Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
***Yet God will not be mocked.***
Then why do the Reformed mock Him?
***Sadly the RCC teaches a faith through other mediators and other Christs and other doctrines of men.***
The Church is of Christ; all others are of men. Pride and hubris lead to personal Scriptural interpretation, which Scripture itself proscribes. The Reformed violate their own stated theology right from the beginning.
***Although I have to say I think your interpretation of who makes up the audience for the Sermon on the Mount is a private interpretation of your own.***
Any time that you catch me in a theological error, please let me know. My standard is the Church of Jesus Christ, not some shifting personally derived whim. If I am in violation of the Church’s theology, that is all that I ask of anyone - to let me know.
***And in preaching the Gospel, Christ speaks to all those who are His, all those with ears to hear.***
There are many that hear things that are not of Christ. Including some right here. Not all those who cry Lord, Lord...
We believe, based upon Scripture and the early Church Fathers, that the Church is able to interpret Scripture infallibly. That is what separates it from the churches of Luther and Calvin and Eddy and Swaggart and Smith and Hagee and...
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus founded it - why would He let it fail when He said that He would always be with it?
"Those things which seem contingent, are yet ruled by the certain providence of God...Nothing is contingent, for everything that takes place flows from the eternal and immutable counsel of God" -- John Calvin, Jer. V:428
Even the errors of Rome (and its strange and "elitist" fantasy that the Sermon on the Mount was addressed only to the apostles and not to all believers) even those errors are ordained by God for His glory.
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." -- 1 Corinthians 11:19
All who have Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ are most probably among the elect, Mark. That's because Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ is a gift of grace from God to His children to bring them to Him and make them like Him who "is before all things, and by Him all things consist."
Jesus is the only head of the church on earth. Not some impostor in Rome who will have to answer for his conceit.
***Even the errors of Rome (and its strange and “elitist” fantasy that the Sermon on the Mount was addressed only to the apostles and not to all believers) even those errors are ordained by God for His glory.***
Hardly elitist. Words directed to certain individuals are hardly elite. I do it and so does everyone else. The role of the Apostles, as the forerunners of the current Bishops, was set apart and different from the laity.
***All who have Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ are most probably among the elect, Mark. ***
We cannot say ‘probably’, Dr. E. We can only say what we know in the light of Scripture and the Church. Does Ted Haggard have Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ? Is he of the elect? I certainly don’t know. But it is Scripturally clear that faith alone is not enough.
***That’s because Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ is a gift of grace from God to His children to bring them to Him and make them like Him who “is before all things, and by Him all things consist.”***
No question about faith coming from Grace. We simply disagree about the number of the elect, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the role of the Church, the role of the Sacraments (and their number) and few other trivial things.
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, in a continuous line stretching back to St. Peter who was commissioned by Him to lead His Church on Earth.
John Calvin was not.
Every pope was and is likewise just a fallible man.
They differ in that Calvin did not presume to blaspheme by calling himself "another Christ" or the "head of the church on earth."
Whereas, every pope does.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." -- Matthew 12:36
If it is possible that what the Apostles wrote later was not consistent with what they preached before, then the Apostles cannot be trusted. Apostolic succession would fall apart for that reason alone.
FK: "My contention is that the conversations appearing in John were "basically" orally and correctly taught leading up to the actual drafting of the text."
That means +John's Greek was flawless (actually better than +Paul's) from the getgo and his theology fully developed. If that's what he was teaching from the beginning, then it is surely strange the Synaptic Gospels don't mention any of it.
Well, then it is also surely strange that none of the whole Bible speaks anything of Mary being sinless. :) The quality of John's Greek doesn't bother me since I have a very different view of God's involvement in the creation of the scriptures. I'm sure John's theology grew, as it does with all of us, but I maintain that his original oral teachings were consistent with his later writings.
The Church is the one that, when tested, formulated correct theology (Trinity), and Christology (two natures, one Person) based on what the Church believed "everywhere and always" but was not necessarily expressed. The other alternative is that all other "churches" were equally "true," and all Gnostic, Docetist, Monophysite, Montanist, Marcionist, Ebionite, etc. theologies were equally "true"."
That's not the only alternative. Your Church could have been wrong on several things, as well as other churches. Perhaps the Church that was closest to being right was stamped out by a more powerful one. We cannot know for sure, but it does not follow that either your Church is 100% correct or all the others are equally correct. My church is closer to being correct than yours is, but that does not mean that mine is 100% right and yours is 100% wrong.
You know, Good vs evil, debits vs credits, Ugly vs Beautiful, right vs wrong, holy vs heretical, priest vs laity, and other dualistic memes..
God is Aloha and Omega, beginning and the end.. He has no competition..
Vitually ALL religion is obsolete.. One cannot build a "Babylonian" edifice to heaven.. Humanity in a maze of the flesh.. only the spirit/Spirit will(or even Could) set you FREE...
I will never understand Hawaiian theology.
Most protestants are not protestants. They protest nothing.. and have no fathers.. I am not Roman catholic or EO and no Protestant, Calvinist or Arian.. Who are the "protestants" you mention.. yet I follow the Messiah..
If I don't know what I am(religously) how could you?.
LoL.. Ah! but Aloha means many things..
It could mean bend over kiss you're flesh goodbye if you're not born again..
You know, in an obscure meaning..
“You know, in an obscure meaning..”
In Old High Church Polynesian mayhap?
It's probably better for me to let the Latins defend the Catechism as they choose. My position remains that the scriptures self-authenticate, and if God went to all that trouble to create His word, then He would also see to it that it remained pure for His purposes through all the problems you listed (if they even existed). I think we have a great disagreement about how many problems there actually are with the scriptures.
The claim that the authors were "consigned to writing whatever [God] wanted written, and no more" is simply not true when one considers that +Paul speaks of "his gospel" or when he explicitly states, on more than one occasion, that the commandments he is giving are not from the Lord but from him personally.
The Catechism is correct. (ACKK!!!!) :) When Paul speaks of "his gospel" he is perfectly clear that he is not speaking of some gospel that he made up. No, he is speaking only of that Gospel that was given to him personally by Christ. So, Paul's listeners understand that it is Christ's Gospel given to Paul. Paul adds NOTHING to that Gospel that was given to him, EXCEPT, it appears, for a few off hand comments which he clearly identifies.
Of those comments, I can't think of any that would reach the level of "commandment". Do you have an example? One of them amounted to saying he thought it would be better if people remained single, like him. However, not being an idiot, he understood that if everyone followed him on this then it would be the end of the human race. So, that couldn't have been a commandment.
You know, we are all "inspired" from the moment we wake up until we fall asleep. Something "inspires" us to do things all day long. My problem with this terminology used is that (1) it is loaded with implications and (2) it is "fluff" without substance.
I am fine with "inspired", but I like "God-breathed" better. I think that better describes what is actually going on.
***Calvin was just a fallible man saved by grace alone.***
I find it odd that he is quoted as if he wasn’t.
***Every pope was and is likewise just a fallible man.***
He finds himself as the successor of Peter, another fallible man, and head of the Church of Jesus Christ. Surely that is worth a modicum of consideration.
***They differ in that Calvin did not presume to blaspheme by calling himself “another Christ” or the “head of the church on earth.”***
Calvin had no authorization to do anything of the sort. He had no Apostolic succession or anything else other than personal hubris. Calvin was a heretic in at least six definable heresies. His blasphemies include calling the Pope an antichrist.
***I am not Roman catholic or EO and no Protestant, Calvinist or Arian.. Who are the “protestants” you mention.. ***
Unless you are of the Coptic Church, anyone separated from the Catholic Church is a Protestant - defined by the Protestants. If you are completely severed from the Church, then you are a heretic.
Up to you, I suppose.
***My position remains that the scriptures self-authenticate, and if God went to all that trouble to create His word, then He would also see to it that it remained pure for His purposes***
I’m not sure that God went through much trouble to create His word. He went through a bunch of trouble to create His Church, but Scripture seemed to be an afterthought 300 years later.
***I am fine with “inspired”, but I like “God-breathed” better. I think that better describes what is actually going on.***
Inspired is like leading. It does not guarantee perfection in the following. Same with the Holy Spirit. He is perfect; we are not. If we do not frogmarch, then it is up to us to follow Him. And we will falter.
No reason whatsoever! :) Always give thanks for all our blesisngs.
Maybe some desire to be tested; others are happy the way they are. You keep telling me how secure you are in your belief. Do you need to go through a Job-like trial to feel "better" about it?
Well, I don't pray a lot for terrible things to happen to me, if that's what you mean. :) And as for what I need, I have turned ALL of that over to God alone. I am not mine to make those decisions. I am God's for Him to make them.
Christ was the model of virtue. No one is a Christian who quotes the Bible, but one who, as best as he can, lives a life of virtue, imitating Christ. Oh, it's work alright!
As you said, Christ gave us over 100 commandments—to do things, and none of them are to "do" sola scriptura!
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.