non catholics, please give your opinion

[Richard_Kastner]

Please, define what you consider to be a ‘real true christian’?

A ‘real true christian’ is one who accepts the gift of salvation purchased by Christ on the cross.

 

[cooterhein]

This is circular reasoning, cooter. “I know someone has the distinguishing characteristic because I know he has the Holy Spirit.” and “I know he has the HS because he has the distinguishing characteristic.”

I’ve been around CAF long enough to know my way around circular reasoning, and this is not circular reasoning.

Suppose you are a homeowner. Also suppose that you are given the task of finding out if you, the homeowner, are also a host. The distinguishing characteristic of “being a host” is to have someone staying in your home.

So what do you do in order to find out? You go find out if there is a guest staying in your home. If there is, you can conclude that you are hosting someone.

Now suppose I come up to you and say “That’s circular reasoning. In order to find out if you had a guest in your home, you went and found out if someone was staying in your house. You could switch that around and say I want to find out if another person is staying in my house by finding out if I have a guest in my home.”

That’s some poor use of logic because you completely bypass that actual conclusion we’re trying to reach: We’re evaluating your status as a host. So the reasoning actually looks like this: You begin by finding out if the Holy Spirit indwells you, and then you conclude that you’re a Christian. This is not something that can be reversed or made into a circle, and it is the reasoning that I was actually using. The thing you said was not the reasoning that I was using.

Incidentally, your definition above would not rule out Baptism as the point of indwelling of the Holy Spirit. For how would you know that it’s not there?

The Holy Spirit is a person, not an “it.” You should refer to Him as “Him,” preferably with a capital H because He is God. You just referred to the third person of the Trinity as “it,” and that’s kind of inappropriate.

Friendly suggestion: Try to avoid doing that.

I’ll reiterate the logic one more time. The first step is to find out if the Holy Spirit indwells you. If He does, you are a Christian. If He does not, you’re not a Christian. So in order to find out if baptism by water caused the Holy Spirit to indwell you at that time (thus making you a Christian), you find out if the Holy Spirit is indwelling you at some point shortly after you’ve been baptized.

If He does not indwell you at that time, then you are not a Christian at that time in spite of being baptized. This is the logic I’ve been using the whole way through, and as you can see, it is not at all circular.

Are you saying one can’t have the Holy Spirit’s presence without it being truly obvious?

Are you saying you might be someone who’s never had the Holy Spirit indwelling her? I obviously can’t answer that question for you, but it’s something that you should take seriously.

And none of the verses claim your man-made proposition: “Not every person who’s been baptized is (or ever was) indwelt by the Holy Spirit and transformed by Him into a Christian.”

This is another unsupported, non-Scriptural doctrine you’re proclaiming.

You’re not allowed to do this anymore until you tell me why you’re being such an imitator of Arius.

Seriously. You don’t want to dance around this; it’s not in your best interest. We can have a very nice conversation if you just explain yourself. If you don’t explain yourself, this won’t be nice at all and I promise you won’t enjoy it. In fact, if you’re unwilling to do this, you should walk away right now. Do not play games with me.

And don’t forget purgatory, the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and the papacy as well!

At any rate, I’m glad to know that you wouldn’t disagree with those concepts because they’re “not in the bible.”

Hey, sarcastic girl. Good to see you.

Of course baptism is the distinguishing characteristic for the indwelling of the HS. You said it wasn’t.

You accuse me of circular reasoning, and you’re going with “of course” logic? I’m quickly losing respect for you, and if you don’t stop messing around and start taking this a little more seriously, I’m going to start thinking you’re either unable to do so or you’re unwilling- at least for now- and you’re just going to have to tell me when that changes.

I simply asked how you know then, if it’s not at baptism. And what Scripture verses tell you this. Clearly, your own criteria are nebulous, man-made and arbitrary. But they certainly are not found in Scripture.

This is the last time you get to be like Arius, at least until you give me an explanation and…

AND…

wait for a reply.

Just so we’re clear. Your response to this post will not contain any impressions of Arius. It will contain a thorough explanation for why you’ve been doing that. You will also let me know if you’re willing to stop messing around. Then we’ll see what happens.

Okay, pumpkin?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been around CAF long enough to know my way around circular reasoning, and this is not circular reasoning.

Suppose you are a homeowner. Also suppose that you are given the task of finding out if you, the homeowner, are also a host. The distinguishing characteristic of “being a host” is to have someone staying in your home.

So what do you do in order to find out? You go find out if there is a guest staying in your home. If there is, you can conclude that you are hosting someone.

Now suppose I come up to you and say “That’s circular reasoning. In order to find out if you had a guest in your home, you went and found out if someone was staying in your house. You could switch that around and say I want to find out if another person is staying in my house by finding out if I have a guest in my home.”

This is, cooterhein, an excellent analogy! You are correct in that the above is not circular logic.

So here’s the thing. As it pertains to the indwelling of the HS as a “guest in my soul”, what distinguishing characteristic is there?

And here’s where your logic turns circular: you know the HS is there because he has the “distinguishing characteristic” (so far, unnamed, undefined, not Scriptural and nebulous) and you know someone has the “distinguishing characteristic” (unnamed, undefined, not Scriptural and nebulous) because you know he has the HS.

Circular!

You begin by finding out if the Holy Spirit indwells you, and then you conclude that you’re a Christian.

YES! And how do you “find out” if the HS dwells within you? What tells you this? And what verses in Scripture define this?

(NB: this criterion/definition ought to have the characteristic of being “distinguishable” yet also be able to rule out baptism as a criterion.)

The Holy Spirit is a person, not an “it.” You should refer to Him as “Him,” preferably with a capital H because He is God. You just referred to the third person of the Trinity as “it,” and that’s kind of inappropriate.

Fair enough.

Just so you know, in Catholic culture even though we believe absolutely in the Real Presence of Christ, Body/Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist, we still refer to the Eucharist as “it”. It is the Blessed Sacrament.

I’ll reiterate the logic one more time. The first step is to find out if the Holy Spirit indwells you. If He does, you are a Christian.

And again: what “distinguishable characteristic” tells you this is a “reliable landmark” (and also rules out baptism) and what Scripture verses tell you this?

So in order to find out if baptism by water caused the Holy Spirit to indwell you at that time (thus making you a Christian), you find out if the Holy Spirit is indwelling you at some point shortly after you’ve been baptized.

Ok.

And how do you know if the HS is dwelling there?

Are you saying you might be someone who’s never had the Holy Spirit indwelling her?

Please respond to my question, cooterhein. *Are you saying one can’t have the Holy Spirit’s presence without it being truly obvious? *

You’re not allowed to do this anymore until you tell me why you’re being such an imitator of Arius.

Seriously. You don’t want to dance around this; it’s not in your best interest. We can have a very nice conversation if you just explain yourself. If you don’t explain yourself, this won’t be nice at all and I promise you won’t enjoy it. In fact, if you’re unwilling to do this, you should walk away right now. Do not play games with me.

Huh?

Hey, sarcastic girl. Good to see you.

Oh, I am not being sarcastic whatsoever. I rarely am. Sarcasm is the protest of the weak.

I meant every single word, as is. Purgatory, the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception are in the same boat as the Trinity and homoousios.

If you’re accepting of the Trinity et al, then you ought not reject the above. Or, if you reject the above it ought to be for other reasons than “they’re not in the Bible.”

I’m just sayin’.

And, I will reiterate that you ought to really reject the “it’s not in the Bible” paradigm, as you’ve shown, quite a bit, that you have not a few man-made, un-Scriptural traditions.

To wit:

Originally Posted by cooterhein
I do not consider baptism to be the distinguishing characteristic because it’s not a reliable landmark for the time at which a person begins to be "in the Spirit.

Not found in Scripture.

I don’t think the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit can be truly obvious in another person unless you witness the evidence of His work in their life over a long period of time and you know them very well.

Not found in Scripture.

Not every person who’s been baptized is (or ever was) indwelt by the Holy Spirit and transformed by Him into a Christian.

Not found in Scripture.

The Holy Spirit is the mark. And while His presence is within you and therefore not obvious to the casual observer who barely knows you, it should at least be obvious to you.

Not found in Scripture.

The difference between these two states-of-being should be obvious to the person who is examining herself, even if it’s not incredibly obvious to another person who barely knows her, if at all.

Not found in Scripture.

 

[ckempston]

Whatever you do just please be careful, the ICOC is widely thought to be a controling cult. They usually get people in college when they are vulnerable (sp).

BTW the campbellite and Catholic doctrine on baptism is very close, except for the age and the amount of water used.

I think calling it a “controlling cult” is fairly accurate, if by that you mean we actually demand that our members adhere to the Scriptures…or they’re told to leave, as per Jesus in Matthew 18 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 (when’s the last time you saw a priest get up and tell a member to leave until they stop sinning? I’m guessing never). I’ve been a member for 13 years, through good times and bad.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Please, define what you consider to be a ‘real true christian’?

I would define a ‘real true Christian’ as Jesus Christ, of course. And all others are partially real, partially true ones, who thankfully have the one person who perfectly followed the Gospel to intercede for them.

 

[cooterhein]

And, I will reiterate that you ought to really reject the “it’s not in the Bible” paradigm, as you’ve shown, quite a bit, that you have not a few man-made, un-Scriptural traditions.

I don’t follow the “it’s not in the Bible” paradigm. I associated that paradigm with Arius on a half-dozen occasions. I tried to steer you away from it, but you felt like you had to be the one to point this out to me in the most annoying way possible.

As an act of mercy for you, we’re done here.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t follow the “it’s not in the Bible” paradigm. I associated that paradigm with Arius on a half-dozen occasions. I tried to steer you away from it, but you felt like you had to be the one to point this out to me in the most annoying way possible.

As an act of mercy for you, we’re done here.

Not following you. Arius was a Sola Scriptura advocate?

 

[PRmerger]

As an act of mercy for you, we’re done here.

You may, of course, leave by your choice.

I suspected that was going to follow in the path of the Evanescent Non-Catholic Poster (ENCP). The ENCP posits his arguments, then when they are refuted and rebutted, fades away. There is no argument against the Catholic Church that cannot be answered. No objection that cannot be withdrawn.

Hence, the existence of the ENCP. :sad_yes:

 

[mortonsam]

Well, 2 things.

One is you can separate what your church

 

[mortonsam]

You may, of course, leave by your choice.

I suspected that was going to follow in the path of the Evanescent Non-Catholic Poster (ENCP). The ENCP posits his arguments, then when they are refuted and rebutted, fades away. There is no argument against the Catholic Church that cannot be answered. No objection that cannot be withdrawn.

Hence, the existence of the ENCP. :sad_yes:

I totally disagree with you as does Holy Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Uhh, what?? I don’t see that backed anywhere in Scripture.

I don’t fall into the “this has to be backed up by Scripture” paradigm, until you can first show me where it says that anything Christians believe has to be only backed up by Scripture.

When you show me that, then I’ll show you where it says in Scripture that when the Church speaks, God speaks.

That really is a misleading statement. What God says came through the Early Church which was East and West together before they split. There was no Catholic nor Orthodox at that point in history.

Well, it was a Church that had bishops. Does your church have bishops?

It was a Church that held ecumenical councils. Does your church have ecumenical councils?

It was a Church that proclaimed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Does your church do this?

It was a Church that venerated Mary and the saints and prayed for the dead. Does your church do this?

I’m just sayin’.

Same way it is discerned for you. Scripture doesn’t discriminate here.

Indeed. Thus, it was an infallible, outside authority (that is, Scripture was not the foundation for this discernment–something OUTSIDE of Scripture made that determination).

Thus, you agree, if you subscribe to the Scriptures, that there exists an infallible authority. And this infallible authority did not use Scripture to as the norm for discerning God’s revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

I totally disagree with you as does Holy Scripture.

Please provide the argument against the CC that Scripture backs up.

 

[mortonsam]

I don’t fall into the “this has to be backed up by Scripture” paradigm, until you can first show me where it says that anything Christians believe has to be only backed up by Scripture.

Well, it’s no secret that you don’t subscribe to this paradigm. You can’t. You’re Catholic.

When you show me that, then I’ll show you where it says in Scripture that when the Church speaks, God speaks.

I don’t think so. Ultimately Christ founded the Church upon himself. There is no truth outside of Christ. It isn’t defined by the Catholic church or any other church. This isn’t the purpose of the church. Read Acts 2:42-47. This is one of my favorite passages of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think so. **Ultimately Christ founded the Church upon himself. There is no truth outside of Christ. It isn’t defined by the Catholic church or any other church. ** This isn’t the purpose of the church. Read Acts 2:42-47. This is one of my favorite passages of Scripture.

Morton, please use the quote feature correctly. Otherwise I cannot respond to you. All that shows up when I hit “quote” is the above.

No argument with you the above bolded section. It’s very Catholic of you to say that, actually!

 

[mortonsam]

Morton, please use the quote feature correctly. Otherwise I cannot respond to you. All that shows up when I hit “quote” is the above.

sorry about that. I didn’t know that i used it incorrectly again until it posted. I have no clue what i did differently that time.

 

[PRmerger]

sorry about that. I didn’t know that i used it incorrectly again until it posted. I have no clue what i did differently that time.

Whatever you want to appear in the grey quote box must be between these two BB codes:

blah blah blah / quote]

Then you can comment here.

Then, you put my comment in quotes, again with the BB codes:

PRmerger says blah blah blah /quote]

Then you post your comment outside those codes.

 

[pipper]

I think calling it a “controlling cult” is fairly accurate, if by that you mean we actually demand that our members adhere to the Scriptures…or they’re told to leave, as per Jesus in Matthew 18 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 (when’s the last time you saw a priest get up and tell a member to leave until they stop sinning? I’m guessing never). I’ve been a member for 13 years, through good times and bad.

actually I was reffering to things like your “discipler” choosing your major, your girlfriend, your wife.

BTW the scriptures came after the church and the church gave birth to the scriptures.

I’m not trying to offend you at all, that’s the reason for my friendly caution.

I was falsely taught in my former cofc that the sciptures made the church. And followed them slavishly, every thing had to have a “thus saith the Lord” or it was wrong, even organ music. If it is not demanded in the bible it’s wrong.

Their history says that when the church stopped obeying the bible then God allowed the church to “apostacise” and the chruch and Christianity just ceased to exist until the early 1800s when the Campbells brought Christianity back into existence, “restored”.

The problem is the bible was not canonised until the late 4th century, long after the church had supposedly “apostocised” it’self right out of existence. So therefore the church that didn’t have the bible ceased to exist for not following every tiny thing in the bible and “going beyond” the commands of the bible.

Personally I think that’'s a little illogical.

 

[ByHisWounds]

A person who accepts Christ as his Savior AND Lord. Not one without the other. A true Christian understands he is helplessly lost in his sin and accepts the Gift that is Christ’s blood. The Holy Spirit comes into his heart and he dies to his old ways and Christ lives in him.

 

[TracyR]

That is such a tough question. I guess a ‘true Christian’ would first be one who says they are. There are lots of people who do good things but they aren’t neccesarily Christian either. Meaning they do not believe in God, Christ. etc.

A ‘true Christian’ would be one who professes that they are, are baptised in their faith, lives their faith, and loves God with his whole heart and soul.