Posted on 10/25/2009 5:47:50 AM PDT by NYer
What a strange conclusion.
I love the whole deal where one is allowed to excuse incoherence, cruelty, self-righeousness, abuse, and illogic because one is obeying a command from the God of Love and Truth.
So God told you to change the subject when the first one gets a little too hot to handle? How accommodating of Him!
Take it easy on the Baptists!
If the shed Blood of the Lamb of G-d covers all of our sins,shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
why do we need to go to some non-scriptual place ?How do you read the parable in Matthew 22: 1 - 14
All those who refuse to put the righteousness of YHvH
will be put into the outer darkness in that place there
will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.As many are called but few are chosen.
?????
There goes that empty claim again.
You ARE persistent.
One problem is they forget that we are talking about mysteries here, and that language is asked to do a task it can hardly bear, while reason is asked to do something analogous to the unassisted naked eye trying to count sunspots.
So being saved into freedom and virtue to them ought to be analagous to a merely forensic event, a mere declaration, by a God whose Son is the Word and the Truth and whose Word does not return to Him empty but accomplishes that for which He sent it.
For us, the desert isn't just imputed moisture and fertility. It actually becomes moist and fecund, bringing forth seed for sowing and bread for eating. Justification, sanctification, merit, all these are gifts, not earned. But they are real gifts, not badges, tokens or changes of status.
Good grief!
LOL
So your pronouncement on Purgatory was based on your misunderstanding of it?
Surprise surprise surprise.
The Council of Trent authoritatively set the Canon. Why do you argue otherwise?
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
Review the exchange and work on it. When your interpretation of your quotation about Constantine was questioned you changed the subject. When I questioned that tactic you said God had told you to preach or something of that kind..
If you will ask a question, I will answer your question.
I’m guessing my use of ‘take’ is confusing the issue. From a non-Catholic perspective, it seems reasonable that if someone is “giving” confession to a priest, then the priest is “receiving”. Of course, being Baptist, I’m probably using the wrong terms.
Did Jesus fulfill the role of Priest, whereby the disciples confessed their sins to Him, and He did whatever priests do?
I’m not pretending to understand the Catholic form of confession, since I’ve only confessed to God and sometimes to others affected by my sin.
“Take it easy on the Baptists!”
I am a Baptist. If any get mad, I’ll bring extra to the next pot luck...
Yes they did.
Why do you argue otherwise?
I took no issue with the statement that the "Council of Trent authoritatively set the Canon."
The fault is in your original statement that the Catholic canon was not authoritatively fixed until the Council of Trent...
The RCC Church was founded by Christ himself and your’s came some 1500 years after and you acuse us of “twisting scripture”? You sure seem to elevate yourself a lot I would never dare call myself something that contradicted Jesus’ words.
When was St. Constantine pope of the Catholic Church?
I do not claim there were no elders in the early church. However, priest is both a different word and a different role. A priest offers sacrifices. We are ALL priests, called to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, good deeds, etc.
Priest is not an office in the early church because the sacrifice - Jesus - was given once for all...”He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” Heb 7
“You can also search the Scriptures for (1) a notion that nothing was revealed to the 12 which was not also included in Scripture,”
Actually, what scripture says is that they A) “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”, and B) “[are] God-breathed and [are] useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Now, if the Apostles also taught something beyond what was required for salvation, and to thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work, have a nut! I always figured the Assumption of Mary would fall in that category, and if you want to say that knowledge was whispered from Bishop to Bishop for 1800 years, have at it!
But if you say you have extra doctrine required for salvation or to equip the man of God for every good work...well, that is a conflict.
And I thought Catholics agree that doctrine cannot disagree with scripture.
And of course, Petronski will say “your interpretation” and then fail to give any other interpretation....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.