Catholics

[bbyrd009]

Are you familiar with those passages from scripture?

yes, certainly

Are you saying if a person, on their death bed, professes belief in Jesus and confesses that Jesus is Lord they won't be saved?

that is not for me to say, but my opinion is that someone doing that deliberately is certainly missing the point, "life, more abundantly," for one, plus i do not believe that "saved" is like some switch that gets thrown when one speaks the correct code words, the vv you have quoted notwithstanding, as "Many will cry 'Lord, Lord'" prolly is telling us.

Iow it is easy to "confess with your mouth" that Christ is Lord, but then if you go on and "confess" something different when you are not thinking about it--i have used the example of gun ownership in the past, in contrast to trusting God--say, "i need money to survive," or whatever, anything that might indicate one has not left the world, well then how true is the first statement you have made, especially if you act upon the second one, and dwell there more than the first one?

God judges the heart, and you have a much better chance of fooling your mother than God.

 

[bbyrd009]

BBYRD,

What was your experience in getting "saved"? We're you all alone? In a Church? No one had an influence on you getting saved?

Curious Mary

well, after i followed my parents through the traditional route, the fear route, i started reading the Book and found "he who holds out to the end will be saved," so imo i am still working on that, but i cannot find anywhere in the Book where the program is meant to be about "going to heaven" when i die.

When did "I came that you might have life, more abundantly" turn into "i can't wait to die, and go to heaven?"

 

[bbyrd009]

All the very best to you....People can pray with whomever they want, all between them and God, what I have a hard time abiding, is when people seem to want to almost entirely exclude Christ, as if He is just a footnote......I am really not believing any more that forums such as these are in any way, shape or form helpful to anyone............Too sad all around !

we come here to talk, right, but it is likely better to come here to learn how to listen.

plus it is easy to get an opinion based upon responses, which being a forum are naturally going to be questioning or adversarial, forgetting that many will find you by search, maybe even 10 years from now, and your post will speak to many.

 

[epostle1]

The reformers were trying to reform the Roman Church. But the Roman Church wouldn't have it. The reformation succeeded in causing the breakaway from the Roman Church. The Roman Church was beyond fixing.
Stranger

A successful breakaway was not the point. The reformation did not prevail against Rome. That was my point.

The Bible gives nothing to show Peter ever went to Rome. You and the Romanist's must create something. At least you admit that Peter and Paul did not found the Church at Rome. Now we just have to get pope Peter out of there.

I made no such admission.

We never hear of St. Peter being in the East, and the thing in itself is improbable, whereas nothing but Protestant prejudice can stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter sojourned and died at Rome. Whatever theological consequences may flow from it, it is as certain that St. Peter was at Rome as that St. John was at Ephesus. Everything in the Letter also points to such a state of things as was to be found at Rome about the date when we believe the Letter to have been written. It is objected that St. Peter would not gravely speak of Rome under a fanciful name when dating a letter; but the symbolism in the name is quite in keeping with the context. St. Peter has just personified the church of the place from which he writes, which seems quite as unprosaic a use of language as to call Rome "Babylon." And it seems pretty clear that the name was quite intelligible to Jewish readers, for whom it was intended.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (Protestant)

I speculate that for a Christian to be caught by the Romans delivering a letter saying "She who is in Rome, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark" would be a death sentence. 1 Pet.5 doesn't say that. It says "...she who is in Babylon. See, for example, Revelation 14:8, Revelation 16:19, Revelation 17:5, Revelation 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. You are forced to deny this, along with dozens of Protestant scholars, lingualists and historians. Your denial of Babylon meaning Rome is based on invincible ignorance.​

No, I would have you believe Scripture. Paul was not under the other apostles authority. Especially not Peter who he rebuked sharply. (Gal. 2:11-14).

So what? Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).

I said Paul was under the authority of the Jerusalem Council, which includes Apostles and elders (AKA Magisterium) and he did what he was told. (because he wanted to, not because he had to).

The Jerusalem Council was a greater authority than Paul since it sent him off (Acts 15:22-25), and he proclaimed “for observance” the “decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Thus the Council, representing the infallible and binding authority of the Church (binding and loosing), had greater authority than he did.
​

In Acts 16:4 he appeals to an infallible Church council: telling his followers to obey it as he does himself. Again, you insist on pitting one thing against another (Paul’s authority vs. the Church’s): a thing that the Bible doesn’t do. You do it anyway because it is a false man made tradition.

The Jerusalem Council was a greater authority than Paul since it sent him off (Acts 15:22-25), and he proclaimed “for observance” the “decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Thus the Council, representing the infallible and binding authority of the Church (binding and loosing), had greater authority than he did.
Yet in post#1750 you said "There is nothing to indicate any so called 'authority' from the Jerusalem church." This is sheer blindness.

Show me one verse in the Bible where Paul pits his divine call from God against the Church. There isn't one. You do it anyway. Peter and Paul were not competitors. The Church is not modeled after a 21st century pyramid corporation, she is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom, which your system is even further removed from Judaism as the ECF.

No, I didn't dishonestly chop off the latter part of the verse. It did not pertain to what I was saying. (2Peter 3:15-16) It is not a question of Peter being ignorant. It is a question of the revelation given to Paul. It wasn't given to Peter. (Gal. 1:11-12) Imagine that, It was Paul and not Peter whom God gave the revelation of the Church to. Wonder why?

It certainly pertained to the nonsense you said about Peter not understanding Paul's letters.

In (Acts 15)James was the one in authority over the council. Peter was there to explain the vision, not because he was the pope. If one were a pope here, which they are not, it would have been James. No pope Peter here.

They fell silent when Peter spoke. Acts 15:12
​

​

 

[bbyrd009]

Who was the first Christian in Rome is irrelevant, who was the first bishop or Apostle who had authority over it is what matters.

yikes. with the human authority over the Church already lol. Just ask yourself which position you would rather have been in, a pope or Joan of Arc

 

[bbyrd009]

If they are Christians then they know Jesus....If they know Jesus then they are Christians. Right? So what you said doesn't make sense.

this is the most dangerous perspective one could have imo; what about the First Son of the Vineyard Owner? What about Islam, which commands a Muslim to "follow Christ or be doomed?"

so "Jesus" is being worshipped as a person here, and Christ is not understood as Spirit, imo

 

[bbyrd009]

The reformers were trying to reform the Roman Church. But the Roman Church wouldn't have it. The reformation succeeded in causing the breakaway from the Roman Church. The Roman Church was beyond fixing.

Stranger

yet it has made huge changes since then, i mean look at the current pope. Seems like a very thoughtful guy. It isn't like Protestants do not have plenty of idols too

 

[bbyrd009]

No one church ever had that authority.

well, except in the world, where it does, ya.

 

[pia]

we come here to talk, right, but it is likely better to come here to learn how to listen.

plus it is easy to get an opinion based upon responses, which being a forum are naturally going to be questioning or adversarial, forgetting that many will find you by search, maybe even 10 years from now, and your post will speak to many.

I can certainly see that I have been naive. There is still a part of me that is like a small child who doesn't understand why people can't just be nice to one another lol , a bit embarrassing at my age, but that's me. My parents had a very confrontational relationship which I remember being very frightened of, and i can also remember grabbing onto my grandfathers trouser leg crying and screaming, to stop him from belting my uncle, who was 8 years older than me, I would have been 4 or 5 years old perhaps. He actually thanked me for it when he was in his 50's ha,ha....So it is probably just a part of me from my childhood, but I always have this hope that anyone can become friends, if each is willing to listen to one another, and allow one another to speak also, and then if agreement cannot be reached, learn to agree to disagree, as they say, without all the malice and hatred. It certainly should have no place on a Christian Forum ! Or am I being an idealist again? I adore Christian fellowship when it comes in the spirit of love, peace, joy and gracious companionship, and there are a few here who do just that, it is just a pity there aren't more.....What do you think ?

 

[bbyrd009]

What do you think ?

hmm. Imo words are a very limited form of expression, they are not IRL, for one. So we come here to parse words, in an attempt to approach truth more closely, and i guess it is easy to get frustrated if you gauge only by the replies you might get, and to then use words to express your pov that might have been chosen better, but to me it is all a part of putting your doctrines through the fire, to see what holds up.

The forum you imagine has existed before, Good News Cafe' et al, but they are not the places you might imagine, they are dead in a way that is hard to describe--like mutual admiration societies that you detect sometimes? Like that mostly. Adversaries are the best teachers sometimes. Usually.

For my part i attach no emotional significance to replies, i would happily host BoL at my house for the weekend or whatever lol

see, no one has a belt here, no one can hurt anyone else, and if i am offended at something, then that is surely something i need to take a look at

 

[bbyrd009]

I adore Christian fellowship when it comes in the spirit of love, peace, joy and gracious companionship

go find a Muslim imo, and give them an open smile, and see what happens; they embarrass all of us in those areas

 

[pia]

and if i am offended at something,

But are we not asked by Jesus not to bring offense and not to be easily offended ? I don't think a mutual admiration society is any good either, but things that bring glory to God or glorifies anything He has or is doing, that would be nice, at least once in a while.
I don't get frustrated as much as I get dumbfounded. I see people quoting certain scriptures in order to bring contempt to others, and then not seeing that it applies directly to themselves, as one example. I have seen some baiting people into stating something controversial and in some cases very private, pretty much just to get a rise out of them. We are also instructed in the letters not to be 'nosy'.
It just seems to me that there are a lot of people here, who keep telling everyone else what and how to do things, but then go about it in a most un-christian way, and one thing I do know, is that hypocrisy, is not something Jesus is fond of...... Having said all that, there are a few people here I feel honored to have come in contact with, they have wonderful hearts for the Lord, and they have and 'speak' truth and wisdom and that makes the rest of it bearable. Be blessed Pia

 

[pia]

go find a Muslim imo, and give them an open smile, and see what happens; they embarrass all of us in those areas

I have met quite a few wonderful people who were Muslims, and yes, they could put many a so called Christian to shame.

 

[epostle1]

Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says.

Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. The first two related “the signs and wonders God” had been working “among the Gentiles” (v. 12). James pointed first to the words of Peter and then to the Prophets (vs. 14-15). Those who claim James’s speech was the definitive one point to the language in verse 19 (“Therefore it is my judgement . . .”) as evidence for James’s primacy. Yet James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)” (232).

Secondly, few non-Catholic commentators seem to notice the striking wording Peter used in his speech. If he was only a witness, wouldn’t he have appealed only to his experience? But while Peter did focus on his experience, the main object of his speech was God: “God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.​

Was James the Real Leader of the Early Church? | Catholic Answers

(Rom. 15:20) doesn't speak of Peter or any certain person at all. Paul is telling the Romans one of the reasons he had not come to them.

He says he doesn't want to build on another man's foundation. If he was referring to a collective he would have said so. Apostles are foundations of the Church. Ephesians 2:20.

He then explains in the next few verses why now he can come to them. (Rom. 15:21-23) "But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you;" No pope Peter here.

How does Paul quoting the OT prove Peter was not in Rome? Is Paul banned from visiting other cities because there are Apostles in them? If that's the case, why would Paul go to Jerusalem before going to Rome?

(1Cor. 15:4-8) So what?

They ran to the tomb and John got there first. Why did he wait for Peter to enter first?

(Gal. 1:18) So what?

How many times do I need to go over this? He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18, 2:2)

Galatians 2:2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.

Paul has a superior revelation to visit inferior Peter who validates Paul's gospel??? Has it occurred to you yet that Paul's divine callings does not mean that Peter's authority is inferior? And where in the Bible is Paul's divine callings ever pitted against Church authority? Here is a clue: NOWHERE. It's a false man made Protestant tradition.

 

[bbyrd009]

But are we not asked by Jesus not to bring offense

deliberately, yes, but then try and say anything that does not offend someone, somewhere lol
practically speaking, you cannot do anything that does not offend someone, somewhere, either. Feeding the homeless can get you arrested, etc.

and not to be easily offended ?

now that part is in our control imo, a diff story

I don't think a mutual admiration society is any good either, but things that bring glory to God or glorifies anything He has or is doing, that would be nice, at least once in a while.

then BAM start a thread, and see where it goes; but see how reality just does not match our perceptions there very well. Yes, of course, if you would all just agree with me, we could all get along great

 

[bbyrd009]

I see people quoting certain scriptures in order to bring contempt to others, and then not seeing that it applies directly to themselves, as one example.

thus dividing them joints from marrow, soul from spirit, yes? Iow they are revealed to you, in living color

It just seems to me that there are a lot of people here, who keep telling everyone else what and how to do things, but then go about it in a most un-christian way,

4He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in God's sanctuary, publicizing that he himself is God.

 

[bbyrd009]

Having said all that, there are a few people here I feel honored to have come in contact with, they have wonderful hearts for the Lord, and they have and 'speak' truth and wisdom and that makes the rest of it bearable. Be blessed Pia

i think it is important to recognize that we are all in different places spiritually on different concepts; you might be further along the path where forgiveness is concerned, whereas another might have a better grasp of personal sacrifice or whatever, and etc.

 

[bbyrd009]

And where in the Bible is Paul's divine callings ever pitted against Church authority?

29I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

 

[bbyrd009]

but there is another side to this story too, one might reflect upon the evils of charity, etc, even though they are not immediately apparent.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't feel backed in a corner. I wonder why?

Stranger

I never wonder why anti-Catholics do and say the things they do.
Ignorance is a very powerful thing.