Posted on 09/12/2013 4:22:27 AM PDT by imardmd1
See post 59 above.
No, it was a perversion of scripture by the RCC. Ecclesia NEVER meant “church” as the RCC portrays it nor how many people today understand it.
“Iglesia” is church in Spanish. As to our understanding of “Church,” that depends on whether you are talking about Luther’s “psychic” understanding or Calvin’s more practical meaning. And, no Ekklesia meant assembly in the sense of a coming together of the members of the Polis, which means something more corporate than “congregation.” Protestantism is, of course, so relentlessly attached to philology because it starts out being led, most powerfully, by a professor of Old Testament. Naturally it sees the church as gatherings of individuals listening to hours of exposition of Scripture.
I don't agree with this, yet...
Much prophecy was given in the OT (and New) and much has come to pass, fulfilled...While no one from OT times seems to recognize there would be (at least) 2 appearances of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, it wasn't made clear that it would be 2 events, until the first one took place and Jesus left...
I believe there are things in the bible that have not and will not be revealed until those events happen and then will lead those in attendance to get back into scripture and see things we never saw...
It would be difficult to diagree with your point here, and I do not. you can see that this happened to Daniel. Abstracting from that book re eschatology and the great tribulation (which the Romanists have failed to see):
Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
...
Dan 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
...
Dan 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.
Even J. N. Darby and his contemporaries did not see the formation of today's Israel in 1947. However, he/they did see the development of much of the prophecies regarding Western history (Babylon-->Persia-->Greece-->Rome-->current dominance of Latinized culture) that Dasniel did not comprehend but did report as instructed by Yehova,
No, it was a perversion of scripture by the RCC. Ecclesia NEVER meant “church” as the RCC portrays it nor how many people today understand it.
Both of these statements are a little off base, IMHO. "Church" as a noun can mean "church house" or it cam mean "a formal meeting for organized worship and/or instruction" or it can mean "the body of affiliated members of a local church assembly." What it does not mean, Biblically, and RCC intends it to mean, is an organization external to the local churches, and imposed on them for their regulation under a consolidated authority." This "Church" (capitalized to make it a proper noun peculiar to the unBiblical implementation) is a sacral society supposedly both visible and invisible. In comparison, the only Biblical invisible "church" is that of Christ's heavenly-manifested cumulative spiritual body noted in Hebrews 12:23, the public festal assembly/incorporated deliberative body free of imperfection, and found only in The Heaven.
This topic can be relatively lengthy, and is not essential to discussion of this post on the error of the hermeneutics of the ante-Nicene patristics.
("truth" mistyped here, I think)
This long list of articles promulgated by the Romanist is impressive, but hardly fitting to this discussion of dispensationalism and the restoration of a literal-historical interpretation to its rightful place as used uniformly by Jesus, His disciples, and the other writers of the New Testament. All your articles are simply meant to press your claims on the gullible and ignorant constituents of the Romanist paradigm, which is rejected by faithful and thoughtful Bereans, who search the Scriptures daily, to see if it be so. Your list has little, if any at all, meaning to this dispensational discussion (as seen by the identidication provided in the header).
I suppose if a person is that shallow or new to the faith that would be the case. Those who wish to discuss in depth however would want to understand what the apostles wrote and what words they used and what they mean. You see, the apostles taught that if it didn’t come from them it was to be considered “another gospel” and the preacher of that gospel was to be “accursed”. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
I’m sure you would agree that it would be wise to stay with what the apostles taught. If not, well…………..you can read the verse.
You can be assured I will not believe anything the apostles didn't teach.
Luther claimed as the indictment at Worms says to be wrong and what the church had said for fifteen hundreds years was wrong. He believed he was right in saying this because of his own studies of the Scripture and on must assume that he was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to read it all correctly. You make the same claim, and argument for or against such a thing is really futile.
Which is why I am Catholic. Peace.
Oh good. Then I’m sure you’re the one who can show proof that the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary. Please do so. I wouldn’t want to think that you were preaching “another gospel” here.
Peter died for the faith, he was not a “joke” as you put it. The people of scripture all had faults and God used each and every one of them to further his message and will.
I am not a Catholic, but I do find your references to one of the founding Saints of Christianity to be offensive and in need of being tempered.
I don’t follow any of those guys. Protestants you know are simply daughters of the RCC. They retained many of her errors too. Catholics really need to stop preaching “another gospel” and like God said in Revelation to those in the RCC religion, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”
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.Your turn. Now show proof that the apostles taught sola scriptura
(2 Thess 2:15)Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us. … So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
(2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:1-2)
Hmm, no teaching of the assumption or veneration there!
>>Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us. … So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:1-2)
Still no teaching of the assumption or veneration! What’s up with that? Let me post that again and I will highlight for you.
Then I’m sure you’re the one who can show proof that the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary.
Maybe that will help you. You need to show proof of that specific teaching or we can understand that the RCC can make anything up and just say “it’s part of the tradition part of preaching”. See, you couldn’t show proof of those teachings.
I’m thinking the ones teaching those are “accursed”.
You accept their dogmas but don’t follow them? That doesn’t follow. Even groups like the Mennonites, or the English separatists, who had no formal connection with the major reformers adopt tenants such as their version of sola Scriptura the priesthood of all believers, and of course the rejection of Roman authority.
Neither Scripture has any bearing on our teachings about Mary. IAC, one would think that the worship of the Church centered on Mary, but one can go to mass every Sunday and hear the name of Mary spoken but seldom. During the creed, as the mother of the incarnate God, and during the canon with regards to her proper place at the head of the list of saints.
LOL I accept what scripture says. I also believe that Jesus died on the cross and arose again but that doesn’t make me a follower of the RCC. They follow a different Jesus. The Jesus I follow doesn’t need a stand in here on earth. He’s in every believer. The Jesus I follow taught to go directly to the Father in prayer in His name and never taught to pray to so called saints or Mary.
No, you accept as Scripture what you think it says. And if I read something different, why should I follow your interpretation?
? Then why did you put those out in answer to my statement, “Then I’m sure you’re the one who can show proof that the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary” then ask me a question as if you had shown where the apostles taught that? I would say you are preaching “another gospel”.
>>but one can go to mass every Sunday and hear the name of Mary spoken but seldom.<<
Yeah, Mary is always in the background right? Give us a break.
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.