| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 11/07/2009 2:30:07 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 10/26/2009 4:16:56 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
A few years ago, I slipped into the back of a large Methodist church in the area to hear a sermon delivered by the pastor which had been advertised for several days on the marquee on the lawn in front of the handsome Neo-Gothic stone edifice. I really wanted to hear what he had to say on that particular Sunday.
The occasion of this sermon was what Protestants celebrate as "Reformation Sunday," in remembrance of the sad, tragic rebellion against the Catholic Church. Of course, that's my take on what Reformation Sunday symbolizes. The pastor whose sermon I heard that day had a much different view. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at patrickmadrid.blogspot.com ...
as you say “Works are dead without faith”, what do you think of James 2:26, for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also
But, at least it is now well-established that the Dutch protesters themselves worship Paul in his place and ignore the clear teaching of Scripture.
If you did read the sentence in it’s entirety, I pointed out the fallacy of many protesters that they read bits and pieces of the Bible, focusing on some parts (most seem to latch on to the epistles of St Paul, ignoring everything else) instead of on the Bible as a whole. That is why we laugh at your claims that you read the Bible. you may read bits and pieces, but not understanding the whole or even attempting to do so. That is the clear failing of Protesters, and that leads to the belief that each can interpret scripture their own way and form their own group.
The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
Yes, a person can do that.
But I'm not.
Tyndale was arrested on Henry VIII’s request by Charles V. It’s like Guzman being arrested by France for Peru. The arrester (is there such a word??) is the one who requests it, not the actionee. By that record, Tyndale was arrested on Henry 8’s orders. The Trial place was FOR charges raised by Henry, not by Charles.
There was one self-proclaimed pope of the reformation, a cheap French lawyer named John Calvin, who proclaimed something even more evil than the doctrine of once saved, always saved. That was the doctrine of predestination, with the double whopper of once saved, always saved and once damned, always damned.
This is a fine time to remember a little Voltaire:
This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
Are these getting pulled, also?
If you can’t respond to the argument, just repress it, eh?
As it has been pointed out dozens of times around here, the Catholic Church has already settled upon what it will allow you to believe the Scripture says. Such is found in the Catechism. QED.
Catholics may read the Bible for entertainment, to fall asleep, to have a pretty motivational message to put on a sticky at work. But, it is not to find out the message of God, the Gospel. That has been determined for them and any dispute over their outlandish claims is not tolerated. Go ask Rome if you can read to see if they are right. Watch out for the Inquisitors, if you do. I hear the Iron Maiden is still downstairs.
Seems like Cronos beat me to it. But, such is the Catholic way.
Why would it be pulled? This is an “open” thread in the Religion Forum.
Evidence? Because all I’ve seen indicates the Low Country authorities were given Tyndale by a traitor, and then ran things on their own.
Also, as I’ve pointed out, in October 1535, letters were sent by Cromwell with Henry’s approval requesting mercy.
I’m not trying to argue that Henry played no role whatsoever. The British Government, under More, pursued heretics with passion. After More left, some of the passion may have abated, but not the policy. One of the men who received Cromwell’s letter pointed out that Henry had recently burnt Fleming heretics in England...so the policy remained, post More.
However, the beauty of a heresy charge was that it wasn’t country specific. If made, the authorities of any country had an obligation to investigate - and Tyndale had been in hiding for years, and his guilt well known. The Low Countries had their own inquisitors, and all they needed was to have the heretic pointed out. Tyndale didn’t need to be arrested on Henry’s orders, just brought to the attention of the authorities.
His crime, which in essence was being a vocal Protestant, was as much a crime under Charles V as Henry VIII. The authorities in Antwerp were too lax to actively seek Tyndale, but not so lax as to ignore him if betrayed into their hands.
My point all along is that this was primarily a Church affair. He wasn’t pursued for writing that Henry didn’t have the right to divorce, since the second wife liked him anyways, and his influence in the affair almost non-existent. He also had written that Kings were not required to obey Popes, which was a point in his favor, from Henry’s position.
He was a heretic, by the laws of the day. His prosecutors were theologians, one of whom wrote about it years later.
The Catholic Church wasn’t alone in killing people to save the souls of others. Calvin also was willing to burn people, although he considered that a barbaric punishment and argued for killing with the sword instead...not sure how much comfort that brought the Baptists of the time! I read once that Baptists once took political control of a town, and started killing non-Baptists, but I can’t find the reference. It didn’t last long, and is why even today Southern Baptist “Baptist Faith and Message” says:
“Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.”
That comes from being caught in the middle. Nor did Henry’s break with Rome change things much...King James, in the conference where he agreed to sponsor a Bible translation, stated “No Bishop, No King” as his theme is beginning the persecution of the Puritans, some of whom fled to America.
It is hard for Americans to understand a state run church, although under Obama, we seem to be about to learn...
It is believed by those churches holding Sola Scriptura. Those that are not based in scripture will believe anything they want, but you cannot blame those who hold to Sola Scriptura for the beliefs of those who do not!
“what do you think of James 2:26, for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also”
I suspect we both interpret James 2:26 in light of James 2:21-25:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”
Now, lets look at what it SAYS...
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” Notice it does not say that Abraham was justified when he lived a life of holiness until death, and any remaining sin not paid for by good deeds (the storehouse of merit, anyone?) would be burnt out of him in Purgatory. He had faith, he acted on it - “”Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”.
No hint of the Catholic doctrine of doing a lifetime of works to see if your faith was sufficient, or your good deeds sufficient, etc. He believed, acted on his belief, and was saved.
As James puts in in his next sentence, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works”...and his “works” consisted of offering Isaac in obedience to God. Not a lifetime of good-deed-doing.
The next sentence says, “And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”
What about Rahab? Did she do a life of good deeds, and find out at the end if her good deeds were good enough?
No, she had faith, acted on it, and she was justified. Past tense, from that moment.
I believe that is part of why Peter says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Repent. Act on that repentance, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Now, none of this is meant to suggest that if you obey once, you can then go on to live as an unrepentant sinner and be accepted by God. God is not mocked. He knows if your repentance and faith is real.
If it is, then you will experience the new birth, and God will then take care of His child, to bring him or her to completion. “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever.” - Jude
Or, if you prefer, Jesus quoted in John: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
BTW - predestination isn’t something Calvin invented, but is something in the scripture.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Mat 24:31 “And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
One may not like the doctrine, or define it quite the way Calvin does, but one cannot ignore it without ignoring God’s Word.
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.