Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
As he has continued to guide the Church in preserving Sacred Tradition. Indeed, the declaration of which books belong in the Bible is an example of this Tradition.
Why do people who believe in this still commit sins? Sins are not good works.
As long as a believer is on earth, he or she will sin, since they have the physical body that it enlivened with the life of Adam in them.
At salvation, the life of Christ is added to a believer.
At death or translation, the earthly body and its life of Adam is done away with and the believer will have the life of Christ. No more sin nature.
Paul describes this well in Romans 7.
Read all of Romans and you will see that by “works of the Law” Paul means circumcision and the Mosaic Law. Romans is a refutation of the Judaizers, not a exposition of Luther’s “faith alone.”
Does that include the man-made traditions of Luther and the other Protestant Reformers?
"This is my Body," not anything other. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Eucharist is anything other than the Body of Christ. The Protestant tradition that denies this is not based on Scripture.
The Roman Catholic misapplication of John 6 is well attested to.
It was only when the hard-hearted Jews misunderstood Jesus that He said what He did. Prior to and after that, and throughout the NT, He said it was by faith as did the rest of the NT writers.
See the example of the rich young ruler for a similar encounter.
I didn’t think her request would fall on receptive ears.
I do not believe I misread the attempt to insert "sacramental requirements" as an addition to what God declared.
Sacraments are unnecessary to salvation. They follow. Baptism is a public declaration of faith and the desire to follow Christ. The Lord's Supper is a sharing to be done in memory of Him until He comes. Confession to HIM of our sins keeps us in fellowship. None saves.
Why do you think Jesus Christ said his Blood would be shed for "many" and not for "all"?
For the exact same reason he said "many" and not "all" in Matthew 20:28
Paul wasn't thinking of Luther when God moved him to pen Romans. Your argument falls flat however, since we are speaking of Ephesians.
Beat me to it!
13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13 NASB
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 NASB
It's as if the Roman Catholic has never read these passages before.
Only God can open the eyes at new birth.
But he did command us to hold fast to tradition:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2Thess. 2:15)
And what were those traditions?
The Roman Catholic has to read 2 Thess 3 to understand this in proper context.
6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. 10For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. 12Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. 13But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. 2 Thess 3:6-13 NASB
Paul explains what he means by the "traditions" he's talking about.
The Bible also shows that the gathered pastors of the church spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit itself:
It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us… (Acts 15:28)
22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, Acts 15:22 NASB
Yes...notice the leadership structure present. NO POPE!
Also notice that James is presiding over this Council.
You may also notice what they wrote to abstain from:
things sacrificed to idols
from blood
from things strangled
from fornication
The admonition to avoid blood repudiates the Roman Catholic claim about the wine turning into blood. Further, the Roman Catholic claim shows a lack of understanding about the blood sacrifice in the OT. The blood was never consumed...it was always poured out.
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28 NASB
Faith is required for salvation. We follow up in baptism and "do this in remembrance" of Him per His instructions.
That's what my dad told me, but I don't recall ever hearing that doctrine from anyone else. Naturally, it's not true, but that's what he told me.
Coward.....just like I said you were....you don’t even belong to a CHURCH!!! LAZY coward!
What about this instruction: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. John 20:23?
uh...YES! The Muslims were at VIENNA!!!
Sure sounds like forgiveness to me.
All sins are indeed forgiven by baptism. But what of sins committed afterwards?
Petrosius: Grace alone, not faith alone. The words of our Lord, as well as Paul and Jame, make this clear. "Faith alone" is an invention of Martin Luther; it is not to be found in Scripture.
eagleone: You seem to be in disagreement with Paul in that case.
Oh, really?
If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. (I Cor. 13:2)Luther taught "faith alone," Paul did not!
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.