Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
well just give us the scriptural answer.
By the way, why is it when Catholics can not defend their faith, they resort to ad hominem remarks? Protestants are called filthy Calvinists, when none are filthy and some are not Calvinists, and the rest of us are called dimwits and liars.If one of us were even to allude to Catholics that way, oh the wailing from the thread nannies that would ensue! Funny isn't it
"Pauline theology" of course is grounded in Christ.
Anyone who would think otherwise has not read the Bible.
Paul “lived and died to explain Christ” but he was not necessary, Christ is necessary
WHAT!!!
Read your Bible. Of course he was necessary. Christ told us to "preach the Gospel to all men." Paul understood what seems to escape RC apologists.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" -- Romans 10:13-15"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
I am amazed that so many RC apologists trash Paul. I think their own church would be shocked to read what they write. No doubt it is because RC apologists cannot defend their faith or practices when scrutinized according to the inspired words of the Scriptures. So they make up some idiotic foolishness that Paul isn't preaching Christ.
Sometimes the “Reformers” are simply trying to make Catholics angry, to get us to react in the extreme so they can reproach us.
Sometimes, they make no sense, because one of them is a program that takes a word from a Catholic post, then looks up a bunch of scripture containing that words, then adds a rude (impersonal, mostly) comment. Like Natural Law said yesterday, you can predict what slander they’ll offer next, based on past behavior. The only explanation is a computer program, there sure is no heart in any of it.
See 7802. I hit send too early.
And what you wrote was incorrect. You wrote “St. Paul doesn’t explain Christ.”
And that statement is heresy.
what did He say and do? And why do you choose to live under Law?
Do you agree that “St. Paul doesn’t explain Christ?”
It seems Natural Law is correct in that the population of Catholics exceeds the population of Protestants. What is left unsaid is that the increase in Catholics is due to immigration of Catholics and for no other reason.
I think we have Roman Catholics on this thread making up their own theology, even apart from Rome.
“St. Paul doesn’t explain Christ.”
Does Rome know this is what its adherents are asserting?
So considering Mary as elect, does that mean you now believe in the doctrine of predestination and the doctrine of the elect?
Already appearing today now that everyone is “awake”. Go figure!
Only for a very few.
Several are chosen, but most flounder around on their own as best they can.
The growth of the Catholic population in Switzerland is due to immigration and nothing else.
lol. That would be the Catholic bible, scratch out *elect*, write in *Mary*
Even if I were an atheist, which I am not, the answer is yes. Teaching doctrine does not require a belief that God exists. Besides, most of my life I was a practicing Christian, so yes I do know the faith.
What does Jesus say, not what does an unbeliever say ? Provided it was John quoting Jesus, but that's another topic. Not enough time today.
But since you are quoting from John why not mention the part where Jesus calls the Father his God???? [John 20:17] Or where John quotes Jesus saying "the Father is greater than I"? [John 14:28]
What are we to draw from these quotes? That Jesus was no God, or that he was a lesser God? Sure seems that way, doesn't it? It is no wonder early Christian apologetics were teaching that Christ was a man who was either "made" divine (Adoptionism) or that he was a "lesser God" (Ariansm).
The Church had to establish Trinitarian and Christological dogma to counter this, because the Church did not believe that Christ was a creature made divine, or a lesser God, even though that is exactly what the Bible suggests.
The Church believed and still believes that all three divine hypostases are co-eternal and co-equal and equally divine. This is not in the scirptures but even the scirptures tell you that not everything Jesus taught has been written down, and that he revealed the secrets (mysteries) of the kingdom of heaven to his disicples, who passed it on to theirs (hence the importance of apostolic succession, whether you agree with it or not).
Of course, once you reject all but the incomplete scriptures, and go only by what they say, then you have "Christianity" where Christ is the Father's errand boy and it's called Portestantism or better yet, the Portestant heresy, i.e. something the Church never taught.
Suffice it to say that all these verses you post represent interpolations from the standpoint of a Jewish messiah, and not the Platonic Logos incarnate. In other words, Jesus in his humanity and not in his divinity.
Other websites, like the one I linked to, say Geneva is “predominantly Protestant.”
Wikipedia is only as truthful as the last person who entered data on it. It can be handy for some purposes, but it’s sure not the final authority on much of anything.
You’re correct to note the discrepancy is probably due to the last decade’s influx of Spanish, Italians and Portuguese. Similar to this country where the only increase in Roman Catholic membership is seen through immigration.
That's Topios, and each their own pope so they're in big twouble
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
AMEN!
St. Paul is not a contingent being, he is not necessary either for the Redemption or the existence of the created world. He didn't need to exist. It's almost as if Calvinistas are doing to St. Paul what they accuse Catholics of doing to Mary... How's that shoe feel when it's on the other foot?
FURTHERMORE, you will notice (and if you don't, everyone else certainly will) that I wrote "In that sense"... What sense would that be Leggo? I'm glad you asked that question: "he [St. Paul] doesn't make sense without direct reference to what Jesus Christ said and did". In THAT sense Christ explains St. Paul, in THAT sense what St. Paul wrote makes uh... sense.
We're back to this again: I write something, someone (and apparently it would be wrong of me to say who that someone is) sees what I wrote, picks a part of it out of context and goes berserk. If that someone does it to what I write why should anyone be surprise when that same someone does it to Sacred Scripture?
St. Paul makes a statement and we must refer to what Christ said or did that St. Paul is expounding on to get the proper sense of what St. Paul means. We must understand everything through the lens of Christ.
yes, some of us dont live online 24/7. Usually those people are on welfare, and vote Democratic
It's not necessarily false teaching; it's what the Church believed and still believes. In order to combat what some perceived as false teaching, individual scribes would make doctrinally approved additions or changes to the biblical manuscripts. Evidence of such tempering is abundant. Everyone else did that too, just like today. People will manipulate material to fit their agenda. The stronger the conviction the stronger the tendency to do that. That's why it is pointless to speak of of any objective truth when it comes to blind faith.
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.