# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Standing With Israel: How Bad Theology Duped Us Into Supporting Terrorism & Oppression - split

## Sola_Fide

> What other possible reason could you have to keep defending something that's obviously been refuted with success and beaten to the point which is beyond ridiculous.  Are you gay or something?


Am I "gay or something"?   This is how you debate?  How old are you?

"Obviously been refuted"?  What world do you live in to think election has been "obviously refuted" (since the very verse in Romans 11 mentions election)?

Why on earth would you think the issue of what is the true Israel has nothing to do with election?

----------


## Terry1

> Am I "gay or something"?   This is how you debate?  How old are you?
> 
> "Obviously been refuted"?  What world do you live in to think election has been "obviously refuted" (since the very verse in Romans 11 mentions election)?
> 
> Why on earth would you think the issue of what is the true Israel has nothing to do with election?


Well, are you gay?  I just asked you in another thread too.  I'm just curious is all.  BTW, I'm 58 years old. LOL

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's not a quote a Christian could accept at all.


You are lost and confused, good Scotsman.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, are you gay?  I just asked you in another thread too.  I'm just curious is all.  BTW, I'm 58 years old. LOL


I asked you how old you were because calling people gay as an insult is something that teenagers do.  And why didn't you try to answer any of the other questions in my thread?

----------


## Terry1

> You are lost and confused, good Scotsman.


hb, you've got me rolling here. LOL  Yes, how does he like his porridge, that's a good question.

----------


## Terry1

> I asked you how old you were because calling people gay as an insult is something that teenagers do.  And why didn't you try to answer any of the other questions in my thread?


I didn't call you gay, nor did I insinuate it.  I simply asked you outright and honestly.  Are you gay?  Yes or no?  I'm not going to judge you for it if you are, but it seems that anyone who defends the doctrine of "no repentance needed" and to the extent that you do begs the question as to why when so many have refuted this successfully, yet you will not accept the truth as it stands for some reason.  I realize that you've said you were affiliated with a sect of the Baptist that cater more to gay people than anything else.  Is this true?  Are you gay?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are lost and confused, good Scotsman.


Okay HB...let me be a bit more formal and precise.  Science is based on the twin fallacies of induction and asserting the consequent.  Christianity,  having a revelational epistemology,  does not suffer from these fallacies, and cannot be reconciled with this empirical view.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't call you gay, nor did I insinuate it.  I simply asked you outright and honestly.  Are you gay?  Yes or no?  I'm not going to judge you for it if you are, but it seems that anyone who defends the doctrine of "no repentance needed" and to the extent that you do begs the question as to why when so many have refuted this successfully, yet you will not accept the truth as it stands for some reason.  I realize that you've said you were affiliated with a sect of the Baptist that cater more to gay people than anything else.  Is this true?  Are you gay?


I said that I'm affiliated with a "sect of Baptist that caters more to gay people than anything else"? 

I said that "no repentance is needed"?

Where have I said these things.   I would like the post and the link please.

----------


## Terry1

> I said that I'm affiliated with a "sect of Baptist that caters more to gay people than anything else"? 
> 
> I said that "no repentance is needed"?
> 
> Where have I said these things.   I would like the post and the link please.


You made the claim that repentance is a dead work, are you denying that now?  BTW, are you gay?  What's the problem with answering the question?

----------


## fr33

> 2. American treatment of the natives was not much different.


The obvious difference between the two is that one is happening right in front of our eyes and the other centuries ago. Many injustices were perpetrated back then that aren't today. Buying foreigners for slavery was legal. Should Israel do that as well? Are you trying to justify the violent invasion, murder, and concentration camps if the US chose to do it once again?




> 6. The majority of Islamic nations are guilty of far greater acts of oppression than Israel.


I don't think it's true. One could make the case that since Israel's founding, many Islamic nations have become more radical in response to the threat Israel has posed to them.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I asked you how old you were because calling people gay as an insult is something that teenagers do.  And why didn't you try to answer any of the other questions in my thread?


Wow, is that what the lad at college was doing to me?   Was he trying to insult me when he asked if I was gay?   

I asked him " Why are you so interested in my sexual preference, are you looking for a date?
Now I see why his face turned beet red when the others standing there started laughing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wow, is that what the lad at college was doing to me?   Was he trying to insult me when he asked if I was gay?   
> 
> I asked him " Why are you so interested in my sexual preference, are you looking for a date?
> Now I see why his face turned beet red when the others standing there started laughing.


Yeah, I like that one.  How embarrassed he got really goes to show how low one thinks of themselves when they resort to those petty attacks.

I am completely against homosexuality...most would call me a "Christian bigot" or whatever....but I would never call someone a "***" or a "dyke" in an insulting way.  You have to be a complete scumbag to do that to somebody.

----------


## eduardo89

> I am completely against homosexuality...most would call me a "Christian bigot" or whatever....but I would never call someone a "***" or a "dyke" in an insulting way.  You have to be a complete scumbag to do that to somebody.


That still does not answer the question Terry asked you.

Why are you evading it so much? Just answer yes or no.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You made the claim that repentance is a dead work, are you denying that now?  BTW, are you gay?  What's the problem with answering the question?


Hey scumbag, you forgot to post the link to where I said any of this.  Where is the link?

Also, when I asked you if you were a child molester, why did you react so quickly?   What are you hiding?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That still does not answer the question Terry asked you.
> 
> Why are you evading it so much? Just answer yes or no.


So you're getting in on this too?  I really thought you were better than that.

----------


## eduardo89

> Hey scumbag, you forgot to post the link to where I said any of this.  Where is the link?
> 
> Also, when I asked you if you were a child molester, why did you react so quickly?   What are you hiding?


Seems like someone is really getting under your skin. Can you answer the question with a yes or no so we can move past this and stop derailing this thread.




> So you're getting in on this too?  I really thought you were better than that.


I just want this 'argument' to be over. Just answer his damn question or take it somewhere else and quit derailing the thread.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Seems like someone is really getting under your skin. Can you answer the question with a yes or no so we can move past this and stop derailing this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I just want this 'argument' to be over. Just answer his damn question or take it somewhere else and quit derailing the thread.


I won't answer unless I get a response from him that I believe.   I haven't gotten one yet.

----------


## eduardo89

> I won't answer unless I get a response from him that I believe.   I haven't gotten one yet.


I'll take your silence as an affirmation, especially considering the way you've reacted.

Anyway, let's quit derailing this thread.

----------


## Terry1

> I'll take your silence as an affirmation, especially considering the way you've reacted.
> 
> Anyway, let's quit derailing this thread.


Sorry about that eduardo.  It wasn't my intention, things just sort of took on a life of their own there. lol

----------


## eduardo89

> Sorry about that eduardo.  It wasn't my intention, things just sort of took on a life of their own there. lol


It's ok. I think the question was answered and we can get back to discussing the OP.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'll take your silence as an affirmation, especially considering the way you've reacted.
> 
> Anyway, let's quit derailing this thread.


I knew you'd catch on Eduardo.  Thanks.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I didn't call you gay, nor did I insinuate it.  I simply asked you outright and honestly.  Are you gay?  Yes or no?  I'm not going to judge you for it if you are, but it seems that anyone who defends the doctrine of "no repentance needed" and to the extent that you do begs the question as to why when so many have refuted this successfully, yet you will not accept the truth as it stands for some reason.  I realize that you've said you were affiliated with a sect of the Baptist that cater more to gay people than anything else.  Is this true?  Are you gay?


You lost credibility for me a while ago.

----------


## eduardo89

> You lost credibility for me a while ago.


It's ok, I like her.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's ok, I like her.


I like her too.  I think sometimes people get on these boards when they have had a bad day, or are drunk, and maybe they say things they regret.

I completely forgive her and I asked that she forgive me for going down to her gutter level.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, I like that one.  How embarrassed he got really goes to show how low one thinks of themselves when they resort to those petty attacks.


It also shows that most people know there's something intrinsically wrong with homosexuality, even if they don't admit it.


> I am completely against homosexuality...most would call me a "Christian bigot" or whatever....but I would never call someone a "***" or a "dyke" in an insulting way.  You have to be a complete scumbag to do that to somebody.


I'm with you on all of what you say here, but I feel like the church in general, or at least the ones I've been to, focus on homosexuality too much when compared to other sins.  Every time I hear one of my parents complain about a liberal church that accepts homosexuality, I want to point out to them that our church accepts military service and even occasionally has prayers "For the troops that are fighting for our freedoms."

I don't know... what do you guys think, is that really any better than having a gay wedding?  Jesus himself did not mention homosexuality at all, yet he mentions peace and loving one's neighbor multiple times.  Now, Paul does clearly mention homosexuality, and condemns it, so I'm not saying that homosexuality is in any way "OK" here, I'm just not convinced that "conservative" churches that support war and statism are really any better than "liberal" churches that support homosexuality.  

What do you guys think?  Am I wrong here?  Why or why not?



> I disagree.   It doesn't say "and THEN Israel will be saved".  It says "and in that way all Israel will be saved".
> 
> 
> 
> I take a view like Herman Hoeksema who says that Paul is talking about elect Jews in this passage.  Remember, Paul is talking about elect Jews and elect Gentiles...or "everyone".


But the passage says that the Jews are being hardened "Until the full number of Gentiles have come in."  The "until" implies an end-point at some point.

Now, I agree that its talking about elect Jews and elect Gentiles.   I don't believe every single ethnic Jew will be saved.  I don't necessarily think a majority of elect Jews will be saved.  But I do think the hardening of the nation of Israel will come off at some point and that Jews will in great numbers begin to accept Jesus as Messiah and be saved.  Not all Jews.  Not necessarily most.  But many.

This is an eschatological issue, and I know next to nothing about those. What I describe above is essentially how my dad deals with that passage, and while I sometimes disagree with my dad, in this case I don't really have a good reason to do so.  That interpretation makes sense to me, at least in English.  Maybe its wrong.


> ...................
> 
> Here is a question.  How can God "bound a person over to disobedience" if the will is free?  Wouldn't that be the ultimate violation of the will?


I assume this question wasn't for me, since I believe in predestination and reject free will...

----------


## Republicanguy

Most of the christians here must be old!!

It isn't suprising the dogma. Its pointless to discuss with people who are so much older. Fifty, forty years is a long time. Oh well.

And no, the idea of a heaven and a hell is honestly quite boring, and just silly. Hehehe!

----------


## eduardo89

> Most of the christians here must be old!!
> 
> It isn't suprising the dogma. Its pointless to discuss with people who are so much older. Fifty, forty years is a long time. Oh well.


I'm 24...

That might seem old to a 13 year old, though, which I assume is your approximate age.

----------


## Republicanguy

Twenty four, your certainly a crackpot for you're age. How sad. You are taking those pills right. I hope so.

----------


## eduardo89

> Twenty four, your certainly a crackpot for you're age. How sad. You are taking those pills right. I hope so.


At least I'm not a parasite with an entitlement complex.

----------


## Terry1

> Twenty four, your certainly a crackpot for you're age. How sad. You are taking those pills right. I hope so.


I'd say that Eduardo, at the age of 24, is way ahead of the spiritual curve, whereas I see you standing before the starting point stuck in the mud.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Most of the christians here must be old!!
> 
> It isn't suprising the dogma. Its pointless to discuss with people who are so much older. Fifty, forty years is a long time. Oh well.
> 
> And no, the idea of a heaven and a hell is honestly quite boring, and just silly. Hehehe!



For what its worth, I'm 19...



> At least I'm not a parasite with an entitlement complex.


Sure you are.  Unless you recently became an ancap...

----------


## pcosmar

> Most of the christians here must be old!!
> 
> It isn't suprising the dogma. Its pointless to discuss with people who are so much older. Fifty, forty years is a long time. Oh well.
> 
> And no, the idea of a heaven and a hell is honestly quite boring, and just silly. Hehehe!


I see you removed the links to your National Socialist web page.

Some folks might like to see your nice Nazi uniform.

----------


## compromise

> Twenty four, your certainly a crackpot for you're age. How sad. You are taking those pills right. I hope so.


Is it possible for someone to get more than 1 red point in their reputation bar?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is it possible for someone to get more than 1 red point in their reputation bar?


I know that if it is, it takes so long that nobody here has done it.  I once looked at the users with the lowest rep and they still didn't.

----------


## eduardo89

> Is it possible for someone to get more than 1 red point in their reputation bar?


I'm trying to figure that out.




> I know that if it is, it takes so long that nobody here has done it.  I once looked at the users with the lowest rep and they still didn't.


Let's test out the theory :P

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm trying to figure that out.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's test out the theory :P


I tried to politely engage him when he first showed up here. He was promoting himself and his web page.
( I checked it out back then,  )



> I am personally socialist leaning. I also advocate republican government and democracy.


He is proudly Socialist and fiercely Nationalist,  with an odd Connie Rice fixation.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I'm with you on all of what you say here, but I feel like the church in general, or at least the ones I've been to, focus on homosexuality too much when compared to other sins.  Every time I hear one of my parents complain about a liberal church that accepts homosexuality, I want to point out to them that our church accepts military service and even occasionally has prayers "For the troops that are fighting for our freedoms."
> 
> I don't know... what do you guys think, is that really any better than having a gay wedding?  Jesus himself did not mention homosexuality at all, yet he mentions peace and loving one's neighbor multiple times.  Now, Paul does clearly mention homosexuality, and condemns it, so I'm not saying that homosexuality is in any way "OK" here, I'm just not convinced that "conservative" churches that support war and statism are really any better than "liberal" churches that support homosexuality.  
> 
> What do you guys think?  Am I wrong here?  Why or why not?


I agree.  Supporting war is not pro-life, no matter if some churches want to feel the war "against Muslims" is justified.

This doesn't even get into the passive ignoring of divorce. 

Most will clamor for the state to "do something!" to stop gay marriage without realizing the church never should have given marriage over to the state in the first place!

----------


## Terry1

> I agree.  Supporting war is not pro-life, no matter if some churches want to feel the war "against Muslims" is justified.
> 
> This doesn't even get into the passive ignoring of divorce. 
> 
> Most will clamor for the state to "do something!" to stop gay marriage without realizing the church never should have given marriage over to the state in the first place!


A marriage of God is spiritual in nature anyway.  A man or a woman can marry their cat or dog, goat or significant other, but it won't make a true spiritual marriage in the Lord.  All it is, is a piece of paper and a license from the state.  All of this perversion is just revealing the reversal of Gods morality in society, which is exactly what God said would happen in the end times.  There's no stopping it now because the Lord said all of these things must come to be to fulfill His word.  

God said, whom He hath joined together--no man can put asunder or divide.

----------


## Republicanguy

People like Eduardo89 are the reason we have so much mess in our world. How often does somebody like him wonder the thought of life of all forms on another world in some distant star system? 

Instead you continue to proliferate myth. You know you need to stop looking down on others as lesser than yourself. It will destroy you from the inside out!

We know what we know from the classic long gone societies, no religion and god ideas.

In my society, people like you would be deleted.

----------


## RJB

> We know what we know from *the classic long gone societies, no religion and god ideas*.


That's not true, the utopian societies Lenin and Stalin attempted to bring to Russia and Mao brought to Tibet still lives in your heart.





> In my society, people like you would be deleted.


Are you just trolling for response or are you really that evil?

----------


## Terry1

> People like Eduardo89 are the reason we have so much mess in our world. How often does somebody like him wonder the thought of life of all forms on another world in some distant star system? 
> 
> Instead you continue to proliferate myth. You know you need to stop looking down on others as lesser than yourself. It will destroy you from the inside out!
> 
> We know what we know from the classic long gone societies, no religion and god ideas.
> 
> In my society, people like you would be deleted.


Oh yes-yes--how many times have I heard the godless seculars claim that religion is the root of all evil and that the world would be this peaceful loving place where everyone gets along if not for those nasty people fighting over who's god is greater.  LOL

People are inherently evil and if not for the restraining power of God holding them back you'd already be a slave to some evil godless sadistic dictator who tortures the people for no other reason than for power, greed and entertainment.  See how you like your version of the world then.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh yes-yes--how many times have I heard the godless seculars claim that religion is the root of all evil and that the world would be this peaceful loving place where everyone gets along if not for those nasty people fighting over who's god is greater.  LOL
> 
> People are inherently evil and if not for the restraining power of God holding them back you'd already be a slave to some evil godless sadistic dictator who tortures the people for no other reason than for power, greed and entertainment.  See how you like your version of the world then.



God "restrains" evil?  I thought you said the will was free?

----------


## Republicanguy

Its always the same, jumping ahead stalin and mao. 

He represents the backwards view of the world, its incredibly depressing. The bible in itself is full of violence and one point or another. Stop deludding yourselves with this out of date dogma.

----------


## RJB

You still didn't answer if you are that evil or if you are just trolling for response?




> Its always the same, jumping ahead stalin and mao.


 Their ideals are worse than any other ideals.  Over 200,000,000 dead just in the last century from you utopian dreams.  Name another faith that can claim the lives of 200 million in one century?




> *He* represents the backwards view of the world, its incredibly depressing.


Who is "he?"



> The bible in itself is full of violence and one point or another.


200 million in the last century?




> *Stop deludding yourselves with this out of date dogma*.


Such as love thy neighbor as yourself?

----------


## Terry1

> God "restrains" evil?  I thought you said the will was free?


I was speaking in terms of the legions of heavenly angels that are holding back the forces of evil that would literally tear mankind apart if not for their intervention, as in 2 Kings 6 where Elisha prayed that the mans eyes be spiritually opened to allow him to see the legion of Gods angels protecting them with chariots of fire.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I was speaking in terms of the legions of heavenly angels that are holding back the forces of evil that would literally tear mankind apart if not for their intervention, as in 2 Kings 6 where Elisha prayed that the mans eyes be spiritually opened to allow him to see the legion of Gods angels protecting them with chariots of fire.


So God restrains the evil of demons, but not the evil of men?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> People like Eduardo89 are the reason we have so much mess in our world. How often does somebody like him wonder the thought of life of all forms on another world in some distant star system? 
> 
> Instead you continue to proliferate myth. You know you need to stop looking down on others as lesser than yourself. It will destroy you from the inside out!
> 
> We know what we know from the classic long gone societies, no religion and god ideas.
> 
> In my society, people like you would be deleted.


You realize the STATE is responsible for more mass murder than any religion, right?  As for aliens, I have no idea if they exist or not, and frankly, it doesn't really matter to me either way.  If I had to guess I'd say they probably don't exist, but if they do, so what?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So God restrains the evil of demons, but not the evil of men?


  So why don't demons get "free will"?

----------


## Terry1

> So God restrains the evil of demons, but not the evil of men?



Sola, let's take it to another thread.  I don't want to keep derailing eduardo's thread here.

----------


## Republicanguy

> You realize the STATE is responsible for more mass murder than any religion, right?  As for aliens, I have no idea if they exist or not, and frankly, it doesn't really matter to me either way.  If I had to guess I'd say they probably don't exist, but if they do, so what?


So we can begin to understand who we are, and what we are within the cosmos. I have to believe that, this would make our species a little more unified, and perhaps begin to change our outlook on reality such as god, religion. That is why I cannot believe in what you people want to believe in until this question is answered. I have that powerful curiousity that I can't extinguish. i have held these views, and wrote them down on my religious GCSE exam in May 2005 only to fail it because I knew nothing nor cared for out of date dogma. We are what we are because of our genes. 

I admit it is quite a hard grasp of such a possibility about the finding of life, or even contact to the point where that might not happen until the twenty fifth century or year 3000. 

Since I typed the year 3000, I've just remembered when I started secondary school in September 2000 at the age of eleven, an English teacher I had who would eventually leave due to stress, or some mental health reason, I heard him once at lunch time state that the following year to another staff member, ofcourse my ears are open, a bit of a noisy parker. What would life be like in the year 3000? was the topic of one of my lessons.

----------


## RJB

> So we can begin to understand who we are, and what we are within the cosmos. I have to believe that, this would make our species a little more unified, and perhaps begin to change our outlook on reality such as god, religion. That is why I cannot believe in what you people want to believe in until this question is answered. I have that powerful curiousity that I can't extinguish. i have held these views, and wrote them down on my religious GCSE exam in May 2005 only to fail it because I knew nothing nor cared for out of date dogma. We are what we are because of our genes. 
> 
> I admit it is quite a hard grasp of such a possibility about the finding of life, or even contact to the point where that might not happen until the twenty fifth century or year 3000. 
> 
> Since I typed the year 3000, I've just remembered when I started secondary school in September 2000 at the age of eleven, an English teacher I had who would eventually leave due to stress, or some mental health reason, I heard him once at lunch time state that the following year to another staff member, ofcourse my ears are open, a bit of a noisy parker. What would life be like in the year 3000? was the topic of one of my lessons.

----------


## Republicanguy

So the idea of any type of life on other worlds is just bat $#@! crazy huh?

Give Carl Sagan's Cosmos series a watched, aired back in 1980, perhaps some of you old guys may have watched it.

----------


## RJB

You said it wouldn't happen 'til like twenty fifth century or 3000 or something and a noisy parker.  However, here is video evidence that it has happened NOW!

----------


## eduardo89

Can we ignore this troll. He's an intolerant religious zealot.

----------


## RJB

> Can we ignore this troll. He's an intolerant religious zealot.


He seemed pretty friendly sharing his weed with the alien

----------


## Republicanguy

> You said it wouldn't happen 'til like twenty fifth century or 3000 or something and a noisy parker.  However, here is video evidence that it has happened NOW!


And it won't happen at all with the way Men and women are on this planet, we are all selfish driven beasts. I don't know what created us, I'm sure the answers are out there, may be not the mountain valleys of the moon or Mars, but for sure somewhere out there. 

"There is no money in the 24th century." Captain Picard to Lilly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOcKGREiY30

----------


## RJB

> And it won't happen at all with the way Men and women are on this planet, we are all selfish driven beasts. I don't know what created us, I'm sure the answers are out there, may be not the mountain valleys of the moon or Mars, but for sure somewhere out there. 
> 
> *"There is no money in the 24th century."* Captain Picard to Lilly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOcKGREiY30


We're lucky too.  We have no money now just like in the future because the Federal Reserve makes up as much valuable paper as we need at a small interest rate.  They are so good to us.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That is an excellent post, my brother. As you well know, I, too, am against this false "Israel vs. Church" dichotomy, and I think it has led to much deception in American churches on foreign policy.


You view Roman Catholics as your brothers?   Is this Doug Wilson's influence?

----------


## eduardo89

> You view Roman Catholics as your brothers?   Is this Doug Wilson's influence?


I view as my brother, despite your extremely flawed theology.

----------


## RJB

> I view as my brother, despite your extremely flawed theology.


I as well, Sola_Fide.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I view as my brother, despite your extremely flawed theology.


Why?  The Council of Trent anathemetizes me.

----------


## eduardo89

> Why?  The Council of Trent anathemetizes me.


It doesn't, because you are not Catholic. The Catholic Church can only anathematise (excommunicate) a Catholic. We've been over the definition of anathema in relation to the Church and her pronouncement at least a half dozen times before.

Even if you were an excommunicated Catholic, I would still consider you my brother and would continue to pray for you.

----------


## RJB

> Why?  The Council of Trent anathemetizes me.


No it doesn't.  It applies to Catholics who knowingly preach a falsehood.   You teach your falsehood in unknowingly, and you do not consider yourself a Catholic.

----------


## eduardo89

> No it doesn't.  It applies to Catholicss who knowingly preach a falsehood.   You teach your falsehood in unknowingly and don't consider yourself a Catholic.


It actually only applies to Catholics. The Church cannot anathematise (which means to excommunicate) someone who is not a member of the Catholic Church. You can't kick someone out who isn't a member in the first place!

----------


## RJB

> It actually only applies to Catholics. The Church cannot anathematise (which means to excommunicate) someone who is not a member of the Catholic Church. You can't kick someone out who isn't a member in the first place!


I thought I said that?

----------


## eduardo89

> I thought I said that?


You edited your post or I'm imagining things.

----------


## mosquitobite

Hey.  I'm the only one worthy of being excommunicated around here!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It doesn't, because you are not Catholic. The Catholic Church can only anathematise (excommunicate) a Catholic. We've been over the definition of anathema in relation to the Church and her pronouncement at least a half dozen times before.
> 
> Even if you were an excommunicated Catholic, I would still consider you my brother and would continue to pray for you.


So Rome has a definition of "anathema" that is different than how Paul used it in Galatians 1?  Why should I accept that definition?

----------


## eduardo89

> So Rome has a definition of "anathema" that is different than how Paul used it in Galatians 1?  Why should I accept that definition?


A word can't have more than one definition depending on context?

The use of the word of anathema for excommunication has been used since the early days of the Church.

----------


## mosquitobite

> A word can't have more than one definition depending on context?.


Only when we're discussing whether a word was meant for the Jews or the Gentiles, silly!

----------


## erowe1

> No it doesn't.  It applies to Catholics who knowingly preach a falsehood.   You teach your falsehood in unknowingly, and you do not consider yourself a Catholic.


What would be someone who knowingly preaches a falsehood? You mean they claim to believe it, but they don't really believe it?

----------


## RJB

> What would be someone who knowingly preaches a falsehood? You mean they claim to believe it, but they don't really believe it?


A mortal sin is not just committing a grave sin but doing it with the full knowledge that you are distancing yourself from God.

From that Catholic Catechism:



> 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."


 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p3s1c1a8.htm

----------


## eduardo89

> What would be someone who knowingly preaches a falsehood? You mean they claim to believe it, but they don't really believe it?


To unknowingly preach a falsehood means they do not know what they are preaching to be false. For example, I do not doubt that Sola believes what he is preaching to be the truth, despite it being wrong.

To knowingly preach a falsehood is to know that what the Catholic Church teaches is the truth, but still reject it and preach falsehoods. For example, I think that FF knows he's wrong but is too stubborn to admit it.

----------


## erowe1

> It doesn't, because you are not Catholic. The Catholic Church can only anathematise (excommunicate) a Catholic. We've been over the definition of anathema in relation to the Church and her pronouncement at least a half dozen times before.
> 
> Even if you were an excommunicated Catholic, I would still consider you my brother and would continue to pray for you.





> No it doesn't.  It applies to Catholics who knowingly preach a falsehood.   You teach your falsehood in unknowingly, and you do not consider yourself a Catholic.


Where are you guys getting your definition?

When I read the canons of Trent, they all say, "If anyone says....let him be anathema."

And it's the same with all the other councils as far as I know.

It's not like they could be saying that if you're a Roman Catholic who says these things without repenting, then you can't be part of the Church, but if you're not a Roman Catholic and you say them without repenting, then you still can.

----------


## erowe1

> It means they do not know what they are preaching to be false. For example, I do not doubt that Sola believes what he is preaching to be the truth, despite it being wrong.


I still have the same question.

Who is someone who preaches something that they know is false?

You're saying that the anathemas in all the Church councils only apply to people who don't actually believe what they're preaching? Where are you getting that?

Do you think that Arius didn't actually believe that he was right? Or Pelagius? Or any other anathematized person?

----------


## erowe1

> A mortal sin is not just committing a grave sin but doing it with the full knowledge that you are distancing yourself from God.
> 
> From that Catholic Catechism:
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p3s1c1a8.htm


That's about mortal sins. That's not the same thing as anathema.

Also, committing a sin with full knowledge doesn't mean that you have to agree with the RCC that it's wrong. If you decide to excuse your mortal sin, which you commit with full knowledge, by declaring that you just disagree with the RCC about it being wrong, that won't get you out of being guilty of that sin as far as the RCC is concerned.

----------


## eduardo89

> Where are you guys getting your definition?
> 
> When I read the canons of Trent, they all say, "If anyone says....let him be anathema."
> 
> And it's the same with all the other councils as far as I know.
> 
> It's not like they could be saying that if you're a Roman Catholic who says these things without repenting, then you can't be part of the Church, but if you're not a Roman Catholic and you say them without repenting, then you still can.


What they are saying is "if you believe these things, you are separating yourself from the Truth and therefore are no longer in communion with the Church"

Here is the definition given by the Church for anathema:




> ART. I. De excommunicatione.
> 
> 
> 
> Can. 2257. par. 1. Excommunicatio est censura qua quis excluditur a communione fidelium cum effectibus qui in canonibus, qui sequuntur, enumerantur, quique separari nequeunt.
> 
> par. 2. Dicitur quoque anathema, praesertim si cum sollemnitatibus infligatur quae in Pontificali Romano describuntur.
> 
> http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0813/_P88.HTM


Translation:




> ARTICLE I. Of excommunication. 
> 
> *
> 
> Can. 2257. 1. Excommunication is a censure by which one, who is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the effects in the canons, which follow, are listed, and who can not be separated. 
> 
> 2. It is also called an anathema, especially if they are solemnities is inflicted upon him which are described in the Roman Pontifical.

----------


## erowe1

> What they are saying is "if you believe these things, you are separating yourself from the Truth and therefore are no longer in communion with the Church"


For a former Roman Catholic, it would be "no longer." But for someone who has never been a Roman Catholic, it would just mean that they are not in communion with it. And by this it doesn't just mean that they are not a part of the visible Church, but that they do not belong to the true Church in Heaven and Earth in any sense at all and are positively hellhound unless they repent.

A Roman Catholic can be anathematized. And for them, that entails excommunication. But that doesn't mean that only Roman Catholics can be anathematized. The anathemas of all the councils are pretty clearly not just given against Roman Catholics. They're against anyone who says such-and-such.

What you posted was not a definition of anathema. It was just a use of the word.

----------


## eduardo89

> For a former Roman Catholic, it would be "no longer." But for someone who has never been a Roman Catholic, it would just mean that they still are not in communion with it.


Exactly, so it does not apply to the non-Catholic. The Church has always practised closed communion, meaning that only Catholics in good standing may receive the Eucharist. What excommunication/anathematisation is, is the exclusion of a Catholic from the Eucharist. You can't be excommunicated/anathematised if you were never Catholic to begin with.

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you and Sola at least a half dozen times before. Is it really so hard to understand?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Eduardo,

Is there any salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You can't be excommunicated/anathematised if you were never Catholic to begin with.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you and Sola at least a half dozen times before. Is it really so hard to understand?


It is very hard to understand, because the Council of Trent and other confessions of Rome apply to everyone that stands against their theology, not just former Roman Catholics.

----------


## erowe1

> Exactly, so it does not apply to the non-Catholic.


You must not have read what you replied to here.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you and Sola at least a half dozen times before. Is it really so hard to understand?


I'm pretty sure that your explanations are not accurate.

What do you base your view on?

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo,
> 
> Is there any salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church?


I believe there is no salvation outside the Church.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm pretty sure that your explanations are not accurate.
> 
> What do you base your view on?


The words of the Church...

----------


## erowe1

> You can't be excommunicated/anathematised if you were never Catholic to begin with.


To be anathematized is not just to be not a Roman Catholic, or no longer a Roman Catholic. It is to be unsaved.

Roman Catholicism makes allowances for non-Roman Catholics to be saved. But it has no allowances for anyone who is anathematized to be saved. It's not the same thing as excommunication. You're trying to put an equals sign between the two. The most severe kind of excommunication does anathematize. But it isn't only Roman Catholics who undergo that kind of excommunication you are anathematized. Anyone who is affirmed by the RCC to be unsaved is anathematized, including those who have never been Roman Catholics. Just read the Church councils and you'll see this all over the place.

----------


## erowe1

> The words of the Church...


I need to see the evidence for that. I've read plenty of uses of the word "anathema" in a lot of Church councils, and they don't limit their anathemas to Roman Catholics.

----------


## erowe1

> I believe there is no salvation outside the Church.


You changed the words.

I'd like to know the answer to the question as he asked it. What about salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To unknowingly preach a falsehood means they do not know what they are preaching to be false. For example, I do not doubt that Sola believes what he is preaching to be the truth, despite it being wrong.
> 
> To knowingly preach a falsehood is to know that what the Catholic Church teaches is the truth, but still reject it and preach falsehoods. For example, I think that FF knows he's wrong but is too stubborn to admit it.


Wait... so you think SF actually believes what he says but that I don't actually believe what I say?  Do you have any proof?




> I believe there is no salvation outside the Church.


Yet through mental gymnastics you claim that some non-Catholics will be saved.




> You view Roman Catholics as your brothers?   Is this Doug Wilson's influence?


That was a very much delayed response.

I think there may be some Catholics who are, but I think they'd have to be somewhat ignorant of what Catholic theology actually is.

----------


## eduardo89

> I need to see the evidence for that.


Post 107





> I've read plenty of uses of the word "anathema" in a lot of Church councils, and they don't limit their anathemas to Roman Catholics.


Can you post an example?




> To be anathematized is not just to be not a Roman Catholic, or no longer a Roman Catholic. It is to be unsaved.


When the councils pronounced holders of a doctrine anathema, it marked a formal excommunication from the Church: nothing more and nothing less.




> Roman Catholicism makes allowances for non-Roman Catholics to be saved. But it has no allowances for anyone who is anathematized to be saved.


The Church does not 'make allowances' for anyone to be saved or unsaved. The Church does not save anyone nor condemn anyone to Hell.




> It's not the same thing as excommunication.


Yes it is.




> You're trying to put an equals sign between the two.


Because they are the same.




> The most severe kind of excommunication does anathematize.


Yes, traditionally there have been levels of excommunication with anathematisation being the most severe. That does not change the fact that to be anathematised means to be excommunicated.




> But it isn't only Roman Catholics who undergo that kind of excommunication you are anathematized.


Only a Catholic can be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. It is logically impossible for the Church to kick someone out who is not a member.




> Anyone who is affirmed by the RCC to be unsaved is anathematized, including those who have never been Roman Catholics. Just read the Church councils and you'll see this all over the place.


The Church does not affirm anyone to be unsaved. The Church declares that professing certain believes will prevent you from being saved, but it does not say any individual is saved or unsaved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

WRT eduardo's last paragraph, to say "If you believe X, you can't be saved" it is indeed declaring all who believe that thing to be unsaved.  I'm not sure how that could be avoided.

----------


## eduardo89

If you want further proof, read the chapter on excommunications in the Roman Pontifical, specifically the section where it gives the definition of anathema. Here is a link to the version that was in print from the late 1600s until the first decade of the 1900s.

http://www.liturgialatina.org/pontificale/101.htm




> Anathema
> 
> Quando vero anathema id est, solemnis excommunicatio pro gravioribus culpis fieri debet, Pontifex paratus amictu, stola, pluviali violaceo, et mitra simplici, assistentibus sibi duodecim Presbyteris superpelliceis indutis, et tam ipso, quam Presbyteris candelas ardentes in manibus tenentibus, sedet super faldistorium ante altare majus, aut alio loco publico, ubi magis sibi placebit, et ibi pronuntiat, et profert anathema, hoc modo:
> 
> Quia N. diabolo suadente, christianum promissionem, quam in Baptismo professus est, per apostasiam postponens, Ecclesiam Dei devastare, ecclesiastica bona diripere ac pauperes Christi violenter opprimere non veretur; idcirco solliciti, ne per negligentiam pastoralem pereat, pro quo in tremendo judicio, ante Principem Pastorum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum rationem reddere compellamur, juxta quod Dominus ipse terribiliter comminatus dicens: Si non annuntiaveris iniquo iniquitatem suam, sanguinem ejus de manu tua requiram, monuimus eum canonice, primo, secundo, tertio, et etiam quarto, ad ejus malitiam convincendam, ipsum ad emendationem, satisfactionem, et poenitentiam invitantes, et paterno affectu corripientes. Ipse vero, proh dolor! monita salutaria spernens, Ecclesiae Dei quam laesit, superbiae spiritu inflatus, satisfacere dedignatur. Sane praeceptis Dominicis atque Apostolicis informamur, quid de hujusmodi praevaricatoribus agere nos oporteat. Ait enim Dominus: Si manus tua vel pes tuus scandalizat te, abscinde eum, et projice abs te. Et Apostolus inquit: Auferte malum ex vobis. Et iterum: Si is qui frater nominatur, est fornicator, aut avarus, aut idolis serviens, aut maledicus, aut ebriosus, aut rapax, cum ejusmodi nec cibum sumere. Et Joannes prae ceteris dilectus Christi discipulus, talem nefarium hominem salutare prohibet, dicens: Nolite recipere eum in domum nec AVE ei dixeritis. Qui enim dicit illi AVE, communicat operibus ejus malignis. Dominica itaque atque Apostolica praecepta adimplentes, membrum putridum et insanabile, quod medicinam non recipit, ferro excommunicationis ab Ecclesiae corpore abscindamus, ne tam pestifero morbo reliqua corporis membra, veluti veneno inficiantur. Igitur quia monita nostra, crebrasque exhortationes contempsit, quia tertio secundum Dominicum praeceptum vocatus, ad emendationem, et poenitentiam venire despexit, quia culpam suam nec cogitavit, nec confessus est, nec missa legatione excusationem aliquam praetendit, nec veniam postulavit, sed diabolo cor ejus indurante, in incoepta malitia perseverat, juxta quod Apostolus dicit: Secundum duritiam suam, et cor impoenitens thesaurizat sibi iram in die irae: idcirco eum cum universis complicibus, fautoribusque suis, judicio Dei omnipotentis Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, et beati Petri principis Apostolorum, et omnium Sanctorum, necnon et mediocritatis nostrae auctoritate, et potestate ligandi et solvendi in coelo et in terra nobis divinitus collata, a pretiosi Corporis et Sanguinis Domini perceptione, et a societate omnium Christianorum separamus, et a liminibus sanctae matris Ecclesiae in coelo et in terra excludimus, et excommunicatum et anathematizatum esse decernimus; et damnatum cum diabolo, et angelis ejus, et omnibus reprobis in ignem aeternum judicamus; donec a diaboli laqueis resipiscat, et ad emendationem, et poenitentiam redeat, et Ecclesiae Dei, quam laesit, satisfaciat, tradentes eum satanae in interitum carnis, ut spiritus ejus salvus fiat in die judicii.

----------


## eduardo89

> WRT eduardo's last paragraph, to say "If you believe X, you can't be saved" it is indeed declaring all who believe that thing to be unsaved.  I'm not sure how that could be avoided.


There is a difference between saying "If you believe X, knowing that Y is the truth" you cannot be saved to saying "X is unsaved."

----------


## erowe1

> If you want further proof, read the chapter on excommunications in the Roman Pontifical,


But again, that is about excommunication.

I'm not disputing that excommunication can involve anathematizing. But that's not the same thing as saying that anathematizing only happens in excommunication.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe there is no salvation outside the Church.



Is there salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church?  Yes or no?

----------


## eduardo89

> Yet through mental gymnastics you claim that some non-Catholics will be saved.


Just goes to show, again, how little you understand about Catholicism and what we mean when we say that there is no salvation outside the Church.

----------


## eduardo89

> Is there salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church?  Yes or no?


I already answered you. There is no salvation outside the Church.

----------


## erowe1

Eduardo, so far you have presented absolutely zero evidence to support your claim that the anathemas of the Council of Trent only apply to Roman Catholics. It bothers me that you can give the arguments your giving and honestly think that they support that claim.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I already answered you. There is no salvation outside the Church.


The Roman Catholic Church?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I already answered you. There is no salvation outside the Church.


Once again you changed the wording.  Why not answer the question as written?  Are you hiding something?

----------


## eduardo89

> But again, that is about excommunication.
> 
> I'm not disputing that excommunication can involve anathematizing. But that's not the same thing as saying that anathematizing only happens in excommunication.


Anathematisation is the most severe form of excommunication. This is the last time I respond on this subject. Either you want to listen and you'll read what the Church says about what is meant when the term is used or you can keep misrepresenting what the Church means when they say it.

----------


## erowe1

> I already answered you. There is no salvation outside the Church.


No you didn't already answer it. You changed the words. And you did it again.

You're playing games here.

----------


## eduardo89

> The Roman Catholic Church?


Yes, there is only one Church.

----------


## erowe1

> Anathematisation is the most severe form of excommunication.


That's what it is when Roman Catholics are anathematized. But what about when people who are not and never have been Roman Catholics are anathematized? You have claimed that there is no such thing as anathematizing people who are not Roman Catholics. But you have so far presented zero evidence to support that. And anyone who reads the various RCC councils can see that they don't limit their use of the word that way.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, there is only one Church.


So you're saying that only Roman Catholics can be saved?

----------


## eduardo89

> So you're saying that only Roman Catholics can be saved?


I never said that nor do I believe that nor does the Church teach that.

----------


## eduardo89

> That's what it is when Roman Catholics are anathematized. But what about when people who are not and never have been Roman Catholics are anathematized? You have claimed that there is no such thing as anathematizing people who are not Roman Catholics. But you have so far presented zero evidence to support that. And anyone who reads the various RCC councils can see that they don't limit their use of the word that way.


I have presented evidence. Go back to post 107 where I posted a link to the Catholic Canon which gives a definition of anathema and go to post 122 where I posted a link to the Roman Pontifical.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Roman Catholic Church?





> Yes, there is only one Church.





> So you're saying that only Roman Catholics can be saved?





> I never said that nor do I believe that nor does the Church teach that.


....Eduardo.  This makes no sense.

----------


## erowe1

> I never said that nor do I believe that nor does the Church teach that.


I didn't think so.

But you are deliberately dancing around SF's question by changing the words from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Church" and then further dancing around all the questions that have come from that. If you don't see that the corner you painted yourself into with your games implied that you believed that no non-Roman Catholics could be saved, then you can be sure that you're the only person reading this thread who doesn't see that.

----------


## eduardo89

> I didn't think so.
> 
> But you are deliberately dancing around SF's question by changing the words from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Church" and then further dancing around all the questions that have come from that. If you don't see that the corner you painted yourself into with your games implied that you believed that no non-Roman Catholics could be saved, then you can be sure that you're the only person reading this thread who doesn't see that.


I answered him straight on. There is no salvation outside there Church. There is only one Church. That Church is the Catholic Church. That does not mean that all non-Catholics are going to hell nor is that what no salvation outside the Church means.

----------


## erowe1

> I have presented evidence. Go back to post 107 where I posted a link to the Catholic Canon which gives a definition of anathema and go to post 122 where I posted a link to the Roman Pontifical.


You have presented zero evidence. Not in post 107, nor in any other post.

You have presented evidence that Roman Catholics can be anathematized when they undergo the most sever excommunication. But you have presented no evidence for the claim that non-Roman Catholics cannot be anathematized.

----------


## Christian Liberty

To my (admittedly limited) understanding of Catholic doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between the "visible" Catholic Church and the "invisible" church, the latter consisting of all who are ultimately saved. But, I could be in error.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I answered him straight on. There is no salvation outside there Church. There is only one Church. That Church is the Catholic Church. That does not mean that all non-Catholics are going to hell nor is that what no salvation outside the Church means.


I am completely baffled right now after this one....

----------


## eduardo89

> ....Eduardo.  This makes no sense.


Of course it does, you just don't understand the meaning of 'no salvation outside the Church.'

----------


## erowe1

> I answered him straight on. There is no salvation outside there Church. There is only one Church. That Church is the Catholic Church. That does not mean that all non-Catholics are going to hell nor is that what no salvation outside the Church means.


But when the RCC anathematized someone that does mean that the RCC claims that person is going to hell if they don't repent.

Also, notice how you're still playing games and changing around the question. My post 135 didn't mention hell. Neither did your answer in 136.

----------


## eduardo89

> You have presented zero evidence. Not in post 107, nor in any other post.
> 
> You have presented evidence that Roman Catholics can be anathematized when they undergo the most sever excommunication. But you have presented no evidence for the claim that non-Roman Catholics cannot be anathematized.


And you have posted zero evidence to your claims that non-Catholics can be anathematised.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To my (admittedly limited) understanding of Catholic doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between the "visible" Catholic Church and the "invisible" church, the latter consisting of all who are ultimately saved. But, I could be in error.


No, Rome actually doesn't make that distinction.

Edit:  Here is an awesome article written by one of my favorite pastors about the difference between how Rome views the church and how Christians view the church:

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2...visible-valid/

----------


## eduardo89

> Also, notice how you're still playing games and changing around the question. My post 135 didn't mention hell. Neither did your answer in 136.


How am I changing the question. I answered you. You asked whether I was saying that only Roman Catholics can be saved and I then told you I had never said that, which I haven't. How was that changing the question?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am completely baffled right now after this one....


Frankly, it just means the pope doesn't know what a word means.  Is it the word "Salvation"?  The word "church"?  Or the word "the"?

----------


## erowe1

> How am I changing the question. I answered you. You asked whether I was saying that only Roman Catholics can be saved and I then told you I had never said that, which I haven't. How was that changing the question?


Go ahead and keep dancing.

There is no possible way that anyone reading this, no matter what denomination they're from, can't see what you're doing.

----------


## eduardo89

> I am completely baffled right now after this one....


Let me explain it to you this way:

Baptism constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.  So what does that mean? It means that virtually every Protestant has received an authentic baptism recognized by the Catholic Church! It means that virtually every Protestant is in a similar situation to a Catholic who was baptized in the Church, but walked away from the Church before receiving confirmation and holy Eucharist. It means that virtually all Protestants (Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) effectively have one foot in the door of the Catholic Church, by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism alone. Their communion with Rome does exist, by virtue of our common baptism, but that communion is imperfect and impaired. They are a part of the Church, but their communion with the rest of the Church is imperfect. By allowing their communion to remain imperfect, they put their salvation at risk, but that does not necessarily mean they will be unsaved.

----------


## eduardo89

> Go ahead and keep dancing.
> 
> There is no possible way that anyone reading this, no matter what denomination they're from, can't see what you're doing.


You're really getting on my nerves now. I already answered your question.

*NO, THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONLY CHURCH
THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH*

I've said it already in at least a half dozen posts on this page alone. $#@!...seriously, you're a really frustrating person to talk to.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, Rome actually doesn't make that distinction.
> 
> Edit:  Here is an awesome article written by one of my favorite pastors about the difference between how Rome views the church and how Christians view the church:
> 
> https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2...visible-valid/


If you are correct, I was misinformed by a Latin mass attending Catholic I talked with over the net a couple years ago.

----------


## erowe1

> And you have posted zero evidence to your claims that non-Catholics can be anathematised.


Here's one:



> CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.


http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

There are hundreds more in that council and others.

----------


## eduardo89

> Frankly, it just means the pope doesn't know what a word means.  Is it the word "Salvation"?  The word "church"?  Or the word "the"?


It means that, as usual, you have no clue what you're talking about when the debate turns to Catholicism.

----------


## erowe1

> You're really getting on my nerves now. I already answered your question.
> 
> *NO, THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
> THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONLY CHURCH
> THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH*
> 
> I've said it already in at least a half dozen posts on this page alone. $#@!...seriously, you're a really frustrating person to talk to.


Classy.

And you left our "Roman." Try again.

----------


## mosquitobite

Eduardo, either we are all one Church or we are not.

If you believe that a methodist can actually be a part of the Church, then they could be (whatever term you want to use).

If you believe that a methodist can not be a part of the Church then since you say you must be part of the Church to be saved you are still (whatever term you want to use)

----------


## eduardo89

> Here's one:
> 
> http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
> 
> There are hundreds more in that council and others.


You do realise that everyone who the Council of Trent anathematised would have been baptised a Catholic, right?

What you posted does not say anything about non-Catholic or condemning anyone to hell. It is saying that those who deny a certain doctrine are excommunicated.

----------


## erowe1

> You do realise that everyone who the Council of Trent anathematised would have been baptised a Catholic, right?


No.

See the quote I just gave.




> What you posted does not say anything about non-Catholic or condemning anyone to hell. It is saying that those who deny a certain doctrine are excommunicated.


It would only be excommunication if they were ever Roman Catholics in the first place. But it also anathematizes anyone else who says that, as anyone who reads it can see. This is the problem with your insistence that anathema=excommunication and has no application to non-Roman Catholics, despite the fact that you have zero evidence to support that claim.

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo, either we are all one Church or we are not.
> 
> If you believe that a methodist can actually be a part of the Church, then they could be (whatever term you want to use).
> 
> If you believe that a methodist can not be a part of the Church then since you say you must be part of the Church to be saved you are still (whatever term you want to use)


Yes, there is only one Church and that is the Catholic Church. All Christians who have been validly baptised are a member of that one Church. Baptism constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn. The fact is, though, that Protestants chose to impair the perfect communion they had with the Church at baptism, thereby putting their salvation in jeopardy. It does not mean, however, that all Protestants are going to hell.

----------


## mosquitobite

Previously I told you I do not like saying the one line in the Apostles Creed for this very reason.  I DO believe all Christians (whom God has given a heart transplant) are members of one body.  but I do not believe in the RCC anymore.  So either the church is Christ's body, no matter what label they give themselves, or Church means Roman Catholic.

Right now, based on what you're saying I still cannot see myself saying that line.

----------


## eduardo89

> Previously I told you I do not like saying the one line in the Apostles Creed for this very reason.  I DO believe all Christians (whom God has given a heart transplant) are members of one body.  but I do not believe in the RCC anymore.  So either the church is Christ's body, no matter what label they give themselves, or Church means Roman Catholic.
> 
> Right now, based on what you're saying I still cannot see myself saying that line.


I agree, all Christians who have been reborn though baptism are members of the Church. That Church is the Catholic Church. Those who choose to impair their sacramental communion with the Church are still members of it, despite not being in perfect communion with it.

All Christians are brothers in Christ, I fully believe that. However, that does not mean that we are in perfect communion with each other, which is a sad fact. I pray daily and ask God to heal the schisms we have and I hope that one day in my lifetime we will once again all be in sacramental communion with one another.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Let me explain it to you this way:
> 
> Baptism constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.  So what does that mean? It means that virtually every Protestant has received an authentic baptism recognized by the Catholic Church! It means that virtually every Protestant is in a similar situation to a Catholic who was baptized in the Church, but walked away from the Church before receiving confirmation and holy Eucharist. It means that virtually all Protestants (Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) effectively have one foot in the door of the Catholic Church, by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism alone. Their communion with Rome does exist, by virtue of our common baptism, but that communion is imperfect and impaired. They are a part of the Church, but their communion with the rest of the Church is imperfect. By allowing their communion to remain imperfect, they put their salvation at risk, but that does not necessarily mean they will be unsaved.



It floors me how disgustingly similar what you just typed here is to the neo-legalist, neo-Calvinists like Douglas Wilson.  It is the exact same apologetic.  Rome and Protestants are "one" because of trinitarian baptism.

I wholly and completely reject Rome as a false, Satanic church.  I believe that the Pope is an antichrist and all of the followers of that antichrist are themselves ministers of Satan.  There is NO WAY Rome can claim me in ANY way.  Rome doesn't even defend the Trinity from the Bible....it defends it from the authority of "the church".  So Rome isn't even properly Trinitarian.

This should be a lesson to Theocrat and anyone else who is on this neo-legalism, neo-Calvinist kick.  Neo-legalism and "covenant theology" is the road back to Rome.  A Christian must completely reject it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I agree, all Christians who have been reborn though baptism are members of the Church. That Church is the *Catholic Church*. Those who choose to impair their sacramental communion with the Church are still members of it, despite not being in perfect communion with it.
> 
> All Christians are brothers in Christ, I fully believe that. However, that does not mean that we are in perfect communion with each other, which is a sad fact. I pray daily and ask God to heal the schisms we have and I hope that one day in my lifetime we will once again all be in sacramental communion with one another.


And even a "Protestant" is a member of that Catholic Church.

----------


## mosquitobite

What about those of us with 2 baptisms   double blessings   (im just kidding)

----------


## eduardo89

> I  Rome doesn't even defend the Trinity from the Bible....it defends it from the authority of "the church".  So Rome isn't even properly Trinitarian.


What a load of garbage. Do you lie about the Church on purpose or is it because you're somehow scared that you'll lose the debate if you don't distort the facts to suit your agenda?




> Neo-legalism and "covenant theology" is the road back to Rome.


And we'll be there to welcome them with open arms.

----------


## eduardo89

> And even a "Protestant" is a member of that Catholic Church.


Yes, every single Christian who has been baptised is a member of the Church. Through their adherence to Protestantism, however, they put themselves in a position of being in an imperfect communion with the Church.

----------


## mosquitobite

Also I was confirmed when I was 13.  I still do not consider myself Roman Catholic.  my faith doesnt label itself, except maybe a disciple of Jesus or Jesus freak.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It floors me how disgustingly similar what you just typed here is to the neo-legalist, neo-Calvinists like Douglas Wilson.  It is the exact same apologetic.  Rome and Protestants are "one" because of trinitarian baptism.
> 
> I wholly and completely reject Rome as a false, Satanic church.  I believe that the Pope is an antichrist and all of the followers of that antichrist are themselves ministers of Satan.  There is NO WAY Rome can claim me in ANY way.  Rome doesn't even defend the Trinity from the Bible....it defends it from the authority of "the church".  So Rome isn't even properly Trinitarian.
> 
> This should be a lesson to Theocrat and anyone else who is on this neo-legalism, neo-Calvinist kick.  Neo-legalism and "covenant theology" is the road back to Rome.  A Christian must completely reject it.


I though that covenant theology was the opposite of dispensationalism?  Is this a different type of covenant theology?

What's a neo-legalist?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I though that covenant theology was the opposite of dispensationalism?  Is this a different type of covenant theology?
> 
> What's a neo-legalist?


Read all of these that you can:
http://trinityfoundation.org/archive...d=neo+legalism


Watch this debate:

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, every single Christian who has been baptised is a member of the Church. Through their adherence to Protestantism, however, they put themselves in a position of being in an imperfect communion with the Church.


Can a person with an imperfect communion be saved?

----------


## eduardo89

> Can a person with an imperfect communion be saved?


Yes, I already said that in this thread. Many times. A non-Catholic Christian can be saved, despite their imperfect communion with the Church. However, if they know that the Church teaches the Truth and continue to reject it, they are beyond salvation because to reject Truth it to reject God.

That said, I am sure that there are many Protestants and Orthodox in Heaven.

Can you answer a question for me? Why do you purposely lie about what the Church teaches, such as claiming the Church "doesn't even defend the Trinity from the Bible....it defends it from the authority of "the church"."? This isn't the first time you lie about the Church, I called you out on it before for pasting fake quotes yet no never responded to being called out.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, I already said that in this thread. Many times. A non-Catholic Christian can be saved, despite their imperfect communion with the Church. However, if they know that the Church teaches the Truth and continue to reject it, they are beyond salvation because to reject Truth it to reject God.
> 
> That said, I am sure that there are many Protestants and Orthodox in Heaven.
> 
> Can you answer a question for me? Why do you purposely lie about what the Church teaches, such as claiming the Church "doesn't even defend the Trinity from the Bible....it defends it from the authority of "the church"."? This isn't the first time you lie about the Church, I called you out on it before for pasting fake quotes yet no never responded to being called out.



Eduardo, what is the standard of faith and practice?  Don't you believe it is Scripture and holy tradition?

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo, what is the standard of faith and practice?  Don't you believe it is Scripture and holy tradition?


Answer my question first. Why do you lie about what the Church teaches? Why can't you debate honestly? Is it your fear of accepting that deep down you know the Church is right and you are wrong?

----------


## mosquitobite

I find the whole idea of a church claiming me when I don't want to be a part of it to be eerily similar to the baptism practices of Mormons!

----------


## eduardo89

Here is another example, apart from the one in this thread where you claim the Church does not justify the doctrine of the Trinity using the Bible, of you lying about Catholicism.




> Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Calvin, never in a million years, would say this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Care to comment?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Answer my question first. Why do you lie about what the Church teaches? Why can't you debate honestly? Is it your fear of accepting that deep down you know the Church is right and you are wrong?


Does not Rome infallibly define certain doctrines?  Doctrines like the Trinity?

If the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defines doctrines like the Trinity, why would it be inaccurate to say Rome defends the Trinity from the basis of church authority?

----------


## eduardo89

> Does not Rome infallibly define certain doctrines?  Doctrines like the Trinity?
> 
> If the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defines doctrines like the Trinity, why would it be inaccurate to say Rome defends the Trinity from the basis of church authority?


Answer my questions first. Why do you deliberately lie about what the Church teaches? Why post fake quotes? Why make false statements?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does not Rome infallibly define certain doctrines?  Doctrines like the Trinity?
> 
> If the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defines doctrines like the Trinity, why would it be inaccurate to say Rome defends the Trinity from the basis of church authority?





> Answer my questions first. Why do you deliberately lie about what the Church teaches? Why post fake quotes? Why make false statements?


I am making my case that what I'm saying is not a distortion.   Could you answer my first post please?

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
>  Their ideals are worse than any other ideals.  Over 200,000,000 dead just in the last century from you utopian dreams.  Name another faith that can claim the lives of 200 million in one century?
> 
> ...


The latest number is a billion dead.

----------


## erowe1

> I though that covenant theology was the opposite of dispensationalism?  Is this a different type of covenant theology?
> 
> What's a neo-legalist?


He meant "New Covenant Theology" I think.

----------


## RJB

> Am I "gay or something"?


Great start to a thread Sola

----------

