Posted on 11/05/2005 9:15:01 PM PST by Coleus
Your point is that the Rabbinical Judaic Canon should have no impact on the Christian Scriptures.
Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree. Both men rejected writings of the Old Testament based upon two factors:
1. The doctrinal content of the writings was at variance with their theology.
2. The Jews had ultimately rejected these writings.
Martin Luther knew that these were flimsy reasons and so engineered new canonical categories which were adopted by other "via media" communities.
Luther's Inner Canon were accepted books from which doctrine might be derived. Luther's Outer Canon were disputed writings that were to be included in the liturgy and prayer but from which no doctrinal content would be derived. Lutheran and Anglican bodies ultimately adopted this stance. Lutheran and Anglican Bibles and Lectionaries included these writings.
Calvin and his followers rejected the "disputed" writings of the Old Testament, altogether. He viewed them as having apocryphal value of significance only to a historian. Reformed Liturgy and prayer, therefore, excluded these writings from the start. Reformed Bibles and Lectionaries (such as they were) excluded these writings.
You wouldn't happen to be another one of those who claims the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura and feels free to ignore those parts of scripture that makes him uncomfortable?
Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. James 5:16
See Post #12 and #13. The article also relates several verses, although the posts cover them.
Regards
Quite frankly, I don't care what Luther and Calvin rejected. They weren't in any sort of position to make such an authoritative statement. That is reserved for the successors of the Apostles, not to Joe-Smoe. Don't you think that manipulating the Word of God to fit your own personal theology is a bit arrogant? Fortunately, the Catholic Church didn't pay them any heed, and continue to present the Word of God to us fully.
Regards
There. The whole Protestant theology in a nutshell.
Determine it for yourself. Set yourself up as the ultimate authority.
"He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from [their] seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away." Luke 1:51-53
Regards
"Purgatory Maintainance Program"
Good concept and it's already in place.
Yes.
Sorry, but I meant to add that I agree with the Cardinal's approval and recommendation. It is a good prayer.
I'm in the middle of working on something else - agree should have been agreed, above.
js>There. The whole Protestant theology in a nutshell.
Determine it for yourself. Set yourself up as the ultimate authority.
"He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from [their] seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away." Luke 1:51-53
Do you grieve the Holy Spirit?
Do you deny that the Holy Spirit was sent by Y'shua to illuminate the Word of G-d?
Jn. 14:26 But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Ep. 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths,
but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.
Ep. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
b'shem Y'shua
Do I grieve the Holy Spirit???
The Holy Spirit does NOT "illuminate" each and every person on the doctrines and beliefs of Christianity.
Proof? Consider all the people of good will who "claim" to be enlightened by the Spirit (such as yourself) DIFFER! Are you now saying that the Spirit creates disunity? IMPOSSIBLE! The one who grieves the Spirit is one who does not heed the authority whom HE works through, the Church. Otherwise, WHY exactly does Paul ORDAIN minister to postion of authority? As my last post stated, the earliest Christians appointed successors to continue proper doctrinal teaching. It is only normal for man to rationalize the faith, to bend it to his OWN will or ideas. Thus, we have seen people's ears tickled from the very beginning. The problem is when people think they know more than this "church" on who is God or how to approach Him.
The person who grieves the Spirit is trying to come to God on his own terms, not God's.
Regards
b'shem Y'shua
Your way of the cross brings a sense of "Have I done enough?". Sorry, but my God has done enough and if I believe that I will repent of my sins knowing that they have been forgiven.
By the way, the "narrow way" is those who believe in Christ as their Saviour and not the way of those who think they have to do something to gain God's favor. That is what muslims think and they are on the "wide path".
That would be true IF I could boast of my own actions or my own faith. But I cannot. I can only love IN Christ. I can only have faith IN Christ. I can only repent IN Christ.
What does "IN Christ" mean? It means that Christ's Spirit is in me, working do to the above...
For example...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13)
When I, with Christ in me, performs a good deed, it has merit, because Christ is doing it with me. He is moving my will and my desire. My interior motivations are love, not to obligate God to pay me wages. As a child of God, I am to cooperate with Christ's grace within me. YET, this is not easy. Thus, it is called the "narrow way". We have a tendency to sin, a desire to serve the flesh, EVEN after our Baptism and receiving the first installment of the Spirit. That is why sanctification is seen as a constant battle, a war against the flesh. But with God, ALL things are possible, even a man obeying God.
But in the end, it is not "have I done enough"? It becomes "how effectively did I allow Christ to work within me"? This is what it means to take up one's cross daily. Not cheap grace where discipleship and the cross are emptied of meaning. THAT is the "wide path".
Regards
"Mazel Tov!"
Was that a sneeze?
Bless you!
I seriously didnt think Catholics believed in Purgatory anymore.
Interesting to find some here and read why they believe it.
Mother Teresa used to put it something like this:
With Christ,
Through Christ
For Christ.
(In other words, all our actions should be in union with Christ(with the attitude of Thy will, not mine), done through the power of Christ, as if we were doing it to Christ.)
This is the ideal that goes back to the beginnings of the Church. We see it in the writings of St. Paul. We see it lived out in holy men like St. Benedict and St. Francis and many, many others.
It's not about us. It's about loving God to choose to be as close to Christ as possible.
I'm sensing an attitude, and I think you missed the point of my "little story". Of course a woman can wear a hat or whatever at Mass. It is the strictness of the past rule of HAVING to that I now think was ridiculous.
Since you never developed the habit, you may not know that that's the way it was at one time.
Sorry I mentioned it; enough said.
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.