Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Astounding. Since when does the Roman Catholic church refute the inspiration of Scripture?
Has your church actually come so far from the truth that you now deny God authored the Holy Bible?
Astounding.
I thank God my family and I are covered in the righteousness of Christ.
"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
Amen. They construct straw houses in dry and windy weather.
That sentence makes no sense in light of Scripture.
If you can't defend history, deny history.
AMEN!
This is kinda fun posting amongst only myself late at night. Nobody argues with me. 8~)
CORTEZ THE KILLER
He came dancing across the water
With his galleons and guns
Looking for the new world
In that palace in the sun...
Honestly, that is to the point of being laughable. Shall we bring up paying for indulgences? Was that a "perversion of doctrine" or a bad mistake from the throne Chair of Peter? How about the worship (not veneration) of Mary? Or that God's grace is dispensed through a wafer and a shot of wine? Or God disperses His knowledge through the Pope? Even the Orthodox don't believe some of these things.
Personally I prefer to make my own mistakes and allow God to call me on the carpet for them rather than following the mistakes established by others.
(:
Keep your eyes on the text, Son.
Oh. I see. How wrong I was! But this well-reasoned, articulately expressed and persuasive argument immediately convinces me of the error of my thinking.
/sarc
Seriously, I already knew you disagreed. Calling what I say hogwash doesn't add to that knowledge and doesn't incline me to adopt your opinion.
COME UNTO ME ALL YOU WHO LABOR AND ARE HEAVY LADEN.
The Speaker is Jesus. Jesus is the Son, not the Father.
COME UNTO ME LITTLE CHILDREN.
Who is the speaker? (And where is this text?)
EXCEPT YOU COME AS A LITTLE CHILD.
Is this in the Bible? There's something like it late in Matthew, but it's in a saying about entering the Kingdom of Heaven, not about access to the Father.
I'm sorry. WHAT has been refuted repeatedly?
Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I'm not saying the any particular group of official gnostics are influencing Protestantism. I'm saying the idea of the invisible Church is itself vaguely gnostic, not in its background but in its essence.
Here's what it looks like to me, so here's what I was trying to put up for USEFUL (hey, this capitalization stuff is FUN!) comment and criticism:
Over here we have the vast clunkiness of RC and EO. It's easy to tell where the Church is, and who is in it, and who is, so to speak WAY in it. If you're Baptized you're in it, if you're in full communion with the See of Rome or the various Patriarchal Sees, you're WAY in it. But this is not a guaranteed pass into heaven.
And over THERE we have the elect, those who read the Scriptures in the Spirit and call upon the Name of the Lord with sincerity and have the "blessed assurance". But we're not sure who they are.
That's all I'm saying: two very different ecclesiologies, related to two very different views of authority. I'm not ready to rear back and unveil some devastating argument to show that I, like King Friday, am "correct as usual", because I don't have one. I'm just trying to grasp the question.
I thought the Apostles writings were divinely inspired by God, written by God through men. Isn't that what the Church teaches? The same can't be said for +Basil the Great or +John Chgrystotom. At least the early church fathers specifically pointed out what writings were divinely inspired. Now it seems the Church considers the writings of the early church fathers, in some cases, to be inspired writings when they never stated it to be so.
It is interesting to note how you really seem to have a problem with St. Paul. This is remarkable considering the fact that Peter told us to listen to his teachings and he wrote about 2/3 of the New Testament.
Please tell me, show me, what have the Orthodox changed?
Can bishops (priests) marry? Didn't we discuss this somewhere back on this thread? I know, you guys will say this isn't theology but Church discipline. A change is a change.
I ask my "Reformed" Christian brethren to be respectful of Catholic theology with their comments on this thread. Thanks in advance for your cooperation
That worked, didn't it?
And I thought I was a night owl!
If one listens to most of them for long, one notices phrases like "one would imagine" and "one would think". Their rantings are not based upon objective evidence but on their own imaginations.
I will never forget one of the more popular of these folks, Crosson, when he said that Jesus was not buried in a tomb like Joseph of Arimathea's but was likely put in a potters grave where he didn't rise from the dead but had dogs eat his body.
And, of course, this is who the liberal media runs to every time they want to do a "documentary" on who Jesus was. At least Fox news goes to conservatives (though frankly, I think that in their choices they could go to some deeper vessels than they typically do. Guess that is marketing to the masses for you).
I love it when Franklin Graham comes on Fox. He never misses an opportunity to get in a salvation plug. It's fun just seeing how he is going to work it in. And, he's always working on Alan Colmes to try to get Alan to come to Christ. Fun to watch.
Amen. They construct straw houses in dry and windy weather.
= = =
Indeed, while playing with gasoline, dynamite, matches and cigarettes blindfolded and twice drunk.
Denial has been a favorite tool of satan for many centuries, millenia.
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.