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 |
This should have read "What are we 'Saved' from if not from Death unto Life?"
Sorry for the typos.
-ksen
But you are equating salvation with eternal life. The two are not the same. Once you realize that, the sense of it is obvious. A sheep can lose sheep status by blatently walking away. A sheep doesn't have eternal life just by being a sheep, they have to continue being a sheep. What a concept, eh? If you take a red car and paint it blue it is no longer blue. If the car show rules say red cars only, how then would you expect to enter the once red blue car into competition. If we live under grace as sheep, I think it's a fine line. If you are not under grace but walking in the flesh, I see no such fine line. Therefore in what I say I difer to the Judgement of God. It's not my call. I'm just looking to scripture.
God didn't lay down a plan whereby two of this sin and one of that one does you in - with the obvious exception of blaspheming the Spirit. Do that and you might as well prepare your grave beforehand because you will be finished according to the example in scripture. Tell me, do you think a Sheep can blaspheme the Holy spirit (Hint the two that died for this sin were 'saved' Christians).
I maintain that the civil authorities should have no say so in matters of the Church.
I agree. However, the question was, should Church authorities have say in the matters of the state?
But I do believe that all should come to the realization that the Pope is the leader of God's Church and should voluntarily submit to his spiritual leadership.
OK, let's see what ol' Boniface has to say:
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.
Again, I prefer your offer of 'spiritual leadership' (even though I respectfully decline it) over Boniface's attempted usurpation of secular authority. The modern Catholic Church is right on this, and Boniface was in error.
Do I believe that those outside of the Church are in danger for their salvation? Yes.
Again, this is different than saying "outside the church there IS NO salvation.
If the Church did not exist no one would be saved.
Well, you know I disagree with you on this, but that is a subject for another time.
The type of language used when practically everybody in existence is a Catholic and no one has been "brought up" differently is a different sitation from what exists today. If we are to damn a Protestant kid cause his parents raised him that way, we are to extend the sins of the father to the suceeding generations.
Did you read what Boniface said about the Orthodox?
Rather than repudiating our truth, as you would have us do, our truth has come to be more fully understood
Dave, you know I'm normally not this hard on you guys, but c'mon, this is just not logical.
1. A is our truth.
2. We have come to more fully understand A.
3. A in fact means -A.
4. Both A and -A are true.
I respectfully submit that the only reason you insist on this cognitively dissonant position is that the repudiate A would require admitting that a pope made an error on a matter of faith. Since it is part of your belief that the pope is incapable of such an error, then you must find a way to try to finesse it. To the outsider, it is incongruous.
Obviously pig-latin is your native tongue. Or maybe you just have made up your own language. No Southern Baptist I ever knew would speak of the Eucharist so contemptuosly. Maybe your new name should be "apostate," or "adolph."
Easy Robby. Steven surely didn't mean any offense.
SD
I knew the Coloradan could come through with some good Mexican food! It was that, or ask you to bring the Coors, and SD to bring the pierogies.
Perzactly! A good example of the Sovereignty of God, I think. He used something that He knew would get my attention. It certainly wasn't happenstance. I don't believe in coincidence. I don't have objections to a Crucifix per se, but I do get concerned when some people tend to view that as though it were still happening, rather than the fact that Christ is now seated at the right hand of god the Father, in heaven. And, as I've said before, I have Catholic friends, and I do have an appreciation for their liturgy. The issues I have are with the doctrines, not with the people.
Actually, I'm somewhat surprised that in this time of Political Correctness, that the Crucifix isn't denounced as a symbol of and endorsement of violence. Sooner or later one of those PC nuts is going to bring that up, mark my words! They'll say that Christianity is a violent religion, because they depict violence against its founder, and talk about how He was violently crucified. Then it will be that speaking of this violence is harmful to children, so they shouldn't be told about it. You fill in the rest....
Please review my quote from Boniface in my #6544. I don't think he agrees with you.
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.
Your theory here is that what is ascribed to Jesus as His teaching is kosher, but what has been made of Him since has been confused. Is that fair?
I may not get back till later this afternoon, but suffice it to say that you have me thinking. It would be so much easier if you just picked a few "scandalous" quotes out and ranted and raved and threw in a few "doctrine of demons" and railed about how the whole thing is built on a lie-filled foundation of sand. :-)
SD
I don't think you can have Coors and Rolling Rock in the same room together. It's like matter and anti-matter. Rockies and Appalachians.
All right, hands up! Who here has never had a pierogie?
SD
Steven got a special dispensation from Pope Jim Rob.
Yes, but I had to think for a moment about what else I might have been talking about...lol.
Thank you, Angelo. I think you drove that home pretty well. I would go further than you have. Everyone who has touched and revised it is in error.
Where do you fall? Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist? And why... :-)
How do I get one of those? Mine fits for political posts but doesn't seem.... humble enough for a Cristian board.
Is IMInfallible still available?
Fiendishly clever. However, your plan has one little flaw. ALL YOUR CHEESE ARE BELONG TO US!
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.