Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Last Judgement #28 [Invitation to the New Church]
e-mail ^ | 1758 | Emmanuel Swedenborg

Posted on 05/22/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by DaveMSmith

Last Judgment 28

V. THE LAST JUDGMENT IS TO BE WHERE ALL ARE TOGETHER, AND SO IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD, NOT ON EARTH

The general belief about the Last Judgment is that the Lord accompanied by angels will appear in glory in the clouds of heaven, and He will then raise up from their graves all who have ever lived from the beginning of creation, clothe their souls with a body, and, when they have been summoned to meet, judge them, sending those who have lived good lives to everlasting life or heaven, and those who lived wicked lives to everlasting death or hell.

The churches have taken this belief from the literal sense of the Word, and there was no possibility of removing it so long as it remained unknown that everything mentioned in the Word has a spiritual sense; and this sense is the real Word, the literal sense serving as its basis or foundation. Without this kind of literal sense the Word could not have been Divine, and have served both heaven and the world as a means of instruction on how to live and what to believe, and as a means of conjunction. So if anyone knows the spiritual things corresponding to natural things in the Word, he can know that the Lord's coming in the clouds of heaven does not mean His appearance there, but His appearance in the Word. The Lord is the Word, because He is Divine truth. The clouds of heaven in which He is to come are the literal sense of the Word, and the glory is its spiritual sense. The angels are heaven, from which He appears, and they are also the Lord as regards Divine truths.# This makes plain the meaning of these words, namely, that when the church comes to an end the Lord will open up the spiritual sense of the Word, and thus reveal Divine truth such as it is in itself. This will be a sign that the Last Judgment is at hand.

That there is a spiritual sense within each thing and expression in the Word, and what it is may be seen in the Arcana Coelestia. This book expounds in full detail the contents of Genesis and Exodus in accordance with their spiritual sense. Some selected passages dealing with the Word and its spiritual sense may be found in the small work About the White Horse described in Revelation.

# The Lord is the Word, because He is Divine truth in heaven (AC 2533, 2813, 2859, 2894, 3397, 3712). The Lord is the Word because the Word comes from Him and is about Him (AC 2859). It is about nothing but the Lord, especially in its inmost sense about the glorification of His Humanity, so that the Lord Himself is contained in it (AC 1873, 9357). The Lord's coming is His presence in the Word and the revelation of this (AC 3900, 4060). A cloud in the Word means the letter of the Word, or its literal meaning (AC 4060, 4391, 5922, 6343, 6752, 8106, 8781, 9430, 10551, 10574). Glory in the Word means Divine truth such as it is in heaven and in the spiritual sense (AC 4809, 5922, 8267, 8427, 9429, 10574). Angels in the Word mean Divine truths coming from the Lord, since angels are the means by which they are received, and they do not utter them of themselves but from the Lord (AC 1925, 2821, 3039, 4085, 4295, 4402, 6280, 8192, 8301). The trumpets and horns then blown by angels mean Divine truths in heaven and revealed from heaven (AC 8815, 8823, 8915).


TOPICS: Current Events; Ministry/Outreach; Other Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: lastjudgement; newchurch; swedenborg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-337 next last
To: daniel1212
Photobucket


INDEED.
RC DUPLICITIES
ABOUND
THROUGHOUT
UNRUBBERIZED HISTORY.


along with
those of most other
groups and mortals.

151 posted on 05/28/2011 8:54:05 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
But in the end, the final answer to the question of "So is the Pope above criticism? Is he infallible?" is "Shut up and kiss the ring." No one is permitted to question the Vicar of Christ's guidance. If he says that
- food and the access to water are a universal right of all humans,
- abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution will hinder the achievement of lasting development
- technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption
- labor unions should expand their influence over those outside their membership, and beyond national boundaries,
- a reform of the United Nations Organization is necessary, likewise a reform of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the "family of nations" can acquire real teeth.
as he did in his recent encyclical Caritas in veritate, you'll be expected to step aside and let the centralists and socialists take over. Your eternal salvation is in jeopardy if you don't go along with whatever he says, whenever he says it.

-- Alex Murphy, October 31, 2009

===================================================

Photobucket

Photobucket


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Photobucket

152 posted on 05/28/2011 9:02:05 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"Are you infallibly certain that only 2 exist,"

One thing I am infallibly certain is that your knowledge of Catholic doctrine is incomplete and highly flawed.

Popes, as members of the Episcopacy of the Church, participate in the infallible declarations of the Magisterium, but there have only been two ex cathedra statements by Popes.

If you are serious about educating yourself on Catholic doctrines I would advise you to stay away from the internet and seek out a priest or enroll in theology classes at a Catholic college or university. I can't think of any priest who would reject a sincere inquiry or deny admittance into an educational program even on the conditions that the exercise is not for the purposes of conversion.

153 posted on 05/28/2011 9:47:05 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; boatbums; caww; Quix; Alex Murphy

Your tendency is to reject substantiation and substitute your opinion instead. If it is I who has showed more ignorance of Catholic doctrine than you, who is sure of what prominent RC apologists and scholars such as i have quoted in my posts are not, then it must be shared by them. When you find the infallible list of all infallible statements then tell them. They will appreciate it.


154 posted on 05/28/2011 1:10:39 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; don-o; kosta50
Harley, the fact that some Latins to this day believe that the prayer they recite with the filioque is indeed the Nicene Creed is neither here nor there to us.

So now the issue of the filique is ho-hum? Do you have an "official" Church comment that states this?

I will say the more I mulled over your comment the more perplex I became. (Yes, I do meditate on your words while cutting the grass.) I hear a great deal about the "authority" of the church, and yet you chided a priest for not knowing the Church's stance on the filique. In fact you are saying that the priest writing is completely wrong and I should know better.

What you are essentially saying is that priest does not know what is the correct doctrine of the Orthodox Church and, presumably, you do. It is possible that some rogue priest is out there spreading all sorts of things that are contrary to the Church. This is what you're saying. But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching?

I hear the Catholics and Orthodox complain that Protestants interpret their own writings and have no authority to submit to. Yet this is precisely what you are doing. There isn't really any different. You are saying this priest is wrong and ignore his article as "predestrian". This is your interpretation. Not any different then us Protestants.

155 posted on 05/28/2011 1:12:01 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"When you find the infallible list of all infallible statements then tell them. They will appreciate it."

You have danced all around the issue, and have blown a lot of smoke about the superiority of your interpretations, but you have never answered the core question as to the authority of your interpretations.

If you are contending that you have the ability or gift to infallibly interpret Scripture then say so. If you don't, simply admit it.

156 posted on 05/28/2011 1:24:31 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
That's the beauty of the internet, isn't it, given enough time you can always find an "expert" who agrees with you.

Actually the beauty of the Internet is that I can go out onto various Church websites and look at the explanation of how they arrive at their doctrine. My quotes are almost exclusively from the Church sites such as New Advent. I find most Catholics simply do not understand their own doctrine.

Since you "give your sources" please cite the Catholic source that approved the "get out of purgatory" payments.

This isn't hard. For my source I'll use, in part, the Catholic's Council of Trent:

There you have it. The Council of Trent admitted the indulgence were being sold for "evil gains" and that the practice was to be "abolished". This is an interesting choice of words. Abolished means to put an end to so this wasn't something that was going on behind the backs of the Church. It was well know.

Take your time, the internet is an awfully big place.

Yes. But Goggle sure saves time.

157 posted on 05/28/2011 1:52:54 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; daniel1212
The Popes, collectively, have only ever issued two ex cathedra statements. That is verifiable.

Does that include Peter?

158 posted on 05/28/2011 2:02:06 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; daniel1212
The Popes, collectively, have only ever issued two ex cathedra statements. That is verifiable.

Does that include Peter?

159 posted on 05/28/2011 2:02:18 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Natural Law; daniel1212

Oops, sorry for the double post. Peter made me do it.


160 posted on 05/28/2011 2:03:11 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Kolokotronis; don-o
I will let Kolo reply to your perosna questions to him, but as far as What you are essentially saying is that priest does not know what is the correct doctrine of the Orthodox Church

The filioque issue is not a doctrine but it is a doctrinal issue.

Now, no Orthodox priest in good standing with the Church will question the error of the filioque and be an Orthodox priest in good standing with his bishop. I didn't see his site and it really doesn't matter: as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, filioque is a canonical violation, which also happens to be doctrinally wrong: the Spirit, as regards his existence, does not originate "and from the Son".

But then again, aren't you suppose[d] to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching?

First of all the priest is a bishop's lieutenant and can act only on permission of his bishop to whom the priest owes absolute obedience. Catholic priest may, and I emphasize may, be different. An Orthodox priest may not even serve the liturgy unless she has a written permission to do so from his bishop.

As for the people of God, the "congregation", submitting to the Bishop, yes, only if he is orthodox. UNorthodox bishops are kicked out in Eastern churches. The tradition is guarded by the people and is in the hands of the people of God. If they see something new they will confront the clergy and demand an explanation, even physically attack them! Kolo has a good video of people stopping a bishop for changing the liturgical language from koine to modern Greek. If the people of God see innovation, they put their clergy in place. You are mixing up the Latin Church with Orthodoxy, HD.

161 posted on 05/28/2011 2:13:07 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

?Our salvation is by grace alone, through faith in Jesus, and that faith comes from the Lord opening our minds to understand and receive the Word of God. Salvation is a gift of God.”

“Good works will follow living with the Spirit of Christ in you, but those works do not, never could, “earn” your salvation.”

“Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.””

Amen and if anyone preaches any other gospel, it is a false one.


162 posted on 05/28/2011 2:32:33 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Eccl 10:19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"Does that include Peter?"

See post #100.

163 posted on 05/28/2011 2:43:57 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Oops, sorry for the double post."

Some things are worth repeating.

164 posted on 05/28/2011 2:46:48 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith
- Warning! -
 
This thread has been flagged as
Cultic Spam
by Christians on
FreeRepublic
 
LET THE READER BEWARE!
 
Mormonism is a wolf in sheep's clothing... SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES (John 5:39)

Beware of FALSE prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are RAVENING wolves
...
For such are FALSE apostles,
DECEITFUL workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”

Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:15,  The Apostle Paul, II Corinthians 11:13


165 posted on 05/28/2011 2:48:27 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

INDEED.


166 posted on 05/28/2011 2:52:04 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
The extra-biblical teachings also include such lovely bits like double-predestination, TULIP, etc.

I reckon we need to get rid of all that, "extra biblical, double predestination" stuff in the first chapter of Ephesians.

167 posted on 05/28/2011 2:53:04 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Eccl 10:19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"Yes. But Goggle sure saves time."

I guess its OK if you don't mind sacrificing accuracy for speed.

Indulgences exist to this day and the Church long ago recognized and forbade some corrupt practices as the . You alleged that they were sold by the Church to shorten ones time in purgatory. That has never been Church doctrine. So what was your point?

168 posted on 05/28/2011 3:10:25 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
It’s so good to be missed.

It would seem that reports of your recent demise were exaggerated a bit, (Or something Mark Twainish like that).

169 posted on 05/28/2011 3:16:53 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Eccl 10:19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; don-o; kosta50
"So now the issue of the filique is ho-hum?"

Oh no, not at all. It's hardly ho hum. What we don't care about is what other people believe within their own church or ecclesial group. It's up to them. We know what the correct, canonical wording of the Creed is. If other people pray it differently, then their bishops are not and cannot be in communion with our bishops. What we believe is well known (it has been in this case since the 380s) and available to everyone for the asking. If people don't want it, what are we supposed to do, get mad?

Now, as for the comments of the priest you quoted, as I said, his comments on the filioque are pedestrian (not "predestrian")in the sense that they are common and everyday...not incorrect. What is incorrect, HD, is that the filioque is a "stumbling block" to a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church. The filioque is simply and completely unacceptable as a change to the Creed or the theology of The Church as expressed in the Creed, absent an ecumenical council making the change. As Kosta and I have said on many occasions here, unless Rome believes the exact same things as we do, there will be no communion among our bishops and theirs. The Laous tou Theou won't allow it.

"But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching? "

I am under no authority to "submit" myself to the teaching of any priest except when he, as the representative of the bishop, teaches the dogma or canonical discipline of The Church. Whether or not the filioque is a merely a "stumbling block" to reunion of the Church of Rome with the rest of The Church is not a matter of the dogma or canonical discipline of Orthodoxy. Let me give you a more concrete example. Suppose my metropolitan and my parish priest were to teach that Panagia was bodily assumed into heaven ( I happen to believe that) and then demanded upon penalty of anathema that I believe that. I could and likely would publicly refuse to comply...and I would be within my rights, indeed I would be fulfilling my duty to The Church because the bodily assumption of the Theotokos is not dogma but rather theologoumennon which I may believe or not as I choose. I cannot, however, be ordered to believe it and if a bishop or priest were to order me to believe it, the appropriate penalty for them is removal from their office.

HD, our ecclesiology, and the relationships among the hierarchy, clergy, monastics and the laity within it, is very, very different from what you are used to, among Latins or protestants, in the West.

170 posted on 05/28/2011 3:49:06 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith
... Camping may well be right about the date...

Well, bookies say that there is a 4 in 1461 chance he'll get the Julian date correct.

171 posted on 05/28/2011 4:21:41 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
...sending those who have lived good lives to everlasting life or heaven...

Luke 18:18-19
"Why do you call me good?", Jesus answered.
"No one is good - except God alone. That is a completely false statement. The way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ ALONE.

John 6:28-29 (niv)

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


172 posted on 05/28/2011 4:25:17 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith
So THIS is what "AC": means: Arcana Coelestia
173 posted on 05/28/2011 4:27:55 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
These are the Two Greatest Commandments and the eight Beatitudes and thery require you get up off your butt and earn your Salvation.

You FOOLISH Galatians!

Who has bewitched you?

174 posted on 05/28/2011 4:30:23 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
As a Christian I see Paul as a follower of Jesus tasked only with spreading and clarifying the message revealed within the Synoptic Gospels.

Then you'd best pay attention to what PAUL has written: right?

175 posted on 05/28/2011 4:31:44 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Like the Trinity, Baptism for the Remission of Sins and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans, traditional Anglicans and Methodists believe in these.

They DO???

Wow!

The things one learns on FR!

176 posted on 05/28/2011 4:35:18 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Yet we are reminded of the billions of Catholics around the world who interject pagan rituals into mass. And we are led to believe this is OK.

 
They would not listen, however, but persisted in their former practices.
Even while these people were worshiping the Lord, they were serving their idols.
To this day their children and grandchildren continue to do as their fathers did.
 
 2 Kings 17:40-41 


177 posted on 05/28/2011 4:41:21 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Protestant services generally aren't - they are a praise of the pastor.

Call me OBAMA!

I've listened to hundreds of sermons from Protestant pastors, and somehow I've failed to hear what you just claimed.

178 posted on 05/28/2011 4:43:25 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
1 Corinthians 1:14–17

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.


I guess it became more important later in Paul's travels.

179 posted on 05/28/2011 4:51:03 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

HMMmm...

That PAUL fellow can REALLY be confusing! 1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one are a part of it.

180 posted on 05/28/2011 4:54:55 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
...turned around what Christ had said

This seems to happen a LOT!

181 posted on 05/28/2011 4:56:04 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson
You have the patience of Job.

Job is refusing to take any more Medicare patients.

182 posted on 05/28/2011 4:57:47 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
In contrast, we have Harold Camping, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians all using Sola Scriptura to come up with their own interpretations outside tradition and hence they fail...

And yet history records the failings of that Catholic church at times; even while it has claimed to be the only TRUE interpretation.

How can this be?

183 posted on 05/28/2011 5:00:13 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
There are also quite a few sola scripture types who say that God wanted to make the Jews jealous...

You seem to know a lot about the oddball Protestants out there.

184 posted on 05/28/2011 5:02:26 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
"Sanctissimae Matris Dei, salva nos!"

I don't mind if you guys want to speak in tongues; but the Scripture says there must be an interpreter, also.

185 posted on 05/28/2011 5:04:18 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Act 17:11

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

What a concept!

searching the Scriptures!

(I guess they hadn't learned yet to rely on the traditions of the Fathers yet.)

186 posted on 05/28/2011 5:08:24 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Wonder how many works are required for salvation?

So many folks think they have kept the law or most of it, too.

Another common error.


187 posted on 05/28/2011 5:21:30 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"You FOOLISH Galatians!"

I think I will just heed 2 Timothy 2:23 and pass on this one.

188 posted on 05/28/2011 5:31:51 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Does Job have to eat?


189 posted on 05/28/2011 5:35:25 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
"Wonder how many works are required for salvation?"

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? - James 2:20

190 posted on 05/28/2011 5:37:16 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

How many works must you do to earn your salvation?


191 posted on 05/28/2011 5:40:19 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; HarleyD; boatbums; Quix; metmom

I certainly did answer that, as well as show you that your charge of ignorance is on your part. You seem to have firewall that prevents you from reading or comprehending what answers and refutes your premise and statements, including when it is from RC sources, and from understanding the deeper implications of a theological issue.


192 posted on 05/28/2011 5:47:36 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
You alleged that they were sold by the Church to shorten ones time in purgatory. That has never been Church doctrine. So what was your point?

On the contrary. The Council of Trent "abolished" the practice. So it had to be Church policy at one time whether officially or unofficially. At least it was enough to cause a ruckus. Instead of telling Luther, "Hey, look we're sorry. You're right."; they kicked him out and excommunicated him. Only years later through the Council of Trent did they try to clean up the mess. I guess by then Leo had enough to pay for the Vatican.

Sorry, the Catholic Church owes Luther an apology.

193 posted on 05/28/2011 6:27:18 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
"How many works must you do to earn your salvation?"

That is known only to God. To whom more has been given more will be expected. I pray I am found worthy.

194 posted on 05/28/2011 6:42:22 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Swedenborg
__________________________________

Isnt this the guy Joey Smith borrowed from ???


195 posted on 05/28/2011 6:42:51 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

You are found worthy by the completed (It is finished!) work of Jesus Christ. He paid your sin bill (and mine) in full.

This is the Grace of God, the Gift by which we are Saved. We can add nothing to it.

Those of us who believe He is the Son of God, was raised from the dead by God and is Lord of all are Saved.

Works, however, are evaluated at the Judgement Seat of Christ, and even the man whose works were burned up was he himself Saved.

Have only confidence in the Completed Work of Christ.

The Thief on the Cross had no works, other than to ask for Salvation, and that day, he was in Paradise with Christ.

:)


196 posted on 05/28/2011 6:52:01 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina; HarleyD; Quix; RnMomof7; smvoice; metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; ...

I dop not know if an expose of the imaginative heretic Swedenborg has been posted yet, but here is an exceprt from http://www.watchman.org/profile/swedenborgpro.htm

Emanuel Swedenborg was born in Stockholm in 1688. Most of his life was dedicated to science. After being educated at the University of Uppsala,1 he was credited with inventions and theories in many areas of study. He designed mining machinery, a glider aircraft and an airtight stove. It is claimed that he “investigated every known science of his times” and “wrote over seventy treatises on subjects such as: ‘fossils, earth’s revolution;’ and ‘fire and colors.’”2

At the age of fifty-five, Swedenborg turned his life’s efforts toward theology. He sought truth by way of meditations and “systematically opened his consciousness to inner influences.”3 Through opening himself up in this manner, Swedenborg was contacted by a being who claimed to be Jesus Christ. He learned much about the spirit world through such spiritual encounters, laying the basis for Swedenborgian theology.

Fifteen years after his death in 1772, the first sect of his followers were organized in England by a British printer named Robert Hindmarsh.4 In 1789 a conference met in the London church, and has met almost every year since.5 Swedenborg’s teachings reached the United States in the 1780’s.6


The below is from an analysis i did on Swendenborg in 2001, one of the first things of its kind that i wrote on a computer.

Swendenborg’s canon consisted of only 33 books of the Bible, eliminating significant portions of the Old Testament, and most everything past the 4 gospels of the New Testament. Perhaps most notably he disdained the writings of the apostle most used of GOD in declaring the transforming Gospel of CHRIST, that being the apostle Paul, whose writings the apostle Peter also authenticated as Scripture, (2Pt.3:16). and whose true apostleship was clearly manifest through doctrinal integrity and CHRIST-like life in the light of the previously established Scriptures, with signs following (according to the grace given them. (2Cor.6:1-10; 11,12; Mk.16:20; Rm.15:18,19; Mk. 16:20).

In contrast, Swedenborg supposed that he superseded the apostles, and eliminated Peter as well as Paul, etc., as an inspired writer of Sacred Scripture.

All of which arrogant censoring allowed him to more easily propagate his own visions of spiritual encounters; in which he professed to have supposedly conversed with such men as Luther, Calvin, Augustine, and St. Paul; debating issues of divine Truth (especially with the last named): And, (ego) triumphing over them, basically claimed to have put them to silence!

  Therefore, in working to supplant “the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude v.3, as it is Biblically manifest), with his own revelations, he systematically relegated what he had left of the Bible to be largely (unwarranted) spiritual allegory:

The fall of Adam is said by him to be the apostasy of the church, which he came to replace with his own “church of the new Jerusalem”(circa 1788).

The statement by CHRIST; ”he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be dammed’(Mk.16;16) is rendered to mean that “unless a man is regenerated by the truths of faith (i.e. Swendenborg’s “truths”), and lives a life according to them, he cannot be saved.”

And the Second Coming of CHRIST is made to be an event that has already happened in 1775, when Swendenborg received his manifestly demonic “key to the interpretation of Scripture.”

Yet his primary (and progressive) doctrinal delusions were that he misconstrued the Scripturally evident doctrine of the Trinity to be polytheism; flatly denied the heart of CHRIST’s mission for man: His sacrificial atonement for our sins (by His own blood as being necessary to reconcile sinful man to a completely pure, holy, and perfectly just and true GOD); The eternal punishment in the Lake of fire, concerning which the LORD JESUS explicitly taught and died to save men from. As well as the bodily resurrection of the Redeemed which CHRIST’s resurrection previewed and prepared us for! (All this and more, not included here.)

The last analysis of his work is that we have in the professions of Swendenborg a combination of the work of “seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,” and a man “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head (CHRIST)”, “having not the SPIRIT”, and, “which receiveth not the things of the SPIRIT of GOD,” (1Tim. 4:1; Jude V.29; Col.2:18,19; 1Cor.2:14) as he denied about half the Scriptures and the basically literal understanding of historical events. .


197 posted on 05/28/2011 6:57:22 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"I certainly did answer that,

No, you didn't/ It doesn't require paragraphs of irrelevant clippings and portentously assembled blather, a simple yes or no will suffice. Do you have the gift of infallibility? I just need to know if you expect everyone to unconditionally believe you or to simply take your interpretations as an opinion.

Are you asserting your interpretations are infallible?

198 posted on 05/28/2011 6:57:46 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; HarleyD; kosta50; MarkBsnr
"I don't mind if you guys want to speak in tongues; but the Scripture says there must be an interpreter, also."

Ah, another one who is unlettered in the theological Mother Tongues of Christian theology, even second tier Latin! Elsie, had you not come into the conversation I was having with Harley, Kosta and Mark in media res, as they say, you'd know that I, in my post to Mark, was translating an English phrase, a prayer really, which in turn, and in conformity to the rules of the forum designed to set at ease the paranoia so rampant on these threads that we Orthodox or Latins might be saying something unflattering about the heterodox, was a translation of two beautiful and identical prayers in Greek and Church Slavonic. Follow my post which you were responding to back three posts and you'll see the English. :)

199 posted on 05/28/2011 7:03:50 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; Kolokotronis; Religion Moderator
I don't mind if you guys want to speak in tongues; but the Scripture says there must be an interpreter, also.

So does the RM.

200 posted on 05/28/2011 7:03:55 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-337 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