How do you know that? If Enoch didn't write that book, then we have no, zero, reason to believe he made that prophesy. If he didn't, then Jude is wrong. Other than a book that has been declared apocryphal, there's no evidence whatsoever to support it.

The difference is, you believe that whatever the Bible says goes, then work backward from that, validating everything it cites. You could do the same thing with any religion, or Nazism, or anything. You come to a spot where it doesn't seem to work? Who gets the benefit of the doubt? Why, the work that is in question, of course.

That's why people who argue for the Bible in this way have no credence. You could show them anything and they'd believe blindly, because that's the cornerstone of the faith. Jesus could show up and tell you it was wrong, and you'd deny Him, because he wouldn't fit the Church's description.

Oh, St. Augustine, also, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. He simply believed that the work was too old to be trusted as something untampered with. He said:



In his City of God. What he didn't bother to explain, though, was how Jude came to know about what Enoch said when evidently the Book of Enoch wasn't thought to be written by Enoch, or even contemporary to Enoch. He openly refers to Enoch in a way that could only really be explained through the Book of Enoch.

That's the problem. We make assumptions based upon undocumented works, and then document those works with our assumptions.

ok, lets look at this a bit closer.

The prophecy mentioned in Jude of Enoch is found in the noncanonical book of Enoch which we have already established right?

We know from Gen 5 that Enoch "walked" with God. We also know God "took" him to heaven without dying.

Ok, now go to Hebrews 11:5-6 where we see a bit more of the picture. It says:

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found because God had translated him for before his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that comes to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that dilgently seek him."

We can see Enoch was faithful to God and believed God. Believed what? What was his testimony? We know that Enoch sired Methuselah who was the oldest living man of all time. His name meant "when he is dead, it shall come." Enoch named him. So we can see by giving his son this name that Enoch was a prophet. We also see by both Gen and Heb that he was a man that pleased God. He believed something was coming.

God never sends judgment without first ample warning. I believe that when Enoch was alive he was warning about the impending judment that would come and he even seemed to have great insight in the time this would happen by the naming of his son. Methuselah was Noah's grandfather. After Methuselah died the flood did come. In fact, I think it was pretty quickly after. I know that Methuselah sired Lamech (Noah's father) at 107 years of age. Lamech had Noah at 182 years of age and dying at 777 (interesting number). We can also see by doing the math that Methusaleh outlived his son Lamech by 85 years. Methuselah, now the great great grandfather to Noah's sons, lived another 180 years after Noah's three sons were born. Noah built the ark for 120 years. Was Methuselah a great encourager to Noah? I'm thinking he was a very big part in Noah's staying the course in the face of much opposition. It was quite probable, the day Methuselah died, was the day that Noah entered the Ark.

Enoch knew that when he named his son, "after he is dead, it will come" so when we read Jude, even quoting from a noncanonical book, we can see it's not far fetched. Enoch, by naming his son was saying as Jude asserts that judment would come upon all. So in effect Enoch was prophesying judgment, and it would be his great grandson that would build a big boat.

I think it very interesting that Methusaleh was the oldest person ever to live. I believe this is a great testimony to God and his patience for mankind. He does not desire that any should perish and he gives us plenty of rope either to save ourselves or hang ourselves. Usually we choose the latter.

Check Gen 5 where you see this whole thing played out.

I know that because St.Jude's letter was accepted as part of the canon of the BIble which I believe is the inspired Word of God and contains no errors whatsoever. St.Jude wrote his letter for a specific purpose which was to exhort the faithful to protect the faith delivered to them "once and for all" (v.3)and quoted the prophecy of Henoch to strengthen and demonstrate his point. As all the other Biblical writers, St.Jude wrote his letter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


So, I know that there are no errors in St.Jude's letter based on the fact that it made the Canon of inspired Books. I have no difficulty knowing the Bible is inspired becasue I base my belief system on Catholicism and the infallible teachings of the CC who officially said so at the Council of Trent who went through the rigorous process of sifting through all the known books that were under consideration and hearing testimony from the Church Doctors, etc. They were assisted by the Holy Spirit in deciding which ones would make the Canon for only the HS knew which ones they were that He inspired.


The Book of Enoch was obviously not written by the Patriarch Henoch, the 7th from Adam (and then again, in jest, it could have been for he never died----ooh, eerie--right KFC? btw, is Enoch one of the 3 men who will witness against Antichrist at the end of the world? I'm not that familiar with the Book of the Apocalypse.) The Book of Enoch was supposedly written by Jewish authors between 170 and 64 BC. who chose the name of Enoch as its title. The prophecy of Henoch, the 7th from Adam, was known by Tradition. Here is where we can see the conundrum. The Book of Enoch must have contained some inaccuracies (for it didn't make the OT Canon), yet, contained the prophecy of Henoch, the 7th from Adam. So, the Book of Enoch contained truth and error. Since the Bible is inerrant, it falls that the BOok of Enoch didn't make the "cut", so to speak.


BAKERSTREET POSTS:
The difference is, you believe that whatever the Bible says goes, then work backward from that, validating everything it cites. You could do the same thing with any religion, or Nazism, or anything. You come to a spot where it doesn't seem to work? Who gets the benefit of the doubt? Why, the work that is in question, of course.


The difference is, you believe that whatever the Bible says goes, then work backward from that,.....

So what?

BAKERSTREET POSTS: You could do the same thing with any religion, or Nazism, or anything.

True. Besides the BIble I also believe whatever the CC teaches in matters of faith and morals. From your point of view, though, in the case of Catholicism, would then lead to a study of the credentials of the CC as a divinely guaranteed teacher of religious truths. There is no one who has been able to unsettle me on this point.

KFC's #84 posting was brilliant...she doesn't acknowledge the CC and instead fell back on the fact and fulfillment of Biblical prophecies as well as the extraordinary unity of theme running through so many different books from so many different writers over a tremendous span of time. I'm the first to admit that the supernatural characteristics of the doctrines set forth are for the most part accepted on faith.

I think that the ancient history from Adam on down through the ages into today exhibits divine intervention again and again. So, to me, both the Church and the Bible are spendoured things...and why not, they are both gifts and instruments from God meant to guide us in our life journey unto eternal life. We were created for this end.

KFC: It doesn't matter if Enoch was a prophet, if you don't have his prophesies. It isn't as if someone went into the Book of Enoch and changed things. It's a spurious, apocryphal book that wasn't written by him at all. The Jews decided that before the Christians did.

So when you say that just because a book isn't canon doesn't mean canon can't cite it, how do you go about finding out if the parts that ARE cited are true? If Enoch didn't write the book, and the only thing we have to validate the quote given in Jude is the book of Enoch, then the quote, itself, is bogus by default.

You can have faith that Jude just "knew" that Enoch really said that. At the same time, though, you remove anything that places you above folks like the mormons who have faith that their books were written by people who just knew things miraculously.

First off I never said this. I said that Jude was quoting a book that was very commonly read during his time. Jude didn't call it inspired but he did quote it. We see other such instances in scripture. Titus 1:12 comes to mind with Paul quoting a Cretian poet.

We can see that Enoch was a prophet by the naming of his son. We also can see he had a testimony that pleased God. I believe from those two lines we can see he was outspoken in his faith. Those around him knew his faith and the impending judgment that was coming.

You're right that we don't have any of his prophecies to go by exactly. It's tied in with Noah, that's all we know. Other than that it must not be important.

We can't go outside what was written in Hebrews and Genesis. As far as Jude goes, I believe Jude was inspired to write what he wrote and for whatever reason, only God knows, he chose to put in that verse concerning Enoch from an outside source. We know most of it is true biblically like Enoch being the seventh from Adam. The fact that he prophesied is not far fetched given what we know from the other two verses. The ten thousands of saints is used elswhere in scripture more than once. Nothing in Jude concerning these two verses is refuted elsewhere in scripture. In other words it doesn't contradict anything.

Maybe that's why he used it. Other than that, I'm not sure.

No, no. Jude didn't say that the Book of Enoch said something. If he had, then you'd be left to decide for yourself whether the book is valid.

Instead, he quoted ENOCH as saying something. There's a big difference. Jude says not only that Enoch said something, but quotes him word for word. It lends, very directly, to whether the Bible is the word of God through men, or whether it is an attempt by Man to gauge God's intention and will.

Here, I think it is obvious that Jude went with the best material he thought he had at the time, and later it was found to be spurious. That means that what Jude wrote in the Bible was wrong, or at least of untrustworthy provenance. To me, I don't see how anyone can look at that and still pretend that the Bible is an inerrant chain of revelation from God directly to man.

Why is that important? Because people are told to believe the Bible implicitly. To believe without question that it is the inerrant Word of God. Well, if Enoch didn't say that, then either Jude was wrong, or God was. I believe God is perfect.

Just like when you guys say that "scripture" is fit to be used as instruction and a guide for life? Why? Because it is a "rock". We take our image of a perfect God, and pretend that such rubs off on the works of men in his service. Well, there's been a great deal of evil committed in the service of God, aided by people who refused to question it.

Well, if some of it is based upon spurious material and cultural myth, then it ISN'T something someone should believe without question, because it is man made. It is dangerous to take material that was written by primitive, bronze age people and project the shortcomings of their cultures onto God.

Blasphemous at times, in my opinion.

Exactly. At the time before the Canon was settled, there was much apocryphal literature put forward as "Sacred Scripture". The Apocrypha of the OT included the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, the Fourth Book of Esdras, the Sybilline Oracles, the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes of Solomon. The Apocrypha of the NT were 40 documents in all.

There are fragments of the Book of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and more than a few books have been written citing exactly how the Epistle of St.Jude refers to Henoch even giving the exact page and line. For example, his direct citation of Henoch's prophect is on 60.8 of the Ethiopian Book of Enoch. Evidently, the entire passage from V. 4-15 reveals St.Jude's "familiarity" with the Ethiopian Book of Enoch.




This is true, there is not only nothing contradictory, but also in the positive, StJude is connecting Hebrews 11:5, Genesis 5 and St.Luke 2:23-24.

I do have a question about the number "ten thousand" of saints that you quote.

Douay Rheims has St.Jude1:14-15 "Now if these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God."

The NAB version has "Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones..."

Again, you aren't seeing it as what it is. He didn't say the Book of Enoch said something, he said ENOCH said something. We came to believe that the book was certainly not written by Enoch. How could he possibly know that Enoch said that?

Why not?

How did you learn that God is perfect...and what books, if any, do you read that support that?

and Timothy was not written by Timothy nor Titus written by Titus. So what's your point?

I have not read the book of Enoch. But I do know that Jude quotes this passage verbatim from every other source I have on this passage. It could very well be a historical fact that the book of Enoch recorded and one that Jude having read included under the guidance of the HS to put into his writing.

I don't lose sleep over this. It's one or two verses pulled from an outside source much as Paul did in Titus when he quoted a Cretian poet. It doesn't take away at all from the inspired word of God. If Jude had insisted that Enoch was an inspired writing, then most likely that would have been incorporated into the canon. It was not. So, my guess is, it was not accepted right from the beginning from the early church before any councils met to decide on canonicity.

First, those people who do evil are not committed to the service of God, they are working against Him in satan's camp. They are deceived.

On the converse, there has been a great deal of good done by people who read and believe the Bible and are committed to His service.





St.Jude was a transmitter of God's truth, however, you don't believe that the Bible is God's truth; the inerrant Word of God as penned by men guided by the Holy Spirit.

I do. I don't forget what happened at Pentecost when they were transformed and illuminated by the HS. So persuasive was St.Peter in his sermon to the crowd where he linked Jesus' Resurrection to the OT, that 3,000 were converted. Our Lord told the Apostles and their successors that the HS would teach them in all things and remind them of all He had taught them St.John 14:26.

He said, "How then will you understand all the parables" implying that they would be able to in the future. Isn't that exactly what is happening as we move in the fullness of time? Jesus gave the mission to "make disciples of all nations....teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." God's Revelation (both written and oral) to the human race will become more and more explicit, but always as a development of what was committed to the Apostles.

The Bible is clearly the transmission of God's truth. I just read an article in the Wanderer newspaper by John Young who writes about the knowledge the 12 Apostles had. It's uncomfortable for many people to see these BIblical writers as authoritative teachers and passing it on intact to future generations. You say this is dangerous becasue it came from "primitive bronze age" mentality. Yet, this can't be becasue Jesus' mission was and is being fulfilled with an abundance of divine light. And we can't forget that Christianity is a Revelation from God, not a development of human knowledge from a primitive beginning. True, the OT shows us that God revealed Himself slowly to the Jewish people, but Christ brought revelation to its perfection and it was that perfected Revelation which the Apostles preached.

I mean, think about it. Over a 3 year period, the Apostles, disciples and evangelists were taught the eternal truths by CHrist Himself over a three year period. When it came time to put that to writing, the Holy Spirit illuminated their intellects and gave them divine assistance.

bravo Lula....spoken by a true evangelical!!

  

Believing unquestioningly is a key component of being deceived.



Mormons would say the same thing about the Book of Mormon. Yet, you'd say that they are "clearly" wrong. The fact is none of this is clear. It's about blind belief.

The reason I said what I said is based on this. In the world, there are 2 camps--believers and non-believers in God. When I say God, I mean He is a spiritual, substantial, personal being, infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection. He's immutable and infinitely superior to all that is or can be conceived apart from Himself. He is incomprehensible in His infinite perfection by all lesser intelligences, although knowable as to the fact of His existence as a Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth. He's Almighty, Is, Was and Ever will be eternal.

Belief in God, in and of itself, has a rational basis or beginning. This comes from man's ability to reason and appreciate evidence. Apart from the Bible altogether, our reason can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existence of God. I go from there saying the truth is in possession. When I made that statement, I am in possession of the truth. We do not grow into the idea of a God's existence and His truths; instead we endeavor to grow out of it.

In every one of us we have an interior sense of right and wrong. It's a voice of conscience dictating to us a law that we did not make or could ever make. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written the law in our hearts and God alone could do this and did do this.

Right has to do with good and evil has to do with wrong. God is All Good and cannot deceive or be deceived. Perhaps you can see from this why I wrote that these people who do evil are not committed to the service of God and are deceived. Therefore, believing unquestioningly in God is not being deceived.

Belief isn't blind at all when it's based squarely on God's authentic Truths and none other. Belief gets blind or fuzzy when moral relativism or error gets fused in.
This is the reason I keep my eyes on the Tabernacle where the Blessed Sacrament is faithfully kept and my Faith in the promise of Christ that He will never abandon His Church.

Sure, others say that they have Him too but the big question is: are they looking at God's authentic Truths or are they being deceived by lying wonders? Jesus warns us not to go for it--not to believe them--to stick with what has always been the Truth, lest even the Faithful be deceived.

ok Lula, this is wonderful "church" talk but in all reality we are the tabernacle of God. His spirit is "in" us. It's not about the external, it's about the internal. Christ in us.

Christ referred to himself as both the living water and the bread of life. He said he had the life giving sustenence that we can only get from him . It's only when he enters the tabernacle (the believer) that one realizes that indeed nothing else can satisfy. Nothing else is needed. Isn't that what he said to the woman at the well?

Both the Jews in the OT and the new Christian believers in the NT were called God's "Kingdom of Priests." Ex 19:6, 1 Peter 2:5.

"And you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

"You also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

In the OT they would offer up "physical sacrifices" in the NT the Christians were to be a "living sacrifice" to God.




while this is true, what about the flip side? What about those still not believing when their questions have been answered? What about those who are willingly ignorant? (2 Pet 3:5) sometimes this is called "dumb on purpose."



of course we would and it's very clear. If you hold the Book of Mormon up to the scriptures or the Koran up to scriptures or any other "side" book of any other religion up to scriptures you run into problems if you're trying to equalize them. It comes down to what are you going to accept? The book of Mormon? The Koran? The Bible? Ellen White? Emamuel Swedenborg's volumes....etc?

Any message that purports to be from God must agree with the message already brought by Jesus Christ in fulfillment of the OT (Luke 24:27).

"Every word of God is tested; He is a sheild to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar." Prov 30:5-6.

KFC---What does this mean? What are you saying? Could you expound on this a bit further? Thanks.

"I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service." Rom 12:1

Notice this is addressed to believers. Notice "present" is present tense. We are to be willing sacrifices to God always. It's a matter of the will. By an act of the will we place our total self at the disposal of God. To sacrifice something means to give up something. It means to die to self. We give up our lives to God. Remember Jesus said in Matthew 10:38, 16:24:

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." "He that takes not his cross and follows after me is not worthy of me."

We know the hardest person in the world to deny is yourself. It's very difficult. To deny self means to put self out of the picture and to put Christ in the place of self.

We are to be living sacrifices in contrast to dead animal sacrifices of the OT. In my mind I picture myself willing to be on that altar for God. It's a picture of Isaac. He was put on that altar alive. A live sacrifice has the ability to crawl off the altar. This is not a command, as you can see, Paul is begging them to consider this. His is the language of grace not law.

It's a matter of the will.

KFC POSTS: “...we are the tabernacle of God..... Christ in us.... Christ referred to himself as ...the bread of life. . It's only when he enters the tabernacle (the believer) that one realizes that indeed nothing else can satisfy.”


Ahh, KFC, you want it every which way. With this, you’ve put yourself in a Protestant “pickle”. You don’t even believe this as long as you deny that Jesus meant what He said literally when He said 3 times, “I am the Bread of life....if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh....he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...for my flesh is food indeed...he who eats my flesh..abides in me, and I in him....so he who eats me will live because of me.” St.John 6:49-58.


This was Christ’s promise of the Holy Eucharist which is the intimate union with Him sharing in the life of our Lord and becoming one with Him. By partaking of the Holy Eucharist, we receive not only grace but the very Author of grace.

Catholics believe every word...literally. “Christ in us”, oh yes! Can’t get more ‘internal” than this. Jesus ardently desired that He give of Himself in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. “Because the bread is one, we, though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread.” 1Cor. 10:17.

Jesus’ command to “do this in commemoration of me” is obeyed by the priest at the altar every time he consecrates the bread into Jesus’ Body and Blood. Sometimes there are more Sacred Hosts consecrated than are faithful to consume. The priest places them in the Tabernacle.

So there is no doubt about it, the tabernacle where the Blessed Sacrament is kept is definitely Catholic Church talk. Only the Catholic Church receives Christ in His fullness. In Christ, the Incarnate Word sent to mankind, “the whole fullness of deity, dwells bodily” Col. 2:9 through the ineffable union of His human nature and His divine nature in the Person of the Word. By receiving in this sacrament, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, we share in the divine life of the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. We can never appreciate enough the intimacy with God Himself , Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that we are offered in the Eucharistic banquet. Being in Church at Mass and partaking of the Real Presence of God in the Tabernacle is the closest thing to being in Heaven on earth.

I’ve just read about a book, Christ in His Fullness, written by a Southern Baptist Church of Christ minister who converted in 1995. In the write-up Karl Keating writes, “To accept Christ is to accept His Church as He established it and has endowed it with His own authority. The fullness of the Christian faith can be had only in obedience to Christ’s authority and therefore to the authority of His Church. This is a ‘hard saying”, but one that liberates from the straitjacket of private interpretation and self-made religion.”

no, if anyone's in the brine, Lula, it's you....lol.

You say repeatedly that John 6 is to be taken literally. That Jesus was talking literal bread when he said "this is my body" right?

Then you go to the cross and say, when Jesus looked down at his mother he was symbolocally making her mother of us all. When in fact, it's not symbolic at all.

So it looks like we've got it switched don't we? I believe when he said "this is my body." he was talking symbolically especially since he EVEN SAYS SO in 6:63 and also harmonizes with other scriptures. And when he looked down at the cross upon his mother he was literally taking care of her and separating from her as he was about to die. Remember death always brings separation.

No, when I say that Jesus is "in us." It's the HS that I'm talking about. It doesn't come and go. It doesn't come in once a week at Mass. It's here to say. It comes when we are born again. It's called eternal security. In the NT it's called sealing. Jesus in us, basically means his HS is indwelling each believer permanently to keep us

In the OT we see that the HS worked a bit differently. God would give and take away the HS away from people. David in one os his Psalms said "don't take your HS away from me." We see many examples where the HS was taken away. King Saul comes to mind.



this is true.



With all due respect......this is balony.


why do you feel the need to tell me constantly all about those who converted to the CC from the Protestant side? You think that's going to sway me? Would you like me to do the same? Every church I've ever been to has 2/3 former Catholics in it including myself. What does that mean? Luther, Calvin and many other reformers were also Catholic. So what? They are all men. I go by what the bible says....not men.

I noticed you didn't give me his name. Why is that? If I knew it, I would definitely check him out. I have a feeling if he were truly a SB, there's more to the story here.


BTW, I've never heard of Southern Baptist Church of Christ. Are you sure it's not Church of Christ period? That would make more sense to me.

I agree, it's not symbolic at all and when I said that I misspoke.

Without going back and checking the post, I think I said that the Church interprets Jesus' words, "Behold, your mother", as having dual meanings. One--just as you said and the other in a "symbolic" sense, meaning that Jesus was giving St.John, and by him the Church, His Mother, in a spiritual sense. I should have used the word "spiritual" instead of the word "symbolic". Catholics believe at this moment, that Jesus gave His Mother, Mary, as our spiritual Mother all His Church. There wasn't any symbolism involved here, the Church interprets Jesus as doing two things as I have explained.

We agree with this interpretation that Jesus was literally taking care of His Mother by entrusting her to St.John's care. Again, Catholics see it as this interpretation as well as Jesus by giving His Mother to St.John, in extension, He was giving her as our spiritual mother to the whole Church. I think of the Blessed Virgin Mary as my spiritual mother and ask her to intercede countless times for me to Jesus.

V 63 says "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail, the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."



FKC, in verses 49-58, Jesus is talking about his own flesh becoming our food in the appearance of bread for us to eat. In v. 63, the flesh is our flesh, it's us who He is referring to, as meaning that we can't think of eating His body and blood in a humanly,fleshly way. It's a mystery that is to be accepted on His saying so.

That's the way the Jews misunderstood Him at first, and Jesus persisted, saying 2 times more, and when they did finally understand, they left saying it was "too hard". His Apostles didn't fully understand and becaseu He said it, by faith and love they accepted what He was saying. It became more clear to them at the Last Supper and then upon His Resurrection all that He had told them became clearer and clearer.

V. 63 consists of 3 parts. The last part is Jesus saying "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

What are "the words" He has just spoken? They are Jesus repeating 3 times, "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood...". His words are spirit and life, His flesh is spirit and life and He tells us that if we eat His flesh and drink His Blood, we will have (His) spirit and life---everlasting life.





Catholics believe this as well. I understand and agree with you on this. But there is more than this, at least for the Catholic by virtue of the BLessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist...and that's where the fullness of CHrist comes in. Protestantism denies the Church, Mass, the priesthood, and the Sacraments, in this case the Holy Eucharist. In this sense, you do not have the fullness of Christ. You are operating on only part of GOd's revelation---the Bible alone...and each Protestant sets him/herself up as it's private interpreter. That's why there are thousands upon thousands of different interpetations, thousands of different sects, each with their own set of doctrines on what the BIble means, each one picking and choosing which ones they want to accept as literal, symbolic, etc. This is why there is no unity, one baptism, one fold, or one faith as in Eph. 4:4-5. That's why you haven't the fullness of Christ.




Your talking different things here, scrambling different things together. There is no "eternal security". We are Redeemed, and that's all we know. No one will enter into the presence of God in Heaven for eternity with sin on his soul. No one. We will all be held accountable for the sins we've committed in this life that we have not repented of come Judgment day of which we know not the hour or the day. Yes, Jesus is our Redeemer, but He's also our Judge. Mine, yours...everyones. The way you talk by having eternal security, you won't be judged. You will be----there is no free pass. St.Paul told us that we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, with hopeful confidence (not eternal security which is more like false assurance).




KFC POSTS: why do you feel the need to tell me constantly all about those who converted to the CC from the Protestant side? You think that's going to sway me? Would you like me to do the same? Every church I've ever been to has 2/3 former Catholics in it including myself. What does that mean? Luther, Calvin and many other reformers were also Catholic. So what? They are all men. I go by what the bible says....not men.


You would complain if the only sources that I use against your argument were Catholic. So, as often as I'm able, I use people's arguments from your own camp. As far as swaying you, well, haven't you said that you are searching for truth? As far as you doing the same? Whatever you want. So far, KFC, from what I can tell, you are fair,reasonable, civil, and entrenched in fundamentalistic Protestantism...and you seem to have a good sense of humor too.

KFC POSTS: You go by what the Bible says...not men...not really. As a Bible-alone believer, you rely on either private interpretation or Protestant oral tradition (POT). It depends on the topic. POT denied Christ Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist long before you did. That teaching has been handed down.


KFC POSTS: I noticed you didn't give me his name. Why is that? If I knew it, I would definitely check him out. I have a feeling if he were truly a SB, there's more to the story here.
BTW, I've never heard of Southern Baptist Church of Christ. Are you sure it's not Church of Christ period? That would make more sense to me.


I learn alot about Protestantism from reading people's conversion stories. The fellow's name is Bruce Sullivan. He, his wife, Gloria and 5 children were received into the Catholic Church at Easter in 1995. I learned from some promotional literature about his book which is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

The literature mentioned that he was raised as a SB and served as a Church of CHrist minister for 7 years before entering the CC. Graduate of Auburn Univ. and Sunset School of Preaching. According to the printout, he's been featured on the Catholic Cable channel, EWTN, Eternal Word Television Network on a program called the Coming Home Network whose host is Marcus Grodi. Check them out.