Results 281 - 300 of 3728
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131515 | ||
Glorybound, "Why do Catholics go before Priests to confess their sins?" See John 20:22-23 Emmaus |
||||||
282 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131548 | ||
Glorybound, " I see no connection between John 20:22-23 and any of my questions." If you do not see the connection between your question, "Why do Catholics go before Priests to confess their sins?" and John 20:23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." and James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. then perhaps you will understand this answer. Because we choose to! Emmaus |
||||||
283 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131555 | ||
GB, "I'm still curious concerning the praying to the saints though." These two links should answer that question. http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp Emmaus |
||||||
284 | How am I saved? | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131556 | ||
Brad, Dalcent wrote, "I would respectfully take issue with your statement that " I don't believe that all our future sins are forgiven; after all Jesus instituted the Lord's Prayer in which we regularly ask forgiveness for our ongoing sins. I do not believe the Bible anywhere teaches that we are forgiven all our sins past, present and future, and it gives many stern warnings against both apostasy and ongoing sin." Dalcent BradK responded, "The main problem with this view is that it negates the all-sufficiency of Christs' atoning sacrifice on the cross! If all only our past sins are forgiven, then redemption is not complete and Christ must therefore go to the cross again- an impossibility according to Romans 6:9! Hebrews 9:12 clearly tells us "He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." Further in 9:22 says "...and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." BradK I would say Dalccent's view does not negate the all-sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Nor does it imply that He need be crucified again. It is we who must take up our cross daily and follow Christ. Dalcent merely asserts that the application of those merits of Christ's sacrifice, his finished work are not fully applied until one has "finished the race" as Paul put it. The application of those merits will not be complete until the resurrection of the body on the last day.(Rom 8:23) Otherwise, why did Paul fear "stumbling, so as to fall"? We are eternally secure if we have "perserved to the end" and though God may know who will persevere to the end before the end, we do not. So for those who will and do persevere to the end, their future sins will be forgiven. But the future sins of those who do not and will not persevere to the end will not be forgiven. And yes, those who will peservere do so by grace merited by Christ's one sacrifice on the cross. Emmaus |
||||||
285 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131594 | ||
Tim, What constitutes the "obedience of faith" that opens and closes Romans? "Of" indicates that obedience is an integral component "of" faith, not some separate entity, and obedience is not a passive quality. Paul and James compliment one another, they do not contradict. They are both using Abraham as the example of obedient saving faith that was more than a passive virtue. God does not call us to passivity and his grace and faith are not passive gifts, they are transforming and dynamic. Paul himself uses the example of the children of Hagar and Sarah to demonstrate the difference between the obedience of faith and obedience under the law. We are children of God and our obedience is different from the servile obedience of slave children and has a different motivation and a different reward, even though it is a reward for a gift that is exercised. Emmaus |
||||||
286 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131607 | ||
gods son, Having read your post and being a Catholic myself, may I suggest that you were very poorly catechised and significantly misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches on the subjects you have mentioned, the fact that your were a member for years not withstanding. If I believe what you apparently believe about the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church actually taught that, I would not still be in it. But it does not teach what you think it does. I am sorry you did not receive a proper instruction or understanding of the Catholic faith. Emmaus |
||||||
287 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131633 | ||
COuntry Girl, I do believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, but I do not belive some of what you think the Catholic Church teaches or what some people who identifiy themselves as Catholics mistakenly believe the Catholic Church teaches.. For example, I do not believe that the pope is equal to God Himself, because the Catholic Church does not teach that. Nor does the Catholic Church teach that everything the pope utters is an infallible pronouncement. It is a very narrow and limited doctrine confined to certain teaches related to faith and morals made in a specific manner. And yes I do believe in the Communion of Saints and that we pray with and for one another. I do ask the saints in heaven to pray for me just as I ask the saints here on hear to pray for me. We are all alive in Christ. If you wish to know in depth what I believe, and what the Catholic Church actually teaches, please feel free to look at the Catechism, which can be found at this link: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm For my own explanation of a few of these subjects here on the Forum please see these previous posts and threads: 27130 26328 Emmaus |
||||||
288 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131635 | ||
Sorry to disappoint you. I do believe in papal infallability. I simply do not believe in your misunderstanding of it. Here is an excerpt from the Newadvent webite article you referenced. Read it very carefuly. It explains the limits of this charism and the specific circumsatnces under which it applies. For example, "ex cathedra" means from the chair (of Peter)which conotes Peter's authority given in Matt 16:18. When such a pronouncement is made it must be done with an explicit indication that the pope is speaking in that capacity. It s a negative charism in that it prevents error. It is not a positive gift such as inspiration. I suggest you read that entire article again very carefully so as to at least properly understand it if not agreeing with it. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm "The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that: what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I). the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible. infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree: The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal. Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV). Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested. Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible." Emmaus |
||||||
289 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131640 | ||
BradK, As me something easy like how can a Church full of sinners be a spotless bride? ;-) Or how can a bunch of bumblers like the apostles teach and spread the faith without error? I presume you believe they did do that. The following article may be more helpful than anything I could write. I have quoted its closing paragraph. http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp "Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus' Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul's statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God's own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16)." Emmaus |
||||||
290 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131646 | ||
Tim, "On the site of the aricle you referenced, the only response I saw to this question was that Aramaic had no different words for 'rock'. However, we have no evidence that Jesus spoke this in Aramaic. We do have the inspired texts of Scripture, and they use a totally different word." We also have no evidence that Jesus did not us Kephas. But we know the other apostles called Peter Kephas or Cephas, because Paul does it in his epistles. I wonder why that would be if Jesus never called Peter Kephas. Here is the NASB, of our host Lockman. Take note of the first citation. John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter). 1 Cor 1:12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 1 Cor 3:22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, 1 Cor 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Cor 15:5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Gal 1:18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? Emmaus |
||||||
291 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131652 | ||
Gods son, I was not the one raising issues, you were. Tell me about the nature and extent of what you wer were taught about the Catholic faith from Catholic sources while you were a Catholic. You imply you have studied canon law. You say you studied for the priesthood. When, where and at what age? With all this knowledge you are coming here for understanding of whether or not your marriage in the Catholic Church is valid? Do you not know that the man and woman are the minsters of the sacrament of matrimony to one another and the priest is merely the offical witness of the sacrament? Were the marriages in the Old Testament valid? Did you make your vows to one another before God? Or was God not around at the time? Were you under restraint or coercion or did you pledge falsely? I presume you made your vows in good faith without coercion before God unless you say otherwise. If you do not believe in sacraments, why would you care about having your marriage "validated' in another Church that does not believe in sacraments and would therefore view such a ceremenony as just that, a ceremony that has not effect other than a public profession of vows which you have already made publically. Does the change of venue make a difference in whether you meant what you said when you made your vows? Does whether or not you speak the truth depend on where and before whom you are speaking? I am here for bible study, not endless debate on the merits of Catholicism. I am here with the understanding that almost everyone else here is not Catholic. However, we generally treat each other with respect for each other's conscience. Emmaus |
||||||
292 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131657 | ||
Gods son, You are deluded. Please pursue other prey. Our conversation over. Emmaus |
||||||
293 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131680 | ||
Tim, You are the Greek scholar, not me, but as I understand it a male name must have a male ending in Greek. Do you have acess to a good Protestant theological library. If so look at Gerherd Kittell's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament in ten volumes. Look for vol VI, pages 98-99 and see what he says about Matt 16:18. I know you know Kittle. I will let him make the argument for me. He is omly one of many Protestant scholars of the same opinion. See also vol 6, page 108 in the 1968 edition by Eerdman's, Grand Rapids MI. The short version conclusion that kittle reaches on Matt 16;18 is this: "It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of his ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic Exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." vol 6, p108. Don't you just love Kittel? ;-) Of course its all Greek to me. Emmaus |
||||||
294 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131681 | ||
Country Girl, I count it all joy. Thank you for your prayers. Emmaus |
||||||
295 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131686 | ||
Tim, Petra in ancient Greek is a feminine noun, so it had to be changed to Petros to match Peter's gender. Are you being coy with me? You know this Greek stuff much better than me. I only know a few good Greco-Roman self defense moves. I have now retained Kittell as my personal Greek body guard. Emmaus |
||||||
296 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131688 | ||
Tim, "My father-in-law recently retired from the minsitry and I inherited his full set (all 9 volumes) of Kittel's - my dream come true! ;-)" You lucky guy. Check out my citations. Hopefully you have the same edition as I cited. Emmaus |
||||||
297 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131815 | ||
Doc, Chick was around long before 1984. I am surprised you are so off the mark here. See this link for a good article on Chick. http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp Emmaus |
||||||
298 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 131866 | ||
Doc, I made a polite correction of fact about the date of the founding of Jack Chick's enterprise in your post. I did not make any "ad hominem, post hoc, and now straw man" attacks on you. Why would you indicate in your repsonse that I did any of those? Cahrles Chiniquy was a Canadian Catholic priest who immigrated to America and was later excommunicated in 1858. In 1863 he became a Presbyterian minister. In addition to his book Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, he had some other rather strange conspiracy theories such as the Vatican being behind the assasination of President Lincoln in revenge for Lincoln's defense of Chiniquy in an 1856 lawsuit. Here is a link to some information about Chiniquy for those who may be interested. http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/ Emmaus |
||||||
299 | (Learn from experience.) | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 134482 | ||
. | ||||||
300 | It is not your nature or my nature,it i | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 134484 | ||
. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [187] >> |