Orthodox Christians

[DHK]

I can't help that you weren't properly Catechized.

You haven't changed a bit TS. That's been your stock answer ever since you have been here to every ex-Catholic including myself. You just don't take us seriously. It is really a form of a personal attack. It is like calling a person a liar. You don't know how many years I spent in the RCC, how much study I had there, how engaged I was, etc. You know nothing of that part of my life. You just make a blind accusation with no evidence in hand, and that is a personal attack.

First of all Jesus conducts the miracle at the institution of the eucharist at the last supper.

There is no miracle. Fact, not attack--You are deceived.

That miracle is perpetually resulting in each mass.

One cannot perpetuate something that doesn't exist.

What is spoken of is a unseen reality of the Substance Which isn't its physical make up but what it is in its actual nature.

Did you not notice your own redundancy and thus contradiction? Try looking up in the dictionary the difference between "physical make up" and "nature." (Especially when the "substance" refers to the "nature").

And it isn't specified as to when it occures

That is because it doesn't occur. Hindus baptizing themselves in the Ganges River don't get their sins washed away either. They only think they do. But think away. You can think anything you want. It won't make it true.

but that it does during the liturgy of the Eucharist probably during epiclisis which not lifting it up. All this to explain breifly to someone who thinks they know something because they once were catholic.

But if you are referring to AIC then you may be attacking him personally. It is an insult to a person to tell him what he doesn't know. It is arrogant and sinful.

When in fact many of the Catholics I now meet know nothing about their faith and I must educate them.

I find the same thing!

So some simple points so as not to confuse you. Jesus performs miracles not magic.

Unlike the RCC. But in reality they do neither.

Simon the Magician made this mistake with the understanding of the Holy Spirit. Next Jesus tells us how he wants us to relate to him and participate in his life. The Eucharist is one way by which it is Jesus who again performs the miracle not the preist.

Not Jesus either. In fact there is no mention of so-called "eucharist" in the Bible.

The priest is just repeating what Jesus said at the institution of the Sacrament.

No mention in the Bible of sacrament either.

And its God that does the rest. Again Jesus works miracles like changing the water to wine. Not magic. From Catholic literature.

The Bible is our authority (thankfully), not Catholic literature which is so full of heresy.

Also it is clear you don't understand how Catholics view the word mystery. It doesn't just mean something unknown in theological speach but something that cannot be known apart from the revelation of God. We know about the Eucharist because Jesus himself revealed it to us in the scriptures in his teaching to the Apostles.

The word "eucharist" is not used even one time in the Bible, so you are dead wrong. Christ did not teach about the eucharist and neither did the apostles. That is false teaching right there.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You haven't changed a bit TS. That's been your stock answer ever since you have been here to every ex-Catholic including myself.

Just because I repeat a truth doesn't change the nature of that truth.

You just don't take us seriously.

Contrarily. I take you all very seriously. You are quite knowledgeable about your beliefs and scripture. What I find interesting is that you don't offer that you may have been improperly catachized because of your experience. Your whole knowledge is based on experience rather than what is expressedly taught. Know I know there are some that have studied and disagree which I believe is honest. However, what is often tougted as Catholic Teaching often is not. But the replies are always or usually, I was an alter boy, or I knew a nun or a priest. Which as I have shown aren't always reliable authoritative sources for accurate Catholic Teaching. So when someone makes a clear statement revealing a false view of something that isn't taught by the magisterium and accuses the church of teaching it then I must correct the error. Speak against what is actually taught by the church and I will pay attention to what you say but if you quote Jack Chick nonsense cartoons then you can't expect me to believe you were actually catachized.
Look I know from my own life I was improperly catachized as a child which is why I initially left. When I encountered the actual teaching of the Catholic Church however the story changed.

It is really a form of a personal attack.

Now DHK lets be a bit more honest. Clarifying a misconseption is not a personal attack. Its a clarification. The personal attack is to accuse someone of believing something they don't believe. So if I respond saying, No, Catholics don't believe that and am met with well I was an alter boy and my aunt Betty always if you bury a St. Joseph's statue upside down you will sell your house and a nun and priest agreed with her. I must point out that this is superstition plain and simple and has nothing to do with Catholic Teaching. No more than a baptist knocking on a table saying "knocking on wood" is a baptist teaching.

It is like calling a person a liar

Not at all its calling someone mistaken. I don't deny a person had an experience. But an experience is just that it doesn't testify to the accuracy of the belief.

You don't know how many years I spent in the RCC,

Irrelevant. Do you know how many years a priest can be in the church and teach a falsehood and not put forth proper Catholic Teaching? I mean there are Bishops which don't accurately teach the magisterium. As an example and it has nothing to do with you personally let me put up the Catholic Winnepeg Statement as the example. The Catholic Bishops of Canada tried to dissent nationally from the Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church expressed in Humanae Vitae. Certainly these men have together much more training in Catholicism yet still taught contrary to Catholic Teaching. So the fact you spent many years as a Catholic is irrelevant to providing authoritative statement regarding a teaching of the Catholic Church.

how much study I had there, how engaged I was, etc

Honestly, I don't know. However, I do know in any logical progression no matter how flawless your methodology regarding any topic if you start with the wrong premise you end up with a wrong conclusion.

You know nothing of that part of my life.

You're right I don't. However, look at your approach to the subject. You aren't supplying documents you are expressing your experience. This can only be unsastifactory. When I went to my old baptist church one of the youth leaders was constantly drunk during Kid's Church and bible study. My daughter may years latter believe because of her experience that baptists are always drunk is that a valid argument against baptist teaching? Of course not! Which has been and is my point. BTW that example actually happened. But I don't hold that against baptist.

You just make a blind accusation with no evidence in hand,

This isn't true. If you say I believe things happen magically when in fact I don't. Then I will call you on it. And if you say the Catholic Church teaches that things happen magically contradicting what it teaches. I can only assume that 1)You are misinformed. and If you then say well I was a Catholic then 2) your misinformation originated while you were a catholic which means you weren't properly Catachized. Its not a matter of personal attack. Its a matter of pointing out an inaccuracy.

There is no miracle. Fact, not attack--You are deceived.

Now see this statement I don't have a problem with you not believing what I believe but you haven't said "Catholics" say its magic. And if you believe I'm decieved, fine. I disagree with you however.

One cannot perpetuate something that doesn't exist.

Again I believe Chist established it and perpetuates it. And I have scriptural reasons for believing so. But I allow that you don't hold my view.

Did you not notice your own redundancy and thus contradiction? Try looking up in the dictionary the difference between "physical make up" and "nature." (Especially when the "substance" refers to the "nature").

Now this is an actual problem you have with my belief in the Eucharist. Properly stating what it is I actually believe rather than asserting something I don't believe. And have properly provide a reason for your disagreement with me. However, I ansewer your protest in saying that first of all the definitions of terms happened long before english in its current form was spoken. And Terms like substance, nature has specific connotations with regard to Catholic Theology apart from the modern understanding of these words. Like for instance Mystery in its modern conotation means something unknown. In Catholic Theology it means something that cannot be known apart from revelation. Thus your criticism using modern dictionary falls short on what is actually believed. Physical nature or properties better coincide with what is calle "accidents". These don't change. Substance that is referred to is the "actual" nature of the thing rather than its accidents. In the case of water to wine. Jesus trasnforms the Substance and the Accidents into wine. The physical properties reflected the reality of the nature of the change in substance. Think of it this way. You may see your wife's body but the reality of your wife is not the physical body which you see but the actual woman in her spirit, thoughts, motivations. Her body may die but that isn't the end of your wife. Someone ( and I'm not suggesting that she is but only holding this as an example to explain a consept) may accuse your wife of being unattractive. But she most likely is the most beautiful woman in the world and thus very attractive. Which is the reality of your wife? Who she is in reality which is under the skin. Now this is an imperfect example in that as human beings we are very united to our bodies but it is an effort to explain how something is percieved. I know you don't believe what I do. But that is how I answer your opposition.

That is because it doesn't occur.

I believe that it does and your reason for not agree with me is limited. But we are allowed our opinion.

Hindus baptizing themselves in the Ganges River don't get their sins washed away either. They only think they do. But think away. You can think anything you want. It won't make it true.

True but one can say praying on your knees repenting to God doesn't actually bring God to forgive your sins. One can say non of your sins are forgiven because after all Muslims, and Hindus also ask their deities for forgiveness in prayer. So really the argument is irrelevant.

But if you are referring to AIC then you may be attacking him personally. It is an insult to a person to tell him what he doesn't know. It is arrogant and sinful.

He said we hold the sacraments to work like magic. I properly instructed him that we do not.

Not Jesus either. In fact there is no mention of so-called "eucharist" in the Bible.

Irrelevant. You don't find the word Trinity in the bible either but does that mean the bible doesn't teach it?

No mention in the Bible of sacrament either

Same answer as above. Just because a word isn't in the bible doesn't mean the bible doesn't teach the consept of it. These terms were developed later to express a teaching already held.

The Bible is our authority (thankfully), not Catholic literature which is so full of heresy.

See now this statement is evidence of your lack of understanding of Catholic doctrine. And this is when I say if you think this is what Catholics taught you then you weren't properly taught. The accurate doctrine with regard to scriptures is that scriptures are our Authority which goes hand in hand with the Consistent traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. Again this isn't an attack on you but rather your incorrect premise.

The word "eucharist" is not used even one time in the Bible, so you are dead wrong. Christ did not teach about the eucharist and neither did the apostles. That is false teaching right there.

as already presented. The word Trinity isn't found in scriptures either not one time. Do you therefore think a belief in the trinity is heresy? I doubt it. Eucharist is a greek term which simply means Thanksgiving freely offered. It is a discription of the last supper. Certainly Thanksgiving is found in scripture is it not? The Last supper is in the scripture is it not?

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you know how many years a priest can be in the church and teach a falsehood and not put forth proper Catholic Teaching? I mean there are Bishops which don't accurately teach the magisterium.

This is quite a condemnation upon the Roman Catholic Church. Remember, Rome claims to be the true church, and claims Baptists are nothing more than an ism and yet its ordination procedures not only permit men into the preisthood but advancement to bishop who are not properly trained or doctrinally sound according to their own church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is quite a condemnation upon the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, I view it as more of a condemnation of the liberal element in the Catholic Church that works at undermining the Church rather than the church itself.

Remember, Rome claims to be the true church,

Yes it does. The visible church on earth.

and claims Baptists are nothing more than an ism

No. Not quite right Catholics hold that Baptist hold to aspects of the true faith which makes them indeed Christian brothers, though they believe baptist don't have the fullness of truth.

and yet its ordination procedures not only permit men into the preisthood but advancement to bishop who are not properly trained or doctrinally sound according to their own church.

I think most priest are properly trained. I don't think all properly trained preists are doctrinally sound. Let me give you an example. A catholic once told me something the church doesn't teach. I said "the church doesn't teach that as these documents show" their response is well I don't agree with the Catholic Church because I'm a free thinker. I suggest then that they weren't even Catholic and should consider something else to call their faith. But I think this is what is at issue. Priest may be properly informed but choose to keep their discent quiet until ordination. And once ordained feel the freedom to spead their unsound doctrine.

But in some sense you are right it speaks poorly for what is currently going on in the seminaries of the Catholic Church. But, not that you really care, there is currently work being done to correct this problem. Seminaries and universities that aren't in line with actual teaching are currently under review to either comply with teaching or loose their "Catholic Status". Many of these issues are complicated but there is an effort to correct these issues.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, I view it as more of a condemnation of the liberal element in the Catholic Church that works at undermining the Church rather than the church itself.

So church discipline and authority does not have primacy over some parts of this institution?

No. Not quite right Catholics hold that Baptist hold to aspects of the true faith which makes them indeed Christian brothers, though they believe baptist don't have the fullness of truth.

I am not speaking of individual Baptists but the institutional Baptist "church" in comparison with the Roman Catholic "church" institution. Both cannot be the New Testament church institution and we certainly regard Catholic "church" institution as an ism not the institution found in the New Testament or built by Christ. Hence, for Catholics to claim that right as an institution and in addition claim such unity in contrast to Protestantism and others they regard institutionally as isms is quite a condemnation upon it as an institution. As an institution their ordination and promotion procedures to higher offices allow for those who are not merely ignorant of Roman Catholic beliefs but who teach false doctrine according to "proper" Catholic doctrine????

I don't think all properly trained preists are doctrinally sound.

So now you have progressed from properly trained Catholics to properly trained priests to properly trained bishops! What about properly trained archbishops and properly trained popes?

So your excuse and accusation against all former Catholics who leave Romanism is they are the consequence of improper training due to the failure with the institutional methods and processes for proper ordination of preists, bishops, archbishops and popes???

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So church discipline and authority does not have primacy over some parts of this institution?

I don't know what you mean by that. Certainly I believe the church leadership hasn't properly dealt with the issues by discipline and other means.

I am not speaking of individual Baptists but the institutional Baptist "church" in comparison with the Roman Catholic "church" institution.

I am speaking to the baptist denomination with regard to the Catholic view. You are correct in that theCatholic Church doesn't see the baptist church as "The New Testament Church". But rather a fraction off of it. The fact that Baptist hold to the beliefs espoused by the Nicean Creed indicates that on the most essential elements are adhered to of the faith. Though the aspect of "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" have different connotations to baptist group than the Catholic Church.

Both cannot be the New Testament church institution and we certainly regard Catholic "church" institution as an ism not the institution found in the New Testament or built by Christ.

Well, remember I'm speaking how Catholic's view baptist properly. I will disagree with you in that I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church as an institution in that I believe scriptures speak to it the establishment of this ecclessia.

Hence, for Catholics to claim that right as an institution and in addition claim such unity in contrast to Protestantism and others they regard institutionally as isms is quite a condemnation upon it as an institution. As an institution their ordination and promotion procedures to higher offices allow for those who are not merely ignorant of Roman Catholic beliefs but who teach false doctrine according to "proper" Catholic doctrine????

I'm trying to make sense out of what you are saying but it looks like you are saying two things. 1) In order to claim a unity of faith that somehow necissarily doesn't allow us to view Baptist as brother Christians? and 2) How can it claim unity when unfaithful clergy discent from its teaching? Is that what you are trying to say? If it is let me answer by saying. For the 1st point that in the primary senses of the most important doctrine as spelled out by Nicea we are in agreement and unified on those matters which give you the right to be christians proper with in the confines where we agree. But certainly Catholics don't claim baptist denomination are in full union with the Catholic Church. and 2) Just because there are clergy in error as has been since the writing of the NT doesn't mean the Church espouses those doctrines. Some clergy are false and are under pretense of agreeing with Catholic Doctrine only to cause damage later others become false as they put their views over time ahead of what has been traditionally taught. But in either case it doesn't change the Traditional teachings of the Church which can be found in its documents and reading of scripture.

So now you have progressed from properly trained Catholics to properly trained priests to properly trained bishops! What about properly trained archbishops and properly trained popes?

Read me in context. I said I believe most priest are trained properly but once ordained feel free to spread unsound doctrine. And its clear throughout history there have been evil bishops, archbishops, and even Popes. But in all cases the the teachings of the Chruch remain the same.

So your excuse and accusation against all former Catholics who leave Romanism is they are the consequence of improper training due to the failure with the institutional methods and processes for proper ordination of preists, bishops, archbishops and popes???

I make no excusses. And if you read me in context you will find that I believe the majority of former lay Catholics have been inadiquately formed or taught the actual teachings of the Church. Now if you read what I said to DHK I allow for a smaller group of people who were actually taught the actual teachings of the Church and still disagreed. But I rarely come accross the later compared to the former. Priest (for the most part), and bishops that go against the teachings of the church do so in full knowldege of their descent which is more insiduous. However, these are generally the ones who lead the layity astray. Look at history. Arius a priest against the consistant teaching of the Church taught that Jesus was a created being he mislead much of the Christian Church that it was said the only defender of Orthodoxy was Athenasius. That the saying became Athenasius Contra Mundum (Athenasius against the world). Certainly he wasn't the only one but it makes my point. The lay people may have held Arian beliefs in general bu they did so in ignorance which is why Nicea was so important.

 

[DHK]

Just because I repeat a truth doesn't change the nature of that truth.

You are not repeating a truth. That is the sad part isn't it? You are stuck in a rut repeating the same lie every time, an illusion of the truth for the real truth has evaded you. You became disillusioned with the truth long ago and turned away from it.

Contrarily. I take you all very seriously. You are quite knowledgeable about your beliefs and scripture. What I find interesting is that you don't offer that you may have been improperly catachized because of your experience. Your whole knowledge is based on experience rather than what is expressedly taught.

That is not entirely true either. Most of us have an advantage over you. Not only did we become thoroughly familiar with the workings of the RCC from within, from a practical point of view, since our salvation we have studied even more Vatican II, some of the ECF, the Catechism in more detail, and other RCC material (not Jack Chick). We have that advantage that you don't. We grew up in it. I can still quote much of the mass in Latin.

Know I know there are some that have studied and disagree which I believe is honest. However, what is often tougted as Catholic Teaching often is not. But the replies are always or usually, I was an alter boy, or I knew a nun or a priest. Which as I have shown aren't always reliable authoritative sources for accurate Catholic Teaching.

However, when the experience coincides as the same heresy that the Bible teaches it is, then the ex-Catholic can fully relate. You come along and say that it doesn't, and that is where you are wrong. You do exactly what the Bible says: "calling evil, good and good, evil."

So when someone makes a clear statement revealing a false view of something that isn't taught by the magisterium and accuses the church of teaching it then I must correct the error. Speak against what is actually taught by the church and I will pay attention to what you say but if you quote Jack Chick nonsense cartoons then you can't expect me to believe you were actually catachized.

And herein lies the difference. You rely on a group of ungodly men who taught ungodly doctrine, based on ungodly tradition collated into a Catechism that is contrary to Scriptures.
I believe in the supreme authority of the Scriptures, no matter what any Catechism, Confession of faith, Early Church Father, or whoever else there may be. The Bible alone is my final authority making God himself my authority. My authority is much higher than yours. I am accountable only to Him.
We believe in a doctrine called the priesthood of the believer, where every person is a priest before God, and is able to straight before God without any mediator. Our one mediator is Christ. Of course Christ himself is God.

Look I know from my own life I was improperly catachized as a child which is why I initially left. When I encountered the actual teaching of the Catholic Church however the story changed.

If I remember correctly your testimony is that you grew up in a Baptist Church, and had a bad experience there, and that is why you left. But, Baptists don't have catechisms. They have programs for kids like Sunday School, Junior Church, etc. If you had a bad experience at the church you were at, there could have been a number of reasons why: not the least of which would have been a rebellious heart at the age you were at (and perhaps still are).

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
--It was foolishness wasn't it? It probably still is.

The foolishness of the gospel to the RCC is also what the apostle Paul calls "accursed."
This is very easy to sort out, though it might be worthy of another thread. In my mind it is very clear. Jesus gave a simple command--a necessity.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
--You must be born again.
Now either you are born again or you are not.
A person is born again when they put their faith and trust in Christ, and at the same time the Holy Spirit comes and regenerates them. It is an event that happens when one trusts the Lord as their Savior.

According to the RCC Catechism it is baptism. It is baptismal regeneration. The Catechism states so very clearly that the new birth is baptism. That is the most heretical thing that one can state. Here is the very crux of the gospel--the crucial determination at which a man's soul will end up in heaven or hell, and the RCC simply tells you to sprinkle some water on him?? Such heresy!! That will send him straight to hell.

Are you born again or not? If so how? If you are born again according to the RCC catechism, then you are not born again at all. And if you are not born again you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now DHK lets be a bit more honest. Clarifying a misconseption is not a personal attack. Its a clarification. The personal attack is to accuse someone of believing something they don't believe. So if I respond saying, No, Catholics don't believe that and am met with well I was an alter boy and my aunt Betty always if you bury a St. Joseph's statue upside down you will sell your house and a nun and priest agreed with her. I must point out that this is superstition plain and simple and has nothing to do with Catholic Teaching.

We all have different experiences. No one is fallible, and you don't stand beside every priest in the world scrutinizing every word they say to judge if they measure up to the Catechism or not. Of course there is the chance that some of them may be right and you wrong (according to the RCC catechism). It is difficult to judge a person's experience not knowing the full context it was given in, and the people that were teaching at that time.

I was a Catholic. I was an altar boy. My parents were devout. We had an "idol" of St. Christopher that magnetically stuck to the dash of the car. The priest told "taught" that if we prayed to the "idol" of St. Christopher, that he would keep us safe, because he was the patron saint of travel. Thus before long journeys someone would pray to St. Christopher for our safety.

What is wrong with that scenario?
1. It is idolatry.
2. The only one deserving of our prayers and veneration is God, and him alone.
3. Praying "to the saints" is forbidden.
4. And last of all, years later after I left the RCC, I found out that there was no such person as "Saint Christopher" in the first place. It was all a hoax.

Not at all its calling someone mistaken. I don't deny a person had an experience. But an experience is just that it doesn't testify to the accuracy of the belief.

As in the above example, it depends on the context.

Irrelevant. Do you know how many years a priest can be in the church and teach a falsehood and not put forth proper Catholic Teaching?

Can't the Vatican control its own workers? Why is he a priest in the first place?

I mean there are Bishops which don't accurately teach the magisterium. As an example and it has nothing to do with you personally let me put up the Catholic Winnepeg Statement as the example. The Catholic Bishops of Canada tried to dissent nationally from the Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church expressed in Humanae Vitae. Certainly these men have together much more training in Catholicism yet still taught contrary to Catholic Teaching. So the fact you spent many years as a Catholic is irrelevant to providing authoritative statement regarding a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Which is a good example of how the RCC is not unified.

Honestly, I don't know. However, I do know in any logical progression no matter how flawless your methodology regarding any topic if you start with the wrong premise you end up with a wrong conclusion.

Quite true. But I don't believe my premises are wrong. Remember that I have the Bible as my final authority. Look at the way I approached the topic of the "new birth." I went to the Scriptures first. Everything is measured against what the Bible says. You don't do that. You measure things against what the magesterium or ECF says. I have a higher authority.

You're right I don't. However, look at your approach to the subject. You aren't supplying documents you are expressing your experience. This can only be unsastifactory. When I went to my old baptist church one of the youth leaders was constantly drunk during Kid's Church and bible study. My daughter may years latter believe because of her experience that baptists are always drunk is that a valid argument against baptist teaching? Of course not! Which has been and is my point. BTW that example actually happened. But I don't hold that against baptist.

I am not surprised. You had a bad experience at the Baptist church you went to. That kind of thing has never happened in any of the churches that I am associated with. I can give you some examples where just to join the members covenant together never to drink.

 

[DHK]

[FONT=&quot]

This isn't true. If you say I believe things happen magically when in fact I don't. Then I will call you on it. And if you say the Catholic Church teaches that things happen magically contradicting what it teaches. I can only assume that 1)You are misinformed. and If you then say well I was a Catholic then 2) your misinformation originated while you were a catholic which means you weren't properly Catachized. Its not a matter of personal attack. Its a matter of pointing out an inaccuracy.

I believed as the Catholic Church had taught, naturally, and as you seemingly believe now. Looking back I wonder how could I have believed such nonsense? No matter which way you cut it transubstantiation does not make sense. It is superstitious, magic, pagan, or call it what you will. It is not Christianity. The flesh of Christ is never eaten. Period. In fact it is not even sacrificed in the mass, as they do call it "the sacrifice of the mass."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes, I believed. But then I got saved, and my spiritual eyes were opened. I turned from the heresy of the RCC to the truth of God's Word.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Now see this statement I don't have a problem with you not believing what I believe but you haven't said "Catholics" say its magic. And if you believe I'm decieved, fine. I disagree with you however.

You have been deceived in turning from the gospel of Christ unto the error of the RCC which you are representing on this thread. So the "you" becomes just as symbolic as the RCC at this point doesn't it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Again I believe Chist established it and perpetuates it. And I have scriptural reasons for believing so. But I allow that you don't hold my view.

No, I don't. There is not much in the RCC that I do hold to.[/FONT]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If I remember correctly your testimony is that you grew up in a Baptist Church, and had a bad experience there, and that is why you left.

Just for clarification purposes. My testimony is that I was raised Catholic and had many of the negative experiences many of you have had. And I was improperly taught the faith. My Family Moved to Uganda and I was sent to school at a missionary boarding school in Kenya named Rift Valley Acadamey (RVA which is repeatedly confused by you as being RCIA two entirely different things) which is under the African Inland Mission where I first properly understood the gospel through and evangelist preacher during convocation and publicly asked Jesus into my life and I left the Catholic Church and did not return to it until 26 years latter. In that 26 years not only was I taught the bible at RVA, but I also went to a pentecostal university for my undergraduate work and an American Baptist University for my graduate work. It was during and after my graduate school that I applied my aquired disciplines to the specific study of Scriptures, Doctrinal development of Christianity, church history, and like Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis Schaeffer), Henry Newman, Gk Chesterson, Francis Beckwith (former president of the Evangelical Theological Society), Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Thomas Howard, and others that Christian Orthodoxy and Proper Scriptural understandings were found in the Classical Christian Churches rather than any of the denomination born of the Reformation and for me specifically it was the Catholic Church. That is not to say there weren't problems with the Southern Baptist Church I was attending (there was) but if I hadn't been convinced of the Catholic Faith I would have simply left that Church for another baptist Church near by. In fact I was eyeing up a Bible Baptist Church which I'm latter thankful that I didn't go there as the youth minister was just convicted of molesting teenage girls. (not that those things don't happen in other churches just that it was that specific church I had considered attending). And my current specific Parish that has never been an issue though certainly in other specific parishes it may be.

 

[The Biblicist]

under the African Inland Mission where I first properly understood the gospel through and evangelist preacher during convocation and publicly asked Jesus into my life and I left the Catholic Church

Are you saying that this inland mission taught the Roman Catholic view of the gospel and then you left the Catholic Church because at that point in time you didn't think the Catholic Church taught that same "properly understood" gospel but later came to realize they did and thus returned?

Hence, this inland missionary taught the Roman Catholic gospel and that is what you initially embraced and what you kept on embracing but simply realized that Rome also taught it?

 

[Bob Hope]

Damned to hell or not? Discuss.

It would be case by case just like everyone else. Only God can know your heart.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you saying that this inland mission taught the Roman Catholic view of the gospel and then you left the Catholic Church because at that point in time you didn't think the Catholic Church taught that same "properly understood" gospel but later came to realize they did and thus returned?

Hence, this inland missionary taught the Roman Catholic gospel and that is what you initially embraced and what you kept on embracing but simply realized that Rome also taught it?

It is clear from this statement you don't know what you're talking about. Africa Inland Mission got it start from Peter Cameron Scott a missionary from the International Missionary Alliance together with the Philadelphia Missionary Council put together AIM. Rev. Charles Hurlburt who was president of the Pennsylvania Bible Institute recuited many of AIM's first Missionaries who built RVA for their kids.
You're so Anti-Catholic you see Catholic "demons" around every corner. It's sad really.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It occures to me biblicist that you think there are multiple primary Gospel messages which causes you to make the nonsense statements as you have in your previous post. There is one primary euaggelion message which all Christians Catholic/Orthodox/Copt/Protestant hold in comon. Which is the oft quoted

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life

Which is played out in the incarnation, life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, and 2nd return of Jesus Christ. So that In His infinite goodness (Eph 2:7), the Father in heaven has called us (1 Pet 5:10) to be united with Him in life and joy (John 17:21), sharing His divine riches (Eph 2:7) and because we are God’s children, He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal 4:6).

 

[The Biblicist]

There is one primary euaggelion message which all Christians Catholic/Orthodox/Copt/Protestant hold in comon. .

This is your fundemental error and proves you have absolutely no concept of the Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul is very clear that there is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Cor. 11:4) preached by those who profess Jesus Christ and even claim to be his apostles - hence professed Christianity (2 Cor. 11:8-10).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not merely the same composition of terms found in John 3:16 but the same UNDERSTANDING of those terms.

"Another gospel" may be due to SUBTRACTION of one essential of the gospel as in 1 Cor. 15:8-19.

"Another gospel" may be due to an ADDITION to John 3:16 as in Galatians 1-4 or "works."

This is clearly demonstrated by Matthew 7:13-23 where the "many" taking the wrong course believe they are really believing, preaching, obeying and confessing Jesus Christ but they are not (Mt. 7:23) not his and NEVER were his people.

You are sadly ignorant of the truth of gospel and it shows in everyone of your posts.

The bottom line is that the true gospel has not one word about what you do for God but only what God has done for you through Christ - 1 Cor. 15:3-4.


IF that was the "properly understood" gospel you embraced then as now then you have yet to understand and embrace the true gospel of Jesus Christ until this very day and no wonder you returned back to Romanism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is your fundemental error and proves you have absolutely no concept of the Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ah you purposely avoided the phrase in my post which says "in common". What you also fail to understand that Paul in saying what has been translated "another Gospel" using the word heteros meaning as opposed. And its clear that your fundemental error which "proves you have absolutely no consept of the Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ" is that Paul says

and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one

You just got embarrased because you were called on the carpet for not knowing what you were talking about in regards to RVA. And try to throw at me the most obscure response when I so clearly pointed out exactly the Gospel I was speaking of. But of course you can't even argue that point. So you grasp at straws ignoring that I said all christians hold in common and that I spelled exactly what that was focusing on another not realizing Paul meant oppositional and also not knowing Paul says there is no other Gospel.

See the challenge you face is that a person who came to belief on Jesus Christ as his personal savior may indeed go Catholic. In your soteriological view that just isn't possible so you must with all your effort attempt to show that that Person never came to a belief in Jesus Christ as his personal savior thus being in your mind forensically saved. You must hold that he did not hear the same gospel preached that you did. So as this post of yours shows you will go to no ends to make that point.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ah you purposely avoided the phrase in my post which says "in common".

Why should I intentionally avoid that phrase?!?

What you also fail to understand that Paul in saying what has been translated "another Gospel" using the word heteros meaning as opposed.

Close but no prize! You don't understand the play on words or the context. What he is denying is that there is "another" of the same kind ("allos") of Gospel not that there are not gospels of a different ("herteros") kind. The whole purpose of the book of Galatians is to expose the gospel being preached to them as "another" in kind rather than the same in kind received through Paul. The gospel being preached to them does not omit anything that can be found in John 3:15. It does not omit Jesus or the cross or his death or but simply denies what Christ did was sufficient and ADDS your works in order to be sufficient for justification.

You just got embarrased because you were called on the carpet for not knowing what you were talking about in regards to RVA.

You need to go back and read what I said. I made no statements about RVA but merely asked you a question for clarification in my first paragraph and then drew a conclusion about what you said in the second paragraph conditioned upon my understanding in the first paragraph, which again, was put to you in a form of a question.

 

[billwald]

>It would be case by case just like everyone else. Only God can know your heart.

YES! and all our hearts are evil.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is clear from this statement you don't know what you're talking about.

It is clear from this response you did not carefully read what I said in the first place. I made no statements about AIF. Look at my first paragraph! It is a QUESTION not a statement.

The second paragraph drew a conclusion conditioned upon the correctness of the first paragraph which again was put to you in a form of a question so that you could clarify if I did not properly understand you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why should I intentionally avoid that phrase?!?

because you dichotomize the Catholic Gospel from Christian Gospel. So that there isn't an "in common" in your view. But clearly that isn't the case.

Close but no prize! You don't understand the play on words or the context.

I certainly understand what Paul is getting at. He's talking about opposing gospels which is why the next verse says not that there is another. You either have the gospel or you have an opposing gospel.

You need to go back and read what I said. I made no statements about RVA but merely asked you a question for clarification in my first paragraph

Indirectly you certainly did. And framed your question in such nonsense terms that its nearly impossible to make heads or tails of what you were saying. The Gospel as there is only one real gospel which btw I identified specifically to which I referred to as having not percieved or understood until such time as I heard it preached at RVA. My statement is clear. Your opaque response seemed nonsensical in light of that.

Keep in mind when it comes to RVA, I take things quite personally because it was there that my life was certainly changed and I developed a walk with the Lord. It holds in my mind the most beautiful, wonderous, and grace filled rememberance for me. Any aspertions towards that institution's memory is met with deliberate resistance on my part. FYI.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is clear from this response you did not carefully read what I said in the first place. I made no statements about AIF.

The fact that you call it AIF changes the whole tone of this post.