Why did you leave the Catholic Church?

[Randy_Carson]

My whole problem with that is that the RC is not bigger than Christ which means that one can find Christ in other churches besides the RC. Nothing came between Christ and myself.

However, how many “churches” did Jesus found?

“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my ________.”

“Church” or “churches”?

You see, nothing stands between Christ and his body, the Church.

If something stands between you and his Church, then something must stand between you and Christ.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. I dont believe that the pope is the vicar of christ.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

John 21:15-19
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Is Jesus the Good Shepherd? Has he just given responsibility for the care and feeding of His flock to Peter? :yup:

1. I dont believe that Mary, although highly favored, was bodily assumed into heaven

Then where do Christians throughout the world acknowledge her grave site to be?

1. I dont believe that Mary remained a virgin her entire life

But this is what the early Church believed. Do you have better and more reliable information than they did? :nope:

1. I dont believe that baptism removes original sin…I do believe that baptism is something that you should do in obedience to JC, but that it is not required for salvation.

1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

1. I dont believe that the RCC is what the original church fathers had intended

The Church was built by Jesus as He intended. As for the Fathers, my signature shows what Augustine thought about it.

1. I dont believe in mortal/venial sins in the way that the RCC has characterized them as it relates to salvation

1 John 5:16
16: If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.

1. I believe that JC paid for all sins, past/present/future, not that he opened the gates

Then why am I still held accountable for my sins if Jesus has already paid the price for them ALL? Why does anyone EVER go to hell if we’re ALL covered?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. I dont believe in transubstantiation

This is usually the first doubt of Catholics who leave the Church. But since you are concerned with what the Fathers intended, please consider just two of the earliest writers noting the dates:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

1. I do believe in the 5 solas in that I mean that it is in faith alone, grace alone, for God’s glory alone, in Christ alone, by scripture alone

Concerning sola scriptura, please show a verse that teaches this. Absent the Bible teaching this doctrine, it is self-refuting meaning that one of the doctrines that is required for a faithful believer to accept is itself NOT taught by the Bible. Extra-biblical tradition is what Protestant object to in Catholicism, isn’t it?

Do you accept any tradition outside the Bible as binding upon every believer?

Concerning sola fide, can you explain why the only time the phrase “faith alone” appears in the Bible is in the following verse:

James 2:24
24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. I believe in eternal security (I am still working on some aspects of this)

Please explain eternal security in light of the following verses:

Matthew 7:21
21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

John 20:21-23
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Jesus has given the authority to forgive and retain sins to men. How does one know that his sins are forgiven when he confesses them to God alone? Doesn’t the Catholic hear the words of absolution (or not) from his confessor and have the assurance of forgiveness you seek?

Romans 11:22
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Hebrews 10:26-29
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Matthew 24:13
13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

1 Timothy 1:18-20
18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

2 Peter 2:20-21
20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

1 John 5:16-17
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Phillipians 2:12
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

1. I do not believe in a magesterium that way the RCC has it set up

Is it possible you do not understand how Jesus set it up?

2 Timothy 3:15-16
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of [this was learned by oral preaching - also called “tradition”], because you know those from whom you learned it [those who taught Timothy were men who taught with authority - the magisterium], 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

Rosary beads isn’t as old as the RCC. “Prayer beads” have been used by other religions for years before. PJII also gave his decision on evolution. Nuff said.

kujo, ecstatic gatherings are also as old as recorded history, where people get together and dance like tigger. Because people of non-Christian religions have done these things, does that make them “traditions of men”? We know that non-Christians also use glossolalia, does that mean you use it according to Paganism?

The “traditions” of the Apostles that I use are what was written in the New Testament and in Acts. THAT’S “Apostolic tradition”, NOT what THEIR followers said or did. The RCC claims that it put the Bible together yet it failed to include Jame’s claim that Mary’s tomb was empty. Why? It doesn’t matter just the same as if she remained a virgin or not. THAT’S your “traditions of men”.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges kujo. The reference to the body of Mary never having been found. this doctrine relates to the Assumption of Mary. It has nothing to do with her perpetual virginity. What matters, kujo, is faithfully embracing the faith that was handed on to us from the Apostles. Mary’s virginity may not be relevant to the salvation of your soul. Departure from the teachings of Jesus, on the other hand, may.

Old testament tradition (and Peter wanted to build one, too) of altars. Have one in your home? I do. If they can make an altar out of a pile of rocks, I can use my bed.

I am not sure what you are reacting to here. You don’t seem to object to the altar, but you also previously have rejected teachings from the OT, and how they apply to the New.

“eye”, “heart”… good one. Bible also mentions a sacrificial lamb without spot or wrinkle. Note that it doesn’t say anything about the lamb’s mother… nothing. Yet, at the top of this very page is proof that your own “heart” is led astray. My heart is on the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Is yours? Or should I be asking your mother instead?

kujo, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords chose to enter this world through that mother. His blood cleansed her so that she, too, would be without spot or wrinkle. Would you not do the same for your mother, had you the power? Or does your disrespect for the Mother of the Lord emanate from a disrespect of mother in general? Honoring Mary takes nothing from Jesus, but rather, when we say “why should the mother of my Lord come to me?” with Elizabeth, we rejoice in the gift that is the fruit of her womb.

“flesh” and “blood”. Key word: “rememberance”. It’s to REMEMBER that Jesus died and that HIS BLOOD was spilt as God’s sacrificial Lamb. Pump your stomach on Sunday night and you’ll find a wafer and some juice.

I am glad that you remember that Jesus died and his blood paid the price for your sins. Jesus taught that he would give us his flesh to eat, and the Apostles practiced and taught this and all of their successors up to the present day. He said that if you do not eat His flesh, and drink His blood , you will have no life in you.

Paul calls us ALL “saints”. Nobody has to be voted for or die first. We’re told not to consult the dead nor to make any graven images of things in Heaven. Also, when Jesus comes back to meet us in the clouds (rapture), the dead in Christ shall rise first. Was Peter and Paul “flawed” while walking this planet? (all have sinned)

Are you saying that we should all model our lives after you, as an example of how Christ wants us to behave?

If you think the saints in heaven are dead,then your arguement is with Jesus, not with Catholics. All are alive unto him. What do you think happened to all those who came out of their graves after Jesus was resurrected?

I feel warm and fuzzy. But I also feel sorrowful and repentant when I sin. (we are FLAWED) Fortunately, MY God, Jesus, when He said to forgive others “70 times 7 times”, He’d follow that Himself.

Have you ever considered forgiving the Catholic church for failing to evangelize you?

 

[guanophore]

Your religion and denomination has “warm and fuzzy feelings” too. That’s why they argue “HOW can Jesus come from an imperfect womb?” (mom = “warm and fuzzy”) That tangent should never exist.

This is a very interesting and complex remark. If, to you, warm and fuzzy = mom, perhaps it is a personal issue that makes you so defensive about “mom”? You are then saying that your present religious experience meets your “mommy” needs, because you define it as warm and fuzzy. You did not get this warm fuzzy in the Catholic Church, but finding yourself lacking in it, went to where you could have your need met.

I am confused about the “tangent” reference. It is possibly part of that thinking error that having respect for Jesus’ mother somehow subtracts from having respect for the Lord.

 

[guanophore]

Kujo -
**Can you tell me when and where it says NOT **to consult or ask for intercession from the dead? The Old Testament speaks of “calling up the dead” and “seeking mediums” being evil - not of praying for and asking for prayer from those who have gone before us. (Deuteronomy 18:9, Leviticus 19:31, Leviticus 20:6, 1 Chronicles 10:13)
On the contrary - I cited several New Testament passages that enocourage intercession for each other that you have failed to address.
The problem with people like you is that you refuse to believe in the promises of Jesus by insisting that those who have died in Christ are DEAD. Like I told you before - they are MORE ALIVE than YOU or ME. Hebrews 12:1 assures us that we are surrounded by “a cloud of witnesses” and Revelation 8:1-5 reminds us of the prayers of the saints being poured out before God. Gee - doesn’t sound like a bunch of dead people to me.
What spiritual pride must one have to call these holy ones of God, “dead people”?
The bottom line is that you left the Church because you didn’t know her - not because you weren’t being fed.
You have a responsibility to the truth - you must seek it. (Matt 6:33)

I wonder if kujo thinks the cloud of witnesses in Heb. 12:1-2 are “dead”?

When a person prays the rosary, do they just repeat the “Hail Mary” over and over? Is that all it is?

I believe that was the case for kujo, and I think he is not alone in that experience.

 

[guanophore]

Romans 1:22
Professing to be wise, they became fools

Ecclesiastes 5:1

Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil.

Not only did you prove that you’re ignorant, but your whole denomination belittled our Lord and His Work.
Shall I post more “doctrine of demons”, or “traditions of men (woman)”?

Even if I proved my point to your standards you wouldn’t listen anyway.

Well, let’s see. You have said Catholics are fools, that we give the sacrifice of fools, that we are ignorant, belittle the Lord and His work, that the Catholic Church teaches doctrines of demins and traditions of men…doesn’t that cover it? Is there really more?

Really, kujo, you sound like you have a lot of hatred for Catholicism. I hope you will be able to find forgiveness in your heart.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Hi
I don’t hold that IslamQuran enjoins one to spread it with sword. It spread for its reasonable arguments. Quran says; bring forth your arguments if you have any, so it is a reason oriented Religion. There is no need of any sword for spreading Islam, please be sure. Please quote one incident in which Muhammad killed any person, in Mecca or Madina; there is none. Peace.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

Technically you are right. Muhammad never killed anyone. He had men around him who were willing to do the killing for him.

Muhammad and many people assassinated. And he lead his followers into one battle after another…. Again killing people. It is very disingenuous for you to make a claim that Muhammad did not kill anyone. When a person orders the death of another they are part of the crime of murder. The battles and assassinations were all proundly recorded by Muslims. These are no secret. And since they were recorded by Muslims at the time they happened, they cannot be denied.

I really wish you would not post stuff like this because then I have to answer it keep fight the fantasy you are spreading. You might want to do like the Muslims of old and simply admit to the autausicties and killing Muhammad participated in and/or commanded.

Muhammad and his people raided caravans and fought in hundreds of battles. Muhammad’s followers killed people in all of these. In the Battle of the Trench alone they captured the town then beheaded all of the men, about 900 of them.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/insult_responses.htm
After the capture of Mecca Muhammad ordered 10 people executed…. People who had displeased him for things like leaving Islam or speaking out against him.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/meccan10.html
Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society

answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm
The one that gets to me the most is that he had Asma killed. She was a poetess who wrote a poem against Muhammad. He asked that someone kill her. The assassin snuck into her home at night and stabbed her to death while she was nursing her baby.

 

[guanophore]

Hi
I don’t hold that IslamQuran enjoins one to spread it with sword. It spread for its reasonable arguments. Quran says; bring forth your arguments if you have any, so it is a reason oriented Religion. There is no need of any sword for spreading Islam, please be sure. Please quote one incident in which Muhammad killed any person, in Mecca or Madina; there is none. Peace.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

Why would Mohammed kill his own followers? There were no others in Mecca or Medina at the time! It was those in Jerusalem! And in Europe. No, there is no need for the sword to spread Islam. The sword is reserved for thos of us that reject it. Once we are put to death, Islam can spread fine without any sword. You are not fooling anybody.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Why would Mohammed kill his own followers? There were no others in Mecca or Medina at the time! It was those in Jerusalem! And in Europe. No, there is no need for the sword to spread Islam. The sword is reserved for thos of us that reject it. Once we are put to death, Islam can spread fine without any sword. You are not fooling anybody.

Actually when Muhammad started his stint as a self proclaimed prophet, there were no Muslims at all in Mecca, Medina or anywhere else in the world. My the time he died, he and his people had killed or driven off the non-Muslims from Mecca and Medina. The he ordered his followers to take then entire world for Islam as they did Mecca and Medina.

 

[elvisman]

I knew your denomination but not the Church so I left it. I once was lost but now I’m found. The RCC DID feed me… little bit of cancer with the food. People throughout your religion’s “history” added “traditions” that is not good for the Body.

I seeked the Truth. Diligently searched for Him. I asked like He told me to. I seeked and I knocked.

Found Him. Truly Him. Biblically based so I KNOW it’s Him. Not some “oral tradition” that cannot be proved or that can be “watered down”.

"Catholic " is NOT a denomination. It is the UNIVERSAL Church of Jesus Christ established in Matt. 16.
"Pentecostal", “Baptist”, “Methodist”, “Lutheran” - THOSE are denominations, that is to say, taking on different names (the “nom” in “deNOMination”) for Jesus’ ONLY established Church. A short lesson in Greek and Latin will show you the error of your ways.
Again, out of respect for you, I would contend that you DIDN’T know Jesus’s Church or you wouldn’t have left her.
You would have known that EVERY tenet of the Catholic Church - the ONLY Church established by Jesus HIMSELF - is based soundly on Scripture.
I would add that the 2 pillars of your denomination - dare I say, your entire Protestant belief system - can be easily refuted by Scripture ALONE.

 

[macleod]

Wow, thank you momof02green and MariaG for living up to my expectations for what would happen after I posted.

I so enjoy making a heartfelt, honest post and instead of showing some amount of charity, I get accused of something. Actually, this was the same thing that happened when I posted a comment 2-3 years ago when I was thinking of leaving. Someone like yourself helped me towards that decision.

Just to “defend” myself against you anti-anti catholic bashers, here is ANOTHER post that I made awhile back shortly after the davinci code was coming out in response to someone lunkhead saying that protestants arent doing anything about it:
*
Hello macleod,

---

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL

---

JoeyWarren has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Where
is the Outcry? Why are Protestants quiet? - in the Non-Catholic Religions forum
of Catholic Answers Forums.

Here is the message that has just been posted:

---

Please take note that I use to be one of these non-Catholics that use to bash
Catholics. I know the number Catholic bashers that exist and which
denominations are anti-catholic. I am still in touch with some of my
anti-catholic satanic cohorts and they are in fact gleeful about DVC.

---

To respond to this post, go to:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117516&goto=newpost

There may be other replies also. However, you will not receive any more
notifications until you visit the forum again.

Yours,
Catholic Answers Forums team

Unsubscription information:*


I clicked on the link and it took me who nows where where I then get a private email from a randy carson asking to check his responses. I can talk to that in anothe thread.

Actually, from what I remember of an email that I received a long time ago, the catholic forum had said that some anticatholics had crashed their servers or something like that. So instead of doing what you did, maybe you should assume someone is genuinely honest. 

 I am going to give y'all a nickels worth of free advice, find something else to do with your time. You are doing zippo to further the kingdom with your respective attitudes. You have shown ZERO charity. I would strongly urge both of you to reflect on your recent actions and think "does this further the kingdom?" You will never persuade anyone of your beliefs when you falsly accuse (and please do not insult my intelligence by saying it was anything other than that). 


As an aside, the post above was not the one I was referring to (however, the posters shared the same attitudes that I have come to expect from you folks. 

After I finish my next post, I may come back again in another year or so. It takes me that long to get over the emotions dealing with your kind. I simply do not have the wherewithall to be falsly accused. Maybe as I grow with Christ I will develop that ability.

sola christus

 

[macleod]

Hello, Randy.

I was a little surprised to receive both a response and a private message asking me to look at the response when I get some time. I was under the assumption that I could post my reason for leaving without getting responses (as well as the other treatment).

Randy, I say this in all honesty and humility, do you honestly think that this is the first time I or other non-RCC’ers have heard these sophmoric responses? I mean really…I appreciate that you think that the RCC is right…I think that I am right. I use to be an RCC’er. My decision to leave was not some flippant thing and I am a little offended that you make it sound that way.

Take for instance, Matthew 16:18. Do you seriously think that I and other protestants have never heard this one liner? To even quote this is a serious offense to my intellect (not to mention othe r protestants). I am not going to dignify the rest of your statements with responses except with the advice that you learn both arguments from their original sources. For example, instead of reading about how luthor was wrong from RCC apologists, try getting the docs yourself and read them. You would agree that you shouldnt go to an athiest sit to learn about Christianity…right.

These comments are not meant to be slams on your person, but I get a little tired when I see RCC folks treating protestants (or anyone else for that matter) like they are simpletons. You certainly wouldnt like me to tell you that you worship beads…right??? When I said that I have studied, read, listened to debates, etc. that doesnt mean that I listened to a 1/2 broadcast of the dave hunt and chick publications show.

And lastly, I do admire your willingness to defend your king (i think you are wrong). I see so many folks out there that blindly follow something without a clue of why. You at least have spent some amount of time learning your faith and realize that it should be defended. Now again, I think that you are wrong in your conclusions, but when I stand in front of God, If I am wrong (and I am willing to admit that), it will not be from a lack of studying and learning what I can.

May the holy spirit guide us both to find truth.

sola Christus

 

[macleod]

I reread my post (to mom2green amd mariag) and just so I can make the point crystal clear…what I am trying to show is that I have posted in the past on this forum and for some strange reason it didnt show in my history.

Of course, regardless of whether or not I did or didnt post or not, both of your responses were uncalled for.

Please be mindful of your attitudes when you serve as an ambassador for JC…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello, Randy.

I was a little surprised to receive both a response and a private message asking me to look at the response when I get some time. I was under the assumption that I could post my reason for leaving without getting responses (as well as the other treatment).

Randy, I say this in all honesty and humility, do you honestly think that this is the first time I or other non-RCC’ers have heard these sophmoric responses? I mean really…I appreciate that you think that the RCC is right…I think that I am right. I use to be an RCC’er. My decision to leave was not some flippant thing and I am a little offended that you make it sound that way.

Take for instance, Matthew 16:18. Do you seriously think that I and other protestants have never heard this one liner? To even quote this is a serious offense to my intellect (not to mention othe r protestants). I am not going to dignify the rest of your statements with responses except with the advice that you learn both arguments from their original sources. For example, instead of reading about how luthor was wrong from RCC apologists, try getting the docs yourself and read them. You would agree that you shouldnt go to an athiest sit to learn about Christianity…right.

These comments are not meant to be slams on your person, but I get a little tired when I see RCC folks treating protestants (or anyone else for that matter) like they are simpletons. You certainly wouldnt like me to tell you that you worship beads…right??? When I said that I have studied, read, listened to debates, etc. that doesnt mean that I listened to a 1/2 broadcast of the dave hunt and chick publications show.

And lastly, I do admire your willingness to defend your king (i think you are wrong). I see so many folks out there that blindly follow something without a clue of why. You at least have spent some amount of time learning your faith and realize that it should be defended. Now again, I think that you are wrong in your conclusions, but when I stand in front of God, If I am wrong (and I am willing to admit that), it will not be from a lack of studying and learning what I can.

May the holy spirit guide us both to find truth.

sola Christus

You read my responses, but you interacted with none of them and obviously spent little or no time considering them. If apologetics is not your bag, then why are you here? If you do want to discuss the issues, then by all means, defend your position with vigor. I will do likewise, and we will both learn.

You cite my quotation of Matthew 16:18 as a “one-liner”…tell me, what are the implications of this one verse?

That the Catholic Church really is the one true Church of Christ founded upon Peter - just as Jesus said?

No other “faith community” can make this claim.

I’ll provide a few quotes from prominent Protestant scholars in the next post just for seasoning.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

---

I have lots more statements like these from Protestants if you are interested. :tiphat:

 

[Mommyof02green]

I reread my post (to mom2green amd mariag) and just so I can make the point crystal clear…what I am trying to show is that I have posted in the past on this forum and for some strange reason it didnt show in my history.

Of course, regardless of whether or not I did or didnt post or not, both of your responses were uncalled for.

Please be mindful of your attitudes when you serve as an ambassador for JC…

I’m sorry that my first post (see below) upset you:

According to the post count you have only 2 postings. According to your profile those 2 postings are post 115 and post 116 in this thread. So what other posting are you referring too?

Maybe you didn’t catch my second post: (see below):

Let’s not forget that CAF crashed near the end of '06. Many posters lost their posting and some lost their screen names.

I did note earlier macleod has been a member since early '06. So I’m aware that it is possible that their posting were “lost” do to the crash.

However, being unsure of this I wanted to give Macleod a chance to respond without sound harsh or make clams that they never posted before.

I did NOT want to assume that it they never posted before, and I did NOT want to assume that their post was lost do to the crash.

That is why I just simply told them I was by what posting they are referring to because according to the profile they only have 2 postings and these 2 posting are in this thread.

In this case it’s possible that the profile is wrong…

I wasn’t trying to say that you never posted. I simply asked what posting are you talking about? The only real reason for this was because you made mention that you’ve been hurt by some of the response that Catholics have given you in the past. I simply just want to read up on them and see what you were talking about. This was so I can get to a better idea of where you are coming from.

If this is “unchristian” then I guess I’m not a “Christian”. I just like to understand where a person is coming from. I tried to follow up by finding your other postings. Just so I could have an understanding of where you were coming from. However, I couldn’t do this via your profile.

If you don’t mind me asking… what was wrong with my posting? What “unchristian” remarks did I make?

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[macleod]

I am not here to defend myself. the thread was “why did you leave the catholic church”, not "please post something so I can have people make unfounded accusations and offer apologetic-like reasons.

Randy, I am going to ask you an honest question here, why do you think that protestants dont acknowledge your interpretation of matthew 16:18. I want to at least see if you understand the otherside of this. Until you understand what “the other side” sees I dont see any reason even talking to you if you dont at least get the other side (and please dont patronize me by asking me to explain my side).

 

[macleod]

If this is “unchristian” then I guess I’m not a “Christian”.

Dont know when I said this…but it sounds like a sympathy plea. Trying to remember the fallacy that you are trying to employ here…

I dont have a quarrel with you people. I get these emails from time to time and curiosity gets the better of me and I look at it instead of immediately deleting it. I find a number of topics humorous and every once in awhile I will post (meaning a few times every couple of years)…like the example I listed when this diluted person thought that protestants were sitting back doing nothing and enjoying the da vinci code as it was ruining catholics’ faiths. I tried to reason with him and a few others, but it was a circus.

I thought that I could simply post the reasons why I left the RCC and that would be it. Maybe a “wow, tell me more” response from someone. I thought maybe these guys would run those reasons up the flag pole and start having this stuff taught to the congregation.

I firmly believe through my research that the RCC is wrong and I listed some of my reasons. I could spend countless hours going back and forth with people here outlining specific scripture references here and there and doing this and that, but the “apologetics” that I have seen so far are an embarrassment to your church.

I just wish that you all would sit back and actually think about what you write. Do you honestly think that protestants are as ignorant of scripture as you make them out to be???

Do you really think that the only interpetation of matthew 16:18 is what your church said it is? Do you think that the protestants are just “fooling” themselves and whistling past the graveyard as they read this passage. Please dont let the bonocores, hahns, sangensis, and the rest of the apologists lull you into believing that.

I prefer education, not indoctrination. I am not saying to take my opinion that RCC is wrong. I am saying to collect all the data YOURSELVES and make an informed decision. If after you review what the different minds have said on something (and have thoroughly reviewed the scriptures), make a decision. If after all is said and done you still hold to your position, then great. You will own it and wont be repeating what someone else told you to say. You will (as I will) stand in front of God someday. I may be wrong…but it wont be from a lack of research.

OK. I am done for another year or so. I’ll let y’all have the last word on this.

Please at least consider what I have said. At the very least it may help you in an encounter with someone not of your faith.