Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
I have no interest in such tracts.
it is interesting to note that you will never see anything written by a Catholic saying that a prominent Protestant is the antichrist or that all Methodists are burning in Hell.
= = = =
Actually, I have seen such. But it's been decades ago.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29For he taught them as ONE HAVING AUTHORITY, and NOT AS THE SCRIBES.
I didn't suppose you did, but you did say that you were unaware of any directed at the Catholic church. I was just letting you know that they are out there.
Nope, the Holy Spirit did.
AMEN! Interesting we both felt the same urge to encourage going TO GOD about it at roughly the same point in the thread.
Men are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. And faith comes by hearing the world of God.
= = =
Well said. But that Scripture doesn't sound very Calvinistic, to me.
LOL.
"It appears you only want to keep it going in circles, while you don't have any interest in seeking God about it."
This appears to be a judgment call about what is in his mind.
I understand his posts as asking legitimate questions.
The Pope (prior to his election) wrote this, I presume it is his title and I doubt his title had anything to do with how non-Catholics on a political website would perceive it.
for it removes ecclesial hiearchy
= = =
God was in the habit of REMOVING ecclesial hierarchy throughout Scripture.
for it removes ecclesial hiearchy
= = =
God was in the habit of REMOVING ecclesial hierarchy throughout Scripture.
And He's getting ready to do it wholesale big time before too many more months/years have passed.
I don't doubt that.
Just . . . in this context . . . it's quite understandable for many to take it that way.
I C.
THX.
'Experiential' is entirely subjective. And the interpretation of what is observational is also entirely subjective. (Notice that you are once again unhelpfully vague; you don't show how the test can be simultaneously observational and objective.)
And, as to demons . . . Christ's standard remains . . . Do the individuals, sources involved confess that Jesus came in the flesh etc. and Jesus as Their Lord, and humans as their Savior, or not?
The assumption underlying your 'miracle' test is that anyone through whom the Holy Spirit acts to perform miracles is free from serious theological error. But that is not a safe assumption. (And having grown up Pentecostal, I can assure you that it is a false assumption.)
Counterfeit miracles are genearlly flavored, toned, colored, tainted with their source . . . particularly after closer examination and reflection by discerning folks but usually by most anyone with any horse sense.
So the test to determine whether someone is discerning is to see whether they have the anointing; and one determines whether they have the anointing by using the 'miracle' test; and in order to determine whether they pass the 'miracle' test, one has to have discernment. One big circle again.
Holy Spirit can cause a burning within that I'm sure LDS folks would assert is the same. They are good at including everything including the kitchen sink as covered and included in their scheme of things. It's not the same, in my book.
So, how should we determine whether you or the Mormons are right? The 'burning in the bosom' test? Or something objective?
I think Christ said it best: MY SHEEP KNOW MY VOICE.
So, how do you know that the voice you are hearing is Christ's, and not that of another?
I think it's akin to a mother and child knowing one another's voice. I wonder how many would call that subjective.
I would, because it is subjective. But if the child were kidnapped as a newborn infant, and grew up in the house of its female kidnapper, the voice it recognizes would not be that of its mother. So, recognizing a voice is not enough to guarantee that you are in the truth, especially since 20,000+ sects claim to be following His voice, while all disagreeing with each other. They cannot be hearing His voice if they are contradicting each other.
"Entirely subjective" is simply false.
How so? In other words, how are your tests objective?
Sounds to me like folks not accustomed to hearing His Voice and acting on it might do well to check up on their relationship with Him. He didn't put qualifiers in that sentence.
Ad hominems are fallacies.
I suspect that anyone who seriously wants to find GOD'S ANSWER on this issue . . . and who SEEKS HIM FIRST AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . AND who asks HIM to show them His truth . . . will likely find in the next 18 or so months that He has.
Do you think all the millions of Mormons are lying when they say that they are seeking God and concluding that God wants them to be Mormons???
-A8
No, but I think we can all start at the fact that NONE of us has it all right. Jesus was the only man who ever lived on this earth that had it "right". No person, no church, no single interpretation is "right".
Good grief, even before the Apostles were gone, they were already having problems with peoples' interpretation of the gospel and their fleshly human selves. Only Jesus can be our head. Any human person is subjective, fallible, and going to interpret differently from the next.
I think we're all going to find that we put a little too much focus on one thing or another.
I just wish we could play nicely together.. And, in fact, the majority of the churches in my area do, despite our differences. Jesus first ...
It might be better to focus on epignosis rather than gnosis, although the gnosis is inbreathed and after made efficacious to our soul and spirit is made useful by our hearts as an outbreathed epignosis.
Gnostics interestingly touched on many truths which would shake up many modern scientific misunderstandings, but they still became heretical in that they left out faith through the Son. I don;t agree with gnosticism, but like many false beliefs, they hinge off of several real truths then slide in deceptive practice.
It sounds to me like you are not sure, which shows that you haven't studied this issue in relation to Church history. Before you go speculating about whether this is "historical revisionism", dig into early Church history, including the fathers. You won't find sola scriptura anywhere. A good book on this subject is Robert Sungenis's Not By Scripture Alone
-A8
faith comes by hearing the 'Word' of God (not the 'world' of God....(easy typo)
I have no need to return to such studies again. Been there, done that.
Thanks anyway.
This is the same kind of deism that underlies Mormonism: God abandoned His Church for 1800 years, and Joseph Smith restored the Church to the purity that it once had in the Apostolic period.
-A8
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.