Posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
“Hope this clarifies.”
It clarified that your purpose, ultimately, is all for nothing. Who cares that you have an opinion, when your opinion is false? Everyone always tells me they have an opinion. I don’t care about that. I care whether or not an opinion is true or not.
Peter and Paul disagreed, they met in council and the Church taught the same thing afterward.
I’m trying to illustrate the difference between an individual and the Church.
You have an opinion as well. I think :) your posts are what you think. We’re both guilty of that.
thanks for your reply.
“Peter and Paul disagreed, they met in council and the Church taught the same thing afterward.
I’m trying to illustrate the difference between an individual and the Church.”
Where did Peter and Paul disagree? When Peter, who lived as do the Gentiles, against his own teachings, separated himself from the Gentiles?
It is illogical to assume that Bishop Augustine or Pope Gregory were in rebellion against the teachings of the church, simply because they are in rebellion against the Romans today.
“You have an opinion as well. I think :) “
Mine has facts. Yours does not, but rather disregards facts altogether.
And that’s my point. A sad condition it is to be in when you don’t care enough for the truth to attend the facts.
Yes Peter and Paul disagreed. And, Augustine was not in rebellion:
‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6)
“Yes Peter and Paul disagreed. And, Augustine was not in rebellion:
‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6)”
If that is the case, it was the Church, not Augustine, who sanctioned his condemnation of Pelagianism and his teaching which you, today, would call Calvinism:
CHAP. 38 [XIX.]— WHAT IS THE VIEW OF THE PELAGIANS, AND WHAT OF THE SEMI-PELAGIANS, CONCERNING PREDESTINATION.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.
http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html
It was the Church which sanctioned Augustine when he said that Mary is not more exalted than believers, but is rather more greatly blessed by the faith of all believers than she was by child birth:
“It is written in the Gospel, that when the mother and brethren of Christ, that is, his relations after the flesh, were announced to him, and waited without, not being able to approach him by reason of the crowd, he answered, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren” and prompting to his disciples he said, ‘• These are my brethren, and whosoever shall perform the will of my Father, he is my brother and mother and sister.” What else did he teach us by this, but that we should prefer our spiritual to our carnal relationship, nor that men are therefore blessed because they are carnally related to righteous and holy men, but because they adhere to them by their obedience and their imitation of them in doctrines and morals. Mary, there fore, teas more blessed in adopting the faith of Christ, than in conceiving his flesh. For when some one said to him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, he answered,. Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. Lastly, what did that relation- hip profit his brethren, that is, his relations after the flesh, who did not believe in him i Thus also her maternal relationship would have profited Mary nothing, if she had not borne Christ more blessedly in her heart than in her flesh.” — Upon Her Virginity
More against the Roman cult of Mary:
“Wherefore when the Lord appeared wonderful in the midst of the crowd, working signs and wonders, and showing what was hidden in the flesh, certain persons admiring, said, Blessed is the womb that bare thee. But he answered, Verily blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it. That is to say, My mother, whom thou hast called blessed, is thence blessed because she keeps the word of God, not because the Word was made flesh within her.” — Tenth treatise on the second chap of John’s Gospel
It was the Church which sanctioned his understanding of the Eucharist, as something which we “eat and drink” through faith, and not with our teeth and stomachs:
“If a passage is perceptive, and either forbids a crime or wickedness, or enjoins usefulness or charity, it is not figurative. But if it seems to command a crime or wickedness, or to forbid usefulness or kindness, it is figurative. Unless ye shall eat, he says, the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He appears to enjoin wickedness or a crime. It is a figure, therefore, teaching us that we partake of the benefits of the Lord’s passion, and that we must sweetly and profitably treasure up in our memories, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”— The third book upon Christian Doctrine
More:
“Jesus answered and said to him, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent. To do this is to eat the meat which perishes not, but endures unto eternal life. Why do you prepare your teeth and your stomach ? Believe only and you will have eaten.” — The 5th treatise upon the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John,
It is the Church which sanctioned his teaching against Peter being the Rock of the Church:
“I have said in a certain passage respecting the apostle Peter, that the church is founded upon him as upon a rock. But I know that I have frequently afterwards so expressed myself, that the phrase “ Upon this rock,” should be understood to be the rock which Peter confessed. For it was not said to him, Thou art Petra, but, Thou art Petrus, for the rock, was Christ. Let the reader select which of these two opinions he deems the most probable.” — The first book of his Retractions
Against Peter only receiving the Keys, and not all the Apostles:
“It appears in many passages of Scripture that Peter represented the church, and particularly in that place where it is said, I give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven... For did Peter receive those keys, and did John and James and the other apostles not receive them” What was given to him, was given to the church. Therefore Peter represented the church, and the church was the body of Christ. — Serm. 149, upon the words of 10th ch. of Acts
Against only Peter being told to feed the sheep:
“When it was said to him, Lovest thou me, Feed my sheep, it was said to all.” — Upon the Christian Contest
Against Justification by Works:
“All our good merits are only wrought in us by grace, and when God crowns our merits, he crowns nothing but his own gifts.” — To Sextus, letter 194,
Against Images:
“This is the chief cause of this mad impiety, that a figure resembling a living form operates more forcibly upon the feelings of these wretch ed men, than its being manifest that it is not living, and therefore that it ought to be despised by the living.” — Exposition of the 113th Psalm.
Against intercession from dead Saints:
“He is the High-priest who has now entered within the veil, and who alone of those who have appeared in the flesh, intercedes for us. As a figure of which, among the first people and in the first temple, the high-priest alone entered into the holy of holies, whilst all the people stood without.” — On the 64lst Psm.
Thus, we can righly conclude, that the Catholic Church of those times, is not the Roman Church of these times.
‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6)
Thank you for the compliment, but I am not the author of these thoughts, I am just one giving them voice in this forum.
I think I have made it clear that I examine the specifics in depth you have not. Please explain to me why some non-Catholics insist on a literal interpretation of some portions of Scripture and not on others. You have claimed that you are a creationist, but you obviously reject the literal interpretation of Matthew 26:26, Luke 22:19, and John 5:54 as meaning something symbolic and not literal.
Peace be with you
“I think I have made it clear that I examine the specifics in depth you have not. “
You have done no such thing. I listed 4 or 5 direct challenges to the authority of the apocrypha, straight from the apocrypha themselves. You haven’t discussed them at all.
“Matthew 26:26, Luke 22:19, and John 5:54 as meaning something symbolic and not literal.”
They were literally to be interpreted spiritually, or according to their context. As Christ Himself says,
Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
I KNOW I am guilty of breaking the whole law, and I am striving to understand it better. Like I honor my father here on earth by keeping the things of his house, so I endeavor to keep the laws and precepts of my Father in heaven. That I do it imperfectly is better than if I don't do it at all. Thankfully, the covering of the Blood of Yeshua allows me to strive over and over again. For that, I am grateful.
I’ll fulfill the royal law, and I’ll be complete in it, by the grace of God:
I certainly hope so.
If this is the case, your decision to follow the dietary laws and festivals, albeit not very well... is only your personal preference, which does not add to or take away from your salvation.
The law has never been for salvation - never has been, and never will be. Salvation is found by grace in the Blood of Messiah. That does not, however, mean that we can be lawless. You are confusing the issue, assuming I try to keep the law in order to be saved. That is not the case.
How is someone “basically trinitarian?” Even Mormons have told me they are “basically Trinitarian,” even though they’re polytheists. It’s a scary phrase that does not tell us anything.
The trinitarian formula as presented as the (supposed) primary proof of one's Christianity cannot be derived from the Word (nor is it a requirement therein). I try to stay away from things of heaven which are not explicitly defined, lest I get fat-headed and puffed up, talking about things I don't know (Col 2). YHWH says He is One, Yeshua says YHWH is One. How it works beyond that is really up in the air. Logic may dictate, but really, all logic fails to describe YHWH. He is GOD. He will do as He pleases.
That the Spirit is YHWH is defined by Yeshua being the Son of YHWH. That Yeshua is YHWH is defined by the plight of the House of Israel, in that the marriage (vow) needed to be dissolved in order for YHWH to remarry them (see Hosea, and particularly Is 54 in the light of Is 53) - Either the whole House of Israel had to die, or YHWH had to die (in some way) - Till death do us part.
But I think it is a waste of time to dwell on the mechanics beyond that - assigning hierarchies or not, developing doctrines from thin air, fighting with brethren over what is not defined... All is for naught, because WE DON'T KNOW, and that's OK.
Perhaps I can illustrate the point better this way:
Do you agree with Augustine on all he wrote?
“Matthew 26:26, Luke 22:19, and John 5:54 “
By the way, there is no John 5:54.
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke says to do it in remembrance of me. He does not say, “to save yourself, or as a work of righteousness, or as a weekly sacrifice.” I, therefore, take it more literally than you.
I cannot say it is my own, but more an aggregation I suppose. But my angle is different than most - Twenty years ago, I set out to prove that YHWH is GOD - The one and only. My position is the sum (or sub-total, God willing) of that journey. It required throwing much upon the altar to purge it of leaven. But it is a worthy endeavor, and one I would recommend.
I think any journey seeking God is worthwhile and pleasing to Him.
I wish you all the best on yours...
“Like I honor my father here on earth by keeping the things of his house, so I endeavor to keep the laws and precepts of my Father in heaven.”
The whole law is fulled in one word, even in this:
Gal_5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The law is not fulfilled in your failing attempts to keep festival or dietary laws, which have already been dealt with in other scriptures.
“That does not, however, mean that we can be lawless.”
It is not lawlessness to not keep festivals or dietary laws or any of the carnal ordinances.
The law is fulfilled in loving your neighbor.
“The trinitarian formula as presented as the (supposed) primary proof of one’s Christianity cannot be derived from the Word (nor is it a requirement therein). I try to stay away from things of heaven which are not explicitly defined, lest I get fat-headed and puffed up, talking about things I don’t know (Col 2). YHWH says He is One, Yeshua says YHWH is One. How it works beyond that is really up in the air. Logic may dictate, but really, all logic fails to describe YHWH. He is GOD. He will do as He pleases.”
An ignorance of the issue does not justify never seeking it out to begin with. If there were not three who are yet one God, they would never be spoken of in that way at all:
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.
Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
That Jesus is literally God, there is no question of it:
Mat_1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
That the Father and Son are separate, and yet one God, cannot be questioned:
Joh 8:17-18 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. (18) I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Joh_10:30 I and my Father are one.
That the Holy Spirit is God, and not an inanimate “force,” cannot be questioned:
1Co_3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Act_13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Whether we can truly comprehend the Trinity, as revealed in the scriptures, that is not something I would argue. But that the scripture clearly teaches it, there is no question.
Worry more about the nature of God, than on feast days and dietary laws which none of us are bound to.
“Do you agree with Augustine on all he wrote?”
Whether I disagree with Augustine on some issues, matters not. After all, even Augustine published his own corrections to false views he held in the past. I don’t hold that man is infallible, but rather, like Augustine, that the scriptures are infallible.
That you disagree with Augustine alot, (and you do disagree with him ALOT) and many others besides him, is a problem for you, since you harp the authority and linear succession of tradition over the unchanging scriptures.
Then, here’s my point:
You choose what Augustine wrote that you agree with and that which you don’t - in cases that concern doctrine and dogma for example.
So we can say the individual, you in this case, determines doctrine and dogma in agreement with or in disagreement with Augustine.
For Catholics this isn’t the same. Dogma and doctrine are not determined by the individual for the individual - neither for Augustine nor for you nor for any other individual.
If something of Augustine’s disagrees with Church teaching we can’t therefore say the Church disagrees with itself. This was in my initial reply to your post conflating Augustine with what the Church teaches.
thanks for your reply.
Thank you, and likewise. : )
I apologize for the typo. It should have been John 6:54.
The point is that you deny the Real Presence in spite of numerous Gospel and other New Testament references to the contrary.
Peace be with you.
“The point is that you deny the Real Presence in spite of numerous Gospel and other New Testament references to the contrary.
Peace be with you.”
So do lots of people, like Augustine, and Jesus Christ, the latter is more important. If it is to be done “in remembrance,” and not as a rite of salvation, then it is unlikely to be a real mystical re-sacrifice of Christ every time it is done, and more likely to be a material symbol that must be consumed spiritually, through faith.
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.