Posted on 05/19/2007 3:06:54 PM PDT by NYer
I agree that the written word of God is very important. But does "it is written" prove sola Scriptura? Nowhere does Jesus or any of the sacred writers say that the "Word" is limited to Scripture. In fact, Paul says just the opposite. In Romans 10:8, Paul says that the "Word" is what is "preached".
It is my understanding that the Emperor called the council.
My pleasure, thanks for the kind words. Distribute that far and wide, it bears repeating!
Iscool says: No, we call your church a liar,...Who is this "we" Iscool? You and your tapeworm? What label do you attach to the "we" that calls the largest, oldest and original Church of the Gospel "a liar". Or is it a 'church' of Iscool that you represent?
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Maybe, Iscool is simply agreeing with the "esteemed" Jack Chick.
...since Apostolic Authority ended or was suspended on Earth with the death of the last apostle of Christ, ...What nonsense. Judas, one of the original Twelve, was replaced by (I think) Timothy - a fact well documented in Scripture.
Actually, the eleven cast lots and Mattathias (sp?) was ‘chosen’. But Jesus chose Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.
“I am sure the LDSers believe in jesus christ, but assuredly they DO NOT believe in Jesus Christ.”
I’m only aware of one.
It amazes me how many people are so driven to “stake their claim” on Jesus Christ. “It’s my mountain! Get off!”
“... but I brought a picnic lunch for us...”
“Christianity is the religion which holds that Christ is God.”
Thank you for the clarification, as well as the reaffirmation of my beliefs as Christian.
Acts 1:21 -26 They ‘chose straws’ over three and Matthias was the ‘chosen’ replacement for Judas ... as chosen by men trying to ‘do it for God’. Jesus chose Saul and we have the evidence from his life thereafter to contrast with what happens when men do the ‘choosing’ ... and other than his name in Acts chapter one, Matthias is not heard of again.
I must disagree here for the following reason.
Act 1:14 These all continued with one accord in PRAYER and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
***
(The choosing of the replacement for Judas)
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 BEGINNING FROM THE BAPTISM OF JOHN, unto that SAME DAY HE WAS TAKEN UP FROM US, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Paul did NOT meet these requirements. How many today meet those requirements to be one of the Twelve?)
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Had they NOT been in one accord with God, the Holy Spirit would not have been poured out on them.
Saul was chosen for a completely different mission to the Gentiles. He was NOT one of the Twelve.
Yes, but “under Constantine” sounds like Constantine ruled over it, which is a slander commonly made by restorationists (who then use Constantine’s ambiguous faith to assert that post-Nicene Christianity is pagan).
It was the Bishop of Rome whose authority was granted to Nicea, and that is no small point to be brushed aside as you have: many popes were martyred because the emperors coveted that authority and could not wield it; your careless statement gives them the authority that they martyred countless souls for.
I was not aware that my citation was careless. Sorry if I offended you. You have read more into my citation than I intended.
As Paul tells the Galatians (1:6-9, KJV):
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I do not feel it is necessary to hijack this thread with a discussion of LDS theology. The good people here were discussing some very important principles, and doing so would only serve to detract from a fruitful exchange.
Your disagreement with my beliefs is noted and respected; perhaps at some more appropriate juncture, we may reasonably discuss the issue.
My only point is to refute the concept that Mormons are not Christians. That has been done; and so I am satisfied. MHG was kind enough to ping me in and afford me the opportunity.
Agreed. Let’s save it for another thread. But for the record, Mormons are NOT Christians - unless you’re using the Mormon redefinition of the term.
You mean, like, "God the Father"?
Matthew 16:16 (statement of faith)
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:17 (Blessing #1 and explanation)
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 16:18 (Blessing #2 and explanation)
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:19 (Blessing #3 and explanation)
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Since the subject of the blessing and explanation is indisputably Peter in verses 17 and 19, to argue that Jesus was suddenly throwing in a self-referral in verse 18 does not stand the test of normal discourse. The inspired author of this Gospel could not have been an instrument of confusion, as your exegesis asserts. Since there is no evidence that Jesus was referring to Himself, yet there is ample evidence that Peter was the subject of His blessings, to simply remove Peter from the subject of Jesus' explanation to blessing #2 requires some serious cognitive dissonance to be acceptable exegesis of these verses.
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.