Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
Thank you oh so very much for your continuing prayers, dear brother in Christ!
You are quite welcome.
Any news on her heart or any other changes in her situation?
LUB,
BLPH,
I haven’t heard anything yet. Thank you for asking!
Sure sure.
Prayers up.
LUB
I would offer the 'selling of indulgences', as it quickly comes to mind, as one of many, many things the RCC has ordained as it's right by way of wayward tradition based upon greed at the very highest levels.
My guess is that what you call a heresy is based on your OWN interpretation of scripture
I have certainly heard the arguments on all sides wrt many things in many denominations, including the RCC, and I must confess, I do make up my own mind. That is not a bad thing:
Psa 132:12 If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne forevermore. Psa 143:10 Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness. Luk 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Psa 32:8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.
(e-Sword: KJV)
But lest we venture too far into my 'own opinion' and the right of each believer to listen to the Spirit, Let us not forget that there are millions who believe, even as I do. Do not suppose that the Protestants have no structured teachings, nor that they would not endeavor to teach rightly, be it in their parishes, their colleges, or to their clergy.
There is great emphasis placed upon the individual opinion, as is right, as it keeps the church from overstepping it's boundaries- causing it to remain transparent in it's attempts. But that is *not* to say that the Protestant opinion, which I suppose to be correct in it's attention to RCC heresies, can be quantitatively removed from me as I do make 'my OWN opinion'.
I think many of them started that way in the beginning,but as you pointed out the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, I would say other mainline protestant churches will continue along this path because of the lack of understanding of TRUE freedom and lack of putting concrete limits for the sake of financially being able to survive.
I firmly disagee that this is the case. In both cases, the Episcopalians and the PresbyterianUSA, their mantle of leadership is being taken from them because they do not speak the truth.
But in both cases, the churches will go on. PresbyterianUSA is not the be all or end all of Presyterianism, and neither is the Episcopalian the only definition of Anglicanism. There is a corrective measure, applied on the fly, which cannot be applied (IMHO) as readily in the hierarchy of the RCC.
The false idea that freedom is the right to do whatever “I” please has thus lead to a pluralistic world of materialism,sexual immoralities,self fulfillment etc ... you name it , its all here! All this is done in the name of freedom and protected in the name of democracy
Bah! I reject the argument. Well, not the argument, but the accusation that the Protestants are the root of such a thing. As you well know the Christian Right, Made up largely of Protestants, is part and parcel against the idea you put forth. We well know the difference as should be most evident here, of all places.
No! It is the French Liberalism, growing fitfully from the rotten root of Roman Empire that has foisted this nonsense upon the world. It has grown and festered far longer in the Catholic nations than it ever has among the Protestants. It is the basis of the stench of Nazism, and of communism, and is the very self same liberalism that we fight now. To suggest that such is the fault of Protestantism, or of the Protestant Nations is to deny history.
The early Christians Baptized Infants,Dear Brother.
Thank you for your input, but I was well aware of it all, and have fought endlessly in spite of it, and with good reason. However, I would save that battle for another day, as I do not care to cause yet another sub-debate on this thread. My example was for it's purpose, and only that purpose.
I have enjoyed conversing with you.
Likewise, my FRiend. Good night.
>>Lifting Mary above other human beings is not the same as “deifying” Her. She is not a part of the Godhead, but she is above others in the Body of Christ. Those who actually “deify” Her are heretics.<<
I separate creation into two things:
1. Man
2. Everything else.
Jesus died for man’s sins
I divide man into two groups:
1. Jesus
2. Everyone else.
I put no man (or woman) above any other from a spiritual perspective.
My first reaction was to think, "This is only to the fourth generation..." But really, if one considers the cascading effect... This part of your position is perfectly plausible...
[...] I was reminded by some of the scriptures I read that the fall did not happen when Eve tasted the fruit. It happened when Adam did. By one man’s sin, Adam, sin entered the world.
It is true that the blame is laid primarily upon Adam, but the curse fell first upon the serpent, then upon Eve, and lastly upon Adam... I will have to think about it a bit more... But this too shows promise.
[You suggest that because the impetus to sin is removed from Him, his actions of free will, obeying the Father, caused Him to live a sinless life, thus breaking the bonds of sin for all?]
The sin’s of the fathers part makes it all possible. Fallen man has more than an impetus to sin, he has no choice but to sin.
This part bugs me. I find it difficult to believe. I offer Cain and Able:
The difference shown between Cain and Able is all about choosing to do right before God. Able by his choice, did the right thing, Cain did not. For your construct to work, Able cannot have the free will to do good before God (he cannot help but sin), or he is some sort of automaton contrived for the part he plays.
I can pull hundreds of examples from the Old Testament of people blessed for doing the right thing- Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and etcetera... Many, many people who would seem to have the free choice to do good. If man had no choice but to sin, then how are these explained?
The free will was over powered by the sin nature. No one could gain heaven on there own. That is why God sent Jesus.
Well, yes, but such is still the case. Even among Christians, the sinful nature persists. I see sinful nature as being a poison infecting mankind. But free will is intrinsically part of what we are. It is always our choice to do evil or good. If it is not our choice, it is not our fault. To punish us would not be just.
[The courts of Heaven must be satisfied, to be sure, but it is my reckoning that the sinless life of Christ was the deal breaker, though the word of God (Prophecy) had to be fulfilled in Him too (God could not break His word).]
The sinless life of Christ was the deal maker not breaker.
I meant the deal that gave Satan dominion over the earth- That was nullified, or broken, the minute mankind produced sinless fruit.
My point is that the Courts of Heaven had to have apples for apples. Adam lost salvation for man. Christ had to be exactly like Adam to make what He did legal. He had to be capable of the same failings or the contest would not have been fair and/or legal. When He was tempted by Satan, He had to be just as able as Adam to capitulate or it was meaningless.
This I agree with entirely. It does not seem right that Christ would have an easy time of things. It diminishes what He did to say such a thing. I am not convinced that it needed to be exactly the same. It would be acceptable (in fact likely, in my mind) if God was at a disadvantage. I am still not convinced the sinful nature was removed from Christ. If He were more likely to capitulate when tempted, the verdict would still have meaning.
Did my answers help or hinder?
Oh, helped I am sure. I just don't necessarily agree (yet)...
If Christ was indeed removed from the curse of Adam, His body an holy chalice without sin or flaw, death would not find Him, because death is part of the curse. It stands to reason thereby, that He was born into the curse, just like the rest of us, and that He succeeded where we all have utterly failed, in spite of that curse.
You are forgetting one thing. Christ died by choice. Father, Your will be done. He sweat blood just thinking about being separated from the Father. This makes it even more (What ever superlative you want to insert here.) what he did for us. Yes, He chose. but there is a distinction between choosing to go to His death, and choosing to let Himself die. I don't think that distinction can be defined, but again, the evidence points to a man in the flesh. He could be tempted. He felt hunger. he felt exhaustion. If all these, is it such a stretch to suppose he died just like anyone else?
He had to die while innocent to payoff that part of the curse for us. The death also allowed Him to be resurrected to fulfill Prophecy and to assure us the Father would do the same for us.
That is certainly true. but the curse is a propensity, not sin itself.
It’s getting pretty demonic, isn’t it? If we can keep our eyes on Mary, an innocent young girl who was obedient to God, and who would be appalled at this worship, then we can keep our eyes of the one true God. Very sad.
satan has been around that long and his worldview IS a one world government in order to bring about HIS kingdom.
I think we would have unity if Maryiolgy was ignored on both sides. Then perhaps we would have unity but probably not until.
It is. Hope you recognize it some day.
Amen, mom. A voice of reason...
Sorry, I haven’t been on the rag since 1982. Now I’m in the Word...
Amen, chuckles.
About a UFO conspiracy to begin a one-world religion?
I know the truth about that right now.
Just man made (satanic, perhaps) deception.
If Mary hadn’t said yes, he’d have found someone else. Then you could worship Rachel, or Betty, or Jemima.
Christ, just like now.
You should stop insinuating Catholics worship Mary, unless you enjoy bearing false witness.
some folks just never disappoint...
We don’t like it and we don’t support it. Mary was involved in his birth but that doesn’t make her a co-redemtrix. Sorry.
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.