|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 4/17/2005 9:58:18 PM
|
|
|
Sleeker
Posts: 9
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Cardboard Box Down By the River
Status: offline
|
quote:
You are right to say that, to be saved, one must receive God's mercy and grace. You are right to say that neither mercy nor grace can be earned. You are correct to say that we must have faith and do good works.
I'm glad that we agree so far.
quote:
Salvation stems from faith, not works. The relationship between faith and works is a thorny one, even among Protestants.
I'm merely repeating what my church, the Roman Catholic Church, says. I won't argue about whether or not it is true or anything.
quote:
I think we need to be careful about the "We get his grace by faith and good works." We must be given grace to have faith. We must be given grace to perform good works. I think it is correct to say that sanctifying grace, the participation in the Divine nature, can be increased by good works, in that they can enable us to love God and our fellow man more, and love our sins less.
Alright. I guess I'll accept that. I'm not sure whether you'll agree with me on my next point or not, but just because we're given the grace to have faith and do good works doesn't mean that the particular individual accepts it.
As of yet, I'm not going to get into who is right on the question of salvation. I'm just trying to say what Roman Catholics believe (at least in general, for we don't all think alike).
_____________________________
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 4/18/2005 7:01:15 AM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Alright. I guess I'll accept that. I'm not sure whether you'll agree with me on my next point or not, but just because we're given the grace to have faith and do good works doesn't mean that the particular individual accepts it.
Dear Sleeker,
If this is your next point," Alright. I guess I'll accept that. I'm not sure whether you'll agree with me on my next point or not, but just because we're given the grace to have faith and do good works doesn't mean that the particular individual accepts it.", I agree 100%.
Come Holy Spirit!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 4/18/2005 8:10:38 PM
|
|
|
Sleeker
Posts: 9
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Cardboard Box Down By the River
Status: offline
|
quote:
If this is your next point," Alright. I guess I'll accept that. I'm not sure whether you'll agree with me on my next point or not, but just because we're given the grace to have faith and do good works doesn't mean that the particular individual accepts it.", I agree 100%.
Good. Well, it looks like our conversation has dwindled down to nothing, so unless someone else starts talking, I probably won't post again. (I'm more interested in the Science & Origins forum and politics anyway.)
_____________________________
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 4/19/2005 9:11:18 AM
|
|
|
anti-sin
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
A common theme throughout the history of man is of God Creating something...and Man destroying it and corupting it. In the creation of earth and man, Man with the sinful act brought sin into the world..and that was ruined..So he made sacrificing..thats all good..And the world became very sinfull and after the faith of abraham and the nation of the jews(Gods people) they became corrupt..So he sent his son to die on the Cross. and That was amazing and what was needed. But right from the begining of the New! church there was corruption. This corruption was because of a mass quantity of "Baby" christians. This resulted in the beinging of divisions in doctrin and Once the Holy Roman empire became Christian iT was in its full phase of Corruption! And as jesus said you are the salt of the earth and when it is no longer salty it can not be used and is trampled on! SO the "CHURCH" .."Physical".. Became corrupt and lost its saltyness..its drive! and as christ says it will never! ever be made salty again. But ! We our selves are a temple of christ! the Church is not a physical place..its the family of Christ! THe church is still alive but brothers even in the chuch the road is thin and not even in the church will many go through it! it is because there is a great lack of truth! in the church! with the church aiming towards lyberalism on both sides the church will become more corrupt on both sides! also paul teaches not to debate on doctrins so I WILL NOT! But we are to keep peace and minister to eachother! for that is our calling! God Bless you all
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 4/21/2005 1:49:17 PM
|
|
|
bettyg51
Posts: 28
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
In reply to Swordsman in the Saved or Not? forum:
I want to take this topic to one of the allowed forums for Protestant & Catholic discussion. This is getting Saved or Not? forum off topic, and the Admin will kick me off if I don't obey their TOS rules. I'm posting my response here so I don't get in trouble. Sorry this is so long.
<sw: The cathedral in Rome was built by the sale of indulgences.>
bg: To give money to build a church for God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded. Indulgence is the Latin form of "mercy". What's wrong with declaring God to be merciful? The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church's seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.
<sw: But not one of those is what Catholics do in addressing some as "father". Not once is that done in the NT. Jesus spoke about CALLING others "father". He spoke of what the Jews like in being addressed by titles. And that is precisely what the RCC does anyway.>
bg: If you don't want to call a priest "father", then don't. "Reverend" or "pastor" will do fine. Do you object to people using those titles? I guess you want to abolish Father's Day, too? ;) The term "father" indicates his spiritual fatherhood, just as Paul was like a father to Timothy.
<sw: The above is the reasoning of Naman the leper when God told him to dip 7 times in the Jordan. He had the same complaint, saying that the rivers of Syria were good enough. God will provide the water just as He provides the preacher since He is in charge of evangelism. He provided both in Acts 8.>
bg: If you want to be baptized by immersion in the Catholic church, come to my parish. We have a pool big enough for immersion. The rite calls for "a copious quantity of water" because it is a better sign of our death to sin. However, Ezk 36:25 says, "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean."
<sw: Cardinals are not prime ministers.
That was OT and its way has been abolished.
There were animal sacrifices then, too.>
bg: Cardinals are bishops too. There are only two layers of hierachy: bishop (pope is bishop of Rome, cardinals are bishops in certain cities, archbishops are bishops in other cities,) and ordained clergy (priest and deacon).
<sw: Have you read it lately? There are no archbishops there.>
bg: An archbishop is a bishop with very minor extra duties.
<sw: All Christians aren't prophets and all Christians aren't kings. And you switched from the idea of priesthood and all being priests to different ways Christian serve. Still no separate priesthood in the NT.>
bg: Jesus was talking to only the apostles when he said in Luke 22:29-32, "It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." In John 20:20-23, he said, "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." Priests are to judge (that is in the biblical sense of ruling) and forgive sin. 1 Cor 12:28: "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues." Jesus did not give equal authority to every Christian.
<sw: You still haven't shown from scripture where only some are saints.>
bg: I'm not claiming there is a separation. Catholics believe ALL the baptized are saints until they commit serious sins. Catholics believe the soul is judged after death to decide who goes to heaven and who does not. Catholic jargon focuses on the ones who we can be sure have made it to heaven after a thorough review of their life and miracles that have happened since their death. There are many saints who are not declared to be saints; ie, canonized. What Catholics must believe is in the communion of saints; that is, that those who are dead, but alive in Christ, are part of the Body of Christ as much as the living. Rev 5:8: "And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;"
<sw: And in the asking, you're praying. You address her the same manner that you address God. This is merely a Catholic quibble.>
bg: If a Catholic is doing that, they are sinning. No one but God is worshipped in the way God should be worshiped. Mary is honored, not worshipped. I honor my mom, but I do not worship her.
Do a search on the word "pray" in the King James Version of Genesis. There are lots of times the word "pray" is used as a synonym for "ask". For example, Genesis 16:2 "And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I PRAY thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."
BTW, how do you know what I am intending when I pray? Only God is all-knowing. ;)
<The phrase "unanimous consent" of the fathers is taught to you, also. And that's false. I can quote two who talked about bishops MUST be married.>
bg: Catholics could have married bishops. That is a discipline, not a dogma. It is for the good of the church that priests and bishops are celebate.
<the perpetual virginity of Mary>
<sw: Are not His brothers with us...and His sisters? And the Greek means "of the same womb".>
bg: Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. Aramaic does not have a word for "cousin", so they use the word "brother".
Mary wife of Cleophas and "sister" of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25) is the mother of James and Joset (Mk 15:47; Mt 27:56) who are called the "brothers of Jesus" (Mk 6:3). Ergo, James and Joset are not the children of Joseph and Mary.
Acts 1:12-15 ... apostles, Mary, "some women" and Jesus' "brothers" number about 120. That is a lot of "brothers."
Gen 14:14 ... Lot, Abraham's nephew (Gen 11:26-28), described as Abraham's brother (KJV).
Gen 29:15 ... Laban, Jacob's uncle, calls Jacob his "brother" (KJV).
John 19:26-27 ... Jesus gives care of Mary to John, not one of his brothers, as would be customary.
<Mary as the queen of heaven>
bg: * Who is the woman in Rev 12?
<sw: God's people.>
<sw: You're begging the question, begging that I allow you to have your doctrine without a lick of proof. It is YOUR responsibility to give the proof that she did, since it is your doctrine. You have been TOLD that this dates back to the earliest history of the church. Catholic claims are always exaggerated. You grab the first one in history that went off and said something (and then others followed) and it is pretended that it was always taught. >
bg: Rev 11:19: Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 12:1: And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
2: she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery....she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron:
Who is the woman John saw? Mary is the new ark of the covenant because she is the only woman who carried the "Word of God" (John 1) just as the old ark of the covenant carried the 10 commandments.
Also, in Luke 1:39: "In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah,..." This passage echoes the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem. John's seeing the ark in heaven is his way of saying that Mary is in heaven. If she did not have a body there yet, how could she have a crown on her head? In Rev. 12:2, the ‘woman’ is one that gives birth to the child. In v. 5, the ‘woman’ again is referred to as one who brings forth a male child who will rule. Now, who does the Bible say is the woman who brings forth a male child? How can the people of God give birth to Jesus? Who is the mother of "male child, one who is to rule all the nations"? V. 6 says the woman fled to the desert. Mary fled to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. How can "God's people" represent the woman when the twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel?
<sw:Mary as mediator when the Bible says one mediator, Jesus>
bg: If your mother prays with you and for you, isn't she a mediator too? What would have happened if she had said "No" to Gabriel?
<sw: No, my mother prays for me, then she intercedes for me. The Bible says one mediator, Jesus. And you cling to another.>
bg: "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim 2:1-5). If God wants only Jesus to pray to the Father for us, why would Paul tell US to pray for everyone? Also, Rev 5:8 says "prayers of the saints" RSV
<sw: There is no pope, no earthly head of the church in scripture. Guess what? In Matt.16, it says that the church is built upon petra. But your doctrine is that the church is built upon Petros.>
bg: But Jesus spoke Aramaic, so this is a moot point. In Aramaic, Jesus said to Peter, "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church." The word Petros is feminine. Petra is masculine. Matt did not want to imply that Jesus thought Peter was a woman.
<sw: Nothing in what you cited makes rules of men equal to the commands of God, part of the faith God delivered once for all in the first century (Jude 3).>
bg: The bishops have the "keys of the kingdom". Luke 22:29-32","It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you" That means they have the authority to make rules. The Code of Canon Law is one book with 1750 paragraphs for 1.1 billion members. The Tax Code of the US is twice as thick for over 200 million US citizens. The laws of my state take up an entire bookcase.
<purgatory>
bg: Rev 21:27 "but nothing unclean will enter it [heaven], nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
<sw: That says not one word about someone going into a purgatory before going into heaven.>
bg: The word "purgatory" means being purged; that is, becoming clean.
quote:
<limbo>
bg: Limbo was never an official doctrine. It was only a theological speculation on how someone who is not baptized, such as a baby that died soon after birth, can be saved when Scripture says we must be baptized. The word limbo means "margin"; i.e. a marginal case.
<sw: Still taught, isn't it?>
bg: I think it is being clarified that it was only a theological speculation, not doctrine. As humans, we think in terms of time and space, so people started thinking that Limbo is was a place. The teaching is clearer now by stressing it is not a place, but the question we can't answer in this life, "What happens to the unbaptised who did not commit serious sin before death?" They don't deserve hell, but baptism is necessary. So now we teach that we entrust them to the mercy of God, instead of using the word "limbo".
God bless,
Betty G.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 4/21/2005 3:15:23 PM
|
|
|
anti-sin
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
A common argument...aramaic...shesh..HOw do u know there isnt a word for cousin...and that is a biiiig step saying that they were cousins....
ps. cant wait to hear swordmans reply...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 4/21/2005 5:35:16 PM
|
|
|
bettyg51
Posts: 28
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi anti-sin,
Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
Mk 5:41 "He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!" )." That isn't Greek either.
Read about the languages used in The Passion of the Christ movie at http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/
Scholars of the ancient languages have studied it. "Cousin" isn't there.
It takes reading a lot of verses, but there is proof that the guys that are called "brothers" of Jesus are the sons of people other than Joseph and Mary.
http://www.geocities.com/bettyg51/BrothersJesus.htm
God bless,
Betty G.
< Message edited by bettyg51 -- 4/21/2005 5:54:54 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/21/2005 11:38:32 PM
|
|
|
swordsman
Posts: 55
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
In reply to Swordsman in the Saved or Not? forum:
I want to take this topic to one of the allowed forums for Protestant & Catholic discussion. This is getting Saved or Not? forum off topic, and the Admin will kick me off if I don't obey their TOS rules. I'm posting my response here so I don't get in trouble. Sorry this is so long.
sw: Glad you thought about it. Wouldn't want to get you in trouble.
quote:
<sw: The cathedral in Rome was built by the sale of indulgences.>
bg: To give money to build a church for God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded. Indulgence is the Latin form of "mercy". What's wrong with declaring God to be merciful? The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church's seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.
sw: I read a news article about them being encouraged in some form again. Perhaps they were cleaned up a bit, but the name still says it all. And the money was taken at that time during the abuse and the RCC knew what was going on.
quote:
<sw: But not one of those is what Catholics do in addressing some as "father". Not once is that done in the NT. Jesus spoke about CALLING others "father". He spoke of what the Jews like in being addressed by titles. And that is precisely what the RCC does anyway.>
bg: If you don't want to call a priest "father", then don't. "Reverend" or "pastor" will do fine. Do you object to people using those titles? I guess you want to abolish Father's Day, too? ;) The term "father" indicates his spiritual fatherhood, just as Paul was like a father to Timothy.
sw: You didn't address the issue. I spoke of titles and the context of the passage and noted that titles are not used by Christians in scripture. You brought up our earthly fathers and that's not even the context of what Jesus was discussing.
quote:
<sw: The above is the reasoning of Naman the leper when God told him to dip 7 times in the Jordan. He had the same complaint, saying that the rivers of Syria were good enough. God will provide the water just as He provides the preacher since He is in charge of evangelism. He provided both in Acts 8.>
bg: If you want to be baptized by immersion in the Catholic church, come to my parish. We have a pool big enough for immersion. The rite calls for "a copious quantity of water" because it is a better sign of our death to sin. However, Ezk 36:25 says, "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean."
sw: You changed a bit on what was being discussed. The issue is not whether you immerse some people sometimes, but whether rhantizo or cheo is ever enough, since God commanded baptizo.
And the passage from Ezekiel is about the Jews, not about NT Christianity.
AND, it is not baptizo, but another word instead.
quote:
<sw: Cardinals are not prime ministers.
That was OT and its way has been abolished.
There were animal sacrifices then, too.>
bg: Cardinals are bishops too. There are only two layers of hierachy: bishop (pope is bishop of Rome, cardinals are bishops in certain cities, archbishops are bishops in other cities,) and ordained clergy (priest and deacon).
sw: You're still not facing the issue, but shifting a bit each and every time. I noted that you cited the OT and it has been abolished. There were animal sacrifices there. You didn't acknowledge that your appeal to it was not right. Your explanation of RCC hierarchy doesn't make a bit of difference. There are no cardinals in the whole Bible. There are no archbishops in the Bible.
quote:
<sw: Have you read it lately? There are no archbishops there.>
bg: An archbishop is a bishop with very minor extra duties.
sw: Then, an archbishop is simply an addition to the word of God, a change. But the faith was once for all delivered to the saints in the first century (Jude 3).
quote:
<sw: All Christians aren't prophets and all Christians aren't kings. And you switched from the idea of priesthood and all being priests to different ways Christian serve. Still no separate priesthood in the NT.>
bg: Jesus was talking to only the apostles when he said in Luke 22:29-32, "It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."
sw: Still nothing about what I said.
quote:
In John 20:20-23, he said, "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." Priests are to judge (that is in the biblical sense of ruling) and forgive sin. 1 Cor 12:28: "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues." Jesus did not give equal authority to every Christian.
sw: You are simply stating what you have and then citing some verse and the two don't match. You're talking about a separate priesthood and there is nothing in the verses about that at all.
quote:
<sw: You still haven't shown from scripture where only some are saints.>
bg: I'm not claiming there is a separation. Catholics believe ALL the baptized are saints until they commit serious sins. Catholics believe the soul is judged after death to decide who goes to heaven and who does not. Catholic jargon focuses on the ones who we can be sure have made it to heaven after a thorough review of their life and miracles that have happened since their death. There are many saints who are not declared to be saints; ie, canonized. What Catholics must believe is in the communion of saints; that is, that those who are dead, but alive in Christ, are part of the Body of Christ as much as the living. Rev 5:8: "And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;"
sw: I'm sorry, but you're still doing it. The Bible shows that all Christians are saints and you have failed again to give me a verse that shows only some of them to be saints.
quote:
<sw: And in the asking, you're praying. You address her the same manner that you address God. This is merely a Catholic quibble.>
bg: If a Catholic is doing that, they are sinning. No one but God is worshipped in the way God should be worshiped. Mary is honored, not worshipped. I honor my mom, but I do not worship her.
Do a search on the word "pray" in the King James Version of Genesis. There are lots of times the word "pray" is used as a synonym for "ask". For example, Genesis 16:2 "And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I PRAY thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."
BTW, how do you know what I am intending when I pray? Only God is all-knowing. ;)
sw: I'm not talking about that use of the word "pray" when someone asks another person next to them. Your action in speaking to God is the very same action in speaking to Mary. If one is prayer, so is the other. It's merely a Catholic quibble to say otherwise. But...you will anyway.
quote:
<The phrase "unanimous consent" of the fathers is taught to you, also. And that's false. I can quote two who talked about bishops MUST be married.>
bg: Catholics could have married bishops. That is a discipline, not a dogma. It is for the good of the church that priests and bishops are celebate.
sw: You have sidestepped TWO issues this time.
1. The RCC brainwashes you people with the idea that they are teaching what must be true because everybody always taught it - what was always taught by everyone in every place. The same is said of the phrase "unanimous consent". That's simply an exaggeration to mislead people.
2. And, the Bible says that bishops MUST be the husband of one wife, not just may sometimes be. You didn't face that either.
quote:
<the perpetual virginity of Mary>
<sw: Are not His brothers with us...and His sisters? And the Greek means "of the same womb".>
bg: Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. Aramaic does not have a word for "cousin", so they use the word "brother".
Mary wife of Cleophas and "sister" of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25) is the mother of James and Joset (Mk 15:47; Mt 27:56) who are called the "brothers of Jesus" (Mk 6:3). Ergo, James and Joset are not the children of Joseph and Mary.
sw: Sorry, but the Bible is in Greek and accurately says what Jesus said in whichever language He spoke it at the time. It says "of the same womb". It isn't the city of cousinly love. Christians are brethren, not cousins, etc.
quote:
Acts 1:12-15 ... apostles, Mary, "some women" and Jesus' "brothers" number about 120. That is a lot of "brothers."
sw: Notice that is is translated brothers (brethren) and not cousins. It is speaking of spiritual brethren. All know that.
<Mary as the queen of heaven>
bg: * Who is the woman in Rev 12?
quote:
<sw: God's people.>
<sw: You're begging the question, begging that I allow you to have your doctrine without a lick of proof. It is YOUR responsibility to give the proof that she did, since it is your doctrine. You have been TOLD that this dates back to the earliest history of the church. Catholic claims are always exaggerated. You grab the first one in history that went off and said something (and then others followed) and it is pretended that it was always taught. >
sw: I see absolutely no answer to this. RCC claims are always exaggerated. They simply aren't true. Unanimous consent...always taught by everyone...etc.
quote:
<sw:Mary as mediator when the Bible says one mediator, Jesus>
bg: If your mother prays with you and for you, isn't she a mediator too? What would have happened if she had said "No" to Gabriel?
<sw: No, my mother prays for me, then she intercedes for me. The Bible says one mediator, Jesus. And you cling to another.>
bg: "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim 2:1-5). If God wants only Jesus to pray to the Father for us, why would Paul tell US to pray for everyone? Also, Rev 5:8 says "prayers of the saints" RSV
sw: Are you listening? The Bible says one mediator - Jesus. You have at least two, adding Mary. I can count. You are wrong.
And, you didn't listen a bit. There is a difference between intercessors and mediators. There is one mediator, says the Bible. There intercessors (plural). The two are not the same.
quote:
<sw: There is no pope, no earthly head of the church in scripture. Guess what? In Matt.16, it says that the church is built upon petra. But your doctrine is that the church is built upon Petros.>
bg: But Jesus spoke Aramaic, so this is a moot point. In Aramaic, Jesus said to Peter, "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church." The word Petros is feminine. Petra is masculine. Matt did not want to imply that Jesus thought Peter was a woman.
sw: Again, you have no pope, no earthly head of the church in scripture. You have two heads. The Bible has one. I can count.
Jesus spoke Aramaic but the words are in Greek and accurately report what He said. What you wish to do is to ASSUME that your doctrine is right by jumping to what is NOT said, avoiding what IS said. Your doctrine again, is that the church is built upon Petros and the Bible says upon petra. It's that simple.
And your statement above makes no sense, since Jesus called Simon Petros, which you say was feminine.
quote:
<sw: Nothing in what you cited makes rules of men equal to the commands of God, part of the faith God delivered once for all in the first century (Jude 3).>
bg: The bishops have the "keys of the kingdom". Luke 22:29-32","It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you" That means they have the authority to make rules.
sw: No, keys open and shut. And bishops were not given those keys. It was apostles who had those keys. And apostles are different from bishops. AND, I can quote a church father who said was a bishop and acknowledged that he, as a bishop, did not have the authority of the apostles. Your doctrine is wrong. It is the product of years of evolution where men gradually changed things. The apostasy started very quickly, as even RCC historians acknowledge. Some man popped off and said something and others latched onto it until it became widely accepted.
quote:
:The Code of Canon Law is one book with 1750 paragraphs for 1.1 billion members. The Tax Code of the US is twice as thick for over 200 million US citizens. The laws of my state take up an entire bookcase.
sw: I'll see if I can find the facts about the church laws in my notes.
quote:
<purgatory>
bg: Rev 21:27 "but nothing unclean will enter it [heaven], nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
<sw: That says not one word about someone going into a purgatory before going into heaven.>
bg: The word "purgatory" means being purged; that is, becoming clean.
sw: That doesn't make a bit of difference. There is still no purgatory in all of scripture. It just isn't there.
quote:
but the question we can't answer in this life, "What happens to the unbaptised who did not commit serious sin before death?" They don't deserve hell, but baptism is necessary. So now we teach that we entrust them to the mercy of God, instead of using the word "limbo".
sw: They don't deserve hell, but they've sinned? So Jesus didn't die for some sins? His death, and the forgiveness that comes from it, isn't necessary for some sins?
You've gone even further than I realized.
Swordsman
|
|
|
|
|
RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/22/2005 9:01:04 AM
|
|
|
anti-sin
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
<purgatory>
bg: Rev 21:27 "but nothing unclean will enter it [heaven], nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
<sw: That says not one word about someone going into a purgatory before going into heaven.>
bg: The word "purgatory" means being purged; that is, becoming clean.
oook...When are we written in the lambs book of life? I think thats the question you have to ask. I know that you believe that You are judged after you die, But when you are judged YOu have someone along side you..You see hes like a really great layer..His name is Jesus, and when you are judged Hes gonah say..Hes free because I already paid for his debt! And You will go onto glory! WHy? not because you did anything to get into heave...But because CHrist paid for your debt..SO there for You are written in the BOok of the lamb when you are saved! and How are u saved.
Repenting(confessing sinfullness)dying to your sinfullness - needs to take place
Having faith that Jesus is Christ and lord of lords, that hes your savior who died and rose again!
BAm! the angles Chear! and Your IN MY BROTHER! So then..if your written...in the book of life..it seems rather ..If your saved You go..and if Your not..YOU DONT GO FRIEND! so why the need for purgatory...or purgin if we are already made clean?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/22/2005 12:38:59 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: anti-sin
quote:
<purgatory>
bg: Rev 21:27 "but nothing unclean will enter it [heaven], nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
<sw: That says not one word about someone going into a purgatory before going into heaven.>
bg: The word "purgatory" means being purged; that is, becoming clean.
oook...When are we written in the lambs book of life? I think thats the question you have to ask. I know that you believe that You are judged after you die, But when you are judged YOu have someone along side you..You see hes like a really great layer..His name is Jesus, and when you are judged Hes gonah say..Hes free because I already paid for his debt! And You will go onto glory! WHy? not because you did anything to get into heave...But because CHrist paid for your debt..SO there for You are written in the BOok of the lamb when you are saved! and How are u saved.
Repenting(confessing sinfullness)dying to your sinfullness - needs to take place
Having faith that Jesus is Christ and lord of lords, that hes your savior who died and rose again!
BAm! the angles Chear! and Your IN MY BROTHER! So then..if your written...in the book of life..it seems rather ..If your saved You go..and if Your not..YOU DONT GO FRIEND! so why the need for purgatory...or purgin if we are already made clean?
Dear anti-sin,
To use your own conditions, if you are not totally dead to sin at time your body is dead, you still have some dying to do.
The question boils down to how one views justification. Are we simply said to be justified, or are we made truely made just. Purgatory is the completion of the process.
On the Feast of the Persian Martyrs
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
< Message edited by sdaw -- 4/22/2005 1:22:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/22/2005 4:54:29 PM
|
|
|
bettyg51
Posts: 28
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Swordman,
quote:
<sw: You didn't address the issue. I spoke of titles and the context of the passage and noted that titles are not used by Christians in scripture. You brought up our earthly fathers and that's not even the context of what Jesus was discussing.>
bg: This is a summary from http://catholicoutlook.com/objcath3.php, which explains it very well. The answer to your questions would be too long for this forum, so check it out.
Jesus said in Matthew 23:9: "And do not call anyone on earth “father,” for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? Catholics (and Orthodox, and Anglicans, etc.) are doing something that Jesus appears to have specifically forbidden. Therefore, they must be either biblically illiterate or disobedient. At least, that’s how it appears at first glance. But lets look a little closer. Ironically, most people who make this objection never seem to consider the very next verse:
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ (Matt. 23:10).
I’ve never met a Protestant who objected to a teacher being called “teacher,” yet Jesus appears to have forbidden the use of that title just as clearly as he apparently forbade the use of the title “father.”
Was Paul being disobedient by referring to himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians or Timothy? When Jesus spoke these words, he used a hyperbolic, exaggerated statement. The idea is that no man is to take the place of God in our lives. The Protestant International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that this is the true meaning of the text:
"Christ’s condemnation is clearly of the praise-seeking or obsequious spirit, rather than of a particular custom."
This verse has nothing whatsoever to do with the proper use of the word “father,” it has to do with the proper attitude of Christians toward their brothers, and toward God. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for Catholics, and others, to give the title “father” to their ministers. In doing so they are not being disobedient to Jesus, rather they are following the apostolic example established by Paul and John.
quote:
<sw: You changed a bit on what was being discussed. The issue is not whether you immerse some people sometimes, but whether rhantizo or cheo is ever enough, since God commanded baptizo.
And the passage from Ezekiel is about the Jews, not about NT Christianity.
AND, it is not baptizo, but another word instead. >
bg: The answer to your questions would be too long for this forum, so check out:
http://www.catholic .com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp [take out the space.]
Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
quote:
<sw: You're still not facing the issue, but shifting a bit each and every time. I noted that you cited the OT and it has been abolished. There were animal sacrifices there. You didn't acknowledge that your appeal to it was not right. Your explanation of RCC hierarchy doesn't make a bit of difference. There are no cardinals in the whole Bible. There are no archbishops in the Bible.>
<sw: Then, an archbishop is simply an addition to the word of God, a change. But the faith was once for all delivered to the saints in the first century (Jude 3).>
bg: OT has been abolished? Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." The NT is a fulfillment of the OT.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare said. Cardinals and archbishops are bishops, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what you call someone, it is the function that matters. The function is scriptural, whether the word is in scripture or not. Paul had helpers and he appointed bishops. The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible either.
quote:
<sw:Cardinals are not prime ministers.>
bg: Cardinal bishops are titular bishops of the suburbicarian sees (or suffragan sees) surrounding Rome. The name cardinal is derived from the Latin cardo (hinge) and was probably first used as a colloquial term to describe certain advisers considered essential to the governing of the Church, “hinge” men, which is what prime ministers do. Running a Church with 1.1 billion members is a big job. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Only very small congregations operate with only one person pastoring the flock. However a church is organized, its function is to make us holy. Form follows function, so even the early church had to adapt to properly pastor the flock properly.
<sw: All Christians aren't prophets and all Christians aren't kings. And you switched from the idea of priesthood and all being priests to different ways Christian serve. Still no separate priesthood in the NT.>
<sw: Still nothing about what I said.>
<sw: You are simply stating what you have and then citing some verse and the two don't match. You're talking about a separate priesthood and there is nothing in the verses about that at all. >
bg: In Luke 22:29-32, Jesus spoke only to the apostles. Titus 1 says to appoint presbyters and bishops. What is the purpose of appointing them if they are the same as laity? 1 Peter 5:5,"Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters." Why be subject to the presbyters if they have no more authority than laity? John 20:20-23 says "so I send YOU" [the apostles], not just anybody.
Hebrews 13:17,"Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, ..." Matthew 18:17, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." Some people had more responsibility than others to shepherd the flock. Where does Scripture say everyone has exactly equal responsibility and authority and no one has to obey anyone else in the church.? It is not a matter of obey leaders and not God, because God has put priests and bishops in charge to lead us. Jesus gave them the power of the keys.
quote:
<sw: I'm sorry, but you're still doing it. The Bible shows that all Christians are saints and you have failed again to give me a verse that shows only some of them to be saints.>
bg: You're right. There aren't any. That is what I was trying to say when I said I'm not claiming there is a separation. Since Catholics believe ALL the baptized are saints until they commit serious sins, this means saintliness can be lost. Is your definition of saint different than mine? Catholics believe grace penetrates the soul and helps to sanctify and regenerate the soul. If one thinks that is not possible and that salvation is like a legal declaration and sanctification is a separate issue or impossible, then there would be a confusion.
For example, there are many great professional baseball players, but only some of them make it into the hall of fame. If they quit baseball, can you still think of them as a baseball player? Just about every American has tried to play, but the degree of skill varies. So does the degree of saintliness in Christians. The saints you probably are thinking about are the hall of famers, not the average Christians. Some who have died have lived lives that are worth modeling and honoring. Rev 20:4 says that those “who had been beheaded” “came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” This verse does not use the word saint, but there is implied that some folks have a special honor. The martyrs of the church are honored for their faithfulness. Many of the saints are martyrs, whether through blood or other type of sacrifice.
quote:
<sw: I'm not talking about that use of the word "pray" when someone asks another person next to them. Your action in speaking to God is the very same action in speaking to Mary. If one is prayer, so is the other. It's merely a Catholic quibble to say otherwise. But...you will anyway.>
bg: Even if it looks the same to you, it is not. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." 515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."
quote:
<sw: You have sidestepped TWO issues this time.
1. The RCC brainwashes you people with the idea that they are teaching what must be true because everybody always taught it - what was always taught by everyone in every place. The same is said of the phrase "unanimous consent". That's simply an exaggeration to mislead people.
2. And, the Bible says that bishops MUST be the husband of one wife, not just may sometimes be. You didn't face that either. >
bg: What I'm trying to say is that the way Scripture is interpreted really matters. The "unanimous consent" of the fathers is important because they commented on Scripture, so that is how we know what Paul and Jesus, etc taught. 1) Gal 1:7 "But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!" What this says to me is that doctrines that are invented by men are not allowed. How do you know exactly what Paul taught the Galatians if you follow a doctrine that did not exist before 1517? How do you know exactly what Jesus told the disciples on the road to Emmaus? Truth is not pulled from air or different in one time or place than another; it is passed by down since 33 AD. It is received, not invented. That's how I know I'm being taught the same things as the Galatians. I don't think that is misleading. I think someone who thinks they have the authority to make up doctrine are the ones misleading people. If the Church can’t claim to tell me what is true, why should I give it my loyalty? If I had to figure it all out for myself, why would I need the Church? 2 Thessalonians 2:15,"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
2) Titus 1:7 "For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents." It doesn't say anything about marriage as a qualification, so it must be optional. I think the point is that holiness is a requirement and poligamy or remarriage would not be allowed. Celibacy was a reform measure that prevented nepotism and giving church funds as an inheritance to the man's children. It could be changed if the church decided to because it is not a doctrine.
quote:
<sw: Sorry, but the Bible is in Greek and accurately says what Jesus said in whichever language He spoke it at the time. It says "of the same womb". It isn't the city of cousinly love. Christians are brethren, not cousins, etc. >
bg: Scriptures are inspired. Translations are not. Jesus did not speak Greek and neither did the Israelites. It is the Aramaic word that matters. I gave several verses that show it was physically impossible for Jesus to have brothers, ie, other children of Joseph and Mary.
I assume you are talking about Mk 6:17 “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.”
James (the younger) and Joseph (Joses) are sons of Clophas and Mary (John 19:25, Mt 27:56, MK 15:40 & 47, Acts 1:13). James & John are sons of Zebedee (Lk 5:10, Mark 1:19, Mk 4:17, 10:35, Mt 4:21). Simon (Peter) is the son of Jonah (Mt 16:17). Judas is the son of James (Luke 6: 13-16, Acts 1:13). Judas, the betrayer is the son of Simon Iscariot (John 6:71). Ergo, James and Joses and Judas and Simon not the biological children of Joseph and Mary.
There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
quote:
<sw: I see absolutely no answer to this. RCC claims are always exaggerated. They simply aren't true. Unanimous consent...always taught by everyone...etc. > bg: I guess we will have to agree to not agree on this one, but at least now you know the Scriptural reason we believe Mary was assumed.
<sw: Are you listening? The Bible says one mediator - Jesus. You have at least two, adding Mary. I can count. You are wrong.
And, you didn't listen a bit. There is a difference between intercessors and mediators. There is one mediator, says the Bible. There intercessors (plural). The two are not the same.>
bg: Mediate, according to Merriam-Webster, means "to act as intermediary agent in bringing, effecting, or communicating, occupying a middle position". Intercede means "to intervene between parties with a view to reconciling differences". They seem like synonyms to me. Both are "go-betweens". What is your definition? When we ask people to pray for us, they are "go-betweens".
quote:
<sw: Again, you have no pope, no earthly head of the church in scripture. You have two heads. The Bible has one. I can count.
Jesus spoke Aramaic but the words are in Greek and accurately report what He said. What you wish to do is to ASSUME that your doctrine is right by jumping to what is NOT said, avoiding what IS said. Your doctrine again, is that the church is built upon Petros and the Bible says upon petra. It's that simple.
And your statement above makes no sense, since Jesus called Simon Petros, which you say was feminine. >
bg: See http://www.catholic .com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp Take out the space.
quote:
<sw: No, keys open and shut. And bishops were not given those keys. It was apostles who had those keys. And apostles are different from bishops. AND, I can quote a church father who said was a bishop and acknowledged that he, as a bishop, did not have the authority of the apostles. Your doctrine is wrong. It is the product of years of evolution where men gradually changed things. The apostasy started very quickly, as even RCC historians acknowledge. Some man popped off and said something and others latched onto it until it became widely accepted.>
bg: In Acts 1: 20, the apostles met to replace Judas. The reason Peter gave for replacing him after his death was "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." (KJV)Through the laying on of hands, the bishops are replacements for the apostles. The office does not die with the person.
quote:
<sw: I'll see if I can find the facts about the church laws in my notes. >
bg: Look it up at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
quote:
<sw: That doesn't make a bit of difference. There is still no purgatory in all of scripture. It just isn't there.>
bg: Do you ever use the word "trinity", which is not in the Bible? Anyway, can we agree to not call it purgatory and call it "becoming unclean" instead? I'd be satisfied with that.
quote:
<sw: They don't deserve hell, but they've sinned? So Jesus didn't die for some sins? His death, and the forgiveness that comes from it, isn't necessary for some sins? >
bg: I said "who did NOT commit serious sin before death." The point about limbo is that John 3:5 says "Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." So if baptism is necessary and one dies without it, but without sin, where do they go? We don't know because it has not been revealed.
Swordsman, I don't think we will ever agree. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. Sometimes the written word sounds harsher than if I said it orally. I don't intend to sound like I'm arguing. I just want you to see the other side of the story.
May the peace of Christ be with you,
Betty G.
< Message edited by bettyg51 -- 4/24/2005 4:10:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/26/2005 12:36:31 PM
|
|
|
ServeGod
Posts: 6
Joined: 4/22/2005
Status: offline
|
This is the third spot that I have posted this, so hopefully it is charmed.
By asking this I am only trying to point out what we have in common in Christ.
Did Pope John Paul II go to heaven after he died?
I know as humans we do not have complete insight to this, but as you can see we all have our opinions.
If you are Protestant and believe that he did, and this is our common goal to get to heaven to be with God and eachother, then what is the point of all this conflict between the RCC and the Protestants?
If you believe that he went to hell, why would you make such a judgement? On what do you base your judgement?
|
|
|
|
RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/27/2005 1:40:26 AM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 2543
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ServeGod
This is the third spot that I have posted this, so hopefully it is charmed.
By asking this I am only trying to point out what we have in common in Christ.
Did Pope John Paul II go to heaven after he died?
I know as humans we do not have complete insight to this, but as you can see we all have our opinions.
If you are Protestant and believe that he did, and this is our common goal to get to heaven to be with God and eachother, then what is the point of all this conflict between the RCC and the Protestants?
If you believe that he went to hell, why would you make such a judgement? On what do you base your judgement?
I don't believe the last pope was saved, and I make that judgment on the same basis I don't believe those who teach and hold doctrines that are against God are saved... I say that understanding that the pope claimed Christ, yet that doesn't mean much when you are neck deep in idolatry and doctrines that end up actually deny Christ... Just because someone is religious it doesn't mean they are of God, and or saved... Muslims are very religious, yet they are doomed, even if the last pope and his church believe they worship the same god together...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/27/2005 7:01:48 AM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: ServeGod
This is the third spot that I have posted this, so hopefully it is charmed.
By asking this I am only trying to point out what we have in common in Christ.
Did Pope John Paul II go to heaven after he died?
I know as humans we do not have complete insight to this, but as you can see we all have our opinions.
If you are Protestant and believe that he did, and this is our common goal to get to heaven to be with God and eachother, then what is the point of all this conflict between the RCC and the Protestants?
If you believe that he went to hell, why would you make such a judgement? On what do you base your judgement?
I don't believe the last pope was saved, and I make that judgment on the same basis I don't believe those who teach and hold doctrines that are against God are saved... I say that understanding that the pope claimed Christ, yet that doesn't mean much when you are neck deep in idolatry and doctrines that end up actually deny Christ... Just because someone is religious it doesn't mean they are of God, and or saved... Muslims are very religious, yet they are doomed, even if the last pope and his church believe they worship the same god together...
John
Dear John,
How can you be sure the doctrines you believe are correct? Judge not, for the judgment you render is the judgment you receive, pressed down, shaken together, heaped up, and flowing over.
On the Feast of St. John of Constantinople
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/27/2005 12:46:51 PM
|
|
|
ServeGod
Posts: 6
Joined: 4/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: ServeGod
This is the third spot that I have posted this, so hopefully it is charmed.
By asking this I am only trying to point out what we have in common in Christ.
Did Pope John Paul II go to heaven after he died?
I know as humans we do not have complete insight to this, but as you can see we all have our opinions.
If you are Protestant and believe that he did, and this is our common goal to get to heaven to be with God and eachother, then what is the point of all this conflict between the RCC and the Protestants?
If you believe that he went to hell, why would you make such a judgement? On what do you base your judgement?
I don't believe the last pope was saved, and I make that judgment on the same basis I don't believe those who teach and hold doctrines that are against God are saved... I say that understanding that the pope claimed Christ, yet that doesn't mean much when you are neck deep in idolatry and doctrines that end up actually deny Christ... Just because someone is religious it doesn't mean they are of God, and or saved... Muslims are very religious, yet they are doomed, even if the last pope and his church believe they worship the same god together...
John
Dear John,
How can you be sure the doctrines you believe are correct? Judge not, for the judgment you render is the judgment you receive, pressed down, shaken together, heaped up, and flowing over.
On the Feast of St. John of Constantinople
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
This was written by GoodME before I was asked to move my post. He said it better than I could.
In a belief of perfect justice - it is hard for me to believe that a man that gave up family and personal ambition and agenda to serve God and to serve Church - including taking bullets for the Faith and then meeting face-to-face with the person who committed this act, for the purpose of reconciling that act and letting the offender know that "it was okay" - if a guy like that can't make it to heaven......
Then in my opinion, there is very little hope for any of us.
I don't accept that, however. I desire and hope to be with God someday every bit as much as JP II (well, okay maybe not as much - judging by my choices and lack of sacrafice, compared to him), and it is my hope and my Faith that even someone as flawed and "other-directed" as myself may get there someday.
And John I agree with sdaw, you are painting yourself in a corner when you begin to judge people to hell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there - 4/27/2005 4:29:39 PM
|
|
|
ToolmanUF
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
