Misconceptions

[fated]

So why would we need a substitute again??


7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth;
It is expedient for you that I go away:
for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reproveb the world of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:
for he shall not speak of himself;
but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:
and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine,
and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine:
therefore said I, that he shall take of mine,
and shall shew it unto you. http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=6795364#_ftn2
b reprove: or, convince

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=6795364#_ftnref2

Well, the Roman Church thrives from the unity that the Pope provides and is loved for. It makes the Church more capable of dealing with problems and provides for much more streamlined theological advancement. It also presents a residing place for the "Chair of Moses/Jesus/Peter" if you will.

 

[fated]

Okay: Unam Sanctum is NOT an infallible statement, as I suspected. It is a Papal Bull, and I can't recall one of the countless Papal Bulls that are infallible documents. So, a certain person who thinks he knows it all, is wrong.. ..AGAIN.

For a dogmatic definition to be made by the pope, the document involved has to unambiguously state that the definition is intended to be binding on all Catholics everywhere and for all time: It requires an explicit statement of universality and a statement that the Holy Father intends to make such a statement.

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. (Lumen Gentium 25). Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals."

Also, Infallible statements are (at least typically) made with the counsel, though not necessarily the consent, of those who attend the Pope (principally the Cardinals)

 

[sunlover1]

Well, the Roman Church thrives from the unity that the Pope provides and is loved for. It makes the Church more capable of dealing with problems and provides for much more streamlined theological advancement. It also presents a residing place for the "Chair of Moses/Jesus/Peter" if you will.

Thank you fated.
I can understand how that could help to give the illusion of security.

But we both know that real unity and real security rests only in Christ anyhow.

I guess it's difficult for those of us who arent catholic to grasp this...

God bless you !
sunlover

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Hi Monica. I never implied it was a "sin". How about concerning Unifying Christianity under the Banner of CHRIST.

I think we all strive for this unity

Anyway, I am thru with this thread as it is the same merry-go round as all the other Roman catholic vs "them" threads. Adios.

That is true thanks for posting with us brother

God bless

monica

 

[Philothei]

How about concerning Unifying Christianity under the Banner of CHRIST.


AMEN
Little lamb of Jesus...I hear ya...

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Awesome, I always liked rich!

Me too! He's one of my favourite Christian artists.

But was what Jesus said loving? Of coures it was.
It didnt SOUND loving, but He IS love, and so we
know it was said in love.
Jesus wasnt the only one who called names.
Paul did as well.

I do believe of course that what Jesus said was loving...everything He says is loving... but if we say things like that, it might just sound judgemental...it's different with Jesus because we know He is love. I see what you mean though

THIS is where you maybe misunderstand me.
Christs WAS speaking with compassion when He spoke.
Always and forever God is compassionate.
Paul WAS speaking with compassion when He called the galatians foolish.
It IS compassionate to say "WAKE UP brother, you've
been DUPED!"
It IS compassionate when we smack baby's hand to keep
them from grabbing the burning log in the fireplace...

I agree and I see what you mean here....maybe it just sounds different when God or even Apostle Paul calls people foolish because we know they mean well. I guess all I'm saying is that it's a little different in our case..

Do we ever consider that MOST wont find the gate and path that leads to life?
BIG time compassionate to do whatever it takes to persuade.
Where you see error in me, you show me. And I what? I appreciated that didnt I?
(We cannot expect guys btw to be all mushy and lovey towards each other. They're wired differently.
Seriously, I have seven sons,
and live in testosterone town, usa)

Preach the word !!
Be instant in season and out of season!!
Reprove !!
Rebuke !!
Exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. !!

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Yea! I just meant that we should choose our words wisely...let's say I have an unbelieving friend...and I call them a fool for "being so blind"..wow that would really give the wrong impression of Christianity!! Even if I mean well. This doesn't mean that we are to stay silent or to not be bold in our faith...not at all!! but we should also be patient, pray, take it bit by bit and show God's love to them...and they might think..hmm there's something about Christianity after all... I dunno it worked on me LOL I wasn't always a Christian, and there were certain people God put in my life to help lead me to Him..

I dont know. Hypocrite, liar, whatever, none of those
things are nice sounding.
Are we to speak that truth in love though? I dont know.
Would we just keep quiet?
Would we try to sugar coat the truth, or be more
politically correct?

I don't think it's about being politically correct... it's just that when people are called hypocrites or liars, they usually get angry and stop listening.. even God, He disciplines us with kindness..even when He's telling us something really difficult, He does it with compassion so that we don't feel overwhelmed

10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
(This is some serious stuff here! How would we
address such)

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobatee. ​

e reprobate: or, void of judgment

While there ARE posters who are just bullies,
mean spirited, displaying no good fruit, trouble makers,
causing strife...
There are those who are ACCUSED of being mean who
are merely speaking their truth, trying to defend the faith.

Good reminder.

We need to always speak as the oracles of God

Well you know I see what you're saying, and I think we're both true here, we're just talking about different aspects of the truth

God bless

monica

 

[MoNiCa4316]

But this is:



Let Rome say formally by an "infallible" formal dogmatic declaration, that the above declaration was false and caused violence in the Body of Christ.

But Rome cannot do that, because the declaration above was an "infallible" declaration spoken by the Holy Spirit through Boniface VIII, and to issue another "infallible" declaration that denounces it would be admitting that the Roman magesterium is not "infallible", and many Roman Catholics would realize they have been deceived and would undermine the entire basis of Roman Catholicism, being the papacy and the fallacy of "infallibility".

the declaration is one thing, the violence is another...it was just misused, maybe

 

[MoNiCa4316]

No terry, once again you are confused about what "fruit" is.

The truth is not in Rome, and hasn't been for a long time.

Charity is a worthwhile endeavor, but that does not constitute or equate to being true. Or else you have to apply that same standard to Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims and others who do charitible works.

Jack, the difference between Buddhists, etc, and Catholics is that Catholics believe in Christ. I'd say that's a pretty major difference, wouldn't you? If they believe in Christ and there are charitable people among them...that is good fruit.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jack, the difference between Buddhists, etc, and Catholics is that Catholics believe in Christ. I'd say that's a pretty major difference, wouldn't you? If they believe in Christ and there are charitable people among them...that is good fruit.

Yes, the Roman catholics are CHRIST-ians also and do believe in JESUS.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I see, so you support a works based salvation. Interesting.

He was saying exactly what the Bible is saying. It is not a works based salvation....it's a salvation where grace transforms us into the type of people who would do good works, out of love...not merely cancels our sin. Seems perfectly Biblical to me. If a believers life has not changed since they got to know Christ, something is wrong.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Yes, the Roman catholics are CHRIST-ians also and do believe in JESUS.

 

[sunlover1]

I agree and I see what you mean here....maybe it just sounds different when God or even Apostle Paul calls people foolish because we know they mean well. I guess all I'm saying is that it's a little different in our case..

I dont know either. Calling people heretics for instance... Did paul do that? If so did he have some certain authority to do so...

I havent met too many people who embrace criticism as we should. I certainly dont.
Even those who love us can criticize out of their flesh, and it can be more of an act of trying to 'control' us.
So yeah, it is a very gray area, and flaming is not love.
Hate does rise up here. I've watched it many times.
But it's hardly ALL protestants. People are people, it has more to do with Spirit filled versus walking in the flesh.

Yea! I just meant that we should choose our words wisely..

Amen. Love joy peace patience gentleness , goodness, mercy self control...
I agree, and was only pointing out that sometimes things CAN be done in love, while SEEMING to sound mean.

But for that matter, love can be feigned as well.

Which is worse, I dont know.


I had some friends who were JW and I never once confronted them.
I asked many questions, gave them food sometimes,
took care of their kids... showed them love, but I never spoke.
Now I've lost touch with them since we've moved and I wonder what I might have said....


sunlover

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I dont know either. Calling people heretics for instance... Did paul do that? If so did he have some certain authority to do so...

sunlover

Paul did mention a few dudes that were trying to "shipwreck" the faith by what they were spreading around.
Interesting passages and there are many Christians who do view the "resurrection" as a past event and I believe they are referred to as "full or partial preterists". Don't really know. Nice post sl.......

1Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck,
20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

2Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane [and] idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,
18 Who-any about the truth deviate saying the Resurrection/ anastasin <386> already to have become and are reverting/overthrowing the of any Faith.
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

 

[Catholic Christian]

I dont know either. Calling people heretics for instance... Did paul do that?

Titus 3:10
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject... (KJV)

(the ol' KJV does come in handy now and then)

 

[NoDoubt]

Titus 3:10
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject... (KJV)

(the ol' KJV does come in handy now and then)

But the previous verse is also important and must be taken in context!

9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive [heretick] person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

 

[TraderJack]

Well, the Roman Church thrives from the unity that the Pope provides and is loved for.

Yeah, that's right, without the pope there is no Roman Catholic religion.

You wouldn't want to be united in Christ now would you?

No, the Roman unity comes from the pope, a mere man.

It also presents a residing place for the "Chair of Moses/Jesus/Peter" if you will.

But that is a ficticious "chair". The pope has no such chair but in the minds of the Romans as they are conditioned to believe.

 

[ScottBot]

Yeah, that's right, without the pope there is no Roman Catholic religion.

You wouldn't want to be united in Christ now would you?

No, the Roman unity comes from the pope, a mere man.





But that is a ficticious "chair". The pope has no such chair but in the minds of the Romans as they are conditioned to believe.

Catholic CHRISTIANITY is unified in the Pope, who serves as a shepard leading us the Christ.

Kinda like Moses in the desert. Moses wasn't God, he was a vicar of God, serving as a physical leader with God's authority.

And the fiction lies in your persistant antagonism. Are we all supposed to follow you, since you are the one who apparently has all the answers?

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by TraderJack
But this is:



Let Rome say formally by an "infallible" formal dogmatic declaration, that the above declaration was false and caused violence in the Body of Christ.

But Rome cannot do that, because the declaration above was an "infallible" declaration spoken by the Holy Spirit through Boniface VIII, and to issue another "infallible" declaration that denounces it would be admitting that the Roman magesterium is not "infallible", and many Roman Catholics would realize they have been deceived and would undermine the entire basis of Roman Catholicism, being the papacy and the fallacy of "infallibility".

the declaration is one thing, the violence is another...it was just misused, maybe

Maybe you should actualy do some historical research and see just how much violence it has caused.

Sugarcoat wickedness all you want, try to make it appear not to be bad-------but that wickedness is to be shown in all it's ugliness, and call it exactly what it is.

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by TraderJack
No terry, once again you are confused about what "fruit" is.

The truth is not in Rome, and hasn't been for a long time.

Charity is a worthwhile endeavor, but that does not constitute or equate to being true. Or else you have to apply that same standard to Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims and others who do charitible works.

Jack, the difference between Buddhists, etc, and Catholics is that Catholics believe in Christ.

Some do. Intellectual assent is not "believing in Christ", it is trusting in Christ and His Atonement exclusively to have atoned for all our sins and having Redeemed us without fail that is "believing in Christ".

Most Romans are trusting in their religion and sacerdotal sacramental system.

 

[ScottBot]

Originally Posted by TraderJack
No terry, once again you are confused about what "fruit" is.

The truth is not in Rome, and hasn't been for a long time.

Charity is a worthwhile endeavor, but that does not constitute or equate to being true. Or else you have to apply that same standard to Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims and others who do charitible works.




Some do. Intellectual assent is not "believing in Christ", it is trusting in Christ and His Atonement exclusively to have atoned for all our sins and having Redeemed us without fail that is "believing in Christ".

Most Romans are trusting in their religion and sacerdotal sacramental system.

Nice generalization.

Most Calvinist hate Catholicism because they have been trained that way and don't know any better.

Two can play this game. Its kinda fun.