Please read and help me answer this.. I'm weary!

[Sir_Knight]

Okay, so what is this suppose to mean …

it is not profitable to dispute with men about the things of God as the Holy Spirit is faithful and will lead and guide and the answers are with Him.

Remember all the vessels are His and He has some for honor and some for dishonor but they are all His. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law”

Remember Pharaoh and how he pursued the children of God and did not want to let them go? God let us to know that He was the one that harden Pharaoh’s heart that He may gain glory for Himself through Pharaoh and his army, and that the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord. God is still in control and what you see must be, because it is all in His Devine plan that He may gain glory for Himself. In all things give Him praise, for this is His will concerning us.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

So is he saying that God wants him (like Pharoh and judas) meet a horrid doom. So what is to say we are not here to save him? As for not disputing. Disputeing is biblical. Peter and Paul disputed. Paul and some of his disciples disputed. And you know what it was for everybodies benifet. And the bible says that if one is in err talk to him first in private then if he doesn’t listen, talk with him in the prescence of two or three men and then with the church if he still won’t listen. Does the bible like correcting people. Yes. So tell him that God has … done something to your heart and you must correct him.
It sounds like you have him cornered and he is fighting for a reason not to listen.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Headway has been made… maybe not by us, but at least by a non-catholic who actually managed to convince the one of the posters that catholics don’t condemn non-catholics to hell.

All it took was one small comment (don’t know if there’s truth in it) and a paragraph from the CCC! The comment was that a priest was ex-communicated for preaching that it was ONLY through the Catholic faith (literally) that people are saved.

I’ve no interest in defending that statement since it soothed the non-catholic.

Unfortunately, UrisStar is still refusing to “listen” for the last few posts s/he made they put an smiley of a face with the sun revolving around it… I keep wondering if that means that her/his faith is centered around him/her instead of around God as they claim.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Well, three cheers for progess. hip hip…cheer. hip hip…cheer. hip hip cheer.

Well the pic. you discribed that the other poster sent could be a sign of ego centricism.

But, keep up the good work. We’re cheering for you.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Hmmm, it seems that the one who “assured” is now on the protestant bandwagon… one step forward, two steps back… this is getting interesting, seems we have to repeat everything again, but find a different angle since this one has a different style than the others.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Loboto-Me:

Hmmm, it seems that the one who “assured” is now on the protestant bandwagon… one step forward, two steps back… this is getting interesting, seems we have to repeat everything again, but find a different angle since this one has a different style than the others.

well, if we take another step backwards or so maybe we can see enough to throw an efective pass (hopefully for a touchdown) so maybe it’s time for a hail mary pass.

O.K. sorry for the football bit, I saw the oppretunity and couldn’t help my self . Is the CCC the guy used still a valid argument for our purposes?

I remeber watching a movie once and this gentleman soldier kept makeing odd (but, strangly enough true) analogy statements and I remeber one of them was, “My papy told me once that if you are going to put a nail into a board, you don’t do a lot of fancy swinging around, you just take the hammer and pound the (self-censor) of it till it’s in.” I don’t know if that was how he said it exaclty, it has been a while scince I say the movie.

Do you think the best tactic would simply to be blunt and bury these people with evidence to the contrary (of whatever false idea they have)? If so I will do my best to help find all the evidence you need.

For as a great Notre Dame Head Coach once said, “We’re going to run. Run, Run, Run. Inside, outside, inside and outside. And after that we’re going to run some more. We’re going to run till we get to the endzone and score. We’re going to run and we’re going to win.” And eavryone goes crazy. :banghead:

Hope to hear from you soon.

 

[Loboto-Me]

It’s not going very well, we’re back to square one I think… now all 3 protestants are protesting, and I’m so slow at answers that I’m not much help to Sir Knight

We need the “calvary” LOL

 

[RobNY]

Quite honestly, his whole objections to the sacraments are rather silly, I think.

Yes, Christ’s work was done, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be applied, as it obviously does.

The Mass is the sacrifice of the Lamb ‘standing as though slain’ (Rev 5:6), offering Himself perpetually to the Father for our sins. Why?

Because we have “we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God,” (Hebrews 4:14). And what is the duty of a high priest?

Hebrews 5:1

1 1 2 Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

A high priest is a high priest because he offers sacrifice. In order for Jesus to be high priest he can’t just stop offering sacrifice-- and he does offer sacrifice, the same sacrifice He made on Calvary for all of us.

Some of the other stuff he is saying, like religion being all personal, is just nonsense. I think you’d have to get into the subject of the priesthood to get him there. I’m not sure how to lead into it, though.

By the way-- Luther wholeheartedly supported the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I don’t know what this guy is talking about, but the Protestant reformers certainly did not reject sacraments wholeheartedly. The Anglicans have sacraments too, I believe.

 

[Loboto-Me]

This is going to be an interesting situation… it seems that one of the protesters is an ex-catholic, who claims that he will always defend the church’s beauty etc, yet, he has no problem finding faults galore. I KNEW we needed to approach this person differently.

I mentioned the first protestants understanding the sacraments, I’m awaiting a response from him (he’s reading it now).

 

[RobNY]

Loboto-Me:

This is going to be an interesting situation… it seems that one of the protesters is an ex-catholic, who claims that he will always defend the church’s beauty etc, yet, he has no problem finding faults galore. I KNEW we needed to approach this person differently.

Yes. I’ve been reading on the priesthood lately, because the theology and such behind it is so interesting to me.

Here’s what you should do. Read Jimmy Akin on the 'threefold priesthood.’ Now, if I may be so vain, read my posts in this topic on the baptismal and ministerial priesthood-- and as a supplement to that, a short post on the logical conclusions from what I was saying about that.

The threefold priesthood is important because it shows the continuity between the old priesthood and the new priesthood. Note how Akin reminds us how the people were a royal priesthood and has ministerial priests prior to being given the Law.

This article doesn’t seem to bad either… and it has another helpful quote in the vein of my last post here…

Also realize this: if you can get someone to agree that the Real Presence is a true doctrine, they next thing they must do is find a way to receive that Real Presence. That’s where the arguments about the priesthood come in.

Hrm, perhaps you should start reading up on the sacraments.

By the way, he mistakenly claims that we try to ‘earn’ grace throught the sacraments-- FALSE-- the Church teaches grace is unmerited. I’m sure the councils of Trent or Orange could help you in that regard.

 

[Loboto-Me]

WONDERFUL advice Rob I have a “date” with my husband, and I’ll be doing some studying afterwards.

Thank you so much for the pointers!

 

[RobNY]

Oh yes, read this tract on assurance of salvation and start hitting them with Bible verses.

Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

Regarding the issue of whether Christians have an “absolute” assurance of salvation, regardless of their actions, consider this warning Paul gave: “See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day” (2 Tim. 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., *dedikaiomai

]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27).
Have fun there. OSAS will be a rather good thing to demolish first, now to think of it. That will open the door.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Thanks RobNY. I will look at them after school tommorow.

I think the only way to reach an ex-catholic would really be by Catichism to show what the church really teaches (because I am sure that he will say that the Church teaches something that it doesn’t) and then scripture to back up what the church says.
That is what I think, may not amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

At the risk of sounding overly sarcastic but, I noticed that it sounded like that you two were talking about the Eucharist but, wouldn’t one good reply be:
Wouldn’t “Eat me!” be the same as “Bite Me!” which is a bit derogitory? Was Jesus chewing the apostles out? I am tring to imageine Jesus prancing around telling each of the aposltes “Bite me, Bite me ,Bite me.”

Sorry, ya’ll had me thinking and it just popped into my mind and I thought ya’ll might like to put that to them in a less sarcastic way.

 

[RobNY]

Montie Claunch:

At the risk of sounding overly sarcastic but, I noticed that it sounded like that you two were talking about the Eucharist but, wouldn’t one good reply be:
Wouldn’t “Eat me!” be the same as “Bite Me!” which is a bit derogitory? Was Jesus chewing the apostles out? I am tring to imageine Jesus prancing around telling each of the aposltes “Bite me, Bite me ,Bite me.”

Sorry, ya’ll had me thinking and it just popped into my mind and I thought ya’ll might like to put that to them in a less sarcastic way.

Actually, I’d have to look this up, but maybe someone could find this for me, but I’ve read articles on how if the phrase eat my flesh, drink my blood was applied figuratively in a Semetic language, it would be something like asking someone to aim calumny at you.

And no, there is no reason to think Jesus was sarcastic. In the first place, it would be quite uncharitable, and God is perfect.

“Bite me” is an English phrase which didn’t exist at the time Jesus was speaking. Perhaps if you can show that Aramaic-- let alone any Semetic language-- has an equivalent of “Bite me,” then you can go further.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Point taken. But, if it’s alright with you, can I still use it? While it might not prove anything, I think it is a fun little didy.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Anybody wanna field this …

The body of Christ have no importance to the RCC because they can’t be the Church (INDIVIDUALS/GOD CREATION) if they are to maintain the concept of the church as an institution, vatican, buildings. They are implying that God cares more for buildings and statues and such, things made by man’s hand, than He care for the people He created, in other words what man has built is more important to God than what God has created. What is wrong with that picture.

They (RCC) are not any other religion- they are the church, the only church with the promises that He made to Peter, that upon this rock (meaning Peter) I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail/overcome against it, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Unlike the Romans and their wise men, philosophers and their maginary knowledge, Peter knew exactly what Jesus meant when He talk about the rock, the Church, and the keys. The roman catholics instead of killing christians and jews should have found out from them the knowledge and understanding they had of their God. Their (RCC) new form of christianity is lacking and the very claims that they and are puff-up about will be shattered by that rock, the rock cut out of the Mountain of God and not by human’s hand.

King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about that rock and Daniel give the interpretation, the rock that was cut out, but not by human hands-a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. Daniel said that the great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. Daniel said the dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy. Maybe you should study it sometime and just maybe you might recognize.

You asked for scriptures and history? Enjoy!

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. :nod: :hide:

PS: Peter requested to hang on the cross upside down, was it his last effort to let the future know that his works and his words were going to be turned upside down? Things that makes one go mmmmmm?

… I don’t even understand what she is talking about with most of her comments and therefore, I don’t know what point she is making and if it is consistent with Catholic teaching.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

The body of Christ have no importance to the RCC because they can’t be the Church (INDIVIDUALS/GOD CREATION) if they are to maintain the concept of the church as an institution, vatican, buildings. They are implying that God cares more for buildings and statues and such, things made by man’s hand, than He care for the people He created, in other words what man has built is more important to God than what God has created. What is wrong with that picture.

Not so fast my freind. Last tuesday at the All saints day I spent about an hour listening to a PREIST talk about how he Loves each and eavry one of us. The church has never taught that the buildings were more loved by God than man.
The big Cathedrals that one can find are something that the Church did, which not only helped those in an area by giving the jobs and money to support their faimlies but, something to be proud of. So they could say, “Look what we did for God.”
The Late JPII when he was a preist would hold services in the outdoors. Love of buildings? please. Your accusation is what is wrong with the picture.

They (RCC) are not any other religion- they are the church, the only church with the promises that He made to Peter, that upon this rock (meaning Peter) I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail/overcome against it, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

O.K. I am cool with this.

Unlike the Romans and their wise men, philosophers and their maginary knowledge, Peter knew exactly what Jesus meant when He talk about the rock, the Church, and the keys. The roman catholics instead of killing christians and jews should have found out from them the knowledge and understanding they had of their God. Their (RCC) new form of christianity is lacking and the very claims that they and are puff-up about will be shattered by that rock, the rock cut out of the Mountain of God and not by human’s hand.

Yeah, He was talking about Peter. What the Protestant had in truth the got from us. And the Jews, what are we lacking from them. The Mosaic Laws, Animal Sacrifices, Ohh yeah we are supposed to have that.
Hey don’t forget that Protestant were just as mean towards eavryone else. Calventist were just as much into burning people, as well as the English and The american Puritains (who to decied if one was a whitch would put you into a cage and dunk you into a river and if you came up alive it proved that you were a witch and you were burned.). Why arn’t you complaining about other people who were just as rotten in the past?

 

[Montie_Claunch]

King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about that rock and Daniel give the interpretation, the rock that was cut out, but not by human hands-a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. Daniel said that the great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. Daniel said the dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy. Maybe you should study it sometime and just maybe you might recognize.

Alright, yeah there is another rock in scripture. jumps in happiness but, that has little to do with the Papacy and the Rock Jesus was talking about. In that passage, Jesus never talks about himself. He says with More words, “Blessed are you Simon Bar-jona. You are Peter and apon this Rock I will found my church.” No subject change in the whole thing. Just Peter.

You asked for scriptures and history? Enjoy!

ummm…Thanks?

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

And the point is…what exactly? God gave us revelation? Yeah and entrusted it to the church. I thougt it was funny that it spoke some people who could not see nor hear which is why they crucified christ, sounds like whoever is posting this.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. :nod: :hide:

Alright the Holy Ghost teacheth. Didn’t The HG reveal who Jesus was to Peter. Which lead Jesus on to say what he said. Agian Jesus told us that he would safe gaurd us.

PS: Peter requested to hang on the cross upside down, was it his last effort to let the future know that his works and his words were going to be turned upside down? Things that makes one go mmmmmm?

No, he did not feel worth to die like our blessed lord. It was him humble. Diffrent thing. Sighs

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Listen if all he is going to do is jump and point at the inquisition or something else may I be bold enought to say that maybe if one looks up some dirt on the Protestants and say, “Look ya’ll have sinned just as much as we have, and that makes you just as much “Anti-christs” as us. The Fact that we did that is horriable and God isn’t happy with that but, that doesn’t detract from what Jesus said, about the Church. That the Gates of Hell wouldn’t over come it. If the only measureing stick is ones history then we are all screwed because we have all sinned. I have, and You have. And if one has sinned and that somehow invailidates what one is saying then I don’t see how you could say you are right and we are wrong 'cause you have sinned which would make you wrong. But, lets face it. Truth is indipendent of ones personal charecter. 2+2=4 will always be true regardless of who is saying it.”