Renouncing the Catholic faith formally

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't think so at all, because there are many factors to consider in either joining an evangelical community or remaining in the catholic church and some are practical but very important.

You might not think it's so reasonable... but I'm sure almost everyone here lives where there is a big proportion of evangelicals. When they're precious few it actually becomes a huge deal and it makes your life very difficult.

And I understand that perfectly....but the Yahoos in the Bible belt are thick....thicker than bricks. Their idea of God is their idea of God and your a cult if you don't conform.

Now I personally believe is wrong on many many platforms, however I am content that one day you will fall away from them as soooo sooooo many have done in the past but I wont critique until you are ready to hear the gospel from one who was a Roman Catholic for over 30 years......then I will work with you.

 

[JonC]

So I can see how all of these issues would come into play, especially for ministers.

I have a good friend and former co-worker who left the Baptist faith for Mormonism. Mormonism provided him what his church lacked (by his words, his church was basically a dead social club while Mormons were active in his community). Anyway, he and is daughter is viewed by many as leaving Christianity and joining a cult. It takes it's toll. My view is that the Church was never what he was looking for in the first place, and he is a member of a cult. But ultimately being wrong does not change the fact that it was hard.

When my wife's cousin came out openly as being gay he also left the Baptist Church and joined the RCC. It is often difficult to live up to our convictions, and we often pay a price. It is also difficult to subdue those convictions to live in accordance to another's expectations. Either way doesn't make us right....but it is hard.

 

[vooks]

What is the difference between;
1. A Catholic who derive their doctrines from scriptures AND Tradition and an Adventist who derive theirs from scriptures AND Ellen White?
2. A Catholic who subscribes to papal infallibility and inspiration and an Adventist who subscribe to Ellen White infallibility and inspiration
3. A Catholic who believes they are the ONLY true religion and an Adventist who thinks all non-Adventists are Babylon?

 

[JonC]

What is the difference between;
1. A Catholic who derive their doctrines from scriptures AND Tradition and an Adventist who derive theirs from scriptures AND Ellen White?
2. A Catholic who subscribes to papal infallibility and inspiration and an Adventist who subscribe to Ellen White infallibility and inspiration
3. A Catholic who believes they are the ONLY true religion and an Adventist who thinks all non-Adventists are Babylon?

So far as I know, the difference is the gospel message. False doctrine can very well cross religious boundaries. Look at what the Reformers carried over from the RCC.

 

[Croyant]

I have a good friend and former co-worker who left the Baptist faith for Mormonism. Mormonism provided him what his church lacked (by his words, his church was basically a dead social club while Mormons were active in his community). Anyway, he and is daughter is viewed by many as leaving Christianity and joining a cult. It takes it's toll. My view is that the Church was never what he was looking for in the first place, and he is a member of a cult. But ultimately being wrong does not change the fact that it was hard.

When my wife's cousin came out openly as being gay he also left the Baptist Church and joined the RCC. It is often difficult to live up to our convictions, and we often pay a price. It is also difficult to subdue those convictions to live in accordance to another's expectations. Either way doesn't make us right....but it is hard.

There are various degrees of difficulty. If it's to the level of living like a monk for the sake of a different doctrine, then my answer is no, not now, or ever. I want to have a wife and kids one day and have already lost my young adult life, I won't consider a dead end for any reason.

 

[Croyant]

And I understand that perfectly....but the Yahoos in the Bible belt are thick....thicker than bricks. Their idea of God is their idea of God and your a cult if you don't conform.

Now I personally believe is wrong on many many platforms, however I am content that one day you will fall away from them as soooo sooooo many have done in the past but I wont critique until you are ready to hear the gospel from one who was a Roman Catholic for over 30 years......then I will work with you.

I'm ready to read it all, but it's a bit discouraging when most (not everyone, admittedly) baptists greet catholics with bold declarations that look like they're straight out of a Chick comic, like that the church it is the whore of Babylon or it is a pagan cult that has nothing to do with christianity. It just sounds wacky and not credible to my ears and has the reverse effect.

 

[JonC]

There are various degrees of difficulty. If it's to the level of living like a monk for the sake of a different doctrine, then my answer is no, not now, or ever. I want to have a wife and kids one day and have already lost my young adult life, I won't consider a dead end for any reason.

I understand. Like I said, we all count the cost and we all make our own choices. I don't hold it against you at all, and I wish you the best.

 

[Croyant]

I won't abandon it for now, I will keep frequenting it and intend to be baptized. My opinions might change, or I might get a different understanding.

However after I have given it a fair shake for a very long while it ends up a dead end then I won't accept to wither and die.

 

[lakeside]

It may not be easy being a member of the One Apostolic Christian Church but then it is absolutely nothing like our Founder had to go through for leaving us with His One Christian Apostolic Church instead of just passing our Holy Bibles.
Don't you non-Catholics often wonder why Jesus didn't have His Apostles just pass out Bibles after the Sacrifice of the Cross instead of having them going out and forming a united church system, meaning all the same doctrinal teaching in those apostolic church [ s ]

 

[JonC]

It may not be easy being a member of the One Apostolic Christian Church

It isn't. But I've counted the cost and thankfully God has extended grace to overcome difficulties I face... :wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm ready to read it all, but it's a bit discouraging when most (not everyone, admittedly) baptists greet catholics with bold declarations that look like they're straight out of a Chick comic, like that the church it is the whore of Babylon or it is a pagan cult that has nothing to do with christianity. It just sounds wacky and not credible to my ears and has the reverse effect.

It is wacky....But look, you have to understand where they are are coming from as well. The term, 'are you saved?' Will mean nothing to an unsaved person....But everything to a saved individual.....see for them, it is a new beginning....And I don't take that lightly. You shouldn't either. And brother, it doesn't come down to the church you choose.....it comes down to the walk with Christ. This brother is transformative. So let me ask you directly, have you been transformed by Grace ....by the sacrifice He made for you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is wacky....But look, you have to understand where they are are coming from as well. The term, 'are you saved?' Will mean nothing to an unsaved person....But everything to a saved individual.....see for them, it is a new beginning....And I don't take that lightly. You shouldn't either. And brother, it doesn't come down to the church you choose.....it comes down to the walk with Christ. This brother is transformative. So let me ask you directly, have you been transformed by Grace ....by the sacrifice He made for you?

Guess I got my answer.

 

[Rebel]

It may not be easy being a member of the One Apostolic Christian Church but then it is absolutely nothing like our Founder had to go through for leaving us with His One Christian Apostolic Church instead of just passing our Holy Bibles.
Don't you non-Catholics often wonder why Jesus didn't have His Apostles just pass out Bibles after the Sacrifice of the Cross instead of having them going out and forming a united church system, meaning all the same doctrinal teaching in those apostolic church [ s ]

You would do well being a fiction writer.

 

[McCree79]

It may not be easy being a member of the One Apostolic Christian Church but then it is absolutely nothing like our Founder had to go through for leaving us with His One Christian Apostolic Church instead of just passing our Holy Bibles.
Don't you non-Catholics often wonder why Jesus didn't have His Apostles just pass out Bibles after the Sacrifice of the Cross instead of having them going out and forming a united church system, meaning all the same doctrinal teaching in those apostolic church [ s ]

1. There was no printing press and scribes could not keep up with demand of scripture. Plus, it wasn't cheap and it was still being written. Your comparison is irrelevant.
2. All churches didn't have the same doctrine. Never have. Rome was different from Alexandria who was different than Antioch. There was more differences between these churches than there is in Protestant churches today. The early church quickly went in separate directions and it wasn't until Constantine, who buy force, untied doctrines. Charlemagne, by the sword, forced Christians to follow Rome. Constantine built the RCC foundation and Charlemagne built it up. The RCC was not untied to Apostolic teaching. The RCC was untied by the sword. It isn't the "church" you think it is.

 

[Rebel]

1. There was no printing press and scribes could not keep up with demand of scripture. Plus, it wasn't cheap and it was still being written. Your comparison is irrelevant.
2. All churches didn't have the same doctrine. Never have. Rome was different from Alexandria who was different than Antioch. There was more differences between these churches than there is in Protestant churches today. The early church quickly went in separate directions and it wasn't until Constantine, who buy force, untied doctrines. Charlemagne, by the sword, forced Christians to follow Rome. Constantine built the RCC foundation and Charlemagne built it up. The RCC was not untied to Apostolic teaching. The RCC was untied by the sword. It isn't the "church" you think it is.

Wow, you have really presented the facts! Absolutely!

 

[lakeside]

McCree, you are really behind the eight-ball with those two statements.
First of all if Jesus can feed the multiple by working a miracle with fish and bread then I do not limit Jesus/God from supplying Bibles to the multiple.

Secondly, you claim the Holy Bible as your only sole rule of Faith, but all you do is "cherry-pick" only those verses that support one of the man-made churches. A good example of how you ignore some of the Bible is by denying or not paying any attention about how Jesus formed His church. You're making a profound mistake by claiming this: " All churches didn't have the same doctrine " that statement is against God's Word because Jesus our Lord/ God wants to make sure His Church to always be "united " in Doctrine, entirely opposite of the Protestant system be it Baptist, JW, Mormonism, Methodists, Presbyterianism, Church of Christ, Evangelical etc.
My Bible proof for "Unity" is very clearly define in { Eph. 4: 3-6 } { Matt.16: 15-19 } Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " plus Peter was first in the receiving of the Keys. Peter was always first amongst the Apostles.

Same Doctrine- Romans 16: 17-18

United in same mind - 1 Cor.1: 10

Nothing about churches will have different conflicting doctrinal teaching. Care to point those Scriptures out that support your man-made church.

 

[Revmitchell]

McCree, you are really behind the eight-ball with those two statements.
First of all if Jesus can feed the multiple by working a miracle with fish and bread then I do not limit Jesus/God from supplying Bibles to the multiple.

Secondly, you claim the Holy Bible as your only sole rule of Faith, but all you do is "cherry-pick" only those verses that support one of the man-made churches. A good example of how you ignore some of the Bible is by denying or not paying any attention about how Jesus formed His church. You're making a profound mistake by claiming this: " All churches didn't have the same doctrine " that statement is against God's Word because Jesus our Lord/ God wants to make sure His Church to always be "united " in Doctrine, entirely opposite of the Protestant system be it Baptist, JW, Mormonism, Methodists, Presbyterianism, Church of Christ, Evangelical etc.
My Bible proof for "Unity" is very clearly define in { Eph. 4: 3-6 } { Matt.16: 15-19 } Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " plus Peter was first in the receiving of the Keys. Peter was always first amongst the Apostles.

Same Doctrine- Romans 16: 17-18

United in same mind - 1 Cor.1: 10

Nothing about churches will have different conflicting doctrinal teaching. Care to point those Scriptures out that support your man-made church.

Your error here is to ignore what people are actually doing in churches and showing what God has called for us to do. Scripture does demand unity however the reason it is even mentioned by Paul was because Paul was addressing the lack of unity in the churches.

Simply stating that no disnunity between churches can ever exist because God told us to be unified is an error of both logic and fact.

 

[McCree79]

McCree, you are really behind the eight-ball with those two statements.
First of all if Jesus can feed the multiple by working a miracle with fish and bread then I do not limit Jesus/God from supplying Bibles to the multiple.

Secondly, you claim the Holy Bible as your only sole rule of Faith, but all you do is "cherry-pick" only those verses that support one of the man-made churches. A good example of how you ignore some of the Bible is by denying or not paying any attention about how Jesus formed His church. You're making a profound mistake by claiming this: " All churches didn't have the same doctrine " that statement is against God's Word because Jesus our Lord/ God wants to make sure His Church to always be "united " in Doctrine, entirely opposite of the Protestant system be it Baptist, JW, Mormonism, Methodists, Presbyterianism, Church of Christ, Evangelical etc.
My Bible proof for "Unity" is very clearly define in { Eph. 4: 3-6 } { Matt.16: 15-19 } Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " plus Peter was first in the receiving of the Keys. Peter was always first amongst the Apostles.

Same Doctrine- Romans 16: 17-18

United in same mind - 1 Cor.1: 10

Nothing about churches will have different conflicting doctrinal teaching. Care to point those Scriptures out that support your man-made church.

JW, Mormons, Church of Christ, are not Protestants. Nice try.

You first paragraph about scripture being provide. So no you agree the RCC didn't give us scripture????

You need to look at early church history. History of Constantine and Charlemagne as well. The counsel of were designed to address early doctrinal differences. Such as the deity of Christ. Which 3 popes in a row flipped on the issue. So much for moral and faith infallibility. Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome continually had conflict. Then when Jerusalem was given patriarchal status, they pushed against Rome as well.

A big issue was Rome said he was 1st. Antioch, Alexandria, Constantiople and Jerusalem said, no you are not. They refused the ludicrous claim of the bishop of Rome.

History proves your claims wrong regarding Peter. You have zero evidence, while history shows the RCC built by Constantine and Charlemagne.

 

[JonC]

.



Simply stating that no disnunity between churches can ever exist because God told us to be unified is an error of both logic and fact.

It is also contrary to how the Pauline epistles describe the early church. Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and Jerusalem did not stand under a unified doctrine, but they are described as united in Christ.

 

[lakeside]

Perverted history by fiction writers that see a wide market for unlearned, gullible people. history has proven that fiction writers as LaHaye. Dan Brown, Chick, Boettner, JJ Carroll have all been proven as unscrupulous writers. Try reading unbias History writers like those of Jewish, secular and main-lime Protestant history writers. Even in the archives of the Church of England their history references show that the Catholic Church was formed on His apostles and all the councils contained only the bishops authority and their decisions alone. luther also agreed with most of Catholic Church history, it is only a small percentage of recent non-Catholic Christians that adhere to a revisionists history.