Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [apologetics] Roman Catholic Faith Examined

Expand Messages
  • R. Jane
    well said Terence, no surprise I would say so; more, more. Jane under His pinions From: Terence Tan ... Roman ... marginalised ... at ... is ... and ... a
    Message 1 of 51 , Jan 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      well said Terence, no surprise I would say so; more, more.

      under His pinions

      From: "Terence Tan"

      > What people find very hard to swallow in today' "tolerant", compromising
      > and ecumenical world of today, is that anyone would dare to label the
      > church (and the pope specifically) as the Antichrist, as the Protestant
      > Reformers and creeds like WCF did. Such views are today easily
      > by, "It's just too "fanatical" and we *know* what fanatics do!" and it
      > simply is not the "politically correct" attitude for any Christian - look
      > how most will shy away from using the words heretical or blasphemous. Yet,
      > true Christianity is *intrinsically* intolerant and utterly exclusive.
      > Christ alone is the way, truth and life. He who is *not* with Him is
      > *against* him.... Oh, such harsh and uncompromising, everything "black and
      > white" attitude. But such is the problem with claiming to be the Truth....
      > only precisely 100% will do! Truth is not 99%, not 99.9%, not even
      > 99.999999999% or 100.000000001%. Anyone offering less (or more) than 100%
      > cheating and deceiving you about the Truth.
      > ----------------------
      > I don't know why i should be wasting my time in dealing with this kind of
      > attitudes instead of meaningful discussions of faith but anyways i feel
      > compelled to defend what to me is the true character of christianity !
      > Gosh. I'm glad I look at the life of my Lord Jesus (in the bible) to see
      > understand what true christianity is all about. Otherwise, there would be
      > strong chance of me turning away from the faith. If tolerance is not one
      > the fundamental basis of the christian faith then our Lord Jesus would
      > gone to the cross for nothing ....He said 'forgive them for they know not
      > what they are doing'. He didn't send fire and brimstone from the sky and
      > destroy the whole of sinful humanity and creation in a single moment in
      > time. In fact, Jesus' act on the cross was more than just tolerance alone
      > but love. Tolerance per se does not equate with ecumenism. It is part of
      > ecumenism but there's more to ecumenism than just tolerance ... some
      > of which differs significanty from the gospel message. Where the supposed
      > 'intolerance' is is in the message of the good news. The gospel message is
      > true and cannot be diluted or modified so suit individual tastes or
      > circumstances. Jesus said to preach or tell the whole world the wonderful
      > story of the good news. He didn't said to rebuke them, to scold them, to
      > demean them, to insult them, to label them etc in the name of His love for
      > them. On the contrary, you give christianity a bad name and turn searching
      > people away from the true character of christianity.
      > When you label the RC church as the Antichrist IT IS just too fanatical,
      > we do know what fanatics do (hasn't history and current events taught us
      > enough about fanatism ? but the adage is true, that history repeats
      > What is the root motivation of fanatism ? If it is not pride,
      > self-righteousness and power-motivation, then i do not know what is. What
      > more important ? Faith, hope and love ? The bible teaches Love. Hence it
      > more than just politically incorrect why christians should not embrace
      > fanatism.
      > And on the topic of open rebuke being confused with love
      > Prov 27:5-6 Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed. Faithful
      > are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
      > Proverbs 27:5-6 Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a
      > can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses. (NIV)
      > Proverbs 27:5-6 Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the
      > wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (KJV)
      > Do you see anywhere in the above scripture that equates open rebuke with
      > love (open rebuke = love) ? I contend that 'hidden love' or 'love
      > is not the same as the kind of Love that Jesus preaches. Hence open rebuke
      > by a friend is obviously better than this kind of 'false' love. But does
      > say that open rebuke is Love ? I contend that it doesn't and hence open
      > rebuke does not encompass Love but Love encompasses open rebuke. However
      > this is merely a comparison between open rebuke and 'false' love. Not a
      > comparision between Love and 'false' love. Not a comparison between Love
      > open rebuke. I would contend that Love is bigger than open rebuke although
      > it is sometimes necessary that open rebuke is done out of love in special
      > circumstances ... but one should not use open rebuke in all kinds of
      > circumstances in the name of Love because it would be a gross misuse of
      > above scripture ! I contend that Love can express itself in various forms
      > during debate, open rebuke being merely just another one of its tools that
      > is used only in very special circumstances and not misused in a randomly
      > scattered matter. Open rebuke misused in the name of Love in such an
      > unthinking manner will only bring the character of christianity into
      > disrepute and undermines the true nature of my Lord Jesus !
      > terence
    • aikhuang
      Hi. I m back. My computer crashed. In reply to your questions K, I have done so below. I would like to ask you back the same questions you asked me. What is
      Message 51 of 51 , Jan 7, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi. I'm back. My computer crashed. In reply to your questions K, I
        have done so below. I would like to ask you back the same questions
        you asked me. What is your position on the questions below. Simple
        yes and no will do. Must be concrete (I like to parrot). Also, I have
        given you my take on the kingdom of heaven. What is your
        understanding ?

        Do you follow the theology of the Protestant Reformers, like Calvin,
        Luther, Knox, Owen or ....... (Yes and No)
        a.. are you a Roman follower or ...... (Yes and No)
        b.. pentecostalist or ....... (Yes and No)
        c.. JW or ......... (definitely No)
        d.. follow some other religion, and if so which? .....(No)

        Do you agree or disagree for a mere man to claim to be God on Earth
        or to be the Christ (or vicar of Christ, same difference for all I
        care) is blasphemous or not?
        ......( Agree if balsphemous = big sin)
        (If that man claims to be sane, of course.... ;-)) ... )

        Was the Protestant Reformers' "labelling" of the pope as Antichrist
        TOO fanatical or not?... (Yes)
        a.. Biblically justified or not?... (No)
        b.. Judging people's faith too quickly, demeaningly, harshly...?
        ...(Yes and No)

        Was it *really* the Protestant Reformers who *persecuted* the Roman
        whore (as they called her) by exposing bluntly and without
        equivocation the Roman continuing lies - propagated by Rome 500+
        years ago and only adding more to them today?
        ...(No answer because of lack of historical research and facts.)

        'nuff for now..... K

        God Bless

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.