GsTexas wrote:
Are these debates really Biblical? I'm all for contending for the faith, but shouldn't he be spreading the Gospel instead of trying to convince him of God's existence, or creation science? I like Ken Ham a lot, I'm sure he will present good arguments, but I've never seen a debate where the evolutionist concedes he is wrong. I remember Kent Hovind would give a Gospel message at the end of his debates, I hope Ken Ham does the same.

It's as if one were trying to convince someone of the "good news" that 2+2=4 when that someone didn't believe in the existence of "2" or "4"

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Yes, universal healthcare is what expected from civilized societies.

John Yurich USA wrote:
Yes I know but that does not mean every member has to communicate with the minister. I still would not discuss anything with the minister if I were to attend an Evangelical Protestant Church because as far as I am concerned it would not be any of his business what my beliefs are. I WOULD NOT EVEN BE INVOLVED IN ANY CHURCH ACTIVITIES.

IOW, any gift(s) of The Spirit you might have would NOT be used for the edification of your fellow Christians, i.e., the building up of the church.

John, as a member of the Body of Christ, it is your JOB/DUTY to build up others in the Church! Perhaps you have overlooked this (and much more) when it comes to your supposed walk of faith through this mortal life.

John Yurich USA wrote:
I agree that per Catholic teaching a Catholic must attend Mass and partake of the Sacraments in order to go to Heaven upon ones demise. But I don't practice the Catholic way of salvation since I don't believe the Mass is a sacrifice and I don't believe the Sacraments have anything to do with salvation.

John Yurich USA wrote:
In otherwords I am shy and I don't like to engage in verbal communication with individuals that often. And that is why I inform individuals via written communication that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus alone for salvation. Who says that verbal communication is the only means of informing individuals that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus alone for salvation? If I were with you in a foxhole in time of heavy persecution I would have a pamphlet stating that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus alone for salvation and I would give you one of those pamphlets.

John Yurich USA wrote:
If a Catholic would be crazy enough to verbally communicate instead of via written communication to other Catholics that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus alone for salvation then they would depending upon who the priest was would probably be told by the priest to cease receiving Holy Communion. And no naturally I do not verbally communicate to Catholics in my parish that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus alone for salvation as that really is insane. I prefer to inform other Catholics via written communication that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus alone for salvation.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
So, pray tell, if a person was in the RCC and trying to bring others to salvation, what would happen to that individual once the church found out his activities?? You certainly would have no hope that the message would be received by all who heard it. Also, are you in your RCC church, not blogs, IN THE RCC you attend, telling the lost that they are being deceived by the RCC and need to be born again?

John Yurich USA wrote:
But church attendance/membership is superfluous to entering Heaven. So why would the Holy Spirit guide someone who is Born Again out of the RCC? When everybody stands before Jesus after passing away He will not look at the church that one attended in determining who will enter Heaven. He will only look at if one had trusted in Him alone for salvation.

According to RCC doctrine, if a Roman Catholic does not attend mass each and every Sunday - and Holy Days of Obligation - he commits a MORTAL sin! This sin, in effect, puts him OUT of a state of grace and thereby his "salvation" is LOST (if not confessed in the "sacrament" of Confession directly to a RC priest).

Lost your salvation lately, John?

By the way, John, if church attendance is not necessary, why don't you just go to a Muslim mosque all the while maintaining your present beliefs? The result would be just about the same as what you are presently doing.

John Yurich USA wrote:
What is your problem anyway? Luther retained the Mass in the Lutheran Church minus the unscriptural parts of stating that the Mass is a sacrifice, etc. All the Protestant Reformers celebrated the Birth of Jesus because they knew that because if the wise men celebrated the Birth of Jesus that it is not unscriptural to celebrate the Birth of Jesus. And all normal Born Again individuals celebrate the Birth of Jesus because they also know that if the wise men celebrated the Birth of Jesus that it is not unscriptural to celebrate the Birth of Jesus.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I would suppose that Mzzzzzzzzzzz Steinem got her reward for he work in "women's rights," and as far as she and many are concerned "pro-choice" is just incidental to women's rights.

John Yurich USA wrote:
I am not pretending to be Catholic. I am Catholic as I was Baptized Catholic and I attend the Catholic Church. If I don't say amen when I am handed the bread and wine then I am not acknowledging the Catholic doctrine of Holy Communion. And if I refrain from stating "and I ask the blessed Mary ever virgin and all the angels and Saints" and "may the Lord accept this sacrifice" then I am not acknowledging those doctrines. And if I don'T pay attention during the Eucharistic Prayer when the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the Saints is mentioned then I am not acknowledging that doctrine.

John Yurich USA wrote:
No of course I don't respond with "Amen" when I am handed the bread and the cup of wine by the Eucharistic Minister for the reason that it would be acknowledging the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine are the very body and blood of Jesus. I rarely receive the bread and the cup of wine from the priest. When I receive the bread and the cup of wine in the Catholic Church I pretend that it is the way that the Lutheran Church teaches about Holy Communion.

John Yurich USA wrote:
No I am not partially scriptural but am scriptural since I trust in Jesus alone for salvation and adhere only to the scriptural Catholic doctrines and scriptural parts to the Mass.

Really now! ...

Biblical Presbyterianism wrote:
Oh Look John is blaspheming God again teaching that God cannot baptise and receive babies into the church - without their free will Arminian cooperation.
[snip]

For God -- the Holy Spirit -- does baptise ALL His elect into His church in due time. It's NOT a question of whether God can do this or that, but rather if infant baptism is ordained by God in Scripture.

Randy Ward wrote:
there are no atheists in hell

John UK wrote:
It would be great if you would put as much effort into revealing the severe corruptions of some modern versions as you do in showing a blemish in the KJV.

p.s. Good to see you posting again.

SF from TX wrote:
You can't read the wrong "Bible" rightly. It's wrong. Things that contradict can not both be right. Example: Isaiah 14:12,15. Look that up in the KJV and the NIV/NASB. Then look up Revelation 16:22 to see who the real morning star is. Clearly the KJV is of God and the Vatican manuscripts-new versions) are satanic. No surprise though-satan transforms himself into a angel of light, 2 Corinthians 11:14.