Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Perhaps it is your side that is taking Jesus out of context. :)
“And you folks think mormons aren’t also protestants.”
Actually, they are probably closer to orthodox, what with all their mysteries, extra books, traditions, sacred space etc. As far as 20,000 denominations are concerned, I guess that’s the chance you take with “free will”.
there book is about as clse to real scripture as the chopped up one luther suggested and it was protestant societies that created the crazy sacraments they practiced (freemasonry for instance)
Christ founded one church satanists divided it into 20,000 pieces.
I think you need to TradeMark that sentence.
Ugh, I know. :( Well, at least the Rams are looking great for a really sweet draft pick next year! :)
“and it was protestant societies that created the crazy sacraments they practiced (freemasonry for instance)”
Like incense, icons, relics, hermits and Knights Templars? By the way, how many Orthodox denominations are there?
Would this be a "Sister Sola" moment? :)
There is either unity or there isn’t.
We must understand that in order for an institution to exist, there must be unity on certain disciplines. For instance, there must be a selected time of worship. Discipline. Any services are held in a unified style.
There must be an accepted style or manner of dress. Sacramental denominations practice the sacraments in certain fashion.
For example, we have cloistered nuns. They have a certain style of habit and are celibate. If you want to wear monokini thongs in public and have tantric sex in the backyard, then you don’t get to be a cloistered nun.
The Galatians could be looked at as having imposed church discipline upon their immediate church, sure. But what that is and the extent of it can go beyond the immediate church into the diocese or even to the Pope. For instance, if the church decided to hold Mass at 9:00, that is its discipline only. Requiring marital disciplines or Sacramental disciplines goes beyond the parish into the diocese or the College of Bishops, or Cardinals.
Circumcision would have been a matter beyond the parish, to be ruled upon by the Church, not the pastor or immediate clergy.
Outside of myself I DON'T know who is a true Christian. I just have educated guesses that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I don't "outcast" any other Christians, and I couldn't care less if others "outcast" me. I know in whom I believe. The guarantee is found in scripture and I can know if it applies to me.
What we’re talking about is whether priests should be allowed to marry. I got a lot of articles on how wonderful it is, yet no answer on whether you think Catholic priests are better than Orthodox priests simply because they happen to give up marriage. That is the only point I can determine from your articles as to why a Catholic priest should give up marriage according to the Church and I believe that is a wrong premise. I would suspect the Orthodox would agree with me.
That's a bit of an odd statement. Since when is it required of God to give men "free" will? God is very clear that our souls belong to Him, not us:
Bravo, Kosta. :) I can't remember the last time we agreed 100% on an entire post. I won't even ruin it by adding anything. :)
If another’s assurance is not proof for you of them, then it would seem the same would apply to you of yours. Logically speaking.
Yes, that would only be fair. :)
Unless one of you lies, if you can’t be assured by his proof, you can’t be assured by yours - and vice-versa.
The only initial "proof" any of us can offer is our own testimony. 99% of the time that is plenty good enough for me to assume and treat another as a full Christian. Later, we can offer our works as evidence of a changed heart. The difference is in knowing with certainty what is in the heart, as that is the only thing that really matters. I can only know that about myself, as is the same with all people. I think this meaning is included in verses like:
Matt 7:1-2 : 1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
I think Christ is saying that it is fine to judge a man's actions, such as in a crime, but we should not judge another man's heart because we cannot know it for sure, especially in salvational matters.
While I believe that you THINK you are a true Christian, I am VERY certain that those who fell away ALSO thought they were "true Christians". I am talking about Protestant pastors who fell away from Christianity entirely. I don't think we can know the direction of our lives in the future. That is why we are told to persevere.
The guarantee is found in scripture and I can know if it applies to me.
The guarantee is only for those who REMAIN in Christ. I pray that you do so.
Regards
Those works were not accepted by the early Church as being inspired. It doesn't mean they are necessarily devoid of truth, just that they are not authoritative. I don't know what this would have to do with Calvin or Luther.
Christ did found one church, the body of Christ. All of us who believe and follow Him.
What sort of proof do you require? Is the Bible good enough? If it is, then that is what we use to prove that we all can have assurance. If the Bible is not good for proof in your view, then nothing can be proved in Christianity. I believe the Bible SHOULD always be good enough for proof as to other Christians.
If whatever you do is done by God then it's not "your" deed, FK. You can't get "credit" or punishment for something you have not done of your own will.
Everything that I do that is GOOD is of God. Everything that I do that is evil, that is on me. That said, you're right that the good is not "my deed" and I do not get credit. I just said that in a conversational way. They are "our" deeds as opposed to the deeds of other humans.
No, HD, kawaii is perfectly right. The Protestants DON'T all believe the same thing. There are 33,000 plus divisions in that self-made world. In your world of Protestant belief, everyone makes up in his or her head what is "truth." It's relativism. Nothing is absolutely reue and nothing is absolutely false. God is not relative, HD.
Having a bunch of men "vote" on what is or is not correct doctrine is, imo, hardly a perfect system. The Pharisees had the same method if you'll recall and used the same argument
And having a bunch of men/women cackling what each verse means is WORSE, much worse.
Interestingly, Jesus Christ never had one good thing to say about "oral tradition." He only rebuked it, knowing that it can be so easily manipulated by the doctrines of men. This looks like an interesting read, based on a Presbyterians debate with an Roman Catholic regarding Scripture... SOLA SCRIPTURA The Sufficiency of Scripture "Orthodox Protestants hold that it was God's intention that his Word be reduced to writing, doubtless because of a written form being more effective in preserving the truth. In regard to the Old Testament we see this intention in several ways but we will limit ourselves to the New Testament witness. 1. Writing to the Church at Rome Paul says: 'For everything written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope' (Rom 15:4). 2. To a chiefly Gentile church at Corinth he draws teaching from the Old Testament history affirming: 'These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come' (1 Cor 10:11). So the Old Testament was given by God with us in mind, as the quotations above show; how much more the New Testament! Indeed, the New Testament era is one characterised by further revelation in which the Word of God is being inscripturated. Thus Peter classes Paul's writings with 'the other Scriptures' (2 Pet 3:16). If we accept Augustine's dictum: 'The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed' we can see that the New completes the Old and gives us a completed canon of faith. At the same time we must not under-estimate the New Testament warnings of apostasy, and the signs of this already in the first century (cp. Revelation 2 and 3). This underscores the importance of the Word of God in written form and warns against making even early teaching or practices not warranted by Scripture normative for ourselves. The Word of God is the highest authority and by its very nature judges all other authorities. Accordingly, God's people are warned about adding to or subtracting from the word of God (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18-19). The only way we could lawfully add to the Bible was if we had further words from God given for this purpose. As Rome cannot provide evident words from God going back to Christ and his apostles, she resorts to claiming a supposedly infallible authority over Scripture, so as to prevent its proper authority over the church..."
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.