Posted on 05/31/2013 2:44:05 PM PDT by NYer
“The Mormons sent some of their top leaders to debate Christians here some time back.”
That would have been fun! Was this recent, or some years back?
The same kind of thread could be posted about other self professing Christians,and there are many illiterate self professing here of FR too
Here it is from +Augustine
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
AMEN! JESUS is The Word, the Word became flesh.
The 'man-made teaching/doctrine' crowd is IGNORING Jesus - just like satan planned it! They bow to satan and not to God. And TOO deceived to know it and too clueless to care.
Amen! JESUS IS ETERNAL LIFE, and HE IS THE WAY and THE TRUTH.
There is no truth coming from man and their teaching, his way leads to deception and destruction and is eternal rot!
WRONG, AGAIN! Salvation is A GIFT!
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ." Col 2:8
Yes, though I admit I've been in the past much underwhelmed by such versions as "The Good News" bible, I do recall myself being set straight on that score (when I dissed it) by someone that had personally had that exact version (used by the Lord?) open up for himself the basics of gospel message, whereas revised standard KJ version be all but a stumbling block to him. This same person was to go on and lead a life of ministry towards others for years afterwards. So go figure (lol).
I too have enjoyed the KJ, but more modern variants can be cleaner. But what to do with things like the Comma Johanneum I'll not attempt to instruct others towards, though in my own mind I tend to set it partially aside, and not rely solely upon that passage for positive support of the expressed concept, nor for suspicion's sake dismiss the same for reason of doubt concerning that brief passage. Otherwise, I believe the concept expressed be true [enough], and so beg some leniency for this sort of wishy-washy equivocation.
Can you not understand my meanings in that which I wrote? Perhaps it be due to having already made up one's mind, concerning that which they *think* others believe?
I will ask you plainly, and I do demand plain answer;
Then you may freely discuss the issue from that perspective, and perhaps find much agreement.
Stop using references to potty language on the Religion Forum.
Sorry for the delay, but we must move soon and have 20 years worth of accumulated collections by God's grace to deal with.
Thanks for the commendation on one aspect, but as for the above, "Protestantism" as typically broadly defined includes those who deny some of the most basic core truths that Catholics and Protestants held in common at the Reformation (a RC write i read today placed it at 80%) and SS type evangelicals have contended for, the deviations from which gave birth to the modern fundamentalist movement opposing them and revisionists (which is very manifest in Roman Catholic scholarship) .
And among SS Christians, which excludes cults which effectively operate under sola ecclesia, as does Rome, there is broad consensus that, as said here , "The sufficiency of Scripture recognizes that we have everything we need for salvation and life in the canonical Word. "Salvation is of the LORD" (Jon. 2:9) .
And as said here
That the teaching of Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main things so as to be able to make ordinary people wise for salvation and to equip for every good work,
and
Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.
This is the critical and primary truth, and in opposition to the church being the supreme authority, while the next statement is where there should be some disagreement, and is not critical as even if it is allowed that one can know some salvific truth apart from hearing the Scriptures, it is the latter that determines if that truth is indeed Truth.
to many modern Protestants Sola Scriptura has come to mean that all knowledge necessary for Salvation is exclusively contained in Scripture If "all knowledge," means no knowledge necessary for salvation, rater than its fulness, is contained outside Scripture, then that is untenable, as Scripture states that the Gentiles,
which have not the law, can do by nature the things contained in the law. (Rm. 2:14)
They thus know they are sinners, which is a necessary salvific truth, and thus they must hope for mercy, which is found in Christ. And which God reveals to the honest seeking sinner, of which Cornelius is an example.
Nor can it be held that only in Scripture is gospel truth necessary for salvation, as souls were saved before Moses and there was Scripture, and before the last book of the canon was penned. But some hold (as with the link above) that "the Word God spoke through apostles and prophets and intended for the direction of his church is now found only in sacred Scripture."
Yet, "found only in sacred Scripture" must be understood as Scripture being the source, not that such is not found in preaching of Scriptural truths, "preaching the word" as the early church corporately did, (Acts 8:4) but opposed to a separate distinct source of revelation.
However, this tends to also exclude revelatory Pentecostal gifts, which i hold as being provided for by Scripture until the perfect revelation of Christ comes, and that the "sola" of SS means that it alone is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and that its sufficiency pertains to both materially and formally. This does not exclude that salvific Scriptural truth may be conveyed part from formal knowledge of Scripture, as in a dream to Muslims who might kill any preacher they met, but the veracity of that is subject to proof by the assured word of God.
Now its late and i have lots of packing to do. In addition, Likewise it cannot mean If what is meant that all the contradicted `itself must be explained. is contradicted by
They DID?
I'd tried to meet up with Robert Millet a few years ago at Wabash College in Indiana, but he was a no show.
Was that in 2009? If it was, I happen to know that he was busy:
Robert Millet Chosen as Next Apostle [LDS/Mormon OPEN thread]
It was several years ago, when there was massive proselyting by Mormons here in the RF.
It was quite interesting to say the least.
I’ll get back to you later with some details.
Yes, Elsie it seems they did.
No names, but accepted as experts by the other Mormon posters, who deferred to them (a couple is all I remember) for the tough questions.
I’ll send more details via FR mail maybe tomorrow, I don’t want to hijack this thread with the Mormon info.
Did any Priests or Magicatoriums (I know I don’t spell that right) show up on this thread yet?
When I first got saved, all there was was the KJV, the NAS and (I think, IIRC) the Living Bible. Not having been raised on KJV English, much escaped me. So I bought a Living Bible and read them side by side for a while.
Since it's really the Holy Spirit which opens our understanding to spiritual truths anyway, He can even use a less that ideal translation.
Hollow and deceptive philosophy like these from Martin Luther father of all the tens of thousands of non-Catholic groups
“To my mind it (the book of the Apocalypse) bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character... Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”[61]
“Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever.”[4]
“If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies.” (Comm. ad Galat, p. 310)
“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”[22]
“If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”[36]
“The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves.”[37]
John 20:30-31 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Scripture contains all that is necessary to bring us to salvation. Jesus said so, John did, and Paul did.
That it's the final authority is a given as it is Truth and as such is reliable to be used as an absolute standard by which to measure any other claims.
It doesn't even have to be stated so explicitly to be recognized. Even in science, there are absolute standards by which other things are measured.
Still waiting for the RC reply on what more accurate translation they recommend.
Note that J.N.D. Kelly also states that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned and doubted Christ. (Early Christian Doctrines, 493)
And that,
“Cyprian made plain, that each bishop is entitled to hold his own views and to administer his own diocese accordingly...[In Cyprian’s view] There is no suggestion that he [Peter] possessed any superiority to, much less jurisdiction over, the other apostles...While he [Cyprian] is prepared, in a well-known passage, to speak of Rome as ‘the leading church’, the primacy he has in mind seems to be one of honour.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], pp. 205-206)
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.