Posted on 11/30/2010 5:36:59 AM PST by kindred
God is good!
"Seek and you will find" = He will answer with faith!
We have a supernatural God!
Praise Jesus and as the angel and the Holy Spirit said in scripture Hail Mary! That is it for real! Period!
Amen! Amen! Amen!
It just seems odd to ignore the Word of God for the opinion of Paul.
The Gospels are referred to often, read from, studied and considered inspired as God's Word and loved as much as any other book of the Bible in the vast majority of Protestant churchs.
That's because the vast majority are mainline Protestants.
But you asked: "Wouldn’t you rather trust your own reasoned interpretation of Scripture rather than that of any other man?" I think we assign authority differently. I would posit that the authority of Christ's Church has His authority, whereas you and Calvin do not.
Salvation, though is a much simpler matter. Accept Christ and get it; reject Him and be damned. It requires no more to be saved.
According to your interpretation, or yours and those whose you accept. So, my question still applies, you are choosing to accept on your own authority within your own limited means and capacity rather than those of the Apostles and Apostolic successors, the Doctors of the Church. They discussed and debated all the major questions of the Christian faith in Ecumenical Councils and left us with the foundations of doctrines and creeds of the Catholic Church.
Of course, we each make our choices on soteriology. Catholics look at it as following Christ as the head of His Church, and His authority is vested in His Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
With this in mind, you can understand that Calvin or Luther or your interpretations and teaching on salvation have no authority. They may be interesting to discuss, and many of the particulars were discussed and debated long ago as the Church developed doctrine and creeds, but they are not given the weight of real authority.
I say this to explain where we come from in viewing other's individual views and interpretation, not to demean or insult your own personal search for truth.
Thanks for your courteous reply.
Correct, but the Blessed Virgin Mary was in this state PRIOR to the Conception of Christ.
Colossians refers to believers (not just Mary) as possessing God's "fullness" quite a few times. When a person is saved (as Mary realized she was in the Luke passage) he/she has come into God's fullness.
Yes, Mary already knew that she was saved. This was BEFORE our Lord offered salvation to the rest of mankind. The Blessed Mother didn't know that she would be saved, she knew that she already was.
As far as your ark discussion, that is allegory and is a nice picture but I don't see anything close to such a comparison in the Scriture for Mary.
Really, you don't think that Jesus Christ offered a new Covenant?
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Works are a product of faith. To claim works as your salvation is to deny Jesus Christ as your Savior.
God Bless
Why are “protest”ants so determined to prove Mary was a sinner? Does it make you feel better or something?
She was conceived “without” sin. If you don’t like it, take it up with Jesus.
So? People have been splintering from the Catholic Church for 2000 years. There were various heresies, let's see, the Gnostics, Montanism, Arianism, Nestorianism. Then the Orthodox split. Or did Rome split from them? I'm not sure.
Then Luther and Henry VIII, of course. Some Baptists claim that they have been here all along. I sorta like that view, it's called "Landmarkism". Even though evidence seems to be thin on the ground. Islam is considered by many to be originally a Christian heresy, although I would think that it would be from Orthodoxy rather than Rome. Then there are the sects that sort of split from Protestantism that cannot be considered doctrinally sound. The Mormons, the Jehovah's witnesses, etc. The Protestants don't claim them and neither do the Catholics. Can some of them be saved? I don't know, I rather think it would be hard, but acceptance of Christ as Savior is the key. Every thing else is important, but not necessary. And not adequate
then there are numerous recent splits from the RCC. The Old Catholics, Mel Gibson's father's group, the feminist priests, the liberation theology theologians, etc. I'll admit the RCC has done a fantastic job with them lately, but will it always be so? the politics make it seem that eventually there will be a split between the modernists and the traditionalists, and the modernists may get the Vatican. Who knows?
Anyway, wagglebee, you are a good guy. I have followed you ping lists with much interest and agreement. But we are just going to have to disagree on this issue. Go with Christ, brother.
OK, I gotta ask, “What is ‘YOPIOS’”?
Thanks
If it were true it would be odd. However, for some strange reason you believe a myth.
That's because the vast majority are mainline Protestants
Wrong again. Only a small majority are mainline.
Actually, Jesus is pretty clear that all humanity is fallen and nowhere implies that his mother or father were in a different state.
Yes, heretics have been leaving the Church for 2000 years. But the Church hasn't splintered.
Then the Orthodox split. Or did Rome split from them? I'm not sure.
Not over any disagreement regarding salvation.
Anyway, wagglebee, you are a good guy. I have followed you ping lists with much interest and agreement. But we are just going to have to disagree on this issue. Go with Christ, brother.
I can live with that. God Bless my FRiend.
Welcome to Freeper’s coin acronym words! LOL!
It is simple, and can be done by anyone. But it requires repentance for your sins. Which implies that you will try to overcome them.
If you do not, perhaps you just made an emotional commitment, and I would say were not truly saved to begin with, regardless of you has baptized you.
Pentecostals, it seems to me, make this error, often, but I have known many that I have no doubt are true Christians.
Everything else is, well, important, but will not cost you your salvation if it is mistaken. But to me, having to , I don't know, do confession to a priest, eat bread that you believe is actual flesh, finger beads, etc. smacks of magic far more than checking the Bible our for yourself, and following where that leads you. No offense. Unlike some, I do not dispute the Christianity of the RCC.
As for your second question, I believe that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is precisely the final rejection of Christ.
In fact, I may be mistaken, I think this is probably the RCC's position, too. On one website by a RCC priest, the question of "once saved, always saved" came up, a good Baptist position. Naturally the good Father was having none of it.
What he said, and is in fact the correct interpretation of said doctrine, is that those who hold to that position say that if you have "lost" your salvation, then you didn't have it to begin with.
Now, I could give the arguments and verses to support this position, but that isn't my point. What the priest did say was, "But our Baptist friends have it right in its essentials. The unforgivable sin is to die with a final rejection of Christ." Or words to that effect. As I said, I do not know the official Vatican position on that.
As were the Old Testament saints. Faith was granted before the historical advent of Christ. Abraham also experienced salvation so was "full of grace".
Really, you don't think that Jesus Christ offered a new Covenant?
If one believes in a New Covenant it's certainly not a prerequisite that one must believe the allegory that Mary is a parallel to the ark.
so the letters of Paul are not part of the Word of God? Or do you mean "your" opinion of Paul
Nonsense.
There are about 2.1 billion Christians in the world and of those about 1.4 billion are Catholic and Orthodox.
Of the remainder:
105 million are Baptists
75 million are Methodists
87 million are Lutherans
75 million are Reformed/Calvinist 82 million are Anglican
Of course, we each make our choices on soteriology. Catholics look at it as following Christ as the head of His Church, and His authority is vested in His Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
See, this is where the basic disagreement is. Protestants simply do not accept that the Pope is more than a man, or that the Church has that kind of authority, as the Pope, or the College of Cardinals, or papal commissions are men, maybe filled with the Holy Spirit, maybe not. But let us face it; there have been a number of Popes that would not qualify for the word "Christian" in any but the most formal sense. Been a few Baptist preachers like that, too, and I DO NOT want to mention the choir directors.
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.