There are many that were like the seed that initially flourished and then died. Jesus was a master orator.
On another note, I wonder how many kudos I will get from the harpies and the post mangler on the wonderful Scripture that I have posted.
Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
.- Thousands of pilgrims and faithful gathered at noon Sunday in St. Peter’s Square to pray the Angelus with the Holy Father. Before the prayer, he said that the fruits of the recently ended Year for Priests could never be measured, but are already visible and will continue to be ever more so.
“The priest is a gift from the heart of Christ, a gift for the Church and for the world. From the heart of the Son of God, overflowing with love, all the goods of the Church spring forth,” proclaimed Pope Benedict XVI. “One of those goods is the vocations of those men who, conquered by the Lord Jesus, leave everything behind to dedicate themselves completely to the Christian community, following the example of the Good Shepherd.”
The Holy Father described the priest as having been formed by “the same charity of Christ, that love which compelled him to give his life for his friends and to forgive his enemies.”
“Therefore,” he continued, “priests are the primary builders of the civilization of love.”
Benedict XVI exhorted priests to always seek the intercession of St. John Marie Vianney, whose prayer, the “Act of Love,” was prayed frequently during the Year for Priests, and “continues to fuel our dialogue with God.”
The pontiff also spoke about the close of the Year for Priests, which took place this past week and culminated with the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He emphasized “the unforgettable days in the presence of more than 15,000 priests from around the world.”
The feast of the Sacred Heart is traditionally a “day of priestly holiness,” but this time it was especially so, Benedict XVI remarked.
Pope Benedict concluded his comments by noting that, in contemplating history, “one observes so many pages of authentic social and spiritual renewal which have been written by the decisive contribution of Catholic priests.” These were inspired “only by their passion for the Gospel and for mankind, for his true civil and religious freedom.”
“So many initiatives that promote the entire human being have begun with the intuition of a priestly heart,” he exclaimed.
The Pope then prayed the Angelus, greeted those present in various languages, and imparted his apostolic blessing.
Peter's great Pentecostal message was declared to a large contingent of Jews from many countries who had gathered to Jerusalem to observe the feast of Pentecost. The Jews were a scattered nation and Pentecost represented the beginnning of the harvest for the nation Israel.
God had promised He would restore Israel and Joel had prophesied how they would know when this restoration would begin. So when Peter preaches on the day of Pentecost, he begins with this statement: " But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16). Peter is preaching a message of restoration. For Jew and Gentile? No. For the nation Israel.
Pentecost was an all Jewish feast day. It was NOT the beginning of the Church the Body of Christ, it was the beginning of the restoration of Israel.
Peter does not mention Christ dying for our sins. Read Acts 1 and 2. You will not find the message of salvation there. As a matter of fact, you won't find it until Paul.
If you reject the writings and traditions of the Church fathers who learned literally at the feet of the apostles, and theological giants who came before you how do you safeguard against eisegesis?
Here is your problem NL...some of the church fathers also taught or believed error..some have in their writings things that might be called heresy ...some of them wrote things that sound more protestant than Catholic.. yet the church uses them as an authority equal to the inspired word of God..it just cherry picks the writings it likes and ignores the rest..
It is hard to take seriously
You misunderstand me. I said that saying and the audience is important. It does not matter if Jesus said it once or said it a hundred times. What matters is that Scripture is clear that Jesus said it to the crowds of people, and not just to the believers.
Using the salvation formula of the Reformation at its simplest: your name is selected to be saved and you are saved; then the sermon makes no sense especially if as you claim that it is only to believers. Here's why:
Name picked, saved for eternity. Contrast that with: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Does this mean that only the poor in spirit (the humble poor) are saved? Does that mean that every Calvinist who is not humble and poor is going to hell? Let us take it further. Is being humble and poor a work? If you do not do this work, from the Reformed point of view, does that mean that you are not saved? Is this then how Reformed theology deals with works? They are not salvific of themselves, but you go to hell if you don't do them? If so, isn't this doubletalk?
Let us go to Matthew 6: 14 11 If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
Does that mean that Reformed theology agrees with conditional salvation? Or how is this passage explained? Nothing unclean can get into Heaven; if your transgressions are not forgiven, does that mean that you cannot get into Heaven? Or do the Reformed get a pass, being unforgiven and still able to enter Heaven?
Matthew 7: 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' 23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.'
Evil doers. If you are a believer and of the elite, can you lose your salvation by doing evil? If the crowd is all believers and all elite, what is the point of this teaching? If all elite go to Heaven, why would Jesus threaten them with expulsion from Heaven?Part of that discourse is the "Our Father" (Matt 6) We know from other scripture the apostles asked Jesus how they should pray... God is not the Father of the unsaved.. so Jesus would not instruct men to pray like that
God is the God of all men and all the heavens and the earth. Jesus came to save all men.
Luke 5: 30 The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" 31 Jesus said to them in reply, "Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. 32 I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners."
Sinners. If the elite are going to Heaven no matter what, why is Jesus calling sinners to repent?
John 12: 31 Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world 18 will be driven out. 32 And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself."
Everyone. Every man, woman, child, every human being.
1 Timothy 2: 1 1 First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, 2 for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. 3 This is good and pleasing to God our savior, 4 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6 who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony 2 at the proper time.
All men ransomed, all men saved. Scripture is plain. The Calvinist model of predestination is false.
So how do you know which and why is your own personal ability to differentiate better than any individual Catholic's ability or better than 2000 years of collective Catholic study and wisdom? Why do you profess that if one reaches an interpretation essentially in a vacuum it is more valid than one reached through the Church? How is this different, except in magnitude and frequency, than the errors taught by the so-called reformers and other heretics?
I have no doubt that all who left the sermons were indeed believers, but I find it unfathomable to presume that all were believers before they heard the sermons.
I will break this to you as gently as I can. There is no Jewish Pentecost. The first Pentecost was in the upper room with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, Mary and various other disciples and described in Acts 2. Where is the world are you getting this from?
Could you be referring to the Jewish festival of Shavuot, the harvest festival, which commemorates God giving the 10 Commandments to Israel?
God had promised He would restore Israel and Joel had prophesied how they would know when this restoration would begin. So when Peter preaches on the day of Pentecost, he begins with this statement: " But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16). Peter is preaching a message of restoration. For Jew and Gentile? No. For the nation Israel.
Ironic, isn't it, that Peter converted the first Gentile? But Peter was addressing a primarily Jewish crowd. So, being Jewish, he would naturally address them in terms that they would know.
Pentecost was an all Jewish feast day. It was NOT the beginning of the Church the Body of Christ, it was the beginning of the restoration of Israel.
Negative. It IS an all Christian feast day. Jews do not celebrate Pentecost - they regard it as blasphemy. Most devout Jews regard Christianity and Jesus Christ in the same manner that most devout Christians regard the LDS and Joseph Smith. Heretics and blasphemers.
Peter does not mention Christ dying for our sins. Read Acts 1 and 2. You will not find the message of salvation there. As a matter of fact, you won't find it until Paul.
Acts 2: 46 Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, 47 praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
Acts 3: 15 6 The author of life you put to death, but God raised him from the dead; of this we are witnesses. 16 And by faith in his name, this man, whom you see and know, his name has made strong, and the faith that comes through it has given him this perfect health, in the presence of all of you. 17 Now I know, brothers, that you acted out of ignorance, 7 just as your leaders did; 18 but God has thus brought to fulfillment what he had announced beforehand through the mouth of all the prophets, 8 that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be wiped away,
Acts 4: 5 On the next day, their leaders, elders, and scribes were assembled in Jerusalem, 6 with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly class. 7 They brought them into their presence and questioned them, "By what power or by what name have you done this?" 8 Then Peter, filled with the holy Spirit, answered them, "Leaders of the people and elders: 9 If we are being examined today about a good deed done to a cripple, namely, by what means he was saved, 10 then all of you and all the people of Israel should know that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarean whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead; in his name this man stands before you healed. 11 He is 'the stone rejected by you, 2 the builders, which has become the cornerstone.' 12 3 There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved."
Acts 5: 29 But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men. 30 4 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus, though you had him killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him at his right hand 5 as leader and savior to grant Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins.
I'd say that Peter said quite a lot about Jesus dying and being resurrected, with the forgiveness of sins and the message of salvation. Long before Paul arrived on the scene.
You've convinced me, I'll go with the Bible. Thanks.
The Reformation, not the only effort at reforming the Catholic church, arose not out of “stable Scripture” but revulsion at the utter moral corruption of the the Catholic church. Catholic reformers thought they actually could reform and undo the rot but soon learned that was impossible.
As A.W. Richard Sipe wrote in the book “Sin Against the Innocents”, (pg. 67):
“The history of the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent(1545-1563) record the rampant corruption of bishops and priests. It is not hyperbole to speculate that sexually and financially the Church is equally corrupt today”
How well the Protestant Reformation succeeded or whether it did at all may be questioned but for a certainty it was NOT for the purpose of creating novel religions.
I know what the word ‘snippets’ means and your argument is just a variation on the facile saying that the Bible is fiddle upon which any old tune can be played.
It wasn't “youthful follies” that has swept away the unbiblical interpretations of the Catholic church, it has been the shining of the light of Scripture upon the dark roots of the tares growing along with the wheat.
“The Nicene Creed formulation of the Trinitarian God is never expressly written out anywhere in the Bible. The closest that we have in in selections from John, but even he wavers back and forth. The Synoptic Gospels and Paul do not express the Triune God. Examples?”
Add to that Mariolatry, Transubstantiation, a separate priestly class with it titles and divisions, a purgatory, etc. But nevertheless all Catholic dogma.
Affirmation by councils aplenty but the Scriptures remain unsupportive. Even in Paul's day the corruption had begun as he himself testified. The sowing of the tares had already began and as Jesus said could not be uprooted without damaging the wheat.
Now the two are maturing and the differences between the two are clear.
“Questions?”
Yes. Given then that choice with Scripture on the one hand with it's teachings and the various councils of cynical apostates with their creeds and formulas, which one should I choose?
There are many that were like the seed that initially flourished and then died. Jesus was a master orator.
On another note, I wonder how many kudos I will get from the harpies and the post mangler on the wonderful Scripture that I have posted.
You're stopped, not just slow. I said that it is possible to pick all the major heresies out of the Bible and proved it with subordinationism. You do not address that, but merely misrepresent my words to attempt to pit the Church against the verses that it selected for Scripture, and do not even address those verses that I posted.
You've convinced me, I'll go with the Bible. Thanks.
Since you are a self avowed follower of the Reformation, I would be interested to see which Biblically based beliefs that you follow which are in conflict with Christianity. Are you for instance, subordinationist? Is that why the raw nerve?
How well the Protestant Reformation succeeded or whether it did at all may be questioned but for a certainty it was NOT for the purpose of creating novel religions.
It started out that way and continues to this day. The added benefit to Luther was wealth and luxury, Calvin wanted power and control, and Zwingli was a delusional mystic who played at being soldier.
“The Nicene Creed formulation of the Trinitarian God is never expressly written out anywhere in the Bible. The closest that we have in in selections from John, but even he wavers back and forth. The Synoptic Gospels and Paul do not express the Triune God. Examples?”
Address it if you can, rather than resort to insult. I gave you a small selection of verse. How do you respond?
Yes. Given then that choice with Scripture on the one hand with it's teachings and the various councils of cynical apostates with their creeds and formulas, which one should I choose?
I love the framing of the question. It could be framed much more truthfully if one worded this way: Which should I choose? The Church created by Jesus Christ and commissioned by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, or a church founded by tent con artist preachers with big hair and a flair for Sunday morning pass-the-hat sessions on television? Men of God, or slick bunco artist used car salesmen?
Rnmomof7: Double talk ..
Double talk indeed! I've been hoping someone would take this up. My mouth dropped open when I read, "We are not saved by works alone or by faith alone.". So what is being said here, and what most if not all of the RCs on this forum say, is that it is both faith AND works that save.
I cannot imagine a concept so devoid of reason especially in light of the following verse:
Romans 11:6 (King James Version)
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 11:6 (Amplified Bible)
But if it is by grace (His unmerited favor and graciousness), it is no longer conditioned on works or anything men have done. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace [it would be meaningless].
And that is my point...you can't have it both ways - and neither does God. You are saved by grace through faith - unmerited, or you are saved by works - merited.
Take it up with God if you don't like the name given it here.
"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews,devout men, out of every nation under heaven." (Acts2:9).
God exalted him at his right hand 5 as leader and savior to grant Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins.
Yes, it seems Peter knew all about the Dispensation of the Grace of God, whereby there is no differnce between Jew and Gentile 'for all have sinned and come short the Glory of God.'
You really should read the scriptures you use to make your points.
The bible doesn't support the doctrine that 100% of the revealed word is to be found in the Bible either. If the Council of Nicene "created" the trinity, then by your logic the Synod of Hippo Regius created the Bible.
If you have something relevant to say please do so, otherwise take your Hippo, etc. elsewhere.
You don’t have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.
Also known as the Festival of Harvest or Weeks because of the timing of the barley and wheat harvests and the seven weeks of counting from Nisan 16.
Take it up with God if you don't like the name given it here.
I'm taking it up with you, since you have invented it.
You really should read the scriptures you use to make your points.
You should not make up Scripture to make yours.
In the Greek, it is called the day of Pentecost. What does your Bible call it? Acts 2:1??
Do not EVER accuse me of making up scripture.
The Feast of the Sheaves, in Hebrew Shavuot.
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.