Catholicism aligning with Islam should be setting off all their alarm systems....but as in the past most will simply shut them off......they have not learned from their past...AGAIN!
Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
😂 I just thought I would liven things up a little. Glad you liked it. 😇🇺🇸🇵🇭
Your personal protest opinion.
I didn’t say it wasn’t faith. I said he did God’s will.
Do you not agree that faith is a positive action (work, effort) that one has to do in order to accept God’s teaching, love and will?
Are you so tied to the protest doctrine that you do not understand the meaning of words (especially God’s words)?
Why so much animosity towards the Catholic faith and teaching in God? Are you so indoctrinated by the protest doctrine?
God’s peace be with you.
Ahhh, so is this why some Catholics brag about how many times they go to Mass per week? Some go every day. Must have Jesus in their digestive system at all times? Never occurred to me before.
It is best to remember that all of the excesses and extravagances are unimportant and a distraction and that a direct relationship with God is most important.
Praying often and directly to God, acknowledging our sins to Him and finally recognizing Christ's gift. That is all that is needed (IMHO).
Also, I say this with reservation because I am humbled before God and understand the respect that is due to Him. I am not an expert nor do I profess to be. I am only a flawed sinner like the rest trying to sort it all out.
>>You do not believe, so it is up to God to judge you and your faith.<<
Could you perhaps be a little bit more pompous?
Ouch.
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Those without will rationalize, deflect, and excuse.
A little consistency would be nice, but I'm certainly not expecting it because it would demolish more of their doctrine.
Excellent points sir. It has been so long since I was a catholic, I can hardly remember. I seem to remember they told us if we went to mass for nine straight first Fridays, or five straight first Saturdays, we could get someone out of purgatory. It gave me a sense of power, like the Mormons baptism for the dead. I only went through the motions, because I didn't think that I was even good enough to qualify for purgatory. I thought I would go to Hell, and it bothered me. I didn't feel like being a good sport, and getting someone into Heaven, when I was pretty sure I would be in Hell fire. Not a good deal I thought. If I was in hell, I think answering someone's prayer, would be the absolute last thing on my mind. Does that help? 😇
The Israelites were given two feasts when they were to focus on bread. The Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and the Passover. The Passover came first and was performed using unleavened bread, signifying the speed at which they had to leave Egypt, not even waiting for the yeast to raise the dough. The Feast of Weeks, Pentecost, is celebrated with LEAVENED bread, two loaves of leavened bread. The bread of Pentecost has a waiting period while the leaven brings the bread to proper form for baking.
I know you know these things, but the readers being pingponged back and forth may like to have a prefiguring of what God is doing, instead of the confusion of catholicism.
The Holy Spirit is the Leaven of God. The two loaves represent the Jews and the Gentiles.
That leaven came at Pentecost. Blood was not a part of the arrival of God's Life in the believers at Pentecost. Some might ask why? Why no blood involved at Pentecost since the Bible clearly says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, no atonement? The Passover lamb's blood was spread upon the doorpost and lentils. No blood at Pentecost? They were eating the Passover remembrance, where bloos is spread on the doorpost and lintel, but never put in a cup for drinking. But Jesus passed a cup of wine, fruit of the vine, and then later poured out a cup of wine and told them the cup THE CUP of wine was for the new covenant where His blood would be shed, poured out, for them. So, no wine or blood at Pentecost?
The answer cannot be found in catholicism. They teach the sacrilege not the sacred. The blood of Atonement was ALWAYS spread upon the Mercy Set, not poured into cups for drinking.
That Blood of Christ which was shed at Calvary was spread upon the Mercy Seat, covering the laws of sin and death, so the believers at Peter's Church service needed no other blood for their Salvation and cleansing because Christ had already accomplished it. They received God's Life in them by believing in Him Whom God sent for their Salvation.
God's Leaven came into their doughy hearts because Christ had covered the law of sin and death that had been reigning in Judaism ever since the giving of the Law of Moses. God's LIFE is in the blood spread upon the Mercy Seat to cover the law of sin and death. To even pretend to drink His Blood is to perform a sacrilege instead of participating in the sacred remembrance.
The sacraments do NOT confer grace.
God's grace is lavished on us through faith in Christ, not through going through the motions of a ritual.
Ephesians 1:3-10 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
John 1:14-17 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
A short essay, if you wish.
I agree it’s like the Mormon baptism for the dead. Crazy stuff, Mark! Glad you ESCAPED! ;)
NO!
It takes a heart response, not ritual, sacrament, baptism, communion, acts of mercy, whatever physical activity that Catholics claim is necessary to gain or keep salvation.
If we work, our salvation is wages due, not a free gift. Forgiveness is not forgiveness if it is merited or earned.
God credited Abraham with righteousness BEFORE he ever did a thing except believe. When God established the covenant, Abraham was asleep for it. The work was God's
Genesis 15:1-21 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
Meant to ping you also, sir.
You didn’t answer my question. Do you still get hungry and thirsty? You do claim John 6 is to be taken literally right?
>>You do not believe, so it is up to God to judge you and your faith.<<
Could you perhaps be a little bit more pompous?
Yes. Every day I hunger and thirst for the Body and Blood of Christ.
You have stated that you do not believe, so I am stating the obvious. Pompous coming from a professional protestor?
God would not require Christians to take part in something as widespread as this that has an "accident" involved.
That's just word parsing to make it seem necessary to take communion only in the Catholic fashion although the way non-Catholics do it is closer to scriptural.
Catholicism aligning with Islam should be setting off all their alarm systems....but as in the past most will simply shut them off......they have not learned from their past...AGAIN!
Sorry, forgot to ping you. I don’t have a ping list so my old memory does slip.
Pingaling
Insolent bombast, as in reality it is you who manifest ignorance of this debate, as is it much the same as one i spent many posts on (as here ), refuting the absurd premise that Peter preached a different gospel until after he was enlightened in Acts 10. Thus i should not spend much time on this again.
I never said it was "as per Rome", and I resent that you imply that I am defending Rome.
I was referring to the aspect that Peter's authority flowed from him, but your premise that specific “keys” were given only to Peter is also an error. Peter was not even alone in preaching in Acts even before Acts 15, as Paul received the gospel of grace by special revelation, not from Peter, and was preaching it before Acts 15. (Gal. 1)
Wrong, and you only illustrated your erroneous conclusion that Petrine binding/loosing uniquely and simply pertained to his preaching the abrogation of the Law, and your confusion btwn preaching the Law as a means of salvation vs. being kosher in seeking to please God according to the light one has. Paul taught in Rm. 14 that one can even believe eating meat it wrong and yet be a believer..
Both Peter and Paul preached the death, resurrection and Lordship of Christ and consequently forgiveness of sins by faith and the promised outpouring of the Spirit to Jews and " and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call"(Acts 2:39) as "it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21) without any further sacrifices. Which was a realization of the latter day promise of Joel 2, and which gospel "key" looses souls from their dammed state and places them into the kingdom, and which is not salvation under the Law
Those who reject the gospel remain bound in their sins. Early Jewish believers yet kept the ceremonial law (which rendered Gentiles ceremonially unclean) in expressing their obedience to God (like as we keep the moral law) according to the light they had, though certain false brethren, whom Paul wished were cut off (or castrated) sought to be justified by law keeping, versus by faith in Christ, which required repenting from, which Peter did not do, but realized the abrogation of the ceremonial law as a result of the vision of Acts 10.
The Church had no choice other than to start out as a sect of Judaism until Ac.15, keeping the Old Covenant Law as any Jews did (despite that this directly contradicts the gospel).
Then all the apostles were preaching a false gospel, even as late as Acts 21, and needed to repent. However, they were not keeping the law as a means of salvation, which is not what Peter preached and which is what is condemned, as is as not walking in the further light that showed Jews and Gentile as equal candidates for salvation and recipients of it.
What Peter did preach in Acts 2 is essentially the same as Acts 10, and Paul in Rm. 10. Paul taught that one who believes, calls upon, confesses the Lord Jesus will be saved (though the faith behind it is what appropriates justification), as did Peter, with baptism being a more manifest confession of Christ than doing so with one's lips. The Jews did not realize the implications of this, that the latter-day promise of Joel 2 and what all "not according to the covenant" the institution of the New Covenant entailed, yet they were saved by grace.
Though it was initially presumed that faith in Christ entailed not only obedience to the moral law (which is fulfilled as one walks in the Spirit in looking to Christ: (Acts 8:4) yet it was not salvation as under the Law that Peter preached, while binding/loosing took place in Acts 2 as well as 10.
God did this by giving Peter the "keys" to bind and loose the Law - both one-time events.
Wrong, for as said, Paul received the gospel of grace by special revelation, not from Peter, and was preaching it before Acts 15. (Gal. 1) Thus in Acts 15 he and Barnabas gave testimony about the saving of the Gentiles thru them.
Read thru the thread i referenced as it is much the same issue. I am trying to install a couple operating systems so i am not going into this further now.
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.