| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/07/2013 8:58:03 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 01/16/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by marshmallow
General audience, Benedict XVI defines the Incarnation as "something unimaginable, the face of God can be seen, the process that began with Abraham is fulfilled." The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, he asks "for the great gift" to "proclaim together that Jesus is the Savior of the world."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "The desire to know the face of God is in every man, even the atheists," but this desire is only realized by following Christ, in whom, in the Incarnation, "something unimaginable took place, the journey that began with Abraham is fulfilled. He is the Son, the fullness of all Revelation; the mediator who shows us the face of God. "
And "to proclaim together that Jesus is the Saviour of the world" Benedict XVI asked for incessant prayers for "the great gift" of Christian unity in the forthcoming week, which begins on the 18th of this month.
Previously, in his catechesis, he again reflected on the meaning of Christmas, in a commentary on John's Gospel in which the apostle Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The answer of Jesus, "introduces us to the heart of the Church's Christological faith; For the Lord says: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).This expression summarizes the novelty of the New Testament, the novelty that appeared in the cave of Bethlehem: God can be seen, he showed his face is visible in Jesus Christ".
The theme of "seeking the face of God" is present throughout the Old Testament, so much so that the Hebrew term "face", occurs no less than 400 times, 100 of which refer to God." The of Jewish religion which the religion forbids all images, "for God can not be depicted," and "can not be reduced to an object," tells us that "God...
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
Oh, absolutely not the same thing.
Harley, MM said the following. They are her words and she seems to disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity as it's presented in historic Christianity. Found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2978710/posts?page=914#914
And just who understands the Trinity well enough that our agreement or lack thereof is some kind of litmus test of our faith, or lack thereof?The finite, mortal mind is not capable of understanding the Godhead. It's pointless to demand an adherence to something no one can explain and no one can fully understand to determine if a person is in a cult or not.
Since the portrayal of the Trinity by finite, mortal minds is by its very nature incomplete and inaccurate, I am not going to commit to any MAN'S understanding of it because it is by default not correct.
You said to choose? You said? Really? You can’t tell me whether either man was saved or whether they are both saved. You can’t show scripture that proves which way is obligatory and you demand that I choose one way? Are you kidding me?
Basically, I asked first and you answered a question with a question, which is a typical way of dodging and obfuscating by those inclined in that direction.
So; My post gave a choice of: sprinking, immersion, some other mode or combination of modes.
Do I understand correctly that “combination” is where you might be leaning?
Quit shucking and jiving and just answer the question.
What does it matter how one is baptized?
How is that obfuscation?
If he picks one, someone will pile on him for that.
If he picks the other, someone else will pile on him for THAT.
You know, maybe it’s just a matter of what works for someone. Maybe someone just got saved in the hospital and is on their death bed and would like to be baptized? What are you going to do? Find somewhere to dunk him?
How about, immersion if you can and sprinkling if you can’t or don’t prefer?
How about it doesn’t affect your salvation one bit if you get sprinkled, dunked, or neither?
He’s exercising discernment in not interfering with the unity of the body of Christ by not being baited or going into areas of *disputable matters* Romans 14.
SCRIPTURE.
Let me ask you this.....
What church or denomination is error free?
What church or denomination has perfect doctrine so we can all go join it?
What is it about those who adhere to the cult of denominations that they need to inject something they hope the other person believes in order to bolster their own insecure beliefs?
So, you decide your doctrine on the basis of others' opinions?
Isn't this about what he believes.
Which one would you pick? sprinkling, immersion, something else or a combination of others?
If he has to choose between Allah and Jesus, wouldn't it be awful that if he picks one some will jump on him, and if he picks the other that others will jump on him?
Why should I? Did scripture answer that question?
I actually said that it indicates either a non-Trinitarian or a quasi-Trinitarian position. You can go back and check if you like.
But, if you think that's a ringing endorsement of the doctrine of the Trinity, then no wonder you have problems answering a simple question about mode of baptism.
Now: sprinking, immersion, other, or combination?
“Why should I?”
That’s a neat response in that it has you admitting to shucking and jiving.
Now: sprinking, immersion, other, or combination?
What does scripture say on that?
What a stretch comparing faith in Jesus vs Allah to a decision of whether to be sprinkled or dunked for baptism.
The first is a matter of salvation and clear teaching and COMMANDS of Scripture.
The second is inferred by example in Scripture. The expectation is that one will be baptized, not a command on HOW to be baptized.
What does scripture say on that?
Many denominations believe in the infallible, inerrant scripture.
Now, which mode of baptism to you subscribe to: sprinkling, immersion, other, or combination?
Many denominations believe in the infallible, inerrant scripture.
Now, which mode of baptism do you subscribe to: sprinkling, immersion, other, or combination?
So how is my deferring to answer a question about the Trinity any different than xzins deferral to answer the question about the necessity of baptism for salvation?
Can we likewise presume that xzins believes that baptism is necessary for salvation because of his deferral to answer in the same way that someone else presumes to know my position on the Trinity by my deferral to answer?
Let me remind you that I asked first....a long time back. This is many times now, and there's been dodging, shucking, jiving, obfuscating, and an obvious intention not to state his position.
So, case closed, Boatbums. Cyncial Bear is an obfuscator and deserving of all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto.
Boatbums, this is what I was talking about.
Show me where in Scripture there is a command that baptism be by immersion, sprinkling, or other.
Scripture, by example, indicates immersion.
It does not command or demand it.
IOW, Romans 14
Does that mean you are choosing "combination"?
Remember: I asked first. You don't answer a question with a question.
If you don't have a position then simply say, "I don't have a position."
But, then bear that in mind when you pick at others for their position. Be open and honest and say something to the effect of: "I don't have a position myself, but your position on "immersion" is not in line with scripture."
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.