Posted on 09/07/2014 5:21:18 PM PDT by narses
Different experiences = different doctrines? I don't think so. Jesus is not the multiverse with infinite doctrines to comport to individual preferences. But what can one expect from the Buddy Christ/Christ is my boyfriend crowd.
As an aside I just love when protestants get all uber materialist/rationalist when they call the Eucharaist a cracker. It comports with their secular nature to be a follower of the latest pop culture trends. Protestants would be right at home at a Richard Dawkins seminar.
Not me, Christ Himself said it. You shall not have eternal life. He damned them who did not believe in the Eucharist.
Not a Prot. You still did not answer the question/s. Thanks for the insight.
Okay. Thanks for your reply.
Apparently now, you even contradict your OWN catechism which admits that there ARE Christians-not-Catholic in very real and committed relationships with Christ. So you can snidely and snootily claim "all this 'personal relationship' stuff is playing theological Oprah" all you want because we already know that Christ knows His own and His own know Him and hear His voice. We don't need to follow the hireling who asserts, "If you don’t believe in the Eucharist and not have the Mass as the apex of all sacred worship, everything else is pedestrian street preach.", because he will flee when the wolf comes to scatter the sheep.
Christ's own know that it is Jesus who is worshiped above all else and no pretend visit to a reenacted Calvary for a share of a weekly meted out grace could ever take the place of the once-for-all sacrifice of His precious body and blood for all our sins and He saves us by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone to the glory of God alone. You keep playing "church", we'll enjoy knowing Christ.
Christ doesn't turn people away. They don't need any help from Him when they are more than capable of doing that all on their own in their sinful pride when they reject the Eucharist. To accept the Eucharist is to accept the sacraments, the sacredotal priesthood and Roman Catholic Church as the Church instituted by Christ. And they can't have that. We have "autonomy" from Rome to think about. Which is always the supreme consideration. Always the protestation.
You keep playing "church", we'll enjoy knowing Christ.
Actually, we'll put our faith and trust in Christ and His Word that "This is my Body." The protestants can wander the wilderness second-guessing the Word, playing Scrabble with it and splintering with each new interpretation. Yeah, that's really knowing Christ. The future doesn't belong to protestants. They've fractured civilization enough. Thanks.
Another Roman Catholic snippet perversion! Jesus did NOT ever say, "You shall not have eternal life. He damned them who did not believe in the Eucharist." That's made up garbage from someone who cannot deal with REAL Scripture. The "eucharist" - which means "thanksgiving", was something the first Christians did when they partook of the bread and wine in remembrance of what Christ had done for them on the cross. The bread represented His body broken and the wine His blood shed for their sins. It was a remembrance of a once for all sacrifice that didn't get resacrificed or reenacted. What Jesus ACTUALLY did say about eternal life was:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:16-18)
Why don't you show everyone where you think Jesus said differently?
Another cafeteria Catholic? You don’t believe your catechism either?
Depends on which one you throw at me after you've added your own interpretation of it. I trust the protestant contingent has more than CCC #841 in its arsenal. Actually, now that I think about it, is there anything more "cafeteria" Catholic than a protestant selectively quoting the Catechism. But why should that be any different. It's done with scripture.
Hi boat. What’s up bro? You know I don’t usually get involved here, because I already know what I believe and why I believe it, but sometimes I just want to say hello.
What you, as a Romanist, are trying to predictably reinstitute is the time-worn ploy of elevating the uninspired errant words of Platonist patristics over the supreme authority of the book of God-breathed Scriptures itself, which--though carried through by faithful churches throughout the Church Age--have been Providentially preserved by God Himself, and translated by able regenerated scholars of the source languages. Your whole theological construct tumbles down when the support of extrabiblical support is removed.
The religious organization to whom you seem to owe allegiance is not a church, it is a coalition of disagreeing followers of this "Saint" and that "Saint," assuming their unscriptural doctrines, with another christ than The Christ of The Bible, another gospel than that of salvation by God's grace through Christ's faith apart from the works of the redeemed human, and another spirit than That of Union with God in Christ through His Word, whose Authority He elevates above His Very Own Name (Ps. 138, esp v. 2).
You want to change the rules of a holy debate, and I am not agreeing. The Holy Rule is Sola Scriptura, uncontaminated with the humanistic musings of the Platonists and other psuchichoi; and interpreted by a literal, grammatical, cultural hermeneutic, not a synthetic metaphorical one.
The only object I have in this thread is not particularly to disprove your approach nor to offend you, but to offer an unimpeded route to confession of The Cross of Christ, and beyond into His Glory in discipleship.
Nor are we trying to offend you. The absurdity of your position is quite apparent. On the one hand you are unable to refute the fact that it was the authority of the early Church fathers who authoritatively approved what were the written words of the Christ based on both the written and the oral tradition, (by far the most profoundest of authority. i.e. deciding and interpreting the “Word” of God by sorting out what written works should constitute the books of the Bible and what should be discarded) and then you debate this very same authority to provide conclusive interpretation guided by the Hoy Spirit to authoritatively interpret the actions of the Christ even though Scripture itself records that not all of what Christ said was a written. This demonstrates the inherent contradiction of the sola scriptura folks.
What it does is it allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to offer “their” own version of scriptural interpretation: some offering a hard version, others like the Osteens offering a soft “prosperity Gospel” version, Rick Warren offering a version that lies somewhere in the middle, and then a whole range of lunatic asylum type versions from Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and right down to Jeremiah Wright. This alone explains why preeminent Protestant theologians (who assumedly know more than you and I) have ditched this sola scriputura stuff and after agonizing thought and studious research over the years, have converted to Catholicism.
The marvel is that their influence continued to preserve the inspired writings through the havoc that the heretic "Church Fathers" Clement of Alexandria and Origen and the like would have wreaked on the contents of the books of the canon of Scripture. Many of the spurious quasi-biblicsl accounts still exist, and it does not take a spiritual giant to know the difference between them and genuine texts even today.
Your comments on the Remembrance Supper and Church history do not seem to address the core of the discussion, which is (1) what is the connection,if any, of regeneration with water baptism, and (2) how does Catholic practice bear on the concept of rebirth.
Why don't you stick with that.
Well are you or aren’t you?
I was looking at your profile and this may sound strange, but I was JUST thinking about that poem, "High Flight"! My Dad was an F4 instructor for the AF and was in Ben Hoa in 1965 flying A1's. I cross stitched that very poem for him as a birthday present and was remembering when I gave it to him - he loved it. Hope all is well with you and your family. Take care!
For goodness sake, you are now playing corner street theologian. Again offering “your” version of historical inquiry. First you don’t want to address the havoc caused by refusing to acknowledge a single authority, and hence the Osteens, Jim Jones’ and Koreshs’ etc are labeled “red herrings,” you refuse to comment on why re-eminent Protestant theologians far more advanced in their knowledge of historical inquiry and tradition and exegetics who have taught and written books while at major Protestant colleges have now switched to Catholicism, deny the authoritative role of the early Church fathers in selecting the books of what came to be known as the Bible but instead speak to “faithful inerrant preservation and copying” (whatever that means or however it is achieved.).
All this leads to an incoherence in your argument. At the end of the, let’s face it, “you” claim to authoritatively interpret Scripture against the authority of the Catholic Church from the time of Christ down through the ages form the great discourses of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman (a former Anglican) and Benedict XVI whose works are cited by theological scholars around the weld and after whom universities have been named. Instead you pull up this “born again” stuff peddled by street pastors.
LOL, ok. I did not know. I was at Bien Hoa, Vietnam from 14 July 70 to 10 July 71. The A-1s were still there. We had USAF A-37s and Vietnamse F-5s as well. Have you ever heard of Colonel Heath Bottomly? He helped with the A-37 program at Bien Hoa, but was flying nickels out of Takhli, when he flew a combat mission in a way slightly contrary to the stupid ROEs. He was facing a court martial, but I think the rules changed and he got off. The bottom line, was he came to true faith in Christ. His son Rock (what a name) was also a USAF pilot, active in the Navigators, the same ones who led me to Christ. I did not know Rock personally, but I knew people who did know him. A very Godly man.
So far, the Scripture ground sans tradition props says, "For most adherents following Catholic doctrine, no."
I'm not going to waste my time in generating explanations on irrelevant matters for you to reject.
The whole concept of “born again” is fundamentalist nonsense. If you really, real,y care to read why fundamentalism is so absurd, please pick up a copy of the book by Karl Keating (Ignatius Press) “Rpman Catholicism and Fundamentalists.” This former fundamentalist exposes the sheer hollowness of fundamentalist beliefs. But you must be warned. After you complete reading this book be prepared to ditch all your currently held beliefs.
I guess so, for one who has never been born of The God.
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.