Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHO REALLY IS 'ANTI-CATHOLIC?'
Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | 1-23-10 | James Swan

Posted on 02/24/2010 9:36:26 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg

Back in one my old philosophy classes I recall lengthy discussions as to the relationship between names and reality, and then spinning around for hours contemplating the brain teaser of what it means to "mean" something about anything. The aftermath: an entire class of young minds slipped further into skepticism, as if the reality each twenty something experienced was completely unknowable. Of course, arriving at the conclusion that ultimate reality is unknowable is... to know something about ultimate reality! Ah, the futility of the sinful mind in its continual construction of Babel towers. Without the presupposition "He is there and He is not silent" the sinful mind does what it does best: it creates a worldview that can't account for the reality it truly experiences.

Despite the aspirin needed after attending such classes, it did force me early on to think about ostensive definitions, and the carefulness with which one defines terms. With theology, correctly using terms takes on the greatest moral imperative: one is speaking about the very holy God that created the universe. Think of terms that are used to describe Biblical doctrine, like "Trinity." One is using a term to describe a collection of factual data given by the Holy Spirit. If ever one should use caution, it should be with the construction of theological terms.

Consider the designator "Catholic Church." The Westminster Confession of Faith explains, "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." The Belgic Confession states that one of its primary distinguishing marks is the "pure preaching of the gospel." If one were pressed to point to that vital factor placing one in the Catholic Church, it is the work of Christ and His Gospel. It is the Gospel which unites the members of the Catholic Church. It is the work of Christ, grasped onto by faith that links those in the Catholic Church together. This pure Gospel is of such importance, that the apostle Paul states if anyone (including himself) preaches another Gospel, he should be eternally condemned.

But what about throwing the word "Roman" into the the mix? The addition of one simple word adds in an ingredient that changes the taste, so to speak. In this short mp3 clip, Tim Staples touched on what "Roman Catholic Church" means. He says "Roman Catholic" has popularly and un-technically come to be synonymous with the term "Catholic". He states "Roman Catholic" popularly means "you're in union with the bishop of Rome." Recent mega-convert Francis Beckwith concurs:

One of my pet peeves is the intentional overuse of "Rome," "Roman," "Romanist," etc. by Protestant critics of Catholic theology. Here's why: the Catholic Church is a collection of many churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's catechism--The Catechism of the Catholic Church--is that of all these churches that are in communion with one another and with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. The theology found in that text, therefore, is not Roman Catholic theology. It is Catholic theology. That's the way the Church understands itself. Common courtesy suggests that those who are critical of that theology summon the respect to refer to it as such"[source].

I admit that I've often equated the two terms. I've used the term "Catholic" to describe Roman Catholics. It has taken a conscious effort on my part to keep the terms distinguished. On the other hand, I'm not sure how it's possible to "overuse" the word "Roman" when referring to those who actively and overtly pledge obedience to bishop of Rome. Beckwith is basically saying "Catholic" is the property of the papacy, and they will define the parameters of the word.

Whose theological usage reflects the teaching of sacred Scripture? Is union with the bishop of Rome an element of theological data mined from the Scriptures? Hardly. It's an extra-Biblical presupposition hoisted upon the text. One has to first assume the validity of the papacy and then read it back into the sacred text. The popular definition as described by Mr. Staples and Dr. Beckwith is entirely unbiblical.

There's one other theological term being thrown around with this: anti-Catholic. Recently Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong stated he "temporarily suspended [his] ongoing policy of not interacting with anti-Catholic arguments and polemics." Well, after I ceased shaking in fear over this announcement, I scrolled through Armstrong's multiple diatribes to see his precise meaning of the term "anti-Catholic." His exact formula appears to boil down to: "One who denies that the Catholic Church and its theology is properly classifiable as Christian" [source].

By applying Armstrong's standard, an Anti-Mormon would be one who denies that the Mormon church and its theology is properly classifiable as Christian. Dave would probably say it's a good thing to be anti-Mormon. So, simply using the term "anti" as Armstrong suggests is either good or bad depending on one's presuppositions. According to Dave's definition, I would say it's a good thing to be anti-Catholic in the same way Dave would probably hold it's a good thing to be anti-Mormon.

Armstong's seemingly endless qualifications and examination of the term "anti-Catholic," as well as "his own definition" provoked me to apply what has been discussed above, and consider an alternate theological definition. If "Catholic" is connected symbiotically with the Gospel, wouldn't an anti-Catholic be someone who either denies the Gospel or denies it as that which unites the people of God into the universal Church? If a particular church overtly espouses a different Gospel, according to Paul, let him be anathema. If understood this way, it would be Roman Catholics who are anti-Catholics. Their Council of Trent explicitly rejected the Gospel in an official declaration.

How does one precisely refer to those in communion with Rome and obedient to the Bishop of Rome? Contrary to Beckwith, I've seriously considered using the word "Romanist." The term describes those devoted to the papacy quite succinctly. However, I was informed by another zealous defender of the papacy that "...many non-Catholic apologists are truly bigots at heart and they use 'Roman' as a derogatory insult. Their bigotry becomes even more clear when they use Romish or Romanist." No one wants to be thought of as a bigot. However, in the same Catholic Answers broadcast cited above, Tim Staples and his co-host positively referred to themselves as "Romanists" introducing their "open forum for non-Catholics" show, in which they only take calls from those outside of their worldview. Here is the mp3 clip. Perhaps they were kidding, although it's hard to tell.

I'm tempted to simply start using the term anti-Catholic for the reasons outlined. I can think of no better theological phrase to describe those who inject obedience to the papacy into the term "Catholic Church."


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; freformed; usancgldslvr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 1,351-1,399 next last
To: Judith Anne

I too am catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

Does your place of worship refer to itself as Roman Catholic? Does your diocese?


1,001 posted on 02/26/2010 12:38:15 AM PST by Gamecock (We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. (R.C. Sproul))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 998 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Anyone who reads it can see clearly who is telling the truth, and who is not.

They certainly can. One sentence directly following another sentence. And another. For all to see.

1,002 posted on 02/26/2010 12:39:09 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 994 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

a) No b) please do not make this thread about me.


1,003 posted on 02/26/2010 12:39:37 AM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

This thread is not about you, Judith.


1,004 posted on 02/26/2010 12:40:19 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 999 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I’m not making it about “you.”

But if I were to do so, you opened the door by asking us not to refer to you as a ROMAN Catholic. I am just trying to understand the distinction here.


1,005 posted on 02/26/2010 12:41:55 AM PST by Gamecock (We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. (R.C. Sproul))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1003 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I am not the one having difficulty reading post 940. Your statement was “When Roman Catholics tell us that “Christian” means to pray to saints, etc.”

“Christian” means follower of Christ. Catholic beliefs may differ from other Christian beliefs, but Catholics are Christian. I am Catholic. Not ROMAN Catholic, Catholic.


1,006 posted on 02/26/2010 12:41:57 AM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1000 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Whenever we ask for clear theology we get only hints and allusions, expecting us to guess whatever it is they believe, then vilify us for guessing. I was told to meditate on certain words, such as “vicar of Christ”, too bad for them I did and then researched it biblically. It has nought to do with a pope


1,007 posted on 02/26/2010 12:42:28 AM PST by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 995 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Asking only out of curiosity, but how are you differentiating between a Catholic and a Roman-Catholic?
Do you not recognize the Vatican?
I myself am Roman-Catholic.
1,008 posted on 02/26/2010 12:43:08 AM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 984 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

1,009 posted on 02/26/2010 12:43:22 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 1001 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Dr. Eckleburg
Please do not make this thread about me.

Don't worry we won't, that's what all those opuses are for.

1,010 posted on 02/26/2010 12:44:06 AM PST by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

lol. “Too bad” is right.


1,011 posted on 02/26/2010 12:45:05 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 1007 | View Replies]

For anyone who wishes to learn about the Roman-Catholic, and even Catholic, Church -


1,012 posted on 02/26/2010 12:46:03 AM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

I have no idea why some churches use “Roman Catholic.” Mine does not. Nor does my diocese.


1,013 posted on 02/26/2010 12:46:50 AM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1005 | View Replies]

To: jla

Thank you for your calm posts and offered information.


1,014 posted on 02/26/2010 12:58:07 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 1012 | View Replies]

To: jla

My diocese does not use the word “roman” anywhere on the website. At all. Neither does my parish. Neither does my former parish. Neither do my children’s parishes.


1,015 posted on 02/26/2010 1:00:35 AM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Uri’el-2012; xone
And yet, they CANNOT be separate because we believe that God is ONE. We also believe that Jesus was God. And we believe that they were separate "somethings":) --> you cannot put those 3 beliefs together without the idea of the Trinity.

And yet, they CANNOT be One, because they are often separate. And Christ functions under the will of the Father, implying hierarchy. Many views can be legitimate, according to belief.

But I don't CARE what you believe. I care about what you can prove. If it cannot be proven, how can one interpretation be of any use against the other?

Uri's view simplifies this (please correct me if I am wrong, Uri) as he believes that Jesus and the Father are one being, not separate and that the Holy Spirit is not a separate being.

Simple things don't break.

But I would criticize UriÂ’el-2012 as well, if he believes his concept of God to be precisely correct, exclusive, and superior.

I would deny ANYONE who says their particular belief is wholly provable upon the Word, because it simply is *not.* We cannot begin to fathom God, nor is the Godhead particularly defined - So *NO ONE* can claim to know, to the exclusion of all others.

It_Is_A_Mystery. Yet to be revealed.

1,016 posted on 02/26/2010 1:01:04 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 948 | View Replies]

To: Uriel; Uri’el-2012
The ping to #968, it was meant for UriÂ’el-2012.
1,017 posted on 02/26/2010 1:08:09 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 968 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

LOL!


1,018 posted on 02/26/2010 1:15:23 AM PST by Gamecock (We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. (R.C. Sproul))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

To 1015 - That is perfectly ok, Judith Anne. :^)


1,019 posted on 02/26/2010 2:51:22 AM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1015 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
And yet, they CANNOT be One, because they are often separate.

So you believe in 3 Gods?
1,020 posted on 02/26/2010 3:09:38 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; xone
But I don't CARE what you believe. I care about what you can prove. If it cannot be proven, how can one interpretation be of any use against the other? .

I just gave you proof:
1. Scripture says that in the Commandments "I Am the Lord your God and you shall have no other gods before me" -- that God is one
2. Yet as Christians we say that Christ is God
3. Yet, as you point out, scripture shows that God the Father and Christ are separate.

So, how do you put 1,2 and 3 together?

Many remove statement 2 (Arius' belief). Uri seems to (please correct me if I'm wrong) not agree with statement 3.

If you agree to the above 3 statements, then what is the only logical conclusion you can come to? That the Godhead is one, yet three in "some" way, correct?

And, you said If the Father required a Roman Catholic sense of the Trinity, it would be very specifically laid out in the Scriptures -- I've pointed it out and will point out again -- this is not an exclusively Catholic sense of the Trinity but one shared by all Trinitarian Christians, whether Reformed or Baptist or Anglican or Catholic or Lutheran or Orthodox. Do we consider it to be precise? No

Do we consider it to be exclusive? No -- as I said, Reformed, Baptist etc. share the same belief

Superior? hmmm.... let's just say that all understanding in the nature of the Godhead has come from understanding what it is not!

When Marcion came along and said that the God of the OT was not the same as the God of the NT and quoted scripture for that (by tossing out th OT), we said "No, that's not correct, either by scripture or tradition"

When the gnostics said the same and added their bit about a Yabbaloath, the same

Then Arius came with his argument that Jesus was not God and this was shown to be scripturally and traditionally wrong

And so through Modalism, Monarchialism, Adoptionism etc.

We don't know and could never know the exact nature of the Godhead, but we can, through scripture and Holy Tradition, know what it is not.
1,021 posted on 02/26/2010 3:21:35 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
1. Do you agree with Uri that "The trinity is not supported by the Holy Word of G-d. "?
2. The Church believes in the Trinity. This is proven in Scripture and Tradition. We are not solo scriptura.
That the word "Trinity" is not there in the scriptures doesn't trouble us, but can be used by sola scriptura non-Trinitarians against sola scriptura Protestants

3. I'm not doubting your friends belief -- that only God can know. I stated that What you state is not an exclusively "Roman Catholic" sense of the Trinity, but is a viewpoint shared by Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Zwinglists, Methodists, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians. This is the majority Christian concept. If you want to call them "not Christian", go ahead, that's your choice.
I called them "non-Trinitarian" and that "their view is not the same as the majority Christian view".

I asked you why you say "I will not criticize a Messianic Jew, nor a Lutheran, nor any that is in between except for the confusion" -- do you extend that non-criticism to Catholics and Orthodox on our opinions for the Trinity too?
1,022 posted on 02/26/2010 3:35:59 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 968 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
My criticism would take place upon the ground where tradition is elevated past, or is equal to, the Holy Word of God.

Tradition gave birth to scripture, yet is subordinate to it (just like Mary gave birth to Her God, yet was/is subordinate to it). Tradition does not contradict Scripture.
1,023 posted on 02/26/2010 3:39:09 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Non-Trinitarians is a very large field. Those who do not deny Scripture I will probably find to be acceptable.

Well, "acceptable" is relative -- the non-T's that I know are nice people and I would even say they follow Christ, but they don't believe that Christ was God. "acceptable" as in being believers or being Christian -- please could you clarify?
1,024 posted on 02/26/2010 3:43:26 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; 1000 silverlings

How about kneeling down and kissing the ring of the pope? Or falling prostate before him?


1,025 posted on 02/26/2010 4:00:32 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 885 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Exactly why I posted what I did. Others have been telling me what I believe and what I think since this thread started.


1,026 posted on 02/26/2010 4:39:17 AM PST by Lil Flower ("Without Love, deeds, even the most brilliant, count as nothing." St. Therese of Lisieux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Dr. Eckleburg
Keep posting the negativity, Dr. E. You have no idea, how you turn people away FROM YOUR VIEWS and turn them toward the Catholic Church with your posts.

I don't believe that for a minute...

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

That's preach the word of God, not a catechism or a tradition...

Dr. E is right on the mark...

1,027 posted on 02/26/2010 5:07:52 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other (since the latter birthed the former).

Wanna bet???

1,028 posted on 02/26/2010 5:11:54 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other (since the latter birthed the former).

When he went to the mountain, what Tradition exactly did Moses follow?

1,029 posted on 02/26/2010 5:22:14 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
And yet, they CANNOT be separate because we believe that God is ONE. We also believe that Jesus was God. And we believe that they were separate "somethings":)

That proves again that your religion still doesn't have a clue about the Trinity...Your vicar of Christ doesn't even understand the Trinity...And you guys claim you discovered It...

Jesus is still separate from God...As is the Holy Spirit...

The Holy Spirit is here, on earth, in the bodies of men/women...Jesus and God are in Heaven...

If you study the scriptures, you know it's in there...Problem is again, you just don't believe God...

1,030 posted on 02/26/2010 5:31:07 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 948 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Those twisted statements do not accurately reflect Catholic beliefs.

Those twisted statements come from your brother/sister Catholics...They just get repeated here by some Protestants...

Why don't you take it up with your religion???

1,031 posted on 02/26/2010 5:33:48 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 950 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Or falling prostate before him?

Hopefully with an attending urologist nearby.

1,032 posted on 02/26/2010 5:38:00 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1025 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
I too am catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

Me too.

1,033 posted on 02/26/2010 5:39:16 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other as Holy Tradition birthed Scripture


1,034 posted on 02/26/2010 5:39:27 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1028 | View Replies]

To: Quix
6. Marble Mary toe kissing--as I've noted, I've been to the Vatican and seen it first hand. It was an accurate and vivid illustration of a point I was making.

Marble Mary toe kissers...

It would be terrible except that it's true...lolololololol...

1,035 posted on 02/26/2010 5:40:37 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

I don’t get how your question is linked to my statement that Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.


1,036 posted on 02/26/2010 5:41:42 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1029 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Iscool: Jesus is still separate from God...As is the Holy Spirit...

ok...

Jesus and God are in Heaven...

ok...is Arius home?
1,037 posted on 02/26/2010 5:44:49 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Good luck with that one. *lolz*


1,038 posted on 02/26/2010 5:45:27 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
"Christian" means follower of Christ.

No it doesn't...Many people followed Jesus to get free food...Some to get healed...

All Christians follow Jesus...But all followers are not Christians...

Why is it you guys can't ever get yourself to say Jesus Christ??? I'm thinkin' you guys need a little closer relationship with your Saviour...

1,039 posted on 02/26/2010 5:46:24 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Catholics are Christian.

Some Catholics are Christians...One does not become a Christian by becoming Catholic...

1,040 posted on 02/26/2010 5:49:04 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Petronski
There are no ROMAN Catholic threads on the forum.

Are you Petronski's mother???

1,041 posted on 02/26/2010 5:51:38 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 964 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Petronski; Judith Anne
ok...is Arius home?

He has the day off, Nestorius is filling in for him today.

1,042 posted on 02/26/2010 5:52:09 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; xone; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; wmfights; Forest Keeper; wagglebee; Cvengr; ...
Iscool: Jesus is still separate from God...As is the Holy Spirit...

The Holy Spirit is here, on earth, in the bodies of men/women...Jesus and God are in Heaven...

If you study the scriptures, you know it's in there


Thank you Iscool. Just to be accurate to your beliefs, in sola scriptura (scripture alone) you say you, ISCOOL, have the conclusion that:

1. Jesus is separate from God
2. The Holy Spirit is separate from God
3. The Holy Spirit is here on earth, in the bodies of men and women
4. Jesus is in Heaven with his creator God

Have I captured your statements correctly?
1,043 posted on 02/26/2010 6:02:01 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other as Holy Tradition birthed Scripture

But it is not your Catholic tradition which is Holy...Your Catholic tradition contradicts scripture...

1,044 posted on 02/26/2010 6:05:27 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
ok...is Arius home?

I don't know Arius...And Dave's not here either...

1,045 posted on 02/26/2010 6:06:46 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

And if Jesus Christ is “separate” from God, that means one of two things:

1. That Jesus Christ IS NOT God.

or

2. That Jesus Christ is A God and the person who believes this is a polytheist.


1,046 posted on 02/26/2010 6:10:47 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1043 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other as Holy Tradition birthed Scripture


1,047 posted on 02/26/2010 6:13:47 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1044 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Cronos; Petronski; Judith Anne
Jesus is still separate from God.

So, do you deny that Jesus Christ is God? Because ALL of Christianity considers this to be heretical.

Or, do you consider Jesus Christ to be ONE God and the Father to be ANOTHER God? Because ALL Christians also consider polytheism to be heretical.

1,048 posted on 02/26/2010 6:15:52 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Have I captured your statements correctly?

Yes...And Jesus also said, 'I and my Father are One'...

They are three, but they are one...That's pretty clear in the scriptures...And it's definitely not just 3 natures...

Now God never asked your religion to define it, and He certainly didn't give you a private revelation as to the nature of the Trinity...HE didn't even ask you to understand it...

Your view of the Trinity is nothing more than a wild guess...And your guess is clearly wrong...

1,049 posted on 02/26/2010 6:16:35 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1043 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Iscool

Yes, the prophet Iscool will tell we which option is correct


1,050 posted on 02/26/2010 6:17:32 AM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1046 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 1,351-1,399 next 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