Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
I suppose not.
The whole point, though, is that St. Paul makes this statement with the same emphasis as other statements. Many of the Reformed who argue vehemently that St. Paul says something else, will ignore this completely.
The Bible alone dogma appears to be practiced more like - some passages of the Bible alone.
“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.”
Bravo. Applause. Thank you for supporting our contention regarding OT and NT.
We’ll make a Catholic out of you yet!!!!
“God is not the author of confusion. nothing can be a rule for faith which contradicts existing revelation (from the article posted). Paul does not contradict Jesus or James unless one is trying to fit a theology backward into scripture.”
Bravo. Applause. We may be closer together than I previously thought.
This is the idea of perseverance that Calvin mangles so badly. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we persevere. It’s not that we take the credit; it’s that if we stumble and fall and don’t get up, we will never finish the journey. If we are predestined to Heaven, then we don’t get the credit for going there.
If we refuse to go there, regardless of the Holy Spirit’s influence, then, we unelect ourselves. And at that point, unless we repent, confess our sins and ask pardon from God, we assume the status of what the Calvinists call the unelect.
The unelect can do no good in God’s eyes? Does that mean that if one practices the Beatitudes that one is automatically one of the elect?
What is the quantitative difference between elect sin and non elect sin?
Arminius as as much a heretic as is Marcion, or Calvin.
We have 2000 years of His Church that tells us that we ARE taking Jesus in context.
Very interesting point. There are many people who walk like Christians and talk like Christians and yet fall away. Reformed theology says that they never were, unless they get back up again, and then they are, except that they’ve fallen away, and anyway God’ll get them back before they die, unless they’re not Christians and they never were, in which case God’ll wave them off in their handbasket.
I wonder if the Rev’s. Sharpton and Jackson and Haggard and Swaggart and Jones started out Christian and ceased, or if they ever were, under Reformed thought.
Remain in Christ? I thought that that was a Catholic thing. Isn’t Protestant thought that one must read the Scriptures and come up with a new angle?
Martin Luther axed the Deuterocanonicals without the benefit of the guidance of the early Church.
He did it because it contradicted certain theological points that he personally disagreed with.
POT...CALLING...KETTLE...BLACK
If you'll recall the Reformation started over the greed of Pope Leo wanting to pay for the Vatican castle. He drained the coffers dried and was sucking the people financially dry with his voodoo application of scripture. The Church went along with it. People just had enough with the tax and spend policies of the Pope under the guise of Christianity.
There isn't any heresy of the Reformation. Faith comes from hearing and righteousness is imputed to us-not from works. If anything the Reformers simply handed out the scriptures and told everyone, "If you don't believe us, read it for yourselves." Much of Calvin's writings rely upon the writings of the early church fathers application of scripture. Much of the Church's writings rely upon the writings of Church fathers quoting other Church fathers who quoted others who supposely did something "miraculous". Them's the facts.
While we hear that "The Church must interpret the scriptures", it's rare to see any scriptural interpretation. I'm not even sure if the Church has ever put out a commentary. One would think had they done that they might have paid for the Vatican.
Esau lost his inheritance.
The prodigal son spent his.
Salvation is for those who persevere and who repent of their sins after they occur.
“If that is so, then why the problem with each believer going to the scriptures alone with the Holy Spirit for understanding of the truth?”
By their fruits shall ye know them. We have tens of thousands of different interpretations mostly contradicting each other either in small ways or in large ways. We have resurrected heresies masquerading as Christian beliefs.
And besides, how do you know that that is the Holy Spirit? It could be the brightest angel whispering in your ear. Even satan can quote scripture for his own purposes.
The Bible says that we WERE all made in His image.
Not that we will be. That is black and white.
I would disagree that there is any truth in them, especially the forgery the "Protoevangelium of James". If someone writes something 120+ yrs after the fact, trying to deceive others into believing that authorship was by one of the Apostles its clear that there was an agenda pervading the entire document.
Somewhere along the way, most of women's head coverings became fashion accessories, something of pride. At that point, the spirit of that teaching was not just lost, it was perverted. Competition between women about who's Easter bonnet is the prettiest or marketing pretty chapel veils may get women's heads covered, following the letter of the law, but they violate the spirit of the teaching.
Not to make the, "they do it too" argument, but "Reformed" discipline in this area was only slightly earlier than RCC discipline in the matter. I remember tracking bird's nest hats from my place in the choir loft, well into the late 1960's. By 1976, when I was married in a Catholic church, the Kennedy effect seemed to have become universal.
The Bible alone dogma appears to be practiced more like - some passages of the Bible alone.
We try to not confuse form & function.
We were not ALL made in the image of God. Adam was made in God's image. Seth was made in Adam's image-fallen man.
These are not divisions these are united in doctrine in communion with one another. They are one church just as Alexandria, Antioch, Constainople, and Jerusalem were.
They don’t for instance have one branch with gay priest another with gay marriages a third which sends charity money to fund 3rd world abortions etc. Protestantism has always been a process of convincing Christians to beleive non Christian things and dividing them into groups to advance Satans cause, and has worked to the tune of tens of thousands of heresies.
Do you both agree on what being created in God’s image means? I would like to know each of your views.
And protestants inspired by Satan divided that body creating churches which deny baptism, deny the eucharist, support abortion for the poor, support the death penalty and offesive wars, support gay leadership and blessing gay unions. 20,000 strong are these divisions Stan has made, and they’ve worked hard to make Europe so apostate that it’s ripe for taking by the Muslims, who IMO, practice Satanism in it’s purest form.
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.