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 |
If you would like to play word games, let us commence. If you want to play theology, bring fully loaded guns. If you want to snipe, feel free. Just don't expect me to respond.
Dave
I'd classify him more as a centrist. Both the conservatives and the modernists have problems with him! He does use modern critical methods, but his writings, in my limited experience, are theologically orthodox.
In any case, you will enjoy the Sheen book. You'd also like To Know Christ Jesus and Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed.
Another one I think you'd like: The Lord by Romano Guardini
Do the moral and righteous need laws to do right? Aren't rules and laws made for those who break them? Will there need to be any prisons in heaven?
Where do you find a scripture that says it has passed away? I know that many believe that the scripture saying "when the perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away", but that's not referring to scripture as being that which is perfect. That which is perfect is the Kingdom of God. Tongues is a wonderful blessing, and it amazes me that people are afraid of it. Jesus said that signs (including tongues) would follow them that believe, and in many places, those signs are happening. Why do Christians have such a hard time with the supernatural? We are recipients of the greatest miracle of all: salvation. God gives us His Holy spirit to empower us to be witnesses in both word and deed. Jesus said "the works that I do shall ye do, and greater works than these, because I go to the Father". I don't know about you, but I seem to recall Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, fed 5000 with 1 basket lunch, etc. Have you done that? Have you laid hands on someone who is sick, and prayed that they be healed and then have seen it happen? What kind of works would be greater than these? What works of God's power and miraculous things have you done? If you're not doing those things, then you are not even living up to the standard that Christ established while He was on earth, and He said we would do them!
Oh, I know...He was only speaking to the Disciples, and no one else...I've got news for you. Everything he taught and spoke was to them; We weren't there, yet every other thing Jesus spoke we take as applicable to us, EXCEPT His telling us that we will do the works He did, or any scripture that tells us about gifts of the Holy Spirit and their use. Where is the scripture that tells us that this is the way it is supposed to be? Why would the Church, the Body of Christ start off so powerfully and end so weakly?
We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter_by_ the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by inter- mediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
O.K. Where's the falsehood in this? We know that the purpose of this bull was to assert the pope's jurisdiction over the king of France and other rulers. So?
It seemed to me that that was exactly what you were saying, using the hypothetical Believer who commits a sin and gets hit by a bus and killed before he had a chance to "say the words" and repent. You specifically stated that that person would not go to Heaven, because of that sin. So he lost it all in one instant of time, committing a sin and almost instantaneously being killed (at least that was the sense of what you were saying). Are you going to tell me that a Believer who may have walked closely with the Lord for, say, 20 years, could be damned to Hell for eternity just like that? That sure sounds like he lost his salvation to me, yet you claim that you never said that. THAT'S the problem I have with what you say, in a nutshell.
What is this artificial distinction between salvation and eternal life? In reading through your posts, you use the terms interchangeably where it suits your purpose, and then make the distinction where it serves your point. I'm not going to argue this any further, as several others have taken you to task much more eloquently than I could. If this view of salvation and eternal life works for you, fine, but it ain't scriptural. I'll follow scripture, and the Lord Jesus, and not worry about whether or not I get hit by a bus....
My point is eternal security is the Bible confidence that every born again believer has perfect, complete, eternal salvation in Jesus Christ. As soon as a sinner receives Christ, he possesses full, unending salvation. To have Christ is to have a secure position before God (1 Jn. 5:10-13). Though the Bible does not use the term "security" to describe the believer's relationship in Christ, it leaves no doubt that the child of God is eternally safe in Christ. Eternal security refers only to those who are born again through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. It does not refer to hypocrites or to those who are merely dabbling in the things of Christ. Those who permanently fall away have never been born again.
BigMack
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Are all apostles? are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?
Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
Paul's rhetorical questions assume an answer of "no". Different people have different gifts, and one part of the body should not think his gift is greater that another's gift. Even if you reject the premise that some gifts have passed away or believe in a "heavenly tongue", the Scripture is clear that all Christians do not have this gift (tongues), so calling it necessary or a second blessing that should be sought after is not what the Bible teaches. And it is also clear that unless the tongue is interpreted or understood by the hearers it is meaningless.
Gosh, you're right! How could anyone possibly have any problem with this? He was so clearly referring to the King of France and his political foes. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that this could be misconstrued into, say, a statement of Catholic triumphalism. Nosirree. Catholics would do well to print this up and distribute it far and wide. I mean, if it contains no falsehood, its worth repeating, right?
</sarcasm>
tee hee, you bad angelo. :)
BigMack
Ok, but only if we get cheese. :)
BigMack
Did angelo get saved? Why didn't someone tell me?
BigMack
Hmmm, I noticed that your fellow RC's give no Scripture reference for this flight into fantasy.
No need to, that oral thingey don't ya know.
BigMack
Captain Picard I think our universal translator has gone bad, I can't make any sense out of this gibberish. Better raise the shields just in case.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
I know we're talking ancient (well, medieval ;o) history here, but I cannot imagine the chutzpah it takes to make such a statement.
Catholics, c'mon, what do you really think of this? Surely you don't accept the relationship between civil and religious authority advocated here? Do you think we all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff on threat of eternal damnation? Do you, personally, accept the notion of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Sorry, BigMack, we can't be saved. We haven't submitted to the Roman Pontiff.
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.