Well MY followers sure do! (Even though I wrote one of our own for them...)
Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock
It’s been well enough established by several sources that the Pope was indeed kissing the Quran. While I’m sure that’s rather embarrassing to Catholics at large as is the declaration by the Catholic Church that the Muslims serve the same god as they do at some point they will understand the significance of both of those statements and gestures.
At least you ain't wishy-washy about your belief.
Well MY followers sure do! (Even though I wrote one of our own for them...)
That was over a month ago. Folks have forgotten since then...
Of COURSE!!
Where do you think I got the idea??
It sure appears that way!
The question that remains is WHY!!!
bttt
Pope-less Friday is Here...
Is Christ Vicar-less?
You often see a knee jerk reaction by RCs when faced with any thing negative against their object of devotion, which includes repeated unsubstantiated denials to even calling the poster a liar. Yet others actually charge that Rome is unfaithful, and thus belong to another class of RCs.
And while some want to canonize JP2 and defend him against any attacks, other RCs engage in the latter to different degrees, which was the subject of this post:
One example of this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3876#3876
Let's start with the Nicene Creed because it best illustrates my point about institutional Christianity and the hubris of it's leadership. The first question you have to ask is which Nicene Creed do you look at as the rule of your faith. The creed that was created by theologians brought together and led by a pagan in 325 AD, or the creed that was adopted by a state-church coalition in 381 AD.
I think in either case a we see a statement that "all right minded Christians" are expected to revere as equal to Scripture. Additionally, in both cases we have a statement being created by men who are driven by a political agenda and the belief that they alone can define what is truth and all 'right minded Christians" must blindly adhere to it.
The creeds came because some get quite different meanings from the same Scripture, Arius for example.
Saying one reveres Scripture can means they revere their version and interpretation of it.
You cannot have one Lord, one faith, one baptism when the Church is comprised of individuals with their own theology.
Facts are such inconvenient things.
The charge that the different translations are different in their content simply does not hold water.
If you check Scripture on a verse by verse basis and compare versions, you'll see that there's essentially no difference between the interpretations.
Here's a link for your convenience which shows many versions of the same verse.
And you can use it for any verse by entering it in the white field at the top of the page.
Additionally, there are not all that many different interpretations of those verses. Usually there's just one, but there may be two or at the most three, but that is pretty rare.
So both arguments fall flat.
Nor does that mean that any one organization's interpretation is the right one. Just because there is consensus by the leadership of an organization, denomination, or church, does not mean that that interpretation is by default correct.
Truth is not decided by consensus. It stands on its own whether anyone believes it or not or agrees with it or not. It stands outside man's existence or acknowledgement because it is based on God's nature, not man's interpretation.
Truth is truth because God is true, not because people believe it.
Sure you can. Show me where Scripture states that someone's theology has to be *perfect* to be saved or part of the body of Christ.
And besides, the Catholic church itself allows for plenty of leeway amongst it's adherents.
Teddy Kennedy still got a Catholic funeral.
I have objections to Dr. Horton’s views on “Two Kingdoms” theology as applied to politics, but he does understand the importance of making sure Protestants understand where we differ from Rome.
Those of us who believe political cooperation with Roman Catholics is appropriate or even necessary must keep in mind that we have very important differences on doctrine. The Reformation happened for a reason.
What has gotten lost in the quest to find a human ruler is the role of the Holy Spirit.
If you look at the Apostolic Era churches and the churches of the generations immediately following you will not find a man made hierarchy, that emerged later. What you will find is churches united by their faith in Jesus Christ guided by the Holy Spirit. Our Scriptures were filtered by these Holy Spirit led Christians. The variety in theological beliefs didn't hamper the Holy Spirit at all and Christianity grew at an incredible rate.
For one example: the one Lord according to sola scriptura Oneness Pentecostalism is not the same as other sola scriptura interpretations.
Another example would be salvation by grace through faith vs. salvation by election in the sola scriptura Arminianism vs. Calvinism schools.
And "one baptism" varies among various sola scriptura adherents - and for some it can even be more than one baptism.
Truth is not decided by consensus.
I heartily agree. Neither is it decided by each individual. Even the Reformers realized this very early on - it's why they created their various Confessions, Principles of Faith and so on. They even split from each other numerous times over disagreements on who's interpretation of scripture, via sola scriptura, was correct.
Beautifully said!
This is my main problem with the over emphasis in institutional churches that is placed on creeds and confessions. It is one of the few areas I find myself in conflict with my Reformed Protestant FRiends. They often don't recognize it, but they can be just as guilty as the Roman Catholics of relying on man made statements as equal to God's Word.
If we are going to truly hold to Sola Scriptura as the rule of our faith we need to diminish the status of these creeds and confessions.
If you don't know WHY they existed, then you don't know IF they are STILL required today. Rightly dividing God's WOrd of truth works when it's actually tried....2 Tim 2:15. Either GOd meant what He said when He said ONE, or He forgot there were more.
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.