Posted on 06/07/2011 3:11:26 PM PDT by Minus_The_Bear
So your cult can go ahead and worship its robotmaker deity and we will continue worshipping our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, part of the ONE Triune godhead, the Christian God.
The calvinGod of Hate that your cult worships is not the Christian God.
What did I do to deserve that comment?
You and I both agree that we don't worship the same God. I can deal with that. There are essentially three systems that all claim, to some measure, Biblical foundations. Rome adds Holy Tradition which supplants Scripture, and the American Religion syncretizes Scripture with pop psychology and post-modern cultural memes, so basically there is only one that relies on Scripture alone - that is this so-called "calvinGod of Hate" which for some odd reason was the same God Augustine recognized twelve hundred years earlier.
Because of these differences that Rome and the American Religion can alter reality as needed, its folly to argue or even debate theology between the groups. Maybe we can talk about lawn care or the current baseball season.
You want to discuss civilly, fine, even disagree or argue without resorting to slurs, that's good.
Augustine disagreed with those philosophies especially being against double-predestination
I will pray for your soul.
Thank you. though do note I was referring to double-predestination as being not Christian.
don't go all innocent on me -- what was the uncalled for " it must be so for the god(s) that Ro.. worships"?
Because that is the non-Roman Catholics perception of your faith system. From a non-Rome perspective, veneration of Mary and labeling her as mediatrix and able to entertain the world's prayers and petitions is arguably making her Deity. I know that Rome doesn't see it that way, but obviously, there are many things that Rome sees one way and the world sees as another. Your faith also requires you to abide unquestioningly to the decrees and teachings of the various Popes and their Councils, no matter how contradictory their doctrines and Traditions are over time. To your every day rank and file Catholic, this is a swell arrangement, so great that it was easy to overlook the many campaigns of torture and slaughter that Rome committed against "heretics" and those who simply disagreed. And the Muslims are just as resolute in their faith that shares those same attributes too.
That is why I don't care for the debates between faiths. We both see our systems as infallible and immutable. OK, check, that - y'all don't see yours as immutable, just infallible (provided you can handle the logical/rational conflict in that belief as it coexists with the dynamism and evolution of Holy Tradition)
Augustine disagreed with those philosophies especially being against double-predestination
Perhaps, but there are many Protestants that can't stomach that teaching either - even when it makes for a glaring hole in their soteriology; and as you know every religion on the Planet outside orthodox Christianity rejects Divine Sovereign Election.
How about them Mavericks?
That's what we think of it putting it crudely as your earlier post did. There are nicer ways of putting it such that one still shows disagreement with the others faith yet has the respect for the other person to word it differently.
incorrect -- orthodoxy, which is a way of belief and life is immutable, unchanging. That is why the process of the Mass is the same as described in the Didache.
The reason for the Church's vilification at various points is precisely this immutable nature. That is why the Church is called liberals in the 1890s and conservative a few decades later. That is why she is attacked by the purely script-based calvinists and the purely emotional b-aers.
The immutable nature is visible in the way we don't put things up to vote as the PCUSA did for example.
Sure, there are bad eggs, even evil ones, but the family that is The Church is bigger than that precisely because we have as our Head Priest Jesus Christ who protects it through the ages.
The reason for the Church's vilification at various points is precisely this immutable nature.
So are you saying that Simony is still freely practiced and encouraged within Rome? Or are you completely ignoring the 800# gorilla of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses?
The immutable nature is visible in the way we don't put things up to vote as the PCUSA did for example.
The PCUSA is Apostate and its clergy is Reprobate, everyone knows that.
Sure, there are bad eggs, even evil ones, but the family that is The Church is bigger than that precisely because we have as our Head Priest Jesus Christ who protects it through the ages.
Funny, since Protestants say the exact thing, but I would bet that we mean different things. For example, when you say "The Church" you are referring to that man-made government centered in Rome whereas when the Bible speaks of "The Church" the idea is all the Saints who make up the Corpus Christi, regardless of Rome's demand that their petty religious architecture is properly venerated and given credit.
Which shows the superiority of the Original system where there were loose Congregations spread around the world united in their Faith rather than united in fear of a religious government wielding the torch and iron maiden to "enforce" properly fealty to Rome. So when Reprobates and Perverts take over the man-made system known as PC-USA, the true church made up of the Elect will be moved by the Spirit to leave that house of Ichabod and find a new pastor. When your pedophiles and perverts do what Reprobates do, Rome circles the wagons and fights off the civil lawsuits - typical of what human government would and should do.
Neither of those are doctrines....
Oh, and when we talk of the Church we talk of the community of believers that is orthodoxy with our traditional Anglican and Lutheran friends. However, the calvingod is not the Christian God.
I agree that it was a mistake to put those criminals in the 70s - 80s in “correctional psychological retreats” instead of chucking them out, yet there has been a learning from this and they are being thrown out — the Church remains pure as its High Priest is pure, irrespective of the corruption of ministerial priesthood or lay priesthood.
The original Apostolic Church was with 5 sees: Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Constantinople with each of these holding succession from an Apostle giving them the authority to correct those straying. The first among equals in respect was Rome. The error was in translating this to political power which occured in the 12th century after the Avignon exile and intermittently in teh 8th-9th. In either cases it was to provide a form of stability in a vacuum when either central authority had collapsed or was in civil war.
The Early Christians viewed the spiritual / teaching authority of the Pentarchy as a way to eliminate anarchy -- which was pretty much needed with the rise of Manichaenism,Gnosticism, Mazdaism, etc. etc.
There was no "system" like in the various congregational types today where people vote on dogma.
The Bishops/Elders of the various places taught by the Apostles had their duty to ensure the faith as handed down from Jesus Christ through the Apostles was correctly handed down to later generations. Just as the various disciples (such as Thaddeus of Edessa) were in obedience to the Apostles (such as St. Peter) and the Apostles to Christ, so too were the descendent bishops in obedience on dogma to the bishops of the pentarchy and in obedience to Christ
Christ did not establish multiple brides but one Bride.
Christ did not establish multiple brides but one Bride.
Amen.
You may perceive my faith in a certain light and I may perceive yours in a certain light, yet if we really want to have dialogue or share our faith, it makes no sense to speak as bluntly as "robot calvingods" or your statement
All I'm asking for is a civil tone -- not conciliation or "kumbaya" -- we can disagree or argue in a way that it respects the other person
it's difficult -- not the least for me, but it's possible and it bears fruit. I talk to my Eastern Orthodox friends here and we used to have bitter arguments in 2004-2007, but what happened was that near the end we (all of us) realised we were accusing each other of stuff that happened centuries before or of things that were not true, just what we thought.
Now we actually have a dialogue -- we recognise our differences but we also know that there are many points that we taught of the other that are just not true.
Net result is that we share more and more of our faith and beliefs. We're not one communion yet, but we are able to see ourselves as brethern with disagreements rather than hated enemies
I consider that the focus should be on the entire bible, not just the Pauline Epistles, but still, some focus is a starting point.
The 3 points that I strongly cannot reconcile with are double pre-d, lack of belief in the true presence and baptism for the remission of sins. I know you would disagree with these, and so be it, but these are the three points that I cannot see reconciled with scripture and what we have always believed
For that reason I see communion between us in orthodoxy and the Lutherans and traditional anglicans.
I have put it crudely with c-g but I do see the entire double p-d and zero free-will as indicating just that and that does not square with what I know of scripture. My Lutheran friends, who are on that border have given much more detailed responses on why this is incorrect
Predestination. Most Presbyterian churches teach a "double predestination," i.e., that some people are predestined by God from eternity to be saved and others are predestined by God from eternity to be damned.Lutherans believe that while God, in his grace in Christ Jesus, has indeed chosen from eternity to save those who trust in Jesus Christ, He has not predestined anyone to damnation.
Those who are saved are saved by grace alone; those who are damned are damned not by God's choice but because of their own sin and stubbornness. This is a mystery that is incomprehensible to human reason (as are all true Scriptural articles of faith).
I honestly do believe that Presbyterianism while trying to distance itself from orthodoxy stripped away too much of the mystery that is God and led to puritanism. The adverse reaction of this is pentecostalism which is the 180 degree opposite -- more reliance on feelings etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.