Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
As you know, our discussion of monasteries was with specific reference to Mother Teresa.
Christ spoke with compassion about the plight of eunuchs 2000 years ago. But He certainly was not telling men it is better to mutilate themselves than to marry and have children.
Likewise, He told the world to preach the Gospel to men and women, among men and women, for men and women.
To Mother Teresa's worldly credit, she didn't confine her good works to a monastery kneeling in prayer all day long; she got out into the world and performed charity for those less fortunate.
The question regarding Mother Teresa is the question Christ asked and answered for all of us...
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." -- John 14:6"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" -- Mark 8:36
Ah, yes. More unattributed statements by someone somewhere.
I could but stare. Alot of non-Catholics think that any female would do and God would just have picked the first one that said “okay”.
Mary was blessed by God to carry the Christ child. He could have picked any number of devout Jewish virgins but He choose Mary. And He choose her from all eternity. But like the rest of us believers, He didn't choose her or us because we were righteous. He chose us and made us righteous.
Punches holes in the predestinaton theory.
Predestination is not a theory. It's a doctrine found in the Bible.
I rushed through an online transcript just to get it posted quickly. “Look at that, completely dry” seemed almost perfectly inspired but I actually cracked myself up with “You can cut it in half, use one at church, drain your dishes with the other one”.
As much as it’s a joke I think it says something real about Calvinism, it’s built for practicality and that’s ALL it’s built for. I’m sure its adherents will um... protest, but it truly is the jeep of religions. The fact that the engine won’t crank seems almost immaterial.
I think one of the reasons we get peppered with isolated verses of Sacred Scripture is the whole Calvinist system is basically an Ikea assembly manual.
Yeah, its a dirty city with a lot of crime and Protestants. I prefer Vatican City.
No, but you're apparently missing the fact that Abraham and the OT saints had faith before Jesus was born.
I’ve heard Church of God parishioners say it. Assembly of God. Church of Christ.
All of them use the same Gospel quote to “prove” Christ cast His Mother aside. They even use the one from the wedding at Cana, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” without understanding the deep respect and love Christ showed to her.
Makes me sick. These are old women who wouldn’t stand for anyone treating them with less than the homage due a queen, yet they deny anything loving shown to Mary as though Mary were a tramp and we were idolators.
Follow along...
Okay, let us explore what the Reformed believe as to the conceptualization of God and where it is Scripturally taught (your underlining).
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
Doesn't say anything about conceptualizing God. It exhorts us to have our minds renewed, that we may prove what is good and acceptable and the perfect will of God. What else do you have to show that God teaches us to conceptualize Him?
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -- 1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Here, Paul is talking about the things that God gives to men and the lack of understanding of the 'natural man' of those things.
As Paul confidently tells us, I know whom I have believed."
Paul is also pumping up Timothy who is is the doldrums and Paul is trying to get him moving. Timothy is not living up to the promises of his ordination at Paul's hands and Paul gentle reminds him that he (Paul) knows (has met) Jesus. He also instructs Timothy in the praying for the dead (Onesiphorus).
So, no conceptualization of God. Wrong again.
Its a Rube Goldberg theory assembled from bits and pieces found in the bible. Its as flawed as it is convoluted and false. Fratricide, adultery, sodomy, human sacrifice and ethnic cleansing are found in the bible too, but it doesn't make them right.
You and your heretical cohort have said the same or something similar hundreds of times. Almost all protestants ridicule anyone who venerates the woman who was chosen by Christ to be His Mother. None of you give her the due she deserves. And all of you call her a sinner, no better than you. Let me say it here and now: I am not as good as Mary. God chose her, preserved her free from all stain, and Christ, as a good Jewish son, honored her and his earthly father, Joseph. I also honor Christ's Mother and his earthly father, Joseph.
Am I to understand you (collectively) believe all the Saints that Catholics pray to are still "asleep" and waiting to be raised?
That is not what the Catechism teaches, so no.
Am I to assume the "list" of Saints is nothing but wallpaper? No, why would you? Perhaps because you seemingly know the "Saint Naming" process has been fraught with error and "politics".
I wouldn't say "fraught".
I am going nowhere with the list of Saints. I believe it is fictional. Do you?
No, of course not, any more than you would consider a list of temporal court decisions to be fictional.
OK I'll strike "fictional". How about "potentially fraught with error"?
If you word it along the lines of "potential error", I will agree.
Enlighten me.
This entire thread is an attempt at enlightenment. Some of the posters here have done an admirable job at doing so.
Wow! Christ chose His mother? Is this another anti-Scriptural error Rome is concocting to beguile those who don't read the Bible?
None of you give her the due she deserves.
When asked who His mother and brothers and sisters were, Christ pointed to believers and called them His family.
I'll take Him at His word.
And all of you call her a sinner, no better than you.
Mary was a sinner, saved just like you and me, by the grace of God alone.
Remnants of this Scriptural doctrine still can be found in the RCC catechism.
Was Mary predestined to give birth to Christ, or not?
Clearly you appear not to know what "conceptualization" means.
Study to show yourself approved, Mark.
Or not.
Give it time. God will not be mocked.
If God’s word “ridicules” your beliefs, perhaps it’s time to reconsider what you believe.
What is this, another oblique reference to the calvinistic peek-a-boo, now you see it, now you don't Trinity? Are you contending that before the birth of Jesus there existed only a binary God?
Matthew 7: 15 9 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So by their fruits you will know them.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, my friend, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. By their deeds shall you know them.
"...by His Sacrifice and Death, that man will also die, but with Him. And rise with Him."
Any exceptions?
If Enoch and Elijah were assumed into Heaven, then I suppose that there are.
Honoring your parents does not go to the level of *veneration* that Catholics give Mary. Did Christ make statues of her and light candles in front of her and knee down before her?
Did Christ pray to her?
She was not kept free from all stain of sin. There is simply NOTHING in Scripture to support that fantasy. I know it makes Catholics feel really good to think that Mary was always a virgin and free from all sin, but it's a completely unscriptural teaching and was completely unnecessary. The only part needed was that she was a virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus. What happened afterward is of no consequence to Jesus work of redemption.
Why is it necessary to the Catholic mind that Mary was always a virgin and that Jesus didn't have any siblings? Why would that be important in the Gospel message of Christ?
The Bible says that Jesus was tempted in every way, just as we are and yet was without sin. There's nothing like a little sibling rivalry to test the quality of one's character.
Given the half life of the OPC and the growth rate of the Church time is on our side.
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.