Posted on 11/08/2013 6:51:37 AM PST by Alex Murphy
CHAPTER 2; OF GOD AND OF THE HOLY TRINITY
Paragraph 1. The Lord our God is but one only living and true God;1 whose subsistence is in and of Himself,2 infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but Himself;3 a most pure spirit,4 invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;5 who is immutable,6 immense,7 eternal,8 incomprehensible, almighty,9 every way infinite, most holy,10 most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,11 for His own glory;12 most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him,13 and withal most just and terrible in His judgments,14 hating all sin,15 and who will by no means clear the guilty.16
1 1 Cor. 8:4,6; Deut. 6:4
2 Jer. 10:10; Isa. 48:12
3 Exod. 3:14
4 John 4:24
5 1 Tim. 1:17; Deut. 4:15,16
6 Mal. 3:6
7 1 Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23
8 Ps. 90:2
9 Gen. 17:1
10 Isa. 6:3
11 Ps. 115:3; Isa. 46:10
12 Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36
13 Exod. 34:6,7; Heb. 11:6
14 Neh. 9:32,33
15 Ps. 5:5,6
16 Exod. 34:7; Nahum 1:2,3
Paragraph 2. God, having all life,17 glory,18 goodness,19 blessedness, in and of Himself, is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them,20 but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things,21 and He hath most sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever Himself pleases;22 in His sight all things are open and manifest,23 His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain;24 He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works,25 and in all His commands; to Him is due from angels and men, whatsoever worship,26 service, or obedience, as creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever He is further pleased to require of them.
17 John 5:26
18 Ps. 148:13
19 Ps. 119:68
20 Job 22:2,3
21 Rom. 11:34-36
22 Dan. 4:25,34,35
23 Heb. 4:13
24 Ezek. 11:5; Acts 15:18
25 Ps. 145:17
26 Rev. 5:12-14
Paragraph 3. In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit,27 of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided:28 the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;29 the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son;30 all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him.
27 1 John 5:7; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14
28 Exod. 3:14; John 14:11; I Cor. 8:6
29 John 1:14,18
30 John 15:26; Gal. 4:6
Cause Wiki is such a reliable source! </sarc>
I think what they are looking for is something like this:
-Protestants: includes Church of England, Anglican, some Lutheran
-Evangelicals: most others make this up to include most Baptists.
-Others:
Yes, there are.
I wasn't talking about numbers. I was talking about theology.
To this day there isn't a Protestant alive who can tell me the THEOLOGICAL difference between, say, Episcopalian and Lutheran. But, the ones I speak with don't take umbrage. They simply don't KNOW the theological difference between the denominations. End of story.
Yes, there are a lot of Orthodox Catholics. When Rome chose LATIN as the language of the Church, the Greek speakers weren't terribly happy about it. Words are important. During the 1960's the pope then declared that the Mass could be said in the vernacular. It wasn't long before most of the Orthodox churches of the world reunited with Rome. The Russian Orthodoxy did NOT.
I was in Serbia this year and went to Mass in Belgrade. I could only understand "Jesu Christus" (or something very similar) and "Amen" in Serbian. I thought it would be SOMEthing like Russian. But, no, it was TOTALLY different.
http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2012/10/orthodox-catholic-reunion-what-will-it.html
THINGS ORTHODOX AND CATHOLICS DO NOT NEED TO AGREE ON FOR REUNION:
#1. Beards. Get over it. No sane Jesus loving Christian would prevent reunion because of such a triviality.
#2. Celibate priests. This is not a matter of dogma for Catholics, but merely the practice of the Latin rite and not even the eastern rite Catholics such as the Maronites. And Orthodoxy would not need to change to accept this practice, they would merely need to allow some (Latin rite) Catholics to continue this practice. And the fact that Orthodox priests may not remarry, and that their bishops may not be married shows that they understand the Latin reasoning to a degree, and should be able to respect and tolerate the Latin Rite on this discipline.
#3. Charisms of religious orders. Some Orthodox criticize Catholic piety for having different religious orders with different callings, unlike the Orthodox who have a more singular vision of what religious life should be like.
#4. Leavened or unleavened bread.
#5. Statues in the round vs. icons only.
#6. Different types of miracles. (Orthodox saints do not have stigmata, while some other miracles seem to only happen to Orthodox or Eastern Catholic saints, such as miracles of uncreated light appearing). Either way, let's agree that we both have holy ones who have miracles, and not disrespect the other side for it's differences.
#7. Differences of devotional practices. This one actually get's me steamed up a little. I have heard Catholics roundly criticized by Orthodox for praying the Rosary or Stations of the Cross. Generally the critique is that prayer focusing on events is not spiritual enough, and the Orthodox are soooo much more spiritual in how they pray. This kind of attitude is toxic for everyone who touches it. Both sides have deep histories of very intense types of prayer, and getting into a spitting contest here is just petty. In defense of the Orthodox critics on this topic, I have often found that they have wrong information about Catholic practices anyway.
#8. Calendar issues. Fact: There are three calendars in use among Orthodox churches who are in communion with each other: Julian, Revised Julian, and Gregorian. This fact should be the end of the discussion if this issue is brought up in the context of reunion. It is currently a controversy in Orthodoxy, and it can continue to be a controversy in a reunited Church.
#9. Orthodox crabbing about "proselytizing" in "their lands". Give me a break. If I, as a Catholic, lived in a majority Orthodox country (in Eastern Europe or Russia), I would need to go to a Church in communion with the pope. It is as simple as that. The presence of Catholic Churches in these areas is totally legit, and Orthodox need to get over it. Was the way they got there in some cases not a good way? Perhaps. But the fact is that Catholics who wish to receive the Eucharist from priests in communion with the Apostolic See need somewhere to go. And the fact that Orthodox have churches in America and elsewhere shows that they do the same thing the Catholics have done, yet the Catholics don't gripe one bit about it. I am just fine with there being an Orthodox diocese in my area. Let's each make our case and let people decide which team is right. These a just a few things that it will not take to achieve unity. Unfortunately, that are often the ones most discussed as if they really are an impediment to unity. Anyone have any other items to add to the list?
But....but, but, it's on the Internet!!! It HAS to be true!
Or is the "truth" a matter of choice and judgment? No, that can't be either. It's on the Internet and so is Wiki and I KNOW that NO ONE on the FR site EVER, ever, ever, ever uses Wiki!! How COULD they? It's...blasphemy!
A:Yes, he did.
Pope John Paul - Kissed the Koran
Many non-Catholic Christians objected when Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran during a visit to a mosque several years ago. However, in showing respect for Islam’s scriptures, the Holy Father was following the advice of one of the greatest evangelists of all time, the Apostle Paul, who described his own approach to inter-faith dialogue in these words:
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.,/I.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=332095
I do believe he kissed this Quran long before Muslims were blowing up US GIs in Iraq.
So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh -- for if you are living according to the flesh you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him that we may indeed be glorified with Him." (Romans 8:12-17).
So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh -- for if you are living according to the flesh you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him that we may indeed be glorified with Him." (Romans 8:12-17).
Thanks I learned something through your post.
If you don't know the differences between them, or whether there are any at all, why then do you yourself claim that there are 41,000 different Protestant denominations?
And you're right - until you yourself can back up the claim that there are 41,000 theologically different Protestant denominations, then this is where your story ends.
Probably. But Muslims have been killing Americans long before Iraq.
If you believe Evangelicals have over 41,000 "theologies" you are in error. At one point there were 7 churches in Asia Minor in which Christ directly addressed in Revelation. They were called churches, plural. There may be hundreds of thousands or millions of different Evangelical churches, but the "theology" or being more specific, the authority is God's Word. Thus the name Bible Believing churches.
I know it seems odd to Roman Catholics (yea, alas I was raised and very practicing moons ago) that there is no Evangelical pope or regional bishops (some denominations of Protestants do have this structure) but to them it all makes sense based on the Scriptures I posted from Romans 8 and in many other places.
It's ma'am.
Football bat to a baseball game: very appropriate analogy.
The Romans: St. Paul went to Rome to convert the Romans. He couldn't do much with them because the Romans wanted to listen to someone who had KNOWN Jesus and had been WITH him. So, Paul sent for Peter. Think of that LONG voyage.
In the Vatican, downstairs, which was once street level, there is a metal box (in a glass case, of course) and the box is marked: HERE LIES PETER.
There, inside the box, were the bones of St. Peter. So simple, so clear.
Peter and Paul, talk about the "dynamic duo."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
It's not what I believe. How would I know something like that? It's what is written on the above site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
See Note.
From the Internet, listed above:
Note: This is not a complete list, but aims to provide a comprehensible overview of the diversity among denominations of Christianity. As there are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations, many of which cannot be verified to be significant, only those denominations with Wikipedia articles will be listed in order to ensure that all entries on this list are notable and verifiable.
Granted, Wiki isn't the Gospel, but it's a source of information that MANY internet folks use.
I guess Protestants are responsible for what Wikipedia says about Protestants, redleg. Better round up the gang, and see what sort of re-write we can come up with before the weekend!
***Granted, Wiki isn’t the Gospel, but it’s a source of information that MANY internet folks use.***
So it’s on the level of tradition?
Where DOES Wiki get its info? From FR? From books? From the INTERNET? NOOO, say it ain't so.
I IMAGINE that Wiki actually did some research. MAYbe they even asked some Protestant parishes!! Nooo, can't be. :o)
RE-WRITE!!!
No one is responsible, of course, NEVER my fault, nope, not me. I didn't write that. Nonono.
Go me. How would I know? I'm not part of that company. Are you?
Tradition...you made me think of Tevya.
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.