Posted on 02/19/2017 5:01:22 AM PST by metmom
“‘The Lord, the Lord God, [is] compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth’” (Exodus 34:6).
God’s grace is His undeserved favor shown to sinners.
God’s grace has always been a focus of praise for believers. Today’s verse is quoted several times in the Psalms and elsewhere in Scripture (for example, Neh. 9:17, 31; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 145:8). Paul is grateful for God’s abundant grace in 1 Timothy 1:14, and John writes, “For of His fulness we have all received, and grace upon grace” (John 1:16). Today some of our favorite hymns are “Amazing Grace,” “Marvelous Grace of Our Loving Lord,” and “Wonderful Grace of Jesus.”
What exactly is grace? It is simply God’s free, undeserved, and unearned favor. It is a gift given by God not because we are worthy of it, but only because God, out of His great love, wants to give it.
Grace is evident to Christians in two main ways. The first is electing, or saving, grace. God “has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Tim. 1:9). “By grace [we] have been saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8). This is God’s grace to sinners, for “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20).
Another grace in our lives is enabling, or sustaining, grace. We didn’t just receive grace to be saved; we now live in grace. It is the grace of God that enables us to live the Christian life. When Paul asked that some debilitating “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7) be removed, the Lord told him, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness” (v. 9). Paul elsewhere says, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13).
Remember, we have earned neither saving nor sustaining grace. Nothing we can do can make us worthy of one more bit of grace. God says, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious” (Ex. 33:19). This truth should make us all more grateful because He saved us and sustains us despite our sin. It should also make us humble because we have no worthiness to boast about (Eph. 2:9).
Suggestions for Prayer
Thank God for His grace in saving and sustaining you.
For Further Study
Read Genesis 9:8-19.
How did God extend grace to Noah and his family? What was the visible sign or symbol?
Almost never will a Catholic hear the actual Gospel. He will hear a man-made system of works and a man-made system of earned grace. None of these save.
The Catholic, who longs to know Christ, will hear a message of syncretic paganism, instead of the clarity forgiveness of all sin at the cross and eternal life and assurance of salvation.
I can think of nothing more sad than the failure of a church to do the one thing it was commanded to do.
That's another one of the "dogs that don't hunt" kind of things, but if anyone, and I do mean anyone in this nation enjoys "freedom of religion" (or even freedom from "religion" --particularly freedom from being forced into conforming to what 'authorities' in whichever religious persuasion would prefer) then thank the founders and framers of the U.S.Constitution, an overwhelming number of those men Protestants (and about a third of them holding degrees in theology if I am recalling this last bit accurately).
America -- Roman "Popes" thought they could award the territory to kings that payed obeisance to themselves --- those "Popes" were wrong in regards to most of the North American continent. It wasn't in the cards, not for the Church of Rome, anyway. Adherents towards that faith tradition were in the colonies at first by degree of sufferance, and then later under the U.S. Constitution (if not before) full citizens despite "religious" differences.
There are differing schools of thought within [Roman] Catholicism, while the difference between various written 'statements of faith' among the many relatively independent fellowships among those other-than Roman Catholic (or else some flavor of Orthodox -- Greek, Eastern, etc.,) are very often (but admittedly not always) near to being ~negligible~ , while there are faith traditions among the various Orthodox which include aspects which align somewhat with Protestants, such as in shared opposition to singular 'papacy' (or even much 'papacy' at all) as Rome knows of, and speaks of that. [Geez Louie, why I gotta' tell you this stuff each time we talk? I see no sign in your own words you have fully grokked the situation here]
As for my own opposition to some portions of Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma, you appeared to have addressed the following;
First off, as far as "opinions" go...do I have to say it? Same to you. You do need to wrap you mind around THAT.
My own opinions do not rest upon my own authority, but rest upon facts -- as best as those are able to be determined, not only by myself, but others too (of Christian faith) seeing very much the same truths, agreeing -- yes, that's what the Bible reads as, and that's how it was intended to mean, and this or that way how various notable persons in the early history of the Christian Church viewed things in their own era, etc.
I would ask what assurance you have that your own opinion (which if you will allow, includes; the Roman Catholic Church is entirely correct -- while none others are, or are scarcely getting things right(?)) is correct, but that would only lead us into the circular logic loop-d'loo that is the makings of Romes' own declaration that it's own declarations (concerning even itself) are infallible.
You neglect the far greater numbers of Newman's contemporaries, and afterwards also -- who examined the same things Newman did, including Newman's own writings after his own conversion ----but were far from swayed by RCC apologetic and Newman's opinions, and remained staunchly 'Protestant'.
Just about every time so-called ECF's (Early Church Fathers) are cited, in English nowadays, those citations went through the hands of a group of Protestants who were alive in Newman's Oxford Movement days (and soon afterwards) who in response to the likes of Newman and Co's usage and treatment of citations from ECF's went beyond the 'cherry picking' tendencies of the tractarians (who were Romanizing the Anglican Church, leading to Newman's own eventual conversion fully over to 'Rome') translating, assembling & cataloguing a far more complete set of writings attributed to ECF's than the tractarians and Roman Catholics were releasing in English, along with a certain amount of introduction and important to know further commentary.
Have you ever heard of Phillip Schaff? Among other labors partaken he was an editor of an enduring work of translation; Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers which carries within it's pages translations made by Roberts and Donaldson (among other translators) who were the main editors of (and possibly contributed translation work found within) Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Those collections are more complete than the partial works within Library of the Fathers which Newman (and many others) were associated with, the more complete works of the nominally Protestant individuals and groups showing just how the "cherry picking" presentation of the post-conversion Newmanite crowd went, and quite frankly, still goes.
Lopsidedness, misunderstanding (perhaps deliberate) and misapplication (perhaps deliberate?) of portions of "quote" from ECF's being one of the RC apologist's stock-in-trade, although I'm not certain how often they are aware they are deceiving themselves in how the partial-quote cherry picking often misrepresents the wider truth, that wider truth of the matter being at crucial junctures very much against RCC apologetic.
This is one of THE problems I have with RC apologetic when they turn to citing ECF's. Those ECF's simply are not at all times saying what the Romanist anachronistically asserts is the meaning various ECF's held, or had been intending to convey, this becoming more apparent when brief cherry-picked quotes are read from within wider context of most any ECF's own comments and the yet wider context of faith tradition (ways of thinking and doing) found evident in other materials from the same era. A person can track development of doctrines in that way, although it is tedious work, and BIGLY time consuming.
Attempts to excuse away all "developments' (as long as those passed muster in a Church Council somewhere along the way -- or even NOT paased through 'Council') by asserting that the RCC, with it's papal system, is empowered to introduce theological novelties, does continually, at each place where that has occurred (either in Rome, or elsewhere which Rome OR anybody else then inherited as "tradition") begs the question(s); are such theological developments conveying the same doctrines in the same sense as was the earliest, primitive Church? If not, then why not?
If there has been departure (if only by way of additions to doctrine) subtle as those changes may be, end up opening door for significant change (the change coming it to full fruition often times only many decades, even centuries later) from the sense of doctrines (and what's most chiefly of importance) from what the Church proclaimed from it's initial inception -- who is fooling who?
It is obvious to me that Newman was mislead. Perhaps he fooled himself as much as he was fooled by the siren song of the apologetic he once opposed? I can just about guarantee you that Newman had not much encountered the Spirit of the Lord prior to conversion -- or else he would have realized that that very experience alone would have greatly falsified Roman Catholic assertions that were made frequently in Newman's own time, and still are, though today can find a bit of modification, a little more acceptance of the idea there are real Christians far outside the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism. It's about time that was acknowledged. It only took 300+ years(!). Why should anyone believe what a 'Church' that densely self-absorbed has to say about anyone?
There is far too much of RCC apologia that is double-talk "reasonings of men".
Not buying it, and would advise others to not buy into the Romish blarney either. Will keep saying that too, and saying it about like that as long as persons such as yourself keep bringing the same stupid, worthless non-hunting hounds to this forum, presenting them as champion hunters! champions!
If on the other hand you were to choose to raise the level of discourse, and leave off from; reliance of argument by assertion (while promoting something of an outlier, Newman, as prime example), trotting out the "it's your personal opinion" trope coupled with the ridiculous "30,000" different denominations ill-founded claim ("religions" you said!) with it going unstated that all are in serious disagreement(?) -- or else they wouldn't singularly, each one of them be a separate "religion" which when counted that way (as separate religions) the 'Catholic' apparently having found support within their own thinking -- which they arrived at there by way of misapplications and double-standards of measuring, weighing and comparing---then we could talk.
There was an article from more than a dozen years ago, written by a [Roman] Catholic who advised 'Catholics' should not use the 30,000, or 33,000 different "denominations" argument -- and here you've gone and turned them all into different religions. Doing so critically undermines credibility. Allow yourself be corrected. Check into the truths of the matter, yourself.
From a recent article at National Catholic Register (written by a fairly recent convert to Roman Catholicism, and though I would likely not agree with him entirely, as for what he may be thinking of when in summation he says "Protestants don’t need to answer to an Encyclopedia; they need to answer to St. Paul" would end up in overall positive results for various contested Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma (smile!) he does say many things that other Catholics should pay heed to.
We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations.
From midpoint(s) thru the [above, linked] article;
... There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protestant denominations. There are not anywhere close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of repetition, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to concede, relies on too loose a definition of the word “denomination.” ........ However strong the temptation some may have to characterize anything not Catholic or Orthodox as “Protestant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protestant apologists is that you don’t know what Protestantism is, or what its distinctives are—and they would be right. And why would they take anything you say seriously after that? ....
[ending quote from NCR article]
Yet that still misses the point to an extent. Protestants have a generally different outlook towards what makes up the one Church.
It is sometimes claimed more than 30,000 Protestant denominations exist today. Some Catholics will argue against the Protestant church by asking which of these denominations is the true church? Why? The Roman Catholic Church claims to be Christ's one true church. The observation that Protestants have many different groups is one way they sometimes seek to show that the Protestant church is not God's true church.However, this accusation fails in many ways. First, there are not really 30,000 different denominations. ....
....Second, the concept of the true church of God is often misunderstood. The term church is used in the New Testament in two main ways. It can refer to a local congregation (the people, not the building) or it can refer to the church in reference to all Christians in all places. The true church is not any particular denomination, but rather believers gathered together in worship.
Third, there is no need for a "one, true church" as the Roman Catholic tradition teaches. Instead, believers in Christ are called to gather together in worship (Hebrews 10:24-25) and to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20). There is no requirement for a church system that includes a pope or sacred tradition.
Fourth, the authority of the church is found in Christ, not any person. He is the head of the church: "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior" (Ephesians 5:23). Colossians 1:18 adds, "And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Under His leadership, the Bible notes that local churches are led by elders/pastors and deacons (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:5-9) who exist to equip the saints for works of service (Ephesians 4:11-16).
There is no single denomination or church group that serves as God's true church. Instead, God's Word serves as the authority that believers seek to study and live out to develop local churches that honor God and make disciples. Though many denominations do exist, all churches are called to follow the essential teachings of God's Word, such as the five solas of the Protestant Reformation, that form the basis for the functions of today's churches.
In closing, an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, one James White, would have a word with you;
At the heart of the deception is a gross conflating of who Jesus says is His Church, His body of believers, and the institutions and orgs which may or may not contain members of Jesus’s CHURCH ... Jesus did not establish an institution or an org. He identified those who are His by their faith in the Promise from God of Christ our Savior.
Nicely done!
Despite how it can be leveraged for ill (deception) I think there is place for overlap (that should be acknowledged, for sake of Christians who are Roman Catholic) between how you've described things to be (which I agree with) and what has developed among men.
If we, any of us, had to have 'perfect doctrine regarding faith and morals' prior to communing with Him, with His Spirit -- who could ever?
I had thought to wait until after midnight to post a long post like that...but went ahead and fired away. I probably irritated more than a few who'd have to scroll past comments which hold no interest to them; either they know enough about these types of things already (so its all tedium) or else the whole she-bang whichever way it's turned irritates them, rendering comments like I just posted maybe doing some harm along with possible good.
Your dogs hunt!
They know the kind of critters (arguments, actually) they've been sent to smell out.
Well treed now, it sounds from the baying of them. That Schaff's hounds breed is mighty fine.
It's too bad though, that I have to include so much walling off of where the argument may go next. We know it will turn to something else if not simply wordlessly abandoned.
Then later, some other day there will be the same critters (arguments) come traipsing through like it's a safe-space zone and nothing's ever treed that one before.
Groundhog day, running off no-good hounds, treeing scavenger arguments (that are trying to scavenge what Rome lost, long time ago...)
It's a little more peaceful around here than it used to be. Not as many freepers is one reason I think. Another is there have been enough of the same species of scavenger critter (type of argument) that have been treed before, they maybe prefer to risk further embarrassment.
Your comment; “My own opinions do not rest upon my own authority, but rest upon facts — as best as those are able to be determined, not only by myself, but others too (of Christian faith) seeing very much the same truths, agreeing — yes, that’s what the Bible reads as, and that’s how it was intended to mean, and this or that way how various notable persons in the early history of the Christian Church viewed things in their own era, etc.”
So to some extent your opinions are then based on the teachings of the Catholic Church (early fathers) except where you or your church disagreed with the teachings of the Catholic Church in the form of heresy. The protestant churches do not recognize the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium and accordingly everything is fallible and just personal opinion except the Bible which was written and approved by Catholic Councils with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
“Facts” seen subject to different interpretation depending if from the Catholic Church or one of 30000 different protestant churches. There is the distinction since Jesus formed His Church with Peter and delegated the responsibility to build the church and the authority to bind on earth and in Heaven.
8k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
My understanding of the Bible is based on the teaching of Jesus as He delegated His oral traditions and the Sacraments to His Church, the Apostles and their successors (the Catholic Church) as stated in the Bible. The doctrine of the Catholic Church have been presented in the Catholic Catechism and agrees with the Bible.
Now for a few facts and stats from the actual source: World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001).
The source does refer to 33000+ total “Christian” denominations, but it defines the word “denomination” as an organized Christian group within a specific country:
“Denominations. A denomination is defined in this Encyclopedia as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country; i.e. as an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions. As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations.” (Barrett et al, volume 1, page 16, Table 1-5, emphasis added)
So we have, according to Barrett’s Encyclopedia:
a denomination is defined as existing within a specific country
there are 33,000+ total of these “Christian denominations” in 238 total countries
Whether it is 9000 or 33000 you have a lot of choices for man made churches with different doctrines that fell away from the Catholic church.
Source: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm
Christ founded only 1 Catholic universal Church with the same doctrines with a Latin and Eastern rite under the leadership of the Pope with approximately 1 billion members.
I have never said that the Catholic Church is perfect and has certainly made mistakes and has many sinners as members.
The teachings of Jesus and His moral values have been constant with the Catholic Church over the years. Some of the protestant values have differed from the teachings of Jesus
As a former weekly mass-going RC, raised in devout family, being an altar boy, with my 3 brothers, and with 2 uncles who were priests, and who later became manifestly born again thru a contrite repentant conversion, casting myself on the mercy of God in Christ as a damned and destitute sinner, and who yet who sought to serve God as a faithful mass-going soul (every holy day of obligation, CCD teacher, lector, plus some Catholic charismatic meetings and Bible studies) during about 6 years after conversion;
Before finally being led into evangelicalism as a result of sincere prayer; and who since has witnessed to hundreds of RCs about Christ. by God's grave, and know the teachings better than most, and examined such in the light of Scripture;
Then i can honestly say that in addition to realizing the profound difference btwn being religious and real conversion and regeneration, then more I read the Scriptures and also understood what the Cath church teaches from her own sources, then the more i see the clear contrast in his distinctives.
And which no amount of censorious "Catholic answers" propaganda can justify.
It is sad that you are deceived by such, but as a well meaning soul why not debate here on the absence of RC distinctives in the life and teachings of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels)? Isn’t it rather likely that you haven’t been told the whole story?
BTW, you argument that "do you really think a fourth of all Americans would be Catholic if their religion were as odd as its opponents claim?" is specious, for besides being outnumbered by Prots, liberalism overall predominates where Catholicism does , while Muslims make up a far greater percentage of many countries than RCs do in the USA. Numbers of adherents do not necessarily translate into validity.
Great post Bluedragon
“Whether it is 9000 or 33000 you have a lot of choices for man made churches with different doctrines that fell away from the Catholic church.”
Eh. You have rites, Protestants have rites.
All believers make up just one church, regardless of minor differences in rite.
Catholicism has far more differences in doctrine. Indeed, hundreds of millions of Catholics create their own doctrinal beliefs - backing and choosing what feels good to themselves alone as their standard. They simply ignore Rome and Rome is pleased to call them Catholics.
As to “falling from Rome”, sometimes cutting off the cancerous flesh is what it takes to survive. The errors of Rome had to be cut off so the Church could live and thrive.
Yes, except that it wasn't the same 'Catholic' Church then, as it is now, and as far as the Church at, and Of Rome (headquartered there) is concerned, was far worse near around time of the Protestant Reformers, theologically speaking.
The Reformers did not "invent a new man-made religion" (which is another dumb-dog that cannot find it's own tail much less hunt argument we've see here a lot) but instead searched for what was the more original charter of Christianity itself.
Tracing (taking notice of) development (and change) of doctrine through the centuries assists in noticing change nearer to today, even if that change be only in how various doctrines are spoken of, and appear to have been internalized by some Roman Catholics devout enough and educated enough to really count in regards to listening to those persons to see what it is that that they really and truly believe.
One thing that has come to my attention over the years here, is that there are many so-called 'Catholics' who held fairly orthodox, early mainline Protestant understanding of just what the Real Presence consists of, regardless of language used to describe such from within the RCC which had been pressed into service in fashion that can hardly avoid being understood to be asserting that there was argument made for 'corporeal' presence to be part of 'transubstantiation' along with considerations towards Christ's Spirit and Divinity.
This issue, like most any where the Western Church went a little wrong, then went further wrong on that same wrong road ---had been warned against doing that very thing from within the Church, but through sophistry, chicanery, psychological arm-twisting (some misrepresentation of ECF's) and a little false accusation innuendo thrown at opponents of theological error, the wrong-headed won the day. In this I am speaking of Ratramnus and Radbertus as one example (I could point to a couple of more)
Just because the early centuries Church got some things right (and even that the RCC still gets a great deal correct, or correct enough, today) does not mean that is true in every turn of the screws.
The rest of your reply (the likes of which I've seen possibly THOuSANDS OF TIMES on this forum) is for the most part just "argument by assertion" intermingled with absolute falsehood like;
that line of falsehood carrying with it STILL the argument you should not be making (about the alleged 30,000 different -- now it has changed to "protestant churches"(!))...while the facts I was speaking of were and are factual information, not needing be "interpreted" by much of anyone. I've not time nor patience to unpack the rest of your meandering, showing how things are not quite as you may believe (have been well programmed to believe?) other than to note you found Barretts Encyclopedia entries. I could have provided links to the pages, other links to additional discussion and so forth -- I've seen it all before) Big whoop. You do nothing with it, except follow that with false claims which flow from erroneous premises.
Dan, you must have the patience of Job, staying with the Catholic Church for as long as you did. I think I went to mass maybe 3 more times after I got saved, but I think, deep inside, I had given up on the RCC, long before that, as I didn't think there was any way I could be saved anyway, and I just didn't think there was anything else out there, worth looking into. Then, God put some real Christians in my life, as opposed to false Christians, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Where I live, most of the people are Catholic, although beneath the surface, they are animists. At any rate, it is a mission field for us. We try to rescue as many as possible from darkness, into the glorious light. 😀
Yup.
This Prot goes right along with some of the stuff your ECFs put out; namely...
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Too bad you Catholics do not!!
Your comment: “As to “falling from Rome”, sometimes cutting off the cancerous flesh is what it takes to survive. The errors of Rome had to be cut off so the Church could live and thrive.”
At least Christ has said that he would be with the Catholic Church until the end of time. We still have the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ amd the 7 Sacraments.
Your comment: “ Catholics create their own doctrinal beliefs - backing and choosing what feels good to themselves alone as their standard. They simply ignore Rome and Rome is pleased to call them Catholics.”
Catholics are sinners , yet they may repent and confess to a priest and receive sanctifying grace. All baptized Catholics that have lost there way are just lost sheep that Christ wants to come back to the fold. Do you remember that passage?
MaCArthur, J. Vernon Mcgee, Church Smith, Swindoll, and others fed me newly hungry soul desirous to know how to please God from the Bible. And i went to RC charismatic meetings. Thus when after i finally sincerely prayed to God that if it was His will for me to go to a different church circa 1983, and He quickly showed me, then it was not that much of a break in formally leading me into evangelical fellowship. Bless the Lord despite me failings.
We try to rescue as many as possible from darkness, into the glorious light. 😀
Indeed that must be our goal, and walk therein, to overall glorify God, to be like Christ and make a positive difference in people's lives for time and for eternity, by His grace.
What you just sail is at least puerile, if not infantile. Jesus did often use figurative speech when using the word "Verily" in the certifying sense. The definition of "amen" used this way is as follows:
******
Strong's Number G281
ἀμήν
amēn
am-ane'
Strong's Definition: Of Hebrew origin [H543]; properly firm, that is, (figuratively) trustworthy; adverbially surely (often as interjection so be it): - amen, verily.
Thayer's Definition: 1) firm
. . 1a) metaphorically faithful
2) verily, amen
. . 2a) at the beginning of a discourse - surely, truly, of a truth
. . 2b) at the end - so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled. It was a custom, which passed over from the synagogues to the Christian assemblies, that when he who had read or discoursed, had offered up solemn prayer to God, the others responded Amen, and thus made the substance of what was uttered their own.
Part of Speech: particle indeclinable
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of Hebrew origin H543
*****
Indisputably figurative truisms that Jesus made in the Gospels, the ones in which "verily" preceded the proposition, are as follows:
Mt. 5:26,13:17,17:20,18:3,24:47,25:40,25:45
Mk. 6:11,9:1,10:15,10:29-30
Lk. 18:17
Jn. 3:3,3:5,5:24,6:32,6:47,6:53,10:1,10:7,12:24
You aver wrongly that to use "verily" makes the following postulate to be of the literal sense only. Thus you wrongly induce your reader to think that a Biblical truth given by Jesus cannot be couched in figurative terms. For you to do so is a sly way of falsely forwarding your argument, that John 6:53 is absolutely literal and cannot be a figurative-literal stated truth.
Going forward from this moment in this thread, for you to continue to make this claim is to deliberately choose to propagate falsity and lie; and you would be believed only by a crass, credulous fool.
And now, to take up your ensuing ridiculous application of that misstatement:
Why are you any different from the Jews at Capernaum? “But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.” As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6
The picture of John Chapter 6 is quite different than the one of great disservice to God that you give.
It is totally clear that the people who then turned away from following Jesus were the ones (on 3 Nisan of 32 A. D.) who, like the unbelieving crowds of Matthew 13 (of the previous Heshvan of 31 A. D.), and like you in this thread (of February 2017 A. D.), took His figuratively stated proposition to be a literal command, and thus contrary to the Mosaic Law, thus decertifying Him as a Rabbi. These were of the sort who could not discern the figurative sense of coming to Him and believing in Him and His teachings to obtain spiritual food and drink, and thus not an unlawful concept. So these people, without the spiritual gift of faith, on the basis of their misperception, left off following Him about.
But those to whom He had entrusted the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 13:11-12), those to whom He had given practice in seeing and applying the figurative spiritual sense of His teachings, men who believed in Him and His teachings as nourishment in the "strong meat" food" of the Gospel (Heb. 5:14), clung to Jesus as their trustworthy Master Teacher. Quite painfully obvious, not one of them had ever literally eaten His flesh or drunken His Blood, had they? But they, perceiving the figurative spiritual application, remained in His Company of The Committed as students for the remainder of their training period.
Your thesis is absolutely and positively without foundation or credibility.
“At least Christ has said that he would be with the Catholic Church until the end of time.”
The promise a to His Church - the gathering of all true believers who are saved and sealed. It is not made to an organization.
“We still have the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ amd the 7 Sacraments.”
All believers have Christ in His entirety. His d ath and shed bloid applies to every true believer eternally.
There are no sacraments that confer grace. The Apostles did not teach nor write this. This in biblical system of works entered Rome as syncretic paganism.
“yet they may repent and confess to a priest and receive sanctifying grace.”
They can believe as they wish, but this claim is not found in Scripture. Nor can be found a separate church office of priest.
Best
Your comment: “the gathering of all true believers who are saved and sealed”
How can all be “true believers” if they pick and chose the teachings of Jesus that they believe in?
How can all be “true believers” if they follow a heretical belief system?
Your comment: “His d ath and shed bloid applies to every true believer eternally.”
Yes Jesus died for the sins of all mankind - principally the sin of Adam - original sin. The death on the cross allowed us to be reunited with God after Adam (and the rest of us) were banned from the Garden of Eden.
We are required to be validly Baptized and we must not die in the state of mortal sin. We have a responsibility to keep God’s Commandments. We have a responsibility to Love God and our neighbor.
Your comment:”This in biblical system of works entered Rome as syncretic paganism.” WOW. You certainly are biased against anyone who does good works. Perhaps you didn’t read or understand St. Paul. Oh I forgot that your religion doesn’t believe in works. I guess that is just belief even if you ignore the following.
Paul tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).
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.