He doesn't need that prompt. He makes the salvation available without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
|
He doesn't need that prompt. He makes the salvation available without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It means obey The Trinity's WILL (GOD) and if HE deems to give you HIS graces you will be saved otherwise you won't be savedQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
What a fickle, even mean, guy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
Me or the Trinity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The deeming one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
He makes it available but He doesn't give it out unless you first have faith and make an effort to find Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Otherwise, even unrepentant sinners would be saved.
That's not human effort; that's the Holy Spirit at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
If they are unrepentant, they are saying "no, thanks."Quote:
Otherwise, even unrepentant sinners would be saved.
Aha! I think we're getting somewhere!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That's the Holy Spirit working where?
And what does it mean to repent?Quote:
If they are unrepentant, they are saying "no, thanks."
To repent means to say and mean it "I am truly sorry for committing the sins I have committed. As Adam said when he broke GOD's LAW. But even though he confessed and repented GOD removed HIS GRACE and condemned to death and since all of man to the original sin. Of course Jesus's (who existed before Adam)sacrifice would have been unnecessary.Could this all done to justify GOD's WILL that Jesus was necessary? Remember GOD has HIS LAWS (the WILL that HE tells us) and HIS Ordained Will(HIS SECRET WILL) see Answer to Job by C.G. Jung in the 1950's. Not that I am saying that this is what happened but I do believe it is an intresting possibility? There are many more intresting theories in that book. Some of which I believe are possible and some of which I have serious doubts about. But the book is very worth readingQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
ASKED who was this guy me or the TRINITY and you answered "the deeming one" I can't believe you meant the TRINITY by the deemed one . PLEASE TELL ME that I misunderstood your answer and you were referring to me by that expression See 43-44\45Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
THIS is your answer I am questioning . Surely you can't mean THE TRINITY when you answered "the fickle and even mean guy. I pray notQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
This is what I refer to when I asked if you meant me or THE TRINITY and your answer was the deeming oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Relax. I meant God, and I was being sarcastic. I can't believe you took that comment literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
Thank GOD! For that. But you have to be careful HE might not take it that wayQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
God knows me very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
Wondergirl?
Aha! I think we're getting somewhere!Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
That's not human effort; that's the Holy Spirit at work.
That's the Holy Spirit working where?
And what does it mean to repent?Quote:
Quote:
If they are unrepentant, they are saying "no, thanks."
Huh? That seems a very different version of the account of which I'm aware. Could you quote the Scripture from which you are getting this interpretation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
That is not from Scripture but from Jung's interpetation of what is in scripture.Get his "Answer to Job" and I believe you will find it intresting . You won't agree with much of it but it may give you a different perspective on it. I was watching a program on the History Channel about GOD and the devil which claimed that all good comes from GOD and all evil comes from the fallen angel in the Jewish Bible,but in JOB it says that the devil couldn't do evil against Job without permission from GOD and GOD gave the OK for the evils to be done. In other words HE allowed the evil to be done to HIS LOYAL SERVANT to prove JOB would not turn against HIM. This to show the loyality of JOB to HIM,but shouldn't of GOD rewarded Job's loyality to HIM by saying to thr devil NO!which would have been a good way to return Job's loyality? You see there are many ways to interpret Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
One must take into account the purpose of a book such as Job and why it was written, if literary devices are used and why, if the characters are invented or real (and if it matters).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
But only one way that leads to truth. And that is by the tradition of the Catholic Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
Good points!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Wondergirl?
Quote:
Aha! I think we're getting somewhere!Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
That's not human effort; that's the Holy Spirit at work.
That's the Holy Spirit working where?
Quote:And what does it mean to repent?Quote:
Quote:
If they are unrepentant, they are saying "no, thanks."
I don't want you to lose track of this question.
__________________
Truth cannot be found outside of the Catholic Church?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Did I say that? Please read my comment again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
God comes to me where I am and works new affections in my soul. Thus, repentance is not something that I do as a work; both repentance and faith are the result of the new birth in Christ applied to me by the Holy Spirit. "We love Him because He first loved us" (I John 4:19).Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You said, "But only one way that leads to truth. And that is by the tradition of the Catholic Church."Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Sounds to me like you said that.
In response to a question about interpretation of Scripture. The only way to be sure you are interpreting Scripture correctly is to make sure it is according to Church Tradition. That is in the Catechism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There are many truths all over the world. And it is true that I'm up past my bedtime. Buenas noches maravillaQuote:
Sounds to me like you said that.
There's no other way to interpret Scripture correctly?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
What if one is not Catholic and interprets Scripture?
But which Catholic Church? The Anglican,The Orthodox{which one],The Roman,or The Holy Catholic Church of The Nicene Creed. I vote for the last one ,but unfourtunly THAT ONE IS NOT STILL ACTIVE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It was probably written to show the what the relationship between good men and GOD should be. I doubt if it was one man ,but was one man used as a symbol of mankind. But it does show that no one can do evil,not even the devil,without getting the permission from GOD first!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There is only one. And yes, it is still here. Otherwise you are calling Jesus a liar when He said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Read it again. The devil was asking permission to test one around whom God had established a hedge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
Someone of that calibre is like a St. Catherine Sienna, St. Francis Assissi, St. Dominic or other higher order Saint of the Catholic Church who is already experiencing heaven right here on earth.
The rest of us are still fair game.
Yes we all are fair game if GOD gives anyone the permission to do evil to us ,otherwise we are protected from evil by GOD saying no or putting limits on to what extent that evil extend. Just as Christ named Peter as the Rock which HE woulld build HIS church on,but put limitations on Peter . Read on in that passage,"Get thyself behind ME satan" when Peter started to speak as to what GOD should do and HE told Peter he could only speak for man. As to your entry about there being only One Catholic Church, All of those Catholic Churches had Bishops at the Nicene Council including the Bishop of Rome and they all submitted to the authority of Council . The authority of the Council came from Constantine ,who appointed the head of it.Therefore the Head of the Catholic Church was the One that all branches of THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH submitted including the roman Catholic Church,which still says and believes in the Nicene Creed. There has been many other problems in the line of the Popes, but I would have no problem in accepting him as the head of THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURH if all of the many forms of the catholic church would accept him as such. The biggest block to this is "infallibility". As noted in the passage in the bible "Peter is the rock ,Chirist said Peter had made a mistake in regards in faith,morals,and dogma.How many of the learned bishops were excommunicated in the 1800's when they couldn't accept that doctrine? The r/c church said history showed it to be,but no one could come up with the historical references showing that idea being accepted in history. Will you please quote,or ask your father ,and get back to me with the historical basis for that "belief". I would really appreciate that. Thank you in advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Although ST. Constantine (a Saint of the Eastern Church) was very active in bringing the Council together, the Council was under the authority of the Pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
But Christ was still with Peter. Read a bit more:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel1st
Luke 22:30-32 (King James Version)
30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
And also:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
And also:
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Therefore, the charism of infallibility was given to Peter after Jesus ascended into heaven.
I don't know why not, we still have them today.Quote:
How many of the learned bishops were excommunicated in the 1800's when they couldn't accept that doctrine? The r/c church said history showed it to be,but no one could come up with the historical references showing that idea being accepted in history.
Sure:Quote:
Will you please quote,or ask your father ,and get back to me with the historical basis for that "belief". I would really appreciate that. Thank you in advance.
Testimony of the Early Church Fathers
Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).
Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"
Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Papal Infallibility
Why didn't Jesus say, "upon thee I will build my church" and point explicitly to Peter?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
As the verse stands, "upon this rock I will build my church," Jesus is referring to Himself as "this rock."
Huh? In that passage (Luke 22:30-32 and in the verses from John), Peter was simply being charged with the responsibility of becoming a missionary for Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Jesus was speaking Aramaic and He made a play on words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Remember that in Aramaic, Peter is Cephas or rock.
So, Jesus didn't say, "you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church."
He said, "you are Cephas and upon this cephas I will build my Church."
The play on words is perfectly clear. And the fact that the subject and object of that verse is one and the same, Simon, the one whom Jesus was singling out and rewarding for his statement of faith.
But only Simon was charged with the responsibility of being the Rock on whom the Church would rest and of being the Shepherd over Christ's sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Wrong again, de. If he was speaking Aramaic then there is no play on words. It's nothing but a repeated word, and that's not a play on words. The pun only works in Greek, which is clearly the language Jesus was speaking here, and there are two different Greek words used. He said "you are peter," a word meaning "a small stone," and "upon this rock," a word meaning "huge boulder." If you actually knew anything about the language in question you'd realize that there is indeed a play on words here, but it goes in the opposite direction that you claim. Jesus said, "you're a rock, all right, but I'll build my church on a much bigger rock, i.e. myself."Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The play on words is there, but it explicitly says that Peter is NOT the "rock" that the church is built on.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:41 AM. |