Posted on 12/02/2024 2:21:56 PM PST by daniel1212
Most Catholics in all seven countries want the church to allow Catholics to use birth control.
In most of the countries surveyed, majorities of Catholics also say the church should allow women to become priests.
Opinion is more divided on whether the church should allow priests to get married.
Views on whether the church should recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples vary among Catholics in the countries surveyed.
Ten years ago, nearly all Catholics surveyed there (98%) expressed a favorable opinion of Francis, compared with 74% today.
Luther and his teachings have no bearing on my walk with Christ or my understanding of Scripture.
Because the concepts of sola fide and sola Scripture, which all Protestants follow, are his inventions. Whether you like it or not, you are following the tradition that he started.
I can read it for myself. I don’t need a man to tell me what to believe like Catholics do.
Are you telling me that you reached the same conclusions that Luther and Calvin did without reading any Protestant commentaries on the Bible?
Prove it.
Yes.
Because I read it and believe what it says, not what I want it to say. Nor an interpretation of the passage to make it mean something besides what it says.
No, because the entire record of our sin debt was nailed to the cross. Jesus dealt with it when He died.
Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Also, Galatians 2 & 3 deal with salvation by faith.
Galatians 3:1-4 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Galatians 3:19-26 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Even Jesus Himself says salvation is by faith.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Then you are denying the common usage of the word.
The Holy Spirit inspired the use of the word *only* for God’s ONLY begotten Son.
He didn’t use it for Mary, as in her ONLY begotten son.
This is where Catholicism goes off the rails with Scripture. Instead of just reading it and taking the passage at face value, they *interpret* it to make it mean something it does not say.
Scripture should determine doctrine, not doctrine determining how to interpret Scripture to make it support the afore decided doctrine.
Jesus Fulfilled the Law. But What Does That Mean?
https://www.logos.com/grow/jesus-fulfilled-the-law-but-what-does-that-mean/
1) ‘The phrase “the Law or the Prophets” is a common way of referring to the Old Testament, Israel’s Bible in Jesus’ day. The “Law” comprised the first five books of the OT, and the “Prophets” captured the rest.’
You mean a esteemed spiritual being, a self-proclaimed "Prince of Space," who can enlighten us as to what Catholicism's version of “The Truth” is. But no, unlike her, neither of us have presumed to infallibly declare we are and will be perpetually infallible whenever we speak in accordance with our infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders such declaration of infallibility, to be infallible, as well as all else that is accordingly declared, while presuming protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
But that presumption and propaganda that flows from it and is what a devout RC must desperately contend for.
there are bigger differences between the Roman rite and the Eastern Orthodox than many of the non-Catholic denominations.
There are major doctrinal differences that have existed for over 1,000 with both sides claiming to be the original form of Catholicism with the other being in schism.
They both can’t be right. So which one is?
So the variety in minor interpretations between Protestant churches isn’t as great as the Roman/Orthodox schism.
That invalidates your criticism of the weakness of, or rather inadequacy of, sola Scriptura.
The alleged variety in Scripture interpretation is vastly overblown by Catholicism in order to try to build a case against sola Scriptura.
Not a surprise.
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. It does not say, “And to descendants,” as referring to many, but as referring to one, “And to your descendant,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise. (vss. 16, 17) For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law. You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Ch. 5:1-6)Notice that he does not just say "faith," but "faith working through love." He continues:
You were running well; who hindered you from following [the] truth? That enticement does not come from the one who called you. A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. I am confident of you in the Lord that you will not take a different view, and that the one who is troubling you will bear the condemnation, whoever he may be. As for me, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case, the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves! (vss. 7-12)He then explicitly warns that through sin we can indeed loose our salvation:
For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. For the whole lawk is fulfilled in one statement, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another. say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (vss. 16-21)Pulling isolated verses out of context, Protestants are not following Scripture alone as they claim. Rather, they a priori accept faith alone and then read all Scripture to fit that conclusion. There are many other passages where our Lord himself warns that we will be judged by our works, and not by faith alone.
What is at question is not the common usage but the biblical usage, and with this I stand by my statement.
Scripture should determine doctrine, not doctrine determining how to interpret Scripture to make it support the afore decided doctrine.
Which is why sola fide fails, it is contrary to Scripture.
The differences between Catholics and Orthodox are actually quite limited, although important. But I never claimed the individual could rely on Scripture alone. Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that we need the Church. We just have different definitions of that church.
As for Protestants, that are serious differences between Luther and Calvin. For one thing, is baptism a sacrament that is necessary for salvation? No small question. There is also the problem that the vast majority of Christians, including Catholics and Orthodox, read the Scriptures differently than the Protestants. The Bible alone is not a sure source of understanding.
That they were Luther’s idea.
Show us from his writings that he said that.
The Law IS works.
Read Galatians 3:2 again. The WORKS of the LAW.
ANY works anyone does are either obeying the Law or disobeying it. Nobody ever created any works that aren’t covered by the Law.
And if someone thinks they did and think they can please God by what they label as *good works*, they’re mistaken. If the Law, handed down from Sinai couldn’t and didn’t save anyone, nothing any man substitutes for them will either.
A cursory reading of the difference between the Roman rite and the Orthodox shows otherwise.
https://christianityfaq.com/roman-catholicism-eastern-orthodoxy-comparison/
One of the major ones is the rejection of the papacy by the Orthodox, which according to Catholic doctrine, means they are not saved.
Unam Sanctum, an infallible pronouncement by Pope demands subjection to the Roman Pontiff as a requirement for salvation.
Unam Sanctam
One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority
Pope Boniface VIII - 1302
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm
Quote: “ Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Which, BTW is another point where Roman Catholic doctrine veers from Scriptural teaching. NOWHERE in Scripture are people commanded to submit to either Peter or the church at Rome.
It does signify primacy of position, as seen in Colossians 1:15, 19; Rv. 1:5; and without being contrary to His Divine nature, spiritually The Son is called "the firstborn among many brethren" - Rom. 8:29, as well as Jer. 31: 9, in which Ephraim is called the firstborn, although he was the second one born (cf. Deuteronomy 21:15-17), however, unless stated otherwise, Firstborn normally does refer to the first Son among others. For TMK, “firstborn” never refers to any child who has or never had any physical siblings, at least from their father, which Issac had. If you want to search then there are 117 occurrences pf the masculine noun in the Hebrew Bible, translated “Firstborn.” and 9 in the NT for the Greek word.
And as for what a word "implies," "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS" (Mat 1:25) clearly implies a terminus and change or allowing for it, which is what the Greek word for "till" almost always indicates.
In addition, marriage is described from the beginning as sexual cleaving, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:3-5) and there is only one possible exception to that, which was that of a very infirm old man, David, with Bathsheba. (1 Kings 1:1-4) which was due to the infirmity of the man
We also have texts which indicate Mary had other children. (Mat_12:46,48, Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40,47, Mar_16:1; Luk_24:10; Joh_19:25; Gal_1:19) Likewise, Psalms 69:8 states, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. " Adelphos* (brethren) often refers to biological siblings, and the Greek has words it can use for cousins [or other kin] which are different words than “adelphos” (“suggenēs:” Luke 1:36, 58, 2:44, 21:16, 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom.9:3, 16:7, 11, 21; or “anepsios:” Col 4:10).
Neither is there any need for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, or to be sinless (any more than her parents) in order to bring forth Christ, being the vessel thru whom God provided a body, (cf. Heb. 10:5) than there was for the writers of Holy Writ to be sinless, by whom the pure written Word of God was brought forth. If Mary was sinless, then consistent with Rome's logic then her parents must have been sinless. Instead of restricting God, He manifests that He is not bound by Rome's requirements, and thus the genealogy of Mary included a harlot, and Israel itself is said to have brought forth Christ. (Rm. 9:4)
Which means that once again, at best, this Catholic tradition requires an exception to the norm, which is that brethren meant other children of Mary. And the Spirit characteristically records extraordinary aspects of even far less persons in Scripture, From extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), speed (Asahel), sterility (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), birth by a virgin (Mary), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), uncharacteristic singleness (Paul and Barnabas), and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, the surpassing grace and labor and suffering of Paul, the lack of genealogy of Melchizedek, etc., to Christ being sinless, which is mentioned at least thrice.
Meanwhile, since this abstinence would require the assent of her husband as the head, then if perpetual Marian virginity (PMV) was the case, and since this would normally be more difficult for the male, then Joseph should deserve more honor.
Here and here are a couple of supplemental response I provided to two RCs years ago, by the grace of God.
I do not argue that one must believe that Joseph and Mary did not remain celibate, but you simply do not have a Scriptural case for making Perpetual Marian Virginity a required belief. Resorting to Cath tradition only confirms the progressive accretions of traditions of men, and then teaching them for doctrines. Tragically.
Or evidence that it was believed from the beginning. Unless you can show that early Christians did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary you cannot assume that it was a later accretion.
Paul makes clear, as I have shown, that by this he means the works of the Mosaic Law. That is what the whole letter is about. Paul also warns that those who continue in sin will not inherit the kingdom of God. But you ignore this because it does not fit your preconceived notion of sola fide. . In Romans, Paul writes:
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. There is no partiality with God. (Rom. 2:5-11)Notice again that the reason that Paul is writing is to proclaim the equality of Jews and Greeks, i.e., that we will be judged equally by our works, and not by our obedience to the Mosaic Law. No, we do not earn our salvation by obedience to the moral law; salvation is a free gift. But we can, as Paul declares, loose it by our sins. But I expect that you will ignore this too, or try to explain it away, because it does not fit with sola fide.
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.