Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Yea for that!
Maybe there’s hope for our dialogue! LOL.
The last time I got remotely close to a strident RC, the bloke felt duty bound to go off and angrily conjur up a new diagnosis in my name! LOL.
Somehow, I expect better of you!
Generally speaking, I quite agree with you.
I have found the hard way, however, that there can be very important exceptions to the human myopic view of that.
I “supposed” that non-Catholics just know Catholics are wrong because they knew the Bible backwards and forwards, I’m beginning to think I “supposed” wrong. Seems to me that they make it up as they go along. But I “suppose” I could be wrong.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
now I understand.
Very fitting and wise.
thanks.
Thanks for your ever encouraging and kind words.
A thing is only a thing.
God and His Living Word is something else.
People are worth more than things.
Idolizing things is . . . uhhhhh . . . idolatry.
Please, by all means. IF you think such a reply has any chance to be edifyingly constructive at some point in time and if you can do it without rule violating personal attack, feel free.
Vigorous exchanges are wonderful, to me—very real—current—maybe even more alive.
My church is NOT my relationship with God and certainly NOT MY GOD!
I see plenty wrong with it in a variety of respects. I doubt any outsider could be harder on it than I am.
However, if an outsider or onlooker’s stark provokative even assaultive comments about my church cause me to see a bit of truth I hadn’t seen before—fine with me. The cost is minimal to free.
Bzzzzt.
Me too. I found it during the Neverending story thread right after I had become Catholic and I have used it regularly ever since.
I have to say that I learned a lot before I joined the Church but I’ve learned so much more from the Catholics FR.
Night night and thanks for you being you.
You are quite loveable.
But then I think Petronski is, too.
I recognize this may be a difficult concept for some, c'hanno perduto il ben dell' intelleto.
We knew that. ;-) We just were wondering if the Doctrine of the Trinity fell in that category.
Interesting how that by capitalization you marginalized two important words. Perhaps the emphasis should be like this:
” . . . WORK OUT your own salvation with fear and trembling.
I have salvation (it became “my own” by faith) as a free gift of grace. Daily I am, by His grace, WORKING OUT that salvation. Work out does not mean figure-out or obtain, but it means EXERCISE! People to to a gym to WORK OUT (exercise). The verse is about Christian growth and sanctification before a Holy God. The people addressed by Paul are already believers; already regenerated (Tius 3:5).
Hypothesis contrary to fact is usually a lousy way to argue. Asking, what if Mary had said No gets weird fast. The fact is she said Yes, and 'Secondary' (in the sense of "following" and in SOME sense "consequent to") to her Yes was the Incarnation. No one thinks Mary brought about the miracle of the incarnation. But she was a critical factor in it and her yes was an important part.
It is right to say that in a way Mary's contribution the work of Christ bears to that work the ratio of a point to a line. God's contribution is always unimaginably more than any human contribution. But she's still a glorious point.
Try another tack: Only a Protestant would deny that a willing mother is in some minor sense a "cause" of her child -- a willing cause. The child in this case is so profoundly wonderful that even a minor cause is glorious.
And really the rest of the problem is that the Protestant view of blessedness is different from ours, as is their view of eternity. So they cannot or will not imagine the closeness to God that we hope for or the out-pouring of self that we think God offers. So when we describe what we hope for all the blessed as it is "currently" manifested in Mary, they are too dazzled to see those words in our language (in this excerpt, "creature") which clearly distinguish between God the giver and the chief recipient of His gifts, gifts which all the elect will share.
It's kind of a good example of the relationship among the infused virtues. A weak faith leads to a weak hope. (They would say a kind of hyper faith leads to a hyper hope, I guess. Oh well, long before I thought of converting I thought that what God promises is always going to be better than the best we can imagine. From here it looks like they have some limits on what God offers, and an anemic understanding of "we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is."
You are bearing false witness, and quite shabbily at that.
Nope just ineptness at logic. The negation of "The only thing we need is the Bible" is "We may need something other than or in addition to the Bible." This is easily seen with a Venn diagram.
But being logical would take the zing out of the argument. So logic and reason are rejected.
“The negation of ‘The only thing we need is the Bible,’ is ‘We may need something other than or in addition to the Bible.’”
I’m new here, so could someone please let me know what the Sola Scriptura analysis is of the Ethiopian in Acts 8? Shouldn’t the Spirit have interpreted for him?
If the results are pointed out to them, they will persist in what they were doing because, they say, their intentions are so good and loving.
It has been said, even by Clinton, that one definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a different result. I think that's not an entirely bad saying.
I would add that if someone does the same thing over and over again and expects others to believe that he doesn't want the results he gets over and over again, something's probably up.
Luke 20:38
What you are saying is Protestant tradition and not what's in the Bible.
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.