Consider their nastiness, their uncharitability, their aloof pomposity, their cynicism.
Posted on 01/03/2012 3:30:48 PM PST by Gamecock
Keep twisting the scriptures and see where you end up. :)
Considering you don’t understand my theology, all you will be able to do is joust at windmills.
Now, let's see what Martin Luther said about that: Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.
Tu quoque!
you guessed it right, Al hitan. Theo — your statement was false. why do you persist in repeating such falsehoods?
to your question then : Did you think I was lying when I said that I’ve been “anathematized” by Roman Catholic FReepers? --> you haven't been, so your statements are false...
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Consider their nastiness, their uncharitability, their aloof pomposity, their cynicism.
Firstly, there is enough to read in Paul's statements in Acts etc. that say that Luke could have been a Gentile, a Graeco-Syrian
There is also enough differences between the gospel of john and Apocalypse to state that perhaps John of Patmos wasn't the apostle john but a john the Presbyter, possibly Gentile
Secondly, no one denies that the various books in the Bible (note the Bible is a collection of books) was by individuals, yet the compilation which didn't get completed until the 3rd century was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit IN council of the Apostolic Church: Western and Eastern
Nah, not infected. A few, just as much as the pastors and pastoresses etc.
Scripture is good. Thank you for posting some of it here.
Now it’s my turn:
“For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.”
Clearly, the author of that passage recognized his ongoing need for salvation. Not from humans or from the Roman Catholic Church, by the way, but from “Jesus Christ our Lord” (see Romans 7:25).
So, wait a minute, you'll go by the traditions and customs of those guys? And deny us our own interpretation that has been handed down to us from Christ through Apostolic Times?
Wow, just wow.
Cute.
And yet Our Lord said clearly:
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
So Our Lord gave MEN - the Apostles - this authority. What does this mean to you?
I’ll take the guidance of the translators of the NASB, NKJV, KJV etc etc any day of the week.What makes them so special? Why these johhny-come-lately translations?
theo: a new comment in this very discussion that says I’m not a follower of Christ because I’m not Roman Catholic:
Wow, talk about stretching personal interpretation to the limit -- no wonder so many errors in interpreting the Bible.
Let's disect what Al said: "some of you'll aren't Christ-followers BUT rather just stuck on your own personal interpretation":
I’m responding more to the conceptions I’ve seen among the Protestant posters on this forum.
But if we say that a faithful faith alone saves then I think even the Catholic Church could agree to that definition.
But I think we need to establish first how each side defines the word faith.
Or are we using the word “faith” in the context of how the word was used in St. Paul’s day.
Languages change and evolve.
Define the word faith.
Secondly, if you want everyone to respect your interpretation, pay respect back to those who don't share your interpretation -- say on the Eucharist.
Thirdly, how come none of your diatribes are against the bjorn agains who say Catholics are damned?
It is not nasty or uncharitable to point out that a posted article contains several glaring false statements by offering proof positive of those lies.
If somebody writes he never learned about Redemption while undergoing Seminary Training that is a big enough red flag to warrant investigation.
Now if the person had written that the personal lives of his teachers and fellow students were so enamored of sin, despite all they were taught, and that lead him to question his faith, I would believe that 100%. I would have no reason to doubt him because I know (from other sources)the state many seminaries were in at the time.
But instead he repeats the tired old Protestant claims that Catholics don’t personally know Christ. That we never read the Bible. That we believe we are saved by works.
I get having to suit your message to your audience. But he could do that and be truthful as well. Heck even a “my personal study of the Bible, lead me to conclude I could not agree with Catholic teaching on Justification” along with the verses Protestants use to support Forensic Justification would certainly not be questionable.
But when an author uses whoppers to try to increase his bona fide’s he will be challenged.
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.