|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 18, 2009 8:26:29 GMT -5
Man, I sure would be interested in alfie's opinion on the quotes we provided from Luther & Wesley. Why doesn't my Methodist church book have any of this teaching in it? Because they don't want you to know the truth about your church's founder. If you did, you might decide that the foundation of your church was faulty and that your current church is far removed from it's foundation. Why don't you do your own research on you church's founder and see what "true" Methodism is. I actually like the concept of Methodism. I don't have any idea of how it's practiced today, but I know that in principle, it makes perfectly logical sense. It's very Paulian in how it's set up (though I've never known a modern Methodist to actually practice Methodism). Let us know what you find out about your church and it's founder and how it was started.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 18, 2009 8:35:30 GMT -5
Why doesn't my Methodist church book have any of this teaching in it? One reason: The Methodist Church, just like any other Protestant Sect, has not only subtracted from the Faith of the Holy Apostles and the Ancient Fathers, but has also subtracted from the faith there Founding Fathers of the 16th Century onward. I am not surprise alfie. In IC.XC, Ramon I think she should research her own church and find out how it started on her own. She's certainly going to be in for a big surprise. One of Protestant's greatest theologians once said the following: " To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." John Newman |
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 22, 2009 21:00:30 GMT -5
One reason: The Methodist Church, just like any other Protestant Sect, has not only subtracted from the Faith of the Holy Apostles and the Ancient Fathers, but has also subtracted from the faith there Founding Fathers of the 16th Century onward. I am not surprise alfie. In IC.XC, Ramon I think she should research her own church and find out how it started on her own. She's certainly going to be in for a big surprise. One of Protestant's greatest theologians once said the following: " To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." John NewmanGreat quote, Cepha! I love Newman. I believe he's on track for sainthood! |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 22, 2009 23:34:04 GMT -5
He already is a Saint isn't he?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 25, 2009 12:28:06 GMT -5
I think she should research her own church and find out how it started on her own. She's certainly going to be in for a big surprise. One of Protestant's greatest theologians once said the following: " To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." John NewmanGreat quote, Cepha! I love Newman. I believe he's on track for sainthood! He probably was gay. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 25, 2009 12:38:31 GMT -5
One reason: The Methodist Church, just like any other Protestant Sect, has not only subtracted from the Faith of the Holy Apostles and the Ancient Fathers, but has also subtracted from the faith there Founding Fathers of the 16th Century onward. I am not surprise alfie. In IC.XC, Ramon I think she should research her own church and find out how it started on her own. She's certainly going to be in for a big surprise. One of Protestant's greatest theologians once said the following: " To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." John NewmanDo any of these converts ever read all of the ECFS or church history from a non-Catholic perspective? Anyone can be converted if they only hear one side of the argument. It's a good thing Newman didn't study the history of Budhism or he would have become a Budhist instead of a Catholic. After all the Budhists have been around for a thousand years longer then the Catholic church and they are a unified religion. Since the Budhists have been around longer then the Catholic church they have to be right. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 25, 2009 12:40:19 GMT -5
The other day someone told me Wesley spoke in tongues... big whoop.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 25, 2009 21:16:54 GMT -5
Do you know much about Buddhism? There are a lot of postive things with Buddhism, but the main thing that is missing is Jesus. Why would someone like Newman, who loved Jesus more than life itself have looked anywhere else? That makes no sense.
I really don't understand what Buddhism has to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 25, 2009 21:34:14 GMT -5
Do any of these converts ever read all of the ECFS or church history from a non-Catholic perspective? Anyone can be converted if they only hear one side of the argument. It's a good thing Newman didn't study the history of Budhism or he would have become a Budhist instead of a Catholic. After all the Budhists have been around for a thousand years longer then the Catholic church and they are a unified religion. Since the Budhists have been around longer then the Catholic church they have to be right. I believe most converts, like myself, initially read the early church fathers from a "non-Catholic perspective". I was Baptist when I ran across their letters, but the facts are the facts. When you read Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, etc. you can't help but notice how what they preached & taught was very "Catholic stuff." There is really no other way to read it. For example, authority of the Bishop & the Real Presence just don't jive with the Baptist perspective, but that is exactly what is taught by the early Church. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 26, 2009 0:21:37 GMT -5
Do any of these converts ever read all of the ECFS or church history from a non-Catholic perspective? Anyone can be converted if they only hear one side of the argument. When I was reading the Early Church Fathers, I was a Pentecostal Christian. I read the writings that are found in Ante Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series. There is no bias there Alfie, just what the Fathers wrote. I realize that the Early Church from 1st-11th century was dramatically different than Pentecostalism or Baptistism. Thus began my search for the Apostolic Church. In fact, I could find no Protestant Church that were in full agreement with the consensus teachings of the Holy Fathers. When you read the Fathers, you will find these amazing results. They believe in ecclesiastical authority, regenerative water baptism, the real presence in the Eucharist (the Divine Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ, not symbolic), Infant Baptism, the veneration of the Saints/Angels and the Theotokos, the intercession of Saints and Angels, liturgical worship, the use of incense, chants, the sign of the cross, feast days of Saints and events, and other things. When you read Saint Ignatius, Saint Polycarp, Saint Justin, Saint Irenaeus , you can not but accept that many of there teaching were "Orthodox/Catholic" and not Methodist or Pentecostal or whatever. You don't need to read a Catholic or Orthodox perspective on the Fathers. You just need to read the Fathers themselves. There own words proclaim that there were not Protestant. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 26, 2009 10:09:51 GMT -5
Great quote, Cepha! I love Newman. I believe he's on track for sainthood! He probably was gay. Actually, he wasn't, but King James was.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 26, 2009 10:13:40 GMT -5
I think she should research her own church and find out how it started on her own. She's certainly going to be in for a big surprise. One of Protestant's greatest theologians once said the following: " To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." John NewmanDo any of these converts ever read all of the ECFS or church history from a non-Catholic perspective? Anyone can be converted if they only hear one side of the argument. It's a good thing Newman didn't study the history of Budhism or he would have become a Budhist instead of a Catholic. After all the Budhists have been around for a thousand years longer then the Catholic church and they are a unified religion. Since the Budhists have been around longer then the Catholic church they have to be right. Wow. It looks like "somebody" Googled "John Newman" and found out a whole lot of truth that just don't jive with her! LOL! And, she just made a great argument "against" Protestantism without even knowing it! LOL! Imagine if Protestants (like Newman) were allowed to "read" things on their own without being told what to believe or what to do by their religious leaders? They would run right into truth! Remember, what makes Catholicism "right" is that it was started by Jesus and what time has to do with that is that it is the only Christian religion that was not only started by Him, but that can historically be traced "back" to Jesus! Time is a confirmation of our lineage! There is no mysterious "missing link" Christianity like there is with denominational Christians. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 26, 2009 10:16:55 GMT -5
The other day someone told me Wesley spoke in tongues... big whoop. So, how can you consider yourself a "real" Methodist if you reject the founder of your religion? And, how can you believe in Methodism if you don't believe in Wesley? It seems that you are the heretic in Methodism.  heretic –noun 1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. 2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith. 3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 26, 2009 10:23:23 GMT -5
Do any of these converts ever read all of the ECFS or church history from a non-Catholic perspective? Anyone can be converted if they only hear one side of the argument. It's a good thing Newman didn't study the history of Budhism or he would have become a Budhist instead of a Catholic. After all the Budhists have been around for a thousand years longer then the Catholic church and they are a unified religion. Since the Budhists have been around longer then the Catholic church they have to be right. I believe most converts, like myself, initially read the early church fathers from a "non-Catholic perspective". I was Baptist when I ran across their letters, but the facts are the facts. When you read Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, etc. you can't help but notice how what they preached & taught was very "Catholic stuff." There is really no other way to read it. For example, authority of the Bishop & the Real Presence just don't jive with the Baptist perspective, but that is exactly what is taught by the early Church. Amen! That's precisely why Protestants aren't allowed to study history for themselves! If they did (like Newman did), then they'd have to recognize The Church in their writings. You cannot be a reasonable Christian and say that The Catholic Church is "not" The Catholic Church spoken of by The ECF's! They literally describe rituals that only Catholics accept and that Protestants reject (like The Pharisees did too). I challenge any Denominational Christian to read The ECF's (all of them, not just the one's that they are "allowed" to read by their religious leaders). Matter of fact, look at Alex Jones found the truth! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 26, 2009 10:31:25 GMT -5
Do any of these converts ever read all of the ECFS or church history from a non-Catholic perspective? Anyone can be converted if they only hear one side of the argument. When I was reading the Early Church Fathers, I was a Pentecostal Christian. I read the writings that are found in Ante Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series. There is no bias there Alfie, just what the Fathers wrote. I realize that the Early Church from 1st-11th century was dramatically different than Pentecostalism or Baptistism. Thus began my search for the Apostolic Church. In fact, I could find no Protestant Church that were in full agreement with the consensus teachings of the Holy Fathers. When you read the Fathers, you will find these amazing results. They believe in ecclesiastical authority, regenerative water baptism, the real presence in the Eucharist (the Divine Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ, not symbolic), Infant Baptism, the veneration of the Saints/Angels and the Theotokos, the intercession of Saints and Angels, liturgical worship, the use of incense, chants, the sign of the cross, feast days of Saints and events, and other things. When you read Saint Ignatius, Saint Polycarp, Saint Justin, Saint Irenaeus , you can not but accept that many of there teaching were "Orthodox/Catholic" and not Methodist or Pentecostal or whatever. You don't need to read a Catholic or Orthodox perspective on the Fathers. You just need to read the Fathers themselves. There own words proclaim that there were not Protestant. In IC.XC, Ramon Ramon, here's the "craziness" in what they believe. Supposedly, The Catholic Church is an invention of Constantine int he 4th Century. Right? So, The Catholic Church that is mentioned by The ECF's is "not" the Catholic Church of today, yet, not one of them could tell you what happened to The Catholic Church between the first and the 4th Century. It existed until the 4th Century, then dissappeared (The Missing Christian Link theory). So, a false church would have had to have overtaken the true Church! Making Christ a lier in Matthew 16:18! They impose their own beliefs over history and scripture to justify their inability to have faith in The Church. No wonder Anti-Catholics are so bitter and miserable and full of malice. I would be too if I believed in something I couldn't prove secularly or Biblically and my whole faith rested on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Swelegext on Jul 23, 2020 14:45:37 GMT -5
Zithromax Kidney Function appapy cialis from canada Rerlygen where can i buy isotretinoin skin health low price mastercard Ornalm <a href=https://acialisd.com/#>Cialis</a> clizab Last Longer In Bed Exercises |
|
