Anti-catholic; an emotion laden term meant to incite.

[JohnDeereFan]

That would depend on the Holy Spirit and you. The ones that came to my home (2 women) were very nice and receptive to the message. I don't know how you would respond or how the Spirit would move me to speak.

It doesn't "depend". The Gospel is the same, no matter who you're presenting it to.

Let's say that I'm a Mormon and I'm going to Hell. Tell me how I can be saved.

Jesus Christ coming into this world and making us into something new is the Gospel.

No, that's the result of the GOspel.

Jesus is alive in christians today just as he was 2000 years ago. There is no need to read scripture for the Gospel to be alive and present in our words.

Then why did Jesus refer to it so often when preaching the Gospel?

Live for Christ and live the Gospel.
Yarddog

How about live for Christ and share the Gospel with the lost?

 

[Yarddog]

I think that this is a very important point. It is not us that evangilize(sp?) but the Holy Spirit through us.


Peace

This is what brought me into the RCC. I didn't see people trying to force something on me or trying to condemn me for what I did wrong. I found that true love for Jesus and the message of hope and love. I found acceptance for who I was. I found the Holy Spirit at work.

The RCC preaches the love of Christ. The RCC lives the love of Christ.

Yes, there are people that, such as some priests, that have failed and brought some shame, but the message of the Church is solid and founded in the love and faith in Jesus Christ.

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Yarddog]

It doesn't "depend". The Gospel is the same, no matter who you're presenting it to.

Yes it does "depend". Not every person is in the need of the same thing. The Gospel covers many areas but people need different parts of it. It is important to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us to what we need to share.

Let's say that I'm a Mormon and I'm going to Hell. Tell me how I can be saved.

Why are you going to hell? I wouldn't judge that the women who came to my house were going there.

No, that's the result of the GOspel.

The Gospel is the message which Jesus brought.

Then why did Jesus refer to it so often when preaching the Gospel?

Jesus referred to the OT scriptures and revealed their true meaning, but what he said was through the power of the Holy Spirit, which we can also do if we allow that Spirit to guide us. When God brings people to us we need to follow his Spirit which may guide us in many ways.

How about live for Christ and share the Gospel with the lost?

I don't know many "lost" people. There are times when God brings people to me that are in need of something. I will trust that God's Spirit will lead me to the correct method of dealing with them.

Too many times people preach "at" others when they may need to listen first.

YD

 

[Albion]

anti-Catholic...........................................................harlot of Babylon
non-Catholic...........................................................
Protestant..............................................................
separated brethren................................................

If I've missed any words overnight that anyone thinks should have been added to either list, please point it out to me.

BTW, I'm not one who gets outraged when threads go off-topic, but this started as one dealing with a term that is emotion-laden and incites the other side. A lot of posts lately seem to have dealt with why this or that term is accurate or why a general view of the other person's church is appropriate.

I would still like to see which terms can be identified as ones that are inciting and which could be done without. This doesn't mean that the same idea cannot be expressed, just that the "button pushing" TERMS would be set aside.

BTW also, thanks to Rhamiel in post 66 and others for trying to keep the focus on this idea.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Yes it does "depend". Not every person is in the need of the same thing. The Gospel covers many areas but people need different parts of it. It is important to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us to what we need to share.

Why are you going to hell? I wouldn't judge that the women who came to my house were going there.

The Gospel is the message which Jesus brought.

Jesus referred to the OT scriptures and revealed their true meaning, but what he said was through the power of the Holy Spirit, which we can also do if we allow that Spirit to guide us. When God brings people to us we need to follow his Spirit which may guide us in many ways.

I don't know many "lost" people. There are times when God brings people to me that are in need of something. I will trust that God's Spirit will lead me to the correct method of dealing with them.

Too many times people preach "at" others when they may need to listen first.

YD

So then, basically, if God sends a lost person to you, you can't share the Gospel with them.

Here, we have yet another in an endless list of Catholics who insist that the Catholic church is the "one true church that Jesus founded", but can't even articulate the most basic of Christian doctrines.

That's just pathetic.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have heard the phrase from RCs that non-RC's are in "imperfect communion" and so we are not of the "true Church.
But the phrase "seperated brethren" listed earlier still tops the list in my humble view......

http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/MOM%2008%202007.htm
The Papacy and Its Unholy State: A Worldwide W a k e - u p C a l l to Orthodox Leaders

On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the "universal primacy" of his Roman Catholic church, approving a document released on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, proclaiming that Orthodox Churches are "defective." This was the Pontiff’s latest manner of insulting Jesus Christ and His True Church...............

 

[Thekla]

It seems that (thus far) only one person knows "what the Gospel is", and is unwilling to share it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It seems that (thus far) only one person knows "what the Gospel is", and is unwilling to share it.

Hi Thekla. Paul made this interesting statement in Gala 1 concerning "another Gospel". Any idea what he meant?

Gala 1:8 But also if-ever we or a messenger out of heaven should be well-messaging to ye beside which we well-messagizing to ye, anathema/anaqema <331> let him be.
9 As we have declared before and at present again I am saying if any is well-messagizing beside which ye beside got, anathema let him be.

Reve 22:3 and every anathema/kat-anaqema <2652> not shall be still. And the throne of the God/YHWH and of the Lambkin/Word in Her shall be and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

It seems that (thus far) only one person knows "what the Gospel is", and is unwilling to share it.

No, I never said I was unwilling to share it. I said that I was WAITING to share it until after yarddog answered my question because I did not want to influence his answer.

But since he is another Catholic who doesn't know what the Gospel is, the Gospel is the message of the Bible that man is sinful and faces God's wrath on Judgement Day but, because God is rich in mercy, He has provided a way for sinners to be saved, forgiven, and made children of His.

We do this by repenting of our sins and believing, by faith, in Christ's atonement at the cross on our behalf.

And, no, I'm not the only one who knows what the Gospel is. In fact, over the last few months, I've come to realize that there are many more people than I suspected who know the Gospel and are passionate about reaching the lost with it's saving power.

There was nothing in what yarddog described about sin, our standing before God, repentance, the cross, the atonement, or forgiveness. That's not the Gospel.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

Hi Thekla. Paul made this interesting statement in Gala 1 concerning "another Gospel". Any idea what he meant?

Gala 1:8 But also if-ever we or a messenger out of heaven should be well-messaging to ye beside which we well-messagizing to ye, anathema/anaqema <331> let him be.
9 As we have declared before and at present again I am saying if any is well-messagizing beside which ye beside got, anathema let him be.

Reve 22:3 and every anathema/kat-anaqema <2652> not shall be still. And the throne of the God/YHWH and of the Lambkin/Word in Her shall be and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.

Always heard it means -- 'God damn him to hell.' Accurate?

Go Cards!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Always heard it means -- 'God damn him to hell.' Accurate?

Go Cards!

The only ones in the NT I can think of that were trying to preach a different Gospel were these characters

Matthew 3:7 Being aware yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism of him he said to them "produce of vipers! who shows to ye to be fleeing from the being about/melloushV <3195> (5723) Wrath

Ezekiel 39:12 And house of Israel bury them so that to Purify/Cleanse the Land seven months. And all of people of the Land bury them, and He becomes to them for a Name, Day of to be glorified Me, declaration of my Lord YHWH.

 

[Albion]

and so...

one more thread has been turned into "Catholic theology is uniquely correct! NO, Catholic theology is particularly defective!"

 

[MrPolo]

I've been called an anti-catholic more times on here than I care to mention, what I find troublesome about this whole labeling is that it incites an emotion within people, it is true I deny that Rome teaches a saving gospel because of their view/teaching of justification and I am not afraid to drive that home, question is; does this in itself make me an anti-catholic? truth is I am defending MY faith... if thats the case then I may as well be called an;anti-nontrinitarian, anti-mormon, anti-osteen, anti-arminian, anti-JW, anti-exchanged life, anti-episcopalian,anti-emergent, anti-universalist, anti-well you get the idea...I debate with everyone of these other apologists and have never been called anti-anyofthem.
While I am more active debating against catholics than most of the others i've had no shortage of debating the others on here, it is just by pure numbers that the catholicism debate seems to surge to the top.

My whole point of this thread is why isnt the label anti-catholic considered a flame? You don't see us reformed apologists calling others anti-reformists.

What would be a better term to identify those whose reflex it is to take a position against Catholic teaching for the reason that it is Catholic teaching?

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

The only ones in the NT I can think of that were trying to preach a different Gospel were these characters

Matthew 3:7 Being aware yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism of him he said to them "produce of vipers! who shows to ye to be fleeing from the being about/melloushV <3195> (5723) Wrath

Ezekiel 39:12 And house of Israel bury them so that to Purify/Cleanse the Land seven months. And all of people of the Land bury them, and He becomes to them for a Name, Day of to be glorified Me, declaration of my Lord YHWH.

'vipers' 'wrath' 'bury them' -- not sure what it all means . . . but it sounds realllllly bad.

Go Cards!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

and so...

one more thread has been turned into "Catholic theology is uniquely correct! NO, Catholic theology is particularly defective!"

There are threads to list the errors of both

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6870602
Roman church errors and inventions

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6983026&page=48&highlight=errors
Errors of Protestism

 

[MrPolo]

Well I guess that because we do not believe in a religion but in the Person Jesus Christ is where alot of the issues flow. If I am to be called anti Catholic then that is okay with me. But notice it is the religion itself and not the people. But when we come against a religion all of a sudden we hate the catholic people it seems and that is just not the truth. For love rejoices in truth.

No need to pick on "religion". Paul and James both believed in religion. But there's a difference between true religion in practice like the love you mention, and "worthless" religion.

1 Timothy 5:4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

James 1:26 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.​

 

[simonthezealot]

we do not agree with protestant doctrine, but Protestants do not agree with Catholic doctrine, that does not either side "anti" anything
I agree with you, there are wheat and tares in all groups
Now some Catholics are "anti-Protestant" and will say that Protestants are not Christian, but they are few and far between, and the Catholic Church says that they are wrong.
on the other hand there are whole congregations that say that Catholics can not be Christian.

Simon, for what it is worth, I agree that the term "anti-Catholic is thrown around too much, to be a Protestant, well that means you do not agree with Catholic doctrine, that does not make someone anti-Catholic

Thanks and I agree...
And your right I don't agree with catholic doctrine, even still Rhamiel if I think what a church teaches is NOT the message Christ and His apostles taught (because there can only be ONE truth) though I think because of the Grace of Christ people still can be saved within that communion of people, does that mean I don't think they are Christian? NO it means they are being taught UNchristian doctrine in my opinion...What do you think?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

'vipers' 'wrath' 'bury them' -- not sure what it all means . . . but it sounds realllllly bad.

Go Cards!

Ooops. I meant to use Reve 6:16 and why I do not see the RCC in Revelation

Matthew 3:7 Being aware yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism of him he said to them "produce of vipers! who shows to ye to be fleeing from the being about/melloushV <3195> (5723) Wrath

Reve 6:16 And they are saying to the Mountains and to the Rocks "be falling on us! and hide us! from Face of the One sitting upon the Throne, and from the Wrath of the Lamb-kin" [Hosea 10:8/Luke 23:30]

 

[Albion]

What would be a better term to identify those whose reflex it is to take a position against Catholic teaching for the reason that it is Catholic teaching?

If I may...

...why does there have to be a handy term at all? It only takes a moment to use a much less ambiguous phrase, something close to what you just did!

My goodness. We've accomodated ourselves to saying "Fire Fighters" instead of "Fireman," and "Physically Challenged" instead of "Cripple." Can't we smart people do the same here?

This reminds me of the thread in which we were talking about an alternative for "non-Catholic." The Catholic poster seemed pressed to think of any alternative. I answered "How about 'other Christians?'"

Being polite and yet still being able to express your POV in these matters is not exactly difficult if we try.

 

[simonthezealot]

What would be a better term to identify those whose reflex it is to take a position against Catholic teaching for the reason that it is Catholic teaching?

Measure people by there own theology...
I am as adamate toward EVERY other thing I see on these forums that I find scriptural opposition to...Why should I have to be defined by YOUR church?