Am I Wrong?

[Dokimas]

Do you think people like Benny Hinn,John Hagee,Joyce Meyer and Mike Murrock are all Christians

Why does it matter what I think? It’s not up to me, just as it’s not up to you where I’m in God’s full graces or not. As Jesus said to Peter that it was none of his business what would happen with John so it’s none of my business about those you mention. Do any of them claim to be God or God’s only real spokesmen?​

Bill, do non-Christians have anything to fear from you or the CC?

 

[Dokimas]

Notice that in my post, I said that “Evangelical Protestants tend to be preoccupied with Catholicism and slam it…” This may be because my entire Evangelical experience (roughly 25 years) was lived in the most heavily Catholic state in the union and that many of my coreligionists were ex-catholics who considered themselves as having been “saved out of catholicism”. I was steeped in dispensationalism and hung out with Dallas Theological Seminary-types. When I drifted to reading Schaeffer (Francis, that is) and became more Reformed (enter Calvin) I was ostracized. This was the beginning of the end of Sola Scriptura for me. The Emperor was, after all, naked. This discovery started me on a journey where all my ecclesiastical, exegetical and hermeneutical presuppositions detonated.

I live in a Catholic state. I’ve already noted that ex-Catholics are the most negative toward Catholicism. I have no problem with Dallas Theological Semiary. I really like Howard Hendricks.​

I’ve read a bit from F Schaeffer and learned a lot. I’ve learn a lot from some of his videos.

 

[a_priori]

I live in a Catholic state. I’ve already noted that ex-Catholics are the most negative toward Catholicism. I have no problem with Dallas Theological Semiary.

Just for the sake of discussion, DTS has God in a box and they can describe in great detail what He thinks about almost everything. They can draw you a picture of the end of the world on the back of a cocktail napkin. I know, I used to be very good at drawing the map myself. God is all wrapped up with a nice neat dispensational bow. They are the keepers of a hermeneutic that goes back only as far as J.N. Darby in the 1830’s and was perpetuated by the likes of Ryrie, Scofield, Lindsey, et.al.

The problem is, what do we do about the fact that they crash headlong into scholars from the Reformed camp. Who is correct? When two people armed with sola scriptura come to mutually-exclusive conclusions, who’s right?

This is exactly the point where Protestantism collapses under its own weight.

 

[emseguin]

Dear Jon,

**
Is not Transub (and for Lutherans, sacramental Union) attempts to explain? Doesn’t attempting to do so contradict what you and I agree on; that we can never understand what truly happens at consecration? **We both agree that the bread and wine become the body and blood. ****It is a mystery, expressed as best we can by transub in your case, and sacramental union in mine, and Christ nor scripture confirms (or denies) either .

First, we do not both agree that the bread and wine become the body and blood, as you reject transubstantiation. SO in that case, there is a BIG difference.

But aside from that, Transub does “explain” it as it tells us what is happening, that the bread and wine changes, literally into Him.
What I am trying to say is that, yes we can explain it, as we have, in Transub, but we can never really UNDERSTAND it, being that we are human.

So for us Catholics, we believe it and know what is happening, but we cannot UNDERSTAND IT as richly and profoundly as it is. I mean, it is CHRIST. (God can do anything, and He said he is this Bread and Wine, so He is. One cannot put limits of Christ. He can be whatever he wants and we dont have to understand it)
If we saw him we would probably die of love, drop to our knees and die of love because we cannot contain his Divinity, and beauty and love - you get it?

An easier one for Protestants, because you believe in his ressurection, is, yes we “understand” He ressurrected, we believe He did, BUT WE CANNOT TRULLY GRASP it as we are human, people dont just ressurect everyday! I mean come on, who can really understand the ressurection or the assumption or being born of a Virgin?
Woooooooo! God is powerful and can do anything. Humans have limits and put limits cause they want to knowwwwwwww everything and proooooove everything.
Well, like i always say, your religion in that case, whoever, is New Age, being your own God.

So that is why they are Mysteries…they are mysterious

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[luke1_28]

It is enough to know that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood. All attempts to explain it are at best speculative.

Jon

Rather than speculate on HOW the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood, a more fruitful contemplation is WHY…

From the very beginning, all God’s creation was being prepared to receive Christ, not just as a man that was God. Creation, was through time and history being prepared to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The Old Testament is a recording of mankinds preparation for what was to be fulfilled in the New Testament.

After the initial first sin of our parents, God’s people were ‘getting in practice’ for what was to come by the reception and practicing of God’s covenental oaths and the explicit details in order to fulfill and practice the oaths that God established between Himself and His children. The oaths themselves were promises of God to man that if man would just follow the directives outlined in the oaths, man would be as happy as he could be here on earth and he would be saved from death of body or of the soul. There were several covenants established and every time, man was the breaker of the covenants. Therefore, we can see in the Old Testament, God preparing man by instructing him in explicit forms of True Worship and how Our Father who is in heaven wanted to be worshipped. Cain gave an offering of his crops, Abel gave an offering of his flock. Noah gave an offering of clean animals, Moses instituted the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb at Passover. Sacrifice is what is required from man to atone for the sins we offend so loving of a God with. Because at each turn that the Father tried to love us, we failed to love back the same. While the Father’s method of worship that he prescribed was perfect and every oath that God established would have sufficed, mankind was suffering from the sins of our first parents and it just kept snowballing into a mess of free wills offending God. The practice of that worship became something mechanical and unanimated. God required love back for the love He showed His people. And all His people could do was pay lip service to avoid the wrath of God. That’s not the love God wants. Love out of fear…instead of loving for Love’s sake.

Something radical had to be done, something extraordinary, something revolutionary. For the free will of men to be seen as a gift so that they could freely give their will back to God, God Himself had to come and show us ‘The Way’. The sin of Adam and Eve needed a dramatic reversal and therefore redemption was in order for the perversion of mankind, His images and likenesses had gotten so bad since the first sin, what was to come had to defeat evil once and for all.

So to study the Old Testament in ALL of its depth is to see the people God began to prepare and in the New Testament, His children’s activity in the Church Christ came to establish. Christ set forth the prime example of True Worship and fulfilled every covenant and Law established in the Old Testament. He didn’t abolish them. For example…What did Adam do for his wife, Eve? He gave his body to give life to her. God ‘put Adam to sleep’, and removed some of his body - to give his wife a body. I don’t know the specifics, but I am pretty sure Adam might have thought, “Umm Dad, you can do anything. Why you gotta take a piece of me to give life to her?” I don’t think he did it so charitably or completely of his free will. Whatever the case, look at Christ in contrast…

Christ came so that His Bride might have Life. We can see the Truth of this in that the Father communicated through His Chosen people and the prophets that He would come and save His people…and His name would be called Emmanuel. Always preparing us along the way in the Old Testament, when the fullness of time had come, God came. But check this out…How did Christ receive His Body? The New Adam, in the redeeming of man and the reversal of damnation, received His Body, from a virgin female named Mary. The Father could have chose several different ways to come to mankind. He could have descended on man in a glorifed body and vanquished sin right then and there. But the Father dwelt Himself with Adam and Eve - and that didn’t matter - they still turned their backs on Him. So I would imagine, that the same question came through the mind of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “Umm Dad, you can do anything. Why you gotta use me to give life to Him?” This time though God didn’t have to put Mary to sleep to give life to Himself…- a humble submission to God’s will occurred…a response quite different than knocking Adam out to give life to Eve. “Be it done to me according to Thy Word.” Those words - gave ALL mankind the open Door through which the Creator would again dwell with His creation in a perfect way.

St. John the Baptist then decries that “There’s the Lamb of God- that takes away the sins of the world.” As we seen in the Old Testament, anytime an atonement sacrifice was made, it had to be eaten. As we see in the New Testament, the Sacrifice had to be eaten as well.

Furthermore we tend to overlook the requirement of the Sacrifice to reverse all that man did to God’s creation. It had to be perfect. The Lamb of God had to be perfect. Unblemished, spotless, sinless. For us to see Mary as just another sinful human being, detracts from the very fact that the Lamb of God Himself was perfect. Again, God could have chosen any other way to come to mankind - but he chose Mary. Knowing all hearts, God found something special in this Lady because He Himself created Her. The pre-emption of salvation for Mary is only logical - because in order for the Lamb of God to atone perfectly for mankind - the flesh that He took onto His Body had to be unblemished, spotless, sinless.

God bless,
luke1_28

 

[emseguin]

Luke 1_28

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::
:clapping::clapping::clapping::

Peace of Christ to you

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I must agree with Hisalone on more than one account.​

First, we don’t spend much time at all being against anyone. BTW, Catholics are quite against Protestants.​

Second, Mr Jones and Mr Koresh were not, most likely, Christian at all. Mr Jones at least was very wicked. I don’t know about the third one you mentioned. If Mr Koresh made himself to be God as Mr Jones did, then he too was wicked.

There are also sociological details to bear in mind: RCism is ***institutionally ***united in a way that Protestantism is not; the unity of Protestantism is real, but is of a different kind. Protestantism is not comparable to Catholicism in visible structures - so it is very hard to make comparisons that will not mislead.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I spent decades in most corners of the Protestant world as a Church Elder, Bible teacher, prison ministry coordinator and leader of men’s ministry. Now I’m Catholic. Trust me on this one. Evangelical Protestants tend to be preoccupied with Catholicism and slam it at every opportunity whereas Catholics are actually fairly ambivalent about Protestants. If you ask the average Catholic what they think of Protestants the likely response will be “I don’t think about Protestants”.

Evangelical Protestants are not the only kind. Which reduces the size of your sample a bit. For that matter, not all even of them are “pre-occupied” with Catholicism.​

 

[Dokimas]

Just for the sake of discussion, DTS has God in a box and they can describe in great detail what He thinks about almost everything. They can draw you a picture of the end of the world on the back of a cocktail napkin. I know, I used to be very good at drawing the map myself. God is all wrapped up with a nice neat dispensational bow. They are the keepers of a hermeneutic that goes back only as far as J.N. Darby in the 1830’s and was perpetuated by the likes of Ryrie, Scofield, Lindsey, et.al.

The problem is, what do we do about the fact that they crash headlong into scholars from the Reformed camp. Who is correct? When two people armed with sola scriptura come to mutually-exclusive conclusions, who’s right?

This is exactly the point where Protestantism collapses under its own weight.

I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that those who believe ‘sola scriptura’ don’t say they’re correct 100% of the time, like the CC. I’ll take the Bible over tradition but my understanding is falible, as is the understanding of every group, including the CC.​

BTW, what you’re saying about each of these groups is that they are dogmatic about what they believe to be true. How is that different from the CC? You think your church is correct and I’ll bet you could fit on several napkins the CC plan for all of us.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes I agree. John Calvin killed unwed young girls along with their unborn babies by drowning for the “sin” of being pregnant. (Reference available on request.) Should we keep unwed mothers away from Calvinists?

Reference requested.​

Reformed Geneva until 1564 was not a Calvinocracy - and Calvin was not its sole ruler. Much of what is charged against him, turns out on inspection to have been the work of others as well. Which makes apportioning blame a bit harder.

The policy of Pius V towards homosexuals on the other hand was widespread in the Catholic world for centuries, and was not of his making: they were burrned alive. Yet Pius V is a fully canonised Catholic Saint.

Maybe Calvin should have adopted the Roman practice, and burned plenty of homosexuals; then he might have more RC admirers.

 

[Dokimas]

Reference requested.​

Reformed Geneva until 1564 was not a Calvinocracy - and Calvin was not its sole ruler. Much of what is charged against him, turns out on inspection to have been the work of others as well. Which makes apportioning blame a bit harder.

The policy of Pius V towards homosexuals on the other hand was widespread in the Catholic world for centuries, and was not of his making: they were burrned alive. Yet Pius V is a fully canonised Catholic Saint.

Maybe Calvin should have adopted the Roman practice, and burned plenty of homosexuals; then he might have more RC admirers.

interesting post​

It usually come back to bite when a person ‘casts the first stone’. I’m not referring to you, Gottle.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What’s your point? Is there a reason to fear the Catholic Church? I don’t; should I?

I do - and I’ll admit it. The COMECE is in favour of the EU, and the EU is a danger to political freedom; as its shameless behaviour in the matter of the Irish referenda shows: for when the Irish said “No” to the revived Lisbon Treaty, the answer “No” was not accepted by the EU; the Irish had to answer it again, which they now have, by saying “Yes”. Norway (?) was treated in exactly this way. The EU is like a a vampire - it sucks up the powers & liberties of national legislatiures. Now it wants its own army, ambassador, President - but none of this was mentioned when the various nations joined it. It is a great danger than Hitler - he at least was an open enemy; in which he was more honest than the EU is.​

Yet the European Bishops are on the side of this monster; it is a disgrace (to use the weakest language possible) to use spiritual power in order to support a political authority. For the European Bishops to do this, & the Bishops of Scotland, England, and Wales not to reject such a misuse of episcopal authority, makes the British bishops traitors & comforters of the enemies of this country.

So the Church is extremely dangerous.

 

[a_priori]

Reference requested.​

"In Calvin’s Orwellian theocracy…the Consistory [Calvin’s thought police], made no distinction between religion and morality…legislation specified the number of dishes to be served at each meal and the color of the garments worn.What one was permitted to wear depended upon who one was, for never was a society more class-ridden.

Abortion was not a political issue because any single woman discovered with child was drowned …[along with her unborn child and her lover, if he could be found.]

The ultimate crime, of course was heresy…holding religious beliefs at odds with those of the majority was no excuse in Calvin’s Geneva, or for that matter, in other Protestant theocracies. It was the consummate irony of the Reformation that the movement against Rome, which had begun with an affirmation of individual judgment, now repudiated it entirely. Apostasy was regarded as an offense to God and treason to the state. As such it was punished with swift, agonizing death."

William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, pp. 190-93

Maybe Calvin should have adopted the Roman practice, and burned plenty of homosexuals; then he might have more RC admirers.

It is astounding to me that anyone could still post the suggestion that there exists anywhere in the known universe a person who doesn’t readily stipulate that the Catholic Church has been responsible for some absolutely horrendous abuses of people. The reason it was posted in the first place is because, though the offenses of the RCC are well discussed, those of Calvin are a little more obscure. Moral of the story: most of Christendom has skeletons in the closet.

 

[benidict]

I can only speak for myself: I don’t speak against, nor hate, the Catholic Church. When involved in a discussion about teachings of the CC, I’ll stand on the side of what I believe the Bible says.​

I’ve been an evangelical for 35+ yrs, I’m ordained, I’ve lead many Bible studies and while every once in a while I’ve come across negativity toward what the CC teaches (and at times by extension- against the CC itself) I can’t remember ever personally being against the CC, I’ve only been against some of its teachings. Those who are most negative against the CC are those who became Christians post their CC experience. They say they feel lied to and some have suggested they were ‘brain washed’.​

We all will have to give account for what we teach and for what we say about others. If you’re honest, just look at this board, there’s real negative feeling against some protestants. I’ve experienced inaccurate claims that I am anti-catholic and angry.

interesting you put it this way." WHAT I BELIEVE THE BIBLE SAYS." no authority just what you believe. how do you know you have the right view? a feeling? just curious. sometimes things just catch my eye.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Just for the sake of discussion, DTS has God in a box and they can describe in great detail what He thinks about almost everything. They can draw you a picture of the end of the world on the back of a cocktail napkin. I know, I used to be very good at drawing the map myself. God is all wrapped up with a nice neat dispensational bow. They are the keepers of a hermeneutic that goes back only as far as J.N. Darby in the 1830’s and was perpetuated by the likes of Ryrie, Scofield, Lindsey, et.al.

The problem is, what do we do about the fact that they crash headlong into scholars from the Reformed camp. Who is correct? When two people armed with sola scriptura come to mutually-exclusive conclusions, who’s right?

This is exactly the point where Protestantism collapses under its own weight.

priori,

Excellent post, “God in a box”… for many, this is it, exactly, God on their terms and not on God’s terms.

I also believe that many of the problems found in non-Catholic, Christianity with the leaders and founders is, in part, caused by their own ego and lack of humility, desired personal enrichment and so on.

Christ founded the Catholic Church, where as, in the many individual cases found in Protestantism…a person starts a “new” denomination, based on his or her "personal interpretation of the Bible”.

A poster here, in an earlier post wrote, “And the list goes on”, commenting on the many non-Catholic, Christian leaders (and founders), who have had problems. The interesting thing is, however, is that the primary cause of these problematic "leaders” is the false doctrine, which allowed for a bad, personal interpretation of the Bible in the first place.

The order of events goes…bad doctrine - allowing, “personal interpretation of the Bible” … leads to… bad interpretation…. that leads to… a bad “leader”…and that leads to… bad doctrine… And so on…and so on, in an endless cycle, with the original root cause being the bad doctrine allowing, “personal interpretation”.

I cannot see how Protestantism can overcome this serious flaw.

I believe that in many cases, not all, that the only reason many of these protestant denominations do survive, is that the actual error in these organizations, is the appealing part of the denomination. Where, for example, all one has to do is, this or that, and they are “Saved”, regardless of past, present or future sin.

Moreover, some here either don’t get it, or don’t know much about Catholicism, when they try to make the argument that a “Jim Jones” is the same a pedophile priest. One is a “leader” and in many cases the founder of a particular “Christian” organization/denomination, who creates false doctrine, based on his or her own “personal interpretation of the Bible” (the Jim Jones type) and the other (a pedophile priest), is a person working for a larger organization; a member, in the case of a bad priest, who is breaking the rules, betraying the organization (the Catholic Church) and acting outside of the Church’s official teachings and doctrine…

One makes doctrine, laws, rules etc… they other breaks doctrine… muck like a country, where there are Law Makers (the government) and law breakers, the people subject to those laws.

Thank you for your post.

 

[a_priori]

-It usually come back to bite when a person ‘casts the first stone’. I’m not referring to you, Gottle.

To acknowledge that all have sinned and that there are skeletons in every denominational closet is “casting the first stone”? There is something oddly mechanical and perfunctory about arguments between Christians. Christians seem to try very hard to get themselves offended. I wonder if Buddhists do this?

 

[a_priori]

Moreover, some here either don’t get it, or don’t know much about Catholicism, when they try to make the argument that a “Jim Jones” is the same a pedophile priest.

Good point. The fundamental difference between evangelicals and Catholics is the focus. In Catholicism it has nothing to do with the Priest himself. (Although pedophile Priests are a bad thing…as are pedophile Baptist ministers.) Anyway, it is about the centrality of the Eucharist. In evangelicalism it is about the sermon.

 

[kalt]

Do you know Christians/Catholics by their ‘fruit’ or by their teaching or both? Those men falsely drew people to themselves and taught false things. Mr Jones claimed to be god. If you want to think they are Christian/Catholic, be my guest. They weren’t following Jesus. Jesus is not followed by what we claim but by what we do.​

Your claim that people don’t say, ‘that person can’t be a Catholic,’ must be because it’s more important to be Catholic than Christian.​

Who brings up about the CC being evil?

You’ve never heard of the “Whore of Babylon”?


Lots of Christian churches teach things that aren’t true. Some teach that baptism is only a symol. That is a false teaching. Does that mean that those who teach and those who believe this aren’t Christian?

By your definition, only Catholics are Christians, since it is only in the Catholic Church that the “fullness” of the truth is found.

If someone sins, he is not a real Christian? One can claim to be a Christian, but it he lies, gossips, cheats on his taxes (even by padding his charitable donations deduction) or swears, by your definition, he is not a Christian. One who is telling a lie isn’t following Jesus–not by your definition.

We’re in agreement on people who think they’re God. They’re either insane or calculating. Still, many say that anyone who commits a horrible act isn’t a real Christian–Real Christians don’t commit serial murders, for example. But you know what? Real Christians commit sins. And some real Christians commit horrible sins, even murder.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Meaning what?

Jon

Jon, seriously…you don’t know what this means?

 

[JonNC]

=emseguin;5837110]Dear Jon,
First, we do not both agree that the bread and wine become the body and blood, as you reject transubstantiation. SO in that case, there is a BIG difference.

I will not be so bold as to question your faith regarding the Eucharist. I will defend my position, however, and use the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

But if you say by rejecting Transub, we reject the real presence, then we are in good comapny, as the Orthodox, too, reject it.
helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#euch

. Orthodox and Lutherans agree, whether they use the language of “metabole” or of “real presence”, that the bread and wine do not lose their essence (physis) when becoming sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. The medieval doctrine of transsubstantiation is rejected by both Orthodox and Lutherans.

Now, that is not to say that Lutherans believe Catholics do not have the real presence. Of course they do, and are blessed by it.

But aside from that, Transub does “explain” it as it tells us what is happening, that the bread and wine changes, literally into Him.
What I am trying to say is that, yes we can explain it, as we have, in Transub, but we can never really UNDERSTAND it, being that we are human.

We would consider it presumptuous, the notion that we can explain what Christ did not reveal. He simply said, “This is my body, given for you.” And Lutherans believe, teach and confess that this is most certainly true.

So for us Catholics, we believe it and know what is happening, but we cannot UNDERSTAND IT as richly and profoundly as it is. I mean, it is CHRIST. (God can do anything, and He said he is this Bread and Wine, so He is. One cannot put limits of Christ. He can be whatever he wants and we dont have to understand it)
If we saw him we would probably die of love, drop to our knees and die of love because we cannot contain his Divinity, and beauty and love - you get it?

I not only get it, I completely agree. There is nothing here to disagree with.

Jon