Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Of course not. False bravado and presumption are most certainly typical of a Christian character, at least what I am finding out by talking to you... Humility is not found anywhere in such attitude.
I'm sorry you didn't get one. My confirmation number is much too long to print in its entirety, but here are the first several digits: 31610910131028151328
I.e., John 3:16, Rom. 10:9-10, 13, John 10:28, 1 John 5:13, Eph. 2:8, etc., etc.
Faith, in this case, is from God's point of view. You either have it or you don't. This "false faith" is for men. Men don't judge men for eternal salvation - which is what we are speaking of. Thus, there is no false faith in God's eyes. Either it is there (perhaps in insufficient qunatity, such as a workless faith), or it is not there at all. Phony faith is not faith.(emphasis added)
You are skirting the issue. There absolutely is false faith in God's eyes. He tells us about it in the "Lord, Lord" verse. You assume that everyone who CLAIMS to have faith, in fact, DOES actually have it. This is false. My point (including what you called my ramble) was that you must hold to this notion because otherwise, the idea of a lost true faith goes out the window. That is why I said that with Catholicism it is all talk on declaring faith.
On the one hand you say that no one can judge another's faith. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, when you DECLARE that anyone who claims faith has it. You totally contradict yourself.
So exactly how does a person claim to have faith in Jesus Christ but refuses to follow those He left behind?
I have no problem following what the Apostles taught, they wrote down their most important teachings. After them, error crept in. But again you do not address what I am saying. Since for you only a claim of faith is needed to be actual faith, why can't anyone just keep reclaiming faith instead of going to confession, etc. You judge all claimers to be bona fide.
Ever heard of "He who rejects you rejects Me"? "If you love Me, you will obey my commandments"? Does Christ rule your life, or do you pick and choose which laws of Christ to follow?
Sure, I have heard of all of those, but I thought they were referring to Christ, not your men. Is your view that in these verses the Catholic hierarchy and Christ are equal in standing?
And I am sure that Paul was really happy with the Bereans that they figured out how to celebrate the Eucharist from the OT Scriptures ALONE...Or baptize people from the OT Scriptures ALONE... Or to forget about Circumcision from the OT Scriptures ALONE...
That is why I very carefully chose the phrase "consistent with scripture". Now, I don't for a second think that Paul taught about the Eucharist as it is practiced today, or that he taught infant Baptism with today's Catholic theological implications. Those are not consistent with scripture, so Paul could not have taught them. My wording was meant to leave room for extra-scriptural things which are consistent with scripture.
You're talking to someone who believe people should open and honestly discuss various views of doctrine in order to come to the "right" understanding. Luther was correct on his views of indulgences; however all the Church could was "Recant". They did not exactly leave room for dialogue.
Jokus-Oh, we are back to "God causes sin" again
Hmmmmm......
Perhaps it has never occurred to you that the Reformation might not have been sinful? :O)
Well, the Catholics and Orthodox keeps a list for starters. ;O)
Humility. It breeds a humble attitude when we feel we are not worthy to go to God directly, since He is all holiness and we are insignificant sinners.
This is new. Does God really teach us that there are matters too trivial to bother Him with? Are there some parts of our lives that God doesn't care about? Consider:
2 Chron. 7:14 : ... if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Heb. 4:16 : Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
Why are there tons of verses that encourage us to pray to God and zero verses that tell us to pray to dead people? Notice there is no distinction about importance of prayer. Our God is a PERSONAL God, He is never too busy for us.
I.e., John 3:16, Rom. 10:9-10, 13, John 10:28, 1 John 5:13, Eph. 2:8
Sorry, your confirmation number doesn't match any of those verses... The above verses presume that a Christian would persevere until the end, but it is not guaranteed.
You assume that everyone who CLAIMS to have faith, in fact, DOES actually have it. This is false. My point (including what you called my ramble) was that you must hold to this notion because otherwise, the idea of a lost true faith goes out the window. That is why I said that with Catholicism it is all talk on declaring faith.
Catholicism is about declaring faith? Where did you get that idea from? If anyone is about "declaring" anything, it would be you and your "confirmation number". I have noted over and over we must persevere. Declaring something is one thing, but actually obeying the Will of God is another.
On the one hand you say that no one can judge another's faith. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, when you DECLARE that anyone who claims faith has it. You totally contradict yourself.
You've lost me. I can't judge your faith but yet I supposedly believe you have faith because you merely declare it so? Who are you and where is Forest Keeper? Have I once said that a person has faith because they declare it so? Have I not argued against this very proposition with you? I am not sure where this is from. "False faith" is not faith, even if one claims it is.
I have no problem following what the Apostles taught, they wrote down their most important teachings. After them, error crept in.
How do you know that? Where have you established that? I have not seen any proof from you yet that "error has crept into the Church". I think you just like to think that so that you can justify your continued manner of worship and so forth.
Since for you only a claim of faith is needed to be actual faith, why can't anyone just keep reclaiming faith instead of going to confession, etc. You judge all claimers to be bona fide.
What the heck are you talking about? I have no clue where you think that merely claiming that one has faith means it is so. Just like claiming one is of the elect doesn't make it so.
Sure, I have heard of all of those, but I thought they were referring to Christ, not your men.
"He who rejects you rejects Me"?
So who is "you"? It is the Apostles and their successors.
That is why I very carefully chose the phrase "consistent with scripture". Now, I don't for a second think that Paul taught about the Eucharist as it is practiced today, or that he taught infant Baptism with today's Catholic theological implications. Those are not consistent with scripture, so Paul could not have taught them. My wording was meant to leave room for extra-scriptural things which are consistent with scripture.
According to you they are not. I think they are, have showed how they are, and I think the people immediately following the Apostles were in a better position to know the "minds" of the Apostles, as opposed to "reformers" of the Church interested in usurping power for themselves. You have already shown how much you "know" about what the Bible says regarding Baptism and its necessity for salvation. I see you prefer your own interpretations, even when proven to be faulty, over those of 2000 years of Christian history.
If anything, Protestantism is not even consistent with itself. Case in point - Sola Fide vs. Sola Scriptura... The Bible ITSELF SPECIFICALLY says that we are NOT saved by faith ALONE.
If you are going to invent rules, at least you should be consistent and stick to them, don't you think?
Regards
LOL! Well, if Numbers 16 is any indication, then I would say "NO". But I could also read Paul's 1st Letter to the Corinthians, and how he talks about
"If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye [plural] are." 1 Cor 3:17
I would say that the Reformation defiled the Temple of God, the Body of Christ, through its divisiveness, exactly what Paul was writing to the Corinthians to beware of...
Come back home, Harley.
Regards
They are not on this side of heaven anymore, are they? God has verified their presence with Him through miracles.
Regards
Sure they are. There are bones moldering somewhere under the earth with all of their names on them. They are dead. Their spirits are alive wherever they are, but Biblically speaking, they are dead. In the way you are speaking, no one is ever dead, because whether we end up in heaven or hell, we will still exist and be "alive". That is true in a certain sense, but it erases the meaning of "dead" (physically) in the Bible.
He helps us daily - DESPITE that fact that HE has already sent the Mediator.
Yes, He does, but not through people who have physically died, i.e. dead people.
Some people have a close connection with another person that has suffered similarly as they have. For example, patron saints. Say a person was blind. Was Jesus Christ blind? No. But what about some of the saints? There WERE blind saints, those who were able to put God first in their lives - despite their blindness. Thus, by emulating a particular patron saint, a person comes closer to God through another creation that God made for the example of others. (emphasis added)
So these blind saints are more qualified to sympathize about blindness than Christ? You promote a closer connection with a dead person than with Christ directly? Amazing.
You need to stop thinking of the saints and Mary as competition with God. HE MADE THEM WHAT THEY ARE/WERE!
You have just proved to me that Mary and the saints are in direct competition with God. God tells us to trust Him in all things and to bring everything to Him, but now we have all these other folks mugging for prayer time from us. You would have me believe that God set up a stable of specialists for all of our problems. This is not scriptural, and ever petition to a dead person is not a petition to God.
I never said God was too busy for us. Some people have a close affinity to a saint because they shared a similar trial on earth that we are going through. Jesus Christ never was blind, or was old, or was a woman. He didn't have a debilitating disease, nor was He a husband or a father. Many saints were. By looking at the lives of such saints who shared our own situation, we can discover that we, like the saint, can endure and persevere, just as they did. The saints are examples of what it is like to follow Christ, no matter the situation.
God has given us all creation to enable us to come to Him. The Saints and Mary are His greatest material means for us to discover Him and to follow Him. This does not mean we don't pray to God or follow Christ! But we can certainly become more holy by looking at how a saint followed Christ. Ignoring the saints is like ignoring a life preserver while adrift in the ocean because you prefer to wait for a boat.
Regards
Where are the bones of Mary? You'd think that someone would know that, considering the attachment Catholics place on relics?
Their spirits are alive wherever they are, but Biblically speaking, they are dead.
Biblically speaking? Have you read the New Testament recently? When one is DEAD in the NT, it generally refers to SPIRITUAL DEATH!!! Medically, the saints are dead. But so what? They are more useful to us in that form, just as Christ said He was more "useful" when He told the Apostles that they would be better off after His death because then He would send the Advocate - and He Himself would be our Advocate to the Father. And the saints are also advocates for us.
Yes, He does, but not through people who have physically died, i.e. dead people.
Why not? Why wouldn't God joyfully allow His saints to be part of helping people come to Him? I sense that aversion to love again...
So these blind saints are more qualified to sympathize about blindness than Christ? You promote a closer connection with a dead person than with Christ directly?
Christ in His humanity wasn't blind. We don't see Him going through the trials a blind man would undergo. In His divinity, Christ nows all. But that part of Christ is incomprehensible to us. Christ is the perfect image of God and it is transmitted to us through His humanity.
You have just proved to me that Mary and the saints are in direct competition with God.
By writing: "You need to stop thinking of the saints and Mary as competition with God. HE MADE THEM WHAT THEY ARE/WERE!"? Whatever...
Next time you say "that lasagna was delicious", have the cook kick you in the pants because the lasagna stole the glory of the cook...
Is this true for the Orthodox when they walked out? Remember, both the Catholic and Orthodox leaders excommunicated the other (although they did patch up their differences many centuries later). For the Orthodox this was OK because they don't believe in purgatory, but one has to wonder if the Catholic Popes had to sit in the neather-gloom until they patch up their differences. ;O)
Come back home, Harley.
LOL!! I've never left although some will say I'm "out-to-lunch". :O)
Hmmmmm.....how do you know that the miracles are from God?
"And how the heck do you KNOW WHOM the Father has given to Jesus while we are on this side of heaven???"
___________________________________
Forsaking All I Trust Him.(FAITH)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I KNOW he will not forsake me even though I don't deserve it.
The leaders excommunicated each other, but not the communities in question.
For the Orthodox this was OK because they don't believe in purgatory, but one has to wonder if the Catholic Popes had to sit in the neather-gloom until they patch up their differences. ;O)
The Orthodox believe in a third "place" of existence besides heaven and hell. You are merely trying to divide the Body with such talk.
Regards
Taken on faith, just as we believe that the miracles of Christ are not from the devil... It might be easier to judge such matters by looking at the fruit produced.
Regards
Amen and amen. We rest on His promises. When our Catholic friends are typing in the last keystokes with their dying breathe, we'll be able to say, "See we told you He'll keep you." ;O)
Hmmmm...like Fatima? It certainly have been a blessing for the tourist industry. ;O)
"The leaders excommunicated each other, but not the communities in question."
JK, this is a technicality that obscures the reality. What is excommunication if it is not a state of not communing with each other? The Orthodox have steadfastly refused to enter into communion with Catholicism until we come to complete agreement in the faith. Even after the false union of Ferrara/Florence, the records show that even those Orthodox bishops who actually signed the accord would not take communion at the Catholic mass that was served to celebrate the "union."
The problem is that the word "excommunication" has a lot of overtones and baggage to it that aren't very nice and politically correct. But given the fact that ever since the Schism, the rule in Orthodoxy has been that a member of the Latin church had to be received into Orthodoxy and renounce Latin errors in order to receive communion in an Orthodox church should tell the story as to whether the members of the communities were, in practice, excommunicated. I daresay that prior to very recent times, the same thing was required by Catholicism of any Orthodox who wanted to commune in Catholic churches.
This is not stirring up trouble, it is just stating the facts of how things really are -- not how they are in someone's theoretical construct of how Orthodoxy and Catholicism are somehow One Church. If we were One Church, we would be in communion with each other. It is fine that we have very similar objections to Protestant distinctives, but it is a very long way from that to being One Church. one Body.
"The Orthodox believe in a third "place" of existence besides heaven and hell. You are merely trying to divide the Body with such talk."
The first statement is true. We believe in a sort of "intermediate state" in which the soul is after its separation from the body. The state of separation from the body is an unnatural one, and neither the fullness of bliss and union with God nor the fullness of anguish and separation from God are complete until the body is someday resurrected and united again with the body, returning each man to his normative state.
What we do not believe is that there is any sort of fire or pain that a soul has to go through in order to be purified of unconfessed venial sins or to clean the slate from uncompleted penances for sins forgiven in confession. We believe that we know very little about this intermediate state other than the fact that for each person, the ultimate fate is decided by the basic orientation of each soul at the time of death, and that this cannot be changed after death.
We know that the souls of the departed are helped by our prayers, almsgiving in their names, commemoration at the liturgy, memorial services, etc. But how exactly they are helped and to what degree we have little or no idea. We certainly cannot quantify it and say that we have wiped the slate clean with a plenary indulgence given for something of that sort. We just don't know.
As you can see, Harley, while there are significant differences (at least to us Orthodox) between traditional Catholic ideas of purgatory and the Orthodox view of the afterlife, the beliefs that we Orthodox have are equally wrong by your Reformed lights.
You aren't dividing the Body, because there is no Body to divide at this point -- Catholicism is already in a state of error and schism from the Orthodox perspective, and Orthodoxy is in a state of schism (and really, if Catholics are honest, error) from Catholicism's perspective.
What you *are* doing, is using a faulty argument -- and I can't help but think that you are too smart a guy not to realize this. You cannot compare what happened at the Great Schism with what happened at the Protestant Reformation. After the Schism, both the Roman patriarch's church and the Church comprised of the jurisdictions of the 4 other patriarchs and other local Eastern churches remained intact, orderly, in full communion within each respective body, and continuing the same practices that each had arrived at by that point in time.
Protestantism did not result in the schism of one church from others, but rather in a state in which the Church never was at any other point in its existence -- with a radical change in belief and practice, and with ever splintering groups and denominations and ecclesiastical structures, each with its own widely varying beliefs and practices. These newly formed ecclesiastical bodies were cut free, to varying degrees, from ancient traditional understandings and beliefs, and replaced them with theoretical reconstructions of the New Testament Church.
You are approaching a valid point, because it is disingenuous for Catholics to be harshly critical of Protestants for leaving their True Church, while (nowadays, anyway) giving Orthodoxy a free pass for doing the same thing. But the whole image of bishops sitting in Purgatory until excommunications are lifted is just plain silly. From the perspective of each body, obviously the excommunication of the other was of none effect! No Catholic would believe that the Pope who did the excommunicating of the Patriarch of Constantinople on doctrinal grounds was in error for doing so.
Always looking at the cheery side of things?! Millions of people's devotion to God has increased on account of Fatima. I would think many of the atheists who saw the sun dance in the sky might have been convinced their initial ideas of God's existence were wrong?
Regards
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.