Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHO REALLY IS 'ANTI-CATHOLIC?'
Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | 1-23-10 | James Swan

Posted on 02/24/2010 9:36:26 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg

Back in one my old philosophy classes I recall lengthy discussions as to the relationship between names and reality, and then spinning around for hours contemplating the brain teaser of what it means to "mean" something about anything. The aftermath: an entire class of young minds slipped further into skepticism, as if the reality each twenty something experienced was completely unknowable. Of course, arriving at the conclusion that ultimate reality is unknowable is... to know something about ultimate reality! Ah, the futility of the sinful mind in its continual construction of Babel towers. Without the presupposition "He is there and He is not silent" the sinful mind does what it does best: it creates a worldview that can't account for the reality it truly experiences.

Despite the aspirin needed after attending such classes, it did force me early on to think about ostensive definitions, and the carefulness with which one defines terms. With theology, correctly using terms takes on the greatest moral imperative: one is speaking about the very holy God that created the universe. Think of terms that are used to describe Biblical doctrine, like "Trinity." One is using a term to describe a collection of factual data given by the Holy Spirit. If ever one should use caution, it should be with the construction of theological terms.

Consider the designator "Catholic Church." The Westminster Confession of Faith explains, "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." The Belgic Confession states that one of its primary distinguishing marks is the "pure preaching of the gospel." If one were pressed to point to that vital factor placing one in the Catholic Church, it is the work of Christ and His Gospel. It is the Gospel which unites the members of the Catholic Church. It is the work of Christ, grasped onto by faith that links those in the Catholic Church together. This pure Gospel is of such importance, that the apostle Paul states if anyone (including himself) preaches another Gospel, he should be eternally condemned.

But what about throwing the word "Roman" into the the mix? The addition of one simple word adds in an ingredient that changes the taste, so to speak. In this short mp3 clip, Tim Staples touched on what "Roman Catholic Church" means. He says "Roman Catholic" has popularly and un-technically come to be synonymous with the term "Catholic". He states "Roman Catholic" popularly means "you're in union with the bishop of Rome." Recent mega-convert Francis Beckwith concurs:

One of my pet peeves is the intentional overuse of "Rome," "Roman," "Romanist," etc. by Protestant critics of Catholic theology. Here's why: the Catholic Church is a collection of many churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's catechism--The Catechism of the Catholic Church--is that of all these churches that are in communion with one another and with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. The theology found in that text, therefore, is not Roman Catholic theology. It is Catholic theology. That's the way the Church understands itself. Common courtesy suggests that those who are critical of that theology summon the respect to refer to it as such"[source].

I admit that I've often equated the two terms. I've used the term "Catholic" to describe Roman Catholics. It has taken a conscious effort on my part to keep the terms distinguished. On the other hand, I'm not sure how it's possible to "overuse" the word "Roman" when referring to those who actively and overtly pledge obedience to bishop of Rome. Beckwith is basically saying "Catholic" is the property of the papacy, and they will define the parameters of the word.

Whose theological usage reflects the teaching of sacred Scripture? Is union with the bishop of Rome an element of theological data mined from the Scriptures? Hardly. It's an extra-Biblical presupposition hoisted upon the text. One has to first assume the validity of the papacy and then read it back into the sacred text. The popular definition as described by Mr. Staples and Dr. Beckwith is entirely unbiblical.

There's one other theological term being thrown around with this: anti-Catholic. Recently Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong stated he "temporarily suspended [his] ongoing policy of not interacting with anti-Catholic arguments and polemics." Well, after I ceased shaking in fear over this announcement, I scrolled through Armstrong's multiple diatribes to see his precise meaning of the term "anti-Catholic." His exact formula appears to boil down to: "One who denies that the Catholic Church and its theology is properly classifiable as Christian" [source].

By applying Armstrong's standard, an Anti-Mormon would be one who denies that the Mormon church and its theology is properly classifiable as Christian. Dave would probably say it's a good thing to be anti-Mormon. So, simply using the term "anti" as Armstrong suggests is either good or bad depending on one's presuppositions. According to Dave's definition, I would say it's a good thing to be anti-Catholic in the same way Dave would probably hold it's a good thing to be anti-Mormon.

Armstong's seemingly endless qualifications and examination of the term "anti-Catholic," as well as "his own definition" provoked me to apply what has been discussed above, and consider an alternate theological definition. If "Catholic" is connected symbiotically with the Gospel, wouldn't an anti-Catholic be someone who either denies the Gospel or denies it as that which unites the people of God into the universal Church? If a particular church overtly espouses a different Gospel, according to Paul, let him be anathema. If understood this way, it would be Roman Catholics who are anti-Catholics. Their Council of Trent explicitly rejected the Gospel in an official declaration.

How does one precisely refer to those in communion with Rome and obedient to the Bishop of Rome? Contrary to Beckwith, I've seriously considered using the word "Romanist." The term describes those devoted to the papacy quite succinctly. However, I was informed by another zealous defender of the papacy that "...many non-Catholic apologists are truly bigots at heart and they use 'Roman' as a derogatory insult. Their bigotry becomes even more clear when they use Romish or Romanist." No one wants to be thought of as a bigot. However, in the same Catholic Answers broadcast cited above, Tim Staples and his co-host positively referred to themselves as "Romanists" introducing their "open forum for non-Catholics" show, in which they only take calls from those outside of their worldview. Here is the mp3 clip. Perhaps they were kidding, although it's hard to tell.

I'm tempted to simply start using the term anti-Catholic for the reasons outlined. I can think of no better theological phrase to describe those who inject obedience to the papacy into the term "Catholic Church."


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; freformed; usancgldslvr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,000 ... 1,351-1,399 next last
To: wagglebee; Quix; wmfights; xone
Christmas, Easter and Sunday worship were started in the fourth century by the Pagans at Nicea lead by the Roman Emperor. There is no scriptural support for christmas, easter nor Sunday worship.

I wonder if Uri'el's view is supported by Quix's Pentecostal gruppe or wmfights Baptist group or xone's group. Is it? This isn't Church belief of course.
901 posted on 02/25/2010 8:31:13 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: Uri’el-2012; wmfights; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; wagglebee
U-2012>The trinity is not supported by the Holy Word of G-d.

I wonder if this interpretation is supported by our champions of sola scriptura?
902 posted on 02/25/2010 8:34:07 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Cvengr; wagglebee
Uri: The trinity is not supported by the Holy Word of G-d.

Quix: INDEED TO THE MAX.

Sorry Quix, I thought you did believe in the Trinity, but you just clarified that.
903 posted on 02/25/2010 8:36:28 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

LOL! You’re welcome.


904 posted on 02/25/2010 8:38:35 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Honi soit qui mal y pense. :-D


905 posted on 02/25/2010 8:39:37 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 904 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Religion Moderator; Admin Moderator

Keep posting the negativity, Dr. E. You have no idea, how you turn people away FROM YOUR VIEWS and turn them toward the Catholic Church with your posts.

Can you imagine how all of you would be screaming if we Catholics had posted a thread with the title:

WHO REALLY IS ‘ANTI-PROTESTANT?’


906 posted on 02/25/2010 8:55:43 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InternetTuffGuy

If you do not wish to see Religion Forum posts, do NOT use the “everything” option on the browse. Instead, browse by “News/Activism.” When you log back in, the browse will reset to “everything” - so be sure to set it back to “News/Activism.”


907 posted on 02/25/2010 9:05:55 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Salvation; Religion Moderator; Admin Moderator

I wonder if the OP has ever started a thread, vanity or otherwise, on her own confession. So far, all I’ve seen are attacks on other confessions.


908 posted on 02/25/2010 9:08:19 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: Lil Flower
You assume

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

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

909 posted on 02/25/2010 9:09:16 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Excellent observation.


910 posted on 02/25/2010 9:10:14 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
do you believe that SOME Catholics may not be saved or do you imply that SOME may be saved.

What I said upon your questioning: "some Catholics or some Lutherans may not be saved". I don't see the difference in your current question.

911 posted on 02/25/2010 9:14:48 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Christmas, Easter and Sunday worship were started in the fourth century by the Pagans at Nicea lead by the Roman Emperor. There is no scriptural support for christmas, easter nor Sunday worship.

Not a Confessional Lutheran position but one that is in vogue with those who wish lay additional burdens on Christians where there is God-given liberty.

This isn't Church belief of course.

I assume you mean the Catholic Church, but it isn't in the Universal Church of the believers in Christ either.

912 posted on 02/25/2010 9:24:03 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I wonder how many protestants can say the same.

Longer than that, none.

913 posted on 02/25/2010 9:27:04 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 883 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I wonder if this interpretation is supported by our champions of sola scriptura?

You didn't ask me, but had you, the answer is no.

914 posted on 02/25/2010 9:33:08 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I wonder if this interpretation is supported by our champions of sola scriptura?

I forgot to ask; Do Catholics teach solely from the Scriptures on this issue?

915 posted on 02/25/2010 9:36:24 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: xone

And yet it is a logical outcome of individual interpretation. XeniaST (i.e. Uri) has interpreted the bible individually and out of the context of Holy Tradition and has arrived at his conclusion and will label this as sola scriptura.


916 posted on 02/25/2010 9:37:52 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; Godzilla; ...
THAT'S Immaterial.

Any FREEPER could feel that their main purpose for being on FR's religion forum was to dialogue about flaws in a given group's theology . . . and as long as they remained within the posting guidelines, that's quite permitted.

AGAIN.

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICE IN THE VATICAN.

THIS IS NOT SOME LITTLE CLUB FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS TO CONSUME AND !!!!CONTROL!!!! TYRANNICALLY AS IS SUCH A HABIT AND !!!!TRADITION!!!!

PAPISTS DO NOT OWN NOR DICTATE PROTTY'S DICTIONARIES NOR OTHER SENSIBILITIES.

PAPITSTS, REGARDLESS OF HOW EAGER SOME RABID CLIQUE PORTIONS OF THE VATICAN EDIFICE MAY WANT TO, PAPISTS ARE NOT THE PUPPET MASTERS OF PROTTYS. PROTTYS DO NOT EXIST TO PLEASE PAPISTS.

PROTTYS do NOT exist on FR primarily for Papists to exercise their !!!!!CONTROL!!!!! PHREAQUE MANIPULATIONS, STANDARDS AND !!!!!DEMANDS!!!!! routinely all over the Prottys at Prottys' expense.

I encourage even the rabid cliques to GET A GRIP.

917 posted on 02/25/2010 9:43:27 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: xone

Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other (since the latter birthed the former). The arguments for the Trinity are borne out in both Scripture and Tradition. If you disregard one or the other, you will err, that is why the non-Trinitarians who reject Holy Tradition and ask “why is there no word ‘Trinity’ in the ‘Bible’” err (of course, we could say there is no word “Bible” in the bible either, but that’s arguing by their rules). Sola scriptura doesn’t work.


918 posted on 02/25/2010 9:48:18 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: xone

You’ll probably get stock answer #6663 . . .

That !!!!TRADITION!!!! and Scripture do not conflict . . .

though endlessly hereon, they PROVE, DAY IN AND DAY OUT, THAT THEY DO—AND HORRENDOUSLY.


919 posted on 02/25/2010 9:50:51 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
And yet it is a logical outcome of individual interpretation.

How it is the logical outcome when it isn't for other 'individual interpretations'. Anecdotal evidence. 'Individual interpretation' guided the Reformers as well, do they deny the Trinity? Of course not.

will label this as sola scriptura.

He may and you might as well, but part of 'Sola Scriptura' is the recognition that the Scriptures are the last w(W)ord in deciding/defining doctrine and resolving disputes. I obviously disagree with him on this issue.

Were all doctrines of the Catholic Church decided by unanimity in Councils? If not, why not? You have Scripture and tradition.

920 posted on 02/25/2010 9:51:22 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Sola scriptura doesn’t work.

Clearly it does.

Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other (since the latter birthed the former).

But it is OK for your doctrine to contradict or speak where Scripture is silent, IC for instance.

921 posted on 02/25/2010 9:54:47 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Judith Anne; Religion Moderator; Admin Moderator; Quix; Lil Flower; Alamo-Girl; ...
I have no idea why you two have pinged the Admin Moderator, but nonetheless, here's my response.

Protestants are continually being called “bigots” on the forum for simply disagreeing with the papacy.

We’ve been called terrible names, some too vile to even repeat. We've been subjected to unimaginable visual assaults in the form of cat pictures. And when we respond by saying “disagreement is not bigotry,” we are shouted down with even nastier invectives.

There’s nothing offensive in this article. It simply points out the double-standard Rome exhibits and the kid gloves Roman Catholic apologists demand everyone wear when discussing theology with them.

I was asked why we discuss Roman Catholicism. Here’s the answer...again...

1) We discuss a variety of faiths; Roman Catholicism is one of them.

2) Contrary to what some Roman Catholic apologists would like the world to believe, the papacy is very political. And this being a political forum, it is only natural conservatives would stand up and rebuke the pope's recent encyclical where he urges the formation of a "global authority" with the power of enforcement "with teeth." I bought the bound copy of the pope's encyclical and read it. It is pure socialism bordering on communism. It seeks to put the sovereignty of the United States under the control of some "global authority" with the power and purpose to regulate this country's military defense, taxation and finances, health care, social institutions, food distribution, environmental concerns and immigration policies.

If Harry Reid had written that encyclical, conservatives would be tarring and feathering the old bird. And rightly so.

3) We consider ourselves to be Christian. When Roman Catholics tell us that "Christian" means to pray to saints and to view the priest as "another Christ" and to label Mary as a "co-redeemer," we, as Christians, feel obligated by the Gospel to say "No, that is not how we have so learned Christ."

As Bible-believing Christians, we believe we have not only the joy of preaching the Gospel, but the obligation to do so with as much truth and clarity as we can muster. That does not mean we are to be intentionally offensive. But as has been shown on the forum for years, any disagreement with Rome is seen as "offensive" to some Roman Catholics.

Who to follow? God or men?

A good example of this occurred today when Alamo-Girl asked a few Roman Catholics if they considered her "anti-Catholic." And one Roman Catholic poster responded that yes, she could be viewed in some small way, as "anti-Catholic" because she said she doesn't follow the traditions of men. And the Roman Catholic took offense at this remark, believing that she was labeling his faith as "the traditions of men."

But taking a step back and really looking at A-G's response, who would disagree with A-G that it is wrong to follow the doctrines of men? She went out of her way to give an inoffensive response which simply stated her belief and yet she was still accused of being "anti-Catholic."

Doesn't it ever occur to Roman Catholics that this is the very reason why the Reformation came about? Because men disagreed with Rome's interpretation of the Scriptures and rather than work things out, Rome excommunicated/executed those who raised their voice in protest.

"So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." -- Romans 1:15-17


922 posted on 02/25/2010 10:18:13 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Uri’el-2012; xone
And yet it is a logical outcome of individual interpretation. XeniaST (i.e. Uri) has interpreted the bible individually and out of the context of Holy Tradition and has arrived at his conclusion and will label this as sola scriptura.

And UriÂ’el would be correct. In fact, UriÂ’el is quite correct.

If the Father required a Roman Catholic sense of the Trinity, it would be very specifically laid out in the Scriptures. It is *not*. The exact makeup of the Godhead is an unfathomable mystery.

UriÂ’el has taken nothing away from the Scriptures, nor has he added to it. He speaks the Gospel of the Risen Lord.

923 posted on 02/25/2010 10:20:54 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Dr. Eckleburg; the_conscience; Quix
Can you imagine how all of you would be screaming if we Catholics had posted a thread with the title: WHO REALLY IS ‘ANTI-PROTESTANT?’

So? Post it. But better hurry, Festivus Quiximus is almost over

924 posted on 02/25/2010 10:39:13 PM PST by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
The exact makeup of the Godhead is an unfathomable mystery.

And yet there is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit all in Scripture. Divine names, divine attributes, carrying out divine works, accorded glory, honor and worship which are worthy of God alone.

lcms.org

925 posted on 02/25/2010 10:39:51 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

INDEED TO THE MAX.

WELL PUT.

ENTIRELY ACCURATE.

Exceedingly more gentle than deserved, imho.


926 posted on 02/25/2010 10:41:00 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

It usually appears to me

that the mods are pinged by the rabid cliques of the Papists because they are used to

whining, wailing, pulling on the apron strings of ‘higher authority’ in efforts to get other folks in as much trouble as possible.

We could be slightly charitable about that, I suppose, . . . considering how their arguments don’t hold water; their demeanor is horrid; their logic is nonexistent; their Biblies & histories rubberized and shredded . . . what else do they really have but whining to authority figures?


927 posted on 02/25/2010 10:45:52 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: xone

I agree with you.

It’s always been mystifying to me how my Pentecostal HOliness uncle and aunt so glibly gloss over or rationalize away all those Scriptures. Mind boggling.


928 posted on 02/25/2010 10:47:24 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
929 posted on 02/25/2010 10:49:31 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; ...

You are such a loveable Brother.

A real treasure.

As far as I’m concerned, they could have a running thread going forever on that topic. Trouble is, no one would be that interested! LOL.

Like some of Biden et al’s rallys . . . few folks bothered to come.

I think Prottys tend to be too straight-forward and boring for much heated debate very often. We can discuss things even fiercely and hear one another and disagree fiercely or not and go on down the street.

We don’t have to maximize our bile; maximize our haughtiness; maximize our arrogance, maximize our prissy-ness, maximize our pique to feel heard and worthwhile persons and Believers. We don’t have to threaten and batter everyone else into our mold.

Besides, most theological arguments are about things that are not so precisely or redundantly clear in Scripture. Reasonable people can differ even emotionally without being construed as insane.


930 posted on 02/25/2010 10:53:04 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dear sister and brother in Christ!
931 posted on 02/25/2010 10:59:35 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies]

To: xone
And yet there is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit all in Scripture. Divine names, divine attributes, carrying out divine works, accorded glory, honor and worship which are worthy of God alone.

Absolutely true. But there are also insurmountable dichotomies which can be listed, which show them to be separate. There are also passages which indicate hierarchy within the Godhead... And the Trinitarian model does not sufficiently explain these discrepancies.

Am I to castigate my brother for seeing that mystery differently than I? Perhaps, but only for trying to exclusively define what remains undefined, especially if it is insisted upon as some hallmark of Christianity.

For that reason, I will not criticize a Messianic Jew, nor a Lutheran, nor any that is in between except for the confusion - Clarity on this matter is not to be found, and it awaits revelation in it's time.

I think there will be a lot of red faces among those standing before the King one day - for presuming to know the unknowable.

Who can define God? No one can. And no one should try.

932 posted on 02/25/2010 11:01:11 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Thanks for your kind reply.

Sometimes your wisdom and oil on waters demeanor is a priceless salve around these parts.


933 posted on 02/25/2010 11:01:50 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]

To: Quix; 1000 silverlings
...We can discuss things even fiercely and hear one another and disagree fiercely or not and go on down the street...

Besides, most theological arguments are about things that are not so precisely or redundantly clear in Scripture. Reasonable people can differ even emotionally without being construed as insane.

And the reason why Protestants can do that is because most Protestants understand that 100% perfection is not possible in this life. So we're all doing the best we can.

No church has everything correct. Likewise, there is no such thing as a man who is "infallible" in ANYTHING. All men are fallen and all sin daily.

The only "infallibility" in this life is the word of God made alive in our hearts and minds by the Holy Spirit.

934 posted on 02/25/2010 11:04:31 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 930 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

LOL.


935 posted on 02/25/2010 11:04:46 PM PST by Joya (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

I much agree.

Where Scripture is unclear or silent is a poor place to get one’s knickers in a twist.


936 posted on 02/25/2010 11:07:18 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
If the Father required a Roman Catholic sense of the Trinity, it would be very specifically laid out in the Scriptures. It is *not*. The exact makeup of the Godhead is an unfathomable mystery.

UriÂ’el has taken nothing away from the Scriptures, nor has he added to it. He speaks the Gospel of the Risen Lord


Ok, so you then agree with Uri that "The trinity is not supported by the Holy Word of G-d. " --> What you state is not an exclusively "Roman Catholic" sense of the Trinity, but is a viewpoint shared by Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Zwinglists, Methodists, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians. This is the majority Christian concept. I'm sure, if you belong to any of the above groups, you have this same "sense of the trinity".
937 posted on 02/25/2010 11:08:15 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

INDEED, INDEED!:

#########################################

And the reason why Protestants can do that is because most Protestants understand that 100% perfection is not possible in this life. So we’re all doing the best we can.

No church has everything correct. Likewise, there is no such thing as a man who is “infallible” in ANYTHING. All men are fallen and all sin daily.

The only “infallibility” in this life is the word of God made alive in our hearts and minds by the Holy Spirit.

########################################

Which, personally, I think was God’s design. IT PUTS THOUGHTFUL BELIVERS BACK CONSTANTLY ON GOD TO GET THEIR KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, UNDERSTANDING AND MARCHING ORDERS 24/7

Given that Christ died for FELLOWSHIP AND INTIMACY WITH THE FATHER FOR THE REST OF US . . . That MUST be a key high priority to DADDY.


938 posted on 02/25/2010 11:10:05 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 934 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Which is another reason why I’m utterly convinced that the Papoist foisting of Mary between God and man is sooooo

ABSOLUTELY OFFENSIVE to The Father, Son, Spirit and Mary.

###

Given that Christ died for FELLOWSHIP AND INTIMACY WITH THE FATHER FOR THE REST OF US . . . That MUST be a key high priority to DADDY.


939 posted on 02/25/2010 11:11:09 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 934 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr
We've been subjected to unimaginable visual assaults in the form of cat pictures.

This has to be a joke. Honestly, what is the limit to whining.

Protestants are continually being called “bigots” on the forum for simply disagreeing with the papacy.

Nobody cares if protties disagree. When untruths are told, there is definitely an objection. When protties tell us what we believe, there is definitely an objection. And when protties call names, there is definitely an objection.

And this being a political forum, it is only natural conservatives would stand up and rebuke the pope's recent encyclical where he urges the formation of a "global authority" with the power of enforcement "with teeth." I bought the bound copy of the pope's encyclical and read it. It is pure socialism bordering on communism. It seeks to put the sovereignty of the United States under the control of some "global authority" with the power and purpose to regulate this country's military defense, taxation and finances, health care, social institutions, food distribution, environmental concerns and immigration policies.

A perfect example of the UNTRUTHS posted by anti-Catholic bigots on FR. This has been refuted more than once, elsewhere.

3) We consider ourselves to be Christian. When Roman Catholics tell us that "Christian" means to pray to saints and to view the priest as "another Christ" and to label Mary as a "co-redeemer," we, as Christians, feel obligated by the Gospel to say "No, that is not how we have so learned Christ."

Point to any Catholic who has told you any of that garbage. Impossible, because it has not been done. This is another example of the falsehoods of the anti-Catholic bigots.

We’ve been called terrible names, some too vile to even repeat.

Any names as bad as "Vatican agents"? As bad as "socialists"? As bad as "Marble Mary toe-kissers"? As bad as "rabid RCCs"?

Apparently protties get all lathered up when they are called on their untruths. I've never seen so many big blue sermons or lengthy complaints as when the TRUTH about prottie behavior on the RF is finally told.

The simple truth is that there is a small, vicious core of anti-Catholic bigots on FR. If the shoe fits, wear it.

940 posted on 02/25/2010 11:15:54 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: xone
How it is the logical outcome when it isn't for other 'individual interpretations'. Anecdotal evidence. 'Individual interpretation' guided the Reformers as well, do they deny the Trinity? Of course not.

Sorry, I oversimplified. Sola scriptura means that you only need the scriptures and your interpretation.

This does not explain why the early reformers couldn't agree among themselves, but that's a different argument.

What I meant to say was that if one truly believes that it should be by scripture alone, then one will:
1. Reject any word, any phrase, any tradition, any whisper that is not in the Bible (like the words "Trinity" or "bible") and
2. Accept that their own interpretation is the right one.

This is what Uri or roamer says -- he interprets the examples we Trinitarians give as being "false" interpretations.
941 posted on 02/25/2010 11:19:32 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: xone
But it is OK for your doctrine to contradict or speak where Scripture is silent, IC for instance.

On the IC in particular, Tradition does hold prominence, but it is supported by scripture (the examples of those you won't agree with, I'm sure, but that's a different arguement) and it does not contradict scripture. She gave birth to her Savior who saved her too, she being a created being like you or me but having accepted a momentous role.
942 posted on 02/25/2010 11:23:36 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; Godzilla; ...

Nonsense.

1. The Pope’s Encyclical is lengthy and complex. I’m confident there arguments within the Vatican about what some paragraphs or sentences mean precisely.

2. Such arguments about complex documents are common and reasonable.

3. What is not reasonable is the constant wailing that Prottys’ interpretations are absolutely 100% impossible to be true while any list of Papitsts’ interpretations are 100% automatically 100% true. That’s craziness.

4. Mostly, most of the time, most Prottys don’t give a big rip what names y’all call us. It’s ONLY WHEN YOU WAIL SO CHRONICALLY, LOUDLY AND RUN SCREAMING TO AUTHORITY SO HABITUALLY and that AFTER CALLING US THE MOST HIDEOUS THINGS YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH—WHICH SEEMS TO BE QUITE A BIT—AND THEN COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING CALLED NAMES.

5. THE !!!!DEMANDING!!!! DUPLICITOUS, HAUGHTY HYPOCRISY IS JUST OUTRAGEOUSLY PREGNANT AND HORRIFIC. And I think THAT’S one of the key things so many Prottys object to from the rabid clique Papists.


943 posted on 02/25/2010 11:25:12 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: xone
And yet there is the Father/Son/Holy Spirit all in Scripture. Divine names, divine attributes, carrying out divine works, accorded glory, honor and worship which are worthy of God alone.

Very valid points -- and, even logically speaking it holds true,
944 posted on 02/25/2010 11:25:28 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Uri’el-2012; xone
It’s always been mystifying to me how my Pentecostal HOliness uncle and aunt so glibly gloss over or rationalize away all those Scriptures. Mind boggling.Actually, I think NoGrayZone has elaborated why she doesn't believe these, but she doesn't believe that Jesus was God (which is not what Uri believes of course). I'm sure Uri has reasons for why he believes what he believes.
945 posted on 02/25/2010 11:28:07 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; 1000 silverlings; Quix
DR.E: When Roman Catholics tell us that "Christian" means to pray to saints and to view the priest as "another Christ" and to label Mary as a "co-redeemer," we, as Christians, feel obligated by the Gospel to say "No, that is not how we have so learned Christ."

JUDITH ANNE: Point to any Catholic who has told you any of that garbage. Impossible, because it has not been done. This is another example of the falsehoods of the anti-Catholic bigots.

Really, Judith? You really want to deny this? And use this denial as evidence of "anti-Catholic bigotry???"

Annalex told us last week that of course Roman Catholics pray to saints and he encourages all to do so.

Father Kenneth Baker referenced the Roman Catholic catechism in his essay THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD when he referred to priests as "another Christ." An "alter Christus" in "both their professional and personal life." Father Baker's essay was a subject of a Roman Catholic caucus thread.

And likewise, PADRE PIO AND THE MOTHER CO-REDEMPTRIX" was also a Roman Catholic caucus thread.

So anyone reading these comments is left to wonder why you are making clearly false statements? And as you're doing so, you're criticizing others!

This is typical, however, of how the Roman Catholic apologist seems to toss out whatever erroneous, defensive statements they can think of, regardless of their obvious inaccuracy.

946 posted on 02/25/2010 11:33:49 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Sola scriptura means that you only need the scriptures and your interpretation.

No, sola Scriptura means all you need is the Bible and the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit who makes the truth knowable.

947 posted on 02/25/2010 11:38:06 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 941 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; xone
But there are also insurmountable dichotomies which can be listed, which show them to be separate.

And yet, they CANNOT be separate because we believe that God is ONE. We also believe that Jesus was God. And we believe that they were separate "somethings":) --> you cannot put those 3 beliefs together without the idea of the Trinity.

Uri's view simplifies this (please correct me if I am wrong, Uri) as he believes that Jesus and the Father are one being, not separate and that the Holy Spirit is not a separate being.

There are also passages which indicate hierarchy within the Godhead... And the Trinitarian model does not sufficiently explain these discrepancies.

The Trinitarian model considers that we have ONE God and The Father is God and Jesus is God and The Holy Spirit is God. These are three hypostases
948 posted on 02/25/2010 11:38:16 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; xone
For that reason, I will not criticize a Messianic Jew, nor a Lutheran, nor any that is in between except for the confusion

So you would not criticize Messianic Jews, non-Trinitarians, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc?
949 posted on 02/25/2010 11:40:39 PM PST by Cronos (Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Those twisted statements do not accurately reflect Catholic beliefs.


950 posted on 02/25/2010 11:41:46 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 946 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,000 ... 1,351-1,399 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