Posted on 01/27/2012 9:11:21 PM PST by Salvation
a protestant and a catholic once got together...and sang a song.....”One faith, one hope, and one foundation, one God...one Father of all....”
John Michael Talbot and Michael Card
I have Talbot’s original version with him singing and playing his guitar along with elements of the London Symphony Orchestra and the Ambrosian singers...circa 1987!
Could I come, I promise to be a good Baptist and not drink any of your Beer? (if you were Catholic I could get away with it,,,(from an old joke i heard once)
I’m starting to think Vladdy is Mr. Spock having been converted to Catholicism!
Well, I’m not going to be Dr. McCoy to his Mr. Spock...The last paragraph in posting 253 is very revealing!
That is what makes it a real cr@pshoot. There is no one universally accepted definition of "Sola Scriptura", Bart Brewer had his, James White has his own (Which is so all encompassing it hardly mentions the Bible), And Loyd Gypsum of Bible Baptist in my home town has a completely different one.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn't own the copyright of Christianity.
Actually we pretty much do, but we just don't enforce it with the same vigor that the NFL does.
9The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t own the copyright of Christianity.
Actually we pretty much do, but we just don’t enforce it with the same vigor that the NFL does.)
Actually Jesus Christ owns the copy right and the power to graft “wild olive branches in” and take them out again should they lose their productivity. Paul spoke of the gentiles being the “wild olive braches being grafted in while the Jews had temporarily had been taken out” Paul gave a warning to us “wild olive branches” that we could be taken out again should we fall into error so the gentile believers at the time were not to get too smug about their new positions in Christ. It should have been taken as a warning to the budding church at the time that Christ could act to lessen their authority should they fall into error. That was what the Reformation was about I believe...God grafting new olive shoots in because the Roman Catholics at the time had gotten so corrupt and the Orthodox were being swamped in the East at the time by the Muslims and by their own corruption. The danger was that the work of Christ in imparting the knowledge of saving grace to the lost of the world was being in danger of being snuffed out. So I believe God acted in bold new directions via the reformation and via the printing press so that literally the “written” knowledge of the glory of the Lord would come to cover the whole Earth...and to every man who could read and could carry a bible in his hand! The Protestants became the new force that “turned the world upside down” once again.
I have a hope that out all 4 current elements of Christendom...Orthodox,Catholic,Protestant and the Messianic Jewish movement(yes lets definitely not count out our Jewish Christian brothers for they may be the vanguard of the Saved Jews that were foretold to come),...God will create such a wondrous spiritual hybridization, that the final Bride emerges unwrinkled and unbowed, despite the whole array of evil that Hell should raise against her...for Christ is our Lord and we are his people!
“I think (but you must decide for yourself) that Newt’s conversion was sincere.”
From a religious point of view, Newt may have had a sincere conversion - I don’t question that it is not for me to do.
However, when our politicians run for office there is no obligation to provide the same benefit of the doubt. Early in the primaries, I heard Newt use the “the church was satisfied with my explanation” excuse with regards to his marriage. That was extremely inappropriate, in my opinion. He’s since taken a different tack, but his motive was clear to me at that time.
We, as conservatives, have no obligation to not question his political motives in his annulments - we have every obligation to press the issue. However, Newt knows that conservatives, in general, tend to be more God-fearing, and religious, and believe in redemption and forgiveness. He leveraged that politically in a calculated manner to deflect the questions early on. Some people are still falling for it on this thread.
Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned and heartfelt responses.
I think that blaming Protestantism for everything every Protestant does - whether they be legal or not is a bit paranoid.
Nor should one blame Catholicism for such expressed paranoia.
I find it profoundly depressing to ponder, actually.
You wrote:
“I think that blaming Protestantism for everything every Protestant does - whether they be legal or not is a bit paranoid.”
I’ve NEVER done that. Why do you make things up like that?
“I find it profoundly depressing to ponder, actually.”
Get some help.
“I’ve NEVER done that. Why do you make things up like that?”
You did do it. I referenced the post I was pinged to (#253)
Perhaps you conveyed something you did not wish to. Please take the opportunity to correct/amend it, as it would cheer me up immensely to see you were not as mentally ill as it would seem in that particular post.
There is nothing so depressing as to see mental illness manifested, no matter what the medium, or who the person is, or what religion they happen to be.
You wrote:
“You did do it. I referenced the post I was pinged to (#253)”
I just looked at 253 - since you mentioned it - and I did NOT do what you have falsely claimed I did.
“Perhaps you conveyed something you did not wish to.”
No, I conveyed exactly what I wished to and it was not what you claim.
“Please take the opportunity to correct/amend it, as it would cheer me up immensely to see you were not as mentally ill as it would seem in that particular post.”
There is nothing to correct. Everything I wrote is absolutely 100% correct and irrefutable. Also, callingme mentally ill is “making it personal” and a violation of the forum rules. I suggest you work harder to post within the rules.
“There is nothing so depressing as to see mental illness manifested, no matter what the medium, or who the person is, or what religion they happen to be.”
What I posted was absolutely 100% correct. Your post helps prove that.
“What I posted was absolutely 100% correct. Your post helps prove that.”
Yes, everyone else is crazy, you’re completely sane.
You wrote:
“Yes, everyone else is crazy, you’re completely sane.”
I am sane, and not everyone else is crazy. And that post (253) was 100% correct. That’s probably why you’re not actually challenging anything in it. You’re just making things up that aren’t even remotely in the post. Sure looks like desperation on your part.
Your post #253 sounds like a paranoid rant. It sounds like you are paranoid about Protestants. You can say it’s 100% correct. That’s fine. You shouldn’t be surprised, or take it personally when people don’t take your word for it.
I’m sorry for you if your personal anecdotes are true (there is no way to know for sure), but if so, you should be grown up enough to not simply blame Protestants - whether crazy or not.
There is a scriptural basis for everything Catholic that you reject.
Ah, so it is Catholicism that has the extra stuff not contained in the scriptures that He wants me to have.
Sorry, 2 Peter says I need nothing beyond what Christ has given me ...
It is only a tendentious and self-serving reading of the scriptures that allows people to think otherwise.
lol ... Catholics never read the Bible with their own theological view in mind.
Sola scriptura is supported nowhere in any valid version of the Bible.
Your belief that this is so is RCC tradition ... whose sole purpose is to undermine the authority of the Bible in the believers life.
At the last supper, for instance, He said nothing of import that isn’t reported in the Gospels? Really?
And what would you ever use for a source of these things that are missing from the gospels? Anything you use beyond the NT has no apostolic authority, if it had apostolic authority it would have been recognized by all the early churches and would have made it into the NT.
Further, if God wishes to bless us, who are you to say you don’t need what He offers?
When He explicitly states in the scripures that He has already given me everything I need for life and godliness ... why would I seek anything else? What you are trying to argue is that He has NOT given me everything I need (oops, you are ignoring your first pope) ... but rather, I should seek these so-called extra blessings that He will give me through the teachings of the RCC.
If I seek these extra teachings that you are espousing, then I must admit that His word is not true, that He has NOT given me everything I need, and that I need something more. Anathema.
One of the most important things He wants you to have is access to 2,000 years of the intellectual work product of the brightest, holiest men that the world has produced. You might start by chipping away at the surface of that.
You are proceeding from a false assumption ... namely, that the early church fathers present a coherent theology. They had no such thing ... many of them had heretical views about many topics. Can we read them and perhaps glean some insight from them ... occassionally, but when they depart from the Biblical faith espoused in the NT then we are to reject them ... as we would reject an author on a topic today.
There is absolutely no way that any single human being could develop, in a single lifetime, one one-millionth of the understanding that is to be found in Catholic writings.
So perhaps it would be prudent to stick to the text of the Bible.
Things are passed down by word of mouth.
Please provide one example of something that Jesus said at the last supper that is not recorded in the gospels.
I gave you the "real" facts. The OT in use at that time was the Septuagint. Jesus quote in the Temple from Isiah was taken from the Septuagint. The text you guys love to cite was from the council of Jamnia 70 years after the crucifizxtion.
Here is a source that shows the links between the Septuagint and the Catholic Bible.http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
I gave you the "real" facts. The OT in use at that time was the Septuagint. Jesus quote in the Temple from Isiah was taken from the Septuagint. The text you guys love to cite was from the council of Jamnia 70 years after the crucifizxtion.
Here is a source that shows the links between the Septuagint and the Catholic Bible.http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
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.