Why I Am Still an Evangelical Protestant [And Not Roman Catholic]

Chris Castaldo ^ | March 15th, 2013 | Chris Castaldo

[Heart-Rest]

Wow, Elsie, your posts here today are once again rapid-fire, machine-gun-like posts, coming out of you just as quickly and in the same rate as were the lies being spewed from the mighty mouth of obama in last night's speech!    That ain't easy to do!

Regarding your comment, "Declare victory and leave the field of battle.", the obvious implication is that if you were to ever actually win a victory like that yourself, you would stay on the battlefield forever.    Of course, no one who has ever really won a victory on the battlefield has ever stayed there forever on the battlefield like that (except for the combatants who died there on the battlefield, and most of them usually leave the battlefield eventually too).

For your sake, I will pray therefore that you never do win any battles here, as the consequences you envision are too bizarre and too grim and too gruesome to contemplate.    :-)

[Heart-Rest]

Well, Jesus gave us a great example of what to do at times when He had some severely misguided souls senselessly hounding Him over and over with the same old erroneous beliefs and assertions, in response to the things He said.    Let's take a quick look at how Jesus handled some of the people of His day who repeatedly attacked Him and falsely accused Him, and said things that were completely untrue to Him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But when He was accused by the chief priests and elders, He made no answer.    Then Pilate said to Him, “Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?”    But He gave him no answer, not even to a single charge; so that the governor wondered greatly.    Matthew 27:12-14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

'boatbums', Jesus deliberately chose there to not respond to some of the people talking nonsense about His teachings, and to totally ignore those misguided people.    By totally ignoring them, Jesus gave us a good example of how to at times handle those kinds of error-filled communications and woefully wrong communicators, wouldn't you agree?    (Or do you think that Jesus gave us a bad example to follow there?)

[Elsie]

For your sake, I will pray therefore that you never do win any battles here, as the consequences you envision are too bizarre and too grim and too gruesome to contemplate.

I guess your "resolution" hasn't kicked in yet.

...and I'm going to make a personal resolution right now to start doing a better job in the future myself of implementing that same kind of wisdom in my own decision-making about which posts to read, and which to just bypass completely.

[Elsie]

Wow, Elsie, your posts here today are once again rapid-fire, machine-gun-like posts, coming out of you just as quickly and in the same rate as were the lies being spewed from the mighty mouth of obama in last night's speech! That ain't easy to do!

Tell me about it!

You've noted my SPEED; now...

...have you any comment about my ACCURACY?

[boatbums]

Jesus deliberately chose there to not respond to some of the people talking nonsense about His teachings, and to totally ignore those misguided people. By totally ignoring them, Jesus gave us a good example of how to at times handle those kinds of error-filled communications and woefully wrong communicators, wouldn't you agree? (Or do you think that Jesus gave us a bad example to follow there?)

What do you think was the difference between this time in Jesus' life and all the other times where He DID answer His critics back? When Jesus appeared before Pilate and remained mute to the accusations it was JUST AS IT WAS PROPHESIED the Messiah would be as spoken here:

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)

Curiously enough, the Ethiopian eunuch just happened to be reading this Scripture when he encountered Philip as related in Acts 8:26-35:

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopiana eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.”

The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

In other words, THIS was the time when Jesus remained silent just as the lamb which was lead to slaughter. Much different than rebuking the religious leaders who resisted him all during his ministry. Look what Mark said about it:

Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying, "Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against You!" But Jesus made no further answer; so Pilate was amazed. (Mark 15:4-5)

There is a time and place for rebuking false teachers. That is what Jesus demonstrated to us. None of us will EVER be in the position he was in. None of us will ever be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The time comes sometime when no matter what we say, no matter how many Scripture passages we quote or expound upon, some people will resist out of vain pride or stubborn indifference. When that happens, we should shake the dust from our feet and move on. But NOWHERE are we told to remain silent when God's truth is perverted and we have an opportunity to correct error.

[metmom]

Who needs accuracy when you have a machine gun?

All you have to do is point, pull the trigger, and sweep back and forth like a fire hose. You’re bound to hit something at that rate.

[boatbums]

I’d rather be on “their” list than not in the Lamb’s Book of Life!

[boatbums]

If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (I John 5:16,17)

If people want to take this passage to defend as Biblical the idea of mortal and venial sins, then why don't they take it all the way and STOP praying for people who commit mortal sins? That IS what it says, isn't it?

[Iscool]

I’d rather be on “their” list than not in the Lamb’s Book of Life!

Exactly...LOL...

[HarleyD]

Luther was in error when he called for the destruction of the Jews in his 65,000 word treatise.

Would you like to see some of the comments from the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 about the Jews (67-71). How about the 4th Council of Toledo of 633? If Luther was intolerant of Jews, he learned it through the Church. And, I might add these were "infallible" documents of the Church-although they didn't think of them like that at that time.

I personally do not fault Luther nor will I fault the Catholic Church of this time. It was a different time and place. We sometimes look through history and are appalled at how others act. However, as unappealing their actions were, life was different back then. We cannot judge them by the moral standards of today.

I often wonder how they would view us? Sometimes I think we've become too tolerant for our own good. Especially if we're willing to kiss the Koran.

[daniel1212]

If people want to take this passage to defend as Biblical the idea of mortal and venial sins, then why don't they take it all the way and STOP praying for people who commit mortal sins? That IS what it says, isn't it?

Because 2Mac. 12 they did so when idolatry was their cause of death? But really, i do not think they are saying any mortal sin is the sin unto death, but that this illustrates there is one, or condition, which is because sin is mortal apart from Christ.

[Elsie]

I often wonder how they would view us?

I wonder how GOD views us...

[Elsie]

Sometimes I think we've become too tolerant for our own good.

A well respected Catholic has said...

 

Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil ... a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment.

 Tolerance applies only to persons ... never to truth.

 

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not.

It is suffering from tolerance.

Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos.

Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.

 

 

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

 

 

"A Plea For Intolerance" (1931)

[Heart-Rest]

"But NOWHERE are we told to remain silent when God's truth is perverted and we have an opportunity to correct error."

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

No, we are not told to do that, but we are plainly shown to do that by Jesus Christ Himself (in His clear example in those texts I provided), who actually, truthfully did that Himself when, (as you said), "God's truth [was] perverted and [Jesus had] an opportunity to correct error" but remained totally silent.

Your whole post proves my point.    Sometimes Jesus chose to answer someone else's erroneous babbling, and sometimes Jesus chose to just ignore and not answer someone else's erroneous babbling, and we should imitate Christ by sometimes answering erroneous babblings, and sometimes not answering erroneous babblings.

[metmom]

Well, if you can have a clear conscience about not correcting erroneous teaching that you believe will lead someone to hell, then there’s just not much that can be said for that.

[Heart-Rest]

Elsie in post #324    "You've noted my SPEED; now... ...have you any comment about my ACCURACY?"

Elsie in post #323    "I guess your "resolution" [to be more selective as to which posts I read and which posts I don't read] hasn't kicked in yet."

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Since you specifically asked me for my comment about your "accuracy", I will tell you that your accuracy is woefully deficient (actually, completely missing) there in your post #323.

Since you don't have any way of knowing which posts I was referring to (concerning the ones I was going to read, and the ones I was going to skip and not read), you assumed (wrongly) that my resolution had "not kicked in yet".

Actually, it has, and your guess was wrong Elsie.

(Not only is my resolution fully operative right now, it is going to be expanded right after this post.)

[Heart-Rest]

"Well, if you can have a clear conscience about not correcting erroneous teaching that you believe will lead someone to hell, then there’s just not much that can be said for that."

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hey, 'metmom', did you ever read what Jesus said about people who reject the Truth (especially after hearing it over and over and over again)?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

"And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town."    Matthew 10:14

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Goodnight.

[af_vet_1981]

Per your comments in 273; Frankly I think not only the referenced comments, but your own comments are disgraceful. From them I am reminded why the Jews think the Christians caused the Holocaust and how the Gentiles have misrepresented Jesus as Messiah, doing evil in his name, for centuries, the wheat and the tares.

[af_vet_1981]

Luther turned out to be evil. He had a choice. I feel sorrow for those called by his name ...

[BlueDragon]

Declare victory and leave the field of battle.

I saw it that way too. The pair Sir Robin(s) bravely turned his their tail(s) and ran...from the subject(s) which were then being covered, since it was beginning to become unraveled. Basic, fundamental agreement concerning some aspect of "sin" itself came bubbling to the surface in comments made by daniel1212, which disagreements over with others previous, had just been wielded as it were, in some form of attempt to bludgeon little 'ol dan, but the clubs went rather limp to the hand-hold, I'd say, due to his own ground of agreement and explanation. (I saw that -- and so did you, Elsie. Sharp eye you've got there, buddy, able to follow along the conceptual bread crumb trails, thus "see" the paths which had been trod).

Perhaps beginning to grasp the implication of coming to agreement with dan-the-man, would include that past "little victories" this thread, over theological issues pertaining to "sins", at that juncture, would begin to have a decidedly hollow ringing sound about them, where just previous the same had seemed so solid, I take it.

The gains possibly thought made though, were more due than not to the differences of how "sins" were being considered, assessed for value and effect, etc., largely to the conceptual difference between how "one" sin, lacking remission, is enough for a human to be in permanent separation from God and His Holy nature, while on the other hand there was discussion which was possibly taking for granted (not a crime in this context) that this was among Christians who had a general covering (for their sins), but if that taken for granted to some degree too much (venial? mortal? etc...) would lead to complete and utter separation, with so-called "venial" sins and the like being compared to more weighty ones. Little sins -- no big deal? Will one send us to hell? Absolutely not, but absolutely Yes, at the same time, one single small one would, with the only question remaining perhaps, is when more exactly, those become forgiven. The lawyers would like to know? The earthly judges have already spoken? Aa-ah, but the "case law" on the books as it were, is not exactly simple.

Which is one of those things upon which many differ, even within Catholicism itself, some clinging to language and application from the Middle Ages -- all sins retained until some "priest" of Rome hear confession of EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE (even the tiny kind?) and by that priest's intervention of "authority" forgiveness obtained for, with this "authority" to do so, said to be passed down only to those whom Rome appoints as such (regardless of how much of a scallywag any "priest" may or may not be, mind you).

Yet some others (within Catholicism) with a bit freer sense(?)

Are those latter sort "easy grace'ers", in their midst? How dare anyone live -- rather than under amorphous clouds of continually renewing, fear and doubt.

Now, in effort to still hold something like the same ground, it's looking to me a bit reminiscent of