Actually, some of the Protestants replace Catholic tradition with a few new ones of their own!
Posted on 08/15/2005 9:01:28 AM PDT by Salvation
The bible uses saved and born again interchangeably. It is when you believe in Jesus and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. No, RC's are not automatically excluded and it is something that can never be known about another person.
How specifically do you see Catholics rejecting Christ's act of Salvation?
By never making it clear to an RC that he is saved when he is born again. RC's never know they are saved and are never sure they are going to Heaven. OK, every once in a while I find one that is but in general they are not and use such terms as "the sin of presumptiousness" on me for knowing that I am saved right now.
thats fine.....doesn't matter what order. My point was that Catholics should be the last to chastise another for disobedience to a commandment since they changed the Sabbath and don't observe it themselves.
Neither did St. Paul. See post # 111 above.
Read some of the other things that he wrote.
Actually, some of the Protestants replace Catholic tradition with a few new ones of their own!
As for the authority of the Church in this regard, remember "What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."
Have you ever actually been to a Roman Catholic mass? And if so, which specific portion of the mass was inconsistent with what is in the Bible?
I have read everything that St. Paul wrote. Why not address what he wrote above?
Don't rush it. I've been teaching him Hail Mary for only a couple of weeks. He's getting better.
And all of their arguments make perfect sense, until we consider the fact that Jesus was not speaking in Greek he was speaking in Aramaic which only has one word for rock (Cephas). But try to get them to understand that.
And if we are smart we will hold on to Mother May's hand and go along with the ride.
Surely you jest. We all know that Jesus spoke in King James English. The Greek is only a faulty translation, which can be easily be determine by comparing it to the original King James. ;-)
In fact, in 1 century only "petras" was used. "Lithos" (or is it "lythos") belongs to classical Greek.
More importantly, if Christ wanted to contrast the smallness of Peter with the solidity of some other rock nearby, he would not follow up by giving that "pebble" the keys to the Kingdom. Nor would Christ respond to a profession of faith with an insult. Nor would He repeat the commission following His resurrection in the "feed my sheep" verse.
As for the King James Bible, the early Anglicans didn't reject Marian teachings. For that matter, I have always considered the "Magnificat" in the KJV to be among the most beautiful of any.
I don't claim to be part of your church or any church. I don't believe the Church's interpretation supperceeds the Hebrew Torah. According to Psalms 119 the Torah is perfect and eternal. Furthermore, in Isaiah 66 it says, in the world to come, we will worship from Sabbath to Sabbath. I doubt he was taking into consideration the Churches' definition of Sabbath.
And most importantly, Christ, who could foresee the future, would not have made such a critical error that could possibly be misinterpreted. If we are to believe that Christ's message was clear and undeniable, then the proclamations he made to Peter MUST mean exactly what they say.
"Slow down son!
The Bible came from God 2000 - 6000 years ago and well before the Catholic church. It is not of Catholic tradition or from man."
That is not the case, son.
The oldest part of the New Testament, the letter of Paul to the Galatians, was written circa 48 AD, in a Church that already had apostles, bishops, priests, deacons and deaconesses...as Paul's other letters, also written contemporaneously to, or prior to, the Gospels also tell us. The Canon of the Bible was not fixed in its present form until the 400s AD (for Catholics), or post 1530 AD (for Protestants).
When it comes to the Old and the New Testament, different Churches use different canons. The Catholic Church uses at least two, with the Vulgate Canon used in the West, and 3 and 4 Maccabbees added in certain Eastern Catholic rites.
The Bible came from the pen of men. It was inspired by God, and written by men, with most of the Old Testament dating from after 500 BC, and all of the New Testament dating after circa 48 AD.
Obviously there was no Catholic Church around before Christ. Equally obviously, there was the Catholic Church in the time of the apostles, with their bishops, priests, deacons and deaconesses, then as now.
A nice bridging work that shows the all-too-familiar structure of the Church was written by Bishop Eusebius starting in about 290 AD and ending sometime after the Council of Nicaea. The Church he describes, reaching back to the apostles, is dreadfully Catholic. And the sacred books he describes, or rejects, include some that are in the canon, and some that are left out of it.
It was the Church that settled on (a couple of) canon(s).
Luther revisited this, and eventually the rest of the Protestant world came around to Luther's canon.
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.