Offense

Unfortunately, in your case, the offense does not spring from truth. There is no glory in unnecessary offense. Glory is in offense for the sake of the truth, the word of God. To interject your own opinions or those of other men as higher than the Word should bring a renewed commitment to search for the truth and a sincere apology to those whom you have offended.

 

I have read the thread and Thessalonian has done no such thing. It is a false accusation, and reprehensible to bring the Word of God into the issue.

 

To respond or not respond, that is the question?

Since the only way that I know any of you is through your words and thoughts on this BBS, you can rest assured that my responses to your posts have nothing to do with the person who posts them.

It is your words and thoughts to which I respond with my comments. So if you feel as though I am attacking you personally, rest assured that I am not!

What you post on a "public BBS" is always open to direct counterpoint, so if you take that personally, then you have subjected yourself to it, and you have no one else at whom you can point the finger. I thought you knew that!

 

Thessalonian, It is your oft repeated declarations regarding the "true church", and your statements that the 'Roman' and 'Orthodox' are that true church, and that the "reformed churches" are not part of the true church because they "broke off" and are thus not part of the whole, to which I responded. You have displayed a very immature attitude against the truth.

You DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH! So, cut the crap!

Every church that "Claims" and "Proclaims" Jesus is part of the whole body of Christ! The "reformed" are simply additional fruit bearing branches of the whole Vine. Those "reformed" churches therefore have every right and are fully entitled claim the same geneology to which you adhere.

The difference is that you place your "authority faith" in the POPE, while the "reformed" churches place their "Authority Faith" in the "vine dresser" Jesus alone. It is an unshared authority that Jesus enjoys! The POPE has no authority to prune the vine because the pope is merely a part of the vine and is not the vine dresser.

Jesus is the ONLY biblically recognized intermediary between God the Father and HIS created man. If you do not recognize that, you'd better spend more time in catechism with your nose in 'The Book' this time.

Jesus, having been given ALL authority under heaven by the Father, has granted every believer in Himself, direct access to His Father in praise, confession, and petition. Therefore, there is no higher authority under Heaven than Jesus. The Pope does not supercede Jesus, nor those who believe in Jesus, regarding ACCESS to God the Father!

If you are offended by that, I'm sorry. However the truth is not some soothing pablum, it is often harsh and offensive to those who are confronted by it! It is sharper than a two-edged sword and cuts into the heart every time.

 

The Catholic church teaches "No salvation outside the church" and in the dark ages when she was promoting that idea - she also burned at the stake - catholic reformers that she called "heretics". She even argued that civil authorities were free to break oaths made to "catholic reformers" she called "heretics".

Dr. Carroll of EWTN admits that teachings like that of Billy Graham - would easily qualify the speaker for torture and burning at the stake in the dark ages.

The RCC has never recanted either of those positions. Thess is being "consistent" with the historic actions of the RCC in the dark ages when he takes his position. You can not argue that he should be "less catholic" than his own church has demonstrated itself to be in the dark ages - simply because that does not bode well for non-Catholics.

I have argued that we live now in the age of light and that our catholic bretheren should be motivated to leave the darkness behind them. However - given that they do fully embrace the Catholic church in all of its various arguments over the centuries - you can't view it as a "personnal failing" that they choose to remain consistent with those teachings from the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Perhaps you're right BobRyan, Thessalonian is caught in a timewarp of darkness. Perhaps he feels he would be betraying the church to acknowledge the truth revealed by the light.

Now that we all can have the "lamp unto my feet, the light for my path", which is "Thy Word", maybe he didn't get the word! Those guys that work down in the catacombs really don't get much "light".

 

Bob,

You've just given me an idea for a new hobby. I'm going to count the number of threads you participate in where you don't work in burning at the stake, torture and their ilk. I'm not expecting it to be a large number...

 

Mike:

Many Catholics say that "to know history is to cease to be Protestant". Unfortunately, torture and burning at the stake are a part of that history. You can't simply choose the parts of history that paint the Catholic Church in a positive light. I don't mean to be unkind, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

Priscilla Ann

 

Show me where I "choose the parts of history that paint the Catholic Church in a positive light."

Am I trying to have it both ways by questioning whether every single reference to the Catholic Church benefits by bringing up burning at the stake, etc? Protestants certainly burned plenty of people at the stake as well (including the only ones here in the USA) but Catholics don't work that into each and every discussion of Protestantism. Would you prefer that we did?

To be a part of the story is not to be the story.

So, I shall continue with my new hobby. I'm quite excited to see where it leads!

 

Bob,

You've just given me an idea for a new hobby. I'm going to count the number of threads you participate in where you don't work in burning at the stake, torture and their ilk. I'm not expecting it to be a large number... </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds great! Lets see how many places the Catholic doctrines, teaching and history beyond the 20th century are NOT relavent in any way.

I think this should be fascinating!

In Christ,

Bob

 

To really know history - is to cease to be Catholic. This is what the Catholic Reformers of the dark ages discovered.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Show me where I "choose the parts of history that paint the Catholic Church in a positive light."

Am I trying to have it both ways by questioning whether every single reference to the Catholic Church benefits by bringing up burning at the stake, etc? Protestants certainly burned plenty of people at the stake as well (including the only ones here in the USA) but Catholics don't work that into each and every discussion of Protestantism. Would you prefer that we did?

To be a part of the story is not to be the story.

So, I shall continue with my new hobby. I'm quite excited to see where it leads! </font>[/QUOTE]This thread deals with the Catholic view of non-Catholics.

"As it turnn out" the Catholic teaching "No salvation outside the church" ALSO deals with the Catholic view of non-Catholics - and the idea was hatched sometime in the dark ages.

Also - "As it turns out" the Catholic teaching of Lateran IV regarding the "extermination of heretics" and the statements by EWTN's Dr. Carroll regarding the teachings of Billy Graham - are "ALSO" dealing with "The Catholic view of those that object to Catholic doctrine".

Now you say you are surprised that all this "Catholic view of non-Catholic" systems - has nothing to do with the Catholic view of non-Catholics as stated by Thess - but don't be surprised if in fact "history is catching up with you" and indeed - you are simply the lastest part of that history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Mike:

Perhaps I should not have directed that last comment to you personally. I have heard a number of other Catholic apologists say that "to know history is to cease to be Protestant". I assumed you held that view as well.

Priscilla Ann

 

Here is the quote in context -- you may find it interesting!

"History is not a creed or catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.. And Protestantism has ever felt it so. . . . This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. . . . Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicaea and Trent, except as offering one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophecies of St. Paul and St. John. . . . .To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.." (John Henry Cardinal Newman, "The Development of Christian Doctrine")

I certainly do believe this. What I don't believe is that any beneficial or honest purpose is served by shouting "burnt at the stake!" in every thread which in any way touches on Catholicism. Do you agree or disagree?

 

Evangelical Protestant--Christianity is to return to what the Apostolic Church preached and taught and what the catholic/universal church enjoyed until it drifted into Roman Catholicism.

 

Guess Newman got it all wrong, then:

"And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.. And Protestantism has ever felt it so. . . . This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. . . ."

 

Mike,

Is it Cardinal Newman or Archbishop? I think it is Cardinal Newman . . . Anyway I wonder if he included all the 'trash' about the evil popes, that Brother Curtis has been telling us about within Catholicism. Did Newman include the horrors of the R.C. persecution before the Protestant Reformation?

Maybe it is good that Protestantism does not have this laundry-list of evil. Think about it!