Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
Ladies and gentlemen, that statement was posted by Elsie...snicker
Rome teaches that Jesus does the will of the Father.
The Catechism states this over and over again. Paragraph 541 states: “To carry out the will of the Father Christ inaugurated the kingdom of heaven on earth.” Paragraph 555 states: “Christ’s Passion is the will of the Father: the Son acts as God’s servant.” Paragraph 2600 states: “Jesus’ prayer before the events of salvation that the Father has asked him to fulfill is a humble and trusting commitment of his human will to the loving will of the Father.” Paragraph 2620 states: “Often done in solitude and in secret, the prayer of Jesus involves a loving adherence to the will of the Father even to the Cross and an absolute confidence in being heard.”
The Catechism further instructs that Jesus always does what is pleasing to the Father. Paragraph 1693 states: “Christ Jesus always did what was pleasing to the Father, and always lived in perfect communion with him.” Paragraph 2740 states: “The heart of the Son seeks only what pleases the Father.” Paragraph 2824 states: “In Christ, and through his human will, the will of the Father has been perfectly fulfilled once for all. Jesus said on entering into this world: “Lo, I have come to do your will, O God.” Only Jesus can say: “I always do what is pleasing to him.” In the prayer of his agony, he consents totally to this will: “not my will, but yours be done.” For this reason Jesus “gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.” Paragraph 2825 states: “United with Jesus and with the power of his Holy Spirit, we can surrender our will to him and decide to choose what his Son has always chosen: to do what is pleasing to the Father.”
it was supposed to be funny...and my tag line doesn't end with a preposition....and he has reverted to error which is what protestants have done for 500 years....
You obviously can’t either.
Hmmmm, I don’t see the connection between what you’ve posted and the reference to lexicography. What I see is more of the typical avoidance of Pauline soteriology as clearly spelled out in Romans. I was raised with these arguments in my family. I pretty much know how this works. One person I knew genuinely believed Paul shouldn’t have been in the canon. But that’s not the answer. He’s a duly appointed apostle, and he addressed the issue head on in Romans, and his teaching there does not conflict with either Hebrews or James. Whereas your writer is just offering up the standard treatment of Hebrews by those who can’t deal with what Paul is saying in Romans. He’s picking a winner. It doesn’t work. They all have to be right, and they all have to be explained. Still waiting ....
Peace,
SR
We also have RCs here which commend the murder of men like Tyndale, plus Protestants during Inquisitions. At least these dangerous souls are more consistent with historical Rome than there modern counterparts.
what an extraordinarily perverse interpretation of that passage!!!
That's fine with me, I wasn't asking you about what "trips" you up.
I was posting about this:
"Loyola had made the Virgin the most important thing in his life.... The Worship of Mary was the base of his religious devotions and was handed down by him to his Order..... This worship developed so much that it was often said, and with good reason, that it was the Jesuits 'real religion'"Pretty plain, worship of Mary.
Your "correction" did not pertain to my statements at all.
I breezed past the rest of your "lesson" as it wasn't pertinent to our conversation, until I got to the "Malachi’s prediction" (1:10–11) apparent "tradition."
That is an amazing stretch from Malichi's scripture to worshiping a wafer as if it is actually Jesus Christ. Fine for you and your belief system, but other than that it means nothing verified by scripture, nor is it important to the body of Christ.
...do not make the blunder of saying we adore Mary
I will when I see it, and it will not be a blunder. What I did say was that many Catholics worship Mary. And that is true. You may not, but others do.
And do not make the blunder of saying Blessed Mary is the most central figure in Catholicism.
Blunder again LOL!
She is much more outwardly displayed and talked about than Jesus by Catholics. Therefore I will continue to make that observation. Nothing personal.
She is a handmaid
Then treat her like one. Instead of the Mother Of All Mankind and the Queen of Heaven etc etc.
God has done great things for her
Yes he has, and He went no further than what is in Scripture.
Jesus make it clear that those that listen to Him and follow Him are His mother and brothers. And he said that when he was told his mother was outside.
He didn't drop what he was doing and go outside to see her. (He knew she was outside there anyway, he didn't have to be told)
Perhaps you can start a movement to treat Mary as she should be, and go up against all those that see her as something she never was or ever will be.
She is simply a handmaid of the Lord.
She never wanted all of this attention.
Again, arm-waving at Paul without dealing with what he says does not work. He is the apostle of Jesus Christ. What Jesus teaches in Revelation is not going to conflict with anything Paul teaches in Romans 4. Justification is by faith. Those with lives of rampant sin obviously don’t have faith. This isn’t that complicated. I think it’s just hard to accept.
Peace,
SR
That's a good start verga, continue on with that scripture written on your heart!
And also, be like the Bereans. Compare all teachings to scripture to see if they are true.
The only reference I made to Luther was to dispute the erroneous Roman Catholic notion that he was the father of Sola Fide! You never came close to refuting what I said and this lame attempt to assign guilt by association is weak and ineffective. I'm not the first one you've tried to pull this on.
Mary was the mama...big, Jesus was the baby, little....if the mama weighs 140 pounds, and the baby weighs 8 pounds, the mother is almost 18 times the size of the baby....PERSPECTIVE is our friend
Through with the humor and back to the ad homonyms huh?
Frowned on in the Religion Forum.
In fact not allowed.
How does "conservative Baptists" not include IFB churches?
Do you include Pentecostal groups that believe the LORD Jesus Christ did not command the Jewish Apostles to teach all nations and baptize them with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ?
If their only difference from the rest of what i said is baptizing them in the name of the Lord Jesus as the Son in the Trinity (versus sabellianism, and having to speak in tongues as in UPC) then they could be included.
While i uphold the Trinitarian formula, yet as Acts (and the epistles) are interpretive of the gospels, and in which "name" is singular, and only being baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus" or "in the name of the Lord" is in Acts, like as souls were healed and demons were cast out by the same name, in whose name believers are to do all things, then a case can be made that this represents the authority of the Trinity, as Christ is God manifest in the flesh.
Rome has the formula, but perverts the gospel.
Is that the best can up with?
Up, the direction is "up". (you've got nothin')
Prayer/veneration/worship to Mary actually is addressed in the Bible. It’s one of those pesky Commandments — the one forbidding idolatry.terycarl: "what an extraordinarily perverse interpretation of that passage!!!"Exodus 20:4: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Exodus 20:5 - “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them”
What a pesky God, imagine that not letting you bow down to a statue! Or worship a wafer!
Pauline Soteriology. Would will the Twelve Apostles judging on twelve thrones say about that ? There was a reformed theology from Luther and others who created a new religious movement without divine authority almost five centuries ago. Obviously Romans was not clear to them. Since you have pledged yourself, as it were, to the reformers, and I rest in the holy catholic apostolic church, we will not agree and await the judgment of Messiah and the Apostles.
when you have nothing intelligent to say....silence is golden!!
Not only, but i substantiated that this was also true worldwide. But apart from stating what was said, we are not to carry debate from thread to thread.
Both points can be true, but yours only if you relegate Baptists as Protestants. Surely you did not hold that view whilst a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. Historical Protestants believed in infant baptism and supported the execution of AnaBaptists believed in believer's baptism.
You should have pressed that broader Baptist distinction and the historical vs current WP judgment in that thread. As for the term "Protestant," IFBs made up a small minority, while surely you are not reproving theRC use of the term Protestant, which is wide enough for Scientology.
Yet you just go on and on and on like the energizer bunny.
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.