Posted on 10/21/2013 9:32:05 AM PDT by armydoc
Who appears to be trying to affect change.
>>Well lets see,
>>drowned instead of sprinkled,
OK. This is a rule in some churches. Now, lets look at all the rules on baptism in the RCC. They have rules too, you know.
>>once saved always saved,
Not a rule. Just a misconception.
>>raise your hands and shout,
What kind of rule is that??
>>baptism makes a baby born again,
Not a rule. Just a belief.
>>predetermination
Not a rule. Calvinists do belief in that, but they don’t have any litmus tests to determine if you were one of the elect.
>>.............those don’t sound administrative.
By non-adminstrative rules, I meant rules that keep you from a sacrament or a part of worship and rules that proclaim you separated from God unless you perform some act.
Well, we are not talking about “the world” . . . just the words of the Pope, which everyone wants to make out to be controversial when they are not. Jesus didn’t define love either. He just commanded that we love God, and love one another.
Go to any of those churches, tell them you want to join but don't agree with their man made doctrine. You'll see the other side of the door pretty darn quick.
raise your hands and shout, What kind of rule is that??
Never been to an Assembly of God?
Any church will let you sit in a pew but you have to agree with their rules to join in.
I stand by my statement.
Jesus is God and all scripture is God breathed. Thus, if God is love then love is defined as whatever the scripture tells us about God. The whole counsel of God. And the only reason the "words of the Pope" here are controversial is that they are essentially incomprehensible. He never comes close to defining what he means be ideology and is essentially talking in riddles. Platitudes and sophistries are no substitute for Pastorly wisdom.
In the Errors of Ideology chapter in the Politics of Prudence, Kirk discussed “ideology” as the tendency to think that we can find a “simple saving truth” or formula that will then substitute for true principles and character.
In reading the link that someone thoughtfully supplied on the prior page to the original article which had some direct quotes of the Pope's homily and its context to the teachings found in the biblical quotes he cites, this appears somewhat the sense of what he was saying.
I know people of faith that in expressing or discussing their faith, seem to elevate a particular item to a “door shutting” condition (the Pope's analogy) and say that others are not “Christian”, “saved”, or any of a number of things if they don't believe in “apostolic succession”, “sola scriptura”, “sanctity of life”, or some other sole formulaic statement above, or instead of, all else.
Kenneth Minouge, Russell Kirk and many other philosophic writers have pointed out the limitations of the term and not wanted to see it substituted for broader terms of belief or principles.
>>I stand by my statement.
Obviously, you have a problem with churches in general if you think that the AoG requires you to raise your hands and shout. I used to be AoG and I’m not a clapper or hand raiser. Never have been.
This is what Pope Francis trying to correct, fear of the need to preach the Bible.
I don’t think I like this new pope. At all.
I stand by my statement.
I understand what all these wise men are saying.
But they are assigning their own meaning to the word, and then denouncing it as being “bad.”
A word means what it means, not what you, I or Russell Kirk thinks it ought to mean.
American conservatism is an ideology, as is every other belief system. Which means there are good ideologies and bad one, and true ones and false ones.
The point is not to “reject ideologies,” as this is not possible. It is to choose an ideology that is true and good, preferably of course True and Good.
>>I stand by my statement.
Yeah, whatever that was. But, I get where you are coming from. You’re a “bible believer”. I tried one of those churches once. They are the worst of the lot in the “be like us or get out” variety. They wouldn’t accept my Methodist “pouring” baptism and said I had to get it done again to join.
Wow! Hilarious and correct.
That is exactly my take on what he said as well.
All you faithful servants better stop pushing your beliefs on the others. I want you to ignore all that is in the Bible. It is offensive and pushes people away.
That is my take on what the pope said. I guess we should now embrace the “many paths lead to God” mumbo jumbo.
Post 16: All churches have man made rules. There are no exceptions.
You still went to a brick and mortar church. We worship as the early church did.
I hope your day is Blessed.
My question is: Why is it that numerous people on this forum can re-state the pope's communications in a clear, succinct, and non-controversial manner, when the pope seems unable to do so?
>>Post 16: All churches have man made rules. There are no exceptions.
Exactly. An my original post was that the RCC has the MOST rules. I never said that they have the ONLY rules.
Really?
Most rules are administrative in nature and govern how to operate the church, not in who qualifies for communion, etc.
Now I REALLY have to back out of here............
Incorrect.
What our friendly neighborhood college dictionary fails to grasp is that the word "ideology" is not an ancient word from time immemorial like "wind" or "thought."
It is a new word invented in the modern era by the French philosophe Condillac, probably in the 1760s.
I believe the first written evidence of the word ideologie is from 1768 and that the first time the word "ideology" was used in English was in 1796 in a description of Condillac's philosophy.
The Oxford English dictionary, aware of the word's history, defines it as follows:
"A systematic scheme of ideas, usually relating to politics and society, or to the conduct of a class or group, and regarded as justifying actions, especially one that is held implicitly as a whole and maintained regardless of events."
Christianity, by its very nature, transcends politics and society and does not concern itself with justifying actions according to political principles - but examines actions in a moral light beyond political or social expediency.
Some would like to reduce Christianity to an ideology, to an -ism competing with other -isms like materialism or socialism.
Christianity stands outside of that box.
That’s not my original post. This was:
Monday, October 21, 2013 12:43:12 PM · 8 of 58
Bryanw92 to armydoc
>>Francis said because ideology is rigid and non-inclusive, it pushes people away and leaves out the grace of God.
Sez the leader of the most rigid and rulebound part of Christendom.
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.