Time to renew my challenge

Actually, no, I don't. I switched internet providers and just have not bothered with it. I have severely limited my time on the computer because I am extremely busy this semester, between school and teaching two classes at church and work and wife and, well, you get the picture! Sorry! Maybe I will mess with it again sometime later, but even if I did use it now, you would probably never be able to catch me to talk. I have a lot going on and a lot I want to do (with regards to my walk with the Lord), and I realized that a majority of my extra time was going to computer and TV, so I have pretty much cut both of them back to very small amounts.

I hope all is going well with you this semester, and I take it that you made it through summer school okay, or else you would not be here posting!

God Bless,
Neal

 

"The Catholic church teaches salvation by works."
Nope, sorry it doesn't and your guilty of a lie.

" You lack information Mike because it is hard to fight against the truth. It is the truth that will make you free."

Oh there is plenty we could do for a website such as Korah's and Dathan's rebellion or John 6:66 or John 5:35 or .... on and on.

But the question I want to focus on is which of the 62 Baptistst denominations or Lutherans or presbtyerians or Methodists or thousands of non-denominationalists have the truth. God's truth is not mixed with lies as Satan's words in the garden were. Oh that is another one that if an anti-protestant book were to be written, could be used. Bet we focus on giving reason for the hope that is within us rather than justify ourselves by tearing down and lying about someone else. Tell me, did it make any of President clinton's foes president when they picked at the sores of his disfunction? Well us Catholics have disfunction like all of fallen mankind but you can pick at it all you like and you will still not justify your own lack of authority.

Blessings though.

 

Alright, here is one of these "lies" being taught by those three men (which one teaches this, by the way). Any others, or is this the only one? I would like to see objective examples rather than the vague term "lies." Kind of hard to discuss anything when there is no substance being dealt with.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. You must admit, though you don't claim it, it does appear from the RCC's teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over. Otherwise, what is the point of the Eucharist? Do you not believe that it conveys grace to the one receiving it, each time they receive it? And you do teach it is the physical body and blood, correct? So at best, you must admit that it "appears" that you do sacrifice Christ over and over. I am not speaking to the actual truth of the matter, but I am referring to appearances. </font>[/QUOTE]Neal,

You know very well I could go on and on, Mary another redeemer is the title of one of Mr. White's books. Not Catholic teaching though. Purgatory as apart from Christ. Not Catholic teaching. It is grace working on us that purifies our souls. This is what goes on in purgatory also. Catholics teach works only salvation. More nonsense.

I am surprized at your arguement in your PS. You appear to be admitting that this is not what we teach. I can grant you that it is easy to see how a Protestant with an axe to grind would twist it in to such drivel. And how another Protestant upon hearing it would quickly jump on the bandwagon like gossip about their worst enemy. What I find interesting is that someone who is supposedly a catholic "expert" like White or Svedson would not be expected by you to give the straight scoop on Catholicism. They have studied it so what is there excuse for not understanding or acknowledging what we teach but choosing to put their own spin on it. Further what is their motivation for doing so? Since it is so believable by those who hate the Church it would seem that manipulating their audience against what they hate at all costs including truth seems a likely possibility. Hitler showed how easy it was to decieve the masses even when alot of them were Christian.

Blessings

[ September 24, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

I admit that you do not claim to teach this. I say nothing as to the truth of the matter or whether by practice it is something else.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I know you could "go on and on," but I want, if you will, an objective list of the problems you have with these guys. Especially, for me, MacArthur, since you are saying all these guys teach "lies." I would assume that you have read their works relevant to this discussion (or why else would you say such things), so it should not be hard to give me specific problems with the things they actually teach. Unless, of course, you have not read their works and are no better than Protestants who argue against Catholics out of ignorance.

 

People have got to eat.
This is also true for evangelists and missionaries.
The US market for material opposed to Catholicism is larger than the market for material opposing Hinduïsm.
So despite the fact that Hinduïsm (for example) may be a greater thread to Christianity objectively speaking, meaning that there is a greater need for material dealing with Hinduïsm, evangelists will prefer hammering away at Romanism, because there is a greater demand for it.

The US heritage of 19th century anti-catholicism, a heritage based on xenophobia instead of real concern about the content of the Roman Catholic faith also doesn't help the matter.
Xenophobia is a notorious breeding ground for lies.

 

It's great to be the salt of the earth.

 

I admit that you do not claim to teach this. I say nothing as to the truth of the matter or whether by practice it is something else.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I know you could "go on and on," but I want, if you will, an objective list of the problems you have with these guys. Especially, for me, MacArthur, since you are saying all these guys teach "lies." I would assume that you have read their works relevant to this discussion (or why else would you say such things), so it should not be hard to give me specific problems with the things they actually teach. Unless, of course, you have not read their works and are no better than Protestants who argue against Catholics out of ignorance. </font>[/QUOTE]If I get time I will address this. White and Svedson are easy. I just happen to be listening to a debate series by Mr. White vs. Robert Sungenis over the next few days. I am not as familiar with Johnny Mac, though I have heard some of his stuff also. The fact is that these "experts of Catholicism" see no need to be fair and honest with regard to what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

Interesting. I have never heard of these titles for these guys. Did it come off the back of a book cover?

Have you actually read any of their books? I would prefer to look at issues that I have objective, documented references to assess.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Interesting. I have never heard of these titles for these guys. Did it come off the back of a book cover?

Have you actually read any of their books? I would prefer to look at issues that I have objective, documented references to assess.

God Bless,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]I have listened to them speak many times on Catholicism. Like I said I am currently listening to a debate by Mr. White and have heard he and Mr. Svedson on the radio many times and have other debate tapes with White. He presents himself as an expert on Catholicism whether he uses the title or not. He speaks in an authoritative manner on it and people go to his websites for info on Cathoicism so you have your head in the sand on this one. You guys have something about books that that is the only place anyone can understand anything.

I have heard snippets from Johnny Mac on the radio on Catholicism so I expect the same from him but perhaps not in such a venimous fashion.

 

Ah, I see. So that is what makes someone an expert? Interesting. (He may well claim to be an expert, that I do not dispute. But you criteria for someone to be identified as an expert is extremely weak. According to you, to be an expert, all one has to do is 1) speak in an authroitative manner and 2) have a website people go to. So I guess you see many, many, many experts out there, don't you? Forgive me if I disagree with your criteria.)

You remember this the next time some Catholic around here asks for proof for something. They can claim they heard it somewhere. Anyway, books are hard evidence. You can point me to a page and I can go check it for myself. They are (or should be) documented. There is no question as to what they say. That is my "hangup" with books. Forgive me again that I don't believe what everyone says without being able to back it up with somehthing that I can look at as well. In a debate you don't find out all that someone believes because they are too busy trying to win the argument. However, books by this men should spell out their reasoning and beliefs. Besides, I like the exercise of reading for my brain. Is that wrong?

In Christ,
Neal

 

By the way, Thessalonian, which books have you read by White, Svendsen, or MacArthur?

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I prefer to refer to Dr. MacArthur as John MacArthur, which is his name. I would assume, since you are so casual with names, that you refer to the Pope as Pope Johnny P or Pope John Pauly, or some variant. Correct?

 

Neal,

I think this thread has taken sort of an odd left turn into issues of semantics. Obviously, Thess himself doesn't consider White, Svendsen, etc., to be "experts of Catholicism" -- which is why he put that term in quotes. Rather, he's pointing out that they appear to be viewed as "experts" on Catholicism by some non-Catholics.

An example might be Gromit's recent thread, where (referring to those gentlemen's works, among others) he says, "I would encourage all Baptists and Protestants to read the following works. I mean you *really, really* need to read these. Here they are~"

Honestly, I don't think Gromit meant "read them to see how full of errors they are" or anything of that sort, but rather that they should be read because he trusts the "expertise" of the authors in the matters about which they wrote.

Anyhow, I don't see how you've interpreted any of this as Thess's personal "criteria for being an expert" -- that seems to me to be a good ways off base from what he was talking about. (I suppose they might possibly be Gromit's personal criteria, since he appears to trust in their "expertise," but you'd have to ask him about that).

God bless,

Mark

 

Neal,

How does egg on your face look on you. You said:

"Ah, I see. So that is what makes someone an expert? Interesting. "

That's exactly my point. I do not claim they are an expert which is why I put it in quotes in the first place. Quite the contrary, while having an aire of an expert they come accross to an informed Catholic as Neaderthals whose only goal is to decieve. What kind of an excuse is "the doctrine is difficult or easliy distorted so let's go ahead and misrepresent it.". Now I will admit I am not the judge of their hearts but materially at least their works are lies if not formally. If a man accidently backs over a child it causes much grief with the child's family even when not intentional and certainly more care should have been taken.

Blessings

 

Thess,

You have dodged the question over and over: How many books written by White, Svendsen, or MacArthur have you read?

Thanks for you answer in advance.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Please explain, I don't understand. I would understand if I asserted that they were experts, but I don't recall that I did anywhere. So any explanation of your gloating would be appreciated. And before you talk of egg on faces, you may want to go over to the 30,000+ thread. I believe you were quite fond of the rather exaggerated false numbers as to the number of Protestant denominations. However, even when you began to back down a little while back, I was not so rude as you are here with your cute little remarks. But, hey, I love ya, man!

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. Still waiting for the objective list of problems with specific examples from their works..............

[ September 26, 2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Please explain, I don't understand. I would understand if I asserted that they were experts, but I don't recall that I did anywhere. So any explanation of your gloating would be appreciated. And before you talk of egg on faces, you may want to go over to the 30,000+ thread. I believe you were quite fond of the rather exaggerated false numbers as to the number of Protestant denominations. However, even when you began to back down a little while back, I was not so rude as you are here with your cute little remarks. But, hey, I love ya, man!

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. Still waiting for the objective list of problems with specific examples from their works.............. </font>[/QUOTE]Neal. Perhaps you can find where I said that you said they were experts. However you did say that I said they were experts. I in fact did not. I said they were "experts".

As far as your answer, if you look on the 30,000 thread I posted a response this morning. I had not answered your question recently because I thought I had a couple of days ago but somehow my post did not get posted. I just went to the search function fully expecting to find it and it is not there. So please accept my apology for . Now perhaps you could apologize for writing disparaging remarks about my character, assuming the reason I was avoiding your question was other than the truth of the matter that I thought I already had and you just missed my post. I still like you so I will gratiously accept your apology.

 

Kind of makes the discussion a little confusing, doesn't it? I accept your apology. And I, in turn, apologize for any disparaging remarks about your character as a result of the confusion.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I still like you, too, man!

 

READ THIS THESSALONIAN

Here is my response and acknowledgment from YESTERDAY at 3pm:

----------------------------------------

Kind of makes the discussion a little confusing, doesn't it? I accept your apology. And I, in turn, apologize for any disparaging remarks about your character as a result of the confusion.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I still like you, too, man!

--------------------------------------------

So, yes, as a matter of fact, I did acknowledge and even apologize yesterday. I posted a light-hearted response acknowledging how sometimes our wires get crossed and that makes the discussion difficult. So I don't understand what you are carrying on about right now. Please, point out exactly where I "assasinatated" you character here. That is a grave charge that I take seriously and would like to correct if I have. I am truly not following you.

In Christ,
Neal

 

You guys are much easier to read when you're not assasinatating each other. Can't we all just get along...

 

How many books written by White, Svendsen, or MacArthur have you read?

We have quite a few copies of MacArthur and White at our place, and I've spent a good while thumbing through their works. Rob, my roommate, converted from a Baptist background (to the best of his family's knowledge, there are no Catholics in his known ancestral lineage) and has a special section among his 60 shelves dedicated to Anti-Catholics and Heretics. Of course, once you get past the verse slinging and historical muddling of these texts and read real theology, the intellect is truly fed and the soul is brought into closer union with God (e.g. The Wellspring of Worship by Jean Corbon, Early Christian Worship by Oscar Cullman, Pathways in Scripture by Damasus Winzen, The Meaning of Grace by Charles Cardinal Journet, and Crossing the Threshold of Love by Mary Shivanandan).