Interesting...
Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
1 John 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
Well said and well put. Thank you.
Rather succinctly put and spot one! Good job putting it into words.
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
Amen.
“He certainly added that he doesn’t condemn people if they want to do these things, ...”
Really? Again your opinion is yours, the facts are at odds with your opinions. And YOU decided to “make this about him” by jumping in and defending comments like he made. Like these:
“All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.”
“God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.”
“The really debatable point is whether it should matter to anyone.”
It appears to matter so much that some say:
“All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.”
“God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.”
Indeed yes. One can say, I think I can get by with this and such or a person can say, I’ll be very careful to follow the leading of God’s spirit.
So yes indeed, some take very seriously the question of what is acceptable to the God they worship.
So yes indeed, some take very seriously the question of what is acceptable to the God they worship.So much so that they respond to common Christian celebrations with:
“All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.”Me, I find that kind of behavior unChristian. YMMV.“God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.”
Interesting...
Examine all the posts on this thread and count how many are Christ like in their tone and nature. I don't mean just blunt and unvarnished opinions but real attempts at a thumb in someones eye disguised as removing a splinter.
I've received smarmy and off color replies and seen more comments removed than I can count on religious forums, many times for the use of profanity.
Right now reasoned debate and vigorous but impersonal exchanges are just about impossible on these forums so I see the comment you spoke about rather mild.
Beautiful Scriptures and Spiritual insights on all three posts.
Thank you so very much, dear sister and brother in Christ!
I think it should be obvious that, though the spirit of antichrist was always around pushing people away from the truth [...]
While I will admit that you are certainly right in your statement, I am drawn to the distinction being made - WHY the distinction? Why not just identify 'the accuser' as the bulk of Hebrew writings would do? I think there is a particular tangent to ponder here.
[...] God REMAINS a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Amen to that!
Hi RePete!
WHY is your pope BORING?
Now see, That's the kind of thing I am getting at: In perusing the list you provided, one can see the principles that culminated in the formation of the Western brand of religious thought (as opposed to, different than strictly European thought)... To the point of which, it is not only ensconced in religion, but also government, and is undoubtedly imprinted upon the very conscience of the West.
This is often attributed to the Enlightenment and to the Free Masons, and any number of etcetera, but one can catch a whiff of these things in the people who ran contrary to the RCC in her infamous heyday, and all the way along.
There IS something there, just close enough to the surface to be tantalizing...
Another one of those things is the weavers and the dyers guilds... It seems like whenever there is a big movin' and shakin' going on in ancient and medieval Europe, there is almost ALWAYS a weaver or a dyer popping up! Drives me nuts.
So, as I said, while I cannot specifically endorse the Baptist 'Trail of Blood', I can certainly see the bits and pieces they assemble it from, and recognize a subtle something in the patterns produced therein. But it is, so far, beyond the scope of proof.
MM-”1 John 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.”
Don’t even suggest by posting this Scripture that you don’t have venial sins ,because Scripture suggests otherwise. Luther suggested GRAVE sins are OK, that is wrong.
“Even the just man sins 7 times a day”, says Proverbs 24:16.
1 John 1:10 - If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
I agree that 1 John 3:9 you posted means we won’t commit GRAVE sin
Now I'm certain you don't know much about Catholicism.
The core dogmatic teaching on such things as The Divinity of Christ are CONCRETE for example. Often things are defined clearer through the ages due to heretical teaching that arise
The same thing with "indulgences".
Again, you don't seem to realize that the abuses of indulgences during the Reformation was from a small group of priests and bishops who did not follow the teaching of the Church on this subject and ended being excommunicated
There have been abuses that the the Church has dealt with through the ages regarding this
From New Advent..
These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.
Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give the libelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as "unheard-of presumption and sacrilegious audacity". In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).
Perhaps you should read actual Catholic Councils , documents and how dogmatic teaching work from ACTUAL document from the Church rather than opinions of them.
You might find out how wrong you are and convert back.
First, the “church” is wherever “two or three are gathered in my name”
It doesn't follow that the authority of the Church is whenever two people decide on something. It only says that when a small group gathers in Christ's name, He is with them. Second, the ability to “bind and loose” is also give to any “two or three who are gathered” in the name of Jesus.
This is also nonsense because then what you and Metmom figure to bind or loos binds on me, and in heaven. And then whenever I and Natural Law decide on something that binds on you and Metmom and in Heaven. so now heaven is bound on whatever any two Christians decide. You made a clear gospel of the authority of the Church say nothing useful. Typical Protestant minimization of the Holy Scripture.
Paul talking to the elders of Ephesus only
Here you go again. First, "bishops" (plural) already suggests several cities. Second, every time anyone is saying anything in the Holy Scripture it is said to someone in particular. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is only talking to the few disciples that were there on that mount; the verse about the Scripture being God-breathed is only spoken to Timothy, etc. That way you can ignore the entire book. Congratulations.
Trust and love the Holy Scripture who God gave you for instruction and you, too, will become Catholic and come to the fullness of Catholic 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.