# Limited Atonement....



## Banjo (Sep 29, 2008)

Yes... I know we have been over this before.  Many of the threads keep coming back to it.  There is a great DVD available that explains Calvinism...  

It is entitled:

Amazing Grace:  The History and Theology of Calvinism

It is worth watching even if you don't agree with Calvinism.  After all, since most of you who disagree with the theological stances of Calvin have never read Calvin's Institutes, this would be a good primer.  You have to understand something to truly disagree with and argue against it.

Here is a clip from it that deals with LIMITED ATONEMENT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue21vCvpoqI


----------



## Banjo (Sep 29, 2008)

"Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race); while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across...."

- Loraine Boettner


----------



## SBG (Sep 29, 2008)

Banjo;2637390The Calvinist limits it quantitatively said:
			
		

> In this, they are both wrong in regards to grace.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 29, 2008)

> In this, they are both wrong in regards to grace.



O.k.  SBG... You are going to have to expound...


----------



## SBG (Sep 29, 2008)

This has been discussed many time in the past on this forum. 

I'll just say that no where in the Bible is there any reference to unending limited atonement. Furthermore, the Bible is quite clear that the blood of Christ is all sufficient for atonement. (no help required)


----------



## gtparts (Sep 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> "Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race); while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across...."
> 
> - Loraine Boettner



Boettner did well explaining the differences up to the last sentence. The latter position is best described as a bridge of sufficient construction to allow all to cross  over, though some will choose not to cross at all. The free gift of salvation is available to all because Christ's death was and is sufficient to satisfy the required penalty for all sin. The bridge is complete. "It is finished." Jesus said so from the cross.

Peace.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 29, 2008)

I like the narrow bridge, and it is similar to the narrow gate that Jesus used. However, Calvinist say that there is a narrow gate at the narrow bridge, and Jesus only allows some to pass through. But, Jesus said that he is the gate and all that enter will be saved. (John 10)


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 29, 2008)

Actually, animal/blood sacrifice was only allowed for unintentional sins. But don't let that small fact get in the way....


----------



## gtparts (Sep 29, 2008)

I give up, DD.

To whom is that tidbit addressed?


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Sep 29, 2008)

My Bible says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"

Now without getting into the "thy house" part of it, if the Calvinists are correct, then couldn't you "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and _*not*_ be saved?


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 29, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Actually, animal/blood sacrifice was only allowed for unintentional sins. But don't let that small fact get in the way....



Ya, but pagans were sacrificing everything that moved for unintentional and  intentional ones. Which is perhaps why the faith took.


----------



## Big7 (Sep 29, 2008)

Good clip, Banjo. Thanks!

I'm gonna see where the thread goes for a while
before I put in my "two cents".


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 30, 2008)

gtparts said:


> I give up, DD.
> 
> To whom is that tidbit addressed?



Anyone who believes that the blood of Jesus 'fulfilled' all of the laws of sacrifice and is enough to cover all of your sins (or the sins of mankind in general).


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 30, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I like the narrow bridge, and it is similar to the narrow gate that Jesus used. However, Calvinist say that there is a narrow gate at the narrow bridge, and Jesus only allows some to pass through. But, Jesus said that he is the gate and all that enter will be saved. (John 10)


 
I know this is not very popular here, but I had to state it: 

Jesus is The Gate, definately not going to argue that one!

But Jesus said himself that God gives Him the ones to be Saved...

John 6:44

Now.... whip away... 

DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

> Calvinist say that there is a narrow gate at the narrow bridge, and Jesus only allows some to pass through.



Another point to be made is that ONLY those who were granted the "GIFT" (it is a gift, and gifts are usually received, not necessarily asked for) of eternal life want to pass through the gate.

There are NO unbelievers begging to get in while Jesus is saying....."Nope, sorry you aren't one of the elect."

That is one of those false premises that the "seeker-sensitive" church operate upon...

Romans 3

 10as it is written,
         "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 
    11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 
    12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
         THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
         THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."


----------



## pnome (Sep 30, 2008)

I didn't watch the video, does it go into Calvin's witch and heretic burnings?


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

> I didn't watch the video, does it go into Calvin's witch and heretic burnings?



No...why don't you exposit those. 

Witch burnings...never heard of any of those led by Calvin personally.  Although Calvin agreed with putting heretics to death.  It was to be done by the civil magistrate...not the church or Calvin personally.

Heretic Burnings...There was Servetus, but Calvin begged the Council to execute him by the sword.

How about all the good done to humanity at the hands of atheists and evolutionists....

Start with Hitler.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Another point to be made is that ONLY those who were granted the "GIFT" (it is a gift, and gifts are usually received, not necessarily asked for) of eternal life want to pass through the gate.



Actually, "gifts" are usually given free of charge and with no restrictions.

My youngest son's 8th birthday party was this past weekend. Nowhere in there did anyone hand him a gift with any strings attached (oops, wait you're not "elect" so I didn't bring you a gift). He didn't ask for any of them. But, he made a physical decision to "receive" every one of them.


----------



## pnome (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> No...why don't you exposit those.
> 
> Witch burnings...never heard of any of those led by Calvin personally.  Although Calvin agreed with putting heretics to death.  It was to be done by the civil magistrate...not the church or Calvin personally.
> 
> ...



Hitler was a Roman Catholic. 

So, Calvin begged the council to murder the heretic in a slightly less painful way? That was mighty Christian of him.

further reading for you: http://www.barossa-region.org/Australia/23-A-CHRISTIAN-CRIMELINE.html


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> How about all the good done to humanity at the hands of atheists and evolutionists....
> 
> Start with Hitler.



Ummm.... Hitler was a Christian... Catholic, to be exact....


----------



## farmasis (Sep 30, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I know this is not very popular here, but I had to state it:
> 
> Jesus is The Gate, definately not going to argue that one!
> 
> ...


 
No whipping needed, I totally agree. We just probably disagree about who God gave Jesus. I believe the Bible to say all that believe in Jesus is who God gave him.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Actually, animal/blood sacrifice was only allowed for unintentional sins. But don't let that small fact get in the way....





Dixie Dawg said:


> Anyone who believes that the blood of Jesus 'fulfilled' all of the laws of sacrifice and is enough to cover all of your sins (or the sins of mankind in general).





pnome said:


> I didn't watch the video, does it go into Calvin's witch and heretic burnings?





pnome said:


> Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
> 
> So, Calvin begged the council to murder the heretic in a slightly less painful way? That was mighty Christian of him.
> 
> further reading for you: http://www.barossa-region.org/Australia/23-A-CHRISTIAN-CRIMELINE.html





Dixie Dawg said:


> Ummm.... Hitler was a Christian... Catholic, to be exact....





I don't mind some of the posts you two have...I know, this is an open forum...all people of all beliefs can openly participate....but please....I will stick up for my Catholic friends on this board...

Hitler was no Catholic.  In the words of Hillary Clinton...based on Hitler's actions "No Way, No How...No Catholic."


----------



## farmasis (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Another point to be made is that ONLY those who were granted the "GIFT" (it is a gift, and gifts are usually received, not necessarily asked for) of eternal life want to pass through the gate.


 
Yes, but reception involves choice, and that choice can be refusal.



> There are NO unbelievers begging to get in while Jesus is saying....."Nope, sorry you aren't one of the elect."
> 
> That is one of those false premises that the "seeker-sensitive" church operate upon...
> 
> ...


 
Exactly how does a seeker sensitive church missuse depravity?


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Start with Hitler.





pnome said:


> Hitler was a Roman Catholic.






Dixie Dawg said:


> Ummm.... Hitler was a Christian... Catholic, to be exact....



So.  
He was also WHITE.
He was also a MALE
He was also a GERMAN

What does that have to do with anything?  Nothing more than the descriptors I listed.  He may have been born a Catholic, just as he was born white/male/German, but that was all.  He was not a Catholic in the end.


----------



## pnome (Sep 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> So.
> He was also WHITE.
> He was also a MALE
> He was also a GERMAN
> ...




Don't get me wrong.  He clearly wasn't a very good Catholic.  I'm only refuting Banjo's suggestion that he was an atheist.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 30, 2008)

A lot of people today profess to be Christian, but their walk in life shows that they really aren't...

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

pnome said:


> Don't get me wrong.  He clearly wasn't a very good Catholic.  I'm only refuting Banjo's suggestion that he was an atheist.



Nobody knows what he was in the end.  Her example would have been better had she said Stalin or Marx.  She doesn't know her history very well.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> A lot of people today profess to be Christian, but their walk in life shows that they really aren't...
> 
> DB BB



No kidding.


----------



## pnome (Sep 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Stalin or Marx.



Indeed, both atheists and both very wrong about proper systems of government.  Stalin has the blood of millions on his hands, no doubt.  But those people were not killed in the name of Atheism.  They were killed in the name of Stalinism.  Stalinism is more accurately described as theistic.  The "god" being Stalin himself.

Even if I were to concede that Stalin killed people in the name of spreading atheism, his body count is still dwarfed by those who have been killed in the name of various religions.  When you stack up the bodies produced by the Abrahamatic faiths alone (Jews, Muslims, Christians), fighting _in the name of their religion,_ it is more people than Stalin and Mao ever had dominion over.  

Hitler may or may not have been a true believer in Catholicism, but he certainly used the religion to his advantage.
http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

pnome said:


> Indeed, both atheists and both very wrong about proper systems of government.  Stalin has the blood of millions on his hands, no doubt.  But those people were not killed in the name of Atheism.  They were killed in the name of Stalinism.  Stalinism is more accurately described as theistic.  The "god" being Stalin himself.
> I agree, but you can't throw out Hitler as a Catholic, yet dismiss Stalin
> Even if I were to concede that Stalin killed people in the name of spreading atheism, his body count is still dwarfed by those who have been killed in the name of various religions.  When you stack up the bodies produced by the Abrahamatic faiths alone (Jews, Muslims, Christians), fighting _in the name of their religion,_ it is more people than Stalin and Mao ever had dominion over.
> May have been dwarfed, however, I can think of no other INDIVIDUAL with more blood on his PERSONAL HANDS than Stalin.  He definitely trumps Hitler.
> ...



See red


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 30, 2008)

pnome said:


> Don't get me wrong.  He clearly wasn't a very good Catholic.  I'm only refuting Banjo's suggestion that he was an atheist.



Kinda like saying Dixie Dawg is a Christian because at one time, she was a professing Christian.

Again, you can't label Hitler a Catholic, just cause he was born and raised Catholic.  Although, many people would say that they are Christian because they were baptized as a child.  But that might be considered another debate and another topic.


----------



## pnome (Sep 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> See red



I don't mean to imply that Hitler killed people _in the name of Catholicism. _He did what he did in the name of fascism.   Just as I can't blame Catholicism for Hitlers actions, neither can Banjo blame atheism for it.  Nor can we blame atheism for Stalin's reign of communist terror.  That's the only point I was making.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

pnome said:


> I don't mean to imply that Hitler killed people _in the name of Catholicism. _He did what he did in the name of fascism.   Just as I can't blame Catholicism for Hitlers actions, neither can Banjo blame atheism for it.  Nor can we blame atheism for Stalin's reign of communist terror.  That's the only point I was making.



I understand.  But, keep in mind, if you look at the death toll for Stalin (personally) it ranks a bit higher than anyone else in the bible.


----------



## SBG (Sep 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Ummm.... Hitler was a Christian... Catholic, to be exact....



Ummm...no he wasn't. He was a person that claimed to be a christian...the world is full of them.


----------



## pnome (Sep 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I understand.  But, keep in mind, if you look at the death toll for Stalin (personally) it ranks a bit higher than anyone else in the bible.



Well, except for God of course.  

Anyway, the original point I was trying to make is that John Calvin was not the enlightened great thinker Banjo is making him out to be.  He was basically the Mullah of Geneva.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 30, 2008)

SBG said:


> Ummm...no he wasn't. He was a person that claimed to be a christian...the world is full of them.


 

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

Hitler's whole ideology was built on evolutionary thought.

Hence my calling him an atheist.

"A review of the writings of Hitler and contemporary German biologists finds that Darwin’s theory and writings had a major influence on Nazi policies…. In the formation of his racial policies, [Hitler] relied heavily upon the Darwinian evolution model, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. They culminated in the “final solution,” the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged were “inferior races” (Bergman,1992, p. 109)."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1772


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Hitler's whole ideology was built on evolutionary thought.
> 
> Hence my calling him an atheist.



Hmmm...after some of the articles that have been posted about evolution....you would have been able to label him just about anything.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 30, 2008)

SBG said:


> Ummm...no he wasn't. He was a person that claimed to be a christian...the world is full of them.



He 'claimed' to be a Catholic all of his days.
I know the world is full of people who claim to be Christian. So how do you tell the 'real' ones from the ones you claim are 'fake'?  

There are a lot of people even on this board who 'claim' to be Christians but their actions sure as heck don't show it.  I don't know of anyone who has committed murder, persay, but supposedly all sins are the same, so what's the difference?


----------



## PWalls (Sep 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> He 'claimed' to be a Catholic all of his days.
> I know the world is full of people who claim to be Christian. So how do you tell the 'real' ones from the ones you claim are 'fake'?



I would think that sending millions of Jews to the gas chamber would be a pretty good clue in this case.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 30, 2008)

PWalls said:


> I would think that sending millions of Jews to the gas chamber would be a pretty good clue in this case.



He thought he was doing the work of God. 
So were the Christian "Crusaders" also 'fake' Christians? Or were they real Christians?

Don't get me wrong... I'm not defending Hitler in the slightest. He was an intelligent man with a messed up methed-up Napoleon complex and if there really is a he** I wouldn't doubt that he will be burning there for eternity. BUT... he thought (in his perverted mind) that he was doing the right thing, much of his campaign was around religion.  What makes him different than any of the others who killed in the name of God?  Including the ones in the "Old Testament" that God supposedly told to kill?

Are 'real' Christians the ones who don't sin? If that's the case, ain't none of y'all 'real'.


----------



## Big7 (Sep 30, 2008)

pnome said:


> Hitler was a Roman Catholic.
> 
> So, Calvin begged the council to murder the heretic in a slightly less painful way? That was mighty Christian of him.
> 
> further reading for you: http://www.barossa-region.org/Australia/23-A-CHRISTIAN-CRIMELINE.html



GREAT CALL! pnome. Notables in the link you provided
for starters. Just a FEW things that jumped out at me.

1492+ Columbus 150,000,000 North American Indians are enslaved, exported or end in name of Christ over centuries at hands of Spanish and English explorers and pilgrims. 

1493+ Cortes 30,000,000 Aztecs and Mayans die over years as Spanish conquistadors proselytise Christian faith. 

1517+ Religious wars Reformation unleashes torrent of hate claiming lives of millions in numerous religious wars. 

1517+ Martin Luther Martin Luther is accused of bigotry after claiming women are inferior: "Girls begin to talk and 
to stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops".

1517+ Jew hater Luther's hatred of Jews is outlined in Jews And Their Lies; pamphlet allegedly inspires Hitler to exterminate 6,000,000 Jews 420 years later. 

1517+ Banishment Luther believes Jews should be enslaved or thrown out of Christian lands and their ghettos and synagogues be burned. 

1517+ Anabaptists Luther sanctions end of Anabaptists for heresy of "double baptism" - baptism first as infant then as adult.

1531 Anabaptists Wittenberg theologians sanction genocide of Anabaptists; sect members are hunted like rabbits before being mutilated or liquidateed. 

c1531 Condemnation Luther and Zwingli publicly affirm Wittenberg edict sanctioning end of Anabaptists. 

1531 John Calvin 1000s of religious nonconformists are end and witches burned after John Calvin (1509-1564) turns Geneva into religious police state. 

Note: When reading this link - rest, end and liquidateed, etc... refers to being put to death by some means.




Dixie Dawg said:


> Ummm.... Hitler was a Christian... Catholic, to be exact....



News-flash DD . Hitler PLAYED everyone, like a
banjo, pardon the pun.
Catholics, Protestants, atheists, Italians, even Japs. etc... 



rjcruiser said:


> I don't mind some of the posts you two have...I know, this is an open forum...all people of all beliefs can openly participate....but please....I will stick up for my Catholic friends on this board...
> 
> Hitler was no Catholic.  In the words of Hillary Clinton...based on Hitler's actions "No Way, No How...No Catholic."



I knew Hillary had a brain, somewhere. 
"based on Hitler's actions" is the operative here.




Double Barrel BB said:


> A lot of people today profess to be Christian, but their walk in life shows that they really aren't...
> 
> DB BB



Hitler is the poster child for this example.



dawg2 said:


> Nobody knows what he was in the end.  Her example would have been better had she said Stalin or Marx.  She doesn't know her history very well.




The Debil 

Beat me to it.




SBG said:


> Ummm...no he wasn't. He was a person that claimed to be a christian...the world is full of them.



Tell It, Brother!



pnome said:


> Well, except for God of course.
> 
> Anyway, the original point I was trying to make is that John Calvin was not the enlightened great thinker Banjo is making him out to be.  He was basically the Mullah of Geneva.



See Ref. 1531 above.  Another great call!

To add to this:

As Protestantism was more open to reinterpretations, especially Positive Christianity, and a non-traditional re-reading of sacred scripture, and because some of its liberal branches had similar views, Hitler demonstrated a preference for Protestantism over Catholicism.[26][27]His views were supported by the German Christians movement, but rejected by the Confessing Church. According to Steigmann-Gall, Hitler regretted that "the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped;"[28] and he stated according to Albert Speer: "Through me the Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England."

More on that HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs

Now, before yall start in on me, let me say:
Two, three or ten WRONGS do not make a RIGHT.

We have all had chafe among our wheat.
Catholics and Protestants.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 30, 2008)

Big7 said:


> Now, before yall start in on me, let me say:
> Two, three or ten WRONGS do not make a RIGHT.
> 
> We have all had chafe among our wheat.
> Catholics and Protestants.


 

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

pnome said:


> Well, except for God of course.
> 
> Anyway, the original point I was trying to make is that John Calvin was not the enlightened great thinker Banjo is making him out to be.  He was basically the Mullah of Geneva.



...we have reached common ground...


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

Big7 said:


> We have all had chafe among our wheat.
> Catholics and Protestants.



...no lie there...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 30, 2008)

I can't speak for pnome, but I'm sure that he, as well as myself, did not mean any insult to Catholics by stating the fact that Hitler called himself one.  You can't control who claims the same religion as you do, any more than you can control the people who happen to be born into the same family as you are.  I certainly don't believe that Hitler happens to be the representation for all Catholics.  

Sorry if it came across that way.  Y'all need to relax a bit.  Not everything posted is as an attack.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Y'all need to relax a bit.  Not everything posted is as an attack.



That is probably the best TRUTH posted in this thread so far. No way was what Banjo posted in context an attack, but the defense sure came out quickly and hard.


----------



## Bodab1974 (Sep 30, 2008)

I read a quite a few folks on here when they defend their stance.   This is a forum for people to share views, wisdom, and discuss matters.   People need to thicken their skin up a little and not be so "aggressively defensive".


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 30, 2008)

> "while the five points of Calvinism bear his name and can be seen as a reflection of his thinking, they were not articulated by him, and were actually derived from ideas debated at the Synod of Dort, which issued its judgments in response to five specific objections that arose after Calvin's time."


 
DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

> John Calvin was not the enlightened great thinker Banjo is making him out to be. He was basically the Mullah of Geneva.



Your problem isn't with Calvin, but with the God he served.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I can't speak for pnome, but I'm sure that he, as well as myself, did not mean any insult to Catholics by stating the fact that Hitler called himself one.  You can't control who claims the same religion as you do, any more than you can control the people who happen to be born into the same family as you are.  I certainly don't believe that Hitler happens to be the representation for all Catholics.
> 
> Sorry if it came across that way.  Y'all need to relax a bit.  Not everything posted is as an attack.




On the other hand........

IF THEY ARE OUT TO GET YOU, PARANOIA IS JUST SMART THINKING!


Watch your back.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 30, 2008)

Back to limited atonement:

Therefore, as through one man’s offense _judgment came_ to all men, resulting in condemnation, 

Let's pause here. Did sin enter all men through the actions of one man? Is there anyone who will deny that all men are born sinners?


even so through one Man’s righteous act _the free gift came_ to all men, resulting in justification of life. (Romans 5:18)

This scripture is a direct parallel.
One man's act, brought the free gift to all men!


----------



## Big7 (Sep 30, 2008)

*Come on DB BB - I'm here for you buddy!*

OK, farmasis - it did get a little off track so.... Back to:

A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP

The debate between Calvinists and Arminians is often fierce. These groups frequently accuse each other of teaching a false gospel, at least on a theoretical level, although on a practical level there is little difference between the two since both groups command people to have "faith alone" in order to be saved.[Among Catholics the discussion has been much more peaceful. Since the controversy over grace in the late 1500s and early 1600s, Thomists and Molinists have been forbidden to accuse each other of heresy. In 1748 the Church declared Thomism, Molinism, and a third view known as Augustinianism to be acceptable Catholic teachings].

The debate is centered on the well-known formula TULIP. Each letter of this acronym stands for a different doctrine held by classical Calvinists [There are some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or "four-point Calvinists," who hold all of TULIP except for " L "] but rejected by Arminians. The doctrines are:

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace, and
Perseverance of the saints.

It is important for Catholics to know about these subjects: First, Catholics are often attacked by Calvinists who misunderstand the Catholic position on these issues. Second, Catholics often misunderstand the teaching of their own Church on predestination. Third, in recent years there has been a large number of Calvinists who have become Catholics [Including Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Steve Wood, myself, and numerous others]. By understanding Calvinism better, Catholics can help more Calvinists make the jump.
More HERE:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
That's the whole thing.

Come on DB BB - I'm here for you buddy!


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I can't speak for pnome, but I'm sure that he, as well as myself, did not mean any insult to Catholics by stating the fact that Hitler called himself one.  You can't control who claims the same religion as you do, any more than you can control the people who happen to be born into the same family as you are.  I certainly don't believe that Hitler happens to be the representation for all Catholics.
> 
> Sorry if it came across that way.  Y'all need to relax a bit.  Not everything posted is as an attack.



Just refuting, no insult to me.  You'll find my skin thick as a rhino, just make sure yours is too


----------



## PJason (Sep 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Just refuting, no insult to me.  You'll find my skin thick as a rhino, just make sure yours is too




OH SNAP 

I think he just called Dixie a rhino


----------



## Big7 (Sep 30, 2008)

That's the whole thing. Well... almost...

FATALLY FLAWED THINKING 

MANY people think overt anti-Catholicism is found only among elderly, anti-intellectual Fundamentalists. Not so. One younger Fundamentalist author, by no means anti-intellectual, shows his anti-Catholicism publicly by refusing to shake hands with Catholic debate opponents or to pray the Lord's Prayer with Catholics. He has been known to walk off the stage when an ecumenical prayer is offered by a Catholic. 

His name is James White, and he is a Calvinist who directs Alpha and Omega Ministries, an Arizona-based apologetics group that offers advice on dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, atheists, and Catholics. Small as it is, Alpha and Omega distributes some of the more soberly written anti-Catholic literature published today.[White might protest that he is not anti-Catholic because he loves Catholics and only wants to help them, but it is fair to describe his literature as anti-Catholic since it attacks Catholicism as a "system" and tries to convince people to leave the Catholic Church.] 

White believes Catholics must disown their faith and embrace "true" Christianity. He does not regard them as Christians, which is perhaps why he has refused at times to shake hands or pray with them in front of audiences.

More HERE: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1.asp


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Just refuting, no insult to me.  You'll find my skin thick as a rhino, just make sure yours is too





PJason said:


> OH SNAP
> 
> I think he just called Dixie a rhino



  I didn't take it that way.... if he's trying to insult me, he's going to have to be a bit more direct....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 30, 2008)

Big7 said:


> shows his anti-Catholicism publicly by refusing to shake hands with Catholic debate opponents




That's just plain rude.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

pnome said:


> I don't mean to imply that Hitler killed people _in the name of Catholicism. _He did what he did in the name of fascism.   Just as I can't blame Catholicism for Hitlers actions, neither can Banjo blame atheism for it.  Nor can we blame atheism for Stalin's reign of communist terror.  That's the only point I was making.



One other thing, you and DIXIEDAWG should read this book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Hitler's_Pope


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 1, 2008)

Big7 said:


> OK, farmasis - it did get a little off track so.... Back to:
> 
> A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP
> 
> ...


 
I am glad you are here for me Big7, I appreciate the gesture. I assume that means you are praying for me?  Like I am praying for you.

I will tell you that I have never once been led by the Holy Spirit to even consider Catholism... Sorry to burst your bubble. But thanks for the prayers Buddy, and I will do the same for you, who knows... It might be that you jump sides...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 1, 2008)

Big7 said:


> FATALLY FLAWED THINKING
> 
> MANY people think overt anti-Catholicism is found only among elderly, anti-intellectual Fundamentalists. Not so. One younger Fundamentalist author, by no means anti-intellectual, shows his anti-Catholicism publicly by refusing to shake hands with Catholic debate opponents or to pray the Lord's Prayer with Catholics. He has been known to walk off the stage when an ecumenical prayer is offered by a Catholic.
> 
> ...


 

Thanks for the name, I am going to have to look him up... might be some good debate material there....

I am just kidding!

If what is posted is true of his actions, to me it is very un-christian like to not extend curtious plesentries, it is all about Respect, you have to give it in order to get it...

DB BB


----------



## Big7 (Oct 1, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I am glad you are here for me Big7, I appreciate the gesture. I assume that means you are praying for me?  Like I am praying for you.
> 
> I will tell you that I have never once been led by the Holy Spirit to even consider Catholism... Sorry to burst your bubble. But thanks for the prayers Buddy, and I will do the same for you, who knows... It might be that you jump sides...
> 
> DB BB



DB BB You are right about the praying for each-other part.

Bout' as gooda' chance me jumping as you.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> White believes Catholics must disown their faith and embrace "true" Christianity.



Can't the reverse be said about Catholics...They want to bring the Protestants back home to the Mother Church??

Do Catholics acknowledge salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church and her baptism?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Can't the reverse be said about Catholics...They want to bring the Protestants back home to the Mother Church??
> 
> Do Catholics acknowledge salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church and her baptism?



No.  There is a difference between saying your religion has some "flawed" teachings versus you will burn in he ll.  BIG difference.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 1, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> No.  There is a difference between saying your religion has some "flawed" teachings versus you will burn in he ll.  BIG difference.



Okay...but isn't that saying the same thing?

If I say that when you die, you either go to Heaven or Hel l.  Then I say, your belief system is flawed.  What is that implying?

So, in one instance, you want someone to come out and be direct and be thick skinned, but on the other hand, just tell me I'm flawed and imply Hel l.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 1, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> No.  There is a difference between saying your religion has some "flawed" teachings versus you will burn in he ll.  BIG difference.



I agree.

But, can you answer her questions? I am not sure of the answers myself.

Does the RCC think you have to be a member of that Church and receive its baptism to go to Heaven?

Is there an official position?


----------



## pnome (Oct 1, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...but isn't that saying the same thing?
> 
> If I say that when you die, you either go to Heaven or Hel l.  Then I say, your belief system is flawed.  What is that implying?
> 
> So, in one instance, you want someone to come out and be direct and be thick skinned, but on the other hand, just tell me I'm flawed and imply Hel l.



Maybe it would help if you and dawg2 spelled out your requirements for making it into heaven?  

I'll start a new thread as this is an interesting topic I think.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...but isn't that saying the same thing?
> 
> If I say that when you die, you either go to Heaven or Hel l.  Then I say, your belief system is flawed.  What is that implying?
> 
> So, in one instance, you want someone to come out and be direct and be thick skinned, but on the other hand, just tell me I'm flawed and imply Hel l.



I was not implying you go to he ll for "flawed" theology.  A flawed diamond is still precious, just not as precious as "flawless"



PWalls said:


> I agree.
> 
> But, can you answer her questions? I am not sure of the answers myself.
> 
> ...



The absolute best resource I can provide "Unitatis Redintegratio" :

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 1, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I was not implying you go to he ll for "flawed" theology. A flawed diamond is still precious, just not as precious as "flawless"


 
So are you saying that Catholics are favored moreso than other Christians?

DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

Please just read the Council of Trent's positions...  They anathematized every Christian who disagrees with any detail of Catholic doctrine.  These have NEVER been cancelled.  An anathema means that the Pope has placed someone under an ecclesiastical curse intending to send them to he77.

According to it, no Protestant is going to heaven....  Here are a few examples:

(Anathemas condemning anyone that accepts the idea of Justification by Faith Alone)

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII

(Anathema condemning anyone that rejects the Catholic Church is hierarchal)

“If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.” Twenty-Third Session CANON VI.

(Anathema condemning anyone that rejects the sacrament of confession)

“If any one saith, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema. “ Fourteenth Session CANON II

(Anathemas condemning anyone that rejects the seven sacraments)

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not in deed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON IV

(Anathemas condemning anyone that rejects the Most Holy Eucharist)

“If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.” Thirteenth Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.” Thirteenth Session CANON VI

(Anathema condemning anyone that rejects baptism is necessary for salvation)

“If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON V

(Anathema condemning anyone that rejects infant baptism)

“If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON XIII

(Anathemas condemning anyone that rejects the priesthood)

“If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.” Twenty-Second Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke 22: 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.” Twenty-Second Session CANON II

“If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON X

http://www.geocities.com/peterpaulmin/CoucilofTrent.html


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So are you saying that Catholics are favored moreso than other Christians?
> 
> DB BB



Not necessarily.  It was a simple illustration.  I was not implying Catholics are favored more than non-Catholics.  The point is, the Catholic Church has maintained their teachings for 2,000 years, relatively unchanged.  NO Reformation, counter Reformations, etc.  While there have been changes in traditional aspects (latin for mass, female "altar boys" etc.) the Church has kept the same core of beliefs.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> NO Reformation, counter Reformations,



You sure about that????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Please just read the Council of Trent's positions...  They anathematized every Christian who disagrees with any detail of Catholic doctrine.  These have NEVER been cancelled.  An anathema means that the Pope has placed someone under an ecclesiastical curse intending to send them to he77.
> 
> According to it, no Protestant is going to heaven....  Here are a few examples:
> 
> ...




Banjo,  I know you and reformed pastor LOVE the word "Anathema."  Instead of a geocities link, I have provided you here----->  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm  with a better, more accurate link.  I do doubt you wil take the time to red it.  

Did you read my link above in post 68?  You should read it.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> You sure about that????
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm



Like I said before, it had nothing to do with DOCTRINE.  Incidentally, that term "Catholic Reformation" was coined by Protestants and is not a common usage.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

I will look at them both...  I perused #68, but did not read it word for word....

Here is part of a paper written by a former nun....

http://www.behindthebadge.net/apologetics/discuss132.html

VATICAN II AND ECUMENISM

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) wrote 16 official documents. It also gave some groups of experts the task of working out the details of how to apply the principles and directives of the Council. These groups of men wrote official "post conciliar" documents to more fully elaborate what had been written by the Council. The conciliar and post conciliar documents are published together in the same two-volume work.

The Council's "Decree on Ecumenism" states that ecumenical activity cannot result in changing any aspect of the Catholic faith. [Note 1] This foundational principle is reflected in the post conciliar documents dealing with ecumenism.

For example, Post Conciliar Document No. 42 says that the purpose of ecumenism is to transform the thinking and behavior of non-Catholics so that eventually all Christians will be united in one Church. It states, "This unity, we believe, dwells in the Catholic Church." [Note 2]

In other words, "unity" means that all Christians will become Roman Catholics.

As we will see later in this paper, reaching out in a friendly, respectful way to "separated brethren" seems inconsistent with the Council of Trent.

*****************************************************

Dawg...before the Lord, in all honesty, is it or is it not the goal of the Roman Catholic church to bring all Protestants (straying brethren) back to the Mother Church.....

Yes or no.....

Is salvation found outside of the Roman Catholic Church.....

Yes or no....


----------



## PWalls (Oct 1, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html



Thanks for the link. I gave it a quick read. Says about what I thought it would.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Dawg...before the Lord, in all honesty, is it or is it not the goal of the Roman Catholic church to bring all Protestants (straying brethren) back to the Mother Church.....
> 
> Yes or no.....
> 
> ...



Based on a quick read of that link he posted, I would say the answer was "Yes" to both of your questions. It is what I expected.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Thanks for the link. I gave it a quick read. Says about what I thought it would.



I started reading it and stopped here:

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

What does this mean?


----------



## PWalls (Oct 1, 2008)

I read that paragraph as well.

However, I also read where they said in the paragraph ahead of it that they recognized that people outside of the RCC are saved (my paraphrase).

Whether or not the RCC thinks I am less or more saved doesn't really matter.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 1, 2008)

PWalls said:


> I read that paragraph as well.
> 
> However, I also read where they said in the paragraph ahead of it that they recognized that people outside of the RCC are saved (my paraphrase).
> 
> Whether or not the RCC thinks I am less or more saved doesn't really matter.



So is this where the different levels of Heaven come into play?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> However, I also read where they said in the paragraph ahead of it that they recognized that people outside of the RCC are saved (my paraphrase).
> 
> Whether or not the RCC thinks I am less or more saved doesn't really matter.
> _______



They can't have it both ways...  

The only reason I made a point of this is because of the James White comments.... Big7 thought it awful that he was trying to get Catholics to repudiate their beliefs...

Catholics do the same thing concerning Protestants...


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> They can't have it both ways...
> 
> The only reason I made a point of this is because of the James White comments.... Big7 thought it awful that he was trying to get Catholics to repudiate their beliefs...
> 
> Catholics do the same thing concerning Protestants...



I can assure you, I have witnessed and personally experienced vehement hatred and distasteful comments and lies from Protestants (esp. Baptists) towards Catholics in person and even in sermons inside their churches.  Yet I have not seen the reverse.  I am sure it has happened but  I have not witnessed it.  

I have NEVER heard a sermon by a priest at mass talking about Protetstants burning in he ll or judging other religions, yet I have attended Protetstant chrurches where that was the focus of their sermon.  One would think the preachers time and sermons would be better spent talking of God and not trying to legitimize their agenda.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Based on a quick read of that link he posted, I would say the answer was "Yes" to both of your questions. It is what I expected.



Exactly.  She won't read the links, she has made her mind up that she knows everything about Catholics, and that is FLAWED.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Dawg...before the Lord, in all honesty, is it or is it not the goal of the Roman Catholic church to bring all Protestants (straying brethren) back to the Mother Church.....
> 
> Yes or no.....
> 
> ...



Come on Dawg....  you still haven't answered the questions.  All we need is yes or no...

You have let pwalls answer for you.

If you can't bring yourself to do it, pm Big7, I bet he will.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> They can't have it both ways...
> 
> The only reason I made a point of this is because of the James White comments.... Big7 thought it awful that he was trying to get Catholics to repudiate their beliefs...
> 
> Catholics do the same thing concerning Protestants...



I was not blasting the effort, I chalk that up to
false teaching and the tactics of Mr. White.
He is clearly mis-guided in Scripture in addition
to being a hater. 

YES - Catholics reach out to Protestants and even non-Christians in a effort to get them to Convert or come back home 



dawg2 said:


> I can assure you, I have witnessed and personally experienced vehement hatred and distasteful comments and lies from Protestants (esp. Baptists) towards Catholics in person and even in sermons inside their churches.  Yet I have not seen the reverse.  I am sure it has happened but  I have not witnessed it.
> I have NEVER heard a sermon by a priest at mass talking about Protetstants burning in he ll or judging other religions, yet I have attended Protetstant chrurches where that was the focus of their sermon.  One would think the preachers time and sermons would be better spent talking of God and not trying to legitimize their agenda.



Not sure it has ever happened.


Yeah - I kinda' get the same feeling sometimes.
Below is cut-n-paste that I sent to a Protestant Brother
09/28/08. Since PM's to me should always be PRIVATE.
I have deleted the recipient's name. Here goes.


The only part I can paste to the persons's response
without giving out the name is: (in yellow)

Nope. Now you are reaching.

She clearly said "HAD" become. Are you hear to deny that the RCC was not currupt ever in it's existence. She was referring to a specific time.

She is not talking about today's RCC or its current leadership.

My response:

(recipient's name, deleted)

In my post HERE:
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=51

I provided links from respectable sites
and did everything possible to make my point without having a thread a mile long.
Also, if you are honest with yourself and me, you know I have a habit of doing that. Inside that post, one link in particular addresses the topic of 
"Myths about Indulgences" HERE:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Myth...ndulgences.asp. The "other" links are useful as well. Just so you
know, I am a life-long Catholic and attended Catholic School, until high school. I am very well aware of scandals of the past and in many of my post' have
stated that fact. All Churches have chafe among their wheat. A lot of what goes on here presents isolated incedents as if they were teachings of The Church or
dogmatic, etc... That is where I have a major problem.

I have seen first hand, through attending Protestant Churches as
a guest with friends or weddings, funerals, etc... a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric during sermons and services.
Also a good bit with hunting buddies,
until they realize I will not put up with it
and after corecting them on many ocasions.

I sometimes wonder correctly, I believe,
that a lot of Protestant Churches spend
more time telling the congregation more
of what is WRONG with being Catholic than is spent with what is RIGHT with Protestantism. Surely, you will not deny that.
All this leads me to say:
For the most part Catholics on here
do not initiate problems - only defend the Catholic Faith. We take that VERY SERIOUSLY and that will not change.
Anyone with a Catholic education or
real knowledge of Catholic Doctrine has
ever said or will ever say "members"
of The Church are beyond scandal and
deception.
ONLY - That it has never been or will never be part of church teaching.I AM here to deny that the RCC was not currupt ever in it's existence. People, yes. The Church , no. There is NOT ANY
historical data that proves it has.
That is a fact. That is why it is all very offensive. Hope this helps clear up my 
position for you.

I will not pretend to speak for (deleted)or (deleted) but I'll bet you they will tell
you the same thing or something very similar.

Greg


----------



## PWalls (Oct 1, 2008)

I have never been to a Protestant Church where the RCC was blasted or hated on. Never.

I have heard a sermon where a Baptist preacher disagreed with some of their doctrine. But, in the same sermon he also mentioned other Protestant denominations that he disagreed with their doctrine as well (speaking in toungues, sprinkling, etc).


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Dawg...before the Lord, in all honesty, is it or is it not the goal of the Roman Catholic church to bring all Protestants (straying brethren) back to the Mother Church.....
> 
> Yes or no.....
> 
> ...



Big7's answer:



> YES - Catholics reach out to Protestants and even non-Christians in a effort to get them to Convert or come back home



I am assuming by your response Protestants and "even non-Christians" that you believe there is salvation OUTSIDE of the Roman Catholic Church and her baptism........

Do you believe that Protestants who do not believe in transubstantiation are Christians?

yes or no....

Do you believe that a person who believes that justification by FAITH alone is a Christian?

yes or no...


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> sprinkling



Oh no...not sprinkling....

I may feel a new thread coming on...


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

PWalls said:


> I have never been to a Protestant Church where the RCC was blasted or hated on. Never.
> 
> I have heard a sermon where a Baptist preacher disagreed with some of their doctrine. But, in the same sermon he also mentioned other Protestant denominations that he disagreed with their doctrine as well (speaking in toungues, sprinkling, etc).



Maybe I should have said "Baptist" and not Protestant.  I have both seen it firsthand and had Baptist friends ask me if what their preacher said was true about Catholics, which were some pretty un-Christian-like comments.  Also, my wife has a childhood friend whose wife is now married to a Baptist preacher and he told her Catholics were all going to he ll because they were not Christian, as was my wife who converted from Baptist to Catholic a few years back.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> She clearly said "HAD" become. Are you hear to deny that the RCC was not currupt ever in it's existence. She was referring to a specific time.
> 
> She is not talking about today's RCC or its current leadership.



Big7....

Have you been telling on me to the moderators here?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Big7's answer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sweet mary mother of god...go read my links


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> They can't have it both ways...
> 
> The only reason I made a point of this is because of the James White comments.... Big7 thought it awful that he was trying to get Catholics to repudiate their beliefs...
> 
> Catholics do the same thing concerning Protestants...



And they all do the same thing to the Jews, and the Muslims, and the Buddhists, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

What's the difference?  

Every religion/sect/denomination believes that THEIR doctrine is THE doctrine, and the ONLY doctrine that will get you to heaven.

What a tiny, small, limited god you have.....


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Sweet mary mother of god...go read my links



Hehehehe.....

A simple yes or no is so much easier for me to understand.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Hehehehe.....
> 
> A simple yes or no is so much easier for me to understand.



Obama isn't in office yet, you still have to work.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And they all do the same thing to the Jews, and the Muslims, and the Buddhists, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> ...



Not true.  Please read post 91.  Thanks in advance


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Obama isn't in office yet, you still have to work.




And the answer is......yes or no.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> And the answer is......yes or no.



Fine:

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2646456&postcount=94


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

dawg.....

I am laughing out loud as I type this....

I like you.

Uncle, Uncle, I give....  you aren't going to answer definitively.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> dawg.....
> 
> I am laughing out loud as I type this....
> 
> ...



But I did.  Take off your counter-reformation glasses and read


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

I GOT IT!


----------



## Big7 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo - gimmie a minute! 

I will answer your questions.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo - Did something get deleted or did I go blind.
thought I saw a couple of yes or no questions.
What do you want answered.
Maybe on anoter thread?

Please get me the post #. 
I will answer your questions.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

Big7...

Look at Post #87


----------



## Big7 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Big7's answer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1st Question:

YES - Here's why:

The dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" is one example out of thousands. While it is true that the Church makes allowances for the possibility that a person can be saved if they are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith through no fault of their own, this possibility of an exception has, for many, become the rule. Before the "enlightenment" of our present era, none of the Saints or Doctors of the Church placed any emphasis on this possibility. They were all forceful in declaring, with St. Augustine, that: "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can shout alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can anyone find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (St. Augustine) And with St. Fulgentius who said: "Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics (i.e. Protestants), and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

AND:

For over 1,900 years, the Church taught this truth unambiguously, and without feeling any need to water down the dogma in favor of the possible exception. The Church was aware of the possibility of an exception, but realized that emphasizing it, rather than the rule, would only lead to confusion and ultimately a denial of an element of faith. While Pius IX acknowledged that it may be possible for a person who is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Faith to attain salvation, the chances of such a person existing are surely extremely rare.

AND:

In his encyclical Singulari Quiden, Blessed Pope Pius IX condemned "the devilish system of indifference between different religions," who "embrace people who have strayed from the truth, who are enemies of the true faith," and those who "maintain that the haven of eternal salvation is open to sectarians of any religion." He therefore commanded the Bishops to "diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is only one truth, which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith. ... There is only one True, Holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot have God for a father..." The same Holy Pontiff, in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamure Moerore, condemned "a grave error entrapping some catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and catholic unity. Such belief," the Pontiff declares, "is absolutely opposed to Catholic teaching." Thus, the Holy Pontiff is forceful in declaring the dogma unambiguously. Then in the next sentence he acknowledges that there can be exceptions: "There are of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishment."

2nd Question:

Yes - Though I think they would be better served in the fullness of the sacrament, and the other six too...

Now, I know everyone is not married or wants to be a Priest, etc.. All Sacraments


3rd Question:

Yes - But "faith alone" will not get you to Heaven.
You have to do as God has instructed and that involves works. So, I believe faith+works.



Banjo said:


> Big7....
> 
> Have you been telling on me to the moderators here?



No, Just an example. Like I said in the other thread,
You just happened to be "the next one" to post a meanie



Banjo said:


> Big7...
> 
> Look at Post #87



Thanks! I knew it had to be in there somewhere.

Now, you are going to have to READ THIS to understand it.
A "skim won't make the point. 

I'm not saying throw it out at will, far from it - just
that there can be Salvation without the Catholic Church under very strict and certain circumstances.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Now, you are going to have to READ THIS to understand it.
> A "skim won't make the point.


O.k. Big7... I have read it once...

Now I am going back for round 2.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> While it is true that the Church makes allowances for the possibility that a person can be saved if they are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith through no fault of their own, this possibility of an exception has, for many, become the rule.





> There are of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion.



O.k....correct me if I am reading this wrong, but I am taking away from what  you posted that the MAJORITY of Christians must be Catholic in their dogma.

There are VERY rare exceptions of those outside of the RC church being true Christians.

What about those of us who have an understanding of the RC church's theology and don't agree with it?

Is there any hope for an informed Protestant???

I am going to try and bring this back around to Limited Atonement....according to Catholic teaching Christ died for mostly Catholics, and a very minute number of Protestants


----------



## Big7 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo -that is going to take me a while.
I know what I want to say - just have to find the words.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Banjo -that is going to take me a while.
> I know what I want to say - just have to find the words.



No hurry...  

I know it is hard to tell with a blog, but I can tell you that I am in no way trying to be mean spirited, nor did your post make me angry in any way.  I am seriously trying to understand it.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> O.k....correct me if I am reading this wrong, but I am taking away from what  you posted that the MAJORITY of Christians must be Catholic in their dogma.
> 
> There are VERY rare exceptions of those outside of the RC church being true Christians.
> 
> ...



You can't have this----->  What about those of us who have an understanding of the RC church's theology ...

and still have this----->and don't agree with it?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 1, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> You can't have this----->  What about those of us who have an understanding of the RC church's theology ...
> 
> and still have this----->and don't agree with it?




Well...depends on what your definition of understanding is....I'm sure you'd disagree with me, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of RCC and you and I both know that I don't agree with it


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Well...depends on what your definition of understanding is....I'm sure you'd disagree with me, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of RCC and you and I both know that I don't agree with it



Either you understand ALL of it, or you don't understand it at ALL.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 1, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Either you understand ALL of it, or you don't understand it at ALL.


 
Do you understand all of my belief? 

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Do you understand all of my belief?
> 
> DB BB



YES.  It is still flawed  <-------That means I am JOKING with you


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 1, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> YES. It is still flawed <-------That means I am JOKING with you


 
I know.... So you understand everything about what I believe?

Do you understand every single detail of Catholism? Down to every sentence and word used?

DB BB


----------



## Big7 (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> O.k....correct me if I am reading this wrong, but I am taking away from what  you posted that the MAJORITY of Christians
> must be Catholic in their dogma.
> 
> There are VERY rare exceptions of those outside of the RC church being true Christians.
> ...



Q - O.k....correct me if I am reading this wrong, but I am taking 
away from what you posted that the MAJORITY of Christians must be Catholic in their dogma.

A - Yes - the MAJORITY of Christians are Catholic in their Dogma, to some extent. 
Lutherans and I think some others
STILL use Catholic Creeds in their services.

At any rate, nearly ALL main stream Christian Denominations came from or Reformed from or
protested, as in Protestant, from the Catholic Church.
The Christian Church. So - yes weather or not all will
admit it, ALL have roots that can be traced back to
The Catholic Church.


Q - There are VERY rare exceptions of those outside of the RC church being true Christians.

A - No - to the contrary:

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.


Q - What about those of us who have an understanding of the RC church's theology and don't agree with it?

A - Not trying to be a smart-alek but…
If you truly had an understanding of the Catholic Church, You would know, among other things:

Catholics believe that works are not only a manifestation of faith, but we also believe that the Word of God is saying that works complete our faith. 
The book of James says:
What good is it, my brothers if you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you. If a brother is naked and lacks daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-16) 
Martin Luther moved the book of James out of the Bible into the appendix of his translation because of its focus on works. He said it was an "Epistle of Straw." Luckily, it didn't catch on.

This gets back to what dawg says below:
You have to know it to understand it. If you TRULY
understand it, you have no need to go anywhere else.


Q - Is there any hope for an informed Protestant???

A -YES- 

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
What you guy’s call “saved”.

Plus - I can take you to Mass with me!




Q - I am going to try and bring this back around to Limited Atonement....according to Catholic teaching Christ died for mostly Catholics, and a very minute number of Protestants

A -  Limited Atonement is not something I am familiar with.
It is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
You either Atone, FULLY - or you don't at all.
Before it even comes up - Purgatory IS part of Full
Atonement. For Venial, as opposed to Mortal or Grave
Sin. And yes there are varying degrees of sin.
Christ died for all of us. Not "mostly" for anyone. 

I like your post' and I will read up on Limited Atonement.
This is the best I can do for now.

BTW - Go back and read ALL of this link. I saw where you said you stopped at a certain paragraph. It is a very good
link. Tells a lot about ALL Christians getting together and
respecting each-other's beliefs.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html





dawg2 said:


> Either you understand ALL of it, or you don't understand it at ALL.



I'm getting to that!


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

Man... I am going to have to chaw on this one for awhile....thank you for your response..  Isn't it funny how our presuppositions allow us to read the same exact thing and come up with two different takes on it.



> I can take you to Mass with me!


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.



Quick thoughts before I go read to my children....



> The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation,



What about Protestants like me who don't see it as sin, and don't want reconciliation?



> For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized



What constitutes a "true" baptism?



> But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism



What about Protestants who don't believe in baptismal regeneration? 

One more question....If you were to leave the Catholic Church, and join a Protestant Church, would the Catholics you know consider you apostate?


----------



## Big7 (Oct 1, 2008)

Like you, I'm outta' time.
Catch you tomorrow!


----------



## Big7 (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Quick thoughts before I go read to my children....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quote: 
The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, 

Q - What about Protestants like me who don't see it as sin, and don't want reconciliation?

A - It is the sin of schism, and properly so-called. Here’s why (one of many)

The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes: 
1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgement.


Quote: 
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized 

Q - What constitutes a "true" baptism?

A - Baptism

1 Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. 
2 The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water. 
3 Baptism confers the grace of justification. 
4 Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal. 
5 Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated. 
6 Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation. 
7 Baptism can be validly administered by anyone. 
8 Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised. 
9 The Baptism of young children is valid and licit. 

"The fact that Christianity is a religion of salvation is expressed in the sacramental life of the Church. ... Baptism and the Eucharist [are] sacraments which create in man the seed of eternal life. -- Pope John Paul II (Quoted from Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pp. 74-75)


Quote: 
But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism 

Q - What about Protestants who don't believe in baptismal regeneration? 

A - See below.

PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS ON BAPTISM 
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII, "Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins. . . 
IV. . . the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized. VI . . . by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost. 
Directions for Public Worship of God, Westminster Divines. Of Baptism . .. it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with Him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption and life eternal. 
That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, and of the sanctifying virtue of Christ. 
That they are Christians, federally holy before baptism. 
Prayer is joined for sanctifying the water to its spiritual use. 


"To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." -- Martin Luther (Quoted from The Large Catechism)

Luther in His Own Words from The Large Catechism (All from The Large Catechism of Martin Luther, translated by Robert Fischer)
"It remains for us to speak of our two sacraments, instituted by Christ. Every Christian ought to have at least some brief, elementary instruction in them because without these no one can be a Christian ... First we shall take up Baptism through which we are first received into the Christian community. ... Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved" (pp. 80-81).
"Hence it is well described as a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water, for through the Word Baptism receives the power to become the "washing of regeneration," as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5. ... Thus faith clings to the water and believes it to be Baptism in which there is sheer salvation and life ..." (p. 84).
"'He who believes and is baptized will be saved,' that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary, divine water profitably. ... But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God's command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation" (pp. 84-85). 
"He always [the Christian] has enough to do to believe firmly what Baptism promises and brings -- victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God's grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. In short the blessings of Baptism are so boundless ... Now here in Baptism there is brought free to every man's door just such a priceless medicine which swallows up death and saves the lives of all men. To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, "But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body." ... No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than Baptism, for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire" (pp. 85-86).
"Thus we see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new man, always remains until we pass from this present misery to eternal glory. ... As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism ..." 


Q -One more question....If you were to leave the Catholic Church, and join a Protestant Church, would the Catholics you know consider you apostate?

A - Yes.       It has nothing to do with joining a Protestant Church though.

apostate
NOUN: 
One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause. 

Here is what the Catholic Church says, and the Scriptural reference to back it up.

Dogmas of the Catholic Church. (Fundamentals)
The following De Fide statements comprise "Our Catholic Faith without which it is impossible to please God" (The Council of Trent, Session V, explaining the correct interpretation of Hebrews 11: 6). These positive "articles of faith" have the function of fundamental principles which the faithful accepts without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, Who is absolute truth (Council of the Vatican). They represent the mind of Christ as St. Paul says: 
1 Cor. 2:16. But we have the mind of Christ. 
Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ yesterday, and today: and the same for ever. 
Since Our Catholic Faith comes from God, they are not open for debate, and they are not reversible. 
The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes: 
1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgement. 

There is, then, no place for "pick and choose" in the truths proposed to the Faith of Christians by the Infallible Teaching Church for they are bound in Heaven by God Himself. If something is decreed on earth and is also bound in Heaven, that thing must be the truth. Otherwise, God is no longer the Truth, which is contrary to the Gospel: Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven. 
The Catholic Church is infallible because it is : 
1 Tim 3:15. the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth. 

If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Banjo - PLEASE put a little time into this read!
A 'skim ain't gonna do it for ya' ! 

Took me a while to get it together for you. 
Hope it helps you in some way.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 2, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I know.... So you understand everything about what I believe?
> 
> Do you understand every single detail of Catholism? Down to every sentence and word used?
> 
> DB BB


 
YO! Dawg!

Did you see this post?

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> YO! Dawg!
> 
> Did you see this post?
> 
> DB BB



No I did not see it, but I have now.  I know more about my Catholic faith now, than before coming into this forum


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 2, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Either you understand ALL of it, or you don't understand it at ALL.


 


dawg2 said:


> No I did not see it, but I have now. I know more about my Catholic faith now, than before coming into this forum


 

Well let me guess the first quote above is you joking about the world ALL, right?

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Well let me guess the first quote above is you joking about the world ALL, right?
> 
> DB BB



Yes it was "satire" because of a previous discussion in here on the meaning of "all."

I don't think any one person understands every single (all)detail(s) in the Bible, as it was intended.  That is painfully obvious in here at times.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 2, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Yes it was "satire" because of a previous discussion in here on the meaning of "all."
> 
> I don't think any one person understands every single (all)detail(s) in the Bible, as it was intended. That is painfully obvious in here at times.


 

Maybe gtparts is right... I might be getting a little slow...

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Maybe gtparts is right... I might be getting a little slow...
> 
> DB BB



nah....just ---->ketchup


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Maybe gtparts is right... I might be getting a little slow...
> 
> DB BB



Join the club. Slow comes with age. 

Wish slow came with some offsetting virtue, like a better memory.

Peace.


----------



## PJason (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> before the Lord, in all honesty, is it or is it not the goal of the Roman Catholic church to bring all Protestants (straying brethren) back to the Mother Church.....



No it is the goal of the Catholic Church to worship and praise God in everything we do and say. We no greater purpose then this.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

Hey Big7...

There is no way I am going to be able to read and comprehend your post #119 until tomorrow....I did skim it, but owe you more than a quick skim since you invested so much time in your answer.

I did notice that you quoted my second favorite book:  The Westminster Confession of Faith.....


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 2, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Join the club. Slow comes with age.
> 
> Wish slow came with some offsetting virtue, like a better memory.
> 
> Peace.


 

Better money would be nice....

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Better money would be nice....
> 
> DB BB



Start a copper mine


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 2, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Start a copper mine


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> A - It is the sin of schism, and properly so-called. Here’s why (one of many)



We are at a stand still from the very get-go.  I think you are saying it is a sin for me purposely not to be part of the RC Church (correct me if I misread).  However, based on my understanding of Scripture, it would be a sin for me to go to a Catholic Church.  I could never adhere to certain dogmas of the RC church...some are the mass, baptismal regeneration, faith + works, confession to a priest as my mediator, etc...



> 1 Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
> 2 The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.
> 3 Baptism confers the grace of justification.
> 4 Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.
> ...



I have a few issues with the ones I listed in red.  Baptismal regeneration being the biggest.  One I find curious is that RC's think baptism can be administered by anyone....I didn't know that.

WCF...It is a sign and seal of that which must happen or has happened.  It does not confer salvation to the individual.  It does not make someone "saved."

I am thankful to Luther for the stand he took, yet I don't agree with everything he promoted, his understanding of the Lord's Supper being one....It looks like his RC influence molded his understanding of Baptism based on what you posted.  I am going to ask my husband about this later....He may have a book that I can read.



> The Catholic Church is infallible because it is :
> 1 Tim 3:15. the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.



Big7...Do you really believe this?  Are you saying that there have been no mistakes made by the RC church through ages past or even presently?  

I am going to get personal here; I want your own words.

What do you think makes you a Christian?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> ...Big7...Do you really believe this?  Are you saying that there have been no mistakes made by the RC church through ages past or even presently?
> 
> I am going to get personal here; I want your own words.
> 
> What do you think makes you a Christian?



Not answering for him, but for me:

I do not beleieve the Church has made mistakes, people yes.  Your logic would be the same as saying the bible is not correct.

As far as Christian, let's look at the definition:

Chris·tian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

That would be the starting point.  Catholics are Christian as we follow the teachings of Christ.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> Catholics are Christian as we follow the teachings of Christ.



Morning Dawg.

You will have to be more specific than that...  Do you mean the teachings of Jesus found in His Word?

What makes you (Dawg) a Christian?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Morning Dawg.
> 
> You will have to be more specific than that...  Do you mean the teachings of Jesus found in His Word?
> 
> What makes you (Dawg) a Christian?



What is your definition of a "Christian?"


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo- PM me your e -mail address.
I have some stuff to send you to read.

Most of it has already been posted. I know
you weren't here then and I don't mind taking time
to go over it with you.

Some of it is over the 15,000 character limit.
Some of it is in e -mails that I can simply "forward" to you.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> What is your definition of a "Christian?"



Didn't I ask you first...

I'll answer...but I would like it if you would too...

A Christian is a person who recognizes their sinfulness before a Holy God.  They understand that there is nothing they can do to merit salvation; faith is a gift of God.  A Christian rests solely on the perfect works of Jesus Christ and His righteousness as their propitiation for their sin; they believe that Jesus is God. The only reason someone can do this is because the Holy Spirit has regenerated them and replaced their heart of stone with a heart of flesh.  This new heart longs to please its savior, and good works (including baptism) naturally follow conversion.  

True faith believes and accepts the Bible as true and authoritative.  True faith also perseveres to the end, all the while awaiting eternity where they will spend forever praising the Savior who gave His life for His sheep. 

Your turn....


----------



## gtparts (Oct 3, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Start a copper mine



 I've worked in auto parts for 35+ yrs. I'd rather have a plastic mine!


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

gtparts said:


> I've worked in auto parts for 35+ yrs. I'd rather have a plastic mine!



Copper is high right now though


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> Banjo- PM me your e -mail address.



Done....


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 3, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> What is your definition of a "Christian?"




The question is:  What is God's definition of a Christian.

Acts 11:26 says:  "The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
A Christian is a disciple of Christ.  A follower of Christ.  One who learns from the teacher.

Being a Christian speaks of a person who follows and lives as taught by Jesus Christ.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 3, 2008)

A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus Christ is the third part of the Trinity and that He came down to be the sacrifice for our sins. That He is fully God and believes in and trusts in Him for salvation.

There are plenty of people who try to act and walk like Jesus, but if they don't know Him and have Him in their heart, then they are not Christians.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

PWalls said:


> A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus Christ is the third part of the Trinity and that He came down to be the sacrifice for our sins. That He is fully God and believes in and trusts in Him for salvation.
> 
> There are plenty of people who try to act and walk like Jesus, but if they don't know Him and have Him in their heart, then they are not Christians.



Second part buddy - but it don't matter.
It's all the same!


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 3, 2008)

PWalls said:


> A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus Christ is the third part of the Trinity and that He came down to be the sacrifice for our sins. That He is fully God and believes in and trusts in Him for salvation.
> 
> There are plenty of people who try to act and walk like Jesus, but if they don't know Him and have Him in their heart, then they are not Christians.




Totally agree.  With one addition from my previous comment.
A Christian is a disciple.


----------

