Posted on 10/03/2001 10:26:11 PM PDT by malakhi
| The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good, is essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man. - James Madison |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 155
While you're at it, do yourself a favor and print out and study this set of links which chronicle my discussions I had about 6 months ago, seems just like yesterday, with the808bass on this issue. In the beginning, he denied that Simon was declared the Rock on which Christ built His Church as recorded in Matthew 16:18. In the end, the808bass publicly changed his mind and assented, in part, to the Catholic interpretation of verse 18.
Here is my discussion with the808bass:
Also, in light of Havoc's obstinate refusal to believe that Peter was martyred in Rome, here is a quote from George Salmon, the anti-Catholic's favorite Anglican who completely rejected the Papacy:
"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate" Infallibilty of the Church (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9If the historical evidence is good enough for Salmon, it's good enough for me.
Pray for the 263th successor to Kephas aka Petros aka Rock!
True. That is all Timothy had...and those OT sacred writings were able to give him "the wisdom that leads to salvation."
Fortunately for us, God was pleased to give more revelation specifically about His son, the Messiah, in the form of the N.T. to those of us who would come after that time. The epistles which Paul later wrote were also referred to by Peter (2 Pt 3) as "scripture." That's pretty awesome when you think about it.
I've already read those. Thanx.
Different priests interpret Catholic doctrine and the Catechism differently or what emphasis they place on things in their teaching. Does this mean there are multiple denominations of Catholicism?
Funny that he doesn't mention faith or salvation, but does mention "good works".
Yes, I see what you mean! (Tho' their adequacy for faith/salvation is mentioned earlier in the passage.)
Shouldn't that be "protties"?
As soon as I hit "post message" I knew somebody was gonna say that. How's this for an answer? The local priest is supposed to answer to somebody, Pastor Bob of Bob's Church doesn't. The local priest is obliged to read the same Scripture readings as the rest of the Church. So even if he doesn't want to elaborate on certain messages, they are still proclaimed from the pulpit. Pastor Bob can ignore whatever parts of Scripture he likes. There are differences.
SD
This is equivalent to Clinton saying,"I'm glad you asked that question" when Star asked him if he had, had sex with Monica(that woman)Lewinski.Lol
So saith the Gospel According to JHavard
well, were half way down the post, and you haven't said anything so far.
Can you tell me why, if this was an internal thing in the local church, some dispute, why didn't Jesus tell the people to search the Scriptures for the resolution to the problem? Instead He tells them to "hear the church".How preposterous. It's like Jesus thought there would be something singular known as "the church" which had the authority to settle disputes among Christians. How silly. We know the real solution if the church won't hear you is to start a new church.
In this group of words, you seem to ask and answer your own questions, as though you prefer to talk to your self, so there is nothing there for me to comment on.
Wouldn't it be wonderful? If we all really could forgive each other like that? To freely dispense forgiveness for even the worst transgressions. It would almost make the Lord's Prayer seem like a good deal. "forgive us ...as we forgive those"
SD, I’m glad to be the barer of good tidings,"we can forgive each others sins, but God is still to be reckoned with for the sin's we have sinned against him, and these are the ones that deal with eternal salvation.
As with our legal system, because the judge finds you innocent, or if you serve your time in jail, that still in no way releases you from God's laws.
The power of Christ compels you. Jesus is not talking abotu us not needing Him, but rather how we can spread His forgiveness among our people. That you see anything that isn't direct "me and Jesus" as cutting Jesus out of the picture is to not understand the Community of all Believers.
So you are saying that this account in Matthew is to show us to spread love around. That is not what this about, it is about the way the new Church should be ran, do not go running to others when some one sins against you, but try to work it out with him personally, then if that fails, go to plan B.
This is about handling Church differences between those who have God's Spirit, and all this comes after we have gone to God in repentance, and become members of his Body.
How about this? Jesus actually says that if only two of us agree, anything we ask will be done by Our Father in Heaven. Isn't that amazing? Now if we could only learn to agree. That's the way it is with God. Always a catch.
This is really enlightening coming from an organization that needs papal authority to have a size #2 bowl movement.
You tell us one thing, how God forgives each of us if we forgive everyone else, and the world will live in peace and harmony forever more, while you have to run to your priest to mediate for your sin's, and to play it safe, you fall back on Mary just in case Christ is busy, and we all know that she can walk into his office when ever she pleases. That is pure hypocrisy, to allude to how simple forgiveness of sin is, with what you RCC's have to go through to attain it.
How many doctrine and rituals do you have concerning the forgiveness of sin, than you take the high ground with us, and say, it is so simple, we don't even need Christ to do it, we can forgive each other.
Good. So there was a happy ending. Except for the Steelers, that is.
SD
Interesting. When I go to dictionary.com it doesn't break the word down any further than the Latin, which it say means "to protest."
SD
It pertains to the interpretation of the Law.
I disagree. We base our form of gov't on the example we find in Scripture. Those who find other examples and read things different ways are engaged in making meaning from Scripture. This has everything to do with doctrine. There could not be a "free and independent" style Catholic Church.
Hey, can you answer my question to Havoc above? How would one go about calling a man a really, really big rock in Greek?
SD
Shouldn't that be "protties"?
Aye. But ya see, we tend to make that sound with a "d" so the slang ends up being spelt that way. Same with St. Paddy's day.
SD
In the Mattew passage, in context, this would refer to Peter's ability to declare people forgiven or condemned according to their response to the message of the kingdom of God, that Jesus was the Christ. Note that the Christian belief would have that being something that has already occured whether or not Peter makes his pronouncement. If a person has rejected the message of the Kingdom of God then Heaven has already made a declaration and Peter is passing it along (as indicated by the future perfect participle in Matt. 16 - estai dedemenon).
In the John passage (which is obviously a completely independent source, different verbs and construction completely), the context is in the commission of the disciples of the risen Lord and the gift of the Spirit. It would seem to imply the double mission that John has so evident in his gospel: the mission of declaring both judgment and salvation. Jesus was sent to reveal God and redeem mankind. John 3:17 - "God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." But the rejection of the revelation and the Revelator brings a negative judgment on the rejectors. John 9:39 - "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see should see, and that those who see should become blind." Disciples are then proclaiming the forgiveness of sins, something that the risen Savior has already accomplished, and thus, the entry into the salvation of God. And also proclaiming judgment on those who reject the revelation and salvation of the Christ.
I don't remember telling you I needed more information on non inspired writings by non inspired man, and while I am on the subject, why do RCC's always give links rather then copy and Paste the pertinent information out of them, and sharing that great truth with us?
Whenever I go to one of your links, it takes an hour to read through the mess, then an other hour to critique it, then I have to post you, to say how it didn't tell me one thing or offer any proof, so why waste my time, I'm so slow anyway, i don't need more to bog me down, SD does just fine. :-)
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.