Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
I did not make that statement. That quote was lifted from your post to MamaB and now you are attributing it to me.
That post, in the way it was assembled, implies that I agreed with the statement of "God wrote the Koran" is a clear misrepresentation of what I said and I am just stating for the record, for all to see, that those are not my words nor my belief. They were lifted from two separate posts and the one statement was not even mine. Anyone can go back through my posting history and check it out if they desire.
For your own sake, you need to repent. God will forgive you.
I have thought for a long time that Protestants in reality object and rebel against authority - all authority. My habit and my vestments are a sign of my vocation, they are not a problem for me, I am not responsible for your misconceptions.
I have no problem with authority and no problem with wearing the badges of office my superiors deem fitting. I respect the learned men above me, in this and many other things.
As far as Trinitarian Theology goes, this information is just as available to you as it is to me. Start with the Bible itself, then move to the writings of Aquinas and the ante-Nicene fathers. All of these writings are available in the public domain.
As I said, you are not going to get me to talk about this in this thread.
Why would one do that? Luther died and was judged, not on his merit, but on Christ's. Rather pray for the living like yourself that hate would not destroy them.
Rather the cognitive dissonance shown on this subject, by some posters who harp on the AS of Luther and deny the AS by their church leadership, one that had effects at the time because of the secular power wielded by the papacy, exposes the rankest of hypocrisy.
With such defenders, it give new insight into how the priestly abuse scandal developed and sustained itself. When the acolytes of the abusers defend them and attack the victims at the first sign of discovery, it is reminiscent of the Wicked Witch of the West's flying monkey brigade.
I'll bold it for you in case you miss it: Again, when will or did the Catholic church shed its anti-semitic practice?
Every failure to answer, really does provide the answer to lurkers wondering about the intellectual honesty of the Catholic defenders.
I didn't know Lutherans believe Luther is not subject to Matthew 25. With a denomination named after him, I should not be shocked at that. Or perhaps Lutherans consider Matthew 25 to be occurring past, present, and future as every individual passes from this world. Are you asking for prayer to avoid Luther's false teaching ?
Why am I not surprised to see a Catholic surprised that a Christian is judged on Christ's merit. Or for that matter that prayer for a man dead can't change his salvatory state. This passage rules now, for Luther has died:
Heb 9 (ironically) But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
With a denomination named after him, I should not be shocked at that.
Well, he wasn't a Catholic when he died so he wouldn't get special treatment where sin is only for the non-catholic. Not really surprised that a Catholic would get Matt 25 wrong, but those parable and the judgments in there are after the 2nd Coming of the Lord. Luther has been judged already, surely you've been notified.
Are you asking for prayer to avoid Luther's false teaching ?
If you refer to TJATL, that isn't a part of Lutheran teaching in the Book of Concord, it seems that the Catholics picked up the slack then and ran with it. I'm still waiting for you to date the time the Catholic church ceased their AS activities, but I digress. Instead I praise God for sending ML and for guiding his work in re-illuminating scripture. I praise God even though He used such a vessel as ML. I know from his writing, that ML did as well. I further praise God for His redemption of me, a vessel flawed as ML or worse, because of the faith He gave me as a gift by His Grace. I too one day will stand before God and be judged on the merits of Christ for my salvation.
And yet YOU are a Protestant who claims to respect authority.
Why do you judge OTHER protestants so badly?
“Why do you judge OTHER protestants so badly?”
Because I was just challenged on the Trinity doctrine by someone who calls herself a Protestant, among other things.
Who are you to challenge a belief that Christians have believed and the Church has taught going back to antiquity?
It IS a cop out to not be brave enough on an anonymous internet forum to proclaim the truth you believe. There is no "trap" to fall into as long as one is able to defend his soteriology using sacred Scripture to back him up. You see right in this thread that any number of posters have declared they believe what Jesus believed, yet, there is STILL disagreement. We know from Scripture that false prophets WILL try to use the Scriptures to confuse and deceive non-believers and believers. That is why we should know what we believe and WHY we believe it.
What are you afraid of? If someone in your church came to you and asked you to tell him/her how he/she can go to heaven when she/he dies, what would you say? When you preach to your congregation, what do you say to invite new people to be Christians? That's all I'm asking of you, not setting up any traps at all.
Prove it.
Did he hold a candle to these guys?
Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
Your point is?
Really? Like which ones? Cause in my 37+ years of being a Christian and the wide variety of denominations I've attended over the years, I have yet to see ONE which is identified by it's opposition to Catholicism.
As a matter of fact, I have yet to hear one MESSAGE that ever focused on Catholicism at all.
So, tell us, which churches or denominations are those?
Please posts links to messages preached by the pastor from the pulpit on a continual basis which sole focus anti-Catholicism so that if they didn't preach on that, they wouldn't know what to preach about.
Some specifics and facts would be nice to back up your slander of non-Catholics, and prove that it's not just slander and broad brushing.
My computer totally died so won’t be responding much till I get a new one. So what if they are Protestant. We don’t defend Protestantism. The Protestant denominations came out of the Catholic Church and many of them retained many of that churches errors.
Why do Catholics hate non-Catholics? Are these ‘Catholics’ really Christians?
Thanks. It is the "obvious" aspect that was at issue here, as there was nothing really evident (like quote marks) that marked the 400 words at issue as even being from some other source, nor was the material itself obvious as being from a outside source, or well known as being public domain, both of which are the case with such sources as the KJV Bible and Constitution.
Yet my original one sentence objection was not as regards of copyright violation, but propriety and honestly, and which never should have needed to become such an extended dispute. Thanks for your moderation.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. (Romans 1:16)
Dude, are you deliberately not reading what they said? Both Thayer and strong say this is birth,
"to beget or (by extension) bear (again)," "1. to produce again, be born again, born anew - beget, (bear) X again."
And which happens in conversion by faith in the word of God,
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (Galatians 4:29)
That is exactly in agreement with the Mikva, sometimes mistranslated baptism, but really a washing to bring renewal.
Sorry, but baptizō is baptism, and the renovation it signifies is clearly that of being begotten by the Spirit as a child of God in distinction from those "born after the flesh," and placed into the family of God and His kingdom as a new creation, for whom old things are passed away.
And which is necessary to see the resurrection.
Yeshua’s comments, on the other hand, were in explanation of our actual escape from the physical universe,
Rather, your insistent imposed meaning is lost in space, as this mention of this escape from the physical universe is nowhere in the text or consistent with John, whose theme as regards mortals is being saved from sins by faith and being born of God, (Jn. 1:12) in contrast to being from below.
Thus this testimony "of heavenly things" regarding being born of the Spirit directly leads to statements of conversion, "He that believeth on him is not condemned," not the future bodily change of resurrection.
A plain Apples and Oranges situation.
Indeed. We are going to disagree, and enough has been said to expose your error, and though i do not know what sect you are bought into, but i do not want its cultic spirit. Bye
Outside of him calling himself a confessional Lutheran, what makes you think he is? He isn't by the way, but you'd know that if you actually knew what it meant.
He says he is a confessional Lutheran. Is there some organizational membership requirement he has not met ?
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.