Pope Affirms Right to Convert Non-Believers to Christianity

argyle86 »

Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Im sure Jesus was happy to see his "true church" saving so many souls with violent force during the crusadeds. After all they were led by an infalible leader who was the true vicar of christ. Jesus must have been happy to see protestants be burned at the stake by order of the pope. The gates of hell wont prevail against the church? These acts of the church certainly weren't evil in any way were they?

argyle86 »

Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

thelordismymight,

For being such a true follower of Christ you sure know how to be humble in your posts. I wonder if Jesus would tell another person to "eat it", or call people "pathetic", or "filthy"...

Tallguy1000 »

Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Online, your comments on May 31 are an outrage, an outright lie! I checked my versions of my Catholic Bibles, and these verses are there! DO NOT keep spreading your lies.

thelordismylight »

Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Online-

Bull. Just bull. That is not true. The manuscripts are 90% the same anyway. Just listen... since the people were writing the Byzantine texts did not have access to the TR (only to the Alexandrian Texts) then there is NO WAY that theirs would be closer to the TR... ha... just shut up, you are wrong.

Online4Him »

Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:29 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Tliml,

The 99% of “Greek manuscripts” of the New Testament support Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and the KJV.

Jerome’s own statements speak for themselves as does the bible passages that expose the corrupt Alexandrian Text.

thelordismylight »

Sat May 31, 2008 2:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

Oh by the way... who converted the Gnostics back to the faith? Was it you? Nuuuuuuuuu to hard for a bunch of filthy protties, right? "No I would like to keep my seat, thank you very much, I believe and now I get to go to heaven without standing up... but of course i can complain... that is fine... I can also point fingers at religions that DO work and DO serve the Lord... I'm staying here'' We converted them. Who converted the arians? Oh that's right it was you- wait... a minute... they converted about a thousand of YOU didn't they?! Yea... that's right... so technically the Byzantine text has a way way way better chance of being corrupted by Arians than the Alexandrian text has of being corrupted by Gnostics.

thelordismylight »

Sat May 31, 2008 1:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

k... wow... umm... wow... First off.. what is the 99%? 99% of christian religions? Yea... since we are one UNIFIED religion then of course we'd have less of a percentage than all you pathetic dividers that use the same bible. However if you counted in terms of people... you would find that 75% agree with us :D In terms of bible scholars (we have more and better scholars than you) it would be about 90% that agree with us. I would also like to point this out. Recent joint study by the Colleges of America group shows that Catholic colleges in ALL cases offer a better bible study than do the Protestant colleges... :P Quality is better than quantity, but we happen to have both on you protties. Always have, always will. Also... I would like you to prove that those things that are in YOUR editions and texts were in the TR. Since the oldest dating texts were alexandrian, we definitely have the upper-hand here, buddy. You can't win here. How do you know that the Arians did not add in "Through his blood" it is something they would do. And online... you are supported by the Latin verions? REALLY? Well guess what... :)... we are supported by the GREEK versions! EAT IT BABY! You like it? You like it? Smell it. Now eat it.

"It is well-known that Erasmus used byzantine texts..."

Prove it. It is well known? You seem to use stuff like that ALOT. "History bears witness to the fact" "It is well-known" "It is almost certain" get some hard evidence. Just because you say it doesn't make it true :) And it is hard to imagine how he could use byzantine scripts because the byzantine scripts weren't even AROUND yet... hmmmmm... something seems... fishy.

As for Jerome. Nothing Latin translates into ''add anything'' and at the time it WAS considered outrageous to translate it, so that could EASILY be what he meant. They did brand him as falsifier because at the time Greek was considered the pure language, the holy language, the language of God.

Online4Him »

Sat May 31, 2008 2:22 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

msnchris70,

“Trying to have a intellectual debate with Online is a kin to discussing how Jesus is the Messiah to an orthodox Jew, it won't happen.”

It is odd that you speak of having an intellectual debate when you failed to reply to a couple of my last posts – “speaking of the law of non-contradiction” and “the many customs and practices that the “Roman” Catholic Church inherited from pagan Rome.”

Refusing to respond is indeed a poor way of having an intellectual debate.

Online4Him »

Sat May 31, 2008 2:05 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Matthew 23:14 (KJV) – WOE TO THE SCRIBES [THOSE WHO HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES] -
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”

The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – OMITS this verse!

RSV (Catholic) – OMITS this verse!


Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) – THE DEITY OF CHRIST - “…God, who created all things by JESUS CHRIST:”

The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – “God the Creator of everything.”

RSV (Catholic) – “God who created all things;”


John 5:29 (KJV) – SECOND CHANCE/PURGATORY – “…and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of DAMNATION.”

The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – “and those who did evil will come forth to judgment.”

RSV (Catholic) – “and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

Online4Him »

Sat May 31, 2008 2:04 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The “phrase” Textus Receptus originated in Elzevirs’ second edition, published in 1633, which contains the words: “Therefore you have a text now received by all, in which we give no alteration or corruption.” Thus: the Received Text (that is, RECEIVED from ANTIQUITY)!

The question therefore simply is: which text-type, generally speaking, has been recognized and propagated by the church from earliest times? The unequivocal answer is: The Textus Receptus!
Today there are over 5200 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. KJV “Critics” ignore the fact that over 99% agree with Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and the KJV. Less than one percent (.008) agree with the odd omissions and changes in the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NRSV, NLB, CEV, NCV, NAB, and NJB.

Here are a “FEW” of many EXAMPLES:

Colossians 1:14 (KJV) – THE BLOOD ATONEMENT - “In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:

The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – Colossian 1:14 – “and in him we enjoy our freedom, the forgiveness of sin.”

RSV (Catholic Edition) – Colossians 1:14 – “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”


1Corinthians 5:7 (KJV) – THE SINFULNES OF MAN - “…For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed FOR US.”

The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – “For our Passover has been sacrificed, that is, Christ;”

RSV (Catholic) – “For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.”


1Timothy 3:16 (KJV) – THE DIETY OF CHRIST - “…GOD was manifest in the flesh…”

The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) – “He was made visible in the flesh,”

RSV (Catholic) – “He was manifest in the flesh,”

Online4Him »

Sat May 31, 2008 2:01 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Tliml,

“Many flaws with what you said The Textus Receptus was not known as the Byzantine Text!”

Proof that the Byzantine text is the genuine and preserved text:

It is supported by the early versions: the Syriac (or Aramaic) and Latin versions; the Peshitta and the Gothic. Some of these go back to the mid-second century. It is well known that Erasmus used representative Byzantine manuscripts for the publication of his edition of the Greek New Testament. Robert Estienne (Latinized as Stephanus) after him, as well as all the others (Theodore Beza, Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir) used the same text. The church universal had been using that text throughout the centuries. That was the New Testament and no other!

What Bibles had Erasmus and early Christians meditated upon? The extended amount of time Erasmus’ spent in the “Roman libraries,” and the other libraries of Italy on his several tours there, would have exposed him to the text of the Old “Itala (Latin) Bible – (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 86). Since Erasmus was the world’s leading authority on Latin, he could easily read the Old “Itala,” and its offshoot, Italian, which was spoken in Italy during his tenure there. The Old Itala Bible, dating back to the time of the apostles, matches Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and the King James Bible.

Jerome corrupted this pure Old “Itala” Bible in the fourth century. He admitted in his preface,

“You [Pope Damascus] urge me to revise the Old Latin, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of Scriptures which are now scattered THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. . . Is there not a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume in hand . . . call me a forger and a profane person for having had the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make changes. . .” (See Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum . . . Latine, vol. 1, pp. 1-4 or any critical edition of the corrupt Latin Vulgate).

In Jerome’s “Prologue to the Catholic Epistles,” – he admits that Christians “have pronounced to have branded me a falsifier and a corruptor of the Sacred Scriptures” – (Lit. “qui me flasarium corruptoremque sacrarum pronunciant Scripturarum.”

thelordismylight »

Fri May 30, 2008 11:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Wilderness-

Nothing wrong with asking someone other than God for help. If you think we should ONLY ask God for help and NOBODY else then I expect you to live by that. No doctors, police, fire-fighters, para-medics, lawyers, anything... k? :D

Wilderness1 »

Fri May 30, 2008 4:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

“In dangers, in distress, in perplexities, think on Mary, call on Mary.” [Sermons Of Saint Bernard On Advent And Christmas Including The Famous Treatise On The Incarnation Called “Missus Est.”]

When in distress, should we think on Mary and call upon Mary? What does the word of God say? “In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me” (Ps 120:1).

No matter how one tries to justify it, Bernard was dabbling in and teaching some dangerous falsities. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Co 5:6).

msnchris70 »

Fri May 30, 2008 1:16 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

Trying to have a intellectual debate with Online is a kin to discussing how Jesus is the Messiah to an orthodox Jew, it won't happen.

The KJV is not based on the TR and I would like to see Online conjecture his way through it to find proof. ONline will quote from people who truly have no credulity in the area he is quoting from. Online will try to provide proof much like the Discovery Channel does through manipulation of history and Scripture. Online loves to redefine history.

Put it this way; Online hates the fact that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, he hates the fact that we decided what went into the New Testament, he hates the fact that we defined the Trinity, he hates the fact we defined the two natures of Jesus, he hates the fact that throughout history you will find the Catholic Church but you won't find his particular sect. He probably hates Easter and Christmas since the CAtholic Church set those days to celebrate our Lord.

Online is embittered with the fact that He loves Jesus so much, yet attacks the Church that Christ founded. One day Jesus will say to him like Jesus said to Saul,"Online ONline why do you persecute me?" I still would bet that ONline will be saved because he does love Christ and from what I read puts all his trust in Christ. This is a great thing and we should all do that everday. Online will always be at a crossroad since many of his beliefs about the Church, the Bible, worship and faith bare little resemblance to the early Christians. Why? Well because the early Christian were Catholics and he isn't.

thelordismylight »

Wed May 28, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Online4HIm-

Many flaws with what you said The Textus Receptus was not known as the Byzantine Text! It was known as the Textus Receptus! The Byzantine Text/Majority Text/Syrian Text was a BIPRODUCT of the Textus Receptus that came about AFTER the Alexandrian texts began surfacing! And as for your book it is widely known that his words were abridged, taken into context, paraphrased, edited, translated, and re-translated MANY MANY times. A good rule of thumb is that after 2500 years you cannot trust someone's quote. And if you want to play hard-ball and argue the differ, I can easily bring up many many more quotes confirming that the Byzantine Text was a version of the Textus Receptus that was corrupted by Arians

... this is taken DIRECTLY from wikipedia

The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian) is one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual character of biblical manuscripts. The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts. In later manuscripts (from the 9th century onwards) the Byzantine text-type becomes far more common, and that remains the standard text in the Greek Orthodox church; and also underlies most Protestant translations of the Reformation era. Most modern New Testament translations, however, now use an Eclectic Greek text that is closest to the Alexandrian text-type.

So... if we use the Alexandrian text... we are right... because it says HERE... that the Byzantine text came AFTER the Alexandrian text! Also... You claim we were dominated by Gnostics... there is absolutely no proof of this. Many Alexandrian scholars claim that Byzantine texts were corrupted by Arians. There is actually more proof to this than there is to your claim. However, no scholars can actually find any proof to EITHER story... so stop stating your theories as though they are fact, take a good slap to the face, and wake up.

As for the Revision Revised: Burgon was well known among bible scholars to be far outspoken, and very anti-alexandrian. His theories were far-fetched and mainly based on speculation and inference. Although he received awards (for poetry, not theology) his many theories were historically laughable and overall rejected by scholars. Nice try online.

And Martin Luther wrote the Vulgate :P And history does not point to any connection between Jerome and origen. The only little tiny bit that might point to it is a smudge on one of Jerome's letters to a friend. The letter only vagely mentions his bible work and it only talks about it in the context of progress.

The KJV is not based on the Textus Receptus, it is based on the Byzantine Text which as just as if not more corrupt as the Alexandrian Text, which was around before the Byzantine Text.

Online4Him »

Wed May 28, 2008 8:27 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

The church at Pella in Palestine possessed the Textus Receptus also known as the Majority Text/Byzantine Text and Received Text; where Christians fled in 70 A.D. because of the Romans destruction of Jerusalem. This text was carried away into Antioch Syria, Italic Church in northern Italy, Gallic Church in southern France, and the Celtic Church in Great Britain.

History bears witness to the fact, that some of the early church fathers adopted Gnostic beliefs and began to incorporate them into the TR and this corrupt version became known as the Alexandrian Text. Notable fathers who accepted certain Gnostic beliefs were Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Eusebius is witness to this fact. He also relates that the corrupted manuscripts were so prevalent that agreement between copies was hopeless and that those who were corrupting the scriptures claimed that they really were corrupting them – Eusebius, Eccles. History, Book V., Chap. 28.

Justin Martyr, originally a pagan and of pagan parentage, embraced Christianity. Even though he was a Christian teacher, he actually taught pagan philosophy. His pupil Tatian also adopted Gnosticism (in Palestine) and wrote a book called the Diatessaron, meaning four in one (Encyclopedias, “Tatian”). This corrupted version of the gospel was being circulated and was eventually thrown out by the bishop of Syria. Next, we come to Tatian’s pupil known as Clement of Alexandria; who founded a school in Alexandria and further promoted this corrupt version of the TR (Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 330.)

Origen adopted and also promoted this same corrupt version of the TR. It was he that mightily influenced Jerome, the editor of the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate. Eusebius claims to have collected eight hundred of Origen’s letters and to have used Origen’s six-column Bible, the Hexapala, in his biblical labors. This is why I do not accept the corrupt Alexandrian Text, which the RCC uses to this day. I prefer to use the KJV which is based on upon the Textus Receptus.

thelordismylight »

Wed May 28, 2008 6:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Wildy

msnchris is right... you edited that into your bible :P you do that alot really... In my Joseph edition it says Thou art full of grace. The words from our prayer were taken right from the book. And I actually HAVE a KJ that says full of grace so... you're wrong :) Also... you wouldn't walk up to your friend and say "HAIL! 'Tis I, Wilderness, your friend! I hath come to beseech you for a drink of wine and a fill of bread for I hunger something fierce!" No... You didn't say Hail to normal people :P whether or not you were using it in conjunction with their name you would only greet royalty with Hail. When Jesus said Hail was he not exalting them for their good? It was more than a ''hello'' then and was more when the angel visited Mary... My gosh mary must be crying that you people just won't believe her... explain this... after seeing an alleged ''woman in the sky'' an entire Baptist church... BAPTIST church... converted to Catholicism... :P Now they call themselves Marians... a Baptist church (possibly one of the most anti-mary religions) now call themselves Marians... :P

Wilderness1 »

Tue May 27, 2008 4:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

“The word Hail was reserved only for Royalty by the Way! So, maybe she is a Queen! --msnchris70

“And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” (Lk 1:28).

As one can see in Luke 1:28, the angel does not say, “Hail Mary.” The angel simply says, “Hail” and then proceeds without saying Mary’s name at all. When the angel does say Mary’s name, it is in context and conjunction with “Fear not” and not “hail.” The word “hail” is simply a greeting, a hello, to attract a person‘s attention.

Jesus used the same word “hail” in Matthew 28:9 for the WOMEN who had come to see the sepulcher. “And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met THEM, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

msnchris70 »

Tue May 27, 2008 2:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

The original King James version said, "Hail Mary, full of Grace" in fact this translation has been in the Protestant Bibles for the last 300 years and only recently have Protestant theologians changed it to highly favored so that they can change the meaning, much like when Luther added the word "Alone" into Scripture.

The Latin Vulgate from which all Bibles get their original Translation for the New Testament and Greek Translations from before the Latin Vulgate was put together always read,"Hail Mary FULL OF GRACE"

Even if you try to redefine historic record, there are some of us who won't accept your conjecture wilderness. Since your Bible came from the Catholic Church you may want to make sure your Bible doesn't change even one word or you will be judged for taking out or adding to the Word of God!

The word Hail was reserved only for Royalty by the Way! So, maybe she is a Queen! How much is Full of Grace anyway, sounds like there is nothing lacking in Mary. Nothing was lacking in Mary because of Christ power, not Mary's.

Wilderness1 »

Sun May 25, 2008 8:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Thelordismylight said: "And the angel descended and said Hail Mary, full of Grace" [End quote]

Actually, the scripture says she was highly favored. “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” (Lk 1:28).

John 1:14 tells us who was full of grace: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Mary was not immaculate. Let’s keep her biblically grounded.

thelordismylight »

Sat May 24, 2008 6:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

Oh by the way, did you know that three days ago an entire Anglecan Parish joined the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia? Amazing isn't it... an entire parish... well it isn't that amazing... maybe the truth finally walked up and smacked 'em :P

thelordismylight »

Sat May 24, 2008 6:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

JHS-

Ha... bible-thumpers... that is exactly what I call them XD But please do stop talking in caps... it is a slight eyesore...

Wilderness-

"And the angel descended and said Hail Mary, full of Grace" Full of Grace... she is full of grace... if you are FULL of something, there is no room for anything else obviously. Mary was immaculate. We do not pray to her. We ask her to pray for us. Is it heresy when you ask your pastor to pray for you? No, of course not. It is not bad to ask mary to pray for us. *hands wilderness his bottle and his blanky* shush li'l baby, go to sleep now, you have been making this argument for an entire year even though I keep turning it down.

Wilderness1 »

Sat May 24, 2008 8:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evangelize? Yes, but let no man preach or teach the following error from Bernard:

“O you who find yourself tossed about by the storms of life, turn not your eyes from the brightness of this Star, if you would not be overwhelmed by its boisterous waves. If the winds of temptations rise, if you fall among the rocks of tribulations, look up at the Star, call on Mary.” [Sermons Of Saint Bernard On Advent And Christmas Including The Famous Treatise On The Incarnation Called “Missus Est.”]

If in the storms of life, should we keep our eyes upon the Star (Mary)? Should we even have our eyes upon Mary? What saith the scriptures? “Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net” (Ps 25:15).

If the winds of temptation rise, and we fall among the rocks of tribulations, should we look up at the Star (Mary)? What saith the scriptures? “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb 12:2).

Should we call upon Mary? What saith the scriptures? “I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies” (Ps 18:3).

As one can see, and no matter how one may try to spin it, Bernard was dabbling in and teaching some dangerous falsities. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Co 5:6).

Evangelize? Yes, but only the truth! What is truth? “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (Jn 17:17).

truthandjustice1 »

Fri May 23, 2008 3:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

tamna I have no idea what the contrast is, but if you do a search of Franklin Graham and Catholicism you will see that he has been supportive.

JHS »

Fri May 23, 2008 9:11 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

I CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE ALOT OF ANTI CATHOLIC RIGHT WING BIBLE THUMPERS OF THE JOHN HAGEE TYPE ON THIS BOARD.

Vaho »

Fri May 23, 2008 4:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

And I have the right to laugh at the pope and his funny hat.

truthfulwitness »

Wed May 21, 2008 1:10 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 4

The Pope can't convert anyone. Salvation is a supernatural work of the Living God.

EvanCal »

Tue May 20, 2008 1:39 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

The Pope is right to dialogue with Muslims, so that slowly but surely they will convert to Christianity.

The muslim man who converted to Christianity made a special request of the Vatican to be baptized for all to see at the Easter Baptism. The Vatican did not want to do it so publicly, but allowed the request. Millions of muslims have to live in fear and maybe if one person like this former Muslim man, now turned Christian will open the door to new human rights in muslim countries so that we can send missionaries there and not fear being killed and the converts may not live in fear either.

This man took a courageous step and THANK GOD he is now Christian.

blue1018 »

Mon May 19, 2008 8:17 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

"But the Vatican had said no hostility was intended in baptizing Allam during a broadcasted Easter ceremony, according to The Associated Press."

Now, if this world-wide broadcasted event, on the most holy Christian day, was not intended to even SLIGHTLY mock Muslims, then I can't imagine what is. I mean, if bin Laden came out with a new video, intended to be world-wide, of a converted Christian... are you going to tell me that that isn't meant to offend the Christian religion?

Daniel Paul »

Mon May 19, 2008 8:01 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

"While Benedict may assert the right of Christians to convert non-believers to the faith, he has also been ramping up efforts to reach out to moderate Muslims for interfaith dialogues."

Notice he is wanting to talk with Muslims and have dialogues wiht them. This is quite different from the Olympics and evangelism. Graham is speaking to those in China and opening dialogues which is what the Pope is wanting to do. The Pope has not suggested an 'in your face' approach to evangelism.

tamna »

Mon May 19, 2008 7:40 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

It is interesting to compare and contrast what the Pope said with what Franklin Graham recently said in China, isn't it.

eibluestar »

Mon May 19, 2008 7:25 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

Words Words Words...... Indeed the Pope isn't the voice of Christianity in the world but of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The right to convert is in some countries restricted by the government so If the Pope says I have a right to preach that all catholics who don't believe in the shed blood of Jesus will save them from their sins without good works and convert people then I will use that as spring board. Theologically speaking its the Law which converts the soul however its a human right to share your faith and urge people to convert a right no longer available in Iraq because the majority have crushed the church there since the war on terror began. Human rights declarations by the Pope are helpful but don't expect sound theology from a 1900 year old institution as it won't be forthcoming when it comes to converting the soul

DRJ »

Mon May 19, 2008 6:57 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

"You shall receive power (to evangelize) when the Holy Spirit comes upon you (Lives within you), and you SHALL be my witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the utmost parts of the world." Jesus said that one of the things that SHALL happen to those who have received His Holy Spirit is that they SHALL witness of Him. If they knbow and understand the Gospel, they will share the Word with others everywhere. If they are not well-acquainted with the Bible, they will testify about their own conversion experience. At whatever level they might be in the process of discipleship, they SHALL be His witnesses! It is the power of the Holy Spirit inside a believer that empowers that believer to effectively share the truth, even if that believer thinks he or shee isn't ready to do so. It is the Holy Spirit inside a believer that urges the believer to approach someone, and then gives the believer what he or she needs to say. As believers, we are totally dependent on the effectual power of the Holy Spirit.

believer »

Mon May 19, 2008 6:16 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

We cannot convert anyone to Christianity but unlike the old adage you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink we as Christians are called to be the salt of the earth so our adage would be better said while it is true you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink we can sure make him thirsty. Not only do we need to be verbally sharing God's plan of salvation we need to live our Christian lives in such a way that we make non-Christians thirsty for what we've got and what we've got is a personal, intimate, and growing relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ. Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit alone when the person determines in their heart to become a child of God.

A.S.Mathew »

Mon May 19, 2008 5:20 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

I am not a Catholic but I do firmly stand with Pope's firm stand that evangelization is the
fundamental right of the Christian religion because Jesus has commanded us to do so.
It must be done in the spirit of love and compassion as displayed by Jesus.

Quecat »

Mon May 19, 2008 5:16 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

I would take issue with the "less than precise" language used in the opening paragraph of this story.
It is not our, as they've written, : "indisputable right and duty to convert anyone to Christianity"
This is not technically correct and is uneccessarily inflammatory.

It is our God given commission to "go forth and preach the gospel making disciples of all nations...". It is not OUR duty to CONVERT anyone. We are simply the seed planters. It is the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of sinners that produces "conversion", beyond which it our duty to disciple these new brothers and sisters in Christ and teach them the tenets of the faith.

To couch this in terms of it "being our right" to do so, makes about as much sense as saying that a soldier under orders "has a right" to carry out those orders. Further, that it is a "right", makes it sound as though it is something we can choose to exercise or not.
Obviously, it is more accurate to say that the solider is obligated to obey his commander - an order is not a choice.

paul1149 »

Mon May 19, 2008 4:52 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

I'm glad the Pope is taking a stand on this issue, against the absurd forces of political correctness. I'm not RC, but he's completely right in this case.

Tallguy1000 »

Mon May 19, 2008 4:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

If you are able to upload a podcast, there is a really good one that talks about papal authority and papal succession. Go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and upload the free podcast. Another good resource is Patrick Madrid's book called Pope Fiction.
Did you ever notice how in the books of the Gospel Peter is always mentioned first? It's always "Peter and the Others" etc. His name comes up 195 times, the next is John at 29 tiimes. Luke in Ch7 found it significant enough to mention that Jesus spoke from Peter's boat. etc. It would make sense that God would not leave his children alone to scramble around and figure things out on their own after the deciples died would it?
In Chirst....<><...

IHS »

Mon May 19, 2008 3:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Taylormade,

I am a seminary student at BTU. Could you show me how I can refute Papal Primacy?? I just cannot get passed the whole Keys thing and the fact Jesus renamed Simon to Kepha, which does mean rock. This has had me troubled for a few months.

Thanks for your help. My pastor didn't really have much on this topic other than we don't believe it. I pray I can be a Pastor someday and I just want to do everything the Word of God says and abide in it.

taylormaed »

Mon May 19, 2008 2:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

I agree with the message and not with the messenger. Jesus states in Matt 28 every christians mandate to evangelize and make disciples. So the Pope is affirm scripture. However his position as "Holy Father" is extremely contridictory to scripture. With do respect, there is no place in scripture that supports the Pope's position as a successor of Peter. Peter was chosen along with the rest of the Apostles by Christ himself. The Pope is selected by a group of men. This is a function of Ordination and not Apostolic succession. If he is a apostolic sucessor he must perform signs and wonders of the apostles. Which includes healing of incurable diseases, and raising of the dead.

IHS »

Mon May 19, 2008 2:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

We all need to be constantly reminded that we are all windows to Christ. We must put on Christ everday to show Christ to others.

I am in Seminary right now and my Pastor constantly says this same thing that the Pope said. We must all try to bring others to Christ. It is our right and it is our duty.

I love being in Seminary and learning about the Lord.

AngloCat »

Mon May 19, 2008 1:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Good Article, and the Pope is exactly right.

EvanCal »

Mon May 19, 2008 1:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

We should never try to convert fellow Christians who already have a saving faith in Christ. If their faith is solid and you can see it not only in their word but in their life, then just be a fellow good Chrisitian and support them in their faith tradition.

Mormons are Polytheistic and therefore not Christians and JW's are not Christians either since they reject the Divinity of Christ. TD Jakes should also be made accountable since he is not a Trinitarian.

EvanCal »

Mon May 19, 2008 1:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

The Pope expressed some very valid points. Because of Baptism, we are all called to witness the Gospel. We are all the Royal Priesthood of believers and therefore must preach the Gospel.

I believe we should be more evangelistic too. It is not us who does the converting, it is the Holy Spirit. We simply plant the seed and the Holy Spirit waters it and grows it.

In terms of converting non-believers to Christ, AMEN! In terms of converting fellow Christians to Catholicism, I say yes and no. If that person does not have a personal relationship with JC, then if it takes that person to become Catholic to have that relationship then fine. Now, if it is a Catholic and they've never had a personal relationship with Christ, then they may convert to the Reformed Tradition to find Jesus too. It is all about the personal relationship.

Since non-Christians have no-belief in Christ, then they are fair game for conversion but not do not be coersive. Simply be a good example of Christ, teach them about His saving love on the Cross and be there to answer questions. Let the Holy Spirit do His work and you just be supportive to that work.

HopeInHisBride »

Mon May 19, 2008 1:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Furthermore, I got this from ZENIT. The title of this article is quite misleading, but still points out the affirmation by the Holy Father of the evangelical mission of the Church.

“Mission is a duty about which one must say ‘Woe to me if I do not evangelize’ (1 Corinthians 9:16),” the Pope added, citing the words of the Apostle Paul, who personally experienced that “redemption and mission are acts of love,” because “those who proclaim the Gospel participate in the charity of Christ.”

“It is love that must move us to proclaim to all men with frankness and courage the truth that saves,” he explained. "A love that must radiate everywhere and reach the heart of every man. Indeed, men await Christ.”

ShuckCreations »

Mon May 19, 2008 12:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

For lwms:

Romans 3:23
"For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard."

No one on this earth is perfect. The problem with society is that if you're a Christian you are suddenly held to higher standards. Of course we're going to make mistakes we're human. What you don't get to see, however, is the HUGE amount of change within our lives that Christ has made. We may still fall but we live with hope and strive on to be better people.

Apparently it's okay for secular people to have inconsistoncies and less moral standards because they aren't Christians. I dunno, I have yet to meet someone who didn't have a problem they suffer from. At least Christ shows us there is a way and a better life if we choose to repent and try to leave these problems behind.

teddyrux »

Mon May 19, 2008 12:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

First: It's not a right. It's a command for our Lord. We have to share the Gospel of Christ.
Second: {For LWMS}: If you're a Christian, your Constitutional rights as a US citizen come in second place after your duties as a Christian. Christ should be the most important thing in your life. Even more important than your life. If He isn't remember the most important commandment.

lwms »

Mon May 19, 2008 12:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

I have a problem with what the Pope said. His viewpoint takes away my rights as an American citizen to practice whatever rieligion or non religion I believe.. Also these conversion tactics shouldn’t turn into stalking and harassment.

I also believe Christians have gotten too entangled in theater in order to push this conversion principle. Today, I see too many Christians acting like two-faced theater characters; one time with the image of Christianity and another with the deception of the devil. This inconsistency alienates people from Christianity because the two-faced behavior is more a characteristic of NAZI Germans, white segregation, and other elitist behavior. Remember Hitler had the best theater arts. It is like Christians got sold a new image and they wear these two faces like the Emperor’s New Clothes.

As a result of this behavior when encountering a Christian I ask: Does this person who claims to be a Christian act with two-faced deception like a wolf in a sheep’s clothing or do they stand and act like Jesus when people wanted to stone Mary Magdalene?

I believe if Christians would stop taking deceptive theater/political acts to the work place and streets and once again consistently act with the kindness of Jesus, society would change for the better. Christians would gain respect, there would be less civil unrest in America, there would be better communities, and probably even fewer abortions. Until then society continues to grow distrustful of all Christians.

America needs a strong sign from Christians as a whole unit, a public recognition that their two-faced deceptive actions had caused harm to many and that they are going to implement an awareness program to help prevent harm like that from happening again. Something like the Catholic Church did in response to the sexual abuse harm.

dongard »

Mon May 19, 2008 11:14 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

what about respecting the right of children to grow up free of coercion and superstition?

Hume »

Mon May 19, 2008 10:39 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

I have no problem with what the pope said, because I have a similar right: to encourage believers to de-convert.