EMBRACING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Among Christians today there is diversity on the concept of OSAS - some believe in it - others do not.

The RCC tactic of "lumping" all non-RC's into one group or another "has never actually worked".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

On the quotes you provide for the coredemptrix, I agree with you in disagreeing with the doctrine. This may be one of the few times we agree!

 

Brother Adam - in that new line of agreement - consider this as well...

In the God-like qualities attributed to Mary in RC mythology we find the following...

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob do you have any opinions of your own, or do they all come from cut-and-pasting what those catholics think?

 

I got it from church history! The Pope clearly condemned Copernicus as a heretic for saying that the Earth revolved around the sun.

That is because Christ's legal "home city" was Bethlehem, and it was prophesied that Christ would be from Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). Your argument is nothing more than a lame attempt to explain away the declarations of Vatican 1 as if they were nothing more than the church's recognition of what God had already ordained and the church fathers had affirmed - ridiculous! By the way, how many of the church fathers ever mentioned papal infallibility? Ex cathedra? None. They recognized the church's authority as one that was to preserve Christ's body from heresy, but apparently it hasn't worked out too well.

Wow, really...then why did none of the church fathers ever bother to mention papal infallibility? And even if they did (which they didn't), where can papal infallibility be found in the Bible? In fact, wasn't Peter (the so-called first Pope of the RCC) found to be in error when Paul corrected him (see Gal. 2:11-12)? The whole doctrine of papal infallibility is a godless working of sinful man.

Adam, they may not say it that way, but what else could they mean? If you turned away from God's covenant (as you and Carson argued he can do) then wouldn't you have to be re-saved in order to re-enter that covenant? Catholic soteriology is a horrible mess of venial vs. mortal sins that is self-referentially incoherent.

 

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]As I said on another thread, I'm not Catholic. I believe Mary is held in too high a regard by many RCC. However, I'm not sure all of those statements were made ex-cathedra. I could quote a SDA who flat out denied Christs divinity I met online once. Naturally though, he wouldn't speak for everyone.

 

Pastor Larry said:

You know reading your last three posts, I have determined the issue that seems problematic in your posts about the canon.

You say God created the Canon. Technically, the Holy Spirit INSPIRED the Scriptures, the cannon was indeed 'worked out' in history by the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT. But HOW?

We all know it was ultimately through MEN via the Holy Spirit, just as the Bible was written. And if by MEN, then MEN with AUTHORITY. And if by men with authority, and after the last books were written, then after the Apostles.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt until you clarify specifically what you mean, but it seems to me you are wanting the cannon established without any involvement of men. Then you agree that is was worked out in history, meaning of course, by men's actions.

You cannot have any 'working' out of the cannon without some authority to work it out.

Also, an obvious question by this whole discussion: If the NT was so readily revealed and known and universally accepted so early, why was the issue brought to council at all? Why would that be important? Maybe to prevent people like Luther from ripping out James and who knows what else...

And another obvious question based on your assumption that the cannon was already well known very early on. If there was discussion and some dissention as to what belonged in the NT, then why were there not references made to the supposed 'early cannon' that was clearly established from the beginning?

Frankly, not to insult you (seriously), your version of HOW we recieved the revelation of the cannon is a little 'Chickish'. I only mean that, it sounds ok, but there seems to be no historical proofs to support, so it cannot be proven or disproven, only believed or not believed. (Or maybe you have something more?)

 

Todd --

You do NOT know how a covenant works, which is obvious by your posts. Ray Sutton, A PROTESTANT, has written a very good book on the basic foundation of the covenant, showing how it works and the five covenantal principles found in scripture.

Covenants are breakable because they are unions Think of marriage. Marriage is a covenant between two people (Ezek. 16: 8), and a picture of our relationship with Christ (thus we are called "The Bride of Christ" both individually and corporately).

Can a marital union be broken? You bet it can!! Just forget the little lady's birthday or your anniversary and see how broken your union is!! You might not experience union with her for a couple of weeks if you mess up good!!

Unions, (aka relationships) can be broken. That is what happens when a covenant is broken. The story of the Prodigal Son is a picture of a young man breaking covenant with his father. The union of love between father and son is broken by the son's sin. He goes out to live in the "far country" of sin.

And until he repents and is restore to covenant status with his father, they are separated and the inheritance is no longer his (the father DID NOT give the son every single thing he owned).

We are saved ONE TIME when we are taken from Adam and placed in Christ, being made children of the Father by the adoption of grace. But just like earthly children, we can forfeit our inheritance by disobedience to the family rules (God's Law).

When we do break covenant with God, we must do as the Prodigal did and repent, return, confess, and be restored.

Note the steps.

1. Repentance. "I have played the fool. I will turn from my selfish way and go back to my heavenly Father."

2. Return. We go back to where we came from. I remember hearing a Baptist preacher make a point one day by saying that when we broke fellowship with God, He would be right there waiting for us to come back at the exact spot we left Him. So I must return to my sin, look it dead in the eye, and

3. Confess. My admission of wrong doing and my subjecting myself to the will of my Father, rather than my own will.

4. Be restored. But there is NO RESTORATION without a sacrifice for my sin. Show me one instance in the Bible where sin is forgiven without the appropriate sacrifice.

Sacrifice renews the relationship. It does not make one "saved all over again" as you erroneously put it. But there MUST be restoration of the relationship, and only the appropriate sacrifice, a sweet aroma in the nostrils of God, can do this.

(Interesting note: we see the Eucharist in the story of the Prodigal, for the boy is brought to the table to feast upon the "fatted calf". The fatted calf is a sacrificial animal for sin!! according to scripture. Thus, we have the picture of covenantal restoration from the Catholic perspective. We repent, confess, and through the Eucharist the covenant is renewed and the relationship restored)

Now, Todd, what if the boy had DIED in the "far country of sin?" Would he have received his inheritance which was still at home waiting for him? (He only got a "foretaste" and not the whole thing).

Same deal with Christians. We are covenantal children by adoption, but if we sever the relationship and run off into the "far country of sin" and die there in unrepentance.....

Hey!! No inheritance!!

It's that simple really. The relationship is severed and the inheritance is withheld because of the offense.

Now mind you, it takes "mortal sin" to sever the relationship that badly. Most sins are just of the kind that offend God and keep us from enjoying His close presence. But there are certain "sins unto death" as scripture says, that do indeed kill the grace in our souls and sever our relationship.

You really, really need to read Ray Sutton's book.

You can find it on the Internet at and read it for free at I.C.E. Freebooks

The book title is THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- DOMINION BY COVENANT.

Then, when you finish that, put the rest of it together by reading Scott Hahn's A FATHER WHO KEEPS HIS PROMISE or listening to his tape series THE COVENANTAL KINGDOM. Sutton will give you the principles, Hahn will give you the familial application.

The idea of "covenant" you refer to is not a coveanant at all -- it is a CONTRACT and we are in a covenant, not a contract.

 

Bob quotes several papal sources spelling out how that top authority in the RCC at that time viewed Mary.

Then Adam "objectively" compares that to...

Discovering the lack of "objectivity" of such a blatant effrot to equivocate - is left as an exercise for the reader.

So Adam - do you have a "serious" response to the quotes of Papal published documents I gave?

In Christ,

Bob

 

If someone would like to see a healthy and scholarly correspondence on St. Alphonsus de Liguori's book The Glories of Mary then check out the following link.

The Glories of Mary

It appears that Mr. Lisenbee makes some of the same distortions and misquoting that Bob does but Dave Armstrong is quick to catch the poor documentation and refute it.

Mr. Ryan's growing illiteracy with his "quotes" should be a serious concern for the scholarly minded.

 

Well, I am just now finding this thread, and this quote is from page 1, so I dont know if the poster is even here anymore...

WPutman said, way back then...

Do you really believe that? Thats amazing. The current RCC bears absolutly no resemblance to the 1st century church.

No. Absolutly not. We do not embrace one denomination among so many in order to embrace Christ.

To embrace Jesus Christ we embrace Jesus Christ!

Him personally. I embraced Christ all alone at about 2AM 24 years ago this month. Nobody there but me, The Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. And I was added to "the Church" the instant I recieved Christ through faith alone...laying face down in that bed drowning in my own tears.

And "the Church", from a biblical perspective, is nothing but all born again people. Period.

It was probably 2 or 3 months later when God lead me to a place where many of His born again people gather for corporate worship and fellowship. But I certainly was not added to "the church" when I started fellowshipping there.

I was added to the church by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself when I embraced Him through saving faith alone.

God bless all,

Mike

 

Apparently you have not been to Mass in a while. Read much St. Justin Martyr?

There are no demoninations in Christ's Church, so in that respect, you are correct. There is Christ's Church, and there are those assemblies that have an imcomplete revelation (Scripture alone).

I'll be doing that in the Eucharistic celebration tonight. Praise God!

As long as you don't see the emotional response as necessary. Receiving Christ is not an experience of emotion, but of Spirit.

Which is why all Baptized persons are implicitly but not explicitly part of Christ's Church.

And no Catholic says you become "part of the Church" when you are added to a "membership record." You become part of Christ's Church at your Baptism.

 

And are we being told that receiving Christ via Catholicism is an experience of the Spirit whereas receiving Christ without some connection to Catholicism is a fake.....Get real !

I'm part of Christ's Church of believers and I'm not baptized. Baptism only gets one wet and shows their intent to be a believer. No magical powers in the water.


Singer

 

No, if you would listen you would realize that you are being told Catholics teach the "norm" for life in the faith is through the Church Christ established.

Of course water has no magical powers- where do you get these ideas? The Word of God though is very powerful! If the only purpose of baptism is to "get wet" then Christ would have not put any kind of emphasis or command on baptism. He would have just said something along the lines that one must join a scripture believing church or profess their faith in him to show thier intent.

 

Gracesaves,

I said...

And you said...

You have got to be kidding? You actually believe that as they had their simple fellowship in homes in the 1st century, there were Catholic masses taking place?

I said...

And you said...

I know.

No, there are assemblies that have Gods revelation, the scriptures. And there are others who choose to ignore Gods revelation in order to maintain their man made traditions that God has nothing to do with.


I said...

And you said...

You believe you recieve Christ by eating Him? Sorry, but we recieve Christ by faith.

We know we are born of the Spirit through faith...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast."

And we walk the same way...

"As you have recieved Christ Jesus, so walk in Him."

We embrace Him through faith, and we walk in Him through faith.

I said...

And you said...

Agreed. There does not have to be an emotional response like mine.

I said...

And you said...

Depends on what you mean by "baptised". If you mean "Spirit" baptism, you are 100% correct. All are Spirit baptised into the body of Christ at the instant of their entering into saving faith.(and that is not to be confused with the optional "baptism of the Holy Spirit", such as is evidenced by the gift of tongues. Some never do experience that, yet are still saved of course.)

If you mean water baptism, its completly irrelavent whether they are baptised. They must have embraced the risen Lord through faith, and they then should at some point in time be water baptised. Baptism is a wonderful "picture" of dying to the old life, and rising in newness of spiritual life. But baptism saves nobody. We are justified through faith alone.

I said...

And you said...

Based on my experience dealing with catholics, I am going to assume you mean water baptism. On that assumption...

No, you do not. You become part of the body of Christ...the Church...through faith alone.

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Answer these for me, if you dont mind...

1) When were Cornelius and his family indwelt by the Holy Spirit and therefore sealed into the body of Christ?

(Hint...God gave us a sign, so it would be crystal clear.)

2) What...precisly...were they doing at the moment they were sealed into the body of Christ?

3) And when were they then water baptised?


God bless,

Mike

[ February 12, 2004, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: D28guy ]