainly saved within the RC church
That's myth pretending to be history.
Almost everything you think is "pagan" can be shown to exist long before Constantine, and there's no evidence he added a thing.
In addition to my previous post, I would like to point out some areas of contention I have, though the vast majority of that post is accurate:
1. While the “Church of Christ” doctrine of faith + baptism for salvation has been a long-standing tenant, it too is in error. In fact, the verse most quoted in defense of this doctrine (with Mark 16:16, as quoted by the author running second) is the product of tradition (beginning with the same Catholic Church the author condemns with it). Even contemporary translators have shied away from correctly and literally translating the passage. It is all about the grammar. New Testament Greek Grammar does not work much like English (or most other languages for that matter). One cannot simply word-for-word translate and expect to get the original writer’s intent or message. One must also consider the sentence structure. So, as an example, I will use the most popular “baptism for salvation” verse:
Acts 2:38 - “Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
The text jumps from second person plural to third person singular and back again, so one can more accurately translate with little more than commas. Something more like this:
“Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins, or in a more natural current English sentence “Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and be baptized.
This fits the rest of the book of Acts, and indeed the entire New Testament. Lets also keep in mind the immediate audience of Acts - the Jewish people of the first-century. A good illustration is the conversion of Cornelius and his friends. - Acts 10:47-
“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
If the more traditional interpretation of Acts 2:38 is correct - that we receive the Holy Spirit WITH baptism, then explain the latter verse. Cornelius and company had already RECEIVED the Holy Spirit - prior to baptism.
2. If we are going to get into names of churches as a basis for “being in error”, then lets be totally honest - the most common reference to “the church” in the New Testament is “Church at _____________”. How many times is the title “Church of Christ” used to describe the local church? How often is that title used to address epistles?
Thus, many non-denominational identified churches might be more “correct” in naming.
But I also realize that no amount of translation and exegesis is going to convince a Church of Christ member that baptism is an act of obedience and an outward sign of the inward change that comes with salvation. Just as no amount of historically accurate facts and plain scripture is going to convince the rabid Catholic of the error of many of that church’s doctrines and practices.
Ephesians 2:8&9 - “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Not of yourselves - in other words, not by anything you can do, earn, or accomplish yourself. It is God’s grace that draws us to, and grants us faith. And it is by that faith that we are saved.
Did the original poster write the article?
Why do ex-Catholics insist on misrepresenting Catholic teachings, which so many of never seem to have studied except as outsiders?
Th Church does not think the Bible as a dead letter. But no document is self-interpreting. It must be read in he light of the Spirit, and the real question is how the spirit comes to a person. Our faith is an incarnational faith. Jesus was a man. He recruited followers and he empowered them. He ascended into heaven but did not leave them orphans. The Spirit came and became the soul of his “new” , the Church. It is through the Church that the Hebrew Scriptures are rightly interpreted. It is through the Church that we know that Jesus was the son of God, the Messiah and High Priest of the People of God. It is by the Spirit that we know Jesus, but the Spirit works through men, and we must work out our salvation as persons of flesh and blood.
I don't see much room there for the possibility that a zealous, faithful, orthodox Catholic can be a Christian, sorry.
Sounds like your "saved remnant" is composed of people who are mostly Protestants at heart but unwilling to admit it to the world. I can't say that I'm very impressed with them.
How about faithful, believing Protestants who become zealous, faithful Catholics? (They exist: I go to a parish full of them.) Do they fit in your worldview at all?
No, it is a real question that Catholics need to consider.. Is the "real body and blood of Christ" more 'REAL' than the spiritual presence of Christ? If one has the indwelling Holy Spirit is that LESS REAL then the communion wafer? Is it of less spiritual benefit? If one is IN CHRIST and Christ is in them..is that spirituality less real than the wafer?
Seriously, why post this vanity on FR? What is your objective?
Indeed He did.
And ... if he somehow found it, it would be IMPERFECT the moment he joined!
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.