Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
See Reggie? I told you since vmatt started posting that Dave would be back any minute. ;^)
-ksen
Do you think it is possible for one who has been truly saved to then turn around and reject God's Spirit?
No. The problem is that people who think they are "truly saved" can fall away, become complacent, slip into sin. At this point, a theology that tells them that they are saved "no matter what" is harmful, and one which emphasises "you better behave" seems more like what the individual needs.
The only way to know who is "truly saved" is to wait for the end. Those who persevere are them.
SD
On what do you base this belief?
Christ Bless.
Probably on.................
No.
I am sure to someone that is Jewish or muslim that anyone that believes Jesus is the "Savior "must then be Christian.
Yes. ;o)
- Literalism (ie…“take the Bible literally, the meaning is clear.”)
Did this really start during the Renaissance era? I believe that a literal interpretation is the way that the early Church, except for people like Origen, read the Scriptures. Spiritualization gets you into trouble just about every time.
- Private guidance to the correct understanding through the Holy Spirit (ie… “if you think the Holy Spirit has guided you to a different conclusion than He has guided me, than He’s with me but not with you.”) The Jehovah’s Witnesses are as much believers in “sola scriptura” as Baptists but seem to have reached different conclusions.
Yah, well, the problem with the JW’s is that they are wrong. ;^)
The rule isn’t “how do you feel” about your interpretation of Scripture, but how does your interpretation line up with the whole of Scripture.
- Interpretation of unclear passages via clear passages (of course, one person’s clear passage is another’s unclear passage.)
I don’t know why people insist upon making the Scriptures overly difficult. God says what He means.
- Historical-Critical Exegesis (which, despite its value, falls prey to subjectivism as easily as all other attempts to apply “scientific methodology” to the humanities, such as sociology.)
Historical-Critical Exegesis (with which I’m quite familiar through my studies in literary criticism) especially has some value. St. Gregory Nazianzen, when speaking of pagan literature, said "As we have compounded healthful drugs from certain of the reptiles, so from secular literature we have received principles of enquiry and speculation, while we have rejected their idolatry..." In a similar way, we can benefit from turning tools of archaeology, history, and linguistics on the Holy Scriptures. But, we need to avoid the idolatry of modernism and individualism and humanism.
I can’t comment upon this, but I don’t think I agree with the Critical method of coming at the Bible. The Germans did a great disservice to Believers.
Those who by their fruit are acknowledged to have been filled with the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for your definition.
Through what methodology do you tell if your tradition is in conflict with the Scriptures, assuming its not something blatantly obvious? To pick the first example that comes to mind, it seems the Baptist tradition dictates that Christ was speaking figuratively when He said that “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” So it seems that in this case, where your tradition conflicts with the Scriptures, you choose to accept the interpretation of your tradition. On what basis do you decide when to encounter the Scriptures through the framework of your tradition, and when to not?
When taken in context with Jn 6:63,”It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” I also take into account that God warned Israel not to eat anything with the blood still in it, so why would He then go and tell the Disciples to drink real blood?
Christ Bless.
And you as well.
-ksen
I believe that truly saved have surrendered their lives to God. What does that mean? They have surrendered their freewill, they have given up their freewill to God to be used as an instrument of the HS. Once a person has by their freewill accepted Jesus as their Savior he is in control. You will make a consious decision to give your freewill over to God so that the HS can rule your life and He will save you. That is what accepting Jesus as my Saviour means and why I beleive OSAS.
This is an interesting point. It is no suprise, I suppose, that you view "surrendering their freewill" as a one time event, and I would view it as a choice we have to make constantly. I can surrender my will today, but a week from now I may be tempted and do something selfish. I need then to re-align my will to God's.
If you are truly in a state where you have no will of your own, that it has been surrendered completely and forever, then you are well advanced beyond me.
SD
Those deeds were as wicked as they get, and have been supported by the papist church for centuries as policy, to suppress justice and give perverted priest new victims. Cardinal law was doing what the papist church has always done----hide it's evil, and ship perverts off to another new area, with pay, so they can continue to be perverts.
You had better take a long hard look at the history of papist perversions and evils that are a consistent part of papist history.
So, the point is the "hierarchy" of the papist church has "covered over" it's perversions and atrocities for 1500 years. Scripture says that evil deeds will be brought into the light---but the papists want to drive them further back in darkness--always have and always will.
Have you considered therepy? It's not healthy to have such an unbalanced view of things. Nor is it good to require a "pure evil" to hate, to justify your own goodness.
SD
No. The problem is that people who think they are "truly saved" can fall away, become complacent, slip into sin.
At this point, a theology that tells them that they are saved "no matter what" is harmful, and one which emphasises "you better behave" seems more like what the individual needs.
Now I AGREE with this sentence, but the FIRST one is illogical to me. If you only THINK you are saved, you CANNOT 'slip' into sin: you're already in it up to your ears!
I say (with Scripture to back me up) you CAN reject your own Salvation.
Thanks, Reg. I'm glad some people here can answer a straight question.
Steven: Shhhh. You're talking too loud. :-)
You really shouldn't encourage this type of spewing, Steven. All the rest of the NC's had the good sense to let Isaiah dig his own hole without comment. Unless you also believe it is the "policy" of the Church for "1500 years" to increase perversion wherever it goes.
SD
Steven: Shhhh. You're talking too loud. :-)
You really shouldn't encourage this type of spewing, Steven. All the rest of the NC's had the good sense to let Isaiah dig his own hole without comment. Unless you also believe it is the "policy" of the Church for "1500 years" to increase perversion wherever it goes.
SD
Better get in line. I'm still waiting for my question to be answered going on a week now. I asked Robby where in the New Testament it is said "Stephen scorns temple worship" and all I get back from him are snide little filabuster questions.
I understand that. I was using the RCC specifically because I believe that Proud2BAmerican is an RCC. I didn’t mean to leave the Orthodox out, forgive me.
ksen: We are all relying on our own interpretation of Scriptures.
Wordsmith: No, we're not. There are those of us who believe that they encounter the Scriptures first as members of a community and only secondarily as individuals.
Why do you do that? Is it because you have interpreted Scripture in such a way as to cause you to believe that you need to approach the Scriptures as a member of a community? Did Jesus come to save groups or individuals?
ksen: It is up to the individual believer to continue to study and pray for enlightenment from God.
Wordsmith: On what do you base this belief?
Acts 17:
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Christ Bless.
Thank you very much.
-ksen
Sara, The Boston mess came as a result of reporting by the "Spotlight" team of the Boston Globe. I saw Ray Flynn (ex mayor or Boston, ex Ambassador to the Vatican) on Hannity & Combs the other night. Do you want to know what his major complaint was? I'll tell you. "Why does the Globe have to attack the Catholic Church and Cardinal Law over this one problem? Why don't they concentrate on the "good" he has done?"
While I am not excusing it, part of the defensive attitude, as you may know, is because the Church has been under attack for decades by the Globe and others in the media, regarding priestesses, homosexuality, birth control, abortion, the usual "progressive" litany of "sins" of the Church. Particularly in Boston.
Even for good reason (I believe Law must go), the idea that the media can "take down" a Catholic Cardinal is replusive to many. After many years of the media attacking and the Cardinal defending the Truth, it is difficult for some to see that while the media will claim this as a "Feather in their cap," it has to be. And the media can try to push its liberal agenda on the next Cardinal and the fight can be resumed then.
Don't misunderstand me. I am not blaming the majority of Priests who are good, honest men, doing their best. I am blaming the hierarchy who appears to be interested in the suppression of scandal first and the fate of the victims last.
Thank you for the measured response. It about sums up the feelings of most Catholics I know.
SD
No.
Of course. But my "you better behave" theology has provisions for forgiveness and repentence when a person fails. For the "it doesn't matter" theology, it doesn't matter. Which is much more harmful, especially if it really does matter.
SD
Increasing perversion may be too strong. Covering up past perversions is probably more accurate. Its already a given the rest of the NC's have more sense than me. So there goes your scoop. Nonetheless, welcome back.
Yes!
A person usually has a belief about something long before he ever reads the Scripture about it.
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.