The "born again" argument

[ishii]

What something says and what something does are 2 different things. It could say they won’t but that don’t mean they won’t.

Then why did you ask her to provide an example of a website in the first place? You’re not making sense.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I think Catholics need to be a little more evangelical. . . in fact the Priest at the Catholic church I frequently attend says the same thing.
If I sent my kids to a Catholic school or daycare or camp, and they were not approached in this way - evangelically - I’d think something was wrong! Don’t you agree?

You have a point there. Reading the biography of the mountanier Jim Whittaker, he recounts how after attending the Jesuit run Seattle University for a few years in the 50’s, he converted to Catholicism. He wrote that it was almost inevitable, given how the Jesuits defended and explained the faith. Now the focus is on ecumenism and inter-faith understanding, and the politics of oppression. And the old Jesuits - “the pope’s marines” are all but gone.

On the other hand, there are 30+ people in the RCIA program at my parish, so it seems there is an effort at evangelism. Ultimately its the Holy Spirit that does the work, but we can point people in the right direction and be good examples of a Christian. Being a good example is probably the best way to evangelize.

Ishii

 

[freerf]

She should concede to what she does not by the convictions of her Catholic beliefs and true devotion to Mary what she does not agree with, so as not to risk appearing disingenuous to those of Faith backgrounds who do not acknowledge the full glories of Mary, The Virgin Mother of God?
All Marian Doctrines are based on solid, not loose, Scriptural grounds; some of the understanding of which is blocked by the hardness of our hearts, how could we remain blind to the relation of the Assumption of Mary to the Ascension of The Lord Jesus? How could we error in believing in The Immaculate Conception of The Lord Jesus but deny the same of His own Mother? Especially, when the messenger Angel Gabriel who stood before the throne of The Most High God calls her “Full of Grace”, how do we depreciate what God has spoken? As He has spoken so it has been written, in the Scriptures, in the hearts of all mankind, that we are to call her: Blessed! Mother! please pray for us! As our Mother she herself tells us to do this in the Scriptures…what scripture do you read that tells you that if Mary pleads for you as her son which you are, that the Triune all loving and all Merciful God will shun her? Where have you people gotten these ideas? Most of them were unheard of until, who came along? Was it a new prophet foretold of in Scripture? Luther? William of Orange? You or I as long as we claim sola scriptura?

The Assumption of Mary and Immaculate Conception is based on solid scripture? not according to many Catholics i know who recognize it’s based on solid Tradition. . .but ok. Scripture can be used as a support for the belief, but cannot be used as an origin.

I’m done with this.

 

[freerf]

you are correct. eye witness accounts and the like. which give us our traditions. even in scripture tho, you have some interesting passages in revelation, not to mention the ark of the covenant in the old testament, which testifies about Mary. i believe the scripture does support these dogmas. remember the traditions are much older than the new testament which came along much later. the assumption of Mary is easy enough to defend, and the immaculate conception may be a little more complex, but it can be done. im not a scholar or a theologian, but id love to take a crack at it. post your objections. lets see what ya got. i love defending the Blessed Mother, the bible, and the traditions handed down to us. i may not be able to always answer immediatly, because im deployed, and am very busy, but id be happy to respond if you would like to put something solid on the table, not just the accusation that something is unbiblical. if thats the case, you cannot believe in the trinity. its not found in scripture. you have to rely on Church councils, and tradition:bigyikes:. come to think of it, the protestant bible you now use, is a direct descendant of Church councils, and traditions. too bad your ancestors took the other books out. your missing quite a bit of the word of God that also is very good. Peace

Thanks for the offer, but no, I’m not interested in trying to “prove” any Catholic doctrine as wrong here.

What I’ve been arguing, from the beginning, is that much of the dogma of Mary cannot be supported with scripture alone. Again, why this would bother any Catholic is beyond me! Although, I know many Catholics who can easily acknowledge this fact without having their faith compromised.

For a Catholic, dogma doesn’t need to be supported by scripture alone. Tradition supports it, right?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic please.

 

[andycat]

I was raised in the Episcopal (Anglican) church and am back practicing as an Episcopalian again after a long stint away in the Charismatic/Baptist brand of Protestant churches. Having been raised Episcopalian, we are also raised with the Sacraments. I was baptized as an infant, confirmed as a teenager and went through all the steps. To me, the steps to confirmation were taken very seriously and I know without a shadow of a doubt that my personal relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ began in my childhood and teen years, in a sacramental church. Not all Protestants believe that you have to “ask Jesus in to your heart” to be “saved”, in fact, more are closer to Catholicism (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians…etc) with observation of the Sacraments and Baptism into the Kingdom. I have to say that although I’ve seen many a transformation in people in our years in the Baptist faith, it always seemed a little presumptuous and silly to me that people believed that just because someone recited some version of the believers prayer somehow made them a Christian over and above those who were committed to such by their parents and God parents in childhood. My husband and I were both rebaptized as adults by immersion as part of membership requirements in the church we were in. Our Pastor specifically told us that this was not intended to in any way dishonor choices made by parents in our youth, but was nothing more than an outward expression of an inward faith. Christians in non sacramental churches do not believe that Baptism is salvation, but rather obedience to God’s word. However, they require a profession of faith before baptizing you, so how different is it really? To me, it’s what you choose to do with it that matters…because you can Baptize a child and if they turn out to be a serial killer or something, they are no more bound for heaven than the one sitting next to them in prison that “accepted Christ in to his heart” as a teenager before he killed someone. Our church is not typical of Episcopal churches though, we observe the sacraments, but also preach that it’s important for your spiritual growth and walk with the Lord to accept Christ at some point.