Results 1201 - 1220 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1201 | Why do Catholics believe in Good Works | Matt 7:21 | Emmaus | 52008 | ||
Learn, You are welcome. Emmaus |
||||||
1202 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 51609 | ||
Hank, Thank you. Emmaus |
||||||
1203 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 51603 | ||
Joe, Thanks for the response. I did have to smile, when, after sending my post I saw your post only two slots below mine and addressing the "alone" principle on another thread. I have stayed out of the debate for a number of reasons. One being that I am not aware of exactly what the theology of the Church of Christ is on baptism other than the fact that they obviously believe it is necessary and regenerative. How they believe that is effected I do not know. Emmaus |
||||||
1204 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 51577 | ||
Cyclist, Thank you for your kind response. In response to your question I would point you to the last half of the last sentence in my post. God is free give his grace in any manner He pleases in addition to the singular manner of baptism He has commanded his Church to administer. He is not restricted. We may not know all His other ways,although you have pointed out two illustrations, but we do know one certain way He has commanded his Church, as His body, to administer his grace through baptism. Emmaus |
||||||
1205 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 51569 | ||
Hank, I apologize for being so slow in responding to your post. I have been delayed by more pressing domestic concerns and pleasures. I must admit that I am loathe to enter into the current debate, since it seems to be going nowhere just fine without my excess energy input. I believe I saw a post by you asking if anyone's position on the question had been changed. There was not a single answer in the positive, which was no surprise since your question must have at some level been rhetorical. That being said, I will offer my thoughts on the points and questions you raised. "But the real issue about water baptism, Emmaus is, or so it seems to me, is it salvific? Is it an act, a ritual, a sacrament -- call it what you will -- without which salvation is impossible? ..The Bible clearly exalts Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification. ...., how does all this hue and cry about the salvific properites of water baptism set with you from your perspective as a Catholic? "--Hank If one acknowledges Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification, does that of necessity rule out water baptism as an effective and ordinary means of transmitting the grace of justification won by Christ's sacrifice on the cross? I think not. I think a case can be made for baptism as the ordinary means of the transmission of that grace in light of Jesus' own command and other verses supporting that position which have already been cited ad infinitum. But I sense something more at work here. I sense a particular priciple at work in this debate, which I have followed in only a cursory manner. That principle is the principle of exclusion or separation; the principle of "either or." It is the priciple of "faith or works", "Scripture or Tradition", "spiritual or physical." It is the principle of "alone", "faith alone", "scripture alone", "grace alone". This jumps out at me because I come from place where the inclusive principle, the "both and" is allowed to exist. "Faith and works" (properly understood), "Scripture and Tradition", "spiritual and physical" are not seen as always incompatible and always mutually exclusive, but rather integrated and inseparable, like two sides of the same coin. This is seen especially in the sacraments which we see as encounters with Christ, where God's grace is transmitted through man and matter even as it was in the Incarnation, in a certain sense the ultimate sacrament, Jesus, from whom all sacraments derive. Even the Church is a sacrament in this sense. But these are mysteries of faith that must be seen through the eyes of faith, like we see the greatest mystery, Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Not to mention the Trinity. If God would choose flesh as the means of our redemption, should we flinch to think He might choose to use matter like water as a means of tramitting the grace He secured on the cross by his physical flesh and blood? I sense a fear of the physical or created matter in the debate. As if the water would dilute or corrupt the grace flowing through it. If the Incarnation was not taken for granted in the debate, I suspect some might fear the corruption of Jesus' spirit by his flesh. I suspect some might have feared Jesus' spit and the earth he mixed it with would have corrupted his healing grace when he placed it on the eyes of the blind man. But I think this fear is all at an intuitive level that is not being articulated. I think that both sides sense that there is more at stake in this debate than just water, but just can not get past the water issue. I have already expressed my thought that baptism is not a work of man, but a work of Christ applying his saving grace to us as we encounter him in his Church. Having expressed my personal thoughts on the matter (no pun intended), I will now provide an example of the inclusive, "both and" princple in the form of offical magisterial teaching from the Catechism. The last sentence of the paragraph is as essential as the beginning and sums the paragraph. "1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[John 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[Matt 28:19-20] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[Mark 16:16] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." Emmaus |
||||||
1206 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 51330 | ||
Tim, I wonder if it is accurate to say that baptism is a work that we do. Rather, I think it is something that Christ does to us through his body the Church. Who ever baptised him or her self? If you look at baptism as a grace filled encounter with Christ in and through his Church it seems much less a work of man than a work of Christ. The definition of a scarament I learned as a child was that it was "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace." I have never thought of baptism or any other sacrament as something we do for or by ourselves, but rather something that Jesus does for us. Emmaus |
||||||
1207 | I need help finding a verse.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 51081 | ||
Mare, What you are paraphrasing or remebering is not in the bible. It sounds like a takeoff someone did on Abraham negotiating with God over Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:20-33. Emmaus |
||||||
1208 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Emmaus | 51080 | ||
danieln, "Still i would like to know the reason the pope is considered infallible, surely the bible is our infallible guide to the christain faith and morals" A reasonable question and statement. Surely the bible is the innerent and inspired word of God. But an infallible book that is subject only to fallible interpretations among many readers and belivers can be a source of problems as well as a blessing. In response to your question: I addressed this issue before a few months ago at the request of another forum member. You can view those four posts by scrolling down to the highlighted thread line and clicking on my name, then at my profile click on Total Posts and all my postings will be listed. Go to page #23 and scroll down to entry # 458 then follow the thread through # 455. Or for a another article on the question go to this link: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm Emmaus |
||||||
1209 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Emmaus | 50962 | ||
Jesusman, Next time, just quote the primary sources directly. They seem to loose some details and add others in the translation. I would paticularly like to see the quote on the Catholic belief in a sinless pope. Even the pope would be surprised to hear about his condition.That is one only heard from people who are not Catholic and who seem to confuse infallability with inpeccability. Emmaus |
||||||
1210 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Emmaus | 50938 | ||
Jesusman, As I pointed out in my previous post, an accurate and contextual presentation of what the Catholic Church teaches is available from the Catehchism. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html You are not an accurate or reliable source on the broad subject. I would not presume to tell you or others what you believe as Baptists. Although I may have a limited knowledge of the subject, what I know may be flawed or inaccurate and from unreliable and inaccurate secondary sources. Or I might misinterpret, through misunderstnding or faulty information, some aspect of Baptist doctrine or belief. I believe that is exactly the case in your postings about Catholic teaching and beliefs, your protestation of an infallible knowledge ("So, am I misinformed? Nope. ") of the subject notwithstanding. Emmaus |
||||||
1211 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Emmaus | 50916 | ||
Jesusman, Here is a link to The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please read it in it's entirety before you give your next lesson on Catholic doctrine. You seem to be somewhat misinformed. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html Emmaus |
||||||
1212 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49552 | ||
Joe, Once again you have the last word. Emmaus |
||||||
1213 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49531 | ||
Joe, Thank you. I was aware of the different language in the American Confession. I am happy to know you subscribe to it. Hope springs eternal for an ultimate reconciliation at some point. Emmaus |
||||||
1214 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49530 | ||
"So while there is some similarity between fate and biblical predestination in that our destinies are determined in eternity without our consent (which Augustine rightly pointed out would be in favor of rejection of Christ), in biblical terms we will all willingly embrace the path that leads to our destiny." Joe Well Joe I guess that's how you choose to see it. Or is that how it is chosen for you to see it? Emmaus |
||||||
1215 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49488 | ||
Joe, "It is different from the pagan idea of fate. Fatalism says that no matter what one does, his/her outcome is certain" Joe From the WCF "III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]" I still don't see the difference, even when it is dressed up in Christian terminology. But I have followed your discussions with Tim and see no point in covering the same ground. Emmaus |
||||||
1216 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49481 | ||
Joe, Perusing the WCF upon your suggestion I found much classical solid pre- Reformation theology, but also, among other things, quickly came upon the following. From the WCF "III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]" I must admit that I cannot see the difference between the above paragraphs from the WCF and the concept of fate among the ancient pagan cultures. And it certainly sounds more like the "Bad News" than the Good News for most people. I think it is this form of "double predestination" that is the thing that drives some people from the Calvinist position, which otherwise has the best and most developed theology and among Protestants. Emmaus |
||||||
1217 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49475 | ||
Joe, I am sure I will suvive strong words. Do you susbcribe to the "anti-Christ" description of the pope in Chapter XXV of the WCF? Talk about anathemas. Emmaus |
||||||
1218 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49400 | ||
Joe, Of course I would disagree with your analysis, especially comparing different Catholic religious orders with different Protestant denominations. Their dogmatic theology is not different as you will find in different Protestant denominations. Of all the points you make that is the weakest. The unity of the Protestant denominations is in what they are not (Catholic) rather than than in what they are, since they are regularly protestants among themselves as seem by the proliferation of churches, denominational or non. And the argument about the ancient heretics using scripture to support their positions is valid They did that in exactly the same way various parties do the same thing on this forum. The difference is that in the forum and in the Protestant world there is no other really binding authority if one Church, say Lutheran or Reformed, has no more authority than another in resolving these scriptural disputes as the Church Councils do. So we have the sad scandal and spectacle of an ever expanding pattern of division with no hope for an end in sight until the second coming unless there is some sort of significant reunification, which humanly speaking seems rather unlikely without some sort of intervention of divine grace. Emmaus One thing even more sure is that you and I are not going to resolve the matter in our discussions no matter how much we may enjoy the exchange and intellectual and theological exercise. Emmaus |
||||||
1219 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49374 | ||
Joe, As I have previously indicated this subject s not my forte. However I found an interesting dialogue on another website that cover the exact same ground between a Reformed believer and a Catholic who is better organized in this area than I, although I recognize and have read his sources. If you can take time from battles on other fronts, the dialogue at these links may speak to a great extent for both of us. The dialogue is in two parts, hence the two links in order. Have a good holiday weekend. http://catholicoutlook.com/tim1.html http://catholicoutlook.com/tim12.html Emmaus |
||||||
1220 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 49355 | ||
Reformer Joe a crypto Catholic according to Jesus is God!? Maybe that Catechism was right Joe and you are a Catholic in some sort of imperfect union with the rest of us. Brother Joe! :-) Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ] Next > Last [73] >> |