Results 1341 - 1360 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1341 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 33589 | ||
Curt, I do try to live my live on the road to Emmaus. But I happen also to live in Woodlawn and am an alumus of Towson U before it was a U. Emmaus |
||||||
1342 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 33587 | ||
Benjamite, In some ways it may unfold differently, but the end result is the same. The different words are actually those used by others in the Reformed and Baptist camp who are sometimes unhappy with the implications of words like "totally depraved", "limited atonement" and "irresistable grace" which they find misleading or perhaps offensive for a variety of reasons. I suppose one main difference may be that it follows more closely to the school of Evangelical thought that does not hold to the "once saved always saved" position. Another would be the differnce between holding that all those who are predestined persevere until the end as opposed to the thought that those who preserve to the end are the predestined. Which implies more that it might seem and would seem to be tied to the first point. I am afraid I may not do this subject justice. You should find this article of interest. I especially recommend you read the footnotes or endnotes also. I would be interested in your opinion of the article since it may be more your cup of tea than mine. It is titled A Tiptoe Through TULIP, elsewhere referred to as How close can a Catholic get to Calvinism? :-) by James Akin http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm Emmaus |
||||||
1343 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Emmaus | 33553 | ||
Curt, For those interested in the relationship between Chritianity and science I would highly recommend The Savior of Science by Stanley Jaki who is a Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at Seton hall University. He has PhDs in Theology and Physics, a rather unusual combination that allows deeper than usual insights in this area. The book recently came back into print and is available through Amazon.com Emmaus |
||||||
1344 | baptismal regeneration? | John 3:3 | Emmaus | 33359 | ||
Searcher, That is your interpretation and your tradition's interpretation. I do not believe that the external and internal washing are mutually exclusive, but in fact work together even as Jesus was both God and man. The kind of sacramental theology I hold is incarnational. That is to say, Christ by his incarnation and saving work has redeemed all creation physical and spiritual and uses them even as he did in his ministry to effect cures: e.g. Mark 8:22-24 22: And they came to Beth-sa'ida. And some people brought to him a blind man, and begged him to touch him. 23: And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, "Do you see anything?" 24: And he looked up and said, "I see men; but they look like trees, walking." 25: Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly. Mark 7:32-34 32: And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech; and they besought him to lay his hand upon him. 33: And taking him aside from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue; 34: and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, "Eph'phatha," that is, "Be opened." 35: And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. God does not have to use the physical to effect our physical or spiritual healing, neither did he have to become man to save us. But he did. Emmaus |
||||||
1345 | "Born-again Christian" redundant? | John 3:3 | Emmaus | 33357 | ||
Thank you Joe. I was aware of all that. Emmaus |
||||||
1346 | "Born-again Christian" redundant? | John 3:3 | Emmaus | 32966 | ||
Hank, Good to hear from you. I would rather say that grace is a condition of salvation. This is where we would differ: I believe that scripture does teach that baptism is the ordinary means by which we receive saving or sanctifying grace. And I believe that John 3 is where that is taught. Which is not to say that God is limited by baptism. Only that it is the ordinary and primary means by which we are instructed to enter into Christ, and his grace and salvation. God may save in other extraordinary ways through Jesus but this is the ordinary (I wonder if you see ordinance in this) way we are instructed to go. I realize we will disagree here. It is also a difference in our theology. You consider baptism an ordinance and I believe it to be a sacrament instituted by Christ through which God bestows his grace. The other extraordinary ways would fit into your earlier observations. I would call such situations baptism of desire or baptism of blood. The good thief would fall into such a category or one who died a martyr professing Christ but being deprived of the opportunity to be baptised. I am merely stating my beliefs here. I do not want to enter into a World War III debate or refight the reformation with anyone. This last comment was not for you Hank, with whom I have always had polite disagreements as well as found common ground. Emmaus Emmaus deprived of the oppourtunity for baptism. |
||||||
1347 | "Born-again Christian" redundant? | John 3:3 | Emmaus | 32939 | ||
Zach, I think the context of John 3 makes it clear that Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus about baptism, because immediately after the discussion John 3:22 says "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." In this immediate context it is hard to see how Jesus was speaking of anything else. That Jesus immediately thereafter went with his disciples and baptized is no mere coincidence and is very significant to the understanding of John 3:3-5. Emmaus |
||||||
1348 | Why change order of commandments? | Deut 5:21 | Emmaus | 32581 | ||
Johnny, Catholic doctrine does not approve serving idols, it condems it. We do not pray for saints. We ask saints, living here on earth or in heaven to pray with us and for us. We are all in Christ. Death does not separate us in Him. I hope in honor of the literal commandment as you quoted it, you have destroyed all photographs of all your loved one. Emmaus |
||||||
1349 | Why change order of commandments? | Deut 5:21 | Emmaus | 32429 | ||
Joe, "You cannot honestly tell me that you don't know of those things going on without a word of rebuke from Rome. --Joe!" Well, If you say so I guess I cannot. I am sure you have researched to all Vatican coresponence to make sure your assertion is true. I can't say that I have had the time, nor can I read the hearts and minds of those you may have observed. But you obviously have discerned the sin in them. Now, about that beam. Have you seen an opthamologist? Emmaus |
||||||
1350 | Why change order of commandments? | Deut 5:21 | Emmaus | 32426 | ||
NoahsArthur, Yes I am. What is your point that want me to answer. Could you be more concise and specific? Emmaus |
||||||
1351 | Why change order of commandments? | Deut 5:21 | Emmaus | 32350 | ||
Joe, You asked:"Please remind me of where I have accused you of idolatry directly." I was think of your post of 12-13-01 "Stop making so much of the wedding at Cana! It is such blasphemy to suggest that Mary has to "prod" Jesus -- very God of very God -- into doing what He purposed to do before the foundation of the world. A contemptible heresy is hat it is, Emmaus. A violation of the First Commandment, too, at its heart." Emmaus |
||||||
1352 | Why change order of commandments? | Deut 5:21 | Emmaus | 32279 | ||
Joe, My point about the lists used by Protestants and Catholics for Sunday school are that they are both edited for teaching and memorization purposes. And in Deuteronomy you will note that wife is before the posessions, but in Exodus 20:17 the wife is in the middle of the posessessions, so the division there is not as logical as in Deut 5:21. Do you think the Jews venerated the Ark? "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. " How about those angels on the Ark Ex 25:18-20 and the tapestry 26:1 and 1 Kings 6:23-28? How about the brass serpent Num 21:9 and those 1 Kings 7:29 and 1 King 7:36 and 2 Chronicles 4:4? Who told Solomon to add those oxen? How about photos of our deceased loved ones? Do you own any books with illustrations of God, Jesus or the saints? Is one perhaps a Bible? Did the Jews or are you violating the commandment in any of these ways? Or is veneration different from idolatry? Or was God confused giving contradictory orders? "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." Joe, You have already accused me of idolatry directly. Why dance around by implication now? Hindus are not Christians, Catholics are. Of course you may disagree. But the Catholic creed makes it explicit that they do not worship more than one God nor worship statues. Hindus are polytheists. Emmaus |
||||||
1353 | why do catholics think mary is sinless? | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 32051 | ||
niiwj, I noticed a typo error in my previous note. The first lines of my previous note should have read: I am a Catholic on the forum. Not long ago the on the forum I answered the questions you are asking about Mary and the saints from a Catholic position. Emmaus |
||||||
1354 | Is Daniel 12 about Antiochus' desecratio | OT general | Emmaus | 31861 | ||
Thanks csd. Very accurate observation about the name. Emmaus |
||||||
1355 | Adam and Eve, no fall from grace? | Gen 2:16 | Emmaus | 31857 | ||
Lionstrong, You miss my point entirely. It is this. Adam and Eve were created by God in a state of grace or justice before God. They lost that grace or justice through their sin and the fall. Jesus' saving grace is a restoration of that same grace that makes us just before God. It is called by some sanctifying grace, the grace that makes us holy and able to be in God's presence. It is the grace that is the very life of God in us. If Adam and Eve had that grace and lost it through free will, how can we say that we can not loose it in the same manner by a free will rejection just as they did? Unless Jesus has destroyed our free will in the restoration of grace. I still say your version is tanatmount to saying we have to sin in order to merit sanctifying grace and so is a wierd type of works righteousness. Adam and Eve did not merit the original sanctifying grace and neither do we the same sanctifying grace that is restored to us by Jesus and by which we are justified and saved. I guess we are just talking past each other here. I think I will let the matter rest, having made my point as clearly as I can. Emmaus |
||||||
1356 | Adam and Eve, no fall from grace? | Gen 2:16 | Emmaus | 31725 | ||
Ambiguous grace. Whatever happened to simple "unmerited favor"? Suddenly we have to qualify for it by sinning. Now there is some strange "works rightousness." Emmaus |
||||||
1357 | Adam and Eve, eternal security? | Gen 2:16 | Emmaus | 31337 | ||
Lionstrong, I would rather says that we have been saved from the consequences of the fall. But, to rephrase the question. Do you think that Adam and Eve thought they could not loose Eden and fellowship with God before the Fall? There is that famous phrase that "pride goeth before the fall" paraphraing Prov 16:18. Is presumption a form of pride? And is that not what Paul in various passsages warns us against in regard to our attitude toward our justification even by grace? Emmaus |
||||||
1358 | Jesus' name baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Emmaus | 30961 | ||
Savannah, You seem to have forgotten Acts 8:14-17 and the Church's unbroken history of trinitarian baptism according to the command of Jesus. Apostolic men, successors of and closer to the apostles than we are resolved this issue almost two thousand years ago. It is their faith and their understanding of baptism that has been passed down to us. To be Christian is to be Trinitarian. This is basic catechism (quoted below)instruction in the Faith. If believe in the Trinity fails, the distinct Christian vision of God, including Jesus as God incarnate, collapses. Who is he offering Himself as sacrifice up to for us? Any why would we need the Holy Spirit whome Jesus promised and sent? God already had many names in the Old Testament and he has many among the Muslims too. The Christian Trinity is not about names it is about three Persons with one divine substance or nature. " 253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".[83] The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."[84] "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."[85] 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."[86] "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."[87] They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."[88] The divine Unity is Triune. 255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."[89] Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."[90] "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."[91] " Emmaus |
||||||
1359 | The Spirit and the Word: How Related? | Rom 8:11 | Emmaus | 30864 | ||
Joe, Hank, Lionstrong, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the successors of the apostles, the bishops, in union with the successor of Peter to all truth as Jesus promised them the Spirit would. I believe it is the biblical pattern for governance in the Church. John 14:15-31; 16:12-13 and Matt 16:17-18 and Acts 15:28 Consider also the early Councils that resolved the major Christological and Trinitarian questions and disputes. All of which does not deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual. But is does show how disputes among individuals and factions claiming incompatible positions inspired by the same Spirit are to be resolved. As to the laity in this picture. This from the catechism: “In the Church, "lay members of the Christian faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this power [of governance] in accord with the norm of law." And so the Church provides for their presence at particular councils, diocesan synods, pastoral councils; the exercise in solidum of the pastoral care of a parish, collaboration in finance committees, and participation in ecclesiastical tribunals, etc.” Joe, By dynamic I mean active and authoritative as opposed to passive and chaotic, not different things at different times. Hank, The Holy Spirit is the heart of the Church, not the hierarchy, but He speaks with authority through the apostolic hierarchy and their unified teaching. It may seem a subtle point but it is very significant. Emmaus |
||||||
1360 | The Spirit and the Word: How Related? | Rom 8:11 | Emmaus | 30813 | ||
Joe, I do not see the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual and in the Church as the Body of Christ as mutually exclusive. For me it is not a question of either or. I see it as both and. Obviously with my background I may accept a more dynamic role of the Church when it comes to the issue of authoritatively interpreting some doctrinally disputed passages of Scripture. Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 ] Next > Last [73] >> |