Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
That assertion comes across as exceedingly . . . over the line, to me.
I have no need to become Jewish though it’s likely in my DNA.
I accept the BIBLICAL GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST as the full solution for a relationship with God.
I have no need of the UNBIBLICAL, RUBBERIZED insertion of magicstericals, idols, rituals and the like between God and I.
Perhaps Calvinists are the best experts on ‘future sins.’
I have some personal hesitancies about such but trust God to do WHATEVER HE WILL with such a prayer.
In terms of the prompts . . .
I don’t have much evidence of sufficient shared experience to be able to have any confidence in sufficient shared dictionary to make dialogue very probable, if possible.
I suppose you missed the parts of the idols in the Vatican which were worn away by the kisses of the worshippers, as well.
And, I guess you are hostile to the testimony of the thread about the recent visit—I think to Mexico City and other points . . .
Therefore, I doubt there’s much openness to the enlightenement of the truth in such regards.
***I think “more likely millions” is a pretty safe guesstimate given South America.***
Instead of guessing, why not name names?
Sounds like you demand a level of proof you are loathe to shoulder on other issues in another context.
Would a million names impress you?
A 100 thousand?
Stand by, you’ll learn them in eternity.
***However, the above assertion has nothing to do with my point.
I am used to lots of folks dodging my points, BTW.***
For the record, please state your point. I had thought that your point was that Philip was not authorized by the Church and was doing the instruction and baptism of the eunuch on his own.
I countered with the fact that Philip was authorized by the Apostles, with the laying on of hands, making him clergy in the Church.
So what is your point?
You are outdoing yourself.
First, the only aspect of God we can call "personal" is Jesus, and that is based solely on His human nature and solely on a blind belief that He is indeed God as well as Man.
We relate to Him through our human nature and senses (i.e. pain, suffering, fear, crying, death, etc.), but not His divine nature.
Second, what is the nature of your "personal relationship" with God/Jesus? Does He appear to you? And then, how would you know it really is Jesus?
It's the humility of man that admits God is an unreachable mystery for us and that we can at best be compared to His sheep. Last time I checked, cheep don't have a "fellowship" with their shepherd! I think it would be very presumptuous of any sheep to assume that the shepherd is anything more than recognizable but never "known," or, God forbid, "understood."
It is the arrogance of the Reformed that arrogates God to a "personal God" by elevating the status of the "elect" sheep to that of a "fellowship" with the Supreme Being.
Oh, I see. First you read the Bible, then you see what God does, then you recognize that it is from God because the Bible told you so? So, when a Jew does a good deed, is that from God too? How about a Muslim? How about atheist? Was there God in Gandhi as well?
It has long been my belief that the personal relationship an Apostolic has is not with God at all. It is with the Church. The Church is the real center of the Apostolic faith, imo.
The Church is where the sacraments (mysteria) are administered. That is our relationship with God—through grace. And that is based entirely on our faith that the Holy Spirit partakes in the process.
FK: Yes, absolutely true. I meant that we know that SOME are saved.
Kosta: No we don't. We only know that we can be, and hope that we will be. Those who are dead know. We can only hope.
Well, your Church has presumed to Canonize thousands of Gentiles as Saints. So, if anyone claims it is a fact that SOME Gentiles are saved it is your own Church. :)
The gathering of the faithful is where Christ is. That is His Church. But anyone who calls "Lord, Lord" can not be the Church and believe all sorts of things, for that would make God's church relative, and that is the sin of universalism and ecumenical relativism, which comes, naturally, from Protestantism and Protetsant-like mindedness.
This sounds forced to me for the sole purpose of eliminating the possibility of having a "personal" relationship with God.
No, it is perfectly passable for two human beings to establish a "relationship" without physically meeting and touching. But we are to talking about two human beings. We are talking about a relationship between the Shepherd and the sheep. What does the sheep really know about the Shepherd? Not much. Hardly a "personal relationship," more like a master and a pet, except in the case of God, infinitely more distant and separate.
However, He DOES speak to me.
He does He? How? What does He sound like? Does He say "FK" and you respond "Here I am God..."? And he says "why are you persecuting my Church?" And do you get blinded and fall down on the ground and beg to know who this is? Or do you just have a friendly "chat" while you are driving? "What's up with these snowstorms, Daddy?" (I believe Quix calls God the Father "Daddy," how "cute"), and He says "What do you want me to do with the weather...FK, my adopted son?"
I tell Him things I wouldn't tell anyone else because I trust Him, not because I "have to". To be honest, I can't imagine being able to love any God with whom I did not have a personal relationship
Well, if He knows everything you do and think and want and say, what choice do you have? That's not a personal relationship by choice, but by fiat. If you can't beat'em, join'em. So, yes you "have to" otherwise He knows you are lying and because you believe that everything you do is because He wants you to do!
And if God wanted men to fly... Try again something better.
Only those to whom God would reveal the truth would ever believe and know about themselves
That is a big time speculation.
Whether I can convince another of my faith, or whether I can convince him of the truth of the fruits of the Spirit that are worked through me, is irrelevant to the truth of my faith.
Well, if it is something very personal/experiential, then no one but you can know in that sense, and there are no words to descirbe it and there is no point in trying to share it with others.
Your faith should be sufficient to you because, obviously by your logic, God wanted it to be deeply personal and not provable to men unless God already made them believe, in which case there is no need to prove anything! :)
But you are also making a giant leap of faith when you say that your faith is right because you "know" it is! Wow! That's rich, FK.
On personal salvation, we simply state facts, in remarkably similar ways, as best we know them by the leading of the Holy Spirit
Nothing remarkable about it, FK. All your co-religionists read the same Book and use the same language and verses, and pick and choose the same "truths." We could equally argue that those who don't agree with you are also led by the Holy Spirit to disagree with you and prove exactly nothing!
The truth of facts is not dependent on who or how many people agree with the facts.
What "facts," FK? You have not stated a single fact; just beliefs.
LoL... Curly(Howard) salute...
"My" (Orthodox, not personal) Church does not canonize saints as they are canonized in the west (proof of miracles and what not). Orthodox Saints are those who are venerated because the faithful have recongized the goodness of Christ in them (their life, suffering for faith, extreme humility, etc. all Chirst-like characteristics). Orthodox saints are "sainted" when people spontaneously begin venerating them, not when the "Church" decides they are saints.
But we don 't presume than anyone is saved, for we don't know their whole book. Only God does. Saying that anyone is saved is claiming what only God knows by His own judgment.
***I suppose you missed the parts of the idols in the Vatican which were worn away by the kisses of the worshippers, as well.
And, I guess you are hostile to the testimony of the thread about the recent visit—I think to Mexico City and other points . . .
Therefore, I doubt there’s much openness to the enlightenement of the truth in such regards.***
It would serve as better debate when you quantify or identify specific instances. I know of no idols in the Vatican. If you do, then name them.
You keep making wild unsubstantiated statements such as “I suppose you missed the parts of the idols in the Vatican which were worn away by the kisses of the worshippers, as well” and when I ask for clarification, you use terms such as doubting my openness or guessing that I’m hostile.
I’m beginning to wonder which type of bridge you prefer.
***Well, your Church has presumed to Canonize thousands of Gentiles as Saints. So, if anyone claims it is a fact that SOME Gentiles are saved it is your own Church. :)***
The whole canonization process is an examination of the life of the saints, with miracles associated with them, which presents evidence of their salvation. It’s a long process and very involved. It doesn’t happen every day.
I think that the important thing is that we are all called to be Saints. Every single one of us. The question is whether we follow the Shepherd’s call.
There are some here who claim that they cannot avoid following the Shepherd. Fine. Don’t. The rest of us must journey slowly and with much effort and support and guidance from Him. We must persevere. Remember the Footprints:
One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with the Lord. Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky. In each scene I noticed footprints in the sand. Sometimes there were two sets of footprints, other times there were one set of footprints.
This bothered me because I noticed that during the low periods of my life, when I was suffering from anguish, sorrow or defeat, I could see only one set of footprints.
So I said to the Lord, “You promised me Lord, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I have noticed that during the most trying periods of my life there have only been one set of footprints in the sand. Why, when I needed you most, you have not been there for me?”
The Lord replied, “The times when you have seen only one set of footprints in the sand, is when I carried you.”
One Catholic in otherwise good standing will do.
Ducking the answer again?
Not even the Mother of God? Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't know if it's dogmatic or not) but I thought that the Orthodox held the Blessed Virgin to be perpetually sinless. If this is the case, then how can you not presume that she is saved?
I doubt Michaelangelo started out intending the Pieta to be an idol. It has sure become so. What I didn’t understand was with both Christ and Mary in the statue, Mary seemed to get more attention, adoration, worship from the pilgrims.
There were a plethera of such throughout the Vatican. I don’t recall how much St Peters itself had.
Certainly not all pilgrims prostrated themselves before this or that. But some did.
In my experience . . . particularly with some RC edifice reps . . . facts and evidence really do not matter a micro-gram’s worth. The facts will either be ignored, dodged or some such and some minutae will be siezed on instead.
LOL.
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.