Mormon and Jehovah's witness

The above points I was going to make until I saw your post.

1. The RCC redefines grace, so when they say you are saved by grace, it does not meant what the Bible means when it is talking about grace.

2. The point about the Council of Trent is a valid one.

3. If we are saved by grace, why is there purgatory? What is the point of it if we are washed clean by the blood of Christ when God looks on us? I realize this is imputation of righteousness, which I do not think the RCC teaches, nor do Catholics seems to know about it or understand it (sadly), but the Bible does teach it.

 

What's more, if we're saved by grace, then why do Catholics believe that we constantly have to work to keep from losing our salvation?

 

LOL!!! True, true, true. That's another one I come across in class. They tell me they tell the unsaved "Jesus loves you but He doesn't love what you're doing." What does that mean to the lost? The wrath of God abides on the sons of disobedience. The gospel is not our testimony or our Christian walk - Mormons use this line as "evidence" that they are "the one true church" (hmmm...sounds familiar...)

Only the TRUE gospel of repentance and faith in Christ can save and a "gospel" that doesn't pierce the conscience and without power to bring a lost sinner to repentance is not the gospel at all.

 

That's terrific. I love Jews. One of the greatest honors God has ever bestowed upon me was getting to preach the Gospel to a group of Jewish men in Battery Park in New York.

I teach a total of six classes at our church's Bible school (but not all at the same time, thank goodness!). Sometimes, when we get enough people, I'll teach them at some local churches. Among them are Church History I&II. You'd be amazed at the number of people who don't believe that Christianity goes back any further than Billy Graham.

One of the things I've found so frustrating about this thread is that we have Christians here who don't understand that our views of justification are so radically different from Catholics that protecting those views led to the Reformation. It's really striking to me to think of the number of people who don't know what Christianity has taught, historically, or what the Reformation was or why it was so important.

My wife would say "hot air".

Yeah, actually, I kind of regret being so sarcastic about that. It's true, that Catholics don't believe that the host embodies Christ's flesh until the priest consecrates it, but I kind of wish I'd shown a little more grace in my words, rather than letting my frustration get the better of me.

Yeah, it's quite a bit more than God not liking our sin. He's angry about our sin and, apart from Christ, God's wrath abides on us because of our sin.

In the words of Hank Hill, "Yep".

 

Yes, it is a life and death matter.

I'm no stranger to RCC myself as my entire family on my mother's side were all practicing and non-practicing Catholics.

My mother was raised in a Catholic orphanage from the age of 7 until she literally escaped. Although she held on to her superstitions (St. Jude was her patron saint) and she kept her brown scapular out of fear, she was fully immersed in the occult (she believed in visiting fortune tellers, she read cards). It's so easy to cross the line in Catholicism since its doctrine appeals to even witch doctors! (For those who doubt, check the meetings in Assisi). She finally received the truth and was saved a few years before her death. My brother, unfortunately, is a Knight of Columbus, goes to every mass, and prays the rosary faithfully.

Although with the passage of time, the Roman counterfeit church has been able to divide protestants over her legitimacy and cover herself with a shroud of respectability (sans the pedophile scandal); has distanced herself, yet never repented of, the bloody Inquisition. She has successfully integrated into mainline Christian society. Not so a century ago when the great Protestant preachers of the day were too close to her evils to name her Babylon. Her doctrines are indeed "hellishly idolatrous" and is, if not THE "Whore of Babylon", then a huge part of it - hence the prophesied rush for apostates to join her.

What is sad, is that those who know these truths first hand and otherwise and who speak out against this non-saving, blasphemous, works religion, are criticized. I say, love the people who are decieved by this ruse, but don't subscribe to the "everyone is a Christian" theory. They need saving and only the TRUE GOSPEL, minus the RCC Catechism, infant baptism, a brown scapular, prayers to Mary and the saints, extreme unction, the eucharist cracker and minus good works; only the TRUE gospel can save...or harden.

Stand firm...

"For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?" (2 Corinthians 2:15-16 NASB)

 

Exactly. According to Haley's Bible Handbook:

PROTESTANT PERSECUTIONS:

Calvin consented to the death of Servantus. In Holland Calvinists executed an Arminian. In Germany Lutherans put to death a few Anabaptists. In England Protestant Edward VI executed 2 Roman Catholics in 6 years (Romanist Mary in the 5 following years burned 282 Protestants). Elizabeth executed, in 45 years 187 Romanists, most of them for treason, not heresy. In Massachusetts, 1659, 3 Quakers were hanged by Puritans, and, in 1692, 20 were executed for witchcraft. All told a few hundred martyrs may be charged against the Protestants, at most not over a few thousand; but to Rome, untold millions...

 

Lori, without giving any quotes from the Catechism or Catholic Encyclopedia, answer the question: What does it mean "to be saved by grace"? What does the RCC mean by that expression, and what do you think it means? You say it has been discussed ad nauseum, so you should have a good idea what it means "to be saved by grace." Please explain.

 

Dueteronomy Chapter 6 Proverbs chapter 22.
BTW you started the personal attacks.

 

Proverbs 6:22 has nothing to do with church membership.

I don't believe I did, but if you do, then please feel free to report me.

Again, the verse has nothing to do with children being granted automatic church membership, nor are children to be made members of the church just because their parents are members.

 

It is about rearing children in the lord properly. The fact that you are a member and your children are under your authority they are apart of your church community and must be raised accordingly which when you think about it. In that environment if they see the Goodness of the Lord and not depart from his ways become a born again Christian then it is a wonderful way to grow a church which is what I said to begin with.

BTW I don't think I've reported anybody for personal attack against me. I usually deal with that myself.

 

The original question that JDF brought up was about church membership.
Here is the question he asked you:

It had nothing to do with child rearing per se.

 

Well, the question JDF asked to begin is a misdirected question to begin with. This is what he was responding to.

he then asked

In my statement does it anywhere say or imply that church membership is only for those who are saved? No it doesn't. Does my statement say church membership is

No, it doesn't. No where in my statement can you make the conclusion that JDF made of what I said. I simply said

which I later referrenced Duet. 6. So now taken in context he is either misdirecting the question and applying things I did not said or he is indicating that my position that growing a church from the children of the membership is not scriptural at all (at best) or is working against scriptures (at worst). It seemed to me that I needed to defend the position that rearing children in the lord is both scripturally based and that to lead them to the lord by how we rear them in the hopes of their salvation is also scriptural and since this is scripturally based, that I find this is a great way to grow a church. It is certainly the model of ancient Israel and a part of God's plan. Doesn't Jesus say this hope is for you and your children? So, I've supported my view that its a great way to grow a church and that its scripturally based which was my original statement to which JDF asked his questions which had nothing to do with my statment to begin with.

 

When you respond to something, it is assumed that you're talking about that thing.

For instance, if you say, "It's a beautiful day today", and I respond, "Yes, it is", I don't have to explain, "Yes, the weather that has occured today is beautiful" because it's already assumed I'm talking about the weather.

Likewise, when you chose to respond to a statement about church membership (interesting that you chose not to include that little detail among your quotes), it's already assumed that you're talking about church membership. If you are not, then it's your responsibility to clarify that you're talking about something else. And, of course, if you are talking about something else, then it's irrelevant.

 

For your benefit I will show the quotes in their fullness. Annsi started by saying

Then I replied

in otherwords I think having children and raising them in the lord is a great way for church growth. then I added societal commentary about my personal views of polifertion of contraceptives and how this has poor affected Europe. Which commentary you did not respond to but said this to the first part of my post which I just bolded

Which you ask questions that don't really match what I said. Your questions assume I suggested the only way for church growth is by having children which I never suggested or implied. Your question assumes that I said church was only for the saved which my statement said nothing about. So you've made two assumptions that my statement did not even address. It only addresses the fact that I think having children raised in the church is a wonderful way to increase membership and that I thought it was scriptural. It seems then that you are creating an agenda rather than replying to what I actually posted. So who is talking about something else? It would seem that you are.