Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
Thanks for your kind words.
It’s tough . . . however . . . word is that RC Jihadi’s have been sent from Rome to capture and sand my rapier and its sharp edge into a cement trowel.
I guess doctrines of men set in concrete are a many centuries long !!!!TRADITION!!!! with such folks.
However, With an angelic guard and a couple of fine mongrel watch-dogs, we soldier on!
Greatly appreciate your conributions to these threads.
Sigh.
I agree with you.
And, contrary to some assumptions and biases, there are SOME Mormons who put their trust in God and Salvation through Christ’s blood etc. I wouldn’t want to place any bets ont he percentages but there are some.
I think those are excellent points, too.
I’m done with this subject. Please don’t ping me any more.
Have fun, though!! :)++9
“All”
will still ping you.
I have removed you from the temporary list.
Sorry if have bothered.
Thx.
But heresies have come and gone all along- The RCC has excomunicated whole churches, and even regions for their heresies.
But what is less easy to determine from within the RCC, and I am treading lightly here my FRiend, are those heresies which may have taken root, grown branch and bough, leaf and vine, to the very point that one cannot tell the real planting from the weed.
My criticism suggests that one must at some point endeavor to clean the whole of one's faith out, from stem to stern, and keep only that which is seemly.
But what force is there within the RCC that can really do so? Fifteen hundred years of being insistently inerrant, an hierarchical structure with little in the way of checks and balances, a tradition welded firmly to, and clear around the Word, with so much weight given to that tradition that it is equal in force to the very Word itself... How can one possibly shear and prune? How does one clean it out wholesale?
And in the mean time, by way of example, The PresbyterianUSA, and the Episcopalians go far beyond the realms of sanity and start adopting heresy after heresy... What happens to these once stalwart Protestant churches? Because of the diversity in denominations, and within denominations, their pews just empty- Their people fleeing in droves to populate orthodox Presbyterian churches, and orthodox Anglican churches. The heresy is cut out on the fly.
After the reformation all of these heresies and more continue to come back and grow because there is no singular authority in protestantism other than private interpretations of the Bible.
I will contend that statement. By and large, the lion's share of Protestantism is pretty much on the same page. Within each denomination there is always structured doctrine, and within each group within that denomination further doctrinal demands.
My own church has excommunicated 3 people last year, for failing to live up to what we consider God's, and the Church's demands upon a person. It is hardly a matter of private interpretation.
By the same token, I am an example of a fair degree of acceptance as well. I cannot become a member of the church because I am adamantly against their doctrine of infant baptism. But since my disagreement has scriptural standing, having argued my case before the elders and the pastor, we have agreed to disagree, in principle.
My children have all been attended with a dedication rather than a baptism, in order to hold them up before the congregation that the congregation (as ourselves) may vow to raise them in the Word. But their baptism is withheld, as in my mind, it is for the profession of faith within the individual it is intended for.
I am allowed my discrepancy, founded upon my faith, and founded upon good reason. In the mean time, while not members therein, my family functions within the church, sharing fellowship, the communion, and enjoying a full faith. I cannot become an elder, nor a deacon, but I am made welcome in every other way.
Keep in mind ,Dear friend, that I'm not blaming the Bible.
I understand.
I'm saying this is due to lack of authority regarding consistent interpretations leading to errors in Faith and Morals
I would have to disagree again. The Catholic nations of Europe fell to sin long before the Protestant daughters of England. In fact, the crisis in faith and morals here are derived from those Catholic nations. What complicity has the RCC in that? Is there no fault of the RCC that their grand cathedrals in Europe are now essentially barren?
I think you have been sadly influenced and misinformed by enlightenment and early American though and history.
No, I think you would like it if I were. The history of the RCC would suggest that it should never again be given authority over those who pull the levers of the state.
Here is an extremely accurate article written By LT Col James Bogle
Oof. Still dreaming of empire, are we? I am ever thankful that the RCC has no power over me and mine. Especially in that they cannot influence the state to remove my rights (or my life) if I do not comply.
There were also many well documented errors in the those translated KJV’s as well. Take a look at the errors that continue to this day
I am sympathetic to your point. But a single authority of translation is more of a risk than a few oddball translations being thrown about. Besides, the Catholics have had much the same issue to deal with... Gnostic books being forged of whole cloth come to mind- some of which were written by your own monks, letters of the early fathers that were mysteriously embellished, and etc... Now, the RCC has disowned them, surely... but it took a while in some cases.
BTW, My single salient moment of salvation came while reading John... from within an NIV. Have a good night.
BUMP.
OK...you’ve got me.
I’m going to convert to a non-Catholic denomination.
Which one should I choose?
The 'traditions' espoused by Paul were the explanations of the Word, letters, and oratories as offered by the Apostles, and their peers.
It is hardly the same thing. One can find, in every early fathers writings the idea of sola scriptura- that when an argument over writings exists, a return to the Scriptures is warranted. The Word used to judge your traditions. Would that it were still so, as we would not be arguing here.
Whichever one Holy Spirit leads you to.
Just keep in mind . . . every congregation is it’s own world—as is true also in the RC edifice to a greater degree than they are willing to admit—usually.
Some congregations in the same ‘club’ in the same town can be starkly different—including on being Godly vs less Godly; loving vs less loving; humble vs less humble etc.
And, I think it’s quite reasonable that a given congregation be a good match with each personality/couple/family.
Assuming, of course, that THE TRUE BIBLE IS PREACHED and modeled more or less successfully by the leadership and social stars in the group.
my own criteria is
Biblically sound
then . . . kind, warm, loving . . . in leadership and otherwise—ie. general congregation’s operations and presentations of itself.
All that of course . . . as though your post was genuine instead of spoof.
For Prottys and others actually interested in such . . .
My own preferences in recent years . . .
—denominational preferences—
in order of preference
Keep in mind—as above—each congregation is its own ball of wax.
1. non-denominational charismatic/Pentecostal
2. Vineyard—on average healthier than average such
3. Healthy Four Square—such as those influenced by Jack Hayford and the younger . . . forget his name . . . passed away some years back from Eugene Oregn . . . his dad was head of the denomination . . .
4. Healthy A of G
Unhealthy A of G and any other Pentecostal groups stink worse than tolerable . . . but healthy . . . hard to beat.
The ‘traditions’ espoused by Paul were the explanations of the Word, letters, and oratories as offered by the Apostles, and their peers.
It is hardly the same thing. One can find, in every early fathers writings the idea of sola scriptura- that when an argument over writings exists, a return to the Scriptures is warranted. The Word used to judge your traditions. Would that it were still so, as we would not be arguing here.
= = =
INDEED.
Yes, but which one specifically is correct?
If they’re “all good” - then is there really any difference?
Matthew 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
AMEN, brother! That's the money shot, right there!
CERTAINLY they are CORRECT AND GOOD ENOUGH to help folks live a Christian life here and facilitate their arrival in eternity with Christ.
The rest is at best secondary. A LOT of the rest in most club meetings and congregations is utter chaff.
And a LOT of the rest in most club meetings and congregations is perverse, askew from Scripture and spiritually deadly.
BTW, I could imagine cheering on folks led of Holy Spirit to a Roman congregation meeting those criteria.
So, basically...all protestant sects are OK as long as they’re not Catholic?
Nice logic.
No thanks Quix.
I’ll take my Church, founded in 33AD by Christ Himself and continue to be a loyal member, a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus and the father of two children being raised in the Faith while attending a faithful Catholic School.
You guys can rant, troll the Catholic threads and generally try to disrupt things as much as possible...but your efforts will continue to be fruitless.
All this ranting is “saving” nobody and converting not a single Catholic to ambiguous groups that are OK only because they’re “not Catholic.”
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.