CICCIO Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 its not that hard to understand it. you jsut hae to take time. sometimes, like poetry, you have to read it more than once to get the meaning. its only because it uses uncommon lanuage. and if you take the time to desipher each of the paragraphs one at a time, you can see its not quite double speak. (i asume you mean that jokingly, but i can see how enitially it would look like doublespeak) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I read through this whole topic, and I found two posts, that I really red, and thought about, for a few minutes, Litlle Flower, Great stuff, and I quoted Dust, because I truly believe what he said. I just don't want to learn about my faith in 10 minutes, we believe this, and we believe that. I want to be able to study for years and years and years, on end, learning more about God, and the church he has set forth. Learning about your beliefs in 10 minutes would be unrealalistic. How can you understand your beliefs, and what you believe in that little time. So, for years and years, I plan to study my faith, as I strive to become a priest, and proclaim what God has taught me, and continue to learn from Jesus the teacher. I'm thinking you missed something. The protestant gospel is simple - theology is not. I would actually think protestant theology has much more to learn than that Catholic one merely because there are no limits to the possibilities. And since you have thousands of well educated protestants with Th.M's and Ph.D's and such you are seeing an evolution currently of theology - I am anxious to see where it will be in years. It is constantly growing and changing as men are grown up to let Scripture speak for itself. It used to be hardcore dispensationalism - now it is progressive dispensationalism. Epangelical theology is also out there now and they are all trying to figure out how the entire Bible works together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I'm thinking you missed something. The protestant gospel is simple - theology is not. I would actually think protestant theology has much more to learn than that Catholic one merely because there are no limits to the possibilities. And since you have thousands of well educated protestants with Th.M's and Ph.D's and such you are seeing an evolution currently of theology - I am anxious to see where it will be in years. It is constantly growing and changing as men are grown up to let Scripture speak for itself. It used to be hardcore dispensationalism - now it is progressive dispensationalism. Epangelical theology is also out there now and they are all trying to figure out how the entire Bible works together. You're kidding us, right? And you have what problem with "Catholic" theology that has developed for 2,000 years? Epangelical theology is also out there now and they are all trying to figure out how the entire Bible works together.Give them a hint. The Old Testament prophisises and foretells the New Testament. The New Testatment fulfills the Old Testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Give them a hint. The Old Testament prophisises and foretells the New Testament. The New Testatment fulfills the Old Testament. you really have no idea what you are talking about jasjis anyway.... why have you been so rude lately? are you sick or something? bad day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 you really have no idea what you are talking about jasjis Oh yeah. My bad. I'm an idiot. CCC 140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfils the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God. anyway.... why have you been so rude lately? are you sick or something? bad day? I'm battlling hatefilled Lies that seek to hide Truth and Grace from innocents who are young in Grace and don't know. War is rarely polite. -_- I think I've been doing pretty well, though. In the spirit of kindness and gentleness, I don't say A LOT of stuff I have the desire to say, nor in the manner I think would be more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I think Jas does have a point. Prots complain we have changed the teachings of Christ's original church then you tell us about your progessive theology. It does sound totally contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 this is a very complex theological matter. you said that the Church has replaced Israel in another thread. Here are some problems which must be dealt with then 1) God never made a formal covenant with the church 2) The failure of the Jews, like the failure of the Gentiles, was included and calculated in the plan of God (Rom. 11:8) 3) Even now there is a faithful remnant of Jewish believers who are part of Israel and part of the church (Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 3:16) 4) The New Testament clearly teaches that God has not cast off disobedient Israel (Rom. 11:1, 25-26) 5) The church is never called the "new Israel" of God in the Bible 6) The claim that the promises about the land were fulfilled long ago, thus making the present state of Israel irrelevant to the plan of God, is unsupported by Scripture. Zechariah 10, for exmaple, written after the return from Babylonian exile, is still looking forward to the regathering of Jews from the four corners of the earth. These are some of the things which are attempting to be explained by the growth of theology, to figure out how everything works together. JasJis - you said the NT fulfills the OT. Well, some of it. The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant as it was fulfilled by Christ, but there are problems as to the role of the Church - what to do with Israel, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Brucey, Your quote is in English. The original document was probably in Latin. What do I win? What do I win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 this is a very complex theological matter. you said that the Church has replaced Israel in another thread. Here are some problems which must be dealt with then 1) God never made a formal covenant with the church 2) The failure of the Jews, like the failure of the Gentiles, was included and calculated in the plan of God (Rom. 11:8) 3) Even now there is a faithful remnant of Jewish believers who are part of Israel and part of the church (Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 3:16) 4) The New Testament clearly teaches that God has not cast off disobedient Israel (Rom. 11:1, 25-26) 5) The church is never called the "new Israel" of God in the Bible 6) The claim that the promises about the land were fulfilled long ago, thus making the present state of Israel irrelevant to the plan of God, is unsupported by Scripture. Zechariah 10, for exmaple, written after the return from Babylonian exile, is still looking forward to the regathering of Jews from the four corners of the earth. These are some of the things which are attempting to be explained by the growth of theology, to figure out how everything works together. JasJis - you said the NT fulfills the OT. Well, some of it. The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant as it was fulfilled by Christ, but there are problems as to the role of the Church - what to do with Israel, etc. Anyone can eat an elephant. We just have to remember we only can do it one bite at a time. Complexity is not a problem. Instead of gnawing all over the outside of the elepahnt, let's stay in one place and get chomping down to the bone. Start with your point one. 1.) God never made a formal covenant with the church. Let's examine the validity of that. Who or what is the church you speak of and who you think we speak of so we can then both examine Scripture (and Cath's can use Tradition to guide in Scripture) to find where God did or didnot make a comenant with the "church". We'll leave the other points alone until we got this one chewed and swallowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 8, 2004 Author Share Posted January 8, 2004 (edited) this is a very complex theological matter. you said that the Church has replaced Israel in another thread. Here are some problems which must be dealt with then 1) God never made a formal covenant with the church Last night, on EWTN, Scott Hahn, Catholic apologist was being interviewed on this very subject. He went into what a Covenent is, was, and how it is structured. Who does what, and what are the obligations contained therein. As things developed, he extended the original Covent God made with Noah, then Abraham, later Jacob, and Moses, the tribes of Israel... Then made the astonishing statement that this Covenent with God was now extended to the CATHOLIC church too, and "in THE church" implying strongly that meant those within the Catholic Church. Amazing. He did NOT say, all Christians, but the Catholic church. Edited January 8, 2004 by Bruce S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Why is this amazing? I would say that Catholic docrine is pretty clear on it. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Last night, on EWTN, Scott Hahn, Catholic apologist was being interviewed on this very subject. He went into what a Covenent is, was, and how it is structured. Who does what, and what are the obligations contained therein. As things developed, he extended the original Covent God made with Noah, then Abraham, later Jacob, and Moses, the tribes of Israel... Then made the astonishing statement that this Covenent with God was now extended to the CATHOLIC church too, and "all believers" implying strongly that meant those within the Catholic Church. Amazing. He did NOT say, all Christians, but the Catholic church. *edit* :batman: Is Scott a Bishop or Pope? We are to take BruceS word for what Scott said? How about quoting from one of Scotts writings to present what Scott REALLY says about what the Church is. How about using Circle's outline to reasonably and logically address the points he brought up? You can do it to help the dummy Cath's AND show a sign of Protestant solidarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Last night, on EWTN, Scott Hahn, Catholic apologist was being interviewed on this very subject. He went into what a Covenent is, was, and how it is structured. Who does what, and what are the obligations contained therein. As things developed, he extended the original Covent God made with Noah, then Abraham, later Jacob, and Moses, the tribes of Israel... Then made the astonishing statement that this Covenent with God was now extended to the CATHOLIC church too, and "in THE church" implying strongly that meant those within the Catholic Church. Amazing. He did NOT say, all Christians, but the Catholic church. well, yeah. There was, and is, only ONE Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 8, 2004 Author Share Posted January 8, 2004 There was, and is, only ONE Church. And what are Protestants then, semi-offical Catholics. Or... Are we, as we contend, ALL members of the Christian [small c] catholic [universal church] in good standing with God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 (edited) And what are Protestants then, semi-offical Catholics. Or... Are we, as we contend, ALL members of the Christian [small c] catholic [universal church] in good standing with God? people who are imperfectly joined to Jesus thru the Church he left behind. There is only one faith, one baptism, and one Church, one mediator. Edited January 8, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now