Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
ping
"About the only good I can see coming out of all of this is the remarkable expression of unity shown by the Orthodox and Latins here. I'll bow out now."
Don't flatter yourself. The real good I see coming out of this is that your arrogance has probably united most of the different Protestant and Baptist sects here by showing how small our differences are compared to your heresy.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Here is a better definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Main Entry: her·e·tic
Pronunciation: 'her-&-"tik
Function: noun
1 : a dissenter from established church dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : NONCONFORMIST
...we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.
But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."
I would say that when you do works believing that they aid in your salvation they are self serving, the primary goal is self love .
The inner disposition of the person? Do you mean the heart? God tells us the heart is deceitful and who can know it? We could call that self deception. The man in Matthew BELIEVED he had done works for the Lord, that is why he called attention to them. But Christ said they were inequity.
So the question is, if the heart is deceptive, even to the man it is in, and the man believes what he is doing he is doing in the Lords name, he could be wrong, correct? God could say to him "I never knew you"
Everything we do while abiding in Christ is a fruit of the Spirit. Whether it is faith, repentance, or love. I agree with you.
Do the unsaved abide in God? I am asking a salvation question. If a man is not saved, then his works are "filthy rags "not coming from the love that comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit. That would mean to God those good works are not coming from divine love and are inequity to Christ. They would not add a wit to his salvation right?
Perhaps the definitions are resulting in us talking past each other. Good deeds with loving intentions are NECESSARY for salvation. Faith alone doesn't save.
But the unsaved can not do any good works as i have pointed out all their works are sin to God and can add only to their damnation not their salvation. So we have a problem. A man can not be saved with works that God sees only as sin, there must be an inward change , a work of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit to have works that God considers meritorious .
Works cannot save because they do not have proper inner disposition. As long as we abide in Christ, our actions are meritorious.
That is what I would say, only the actions of the saved are acceptable to God. That being the fact they can not be "saving" because one needs to be saved to have God pleasing "works" .
So do works save..NO , something needs precede them to make them meritorious, that something is Faith
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Note Paul places salvation as coming from Faith, and the works only later as being ordained for us to walk in .
Sometime this is difficult dialog, because we use the same terms, but we mean different things
We of course would say the apostasy predated Luther:)
I would like to correct this urban myth that there are 3,000 Protestant denominations.
Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?
I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant” were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.
I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this area really says.
First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.
Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.
According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).
No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”—and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologist’s method to “project” a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 “bickering” denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is “unity,” then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.
In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002).
Ask your cow to read you the thread from the beginning. We discussed that at length starting in around the 200ths posts. If you look up the breathing of the Holy Ghost in the Bible, you will see that He was given to the Apostles, possibly to a select group of disciples beyond that. The rest of Christianity recevies the Holy Ghost not directly from Christ but from His Church at baptism. Moreover, the gift of the interpretation of the Scripture comes not at baptism but at Confirmation (Chrysmation in the East). In any event, since the Holy Ghost comes to you from the Church, it is rather obvious that it cannot assist you in teaching anything against that very Church.
There is never a guarantee, even for a confirmed Catholic, that individual interpretations of the scripture are inspired by the Holy Ghost. To insist on having received Divine guidance when interpreting the Scripture is calling on the name of God in vain, a serious sin. Please refrain from it.
You need to talk to the cow, you're the mystic here. As I said to you on earlier posts, and quoted scripture (which you have admitted is of no use to you), the HS, both in the OT and in the NT, is given by God to whomever He chooses. The Catholic Church has no say over it.
Show me the post where you quoted the scripture regarding the Holy Ghost or quote it again, please.
What am I, your Mama? I read the thread from the beginning. the least you can do is go re read your pings from me
Acts 2
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
This proves my point. The Holy Spirit is promised conditionally on baptism. Baptism is a sacrament of the Church.
In fact, I responded to that post already, see 952.
Titus 3:4 "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life"
Paul tells Titus the Holy Spirit is given to believers by Jesus Christ, not the church. There is no intermediary, Apostle, Bishop or church, just like He promised in the Gospel of John. Now you can read into it anything you want but the plain words are the Holy Spirit is given to believers by Jesus.
I strongly disagree. The very nature of a gift has ZERO to do with whether or not it is accepted. The very nature of a gift is that it is something a value, given voluntarily, with no expectation of something in return. That is what a gift is. The nature of the gift does not change based on what the recipient's reaction to it is.
God gives His gifts of faith and grace to His elect. They are accepted in every case, as God already knows that they will be. From another POV, why would God bother to offer a gift to someone whom He already knows is going to ultimately reject it? Wouldn't that be a waste of time? What use could that have, since the rest of us wouldn't even know about it? There's nothing we can learn from that pointless exercise.
First, the "washing of regeneration" is baptism. Second, this is Apostle Paul talking to Bishop Titus about proper instruction of the laity (verses 1-3). What Paul is saying is, -- we were originally sinners just like the laity is today, but we were washed by the Holy Ghost ans so shall they.
Besides, is not necessary to repeat that the gift has an intermediary in the Church every time it is mentioned. The gift of the Holy Ghost is linked to baptism in enough verses for us to say that that is the ordinary way to receive it.
Then what happened at Pentecost, a mass baptism or was that just another of the church's exceptions?
Washing of regeneration has nothing to do with baptism unless you believe in the error of baptismal regeneration.
At what point in time was Judas' destiny sealed?
IOW when did God figure out that Judas would betray him if given the opportunity?
And if God knew, then why did God give him the opportunity? Why not prevent it?
Finally: Why did Jesus choose Judas?
Gotta admit that Dion's logic is true.
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.