Pope names 23 new cardinals, including 2 Americans
Pope Benedict XVI named 23 new cardinals on Wednesday in a list that highlights the concerns and the shifting demographics of the worldwide church.
Among the newly named are two Americans: Archbishop Daniel DiNardo, 58, of Galveston-Houston (the USA's 10th-largest archdiocese, with 1.5 million Catholics); and Archbishop John Foley, 71, who moved in July from a longtime Vatican post to head a lay religious community protecting Roman Catholic Church interests in Jerusalem.
Eighteen of the new cardinals are under age 80 and eligible to vote for the next pope; five others were named in recognition of their service to the church, including the patriarch of Baghdad, who has voiced concerns about endangered Catholics in Iraq....
G.G., witchcraft trials were started by the Catholic Church, and reminded mainly a Catholic practice. Ignorant Protestants being mislead, by the practices of the Catholic Church still occur, of course. This was pointed out in the non-Christian article,"THE BURNING TIMES: The time line: the Dark Ages to now"
When it comes to Catholic history, practices, and traditions, non-Catholics should always doubt and usually dispense with them.
"The Church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view (schesei); either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of Gospel truth which it retains; or Papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the Word of God. We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny it can be called Christian and Apostolic, but Antichristian and Apostate (Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 1696, Vol. 3, p. 121)
"However when we categorically deny to the papists the *title* of the church [as to its wellâbeing--GB], we do not for this reason impugn the *existence* of churches among them [as to their being--GB]. Rather we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine (John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles).
Alan: We tried that, too much smoke and not enough BTU's, and it makes the BBQ taste funny.
MH: "Your comment...makes me wonder...seems to defend witches?
MRsp: Not at all. Jim fancies himself a mover and a shaker, such people thirst for power over others. Personally, I abhore the thought of burning human beings, but I bet Jim could "warm up" to the idea. No where did I defend witches or witchcraft. However, to the extent that many alleged witches were unfortunate, poor and lonely women, who were unjustly tormented by their community due to ignorance, I would defend their cause.
DOCTRINE OF INTENTION,just about stuffs up anything the papish church MIGHT think they have or hold to with that doctrine they wouldn't even know if they had a proper church,never mind call it "christian",going by all those evil popes,priests,and what ever other none scriptural office you find in the papish church,it only takes ONE,whos intention was wrong,so going by the long line of evil in the papish church,its dead. Oh and before you say something stupid,YOU CAN'T KNOW ONES HEART nor does it make it true ,even though one tells you it does. You could be like the bereans and search the scriptures to see if there is such a doctrine in the scriptures! But then again,as papists only on here to try and bring the word of God down,I doubt you will search the scriptures
So Good Job Thats why "ye must be born again" and thats into the true CATHOLIC church
GG Just how much do you know about witchcraft or paganism? The druids of England for instance burned a lot of victims as sacrifices in their religious festivals. Your comment kind of makes me wonder if that is something that is excuseable with you in your Roman Catholic beliefs since your comment seems to defend witches?
Ah...yes Jim. There are those like you, who would gladly step in and do their thinking for them. Too bad that level of thinking is so faulty and leads to all the wrong conclusions. But, hey...you can always start your own Govt. and MAKE people tow the line of bigotry...like the Puritans did in Massacheutts. You could start burning witches again!
No, the above article really doesn't concentrate on the sexual abuse of the Roman Catholic priesthood, though it does mention it in passing.
Ah, G.G., I do know Catholics who want to go back to the pagan years of the middle ages, before, Christianity shook itself loose from the pagan Roman Catholic Church, they want to be free from having to do any thinking for themselves.
They seem to be brain-washed by the apostate church.
Albert, thanks for bringing in a new topic on Islam it is important.
Walt, who made the Council of Dort, proceeding, Holy Writ? No, Seaton, Gil is not an Apostle, I'm not an Apostle, and no, not even John Calvin was! (By the way, Lance no Pope was an Apostle, because Peter was never a Pope, also we don't agree with the Catholic Church we agree with the Bible, which the Catholic Church doesn't.)
Hmmm, probably even a better booklet to look at is,"Election: Whose Choice?"
Limited atonement just isn't Bible, the Bible say otherwise, Election has never been unlimited. So, since God is in complete control and everything that happens, including those who are saved, five-point Calvinists should not be worked up about four-pointers. We would agree that the exactly the same people will be saved, we just don't try to box in the abilities of Jesus.
Walt wrote: Hi Terry,. I'm not able to spend a lot of time on here as I have several jobs and responsibilities in my calling. I'm not of the biblical opinion that everyone needs to quit working like Abigail and Spiritual, take a vow of poverty and serve the poor like Mother Theresa. I understand the Scriptures if one only takes the ones that fit their agenda of works righteousness, and ignore those where Christ alone is righteous...thus, I cannot sit here an post all day as I have other duties I owe to the Lord. Further, this idea that the Holy Spirit has filled these two people giving them great humility, piety, speaking in unknown tongues, the gift of healing by rebuking Satan with those who have disease or sin, is a bit much for me to listen to on this site. These teachings fly in the face of Scripture when you compare the biblical definition of true humility, piety and other gifts given by God's grace to their own words, actions and doctrines they teach. I'm thankful the Lord has shown me my sinful nature, and helped me overcome sin. The besetting sins in our thoughts, words and deeds continue to be sanctified and mortified by His Grace. I know I can do nothing without Christ who strengthen me
Jim Lincoln wrote: Seaton, you have fallen into the same error that the great
Error?? Error?? Jim what are you saying?? ME in Error??
As for Gil and his TUIP as opposed to TULIP. Tell him my advice is to study harder.
Remember TULIP 5 points was a Biblical reaction to the Arminian Remonstrance 5 points. If you remove the centre piece "L" then the cards come tumbling down, and you end up an arminian heretic.
Article 8 (2nd Head) Canons of Dordt.
"For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the *ELECT,* for bestowing upon *THEM ALONE* the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and *THOSE ONLY,* who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death..." (NB also art # 9)
If anyone would like to challenge a muslim who thinks mohammed is in the bible,and that jesus is not Christs name,and the gosple of barabas is the real gosple go to this web. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2mOltefQoM&watch_response
When did the church annoint Gil Rugh an Apostle, and overturn the Synod of Dort?
Shall we assume the Synod of Dort was an unlawful, unfaithful and filled with an ignorant Synod of Elders and, therefore, errored on defining the doctrine of limited atonement?
Ok, so let's assume they errored and did not use or understand the Scriptures when they ruled in unity on the matter, fair enough. Can you show me another court that overturned the decision?
Ok, so you don't believe in courts or judicial decisions. Fair enough.
Can you give me another minister who supports Gil Rugh's position on unlimited atonement rather than limited atonement?
Ok, so you don't believe any other ministers need to support Gil Rugh's position in history because he is a modern Apostle and given the authority to overturn the Synod of Dort because he does not believe in church courts.
Ok, fair enough. I guess we can thus conclude that Gil Rugh is a court unto himself and his ruling is firmly established in Scripture, and there is no such thing as limited atonement as declared by Scripture and subordinately declared by the Synod of Dort. Got it!