Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Ravi is Evangelical more than Protestant and every Christian who I know who’s heard him basically agrees with all his doctrine.
I find it very interesting that so many Catholics make all kinds of odd statements and condemnations about what Christians believe and yet think so highly of someone who so thoroughly represents Evangelical thought.
I find nothing of what he preaches to be un-Scriptural.
PRAISE GOD FOR THAT!!!!
That is in no way any implicit Scripture supporting the Assumption of Mary.
That’s rationalization if there ever was any.
Just because one thing happened, doesn’t mean that it had to or did happen to Mary.
INDEED.
However, when rationalizations, pseudo-logic etc. are all a system has to support UNBIBLICAL hideousness . . . that’s all it has!
Well some do have a great deal more passion than others which can be irritating to some...however I think most tolerate this to some degree as all of us can and do get passionate in our stance. I’ve seen some very good debates where passion surfaces and makes for a lively debate..which is a good thing...but ‘the topic’ should not get lost entirely or even remotely when the passions arise...but stay on mark with it,... that appears to be the problem...not the passion as much as the topic ends up entirely lost and for that the interests of the posters. Then all is lost when continued debate may have brought the truth to the surface. So it is every-ones loss then.
I’ve read the catholic catechism and found several similarities to the beliefs of Protestants and Evangelicals....but as much several things which make no sense whatsoever, and questions about likely will never be satisfied because they are too far “out-there” for what I believe God says. This does not mean debate about cannot be possible as doing so at least helps to understand why the beliefs are as they are even if we disagree.
WELL PUT.
It is not surprising to me as we agree on much more than that which we disagree.
As I said, when and if something is preached that is overtly or covertly against what I believe as a Catholic, I am not offended by it and know that though we disagree, the faith of the preacher is honest and true.
It is a mistaken assumption by non-Catholics that the Church insists on only one understanding of every verse in the Bible from her adherents.
Very few verses are stringently interpreted. There is incredible depth to the Bible, that should one study it for their entire life, one could still find new meaning in a verse one has read a thousand times previously. I doubt anyone has ever fully plumbed all that the Bible has to teach us.
Again it is not that they are necessary. Is it necessary to kneel to pray?
It is difficult for me to understand why the minimalism when it comes to God and worship and prayer and reverence and the sacred? Where does it come from that "thou must do only the minimum necessary."?
How we eat, how we walk, talk, how we brush our teeth... all of these can be done in gratitude, in prayer.
Not that I always do this (in Church, in the presence of the Holy Eucharist are only prime opportunities), but the more we see God in every action, the more we see His creation as our gift, the more we see Beauty and acknowledge it...
Why calculate how little is necessary, rather than accept all that God offers us, if we pay attention?
I’d have to disagree on everything good about Proddies comes from the Catholic church....rather more so Judaism and the old testament. There was the reformation of course but in a sense the catholics had another reformation with Vatican 2. Both Prods. and catholics “reform†along the way as our understanding of truth becomes more clear and precise. As most realize the book of Revelation, which reveals Christ, was always very difficult to understand..but we see and understand far more clearly today than even a century ago.
You are exactly right, Deo. That kind of revelation ended with the Book of Revelation. And I am off to read your link..thanks sv
I’m not aiming to be attractive or a man pleaser. If I agreed with you then, you would be pleased. King Saul was a man pleaser and we know where that got him.
Jesus wasn’t pleasing to The Pharisees and Stephen wasn’t pleasing either nor was Paul. All because of THE WORD. When you are presented with Truth you don’t want to here, you attack the messenger. Nothing new under the sun. So your reply is nothing I shouldn’t expect nor am I offended since you prescribe to ‘anti-God’s Word ALONE - Jesus, The Living Word isn’t enough - need man, also.
And I am indeed well equipped and can’t help that it grates on you. Tell God about it - His Word and The Power of The Holy Spirit equipped me - I don’t take credit for it.
Redacted means "edited." For example, the way the KJV translates hysteremata in Col 1:24 , when compared to they way they treat the cognates elsewhere suggests that they translators had an agenda. They didn't just translate, the edited, -- redacted.
Subset mean a collection or group (even one with no members) which does not contain all the members of a larger collection or group. The OT adopted by Luther and most non-catholic/non-orthodox does not contain all the books in the OT which was in use up until Luther's time. The protestant Bible is therefore a redacted subset of ours.
JV - She obviously didn't read your post either time. She just used it as a framework to air one of her beefs with Catholicism....twice. Its no wonder she failed her Catechism classes as a child.
I read your post, thanks. Let me read Co. 1:24 and I’ll be back...
I beg to differ. We suffer punishment for our sins all the time. And FYI, suffering punishment is not same as paying and freedom from suffering for our sins is not what Jesus’ death gained for us. What we gained by Jesus’ death and the remission of our sins is deliverance from the wages of sin which is DEATH. What we gain is eternal life in heaven.
Look closely at the world and the people in it and tell me there is no punishment for sin. That’s what people don’t understand about the Ten Commandments. God gave them to us for OUR good not His. He had no need of them, HE is PERFECT already. We however, suffer greatly when we sin against those commandments.
Before Jesus the gates of heaven were closed to us. We could not be in heaven, no matter how closely we followed the law. The uncleanliness of sin barred our entrance. Jesus, tore the veil so that we may one day be able to praise God in the Holiest of Holies.
Yep.
By thinking that the doctrine of purgatory is a gift from God.
In fact, it is so sufficient that He even grants us forgiveness of them after we have died and did not have a chance to confess them.
Then what's the point of purgatory?
If sins are forgiven, they're forgiven. They're gone. There's nothing left to pay for.
2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Absent from the body = present with the Lord. No purgatory, no burning to pay for sins already forgiven by Christ.
On idolatry? Mistaking some one or some thing for God? I believe they are basic Christianity. Do you disagree with them?
Just because Enoch and Elijah are the only two people EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Bible that were assumed into heaven does not mean that it could not have happened to others.
Unless, of course, you believe that EVERYTHING in the Christian faith is EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Bible. In that case, we will never reach an agreement on the possibility of Mary’s Assumption.
You’re right, of course, in denying that just because Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven, then the same thing HAD to happen to Mary. That doesn’t necessarily follow. I’ll agree with you there.
However, I very much disagree with your denial of any IMPLICIT Scripture on the Assumption. It’s right there, as I copied and pasted it for you from http://scripturecatholic.com
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.