Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Okay. What does your wisdom tell you about why so many non-Catholics need to spread falsehoods about us?
Look, enough. Here's the deal. For many of us, to use the word "irregardless" is to make an embarrassing mistake. There's "irrespective" and there's "regardless". There's no "irregardless," most people think.
Now I also had an impulse to jab you over your error, but I decided it wouldn't help anything and wouldn't move the topic.
But then you go with the old falsehood about needing to refer back to Rome to understand the Scripture. And I realize that I'm refraining from mocking someone for a real error he made, while he makes imaginary charges against me.
So that's part of what's going on here.
Why don't you tell me some more about things I never said and how I can't read Scripture? Then you could say some stuff about shrillness.
Romans 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Round and round we go.
How are we to define “them which are in Christ Jesus?”
bless you for having more restraint than me (although that really is dang close to damning with faint praise...); and for the record, had it not been the irony of the ‘word’ being used in a sentence about correct definitions and such I would have kept my keyboard silent. I know there’s a place in hell for those who correct spelling and typos in emails and the net...
If you hadn’t told him, he might never have known.
LOL
You don't do subtelties. You have been adivsed numerous times that the term "Romanist" is derogatory and yet you willfully continue to use it. Your choice of words communicates amore clearly than the order in which you assemble them. The choice of these abrasive and inflammatory terms is taken personally as would RC, Kike, Hebe, Bible Thumper, Jesus Freak, Campbellite, Fundie, Happy Clapper, Holy Roller, Hun, Orangie, Proddy Dog, Russellite, Towel Head, Left Footer, Wasp, Dunkers, etc.
This is the problem or one of them, in my view. First a set of choices is presented as though they were exhaustive. EITHER ALL the saved know they're saved, or NONE do. (Why shouldn't God let some know and others not know depending on His idea of how each individual might best proclaim the Gospel.)
Then it's presented that unless one has "assurance" one has no Gospel. Maybe some of us are too caught up with where we are right NOW with God that we just aren't worrying about assurance or not.
Then there is a tacit equivalence between "there is no no condemnation" and "they KNOW they are not condemned."
Any of the propositions might be true. But NONE of the arguments brought up to show their truth can do the job.
At least that's how it looks from here. I'd certainly consider an argument. I just don't think one has been offered.
“How are we to define “them which are in Christ Jesus?”
Use Paul’s...
“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” - Romans 5
“How are we to define “them which are in Christ Jesus?”
This discussion started about faith alone or faith with works.
Paul wrote to the alive. So there must be someone capable of knowing he is in Christ on this side of eternity. Otherwise the words have lost meaning.
Therefore, that someone must have the ability to know the requirements. If works are required for salvation (as opposed to evidence thereof), then this assurance is impossible because he cannot know the amount and quality of works prior to death.
Trusting in the atoning death of Christ alone, he can have this assurance. The distinction is just that works are evidence of salvation, not conditions precedent to it.
The whole thing was painful. I did type up a jab and then deleted it. It’s hard to be silent while I am told how stupid and mendacious I am in such a situation. I need more humility. A LOT more.
That is circular logic of the highest order.
Similarly, if the girl weighs less than a duck, she can't float and therefore is made of flammable wood, proving she's a witch.
Indeed we are dealing with a kind of ‘sound bite’ style here. I weary of reading long tomes myself, and so I try to be concise, but the volumes that have been written on topic certainly demonstrate that there is much more to be said, much more compellingly, and by better minds, certainly.
Who among us is justified by a dead faith?
If I hadn’t made a quick call to my masters in the Vatican I wouldn’t have even noticed the error. Fortunately I am so docile that I send everything from the religion forum to them, and they pointed the boo-boo out to me.
I love being assimilated.
Wait...if the girl weighs less than a duck, that means she CAN float and therefore is made of flammable wood, proving she’s a witch.
Grieves my spirit.
Yes, all this wrangling about words only proves my original point. Romanism gets caught up in definitions and misses the context. Romanism treats the arts as science. Romanism treats form as meaning.
Thanks Bro.
Have a blessed week and Monday.
And the Saints in Heaven are happy to oblige.
Thanks for the belly laughs.
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.