Mikhail Gorbachev, the last communist leader of the Soviet Union, paid an unexpected visit Wednesday to the tomb of St. Francis of Assisi in Italy, where he reportedly spent nearly a half-an-hour in silent meditation.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Intl > Overseas
Ex-Soviet Leader Gorbachev Revives 'Closet Christian' Rumors
By
Ethan Cole
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Mar. 20 2008 02:01 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Comments
Dear John 3:7
We completely agree. Jesus knew their hearts as he knows our hearts. But WE don’t know our hearts. There was a time when Judas believed Jesus was the Messiah. There was a time when the followers who no longer walked with him believed in him. We are not God, we don’t know that one of those times we grow cold we won’t continue down that path. We have a joyful hope in the Lord, be we must continue to run the race.
I understand this man now has a teaching position in an American University, is this correct? If it is, then it confirms my understanding that the last refuge of Atheistic Soviet Style Communism is the American University Faculty.
Did Judas knew Christ as Peter did? Look at Luke 22: 31 and 32 to see Peters relationship with the Lord. The Lord prayed for Peter but not for Judas,look at John 17 to see who Christ prays for and you will see He prays for His own. Judas was a thief and remained a thief though he had access to the Saviour, he never knew Christ as his Saviour and Lord if he did he would have not remined a thief and remained lost but contrast Peter and the others they left all Luke 18:28. Judas was lost and rejected the Lord of Glory to remain a thief sad isnt it.
Dear Lidia
Here is another link.
I do not feel like regurgitating all this information so I'll take the shortcut.
This is wonderful news for you, as you will not have to put up with paragraphs of my intolerable writing. Theirs is much better...
Kind regards,
A
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ford/chapter08.htm
Dear Aaron,
I was able to get to the website. I’m confused. I read “ The Origins of the Baptists”. The Author says that the Baptists are descended from the Waldenses from about the 13th century. But the Waldenses taught that the Church should have no property and condemned tithing. And the biggest difference at all was that they accepted the Holy Eucharist as the Body of Christ. He also links you further back to the Paulicians. But they believed in the plurality of gods, held that all matter was bad, rejected the Old Testament, denied the incarnation, and said Christ was an angel. They refused to honour the cross by saying Christ had not been crucified. He also goes farther back to the Novatianists and Donatists. But the Novatianists taught that no sin was to be forgiven after Baptism. They too denied second marriages under any circumstances. . Donatists taught that the true church consisted only of the elect and that Baptisms were only valid when performed by a Donatist. I’m confused because these are not Baptist beliefs by any means. It seems that the only thing they had in common with Baptist beliefs is that infant baptism is wrong.
Dear Aaron,
Would you happen to know another link or source? I just get the message that the website cannot be found. Thanks
To Lidiapurple:
http://www.baptistbecause.com/tracts/baptistorgin.pdf
Dear Aaron E,,
When you explain your position that a Baptist is not a protestant, You wrote “These New Testament believers rejected every attempt to include them in with the other churches who compromised and accepted the Roman government's money, rule and authority.
I need some confirmation on this claim. What name did these New testament believers go by? Where can I find them in history? I have only seen from history that the Baptist movement started around 1609 by John Smyth.
You also said “In fact the Roman Church can only trace its history back to 313 AD when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion”. That may be the history you have learned. I’ll share with you my history. The Catholic church is the same church Christ founded. The name Catholic can be found as early as 107 A.D. in a letter from Saint Ignatius
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.
“When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans and used the word "catholic", he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation "Catholic Church" with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.” Quote taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch
Dear aaron e.
You said: “that even as one falls into sin at times, one will not loose one's inheritance, is part of the shining light of a truly saved Christian. The apostles knew this. All of the universal church since has known this. Unfortunately, the Catholics do not. Not one Pope in history has ever believed the truth. Had they done so, they would have repented, bowed before the lord, and cried out for Jesus to enter their hearts and forgive them their sins. Amen”
This is what the apostles knew: sinners shall not inherit the kingdom of God I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11.
If you fall into sin from time to time, you are a sinner. If you don’t truly repent and give your life back to Christ, you Can forfeit your inheritance. The apostles knew this. All of the universal church since has known this. Fortunately, the Catholics know this. All the Popes in history, including our current Pope Benedict have professed to believed this. He is on his knees daily, bowing before the Lord and crying out for Jesus to forgive him his sins so that he too may be counted among the living. Amen Amen.”
Dear John3:7 ,
I’m a little backed up here, since my Catholic buddies seem to have disappeared, so please forgive me for not answering in a timely manner.
In reply to your statement “a person can reject Christ, but that is only because they never knew Him personally”, knowing him personally does not necessarily stop you for choosing to reject him. Peter knew Christ quite personally and rejected him. So did Judas. The difference of course was that Peter turned back to Christ, and Judas did not. I’m sure that Pastor I told you about had felt at one point he knew Christ personally. I think that everyone who has accepted Jesus as Lord feels they know him personally.
I agree completely that “a person who is truly born again of the Spirit of God continues to grow in love with Christ day by day year after year”. But one cannot state for a fact that they will not some day be another Peter. Peter swore up and down that he would never reject Jesus, and yet look what he did. The assurance we have is that Jesus will always be there with his hand outstretched, ready to take us back if we repent and return to him. But we must choose to persevere to the end.
What you call “grow cold from time to time”, is what the Catholic church calls “sin”. Sin is a free choice not to do the will of the father. Jesus said, "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." Matt 12:50. That implies that whoever does not do the will of the Father is not part of God’s Kingdom.
Part of Catholic practice is to make our type of “sinner’s prayer” every Sunday at church. As a group we say “I confess to almighty God,and to you, my brothers and sisters,that I have sinned through my own fault,in my thoughts and in my words,in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do;” We are encouraged to examine our lives daily and to make this confession daily, if need be. I know this is not your belief or practice. I just thought I’d share mine with you.
Amendoza,
Saint worship is idolatry, the Catholic Church condemns Saint worship. They do not condemn giving saints honor, or distinction, or praying to saints, but they do condemn worshipping them, even Mary.
John 6:48-66...that's an interesting bit of scripture. Do you know that the Greek word "trogo" which is translated into "eateth", in this passage is the only time in the entire New Testament that the word "trogo" is used?
The other words most used are "esthio" and "phago".
But the word "trogo" is used ONLY in this particular set of scriptures. I think that deserves more investigation.
All three of those words mean to eat, but why use a different word for only that discussion? Why not use "esthio" or "phago? And "trogo" is rather confusing as it is anyway. I think there is something here beyond literally eating His body. If that were the case, it seems that he would have used "phago" which is the primative use of the term.
Dear Anthony,
I’m confused by your first statement. Who said who’s an atheist?
Your comment “Wow did the Catholics come out in full force!!!” makes me giggle , as I seem to be the only Catholic making any comments these last few days. I feel like the lone ranger. Tonto where are you???
You’ll be happy to know that The Catholic Church agrees with you that Saint worship is blatant idolatry. The church teaches that it is a mortal sin to worship anyone but God. If you’ve been following the thread you’ll know that this implies to a Catholic that she/he is in danger of losing her/his salvation if she/he commits idolatry.
I very much agree with you when you say that you can disagree with me and not hate me, but descriptions like “octopus-head squashed square under the throne of the papacy tries to blur doctrine with her ecumenical tentacles”.. don’t ooze of gentleness and reverence.
Your statement about the Pope is incorrect. Catholics do not see the pope as divine.
Your statement about confession is correct. You need to confess to God. Jesus gave his apostles the power to hear and forgive sins in his name. John 20:23. That is what Catholic priests (who the Church believes are the successors to the apostles) do.
The Catholic Bible differs in that we include the 7 deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. Protestant bibles do not have these books. This is a whole other matter of debate between Protestants and Catholics. The Catholic position is that Martin Luther took them out of the Bible; You can look at a Gutenberg Bible from the 15th century, and you will sees the 7 deutercanonical books included with the rest of the OT books, while Luther's OT (16th century) does not have them. A common non-Catholic position is that the Catholic church added these books at the council of Trent. However, the Catholic Church only affirmed them then. Why then? Because she had to answer to Martin Luther taking them out of his bible.
I think that comparing the Catholic bible to Mormonism is not a good comparison. The book of Mormon is a complete other gospel offered by Joseph Smith. God Bless you too!
continued...
However, in the midst of all this apostasy, that was the foundation of the Roman Catholic church, there were groups of Christians who were never a part of the "Christianization" of the Roman Empire. These New Testament believers rejected every attempt to include them in with the other churches who compromised and accepted the Roman government's money, rule and authority.
The over the years the growth of so many false and idolatrous practices caused some within the Catholic church such as Martin Luther to rebel, and to attempt to "reform" the Catholic church. This was the birth of Protestant churches. Although, many Protestants returned in part to a belief in the Bible as their authority for their faith and practice, not one of them EVER completely left all the doctrinal errors and false teachings of the apostate Roman Catholic church.
Protestants have never accepted the principle of separation of church and state. In Europe, Protestant churches are "state" churches and supported to some degree by government imposed taxes. In Germany, the state church is Lutheran and in England, the Anglican church, France, the Roman Catholic Church, etc.
The idea that the bread and wine (grape juice) in the Lord's Supper actually becoming the physical body of Christ when taken is a Roman Catholic teaching that Protestants only modified slightly. Still today, many Protestants see the Lord's Supper as a sacrament, having to some degree saving properties or imparting some spiritual benefit. True New Testament Christians have always rejected such unbiblical ideas.
Protestants still practice infant baptism which absolutely is not taught in the Word of God. Many Protestant denominations still hold to the writings of their church fathers as a source of church doctrine and have never accepted the Bible as their sole source of teachings for their faith and practice. They all hold on to a system of hierarchy in church government and do not accept the autonomy the local church. Autonomy means each local church governs itself free from outside authority and control.
Baptists, basing their beliefs solely on the Bible, have never held to these teachings and see them as heresy. Thus, history and the doctrines of Protestantism clearly show that Baptists are not Protestants.
cited from: http://www.victory-baptist.net/independent.htm
What Baptist's Are Not
Baptists are not Protestants! The name Protestant was given to those churches which came out of Roman Catholicism during the Reformation which began in the 1500's. It originally applied through the 1700's to Lutherans, and Anglicans. Later Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodists were added to the lists of Protestants denominations. Though many people including Webster's Dictionary refers Baptists as being Protestants, it is not correct to refer to them as such or to lump all non-Catholic denominations in one group and label them Protestant. Historically, Baptists were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation and therefore can not be correctly called "protestors" or Protestants.
It is true that many Baptists left the ranks of Protestant churches which were doctrinal unsound and apostate. They left these churches because of their strong conviction that the Word of God should not be compromised. Some formed new churches and called themselves Baptists to make it clear that they believed and followed the New Testament. It is not historically correct to identify Baptists as Catholic "protestors" who left the Roman church. In the many books on church history there is not one recorded incident of a Baptist church beginning founded out of Roman Catholicism. Protestants for centuries saw the Baptists as their "enemies" and murdered them by the thousands in the name of Protestantism. It is surely an affront to call a Baptist by the name of a group that has so hated and persecuted them down throughout history.
There have always existed, from the time of Christ, New Testament churches which were not a part of the Roman Church. In fact the Roman Church can only trace its history back to 313 AD when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion. In 395 AD, Emperor Contantius "Christianized" Rome and made the worship of idols punishable by death. By 400 AD, the Emperor Theodosius had declared Christianity the only state religion of the Roman Empire. Many churches by this time had come under the domination of the Rome government and had ceased from being New Testament churches. When the Roman Emperor declared Christianity the religion of Rome, he in mass "converted" hordes of pagans which made up the Empire. Pagan temples became the meeting houses for "Christians." Rome, then hired unregenerate pagan priests as "Christian" ministers. The influx of these falsely converted pagans is one reason Roman Catholicism came to have so many false and pagan beliefs.
cited from: http://www.victory-baptist.net/independent.htm
I deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I am not Protestant, I am a fundamental Baptist.
Dear Aaron,
Although you may not have been talking directly to this Catholic, I seem to be the only one representing the Catholic Church on this comment board. So, you can see how I would assume your words were meant for me, can’t you? Thank you for clearing that up!
And thank you for your prayers. Mine for you are almost the same, except that I would not call your branch of Christianity a false religion. There are many aspects of truth in Protestantism. As a Catholic I embrace all that is true in your faith. I can see by your passionate comments that you love the Lord with all your heart.
About apostasy: In addition to Judas, there was also a much larger New Testament apostasy. John 6:48-66. This apostasy is ongoing with those who deny the true presence of Christ in the bread (Eucharist). All the verses you quote help me to affirm that there has been and always will be apostates, but the Catholic Church will never deny our Lord Jesus Christ.
Lidia,
You said "What authority do you personally use to help you interpret scripture?"
John 16:12-15:
" 12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
I go to the Holy Spirit when I cannot understand something. I have found His Spirit to be more reliable than man's wisdom.
Maybe I should have clarified why I had a section on apostasy in my last post. I meant to explain the case of the protestant pastor mentioned as an example in one of Lidiapurple's posts. Here it is again for convenience sake:
Apostasy:
This difficult doctrine must be distinguished from heresy, which is simply a belief in false doctrine. Apostasy is a deliberate turning away from a revealed truth after it has been tentatively received. There are a number of Bible descriptions of it. It is a claim that men know God but is denied by their actions, Tit. 1:16; abiding not in the doctrine of Christ, 2 John 9; a departure from the faith, 1 Tim. 4:1; an unwillingness to endure sound doctrine, 2 Tim. 4:3; a forsaking of the right way, 2 Pet. 2:15; a turning from the holy commandments, 2 Pet. 2:21.
Apostates are not saved persons, because they do not have the Spirit, Jude 19; Rom. 8:9. They are “rocky ground” hearers who receive the Word with joy, Luke 8:13; but afterward fall away, which is literally “apostatize.” The “good ground” hearers receive the Word into their hearts, a much stronger word for receiving it, Mark 4:20, Gr.
Individual apostasy has occurred throughout history. Jude 11 cites three examples from the OT. Judas is the outstanding example in the NT. Corporate apostasy will overtake Christendom in the last days, 2 Thess. 2:3; Rev. 3:14-20. Christ foretold this, Luke 18:8. Jude describes apostates as ungodly men who pervert God’s grace and deny our Lord, Jude 8, 16, 19.
(Evans 278)
Also, in response to: "why would Jesus need to strengthen us at all? What would it matter that we need to endure the trials and tests that come our way? If we fall, if we turn away from Christ, no big deal, we’ve been saved, according to “once saved always saved” thinking."
Jesus strengthens us to endure the trials of a fallen world. Our faith is tested to strengthen it. If I am truly saved, I think not to turn away from Christ knowing that I am saved anyway. Love compels me otherwise. I am tempted to take my salvation for granted at times, however, through prayer and spiritual support from the congregation, this temptation is overcome. Assured salvation requires more faith than salvation that must be worked for, or managed. It is not a balancing act or a meter that must be administered. The truth of my life is that I am saved and out of love and fear and hope I will serve the Lord, and my brothers and sisters. Knowing that even as one falls into sin at times, one will not loose one's inheritance, is part of the shining light of a truly saved Christian. The apostles knew this. All of the universal church since has known this. Unfortunately, the Catholics do not. Not one Pope in history has ever believed the truth. Had they done so, they would have repented, bowed before the lord, and cried out for Jesus to enter their hearts and forgive them their sins. Amen.
Dear Lidiapurple, have a look at 1Cor15:19, Paul says this, "if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" Here you have it, if you only have Christ in this life what a miserable life it would be, Salvation is hope in Christ in this life and the life to come Heb7:25 He saves to the uttermost that means entire, just take God at His Word, dont try to work it out just believe the All Sufficiant God .
Lidiapurple, I would like to take you up on waht you said to Prophet, a person can reject Christ, but that is only because they never knew Him personally, a person who is trully born again of the Spirit of God continue to grow in love with Christ day by day year after year they may grow cold from time to time but they will never reject Him because they are His sheep the goats reject Christ, when did you ever hear of a goat becoming a sheep or a sheep becoming a goat.Christs sheep hear His voice and they follow Him the goats hear His voice but they reject Him.
Dear Prophet,
I too believe the phrase means exactly what you say; “being strengthened to endure the trials and tests that come our way.” My point is that if we are once saved always saved, why would Jesus need to strengthen us at all? What would it matter that we need to endure the trials and tests that come our way? If we fall, if we turn away from Christ, no big deal, we’ve been saved, according to “once saved always saved” thinking.
I agree with you that I Corinthians 1:8 could mean a number of things. So could almost every verse in the Holy Bible. The Bible says that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation 2 Peter 1:20. When something is unclear, Catholics look to the teaching body of the Church, the Magesterium. What authority do you personally use to help you interpret scripture?
Dear Lidiapurple,No one can keep the commandments, if we could keep the commandments the Lord Jesus Christ need not have come, Romans 3:23 Isaiah 64:6 Romans 3:10-19.
The Lord said if you love me keep my commandments, yes we must stop lying, following idols, making statues and bowing down to them, stop committing adultary etc but can you stop your mind wandering into those areas ie tenth commandment, but when a person has been coverted and following Christ the Bible tells us something wonderful and you'll find it in I John 2:1-3 If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous, also look at IJohn 1:9 and for full assurance of salvation in this life and in the life to come have a look at 1John 5:11-13. God gives full assurance if people would only take Him at His word. I never meant to make light of sin forgive my phrase slipping up.
Dear Lidiapurple, what I said is scriptural, please look at 1John 2:19 John says this, " they went out from us ,but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us" I think that explains what happened that person you refered to.
Did anyone see that he says he is an Athiest??
Wow did the Catholics come out in full force!!!
I realize I am joining the conversation late but I think that saint worship is blatant Idolitry therefore it seems to disqualify Catholisim as a Christian faith. I also find it amuzing that as soon as you disagree with someone or their religion that you must in fact hate them. its is possible for me to disagree and not hate you. Do I think you are wrong? yes.
Another thing to ponder is that Catholics see the Pope as divine.... more idolitry?? Also, you do not need to confess your sins to man but to God.
The fact that there is a need for a Catholic bible rather that the Bible seems also to scream false religion (ala Mormonism).
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
Dear lidiapurple:
I was not "talking with Catholics," therefore your reply does not apply. I was rebuking the Catholic Church, which in God's Word is a man made religion empowered by Satan and his demons. I would use the same "strong language" if dealing with fornication, homosexuality or idolatry. 1 Timothy 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." Titus 1:13, 14 "...Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." See also Jude.
Dear lidiapurple, you are here surrounded by Truth. I pray you see the error of the false religion you belong to. I pray the Christian brothers and sisters who labor intensively here continue to do so in love and righteousness.
Apostasy:
This difficult doctrine must be distinguished from heresy, which is simply a belief in false doctrine. Apostasy is a deliberate turning away from a revealed truth after it has been tentatively received. There are a number of Bible descriptions of it. It is a claim that men know God but is denied by their actions, Tit. 1:16; abiding not in the doctrine of Christ, 2 John 9; a departure from the faith, 1 Tim. 4:1; an unwillingness to endure sound doctrine, 2 Tim. 4:3; a forsaking of the right way, 2 Pet. 2:15; a turning from the holy commandments, 2 Pet. 2:21.
Apostates are not saved persons, because they do not have the Spirit, Jude 19; Rom. 8:9. They are “rocky ground” hearers who receive the Word with joy, Luke 8:13; but afterward fall away, which is literally “apostatize.” The “good ground” hearers receive the Word into their hearts, a much stronger word for receiving it, Mark 4:20, Gr.
Individual apostasy has occurred throughout history. Jude 11 cites three examples from the OT. Judas is the outstanding example in the NT. Corporate apostasy will overtake Christendom in the last days, 2 Thess. 2:3; Rev. 3:14-20. Christ foretold this, Luke 18:8. Jude describes apostates as ungodly men who pervert God’s grace and deny our Lord, Jude 8, 16, 19.
(Evans 278)
Does confirm/strengthen/establish mean being saved? Or does it mean being strengthened to endure the trials and tests that come our way? When we accept Jesus as our Lord, we are saved, and our place is secure in heaven. But now, the next step is to attain unto the image of Christ in our lives. To live as holy and Christlike as possible. Perhaps that is what that scripture is saying.
To be honest, that scripture is so general that it could mean a numbe of different things.
Dear Aaron,
I appreciate your blatant honesty about your hatred for the Catholic Church. You are following the biblical admonishment to “ always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”. 1 Peter 3:15. Well, maybe that part about gentleness and reverence doesn’t apply when you are talking with Catholics
Dear Prophet,
In my bibles, I Corinthians 1:8 says he will confirm us, (or strengthen ) us until the end. If once saved always saved, why do we need strengthening? To Catholics, this verse implies that once we have been saved, our salvation is still a continuing process.
For 2 Corinthians2:15, My version of the NIV says: “For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.
I agree with your comment on Philippians 2:12. We cannot attain our salvation on our own. But we can sure reject it all by ourselves.
Dear John3:7,
Thank you for sharing with me your belief of “once saved always saved.” Let me share with you one example of why I do not adhere to that. In my town, there was a Pastor of a local Protestant church who renounced his faith in Christ, started studying the Muslim faith, but died before he fully converted. When he left the church, members of his congregation said simply he must not have really been saved. What kind of blessed assurance of salvation is that? One is saved unless he rejects Christ, and then we must assume he was never saved to begin with?. (To me, that’s close to the Catholic belief that we must persevere to the end.)
To a Catholic, when one does not keep the commandments, one rejects Christ. He said “if you will enter into life, keep the commandments” Matt 19:17. What you call “slipping up from time to time”, Catholics call sin. We believe that if we sin, we have made a conscious choice to reject Christ and we must repent and return to him.
I agree with you that we “SHOULD be becoming more and more like our Lord everyday”. But when we choose sin over being comformed to his image, then we need to repent and give ourselves back to Jesus.
DannyPoo,
they died during the WW2 doesn't necessarily mean it was by Hitler.
I grew up in the Soviet Union and know that millions of Christians were martyred at government's command for the faith during the Soviet times. It was for any indication of faith, such as talking, preaching or even being seen near a church or having icons. My grandfather was persecuted for studying the Bible and my grandmother hid her icons.
How could something as inherently logically inconsistent, administratively man-made, historically corrupt and ultimately dishonest as the Catholic Church be honestly defended? The whole canon (whose preeminence can be noted, praise God) of the bible shows the true product of catholicism to be a false religion reigned by false teachers bearing false witness of a false messiah. I don't apologize for this strong language. And while the emergent 'church', with its octopus-head squashed square under the throne of the papacy tries to blur doctrine with her ecumenical tentacles, hoards of the unsaved (do NOT fall into the easy-believism delusion of using the euphemism 'unchurched') are being blinded. This, my brothers and sisters, is the tongue-wagging of the angel of light.
Our fasting and prayer should oft be fixated on the repentance of those saved Christians who have fallen away into the carnal oblivion of false teachers.
Happy resurrection day.
Aaron E.
lidiapurple,
"On your comments about Martin Luther, I think that since there are so many types of Protestants, that it would be very difficult to agree as a group what things Martin Luther was wrong about. Catholics would agree with his quote, would agree with him that the Church was in DIRE need of reform ( which later came from within ,thanks to many faithful Catholics), we would not agree with his revolt, we do not agree with his doctrine of Sola Scriptura."
Protestants all agree that Martin Luther does not set any standard. Protestants all agree on Sola Scriptura. Anything Martin Luther said that was good, was based on Reason and the Bible. Unlike the RCC, we do not have to have universal dogma to decide something.
Also, the RCC is not the only viable position to take. There exists the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican Church, the Oriental Orthodox, as well as various others who can trace their roots to the Apostles. Personally I believe the RCC and EO are the strongest cases, but there are extreme difficulties in both.
The RCC did not realize it needed reform from within, rather it based its reform almost entirely on secular and protestant ideas. Indeed the RCC looks a lot more like the Protestant Church now, than it looks like the RCC of the Council of Trent then.
But I am not totally against the premise of are saved, being saved, and will be saved. I have heard even Protestant preachers promote the same teaching.
Our spirits are saved, our souls are being saved, and our bodies will be saved (when we are resurrected in our glorified bodies).
I hold no strong opinion one way or the other on that subject.
First Corinthians 1:8 says that He will keep us until the end. So that scripture is rather pointless.
And what's up with Second Corinthians 2:15? That has nothing to do with "being saved".
The NIV does use the phrase "being saved", but the Catholic and KJV Bible says "are saved".
Philippians 2:12 is the only verse that makes sense in this context, though there is disagreement on what Paul meant when he said to "work out our own salvation", as though our salvation was something we could attain on our own.
lidiapurple, a person is either saved or not saved John 10:9 . Salvation is not an ongoing process, sanctification is though, 2Peter 1:5- 9. If a person is saved they will persevere to the end 1 Peter 1:4, Hebrews 10:39. Once saved you cannot be unsaved, you may slip up from time to time but God conforms us to the image of His Son Jesus Romans 8:29.We should becoming more like our Lord everyday and then when He returns He will make us like Himself, Phil 3:21
Dear Aaron.e,
Catholics believe we are already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but we are also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and we have the hope that we will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul we are working out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
To put it another way, we believe that salvation is an ongoing process. We have been saved by Jesus's death and resurrection and we know he will never abandon us. But that doesn't mean he will interfere with our free will. We always have the choice to sin and turn away from him again. That's why we say we must perserve till the end.
Truthandjustice and thelordismylight, feel free to elaborate!. A Blessed Easter to all!
::begin quote from article::
Moreover, the parents of his wife, Raisa, were devout Christians who died during World War II for having religious icons in their home.
::end quote from article::
I'm a bit confused by this, I wasn't aware that Hitler killed people because they had Christian symbols in their homes. Very interesting.
thelordismylight (and any other Catholic on this board):
Please forgive my ignorance, but I would like to know how a Catholic knows he is going to Heaven? What is your blessed assurance?
Aaron
thelordismylight,
I have nothing personal against Catholics per say, but your title seems a bit misleading. Shouldn't it read something more along the lines as:
The RCC is the light by which I must understand Scripture and the Lord; therefore the Scripture and salvation are only relevant in respect to the RCC.
thelordismylight,
Are you still insisting that works are necessary :)?
Rom 2:4-8 and Matt 25, and James 2
Is being Catholic something to be proud of? Depends on a person's maturity. The immature boast in the things of the flesh. Those who are mature, and walk in His Spirit, boast in Jesus, and Him alone.
For our faith and salvation does not come from man, for it can not be given to us, nor taken from us, by man. For our God is sovereign and holy. His body and church has one name, Jesus. It is written upon their foreheads. It is burned upon their hearts. Their trust is not in a building, or an organization, but in the Spirit of God Himself. And those who call upon His name, who confess with their mouth the Lordship of Jesus, and believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead, will indeed be called His children.
And the dumb will confound the wise. And the wisdom of man will come to foolishness, and the people will be ashamed for their own wisdom. Those who claim to be wise will find their hearts hardened, and a stone will be put before their mouth. They will speak nothing but pride and selfishness. Their eyes will be upon their own glory and the glory of man, but they shall not be able to look upon the glory of God. They will be blind, except to their own devices. And they will call from their blindness, but He will not hear. They will cry out in false humility, but they will not be heard.
Yes, congratulations on your revealing your CATHOLICISM. Woohoo. Notice he was Catholic, not a member of Evangelical, Anglecan, Baptist, Southern Baptist, North Eastern Baptist, or the Glockjuns or whatever they will come up with next (it is almost like the Wonka Factory, what new sect will they come up with next?)
As a religious naturalist, I'm saddened that he had to live a lie for so many years. Congratulations on your coming out, Mr. Gorbachev!
As I said I may come across smug, but I'm not, God is my witness, did not the Lord expose the religion of the day as being inadequate that they had misunderstood the scriptures not seeing Christ.
I take your point though.
You got to read it for yourself but not only read it believe its message all your sins are removed from the sight of God when you repent and believe the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, believe in the exceeding great and precious promises of God and you will be united with God through His Son and He will never let you go thats His promise.
So you think that DISRESPECT for what they believe is the answer? Do you think you will win them over by EXPOSING their beliefs? Do you want to be RIGHT, John, do you want to WIN THE ARGUMENT, or do you want to win your family for Christ? You can't do both ...
Seems to me like you need to start BEING a witness for your family, rather than to continue to provoke them with the spiritual smugness you display on this board.
John 8:44 the Lord tells the religious leaders "ye are of your father the devil" why would the Lord say that to anyone what an awful thing to say, the Lord was being honest with them that they might wake up and see what an awful state they were in. The Truth will make tou free.
Dear John 3:7
To answer you question Why don't most Catholics read the bible? If you went to mass when you were a Catholic then every single time you would have read a reading from the Old testament, Psalms, New testament epistles, the Gospel, Saint Paul's account of the last supper...at the very minimum. I am so sorry you didn't see it. I am a Catholic and I have been taught to love and read the bible.
Thank you for your prayers for my salvation. I am a sinner in need of prayers!
It grieves me everyday to see my mother, father, three sisters and most of my relations deceived by the catholic religion.I apologize for upsetting you.
I know I may come across as a pharisee but that is not my intention, but I will not apologize for exposing any religion that leads people away from the Truth and keeps them from Christ
Still can't believe you went there. Congratulations, John3:7, your post was the LOWEST statement I've read on any board anywhere. Questioning who is saved and who isn't?? Who appointed YOU arbiter of who is "getting in" and who isn't?? Your smugness and spiritual conceit works really well when you're behind a keyboard somewhere, but I people like you NEVER have the courage to look someone in the eye and be as obnoxious and brazen as you are out here. Your family obviously has MUCH to be proud of ...
1382 the first english bible is translated from Latin by John Wycliffe who was a priest and an Oxford scholar.This Bible is then banned by the pope and orders all copies to be burned.
Incidentally forty years after Wycliffe's death, his bones are exhumed and burned for heresy by you know who.
AD 397 The 27 books of the New Testament were formally confirmed as canonical by the Synod of Carthage thus recognizing three centuries of use by followers of Christ.
Hey John3:7: My mother-in-law knew Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. OK? She also never judged those with whom she disagreed as glibly as you do.
Your Phariasaical arrogance and sanctimony is disgusting. and your attitude is exactly why the Church of Jesus Christ is as fragmented and ineffective as it is. You should be ashamed of your divisiveness and your argumentativeness, but I guess you're not ...
I will assume you got your dates mixed up, so I'II inform those who may not be aware of them,
Council at Jamnia AD90 Jewish elders confirm the Hebrew Bible canon, without the apocrypha as athoritative.
AD 200 Church fathers accept the writings of the Gospels and Paul's letters as canonical.
AD300 New Testament books collected and circulated throughout the Mediterranean about the time of Constantine.
I see you didn't say Kpercy07 that your mother in law knew Christ as her Saviour and Lord.
You can profess to love God, and have your Mary but if you dont have Christ you have nothing.
John 5:22 for the Father judgeth no man but hath comitted all judgement unto the Son: v23 that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him.
You can disagree with me, but will you disagree with God's Word.
Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my Word will not pass away.
2) I know of no official policy of whatever persecution policy you are referring to in Mexico. I'm sure you will give some example of some people working on their own or something and try to blame it on the Church as a whole. Perhaps it is the same kind of reasoning as to why racists blame a race on the actions of people who belong to that race...it's as old as time. This fits in perfectly with question #3 let's blame the whole Church because some people don't want to read the bible. I mean it is so pathetic. Let's blame any protestant church because some of their members don't read the bible.
It's sad that people don't know the history of Christianity. Is it any wonder that the President of the Evangelical Theological Society converted to Catholicism last year after he started reading about the early Christian fathers? Nevertheless I will answer provide answers.
1) t was is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.
The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.
Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations. It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff").
Q.If the Rcc believe in the Bible why did they do everything in their power to stop it being translated into english and persecute Bible believing christians in the process.
Q. If the Rcc believe in Christ as He is revealed in the Bible why are they persecuting true believers in Mexico as we speak.
Q. If the Rcc believe in the Bible why dont most of them read it.
We should pray for the salvation of every catholic we know, I was one but the Lord delivered me and brought me to Himself. Come out from among them and be ye separate.
Okay, I'll try again!
Chris,
Catholics agree with you the Church did not 'choose' the Bible, but rather that the bishops and Pope 'recognized' what was already the word of God. Just as importantly, they recognized what was NOT inspired scripture as well. By the 4th century there were many documents floating around ( I think it was well over 80, but I have to look that up again), all claiming to be the word of God. Who gave the Bishops the authority to reject these wriitngs and to close the canon of the New Testament? The authority came from God. It is clear that God gave us the canon of the bible through the Catholic Church. A person who accepts the bible as divine at least imlplicitly accpets the authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6).
On your comments about Martin Luther, I think that since there are so many types of Protestants, that it would be very difficult to agree as a group what things Martin Luther was wrong about. Catholics would agree with his quote, would agree with him that the Church was in DIRE need of reform ( which later came from within ,thanks to many faithful Catholics), we would not agree with his revolt, we do not agree with his doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
We do not accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But that does not mean we do not accept the bible as the innerrant word of God. Catholics ( and the pope) believe in and love the Holy Bible.
Test,
I am trying to see if this goes thru as I just posted a reply to Chris that gave me a "wrong access" message.
Haha, why the thumbs down? =O) I thought that RCC and Protestants would have been happy with that post! Oh well, you can't please everyone (nor do I try).
lidiapurple,
Yes Martin Luther may very well have said that, but Martin Luther was wrong about many things and protestants do not declare him infallible.
Sola Scripture proponents usually point to the fact that the Bible was well known and distinguished well before the Council in 397. And they assert that the Church did not 'choose' the Bible, but rather that they 'recognized' what was already Scripture. As well it is clear that we did not receive the Scriptures from the RCC/EO, but rather we received them from God (if not then I see no reason why we should believe in them at all).
I believe the RCC/EO would also say that Martin Luther was wrong as well.
Unfortunately, the views of people like John3:7 towards the Catholics is regrettably common. A few points to consider:
1) God will take whatever we give Him. If it takes "St. Francis" to get you to dialogue with Him, He'll take it. My mother-in-law raised 9 children after her husband died with little else but her faith and trust in God. She loved God and believed Him as few I've ever known, but there was no taking her Mary from her. Good thing for my mother-in-law that John3:7 isn't God.
2) We owe much to the leadership of the Catholic Church. While the evangelicals were "praying down the Berlin Wall," it was John Paul II who gave Ronald Reagan the strategy for defeating the Soviet Union. Their worldwide leadership on issues like abortion and gay marriage dwarfs that of the American evangelical church. And it is the Catholic church that has consistently taken brave stands against despots like Venezuela's Chavez.
3) The Catholics are the greatest educators on the planet. In many places throughout the world, impoverished children receive no schooling at all outside of what is provided by the Catholics.
Do I agree with much of their teaching? No. Do I agree with the way they've handlied some of the deviants they have in the pulpit? NO! But the arrogance with which we as evangelicals wag our fingers at the Catholics is every bit as wrong as anything they're doing.
Some love and respect for the Catholics, please. They deserve it.
In all charity to 1man; the Pope (and all Catholics and Orhtodox) beleive that the bible is the inerrant word of God. This is my favorite quote from Martin Luther, father of the Protestant reformation: " We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all."
Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.
Thank you.
I would say that the pope is not a bible believing christian, may I add that his very position teaches doctrine contrary to sound doctrine.
Thats what the Bible says Christ is the Head we are His body.
The St Francis part is a bit puzzling especially when you read John 6:37,44, 45, 65.
I would like to ask a question, Would you say that the pope is a Bible Believing Christian?
Christ is the head, but we are the body of Christ.
It was through St. Francis that I arrived at the church, so it was important that I came to visit his tomb".
Mielia, this is my prayer.
Russia has a good heritage of believers, Tsar Alexander Pavlovich was a believer in Christ alone for salvation.
I hope Mr Gorbachev is a believer, and that his foundation will be Christ alone.
President Gorbachev's autobiography revealed years back that his life had such a great
influence from his grand mother, in the teachings of the Bible. Once he appeared in the
"hour of power" (Rev. Robert Schuller's) T.V. program, and after hearing his interview, I had
solid conviction that he is a Christian believer. Among all the politicians of the recent times;
two of the greatest are Pre. Regan and Pre. Gorbachev. Those two transparent- hearted
leaders were greatly used by God to bring an end to the soviet empire which was built on
anti-God and hypothetical ideology by exploiting the dreams of the masses. God bless
Pre. Gorbachev, we love, and honor your great service to mankind.
I once sat under a presentation of one of the old Soviet Generals who claimed to have received salvation during a helicopter crash. He prayed that if God spared his life that he would dedicate his life to His service. Although I cannot say that my spirit resonated with his appeal; he certainly seemed sincere enough. He was raising money to distribute Bibles to the entire Russian military. I must confess that I did not really feel like he was very trust worthy with the money. In retrospect as I think back on it, I think that a lot of this lack of emotion and spiritual pathos is at least partly connected to the whole Eastern European temperament. I wonder in what way his faith contributed to the collapse of the old Soviet regime. I also wonder how it will affect the nation in the future as it has discriminated against the Salvation Army in the last few years or so.
(I flagged myself for editing)
As the title says he has become a Christian, let's just thank God that he has opened his heart to see what others are yet to see.
Michaels,
You clearly misunderstand the teachings of catholicism. OH WELL...
The Lord knows his heart. Perhaps as he reads more of the Word, the Lord will grant him to place his faith alone