Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley
What a shame that you, Dutchboy and Gamecock, can’t even give it a rest on Easter Sunday. What tortured souls you must be. May God bless you, and ease the psychological and emotional pain you clearly suffer.
A “convincing argument” has been made several times in this thread in response to lame Catholic assertions, even Augustine joined in on the festivities. So far they stand unmolested.
It is not something you would be able to pronounce with your limited alphabets. Some civilizations give me their own name prior to their atomization, but most just die with a bewildered wail.
Oh yeah? A convincing argument convinces at least those that are making it. I see evidence all the time that Protestants do not actually believe it themselves. This is shown in their concern that some of their fellow Christians, presumably in a state of grace by accepting Christ, are being led astray by new age thinking, near-death experiences, Mormonism, liberalized "progressive" Christianity, Satanism, and of course the biggie Catholicism. Why the concern if you cannot fall out of grace? Are they not going to heaven anyway by the mere fact they at one time accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior?
Well, I’m pretty convinced by it. The preaching of the Gospel is the means by which God calls out His elect. What greater joy is their than to be used by God to speak the truth? Especially the truth against the biggie, known as Popery? But as for those who leave us, it is as John said. They must leave us to show they were not of us. If they were of us, they would have remained with us. It is impossible, as Jesus said, for the elect to be lost, even in the face of incredible deception. I believe Him. You should too.
Then there is no reason to be concerned for them or to warn them of bad influences. Their fate has already been pre-determined and nothing you do or they do can change that. And so there really is no reason to bash Catholicism, or Mormonism, or progressive Christianity, because those who are influenced by them were pre-determined to be influenced by them.
But the bashing continues anyway because, despite their assertions to the contrary, Protestants deep down, maybe at an unconscious level, do believe that you can fall out of grace and be led back into grace. That is what their actions tell me anyway.
Well, there it is. That great inerrant interpreter of Scripture and infallible arbiter of doctrine, "Greetings_Puny_Humans" says so: therefore it must be true.
He who rails against "Popery" seems to be setting himself up as Pope. That of which he is convinced must be true, because ... well ... he's "pretty convinced by it".
The irony huge with this one.
BTW, I'm not making this personal, nor am I mind reading. GPH made it personal about himself. I'm merely pointing out the fact.
You can believe what you want, but it plainly contradicts the scriptures. Obviously, all the world’s greatest evangelists believe as I do, from the apostles all the way up to the reformers and men like Spurgeon. You should not project your own doubts and disbelief upon others. We’re doing just fine.
It’s amazing for what passes as Catholic apologetics around these parts.
Lol. I read the scripture plainly and evidence has been provided in this thread. Do you really think avoiding them and attacking me with red herrings will get you out of it? Address the evidence.
Obviously, all the world’s greatest evangelists believe as I do, from the apostles all the way up to the reformers and men like Spurgeon.
So you are appealing to authority, fine, nothing wrong with that. All Christians that believe the Bible is the inspired word of God do so in acknowledgement of the authority that canonized it. Either that, or they personally read all of the writings considered for inclusion in the Biblical canon and decided that they agreed with the authority.
Later, dragging in "all the world’s greatest evangelists" doesn't help. Who gets to define them as "greatest"? You? ROFL!
You give every evidence of replacing the dreaded Pope of Rome with the benificent Pope GPH.
That IS the evidence, and I addressed it.
It's quite funny, actually. That is all.
That probably is the real problem.
People who worship their own Most High and Holy Self can't stand the idea of Christ being fully human.
They can handle the idea of an abstract sort of God in the afterlife and Christ as holograph of some sort, but not Jesus Christ as fully human and therefore superior to their Self. They're following Eve rather than Jesus Christ and as icing on the cake, encouraging anyone who will listen to them to perish in the contradiction of Core.
The best thing to do is let them keep wallowing in their own muck and returning to their own vomit. When they're playing their favorite game, Publican in the Temple, they don't even understand what they're saying much less what anyone says to them. They're deaf and blind and, in reality, dumb as well given that they have no life in them but spout whatever any convenient spirit, hanging like Spanish Moss from some nearby tree, tells them to spout.
If the Holy Spirit sends someone to them in person they may some day realize the error of their ways and repent. If not, they'll be hearing, "I never knew you" from the same Jesus Christ they slander by slandering His mother, and call a liar by contradicting what Jesus Christ Himself said.
They have no life in them, they've accepted life as zombies and trying to talk with zombies is a waste of time. The fields are ripe, move on to the wheat waiting for the harvesters.
Why don’t you take your anti catholic nasty comments somewhere else..they would be MOST welcome on DU!
go practice your “christianity” your own way, leave others alone..unless you consider your criticisms your form of evangelization.
“It’s quite funny, actually. That is all.”
Yes, it is.
” Address the evidence. “
He did. You lost. Again.
Tell us again what screen name you used to use?
Counterscriptural cretinism strikes again.
Because he was waxing poetic...yet his words are being employed as equal to infallible inspired holy writ. Besides, your posed question answers itself, attributing solitary motivation for the questioning "why".
"...your own tradition, which begins with the Reformation" I must stop you here sir, for "my tradition" as you refer to it, goes back to the traditions of the Jews, of whom's scriptures I speak.
But Why do you think that sticking to the Hebrew is so important? Because entrusted to them were the oracles of God. Throw that out, and who is this Christ we speak of today? Also, from Roman Catholicism came corruption of the very book chapter/text in question, namely Genesis 3:15.
In any case, I don’t follow you because what you say goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3
What precisely of what I am saying "goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3 as you assert? You never brought the scripture itself, just mention of it (but which version? one of the corrupted RC numbers? lol) and just your own and the RCC's own "private interpretation" influenced much among multiple other things, by faulty translation or some copy error mistake of translation, which appears not as mere honest mistake, but deliberate tampering with the text, yet accuse and condemn the many millions whom agree with the exegesis I am adhering to (based both upon superior adherence towards the Masoretic, and finding confirmation in the New Testament).
So you say; I'm going against what is as you say "clearly stated" in Genesis 3, while you refer to what is instead inferred based soley upon Gen 2:13 to exclusion of what else is found stipulated in that vicinity... with assertion and reliance upon one verse (not named, just alluded to by way of reasoning, taking things a further step away from the text) taking a verse out-of-context for purpose of imposing a pre-text, which just so happens to match up with some elements of "tradition" which themselves not only do not have any "clear" scriptural support for, but can be clearly seen to be in opposition of scripture.
Will you now quote from a corrupted Douay version, or the more modern corruption of inserting the word "they" for the Hebrew "him" as is in the original text? [as best as can be determined]. If so, I will be compelled to once again bring versions of Gen 3:15 to these pages, showing everyone (even those not that interested) the corruptions of that precise passage, owned singularly by the RCC. To tie it all together with other parts of the historical extra-biblical origins and furthering impetus of Marionism would take a rather sizable volume to properly address --- but I am aware of much of the basic components, including the one which you yourself have quoted from [thank you very much].
He first pronounces judgement against the serpent, then against the woman and then against the man. He said to Eve, that He [God] would multiply the sorrows of her childbirth, and for her desire to be for her husband, with that coming after the inquiry from God of Eve...but God never filed a charge against her as He did with Adam, when He outlined Adam's offense directly to Adam. The Lord spoke to Eve for reason that Adam tried to immedietly shift blame for his own sin onto his wife, resulting in God saying to Eve, "What is this that thou hast done?" with there being nothing along the lines of God accusing her, as in the case with Adam directly, God saying to Adam alone directly;
In verse 3:9 God calls not unto them both, but to Adam, Adam where art thou? with God asking after Adam (not Eve). Adam answers for himself, saying he was afraid. The Lord responds verse 11;
To properly understand chapter three, it would help to first read chapter 2.
Where was Eve then, my FRiend? She had not been created, if we are to approach things chronologically. Notice in verse 8 and 15 of that chapter, God put the man whom He had formed into the garden of Eden first, commands Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in verse 17, THEN God says "it is not good that the man should be alone" in #18.
If we set aside that chronological order, we still do not see God forbidding the woman directly, although she was aware of the admonition it becomes known in 3:2. From where could she have heard it, if not from God? Obviously it was not the serpent who told her what the law properly was, which leaves only Adam, for she had not been yet created when he himself was forbidden of the fruit of that one tree (to return again to the chronological). If it was important that God tell them both directly--- should it have not been conveyed in that manner? Yet we see that it wasn't. Nor does God address them together as a couple, for although Eve and Adam be together, naked and unashamed after God brought the woman unto Adam, who had been created & fashioned by God from one of Adam's ribs, him proclaiming her then "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone", they still remained two distinct persons. We do not see God saying a word to Eve specifically concerning going against what he said...but only the question, "what have you done?". If Eve had herself sinned, thou she be made to suffer for it later, the sin itself was not attributed to her, but to Adam it fell.
This approach we find much confirmed by Paul in his letters to the Romans (I am continually flabbergasted how much Roman Catholic interpretations go straight and hard, in diametrically opposed direction against Pauls letters to "Romans"! go figure!)
Death Through Adam, Life Through ChristRomans 5; 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Shall the Apostle Paul now stand accused of "philogy" with some admonition that he must know "there are limits to this"?
Though the acquiescence, and willing agreement of Mary herself towards God, when she responded to the Angel;
be a thing of great beauty, it is still not the one obedience that was required to undo the initial, preceeding disobedience of one man as is so often presented by Roman Catholics. To teach it as Mary's (somewhat overplayed) "obedience" be the thing, or that it qualifies her for some divinity or semi-divinity all to herself, with such expanding upon her assumed "assumption", is to force exegesis of scripture, which it itself does not support. Utilizing "tradition" in this instance, in regards to Marionism, not only promotes "tradition" (but only certain select favored snippets) to being not only equal to scripture, but promotes those same collected snippets of opinion and waxing poetic to being capable of over-riding the scriptures, with tradition being able to countermand such scripture as exampled [above].
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
“LOL! I’m addressing your post #125, wherein you explicitly try to make your interpretation of the Scriptures normative for everyone, and conflate your interpretation of the Scriptures with Truth.”
Are you seriously going to keep spamming me with this nonsense? What makes either of you think that I am all that concerned if you think that I behave as my very own Pope? What makes you think I care if you simply say “I disagree!” very loudly, or complain that I have my own so-called “interpretation?” I’ve yet to see evidence that you guys actually have an “alternate interpretation” for any of the scriptures provided. Exactly how many interpretations can you get from Jesus saying, “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you”? Or “You do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice and I know them”? Or from Paul, “whom He predestinates He calls, whom He calls He justifies, and whom He justifies He glorifies”? Or from Acts, “As many believed as were ordained”? And these are only just a few of them.
But instead, you’re wasting my time by attacking me personally, making wry faces and sticking your tongue at me, as if the evidence of your ability to mock me can wash away the scriptures.
As Augustine says, “WE WERE ELECTED AND PREDESTINATED, NOT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO BE HOLY, BUT IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT BE SO.”
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.