Posted on 07/07/2008 10:39:05 PM PDT by Gamecock
If you doin’t understand my post, ask a question and I will try to help. The Church teaches that the Scripture is holy, inspired, and inerrant in matters of faith. The Church doesn’t teach that the scripture is alone sufficient to learn the Christian faith, which is the so-called “sola scriptura” superstition.
If your every moment in life is predetermined, then you don’t have a will.
It's more complicated than that. Do you have the free will to fly to the moon? No, your will is limited. That's what we say too. The Catholic free will means you must act, even for good, apart and away from God, lest He interfere. We say that in doing good our will has been given to us and it is Him acting through us.
FK: ***He does micromanage those things He cares about though.***
Where does it say that?
It is inferred from my earlier post concerning God's plan and in general from His sovereignty, omnipotence, and love for us. If He did not it would mean He really did not love us.
God chose the Jews and the whole OT is an attempt to get their attention.
That brings us back to the whole "God is a failure" in Catholicism routine. The only out for you all is to say it is God's higher will that men decide apart from Him than to save them. The Catholic God watches His beloved child play in traffic and does nothing more than suggest that he not because it is more important to Him not to interfere than to save the child. As I have said, we would be arrested for such behavior because it is immoral and irresponsible. So, your comment reveals a truly weak God on a marketing mission that ultimately fails. :)
[Re: John 3:17] But He knows that not all will obey.
Sure, it is an outward call consistent with God's nature, but not a decree. The decree is to save His elect with absolute certainty.
FK: *** That would be completely irresponsible of a loving God.***
Ascribing anthropomorphic descriptions of what God is or isn’t in spite of Gospel verse doesn’t cut it.
This sounds like another example of trying to moot a point by just throwing out a big word like "anthropomorphic". :) It was God who chose the parent-child comparison in the Bible, not men. God says He is our Father and He loves us. With love of a superior over an inferior always comes responsibility. Parent-child. Are you saying that God is anthropomorphizing Himself? BTW, above you say the OT was God's attempt to get the attention of the Jews. Isn't that a classic anthropomorphism in your book? :)
FK: ***For you and me (us believers), yes. Jesus prayed for us, but He did not pray for the world.***
John 3:17.
I don't understand what your answer is. Is it that John 3:17 is right and therefore somehow trumps Jesus' entire prayer in John 17, which is wrong?
Amen! I think that's exactly right. The loyal opposition often uses the phrase "everywhere and always believed". From what I've learned around here that isn't even close to the truth.
It was equally amuzing in the Soviet Union to watch two card-carrying talking heads on TV discussing the evils of America and agreeing on everything.
If we Catholics are such modernizers why is it that we argue from scripture and tradition and you puzzle over philosophical questions how we made God a failure and the sacrifice of the Cross unnecessary?
Where did I do that? I pointed out that the revelation to St. Paul is not recorded in the same way as the teaching given the Apostles is recorded in the gospel.
I thought the distinction you were trying to make was that if it is not in the Gospels, then it is of lesser validity or lesser truth. Mark has made that argument in my opinion. He has said that everything must be seen through the "prism" of the Gospels (a means of reinterpretation of inconvenient scripture by Paul, imo). I have found that the effect of this is that if there is ever an apparent contradiction, whatever is in the Gospel is declared "right" and whatever the non-Gospel verse is, is declared "wrong", or is misshapen beyond all recognition. This approach does not seek harmony between the verses, it seeks supremacy of part of God's word over other parts of God's word. I disagree strongly with that view. All of God's word is equally true.
Now, I pose the question "do you call the unrecorded Word of God?" If you don't have the answer, just say that you don't rather than changing the topic.
I don't know what you mean by "unrecorded". Recorded to me means, for one thing, written down. The word of God through Paul and the other Apostles is all written down.
It has nothing to do with our discussion about the unrecorded deposit of faith and its superiority.
What is the authority for the existence of an unrecorded deposit of faith and its superiority (over God's own word?) ? I haven't commented on this part before.
However, in the Gal 2:11 episode St. Paul corrects St. Peter's behavior and not doctrine, -- the lifting of dietetic restrictions of the law of Moses had already occurred, under St. Peter's leadership. It is not a prooftext against Peter's primacy.
Does anyone correct the behavior of the Pope today, and be right? Paul never recognized the "primacy of Peter" in a SPIRITUAL sense. If he did, he would have to deny the revelation given to him by Christ Himself. I don't recall Paul doing that.
from the Fathers we see that the Church was highly hierarchical and sacramental;
= = =
UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH.
Scripture makes clear enough that is a pile of stinking
!!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of men.
histories make abundantly clear that the early church characters were spinning quite a number of revolutions per minute . . .
and all the faster and more erratically the more political power they gained backed up for their power-mongering committees by more and more troops . . . . particularly . . .
in the region of . . . Jerusalem?
NOPE . . .
Athens? . . .
NOPE . . .
Alexandria? . . .
NOPE . . .
Istanbul? . . .
NOPE . . .
St Petersburg? . . .
Nope . . .
Corinth? . . .
Nope . . .
Sicily?
Nope . . .
Madrid? . . .
Nope . . .
Paris? . . .
Monoco? . . .
Nope . . .
Antioch?
Nope . . .
. . .
Rome?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
DINGO!
[Saint Paul, John, Peter or Bartholamew; Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth; Christ's Brothers nor Sisters; Lazarus, none of the Popes; nor Mother Theresa; nor Augustine; nor any angels; nor any rituals; nor any statues; nor any icons; nor any string of beads no matter how long; nor any plastic dashboard talismans; nor any crucifixes nor crosses; nor any wine nor wafers; nor any holy waters; nor any flagellations; nor any indulgences; nor any services/rituals performed/said in one's behalf;]
or leaders who get to answer for me. I have to answer for me. I can blame no one else. That is a burden that is mine alone.
The Sacred Deposit of Faith is what makes the Holy Scripture inerrant and holy.
= = = =
UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH.
The fact that it is GOD-BREATHED
is what makes it inerrant and holy.
Protts . . . sometimes I get the impression that the Vatican holds classes for their reps to become skillful in clouding, misconstruing, turning inside out and upside down . . . obscuring, mangling and otherwise trashing The Simple Truths of Scripture; of God.
James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
Mark 4:10-12 is your answer.
Goodness! Fantasies never cease. That's kind of like saying . . .
'Mary didn't have any more children because we like to pretend she didn't have any more children. Aren't we clever at creating goddesses!'
It would be difficult to make up stuff more farcical . . . or more UNBiblical.
I think Jesus is like Alamo-Girl . . . eschews all doctrines of men.
Particularly those originated from demonic forces.
Because to do so . . .
the political power mongers would have to give up their power back to Christ.
The Jewish magicsterical 2000 years ago wasn’t in favor of doing that either.
True.
Thanks for your next post, too.
This human life surely must be a "tumbler".. tumbling us all..
God has no use for doctrines and traditions which are not of His making.
= = =
Guess I’d agree but raise it a bit . . .
A good number . . . His attitude is considerably worse than “no use for . . .” He’s down right terminally hostile toward them.
Thanks for your affirmation of Biblical truth.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
Indeed. I believe you are right.
THX THX
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.