Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
No. No human being is forgiven because they are sinless. Humans are FORGIVEN of their sins by faith in Christ, in part because He has already redeemed us from the slave market of sin.
FWIW, do we have any passages proving Mary was faithful after His birth? The few passages we do have regarding her manifest the role of woman with respect to man, but also consider how Christ treated her as both Son of Man and Son of God. When Christ was on the Cross, telling Mary to behold her son, IMHO, this manifests a very responsible and humble witness to his mother. Considering the dual of the argument, had she been as sinless, as some purport, what lesson was He attempting to communicate.
Instead, IMHO, it reveals He may have been giving a lesson to his mother to correct her past way of thinking.
There’s a world of difference between WANTING to do the right thing that is the natural result of our salvation, and HAVING to do the right thing, in order to gain salvation.
Both produce works. The difference is in the motivation and the heart. One is out of love and gratitude and a desire to show others the love of God so that they too may come to Him. That leads to a life of joy in serving others.
The other is out of fear as a matter of fire insurance, all in an effort to appease an angry, capricious God who isn’t so willing to forgive. All that leads to is a life of fear and judgment in constantly comparing yourself to others to see if you’re doing OK enough to get in.
What appears to be the case is that they are writing more out of what they want the church to be (the ideal RCC) than what it actually, in reality, is.
Sure, *No REAL Catholic would support _____* or *No REAL Catholic would believe/teach/do _______*, but the world is filled with Catholics who the FRoman Catholics like to include in their head count as representing Catholicism when it comes to *proving* how big they are, but who they then turn around and deny are *real* Catholics when those same Catholics are exposed to be flaming liberals.
The hypocrisy abounds.
Thanks again for all your efforts in compiling the data to present to us.
THANKS for your kind reply.
I’d like to think they are soberly and prayerfully reflecting on the truths displayed in the statistics and in our posts about them.
Alas, the record indicates they are probably merely gnashing their teeth and trying to come up with the right weasel words and rationalizations.
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY . . . UGH.
Sure, *No REAL Catholic would support _____* or *No REAL Catholic would believe/teach/do _______*, but the world is filled with Catholics who the FRoman Catholics like to include in their head count as representing Catholicism when it comes to *proving* how big they are, but who they then turn around and deny are *real* Catholics when those same Catholics are exposed to be flaming liberals.
The hypocrisy abounds.
==========================================
ABSOLUTELY, INDEED. THX.
So true!
Hoss
.
|
FR RC'S have wailed, whined, spewed and pontificated endlessly about how RC's get MORE Scripture [during the Mass] than Proddys are exposed to.
Yet again we see that RC's purported LOVE OF THE WORD OF GOD is GROSSLY LACKING!
Particularly compared to Pentecostals. I wonder where Charismatic Roman Catholics would rate.
Personally, I've NEVER found ANYONE'S LOVE OF GOD to out strip their LOVE OF GOD'S WORD IN PRINTED/ORAL SCRIPTURE.
I certainly could believe that love of bead fondling could outstrip love of Scripture.
Regardless, this is an outrage that FR RC's could still pretend that Roman Catholics at large have a great Love of Scripture--particularly if they also insist--that RC's love Scripture more than Proddys. It JUST AIN'T SO.
|
Volunteer church work (during past 7 days): Assemblies of God were highest at 30%, with the lowest going to Catholics at 12%. |
Ahhhhhhhhhhh now we look at voluntary sacrifices of time and energy in behalf of God . . . or even in behalf of one's RELIGIOUS group, congregation, structure.
I'm saddened to see AoG so low. Yet, it's more than DOUBLE the RC's who were LOWEST of ALL the groups.
IMPRESSIVE, RC'S VERY IMPRESSIVE. Congrats on scraping the bottom of the barrel YET AGAIN!
Donating Money (during the last month): Church of Christ churches were the highest at 29%, with Catholics being the lowest at 12%
==========================================================
That's interesting. The Church of Christ beat out the AoG! I wonder by how much . . .
Ahhhh I see that AoG came in at 22% in a source doc here:
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54
That's still near double what the RC's claimed.
Perhaps if they'd included buying all the plastic idols, the RC's would have faired better.
What is also sad is that of the kind of scholarship which the official RC Bible for America has been putting out for years, which is grievous to most RCs on FR as well, if not always for the same reason.
The NAB impugns upon the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and Catholics themselves have complained that it relegates numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with other problems and gender inclusive language.
The USCCB owns the copyright for the NAB and the RNAB, and a Catholic podcast Lectionary even got a quick "cease and desist" letter for violating copyright However, their Bible text had to be amended for the lectionary because the Vatican rejected it for Mass no one in authority seems inclined to incorporate these same emendations back into the RNAB.
Also, the NAB footnotes assert alleged contradictions in Scripture, and Catholics are divided on whether the Vatican Two statement in Dei Verbum, which was the result of a behind-the-scenes debate at Vatican II about inerrancy, and states that the Bible “teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" supports the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited domain, which at least one frequent Roman Catholic poster here seems to think, if that, versus what Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus states. Of course, there is also disagreement as to whether all encyclicals are infallible, or how much therein is. Also debated is whether the Bible teaches geocentrism.
It goes on to “explain”, under “Literary Genres” . (p. 19) that such stories as Gn. cps. 2, (creation) 3, (the Fall) 4:1-16 (Cain and Able); 6-8, (Noah and the flood) 11 (Tower of Babel) were allegorical, and that Balaam and the donkey and the angel, were fables, while Gn. 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) are stories which are "historical at their core," while overall the author simply used "traditions" to teach a religious lesson
All of which impugns the literal historicity of the O.T. overall, even though Jesus referred to many of these and other such stories as actual historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14)
In explaining away the Bible's attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, it states,
"Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." ("Inspiration and Revelation," p. 18)
Whilet is true that this NAB went through a revision, some of the following is taken from a Roman Catholic apologist (archived) who quotes form the 1992 version and is likewise is critical at the liberal scholarship behind the official RC Bible for America (though he elsewhere apparently denigrated Israel as illegal occupying Palestine) .
The footnotes regarding the parting of the Red Sea informs its readers that it didn’t actually happen. Rather, the Israelite crossed over the Sea of Reeds which was “ probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” It thus renders the miracle would being Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters.
It likewise explains as regards to “the sons of heaven [God] having intercourse with the daughters of men” (Gen. 6:4), “This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” The NAB footnotes go on to explain the “sons of heaven” are “the celestial beings of mythology.”
Regarding the Gospels, it only allows that the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod, was “extremely probable,” and that people leaving Bethlehem to escape the massacre, is equally probable, but outside the historical background to this tradition, the rest is interpretation.
Its “Conditioned thought patterns” (p. 20) hermeneutic also paves the way for the specious argumentation of feminists who seek to negate the headship of the man as being due to condescension to culture, a very dangerous hermeneutic, and unwarranted when dealing with such texts as 1Cor. 11:3.
It additionally conveys such things as that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus was like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai. For in "Reading the Gospels, one should distinguish historical facts from theological elaboration." ("The Gospels," e. p. 22)
Where does it stop?
The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is the Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings.” The words are not Jesus but from the Church.
“Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12”
It also explain,
“You may hear interpreters of the Bible who are literalists or fundamentalists. They explain the Bible according to the letter: Eve really ate from the apple and Jonah was miraculously kept alive in the belly of the whale. Then there are ultra-liberal scholars who qualify the whole Bible as another book of fairly tales. Catholic Bible scholars follow the sound middle of the road... The signature of a bishop in your Bible assures you that opinions, expressed in footnotes and introductions, reflect what is generally accepted as sound doctrine in the Catholic tradition.”
Also at issue is the NAB as an inclusive language translation.
The current edition will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1; 6:13; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.
It is a slippery slope when historical statements are made out to be literary devices, and Muslims have taken advantage of the NAB's liberal hermeneutic to impugn the veracity of the Bible, http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm.
One of the changes i have noted between the 1970 NAB and the online version of today, is that the former has “justice” (which perhaps the social gospel Catholics preferred) over righteousness in such places as Rom 4:5,6, and that David “celebrates” the man..., while the online NAB has “But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:”
On the other hand there are Catholics who only sanction the Douay-Rheims Bible, yet a Roman Catholic apologist criticizes them.
*"The signature of a bishop in your Bible assures you that opinions, expressed in footnotes and introductions, reflect what is generally accepted as sound doctrine in the Catholic tradition." NAB published by the Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1986. Nihil Obstat, with the Imprimatur from the Archbishop of Washington.
And so it goes. More attack on the veracity of Scripture by the organization which claims to be the sole repository of spiritual truth on the planet.
It’s appalling how they claim they wrote it, appeal to it to support their favorite doctrines, and rip the rest of it to shreds when it suits them.
Well, i think the traditionalists have a good case that the modernists are going contrary to certain statements of old. But as is often the case more recently, statements as carefully nuanced and leave questions.
Hideous.
Thx.
Indeed!
Because of your post #1662. >{? Anyone looking for a pound of flesh, again?......A lessening of support for antiChristian postings would suffice.
My sentiment was that there are many on here who post heretical beliefs, some condemned almost 2000 years ago that get kudos and pats on the back from others who purport to be Christian.
Not only that they are (allegedly) Protestant, but that NONE are Catholic.
Interesting. I did some searching but was not able to find a good study on that that will satisfy this claim. I will, however, present however reluctantly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion which says that:
The Catholic Church opposes procedures whose purpose is to destroy an embryo or fetus. The Church today firmly holds that "the first right of the human person is his life" and that life is assumed to begin at fertilization. As such, Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latæ sententiæ) excommunication" from the Church, which can only be removed when that individual seeks penance and obtains absolution.[22] Some pro-life supporters believe that the Church has been consistent for over two millennia in its condemnation of abortion.[14][23]
Despite their general opposition to abortion, fundamentalist churches that include the conservative evangelical, Non-denominational, Southern Baptist and Pentecostal movements, do not have a single definition or doctrine on abortion. While these movements hold in common that abortion (when there is no threat to the life of the mother) is a form of infanticide, there is no consensus as to whether exceptions should be allowed when the mother's life is in mortal danger, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Some argue that the lives of both the mother and fetus should be given equal consideration, in effect condemning all abortion including those performed to save the life of the mother. Others argue for exceptions which favor the life of the mother, perhaps including pregnancies resulting from cases of rape or incest.[28][29]
The General Board of American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. opposes abortion "as a means of avoiding responsibility for conception, as a primary means of birth control, and without regard for the far-reaching consequences of the act." There is no agreement on when personhood begins, whether there are situations that allow for abortion, whether there should be laws to protect the life of embryos and whether laws should allow women the right to choose an abortion.[38]
The Episcopal Church in the United States of America has taken a pro-choice stand and has passed resolutions at its triannual General Convention that supports abortion rights. The church opposes any government action that limits abortion rights, including parental notification.[39] The ECUSA does condemn abortions for sex selection and also condemns violence against abortion clinics.[39]
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) General Assembly has "repeatedly affirmed its support for the principles of a woman's right to reproductive freedom, of the freedom and responsibility of individual conscience, and of the sacredness of life of all persons. While advocating respect for differences of religious beliefs concerning abortion, Disciples have consistently opposed any attempts to legislate a specific religious opinion regarding abortion for all Americans." [43]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America maintains a pro-choice position for fetuses that are aborted before viability outside of the womb. The ELCA position statement says abortion should be an option of last resort, the ELCA community should work to reduce the need for elective abortions, and that as a community, "the number of induced abortions is a source of deep concern to this church. We mourn the loss of life that God has created."[44][45] The ELCA Social Statement on Abortion adds: "The church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion. These are the threat to a woman's physical life; when pregnancy has resulted from rape, incest or sexual violence; and fetal abnormalities incompatible with life.[1] The church opposes legal restrictions on abortion and provides health-care benefits to its employees that cover elective abortions. Some hospitals affiliated with the church perform elective abortions.[46]
The United Methodist Church upholds the sanctity of unborn human life and is reluctant to affirm abortion as an acceptable practice.[49] Further, the church strongly condemns the use of late-term or partial birth abortion, except if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.[49] In addition, it is committed to "assist the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers that compassionately help women find feasible alternatives to abortion;"[50] however, the Church recognizes that there may be extenuating circumstances, such as the threatening of the mother's life, and thus supports the legal right of the mother to choose after proper consideration of all options with medical, pastoral and other counsel.[49]
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) generally takes a pro-choice stance.[53] The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) believes that the choice to receive an elective abortion can be "morally acceptable;" however, the denomination does not condone late abortions where the fetus is viable and the mother's life is not in danger.[53] Other Presbyterian denominations such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church[54] and the Presbyterian Church in America[55] are pro-life.
The Religious Society of Friends generally avoids taking a stance on controversial issues such as abortion;[56] however, in the 1970s the American Friends Service Committee advocated for abortion rights.[56]
The United Church of Christ has strongly supported abortion rights since 1971 as a part of their Justice and Witness Ministry. The church is an organizational member of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL).[57][58]
Just from the position of the various religious organizations, it may be more easy to see who would be staffing Planned Parenthood than one might assume.
I realize that no man is capable; that is why we beg God for repentence each time we fail, ask for more of His Grace and continue on the Via of Christ (as Paul alludes to). Either you strive, with the Grace of God, to imitate Christ or else you do not.
The Law was to show us what God's standards are so that we can see that we can't do it ourselves and we can see our need for HIS righteousness and that we can come to Him and ask for His mercy through faith.
If you do not follow Christ's commands, you do not follow Christ. You brought up the example of the rich young man some time ago. A good example.
Good works cannot make up for all the sin we have committed. There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood, so we can't earn forgiveness by works, or penance, or paying it off in purgatory. Those will not get sin forgiven.
There is also no forgiveness of sins without repentence and the sincere desire to "go and sin no more". Without that, desire, salvation is lost. The harlot was forgiven of her sins, but only if she follow the command of Jesus.
NOBODY can live the Beatitudes. Even if you were perfect from here on in, it's already too late as one sin is all it takes to condemn you and make you guilty of the entire Law.
Then you must repent of it after your sin of commission or omission. Else, it is your baggage that you haul with you before Him in your Judgement.
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.