No, no, NO!!!
You post the CEREAL picture first; then I post the liquid that goes with it!!!
Posted on 01/12/2014 5:53:46 AM PST by knarf
Why is it that I never see them brag about RETAINING any?
Uh...
..because He was STANDIN/sitting there at the time???
I seem to recall some kind of CONTRACT with the first mentioned group.
Why is it that so many of the second two mentioned keep trying to get included as well?
Yet Jesus said to Peter, “you are rock and on this rock I will build my church.”
That is in the Gospel of Mathew.
Are they grasping at straws?
“You only need to believe Jesus died for your sins and call on HIM to save you”
OK, I’ll just add him to all my other gods.....Hindu
You post the CEREAL picture first; then I post the liquid that goes with it!!!
Yet it was the same Church that gave the world THE BIBLE.
ROTFLMAO - coming from those who denigrate Christian celebrations like Easter, Christmas and Church services on Sunday, that is rich!
It only appears to be cheap to those who do not understand how much it cost Jesus and who do not understand their own depravity.
There's nothing cheap about salvation.
It requires that we die to self. Not to earn our salvation but as a result of our salvation. Nobody who is truly saved can take it for granted nor not feel the tremendous debt of gratitude to the God who would save them from their self-made hell.
We desire to live righteous and pure lives not to merit heaven, but to please our God and Savior.
But we are incapable of saving ourselves, so the analogy is not so far out there.
This avoids answering my questions, but my basis for assurance of truth is the same basis by which the church began, requiring Truth to be manifest by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, while allowing error as a test for souls.
Shall we have the pandemonium of 10,000 interpretations
Shall we have the pandemonium of 10,000 interpretations
All this does is invoke a negative aspect under one model, in which Scripture as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God is the supreme infallible authority (which much of Protestantism rejects), even though that model can also see unity in core salvific truths (thus the modern evang. movement arose who counter liberalism and cults etc.), while allowing for some interpretation in others.
Yet under the alternative model (sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme incontestable authority, as Rome, the EO, and many cults), divisions and conflicting interpretations are also seen.
In fact, on the practical level, which is where it is manifest what a church really believes and teaches, evangelicals overall are more unified on basic conservative moral views and truths than those Rome overall treats as members in life and in death.
Sola ecclesia is the easier way for unity, thus the Watchtower Society has the most uniform doctrinal assent, not simply on paper as in Rome. But it is inferior in quality to a unity which is the result of noble souls to objectively examining the evidence in order to determine the veracity of Truth claims, which RCs are not to do re Rome's official teaching.
You ask by what authority does....? The Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, compiled and confirmed the Bible and is responsible for its interpretations....the promises of Jesus and the 2,000 year old history
So the basis for your assurance is based upon Rome's claim that she is the one true and infallible (conditionally) church, and necessary for assurance, or that you judge that she is so in the light of her being the steward of Scripture, and the inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent?
unchallenged for 1,500 years. God’s mistake? I think not.
You must have a different history book, as consistent with Scripture, i see her claims to being the same church as that of Scripture being challenged on the basis of Scripture. For on the basis she manifestly is not that church, priests being only one example among others.
Irenaeus “It is possible, then...,
Quoting him does not make Rome the NT church, and the former judges the (co-called) fathers more than she is judged of them, (Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) which fail to provide unanimous consent for the body of Rome's doctrines.
And even Catholic and other scholarship provides much support for us against the Roman imagination of Peter being seen as the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 and of a perpetuated infallible Petrine papacy reigning supreme over the church from the beginning.
I could also selective quote Irenaeus as he says say things as "They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures," referring to heretics, and upholds "proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103312.htm) and that, "..the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them."
This is not to say i do not think they were in error on certain things, even if though they were pious men who could be saved by a basic faith in the Lord Jesus. But it is to say that while you may find support among them, as do the tradition intensive EOs for their conflicts with Rome, yet your assurance must rest upon Rome's interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history.
You can attempt to argue with me by invoking more of what you see as supports, but unless you require of me an a priori assent to Rome as the infallible teacher, you should show from Scripture what i had asked you , to begin with.
I don't think it's going out on a limb at all.
You're exactly right.
Anyone in Christ is a NEW creation. The old has gone, the new has come.
Those who think that anyone with the Spirit of God residing in them can flaunt their sin does not understand the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in someone's life.
Catholics are not exempt from that. Any Catholic who decides to accept the teaching of the magisterium as their own, is in the EXACT same position. The only difference is they have accepted a prepackaged doctrinal statement, but the decision to make it their own is their own. It ALWAYS boils down to one's personal interpretation of Scripture, even if it agrees with someone else's.
1 John 2:1-2 NASB
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
He got his Catholic funeral.
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
He said the flesh is of no avail
His words are what we must swallow, they come from above.
“Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
There again, the words of eternal life, eating his flesh is accepting his word.
If the only words he had spoken of had been in regard to eating his flesh i could see your point but they are just a very few of the words that we need to except.
There is no Scriptural support for your claims or experiences.
That is not something God ever told us to do or practice, therefore, your experiences, real as they may be, are not from God.
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.