Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where Have All the Protestants Gone?
NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,181-1,2001,201-1,2201,221-1,240 ... 2,341-2,348 next last
To: Invincibly Ignorant
The Steeler won 4 Superbowls in the 70's but didn't win another til 20006. :-)

Technically, the 4th Super Bowl was in 1980, following the 79 season. And yes, it's all good.

SD

1,201 posted on 02/21/2006 7:58:58 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1199 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
I hate to correct your grammer, but I believe your sentence should have read:

The Steelers...won't win another until 20006..

1,202 posted on 02/21/2006 8:00:56 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1199 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
We might even have a different coach then.

SD

1,203 posted on 02/21/2006 8:15:14 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1202 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Technically, the 4th Super Bowl was in 1980, following the 79 season. And yes, it's all good.

I was trying to give you an example of the usage of the word "til"

1,204 posted on 02/21/2006 8:19:46 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1201 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
I was trying to give you an example of the usage of the word "til"

Yes, but you didn't give one that parallels the verse from Matthew.

In your example, saying we won 4 SBs in the 70s, but didn't win another till 2006. This would lead me to conclude that the Steelers won the Super Bowl held in 2006.

Now, if you said "The Steelers won 4 SBs in the 70s, but didn't win another till 1997" that would be a parallel.

It's true that the Steelers won a Super Bowl after 1997, but who would say the sentence like that?

SD

1,205 posted on 02/21/2006 8:26:00 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1204 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

Nevermind. You've got me more confused now than Jerome did.


1,206 posted on 02/21/2006 8:39:07 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1205 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

Just revisiting this thread - I thought it must have been "dead" for days by now!

How about this one: "Mrs. Smith remained unmarried until the day of her death." This "until" does not have the connotation to it that the situation changes afterwards. She does not get married *after* her death!


1,207 posted on 02/21/2006 12:51:49 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1206 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

Uh... according to the premises of my own post, that should be "Miss" or "Ms" Smith! Sheesh!

Long day...


1,208 posted on 02/21/2006 12:59:21 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1207 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

Death in this instance puts a limiting factor on the example. If the statement said that Ms Smith was unmarried until she married Mr. Jones then that would indicate that at some point she did get married. It does not specify when she was married only that she was no longer unmarried.


1,209 posted on 02/21/2006 1:21:13 PM PST by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1208 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

"Sacraments are how salvation, saving grace that is, is communicated, transmitted to us."
____________________________________

I was unaware of this. Can you lose your salvation if you fail to participate in the sacraments on a regular basis?

In my faith once I've been saved the HOLY SPIRIT indwells in me to guide me and convict me of my sin and JESUS has promised that once he has me he will not let go.


1,210 posted on 02/21/2006 1:36:16 PM PST by wmfights (Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1196 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
How about this one: "Mrs. Smith remained unmarried until the day of her death." This "until" does not have the connotation to it that the situation changes afterwards. She does not get married *after* her death!

Yes its a legitimate usage of the word in your sentence. However, when you read the prior and follwing verses of that passage in Matthew, the context dictates the usage I ascribe to.

1,211 posted on 02/21/2006 1:47:49 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1207 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
However, you should know this is a subject that really doesn't affect me much and that I fully acknowledge the NT writings were canonized by the Catholic Church. Therefore, even though those verses in context make it seem that most Protestants have the correct interpretation I certainly wouldn't argue with Catholics, whether they be wrong or right at the end of the day, being the final arbitors of those passages.

Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

1,212 posted on 02/21/2006 2:01:30 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1207 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
I was unaware of this.

Thank you for the candor. Many disparage sacraments without understanding exactly what we believe they are.

Can you lose your salvation if you fail to participate in the sacraments on a regular basis?

Without getting into a messy predestination/free will battle, the simple answer is "yes." We all sin, and sacraments like the Eucharist (Communion) give us strength to grow in holiness and sacraments like Confession restore us to grace after serious sin. Since we all sin, keeping ourselves from the sacraments is a sure way of letting your faith and your soul die from starvation, of falling out of grace.

In my faith once I've been saved the HOLY SPIRIT indwells in me to guide me and convict me of my sin and JESUS has promised that once he has me he will not let go.

Yes, of course. Those who will persevere to the end are known by God and He will protect them.

I know that if I remain in a state of grace I will be saved. You presume you are among those who will persevere.

But we all know of those who thought themselves "saved" who later backslide into serious sin and even denial of God. So we should not judge ourselves by a one-time act of the will, but rather by how we continue to exercise the will.

If we are both truly among those God has chosen, we will both end up at the same destination. Presuming one has completed the journey prematurely is an invitation to complacency. Jesus said He will return quickly, like a thief in the night. He warns us to be prepared. This is a hollow sentiment if we are all to be assured that we will pass muster.

SD

1,213 posted on 02/21/2006 2:05:52 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: gscc
If the statement said that Ms Smith was unmarried until she married Mr. Jones then that would indicate that at some point she did get married. It does not specify when she was married only that she was no longer unmarried.

Um, it specifies exactly when she ceased being unmarried.

Just like the sentence "they had no relations until she had given birth" must mean they had relations immediately after the birth. If you want to read this as an affirmation of their having relations, as opposed to a statement of her virginity before the birth.

The verse is meant to convey that she was virginal prior to Jesus' birth. That is all.

SD

1,214 posted on 02/21/2006 2:09:17 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1209 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

On some issues ... I agree with you ... on others, I disagree, ... all probably for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do ... with you.

1,215 posted on 02/21/2006 2:16:41 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1212 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Just like the sentence "they had no relations until she had given birth" must mean they had relations immediately after the birth.

No ... they likely had relations within the same period of time after the birth ... that husbands and wives do after the birth of their children today.

The fact that we waited, having achieved a certain point in our pregnancies, until the actual births of our children, to resume relations ... does not mean that we had relations in the hospital.

1,216 posted on 02/21/2006 2:23:16 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1214 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

Well....I'm not a Protestant but there was no such thing as Papal Authority and the "Infallible" pronouncement of Perpetual Virginity and the RCC when the Bible as we know it today was canonized.

The RCC as we know it today did not exist in the early few hundred years of the "Church".

The retroactive listing of "Popes" and the authority of the RCC is just that - - - retroactive and imaginative.

1,217 posted on 02/21/2006 2:29:02 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1212 | View Replies]

To: Quester
On some issues ... I agree with you ... on others, I disagree, ... all probably for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do ... with you.

Well that's fine, I just wanted to offer an opinion that if you can trust those who've handed down doctrines that if preached in your congregation of worship would go over like a porkchop in a synagogue and at the same time totally trust their ability to canonize NT writings that is your perogative. Some would characterize this approach as lacking. And since this is the Free Republic, I just did. :-)

1,218 posted on 02/21/2006 2:29:37 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1215 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Well....I'm not a Protestant but there was no such thing as Papal Authority and the "Infallible" pronouncement of Perpetual Virginity and the RCC when the Bible as we know it today was canonized.

It was canonized by the Constantinian regime. That's good enough for me.

1,219 posted on 02/21/2006 2:31:46 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1217 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

I should say "during" the Constantinian regime.


1,220 posted on 02/21/2006 2:33:20 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1217 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,181-1,2001,201-1,2201,221-1,240 ... 2,341-2,348 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson