Posted on 03/25/2015 8:35:47 AM PDT by Teófilo
Sorry, "Converting to love and justice" may sound like good Catholicism, but it is not the Gospel of Grace. As I mentioned, the Gospel (in contradistinction and as clearly described by Paul) is, "You are dead in your trespasses and sin and (if you are among the elect, chosen before the foundation of the world) God will by grace make you alive together with Christ...you are saved by grace, through faith, and none of that from yourself, it is a gift of God, lest any of you boast...by saying I belong to the Catholic Church and performed the seven sacraments" (ooops, did he say this last part?)
How about kicking the Bishop to the curb?
That's not grace?
(Scratches head.)
Maybe you should offer yourself as a scriptwriter?
If you mean that the PC USA is a homo-sickened pile of severe error and you believe I would somehow claim they are biblical, I am deeply hurt. Let me be perfectly clear...They are absolutely lost in the darkness of deceit and sin. They are unbiblical and lost. They teach doctrines of demons. Should I continue? But, this does not, in any way, exonerate Rome from its completely wrongheaded teaching of a “gospel” of work. Their usurpation of power (manufactured out of whole cloth), their incorrect use of the so-called Gospels, their misunderstanding and idolatrous promotion of Mary, all leads them to an end similar to the PC USA...goners.
But, (and let me repeat) But!, many RCs have been granted faith and likely will be rescued in spite of this errant doctrine. This does not mean that Rome is “good enough”...it is not. But, it means that God’s reach through His Son is so amazing that some will be saved, as if by fire.
I'm genuinely puzzled here. What are you talking about?
My comment had no reference whatever to "PC USA", whatever you mean by that.
Did you get me mixed up with somebody else?
My apologies...when I clicked on your link, it took me to something about Babylon and the PC USA. There was some kind of oil well gizmo and a remark about the PC USA going crazy with homosexuals. I thought you were sending me to see how bad they were. I was just agreeing with you that they are awful...but I thought you were implying this is my side of the street.
When I click it, it takes me to a bunch of "anti-gay" quotes from Pope Francis.
Puzzled by how it would link you to something different, but I'll admit computers do crazy things when I'm around...
8^P
I may be mistaken here, but doesn’t the Roman Catholic church say that homosexuality is a sin?
This is the one which brought me to the oil derrick and PC USA remarks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3270892/posts?page=37#37
I did not look for # 37. Sorry.
.
>> “doesn’t the Roman Catholic church say that homosexuality is a sin?” <<
.
Catholic church, and catholic colleges are two vastly different worlds.
My wife and I have followed Women’s basketball at St. Mary’s College of Moraga, California for a long time. At games the open display of homosexuality is the rule, rather than the exception. The whole school openly supports sexual deviance in every way it can.
.
Okay, creepy...I clicked on the 37 and it took me lower in the thread. Scroll up and you will see where the bigger link took me. But, I digress.
The anti-gay remarks of Francis does not make his “visit” with them more acceptable. I have met lots of folks who say one thing, but act another when they are around those who do the stuff. If the homos (sorry, I cannot bring myself to soil the term “gay”) were devastated after his visit, then I retract my remarks. If they all went out smiling...I rest my case.
You must also be aware of the way the LGBT-STD-AIDS activists have exploited the hell out of this snippet to make it seem like the Pope is virtually part of the Lavender Mafia. Why do you want to cooperate with them in this this tactical deception?
Surely you didn't miss all the whining and bitching from the gay publications and activist organizations about how their initial self-deceiving euphoria has dissolved and how disappointed they have been.
Five Worst (Best) Quote From Anti-Gay Pope Francis (LINK)
Straighten out, stop doing the one-trick-pony thing with your one decontextualized quote, and I'll consider you --- a "person of good will" who is "seeking the Lord".
But happy lambs placed back on the right path, very very bad! Happy we must not have!
/s/ as if I needed it
But happy lambs placed back on the right path, very very bad! Happy we must not have!"
I suspect you can by now detect the differences in our hermeneutics. Once, some months ago, I sent you a description of the flow of the Biblical story line wherein Jesus' remarks are placed within the context of the Mosaic Law. You said you would mull it over, but I gathered you got busy. But, just as God the Father speaks to the Jews through Moses on the Mount, Jesus is speaking to the Jews in the so-called "Gospels". There is, incidentally, no such title in the original texts as "Gospel" (please feel free to check any credible Greek NT and you will see, "According to Matthew", "According to Mark"...etc.) The publishers have "helped" us by adding these titles.
The resultant error of assuming that Jesus is addressing us Gentiles is widespread (even among most evangelicals). But, clearly, Paul notes we were not grafted in until the blood was shed (Eph.2) and thus, the Message of Grace, the real incredible Good News of Jesus for us is NOT "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That so-called Golden Rule is part of the Law (read the passage and its following sentence if you think I am making this up).
Almost all of the remarks Jesus makes are driving the Jews to reject Him and kill Him (Acts 2). They are not kindly little "lamb found in the rocks" remarks. He has come to divide mother from daughter, etc. He will separate the goats from the sheep, the wheat from the tares. He will save those, "...whom the Father has given Me." And, not a one will be lost.
By the time Paul (the apostle to us believing Gentiles) gives us the decoder ring on the Gospel, the message is not, "if your eye offends, tear it out..." (intended to devastate the Jews), but "if God has elect you, you are safe...and the result will be a fleeing from sin." (I recognize this is over a number of chapters in Romans, but it is there.) I also note that, just as salvation was always a gift of grace, described as far back as Abraham (Rom. 4), that there are no "sacraments" which confer grace...only God confers grace. And, He has mercy on whom He has mercy and He hardens whom He hardens (Rom. 9).
There is the Gospel, and it will seem unfair (Rom. 9). But, the good news is that God will do for his chosen what they cannot do for themselves...rescue them as a gift. And, it will make them break over their sin (I Cor.). If this is what Francis told them, well, good on him...he should leave the Vatican and come to Jesus, alone...if Jesus allows.
Persecution of Christian and Catholic values?
Ah yes, the traditions of men! "Bible." "Gospel" (as a name of a book). "According to Matthew." "According to Mark." "According to Luke." "According to John." "Personal Savior." "Scripture alone." "Faith alone" All words and phrases not found in the original texts.
But wait a minute. I'm wrong. "Faith alone" does appear in the original text. In one place only:
James 2:24 - "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
Ahh, I see...cling to Rome for salvation, hold to the “traditions of men” and the myths made for old women. Paul’s words not mine. Do not under any circumstances read the dang text.
But, of course, one must understand that which has the money, the gold, the popemobile...here are all true and convincing proofs that God has blessed. Wait...The Burj Khalifa means...oh never mind.
All these are not found in the text. Do you use terms like
Except as noted, that last one.
The texts don't even say that the Five Books of Moses --- the Torah or Pentateuch --- were written by Moses. As per what was actually written in Scripture, they were written anonymously. Only later oral tradition says they were written by Moses.
I don't think there's any way to factually dispute that.
• "Bible"?
• "Gospel" (as a name of a book)?
•"According to Matthew"?
•"According to Mark"?
• "According to Luke"?
•"According to John"?
Yes or no?
Do you still beat Mr. Don-O? Yes or No.
Just kidding. Your questions don't really add to our discussion. Do you use terms like "popemobile", Cardinal, White Smoke, Pope? Those are not really anywhere in Scripture, either. Actually, there are absolutely no English words in Scripture. What have we proved? Nothing.
But, to answer your first question, I do not use the term "Gospel" as the name of a "book". I use Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Those are in the titles. Gospel is not. The "Gospel" comes from "ευαγγελιον", which we remanufactured into gospel. The Greek word means "good news announcement" or something close. Just like there is no such word as "church". We manufactured that, too. That term is "assembly" or "gathering", as in the "church" rioted in Ephesus when Paul came to town (see how it doesn't fit?). But, this has grown into some kind of common usage. However, it is not technically correct.
And, to your second question, no, I do not use "personal Savior" or "Scripture alone" (unless I happen to be saying something like, "Does that event appear in the Scripture, alone?") nor "faith alone" (often mistaken for, "you have been saved by Grace, through faith, and that not of yourselves...it is a gift of God...). But, if Abraham was granted faith, and that faith was counted as "righteousness", please tell me what more is necessary?
I am not saying that a person who is saved does not begin to behave differently. This is what James is saying. If you say you have faith and nothing happens, that "faith" is dead. I completely agree. When God rescues a man/woman, many things begin to change. They find themselves hating the flesh and its doggone ugly habits. They find themselves "exulting in sufferings" because it proves to themselves that they God's Spirit has latched onto them and they cannot get away! Again, lots of things work out of the rescued person. But, James says, "...that kind of "faith" does not save..."; the real kind of faith does save. Notice, we cannot substitute works for the gift of faith. But, how does this affect the discussion?
And, in Joshua, there are several references to the "book written by Moses. Even I & II Kings reference this, along with Paul in several places (Rom 10:19, et al). The Jews knew who wrote the Torah/Pentateuch. Are you saying that because your group (which teaches things not comporting with the text such as purgatory, priests in the new covenant, absolution of sin by a man, sacraments conferring grace, etc.) makes a claim, it must be true? For goodness sake, Roman superiority is nowhere in the Scriptures, either. Paul refers to multiple "gatherings" in homes, in marketplaces, in caverns. What are we getting at here?
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.