Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
Uhhhhhh . . .
I was harshly railed at and assaulted for referring to the "Roman denomination."
I then proceeded to very carefully speak of organizations and groups for all Christian organizations.
Within a few posts, I was assaultively accused of being part of a "Pentecostal sect" in a clearly dismissive, derisive tone and attitude.
As long as Roman folks are determined to label my Christian groups sects and denominations, I'm happy to follow their lead and return the honor.
I don't really do so out of retaliation. But I have limited options in terms of educating and shaping behavior more toward more Christ-like options. I'm likely to use those available.
If being somewhat of a mirror is it, I'm likely to use that one.
That's not REMOTELY CLOSE to my understanding of Scripture or of history.
Political moves--even successful poliltical moves--have been taken to be evidence of God's anointing throughout history--and have been outrageously wrong virtually every time.
It was so at the successful effort to crucify Christ. It has been so 100's of thousands of times since.
Rome's bishop succeeded at politics--and at times, at warfare. That's not the same as God's anointing by a trillion galactic clusters.
On the side of the Dome over St Peter's--the side opposite the mosaics--is a stairway to the roof. That stairway, when I was there, was sheetrocked and unpainted with 100's of graffiti scriblings in all manner of languages. It was quite a contrast to the mosaics inches or so away. But it was also very human.
Other than in the post to which you are referring, the only time I used the term "sect" was in a post to you in which I said that I found the term insulting and did not think it should be used (though if you reread your own posts, you will see it's continued use).
I did not use the term Pentacostal at all, if my referrence to snakes was personally offensive, then I sincerely apologize.
I have gone back and read your posts. I cannot find an answer to the question: How do we determine who has the anointing? Basically, the impression I'm getting is: those who have the anointing just know who else has the anointing. And that is classic gnosticism; the spiritual is completely disconnected from the sacramental.
-A8
So you are speaking of actual present-day graffiti? I thought you were referring to the verses from Matthew inside of the dome.
I can only speak for myself to say: I don't think we are "anti-Catholic".. we are just pro-Jesus and what he did for us. We can't help it if we are just so excited about what our Lord JEsus has done for us, and continues to do in us, and about the Holy Spirit (the same POWER that raised CHRIST FROM THE DEAD - wow!) lives in us! We want everyone to share the joy!
There can be an attitude among some of our RC brothers and sisters that that you are right and everyone else is going to hell. I've clearly seen repeated here that we (non-Catholics) believe there are believing, spirit-led, Christians in every denomination, sect, or whatever you want to call them. It doesn't even taste good to me to say "we" and "you". Why is it Catholic and then everyone else?
So might some Catholics be "anything-other-than-Catholic-bashers"? *smile*
But you cannot explain (at least so far as I have been able to tell) how we can determine who has the anointing. As best as I can tell, you determine who has the anointing by seeing who agrees with you (and your interpretation of Scripture). For if two people each claiming to have the anointing disagreed with each other, how else would you adjudicate between them?
= = =
Am sorry that my explanations have not succeeded at fostering true understanding and insight. Perhaps Holy Spirit will have to take up where my frailties and flaws leave off.
THIS: IS NOT TRUE:
As best as I can tell, you determine who has the anointing by seeing who agrees with you (and your interpretation of Scripture).
I've noted how and why it's not true. I cannnot force belief in The Truth. I can only offer it.
I've noted that God confirms His Word and Anointing--sometimes immediately . . . sometimes over time. I've given examples of observations that connote such. I cannot force understanding of those examples. To me, a heart to hear gleans the understanding whether difficult, or not--especially with Holy Spirit's help.
Gamalelial's exhortation is likely the best to follow when folks claiming anointing disagree.
However, I Corinthians 14 outlines how each local congregation can resolve such--prayerful dialogue, IIRC.
I don't recall attaching any names to any of my posts except addressees.
Basically, the impression I'm getting is: those who have the anointing just know who else has the anointing. And that is classic gnosticism; the spiritual is completely disconnected from the sacramental.
= = = =
There may be some of that going on, for sure but that's not been my point. Holy Spirit gifts folks with such discernment as a natural outflow of their walking close to God moment by moment.
But I also gave some observational clues.
Where?
-A8
Present day graffiti as in 1973.
Even imagining that I'd EVER call Scripture graffiti shows an enormous lack of knowledge of and understanding of me and all I'm about.
Again, where? Why is this like pulling teeth? Why do you seem so reluctant to explain your position?
-A8
Well put, imho.
Lunch about over . . . heading to pottery shortly.
I hope!
By present day, I mean "unauthorized" graffiti that was done long after the Basilica was built.
I was mistaken, and I apologize.
To those without the spirit it will appear as foolishness. Without the Spirit, one is reduced to soulish perception which is indeed circular and one indication a soulish life is insufficient for eternal life.
I suspect though we may all be indwelt here on these threads, but perhaps some not filled with the Holy Spirit.
Romans 10:6 sufficiently addresses how to respond to the question of who has the Spirit.
When then do you keep the body of Christ in a state of disunity by remaining in schism? If you are really "pro-Jesus", you will seek the unity of the body of Christ. And that unity cannot be achieved without agreeing on who are the rightful leaders of the Church.
-A8
Perhaps it more offensive because of the term "catholicism" itself? If so, then not allowing others to challenge a claim that the Roman Catholic church is the only true non-sectarian confession would have the same effect in reverse. In other words, if they agreed on that point, they would also become Catholic.
The word “gnostic” is likewise often thrown back and forth by posters on a variety of threads. To see examples of confrontational word use in dialogue among non-Catholics who have irreconcilable disputes but manage to not take it personally, click on the predestination, Erasmus or end times prophesy threads.
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.