Posted on 03/19/2015 6:54:07 AM PDT by pgyanke
There has been an less-than-productive discussion on this thread regarding the last words of Christ on the Cross. It could be because it started with the suggestion--right in the title--that Catholics don't understand Jesus. Not a great way to initiate dialogue and ecumenism.
I would like to take a different approach here. I would like to hear my Protestant brethren explain these words of Christ from the Cross:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
What does it mean? Why did He say it?
You were doing fine, until you referenced flatly unscriptural “facts” as established objective doctrine, reversed the relation of symbolism vs substance (crucifixion was the substance, not the symbol; communion is the symbol, not the substance), revealed the thread as bait to attack Protestants, declared your own understanding perfect, and descended into full-on snark while declaring it not (unprompted).
A rather lofty view of self worth for sure.
“The second reason for this thread is to point out the disunity that the Sola Scriptura perspective brings. Without the Catholic Church as a foil, you flounder for meaning. It’s easy to point to the Church and tell Her where you disagree. It isn’t so easy to agree with one another in your own exegesis. Read this thread and you will see bafflement, guesses, and conjecture. You won’t read teaching from the Protestant perspective that is authoritative and instructive for all.”
First of all the idea that “without the Catholic Church as a foil, you flounder for meaning” is utter rubbish. My faith, and the faith of any regenerated, bible-believing Christian is not in reference to Rome in any way shape or form. Most saved people never give a thought to what Rome believes or teaches.
And then maybe you need teaching that is “authoritative” but every single truly born-again regenerate Christian is “taught of God.” God gave us His Word and He gives us teachers, but we are never to simply accept anyone’s “authoritative” teaching. The people in Berea were called more noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what they had been taught was true. They didn’t blindly accept teaching—and their teachers were Paul and Silas.
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45)
Also, the idea that different people from different perspectives and different stages of their spiritual journey shouldn’t be surprising. Also, we have no idea who is and isn’t saved. Also, I didn’t specifically reference Psalm 22 because it had already been ably mentioned by several others. Another thing, I dashed out a brief response to a question on an internet forum. I doubt anyone answered your question with the depth and thoughtfulness they are capable of given time. Since we don’t have Rome’s authoritative teachings to blindly spout, you should marvel at the general consistency of the responses.
Incorrect. The traditions of the Catholic Church or "foil" as you call it, are interpretations of men and traditions of men. In specific to the false teachings of the Catholic Church, the teaching of purgatory is blasphemous as it calls Jesus's teachings a lie. When we accept Jesus as our Lord and savior, our sins are forgiven and we are therefore we are acceptable to God. When we stand before God on Judgement day, Jesus has paid the price and granted the grace of forgiveness of our sins. No perfection is required. Otherwise, the thief would not be able to enter paradise "this day".
“I am not baited by every challenge and I can’t possibly answer every post.”
Yet here you bait us, proceed to lecture us and give excuse for not humbly considering that maybe a respondent is correct and you’re not.
“Audacity isn’t in short supply.”
Declaring your opponent to suffer the same guilt you do does not absolve you of that guilt.
Perhaps you should stop writing here for a while, and go consider the notion of humility.
“. And almost all Protestants took the approach that God saw sin on the Cross, not an obedient Son.
I believe you are twisting our words there. No one said God did not see an obedient son. Or that God saw sin on the wooden beams he was nailed to.
For all of eternity the son was with God and for a “split second” in the spiritual realm God turned his face and it was far worse then the nails in his hands and feet.
Did I say it should be? I meant what I said just as I said it.
Your attitude is disrupting an otherwise interesting thread. Also, it is rude to post about someone without pinging them.
neither have I. Let me know if you see someone explain the differences with how Protestants and Catholics believe this. It’s a lot to wade through during work hours!
The burden of proof is on you, not me, regarding your unsubstantiated claim of "truth". Worth noting is the claim that there are multiple divergent "Catholic perpectives" on the issue, some of them being private interpretations and yet somehow your own perspective is a "true(r) perspective". How than there be multiple "true perspectives", many being "authoritative Catholic perspectives", while denying such a thing exists for any and every Protestant perspective on the subject?
Why should we accept your conclusions regarding Protestant theology, when they're based solely on a perceived conflict with your own personal, private interpretation?
And yet it is the established doctrine. I merely presented it.
... reversed the relation of symbolism vs substance (crucifixion was the substance, not the symbol; communion is the symbol, not the substance),
...I never said crucifixion was a symbol. However, you have said that Communion is. It is not.
... revealed the thread as bait to attack Protestants,
... I have attacked no one. Just as the thread mentioned in the original post titled an insult to Catholics ("Three Words Catholics Do Not Understand", I simply showed that removing the foil of the Church produces a disharmony of doctrine for Protestants. If there is one area where all seem to agree it is their opposition to the Catholic Church. Everything else is open to interpretation... and therefore disunity.
... declared your own understanding perfect,
I did no such thing. I explained the Scripture from the Catholic perspective, just as I said.
and descended into full-on snark while declaring it not (unprompted).
Not meant to be... but each will read it as they will.
In post 42 you say The second reason for this thread is to point out the disunity that the Sola Scriptura perspective brings.
Then when asked the source of your post you tell us to Google it for ourselves and Be aware, though, that some do write from their own perspective and not from the Church.
Your cabal is prone to individual interpretation and that is OK?. We give you our perspective and to you it is a springboard to attack on Sola Scriptura?
Seems your little game gottcha came back around and bit you.
That is two Gods, are there more in Mormonism, can a Mormon become a God?
Interesting way to confirm my points.
[sigh] Another anti-Protestant bait-and-switch attack thread, built on “my understanding is perfect” and a complete absence of humility. I’m outta here.
What nonsense.
My vote for best reply. Biblical, Christian and humble. By God’s Grace thank you.
I understand there are competing priorities. If you had to focus on one and have the time, the one where I reference discussing the OT foundation for Jesus Christ's teaching to Nicodemus on Born Again. Of course Nicodemus did not have a Thompson's chain reference TaNaKh in his cloak but he was referred by Christ as 'the' teacher of Israel. However, different thread. If you have time it well worth it I believe.
Still it seems to make Catholics feel better if they perceive that others do the same things as they do. We see the tactic here all the time. It's that group security thing evidently.
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.