Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Yes they have. Much more. And the ones who really understand and appreciate their history will never forget that.
In the end only the Apostles had the TRUE faith..
As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6:66
...And I am willing to take on personal physical suffering for both of you to become Catholic’s/Orthodox and united with Christ in Eucharist presence.
I wish you a peaceful Blessed Evening!
First of all, I want you to reread Mark 9:38-41.
That is to expect to be persecuted in this world for your faith.
Next, I want you to reflect on the Ugandan Martyrs (I'm sure you've heard of them: the Catholic ones were canonized by Pope Paul VI) and remember that quite a few of them were not Roman Catholic, and understand just what this means.
Thank you for posting that reflection on the Beatitudes by Archbishop Sheen. It's wonderful stuff, and I've come to expect nothing less when I read his writings.
I fully understand that those who love unconditionally are guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Catholic Church says the same .
We don’t condemn the poor Muslim women who loves unconditionally and has been given a scarecrow my the mullahs.
If she loves unconditionally she has the spirit of Christ and thus can be saved,
It is only the fundamentalists protestants who believe otherwise
And that's why the Beatitudes were spoken for everyone.
However, at this point it must be noted that after the Beatitudes, Christ really was addressing the Apostles exclusively. Here's +John Chrysostom again:
And whereas in the other beatitudes, He said, “Blessed are the poor,” and “the merciful;” here He hath not put it generally, but addresses His speech unto themselves, saying, “Blessed are ye, when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and say every evil word:” signifying that this is an especial privilege of theirs; and that beyond all others, teachers have this for their own.
Clearly, He wasn't speaking to the crowd. He spoke to His disciples and to Christian generations to come.
But not to everyone present. He spoke to His disciples and to those hwo will follow in thier footsteps.
See post #2087
Right. The Sermon was to the disciples and to all those following in their faith, the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. At the time of the Sermon, the only ones to be taught were the disciples (μαθητης), a learner, trainee, student.
You know you just can't can't resist slipping into this Church-bashing and completely abandoning any kind of discussion. You have done it before. I have cut you off because in the past precisely because of such empty blather. I am not interested in your anti-Catholic anti-Orthodox rants, Quix.
A number of us have similar feelings on the other side of the line.
I haven’t noticed a great deal of . . . discussion . . . occurring in these parts. We’re all pretty good at throwing ideas, opinions, biases and Scriptures at one another.
The historical-critical research that Bavinck references is to the exegesis of Scripture.
The historical research you reference would fall under the category of historical theology.
These specialities employ different methodologies.
Then we can say that some of those who believe will be saved and some won't.
One who BELIEVE and is baptized SHALL be saved
No, HD, this is a basic English comprehension issue: and is conditional; it binds the words before and after. It means that one without the other is not true. It's technical (grammatical) term is conjunction. It joins coordinate words. The phrase above means that there are two conditions that are operative in order to be saved (according to Mark): belief (faith) and baptism.
You've changed the text. It doesn't say that those who are baptized but do not believe. Mark 16:16 states that those who do not believe will not be saved.
I haven't changed anything, HD. In context of the previous verse, if you don't believe you won't be saved, regardless if you are baptized or not. But if you do believe, you must be baptized as well in order to be saved (according to Mark).
The Great Commission supports Mark's formula: the disciples are to teach (so that many can believe) and baptize them, so that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved.
This flies in the face of the "sola fide" Protestant error.
This IS consistent with the "salvational formulas".
No, it's not. Biblical "salvational formulas" range from having babies to just believing and everything in between.
What is clearly missing from the text is that you HAVE to be baptized in order to be saved
No, it says exactly what it says: according to Mark, those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Those who do not believe (regardless if they are baptized or not) are condemned. From which it is understood that those who believe and are not baptized are not saved. The Great Commission makes baptism mandatory along with teaching (unfortunately, it seem St. Paul didn't know Christ said that). But, again, I remind all that Matthew was an eyewitness; Mark, Luke and Paul weren't.
Bear in mind that Calvinists do not subscribe to what is now the standard belief among most Protestants, that you must exercise your faith (take a leap of faith) in order to be saved
Protestant deformation otherwise known as Calvinism would object to this (and not without a precedent). Being a Christian is reflected in how you live, imitating Christ as much as possible.
The other "alternative" is a priori acceptance of it as "factual." Some people are willing to do so; I am not. If there is absolutely zero, zilch, evidence of historical Exodus (after 40 years of intense Israeli archeological search for traces of 600,000 men—and their families [unless the bible is giving incorrect numbers] roaming the Sinai for 40 years and finding nothing—but founing lots of evidence of Egyptian presence in the Sinai of that time period), then I may have some reservations about such a priori acceptance.
Obviously, St. Paul couldn't have known that, just as OT prophets didn't know that bats are not birds. The bible is not a historical and scientific encyclopedia.
Just as your verse says, Christ came for His sheep. You seem to be stuck on the notion that only Jews by birth can be sheep
Yeah, given that He specifically never spoke of preaching to the Gentiles and called them dogs. Given that He prohibited His disciples to preach to the Gentiles. Given that He picked twelve disciples, one for each tribe of Israel (Jews) and that His disciples, even after the resurrection, expected Him to simply restore the kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6), as the Jewish messiah is supposed to do.
We know, as a biblical fact, that the only reason the Gospels were taken to the Gentiles is because the Jews rejected them (Act 13:46). We also know that Jesus never told them that the Jews would reject them when He sent His disciples to preach to the Jews only.
You seem to be stuck on the notion that only Jews by birth can be sheep. The NT lays waste to that notion through Paul
Of course it does. Without Paul Christianity would be dead. He had to convince the Gentiles that this was their faith as well. But it was not what Christ taught in the Gospels. It was Paul's gospel. He had to dispense with a lot of "jewishness" in order achieve that. Which is why the rabbis at Jamnia finally condemned Christianity and Christianity was no longer a Jewish sect, but a whole new Gentile religion. The idea that we are "extended" Israel is a Christian construct. Christ never taught that Gentiles are "extended" Israel.
This quote was said BEFORE your alleged reorganization of Christianity to include Gentiles
John's Gospel was written sixty years after Christ, and represents a very different kind of Christology as compared to Paul's teaching or the synaptic Gospels.
Therefore, by your reasoning, Jesus only was talking about ALL lost Jews here. But we know that not all Jews followed Him, so this would make Jesus a liar
Jesus says He was sent for the lost sheep of Israel. It doesn't say all. He also said "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mat 26:27) and not for all (because not all would come to Him).
Isa 53:12
That's weak, FK. There is no reference to any messiah before the post-Babylonian books of the OT (Daniel, psalms, etc.), and nowehere in the OT does it say that God will "save" the Gentiles.
If anything the OT says that God's servant "will bring forth judgment to the nations." [Isa 42:1]
One does not address the crowds sitting down. Common sense.
We were talking about teaching, not healing. He taught His disciples (students, pupils), not crowds.
So we see that those who believe in Christ will "have the light of life" and thus become like Christ, the "light of the world."
It doesn't say they shall become but only that they shall have it.
Christ spoke in parables because Christ came to save the lost sheep of Israel
Apparently not, since the lost sheep of Israel rejected Him and His disciples, and He must have known they would.
Miracles weren't to influence those who would never have faith; miracles were to further convince those to whom God gave faith.
So, those who have faith don't have enough of it (although once saved you can't lose it!)? Is that what you are saying? And how come today all we need is just faith; no miracles needed?
No "secret knowledge" imparted to the Apostles that is not given to every one who believes in Him.
Nope. In those days, He taught only His disciples, and they in turn were to do the healing and teaching to the tribes of Israel. After the Pentecost, the disciples had to pick their own disciples, to teach them how to teach and heal others. It doesn't say that all believers can teach and heal.
Which is strange for one who supposedly believes that the EO church is the purest form of Christianity. Why not tell us what this "pure church" believes since you say you are a member of it rather than making it up as you go along?
The Church is not the purest form of Christianity; its teaching is because it is the least changed from the faith given to the Apostles. It is the same catholic Church whose orthodox faith put together the Bible you read. But the Church itself can never be "pure" because, it is a gathering of sinners, not saints.
Yes. And it never ceases to amaze me how we are accused of being prideful. How can we be prideful when we PROCLAIM from the mountaintops that it is ALL of God? :) The position of the accusers is that man has the power and ultimately decides his own destiny by his choices. So, if man is in control, that is NOT prideful, but if GOD is in control, then we have false pride. What's that about? :)
I am confident that all of the elect on these threads could point out how they've changed over the years. How the desire to do bad things has diminished and the desire to please God has become more and more important.
I am fully confident as well. But to some, our testimonies must be thrown out in toto, because they do not rise to the level of "proof" required by some who do not believe in such phenomena. Short of a personal visit by God through a burning bush experience, I do not think that proof exists for these people in what we are talking about.
place marker
That “theology” came from the Apostles and before the Bible.
Like it or not,Dear friend, it is the early Church Fathers who you trust as witnesses to believe the Bible is the word of God ,and if their “theology” as you say, does not jive with yours, the likelihood of your theology being wrong is great.
The fact is that none of the Scriptures are signed by the Apostles and only scraps remain.
Kosta has posted the pictures of these scraps many times here.
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.