Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
HMMmm..
it’s just that many of those born-again groups are, well, Jesse Duplantis - it’s a bit difficult to hold with him, right?
HA ha!
If you CAtholics had any balls; you'd bar the door of every abortion 'clinic' in this country; instead of trying to make us feel bad!
I can read for myself. including the Bible. came from your general direction. CAME, is the operative term.
Well then maybe you could show us from the New Testament where the term priest is applied to any of the leadership of the New Testament church.
Acts 16:30-31 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
and
Romans 8:9-13 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
The Catholic church makes salvation too complicated. Too many hoops to jump through. Too many do's and don't's.
Thank you Cronos.
I would go a little further though and replace anachronistic with not applicable to the non Protestant and non Catholic born again Christian fellowships.
The cronological order etc etc is best left to scolars such as yourself.
There is no such thing as an unbloody sacrifice.
A sacrifice with out blood is useless.
Hebrews 9:22 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Besides, if it is an unbloody sacrifice that Catholics participate in, then what exactly are they doing at communion? There is no blood to shed to participate in by drinking the cup therefore they cannot partake communion as they say Jesus instructed, drinking the literal, actual blood of Jesus. Therefore no Catholic can ever be saved by partaking of the euchrist because there is no cup to drink from.
And if there IS a cup to drink from, whose blood is it?
Catholics are no strangers to contraceptives. The church isn't as pure as you all like to claim. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Catholics voting democratic so often.
daniel, do you have those stats on had about Catholics and priests views on contraception and abortion?
Pretty much.
Too bad they took out the last part, "I believe in the Holy Spirit."
Was that the (Catholic) Church fathers that did that?
I have recited it many times.
In Protestant churches (Yes I have attended Protestant churches)
Not in Catholic churches. (Yes, I have attended Catholic churches.
In non denomonational churches. (a given)
I didn't recite the Catholic version, which capitalizes "one holy catholic and apostolic" Church.
It's not capitalized in the original to emphasize Jesus' Church being the whole body of believers, not the just the Catholic church.
I'm not too excited about those symbols, the one in Latin or French.
And the other one looks ok except for the circle (symbol of completeness) with the words "is not" put in three times. (Or is it Latin, Ton Si and I am reading it backwards?)
As I posted a couple of times the last few days, this is what I see as simplicity of Christianity:
(A person can become a Christian by just reading the Bible)There are millions of Christians that do not belong to Protestantism or Catholicism.
They are called "born again"--by themselves and Jesus:
SALVATION & THE NEW
BIRTH
How to be Born Again
What is salvation and the new birth
(being born again ) ?
Let us start
by saying that the Bible calls it being "born again".
During Jesus'
ministry here on earth, a rabbi ( teacher of Jewish law ) named Nicodemus came
to interview Jesus
at night and stated, "we all know that God has sent you
to teach us, your miracles alone are proof enough of this.
Jesus then told him,"That unless a person is born again ( anew, from above)
)he cannot
ever see (know, be acquainted with and experience) the Kingdom
of God"Nicodemus then said to Jesus,
"how can a man be born when he
is old? Can he enter his mother's womb again and be born?" Jesus answered,
"I tell you, unless a man is born of water and ( even )
the Spirit ( Holy Spirit ), he cannot ( ever ) enter the
Kingdom of God.
What is born of ( from ) the flesh is flesh (of the physical is physical ) and
what is born of
the Spirit is Spirit", John 3:2-6.
This is
the new birth, what is referred to as being "born again". Jesus Christ paid a
great price ( His life ) by suffering and dying on the cross to pay the
price for every sin that mankind had committed up till then and every sin
humanity would commit in the future to open the way of salvation, the "new
birth".
What part does belief have in salvation
(the new birth ) ?
Jesus said in
John 3:15-16, "everyone who believes in Him ( who cleaves to Him, trusts Him and relies on Him ) may not perish
but have eternal life and ( actually)
live forever. For God so greatly loved the world that He
gave up His only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in ( trusts in, clings to, relies on ) Him
shall not perish, come to destruction,
be lost but have eternal everlasting
life".
Not answering your red herring of a question is not bobbing and weaving, but failing to play your game.
No "game" - you'd have us believe that when Christ said, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" the two clauses had nothing to do with each other, so the burden is on you to say why Christ included the first clause.
>> “you should debate...” <<
.
You should have read further and gotten enlightened.
I have an old 1965 edition of the Amplified Bible. I love the way that it almost forces the deniers to open their eyes with its expanded definitions.
If you get away from the Greek translations that were prepared by the Nicolaitans, and read it from a direct translation from the original Hebrew to English, you can see that he told Peter that he was called a hard pebble, then the true meaning of the verse comes to light, and it is obvious that he who had been called “The Rock” for 1500 years was the head of the church.
all Catholics, protestants, and this lady, if properly baptized are born again and being a Catholic does cover all bases.
I didn't say that Augustine taught double-predestination. I said that Augustine equated free will with Pelagianism. But if you want to say that Augustine never taught that God elects His people you'd be sorely mistaken. And he attributes his views to Cyprian-another great church father.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that "having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love;
......
ON ELECTION
It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought—I speak of the most blessed Cyprian—when he said "that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own."6 And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, "For what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not received it?" [1 Cor. 4.7.] And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate. Among these is that which you have mentioned in your letters,7 wherein is an exposition of certain propositions from the Epistle to the Romans. Eventually, when I was retracting all my small works, and was committing that retractation to writing,—of which task I had already completed two books before I had taken up your more lengthy letters,—when in the first volume I had reached the retractation of this book, I then spoke thus: —"Also discussing, I say, 'what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,"' [Mal. 1.2,3. Cf. Rom. 9.13.] I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.' I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, 'A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.' [Rom. 11.5.] Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given. And what I next subjoined: 'For the same apostle says, "The same God which worketh all in all;" [1 Cor. 12.6.] but it was never said, God believeth all in all;' and then added, 'Therefore what we believe is our own, but what good thing we do is of Him who giveth the Holy Spirit to them that believe:' I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone, but, as it is written, 'Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.' [Eph. 4.23.] And what I said a little after,—'For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,'—is true indeed; but by the same rule both are also God's, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills. And thus what I subsequently said also: 'Because we are not able to will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would will, our willing is not sufficient, nor our running, unless God gives strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;' and thereupon added: 'It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we do good works,'—this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God's purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect. Therefore what I said a little afterwards: 'For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works,'—I spoke most truly. But that even the merit itself of faith was God's gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor did I say. And in another place I say: 'For whom He has mercy upon, He makes to do good works, and whom He hardeneth He leaves to do evil works; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.' And this indeed is true; but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of faith does not come from God's mercy,—that is, whether that mercy is manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostle's words: 'I obtained mercy to be a believer.' [1 Cor. 7.25.] He does not say, 'Because I was a believer.' Therefore, although it is given to the believer, yet it has been given also that he may be a believer. Therefore, also, in another place in the same book I most truly said: 'Because, if it is of God's mercy, and not of works, that we are even called that we may believe, and it is granted to us who believe to do good works, that mercy must not be grudged to the heathen;'—although I there discoursed less carefully about that calling which is given according to God's purpose."8 Augustine-A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints
In any case, Augustine did what many contraverialists do, and carried his arguments to logical conclusions that were soon rejected by a church synod.
Yes. Logic was never their strong suit.
>> “and being a Catholic does cover all bases” <<
.
I hope that you are joking, as if you are not, you will be gnashing your teeth in unison with the majority of mankind.
Elsie...your great post pointed out that popes are indeed humans and subject to human frailties. Infallibility applies only to their proclamations on faith and morals....there has certainly been evil people who have done evil things in the Catholic church.....noone denies that!
In his later years, Augustine sounded like a pentecostal calvinist! :o)
.
If you get away from the Greek translations that were prepared by the Nicolaitans, and read it from a direct translation from the original Hebrew to English, you can see that he told Peter that he was called a hard pebble, then the true meaning of the verse comes to light, and it is obvious that he who had been called “The Rock” for 1500 years was the head of the church.
I notice you didn't answer my question. Why is that?
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.