Former Protestant Pastor Helps Shepherd Catholic Converts

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Carson:

Hi faithcontender,

You wrote, "It is a fact that many of the catholics don't know about the gospel. I have talked oftenly to my catholic friends and aquaintances and many of them are spiritually dead, not interested in the things of God. I've been outside sharing to them the good news and many of them are ignorant of the word of God."

oftenly ?

Originally


Originally posted by Carson:

I would like to take the chance to affirm what you have written. What you say is very true.. many Catholics do not know the Gospel, and my catechetics professors have taught me that the majority of Catholics under the age of 55 need to have the Gospel presented to them in a no-nonsense fashion.

Did he suggest discarding teaching Mary as the fulfillment of the types? This would definitely be no-nonsense. This would also eliminate your next concern:

Originally posted by Carson:

Unfortunately, there are innumerable Catholics in the world who are Catholic in name only and who do not have a vibrant, personal love for and relationship with Jesus Christ.

How can they find this when the catechism presents Mary as the fulfillment and teaches them to pray to Christ through the holy mother? If you want to teach you must plan, part of planning is reflection on what works and what doesn't.

Originally posted by Carson:

I want to thank you for your concern for their souls and your willingness to share the good news of Jesus Christ with them. I share the same aspirations.

Excellent statement and from the heart no doubt [1 Cor. 12.3]. Does your teaching reflect Jesus as Lord, or does it reflect Jesus as Lord but unapproachable save through Mary? Cut and delete Mary's name and copy and Paste the name of Jesus Christ into your catechism and you will find people can then have a vibrant personal relationship with the Son of God.

Originally posted by Carson:

"Man, himself created in the 'image of God' and called to a personal relationship with God." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 299)

Another truth, but I don't find where this affirms our approach through Mary nor the saints. This says 'a personal relationship with God' now who is the mediator?....Mary?...of course not.

Originally posted by Carson:

"Great is the mystery of the faith! This mystery, then, requires that the faithful live from it in a vital and personal relationship with the living and true God. This relationship is prayer." (Ibid., 2558)

But then you teach they must pray through Mary, expecting she to go before the throne of Grace on their behalf. Quit bothering Mary man, pray directly to God through His Son and you will have this vital personal relationship. Can you and I know each other? Yeah. WE know each other are real because we are aware of each other's presence. Why can we not have a personal relationship? Because our computer screen is our means of communication. Were we to meet and talk perhaps we could develop a great friendship, can this happen as long as we only meet through our computers? No.


Originally posted by Carson:

"In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us. [quoting St. Augustine]" (Ibid., 981)

This happens 'in this church' see, you place everything you can in front of Christ. This life found by the dead soul is found in Christ alone.

Originally posted by Carson:

"The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins: the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world, and he was revealed to take away sins: Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state? [quoting St. Gregory of Nyssa]" (Ibid., 457). [/QB]

[/QUOTE]Our nature demanded these things? How did our nature dead in trespasses and sins demand anything of God? Your catechism teaches God as a reactionary. With some changes reflecting a Glorious and Sovereign God your concerns would be resolved.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Ray Berrian]

Glenn said, 'The two denominations you listed are two of the most liberal mainline denominations . . . '

I think what the writer of the post was saying is that many laity who join mainline denominations, not all, join the church because that is what you do if you are a well-rounded community person, or if you want some more contacts for your business. Many clergy enter ministry not with a call of God on their life but study because it is a good vocation. They have no relationship to God and so the people who join their churches are not called on to have a living and lively relationship to the Lord.

So for these clergy who are repatriated into another branch of the church, they can be easily persuaded because their faith had little or no meaning before they made the move. Those who are not 'born again' [John 3:3] will be numbered among those who Jesus will say, 'I never knew you; depart from Me . . . ' [Matt. 7:23]

And their are still other people who like 'the strokes' and the 'warm fluffies' that Catholicism makes on their lives as a Catholic convert. Imagine, a person joining Catholicism, a body that is already considered by the Lord as 'departing from the faith . . . . forbidding to marry, the people who obstain from meats.' [I Timothy 4:1-6]

 

[thessalonian]

I do wonder why anyone would join the United Church of Christ, which believes that fornicating outside of marriage, killing babies, and homosexuality is okay. And also denies the trinity.


"http://www.laker.net/rclark/GCHS1961/berrian.htm"


That you ray? I hear you like fishing. So does this guy. And hey, has his roots in pennsylvania also. Seems like he's a retired pastor also. You guys have alot in common. Perhaps you should get together and talk about how to reconcile your beliefs with the United Church of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
..
If you are interested in learning how true Catholic doctrine upholds the primacy, inspiration, and ultimate authority of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, the efficacy and absolute need of grace, salvation by faith, and other positive affirmations of non-Catholic Christians, I would suggest reading The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer who himself became Catholic after years as a Protestant theologian.

I am guessing that is where we learn that the Bible is not intended to be "believed" so the Creation account can be ignored.

So my question remains - how many of those pastors were Bible-believing fundamentalists that DID accept the primacy of scripture and the integrity of the Bible "account"??

Still no "answer"??

hmmm ... perhaps this is a tender spot for our RC bretheren.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

Understanding ones relationship to Christ and in Christ promises 'sudden death--sudden glory.' [John 3:16; St. John 5:24] Why would anyone want to merge their faith with a church that teaches our future as Christians is in the 'fire of Purgatory.' No happy future there. Tell your children that one; that will spark their love for the Lord. Not really!

 

[thessalonian]

[ October 09, 2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Carson Weber:
..
If you are interested in learning how true Catholic doctrine upholds the primacy, inspiration, and ultimate authority of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, the efficacy and absolute need of grace, salvation by faith, and other positive affirmations of non-Catholic Christians, I would suggest reading The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer who himself became Catholic after years as a Protestant theologian.

I am guessing that is where we learn that the Bible is not intended to be "believed" so the Creation account can be ignored.

So my question remains - how many of those pastors were Bible-believing fundamentalists that DID accept the primacy of scripture and the integrity of the Bible "account"??

Still no "answer"??

hmmm ... perhaps this is a tender spot for our RC bretheren.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Not hardly.

More likely people are just sick of answering the questions for someone who does not care what the answer is and will twist and distort anything he chooses.

Start a creation thread if you want to talk about it. See if anyone wants to play bob's silly game of "See if you know what your beliefs are better than Bob knows what you believe."


Mr. Grodi himself one night said he doesn't keep numbers. Converts are not notches on a belt but a glorificatoin of God who enlightens them with the truth. Though I will say most I have seen on his show have been of the fundamentalist persuasion.

Ray (the United Church of Christer)

Perhaps you could tell us how a man who is currently engaged in sin, let's say he is one of those taken home early because he is a fornicator is immediately placed in the prescence of God for it says in the book of revalation, nothing unclean shall enter. Can he continue in his sin in heaven or does it need to be purged out of his soul. By the way once again you prove your ingorance of Catholic theology. It does not put a time on purgatory. It could be instantanous but seem like ages because of the intensity of it or it could be a time consuming operatoin. Perhaps we can't even understand it's duration since time in heaven is clearly different than time on earth. Oe day is as one thousand years and one thousand years is as a day you know.

[ October 09, 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[thessalonian]

Ray,

Could you be a peach and lay your trinitarian theology out for those baptists who put their arms around you like a brother on the board who think that trinitarian belief is neccessary for salvation (which is most baptists last I checked). My guess is you would be better off in purgatory than where most Baptists would place you. Now of course Bob Ryan won't care because he is a Seventh Day Adventist and trinitarianism is just an opinion over there. Actually many SDA's say the trinity is pagan. How do you feel about that ray, being a United Church of Christer and all. I am sure with your theology degree that you worked long and hard for you do have an opinion.

Blessings

 

[BobRyan]

Thess -
More likely people are just sick of answering the questions for someone who does not care what the answer is and will twist and distort anything he chooses.

Start a creation thread if you want to talk about it. See if anyone wants to play bob's silly game of "See if you know what your beliefs are better than Bob knows what you believe."

Hmmm Thess chooses the tired old "why answer a question specific to this thread when ranting will do instead".

Sooooo if you ever tire of that high-quality ranting and want to actually answer the question for this thread - feel free to change.

And BTW it was Carson that brought up the numbers. I am simply asking that of those numbers that CARSON mentioned - how many were actually Bible believing fundamentalist pastors.

I was hoping that simple question would not be so frightful to our RC bretheren that all they could do in response is dodge and rant.

Surely - a moment of Christian integrity and objectivity is available to them so they can simply answer the question. (You know, like a normal person might).

hmm. Still waiting.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

"Surely - a moment of Christian integrity and objectivity is available to them so they can simply answer the question. (You know, like a normal person might)."

Coming from you Bob, that statement just doesn't hold alot of weight if you know what I mean.

 

[BobRyan]

Coming from you Thess that....

nahhh - why go there - it would be responding as you are doing. I will just go back to...

Still waiting for that objective simple - response to a simple question.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Ray,

Could you be a peach and lay your trinitarian theology out for those baptists who put their arms around you like a brother on the board who think that trinitarian belief is neccessary for salvation (which is most baptists last I checked). My guess is you would be better off in purgatory than where most Baptists would place you. Now of course Bob Ryan won't care because he is a Seventh Day Adventist and trinitarianism is just an opinion over there. Actually many SDA's say the trinity is pagan. How do you feel about that ray, being a United Church of Christer and all. I am sure with your theology degree that you worked long and hard for you do have an opinion.

Blessings

Brother Ray and I have banged heads many times. Thank you though. What I am interested in is why you would want to exalt Mary above your Lord. I am not interested in theological degrees and the like. I want to know the Biblical reason Mary is viewed in the OT types and shadows.

If Bro. Ray wants to discuss his belief on trinitarianism and it is not Biblical, then he and I will again bang heads. The same for Bob Ryan.

I had heard, but always thought it was exaggeration, that Catholics worshipped Mary. Now, I want to understand why? Why is the Son of God not sufficient. If you wish you can imply I don't know OT typology, or custom, or what ever you wish. But it is evident that Christ is not made the center of the Bible by believing everything in the OT points to a woman. It is obvious that Christ did not finish anything, that he was not the author and finisher of this faith I am reading about, so I want to know why it is not idolotry?

Is the Trinity idolotry? Well, if anyone wants to believe so, but the Bible clearly shows there are three persons in the Godhead and that these persons are one, thus, being one, each demands equal reverence and worship. How can Mary be part of that Godhead?

Bro. Dallas

 

[BobRyan]

Dallas said --If Bro. Ray wants to discuss his belief on trinitarianism and it is not Biblical, then he and I will again bang heads. The same for Bob Ryan.

Dallas - you say that like "BobRyan" is not trinitarian. Tell me it aint so!! What have I said here to give you that impression?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Thess said --
Now of course Bob Ryan won't care because he is a Seventh Day Adventist and trinitarianism is just an opinion over there. Actually many SDA's say the trinity is pagan. How do you feel about that ray, being a United Church of Christer and all. I am sure with your theology degree that you worked long and hard for you do have an opinion.

Ooops! Here I see where Dallas got his idea from. It was from Thess.

Dallas, please be informed that Thess is very challenged on the subject of "accurate details" but is very long on "ranting" without actual substantive objective points being made.

In other words - Thess is often just plain incorrect - at such a level that it really has nothing to do with your denominationial affiliation - his statements are simply in error.

In this case - the SDA church does have an official statement of beliefs which the entire church body votes on - once every 5 years. The explicit teaching of the trinity has been in that statement of beliefs "explicitly" since the middle of the last century and "implicitly" many decades prior. A handful of dissenters that Thess may discover now and then - does not alter the beliefs of the 12 million member denomination.

Hope that helps.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Ooops! Here I see where Dallas got his idea from. It was from Thess.

Dallas, please be informed that Thess is very challenged on the subject of "accurate details" but is very long on "ranting" without actual substantive objective points being made.

In other words - Thess is often just plain incorrect - at such a level that it really has nothing to do with your denominationial affiliation - his statements are simply in error.

In this case - the SDA church does have an official statement of beliefs which the entire church body votes on - once every 5 years. The explicit teaching of the trinity has been in that statement of beliefs "explicitly" since the middle of the last century and "implicitly" many decades prior. A handful of dissenters that Thess may discover now and then - does not alter the beliefs of the 12 million member denomination.

Bob, just so that I can understand the details.

Are there any SDA's currently that deny the Trinity?

Can you give any quote from Ellen White's writings where she uses the word Trinity?

Why did it take so long for the SDA to explicitly include the Trinity in the offical beliefs statement?

What was the necessity for doing so? Was there a disagreement between SDA's over the Trinity prior to that?

If the SDA accepted the doctrine of the Trinity only within the last century, how can they make the cliam to being the remnant church? Isn't this an essential doctrine for the true church?

BTW, my understanding of Ellen White's belief concerning the three persons was: Father, Son preincarnate (which to her is the Holy Spirit), and Son post incarnate.

And didn't she also believe that Jesus no longer has a fleshly body?

 

[BobRyan]

Trying2Understand,

Your information is also largely in error.

The SDA church was organized in the 1860's and was still defining doctrinal statements 20 years later in the 1880's.

A number of members came from the Church of the Bretheren. (Non-Trinitarian) including key leaders in the church such as James White.

However Ellen White came from a United Methodist background (Trinitarian) and though her husband was very outspoken on his opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity - she did not openly oppose him nor did she ever join in his condemnation of that doctrine. When he died (1880's) she immediately began publishing her trinitarian views. She states clearly "the Holy Spirit is the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead".

She declared that Christ was equal to the Father, eternal and that his life was not given to Him by the FAther - it was SELf-derived just as the case for the father.

She made a number of statements that were so distinct on that point - that the entire denomination turned to agreement on the trinity and away from a non-formally-specified but increasingly opposed view of the trinitarian position in the 1800's. The church fully embraced it by the end of the 1800's or early 1900's.

So while it is true that there were key leaders in oppositoin yet even in the early days - the denomination never voted as a group (the way they formally approved doctrines) on the nature of Christ or of the Holy Spirit arguing that they were not eternal or were not persons etc.

Ellen White affirmed(as did/do all SDAs) that Christ CONTINUES to have a physical form EVEN in heaven and she (and all other SDAS from day one) affirmed his bodily resurrection.

As for the remnant or pure church having pure doctrine - the interesting point is that it became more mature over time but never specifically framed an erroneous statement EVEN when its leaders were divided or opposed to the Trinity. Their doctrinal statements simply emphasized roles of Christ and the Holy Spirit that do not blatantly confirm their 3-co-equal roles in the Godhead.

For example - in some cases the NT refers to the Holy Spirit as "it" as something Christ breathed on his disciples, as fire that fell on them etc. Statements which give the appearance of a power or a force or a thing "it", just as Christ statement that the Father was greater than he -- statements that could easily lead to an incorrect assumption though no error is specifically stated in the text. However that is not a good arguement against the trinity - , it is simply less than "all the information" needed to see the complete role that each of them has.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 10, 2003, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Frogman]

For Information Purposes.

Thanks BobRyan. I do not nor did I know much of the SDA. I don't think I stated anything that would not be true were this thread directed at that. Maybe we can start a thread. You know, unless you are a different BobRyan, I will speak what I believe on any topic or doctrine. I expect the same from anyone who holds what they do by conviction as opposed to holding to it by the teaching of men.

Having said that, I wonder if our Catholic brethren know what I mean when I say I am Sovereign Grace Landmark Missionary Baptist? While they may know what it means, they did not know that was my belief. Though they might have if they had checked my profile.

I viewed the information for what it was...a diversion.

As a SGLMB [since everyone else has an anacronym ] I believe I shall be eternally saved by the Grace of God, that this is wholly of Grace from start to finish. I believe I am saved by Grace through faith and that this is a gift of God. [meaning both Grace and faith]. I beleive the gift of God through Christ is eternal life because Christ said it was so. This means we as true believers, being made so by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, perservere only through the preservation of God and by no other means.

Above is a summary of my Sovereign Grace belief.

Landmark: As a landmark Baptist I believe there is only one true church. I believe Christ established this church [his church because he said I will build my church] during his earthly ministry. Therefore I believe anything varying from the NT model of church or anything having its foundation later than roughly 33 AD cannot be the church Christ organized. I believe this church is always seen in this world as a local, visible church having only Christ as its head and the Holy Scriptures as its rule of faith. I believe each of these local and visible NT churches will be gathered as the bride of Christ at his coming in the air. [I also believe all believers will be gathered at this time, but lacking scriptural baptism these will be as John the Baptist and be friends of the bridegroom and not the bride. I believe any in heaven at present who were members of the NT church in this world will be gathered in the number of the bride. I believe these cannot observe the ordinances nor carry on the business [where the missionary part comes in to a degree more or less] because these ordinances, which are only two, were instituted in the local visible church and not in an universal invisible church. All members of the family of God are so by the same Grace of God through faith, but being a member of the family of God is distinct from being a member of a local visible body which shall some day in the future join local visible bodies from around the world and make up the bride of Christ.

As a missionary Baptist I beleive it is the commission of the church to send those the Lord calls out of her number into the world to preach the Gospel of Christ which at present is the Gospel of Grace and not of 'this kingdom'. I believe only the local visible NT church possesses this authority. It is not given to a man, nor a group of elders, but to the local visible body to determine by Scripture and leadership of the Holy Spirit by prayer the doctrines that were once delivered to the saints that believers are to be put in remembrance of as well as the Gospel whereby we may be saved both for eternity and in this world.

As Baptist this means I believe in the immersion of believer's only. Thus you have summarized my beliefs as a SGLMB. Do others calling themselves this differ? Of course. We have differences among ourselves. Who settles these differences determining what I ought to believe? Ultimately they are settled by personal prayer and study of the Word of God such that I am able to recognize what is sound doctrine founded upon the Word of God, but as far as the local body is concerned it is the local body and not the pastor, nor a board of deacons, though these are to be leaders and teachers and in this capacity are able to advise the local church, they can never enforce this advice upon the body.

Now, all who read this shall have a workable knowledge of what I believe. There is no reason for anyone to try and divert another's attention by offering any information.

The Truth will withstand the most intense scrutiny.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks BobRyan. I do not nor did I know much of the SDA. I don't think I stated anything that would not be true were this thread directed at that. Maybe we can start a thread. You know, unless you are a different BobRyan, I will speak what I believe on any topic or doctrine. I expect the same from anyone who holds what they do by conviction as opposed to holding to it by the teaching of men.

I am the one and only BobRyan.

Happy to discuss whatever is of interest.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[faithcontender]

As a missionary Baptist I beleive it is the commission of the church to send those the Lord calls out of her number into the world to preach the Gospel of Christ which at present is the Gospel of Grace and not of 'this kingdom'

Bro. Dallas,

Do you believe in personal winessing? Is every member of the church has the responsibility to preach the gospel or just the pastor/elder only?

As a bible baptist i believe that every member of the church is commisioned by the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature.

Just want to see what the difference between a bible baptist and a SGLMB.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by faithcontender:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As a missionary Baptist I beleive it is the commission of the church to send those the Lord calls out of her number into the world to preach the Gospel of Christ which at present is the Gospel of Grace and not of 'this kingdom'

Bro. Dallas,

Do you believe in personal winessing? Is every member of the church has the responsibility to preach the gospel or just the pastor/elder only?

As a bible baptist i believe that every member of the church is commisioned by the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature.

Just want to see what the difference between a bible baptist and a SGLMB. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, now we move from the Catholics and gather the lighter fluid for our own just kidding

As a missionary Baptist (I will speak as to what I beleive and make an attempt to not generalize). We believe each member of the church has a resposibility to witness, but not that this is the same as a preacher. Because we possess the light of the Gospel written in our hearts, the love of Christ would so constrain us to witness. The calling into the ministry or deaconship is different and in most cases but not all (evangelists is an example), these are given to the church and are placed in a specific body by the Lord. These are gifts to the church for the purpose of edification of the body and preaching of the Gospel. This preaching is not without power of the Holy Spirit, an anointing if you will, such that were I to stand at my local church this Sunday, I may deliver a sermon and speak the truth, but there may not be any power of the the Spirit whereby I am enabled to do what is called preaching. I would not disagree with you that it is a responsibility of every member of the church to witness to a lost and dying world. This is accomplished in many different ways as you know. Those called out of the church to serve as preachers etc. we believe are more particularly chosen in accordance to Acts 13. On the contrary to this, each member possesses a calling by the Holy Spirit to always be ready and able to give a reason for the hope that is in them.

I just reread your post, we believe the church holds that commission, though each member has the responsibility to witness. Does that help?

Hope that helps, if not let me know and I will try to explain better.

Bro. Dallas