Posted on 09/21/2009 10:14:12 AM PDT by NYer
“”“Pope John Paul 2 lied about what is found in Acts 1:14! Luke does NOT ‘stress Mary’s maternal role in the newborn Church””
Nonsense,dear brother! There are themes and parallels in Scripture and Mary is Mother of the Church and type of the Church.
You’re reading the Bible like it’s a novel,that is not ever how scripture was understood, it’s a common protestant error and the main reason you have no unity
Here is an example of how themes ,parallels and typology work regarding the subject of nuptials from the following Church document called Mary:Grace and Hope In Christ
Excerpt...
The covenant between the Lord and his people is several times described as a love affair between God and Israel, the virgin daughter of Zion, bride and mother: “I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign Lord, and you became mine” (Ezekiel 16:8; cf. Isaiah 54:1 and Galatians 4:27). Even in punishing faithlessness, God remains forever faithful, promising to restore the covenant relationship and to draw together the scattered people (Hosea 1-2; Jeremiah 2:2, 31:3; Isaiah 62:4-5). Nuptial imagery is also used within the New Testament to describe the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:21-33; Revelation 21:9). In parallel to the prophetic image of Israel as the bride of the Lord, the Solomonic literature of the Old Testament characterizes Holy Wisdom as the handmaid of the Lord (Proverbs 8:.22f; cf. Wisdom 7:22-26) similarly emphasizing the theme of responsiveness and creative activity. In the New Testament these prophetic and wisdom motifs are combined (Luke 11:49) and fulfilled in the coming of Christ.
Agreed ,dear friend,but when the interpretation is a modernists one and someone thinks he/she is given some special individual revelation of scripture never seen before it;s called gnosticism.
If reading Scripture leads someone to agree that Christ is Divine or Baptism is a Sacrament than it is the Holy Spirit,special revelations are not.
Jesus says you're wrong...No one gets to interpret the scripture...
The bible is not a dead book...It is just as alive today as it was 2000 years ago...The bible can be understood today just as it could when it was written...
there is no way to tell who is in error without consistency of interpretations through the ages.
That comes from putting confidence in the flesh instead of God...And besides, God says you are wrong about that as well...He says, you think you have eternal life, check with the church fathers to be sure??? Of course not...God said to search the scriptures to find out if you have eternal life...And those instructions are to you, me and anyone else hunting for eternal life...
That comes right out of the pages of Pagan worship 101...There's nothing Christian about it...
Of course, Jesus COULD have said, "Peter, my Vicar, through the infallible Church, will give you all truth" - but Jesus didn't say that, did he?
If you follow Christ, you will seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you seek the truth elsewhere...well, you are not looking where Jesus said to look.
Amen. Eloquent and exact.
Once again the church in Rome shows how it excises the Holy Spirit from the lives of its congregations.
The RCC teaches that the Holy Spirit only leads the RCC papcy and magisterium which in turn lead its members.
Do they even understand what they're missing?
But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive" -- John 7:38-39"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
“when the interpretation is a modernists one and someone thinks he/she is given some special individual revelation of scripture never seen before it;s called gnosticism.”
No it isn’t.
“Gnosticism...refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge; this being is frequently identified with the Abrahamic god, (as opposed to the Gospel according to the Hebrews) and is contrasted with a superior entity, referred to by several terms including Pleroma and Godhead.”
Not even close.
Nor do Protestants think we’re “given some special individual revelation of scripture never seen before”. We just believe in interpreting what the Bible says, instead of claiming Jesus married Mary at the Cross, making her the mother of the church, or using the burning bush to show the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the NT were not his brothers.
We also believe “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” means we have been saved thru faith, that it is not something we do on our own, that we are not being saved as a result of works but by God’s gift, so we have nothing to boast about.
That isn’t gnosticism. It’s English.
Before we continue, I am genuinely curious as to how you define Hell. It seems vaguely defined and at the very least partly metaphorical as described in the Old and New Testaments. How specific can you be and what sources do you use to postulate your theory?
This is the limitation of sola scriptura, no?
Here’s how I reason it out, if you see any error please share it with me.
1. God is sovereign and the Creator.
2. Time is something we think of as objective even though our view of it is subjective (across all humanity). How we measure time is based on our place, no? Our measure of seconds, minutes and hours (thanks Sumerians) as well as the year are based on earth time and limited to our solar system. A “year” on another planet would be different just as a “day” on Mercury or Neptune would be different (if we could live there).
3. In Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now you have to decide on what you believe and that becomes definitional. If God created ex nihilo then time, at least as we understand it, is a creation of God. Time then is a set piece for God and he can manipulate it as only a divine creator unlimited in scope or power can. So God is “outside” of time (this is the term Dangus used. I don’t know if it is the best descriptor, though.)
If on the otherhand you beleive in creatio ex materia, then time exists for God just like the Laws of Physics exist for us. There is a powerful argument for creatio ex materia. The Hebrew in Genesis doesn’t support creatio ex nihilo. Heaven seems to be a limited one, that is our own sky and atmosphere. Earth is the Earth and created appears to mean formed from existing materials just as we form pottery or glass or other materials from the stuff found in the earth.
Another interesting argument for creatio ex materia is that the fossilized remains we find are from some other planet or material used to create ours.
There appears to be a two step process to creation. Is the description given chronological? Is it complete in detail? I don’t know. Going by the scriptures alone you cannot know you can only read about what you see there, check it with the original meaning and make presumptions about the intent and meaning today (which is what Jews and Christians do today and did then). Without living prophets to tell us: “This is what God meant to say.” We cannot “know” for certain.
It makes for interesting discussion and thinking, but in the end is irrelevant to our own personal salvation.
Gnosticism does not have to be that complex ,my friend. As New Advent points out...
Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.
This is what Martin Luther did when He invented solo-scriptura,thus Luther became gnostic in that particular belief that allows for many to fall into error
Nor do Protestants think we’re “given some special individual revelation of scripture never seen before”
Ask yourself why you do not have single unity in protestant communities with agreed upon dogmatic teachings on faith and morals to be obedient to?
The reason you don't have them is because separated communities have there own "special revelation" of what faith and morals is. It's a "do it my way" theology
I saw this first hand being in the Methodist Church for almost 20 years before converting back to Catholicism
First, gnostics were NOT just people who knew something special that made their present and future state different from someone who did not know. If that were true, then ALL Christians must be gnostics, since we know something that saves us in this life and the next!
Luther didn’t invent sola scriptura. The early church knew and practiced it, which is why scripture was cited to refute heretics and justify theology. The early councils were concerned with making theology align with scripture.
Indeed, that is why they were forced to deal with canon - so they would know what was reliable for doctrine.
Rome rejected sola scriptura, since it left no way for the Bishop of Rome to become ‘Vicar of Christ’.
There are ample ‘Protestant’ denominations that reject sola scriptura, which is why we have Lutherans promoting homosexuality. You cannot find a liberal protestant church that ACCEPTS sola scriptura!
Among those that accept it, the doctrinal divisions are few. Free Will vs Predestination. Allow infant baptism, or not. Perhaps debate about speaking in tongues.
Beyond that, I can’t think of much.
“”First, gnostics were NOT just people who knew something special that made their present and future state different from someone who did not know. If that were true, then ALL Christians must be gnostics, since we know something that saves us in this life and the next!””
In order to be in error a belief must disagree from an original belief agreed upon by the early Christians. You believe the Bible is the word of God because the early Christians tell you it is since there are no autographed original copies.,thus you agree with the early Church and not in error.
“”Luther didn’t invent sola scriptura. The early church knew and practiced it””
LOL! The early Church relied on tradition and the Church along with Scripture,not solo Scripture.They were in full unity in Eucharist being Christ truly present amongst other things
Here is what some of them had to say that refutes solo-Scripture..
“I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices NOT FOUND IN THEIR WRITINGS nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves.”
St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching and faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH from the beginning, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359 A.D.
“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the Bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the Council of GOD and college of Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church-.Saint Ignatius of Antioch (d 110” Letter to the Trallians 3:1
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further.”Saint John Chrysostom Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:2, 398-404 A.D..
Scripture itself says not everything is in the Bible alone...
“Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of His disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of GOD, and that believing you may have life in His Name.” John 20:30-31
lolol!!!
From your link...
It bears calling out that, according to the only source they can cite, the "33,000" number makes no mention of "Protestants" or even "denominations", but rather is the number of all "Christian" organizations, including Catholic organizations. So if Catholics are going to claim there are 33,000 "Protestant denominations", make sure you hold them accountable for their own 242 separate Catholic denominations. That is, if you decide to trust the source at all, which I wouldn't recommend.if one accepts the claim that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations, one must also accept that there are "242 Catholic denominations", as both claims are made within and by the same source.
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.