Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Have you abandoned hope?
God gave us a sturdy boat (Grace) and a star to sail her by (the Church) and has prepared a banquet for us on the far shore (heaven). It is our journey to make and our duty to assist our fellow travelers. Faith and Hope are a trailing wind.
Peace be with you.
stpio:
>>Catholics follow the Church, her teaching on Scripture not private judgment as Protestants do. If you follow the Church, not one verse in Scripture (OT and NT) contradicts the other.<<
Oh really?
~ ~ ~
Sorry, I can’t do italics, so I’ll use caps.
“John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in Munificentissimus Deus on Nov. 1, 1950, that the “Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
That looks like a direct contradiction to me.”
YOU ACCEPT DIVINE EXCEPTIONS, YOU ACCEPT GOD TOOK ELIJAH
TO HEAVEN, BODY AND SOUL. WHY NOT MARY? MARY DIDN’T ‘ASCEND’, SHE WAS TAKEN TO HEAVEN BY GOD, ‘ASSUMED’ INTO HEAVEN.
“Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
And Catholics think that God commanded the brazen serpent which was a “graven image” but let’s see what happened to that.
2Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
Would Catholics crush the statues of Mary or any of the Saints into dust or have they become idols?”
GOD OBJECTS TO IMAGES OF false GODS, MARY IS NOT A GOD,
SHE IS THE MOTHER OF GOD. GOD LOVES WHEN YOU ARE REMINDED
OF HIM. AND OF THE SAINTS TOO, SEEING THEM HELPS YOU IN PRAYER. A STATUE LIKE A PHOTO IS AN IMAGE OF A LOVED ONE.
I LOVE THE SACRED HEART IMAGE, THE STATUE OF OUR LORD. IT
REMINDS ME OF HIS LOVE AND OF HIS VERY HEART BEING PIERCED.
please, you gotta let go of these two objections. The first, God can make exceptions and He does.
Surely you’re not trying to imply that the presence of Christ is symbolic are you? Doesn’t the RCC claim that it’s physically present? Are the bread and wine literal or what we would call in earthly terms symbolic (ie Spiritual)? Remember that the RCC claims the bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus.
Again, I will invite you to become familiar with the phjilosophical terms property and substance used by the Church before really engaging in another one of these gotcha games in which the teachings of the church are grossly misstated as the premise of an absurd proposition.
The Church teaches that the Eucharist is "substantially" the body and blood in a very literal sense.
To extrapolate from this that the Catholic Church has the authority to "make it up as they go along" is foolish. The church father, Athenagoras, says:
As I said before, you can consent to believe whatever you are told by your self-entitled "infallible" magesterium is to be held as de fide, and you can trust your eternal salvation upon the decrees and musings of men who assert their authority over the Holy Scriptures but I will place my hope and trust upon the truth of God's word and agree with Irenaeus who said:
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man
So you are saying that verse is talking about an “uncorruptible” false God? Do you really want to stay with your statement?
>> SHE IS THE MOTHER OF GOD<<
Could you please show from scripture that she is the “mother of God”? She carried God but she was the mother of His earthly form. Mary is no more “mother of God” than God is a descendant of David. Please show chapter and verse to show that Mary was the mother of God.
>> THE STATUE OF OUR LORD<<
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man
This is how someone receives Him.
John 1:12-13 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Christ dwells in our hearts through faith, not in our stomachs or through our stomachs.
Ephesians 3:14-19 14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Yea, they use the word “transubstantiation” which is derived from the Latin “trans or across” and “substantia or substance”. In other words they believe that the “bread and wine” are changed in substance into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. So Catholics must believe that they are literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. And I am quite familiar with the philosophical terms property and substance used by the RCC.
It was adopted by the 4th Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), formalized at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63), and was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
The concept of literally eating Christ’s flesh and blood is pagan materialistic methodology which God condemned often.
>> I have wondered, about the “altar call”, “born again” meaning of accepting Jesus into your heart one time as your personal Lord and Savior and you are saved.
Who came up with this belief? Who first wrote about it? I think it’s Evangelical, doesn’t come from traditional Protestantism.<<
Cynical Bear:
“Faith saves.”
~ ~ ~
You are dear CB but this is not an answer to my question about the “altar call”, on it’s history. Nor one example from Scripture the “altar call” is the meaning of “born again.” Where is the physical, the water?
Accepting into your heart Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour one time is not being “born again.” Further on in John 3, verse 22, Jesus went out and Baptized! Seee.... Protestant “born again” may be a moment of conversion but it is not Baptism as Jesus speaks about nor does it save you.
The examples, all private judgment, the in bold to defend Martin Luther’s “Faith alone.” The bolded spoke of being “perfected”, “sanctification”, “righteousness” and the verse, Paul stating FALSE works never save you, everyone accepts this. None of those words mean Salvation. And no where is there anything in God’s revelation that says “faith” alone justifies you.
John 3:16 is more example of private judgment to defend “faith alone.” That verse is taken out of context and isolated to make it sound like it’s all you need.
Luther tried to remove the Book of James, no wonder...
What of this verse from James?
James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and NOT by faith only.
Surely he can’t be considered one of the fathers of the Catholic Church with a statement like that. After all, each individual can’t be left to understand scripture by themselves. That would be much too Protestant.
James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and NOT by faith only.<<
How about we let Jesus answer that question?
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
>The Church teaches that the Eucharist is “substantially” the body and blood in a very literal sense.<<
Cynical Bear:
“Yea, they use the word “transubstantiation” which is derived from the Latin “trans or across” and “substantia or substance”. In other words they believe that the “bread and wine” are changed in substance into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. So Catholics must believe that they are literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. And I am quite familiar with the philosophical terms property and substance used by the RCC.
It was adopted by the 4th Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), formalized at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63), and was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
The concept of literally eating Christ’s flesh and blood is pagan materialistic methodology which God condemned often.”
~ ~ ~
Stop using Church writing to defend a mistaken belief.
A person “fully” receives the “risen” Christ, His body, blood, soul and divinity in the consecrated host.
How can that be? God wants everyone to believe in this
divine gift, He wants you to receive ALL of Him. Stop
thinking in the human way, think SUPERNATURAL.
IT’S NOT CANNIBALISM. You are limiting God, He wants you
to accept on faith He can do this friend.
I've explained it to you and I frankly do not want to play silly word games with you. Nothing you can say or do will alter the act of transubstantiation or the Church's teaching on it.
"ho artos hemon ho epiousios" (Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον) - Matthew 6:11
Catholics want their eucharist and to eat it, too.
They claim that it has to be the literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus that must be eaten to receive Him and have eternal life, but simply have no explanation at to why the host is still made out of wheat, looks like wheat, tastes like wheat, and why there's no blood and raw flesh that people are eating.
So they make up all this philosophical nonsense about what they call the *real presence* which is found nowhere in Scripture, saying that then the elements of the host maintain their actual physical state but the body of Christ is present in the Spiritual sense.
They want it both ways and it just doesn't work.
It's either real raw human flesh and real raw human blood or it's not; the elements are just symbols.
ROFL! The RCC says Catholics are “literally” eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ but when scripture is used they cry “not really”? I use the writings of the RCC to show hypocrisy contained in its own teachings. By repeating the mantra of the RCC those who take truth from scripture will not be swayed into believing the error of the RCC. >>IT’S NOT CANNIBALISM. You are limiting God, He wants you to accept on faith He can do this friend.<<
If Catholics keep listening to the RCC instead of scripture they are replacing God with the RCC. Don’t think for a minute that I will be deluded by the hypocrisy taught by the RCC.
That’s obvious. Not even scripture can change what the RCC teaches it seems.
And double speak doesn’t change what scripture teaches. Paganism is rampant in the RCC.
The physical actions do not cause the spiritual reality to happen.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Baptism does not save anyone because it cannot; it is not a blood sacrifice.
I don't know why you keep harping on *altar calls*. Nobody ever said that that is what saves someone and that is what the meaning of being born again is.
Sometimes people are saved at that time, but it is not the procedure which saves them, it's just where they happen to be when they have the opportunity to accept Christ's gift of salvation.
I was born again at work when I accepted Christ. I know people who were born again in their living room.
It can happen anywhere anytime someone decides to turn their lives over to Jesus and accept His free gift of salvation by faith.
Protestant “born again” may be a moment of conversion but it is not Baptism as Jesus speaks about nor does it save you.
If conversion does not save you, then exactly what are you being converted from or to or whatever?
If you're lost and are converted, the only option is to be saved. If you are converted, you are saved. It's the only thing a lost person can be converted TO.
>> SHE IS THE MOTHER OF GOD<<
“Could you please show FROM SCRIPTURE that she is the “mother of God”? She carried God but she was the mother of His earthly form. Mary is no more “mother of God” than God is a descendant of David. Please show chapter and verse to show that Mary was the mother of God.”
~ ~ ~
Accepting “Bible Alone” and this heresy is no where in Scripture.
I accept Jesus is a human person and He is God my Lord.
I think Protestants accept Jesus has two natures, He is
fully man and fully God. One can’t divide up Jesus Christ
incarnate. Elisabeth touched by God the Holy Spirit
exclaimed on seeing Mary her cousin:
“And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
Luke 1:43
Catholics actually use Scripture to teach transubstantiation and when pressed about the elements remaining wheat and wine, they say, oh, not really. Suddenly it's a spiritual truth, because the change isn't really PHYSICAL after all, it's the SUBSTANCE of it that is changed, but not really, but you see......
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.