Defending the Catholic Faith

[zerinus]

Oh, Irony of Ironies, they thought that by breaking from the Apostates, they would not be apostate any more.

There is no proof that leaving one wrong road puts you on the right one.

At least the Mormons restarted, . . .

Thank you. I agree with you thus far!

 

[ralphinal]

Thank you. I agree with you thus far!

Not that I am saying they are right.

If you are going to claim the bunch left the road, starting a parallel path is not really fixing it.

 

[zerinus]

Not that I am saying they are right.

If you are going to claim the bunch left the road, starting a parallel path is not really fixing it.

Not sure what you meant by that.

 

[ralphinal]

Not sure what you meant by that.

If you are a part of the X Church, and you say that X went apostate, making your church 90% the same (or even 75%) may still be just as wrong.

Mormons, unlike most others, went all the way back to start with definitions and basic understandings of God. In other words, X is wrong, but we are going to be 20% X.

 

[zerinus]

If you are a part of the X Church, and you say that X went apostate, making your church 90% the same (or even 75%) may still be just as wrong.

I agree. That is the unhappy position that Protestants find themselves in.

Mormons, unlike most others, went all the way back to start with definitions and basic understandings of God. In other words, X is wrong, but we are going to be 20% X.

That doesn’t correctly describe Mormonism. Mormons didn’t just “start from the beginning”. They didn’t start by researching how it was done in beginning, and then decided to model the Church on that. Mormonism is a complete new revelation and dispensation of the gospel. I like the analogy of Daniel. He saw a stone cut out of the mountain “without hands” (Dan. 2:45). “Without hands” means that it was not man’s work, it was God’s work. Mormonism is not identical to the way the early Church was organized in the first century. It has priesthood offices, sacraments, scriptures, and practices that they did not have. It is not a “start from the beginning”. It is a completely new dispensation of the gospel.

 

[ralphinal]

I agree. That is the unhappy position that Protestants find themselves in.

That doesn’t correctly describe Mormonism. Mormons didn’t just “start from the beginning”. They didn’t start by researching how it was done in beginning, and then decided to model the Church on that. Mormonism is a complete new revelation and dispensation of the gospel. I like the analogy of Daniel. He saw a stone cut out of the mountain “without hands” (Dan. 2:45). “Without hands” means that it was not man’s work, it was God’s work. Mormonism is not identical to the way the early Church was organized in the first century. It has priesthood offices, sacraments, scriptures, and practices that they did not have. It is not a “start from the beginning”. It is a completely new dispensation of the gospel.

The last part is why you are Mormon and I am not. Simply put, you accept the claims Mormonism makes and I do not.

 

[zerinus]

The last part is why you are Mormon and I am not. Simply put, you accept the claims Mormonism makes and I do not.

Yes, that is true; and I wouldn’t try to force my beliefs on you either.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, that is true; and I wouldn’t try to force my beliefs on you either.

I try not to with mine, either

 

[2nd_Adam]

The way you quote Pope Benedict XVI in your signature is taking him dramatically out of context.

The previous poster was just trying to illustrate that to you by demonstration.

You found that offensive.

We similarly find your butchered quotation of the pope offensive.

Love is Patient

Okay, considering the lenght of our signature, how do you want me to quote Pope Benedict on his work of justification by faith alone?

 

[benedictus2]

Now that appears to be slander and breaking Forum Rules. Please post where you think I said that. I will give you an opportunity to clear yourself for apparent slander before reporting this post to a moderator. I think I was just quoting Scripture, so if you knew the Scriptures, you would not make such a slanderous intentional statement. I think we need to start another thread about abusing Scripture by personal interpretations. In addition, unintentional and intentional slander is sin against God and your siblings in Christ

http://menscrhp.com/images/cross_sunset.jpg

For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

2 Corinthians 12:20

Obviously you do not know how to read a post correctly.

The point about misquoting you was to illustrate how you have been perpetuating a subtle lie by truncating Pope Benedict’s quote. I asked you several times before why you persist in doing this when there is ample space in the signature line to quote the entire line and you did nothing about it.

Now I finally get your attention but it seems you missed the entire point of my post.

It is good that you have finally changed your by line. Why did you not quote the entire sentence from the start? Why cut a sentence mid way when doing so does violence to the whole intent of the statement.

The only reason is an intention to deceive.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Obviously you do not know how to read a post correctly.

The point about misquoting you was to illustrate how you have been perpetuating a subtle lie by truncating Pope Benedict’s quote. I asked you several times before why you persist in doing this when there is ample space in the signature line to quote the entire line and you did nothing about it.

Now I finally get your attention but it seems you missed the entire point of my post.

It is good that you have finally changed your by line. Why did you not quote the entire sentence from the start? Why cut a sentence mid way when doing so does violence to the whole intent of the statement.

The only reason is an intention to deceive.

I had no idea that you have that ability to read the heart of another. That’s amazing. If you are secure in what you believe, then you should consider bringing your posts down a few notches.

 

[benedictus2]

I had no idea that you have that ability to read the heart of another. That’s amazing. If you are secure in what you believe, then you should consider bringing your posts down a few notches.

2nd Adam, the IF part of that quote was very important and you could easily fit it in but you did not. Why?

I asked you a few times before as to why and you ignored my posts. So why?

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam, the IF part of that quote was very important and you could easily fit it in but you did not. Why?

I asked you a few times before as to why and you ignored my posts. So why?

I had to delete my :hug1: Protestant and Catholics together icon, and my Peter Kreeft article link on my previous signature to satisfy those who had issues with my original signature. I hope you guys are happy.

 

[kempo1]

I know im late in this thread but, Adam are you picking a fight with the Catholics again?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I know im late in this thread but, Adam are you picking a fight with the Catholics again?

Me???

I prefer fellowship which we challenge each other, causing us to grow in a deeper affection for God. :harp::hug1::grouphug:

 

[guanophore]

I had to delete my :hug1: Protestant and Catholics together icon, and my Peter Kreeft article link on my previous signature to satisfy those who had issues with my original signature. I hope you guys are happy.

I am happy that you included the rest of the sentence.

You can put the links on the quote itself, then you will have more room left. IM if you need help.

 

[benedictus2]

I had to delete my :hug1: Protestant and Catholics together icon, and my Peter Kreeft article link on my previous signature to satisfy those who had issues with my original signature. I hope you guys are happy.

Yes, very much. Now you are actually speaking the truth.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Yes, very much. Now you are actually speaking the truth.

Okay, I do apologize if my original signature offended many. I honestly like what the Pope taught on justification by faith… I like the entire work. When I come across Protestant siblings who have troubles receiving Catholics as Christian siblings, I will send them the two links on my signature.

 

[guanophore]

Okay, I do apologize if my original signature offended many. I honestly like what the Pope taught on justification by faith… I like the entire work. When I come across Protestant siblings who have troubles receiving Catholics as Christian siblings, I will send them the two links on my signature.

Seekers of Truth will find it, and as the HS always leads us in truimph, we will all be led toward the One Truth which is found in Him alone.

Now, if you are able to accept that what the Pope wrote has been the unfailing belief of the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles, real progress will have been made!

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
Okay, I do apologize if my original signature offended many. I honestly like what the Pope taught on justification by faith… I like the entire work. When I come across Protestant siblings who have troubles receiving Catholics as Christian siblings, I will send them the two links on my signature.

Seekers of Truth will find it, and as the HS always leads us in truimph, we will all be led toward the One Truth which is found in Him alone.

Now, if you are able to accept that what the Pope wrote has been the unfailing belief of the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles, real progress will have been made!

I can receive what the Pope taught on justification by faith alone in context of the entire work on my signature. Many other Evangelicals embrace it too because we rejoice in what we consider a change to a more bibilcal understanding of the doctrine of justification. As a reminder, here’s how Evangelicals interpert the Pope’s teaching on justification by faith alone.

christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=72715