You as a Christian Evangelizing Catholics.

Most Catholics I know are already saved, and therefore don't need to be evangelized to.

 

Given your all-facts-bent-for-the-rcc approach so far I can understand why you "need" to say that even though you have no information at all about the specific case referenced.


The "mere fact" that it is not in favor of the RCC necessitates your position. I get that. Go ahead and turn a blind eye to it. I see your point clearly.

 

Tell me something - during the Protestant reformation in Europe as all those Catholics were "protesting" do you really "imagine" that there was NO FAMILY that turned to the Protestant POV -- at least not 3 or 4 in the same family!!?

I guess if you are just going to make stuff up - making that up about the post you mention is just as good as making stuff up about anything else you don't know about.

 

Acts 17:11 never died.

The non-Christians of Acts 17:11 found Sola Scripture - a method sufficient to judge the Apostle Paul.

If it is no longer "sufficient" even though we now have the FULL 66 for reference -- then the Bible needed to mention it!

The point is obvious.

Having said that - you are the that brought up the dead horse idea that Acts 17:11 is insufficient (along with the rest of the Bible) to show that the Sola Scriptura principle for evaluating doctrine can be trusted.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Interesting that this is the VERY testimony that Mioque's OP was "supposedly" looking for - then when it is produced the response is "nahhh - I can't believe that it would be too much success for God and too little success for my bias".

The Mioque response seems to be "though I know nothing about the history given here - I shall make up my own" -- (which is not all that unnusual for Mioque when it comes to revisionist histories now that I mention it).

But the testimony given remains a good example of the power of God's Word - Mioque not-withstanding

 

You seem to make a lot of "assertions" just at the point that you claim to have no information at all.

I find that method of vaccuous assertion - curious but typical.

Do you have any facts to go with what you are saying?

It may interest you to learn that the Gospel method is -

#1. Step one convince the lost of their "need".

God the Holy Spirit convicts "the WORLD of sin and rignteousness and judgment" instead of using the surgar-coated "I'm ok your ok" pscycho-babel you seem to prefer on this point.

I am simply pointing out that those Catholics that make an informed decision to leave the RCC are "given facts that show the need to move".

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

mioque,

You are posting back and forth with Bob, but its my family you are referring to so...

Mioque, I dont really care if you believe me or not. My Dad, Mom, and sister all found Christ on their deathbed.

It is, and I'm surprised a moderator hasnt said something. Most boards of this type have rules about insulting/personal attacks(as this one does) but I personally am not bothered that much and have no intention of "turning you in".

You are free to think what you want.

I never said it was a short period of time. The 3 deaths happened during about a 10 year period of time.

I dont know if you mean me(the one with the 3 deathbed conversions) or Bob Ryan.(the one these comments of yours where directed to).

If Bob, his style of witnessing is irelavent since it is my family who are the family in question.

If me, again I dont care if you believe me or not. It seems a bit odd that you actually think I would use my mother, father and sisters deaths as objects of a lie, but you are free to.

As far as my witnessing style, I dont have one. I trust God to use me as He desires in whatever circumstances arise. One shouldnt always use the same "style". One should let God use them as He desires.

Sometimes I am rather bold. Other times I am just the opposite. You have no way of knowing how I witnessed to my family during the years before they passed away.

I will share this specific thing. After I planted seeds with my mom for many years, with her stubbornly fighting against God, the one who witnessed to her the last time was a nurse who was taking care of her. This nurse apparently broke hospital rules, to which I am eternally grateful, and shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with her...which she finally accepted.

I planted seeds, others watered, this nurse finally watered one last time, and God gave the increase.

And I say...Praise God!

God bless you,

Mike

 

Chrisitans SHOULD be evangelizing Catholics--Christians SHOULD be witnessing to the lost.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

 

Yes, it's absolutely true 100% that we should be witnessing to the lost. However, we should refrain from presuming that a person who is a catholic is automatically lost. As I stated earlier, most Catholics I know are already saved, and therefore don't need to be evangelized to. As for the lost, I will, if prompted by the Holy Spirit, witness to anyone who's lost, whether they be a Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Quaker, Baptist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, any other religion, or no religion at all.

 

Johnv,

I agree that there are born again Catholics.

But I would venture that more than likely 9 out of every 10 Catholics one might randomly encounter are no more saved than Satan is. And if they are a member of the clergy...priest, nun, bishop, etc...the percentage becomes much much smaller than 1 of 10. (personally I think the 1 of 10 figure is being very generous)

Everything in me wishes that what you posted there is true, but I believe you would be shocked if you knew how few...if any...of the Catholics you personally know are saved.

God bless,

Mike

 

Acts 17:11 never died.

The non-Christians of Acts 17:11 found Sola Scripture - a method sufficient to judge the Apostle Paul.

If it is no longer "sufficient" even though we now have the FULL 66 for reference -- then the Bible needed to mention it!

The point is obvious.

Having said that - you are the that brought up the dead horse idea that Acts 17:11 is insufficient (along with the rest of the Bible) to show that the Sola Scriptura principle for evaluating doctrine can be trusted.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]It's Dead Horse because you and I have already thrashed this one out; you know what I believe about it and I know what you think. My point was I don't want Mioque's thread to be derailed by yet another spat between us on this issue that we're simply not going to agree on.

Mike, just for you info, my uncles are both Catholic priests and they are as saved as you or I are (in so far as anyone can speculate about the salvation of others). And they happen to be good Catholics. Make of that what you will...

 

MattBlack,

Well I certainly hope thats true, and am glad of it if it is.

God bless,

Mike

 

What is the salvation should be defined first because we notice many people believe themselves are saved, but they are not, when we read Mt 7:22. They expected that they would be accepted as born-again believers by Lord. But the Lord clearly says " I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity" Mt 7:23. They firmly believed that they could enter the heaven!

 

"The only point" in publishing the issues with Catholicism and the Word of God is the extent to which the Word of God "actualy makes a DIFFERENCE" - your efforts at revisionist histories not withstandig.

My point is that though you make this into nothing more than a crusade to promote your revisionist histories (inlcuding revisionism argued totally out of the void of what you do not know - as in the case of Db28guy's testimony regarding his own family history) - there is a much larger purpose than that in view!

See?

In Christ,

Bob