Posted on 03/07/2007 9:10:18 AM PST by Salvation
That is excellent to hear.
Again, I call your attention to the scriptural fact that God called out to Adam, "where are you?". For this to make any sense, the inspired author was telling us that Adam was making his own choices.
Are you saying that what we call "human nature" is learned? That makes no sense. You said yourself that Christ had two natures. Did He only have one until He learned the human one? I really disagree with that.
FK: "As I understand your belief, Jesus went and snatched him out of Hades, thus proving that Adam did repent at some point."
I don't see why He would have done that. I don't believe it. That's for sure.
Well, then what are those icons from the Luther thread all about? I remember them, and they showed Jesus "freeing" Adam from, I think, Hades. Am I way off course here?
FK: "Once the sin [of Adam] was committed though, the deed was done and could not have been undone."
The Christian teaching is that by repentance the sins are forgiven, committed to oblivion, which is as good as if they never happened (great is God's mercy).
No, no, no. :) We're talking about Adam's sin. He could repent and be saved himself, just like the rest of us. However, once he committed that sin, its effects could not be undone. We call that original sin, and I know you understand the principle as another idea. Once Adam sinned, history was changed forever, regardless of whether he later repented or not.
FK: "God is behind God's plan, not Adam's pride."
But if God is sovereign and doesn't allow free will then Adam's pride is not his pride but part of God's will and plan. Then why would Adam be punished? For obedience?
To me, this is the same as saying that satan is God's fault BECAUSE He gave him free will, knowing what would happen. Neither is true. All creatures will be held accountable for their sins.
Your error is assuming that everyone who is not a catholic is protestant.
You are putting forth the hypothesis if not A then B without allowing for the possibility of C-Z.
You are using very sloppy logic....
Yes, it has become clear to me that that is probably what Alex Murphy was saying to me, however my more general point is clear: There are at least 2 Protestant denominations on that list, and to deny that, well, I won’t say since that got me into trouble last time. But you’re a smart guy, you can read between the lines.
That one of the points I was making to you.
...however my more general point is clear
No, it's still as muddled as it ever was. Unless you'd like to include the Great Schism of 1054, the split following the Council of Chalcedon, etc etc etc in your argument :)
My main point is clear, despite your protestations (excuse the pun) to the contrary. Think of the movie “Highlander”: There can be only one. Catholics and Orthodox would agree on that point, we would just disagree on which one that “one” is.
You and other Protestants however, clearly don’t agree that there can be (or even should be) only one, true Church, that is visible. Despite what Scripture says (that Christ estabilished a Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against, and also said it would be visible, in Matthew), and despite the fact that there IS more than one Protestant denomination, and these denominations are clearly different doctrinally, you and apparently others here seem to want to have your cake, and eat it too.
On one hand, you want there to be a unified “invisible church”, yet the other, don’t want to say it’s DOCTRINALLY unified, so you don’t have to prove it is. I would submit that something that isn’t unified around doctrine can’t really be unified at all. This “invisible church” of yours and other Protestants, if it isn’t unified doctrinally, is nothing more than universalism.
Trust me that point is quite clear to anyone reading along, that doesn’t have a dog in this fight.
Your main point remains squishy, porous, incapable of penetration or even just making purchase, incapable of supporting weight, and is exceedingly sparse and lightweight overall. Oh, and it tickles when you poke me with it. My advice is "next time, don't bring a Nerf ball to a gun fight". But I will admit that your pun was clever. That part I would keep.
No hard feelings? [pun intended]
You are right... Better stick to the Douay-Rheims. Incidentally, the NIV is not approved for use in any Catholic liturgies.
>> His Spirit within us bears witness with our Spirit as Scripture declares. <<
And how do you discern spirits?
By comparing them to scripture?
But how do you tell what is scripture?
By discerning His Spirit, of course!
Do you see the problem here?
>> Protestants are using some non-Catholic source of authority to determine which books are legitimate. <<
Yes, for the Old Testament, it’s the explicitly anti-Christian Council of Jamnia. Not a great source. St. Jerome DID hold the books of the Septuagint to be scripture, but he did not understand where they came from. The Septuagint is a canon from before the Jewish rejection of Christ; Luther’s comes from their explicit rejection of him. St. Jerome saw the differences between the Jamnian (Masoretic) text and the New Testament, and concluded the apostles based the New Testament on a translation which erred greviously. In fact, we now know that the Septuagint is based on Hebrew texts remarkably similar to those found in Qumran cavesm from before Christ.
Salvation was referring to the New Testament.
The problem appears to be . . .
in the level of experience
on the other side of the issue . . .
JESUS SAID that His sheep knew HIS VOICE.
Evidently there’s a problem there . . .
either those listening are not His sheep . . . or the sheep need their ears cleaned out . . . or perhaps there’s a dreadful lack of experience hearing and obeying and He’s waiting for the obeying to catch up before trying to communicate further.
Or, perhaps alternately, the other side is trying to insist that JESUS THE CHRIST; KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS . . . didn’t know what He was talking about.
#########
The problem appears to be . . .
in the level of experience
on the other side of the issue . . .
JESUS SAID that His sheep knew HIS VOICE.
Evidently there’s a problem there . . .
either those listening are not His sheep . . . or the sheep need their ears cleaned out . . . or perhaps there’s a dreadful lack of experience hearing and obeying and He’s waiting for the obeying to catch up before trying to communicate further.
Somehow I got your post after posting to a much more recent article, and mistook it for being part of the much more recent thread.
Incidentally, the claim that the KJV is translated from Greek transcripts was made by the KJV scholars, but it was, in fact, largely copied (nearly verbatim in places) from the Geneva bible, which actually was created mostly from the Vulgate.
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.