Going to hell for leaving the Catholic church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redman1986
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon_Hus said:
He takes dispensationalist totally out of context, as well as the supporting Scripture. He claims to be a former dispensationalist, if so, he didn’t pay attention to his teachers. Some of his comments on his internet blog are unchristian, in my opinion. The way he uses George E. Ladd (a fellow Fuller graduate and total superior intellect to Riddle) to argue both sides of the arguement is frustrating and unbecoming.
Click to expand...
I noticed that… which is interesting because Ladd was a historic premillennialist. And yes, I am sure that Ladd’s arguments against amillennialism are far superior to Riddlebarger’s arguments for it.
 
I have the 38 hard cover ECF collection. I’m old school. Testimonials like Hahn of any belief system do not really interest me. I’m not really a snob, I just like theology and history and scripture.
Lazarette said:
Hi Jon H,

yes I agree with you that a truly informed decision takes all sides into account. Since you’re reading source materials, have you read the Church Fathers? They’re on the internet at newadvent.org/fathers/

Another book, more in the popular reading than the ones in your new thread is Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home.

The word “study” brings to mind studying topics. You can even study a person. For example, interviews read up and study about a person. But knowing a lot about a person is different than encountering him or her in person. I wish you success both in your study about Jesus and your personal encounter with Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
choy said:
um, thanks?

not really an opinion but Church teaching in my own words. i’ve been in “discussion” with some atheists online who say that “we want to be good for the sake of being good, not because we’re threatened with hell.” thats the “choy” version of how to explain it plainly

i’m still working on it 😉
Click to expand...
Certainly don’t take it as an admonishment, that was quite frankly avery good way to frame it…
 
Non_Serviam said:
What about Pelikan’s approach concerns you re: Mary? He takes the same approach as in development of doctrine (which was the work I was referring to, esp. volume 1) only narrowing his focus to Marian beliefs and piety. I don’t find him to be disrespectful of the biblical Mary in the text, but rather a reporter on later development using historical-critical methods.

If you do, let me know, I would be interested in someone else’s opinion. Cullman isn’t the “latest news” anymore, so folks often pass on to more recent authors in discussions.
Click to expand...
Fear of the unknown I guess. As I’m sure you know, there is only so much time in a day and I can’t spend it all reading. Pelikan, like other ivy leagues do have a way of presenting the data in a way that no of us expect, hard to figure out.
 
I like to go right to the source materials
Click to expand...
Jon I am just curious if by “source materails” you mean primary sources? If so then:
Have your read Augustine? Jaroslav Pelikan? Martin Luther? At least some of the ANF? Adolph Harnack? The CCC? Jonathan Edwards? Calvin? Richard B. Hays? Oscar Cullman? Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum? O. Palmer Robertson? Kendal R. Soulen? Louis Berkhof? Lewis Sperry Chafer? Kenneth Scott Latourette? Philip Schaff? and my personal favorite Ronald Diprose?
Click to expand...
None of those are primary sources unless you were researching the time period and or the particular writer.

God bless you
 
TriuneUnity said:
I noticed that… which is interesting because Ladd was a historic premillennialist. And yes, I am sure that Ladd’s arguments against amillennialism are far superior to Riddlebarger’s arguments for it.
Click to expand...
Ladd isn’t immune to overstating his case either but yes, you are correct, he blows Riddlebarger out of the ballpark.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Do you fall more into the dispensationalist camp, then?
Click to expand...
I will have to answer yes to that question for now as I haven’t fully made up my mind yet. I’m of the Chafer/Ryrie camp, I haven’t been overly impressed by the progressives although I have read much of them and they make some good points. Right at this minute I’m reading Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church edited by Blaising and Bock (progressives). This is a series of papers on various topics related to the title.

But allow me this, of which I’m totally clear on: I claim to be saved by grace alone through faith alone in the risen Son of God.
 
In the Philippines it’s not so much hurricanes as it is volcanic eruptions, mudslides, and the occasional tsunami. Natural disasters are no joke in that country, man. Trust me, I’ve seen first hand how destructive they can be. It’s god-awful.
Filipinos are a tough bunch…
TriuneUnity said:
LOL! Replace the picture of the Pope with the picture of Pat Robertson. I don’t even think Luther would’ve advocated that one. Did he pray a hurricane away from the Philippines or something?? LoL
Click to expand...
 
Lazarette said:
If you had full knowledge and walked away, then yes, the consequence of that is hell.
Click to expand...
So if a person had full knowledge and later believed differently, the Church says hell is the destination. FINALLY after multiple thread inquiries someone answered yes or no. Thank you!
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
In the Philippines it’s not so much hurricanes as it is volcanic eruptions, mudslides, and the occasional tsunami. Natural disasters are no joke in that country, man. Trust me, I’ve seen first hand how destructive they can be. It’s god-awful.
Filipinos are a tough bunch…
Click to expand...
Yeah, my brother is married to a Filipino woman, and I’ve heard the stories from her. Not to mention everything they have gone through politically, and the 2 World War.
 
Jon_Hus said:
I will have to answer yes to that question for now as I haven’t fully made up my mind yet. I’m of the Chafer/Ryrie camp, I haven’t been overly impressed by the progressives although I have read much of them and they make some good points. Right at this minute I’m reading Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church edited by Blaising and Bock (progressives). This is a series of papers on various topics related to the title.
Click to expand...
I’ve liked some of what the Progressive Dispensationalists have written… I think they’ve tried to ramp down the level of separation between Israel and the Church more evident in earlier dispensational writings. I don’t agree with most of dispensationalism at all, though I do find premillennialism somewhat convincing. I see more of a separation between Israel and the Church than what Covenant Theology puts forward, but less so than dispensationalism.
But allow me this, of which I’m totally clear on: I claim to be saved by grace alone through faith alone in the risen Son of God.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
I haven’t read all of the OP’s posts but is his position that he believes the Church is everything it claims to be but wants to reject it still?

God bless
Click to expand...
I don’t know if the OP believed everything at one time or not. But if someone did and then has a change of beliefs, are still Christian but does not remain fully Catholic, apparently the Church says they can not be saved without repenting their new beliefs.
 
I am concern about Red Man. Hopefully he evaluates what is “brainwashing” and whether those are his original words or did he assimilate it from another source.

I have hope that many who leave the Church will one day return and return with fire from the Holy Spirit.
 
My wife’s hometown, Baguio, was a 100% American-made town. The entire city is American-made. All the streets and barangays (neighborhoods) have American names and flavor. It’s interesting. I’ll be going there in about six weeks for a month. Never been there in June before…
TriuneUnity said:
Yeah, my brother is married to a Filipino woman, and I’ve heard the stories from her. Not to mention everything they have gone through politically, and the 2 World War.
Click to expand...
 
CMatt25 said:
I don’t know if the OP believed everything at one time or not. But if someone did and then has a change of beliefs, are still Christian but does not remain fully Catholic, apparently the Church says they can not be saved without repenting their new beliefs.
Click to expand...
I am just going off of the quote you provided.
“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
Click to expand...
Would you agree that there is a difference between knowing that, “the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ” and knowing that that is what the Church teaches about itself? Do you see there being a difference between rejecting what the Church says about itself and, believing what the Church teaches about itself, rejecting the Church still?

Without reading the entire link and just going off the excerpt you provided, I think the quote you provided has more to do with rebellion in that aa person knows that the Catholic Church was, “made necessary by Christ” and still rejects it.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top