Protestants Q&A

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Essentially, it allows people to commit ANY atrocity, and justify it in the name of God. >>>[/quote]Have no fear bub. We are no longer under a theocratic earthly divine economy. God will never again send His people to expunge sin by conquest. That is a surefire sign of anti Christian deception. There are real lessons in those ancient accounts, but nobody in “my camp” believes in violence for the gospel. If it is violent it ain’t the gospel. The scriptures make that more than clear. I wouldn’t even own those westboro pharisees as brethren to say nothing of anybody promoting a gospel by force. I am on record as saying that forcing “Christian” laws on the heathen wouldn’t even do any real good. Point that thing somewhere else.

[/quote]

If God doesn’t change, why couldn’t He command infanticide today like He did in the good old days?

If the Holy Spirit were to guide you to kill an infant, would you do so?

That said, my concern extends beyond physical violence. That is an extreme example, but what about supporting anti-gay legislation? People do this guilt free because they believe God has condemned gays, so denying gays equal rights is all good. Or course, they typically don’t phrase it that way, but the end result is the same.

People can, and do, justify any harm to others in the name of religion. That is my main beef. If believers didn’t try to legislate their religious beliefs on others, I would have no issue with them. [/quote]

God’s nature doesn’t change. Divine revelation was needed for the scriptures to be written, otherwise how would we know the Word of God?

Since we have the complete Word of God, God no longer has a need to reveal any further actions/commands etc. Its all there in the Bible. If you take notice, whenever a divine event (i.e miracle) was no longer needed, it ceased. So divine revelation has ceased.

And let me ask you (respectfully, as I don’t know how my tone is coming across), but what rights do you feel gays are being kept from? Do you not have the right to vote, buy homes, own businesses, adopt children, eat and drink from the same restaurants and water fountains as heterosexuals?[/quote]

I know some believe that, but they still use statements from the bible (or other holy books) to rationalize violence and other atrocities in the name of God. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and slavery are obvious examples, but it happens in our own day as well.

I don’t want to derail the thread into a discussion of equal rights for gays, so will limit my answer to this one post. In most states, gays don’t have the right to adopt children. In most states, we don’t have the right to marry or enter a civil union. We are denied social security benefits, pay significantlly higher taxes because we can’t file joint tax returns, and are unable to receive veteran benefits, immigration privileges, etc. reserved for straight couples. Congress did recently pass legislation allowing us to visit our partners in the hospital. We’re making progress toward equality, and I’m thankful for that.

62

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You have a few rare groups that I would consider totally out of line such as the United Pentecostal Church which believes in Oneness: God is not three separate persons but manifested himself in three separate ways so while he was Jesus he was not the Holy Spirit or the Father. There is the Church of Christ which teaches you can’t be saved unless you have been baptized into the Church of Christ. Other than that, I don’t think any Protestant groups are heretical to the point of spending eternity in hell.
[/quote]

Describing a protestant group as heretical seems like a misnomer based on the fact that there is no set beliefs among protestants. These people are heretics to whom?

And considering baptism essential has been a debate among many protestant groups. The view is certainly not unique to the Churches of Christ. There are many autonomous Churches of Christ (congregations) that compose the Church of Christ (or simply the Church) which you join through baptism. It isn’t, however, a stipulation that you must be baptized or even worship at A Church of Christ to be a member. You just have to be a member of the Church in general to be saved.[/quote]

Heretical to what orthodox Christianity teaches (by which I don’t mean the Eastern Orthodox Church). Are you sure you are thinking of Church of Christ and not Disciples of Christ?[/quote]

Yes, I am very sure. Although, there is also the United Church of Christ which is very different from what I have heard and has a unifying body of leaders. I have no idea what they believe.

63

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So, what you’re saying is that because Judas was a treacherous man…we should leave Peter and Jesus? >>>[/quote]I’m saying that the Jesus of the bible could never be associated with a vaaaast unified global organization wherein the largest preponderance of it’s history is one of rank spiritual ignorance and darkness. An unending parade of un-transformed, worldly carnal lives that comfort themselves with the false hope of charitable works and ritual, if they even do that. It is an affront to the most high God to ascribe the power of the Holy Ghost to anything displaying such apostasy.

Peter would vomit if he saw the Vatican. I intend no particular disrespect in using the title of “Roman Catholic Church”. Who cares what it’s called?

64

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You have a few rare groups that I would consider totally out of line such as the United Pentecostal Church which believes in Oneness: God is not three separate persons but manifested himself in three separate ways so while he was Jesus he was not the Holy Spirit or the Father. There is the Church of Christ which teaches you can’t be saved unless you have been baptized into the Church of Christ. Other than that, I don’t think any Protestant groups are heretical to the point of spending eternity in hell.
[/quote]

Describing a protestant group as heretical seems like a misnomer based on the fact that there is no set beliefs among protestants. These people are heretics to whom?
[/quote]

Catholics.

[quote]
And considering baptism essential has been a debate among many protestant groups. The view is certainly not unique to the Churches of Christ. There are many autonomous Churches of Christ (congregations) that compose the Church of Christ (or simply the Church) which you join through baptism. It isn’t, however, a stipulation that you must be baptized or even worship at A Church of Christ to be a member. You just have to be a member of the Church in general to be saved.[/quote]

So to Protestants you just have to be a member of the Church?[/quote]

Yes, that’s what I was getting at. All protestants are heretical to the Catholic Church or even to Eastern Orthodox Church.

There is only one Church and one body and many congregrations. Most sects of Christianity believe that to be true including Catholics. The biggest difference is in what the different groups actually believe to be the body of Christ. Catholics (and correct me if I’m wrong) believe that they are the only churches that comprise the true Church or the true body of Christ. In the many sects of protestants, some believe the same thing about their individual churches while others attempt to define the Church more loosely.

As a side note, my phrasing in the last sentence is a little goofy. The Church was defined by God. Our understanding of it seems to have been skewed and dissected over time.

65

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You have a few rare groups that I would consider totally out of line such as the United Pentecostal Church which believes in Oneness: God is not three separate persons but manifested himself in three separate ways so while he was Jesus he was not the Holy Spirit or the Father. There is the Church of Christ which teaches you can’t be saved unless you have been baptized into the Church of Christ. Other than that, I don’t think any Protestant groups are heretical to the point of spending eternity in hell.
[/quote]

Describing a protestant group as heretical seems like a misnomer based on the fact that there is no set beliefs among protestants. These people are heretics to whom?

And considering baptism essential has been a debate among many protestant groups. The view is certainly not unique to the Churches of Christ. There are many autonomous Churches of Christ (congregations) that compose the Church of Christ (or simply the Church) which you join through baptism. It isn’t, however, a stipulation that you must be baptized or even worship at A Church of Christ to be a member. You just have to be a member of the Church in general to be saved.[/quote]

Heresy is basically advocating a false belief which in this case applies. Churches do tend to express their differences based on minutia, but screwing with the Trinity doctrine is a pretty big departure and heretical. The 3 persons of God are not mutually exclusive, that is incorrect and I’d venture to say most protestants don’t believe that either.[/quote]

Agreed that that belief is pretty far out there. However, I will not ever personally say that every member of X group is heretical and going to Hell. Correction is one thing, and condemnation is another. Condemnation is God’s role alone. It’s probably safe to say that no group has been 100% correct in all of its teachings and doctrines over time, yet God’s grace covers many sins. Who are we to try and define the extents of His grace?

In this particular case, the term Trinity was never used in the Bible. I believe the concept to be true, but nonetheless as humans, we cannot truly grasp the entire concept of the Holy Trinity. I don’t know how they explain the fact that Jesus prayed to God the father, but I won’t ever be able to tell someone that they are going to Hell for an incomplete (or even incorrect) understanding of the Trinity.

66

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
As almost every protestant religion I’m aware of teaches that salvation only comes through Jesus and is only available to Christians, how do you reconcile this with people of the world who are never exposed to Christianity?

In other words, Jesus is pure love. Pure love does not include unjustly sending someone to hell. Jesus exists outside of time. There are some individuals who will never be exposed to Christianity because of remote locals, political barriers, etc. Because Jesus is outside of time, he knows upon a person’s birth whether they will come into contact with Christianity. If you can only be saved through Christianity, Jesus, by allowing the person to be born, would be condemning them to hell. This would violate the first premise that Jesus is pure love. Thus, either Jesus is not pure love or you can go to Heaven without being a Christian. [/quote]

I’m not God. He judges mankind not me. I nor any other Christian determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Some people have never or will never hear of Christ. God knows each person’s situation and can deal with that with his justice.[/quote]

I agree. But most protestant religions don’t teach this. They teach that you can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior [b]during your life[/b].[/quote]

You do have to accept Jesus and be faithful in your life to eligible for any atonement to be available after death. [/quote]

I disagree.[/quote]

That’s fine, but can you elaborate?[/quote]

Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.

67

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Essentially, it allows people to commit ANY atrocity, and justify it in the name of God. >>>[/quote]Have no fear bub. We are no longer under a theocratic earthly divine economy. God will never again send His people to expunge sin by conquest. That is a surefire sign of anti Christian deception. There are real lessons in those ancient accounts, but nobody in “my camp” believes in violence for the gospel. If it is violent it ain’t the gospel. The scriptures make that more than clear. I wouldn’t even own those westboro pharisees as brethren to say nothing of anybody promoting a gospel by force. I am on record as saying that forcing “Christian” laws on the heathen wouldn’t even do any real good. Point that thing somewhere else.

[/quote]

If God doesn’t change, why couldn’t He command infanticide today like He did in the good old days?

If the Holy Spirit were to guide you to kill an infant, would you do so?

That said, my concern extends beyond physical violence. That is an extreme example, but what about supporting anti-gay legislation? People do this guilt free because they believe God has condemned gays, so denying gays equal rights is all good. Or course, they typically don’t phrase it that way, but the end result is the same.

People can, and do, justify any harm to others in the name of religion. That is my main beef. If believers didn’t try to legislate their religious beliefs on others, I would have no issue with them. [/quote]

God’s nature doesn’t change. Divine revelation was needed for the scriptures to be written, otherwise how would we know the Word of God?

Since we have the complete Word of God, God no longer has a need to reveal any further actions/commands etc. Its all there in the Bible. If you take notice, whenever a divine event (i.e miracle) was no longer needed, it ceased. So divine revelation has ceased.

And let me ask you (respectfully, as I don’t know how my tone is coming across), but what rights do you feel gays are being kept from? Do you not have the right to vote, buy homes, own businesses, adopt children, eat and drink from the same restaurants and water fountains as heterosexuals?[/quote]

I know some believe that, but they still use statements from the bible (or other holy books) to rationalize violence and other atrocities in the name of God. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and slavery are obvious examples, but it happens in our own day as well.

I don’t want to derail the thread into a discussion of equal rights for gays, so will limit my answer to this one post. In most states, gays don’t have the right to adopt children. In most states, we don’t have the right to marry or enter a civil union. We are denied social security benefits, pay significantlly higher taxes because we can’t file joint tax returns, and are unable to receive veteran benefits, immigration privileges, etc. reserved for straight couples. Congress did recently pass legislation allowing us to visit our partners in the hospital. We’re making progress toward equality, and I’m thankful for that. [/quote]

Speaking towards the hate speech and picketing from certain groups, I’m very sorry. I believe that those things are very UN-Christian for many reasons. One is that we are told it is simply not our place.

“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.”
1 Cor. 5:12,13

Two is that those actions seem to be coming from a place of hate instead of love, and Christians are called to have love for all people. The third is that I feel like using the 6 letter F word would be the fastest way to turn someone AWAY from the church. It’s almost like saying, “We all hate your guts, but come join us.”

I am very less decided on some of the political issues. I will always be a moral conservative, so I have a problem with redefining marriage in any respect. As a side note, I also have a problem with how loosely people treat the bonds of marriage today. Anyway, I don’t have any issue with the repealing of don’t ask don’t tell or things like that.

68

[quote]McG78 wrote:
<<< Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.[/quote]This is some deadly, mortally dangerous perversion of the gospel of Christ right here. This statement stands as a monument to the anti Christian, Satan pleasing nature of the papacy. Oh the souls that will testify by their own damnation to the most successful deception in human history which IS the church of Rome.

“LORD LORD, did I not act humbly and search for higher truth?!?!?!?” Not only will THEY depart from His presence as strangers, but wait til He turns His justice on those who fed them that lie.

69

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
<<< Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.[/quote]This is some deadly, mortally dangerous perversion of the gospel of Christ right here. This statement stands as a monument to the anti Christian, Satan pleasing nature of the papacy. Oh the souls that will testify by their own damnation to the most successful deception in human history which IS the church of Rome.

“LORD LORD, did I not act humbly and search for higher truth?!?!?!?” Not only will THEY depart from His presence as strangers, but wait til He turns His justice on those who fed them that lie.
[/quote]
Not everything McG78 wrote there is Catholic. Just to clarify. Plus, not practicing because of governmental restraints excuses no one, or else we would not have martyrs. I agree Trib, that misinformation disguised as truth is one of the worst things that is done.

70

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
<<< Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.[/quote]This is some deadly, mortally dangerous perversion of the gospel of Christ right here. This statement stands as a monument to the anti Christian, Satan pleasing nature of the papacy. Oh the souls that will testify by their own damnation to the most successful deception in human history which IS the church of Rome.

“LORD LORD, did I not act humbly and search for higher truth?!?!?!?” Not only will THEY depart from His presence as strangers, but wait til He turns His justice on those who fed them that lie.
[/quote]

First, how do my beliefs reflect on the Catholic Churches doctrine? This is a strawman fallacy.

Two, even assuming agruendo that the Catholic Church is the “church of Rome,” where is the church of Rome mentioned in the Bible? This is a red-herring fallacy.

Three, was the prodigial son not accepted upon his return? Did Jesus not dine with sinners? Did Jesus not offer salvation to the gentiles and untouchables of the Biblical age (Samaritans)? Does Luke 10:25-37 say you have to be Christian? In fact, Luke 10:27 states that to achieve eternal life all you need is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Obviously those that reject God, do not “love the Lord” and thus do not achieve eternal life.

But other than that, how can you judge someone’s heart or limit Jesus’s mercy? Are you God? Do you control God’s will?

71

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
<<< Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.[/quote]This is some deadly, mortally dangerous perversion of the gospel of Christ right here. This statement stands as a monument to the anti Christian, Satan pleasing nature of the papacy. Oh the souls that will testify by their own damnation to the most successful deception in human history which IS the church of Rome.

“LORD LORD, did I not act humbly and search for higher truth?!?!?!?” Not only will THEY depart from His presence as strangers, but wait til He turns His justice on those who fed them that lie.
[/quote]
Not everything McG78 wrote there is Catholic. Just to clarify. Plus, not practicing because of governmental restraints excuses no one, or else we would not have martyrs. I agree Trib, that misinformation disguised as truth is one of the worst things that is done. [/quote]

There are many Christians that are not brave enough to overcome their fear of persecution and death to practice openingly. How can you say this is no excuse? Their sin in failing to practice is no greater than that of any other. If they repent, why should Jesus not reward them? There is a reason martyrs were automatically deemed Saints; it takes a huge commitment to the Lord to cross that line.

72

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
As almost every protestant religion I’m aware of teaches that salvation only comes through Jesus and is only available to Christians, how do you reconcile this with people of the world who are never exposed to Christianity?

In other words, Jesus is pure love. Pure love does not include unjustly sending someone to hell. Jesus exists outside of time. There are some individuals who will never be exposed to Christianity because of remote locals, political barriers, etc. Because Jesus is outside of time, he knows upon a person’s birth whether they will come into contact with Christianity. If you can only be saved through Christianity, Jesus, by allowing the person to be born, would be condemning them to hell. This would violate the first premise that Jesus is pure love. Thus, either Jesus is not pure love or you can go to Heaven without being a Christian. [/quote]

I’m not God. He judges mankind not me. I nor any other Christian determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Some people have never or will never hear of Christ. God knows each person’s situation and can deal with that with his justice.[/quote]

I agree. But most protestant religions don’t teach this. They teach that you can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior [b]during your life[/b].[/quote]

You do have to accept Jesus and be faithful in your life to eligible for any atonement to be available after death. [/quote]

I disagree.[/quote]

That’s fine, but can you elaborate?[/quote]

Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.[/quote]

Just to clarify, while I believe that Catholicism is the true path to salvation, I also believe that Jesus is pure, eternal love. As such, he can choose whoever he wants to save. I will not limit him. I won’t start a war to convert nonbelievers either. I can only live my life and encourage others to practice what I practice. If they choose not to, I will not damn them to hell. I will leave the judging to Jesus.

If you believe that only Christians reach Heaven, the logical corrollary is that only certain Christians do (i.e., those that practice all the tenets of the true church) because you cannot say somethings Jesus said are more important than others. In other words, to be a true Christian you have to follow Jesus to the letter because it is not for you to decide what is right and wrong. I don’t think this is the argument you want to make. As such, my argument cannot be as outlandish as you state.

73

I’ll have to get to these later. No time =[ This is as serious as it gets.

74

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
As almost every protestant religion I’m aware of teaches that salvation only comes through Jesus and is only available to Christians, how do you reconcile this with people of the world who are never exposed to Christianity?

In other words, Jesus is pure love. Pure love does not include unjustly sending someone to hell. Jesus exists outside of time. There are some individuals who will never be exposed to Christianity because of remote locals, political barriers, etc. Because Jesus is outside of time, he knows upon a person’s birth whether they will come into contact with Christianity. If you can only be saved through Christianity, Jesus, by allowing the person to be born, would be condemning them to hell. This would violate the first premise that Jesus is pure love. Thus, either Jesus is not pure love or you can go to Heaven without being a Christian. [/quote]

I’m not God. He judges mankind not me. I nor any other Christian determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Some people have never or will never hear of Christ. God knows each person’s situation and can deal with that with his justice.[/quote]

I agree. But most protestant religions don’t teach this. They teach that you can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior [b]during your life[/b].[/quote]

You do have to accept Jesus and be faithful in your life to eligible for any atonement to be available after death. [/quote]

I disagree.[/quote]

That’s fine, but can you elaborate?[/quote]

Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.[/quote]

Just to clarify, while I believe that Catholicism is the true path to salvation, I also believe that Jesus is pure, eternal love. As such, he can choose whoever he wants to save. I will not limit him. I won’t start a war to convert nonbelievers either. I can only live my life and encourage others to practice what I practice. If they choose not to, I will not damn them to hell. I will leave the judging to Jesus.

If you believe that only Christians reach Heaven, the logical corrollary is that only certain Christians do (i.e., those that practice all the tenets of the true church) because you cannot say somethings Jesus said are more important than others. In other words, to be a true Christian you have to follow Jesus to the letter because it is not for you to decide what is right and wrong. I don’t think this is the argument you want to make. As such, my argument cannot be as outlandish as you state.[/quote]
I didn’t mean to be heavy handed and perhaps I spoke too soon before I understood what you meant. I do think the meaning of words is important though. I do think you are capturing the right sentiments though. It seemed like your first point about “anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus” should read there is the possibility that anyone who truly sought God… might be saved by Jesus. Also I think this first point is about the people you are excluding from your second point when you say, “Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus”. Especially, when you go on to your last point and say, “As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence.” I am not by any means saying that I know who can and who will be saved, but I want to make sure that I am not a promoter of false hope for salvation. Just as a point of reference here, I think we are discussing things on the edges of Christianity right now, which can be good, but also very dangerous if misunderstood/misinterpreted.

75

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So, what you’re saying is that because Judas was a treacherous man…we should leave Peter and Jesus? >>>[/quote]I’m saying that the Jesus of the bible could never be associated with a vaaaast unified global organization wherein the largest preponderance of it’s history is one of rank spiritual ignorance and darkness. An unending parade of un-transformed, worldly carnal lives that comfort themselves with the false hope of charitable works and ritual, if they even do that. It is an affront to the most high God to ascribe the power of the Holy Ghost to anything displaying such apostasy.

Peter would vomit if he saw the Vatican. I intend no particular disrespect in using the title of “Roman Catholic Church”. Who cares what it’s called?[/quote]

“…vaaaast unified global organization wherein the largest preponderance of it’s history is one of rank spiritual ignorance and darkness.”

You stated, “vast unified global organization,” and I agree, because that is what Jesus bride would be unifed, universal, and one, as well, as apostilic and Holy, but I deny the “rank spiritual ignorance and darkness” the Church has proved to come forth with the Holiest people on earth, from red martyrs to white martyrs, to St. Ignatius and St. Bonaventure to St. Aquinas in their mystical spirituality and treatise to miracles and apparitions. No amount of attack on something with the Eucharist at its center can ever become corrupt by evil. That would deny the power of God. As well, we are the light on top of the hill, look at our Charity, the Holy Ghost’s charity, through the Catholic Church, it abounds and is second to none. The statement is plain slander.

If you call doing what God commands of us “ritual” or sacraments, then fine I would rather be considered a man that does rituals and sacraments than a man that ignores God’s commandments.

“…affront to the most high God to ascribe the power of the Holy Ghost to anything displaying such apostasy.”

Your statement is beyond ludicris, because if you really and truly believe that, you think Jesus himself is affront to the most high God to ascribe the power of the Holy Ghost to anything displaying such apostasy as Judas. You condemn the Church because of individual members that are corrupt spiritually, but teach infallibly. Yet, you do not condemn Jesus who actually gave Judas his ordination of the Holy Ghost, knowing he was a thief and knowing he was a treacherous man deserving of the 9th cirle of Hell?

Interesting, a little hyprocritical is it not that you would condemn an “institute” for having members that they may have not known before hand were corrupt, yet you wouldn’t condemn God for knowning placing a spiritually corrupt man into office of an Apostle?

Explain to me how you do not condemn Jesus, who knew the heart and actions of Judas and still put him in a position of authority to teach, Tirib? Tell me, I want to know how you defend Jesus for his actions of putting a thief and trader into authority to teach his most holy eternal word?

Tell me Tirib, I want to know…how such a Holy God could use a weak man like Judas as a teacher, one that would single handedly betray Jesus?

Another great man right, Peter? How could Jesus, God himself, put in a man that would deny Him three times? He denied he knew Jesus, Tirib! That is a mortal offense against God! Yet, Jesus used him to be the first Vicor of Christ. He told him to feed his flock! How could Jesus do this? How could Jesus put traders, thieves, deniers, and murders as Apostles? Do you deny how corrupt the twelve apostles were, how little faith they had, yet they were ordained by Jesus himself to teach the Word?

I care, because it is not Roman Catholic, as well it denies the universality of the Church, and it excludes those that aren’t part of the Latin Rite, like my brothers, who I visit regulary, in the Eastern Rite who I spend most of my time with when I’m not at school.

76

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
<<< Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.[/quote]This is some deadly, mortally dangerous perversion of the gospel of Christ right here. This statement stands as a monument to the anti Christian, Satan pleasing nature of the papacy. Oh the souls that will testify by their own damnation to the most successful deception in human history which IS the church of Rome.

“LORD LORD, did I not act humbly and search for higher truth?!?!?!?” Not only will THEY depart from His presence as strangers, but wait til He turns His justice on those who fed them that lie.
[/quote]
Not everything McG78 wrote there is Catholic. Just to clarify. Plus, not practicing because of governmental restraints excuses no one, or else we would not have martyrs. I agree Trib, that misinformation disguised as truth is one of the worst things that is done. [/quote]

There are many Christians that are not brave enough to overcome their fear of persecution and death to practice openingly. How can you say this is no excuse? Their sin in failing to practice is no greater than that of any other. If they repent, why should Jesus not reward them? There is a reason martyrs were automatically deemed Saints; it takes a huge commitment to the Lord to cross that line.[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about practicing openly nor did you. You said practicing (no mention of openly). I took your meaning as saying this was habitually not practicing, not just a suspension of practicing for a time. I agree that repentence would return them to God’s favor. I also stand by what I said that governmental pressure, threat of persecution, and death is no excuse not to practice. It may be the reason some don’t and I thank God I am not put to that test, but I do pray that if I were I would choose God.

77

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You have a few rare groups that I would consider totally out of line such as the United Pentecostal Church which believes in Oneness: God is not three separate persons but manifested himself in three separate ways so while he was Jesus he was not the Holy Spirit or the Father. There is the Church of Christ which teaches you can’t be saved unless you have been baptized into the Church of Christ. Other than that, I don’t think any Protestant groups are heretical to the point of spending eternity in hell.
[/quote]

Describing a protestant group as heretical seems like a misnomer based on the fact that there is no set beliefs among protestants. These people are heretics to whom?
[/quote]

Catholics.

[quote]
And considering baptism essential has been a debate among many protestant groups. The view is certainly not unique to the Churches of Christ. There are many autonomous Churches of Christ (congregations) that compose the Church of Christ (or simply the Church) which you join through baptism. It isn’t, however, a stipulation that you must be baptized or even worship at A Church of Christ to be a member. You just have to be a member of the Church in general to be saved.[/quote]

So to Protestants you just have to be a member of the Church?[/quote]

Yes, that’s what I was getting at. All protestants are heretical to the Catholic Church or even to Eastern Orthodox Church.

There is only one Church and one body and many congregrations. Most sects of Christianity believe that to be true including Catholics. The biggest difference is in what the different groups actually believe to be the body of Christ. Catholics (and correct me if I’m wrong) believe that they are the only churches that comprise the true Church or the true body of Christ. In the many sects of protestants, some believe the same thing about their individual churches while others attempt to define the Church more loosely.

As a side note, my phrasing in the last sentence is a little goofy. The Church was defined by God. Our understanding of it seems to have been skewed and dissected over time.[/quote]

Those that are in the Mystical Body of Christ are those who believe in the Faith, which is the doctrinal faith of the Catholic Church, now people may not be formally baptized in the Catholic Church and they can still possibly be in the MBOC or related to those in the MBOC by salvific truth, but are separated when they deny truths of the faith, such as Jesus was not God.

78

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
<<< Some may be symantics in that I believe that there a lot of ways to accept Jesus. Jesus said in the gospels that on judgment day many will call his name and say that they knew him and He will respond that He doesn’t know them. I believe the converse is true as well. Many would have never called themselves Christians but would have lived a holy life. Mother Teresa said that anyone who truly sought God, no matter what they call their religion, have the ability to be saved by Jesus.

Ignoring the people that never hear about Jesus and those that cannot be practicing Christians because of government or other restraints, I don’t think calling yourself a Christian is necessary. What is necessary is acting humbly, doing the works of the Lord, and searching for that higher truth.

As for people that reject Christianity, I don’t think salvation is available without repetence. Many say they reject it but may not in their heart. But for those that reject Christianity in their hearts, I don’t see how you can overcome Jesus’s express warnings against this.[/quote]This is some deadly, mortally dangerous perversion of the gospel of Christ right here. This statement stands as a monument to the anti Christian, Satan pleasing nature of the papacy. Oh the souls that will testify by their own damnation to the most successful deception in human history which IS the church of Rome.

“LORD LORD, did I not act humbly and search for higher truth?!?!?!?” Not only will THEY depart from His presence as strangers, but wait til He turns His justice on those who fed them that lie.
[/quote]

Peter would vomit at such a lie about the Papacy and rebuke you for your heresy and schism.

79

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Forbes wrote:
<<< You can’t. Only God knows who they are. And Tirib (once again) explained it better than I.

Explain how I am supposed to follow James 5:14…if I can’t.[/quote]With John14:12:

[quote] 12-Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.[/quote]Elders are fine, James says so, but Jesus also said that whoever believes in Him will do His works.

Explain how you can know that the particular elders of your church that you call on are not undiluted apostate hirelings and hence not hellbound non members of the mystical body of Christ. The first person I ever met, who was also the only one for years, That I was convinced was the recipient of a miracle was in an ariminian pentecostal church. I’ve met a couple more since. One lady in my church has had the sight fully returned to her blind left eye in answer to the prayer of the women’s group laying hands on her.

80

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Forbes wrote:
<<< You can’t. Only God knows who they are. And Tirib (once again) explained it better than I.

Explain how I am supposed to follow James 5:14…if I can’t.[/quote]With John14:12:

[quote] 12-Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.[/quote]Elders are fine, James says so, but Jesus also said that whoever believes in Him will do His works.

Explain how you can know that the particular elders of your church that you call on are not undiluted apostate hirelings and hence not hellbound non members of the mystical body of Christ. The first person I ever met, who was also the only one for years, That I was convinced was the recipient of a miracle was in an ariminian pentecostal church. I’ve met a couple more since. One lady in my church has had the sight fully returned to her blind left eye in answer to the prayer of the women’s group laying hands on her.
[/quote]

There definitely have been deceivers in the Catholic Church’s hierarchy. But the beauty of the Church is that it is greater than any one man or group of men. Apostolic tradition and the tenets of the Church protect against heresy becoming main stream.

Miracles happen, and I do not deny God’s power. I repeat my question above. You were quick to cast me to Jesus’s ultimate judgment for saying non-Christian’s may be saved. But isn’t the logical corrollary that there is one and only one true Christian church. How can you say certain aspects are more important than others making salvation available to people who reject XYZ but not to people who reject ABC?