Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
How would you know?
Because they didn't teach any of that stuff in their writings which are accepted as scripture. If those doctrines were that important, then certainly Peter and Paul would have written about them, and certainly the RCC would have included those writings in their Canon of scripture. They didn't.
I get asked all the time: “How do I get on this bump list?” Well the answer is you can’t! The FreeRepublic Master Bump List is not a list of people who get notified about a topic appearing on FreeRepublic but it is a list of topics that you can click on and have posts relevant to those topics displayed to you. There are many topics like “WOD_list” (War On Drugs) or “Homeschool_list” (Stories that Homeschoolers may be interested in) or “Homosexual Agenda” (A list of articles related to that topic). And they all appear on the The FreeRepublic Bump List
When you are reading an article you can add it to the list by posting a reply to that topic and in the “TO” box put the name of the list you want it to appear on preceded by an “*”. For example if you want the article to appear on the War on Drugs list then put “*WOD_list” in the “TO:” box instead of someones screen name. You can also put it on several lists by separating the list names with a simi-colon “;”. Then when you want to see the list go to The FreeRepublic Master Bump List and click on the link for that list. Don’t forget to bookmark the bump list when your there.
I think God put us on a need to know basis, and He thinks we don't need to know yet. He tells us what we need to know, remember this:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [Gen. 1:1].
I think that this verse is all we have of the actual creation. But this is the creation story, and I’ll admit that it is a very brief story, indeed. God said thats all you guys need to know!
God: (smiles) Us: ( scratching our heads) :)
BigMack
NO. 99% (?) of the scriptures do not even call for an opinion on "what they say," because they speak quite well for themselves. The bigger problem (according to 1 Cor. 2) is ACCEPTING the "word of God," which is the work of the Spirit in one's heart and mind and will.
-- Hopefulpilgrim
No, the Word of God is what the Bible IS. You like to capitalize on what you believe is endless bickering over interpretation of scripture. I won't deny that some of that goes on, but to those who truly want to know truth, truth is revealed by God, from His Word. Even in the darkest days of church history, God has kept a people for Himself, which is why there is still a Church today.
Remember Jesus own words, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven".
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works"?
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" Matt 7:21-23
The RCC teaches things which are heresy, according to the Word of God. If you would take off your blinders, you could see that. But first you would have to humble yourself before God, ask Him to forgive you of your sins, and ask Him to teach you and reveal to you His truth, and then stay away from the RCC, and just read your Bible with an open mind and heart. Don't even go to a Protestant church. Just read your bible prayerfully, every day, and let God teach you. If you won't do that, you have willfully chosen to believe a lie. You can't claim ignorance, we've spent too much time showing you the obvious errors and falshoods of the RCC. You are without excuse.
No they're not! C'mon, Robby, do you take us for complete FOOLS? We can read, and we can understand what is said in these doctrines, and they are extra-biblical and just plain wrong! I have no problem believing in the complete divinity and humanity of Jesus, and I have never for one second needed those goofy doctrines to "help" me believe. My strength of belief in Jesus' divinity and humanity comes from the Word of God, and does not rely on the idea of a sinless Mary who was a perpetual virgin, but had a child, and was bodily taken to Heaven. It is heresy, pure and simple! Your own Church History shows it to be heresy, as was pointed out earlier on this thread, and has been pointed out many other times as well.
Oh, Please...This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. He asked you to give an example of the Word of God that was not written down, and you come up with this "natural theology" stuff. Sounds so learned, so spiritual, but is sidestepping the real question which you can't answer. But you won't admit that you can't answer it, because then you'd have to admit that the RCC is just making this stuff up.
James White was rather selective in his argument. If his use of Kelly is any guide, the his references need to be checked. But White talks about two doctrines that I did not touch upon, so what's the relevance to what I said and which he quotes?
His discussion of transubstantiation does not accurately represent Kelly's position, which is that Eucharist doctrine was realist from the beginning. Furthermore his use of precedents forgets that until a doctrine is finally settled by competent authority, many different shades of opinion are allowed, and that no one can be held to account until his case come to court. What the Nicene Council came to decide was a narrow but critical point--was Arius a hereic--, which as it turned out was not settled for purely political reasons. The Emperor had jumped into this dispute, and the Council was his idea or that of his adviser (A Latin, by the way, because that is where the Emperor grew up)But because Arius was a rather slippery--and very able--churchman, he managed to slip out of the noose that the Council had prepared for him.
What was the pope's role in all this? Who knows, exactly. I gather he jumped on the bandwagon started by men more able than he. Was he regarded as primate of the Church? Perhaps less than some of his predecessors, for the role of the pope depends on the strength and character of the men who hold the office, and he is a follower rarther than a leader. As the metropolitan of the Imperial Capital the pope had wide influence just on natural grounds. But don't forget that the Church had just been though a long and savage persecution which sharply divided the Church. Now we have an entirely NEW situation: a Christian emperor. White tries to turn into a tidy little theological discussion what was essentially a huge mess. A whole new kind of institution is being invented: the Eucumenical council, of which the Nicene Council was really just a prototype. really. He is surprised that a later Council --the 6th--might look back and see its reflection in this first Council. But that's "history": untidy.
Jesus disagrees with you
Pray for the Servant of the Servants of God
Wrong. Or are you under the impression that the Apostles, upon recieveing the Holy Spirit, locked themselves in the Upper Room at Pentacost and wrote the entire NT?
Both Tradition and the Church predate the NT Scriptures.
Pray for John Paul II
You assume--falsely-- that the Churchmen of the 4th Century were ignorant of Scripture. Yet men like Ambrose were steeped in it.(We need not mention Jerome) Yet he accepted doctrines that you reject but were already Catholic doctrine a thousand years before Luther. Why should I accept Luther's (or your) interpretations rather than his?
Well, of course there were some who were steeped in it, such as BISHOPS, THEOLOGIANS, AND PRIESTS, like Ambrose and Jerome, but certainly not the average common man of the time. He didn't have access to the scriptures like they came to have much later. How could he be in disagreement with something he knew so little of? Of the theologians and priests who did have access to the scriptures and who came to realize that the church was in need of reform in order to harmonize with the scriptures, and who were subsequently excommunicated (and who knows what else done to them), how many have we heard about? I would imagine that the RCC knows how to cover its tracks pretty well, even back then.
I suppose a case in point would be our honoring of Mary,and begging the saints to intercede for us. It is incomprehensible to me that some non-Catholics get all worked up over over each of these items.
Is not our God a living God as well as God of the living? What does that mean to you? I would think it must mean that once we truly live in Christ,we do not die. Since clearly our flesh dies and decays it must be our soul or spirit that lives on. It seems so human,so rational to dismiss a person who died in Christ as dead. But God's ways are not our ways and if one believes the Holy Spirit will lead us to Truth one begins to understand that those who are with God may be even a little more influential in petitioning God for help than the prayer list at the local church. Now there may be non-Catholics who don't believe in the efficacy of prayer and would not ask anyone at their church to pray for them. Although I would disagree with them I would understand their resistance to asking the saints in heaven to pray. But otherwise to criticize Catholics for praying to the saints for intercession is beyond understanding.
And Mary is even clearer. I believe the Word is Jesus Christ and the words He spoke and the actions He took are equally important. He told Pilate He was the Truth,not His words but He Himself. What He was and what He said and what He did.This includes to whom He spoke and the times He spoke and acted and the order in which He did the things He did. If I were interested in really knowing Jesus I would look at the first public miracle He performed,the time He performed it ,at whose behest He did it and what that person (Mary) told the people who needed the favor."Do whatever He tells you to do". What reason was all of this included in scripture if we were not to comprehend something from it with respect to living our lives without Him on earth? Could He be saying "I listen to my Mom,even when its inconvenient"?
And then at the crucifixion,His next to the last words were, "Behold your mother",to John and "Behold your son",to Mary. For Jesus Christ who died so that we might live it seems a little out of character that His last words were a little,personal "housekeeping" issue.No,I think He did everything He could do to bring as many as possible back to the Father and said "It is finished".His last act was to give us a little extra help,since every man has a mother and consciously or subconsciously knows how to relate to her He gave us another chance to talk to someone who He knew would get us to HIm.
I know I can't convince you but I hope you will realize that there may be more to scripture than just the words, and that it is not the number of words used to express a thought but the clarity with which the words are conveyed. I think "Do whatever He tells you to do",Behold your mother"and "Behold your son" are some of the most powerful words in scripture. IMHO you all are missing something very wonderful.
Does anyone besides me have a problem seeing these "doctrines" as CHRISTOCENTRIC ??? I don't care what their objective is, even if it IS to glorify Christ, because they fail miserably to do so. The glory of Christ is not exalted by venerating Mary and the saints.
-- Hopefulpilgrim
Meeee toooooo. Amen!
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.