Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
Greek word is “fellowship”
The Lord’s Supper is a shared fellowship of believers, done in rememberance of Him until He comes again.
The word is κοινωνία. The meaning is more than "fellowship" but "communion, association, partnership." But communion with what? Not of "believers" but of the "blood of Christ" and of the "body of Christ." By the sharing of the Eucharist we become one with the body and blood of Christ.
“But communion with what? Not of “believers”
Yes. A fellowship together, remembering His sacrifice.
The Greek reads of the union with the body and blood of Christ, not of the fellowship of believers.
To whom did JESUS say the portion about literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood? You have included yourself in that mob of seekers after signs, the unbelievers to whom JESUS was speaking! Spiritual truth is as real as literal physical truth. Spiritually, your spirit must be sustained by HIM. Jesus was teaching of SpIRITUAL matters, as HE clarified in John 6:63: 62 Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before? 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Do you even detect the significance of verse 62? Relate it back to your idea that He was commanding them to eat His flesh and drink His blood; when the Disciples see Him leaving, how could they imagine someone could then eat His flesh and drink His blood if He is gone to the Father? Your spiritual antenna, if your human spirit has The Holy Spirit spark in it, immediately detects a conundrum. Which then JESUS clarifies with verse 63.
But your mind is so steeped in catholiciism that you will not be able to actually see what The Spirit is saying! If Jesus gave His transmogrified flesha nd blood to the Disciples, actually, physically, on the night before His crucifixion, then He would be causing His Disciples to break the standing command of GOD against such! I'm sure your trained magic thinking can rationalize that contradiction, but you cannot make it real because JESUS would not break the commandment of God, especially as He walked straightway to the Cross as the Lamb of God, sinless.
Finally you tried this little sneak: "But you do agree, then, that he commanded us to keep his commandments. Faith alone is not enough." No, lost soul, I did not agree that salvation is the result of faith and works. That wasn't even a good try at putting words in my mouth, er, at the tips of my old fingers.
Keeping His / Jesus's two commandments is only possible to any degree because of HIS SPIRIT Presence in us. That Spirit Presence is the absolute proof that we have eternal life BEFORE as we then seek to keep His two commandments. And the WORDS JESUS Spoke in John 6, they are spirit and they are life, even remaining with us as He Ascends unto the Father.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:5-7)
The blood of Jesus The Christ was shed on that Cross to atone for you and me, to cover our sin nature with His sinless Nature, so when satan accuses in the Throne Room, God looks toward the Laws and sees only the sinless blood fo Christ.
Do you know why God gace the Laws of Moses? Do you realize that they reflect the nature of GOD, the character of The Righteous GOD. THAT nature is impossible for us to be without first He cleanses us then imparts His Holy Spirit into our huamns pirit. Do we live thereafter sinless lives? Not even. But we have an 'advocate', Jesus Christ The Righteous, interceding for us continually before God. He gave His sinless blood for us ONCE, for all time, reaching back to Adam and forward to you and me.
The blood of Christ is imparted to those who had faith long before the Last Supper. But how can that be with the assertion of Catholicism that the Eucharist is the way to receive Christ's blood via the gaping mouths at a catholic altar?
Reading it in Greek, AND IN CONTEXT, no it does not.
Paul uses the example of Israel to make the same argument in the next verse:
18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?
Paul goes through extensive teaching in this section that believers should not participate in idolatry. The Lord’s Supper and Israel are his examples.
“Paul’s line of reasoning was proceeding as follows. Christians who eat the bread at the Lord’s Supper thereby express their solidarity with one another and with Christ. Likewise Jews who ate the meat of animals offered in the sacrifices of Judaism expressed their solidarity with one another and with God. Therefore Christians who eat the meat offered to pagan gods as part of pagan worship express their solidarity with pagans and with the pagan deities.”
(Tom Constable)
No, Faith saves!
There are zero verses that attribute salvation to the simple fact that Yehova offers grace to all.
Grace gives us a chance to be saved on the day of Trumpets, but it offers no promise of salvation. Enduring in faith to the end is the sole path to salvation.
.
“Enduring in faith to the end is the sole path to salvation.”
Flagged as coming from an unreliable source - Rood
You've got to be kidding me. I know of no Christian who believes moral law (as God would view that) has been done away with.
I've always been taught the exact opposite. But still -- adherence to those laws --even "moral" laws-- are not the thing that can in any way be sufficient for our salvation. It's far too late for that, and will remain always too late -- we simply cannot do enough to undo damages already done, and further damages yet to come to fruition (no matter seemingly how "small" those may comparatively be).
We can not add to what Jesus has already accomplished for us. He died in our place. We are saved by the blood of Christ -- not by our own adherence to moral law (or Mosaic law either).
That does not mean that we are not called to be moral. Yet when we fail to adhere well enough to moral law, we are not under condemnation -- not when in Christ (if but hid there, even though we be still sinners) though our works (deeds) themselves shall be judged.
By Grace Alone Through Faith Alone and when that is partaken of, in gratitude and thankfullness then I can learn to love, when He opens to me what love is.
Additionally in Romans 5 Paul was speaking not of Mosaic law, alone, separate from 'moral' law. Paul compared Adam (who sinned prior to there being Mosaic Law) to Jesus.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
There goes the distinction you had made between 'Torah' and moral law. Wave goodbye to that questionable distinction, and goodbye to myself agreeing with how YOU chose to subtly word things. I'd swear I was conversing with a snake whenever interacting with Roman Catholics on the pages of FR.
The issue here too can also be along lines of what is included within moral law -- for it is right about here that Romanists have often sought to impose their own directives and demands ---including that all must submit to the blasphemy that is 'papal' system--- asserting that is moral commandment, even from God, Himself.
I realize that presently it is common in RC apologetic circles to strive toward making distinction between 'Torah' and moral law itself, this appearing to come about (as far as I can tell) in combination effort against antinomianism, and simultaneously, positively for "works" be rhetorically prescribed which also has effect of sparing Romanists and other synergistic need ever apologize for not being monergists.
For those subscribing to synergistic pathway of thought, I'll provide a warning: do not think one can synergize anything with Him that did not come from Him, in the first place. What has been regenerated by His Holy Spirit can work with Him, can answer Him, and love Him in return -- yet what has not been regenerated cannot. In my own view this could possible be even 'by degree'. As Paul wrote -- For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (Romans 7:19).
To the strict monergists I will say that once differences between the two views --monergism, and ways of thinking common to synergists (there being a fairly wide range of thought on that side of things too -- let's not anyone deceive themselves and think there is not) are boiled down to basic essence, those synergists who lean most towards monergism can be persuasive when saying; a response (from man) is still required.
Again, to the synergists though, I will say (again) that what responds to Him is but what He puts "there" within us, in the first place. We begin our journey of redemption there, and from that beginning, from that opening and in that manner (and no other) can we continue on. Each and every effort to put alongside Him what is not of Him is doomed to failure.
Disagree with WHAT more precisely?
Disagree with how you have chosen to re-word and re-arrange things?
I see what you were up to. You were trying to bring us under law once again --- but this time "law" as written by Rome (not to be confused with 'moral law' that actually does come from God) that must be adhered to or else salvation itself entirely impossible (not unless continually prostrating oneself before so-called "priests" of Rome, anyhow). Nice try, but I give you no thanks.
There's just no stopping you, is there? Even after being shown that you've been wrong regarding sola fide (!).
Backtracking now, leaning upon where Ratzinger wrote of "faith, in love" (which I posted here before you did -- did you have to use a search engine to find who had said it?) is like paying lip service to love, hiding behind Ratzinger's skirts -- while ignoring the other list of note-worthies who too wrote of faith, and even faith alone.
The only way this latest dodginess would work for you now is if "love" is "work"!
No, it is not our own "love" that saves us. Jesus did not say --- "if you want me to save you, you must sufficiently (even perfectly?) Love Me".
He said, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments". If we love Him (that comes first) then we will submit ourselves -- not necessarily to "religion", but to Him.
But wow, the way you put things, Petrosius ---talk about confusing the issues! It's what those of Rome are famous for. The slicker than snot substitution of one thing for yet another, such as you did here in defining "faith" to be intellectual assent.
Understanding is one thing. If faith truly did mean "intellectual assent" or mere understanding, then it would have been defined as such in Scripture. You don't get to come along and play words games with it and expect me to agree with subtle treatments which lead us right back to consideration that our salvation is in our own hands. Humanists believe in such things. Islamists, in their own ways believe in such things. Mormons, it could be said -- those among them who adhere to thinking they can be saved only after they "do all they can do", anyway -- believe in such things.
I place no such faith in my past self, and have no rational reason to place such faith in my future self. (or in you, or a pope, or most anyone). One sin is enough to bring about eternal separation from the Holy One of Israel. Yet, there is no direction one can turn to escape Him. David said. There is nowhere else to go. We simply must place ourselves at His feet, and do so most directly as we can. In this the Islamists are part-way correct -- one must submit to God (Islam means "submission") but the rub there is what their definitions of Him and His ways are, though I'll offer some number of them credit for partial & intermittent finding of His righteousness among their own "religion" -- being as it was borrowed from Talmudic oral traditions (Mohammad was functionally illiterate) and Christian teachings that at first were hewed to as well as Mad Mo could remember and re-word without entirely straying -- until the Medina verses where he really went to town inventing and corrupting what he *almost* but not quite got right in the initial Mecca phase of his religious delusion.
In Hebrew experience --- blood of sheep and of goats, the burnt sacrifices of bulls -- none of those served as full atonement for sins, lest acknowledgement and limited substitutional sacrifice be accepted by God to that end? The written word of God indicates those sacrifices were but temporary covering for sins...and the system itself becoming a stench in His nostrils.
Having understanding (alone) is one thing, yet is not having true faith. Faith is belief, belief that surpasses mere intellectual comprehension of principles. Acting on the understanding is faith that is real, and alive.
You say that none would agree with me? I know of not one Christian who holds that moral law has been done away with -- yet it has been satisfied, the debt paid, the ransom for many having already been delivered to the king. That is the difference.
Enough with your argumentation by way of strawman, Petrosius. Seriously, just stop.
But "they" have not uniformly been "saying" that "all along".
Amid Roman Catholicism, it's more like a modern-day way of phrasing things that owes much to Protestants in their own re-appraisals of faith matters, and the ensuant corrective pressures from those quarters that has forced Roman Catholic theologians to themselves slowly unwind past theological positions (from too much stress upon 'works', and even synergism, to here now more recently towards 'faith & grace' as was found within much earlier 'Catholicism, but had become all but entirely lost prior to the Protestant Reformation) to better conform to what the early Church more originally taught --and that many Protestant theologians have also consistently stressed as foremost.
Ephesians 2:8-9. Grace through faith. There's TWO of the solas, right there. What have I been saying to you about those being interdependent, working together? Do not bother with replying to myself any further on this thread unless you address that aspect of the discussion.
Also, if you care to reply further, before you do so, do go check the rest of the list of theologians to see if each and every one of them included in love each time they spoke of mention of "faith" -- even faith "alone", as it were.
When not finding the phrase among those listed --- but being able to assume 'love' was well enough included elsewhere, then maybe you may be able to see that's much also how it's been among Protestant theologians, too.
It is not required to speak always of "love" --- to pay it lip service in each and every paragraph written regarding faith in God. That Ratiziger did include bringing that into discussion is laudable enough, but was still no "big if" corrective towards Luther, and even less of one towards Protestant theologians since.
Make up your mind! Faith DOES save us - like I have said all along - but the REASON it saves us is because of God's grace. The GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord - THAT is grace! By GRACE are we saved THROUGH faith and that not of ourselves lest ANY should boast.
You said before that Scripture in NO PLACE says grace saves us. Now, when you have been shown it most certainly does say that, you move the goalposts and claim "There are zero verses that attribute salvation to the simple fact that Yehova offers grace to all.". What are you actually saying here? That God doesn't offer salvation to "whosoever believes"? You're wrong. Are you saying that nowhere in Scripture does it say everyone is saved because God offers grace to all? Again, no one ever claimed that. The gift of God is eternal life and is offered by His grace which we RECEIVE by faith, by believing in Christ Jesus and what He has done for us and we WILL go to heaven when we die. That IS His promise to us and He keeps His promises. This is verified throughout Scripture. It is an assurance God has given to us so that we can know we have eternal life.
I can't help but think you are playing word games just like cultists are known to do. I'm done playing yours. I invite you once again to open a RF thread to have a discussion about what exactly your religious beliefs are. If you are so convinced Michael Rood is a true prophet and servant of God, then put forth your evidence. Referring people to YouTube videos and books he wrote won't cut it - you should know that by now.
“Snarky comment sowing usually reaps a crop of the same. “
Ah, the “my sin is because of your sin” defense.
Yes.
If you are gonna take an OBVIOUS metaphor “this is my body” literally; then you’d better apply the SAME type of thinking in other places; but Rome picks and chooses what IT wants to ‘interpret’ one way and tells others that they cannot.
Kinda depends on the type of Spirit; doesn't it.
Piker...
You've posted a total of 50 threads and 159,109 replies.
2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
When I sit in the audience of a play on opening night; I am participating in the play; but I sure am NOT one of the actors!
We are so blessed to be Lutherans at our house. Lutheran since Martin Luther days, our people lived in Germany back then.
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.