Posted on 08/31/2013 3:38:44 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Full interview (roughly one hour) with former Roman Catholic priests Richard Bennett (website: http://www.BEREANBEACON.ORG) & Bartholomew Brewer, Ph.D, author of "Pilgrimage from Rome - A Testimony" (website: http://www.MTC.COM) and former nun Rocio Zwirner give glory to God for their exodus from the Roman Catholic Church & into the glorious grace of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Description from youtube)
“Great. Post the link please.”
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/testimonies/Former_Priests/Bart_Brewer.pdf
“So Jesus - the Savior - was not raised as a Jew?”
The Jews at that time were the church of God on Earth, and outside of them there was no salvation. Jesus Christ did not found a brand new church, but simply continued and expanded the old one, fulfilling the original covenant with Abraham which we today call Christianity, grafting the Gentiles into the vine. Consequently, those who do not believe in Christ are dead in their sins.
Just FYI.
“Seriously, you keep trying this misdirection thing where you post one thing as if it was another.”
The real misdirection here is that you have no evidence that Brewer lied about not being aware of the more extreme claims of the SDA, even though that is a pretty common testimony for people who have left it. I really couldn’t care less if you insist that he is a liar. Provide evidence. You are also faced with the illogic of making these assertions as if he had been exposed or challenged on this issue, when you’re literally just trying to make a claim out of something that he himself volunteered about his own life, in his own book.
I asked you if there was anything else you had. Since Brewer is a pathological liar in your world, surely you have something much better than this to provide?
I most certainly am saying that.
Logically, everything is given to us and is a manifestation of grace. So how could merits be as good? My native actions are also the action of grace as well. Nothing I have just stated is against Catholic teaching. Augustine was right to reject Pelagius. But when he rejected him, he did not affirm the direct opposite of what Pelagius said. He affirmed a teaching which included a real freedom.
Hence, that which invites our return to God— evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. (Augustine, On grace and free will, V.)
He did not say freedom was something unreal. He read scripture too, which said, "God will repay each person according to what they have done.--Rom 2:6.
The nature of freedom is that it is a real operation of my native powers. Those powers are a gift from God, but by their nature they are really freely capable of effects apart from God. But because freedom is also a gift from God, it is a grace, and can not be said to "be as good as grace." Thus Merit is not considered the same way as Pelagius would consider it. Merit is itself a manifestation of God's grace
Catholic teaching has always insisted, along with Augustine, that the will must cooperate with grace. Because that is acting according to the design of freedom. The acceptance of God includes the reality of this real principle of freedom. Freedom is a gift from God, but it is a gift in which the concept of real love is possible.
So, to claim a conflict of grace against merit in Catholic teaching would be incorrect.
Okiedokie, so finally we are focusing in on the truth here. I went to what you just linked to. It’s a PDF.
I am going to post two cuts of the exact same passage. Each cut will be the same passage don’t forget, but will come from two different websites. One will be from a website allowed to be cited and used here at FR. The other will be from a website not allowed. I want you to tell me what the one and only difference is between the two cuts. By the way, the only thing I am adding to the cuts is opening and closing quote marks. One flaw in the original quote you posted in number 10 shows you used the banned website version - and therefore cannot be telling the truth now when you say you got this from a Brewer PDF.
Cut 1
“I enjoyed watching the girls giggle as they flirted with teasing boys After a while though, my attention was drawn to one of the more diligent students who thoroughly captivated my interest.”
Cut 2
“I enjoyed watching the girls giggle as they flirted
with teasing boys. After a while, though, my attention was drawn to one of the more diligent students, who thoroughly captivated my interest.”
Do you see the flaw?
“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs...the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind...But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of 'good will to men', even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the ‘peace on earth’ which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).
Catholics can’t deny that the RCC has incorporated pagan practices into its practices. The RCC itself admits that it does. The RCC refuses to hear the words of the Lord.
“As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.” (Jer.44:16-17)
You wrote:
“The real misdirection here is that you have no evidence that Brewer lied...”
There’s no way he could have gone through SDA training to be a minister and not know about EG White’s standing among SDA. It’s just that simple.
And from that you leap to:
“All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.”
“God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.”
“I most certainly am saying that.”
Okiedokie, please then explain the Arabic Muslim use of the term “Millat Ibrahim”. You must be acquainted with it since you’re claiming to know what Muslims profess.
Oh aren’t you the most clever one. The Mormons claim to believe in Jesus as savior also don’t they. And the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Would you also say they follow the same Jesus as you do?
“Oh aren’t you the most clever one.”
You were the one claiming to know what Muslims did and did not profess. Perhaps now we know who between us actually knows what he is talking about.
“The Mormons claim to believe in Jesus as savior also don’t they.”
That would fall under “profess” would it not?
“And the Jehovah’s Witnesses?”
Again, that would fall under “profess” would it not?
“Would you also say they follow the same Jesus as you do?”
I would say they profess to follow Jesus. You were wrong.
Okiedokie, please then explain the Arabic Muslim use of the term “Millat Ibrahim”. You must be acquainted with it since you’re claiming to know what Muslims profess.
“Hence, that which invites our return to God— evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. (Augustine, On grace and free will, V.)
He did not say freedom was something unreal. He read scripture too, which said, “God will repay each person according to what they have done.—Rom 2:6”
Neither Augustine nor Reformed doctrine actually does away with the will. It simply asserts that the unwilling are made willing by God’s grace effectually, that free-will is a voluntary slave to sin, and that it is by effectual grace that we are saved.
Hence Augustine says,
“But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid. For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed? And before this redemption is wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, how can he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he be inflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrains when he says, By grace are you saved, through faith.” (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 30)
Catholic doctrine certainly does not speak of grace in terms of being effectual, working to effectually make a man humble and obedient, and not maintained by the humility and obedience of the man in cooperation of it.
Thus the Reformed/Augustinian view is utterly contrary to the Catholic position, which rather sees grace as something to be merited through obedience to the RCC.
So I suppose those Nicene Creed statements fall under “profess” also.
And pagan, in your world, right?
“There’s no way he could have gone through SDA training to be a minister and not know about EG White’s standing among SDA.”
Knowing something about White’s standing among the SDA, and knowing all the details that led to him leaving the SDA, including her works being compared as being equal to scripture, is certainly two very different things.
It’s just simple enough to conclude that you’re desperate to make out of something the best you can.
Are you knew to the English language or common Christian terms?
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
PROFESSION OF FAITH
I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely:
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
I submit to you this statement is in error.
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.(The Council of Trent, Ch 3)
I think the issue is language, not meaning.
Catholic teaching is not against Augustine. Augustine was a Bishop, and is a Saint and doctor of the Catholic Church.
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.