Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the church

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TulipBee View Post
    God knows what he is doing
    Of course!
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
      Mr. Irreligion is a dimwit.
      He doesn't seem to be.
      Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by glassjester View Post
        He doesn't seem to be.
        There's dimwits and there's dimwits. Anyone who keeps spewing out pejoratives like "Romanist" and "Romanism" and then follows them up with idiotic statements is a dimwit. Good Grief G, the man is insulting you right to your face.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
          There's dimwits and there's dimwits. Anyone who keeps spewing out pejoratives like "Romanist" and "Romanism" and then follows them up with idiotic statements is a dimwit. Good Grief G, the man is insulting you right to your face.
          He's called me a Romanist.
          Is that any worse than calling someone a dimwit? Maybe it is.

          It may have been intended as an insult.
          But I can't find it in myself to feel insulted by it.
          Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
            I think that what He must have meant to say was "on THE BIBLE I will build My Church."
            Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
            Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
            Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
            Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
            Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


            Peter would build the church according to the knowledge God had given him as to whom Jesus was. That is Jesus is God in the flesh.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by glassjester View Post
              Same goalpost. Your doctrine is totally unhistorical. It was invented in the sixteenth century, by a heretic.
              Romanists fail to read links provided in response to their claims. If they would they would know better. For if Reformed doctrine is a heresy of the sixteenth century then their claims of Augustine as one of their own are nonsense. This is what happens when your regula fidei is but Catholic Answers web sites and the like.

              AMR
              Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; November 24th, 2016, 01:32 PM.
              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



              Do you confess?
              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
              AMR's Randomata Blog
              Learn Reformed Doctrine
              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
              The best TOL Social Group: here.
              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
              Why?


              Comment


              • Mr. Irreligion finds time to spew out more ignorance. Maybe someday you'll become a Christian.

                Comment


                • "Romanism" is Normative but Pejorative to the Overly Sensitive

                  Originally posted by glassjester View Post
                  He's called me a Romanist.
                  Is that any worse than calling someone a dimwit? Maybe it is.

                  It may have been intended as an insult.
                  But I can't find it in myself to feel insulted by it.
                  Indeed, you should not.

                  Romanist is but a normative term for Roman Catholics, just as Calvinist is a loose synonym for the Reformed that espouse a particular view of the doctrines of grace, among many other things particular to the Reformed, yet not held by all Calvinists.

                  Best to keep the following in mind:

                  All Reformed are Calvinists. (As in Baptists adhering to the LBCF)
                  Not all Calvinists are Reformed. (
                  As in adherents to the Westminster Standards, Helvetic, Belgic, or Heidelberg Confessions).

                  The doctrines of grace claimed by the Calvinist were elucidated by not a few of the ECF a thousand plus years earlier than Luther or Calvin, and were formally codified fifty-four years after the death of Calvin at the Synod of Dordt. The acrostic, TULIP, a memory aid for the doctrines of grace, was actually first used by a nineteenth century pastor to help others remember the five doctrines. Unfortunately, the historically uninformed just erroneously assume Calvin "invented" Calvinism. Rather, Calvin just was one of the first to formally systematize these doctrines and much more using the full counsel of Scripture.

                  That some will take Romanism to be pejorative is just being overly sensitive.

                  See:
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanism

                  A Calvinist with the same over sensitivity as the Roman Catholic about the term "Romanism" would whine each time a Lutheran raised the label, since it was from their tradition that the word "Calvinist" first emerged over their issues with the Lord's Supper. Wisely, we do not start lighting the torches against our Lutheran brethren when the term is used.

                  That said, "dimwit" is but the desperate attempt of the choleric.

                  AMR
                  Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                  Do you confess?
                  Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                  AMR's Randomata Blog
                  Learn Reformed Doctrine
                  I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                  Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                  Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                  The best TOL Social Group: here.
                  If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                  Why?


                  Comment


                  • Catholic Crusader and Robert Pate Join Hands

                    Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
                    Mr. Irreligion finds time to spew out more ignorance. Maybe someday you'll become a Christian.
                    CC, meet Robert Pate.

                    Robert Pate, meet CC.

                    Strange bedfellows.



                    AMR
                    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; November 24th, 2016, 01:35 PM. Reason: Catholic Crusader and Robert Pate Join Hands
                    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                    Do you confess?
                    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                    AMR's Randomata Blog
                    Learn Reformed Doctrine
                    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                    The best TOL Social Group: here.
                    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                    Why?


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
                      Mr. Irreligion finds time to spew out more ignorance. Maybe someday you'll become a Christian.
                      This gave me a good chuckle.

                      Even if one does not agree with AMR, suggesting he is ignorant and/or not Christian is evidence of histrionics.
                      Psalm 42:1-2 (KJV)

                      1 As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.

                      2 My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?
                      .

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                        Indeed, you should not.

                        Romanist is but a normative term for Roman Catholics, just as Calvinist is a loose synonym for the Reformed that espouse a particular view of the doctrines of grace, among many other things particular to the Reformed, yet not held by all Calvinists.
                        Alright. But the term "Calvinist" is not used derogitorily, whereas "Romanist" was and is.

                        Did you read the link you posted?
                        From that Wikipedia article:
                        Romanism is a word that was often adopted, despite its normative description of followers of Roman Catholicism, as a derogatory term for Roman Catholicism in the past when anti-Catholicism was more common in the United States and the United Kingdom.
                        I said I do not feel offended by it.
                        But you most certainly intended it as an insult.
                        Did you not?

                        "Romanist" is not equivalent to "Calvinist."
                        This you know. At least be honest.

                        You won't see a Catholic parish with a sign outside saying, "Saint Paul's Romanist Church."
                        But Calvinists have no problem self-identifying as "Calvinist."

                        Or do they? I could be wrong.
                        Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

                        Comment


                        • Walking the Old Paths

                          Originally posted by glassjester View Post
                          Alright. But the term "Calvinist" is not used derogitorily, whereas "Romanist" was and is. Did you read the link you posted?
                          Yes, I read it. In fact I am actually one of the editors of that specific entry. Note carefully the word "despite" in the entry. One cannot be responsible for misuse of its normative meaning by others.

                          Like many of the Reformed faith, I walk the old paths (Jer. 6:16) of many old, dead guys, where the language used was highly descriptive and eloquent, and yes, even polemical at times.

                          I never use the term as an insult. It is just a descriptive word used by the Reformed tradition for at least a thousand years or more. The fact that many Roman Catholics take umbrage at the term Romanist
                          some even caviling that "Roman" should not be used with "Catholic"does not oblige me to accommodate their often unspoken desire to soften how they are referred to nowadays. This attitude reminds me of the Mormon's change of their church names, often dropping "Latter Day Saints" so as to increase their appeal to normative Christianity.

                          And I freely admit you will encounter the Calvinist or Reformed person, overcome by emotion, using the term with less than it normative intent. Shame on them. Nevertheless, I would hope that when you see this, you first check in on the discussion. More often than not, you will find that it is the Calvinist's opponent who has drawn first blood, so such a negative rejoinder should not be unexpected—given all our emotional frailties—as it was their interlocutor who first uses some ad hominem. Answer a fool to his folly...and all that, you see.

                          For the record, when I desire to actually gently belittle a Romanist with a single term, I will resort to Papist. Keep an eye out for that if you are inclined.


                          Originally posted by glassjester View Post
                          "Romanist" is not equivalent to "Calvinist." This you know. At least be honest.
                          See what you did there? You are constructing a straw man of my views by claiming I operate from the same presuppositions you do and therefore believe about my beliefs what you believe about my beliefs. This leaves no hope for honest discussion. In point of fact, way back in the day, we Jesuits used the term quite often in conversation and in seminary. So your quarrel, as it were, is with cultural evolution, the desire for elimination of what one group sees an politically incorrect and the attempt to silence all other reasoned perspectives.

                          Originally posted by glassjester View Post
                          You won't see a Catholic parish with a sign outside saying, "Saint Paul's Romanist Church."
                          But Calvinists have no problem self-identifying as "Calvinist."
                          You are mixing categories here and ignoring the traditions involved. Roman Catholic churches are quite distinguishable by their use of symbols and architecture, belying a sense of unity. One would have to look far and wide to even seeing a Roman Catholic church eponymously so named. Sigh.

                          On the other hand, we Protestants admit our independence, sometimes to a fault
                          —we are protesting after all.

                          Conservative Reformed church signage is usually something akin to simply "Grace Presbyterian Church" or "First Presbyterian Church."

                          Now outside of my conservative Presbyterianism, where all manner of individuality reigns unchecked, you will find...

                          Washed In The Blood Worship Center
                          Son Life Charismatic Believers Assembly
                          Boston Berean Bible Believing Baptist Bethel
                          Latter-Day-Rain Deliverance Tabernacle Prophecy Center
                          Philadelphia Church of the Majority Text
                          Lithuanian Apostolic Orthodox Autocephalic Church of the Baltic union of 1838



                          Originally posted by glassjester View Post
                          I could be wrong.
                          From your lips to God's ears.

                          AMR
                          Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; November 24th, 2016, 07:59 PM. Reason: grammar
                          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                          Do you confess?
                          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                          AMR's Randomata Blog
                          Learn Reformed Doctrine
                          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                          The best TOL Social Group: here.
                          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                          Why?


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            Romanists like to alter historical meanings when it comes to the church universal:

                            http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4557816

                            They just buy into Rome's mythologies concerning the historical facts:

                            http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4587027

                            http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4560243

                            http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4728494

                            AMR
                            Cruciform is unreliable and uses unreliable sources.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                              CC, meet Robert Pate.

                              Robert Pate, meet CC.

                              Strange bedfellows.



                              AMR
                              Bed without a Bible in the nightstand in a liberal motel with demonic bedbugs

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Eagles Wings View Post
                                This gave me a good chuckle.

                                Even if one does not agree with AMR, suggesting he is ignorant and/or not Christian is evidence of histrionics.
                                Romanism means ignorance

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X