The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[IMRight]

See. That time I saw the smiley face.

[SoothingDave]

Lots of pompous @sses around here lately, it seems!

Hey, didn't you just say not to be profane, even with asterisks?

(All right, I'll go sit in the corner for being pedantic.)

LOL

SD

[Havoc]

Yes, it isn't written for fourth graders. one is thought to be familiar with the idea that evil things are sins, that things against natural law are sins, that disorders ae against the natural law. That chastity has a meaning beyond "not having sex." Etc.

I stated the definition that I was looking at, 2/3 of it had to do with sex. When you are talking about a subject that deals with sex, the 2/3 of that meaning are 100% applicable. One can be virtuous and still be a sinner. This is so because Virtue is not simply a religious term and your religion spends as much time engaging in sectarian philosophy as anything, thus Virtue is not a religious term by itself, you have then to narrow the field down to the greatest stretch of the language to make your case - the which I'm not necessarily faulting at the moment; but, the which is a problem that your clergy created. As I said before, they could state things in plain language that is unconfusing - that doesn't apparently serve their purposes.

No they weren't. they were saying that people we consider "homosexual" but living in chastity are not sinners. These same people you no longer consider "homosexual" or sinners. So we agree, but are using different terminology.

Whoa! Halt. Stop the cart. If you are going to label someone a homosexual, and then say they aren't a sinner, we have a problem. If they are an ex, then we have no problem. But, I am not going to agree that a homosexual is not a sinner because they aren't actively participating. Until they've repented and stopped, they are still a homosexual and still under condemnation according to the scriptures. Not because they are a homo; but, because what they are is sinful. And sin condemns until it is repented from and forgiven. So at this point, until you clarify your position we have to disagree. I have to stick with scripture.

[IMRight]

I think Reggie apologized to Reader David for calling him a pompous @ss. Lots of pompous @sses around here lately, it seems!

Reader David huh? Maybe pomposity is a liturgical problem? Is Trad Anglican pompous? Maybe we need a new poll. :)

[eastsider]

Mack, you're awfully quiet today on this cussin' issue. : )

[SoothingDave]

Maybe pomposity is a liturgical problem?

We smells and bells guys can at times get more puffed up. Because we have the entire history of God's Church behind us. LOL :-)

SD

[ksen]

Hi Ksen, I tried to answer some of the differences we had in 29902. I hope I got it all!

I’m sure you did just great.

I don’t believe that “the event” in Galatians (2:11) precipated the Jerusalem Council , but that is a matter for which I’ll leave to the bible scholars. I guess we disagree on timing here. I do think it odd that you hang so much on Paul withstanding Peter to the face, when Paul himself “lived like a Jew” because he did not want to offend the Jews – detailed quite a few times in Acts, after the Council of Jerusalem.

I find it odd that you can so easily discount the Paul and Peter episode.

I do not believe you have to add something to Christ’s Sacrifice – his Sacrifice is complete and perfect. We are given it through Grace, working through faith. We can lose it through sin and not being repentant of our sins, as outlined in the Bible. I think Adam and Eve are the best example of this – they knew God personally and yet, through temptation and then sin, lost their perfect faith in Him. I believe you need to be sorry for your sins - is that adding to Christ's perfect sacrifice on the cross?

If you can lose your part of Christ’s “complete and perfect” Sacrifice, then it was neither. Nobody is saying that you shouldn’t be sorry and repentant for your sins. We are saying that those sins that occur after you have believed on Christ as your Savior do not jeopardize your place in Heaven.

ksen: What happens if YOU don’t keep the Sacraments? What happens if YOU don’t attend Mass, what happens if YOU don’t go to confession, what happens if YOU don’t partake of the Eucharist, what happens if YOU don’t get baptized, etc.? If your Salvation is dependent upon YOU performing these actions, then your Salvation is dependent upon YOU. The Salvation that I believe in is dependent upon Christ alone.

american_colleen: Since I belive the sacraments were instituted by Christ himself, I believe they are necessary in the life of a Christian. Through the sacraments we grow in the life of grace, it is also the sacraments that provide us with a means of restoring the life of God's friendship that we may have lost through sin.

That is all wonderful, but you did not answer my question. What happens to you if YOU don’t keep the Sacraments, as listed above.

What about “The Rich Young Man” in Matthew 19:16-30 – never mind St. Paul, Jesus spoke about keeping the commandments.

What about the Rich Young Man? He asked Jesus what good thing that HE COULD DO in order to get eternal life. Jesus gave him a list, notice the list only contained the last 6 commandments. The man said he did all of that. Jesus did not rebuke him, so I have to assume that the man told the truth. Jesus discerned where the man’s heart truly was, with his money, and demanded he part with it in order to inherit eternal life. The man left, why? because his money was his god, not the God of Israel.

He provided a perfect salvation. We can either accept it, or not. Why would he give us free will? Free will allows us to either accept Him or not, persevere, or not.

I agree with you in this last part. I just don’t agree with the conclusions you draw.

Who keeps your home in Heaven secure? God? Or you through your own performance/obedience?

I await your response, should you feel like continuing.

-ksen

[OLD REGGIE]

And??? You are trying to find proof that Peter did not have primacy amongst the apostles. Peter was chosen to preach to the Gentiles and Samaria was Gentile, no? Who else should have gone? When you have say, a merger of companies and the CEO and his assistant are the ones chosen to go and do the negotiating with the other company, does it lessen the CEO’s authority?

"Houston we have a problem". You have it backward. Peter was chosen to preach to the Jews, Paul was chosen to preach to the Gentiles:

Galations 2:
7: but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
8: (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
9: and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

I guarantee you, from personal experience, the staff never sends the CEO any place. Never!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This scenerio is exactly how the magisterium of the RCC works. There is dissention or perhaps false teaching (Acts 15:5), then there is much debate/discussion (Acts 15:6-7) within the magisterium, and then one speaks with authority – as Peter did (Acts 15:7).

And the Papal staff never sends the Pope anywhere. Never!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter’s name occurs 195 times in the New Testament, while the rest of the Apostles together are mentioned 130 times, and the second most mentioned Apostle, St. John, is mentioned only 29 times. I believe that Peter was chosen by Jesus to feed his sheep and that Peter was given the keys – I don’t want to get into another discussion of this as the matter has been addressed countless times and none of us will change our belief, either way.

This is one of the, if not the, silliest possible agrument. "Word count" doesn't count for anything. Paul has more words than the other Apostles combined. So what? Peter was called "satan" by Jesus and he never used this language with any of the other apostles. So what?

Why don't you just get right down to brass tacks and say "because my Church tells me this is so"? You certainly aren't going to prove your case with your limited experience with Scripture.

[SoothingDave]

Whoa! Halt. Stop the cart. If you are going to label someone a homosexual, and then say they aren't a sinner, we have a problem. If they are an ex, then we have no problem. But, I am not going to agree that a homosexual is not a sinner because they aren't actively participating. Until they've repented and stopped, they are still a homosexual and still under condemnation according to the scriptures. Not because they are a homo; but, because what they are is sinful. And sin condemns until it is repented from and forgiven. So at this point, until you clarify your position we have to disagree. I have to stick with scripture.

"Homosexual" was in quotes, because it is the definition we are in disagreement about. We would contend that someone who was in this position could be considered an ex homosexual, as you think of it. But he would still be prone to being tempted to homosexual sin. Temptation comes where we are weakest.

Someone who gave their life to Jesus and stopped drinking would be tempted to drink, wouldn't he? Would you say that he was an "alcoholic" who was on the wagon and reformed? Or would you say he was no longer an alcoholic?

And regardless of what you say, is it true that he would be tempted to drink regardless of what you call him?

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

How many marriages have you had?

Lets see...I think is 8 or 9....hey Becky what number are you?

What chance is there of a divorce ever occuring?

When hell freezes over.

Why?

I was only the sperm donor to start with and when she was done with me on that matter, its turned to horses, and now all I'm good for is buying the horse feed, and besides she won't leave.

BigMack

[eastsider]

I understood american colleen to be referring to Peter's visit to Cornelius' house.

[SoothingDave]

Who keeps your home in Heaven secure? God? Or you through your own performance/obedience?

If I may intrude, though I confess to not reading the entire exchange you and Colleen have been having.

You make this an either/or question, where we see it as both. God wants to keep my place in Heaven secure. But I can choose every day, every minute, to work with Him or against Him. He does not force me to do His Will.

Together we ensure my salvation. God doesn't force me. I can't do it alone. But together we can do it.

This is the message of the Incarnation. God took on humanity to join with us, to partner with us, so that we could come to join with Him, partner with Him.

SD

[IMRight]

I think you are disqualified from keeping the poll results.

[The_Reader_David]

Why would you think that? You described the roles of the Holy Apostles in the Apostolic Council admirably. Exactly as the Orthodox describe them. Now, just extend this to later Church councils: the bishops met in council, the Emperor or an Imperial appointee presided, but the council of bishop pronounced judgement as to what the faith once delived to the saints was (not should be, was). The legates of the Bishop of Rome (or the Pope himself at the one Ecumenical Council he attended) had one vote each, the same as all other bishops.

[RobbyS]

I am wondering about the people in Mississippi, who must keep divorce lawyers in clover.

[IMRight]

We smells and bells guys can at times get more puffed up.

"Smells and bells" huh? I like that.

I also think that if it came from the other "side" there would be some here who might be offended. What thinkest thou?

[Wordsmith]

If you can lose your part of Christ’s “complete and perfect” Sacrifice, then it was neither...We are saying that those sins that occur after you have believed on Christ as your Savior do not jeopardize your place in Heaven.

So you believe that after one has "believed on Christ" it is not possible for them to choose to cast away Christ's complete and perfect gift?

Who keeps your home in Heaven secure? God? Or you through your own performance/obedience?

If the home in Heaven is secure, is it no longer possible to choose to not take up residence there?

[RobbyS]

If only they had taken seriously their charge and written down everything Our Lord said and did.

[Wordsmith]

Hey, didn't you just say not to be profane, even with asterisks?

OK, now I guess I have to call the creature Jesus rode in to Jerusalem on a donkey too? :-)

[RobbyS]

Men don't fly, airplanes do.