Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I think we (as Catholics) equate the phrase "born again" as being the same as or maybe subscribing to "OSAS" and therefore, we shy away from it. I just think the NCs and Cs use it meaning two different things.
I figured it would be.
In stead of rehashing baptism though, let's look at the above statement. Why is the phrase "born again" too "Protestant" when it came straight from Jesus' mouth. Oh wow, I never thought about it before but this proves that the Baptist church is the church Jesus started:) I never caught that unrefutable fact before:)
The writer probably used that phrase because the Protestants (or IFBBs, or whatever else) tend to use "born again" quite a bit so it does give it a Protestant ring in that respect.
Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The Words that I speak to you I do not speak of Myself, but the Father who dwells in Me, He does the works.
Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 18:19 And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? None is good except One, God.
Luk 18:20 You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.
Joh 14:15 If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Joh 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you shall abide in My love, even as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
Rom 13:9 For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
I'm not following that conversation very well. Did you intend to flag someone else?
AC
Here's a softball for ya Hav:
What is the best way for a child to show that he loves his parents?
-Kevin
You highlight this as if you have a problem understanding the media is atheistic. You might want to recognize that the media is virulently against the Catholic Church and what She stands for, and that one has to take what they say with a grain of salt.
It seems you don't mind who you help in their agenda, that you are prepared to believe anything bad anyone says about the Catholic Church.
You wouldn't automatically believe everything the media say about Clinton or Bush. Why the Church?
SD
to prove "sola scriptura" - for one thing, you are SPINNING the word "profitable" to mean "sufficient" in order to prove your claim, and for another, you are using Paul's words that were written when Scripture meant the OT; and/or you are assuming that St.Paul knew exactly what would be included in the Bible @ 400 years later.
I am not spinning anything. I am saying complete means Adjective: 1 a : having all necessary parts, elements, or steps -or- Verb:1 to bring to an end and especially into a perfected state (Take your pick) (Mirriam webster). Now if you wish to change that to mean "Unless the RCC wishes to ignore Scripture", be my guest.
No, you know better. The argument is not that "complete" doesn't mean "complete." It is that "profitable" does not mean "sufficient." And you know this!
If you also wish to claim the Apostles, their words and writings weren't inspired, be my guest. Throw your Bible away and take your que from men who may or may not be inspired.
You know this isn't the claim. We recognize the inspiration of Scripture. We hold its value so highly we refuse to make a lie of it by pretending that it is sufficient, when Scripture says no such thing.
I don't recall saying Scripture alone makes a man complete. (If I did say so please let me know where. I'll play my poker hand against yours).
Duh. What do you think the non-Catholic argument in favor of this verse is all about? When you run around telling us what "complete" means, you are arguing the Sola Scriptura position. One side or the other, Reggie. There is no inbetween.
What I called "double talk" was establishing the straw man and answering him. This is a typical apologist trick and I didn't expect it from you.
Which is what you just did. Trying your sleight-of-hand to make it seem like we are arguing against the inspiration of Scripture. Shame on you.
SD
Fair enough. But you said that it was lawful for you to do anything that Jesus did. Jesus spoke with a man who was physically dead - Moses. You have said that Jesus could never violate the law, and I agree. You've said that we are forbidden by the law to communicate with those who are physically dead. I disagree, because I say the physically dead are alive in every way that is important. So if you're right and it's forbidden by the law to communicate with those who are physically dead, why doesn't this mean that you are also saying that Jesus violated this law?
Nah. Apparently (no pun intended), the Transfiguration was just an illusion.
SD
Good. Now, how is this dedication manifested in your relationship with someone you love?
If you've been married for more than a few years, you probably have had the experience of remaining dedicated and doing the right thing even though you didn't "feel" loving at the time. This is what I would call "duty".
Since arguing from silence is dangerous, however, I would concede that Scripture never explicitly declares "sola scriptura." But neither does it ever declare that anything else is necessary, and thus the inference stands.
Thank you. Thank you. Would that so many others who believe the same as you would be so honest.
BTW, I like the screen name. "The Grammarian."
SD
I understand that, as a rule, Romanists tend not to be completely Pelagian. The faith-and-works mentality would indicate it's more semi-Pelagian. (Then again, to our Calvinistic brethren, we Wesleyan-Arminians are semi-Pelagians....Heck if I know how they come to that conclusion when we, to quote Wesley, "attribute everything good to God's grace.")
Doesn't it strike you, even for an instant, that the weapon used against you (which you know to be untrue) is the same one you wield against us?
SD
So part of the reason you go to your church is because of the way it looks?
As they say, Becky, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. How we pray (worship) is what we believe. A Church, in its arcitecture and in its furnishings and art reflects what the Church believes. It has been pointed out to you that you would feel (probably) uncomfortable in a Church with lots of candles and statues and such. Because you do not believe in the intercession of saints, etc.
All we Catholics who have suffered so much destruction in the wake of (the corrpution of) Vatican II want is Catholic Churches that reflect our beliefs.
SD
Not being careful of the faith of a weaker brother, just to satisfy your own self is not loving him.
It all depends on whether what you are "not careful" with is harmful or not. I don't think veneration of saints is anywhere near as harmful as proclaiming that we are saved by "faith alone."
Veneration can be misunderstood as idolatry, "faith alone" can be misunderstood as antinomianism. We all take our chances when we proclaim what we see as true.
SD
And I will pray for your patronizing and condesending tone, which implies our spiritual inferiority because we don't belong to your church. Like I said earlier this week and was pooh-poohed by the RC's, the Orthodoxers and RC's consider us NC's as second class citizens and not full-fledged Christians. Thanks for your honesty.
I think you will find that he only expressed the (entirely true, it seems) idea that Havoc will never come around to our way of thinking. We certainly have different beliefs. I naturally think mine are full and you are lacking. I naturally wish you would come to see the Truth of my beliefs. Don't you wish the same? Don't you think your beliefs are True?
Or can something be True for me and not True for you?
SD
So what, in your opinion, is the catholic equivilant?
First rule: When in doubt, believe what Jesus said...when he says it's a vision, it's a vision.
I hate to sound like the voice of clarity, but do any of us actually know what the Greek for the "Vision" means? The English seems to lead us to think it is some type of apparition, but maybe the Greek merely means "something you saw" and doesn't imply that it was supernatural, or not real?
Anybody?
SD
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.