Posted on 04/16/2012 4:21:51 PM PDT by Salvation
More have left to become evangelicals, mainly due to spiritual lack as Catholics.
So do you believe Prots may only be born again and be saved if they die as confessing Catholics? Explain in your own words.
Indeed it is, but although 100% of Scripture is the Word of God, it is not 100% of the Revealed word or a fraction of the Word incarnate. God is the author of Scripture. Scripture is not God. Scripture is a reflection of God because it is from God that Scripture derives the truth and light that it shines on us. To worship Scripture is a form of idolatry called bibliolotry. Surely, you are not advocating that, are you?
Catholic seminarians are required to study philosophy before the study theology because some of concepts and terminology introduced in the New Testament are incomprehensible and corruptible to those with no classical educations. In John 1:1, when St. John introduced and consecrated the term "Logos", he didn't arbitrarily choose "word", like some kind of algebraic variable or place holder that would be left to future English speakers to solve. He called upon a term that was already hundreds of years old within the Greek Stoic philosophers. Logos, was not simply Greed for "word". It was the term for a complete system of order and knowledge. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe and everything in it.
Jesus is indeed the Logos that we both love and worship. I am sure that is what you meant.
Yes, “Catholic” NAB is horrible and completely un-Catholic. The translation is bland and imprecise; the commentary is straight heretical.
You want to know what the Bible really says, use Greek and Hebrew interlinears or read Douay, with occasional check with KJV. Modern translations are a product of 20c.: if you liked two world wars, militant atheism, wholesale slaughter of European Jews and Russian farmers, artificial selection of obedient coward race in half the globe, and islamized Europe, well, sure, then you might find something to like in the 20c translations of the Holy Scripture, too.
For over 30 years i have been enriched by the KJV (not as extremist such who think the English is superior to the Greek, or not allowing it could be improved a little). And there are Catholics who only sanction the Douay-Rheims Bible, yet one Roman Catholic apologist criticizes them and it somewhat. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021)
God's Word is what IT is and DON'T say what it ISN'T according to man's understanding. HE has preserved HIS WORD. DO NOT ADD to it or take ANYTHING away from it by adding words of 'man'. God's WORD ALONE IS HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED - man's word is NOT. The HOLY SPIRIT REVEALS His Word.
God's Word ALONE is 100% complete for HIS children. God holds nothing back from His own. His children know HIM and will NEVER look to man for anything when it pertains to His Holy Spirit Inspired Word - ONLY HIM!
Jesus is indeed the Logos that we both love and worship. I am sure that is what you meant.
You are wrong. We are like oil and water, especially when you 'try' to put words in my mouth. Deception is a trademark of catholicism/worldly organization.
I belong to Jesus, The Father gave me to Jesus, as HIS WORD ALONE reigns with Jesus as It does for His own as Jesus only spoke what The Father told Him to speak and HE only did what He heard The Father told Him to do.
John 17
6 I have shown these men who YOU really are. They are men whom you gave Me from the world. They belonged to YOU and YOU gave them to Me. They have obeyed YOU.
7Now they really know that everything YOU gave Me comes from YOU.
8I have told them the things that YOU told me to tell them. And they have believed My Words. They know it is true that I was with YOU before I came. They have believed that YOU sent Me.
9It is these men I am asking you for. I am not asking you for the people of the world. But I am asking for those YOU gave Me, because they belong to YOU.
10All those I have are yours. And all you have are mine. And they make my name great.
11`I am not in the world any longer. But they are in the world. And I am coming to YOU. Holy Father, keep them in YOUR name, which YOU have given Me. Then they will be one, just as YOU and I are one.
12While I was with them, I took care of them in YOUR name, which YOU gave me. I have taken care of them. Only one of them is lost. That is the one who was born to be lost. What YOUR book says came true.
13Now I am coming to YOU. `I say these things while I am in the world so that they may be very glad, as I am.
14I have told them what YOU said. The world has hated them because they do not belong to the world. So also, I do not belong to the world.
15I do not ask YOU to take them out of the world. But I ask YOU to take care of them, so that the evil one of this world will not harm them.
16They do not belong to the world, even as I do not belong to the world.
17Make them clean by the true WORD and keep them for Yourself. YOUR WORD IS TRUE.
I belong to NO OTHER, nor listen to NO other words but GOD's WORD.
I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief or your love of God, but I take exception to your claim to be able to exclusively interpret Scripture and judge who is and is not a believer. You continue to use "Word" and Scripture interchangeably when they are clearly not the same thing. You are giving the impression that you worship the Bible and when given the an opportunity to clarify you seem to be reinforcing that impression.
I have thick skin and can easily forgive you for your insults and unwarranted condemnation because I really believe you do not know what you are doing. My recommendation to you is to soften your tone and bring forth the Fruit of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is really in you the Fruits of the Spirit will manifest themselves. Neither you or I will convert anyone. All we can do is to prepare the way for the Holy Spirit. When you harden hearts the seeds of the Spirit will not take root.
I think the forum started out as a separate designation to discuss things pertaining to religion that those not interested in seeing it could bypass. What we have now is a substitute for other articles posted at other online sites being condensed into one spot for the Catholic sector on Free Republic. Some articles, like this OP, are not current but held for "timing" purposes as well as those posted purely as provocation for arguments across the Catholic/Protestant divide. Some people delight to play the "let's watch you and him fight" game. Then if, and when, things take an ugly turn, they can place the blame on those they opposed in the first place.
The solution can be twofold. One, put up a well-reasoned and truthful counter to the false doctrines espoused - which plenty do a good job with - to discourage the copious numbers of flagrant Protestant bashing. And second, to start posting more articles that have the Christian faith as the topic without the slant that the Catholic Church likes to apply to their's. It would be nice to get back the view count for each article so we could see how few people really even look at some threads. Those who see posting threads as their "spiritual duty" and then abandoning them to the "game" described above, may not be deterred from continuing but the more people either ignore them or demolish them when they are egregious, they may decide their time can be better spent as well as the resources of Free Republic on more helpful things. I wonder how much in donations this block actually gives to have their "own" global outreach? I'd hate for Free Republic to be thought of as an arm of the Vatican but we can only do so much.
Like you have stated many times, the Catholic Church allows quite a bit of freedom to its members to "interpret" for themselves those things not specifically spelled out in their Catechism and even WITH that catechism, some veer from it how they please and even those set up to be the leaders do so, as well, with impunity. It would be nice to hear some honesty once and awhile about this fact. Like your charts and surveys show, those who claim to be joined to the "one, true church" lack a lot of unity on even the major things, much less the minor ones.
The Church is not the work of man: it is a special creation of God. Seeing it is wholly supernatural in its origin, we can look nowhere for information respecting its nature, its constitution, and its ends, but to the Bible. The New Testament declares that the Church is a spiritual society, being composed of spiritual, that is, of regenerated men; associated under a spiritual head, the Lord Jesus Christ; held together by spiritual bonds, which are faith and love; governed by spiritual laws, which are contained in the Bible; enjoying spiritual immunities and privileges, and entertaining spiritual hopes. This is the Church invisible; so called because its members, as such, cannot be discovered by the world. The Church, in this sense, cannot be bounded by any geographical limits, nor by any denominational peculiarities and distinctions. It is spread over the world, and embraces all, in every place and of every name, who believe in the Lord Jesus, and are united to him as their head, and to one another as members of the same body, by the bond of the Spirit and of faith. "By one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit."
Protestants willingly concede to the Church of Rome what, as we shall afterwards show, that Church will not concede to them, that even within the pale of Popery there may be found members of the Church of Christ, and heirs of salvation. But the Church may be viewed in its external aspect, in which respect it is called the Church visible, which consists of all those throughout the world who profess the true religion, together with their children. These are not two Churches, but the same Church viewed under two different aspects. They are composed, to a great degree, of the same individuals. The Church visible includes all who are members of the Church invisible; but the converse of this proposition is not true; for, in addition to all who are genuine Christians, the Church visible contains many who are Christians only in name. Its limits, therefore, are more extensive than those of the invisible Church. Such are the views generally held by Protestants on the subject of the Church. From these the opinions held by Papists on this important subject differ very materially.
Papists hold that the Church of Rome is emphatically the Church;[1] that she is the Church, to the exclusion of all other communities or Churches bearing the Christian name. They hold that this Church is ONE; that she is CATHOLIC or universal; that She is INFALLIBLE; that the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter and the vicar of Christ, is her visible head; and that there is no salvation beyond her pale.
The Church, say the Papists, must possess certain great marks or characters. These must not be of such a kind as to be discoverable only by the help of great learning and after laborious search; they must be of that broad and palpable cast that enables them to be seen at once and by all. The Church must resemble the sun, to use Bellarmine's illustration, whose resplendent beams attest his presence to all. By these marks is the important question to be solved,--"Which is the true Church?" Papists hold, and endeavour to prove, that in the Church of Rome alone are these marks to be found; and therefore that she, to the exclusion of all other societies, is the holy Catholic Church.
The first indispensable characteristic of the true Church, possessed by the Church of Rome alone, as Papists hold, is UNITY. Bellarmine places the unity of the Church in three things,--the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same head, the Roman pontiff.[2] This unity is defined by Dens[3] to consist "in having one head, one faith, in being of one mind, in partaking of the same sacraments, and in the communion of the saints." With regard to the first,--the unity of the head,--Dens holds that the Church of Rome is signally favoured; for nowhere but in her do we find one visible head "under Christ," namely, the Roman pontiff, "to whom all bishops, and the whole body of the faithful, are subjected." In him, continues Dens, the Church has a "centre of union," and a source of "authority and discipline, which extends in its exercise throughout the whole Church." "What is the Church?" it is asked in Dr. Reilly's Catechism. It is answered, "It is the congregation of the faithful, who profess the true faith, and are obedient to the Pope."[4] Romanists lay much stress likewise upon the fact, that the same creed, particularly that of Pope Pius IV., drawn up in conformity with the definitions of the Council of Trent, is professed by Roman Catholics in all parts of the world; that the same articles of faith and morality are taught in all her catechisms; that she has one rule of faith, viz. "Scripture and tradition;" and that she has "the same expositor and interpreter of this rule,--the Catholic Church."[5] "Nor is it in her doctrine only," says Dr. Milner, "that the Catholic Church is one and the same: she is also uniform in whatever is essential in her liturgy. In every part of the world she offers up the same unbloody sacrifice of the holy mass, which is her chief act of divine worship; she administers the same seven sacraments."[6] As regards the communion of saints, we find it defined in Reilly's Catechism to consist in the members of the Church "being partakers of the spiritual blessings and treasures that are to be had in it;" and these, again, are said to consist in "the sacraments, the holy sacrifice of the mass, the prayers of the Church, and the good works of the just."[7] Generally, Papists, in deciding this point, discard altogether the graces and fruits of inward Christianity, and found entirely on outward organization.
Bellarmine asserts that the fathers have ever reckoned communion with the Roman pontiff an essential mark of the true Church; but when he comes to prove this, he leaps at once over the apostles and inspired writers, and the examples of the New Testament, where we find numerous churches unquestionably independent, and owning no subjection to Rome, and comes to those writers who were the pioneers of the primacy. When one man only in the world is permitted to think, and the rest are compelled to agree with him, unity should be of as easy attainment as it is worthless when attained. Yet despite the despotism of force and the despotism of ignorance, which have been employed in all ages to crush free inquiry and open discussion in the Church of Rome, serious differences and furious disputes have broken out in her. When we name the Pope, we indicate the whole extent of her unity. Here she is at one, or has usually been so; on every other point she is disagreed. The theology of Rome has differed materially in different ages; so that her members have believed one set of opinions in one age, and another set of opinions in another age. What was sound doctrine in the sixth century, was heresy in the twelfth; and what was sufficient for salvation in the twelfth century, is altogether insufficient for it in our day. Transubstantiation was invented in the thirteenth century; it was followed, at the distance of three centuries, by the sacrifice of the mass; and that again, in our day, by the immaculate conception of the Virgin. In the twelfth century, the Lombardic[8] theology, which mingled faith and works in the justification of the sinner, was in repute. This had its day, and was succeeded in about a hundred years after by the scholastic theology. The schoolmen discarded faith, and gave works alone a place in the important matter of justification.
On the ruins of the scholastic divinity flourished the monastic theology. This system extolled papal indulgences, adoration of images, prayers to saints, and works of supererogation; and on these grounds rested the sinner's justification. The Reformation came, and a modified theology next became fashionable, in which the grosser errors were abandoned to suit the newly risen light. But now all these systems have given place to the theology of the Jesuits, whose system differs in several important points from all that went before it. On the head of justification the Jesuitical theology teaches that habitual righteousness is an infused grace, but that actual righteousness consists in the merit of good works. Here are five theologies which have successively been in vogue in the Church of Rome. Which of these five systems is the orthodox one? Or are they all orthodox? But not only do we desiderate unity between the successive ages of the Romish Church; we desiderate unity among her contemporary doctors and councils. They have differed on questions of ceremonies, on questions of morals, and they have differed not less on the questions of the supremacy and infallibility. Contrariety of opinion has been the rule; agreement the exception. Council has contended with council; pope has excommunicated pope; Dominican has warred with Franciscan; and the Jesuits have carried on ceaseless and furious battles with the Benedictines and other orders. What, indeed, are these various orders, but ingenious contrivances to allay heats and divisions which Rome could not heal, and to allow of differences of opinion which she could neither prevent nor remove?
What one infallible bull has upheld as sound doctrine, another infallible bull has branded as heresy. Europe has been edified with the spectacle of two rival vicars of Christ playing at football with the spiritual thunder; and what we find one holy father, Nicholas, commending as an assembly of men filled with the Holy Ghost, namely, the Council of Basil, we find another holy father, Eugenius, depicting as "madmen, barbarians, wild beasts, heretics, miscreants, monsters, and a pandemonium."[9] But there is no end of the illustrations of papal unity. The wars of the Romanists have filled history and shaken the world. The loud and discordant clatter which rose of old around Babel is but a faint type of the interminable din and furious strife which at all times have raged within the modern Babel,--the Church of Rome.
Such is the unity which the Romish Church so often and so tauntingly contrasts with what she is pleased to term "Protestant disunion." As a corporation, having its head at Rome, and stretching its limbs to the extremities of the earth, she is of gigantic bulk and imposing appearance; but, closely examined, she is seen to be an assemblage of heterogeneous materials, held together simply by the compression of force. It is a coercive power from without, not an attractive influence from within, that gives her being and form. The appearance of union and compactness which she puts on at a distance is altogether owing to her organization, which is of the most perfect kind, and of the most despotic character, and not to any spiritual and vivifying principle, whose influence, descending from the head, moves the members, and results in harmony of feeling, unanimity of mind, and unity of action. It is combination, not incorporation; union, not unity, that characterizes the Church of Rome. It is the unity of dead matter, not the unity of a living body, whose several members, though performing various functions, obey one will and form one whole.
It is not the spiritual and living unity promised to the Church of God, which preserves the liberty of all, at the same time that it makes all ONE: it is a unity that degrades the understanding, supersedes rational inquiry, and annihilates private judgment. It leaves no room for conviction, and therefore no room for faith. It is a unity that extorts from all submission to one infallible head, that compels all to a participation in one monstrous and idolatrous rite, and that enchains the intellect of all to a farrago of contradictory, absurd, and blasphemous opinions. This is the unity of Rome.
Men must be free agents before it can be shown that they are voluntary agents. In like manner, the members of the Church must have liberty to differ before it can be shown that they really are agreed. But Rome denies her people this liberty, and thus renders it impossible that it can ever be shown that they are united. She resolves all into absolute authority, which in no case may either be questioned or opposed. Dr. Milner, after striving hard, in one of his letters,[10] to show that all Catholics are agreed as regards the "fundamental articles of Christianity," is forced to conclude with the admission, that they are only so far agreed as that they all implicitly submit to the infallible teaching of the Church. "At all events," says he, "the Catholics, if properly interrogated, will confess their belief in one comprehensive article, namely this, "I believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches." So, then, this renowned champion of Roman Catholicism, forced to abandon all other positions as untenable, comes at last to rest the argument in behalf of his Church's unity upon this, even the unreasoning and unquestioning submission of the conscience to the teaching of the Church. In point of fact, this "one comprehensive article" sums up the entire creed of the Papist: the Church inquires for him, thinks for him, reasons for him, and believes for him; or, as it was expressed by a plain-speaking Hibernian, who, making his last speech and dying confession at the place of execution, and resolved not to expose himself to purgatory for want of not believing enough, declared, "that he was a Roman Catholic, and died in the communion of that Church, and believed as the Catholic Church ever did believe, now doth believe, or ever shall believe."[11] Put out the eyes of men, and there will be only one opinion about colour; extinguish the understandings of men, and there will be but one opinion regarding religion This is what Rome does. With her rod of infallibility she touches the intellect and the conscience, and benumbs them into torpor. There comes thus to reign within her pale a deep stillness, broken at times by ridiculous disputes, furious quarrels, and serious differences, on points termed fundamental, which remain unsettled from age to age,--the famous question, for instance, touching the seat of infallibility; and this profound quiescence, so like the repose of the tomb, accomplished by the waving of her mystic rod, she calls unity.[12]
I'm not here to prove my belief in Jesus - so feeling the NEED to comment on it shows a high and mighty mindset as you scrutinize according, again, to what you *think*.
So telling me what you *think* I do that appears wrong according to your catholic teaching falls flat. My beliefs do not line up with the Catholic Church I am blessed to say.
Thanks for the update on the newly developed thick skin. If so, you wouldn't be seeing insults where there are none.
There is no need to prove anything to me. I do not sit in judgment, but like you, will be judged by how I responded to God's commandments and call to faith and beatitude. I am ready to be judged today.
I sincerely hope that you continue to proclaim the Gospel with all of your fervor and zeal. I only ask that you consider the cautions given us in Scripture and Tradition to do so with love, gentleness and respect. When we evangelize it is not we who convert hearts, it is the Holy Spirit. But our actions can assist or impede the process. In doing this it is our actions and our perceived motives that first come into play. We can only open minds, open eyes, and open hearts by gently preparing the way.
From the Cross Jesus taught us that ignorance can affect the imputability and responsibility for sin and even absolve sin when He said; "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Whenever any of our words or actions causes anyone to recoil in anger, hatred or fear from the Word of Gos we take on a shared responsibility for their sin because, as Christians, we know better.
May the Peace and Blessings of Jesus be upon you.
Bumping this.
Great read, bb.
That is the premise statement upon which all of Rev. Wylie's argument is based. As one who reads with a critical eye I always challenge premise statements, especially the ones that form the thesis of the writing. In this respect, without commenting yet on whether I agree or disagree with him, the Rev. Wylie is very, very sloppy. That should send up a red flag for anyone reading the document, even if you agree with it, and begging the question as to why it was written. Without answering that there is no real point in continuing.
The major problem is that Rev. Wylie proceeds in his argument without bothering to substantiate or qualify his premise statement or set the conditions under which it is to be accepted as true. It is begging that we accept or suspend disbelief of an unsubstantiated premise before we can proceed.
Now it may surprise you that "the Church of Rome" completely agrees with Rev. Wylie's premise, or rather that the Rev. Wylie completely agrees with the Church of Rome in this respect. All necessary information respecting the Church's formation, nature, its constitution, governance and its ends are indeed clearly spelled out in the Bible, specifically Matthew 16:13-19.
The rest of his chapter on the Papacy is a laundry list of attacks on Church authority without ever citing or referencing his Scriptural basis for disagreement. My critique is that it is too wordy and bookish to make a good sermon and too poorly argued to make a decent work of scholarship. At best is it an editorial document best preached to the choir.
Well, I am not a Douay “onlyist”. I also have a great respect for Jimmy Akin. One significant defect of Douay and Vulgate is the feminine pronoun in Genesis 3:15.
Another is the insufficient differentiation of the triple “Feed my sheep/lambs” in John 21. The original also varies “feed” with “guide”.
I wish Akin provided examples of KJV influencing Douay.
Note that Akin wisely does not hold up any English translation as superior to Douay.
Re feminine pronoun in Genesis 3:15: Just before this thread we had a RC insisting that was correct. I have the Douay and it is quite similar to the KJV, except in some places like Lk. 24:47. But it looks like the American RCs are stuck with the NAB - though after i was born again and really began to get into the Bible, i thought the NAB is much better than the “Living Bible” and the GNB which i began with (went to the store and the first had a nice picture, but what did i know?)
This is from book I am writing:
...any affinity that Eve may have had with the serpent is destroyed utterly and enmity takes its place. The enmity will extend through generations: through Eve’s seed and the Satan’s seed. But this is what is remarkable: the children of Eve cannot be called “her seed” [link], -- fathers have seed, not mothers. We can pass this by as a botanical metaphor (plants have seed but are not differentiated as male and female), but the application of the “seed” to specifically Eve (with Adam standing nearby) nevertheless seems awkward. Awkward unless we remember one woman who gave birth to a Child Who indeed crushed Satan’s head: and Christ was not born of a woman but of a man’s seed. Indeed, this is exactly the promise that God makes here: that a “seed” of Eve shall crush Satan one day. This verse, Genesis 3:15 is known as Protoevangelium, -- the First Gospel, where the Old Testament, from the mouth of god Himself, in a veiled and concise form predicts the paschal victory of Christ.The translation I quote from does not say “he (i.e. the seed, implying Christ) shall crush thy head” but rather “she will”. This is now understood as a mistaken translation by St. Jerome, whose Latin translation from Hebrew is the primary source of the preferred by me Douay-Rheims English translation. We don’t know the exact reason: it could be a corrupted source from which St. Jerome worked, or some incorrect interpolation of the Hebrew masculine pronoun as feminine or plural. This is another reason that I wish St. Jerome had worked primarily from the Greek Septuagint, which was the living scripture of the Jews at the time of Jesus, and not from Masoretic version of the Hebrew scripture. Surely the interpolation, if that is what it was, would be natural here: the passage speaks of the serpent “lying in wait for the heel” of the woman, so we imagine that very heel, and not her mysterious seed that will do the crushing. That Holy Moses would forego this logical and dynamic scene in favor of the indirect crushing of the serpent lying at the heel by the inexplicable woman’s seed shows that truly his work was divinely inspired.
Indeed, Douay routinely translates espiscopos as "bishop", presbyteros as "priest" (with few contextual exceptions) and metanoia as "penance" in contrast to KJV; that is the principal reason I prefer it. Also Mary's kecharitomeneh is "full of grace" and not "you did God a favor, gee-thanks" in other translations.
fix: “Christ was born of a woman but not of a man’s seed”
“they are only so far agreed as that they all implicitly submit to the infallible teaching of the Church. “At all events,” says he, “the Catholics, if properly interrogated, will confess their belief in one comprehensive article, namely this, “I believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches.”’
Today that can hardly be affirmed, rather after years of experience as a RC and in interacting with them and their beliefs and observing them, the basic ethos being effectually fostered and believed is, “As long as you die in the arms of Rome, no matter how nominal, your good life and the power of the church will gain you eternal life,” this being part of an ambiguous concept the mercy of God. Every time a Ted Kennedy is honored in life and in death this is implicitly reinforced.
Thus the typical response to a query as to why the basis for their hope of Heaven, like why God would let them in, is almost always, “I’m a good person. and or “I’m a Catholic,” with their unity typically being around upon identification as a Catholic, while with an evangelical the response the is because i they became born again by faith in the Lord Jesus to save them as a sinner (and thus seek to follow Him), and their essential fellowship being based on a share Scripturally-based conversion and relationship. Thanks be to God.
But the more we give in to the culture then the more this becomes superficial.
Duh, I just said that I'm not here to prove anything - why the need to repeat? Yet you couldn't resist doing it, however I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief or your love of God.
but like you, will be judged by how I responded to God's commandments and call to faith and beatitude.
No, you are NOTHING like me. Jesus took my judgement.
I am ready to be judged today.
Without Christ, no one is ready.
I only ask that you consider the cautions given us in Scripture and Tradition
If I considered anything from you - like your 'tradition', then I wouldn't have salvation. So keep your 'tradition' which gives you 'judgement'. I left the RCC years ago so I'm not a dog who returns to it's vomit. "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." Prov 26:11
Whenever any of our words or actions causes anyone to recoil in anger, hatred or fear from the Word of Gos we take on a shared responsibility for their sin because, as Christians, we know better.
I answered that condemnation shared responsibility for their sin on another thread - as you said you already posted that to one who is 'smug'. LOL! It's called 'assurance' something catholics know nothing of! There is NO condemnation to those who are 'in Christ'.
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.