S
- Status
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Robert Heibel:
In Christ,
Nancy
Amen and alleluia, Robert! Amen and alleluia!!
In Christ,
Nancy
E
edward_george
Guest
Okay, let me get this straight. You quote Scripture as saying whoever knows sin cannot know God, yet you claim that Jesus is telling you all these things about the supposed falsehoods of the Catholic Church…I guess if logic follows, you are without sin, as you seem to be on a first-name basis with the Son of Man.
-ACEGC
B
BlueMit11
Guest
So the question has been raised and repeated. Out with it Robert: Are you sinless??
S
space_ghost
Guest
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Despite the possibility of lacking in general charity (of which I am all to often guilty of) I think this is an excellent post.
Welcome to the forums Peter!
R
Robert_Heibel
Guest
(Hebrews 6:4) “As for those people who were once brought into the light, and tasted the gift from heaven, and received a share of the Holy Spirit, and appreciated the good message of God and the powers of the world to come and yet in spite of this have fallen away it is impossible for that to be renewed a second time. They cannot be repentant if they have willfully crucified the Son of God and openly mocked Him.”
Now for anyone who understands English, (Hebrews 6:4) doesn’t take much interpreting. I believe most fifth grade students could read this and know if someone knows God they better not sin.
(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”
Now how much clearer can you get then what John said (1 John 3:5-6)?
Now if you would like to really be sure what these Scriptures mean ask Jesus. I’m sure the Holy Spirit will help also.
Now for anyone who understands English, (Hebrews 6:4) doesn’t take much interpreting. I believe most fifth grade students could read this and know if someone knows God they better not sin.
(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”
Now how much clearer can you get then what John said (1 John 3:5-6)?
Now if you would like to really be sure what these Scriptures mean ask Jesus. I’m sure the Holy Spirit will help also.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Robert Heibel said:
Herein lies the problem, Robert. Some Christians pray to the holy Spirit for guidance and come away from these verse absolutely certain that the saved no longer sin. Others pray to the holy Spirit for guidance and come away from these verses absolutely certain that the saved still sin but are simply no longer slaves to sin. Of course, both of these can’t be true at the same time, so someone, however sincere they may have been in their prayer for guidance, is mistaken. This is because God simply isn’t passing out infallible understandings of each and every verse of scripture on an individual basis.
In the discussions I’ve observed between people holding the opposing views mentioned above, each accuses the other of not rightly dividing the word. They’re right…someone is not rightly dividing the word, but who? Who gets to say? The individual? If so, then truth is relative to the believer and each person is correct in his opposing interpretation of scripture. Of course, that isn’t possible. The holy Spirit does not give contradictory interpretations of his word.
Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14). Jesus shared that authority with Peter, giving Peter the position of shepherd of His flock before leaving this earth (John 21:15-17). Peter did not replace Jesus as head of the church but rather acted in the position of prime minister to the king (Matt 16:18; Isaiah 22:22). That position, upon being vacated, is to be filled (Acts 1:20).
In the world there are voices who speak with the authority of Jesus that we are to listen to and not reject lest we be rejecting Christ himself (Luke 10:16). For us that is the popes and their bishops. Who is that voice for you? Keep in mind, these voices that Jesus was referring to are human voices in the world, not the internal voice of the holy Spirit or the voice of Jesus himself, but rather human beings speaking with Jesus’ authority. Who do you believe fulfills Luke 10:16 in the world today?
In Christ,
Nancy
E
ElizabethJoy
Guest
Robert Heibel said:
Here’s where you run into trouble trying to interpret Holy Scripture on your own. Do-it-yourselfers are not infallible.
The Church, however, is infallible. And here’s what the Church says about that passage:
*
“It is impossible”… The meaning is, that it is impossible for such as have fallen after baptism, to be again baptized; and very hard for such as have apostatized from the faith, after having received many graces, to return again to the happy state from which they fell. *
Here are literal and hyperbolic senses in the same phrase at the same time.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I know the following is long, but Robert, I want you to read this and comment on it.
Bear in mind that the Navarre notes are not infallible, but no one’s is. Theologians generally agree that the Navarre is one of the most accurate notes out. Here’s what the Navarre Bible says about Hebrews 6:1-6:
Hebrews 6:1-6 reads like this:
"***1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so. ***
"4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
The first two verses tell us about “the elementary teachings of Christ”–that is, the basic truths of the Christian faith. This is important because it will set us up for the discussion of apostasy.
Note that they walk us through an ordo salutis–the stages of the Christian life: repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands (i.e., confirmation), resurrection, and judgment. Two truths preceding Christian initiation (repentance and faith), two truths at initiation (baptism and confirmation), and two truths at the end of the Christian life (resurrection and judgment).
The author says he won’t go over the basic teachings of Christ again because it is impossible to renew to repentance those who have fallen away. This is often a very problematic verse (especially for those who believe it is impossible to lose one’s salvation), and is often thought to pertain to the unforgivable sin, apostasy. However, this is not the case.
To see why, we must first eliminate a dodge that is often used to render this verse a counterfactual hypothetical. As it appears in many English translations, v. 6 is often opened with the clause “if they fall away.” However, this is not an accurate rendering of the Greek text, as even eternal securitists (such as Kendall) will admit. The Greek is simply kai parapesontas, which of course means “and (kai) have fallen away (parapesontas)”–parapesontas being an aorist–just like in the other four clauses in the preceding two verses, of which this clause is the final link in the chain of parallel aorist clauses identifying the apostates. The passage, correctly translated, thus reads:
“It is impossible for those who (a) have once been enlightened, (b) have tasted the heavenly gift, (c) and have been madepartakers in the Holy Spirit, (d) and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, (e) and have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are re-crucifying the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace.”
Or more shortly:
“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened . . . and have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are re-crucifying the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace.”
(Continued)
Bear in mind that the Navarre notes are not infallible, but no one’s is. Theologians generally agree that the Navarre is one of the most accurate notes out. Here’s what the Navarre Bible says about Hebrews 6:1-6:
Hebrews 6:1-6 reads like this:
"***1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so. ***
"4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
The first two verses tell us about “the elementary teachings of Christ”–that is, the basic truths of the Christian faith. This is important because it will set us up for the discussion of apostasy.
Note that they walk us through an ordo salutis–the stages of the Christian life: repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands (i.e., confirmation), resurrection, and judgment. Two truths preceding Christian initiation (repentance and faith), two truths at initiation (baptism and confirmation), and two truths at the end of the Christian life (resurrection and judgment).
The author says he won’t go over the basic teachings of Christ again because it is impossible to renew to repentance those who have fallen away. This is often a very problematic verse (especially for those who believe it is impossible to lose one’s salvation), and is often thought to pertain to the unforgivable sin, apostasy. However, this is not the case.
To see why, we must first eliminate a dodge that is often used to render this verse a counterfactual hypothetical. As it appears in many English translations, v. 6 is often opened with the clause “if they fall away.” However, this is not an accurate rendering of the Greek text, as even eternal securitists (such as Kendall) will admit. The Greek is simply kai parapesontas, which of course means “and (kai) have fallen away (parapesontas)”–parapesontas being an aorist–just like in the other four clauses in the preceding two verses, of which this clause is the final link in the chain of parallel aorist clauses identifying the apostates. The passage, correctly translated, thus reads:
“It is impossible for those who (a) have once been enlightened, (b) have tasted the heavenly gift, (c) and have been madepartakers in the Holy Spirit, (d) and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, (e) and have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are re-crucifying the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace.”
Or more shortly:
“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened . . . and have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are re-crucifying the Son of God and subjecting him to public disgrace.”
(Continued)
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The Greek of the passage presents the falling away as an accomplished fact, not a hypothetical possibility. (Thus an eternal securitist would have to say that they were never inwardly a Christian to begin with, only outwardly.)
This is where understanding the Jewish context (and content) of the letter is so important. By returning to Judaism, the apostates are declaring that Jesus was a false Messiah (else they would not leave faith in him as the true Messiah). But by declaring Jesus to be a false Messiah, they are declaring that he deserved what he got when he was crucified–because it is axiomatic that every false Messiah deserves death and public humiliation. They, like the fox in Aesop’s fable “The fox and the grapes,” are having an attack of sour grapes and were running around saying: “Well, he wasn’t the *real *Messiah. He *deserved *what he got. He *deserved *to be crucified and put to public humiliation. As it says in the Torah, ‘Cursed is every man who is hung upon a tree!’” Thus the re-crucifixion and humiliation of Christ was something the apostates were doing while they were maintaining their rebellion against the Messiah they had once accepted. This indicates an enormous hardness of heart, which is why the author tells us, “It is impossible for those . . . to be brought back to repentance.” The hardness of their hearts prevents it.
This is, of course, a practical rule rather than a dogmatic (absolute) rule. Because of the hardness of heart the Jewish apostates are displaying by publicly denouncing Jesus, declaring that he deserved crucifixion and humiliation, it is as a practical matter impossible to renew them to repentance and faith in Christ. This does not in any way mean it is an absolute impossibility to renew them to repentance, for “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God” (Mark. 10:27).
One must be aware in Scripture of the difference between practical and dogmatic statements. Failure to recognize this is often what generates cults. A cult will pick a statement and absolutize it, when in reality it may only be expressing a practical truth. For example, some absolutize Jesus’ statements in Matthew 6 about not doing one’s righteous acts in front of men, and ignore his statements in Matthew 5 about the need to let our light shine before men so they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven. The fact is that neither the Matthew 5 or the Matthew 6 statements are absolute rules, but practical rules to be observed on different occasions (i.e., bearing in mind whether doing a good deed publicly would lead people to glorify or curse God or whether I would be doing it just to gain praise for myself).
In the same way, the statement “It is impossible for those . . . to be renewed to repentance” is simply a practical rule. It is only because of their hardness of their hearts that it is a waste of time to argue with them. It is more prudent, as a matter of evangelism, to talk to people who aren’t that *hostile *toward Christ and who are more likely to give you a hearing.
This special animus against the person of Christ would not be present in those who were not Jews and who thus would not resent him as much as a false Messiah upon returning to their former religions. Thus a person today who went back to secularism, for example, would not hate Jesus as a Messianic pretender and would not say, “He deserved what he got!” the way a first century Jew would. In fact, an apostate to secularism might still even admire Jesus in a kind of nebulous way as a good and wise teacher.
Thus modern apostates are much easier to reclaim from there repudiation of the faith than first century Jewish apostates were. In fact, this has been the case throughout history. For example, those who had denied the faith during the persecutions of the early centuries often came back to the Church and were received back into membership (after a period of penance) once the persecution stopped. The practical rule that it is impossible to renew an apostate to repentance is thus a general rule only for the early Jewish apostates the book of Hebrews was discussing, not later ones (though of course an *individual *later apostate may be so hard of heart he will never come back, but this does not apply to later apostates as a group).
Apostasy, contrary to some interpretations, is not the unforgivable sin. Like the parallel sins against faith – infidelity, schism, and heresy – it only becomes an unforgivable sin if one dies in it. Until death it is always possible, God willing, for an infidel to convert, for a schismatic to return from his schism, for a heretic to renounce his heresy, and for an apostate to re-embrace the faith of Christ.
NotWorthy
This is where understanding the Jewish context (and content) of the letter is so important. By returning to Judaism, the apostates are declaring that Jesus was a false Messiah (else they would not leave faith in him as the true Messiah). But by declaring Jesus to be a false Messiah, they are declaring that he deserved what he got when he was crucified–because it is axiomatic that every false Messiah deserves death and public humiliation. They, like the fox in Aesop’s fable “The fox and the grapes,” are having an attack of sour grapes and were running around saying: “Well, he wasn’t the *real *Messiah. He *deserved *what he got. He *deserved *to be crucified and put to public humiliation. As it says in the Torah, ‘Cursed is every man who is hung upon a tree!’” Thus the re-crucifixion and humiliation of Christ was something the apostates were doing while they were maintaining their rebellion against the Messiah they had once accepted. This indicates an enormous hardness of heart, which is why the author tells us, “It is impossible for those . . . to be brought back to repentance.” The hardness of their hearts prevents it.
This is, of course, a practical rule rather than a dogmatic (absolute) rule. Because of the hardness of heart the Jewish apostates are displaying by publicly denouncing Jesus, declaring that he deserved crucifixion and humiliation, it is as a practical matter impossible to renew them to repentance and faith in Christ. This does not in any way mean it is an absolute impossibility to renew them to repentance, for “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God” (Mark. 10:27).
One must be aware in Scripture of the difference between practical and dogmatic statements. Failure to recognize this is often what generates cults. A cult will pick a statement and absolutize it, when in reality it may only be expressing a practical truth. For example, some absolutize Jesus’ statements in Matthew 6 about not doing one’s righteous acts in front of men, and ignore his statements in Matthew 5 about the need to let our light shine before men so they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven. The fact is that neither the Matthew 5 or the Matthew 6 statements are absolute rules, but practical rules to be observed on different occasions (i.e., bearing in mind whether doing a good deed publicly would lead people to glorify or curse God or whether I would be doing it just to gain praise for myself).
In the same way, the statement “It is impossible for those . . . to be renewed to repentance” is simply a practical rule. It is only because of their hardness of their hearts that it is a waste of time to argue with them. It is more prudent, as a matter of evangelism, to talk to people who aren’t that *hostile *toward Christ and who are more likely to give you a hearing.
This special animus against the person of Christ would not be present in those who were not Jews and who thus would not resent him as much as a false Messiah upon returning to their former religions. Thus a person today who went back to secularism, for example, would not hate Jesus as a Messianic pretender and would not say, “He deserved what he got!” the way a first century Jew would. In fact, an apostate to secularism might still even admire Jesus in a kind of nebulous way as a good and wise teacher.
Thus modern apostates are much easier to reclaim from there repudiation of the faith than first century Jewish apostates were. In fact, this has been the case throughout history. For example, those who had denied the faith during the persecutions of the early centuries often came back to the Church and were received back into membership (after a period of penance) once the persecution stopped. The practical rule that it is impossible to renew an apostate to repentance is thus a general rule only for the early Jewish apostates the book of Hebrews was discussing, not later ones (though of course an *individual *later apostate may be so hard of heart he will never come back, but this does not apply to later apostates as a group).
Apostasy, contrary to some interpretations, is not the unforgivable sin. Like the parallel sins against faith – infidelity, schism, and heresy – it only becomes an unforgivable sin if one dies in it. Until death it is always possible, God willing, for an infidel to convert, for a schismatic to return from his schism, for a heretic to renounce his heresy, and for an apostate to re-embrace the faith of Christ.
NotWorthy
Y
YADA
Guest
Robert, Good Afternoon. Where in scriptures would you get the idea that Peter was the holder of an office, an office that would have successors? Isaiah Chapter 22. When Jesus renames Simon to Cephas (Peter) he gives him the ‘Keys’ and tells him what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. This is from Isaiah Chapter 22. The House of David (note that David is long dead) has an evil Prime Minister. Isaiah tells him (as God demands) that he will be brought down and Eliakhem (sp) will be put in his place, given his cloak and the ‘keys’ to the kingdom. This Prime Minister with his key will open what no one else may close and close what no one else may open. He is to serve the people and be a FATHER (aka as Abba, Papa, Pope) to them. Jesus is the Davidic King and it was Peter he made a Father to serve the people.
Pax Christe
Pax Christe
R
Robert_Heibel
Guest
Elizabeth, Thank you for that interpretation of (Hebrews 6:4). Isn’t it strange how people can take something simple and make it into something that nobody can understand? Of course they would have to make the teaching on sin say something different, because if they didn’t the Church wouldn’t have many ministers left.
When Jesus comes to a person personally, I mean hear Him talk to them, touch them, shows Himself to them, and teaches them, after awhile a person will know who it is, and no matter what any one else tells them about God, they will go to Jesus and ask Him if it is right or wrong. Jesus doesn’t teach anything that would contradict His Word (The Bible). I believe Satan does have a way of trying to make people believe something other than the Word.
No matter who tells a person something about God, the person should go to Jesus and ask Him if it is right or wrong. If all Christians did this, Satan wouldn’t have a chance.
E
ElizabethJoy
Guest
Robert Heibel:
Even though The Word became Incarnate and walked among us - He taught certain things, He established His church and instituted His sacraments for our benefit - people still didn’t believe the Word or follow Him!
Is the Catholic Church the one true church?
There’s only one place to find the Sacraments which He gave us, and it’s not at home with our Bible.
There is only one authority for interpreting Scripture for all Christians and it’s not you or me.
Amen!
Even though The Word became Incarnate and walked among us - He taught certain things, He established His church and instituted His sacraments for our benefit - people still didn’t believe the Word or follow Him!
Is the Catholic Church the one true church?
There’s only one place to find the Sacraments which He gave us, and it’s not at home with our Bible.
There is only one authority for interpreting Scripture for all Christians and it’s not you or me.
L
lightoftheworld
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
Thank you for your welcoming greeting. I love St. Louis Marie de Montfort myself.
God bless,
Peter Rowe
Charity is found in the truth. I was not meaning to be disrespectful, and I apologize if it came out as this.Despite the possibility of lacking in general charity (of which I am all to often guilty of) I think this is an excellent post.
Welcome to the forums Peter!
Thank you for your welcoming greeting. I love St. Louis Marie de Montfort myself.
God bless,
Peter Rowe
L
lightoftheworld
Guest
Robert Heibel:
How do you know the books in the Bible are the right books? How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? How do you know something does or does not contradict the word? You can guess, you can never prove.
The Bible is a book. It does not a mouth, it cannot speak. It contains the Word of God, and is the Word of God, however, it ultimately is not totality of the Word of God. There is another source of the Word, called Tradition. Tradition and Scripture make up the One Word of God, as taught by the Catholic Church.
What about the Christians who believe Christ is leading them to embrace the teaching of the Catholic Church? I know I believe Christ is leading me to this. I know Catholics believe Christ guides them to know and understand the truth this way.
Now, is everything about God we can know taught by the Catholic Church? No, as the Church continuously becomes closer and more deeply in contact with the Word of God, and hence always has the grace and authority to proclaim New Dogma and New Doctrine from the deposit of Faith. For example, in the middle Ages, the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary was a pious belief, but as time continued, it became a part of the consciousness of the Church that this is and was revealed by God, and thus since it’s Dogmatic Definition is now necessary to hold the Catholic Faith.
With all due respect, Robert, Protestantism is a digression and not a progression from the Dogmas of the Faith as proclaimed through the Age of the Fathers.
A major difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics view the Medieval as a legitimate era in which the Spirit deepened the Church’s conscience regarding the Faith. Protestantism is a rejection of medieval Catholicism.
Catholics embrace Medieval Catholicism, as well as the Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation, as well as the Catholicism of the twentieth century. We believe the Holy Ghost is continuously communicating with the Church as a communion, a family set apart through the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and as a result, we look as a community to Christ to test doctrine.
Hence, my reply to you is that Satan has no chance against the Church, for She continuously as a communion looks to Christ and finds the truth.
Robert, you are a very intelligent man. But intelligence does not necessarily mean that you possess Divine Faith. Ask yourself: do I understand what Catholics teach, and have I truly grappled with the notion that the Holy Ghost (John 15: 26-27), has never left the Church, and continuously leads Her in the path of Christ, the Way, Truth, and Life (John 14: 6) for the New Testament Church professed to be the pillar and foundation of the teaching of the truth (1 Tim. 3: 15).
God bless you,
Peter
Robert, with all due Christian respect, this is absolutely impractical.
How do you know the books in the Bible are the right books? How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? How do you know something does or does not contradict the word? You can guess, you can never prove.
The Bible is a book. It does not a mouth, it cannot speak. It contains the Word of God, and is the Word of God, however, it ultimately is not totality of the Word of God. There is another source of the Word, called Tradition. Tradition and Scripture make up the One Word of God, as taught by the Catholic Church.
What about the Christians who believe Christ is leading them to embrace the teaching of the Catholic Church? I know I believe Christ is leading me to this. I know Catholics believe Christ guides them to know and understand the truth this way.
Now, is everything about God we can know taught by the Catholic Church? No, as the Church continuously becomes closer and more deeply in contact with the Word of God, and hence always has the grace and authority to proclaim New Dogma and New Doctrine from the deposit of Faith. For example, in the middle Ages, the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary was a pious belief, but as time continued, it became a part of the consciousness of the Church that this is and was revealed by God, and thus since it’s Dogmatic Definition is now necessary to hold the Catholic Faith.
With all due respect, Robert, Protestantism is a digression and not a progression from the Dogmas of the Faith as proclaimed through the Age of the Fathers.
A major difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics view the Medieval as a legitimate era in which the Spirit deepened the Church’s conscience regarding the Faith. Protestantism is a rejection of medieval Catholicism.
Catholics embrace Medieval Catholicism, as well as the Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation, as well as the Catholicism of the twentieth century. We believe the Holy Ghost is continuously communicating with the Church as a communion, a family set apart through the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and as a result, we look as a community to Christ to test doctrine.
Hence, my reply to you is that Satan has no chance against the Church, for She continuously as a communion looks to Christ and finds the truth.
Robert, you are a very intelligent man. But intelligence does not necessarily mean that you possess Divine Faith. Ask yourself: do I understand what Catholics teach, and have I truly grappled with the notion that the Holy Ghost (John 15: 26-27), has never left the Church, and continuously leads Her in the path of Christ, the Way, Truth, and Life (John 14: 6) for the New Testament Church professed to be the pillar and foundation of the teaching of the truth (1 Tim. 3: 15).
God bless you,
Peter
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Robert Heibel:
**Robert, **
From reading your posts, you appear to be an anti-Catholic, “Born Again” Christian. Where did all this hostility towards the Catholic Church come from?
**It would be helpful if you started by telling us exactly what religion you are, so we can discuss the difference in our beliefs. If your answer is merely ‘Christian”, does that mean you do not attend church services, on the “Sabbath”? If you do attend church services, then tell us the name of your church. Is it the church of “Robert”? **
**Much of the discussion on this thread is regarding authority. If you believe your church or religion has the authority and the Catholic Church does not, explain why. History is very important in understanding religions and religious beliefs. It is difficult having a one sided discussion. You apparently know some things about the Catholic Church and you seem to enjoy picking and choosing different gripes you have with Catholicism but how can a Catholic respond to you if you are not willing to share your religion, the basis for your beliefs, especially when much of the discussion here is concerning authority? **
Thank You and God Bless
A Roman Catholic!
**Robert, **
From reading your posts, you appear to be an anti-Catholic, “Born Again” Christian. Where did all this hostility towards the Catholic Church come from?
**It would be helpful if you started by telling us exactly what religion you are, so we can discuss the difference in our beliefs. If your answer is merely ‘Christian”, does that mean you do not attend church services, on the “Sabbath”? If you do attend church services, then tell us the name of your church. Is it the church of “Robert”? **
**Much of the discussion on this thread is regarding authority. If you believe your church or religion has the authority and the Catholic Church does not, explain why. History is very important in understanding religions and religious beliefs. It is difficult having a one sided discussion. You apparently know some things about the Catholic Church and you seem to enjoy picking and choosing different gripes you have with Catholicism but how can a Catholic respond to you if you are not willing to share your religion, the basis for your beliefs, especially when much of the discussion here is concerning authority? **
Thank You and God Bless
A Roman Catholic!
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Robert Heibel:
I didn’t understand what you meant when you asked me *“I wonder Jimmy if you ever had the Holy Spirit *or Jesus explain any of the Scriptures that you or I just quoted?”
After reading several of your threads and posts where you claim, in detail to have had, over many years, numerous, personal, detailed discussions with Jesus and described what he told you, I now know what you meant by your question. I think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. Good luck and God Bless, I’ll pray for your return to the Catholic Church.
Robert,
I didn’t understand what you meant when you asked me *“I wonder Jimmy if you ever had the Holy Spirit *or Jesus explain any of the Scriptures that you or I just quoted?”
After reading several of your threads and posts where you claim, in detail to have had, over many years, numerous, personal, detailed discussions with Jesus and described what he told you, I now know what you meant by your question. I think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. Good luck and God Bless, I’ll pray for your return to the Catholic Church.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Jimmy B:
Good Luck and God Bless!
Notworthy
And I will pray for Robert’s return to REALITY!!!
Good Luck and God Bless!
Notworthy
B
BlueMit11
Guest
Robert, you are rapidly losing respect on these boards due to your refusal to answer questions and your evasiveness. Now I assume that, being a fellow Christian (whether or not you consider *me *a fellow Christian is an all-together seperate point, but I will not assume to question your relationship with Christ), I assume that you are in the business of truth-seeking. If that is true, then please discuss these things rationally with us by addressing those questions put to you. If not, I’m afraid this is not the place for you–we don’t mind those who disagree with us, but we find it impossible to speak with those who are on a completely different logical plane.
- Status