Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Francis: self-help courses can turn Catholics into Pelagians
Catholic Herald ^ | 3/28/2013

Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 next last
To: Iscool

151 posted on 03/31/2013 2:54:24 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA; Dutchboy88
What a shame you can't use a calender. I haven't even posted on this thread since Thursday and yet you hurdle false accusations at myself and Dutchboy!

What a tortured soul you must be! May God bless you, and ease the psychological and emotional pain you clearly suffer.

Repent!

152 posted on 03/31/2013 4:33:09 PM PDT by Gamecock ("Ultimately, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God." —R.C. Sproul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Mary, the mother of Jesus, became the problem?

Firstly, Mary is not revered as a god, nor God. Secondly, no god is a problem for God as there are no other gods; ergo, Mary is not, and cannot be a problem for God.

The “problem” is recognizing and serving gods or any god that is not God.


153 posted on 03/31/2013 4:55:30 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I understand your point. Thanks.


154 posted on 03/31/2013 5:07:13 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: narses

That’s what you post when you got nothing???


155 posted on 03/31/2013 5:43:11 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
What makes either of you think that I am all that concerned if you think that I behave as my very own Pope?

What indeed? Certainly, Pope GPH doesn't care what the 'little people' think of Him. He is, after all, Pope GPH.

I continue to laugh at the hypocrisy.

156 posted on 03/31/2013 6:08:39 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

“I continue to laugh at the hypocrisy”


I continue to laugh at the illogical argumentation.

“I don’t like you being able to read the scripture and make arguments with it + ???? Therefore, you’re a hypocrite.”


157 posted on 03/31/2013 6:11:16 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Congratulations! You completely missed the point! You're not even on the paper.

I wonder if you realize just how completely clueless you seem, right now.

158 posted on 03/31/2013 6:13:58 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

“I wonder if you realize just how completely clueless you seem, right now.”


Trust me, it’s all on you and your buddies posting the clown photos. Evidently we won the initial debate that attracted all you guys in the first place, so now you’re obsessed with lame irrelevant accusations.

I already challenged you to put up or shut up. You didn’t take. So I’ll take a victory lap.


159 posted on 03/31/2013 6:26:36 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Oh gee, Holy Thursday makes your warp more acceptable. Poor, pathetic souls.


160 posted on 03/31/2013 6:40:08 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Trust me,

No, that's one thing I learned long ago not to do.

I already challenged you

Ooooooohhhhhh. You 'challenged' me. What makes you think I give a rip for your challenge or your personal interpretation of Scripture?

You can 'challenge' all you like. It matters not.

The real question here is whether you fancy your interpretations of Scripture or understanding of doctrine to be infallible and inerrant. One who rails against "Popery" would do well not to set himself up as an ersatz "pope".

161 posted on 03/31/2013 6:44:11 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Oh gee, Holy Thursday makes your warp more acceptable. Poor, pathetic souls.

Personal attack much?
It is the last resort of someone without facts on their side.

162 posted on 03/31/2013 6:57:04 PM PDT by Gamecock ("Ultimately, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God." —R.C. Sproul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: narses
The cereal box has Martin Luther on the cover. I was replying in rebuttal to what you posted to me (2 times in a row, same exact word-for-word reply) that had you quoting Martin Luther.

The cereal box in this context is insane (like the maker of the cartoon himself went insane?) with the joke being upon yourself this time around, for I wasn't following or quoting that [ahem] 'heretic' Luther...but you were.

Just about the time I think I'd seen everything, some one comes along and shoots themselves in the foot with a cereal box.

or perhaps in this instance;


it's more like this, coyote

163 posted on 03/31/2013 7:21:26 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

“What makes you think I give a rip for your challenge”


What makes you think I thought you gave a rip about my challenge and defending yourself with logical arguments? If I had thought that, I’d be nicer to you.

Just keep on making clown faces. Kinda got used to it with the half dozen from the other Romanists.


164 posted on 03/31/2013 8:06:26 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
If I had thought that, I’d be nicer to you.

ROFL!!!

Luke 6:32-36.

165 posted on 03/31/2013 8:11:16 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; EDINVA
Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

166 posted on 03/31/2013 8:35:41 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
Our own destiny is to become “semi-divine,” for such is the promise of the Resurrection. As to waxing poetical, By what right do your say this? And by what right do you say that Paul was doing more than using an image, for Jesus as the one who repaired what Adam had torn.

But let us go back to the story that in told in Genesis 3. The serpent tempts the women with this promise: “For God knoweth that in what day soever you shall eat thereof,your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And the woman saw that the tree was go to eat and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold; and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat and gave it to her husband who did eat. And they eyes of both of them were opened, and when they perceived themselves to be naked, .....” And when God questioned them, and Adam blamed Eve and Ever the Serpent, he cursed them all, for the servant, and he told the servant that it would be the woman’s seed who would crush his head. To the woman he promises she shall suffer many things and be under her husband;s dominion. He in turn, shall lose his place in the garden, and return to dust. And Adam called the name of his wife, Eeve,because she was the mother of all the living.

Adam now has the woman under his dominion, but with Mary it is no longer so, for “I know not man.” She is not under the curse.

167 posted on 03/31/2013 8:59:04 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Luther was not being a heretic when he spoke of Mary, much as Tertullian was no heretic till he also broke with the Church.


168 posted on 03/31/2013 9:02:31 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88; Salvation
Pelagianism is the belief that man can save himself by his own work simply by following the example of Christ, with no need for supernatural grace.

Semipelagianism is the belief that man, by following the example of Christ, can do good works that will somehow earn him, or entitle him, to God's grace of salvation.

Calvinism is the belief that man cannot do good even with the help of God's grace - that grace consists of God forcibly making the elect to perform actions acceptable to Him by an "irresistible" compulsion.

Orthodox Christianity holds that man is deeply flawed by his very nature due to original sin and that he can accomplish no good thing unless God gives him the grace to do so. It likewise holds that grace is a free gift of love and that God asks man to cooperate with His grace - not because He needs man to do so, but because it pleases Him. In other words, we should be slaves (in Calvinist fashion) but He makes us sons by adoption.

169 posted on 04/01/2013 6:29:04 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Francis I is making waves.

I imagine Dr Phil will come out against him any day now. :>)

I love it: Grace instead of “emotional intelligence”

Preach it, Brother Francis!


170 posted on 04/01/2013 6:46:38 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie; Alex Murphy; smvoice; Iscool; HarleyD; robby
"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."

The great majority of threads around here are begun by folks who wrongly claim Rome's superiority. The threads extol the virtues of a "pope", the number of "Tiber-swimmings", or some kooky sighting of Mary on a pancake. But, irrespective of what it believes about itself, the Roman Catholic Church does not teach biblical Christianity. It teaches a tradition-controlled "religion" akin to modern Judaism 2.0.

Whenever there are "priests" involved (sacerdotalism), papalism (chief priest), sacraments (sacrificing), indulgences, purgatory, genuflecting, absolution, etc. there is a return to law and religion. The RCC in many ways mimics the misunderstanding that the Jews held of the Mosaic Law in the first century AD and thus copies it with ceremony, ritual, tradition (Mishna & Midrashim). This overlay has led it away from the truths Paul explains in the very Book the RCC claims to have delivered to the world. Yet, another error it has made.

Those FReepers who understand the message of the Scriptures, do not wish to be "nasty". At least none that I am aware of. We wish to set the record straight pointing out the error of the Roman doctrines and attempting to offer the alternative of Jesus Christ, alone. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and that not of yourselves...

Now, several RCs do get nasty. Perhaps they are threatened. I don't know. But, we will continue to present the truth with the hope that if God has elected them and permits them to see the truth, they will escape the clutches of Rome and find freedom in Christ. But, that is His work not ours.

Nevertheless, just as Paul continued to present the Gospel in the face of the Judaizers, we will continue to present the Gospel in the face of the RCC.

171 posted on 04/01/2013 7:53:15 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Our own destiny is to become “semi-divine,” for such is the promise of the Resurrection

This is how you challenge what I just took pains to go over in detail?

What is this? How does it relate? Provide basis instead of simple assertion. Semi divine... show us the way (of your thinking). Though we shall be with Him and reconciled, shall we not remain always as created beings? If being in His light & presence, and conformed more towards His image is "semi-divine", then ok. Otherwise...explain what it is you mean.

But this has very little to do with any of our own present or future status of divinity, semi- or otherwise with the Lord, and EVERYTHING to do with Mary's "semi-divinity" doesn't it? The trouble with that sort of thing, is all sorts of nonsense enters into the mix following, leading one right back to praying TO Mary imploring her own intercession and more. Which sort of thing is not spoken towards approvingly in either the OT or NT texts -- and in fact can be seen to be prohibited when such ideas or practice arise. How much does all this, said to be limited to "veneration" and praying towards someone or some thing in heaven other than the heavenly Father simply replace more basic direct, positive instruction such as Christ telling us to pray to the Father (Creator) in his name, many wonder. The answers and justifications for the practice continually convince myself and many others of the superfluity of the practice. One needn't keep staring at Mary in adoration, to be reminded of Christ's own humanity, though that is one of the many excuses or justifications offered defending the entirely biblically unsupported practice of going far beyond the recognition of her, to praying to her rather than to our Creator.

As to waxing poetical, By what right do your say this?

Where else did he get the information? Precise citation and documentation, please, if such ideas came to him from elsewhere. Or was it...his own private revelation? or just merely his own thoughts on the matter, which I have every "right" to consider this latter to be the case, even if others have been very carefully trained and instructed to never fully confront what it is they are being told to believe -- with investigation if pursued only rewarded for finding agreement and support of RCC doctrines, (whatever they are) and anything contrary put down in dozens of ways.

I also have the right to stand up and say that such as what you bring of Irenaeus, is seemingly being regarded as holy writ, even by you as you seek to establish further basis and justification of Marian doctrine. I JUST SHOWED in previous reply such to be true, even to how "tradition" is utilized to directly countermand or significantly alter that which is holy writ, and not tradition. What I see time and again, are cases of mistaken identity, taking many forms, with in the instance I provided, Eve being substituted for Adam as the one by which sin entered the world (according to rhetoric in far-flung corners of the RCC) when by scripture, it was not by "one woman" at all, but by "one man", Adam, that sin is said to have entered the world. Even the scripture itself had been altered by the RCC in Genesis 3:15 in support of Marionism, putting the serpents head not under "the seed of the woman's heel" spoken of as being a "him" (Christ?) but under her own heel more directly in the Douay versions, with the more modern approved versions having settled upon using the word "they" shall bruise the serpents head. Now THAT, is the RCC's own private interpretation of scripture going so far as to tamper with the very scripture itself, in support of it's own interpretation.

But that's the trouble with Marionism, it keeps taking different forms, and unless or until all the multitudinous errors both large and small (oh, and many of great subtlty!) perpetrated in the ever-vigorous effort to expand and/or retain prior expansions of Marionism is challenged, dragged out into the light and examined, the flaws inherent to the process will remain accepted, leading a great many away from the truth. We are interested in the real truths of the matter, aren't we?

And by what right do you say that Paul was doing more than using an image, for

WHAT sort of twisted question is THAT? "using more than one image"? The last part, which too are your own words, not mine: "Jesus as the one who repaired what Adam had torn", makes more sense in light of the scripture I brought. But if you must ask why, try reading Paul again. Perhaps it will sink in...he went over it, time and time again.

Romans 5:19 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.
I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand about the above, but I have suspicions as to why, and keep encountering confirmation of some of the worst of those suspicions.

What I was establishing, was that it was by the sin of one man, Adam (not the sin of one woman, Eve) that the Hebrew writ (and Paul, himself a Hebrew well acquainted with the Law) tells us that is so, and that is by the obedience of one man, Christ, that God's grace is extended towards us. Obedience of Mary, or much anyone else (in this narrow context) is simply not touched upon. If we do look towards others obedience, we see time & again the recurrence of them hearing the word of God, and believing. Yet it necessary we believe in only one of them, with all others subordinate to the larger holy purpose;

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Let us not confuse others whom come to us, even the Church itself, with being the One "whom He hath sent", for that too is an error of misidentification committed by many.

Adam now has the woman under his dominion, but with Mary it is no longer so, for “I know not man.” She is not under the curse.

The above sentences leaves one near speachless for it's audacity. She is not "under the curse",you say? ...which it can be assumed is the curse of being born under the curse of sin, which is common to all flesh (unto this day)...because...she was a virgin? That simply doesn't fly, from the same folks who BAPTIZE BABIES!!!

Mary by her own words of acceptance and gratitude, confessed Christ, even the son she would give birth to, as being her Savior. If it be true that she alone, of all humans who have ever lived, this one Daughter of Israel be born not under the curse of Adam, then why would she need a Savior? Why would she speak of "God my Savior"? But here we bump up against yet more hyper-Marionism, this idea now set in stone as it were, with it going far beyond revering her as fully human mother of the Incarnation of Christ...

But I see the cult (of Mary) hidden in plain sight right in the middle of the RCC, has done it's work well, inducing each under it's thrall to twist scripture fully away from origins of context (the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian construct) at each opportunity to elevate this one person [Mary] above all others, far beyond being merely spoken of and honored more than all other women.

Putting that aside...can you agree with Paul that it was by one man that sin entered the world? Or must the error of attributing the crime to Eve continue, so as to be theological counterpoint to Mary's own salvic "powers" so widely attributed to her from within the RCC?

172 posted on 04/01/2013 8:43:06 AM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88; Recovering Ex-hippie
Amen, dear Dutchboy.

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and DOCTRINE." 2 Tim. 4:2.

We are not called to aggravate. We are called to preach the gospel of the grace of God. If that offends someone, then so be it. The Cross should convict people of their spiritual condition, not aggravate them.

2 Cor.5:14-21 is our commission to the lost. God is offering His reconciliation to fallen man through the finished work of Christ on our behalf. We are to proclaim it in Christ's stead. If it is rejected once it is heard, that person can never stand before God and declare that he never heard the gospel of God's grace.

"...and having done all, to STAND." Ephesians 6:13.

173 posted on 04/01/2013 9:33:21 AM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Luther was not being a heretic when he spoke of Mary, much as Tertullian was no heretic till he also broke with the Church.L

The point is not that I myself considered Luther a heretic, but that as he is accused of having his own private interpretation (which is the subject matter of the cereal box cartoon), such was being employed towards myself for offering some counterpoint to Luther's own "ponderings", which though he be otherwise labeled a heretic by Roman Catholics --- we are supposed to take to heart as gospel truth, or accept as some refutation of what I've been saying here...

If you can't see that, or must insist that Luther and others be possibly correct upon occassion (but not always) it also follows that I could be quite correct in that which I myself am espousing, but which is dismissed without or before examination.

otherwise, the rude cartoon is just so much more fingers in the ears, la-la-lah, I can't hear you type of comment, or else some form of dismissal based upon personality, rather than the subject matter and ideas under discussion, for you yourself have made the distinction that Luther was in your own eyes, correct in part.

It is as if it not be dared to consider what such as myself may be talking about, but at the same moment I myself must accept what this person (Luther), otherwise labeled to be heretical by Roman Catholics, is saying at one juncture, while also at the very same instant be myself subjected to some form of rebuttal for allegedly doing as he is said to have done.

There is far too much mixed-message special pleadings which must be incorporated by the presenter of the presentation, to have the same sets of logic sought to apply towards myself, not apply in similar measurement to even their own argument of dismissal towards myself, all of which makes the presentation of the cereal box cartoon specious, for it relies upon the very sort of special pleading you bring, to not have it simply blow up in the face of the presenter, and yourself also, since you decided to chime in concerning it.


meep, meep to you, my FRiend

174 posted on 04/01/2013 10:13:51 AM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Ping to 171


175 posted on 04/01/2013 11:46:12 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; narses; verga
Our Lord plainly tells us we are not to make images of anything on earth.

No paintings or photographs in your house? Kids shouldn't be allowed to draw or colour what they see or is in their hearts? No sculptures? How about National Geographic? Are they breaking God's law?

When the people complained and murmured about the bread which came down from heaven, God sent them a severe punishment: "...In punishment the LORD sent among the people saraph serpents, which bit the people so that many of them died. Then the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned in complaining against the LORD and you. Pray the LORD to take the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people, and the LORD said to Moses, "Make a saraph and mount it on a pole, and if anyone who has been bitten looks at it, he will recover." Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole, and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he recovered." (Numbers 21:6-9, NAB)

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting." (St. John 3:14-15, DRB)

Are only serpents exempt from this command?

176 posted on 04/01/2013 1:04:05 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Pelagianism is the belief that man can save himself by his own work simply by following the example of Christ, with no need for supernatural grace.

Semipelagianism is the belief that man, by following the example of Christ, can do good works that will somehow earn him, or entitle him, to God's grace of salvation.

Calvinism is the belief that man cannot do good even with the help of God's grace - that grace consists of God forcibly making the elect to perform actions acceptable to Him by an "irresistible" compulsion.

Orthodox Christianity holds that man is deeply flawed by his very nature due to original sin and that he can accomplish no good thing unless God gives him the grace to do so. It likewise holds that grace is a free gift of love and that God asks man to cooperate with His grace - not because He needs man to do so, but because it pleases Him. In other words, we should be slaves (in Calvinist fashion) but He makes us sons by adoption.


177 posted on 04/01/2013 1:11:24 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88; CynicalBear; metmom; mitch5501

I don’t think Catholics are seriously thinking about the consequences of Galatians, Chapter 2, for their entire religion. The twelve, who were commanded by Jesus Christ, to take the Kingdom Gospel to “all the world”, beginning at Jerusalem did something entirely anti-Catholic when Paul went up to Jerusalem and met with them. Once Paul, by revelation, communicated unto them THAT GOSPEL which he preached among the Gentiles (v.2), and they understood that the gospel of the uncircumcision was COMMITTED unto Paul (v. 7), they LOOSED themselves from their command to go into ALL THE WORLD. They gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, and agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles and they would go to the Jews (v.9). THAT IS EPIC. By this one act, there cannot POSSIBLY be apostolic succession that Rome claims. But Rome doesn’t THINK or read the Scriptures and what God plainly states. Because their whole religious system would collapse if they admitted what Galatians plainly states. That Peter, by divine revelation knew that Paul was to go to the Gentiles with his gospel of grace, and Peter and the 11 were to preach their kingdom gospel to the Jews only. Their whole system depends on a succession that does not exist, and has never existed.


178 posted on 04/01/2013 1:14:43 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Izzy what is the address that I can send the Tim Staples CD to?


179 posted on 04/01/2013 1:26:19 PM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Interesting essay.

We do have Hippolytus, Eusebius and Irenaeus writing a little differently. And, we have the evidence of the traditions of the various Christian settlement, such as the ones in India who trace back to (doubting) Thomas and Bartholomew. There weren't any Jews in India at the time.

All three sources put Peter and Paul in Rome.

Check out http://www.ichthus.info/, which is not a Catholic site. You might be interested in the content.

180 posted on 04/01/2013 1:36:17 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Of course you know we'll disagree...:) But I DO want to tell you hello. I haven't seen you posting lately (not that I've been doing a lot myself). Hope everything is going well with you!

Regards, sm

181 posted on 04/01/2013 1:38:28 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
to take the Kingdom Gospel to “all the world”

Perhaps you should read more carefully.

Matthew 24:14 states that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world."

The command known as the Great Commission is given in Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations."

Now, if Paul were teaching only the Gentiles - as per your personal interpretation of Galatians 2 - why did he preach in the synagogues?

If Cephas were teaching only the Jews, why did he preach to the Gentile Cornelius?

Was each individual apostle sent to preach to each and every nation - or were the apostles allowed to divide up the task among themselves?

Further, why is the letter of Peter addressed to the strangers of, among other places, Galatia and Cappadocia?

If there were no apostolic hierarchy, why did Paul need the fellowship of James, Peter and John?

And why choose Matthias, if there were no succession?

Your interpretation has many holes that one could drive a fleet of Mack trucks through.

182 posted on 04/01/2013 1:39:00 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
There are so many questions. We'll start with the first. WHO was Christ speaking to when He said "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." Matt. 28:19. Everyone? Peter and the 10, soon to be 11, when Matthias is chosen?

And why 12, THEN Paul?

183 posted on 04/01/2013 1:43:54 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Very good and thank you. I’ve been posting less and less over time, that is true.

Hope everything is well with you and perhaps I’ll post a little more, perhaps not. Let’s see how things develop.

Interesting thing is that I’ve worked with several Indians who also have told me about St. Thomas colonizing India, and Christianity is either the second or third largest religion there. Largely Catholic.


184 posted on 04/01/2013 1:51:55 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; wideawake; CynicalBear; metmom; mitch5501
What I am doing is going by God's word ONLY. Not letters, or traditions, etc. And God's word says plainly that until Israel is temporarily blinded and set aside in Acts 28, Peter and the 11 agreed with Paul to confine their ministry to Israel. (Galatians, Chapter 2). Where they MAY have gone after Acts 28 does not concern us here, for by that time the kingdom program was fully set aside. Before this agreement between the 12 and Paul the ONE Gentile family to which Peter had ministered dwelt at Caesarea in Palestine (Acts 10:24). Peter also went to Antioch in Syria but rather than having any ministry there, he was rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2:11-14).

Peter's meeting with Cornelius is a fascinating proof of the Kingdom message, and the 12 knowing they must go to Israel first, before they went to the entire world. Read it carefully and you will see that Peter was reluctant to go there at first, and had to explain his actions to the other apostles. What is THAT about, if they all understood they were to take the gospel to all the nations?

185 posted on 04/01/2013 2:05:00 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Only if there are serpents in heaven.

It's a Jewish thing. I'm not sure you could understand...

186 posted on 04/01/2013 2:13:07 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Look up the definition of seraphim. Numbers 21:6,8, Deuteronomy 8:15, and Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6. Strong’s is instructive, I believe.

Therefore, serpents are exempt?

Also, do you keep paintings, photos, sculptures, or other images?


187 posted on 04/01/2013 3:23:57 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
What I am doing is going by God's word ONLY.

What do you consider to be God's word? The selection of Scripture by the Catholic Church? The selection of Scripture by Martin Luther? The dictation of God to Moses?

And God's word says plainly that until Israel is temporarily blinded and set aside in Acts 28, Peter and the 11 agreed with Paul to confine their ministry to Israel. (Galatians, Chapter 2). Where they MAY have gone after Acts 28 does not concern us here, for by that time the kingdom program was fully set aside.

Are they not set aside now? And why does the destination of any particular Apostle not concern us? The argument here is that they never ministered to the Gentiles, most vehemently. Secular and post New Testament reports give some pretty good documentation of their destination. Andrew went up as far as Russia and began their conversion. Peter was the first human to raise somebody from the dead and also the first human to convert somebody to Christianity. And he was not Jewish.

So what does this mean? It means that the history of the world and of Christianity is not entirely contained in the 73 books of the Bible.

188 posted on 04/01/2013 3:59:20 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; CynicalBear; metmom; mitch5501
..."And he (Peter) was not Jewish."

Then someone needs to let Jesus know, since Peter, along with the 11 will be sitting upon twelve thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, when Christ returns. (Mat. 19:28, Luke 22:29,30). Not only that, the great Pentecost message Peter preached to all Jews gathered there, what would that have been about? Not only did Peter stand up on that great day and declare that the last days had come (Acts 2:16,17), he actually offered the Kingdom to Israel, if they repented, were baptized, and accepted Christ as Messiah. A non-Jew doing this??

Another question to you...Acts 1:8 and the scattering of the Jerusalem disciples to Judea and Samaria. Most believe this was in fulfillment of the "great commisssion", as recorded in Acts 1:8. However, the very OPPOSITE is true, according to God's word. These disciples had NOT left Jerusalem in response to any command of the Lord. They had FLED FOR THEIR LIVES. And the TWELVE APOSTLES, the VERY ONES our Lord had COMMANDED to go FROM JERUSALEM TO ALL THE WORLD, STAYED AT JERUSALEM. Hmmmm, that seems strange. Why would the 12 STAY at Jerusalem? Were they delinquent in their duty to evangelize the world? The Scriptures say plainly that they were NOT delinquent. The REASON the twelve stayed at Jerusalem was because the Kingdom, in which they were to have twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28),was to be ESTABLISHED AT JERUSALEM, and blessing and SALVATION was to FLOW FROM THERE to the ends of the earth. Obviously their work for the kingdom and Israel was not yet done. Peter, not Jewish?....?

189 posted on 04/01/2013 4:26:34 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; BlueDragon; smvoice
>>Also, do you keep paintings, photos, sculptures, or other images?<<

That meme gets really old. Pictures of parents etc. are not used to worship God. The difference is very great as God said not to use images etc like the pagans did in worshiping Him. The command was to not make images to serve other gods or Him. He made that very clear in Deureonomy 12.

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32 What thing so ever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

190 posted on 04/01/2013 4:31:54 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; BlueDragon; smvoice
>>Also, do you keep paintings, photos, sculptures, or other images?<<

That meme gets really old. Pictures of parents etc. are not used to worship God. The difference is very great as God said not to use images etc like the pagans did in worshiping Him. The command was to not make images to serve other gods or Him. He made that very clear in Deureonomy 12.

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32 What thing so ever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

191 posted on 04/01/2013 4:31:55 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
>>I don’t think Catholics are seriously thinking about the consequences of Galatians, Chapter 2, for their entire religion<<

The RCC has distorted scripture for their own purposes. Not only developing a hierarchy which us unbiblical but incorporating most of the pagan practices and symbols to attract pagans. Unfortunately most of the Protestant denominations have continued with many of the pagan practices.

192 posted on 04/01/2013 4:36:48 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Oh if they would only read scripture instead of listening to the RCC.


193 posted on 04/01/2013 4:39:18 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

The Scriptures will explain themselves, if studied God’s way. Why someone would refuse God’s way for man’s way is beyond me. But it happens everywhere.


194 posted on 04/01/2013 4:42:46 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Therefore, serpents are exempt?

"Therefore" what? I'm not going to play run/fetch. If there is something you wish to actually say in establishing some "therefore", then please feel free to do so.

But now we seem to moved on to seraphim without examining why the serpent on the staff was not prohibited. There is a key stipulation which is the crux of the prohibition of making images. That might be a good place to start, if you wish to build some thesis.

Also, do you keep paintings, photos, sculptures, or other images?

One thing at a time. I was responding merely to the one sentence you included, which I quoted. The rest of the overall discussion I have only small interest in, for the moment. But again, feel free to say whatever, make a case or not. Just not over my broken back, while simultaneously on your own terms.

195 posted on 04/01/2013 5:15:24 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
"But Rome doesn’t THINK or read the Scriptures and what God plainly states. Because their whole religious system would collapse if they admitted what Galatians plainly states. That Peter, by divine revelation knew that Paul was to go to the Gentiles with his gospel of grace, and Peter and the 11 were to preach their kingdom gospel to the Jews only. Their whole system depends on a succession that does not exist, and has never existed."

Excellent points. This is definitely the kind of "searching the Scriptures" that Rome refuses to do. Thank you.

196 posted on 04/01/2013 5:27:09 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“Pelagianism is the belief that man can save himself by his own work simply by following the example of Christ, with no need for supernatural grace.
Semipelagianism is the belief that man, by following the example of Christ, can do good works that will somehow earn him, or entitle him, to God’s grace of salvation.

Calvinism is the belief that man cannot do good even with the help of God’s grace - that grace consists of God forcibly making the elect to perform actions acceptable to Him by an “irresistible” compulsion.

Orthodox Christianity holds that man is deeply flawed by his very nature due to original sin and that he can accomplish no good thing unless God gives him the grace to do so. It likewise holds that grace is a free gift of love and that God asks man to cooperate with His grace - not because He needs man to do so, but because it pleases Him. In other words, we should be slaves (in Calvinist fashion) but He makes us sons by adoption.”


How does man “cooperate” with the sovereign grace of God?

Rom 9:15-16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

If it is not of him that willeth or runneth, but on God who has mercy on whom He wills, how can what you say be true or “orthodox”?

And how can you claim that you are not semipelagianist, when you are asserting that God’s grace must submit to the whims of your will, albeit you say that you “cooperate”?

And as for the will. Can you show me where in scripture that anyone is ever described as being free or a slave based on their capacity to save their soul? Or rather, is freedom and slavery always in reference to sins? So that those who are in sin are slaves to sin, but those who are in Christ are dead to it and free in Christ?


197 posted on 04/01/2013 7:32:34 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon; fellowpatriot; MarineMom613; Ron C.; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; Pat4ever; ...
The cereal box in this context is insane (like the maker of the cartoon himself went insane?) with the joke being upon yourself this time around, for I wasn't following or quoting that [ahem] 'heretic' Luther...but you were.
Well, no. What you are missing is my lack of interest in any of the heretical, juvenile meanderings of the zealots here. When confronted with honest inquiry, I respond in kind. Zealotry gets cartoons and literary allusions (you may consult any good English teacher for help with that concept) or delicate ironies.

You may blather about your odd views all you want, unless and until they conform to the teaching of the Universal Church they are but tiny little noises hardly worth any real effort. May Our Lady intercede and may God in His infinite wisdom lift the scales from your eyes and reveal His Truth. Until that happens, expect normal people and those literate in His Word to scorn and mock any and all heresies you may post.

198 posted on 04/01/2013 7:56:30 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
(1) Cooperation is not about willing or running. It is about about surrendering our will.

(2) John 15:15 specifically addresses the distinction between being a slave and a friend.

(3) The entire message of the Gospel is that Almighty God empties Himself, humbles Himself, lowers Himself to man, even unto death on a cross, and enters into an intimate relationship with men, allowing men to share in His life eternally.

The Lord does not do our will, but he permits us to forsake our own for His.

199 posted on 04/01/2013 8:11:31 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“(1) Cooperation is not about willing or running. It is about about surrendering our will.”


Cooperating is about willing and running, or otherwise it isn’t cooperation:

co·op·er·a·tion [koh-op-uh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
2.
more or less active assistance from a person, organization, etc.: We sought the cooperation of various civic leaders.
3.
willingness to cooperate: to indicate cooperation.

You can’t just redefine words to support a pet theology that denies the scripture.

“(2) John 15:15 specifically addresses the distinction between being a slave and a friend.”


We are indeed the friends of Christ. And so far, is there any justification in calling those who are saved by Christ “slaves”?

Can you please provide evidence where the terms freedom and slavery are ever used in the scripture in the way that YOU use them? If one is free from sin, is he a slave because God predestinated Him to be free from sin? What about in verse 16, right after 15, wherein it says:

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

So, did Christ regard them as servants because He chose them, or did He regard them as friends because He chose them?

You have to ask yourself which one is actually consistent with scripture.


200 posted on 04/01/2013 8:19:55 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson