Obey Father and Mother even when they are wrong

Nimrod,
Private message me.
The_Narrow_Road

 

Get through?

I didn't realize that you were in charge of the forum.

If you are not, is there any particular reason that anyone else on the board should have to comply with your demands?

Sounds like you are making excuses for your rude behavior.

 

[ February 05, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Daveth ]

 

If I see "stupid" or "moronic" one more time, I will close this thread, edit the contents, and move to have the offendors suspended. I am serious. Paul referred to his backslidden bretheren as "saints", and we will do the same here. I don't care what side it comes from. Attack the religion, not the person.

I hope I'm clear.

 

The Bible does tell us to rejoice when we are persecuted on His behalf.....but it's really hard to do sometimes.

My husband has always told our kids that no matter how awful our burdens might be at the time it's nothing compared to what Christ had to endure.

LaRae

 

The jury is still out on who the persecuted/persecutors are. Let's not get too much of a martyr's complex here. The garbage flies in both directions.

 

Or you can leeave the moderating to those chosen, and those who volunteered their own time, and those who watch the thread every day.

I think I'll choose that path and leave it in your good hands, bro curtis. Clearly, the topic of the RCC is a hot one, and it annoys me whenever any topic not meant for that purpose turns into one. I mean no offense, just thought I'd vent a little.

[ January 15, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

And I apologize for the rant, also. John, I do enjoy your posts. I don't agree with a lot of them, but your input on any thread is more than welcome, IMHO. Again, sorry for the steam in yer face.

 

Aye Laddie, and sometimes it doth fly thicke and faste. I'll try harder to be nice, okay?

The ancient Fathers held the unanimous conviction that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. St. Ireneus taught that “where the Church is, there is the spirit of God, and where the spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace”. Origen simply declared, “Outside the Church nobody will be saved.”

Nimrod, it seems that the idea of salvation being restricted to the Church is of more ancient origen than S.J. Hardon. publication.

And the favorite simile in patristic literature for the Church’s absolute need to be saved is the Ark of Noah, outside of which there is no prospect of deliverance from the deluge of sin.

Indeed. A very nice analogy. And in line with that, let me further ask this: was there some place other than the JEWISH NATION where one could find salvation and the true worship of God?
Why then do you think that God would give the world a physical locus of salvation and true worship in the Old Covenant and not do so in the New?

It was understandable that the early Christian writers would emphasize what is part of revelation, that Christ founded “the Catholic Church which alone retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the home of faith; this, the temple of God.”

Yup. Christ gave the truth to the apostles. It was in seed form, but complete enough to plant, water, and watch grow. It is beyond belief to suggest that the apostles would alter that message. It is also beyond belief to suggest that their disciples would do so, especially when holding to that message most likely meant dying a rather ugly death.

But they also had the biblical narrative of the “pagan” Cornelius who, the Acts tells us, was “an upright and God-fearing man” even before baptism. Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were “God-fearing” people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized.

Exactly. God is JUST. He does not hold people guilty who never heard. Romans 2: 5 -10 gives us the standard of God's Final Judgement -- good works. Rom. 2: 13 - 16 talks about those who keep this standard even though they have never heard the law in their ears. They keep it because the Holy Spirit has done a mysterious work in their hearts and moved them to obedience. Just like Cornelius.

Ambrose and Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions. By the twelfth century, it was widely assumed that a person can be saved if some “invincible obstacle stands in the way” of his baptism and entrance into the Church.

Yeah, like being held captive by Muslim thugs in a country which does not allow Christian missionaries and whose teachers lie through their teeth to them. What justice would it be of God to send these people to hell just because they didn't hear? Isn't He more interested in the heart than the intellect?

Tell ya what (I've used this before)

WHICH ONE of the following has a better chance of Heaven:

Rev. Fred Phelps, who beat his wife and sons with an axe handle, but who is "SAVED" because he "asssepted Jaaaaaaaaaayzuz" (sarcasm for such a one is fully intended)

OR

the Muslim who, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, believes in ONE God, treats all he meets with respect and love, and is devout in worshipping God, even though the picture of God given to him by lying Mullahs is a total fabrication?

I vote for the latter. I'd bet God will too!!!

Thomas Aquinas restated the constant teaching about the general necessity of the Church. But he also conceded that a person may be saved extra sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by reason of his at least implicit desire to the Church.

That is what the aforementioned Muslim has -- DESIRE. If he could hear the truth, he would chuck the demon religion of Mohammed in a heartbeat. Many thousands every year do, which is why the Mullahs keep missionaries out of their turf.

Since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 defined that “The universal Church of the faithful is one, outside of which no one is saved,” there have been two solemn definitions of the same doctrine, by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 and at the Council of Florence in 1442. At the Council of Trent, which is commonly looked upon as a symbol of Catholic unwillingness to compromise, the now familiar dogma of baptism by desire was solemnly defined; and it was this Tridentine teaching that supported all subsequent recognition that actual membership in the Church is not required to reach one’s eternal destiny.

The whole question really is this: who is and who is not in the Church? You see, Church membership has to do with one's desire to be in the Church, plus one's actions which validate that desire. Protestants who are baptized, in a thorough desire to be united to Christ and a member of His Church, despite their messed up interpretation of what comprises the Church, are, by dint of their desire and baptism, made members of the Body of Christ. It is, after all, salvation by GRACE, is it not?
"When he insisted expressly on the necessity for faith and baptism, he asserted at the same time the necessity for the Church which men would enter by the gateway of baptism. This means that it would be impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or to remain in the Catholic Church, unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made it a necessity.

That's you, Nimrod. You didn't "get it" when you were in the Church, and now that your mind has been dazzled by those who gave you a different Gospel than the one which Christ Himself delivered to the apostles and the Church, you are not responsible for your actions. You would be responsible only if you COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY KNEW exactly what the Church is and chose to leave anyway. That you did not do.

Using this conciliar doctrine as guide, we see that the Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man’s salvation. The reason is that, since his ascension and descent of the Spirit, the Church is Christ active on earth performing the salvific work for which he was sent into the world by the Father.

There was only ever one Church, not "ROMAN CATHOLIC", but one, holy, apostolic, and katholicos, consisting of the East and the West in union under the Bishop of Rome as Her head on earth. Without that Church on earth, men could not know the Gospel and turn from their pagan ways to Christ.

Actual incorporation into the Church takes place by baptism of water.

Yupper. And every little kid who "accepts Jesus" and is baptized in a Baptist Church is part of the Church Catholic, whether they know it or not. Baptism does not belong to the Baptists. It was given to the Church by Christ Jesus to replace circumcision as the covenantal sign/seal of the New Covenant and the door by which men and their families are brought into the Church.

It is to this Church alone that Christ entrusted the truths of revelation which have by now, though often dimly, penetrated all the cultures of mankind. It is this Church alone that communicates the merits won for the whole world on the cross.

I love that last sentence. "...won for the whole world" It is God Who loves mankind Who did this, not the Calvinist demon god who loves a few and damns the rest to eternal torment for no reason whatsoever. Who could either love or trust a "god" like that?

Those who are privileged to share in the fullness of the Church’s riches of revealed wisdom, sacramental power, divinely assured guidance, and blessings of community life cannot pride themselves on having deserved what they possess.

Indeed. It is ALL of grace, and nothing of man. To give man any part in His salvation is to be a Pelegian, a doctrine which the Church has condemned as heretical.

Rather they should humbly recognize their chosen position and gratefully live up to the covenant to which they have been called.

Covenant!? Wow. My FAVORITE word!!! And we indeed must KEEP COVENANT once we have been called into it by the grace of God.

From what I believe and what John Hardon says, I will not be saved.

Well, as I said, it depends upon how much you knew as to just how culpable you are. And no man on earth can tell this, even you. That is what the Judgement Seat will be all about. The brilliant light of God's Truth will expose everything, yea, even the secret and hidden things of the heart, so that we will know exactly who we are. That is why in our Eastern Orthodox prayers, we pray for "...a good answer in the great and fearful day of God's Judgement"

Yes it is double talk, but the way John Hardon defines a person who is saved outside the Church is one who doesn't know about the Catholic Church.

I saw no double talk at all. That is your imagination running overtime. Go back AGAIN and STUDY SLOWLY all of Romans chapter 2. The Church is that family of COVENANT KEEPERS. A man can keep the covenant without knowing it according to Romans 2. God rewards that, not our perfect knowledge.

Look....suppose a man grew up in a foreign country and did not know about America. Now suppose that man became king and instituted reforms in his country which abolished slavery, enacted free trade, and gave men all the rights which we enjoy in our Constitution. He would be an American in everything but official status, right?

Well, God's plan is even better. A man can grow up a pagan, but by the doing of those thing which are defined as the keeping of the Biblical covenant, he is made to be just as if he had heard. And on the Judgement Day, he will not be treated as an outsider, but will be treated as a family member because he has kept the family rules, even if he never heard the name of Jesus. God is filled with grace. God CAN do this. It is HIS salvation plan, NOT YOURS!!!

As for the issue with the Council of Chalcedon, as I said in another thread, I am NO EXPERT in issues regarding the canonization of Scripture. I would say, however, that the idea that a council which determined for Christians what is and what is not divine writ would most certainly not be a "provincial council" as you claim. Your idea leaves us with Christians in one area of the world having one canon, and in another area they would be using entirely different writings. That is confusion, which is not the earmark of the Church. Everything they did was to the end of unity.

Couldn't disagree with ya more!!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Really? Well it only takes a search of the posts to see exactly whom is persecuting whom.....Have any Catholics on this forum told people here they are not Christian?

Sure tempers flare now and then, but I'm talking about a constant mindset of some here.

LaRae

 

I am sorry to carry this topic further off topic, but I must reply to some of what Ed is saying here.

Agreed. But is this the RCC?

Agreed. But then you begin to carry this to early church fathers and such, people who were not the apostles. That is where heresies begin to creep in.

Boy, I don't think either of us stands a chance, Ed, if we are simply judged by good works. So what is the point of Christ if we are merely judged by good works? Also, in v. 16, Paul says that God will judge according to his gospel through Christ Jesus.

Boy, when did you get promoted to God? You are so hard on us fundamentalists, yet you say someone who believes in a totally different god is okay. You never cease to amaze me.

Really????? Then why are there Muslims in America? There are no Mullahs keeping missionaries out here.

We could flip this around and say Catholics too.

The epitome of our culture today!

Where is the Scriptuaral reference for this?

Again Ed, you show your own personal experiences in this statement. Let's see, maybe I didn't type slow enough in my other posts concerning this: NOT ALL BAPTISTS ARE CALVINISTS!! And guess what, not all Protestants are either! I am sorry, but you keep throwing this up like it is gospel truth and it is not!

You have no part in earning your salvation, there is nothing you could ever do for that. But you must believe, that is man's part!

So no one ever knows if they have salvation? We all better leave any religious activity, because the less we know, the better off we are.

Same goes for you, Ed. You are acting as God's spokesman, you seem to have how God thinks down pat.

Neal

[ January 15, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

You are ignoring the rest of the explanation.

That is that we each are responsible for our own understanding/lack of understanding of Truth.

This is were the concept of "invincible ignorance" enters.

One who simply chooses not to learn or rejects Truth out of hand, chooses ignorance. Such a soul will be held accountable for that choice.

 

I often read how protestants embrace heterodoxy. Read it today in fact. In RC theology that makes you anthema. And we all know what that means.

Curtis is right. The garbage can come from both sides. And it smells either way.

IMO many RCs here provoke reactions and goad protetstants so as to be able to play the martyr card.

It isn't honourable or honest, but it is rhetorically convenient and often effective. And a lot of RC apologetic is merely rhetoric.

 

I am sorry to carry this topic further off topic, but I must reply to some of what Ed is saying here.

MUST? Golly, did I git under yer skin that bad?

But is this the RCC?

Could we understand something, please? There is no such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church". There is the Catholic Church, which also means "the UNIVERSAL Church". Within that Church, there are various rites, which have to do with the various cultures we live in.

There are Melkites, Coptics, Latins, Byzantines, Ruthenians, and a couple of others I forget. But we share the same doctrines such as the ancient and proper understanding of the Eucharist and the fact that baptism saves people from their sins. Thus, despite cultural differences, there is one universal Church.

St. Vincent of Lerins put it this way: "The Catholic faith is that which has been believe at all times, in all places, and by all peoples

Agreed. But then you begin to carry this to early church fathers and such, people who were not the apostles. That is where heresies begin to creep in.

No, Neal. Heresies TRIED to creep in. That is what the Church councils were all about. And since we have the protection of the Holy Spirit which was promised to us by Christ Himself, we can rest assured that the decisions of the councils, which had to be FINALLY RATIFIED BY A POPE, were correct in theology, christology, and soteriology.

Protestantism has no such promise to fall back upon, especially when individuals hijack the promise of John 13:16 and apply it to themselves, claiming that their interpretation is correct because "the Holy Spirit told me so". It is always fun to go to chat rooms and watch two or three of these chaps verbally beat on each other from behind the shield of their intimate relationship to the Holy Spirit.

Boy, I don't think either of us stands a chance, Ed, if we are simply judged by good works.

That is because you do not believe that men and women can be righteous. Your theology has as its foundation the idea that we are all dungheaps and unacceptable to God. Yet look at what the Scriptures say regarding this:

Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Here are a couple of ordinary folks of whom the Lord says in His Word that they were "righteous" and "blameless". And this is before Christ even died!!

So what is the point of Christ if we are merely judged by good works?

The point of Christ's death was to defeat death so that the righteous could go to Heaven and recieve their inheritance. Prior to His death and resurrection, God was separated from mankind, so that even the most holy of lives, like Zacharias and Elisabeth mentioned above, could not go directly to Heaven. That is why there was Paradise. it was a waiting room for all the righteous of faith of all ages. They waited there until Christ came and gave them the good news of His victory over death.

Also, in v. 16, Paul says that God will judge according to his gospel through Christ Jesus.

So? Believe me, St. Paul's gospel was most assuredly NOT the "gospel" which Protestantism developed in the 16th century.

Have you ever noticed that Jesus never preached the "good news" of "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" as Protestants do? Why is that? Why do people who claim to be "Bible believers" preach a "gospel" which Jesus Himself never referred to?

Jesus preached the "good news of the KINGDOM". Once you find out what the kingdom is, you will understand!!

Boy, when did you get promoted to God?

I was just trying to make a point regarding so called "faith alone" vs what a person really is on the inside (which is expressed by his fruit). Rev. Phelps has some darn rotten fruit.

You are so hard on us fundamentalists, yet you say someone who believes in a totally different god is okay. You never cease to amaze me.

I am hard on you because unlike the pagans, you HAVE THE BIBLE!!! You know who Jesus is. Pagans do not. Therefore, you and Rev. Phelps (and Me also) are under a greater burden of responsibility than the one who has never heard and cannot understand because of invincible ignorance.

And it is INEXCUSEABLE for anyone, whether it be Catholic priest or Fundamentalist pastor, to act as we have seen people doing and let the name of Jesus our Lord escape their lips!!!! I cut neither ANY SLACK AT ALL (the homosexual priests who molested kids should be IN JAIL right now!! PERIOD. NO BS -- NO EXCUSES!!!!)

Really????? Then why are there Muslims in America? There are no Mullahs keeping missionaries out here.

Did I say that everyone would convert? I said that it would be those with a good and open heart to the Gospel who would convert upon hearing the truth. Of course, another problem is the Catholic Church's penchant for eccumenical statements which do not challenge the false gods and demon inspired religions of the world. But that is for another time and another thread.

Bishop of Rome as Her head on earth
Where is the Scriptuaral reference for this?

Do you want that from Isaiah 22:22 or from the perspective of the covenantal family on earth as the shadow of the family in Heaven (Heb. 9:27 and 8:5). I can give you both explanations if you have the time.

Again Ed, you show your own personal experiences in this statement.

Yup. Guilty as charged. I know that not all Baptists are Calvinists. I just cannot resist a good cheap shot when I have the opportunity, so if it does not apply to you, then don't git yer knickers in a knot, okay?

(PSSSSST -- I do NOT like Calvinist theology!!!)

You have no part in earning your salvation, there is nothing you could ever do for that. But you must believe, that is man's part!

This is wonderful. We are quite agreed upon the above. Faith and repentance, sadly, are not preached very much in a majority of pulpits, both Catholic and Protestant, today. But they are exactly what our Lord called for.

So no one ever knows if they have salvation?

Based upon Christ's promise, I do have salvation. I know this just as sure as the circumcized Jew knew when he looked south. He KNEW he belonged to God. My baptism did the same thing for me.

Now, on the other hand-- am I a faithful covenant keeper? Will I persevere to the end? I do not know. I cannot see in time. I simply pray and seek God's mercy each day I am alive. I give myself to Him. The uncreated light of His truth will reveal the real me to both myself and the whole universe. Then I shall have the reward of what I have become (or failed to become) as an adopted child of God.

Same goes for you, Ed. You are acting as God's spokesman, you seem to have how God thinks down pat.

I'm sorry if I come across that way. I try to make statements which are in line with what the Church teaches, for the Church is the salvational mouthpiece of the Lord. I do not wish to either speak on my own of my own thoughts, or to create a new religion. If I say something which contradicts the Church and Her teachings of 2000 years, and I am brought to knowledge of it, I will recant and believe as the Catholic Catechism teaches.

(And lest you are troubled by that last statement, as a Calvinist, I was expected to do the same in regards to the Westminster Confession of Faith or git out!!)

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

[ January 15, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

Hi Nimrod,

You wrote, "Again to Carson and any other stupid/moron Catholic who is afraid of starting another thread to discuss this topic."

Stupid? Moron?

You did well in calling me names, but you didn't address the crux of my argument, which is that you must admit that you may very well be trusting apocryphal texts as inspired Scripture with regards to the New Testament canon. According to my ecclesiology, I can readily affirm that I have an infallible canon - a claim that you cannot make for the precise reason that you do not attribute infallibility to the Catholic Church and her councils (which, mind you, have set forth the canon you now hold).

I just returned home from listening to Fr. Ray Ryland give a talk on Why Should I Be Catholic? Fr. Ray is a former Episcopalean pastor who converted to Catholicism and eventually was ordained to the ministerial priesthood (it may surprise you that he's still married as he received a simple dispensation from the requirement of celibacy). In his talk, he opened with one of the primary reasons for his eventual return to the one fold. It was the canon of Sacred Scripture. Through his study, as a Protestant Pastor, he came to understand that a Magisterium was and is still necessary in even maintaining what Scripture is. He also came to recognize that one of the major criterion the Catholic Church employed in considering what was Scripture and what was not was whether the text conformed to the then-present Catholic Faith, received from the Apostles through Tradition!

He also mentioned that in the last year alone, 220 Protestant pastors contacted the Coming Home Network (started by Marcus Grodi, a Former Lutheran pastor, in the early 90's) about coming back into the fold of Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church because through their study, they have made the decision that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church and that they desire full communion with her. For a Spirit-filled Catholic like me, that's exciting news!

God bless you,

Carson

[ January 15, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Actually no. Just wanting to point out a few things that needed pointing out.

I understand that perfectly well. Really, long before you said anything.

Is that a fact? So Jesus has nothing to do with it? And I don't believe this, so I am not a part of the universal church, am I?

I guess it is a matter of perspective. Also, I like the part where you capitalized about the pope. I would feel better about him ratifying stuff if his office was biblical.

I just was wondering if you could enlighten me about John 13:16. I am having trouble relating it to the comments you just posted. Also, are you telling me that you go along with everything the RCC says right now? If not, why not?

John 13:16, ESV "Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him."

What does that verse have to do with saying, "The Holy Spirit told me so"?

Does it say anything about them having salvation because of that?

So are you saying that it was/is possible to not go to hell because of what we can earn/do? So the only reason for Christ's death was to open the door to heaven, nothing else?

I believe you. It is same gospel that has always been since his day, not the one invented by the RCC!

That's funny, Paul did! I guess he was a protestant! See Rom. 1:16, 15:19, 15:29, 16:25; I Cor. 9:12, 9:18; II Cor. 2:12, 4:4, 9:13, 10:14; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27; I Thess. 3:2; II Thess. 1:8.

Maybe you should start a new thread. I would love to be enlightened so I could understand.

Absolutely agreed! I would just say that I would question if Rev. Phelps was really saved in the first place.

It seemed implied by your statement that if they really new the truth they would believe it.

I don't see what Isa. 22:22 has to do with the pope. I would be interested in you explanation, but that should be for another thread.

I think that I figured that out a while back!

I am glad we agree! I would agree that it is not preached anywhere near enough nowadays too! So that is two things we agree on!

That's okay. I just want to point out that is how you sound. (Yes there are many Baptists who do too!)

Cordially,
Neal

 

Sorry For the confusion, Neal.

The verse is John 16:13

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of ruth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Everyone thinks that this verse means that whatever they believe has been shown to them by the Holy Spirit and is absolutely without error! (Of course, these same folk would argue to the death that the Holy Father would have such a charism from God!!)

Maybe I'll start a thread on papal primacy if I get the time.

Brother Ed

 

Honestly, I would be interested in that if we could keep it on topic! Not another 2nd Eve! Look forward to it if you do, and hope to participate.

Neal