Posted on 03/09/2017 7:25:55 PM PST by Salvation
Again....the Catholic seems unable to do anything apart from Mary. I pray more see the false religion known as Roman Catholicism and leave it for Christianity.
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 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?” 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. Acts 10:44-48 NASB
“That does not mean it has only process, no content! Answering a different question-— “What is the content of the RCIA catechesis?” -— would make that quite plain.”
Can you answer the question I’m thinking about?
No.
Nor can I discuss that which isn’t in the article posted.
“Peter seems to have left out a whole bunch of Roman Catholicism.”
Peter was unfamiliar with syncretic paganism.
**Baptism will NOT SAVE YOU: look at the thief on the cross- did he say a rosary? Was he baptized?**
The thief was still under the Law. The testator was not dead yet, so the new covenant was not in force. Jesus Christ was yet to return to heaven, so thief didn’t need the Holy Spirit in filling, because it wasn’t available yet. Jesus Christ told the leper that he healed to show himself to the priest, and offer the things that Moses commanded. Obviously, the Lord wasn’t going to miraculously free the thief from his cross.
“It is finished” refers to the fact that there is no more sacrifice for sin. No more shedding of blood.
Your baptism argument will not stand against the whole of scripture. Jesus Christ said:
You must be born of water, and of the Spirit, or you can not enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..” (no commas in that passage, then comes the second part of the command..) “; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16
The “baptism discounter’s” version is apparently this:
“He that believeth, is saved, and should be baptized....”.
People scurry to Acts 15 to declare baptism to no longer be a part of conversion. Yet Paul is shown to continue to baptise in the very next chapter, and in later chapters of Acts.
Peter said water baptism saves; declaring it not to be a bath, but a faithful act of obedience that gives a clear conscience to God. (1Peter 3:20,21)
The epistles (Romans thru Revelation) are written to people that were already born again.
If a soldier on the battlefield is mortally wounded and professes faith in Christ but is not baptized.....Heaven or Hell?
Would you know all of God’s witness that the soldier had heard through his life? Hard as it may seem, we have to leave our emotions out of this. God is the Judge.
My older brother died in a farm accident 5 days shy of his 16th birthday, but hadn’t been “buried with Him in baptism”. I know not his fate. God is the Judge.
Many have died knowing nothing about Jesus Christ, living in remote places on earth. The Spirit stopped Paul from going east into Asia. God is the Judge.
The big thing is this: what do we do with what HAS been revealed to us by God’s word? Do we accept all of the words that we receive from Him, or do we mix it with our own opinions?
If the day comes when someone chooses to post that *content* on an open discussion thread, I'm sure many will take the opportunity to discuss it together.
First time the guy has heard the Gospel message....ever Heaven or Hell?
It's seemed to me (and I'm not Catholic) that what we have here isn't "trying to have things two ways at once." It's more that particular beliefs and the Religion Forum policies are different things that don't perfectly match.
One practical matter is the length of "Currently Active Practicing Catholic Caucus." It wouldn't fit well in our limited space for thread titles.
Besides, if the Catholic consensus here determined how the Religion Forum is arranged, "LDS" probably wouldn't appear under the topic "Other Christian."
A traditional Jewish belief about "Jewishness" is similar enough for a comparison, so I hear (I'm not Jewish either). If I understand correctly, this traditional view believes that a Jew wouldn't become a non-Jew even after doing certain things, like renouncing Judaism, identifying with a non-Jewish religion, or not practicing any sort of Judaism. As the description of a caucus here isn't specific to Catholicism, the "Jewish caucus" designation works similarly. Such threads are for the "currently and actively" Jewish. If I were a Jew who joined the Shakers, I wouldn't presume to join a thread labeled "Jewish Caucus" to discuss my new Shaker beliefs and practice.
I might suggest sometime to the Religion Moderator that a link to the profile, with its regulations, be included at the top of the Religion Forum index. Maybe having the link, with the rules clearly stated there, would do more to "eliminate the confusion."
Good point.
So far you’ve seen fit to criticize a teaching program when you’re unfamiliar with any of the lessons. I guess it would be a nice change to discuss something you’d actually read.
” I guess it would be a nice change to discuss something you’d actually read.”
I can only guess you’re having a tough day or week. Your posts are typically marked with a measure of kindness.
Ping me when you post the thread. And do something nice for yourself. You deserve it.
First time. I suppose it could be possible, even when raised in a nation with God’s Word witnessed in so many ways. I hear that good military chaplains may be less common, due to the leftists efforts.
If I could tell your where the soldier’s is headed, I could tell you EXACTLY where any number of deceased souls have gone.
Obey God.
After being told to do a chore that my younger brother didn’t do, I replied to my dad: “well, he didn’t have to do that.”
Dad said: “you, are who I am talking to... right... now.”
(The message was understood)
After being individually commanded by the Lord, Peter (seeing John) says: “Lord, and what shall this man do?” John 21:21
The Lord’s reply was basically, “I’m not talking to him right now, I’m talking to you.”
That was a gently worded response which I appreciate. I have my own RCIA classroom presentations in outline form, which I could post, but the written lessons I have only in PDF.
Do you have any idea how I could post those?
For the record...the exact exchange with a bit of context.
20Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” John 21:20-23 NASB
Take away from this: You follow Me!”
Same guy wrote this one chapter back.
If I could tell your where the soldier’s is headed, I could tell you EXACTLY where any number of deceased souls have gone.
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31 NASB
He also wrote this.
13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13 NASB
We've noticed.
Then why say what you did in response to comment #11 Old Yeller having said;
Your reply to the above statement, provided at #21;
For all you know the individual known here as Old Yeller could have joined with conservative Lutherans, or some independent Bible Church, or else the more conservative of Anglican Churches, or the more devout and conservative among Methodists, or the devout & dedicated among the Baptists, the Southern Baptists, perhaps even among some of the Pentecostal (once those last mentioned were filtered thru in order to find the real-thing, real-deal, rather than fakery an mere outward immitations).
Definition of what is the Church that you supplied could readily enough encompass any of those fellowships I've mentioned. In addition to those, and similar not explicitly named, among;
as you put it, that would not necessarily be restricted to visibly organized religious organizations either---unless you'd care to further qualify and define the terminology you used in the answer that you supplied?
What's in those details? United? Faith? Hope? Love? There could be quite a lot going unsaid there which would only later, more quietly be asserted, I do suspect.
Plenty of wiggle room there, room enough to be able to add further refinement of definitions -- which in hands of promoters of Roman Catholicism, if the premises underlying further definitions be accepted --- make it always in ending result lead nowhere but the Roman Catholic Church.
Where the problems lay, and can be brought into clearer focus in things such as this, are recurring questions (which do need be answered) towards the validity (or not) of various premises in their entirety, including how those premises are being sought to apply at any given point. That's where the real action is, and is often right about where flaws and theological errors can be hidden plain sight. This is not restricted to only the RCC from among many other ecclesiastical organizations...the same kind of weights and measures of judgements need be equitably applied across the board.
Meanwhile, the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, free from prejudice and hypocrisy, as it is Written. Whenever encountering that wisdom from above, it has always been a great relief to me...but you do not and will not see myself converting to Roman Catholicism. Not going to happen.
What's the subject matter of this thread? "The Journey" towards Roman Catholicism.
I'm trying to warn people. What do they need be warned of? They need to warned about the well ensconced inter-locking sets of theological errors which have crept in over centuries time, that are well tended as not only customary and allegedly useful, but are fiercely protected in the minds of RC "faithful" as integral portion of truth itself (even portion of conceptually understanding of "God upon earth" for many).
Why the fierceness? Because that place, the RCC itself is where large part of their faith truly lay, although among American [Roman] Catholics who have long been rather forced by default to rub shoulders with pesky Protestants, portions of faith (descriptions of where faith is best placed, theologically speaking) have influenced American 'Catholics'. There are more than a few Roman Catholics who hold viewpoints towards Eucharist far more in agreement with Ratramnus, instead of Radbertus -- without even realizing it(!). It's truly stunning once sight is caught of that...
Going by the logic apparently displayed in comment #21 of yours, left still begging are questions such as;
If the Roman Catholic portion of "the Church" not be suffering under some form of deception --- then every other part of The Church which is in theological disagreement with the RCC would themselves have to have been "deceived" whenever it was they came to conclusions which places them in disagreement with utterances emanating from the Church of Rome's administration and theologians (past and present, no less) once those utterances found way into official RCC proclamations...
Thus also, if we were to apply the same logic which you sought to apply as rebuttal against Old Yeller's comment; it could be surmised that Christ would have to be separated from those having opinions opposed to Roman Catholicism for reason that they were the ones who were "deceived", and it be the Church of Rome alone which was not laboring under some form of delusion concerning itself, and it's own theology in regards to itself.
Which means that ---unless one were to identify the Church of Rome as being "the body", to the exclusion of all other possibilities of just what this "Body" you speak of truly is, there is noticeably significant inconsistency amid your own various statements, although you may not be able to see it, having yourself (as an RCIA director) most likely partaken of the type of explanatory which allows fluidity when desired, yet still insists on dogmatic application of preferred Scripture interpretation when that is necessary to keep the whole thing from devouring itself if needing confess anything much along lines of --
which the RCC still will not do, save only for superficially placing blame upon persons within the RCC, but never what the RCC asserts is dogma which must be explicitly accepted -- perhaps not even questioned lest the questioning itself be form of sin.
This long-begged question (of centuries long gestation) does come across to me as being among items which many within the RCC have labored towards, in attempt to harmonize the apparent contradiction(s). Yet discordant note among the tinkling of all the little churchy bells is still heard by those who have ear trained for the music...
You do hear it though, don't you?
The discordance among [Roman] Catholic theology itself, heard in regards to how even yourself chose to carefully word your own comments, statements and replies?
As best as I can surmise, the display of "if this, then that" all-or-nothing reasoning engaged in when writing out your comments at #20 & #21 was very much the [Roman] Catholic reasoning prior to Vatican II, wherein at that RC Church council ("Church Council" of sorts...) exceptions to the 'all or nothing' portion of the reasoning, which in summation inexorably lead to the Roman Catholic Church ONLY as fitting the various (and even numerous) attempted definitions of "what is the Church" was sought to be worked out, officially written down and applied (in a few sentences here, and there) towards the issue of who is among The Body, which as you've also identified is The Church, in order to somehow distantly, through implication, include categories of individuals not within the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism.
You had also wrote;
To enter in to fellowship with...all those united to Christ by faith-hope-love would it be? And where would those be found? According to how you have defined "the Church" in your here reply to my point of inquiry it could be to join with a fairly wide array of ecclesiastical organizations.
Just who was it that came up with the bolded premise;
Were they speaking towards only the ecclesiastical organization known of as the Roman Catholic Church (full title provided so as to not confuse that ecclesiastical organization with any others) when saying whatever it is that the premise is derived from?. Or do we here again find this too "Gods will is for them to enter the Church through baptism" be in the minds of Roman Catholics speaking most chiefly (or even-- alone) of the RCC as being 'The Church' and that fortified in their own thinking by way of the usual less-than well founded assertions in regards to papal system be part of what God did intend -- rather than having been a mistake that has helped bring about about as much woe as it may (on it's best days) have possibly alleviated?
Where does this all leave the Roman Catholic Church in contrast and comparison to faith traditions labeled with proper noun "Orthodox", along with arguably enough, a great number of other Christian fellowships (Churches actually, ekklesia, as it were)?
Must one "have faith" that The Church is also (chiefly, and only) The Roman Catholic Church? Is this where the "unity with" phrase comes into play? That's where you hid it, wasn't it?
What if the Church of Rome has indeed long deceived itself as Old Yeller, and more than merely a few others hold as being the actual truth of the matter(s)?
What then? Could we have "unity" on some terms other than coming unilaterally from within RCC administration? Or must that crowd be allowed to continue to hold the Body virtual hostage?
Hence my query to you as for "what is the Church, to you?".
Why not go ahead and say "the Roman Catholic" one, if that is more what you truly think ---to yourself.>p? If you do not think that to yourself -- then why all the intensive programming set out for 'candidates' to [Roman] Catholicism to consume (in order to enter into The Church?) and why jump all over Old Yeller's comment, telling him he's "deceived"?
According to portions of RCC theology that would have Old Yeller be bereft of Christ for having abandoned the RCC.
Thank you for the decent, logical reply.
The suggestion I had made (of switching over to the longer caucus title) was part tongue-in-cheek facetiousness, of course. I'm sure you saw that.
What could as well, and more logically from my own perspective been said is; despite vagaries among shifting claims based upon theological considerations, persons who are "no longer Catholic" according to religion forum policies here on this forum, should not be subjected to being told here, on this forum that they there are 'Catholic' in one circumstance -- when otherwise, as is insisted by the some of the same folks ---they most certainly are not.
That would eliminate the inconsistency of allowing things be, on this forum, one way in regards to who is allowed to say what and where (on threads bearing caucus designation) and coming from those same people who have long insisted upon using caucus designation also repeated insistence that a more fundamental truth of the matter is larger than the artificial segregation that they themselves have long insisted upon. That last part is what's most galling.
That is, unless perhaps persons baptized within other ecclesial setting (other than Roman Catholicism) also remain whatever it was they were baptized as? Still "a Protestant" regardless of having made choice to have converted to [Roman] Catholicism, etc.?
Shouldn't it go both ways? If it doesn't, then there's a flaw hidden somewhere in the "you're still a Catholic" assertion. Wonder what that could be...
Definition of what is "the Church" just maybe?
You, the individual known to us here as 'Lonely Bull' are not one of those who has often indulged themselves in telling freepers who were born of 'Roman' Catholic parents and baptized as infants, but who have long ago left that ecclesiastical organization, "you are still Catholic".
The same cannot be said for others I (we?) can think of.
(2) I never said Old Yeller was not a member of the Body of Christ. Nevet said it, never implied it, never thought it. What he would say about me is probably a different matter, since he evidently things that the Catholic faithful are not But I'll let him respond to that.
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.