| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
I am not going to answer "Chapter and Verse" because I do not accept the concept of Sola Scriptura or that the bible contains 100% of the revealed Word. You will not accept anything else. We therefore cannot engage in any meaningful dialog.
Paul's Christology was pretty much what the early Church believed in that Christ was sent by God the Father and basically answered to Him in a subordinate role. Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth; he may have been unaware of it, or else he never wrote about it in any letters kept by the Church.
Perhaps I'm not following your definition of "judgment". Can you explain what you are referring to?
For example, if the Catholic Church declares someone a "Saint", have they been judged?
This word episkopos (from which we get Episcopal) is used a total of 5 times in the New Testament, always in reference to someone who has authority to lead in ministry. It is usually translated "overseer" or "bishop." Clearly, it is a position of leadership, most commonly thought to refer to the position of pastor. The difficulty in understanding the full meaning of this word comes when we try to compare it to the second word used in scripture for leadership: presbuteros.
Presbuteros
The word presbuteros occurs 72 times in the New Testament, and it has a range of meanings. The majority of the time (57 times) it is translated "elder" and means a position of leadership in the church, like a pastor or other member of church leadership.
Diakonos
The word diakonos means “one who serves in ministry” or more generally, "servant." The word appears 29 times in the New Testament. Of those 29 times, it is translated (by the NASB) as "deacon" three times, as "minister" seven times, and as "servant" 19 times. Consequently, the best definition of the duties of a diakonos is one who ministers to the church through their service.
with thanks to: http://www.versebyverseministry.org/articles/detail/presbuteros_episkopos_diakonos/
Do Roman Catholics really believe that it was Rome that came up with the whole idea of the trinity??? Do they really??? It seems they do take the credit and I am amazed!!!
Romans 8: Paul uses the term Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ interchangeably, but as a force of the Father or Jesus, and not as a separate person of the Trinity.
1 Corinthians 12: Paul still uses the term ‘Spirit of God’ to preface the remainder of the verses that he speaks about the Spirit.
Galatians 5: Paul does use the term Spirit as a standalone, yet never indicates that the Spirit is God, rather, the verses indicate what he said in Corinthians and Romans - that the Spirit is a mechanism of Jesus and/or God the Father.
No Trinitarian verses in Paul, I’m afraid.
If you read the early Church Fathers, they were to a man subordinationalist. It really wasn't until Nicea that the developed Trinity was defined, and Origen and Tertullian were retroactively booted out.
Okay, then....how about your top five? Four? Three?...
The Church does not Judge them, neither does it know. The Church declares saints based upon the criteria that it believes that are attributed to them. The Pope has no more influence on God's Judgement than, say, Mao Tse Tung or Joe the Janitor. The only Judgement that each Pope influences is his own, based upon those verses that I posted, and more.
It is an attempted recognition by the Church for those who act in a holy or examplary fashion in their lives. No, it is not binding on God, and no reasonable person (or even Catholic :) ) believes that.
No, the earliest Church, even before Paul began writing, was based more on the Two Commandments of Christ and the Beatitudes than anything else, coupled with the rapid acceptance and practice through the Church of the Eucharist on a frequent basis.
Think of your own writing. When you write to somebody, do you include their full title, responsibility, address, etc. each and every communication? Of course not. Neither would folks 2000 years ago. So in many letters, some of this information would be omitted, sure.
And that, my dear, is the proverbial "hitting of the nail on the head"!
Take away the single verse about Peter being the "rock upon which the church is built" - and that by which the Catholic Church then claims its moral/doctrinal/dogmatic superiority over all others who dare to claim Christian faith - and they fall apart. Why else has this one main doctrine been so adamantly and fiercly defended? Christ built HIS church upon a rock, alright, but it was not a man or men named after that man, it was the faith in the True Rock - the very foundation - Jesus Christ!
1) Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
2) Unconditional Election
3) Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
4) Irresistible Grace
5) Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
In short there’s no justification for elevating a job description to a title as Jesus said they were not to do.
It wasn’t just an oversight.
There were bishops, overseers, older men, but no Bishops or Deacons or Fathers, Reverends, Cardinals, Archbishops and the lot.
The color "TULIP".
Nicea may take credit for defining and using the word “trinity” but that concept - because it has ALWAYS been the nature of the only, true God - exists in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. YOPIOS notwithstanding!
How cute...you spelled T U L I P...not the question that was asked, though.
There were bishops, overseers, older men, but no Bishops or Deacons or Fathers, Reverends, Cardinals, Archbishops and the lot.
Well, there are deacons, as Scripture indicates; there are presbuteros (priests) as Scripture indicates, and there are ekklesia (bishops) as Scripture indicates. I'm not sure of your objections.
Peter himself considers Christ the Rock on which the church is built.
1 Peter 2
1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
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.