The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

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

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

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

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[SoothingDave]

BTW ... what plan are you on?

Select Blue

SD

[IMRight]

He sees all time, not just the present

Does He give tips on football results? Even an over/under could help.

[ksen]

Paul compounds this when he makes clear that God came to this decision before either one of them had ever sinned much less been born yet.

Please see my #6823. There is no "before" for God. There is only the constant Present.

-ksen

[malakhi]

The question is what does the Greek say, since the Gospel writers didn't use the Hebrew Bible.

Oh, so if the error was introduced when it was translated from Hebrew into Greek, and then the errant translation was later used to build a point of doctrine, then somehow the error is no longer an error?

The Tanakh was written in Hebrew. No translation is authoritative over the original.

[SoothingDave]

There are other accepted rites within the Catholic Church that do not require celebate clergy and there are, in fact, married priests and bishops within those rites. In some cases, entire dioces of Aglicans have "swum the Tiber" together and their priests and bishops remain in their positions (and keep their wives).

Swum? Ugh.

I don't believe there are any married Bishops. Even converts. One doesn't convert to Catholicism and get made a bishop the same day. They become ordained as Catholic priests.

For non-converts, in the eastern rites, a married man may become a priest, but he will never be made bishop. I believe the Orthodox hold to the same. And a priest or bishop can never marry.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Awwwww glorious cheese!

Along with your daily posts and now this, you could be in line for the next Saint.

:)

BigMack

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

I had a friend once who convinced me that I should take on the practices of a New-Testament Judaism type religion because if God deemed it the way to worship for the race which He had chosen why would it not be the prefered way still?
My friend was creating restrictions on his life and teaching them as the higher form of worship for everyone because he felt God preferred the old way of worship.
I encourage both sects of faith to ask themselves why it is necessary to go above and beyond, or, in the other extreme, to ignore, Gods Word in an effort to:
1. Out do the other faith. 2. Please God with works which He counts as "Pride" anyway.
It is likened to the kid at school who picks on the others because he is smarter or more athletic than them yet he doesn't see they have an artistic talent or that they have a very helpful humble spirit even though they aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. I also liken some to the revolutionary, who may have initially stood for what was right but in an effort to never associate himself with what he was before, goes over the top with his beliefs to the state of Rebellion!

Just some thoughts.

[SoothingDave]

Oh, so if the error was introduced when it was translated from Hebrew into Greek, and then the errant translation was later used to build a point of doctrine, then somehow the error is no longer an error?

Even I wasn't buying that one, angelo!

SD

[JohnnyM]

1 Timothy 3:

1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,
temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way;

The emphasis on the scripture is not on the fact that he is married, but on the fact that he has one wife. He can't be married to multiple women. Why wouldn't Paul just say, a bishop needs to be married?? Because that was not the issue. The bishop, if married, must be married to one wife. Note that Paul never married. Would you say he was unable to be a bishop or church elder??? The same applies for the children. If he has children they must be respectful and well behaved.

On the issue of women. You are reading to much feminism in to it. It says women should be submissive. Which means they should realize that the man is the head of the household, just like an employee is submissive to the his boss. This is not a license for the husband to treat his wife like a slave either. Men and women have roles. The man is the head and the woman submissive is to the head, just like the body of Christ is submissive to the Christ, the head.

Understand also that this is the Word of God. This is not Paul speaking, but God himself. So if you say Paul is misoginistic
JM

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

BTW ... what plan are you on?

Select Blue

SD

Do you use a bong or papers for that?

BigMack

[malakhi]

I didn't get a chance to look and don't have the link. You have to remember he just went through a nasty divorce.

??? I don't think Boniface was married, although I stipulate that a nasty divorce could have caused him to write a nasty letter. I assume you mean 'we'(meaning the Catholic Church) just went through a nasty divorce with the Orthodox?

Medieval Sourcebook: Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302

The schism took place in 1054 (although it had been coming for a long time before that). Boniface wrote this nearly 250 years later. That's like saying our opinion of England is influenced by the 'nasty divorce' we had with them in 1776.

[malakhi]

BTW, have you noticed that we are now off by 2 when you compare the post number that the Thread says we are on with the actual post number? Wierd.

Yes, it happened yesterday when FR crashed. Someone must have tried to post when it went down, and a number was skipped.

[ksen]

As I pointed out, it is legitimate to state a general principle without simultaneously stating all the nuances and caveats associated with it. E.g., 1 Cor 6:9-10. "You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God."

To say that some thieves etc. may yet get to heaven is not to say that St. Paul goofed. It is merely to say that his statement must be understood in the context of his overall teaching.

You left out verse 11 whch says:

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." - I Co 6:11

Paul says that the Corinthians were those things. However, now they are justified before God. I don't think that Paul was writing to a particularly righteous church polity and yet he uses the past tense in regards to their sins.

When a person becomes Born Again, God delivers them from the Eternal Punishment of all their sins past, present, and future.

-ksen

[malakhi]

But if you believe that bacon should be chewy, like me, I remain skeptical. You're chewy??? See what a little punctuation interpretation can do?

ROFLOL! I didn't catch that.

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

That's because God knew the decisions they would make.

So God bases His plan on our action? Great, I am more powerful than God. I can manipulate His decisions!!! Yes!!! Copeland and Hagee are right after all!! (SARCASTIC!!!)
Better check your pride, brother. And Read this again.
Romans 9:10 "And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. "
God chooses because He is God not because we leave Him no alternative!!!

[SoothingDave]

The schism took place in 1054 (although it had been coming for a long time before that). Boniface wrote this nearly 250 years later. That's like saying our opinion of England is influenced by the 'nasty divorce' we had with them in 1776.

Well, history does move a lot faster now. Back then people didn't have as much to talk about.

All right, all right. This is me stalling while I go look at the link.

SD

[malakhi]

I think this is the problem. The shots aren't covered by my "formulary" of prescription drugs we are allowed to get. So they are saying it is covered under major medical. Or some such thing.

If I understood you correctly, this isn't a 'prescription drug', it is a vaccination.

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

And likewise my #6935.

[ksen]

The Holy Spirit is God, and God is the same "yesterday, today, and forever". If the Holy Spirit worked miracles, cast out devils, healed the sick, etc. in Jesus day, He will still do the same today. Jesus did what He did by the power of the Holy Spirit. He did nothing on His own initiative, but did what he saw His Father do, and the Father did it through the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "the works I do shall YOU do, and greater works than these (healing the sick, cleansing lepers, changing water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, multiplying loaves and fishes) shall YOU do because I go to the Father".

If these things aren't being done today, it is not because the Holy Spirit no longer empowers people to do them, it is because no one believes that he can do so. Jesus did what He did throught the power of the Holy Spirit, BY FAITH. He spent time teaching His disciples how to operate in faith, and gave them charge to "teach ALL THINGS whereof I have commanded you". He never said that these things were only for "you twelve". If you relegate all the miracles, all the deeds that Jesus did and commanded His disciples to do to that time, and to only those twelve and some of their direct converts, then you gut the Gospels of any real relevance to us today other than the Sermon on the Mount, and a few other things like The Lord's Supper, and the truth of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

I guess the biggest "problem" I have with the Charismatics is it seems to me that they are placing WAY too much emphasis on the Holy Spirit. He is lifted up higher than Christ. Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit came He would lift up Christ, not Himself. And that when Christ was lifted up He would draw all men to Himself.

I know that independant Baptists, like myself, can fall off the other extreme and never bring up the Holy Spirit at all. Both extremes are wrong, IMHO.

-ksen

[malakhi]

There are other accepted rites within the Catholic Church that do not require celebate clergy and there are, in fact, married priests and bishops within those rites.

I'm not so sure about bishops. In Orthodox Christianity, at any rate, priests can be married (and can even remarry if they are widowed, I think), but bishops are unmarried celibates.