Posted on 08/07/2010 3:38:50 PM PDT by Salvation
How anyone can possibly think they are impressing God is beyond belief to me. ' I can, I will..'
Who exactly is it that you "think" is trying to impress God?
Was she hurt and suffering.. yes..was it FOR MY SINS... NO
That is heresy and an abomination before God
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Hbr 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Hbr 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
I could go on.. but it would do not good.. Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior.. she could not even save herself, let alone atone for the sins of others..
Is it one billion or 2 billion by now? I can hardly keep up with the numbers. They’re like burgers. Another day, another million serving up masses, and Hail Marys, and pope t-shirts, and Glory BEs, Fatima prayers, repeating processes, and Hail the Holy Queen endings.
Religion is a particular way or approach of faith and worship.
I’m not sure why the word religion is so abhorrent to some folk’s religion.
Because Mary was Immaculate, the suffering was not for Her sins. It was because of our sins, YOURS and Mine, Mary suffered the loss of Her Son.
I have already said (over and over) that I am not attacking baptism. I can understand your assumption, since one would have to read this sidebar from it's genesis. However, my "farmer scenario", back near the beginning was directed to you specifically.
The debate is upon the efficacious part - the necessary element of baptism. My position is that the heart is circumcised by the "Baptism of Fire" (the inrush of the Holy Spirit into a desiring and contrite heart), and is the necessarily present element involved in Baptism. The rest is incidental to that element.
[...] but I’m wondering if you, roamer, do not believe in using water in baptizing[...]
My position on baptism aligns pretty readily with orthodox Baptists, generally. I think it is important. I think it is a first act of obedience.
I think it should only be performed upon people above the age of reckoning, and that it should be carried out by dunking in living (running) water. I also think it should be done regardless of whether the Spirit already resides in the subject (which is often, if not normally the case).
But I do not believe that it is the powerful sacrament which you probably endorse. I do not believe the water is any sort of effective mechanism.
[...] and whether you think baptizing “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost” is important.
Technically, I still fall on the side of this formula. But early texts do not contain it - baptizing only in the name of Christ - which makes more sense wrt the structures that the Father has provided.
what an odd response. I do believe I am detecting some envy creeping in.
incidental... I do not believe the water is any sort of effective mechanism.
Then I really don't get why you use water at all. Why?
My position is that the heart is circumcised by the "Baptism of Fire" (the inrush of the Holy Spirit into a desiring and contrite heart), and is the necessarily present element involved in Baptism.
But "the heart" in your formulation is the same with and without any sort of ceremony. Why baptize at all? Why do what is incidental and not efficacious? Or why not just say a prayer or give a certificate or something like that? Why bother with ineffective incidentals at all? I'm getting from you that God's work is already done, you're not part of that in the baptism 'ceremony'. Why bother with it?
Technically, I still fall on the side of this [Trinitarian] formula.
Why?
But early texts do not contain it - baptizing only in the name of Christ
Which early texts are you referring to?
However, my "farmer scenario", back near the beginning was directed to you specifically.
I'm sorry, I missed that. I believe it's been answered; if not, my tagline would be my reply.
For me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgement: yea, I judge not mine own self.The Romish tendency towards surface level piety is often as exposed as a shallow shadow of true piety. nl's continuing obsession with an innocuous term while at the same time machine-gunning a barrage of vitriolic and sardonic posts reveals this dichotomy. At the most base level it reveals a deep-seated idolatry which manifests as both an obsequious sensitivity towards oneself and flippancy towards others.
As to fomenting discord, certainly Christ told us that truth would divide, did he not? Again, any discord that may arise mostly reveals surface level piety. But for that which is most important, the gospel of Jesus Christ, you won't find me fomenting discord on his propitiation and guarantee of the hope of glory.
Finally, as to our enemies, perhaps we are merely looking at these enemies from different worldviews. I follow Augustine's division of the City of God and the City of Man. I have the presumption that many Romanists still have a medieval worldview that conflates the City of God and the City of Man. Yes, the governmental authorities have a duty from God (Rom 13) to bear the sword against evil. The Church (broadly construed) does not have that authority. As citizens in the City of Man we have a responsibility to hold our governmental authorities responsible to their duties. As citizens of the City of God we have a responsibility to keep the Church pure. Our dual citizenship duties are not meant to be conflated into thinking we can bring the Kingdom of God on earth. That will occur at the second coming.
"For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his GRACE, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7).
Envy requires you to have something I want. Or need. I don't need a pope t-shirt, or a hail mary, or a wafer. And I don't want a system of works designed to keep man in bondage to a religious system. But wait a minute, you aren't Catholic, as you keep reminding everyone.
Ah, but if only you really did.
:)
But I do! 8?P
What a small god that is. My God loves mankind, just as an earthly father loves his earthly children. The idea that God needs to be pleased or impressed sounds like something one might say to three year olds to try to make them behave.
NL wasn't implying anything, NL was stating very clearly that, as your entire post demonstrates, you lack the charity and beatitude to be a practicing, observant Christian. Why else would you begin your preamble with a clearly offensive term for Catholics?
Well, you appeal to St. Augustine’s authority. However, you don’t follow him this far:
“I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so”
For it is not written, `Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or `by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam”
Or on the other Sacraments.
I think you follow him where he agrees with you, but not in the key areas where he agrees with the consensus and doctrines of the Church.
But, maybe, it’s a start...
..or that a church may say to members in order to enslave them to doctrines of men and traditions, which also are meant to impress God. And don’t.
I think your posts are winning the Hyperbole Contest - but it’s a close race...
Coming from you, I can’t tell you how happy that makes me.
Don’t be envious of those who can achieve this high relationship. Liken it to the master who gave each servant certain sums and expected returns on his investment. You perhaps ,fearful of the Lord, buried the gift so to preserve it while others invested more wisely. Read your bible for greater discernment and just maybe some scales will fall from your eyes as they did for Paul.
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.