Posted on 01/24/2015 3:23:43 PM PST by NYer
Yes, he wasn’t. I might have put Prophet in quotes to emphasis that, but I was going by his title in Islam which was why Prophet was capitalized. And I don’t believe anyone here believes he is a real prophet.
Being saved does not mean that you will never sin again. Being human, we will still suffer temptation, and will occasionally fall. But to fall does not mean you are not saved or were never saved. And if you cannot know for sure if you are saved until you die, then your religion has a significant flaw.
Now, there is a significant difference between a Christian who falls into sin and repents, and someone who claims to be a Christian but lives a lifestyle of unrepentant sin. As the Scripture says, by their fruits you will know them.
And we have the choice to walk away from God, but that is a choice - no power can pry us from His hand, but we are free to leave if we choose. But I can know I am saved - If I accept the work of the Cross, repent of my sins, acknowledge Him as the God and ask Him to be the Lord of my life, I can be saved and KNOW it. And if I choose not to accept Him or to walk away, then I can also know that I am NOT saved.
I believe Mary was saved - but not in the womb or at birth. Like everyone else, Mary had to accept Christ as her Lord and Savior and have her sins washed by the Blood of the Lamb. That does not make her less important in God's plan or make her less worthy of honor and respect.
Needless to say, all this talk of a “sin nature” is found nowhere in Scripture, and nowhere in Catholic theology.
The burden is on you. YOU defend the repulsive proposition that an infant or a severely retarded person can sin.
“YOU’RE the one who keeps saying that anything that isn’t taught in Scripture has to be untrue.
“I provided you with a host of counterexamples.
You provided logical fallacies by changing the meaning of truth.
Your purported “truths” are not identical to Truth from God by inspired revelation. We are discussing Truth. Not things that are generally true.
When you make up doctrines out of thin air and claim they are Truth - equal to God’s inspired revelation in Scripture, that is different in kind to the examples you made up.
This is why I told you that you can certainly (at least I think) do better at having an actual discussion.
... at least I had hoped you could do better. It hasn’t happened yet. It may not be possible.
Peter and his successors were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
....”the Catholic Church says Catholics and Muslims serve the same god”.....
Christians know otherwise, as you know.
The deception God said would come certainly seems to be increasing throughout the world today. It’s “ripe” for deception and the masses easily mis-lead.
You are still rejecting Jesus and how he tells us to gain salvation.
John 6
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
May Jesus have mercy on your soul.
And he repeated His message so that people will understand.
53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.
But some people rejected Him back then, and some reject Him now.
Why would I or anyone believe that??? However, every word that God spoke that we needed to know pertaining to doctrine and our salvation is written in the bible...
And how did early Christians know what to believe before the New Testament was written?
Because they followed and listened to the preachers who provided physical signs to them, the Jews...
Mat_10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Luk_10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Act_6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Rom 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
Rom 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
1Co_2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
Now you know...
Deuteronomy 8:3 ...not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
I have just given you an example from the bible, which directly contradicts that unless you believe that EVERY word from the mouth of God is in the bible.
Every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God that he wanted us to have, is in the bible...
So all that stuff about original sin is a bunch of hooey......
6:53–54 This is the fourth and last of Jesus’ strong prefaces in this discourse (cf. vv. 26, 32, 47). It should be obvious to any readers of this discourse by now that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally. By referring to His flesh and blood He was figuratively referring to His whole person. This is a figure of speech called synecdoche in which one part stands for the whole. Jesus was illustrating belief, what it means to appropriate Him by faith (v. 40). He expressed the same truth negatively (v. 53) and then positively (v. 54a). He referred again to resurrection because it is the inauguration of immortal eternal life (cf. vv. 39, 40, 44).Jesus was again stressing His identity as the revealer of God with the title “Son of Man.” Blood in the Old Testament represented violent death primarily. Thus Jesus was hinting that He would die violently. He connected the importance of belief in Him with His atoning death. The idea of eating blood was repulsive to the Jews (cf. Lev. 3:17; 17:10–14). Jesus’ hearers should have understood that He was speaking metaphorically, but this reference offended many of them (vv. 60–61).
Many interpreters of these verses have seen allusions to the Lord’s Supper in what Jesus said. Sacramentalists among them find support here for their belief that participation in the eucharist is essential for salvation. However, Jesus had not yet said anything about the Christian communion service. Moreover He was clearly speaking of belief metaphorically, not the communion elements. Most important, the New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of Jesus’ death, not a vehicle for obtaining eternal life. Nevertheless these verses help us appreciate the symbolism of the eucharist.
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Jn 6:53).
John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Then you don't plan on dying, eh?
Yes, Mary has sinned...She never fixed dinner for her family...She used to make up stories to get her siblings in trouble...ALL have sinned...
You mean the burden is on God...I didn't say it...I'm just repeating what he said...
I figured out long ago that I don't have to understand everything in the bible...But I sure better believe it...
Without believing it, one will be stuck sucking on a baby bottle for the rest of his life...
Peter didn't have any successors...And it was Peter and his fellow disciples who received the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven...
Like I said...These guys are not required to go to bible school...
No. That is not a logical consequence of what I said.
The Catholic Church understands Original Sin to consist in:
The absence of sanctifying grace (charity) at conception;
The absence of “felt grace” in the developing child; i.e., no experience of God as present;
The resulting distortion of the consciousness of the child; it is turned in on itself; it experiences itself as the “center of the universe.” As a consequence, the entire psychic structure, all the faculties, are distorted in such a way that makes charity seem and feel “unnatural” and selfishness and self-seeking feel “natural.”
When the age of reason is reached, the consequence is deliberate sin.
The only “nature” a human being has or inherits is his human nature. Sin is a privation or distortion of what is good, but it is not itself a positive reality. There is no “sin nature” existing as an actual “thing.”
As you can see, there was no warrant for your statement that the Catholic Church does not teach about Original Sin.
You: Nothing.
It appears that my work here is finished.
I'm sorry that your choice requires you to do more work.
Catholicism provides what Catholics must have to enter Heaven.
Sure!
Do I believe that any of them might be needed for salvation?
Just like you.
After having s SWORD ran through her???
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.