Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Stemming from this comment
>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<
Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.
I agree. :-) I'm surprised you believe in modern day revelation though. Pretty cool! This is better than an ecumenical thread!
Sorry if I was unclear. Of course the notes are commentary. What else would they be? They’re notes, not Scripture.
LDS call it personal revelation. I think a better biblical term is illumination--so as not to confuse it with communication on the level of the universal Bible. I'm not sure, though, why you're surprised. Look at a broader swath of 1 Cor. 2:9-16--and I've highlighted other key verses besides vv. 15-16:
However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"—
but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
That’s cool! I was always under the impression that classical Christians did not believe in modern revelation, i.e. communication of God to man. The Bible was it and all. I’m happy to be corrected! Thanks!
I just happened to snag this quote from another thread, pretty much says what I meant.
“As is so often the case, Protestant polemicists who are seeking to ground distinctively Protestant doctrines in Church history, cite a single passage by a Father or great Doctor like St. Thomas in isolation, where it might appear prima facie that they are teaching sola Scriptura (or some other Protestant notion). This is an extremely common (and also, I might add, irritating) shortcoming,”
The question was asked. I answered it.
Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the "Let Us Reason" website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it's a lie.
Now that is really fascinating. I am thrilled you are skeptical of that paragraph from your church's catechism. It is dreadful, isn't it?
But as you can see from subsequent Catholic posters' comments, that is indeed Catholic dogma from the catechism.
And FYI, I did not post from the thread you linked to. I didn't need to. You simply go to Google and insert a phrase or a number along with "catechism of the catholic religion" and you come up with sites such as this one straight from the Vatican which is the one I used...
"460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.81"
As you can see, word for word, according to Rome.
Although it doesn't sound any better from Rome than it does from anywhere else. It's still anti-Scriptural and thus, wrong.
You don't have to apologize to me for incorrectly attributing that website to my post. We all learn from our mistakes, God willing (the One and only God.)
Of course Catholics are Christians. Our argument is with doctrines and traditions [of men] which cause confusion.
Perhaps you disagree with St. Peter that we become “partakers of the divine nature?”
History shows that numerous popes have declared that those outside the Catholic church are damned to Hell...
It is my understand that once a pope makes a decree as such, no future pope can change that...Is that correct???
May God increase their discernment.
What happened to your three-week sabbatical from the Religion Forum?
Great question.
You see it seems when the Catholic partakes of the Lord's Supper he believes #460 of the Catholic catechism and he believes he then BECOMES a god.
Whereas a correct understanding of God's word and will shows us that when we "partake" of Christ's sacrifice we are filled with HIS righteousness, and not our own. HIS righteousness is imputed to us and thus we are acquitted and forgiven of our sins.
We are "partakers" of Christ; we do not "become" Christ, which is the great heresy of Rome that filters into so many of its errant doctrines and practices, as evidenced in #460 among many others.
(#460)
"460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.81"
WOW !
Not in my Bible
b'SHEM Yah'shua
Perhaps just an extreme way of analogizing, Catholics (unlike some of the cults) don't really believe that we become God or gods.
Do YOU believe the Catholic Church has the power to do this?
There is a difference between "being a Christian" and "being damned to Hell." Even a Catholic inside the Church who dies with an unrepentant and unforgiven mortal sin is damned to Hell. As for the condemnations pronounced by various popes because of heresy, their applications would involve the question of culpability and invincible ignorance, but let us save that for another thread.
Sorry FRiend.
But when I have to do a Google search to find what’s in the Catechism, and all they have are non-Catholic sites, I’m going to believe that it is a lie.
However, if you actually link to the catechism, as you did here, I can consider it.
I would need this confirmation whether it was a speech from GWB, a quote from James Marsden or the Catechism. Give the source, not someone else quoting the source and we don’t have those problems.
AMEN!
By the grace of God. 8~)
Where is the problem with that? Neither "venerate" nor "co-redeem" means "worship." Your continued efforts to conflate them have failed.
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.