- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,685
- 7,908
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'll get back to you as soon as I attain to sinlessness.
Such sinless perfection. I'm so impressed.
Tchau, Tchau.
May God’s love shine upon you.
There are a few delineating factors between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rites of the Catholic church. I'm no expert on the matter, but I would say the greatest point of difference is the authority of the Pope.I know Eastern Orthodox have more apocrypha books than Roman Catholics. Now is this the delineating factor between what's considered Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rites of the Catholic church?
My understanding is that all the Eastern Catholic Churches permit married clergy, except for the Ethiopian Catholic Church.Eastern Orthodox clergy can get married too. Are there other Catholic Rites where their clergy can get married?
I'd actually never heard of this bloke, but I don't think he's an ordained Catholic clergyman (either priest or religious), therefore he's free to marry.There is a musician; John Michael Talbot (I'm assuming you know who he is. He's pretty well known.) He had gotten married. Did he do this because he joined a Rite other than Roman Catholic. I know he lives in a commune (don't think they call it a "monastery" because there are single men, single women and married couples with families who live in this facility
I thought John Michael Talbot was an ordained priest at one point? But maybe he never quite got that far. I know he's a monk.I'd actually never heard of this bloke, but I don't think he's an ordained Catholic clergyman (either priest or religious), therefore he's free to marry.
What does "my sins have already been judged in Christ" mean?I never said it meant I can sin with impunity. And my sins have already been judged in Christ.
No point in reading verses in isolation - any verses that seemingly teach you can be saved by a belief alone are rendered irrelevant by the many verses that teach salvation thru faith and works (Exhibit A: James 2:24).Unless you are new to reading the Bible, there are verses that teach you can be saved by a belief alone. Try reading 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:3-4, Romans 11:6. You cannot honestly twist these verses to say salvation by works in these verses.
Poor choice of words, if you ask me (the term "initial salvation" strikes me as oxymoronic). No one is saved or granted salvation until they're judged by Christ on Judgement Day and (hopefully) declared worthy of eternal life. Hence, "justified" or "initial justification" seem to me to be more appropriate terms than "saved" and "initial salvation".They are clearly referring to how you GET SAVED or Initial Salvation.
Well, he seems to live like a monk, but as far as I know he's neither a priest nor a religious (an officially consecrated "brother", who must take the same vow of celibacy that a Roman Catholic priest does).I thought John Michael Talbot was an ordained priest at one point? But maybe he never quite got that far. I know he's a monk.
I would suggest that anyone who claims to be sinless is definitely proud and not humble at all ... or at the very least, seriously deluded.This is dangerous because James 4:6 says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
How do you interpret that verse? If anyone sins at all, they are "of the devil"?If a person commits sin, they are of the devil.
1 John 3:8
“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”
The point is, Paul warns believers that their sins can destroy their hope of eternal life.The form of the Greek verb in Galatians 5:21 is "present active participle". These are people who habitually commit these kinds of sins.
How do you know they have "no power to overcome" their sins?They have no power to overcome them because they are still dead in their trespass and sin.
Not all sins are "deadly", but some are (1John 5:16-17). I suggest that murder (which includes abortion) is one of the "deadly" sins - it's not unpardonable, but it certainly has the potential to put one's hope of salvation at risk.This verse does not mean that anyone who's ever committed murder, been drunk, "rioted", or been jealous of someone can never be saved. Envy, murder, drunkeness and reveling are not the unpardonable sins.
The Catholic Church has various rites. Most Catholics follow the "Latin" or "Roman" rite. Catholics use a variety of translations of Bibles which have been translated into numerous languages. At first Greek translations were the most common, but eventually Latin became the language of the literate in Europe and thus a Latin Vulgate ("Vulgate" was derived from "vulgar," or the "common" language) translation was made. No particular Bible is assigned to a rite.Interesting, I never knew this.
So the different "Catholics" are called different rites. I always assumed all geographically eastern churches were "Eastern Orthodox" of some form or another. (But I also know there's more than one "Eastern Orthodox". (Coptic (Egyptian), Greek Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox). Then there's regional groups like the Ethiopian church (not sure what their official name is; and there's probably more than one "denomination" in Ethiopia).
Learn something new every day.
Do the different rites have their own Bible translations too? (Thus why the Latin (Roman) has the Latin Vulgate.) Although most Roman Catholics I know use regional language translations and not necessarily the Latin.
When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible all apocryphal texts were rejected. You can read about the Great Schism, but perhaps the most well known difference between The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox is in regard to recognition of the pope. The Catholic Church uses the same 73 books today, in the same order, as was finalized in the late 300s. I think of a rite as being mostly liturgical, all of us are Catholics, we all use the same Catholic Catechism and the different rites are seen as added beauty rather than any kind of source of division. Catholics can attend mass in any Catholic rite.I know Eastern Orthodox have more apocrypha books than Roman Catholics. Now is this the delineating factor between what's considered Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rites of the Catholic church? Eastern Orthodox clergy can get married too. Are there other Catholic Rites where their clergy can get married?
There is a musician; John Michael Talbot (I'm assuming you know who he is. He's pretty well known.) He had gotten married. Did he do this because he joined a Rite other than Roman Catholic. I know he lives in a commune (don't think they call it a "monastery" because there are single men, single women and married couples with families who live in this facility.
Certainly. We're made in the image of God, hence God commands, "“You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1Peter 1:14-17).I see the Mosaic law as a reflection of God's eternal moral standard.
The Mosaic laws that Jesus fulfilled were rendered defunct, but the moral laws remained.Now Matthew 5:17; Jesus didn't abolish the law; but he did fulfill it.
Yes.Yes, the Mosaic law is like the "cliff notes" of God's eternal moral standard.
There are different ways of interpreting "the law of Christ", I guess.I was thinking more Romans 7:25, Romans 8:2 and Romans 10:4. There's a mess of similar verses in Galatians also.
But the one you've quoted here ties into Romans 13:10.
Agreed.Jesus did not come to abrogate God's Eternal Moral Laws (like do not murder, do not hate, do not commit adultery, do not steal, etc.). Jesus nailed to the cross those ordinances that were against us (like the Saturday Sabbath, the death penalty for disobeying God's laws, circumcision, the dietary laws, etc.) (See Colossians 2:14-17). Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17). So Jesus did not come to destroy all forms of Law and its consequences but He came to fulfill them into their true intended purpose with the commands given to us within the New Testament.
God declared the Sabbath day holy way back in Genesis 2:1-3 ...These many commands in the NT are based on love. Love God and love your neighbor.
The Ten simply do not exist anymore.
Yes, 9 out of the 10 still apply. The Saturday Sabbath is no longer a command for believers under the New Covenant.
That's not what the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 said - it said Gentile Christians don't have to keep all the Mosaic laws that Jewish Christians were expected to keep.Acts 15 is particularly noteworthy. It was a counsel that said that Gentile Christians do not have to keep the Law of Moses.
It doesn't say all 613 laws of Moses have been abolished. It doesn't say the Ten Commandments have been abolished.Hebrews 7:12 says the law has changed.
No. Not Michael Card. I like some of his songs. Then again it is not surprising that most who would be popular in the Christian Music industry would be ecumenical. That is truly sad news to hear, though. Let’s pray and hope God convicts Michael Card’s heart to not fellowship with Talbot (Note: fellowship involves prayer - See Acts 2:42).I thought John Michael Talbot was an ordained priest at one point? But maybe he never quite got that far. I know he's a monk.
If you like majestic music; you'd like his music. Very talented fellow! If you're familiar with Michael Card; he's friends with Michael Card. They've collaborated on some albums together.
And you wonder why you might get frustrated at Protestants for doing the same with the works for salvation verses.No point in reading verses in isolation - any verses that seemingly teach you can be saved by a belief alone are rendered irrelevant by the many verses that teach salvation thru faith and works (Exhibit A: James 2:24).
People who believe the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in that we are to believe that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and risen the third day can save a person and or along with calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (seeking forgiveness of one’s past life of sin) can save a person (Romans 10:9) (Romans 10:13) (Luke 18:9-14). Meaning, a person who is about to die on their hospital bed can receive Jesus Christ as their Savior before they have a few seconds to live and be saved by faith alone and or by God’s grace alone. This is a process of salvation without works because it is how a believer is first saved (If you believe those pesky verses you say are irrelevant).Besides that, what purpose does it serve anyone to argue that certain verses teach that you can be saved by faith alone? How is that argument going to help someone get to Heaven and avoid ending up in hell?
One can obey by believing in their Initial Salvation and yet it would not be regarded as a work because it is just one simply believing and throwing themselves before the mercy of the Lord for salvation. This is what you fail to understand because the Catholic Church has made sure that you will not accept certain verses in your Bible. No offense of course. I see everything the RCC adds to the Bible as man made traditions. However, Jesus warned against the traditions of men. In fact, when you do a Bible search on the key word “traditions” in the Bible, it has more of a negative meaning to that word primarily. Only one time does this word have a positive meaning and this is simply in reference to the teachings of Scripture and not some imaginary oral traditions of the RCC that were later written down.It's much more helpful to argue the biblical truth that sin can destroy a believer's hope of eternal life, which equates to arguing for salvation thru faith and works (aka faith and obedience).
Most Christians live out their faith and it is not as common that most simply accept Jesus as their Savior on their death bed. Hence, the added emphasis on how we will be judged by our works at the Judgment. It is not contradictory to Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:3-5, Romans 11:6, etcetera. I mean, you cannot honestly read and believe Romans 11:6 with a straight face in your current belief system. But then again you said verses like these are just irrelevant, which means you are admitting that only parts of the Bible are true to the way you want to see it. So you cherry pick the verses in the Bible you want to believe in. This is not going to work come Judgment day because Jesus said if we do not receive His words, those words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48). Even Jesus taught at times the emphasis of being saved by God’s grace over just doing good alone (without God’s grace) in Luke 18:9-14. Jesus said that the Tax Collector who cried out, and said, God be merciful to me a sinner. The Pharisee was talking to God and said he was glad he was not like others who were sinful in conduct. But Jesus said the Tax Collector was justified and not the Pharisee. The Pharisee was boasting in himself and making it only about what he did alone and he did not acknowledge God’s grace and ability of God to do the good work through His life. He did not give God the glory both in God’s saving grace and in Sanctification (Which also is a part of salvation).Poor choice of words, if you ask me (the term "initial salvation" strikes me as oxymoronic). No one is saved or granted salvation until they're judged by Christ on Judgement Day and (hopefully) declared worthy of eternal life. Hence, "justified" or "initial justification" seem to me to be more appropriate terms than "saved" and "initial salvation".
I am aware that Catholics and the Church of Christ believe in how they hold to a man made tradition that says that you need to first be water baptized to be initially saved. It’s why Modern Bibles (which are secretly Vatican bibles) have altered passages like in Acts 8 involving the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip. Verse 37 is removed. It says, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37). So this truth is removed and destroys the importance of how we need to first believe in Jesus for salvation. The King James Bible has the proper reading. But of course the RCC almost killed King James and his translation with a super bomb. Of course, Westcott and Hort who were supposed to do an update of the KJB had secretly pulled a switcheroo with an entirely different underlying texts (i.e., Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus - Catholic manuscripts) and they created their own Greek text and their own English translation of that text (i.e., the Revised Version) with Unitarians on their team.The verses you mention refer to initial justification, which begins with faith, expressed sacramentally by baptism ... followed by sanctification (works/obedience), the result of which is justification.
This sequential process is described in 1Cor 6:11 ...
"you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Co 6:11)
Okay. Before you reply to this post, I would like for you to read VERY SLOWLY the following pieces of Scripture in the King James Bible.I would suggest that anyone who claims to be sinless is definitely proud and not humble at all ... or at the very least, seriously deluded.
This is true, but Christians CAN overcome this by employing the methods that God has given us.Any man, for example, who looks at a woman or an image of a woman with some degree of lust has sinned ... 99% of Christian men just pleaded guilty to that one.
Proverbs 30:20 says:"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1John 1:8)
Please do not spread falsehoods about the Catholic Church, Most of your misinformation about Catholics could have been avoided with minimal research. Our Catechism is available to all, and I strongly suggest you quote the Catechism as to actual Catholic teaching, which you are free to dispute or disagree with. First, Catholics believe God can save people any way God wants to. The Bible says we are saved through Baptism, and Catholic believe the Bible to be the Word of God and indeed believe and today the way the majority of Christians are normally first saved is through Baptism: 1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCEI am aware that Catholics and the Church of Christ believe in how they hold to a man made tradition that says that you need to first be water baptized to be initially saved. It’s why Modern Bibles (which are secretly Vatican bibles) have altered passages like in Acts 8 involving the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip. Verse 37 is removed. It says, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37). So this truth is removed and destroys the importance of how we need to first believe in Jesus for salvation. The King James Bible has the proper reading. But of course the RCC almost killed King James and his translation with a super bomb. Of course, Westcott and Hort who were supposed to do an update of the KJB had secretly pulled a switcheroo with an entirely different underlying texts (i.e., Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus - Catholic manuscripts) and they created their own Greek text and their own English translation of that text (i.e., the Revised Version) with Unitarians on their team.
In one Catholic Bible I seen by Theo Hikmat on a YouTube video has a Catholic dictionary in this RCC Bible. In this dictionary it says to the Catholic layperson that it is forbidden to read the King James Version of the Bible. Yes, yes. I know. There is a 2020 KJV Catholic Bible that came out. But this was not too long in history that Theo Hikmat revealed this truth. The point here is that Catholics generally hated the King James Bible because it was in opposition to their Catholic manuscripts that they preferred. There are 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic church and many Protestants are simply clueless like lambs to the slaughter of these kinds of changes. Even when I point out such changes that are obvious some are blinded spiritually to see what I am talking about. It’s as if they don’t want to see it.
Catholics used to kill men like William Tyndale because of his spread of the Scriptures to the common man in English.
John Rodgers also a creator of a Textus Receptus Bible was also killed by Catholics.
The Bible was even kept out of your understanding for many years in the fact that it was spoken in Latin and the lay person did not even understand it. Also, no lay person was allowed to study the Bible for themselves until World War 2. Again, this is a major red flag to me in that your church sought to keep the Word of God away from you because they obviously did not want to lose control of the power of getting folks to just believe the man made traditions vs. just believing the Bible alone. Because if they read their Bible, they would see that these practices were unbiblical. Hence, why they kept the Bible out of their hands for so many centuries.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?