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 |
That is the $25,000 question, isn't it?
(Another good one is "Does your present Church have a giant Crucifix?")
SD
Thanks, Dave.
Angelo, I will try to address your many posts concerning our unique ecclesial claims shortly.
I bet you will! ;o)
Judging by my 'Self-Search', so is everybody else. I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest. I'm going to be kinda busy today, but I'll reply to all of you as I have time.
It'll never happen. They'll use the internet for reaching out, but you'll never find an approved Mass online.
Why not? If He can turn into a piece of bread He surely could inhabit bandwidth.
Steven, He could have done all manner of things. He did do this specific one. And told us to do it just like He did.
SD
So, you're telling me that the heathen are going to be more impressed with a book than with a demonstration of God's power? 1 Cor. 14:22 "Wherefore tongues are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers; but prophecy is not a sign for unbelievers, but a sign for believers". There are instances in Acts where believers received tongues, and there is no mention of others understanding the languages. Acts 8:14-24 (Simon saw or heard something that made him want to have that power, so it is implied here); Acts 9:17-19 (again, not specifically said, but Paul later says that he "speaks with tongues more than ye all"); Acts 10:44-47; Acts 19:1-7. This seems to be a regular occurrence in the Early Church, and I see no place where it says that this would stop happening. The 1 Cor. 13 reference you bring up must be taken in context. there, Paul is saying that now we know in part, we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, the partial shall be done away with, and he continues his thought with a comparison between childhood and adulthood, and finishes with "now I know in part, but then I will know, even as I am fully known". Jesus fully knows us, but do we fully know Jesus? When will we fully know Him? When He comes for us and we are taken into Glory! That's when our knowledge of Christ will be complete, even as His knowledge of us is complete now. Paul then goes right on to encourage people to desire the gists, and especially to prophesy, makes more reference to tongues, and other gifts. His point in Chpater 13 was that the gifts must be exercised by the leading of the Holy Spirit, in love. He wasn't saying that the gifts were inferior, temporary (for that time), or in any way imperfect. His point was that love is the central theme, the central point of all that the Holy Spirit does. John said that "God is love", and Paul tells us what that love means and does. As long as we're still on this earth, we need the gifts of the Holy Spirit to help us, to confirm God's Word to the lost, and to strengthen and encourage the saved. That hasn't changed since the Early Church, and the complete Canon of scripture, while very great and needful, is not the perfection Paul speaks of here.
Do you and your church do all of those things mentioned above? When was the the last time you witnessed someone raised from the dead? According to your point of view then we should be handling snakes and drinking poison at our worship services per Mark 16:18.
Jesus could do no miracles in His home town, not because He didn't have the power, but because of their unbelief. The reason that we don't see more of these kind of miracles today is because of Christians like you believing that it can't be done, and actually taking Satan's side in holding up the "power of reason and science", and actively discouraging faith, other than faith to get saved. After that, it's all "well, miracles ceased with the Apostles, we don't do that kind of thing here, we have God's Word, so we don't need miracles". You equate miracles with superstition, and lack of knowledge. You do the people of God a disservice by doing so. As for drinking poison and handling snakes, where does it say that those things are to be done in worship services? Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake after his shipwreck. It was not in a worship service. The words of Jesus were confirmed by that incident. It will happen in the ordinary course of living, as a sign to unbelievers. These things are supposed to be part of our everyday lives, not just Sunday morning at 10 am. I pray every day, and I pray in tongues when I pray. I don't need to go to Church to do that, I don't have to be in a church building to do that. You're looking so hard for ways to explain away these things, instead of sincerely asking God to show you the truth, and set aside your denominational biases, and truly sell out to God, and let Him have complete and total control of your life, 100%,with you not trying to censor or limit His work in any way. I guaantee you, if you truly do that, you'll be ostracized by your friends, your church, and anyone else who doesn't want that much of God. You have to decide for yourself: are your friends, your chruch, or anyone else more important to you than God and His truth? You'll be surprised, the ones you thought were the most spiritual may be the ones who will try to disuade you from it. Things are not always as they appear.
My example , however, is not hypothetical but based on actual cases.
dignan3: In a word, yes.
OK, the solemn declaration, proclamation, and definition by a pope "that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" has 'evolved' to the point where in Vatican II, the Church in Council under the pope acknowledges that in fact submission to the Roman Pontiff is not absolutely necessary for salvation. 'Evolution' cannot turn a doctrine into its exact opposite, can it? The earlier statement is in reality overturned, but no one will acknowledge it. Boniface and Vatican II cannot both be correct. Either one or the other is wrong. FWIW, I think y'all have it right now, and it was Boniface that was in error.
Oh, he will! I bet he gets a timeout for some of the things he posted last night. ;o)
SD
LOL ... I'll bet his nose is in the corner as we speak.
No, I'm afraid not. Since I'm not a native Wisconsinite, they wouldn't sell me one.
No appreciation for the Soveriegnty of God, eh? Just because I got saved in a Catholic Chapel doesn't mean that I must therefore be Catholic any more than working in a Ford dealership means that I must own and drive a Ford. I was raised in the EUB church, which later merged with the Methodists, and lost most of their teaching of the Word. My dad was raised a Baptist, my mother an EUB and her family came from Mennonite and Amish backgrounds. Personally, I lean more toward AOG, but am really just a Charismatic Fundamental non-denominational believer. I have in times past attended Catholic services, and have many Catholic friends. I do have to say that their liturgy is beautiful, and I can appreciate the things they do, even if I disagree with some of them on doctrinal grounds. The sense of tradition and continuity is very strong, as is the sense of reverance and awe.
So, what do you think I should do? I'm all over the map with my background and personal beliefs. Not that I need to be told, just curious as to what you think.
I figured this would raise a few questions. Pope Bonifice was addressing a situation where "every" human was essentially a Catholic. There was no great knowledge of far flung peoples ignorant of Christ. There was no multi-generational tradition of Protesting. The world we know now is different than the world he spoke to.
The statement he made was absolutely true in the situation he made it in. Now we know a different world and people are not monolithicly Catholic by default. We have families that can't even remember when the last time one of them was Catholic. These people can not be expected to have culpability for not submitting to the Pope.
The need for all humans to submit to the Pope remains, but the cuplability of vast numbers of people to be capable of doing this has changed. Thus our interpretation of Bonifice's words has become more loose, to allow for invincible ignorance.
SD
Kindly point out the caveat in Unam Sanctam.
Pius IX, Encyclical "Quanto conficamur moerore," 1863: We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can obtain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God ... will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But. the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority ... and persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff ... cannot obtain eternal salvation.
Proddies and IFBB's, can you make heads or tails of this? He seems to be asserting as true two completely mutually exclusive things.
We were wondering if you had an appreciation for the Catholic Church who put that Crucifx up there. You do realize that not many (if any) other churches approve of the symbol? Yet it had great meaning for you in a time in your life when you needed something. It wasn't happenstance that that Church had a Crucifix and it wasn't happenstance that you encountered it.
SD
What is the difference between Salvation and Eternal Life? How can one have Salvation but not have Eternal Life? Where would that “saved” person go if he did not have Eternal Life? If there is a difference, what are “Saved” from if from from Death unto Life?
Everybody:
Is Salvation(getting to Heaven) a work of God or a work of Man? If it is a work of Man then why did Christ have to die?
’[16]Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. . . [21]I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” – Ga 2:16,21
If it is a work of God then it will last forever.
”I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it: and god doeth it, that men should fear before him.” – Ecc 3:14
I think that we are thinking too linearly (is that a word?) about God and Salvation.
”That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and god requireth that which is past” – Ecc 3:15
What are some of the attributes of God? For one He is Omnipotent, that is He is all-powerful, there is nothing mightier than He. He is also Omniscient, He is all-knowing, there is nothing that He does not know or that is hid from Him. He is also Omnipresent, He is all-present, there is nowhere you can go on earth or in Heaven where He would not be.
Finally, He is Omnitemporal (new word?) that is He is present at every moment of history past, present, and future. For God everything is a constant IS. He does not have to wait for anything to happen. There is no difference for Him. The moment of Creation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Rapture, the coming Kingdom, all are constant to Him, including the moment of our Salvation.
For us there was a time when we were not Saved and then a time when we were, we noticed a transition. For God there is no distinction, to Him either we are Saved or we are not. To Him there has not been a time when we were not His and then a time when we were His. We have always been His from the Foundation of the World.
If you are Saved and reading this post, did you know that you are in the Bible? Look at Re 19:1,
”And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:” – Re 19:1
Those much people, are us!
Well, those are my thoughts. That is how I understand God and Salvation. Taking God’s Nature into account I don’t know how Salvation(Eternal Life) can be anything other than secure.
-ksen
That is not quite what Boniface said. "must be subject to the Roman Pontiff" has a somewhat different connotation than the claim that the Church is necessary for salvation.
I know you have said that you know of some Rabbi's who believe that Christianity is "an acceptable form of monotheism for Gentiles." But in honesty, this is not an orthodox Jewish position.
Dave, give me credit for knowing what the 'orthodox Jewish position' is, okay? Maimonides and the orthodox Jews I know and have read disagree with you.
Jesus either was the Son of God or a madman.
The old "Son of God, liar or lunatic" canard. It is a false dichotomy. There are a number of other possibilities which do not fit into these tidy categories. As it happens, I posted something about this on another thread last night. Let me put it up here:
(The thread is Jesus the Jew, a 1995 article from Catholic Digest. You may wish to read the article. It pretty much sums up what I think about Jesus and his teachings.)
|
So many words that still don't make God a Jew. "One and the same" is just a way to explain how God could exist in so many forms. Ethnicity of Jesus has no bearing on God or his essense. By the way, do Jews believe that God is a Jew? I didn't say that God is a Jew; Jews do not believe that. Such a statement could only be made by someone who believes that God became man in the person of the Jew Jesus. The logic is clear if you accept the premise: 1. Jesus is God. Now, Jews do not accept premise #1, so we of course do not reach the conclusion #3. A Jew is someone who is born of a Jewish mother, or who converts to Judaism. God is obviously not a descendent of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so no, we do not believe that God is a Jew. "Charismatic preacher" I suspect is not the whole truth. It's like saying that Zhirinovsky is a "charismatic politician" when one really means "mad clown". I use the term 'charismatic preacher' because it fits what he did. I could have said 'itinerant preacher', and that would have suited him as well. He went from place to place, preaching in the different towns he visited. I said 'charismatic' because he developed a following. I in no way meant it to be derogatory. Do Jews regard Christianity as heresy and Jesus' teachings as false? Let me take these one at a time. 1. Are Jesus's teachings false? Since we don't have any writings by his hand, but only what was recorded by his followers, we can only know what they preserved. IMO, much of what Jesus taught was true and well within the framework of traditional Jewish doctrine. (I agree with what the article that began this thread had to say about his teachings.) I have much greater problems with the teachings of Paul than I do with the teachings of Jesus. I believe that what is taught about Jesus is false. 2. Do Jews regard Christianity as heresy? Not for gentiles. Judaism does not teach an exclusionary salvation; we do not believe that you need to convert to Judaism in order to be 'saved'. Converts are welcome, but you do not need to convert in order to escape eternal damnation. We believe that the righteous of all nations will have a place in the World to Come. Jews are bound by the Covenant and the Law; gentiles are not. A Jew who converts to Christianity is considered an apostate, not a heretic. It is wrong for a Jew to do so, because belief in a triune God and a God made man are incompatible with the Torah. Furthermore, Jews who convert generally cease to follow the Law, which is also wrong according to our scriptures. However, gentiles, who are not under the Law, have more latitude in their beliefs. We do think your understanding of the nature of God is incorrect. But Christianity is generally considered an acceptable form of monotheism for gentiles. The Jewish philosopher and theologian Maimonides preferred Christianity to Islam because Christians accept the inspired nature of the Hebrew scriptures (Muslims think they have been corrupted). And of course the Christian moral code is essentially equivalent to that of Judaism, another point in your favor, from our perspective. |
Freeper 'Lurking Libertarian', who was raised an orthodox Jew, replied to me:
Thanks for posting your #131, an excellent summary of Jewish doctrines not well understood by non-Jews (or, for that matter, by many Jews).
With that philosiphical underpinning I sure do hope that you are not a judge interpreting our Constitution the way you are interpreting this Papal Bull.
;^)
-ksen
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.