Posted on 02/22/2011 2:53:04 PM PST by Natural Law
So, you believe Arabic speaking Protestants worship a false deity?
lol
Who is Jesus Christ? Perhaps if you will answer that we can resolve the issue.
Oh, you're talking to the wrong guy if you think that'll be denied. I will readily admit that Protestant/Evangelical traditions are the hallmark of their divisions. But for two things:
First, agreeing on a single tradition would be a false sense of ecumenism, and destructive to the Word of God - All the more to return to the vomit of Rome.
And secondly, what the Protestant/Evangelical faiths DO agree upon is what makes them strong - that being the 5 solas, which are almost universally embraced. and in that, there is more unity than can be imagined.
Try this: It's kind of related to the question of whether heretics are Christians. I'm inclined to think that they are. They are disobedient Christians in error. But many say they aren't Christians at all.
There's an interplay of faith, love, knowledge, and understanding that is wonderful, dynamic, and complex. And, while I know this is hard for most people to believe, I am sometimes (rarely) in error. God is not done with me yet, and that is a relief, because I sho' ain't perfect yet. But in the meantime, I guess I should pray for an increase in all those gifts, and for patience with those not enlightened enough to see how right I am.
Received from the Church. Paul is correct. Paul did not mean received from any tent preacher or self described prophet. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; not some mallfront entity run by a 'bishop' with a mail order accreditation.
I said something funny?
I’m assuming you meant freepmail
So, you claim. The Arabic word for god, i.e. Allah, was in use well before the Muslims came along. But if you want to believe that Arabic speaking Protestants worship a false diety because they use the word "Allah" in their native tongue, that's your prerogative.
But then maybe you reject the scriptures that Jewish and Christian believers revere as the word of God.
But then, maybe I don't. But what's that have to do with Arabic speaking Protestants using the word Allah?
Who is Jesus Christ? Perhaps if you will answer that we can resolve the issue.
My answer would have no bearing on the issue of Arabic speaking Protestants using the word Allah.
who do you say that He is?
Who is Mohammed?
Who do you say that he is?
Yes, I have heard that bandied about too, but considering the bare fact that no one has proven it, and that there are "Catholic/Orthodox" caucus tags as late as January 2011, I am inclined to think it all sour grapes - Perhaps some caucus thread was denied on content or something...
If it IS ever proven, please do ping me to it so that I might judge the evidence.
If it does turn out to be true, I would stand with you.
Why should I answer you questions when I'm still waiting to hear if you believe that Arabic speaking Protestants, who use their native word Allah, worship a false deity?
lol, lol, go Baalistic
Could you find scripture that says where it needs to come from if it’s the gospel of Jesus Christ? And would you please find for me where in that verse or any other verse it includes the phrase “Received from the Church”.
>>The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church<<
Again, would you please find the reference in scripture where that phrase or anything like it is or where it tells you that the gospel must come through an organization rather then from any believer.?
Wait.
This is a Whiner's Caucus thread.
I don't think that's allowed.
[WHINE!]
Why is it any of your business as long as it doesn't reference your church. I don't crash RC Caucus threads. I see the designation and move on.
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel that was preached of me is NOT AFTER MAN. For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT, but BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST."
He did NOT receive the gospel he preached by 'the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Period. He received it directly from the revelation of Jesus Christ. Period.
If you read a little further down, verses 15-24 that he conferred NOT with flesh and blood about the gospel he preached. He did not go to Jerusalem to consult the apostles before him, but to Arabia and Damascus. And he certainly did not receive it of Peter in ROme. Since Peter was still in Jerusalem, that would have been impossible.
What i see as absurd is an RC inferring that they could somehow qualify as holding to sola scriptura. Esp. as RC apologists most typically but erroneously define SS as “solo scriptura, as if all but a few extremist hold that nothing else can be used except the Bible, rather than the Scriptures being the judge of all truth claims, and formally providing the truth needed for salvation and growth toward perfection. (2Tim. 3:15-17)
While there is some room for disagreement as to the difference btwn formal sufficiency and material sufficiency, sola Scriptura is a historical term, and it is clearly contrary to sola ecclesia, which is effectively the RC position. In which Scripture is held to come from Tradition, with the Magisterium coming from both, but as it presumes to define what both mean and the limits of the latter (not the former), then it is effectively the supreme authority.*
SS materially provides for the teaching magisterium, but holds that the Scriptures alone are the supreme objective authority, that being the only such that are wholly inspired of God. And which issue we have recently debated much.
As for the Sola Scriptura Caucus being a nonsensical designation due to what it may include/exclude, and the originators being the judge, it is a given that this does not refer to Vedic literature, just as it is a given that Catholic caucus does not include all who simply claim to be part of the universal church.
As for the likening it to “Whites Only” club, RCs do the same in their caucus, while the insistence to be part of something one opposes can be too much like a liberal rant, which shows the need for caucus type threads.
Moreover, the “alarming trend” seems to have been one thread, in which (if i recall) an RC objected to the RM’s exclusion of RCs, insolently inferring it was not valid because the RM referenced Wikipedia.
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church. - PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII dated
The Protestant goes directly to the Word of God for instruction, and to the throne of grace in his devotions; whilst the pious Roman Catholic consults the teaching of his church, and prefers to offer his prayers through the medium of the Virgin Mary and the saints. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
You need to ask the RM why he removed the designation. I never directly asked him to do so. I asked you very politely why it was a caucus. If you had explained why I would have respected that. You just claimed that it was without offering evidence. Other threads I totally agree are caucus ones.
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.