Evangelicals Will Be Extinct Within Ten Years

[always_gr8ful]

Gonna hit the bed now, Hope I have help in some small way. If there is anything I can do to help you lean the faith, I will sure try. I know its alot to grasp. Ive been RC my whole life and I am still learning. You will learn until God takes you out of this world. Some you will learn from others, some God will open up to you in special ways. What amazing is someone can try to explains something to you for years, then one day God just opens your eyes up, and you are like wow, How did I miss it. You are on the right road. Just keep traveling my Love. Good night!

You have helped. I am totally open to how Truth stands within the Catholic faith as opposed to standing on it’s own. I’m fascinated with the (new to me) doctrine that the Catholic Church is THE Church and have been studying that myself with a Catholic friends help.

I’m working on a website that’s free Bible art, and I prayed that I could show Jesus from Genesis to Revelations. God opened my eyes to scripture and I discovered that Jesus (the Word) was the Creator in Genesis 1 and the Burning Bush, the giver of the Ten Commandments, etc. All excited, I told my Christian friends and they were like “Yeah, and?” I said “Well all the art depicts God the Creator as an old man!” Still they were saying “And?” LOL, killjoys! It was exciting to me!
Goodnight Rinnie.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Don’t any non-Catholic people here read the Early Church Fathers or anything before the bible even came into the picture? I mean, there are several hundred letters and writings from them describing the Catholic church and defining the Scriptures.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Marsha, I found it. John 20:23.
Know that I’m coming from a non-religious point of view here. I would guess that Jesus was giving all authority to the eleven. Could they then transfer that authority to others?

Yes, they could pass that authority on to their successors. Why would Jesus give them this power if it was not important for the Church to have it. Why would Jesus give them this power if all anybody had to do to obtain forgiveness was say, “Gee, God, my bad, I’m sorry?” Let’s go one step further. God changes not, He is eternally the same. If all a person needs to be forgiven his/her sin is privately apologize to God, why did God require sin sacrifices in the Old Testament? Also, when an Israelite brought a sin offering to the temple to be sacrificed, he confessed his sins over the head of the animal in the presence of the priest (doesn’t that sound familiar?).

 

[Marsha_Adams]

1 Corinthians 9:26-27

Thanks, Marsha.

Do you ever doubt? I know that I know that I know, and I sometimes doubt. Thomas got to hang out with the Living Christ and doubted. Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles is pure and clean and totally on message, but Paul was human just like us.

Paul was not doubting in this passage, in fact he was absolutely triumphant. He wasn’t saying he feared being lost, he was admitting the possibility that if he did not fight the good fight, run the good race, he could be lost, AND he was holding himself up as an example to the Corinthians in this matter.

 

[always_gr8ful]

Paul was not doubting in this passage, in fact he was absolutely triumphant. He wasn’t saying he feared being lost, he was admitting the possibility that if he did not fight the good fight, run the good race, he could be lost, AND he was holding himself up as an example to the Corinthians in this matter.

Hi Marsha. I respectfully disagree. Looking at the scripture, I’ll use the Amplified first since I noticed you use it:

26Therefore I do not run uncertainly (without definite aim). I do not box like one beating the air and striking without an adversary.

27But [like a boxer] I buffet my body [handle it roughly, discipline it by hardships] and subdue it, for fear that after proclaiming to others the Gospel and things pertaining to it, I myself should become unfit [not stand the test, be unapproved and rejected as a counterfeit].1 Corinthians 9:26-27

In this portion of Paul’s letter to the Church of God in Corinth, Paul is defending his right to preach the gospel. Remember, this chapter starts “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.”

The Amplified is very forgiving, so forgiving there isn’t even a question there if Paul was admitting he would be lost. He was getting a lot of heat from the disciples (minus Peter), so based on the Amplified, his statement would relate to his right to preach. So I gotta go back to the KJV:

24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

27 But** I** keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Whatever meaning we would give to the word “castaway”, it is clear that Paul is speaking of himself. I’ve always said to myself “Defend the Word, not yourself”. This is a perfect example of defending oneself. Paul, in his humility, has expressed his fear of doing something wrong right after preaching to the Church that we should not have uncertainly.

IMO, it’s stretching to conclude that in this passage Paul is saying he could be lost. This is the same Paul who said in Romans 8:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”

and

“For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

We’re all human, and if Paul didn’t show his human side sometimes, I would have him as some kind of superman, an unnatural being. I can only imagine the responsibility of being given God’s Word to tell - you can see the super-natural in his teaching, but he was only human. And when he expressed his shortcomings, I believe he makes it clear he is only speaking of himself and not teaching doctrine even if we did define “castaway” as lost.

BBL

 

[Jon_Hus]

Don’t any non-Catholic people here read the Early Church Fathers or anything before the bible even came into the picture? I mean, there are several hundred letters and writings from them describing the Catholic church and defining the Scriptures.

OneTrueCathApos:

By you own admission you read the Ante-Nicene Fathers. What edition do you have? I ask this because I’m going to take you to task on a few items and I want us to be on the same page so to speak.

BTW, I assume that you have your parents permission to use their computer and internet connection?

 

[SSTeacher]

I’m a fan of what little I’ve read of Spurgeon. If I listened to the atheists, a Spurgeon fan makes me a nut. But I like his no-holds-barred preaching style. They say of his sermon “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” that he read it straight, without voice inflection, right off his notes.

The sermon, Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God, was actually preached by Jonathan Edwards. Do you mind me interjecting to ask what particular utterings of Spurgeon fill you with such enthusiasm?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[always_gr8ful]

Let’s go one step further. God changes not, He is eternally the same. If all a person needs to be forgiven his/her sin is privately apologize to God, why did God require sin sacrifices in the Old Testament? Also, when an Israelite brought a sin offering to the temple to be sacrificed, he confessed his sins over the head of the animal in the presence of the priest (doesn’t that sound familiar?).

Yes, that sounds familiar.

Marsha, when we were making sacrifices (children of Israel), we were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent His Son, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons and daughters. And because you are a daughter, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your heart, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a daughter, and if a daughter, then an heir of God through Christ.

But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you. Marsha, I urge you to become like me.
~Galatians 4:3-12

Why would Jesus give them this power if it was not important for the Church to have it.

We have to make two stretches here. One, that by giving the authority to the disciples, they had the power to transfer that authority to the Church, and two, that the disciples wanted to and did give the authority to the Church to forgive sins. I just can’t stretch that far without another scripture to reinforce what isn’t said even once.

Why would Jesus give them this power if all anybody had to do to obtain forgiveness was say, “Gee, God, my bad, I’m sorry?”

Because God breathed It, and I believe It:

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
~1 John 1:9

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
~1 Timothy 2

Marsha, I spent some time reading on Catholic sites today about Sacraments because I didn’t know what they were and couldn’t find the word in the Bible. Now, I’m not going to go so far as to say I believe it to be sin, but I will say that I believe you are giving up a personal relationship with God, or at least you will not be able to fully come into a personal relationship with God due to the Sacraments.

I really like you and that may not show because sometimes I’m a bit blunt, but I hope that you will consider what I said here, spoken with love from someone who has no religious affiliation - simply Bible believing.

 

[always_gr8ful]

QUOTE=SSTeacher;5023412]The sermon, Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God, was actually preached by Jonathan Edwards. Do you mind me interjecting to ask what particular utterings of Spurgeon fill you with such enthusiasm?

Curiously,
Mick


You’re right! I don’t know why I get those two mixed up sometimes.

Well, let me go check where I’ve quoted him in my warrior days. Be right back.

 

[always_gr8ful]

The sermon, Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God, was actually preached by Jonathan Edwards. Do you mind me interjecting to ask what particular utterings of Spurgeon fill you with such enthusiasm?

Curiously,
Mick

Hi Mike. Hope this isn’t a trap of sorts.
Well, I posted two awesome sermons - and quoted him.

Oct 29, 2006 1:55 PM Report
Reply implicitly upon the old, old gospel. You need no other nets when you fish for men; those your Master has given you are strong enough to hold the little ones. Spread these nets and no others, and you need not fear the fulfillment of His word, ‘I will make you fishers of men.’
~Charles Spurgeon

========================================================

Oct. 7, 2006 7:18 PM Report
Pride and Humility
August 17, 1856
by C. H. SPURGEON

“Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honor is humility.”—Proverbs 18:12
In the first place, pride is a groundless thing. It stands on the sands. Of all things pride has the worst foothold; it has no solid rock on earth whereon to place itself. We have reasons for almost everything, but we have no reasons for pride…

=====================================================

*Oct 9, 2006 11:21 PM Report
Pride and Humility
August 17, 1856
by C. H. SPURGEON

“Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honor is humility.”—Proverbs 18:12.
Continuing:
“BEFORE HONOR IS HUMILITY.” …*​

This one I’ll post because it’s especially relevant to this thread. Weird how that works sometimes.

Aug 13, 2007 7:25 PM Report
Some commentary from the 1800’s.
C. H. SPURGEON

"To me it is a pitiful sight to see Paul defending himself as an apostle; and doing this, not against the gainsaying world, but against cold-hearted members of the church.

They said that he was not truly an apostle, for he had not seen the Lord; and they uttered a great many other things derogatory to him. To maintain his claim to the apostleship, he was driven to commence his epistles with “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ,” though his work was a self-evident proof of his call.

If, after God has blessed us to the conversion of many, some of these should raise a question as to our call to the ministry, we may count it a fiery trial; but we shall not conclude that a strange thing has happened to us.

This indignity, if it be put upon us, we can cheerfully bear for our Master’s sake. When the devil is not troubled by us, he does not trouble us. If his kingdom is not shaken, he will not care about us or our work, but will let us enjoy inglorious ease.

Be comforted by the experience of the apostle of the Gentiles: he is peculiarly our apostle, and we may regard his experience as a type of what we may expect while we labor among the Gentiles of our own day.

Brethren, we have not received the gospel, nor do we now receive it, because of the teaching of any man, or set of men. Do you receive anything because Calvin taught it? If so, you had need look to your foundations. Do you believe a doctrine because John Wesley preached it? If so, you have reason to mind what you are at.

God’s way, by which we are to receive the truth, is to receive it by the Holy Ghost. It is helpful to me to know what such and such a minister believed. The judgment of a holy, godly, clear-sighted, gifted divine is not to be despised: it deserves to have due weight with us. He is as likely to be right as we are; and we should differ from a grace-taught man with some hesitancy.

But it is a very different thing to say, “I believe it on this good man’s authority.” In our raw state as young Christians, it may not be injurious to receive truth from pastors and parents, and so on; but if we are to become men in Christ Jesus, and teachers of others, we must quit the childish habit of dependence on others, and search for ourselves.

We may now leave the egg, and get rid of the pieces of shell as quickly as may be. It is our duty to search the Scriptures to see whether these things be so; and more, it is our wisdom to cry for grace to appropriate each truth, and let it dwell in our inmost nature.

It is time that we should be able to say, “This truth is now as personally my own as if I had never heard it from lip of man. I receive it because it has been written on my own heart by the Lord himself. Its coming to me is not after men.”

"Furthermore, I hope I shall speak for all of you here when I say that we have received the truth personally by the revelation of it to our own souls by the Spirit of the Lord.

Yes, those gracious men who have gone to heaven did preach the gospel to us fully and earnestly, and they labored to make known Christ to us; but to reveal the Son of God in us was beyond their power. They could as easily have created a world as have made these truths vital to us.

We say, therefore, each one from his inmost soul, “I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man;(Galatians 1:11)” so far as the way by which we have come to know and feel it within our own souls."

===============================================

There’s not much there I would disagree with now 2-3 years later, except that last line. “so far as the way by which we have come to know and feel it within our own souls.” Feelings can lie. I don’t go by feelings when seeking the Truth.

 

[always_gr8ful]

I like Edwards and Wesley too, but I refuse to google them to see what their religion is. If it didn’t matter then, why should it matter now that I’ve found this board.

 

[Jon_Hus]

I like Edwards and Wesley too, but I refuse to google them to see what their religion is. If it didn’t matter then, why should it matter now that I’ve found this board.

Jonathan Edwards was a Puritan but preached in a Congregational church.
John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist demonination

Both were exceptional theologians and preachers. One was Calvinistic, the other was Arminian in theology. No personal Christian library is complete without works from both of these men.

 

[whizkid43]

OneTrueCathApos:

By you own admission you read the Ante-Nicene Fathers. What edition do you have? I ask this because I’m going to take you to task on a few items and I want us to be on the same page so to speak.

BTW, I assume that you have your parents permission to use their computer and internet connection?

How about a little charity and respect? Ad hominem attacks do not help make your point… Or are you a student of Saul Alinksy?

BTW, is the page you’re coming from?

In 1885 a US firm, the Christian Literature Company, first of Buffalo, then New York, began to issue the volumes in a reorganised form, edited by the episcopalian bishop of New York, A. Cleveland Coxe. This was, in fact, a reissue of the ANCL. Coxe gave his series the title, The Ante-Nicene Fathers.

The contents are entirely derived from the ANCL, but in a more logical order. However Coxe took the liberty of adding his own introductions and notes, which were criticised by Roman Catholic reviewers. One approved the faithfulness of the translations, but wrote that Coxe:
"...deemed it his duty to distort the sense and purpose of the text by the addition of prefatory notices and footnotes, and to indulge in sectarian bigotry by endeavoring to explain away the evidence of Catholic doctrine taught by the Fathers... the notes of Dr Coxe abound in similar falsehoods and vile insinuations, and that no open-minded and honest student, Catholic or non-Catholic, of the Fathers, can profit by such interpretations of the Patristic books."

 

[Jon_Hus]

BTW, is the page you’re coming from?

In 1885 a US firm, the Christian Literature Company, first of Buffalo, then New York, began to issue the volumes in a reorganised form, edited by the episcopalian bishop of New York, A. Cleveland Coxe. This was, in fact, a reissue of the ANCL. Coxe gave his series the title, The Ante-Nicene Fathers.

My question whizkid43 was directed to OneTrueCathApos in which I ask him what edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers he studies. It is a simple question that I ask.

In case you didn’t read his message, he (OneTrueCathApos) accuses protestants of not reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers. He has no way of knowing if this is a true statement or not. But apparently wizkid43, you are more interested in a persons religious beliefs than being truthful, accurate or considerate.

When I quote from Augistine or the Cannons of Trent, or whatever, I give the name of the book, the editor, copyright and so forth. That is how I engage in intelligent debate. It is my opinion, humble as it is, that OneTrueCathApos employes the sledgehammer approach. I make this based on observation. If you feel that your justified in defending that little lamb known as OneTrueCathApos, go right ahead.

 

[rinnie]

Let’s look at the verses: "10For we must all appear and be revealed as we are before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive [his pay] according to what he has done in the body, whether good or evil [considering [a]what his purpose and motive have been, and what he has **achieved, been busy with, and given himself and his attention to accomplishing]. (Amplified Bible) a. Alexander Souter, Pocket Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. b. Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon. (2 Corinthians 5:10)

(Jesus speaking to the Pharisees) "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matt. 12:36-37)

Rinnie, on this day of Judgment, how could the verdict be anything but “Guilty as Charged!”?

That’s where we would be without the Blood of Jesus.**

You are correct there dear. Without the blood of Jesus we would all be guilty as charged. Look back at the O.T. Remember when Jesus died he went to release the souls to open up heaven for them. But when Jesus came back after 3 days (think what did he leave us). The Apostles right. To help us, he knew we are sinners. And he left us the most important thing himself (the Church). Now we both agree Jesus left us free choice. You can follow him , or yourself right? But we do have a shot of getting into heaven. A real good shot. But that only shot is the Church. He gave his Apostles permission to forgive sin. That permission still exists today. He gave that through HOLY ORDERS. The laying of hands. It is passed on today. IT cannot ever die, ( that authority) Jesus promised. I will explain mortal sin and venial sin in my next post.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus said in Matt 7:21 Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven

Rinnie, I found this board while searching the internet for better understand of a Catholic friend who, through many private emails finally confided that she can’t believe the Bible and though she feels she is saved, can’t believe the Jesus of the Bible.

I refuse to go near trying to judge someone’s salvation. Only God knows what’s in our hearts. But sometimes I see these tv preachers leading thousands astray in the name of Jesus, and I get a glimpse of their end as in Matt. 7.

I’m sorry, but I know nothing of Mortal Sins. I’ve heard the term, but the only unforgivable sin I know of is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and of course, rejecting God’s Perfect Gift.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

When I was a weird little girl, I worried that if I died suddenly I wouldn’t have time to ask forgiveness for my sins. Later, I learned that confession to God was an act of obedience and not a requirement of salvation. If I just pray “forgive me for my sins”, I really haven’t reflected on those sins so there can’t be any real repentance. But the point being, God is sufficient because He said He is.

Now think about this, why did God leave his Apostles this gift to forgive sin, if he just wanted us to go to him on our own? It doesn’t make sense does it.

Venial sin is when you sin, but you are not sinning directly against God. Like everyday sin, a bad thought, you may say a bad word, etc.

Mortal sin is when you know in good conscious that what you are about to do is wrong, goes totally against the teaching’s of God and you do it anyway.

But Mortal sin can be forgive in this life, by a priest.

But you are right blasphemy is the only unforgiven sin.

Even mortal sin is forgiven, but only through a Priest. That is the teaching’s of our faith.

Ok now, I have a question for you if you do not mind. Where does is say confession is a act of obedience? Here is why I am asking. I don’t recall Jesus saying to the apostles this: Hey guys I am going to give you this power to forgive sin, but there really is no need for this power because people can just do it on their own if they want. It does not make sense does it. There had to be a reason for this Power right? Next post I will explain this power.

 

[rinnie]

Now when you go to confession, its has nothing to do with a Priest forgiving your sins. He can’t. God put him there to stand in for HIM to forgive our sins.

2 good reasons for confession, to admit that sin, and show that you acknowlege it. Once you say it and ask for forgiveness its like you feel clean and new again.

Another reason you not only get that sin wiped clean, but here is the BIG thing. You get something else in return too. GRACE. Grace from God, once you get cleansed from that sin, he helps you by giving you that gift of Grace to quit doing it. Its like the devil knows your weakness we all know that , but its like that grace puts a fence in front of that sin now. or say a mean dog. sure the devil can break through again, but its gonna be a little harder this time. And if you kinda lets say stay behind the fence, or dog its gonna be easier for you this time. Do you understand what I am saying. And the more you confess, the less sins you have the closer to God you become. So its like the stronger your fence becomes, and the more dogs you get to protect you. Does that makes sense?

 

[Jon_Hus]

You are correct there dear. Without the blood of Jesus we would all be guilty as charged. Look back at the O.T. Remember when Jesus died he went to release the souls to open up heaven for them. But when Jesus came back after 3 days (think what did he leave us). The Apostles right. To help us, he knew we are sinners. And he left us the most important thing himself (the Church). Now we both agree Jesus left us free choice. You can follow him , or yourself right? But we do have a shot of getting into heaven. A real good shot. But that only shot is the Church. He gave his Apostles permission to forgive sin. That permission still exists today. He gave that through HOLY ORDERS. The laying of hands. It is passed on today. IT cannot ever die, ( that authority) Jesus promised. I will explain mortal sin and venial sin in my next post.

rinnie,
Your message above underscores some of the vast differences between protestant and Catholic beliefs. I will tackle one item at this time, that is the Apostles permission to forgive sin. Before that, you make an appeal to the Old Testament. The OT makes it clear that only God can forgive sins. This point was made by the Jewish leaders when Jesus forgave sinners of their sins. They plotted to kill Jesus because he forgave sins, something only the Father could do. But hopefully rinnie, we are in agreement that Jesus was capable of forgiving sins because he was/is God. If Jesus was not God, he would have been in error by forgiving sins, and the Pharisees and teachers of the law justified in their condemnation of Jesus again, because only God can forgive sins.

Are we rinnie, in agreement so far?

 

[rinnie]

rinnie,
Your message above underscores some of the vast differences between protestant and Catholic beliefs. I will tackle one item at this time, that is the Apostles permission to forgive sin. Before that, you make an appeal to the Old Testament. The OT makes it clear that only God can forgive sins. This point was made by the Jewish leaders when Jesus forgave sinners of their sins. They plotted to kill Jesus because he forgave sins, something only the Father could do. But hopefully rinnie, we are in agreement that Jesus was capable of forgiving sins because he was/is God. If Jesus was not God, he would have been in error by forgiving sins, and the Pharisees and teachers of the law justified in their condemnation of Jesus again, because only God can forgive sins.

Are we rinnie, in agreement so far?

100% ANd you are correct only Jesus can forgive sins. But remember, yes because Jesus was God. But now remember what Jesus said to the Apostles what my Father has given me I now give to you. It was God the Father who became Man, who gave Jesus the Authority over heaven and Earth. And Jesus who used that authority to give it to the Apostles.

 

[Jon_Hus]

100% ANd you are correct only Jesus can forgive sins. But remember, yes because Jesus was God. But now remember what Jesus said to the Apostles what my Father has given me I now give to you. It was God the Father who became Man, who gave Jesus the Authority over heaven and Earth. And Jesus who used that authority to give it to the Apostles.

You say that the Father gave Jesus Authority over heaven and earth. When did the Father give Jesus this Authority?