Dear: DepromammerLiberalism;Elsie;Rides_A_Red_Horse; iscool;WVKayaker; CommerceComet; daniel1212; amoreperfectunion;ex-snook;ritaok
This is not a forum to school you on the absolute truths of Catholicism. I have purposely avoided citing the writings of renowned Catholic theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman Benedict (after whom colleges and universities have been named and their writings form part of the standard theological curriculum even in Evangelical colleges.).
I have tried to present in summary form those Protestant theologians who after years of study and scholarship, some trying to prove that Catholicism is wrong, actually ended up converting to Catholicism. In fact the preeminent Lutheran theologian of his times, Rev. Richard Neuhaus not only converted to Catholicism, he became a Catholic priest.
But all this is of not avail. DeprogrammerLiberalism attempts his hand at playing internet theologian with disparate scriptural quotes as do many of the others whose singular tact appears to be to let loose waterfalls of scriptural quotes. From this premise they argue that Catholic doctrine is wrong, or worse that “their” interpretations of scripture is the correct one.
What these Bible Christian don’t appear to understand is that is exactly what proves my point. This is why we Catholics have Petrine authority and a Catholic Catechism, and a Catholic Mass, and a Catholic veneration to the Mother of God that is for all, in all nations, and for all times.
Despite written historical references by the early Church fathers, and the Synod of Rome in AD 382, a full eleven centuries before the heresy of Protestantism and its thousands of variants washed ashore, and whose beliefs have been vindicated by some of the greatest theological minds known to making, we still have amoreperfectunion naively telling us that he is still “waiting for a list of authoritative traditions.” The answer is easy.
We have several traditions such as the Catholic sacraments. These traditions complement scripture as do ritual and practice. We have Petrine authority. We have the Catholic Mass. These are cogently explained in the Catholic Catechism, but if you don’t care to spend serious time reading this, there is not much we can do here.
Deprogrammerliberalism captures the sheer shallowness of Bible Christianity by supply a menu of scriptural quotes, and providing us with “his” definitive interpretation of these passages.
Here’s an example of sheer nonsense. He tells us:
“Why would Jesus say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Why would He not have said, “For God so loves the world” - present tense? Would it not make more sense, if God does indeed love the world?”
It does not occur to Deprogrammerliberalism that when we discuss God doing an action from outside time, we are often stuck with either using past tense or present tense when really God’s actions are not past, present or future, they are all of them and none of them.
But this is what happens when Bible Christians don’t have an Augustine or Aquinas or Newman, or the early Church fathers. They rush to third-rate bloggers for a quick cut and paste argument.
metmon; smvoice, elsie;and wvkayaker essentially keep telling us that they are unable to make the intellectual leap between the personal lives of saints, sinners, random utterances of individuals, and official belief.
We are speaking here of the latter. Formal beliefs. Billy Graham may be a nice and honorable man, but his heresy is no different from Joel Osteen or David Koresh in their failure to admit to Catholic belief based on scripture, the sacred oral tradition (John 21:25); and ritual and practice and most of all revelation in the Church’s choosing of God’s authentic written word against the gnostic writings.
elsie apparently expects the Nicene Creed to contain all the elements of belief. So she writes:
“Nothing in there about Mary except and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, Nothing in there about Canonizing ‘Saints’”
You may now understand the rut of Protestantism.
The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, “Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err” (Quodl. 9:8:16).
But now at least we know where wvkayaker “cult theory” is coming from. He writes:
“It is a group of people indoctrinated into the “traditions” that have been told to ignore what they see in Scripture.”
“Group of people!” “indoctrinated!” This is beyond breathtaking. Thus all the great Catholic thinkers, and Protestant scholars are just a “group of people’ who have been “indoctrinated”?
May be you should go down this illustrious list of Catholic converts that include Judge Robert Bork, Judge Thomas, Robert Novak (Jewish). But here’s an A-Z List of CONVERTS to Catholicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
I repeat this is not a place to offer Bible Christians a comprehensive schooling in Catholic theology. So here’s a work below (under $15 on Amazon) written by a former evangelist who converted to Catholicism.
It is written by Dave Armstrong (a former Protestant campus missionary) and is aptly titled: “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.”
You may try reading and absorbing this before you again keep posting blogger’s versions of scripture.
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Defense-Catholicism-Dave-Armstrong/dp/1928832954
http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/Assets/ProductImages/prodpdf/954.pdf
You can go back to the political forum now.
John 3: 1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 NO ONE HAS EVER GONE INTO HEAVEN EXCEPT THE ONE WHO CAME FROM HEAVEN—THE SON OF MAN. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
Yeah - Elsie did that for you with Augustine and schooled you royally.
>>>I have tried to present in summary form those Protestant theologians who after years of study and scholarship, some trying to prove that Catholicism is wrong, actually ended up converting to Catholicism.<<<
I probably have more hours of actual hands-on biblical research than those whom you quote. Your constant appeals to authority do not impress me. Your authorities do not impress me.
>>>Here’s an example of sheer nonsense. He tells us:
“Why would Jesus say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Why would He not have said, “For God so loves the world” - present tense? Would it not make more sense, if God does indeed love the world?”
It does not occur to Deprogrammerliberalism that when we discuss God doing an action from outside time, we are often stuck with either using past tense or present tense when really God’s actions are not past, present or future, they are all of them and none of them.<<<
My goodness, aren't we full of surprises today - you actually addressed a scriptural quote. Perhaps tomorrow you'll read some Scripture.
On the contrary, it has indeed occurred to me, Steelfish - I have written a whole book on God's relationship with time.
Nowhere in the Scriptures is it suggested that God must be separate from time for Him to be immutable, or that He is omniscient of all things for all time. These are Gnostic/Greek philosophical presuppositions around which certain Scriptures have since been selectively interpreted to uphold. Gnostic and Christian doctrines (and sects) battled for dominance throughout the early centuries of the Church, no doubt with Gnostic influence accounting for many of the Church traditions proceeding from that age, including this idea that God is separate from time. Augustine finally gave in to the Gnostics' argument. But the Scriptures emphatically teach that God experiences time and relates to His creation exclusively so. Not one conversation between any man or angel and God presumes that God knows all of the future as absolute. Not even one. Indeed, in my book, MetaChristianity - Unlocking Temporal Bible Mysteries I present dozens of examples of God interacting with others solely based on the presumption that God is in time just like every other being. Here is one example:
===
Let's take a look at the longest philosophical discussion in the Bible on God's relationship to His creation - Job.
For forty-two wordy Old Testament chapters five men and God Himself have at it about God's relationship to His creation, mankind, and their relationship with Him. Add in a smattering of sons of God and even the devil himself in the first couple of chapters, and you have a series of philosophical discussions unlike any others in history. Here are just a few of the topics covered:
Do temporal blessings from God prove one's righteousness?
Are the sacrifices of a loving and concerned father for his sons and daughters enough to satisfy God?
Do men fear God because of His blessings or the anxiety of losing them?
Does suffering and tragedy tell us the mind of God?
Does God test us with suffering and tragedy?
Is Satan an agent of God?
Does Satan incite God?
Does our current situation in life reflect our relationship with God?
Why do the innocent suffer?
Is God faithful despite that He sends suffering?
Can one act righteous enough to satisfy God?
Is it possible to satisfy God? Can one be blameless in the sight of God?
Is God unjust in punishing the righteous and ignoring the wicked?
Does death give rest from the judgment of God?
Will a redeemer defend the judged against God?
Can one justify one's self before God?
Is self-righteousness rebellion against God?
Does justifying one's self condemn God's justice?
Can a man answer to God?
And on and on...
Of course, some of these are answered and some are not, and some are answered incorrectly. But the answers are not our concern. It is what is not included that is of interest. In no way does the author of Job, Job himself, his four friends, Satan, or even God, ever address whether God knows the future of Job's dilemma. It is never discussed and never assumed. Indeed the presumption throughout is that God relates to mankind (and Satan for that matter) wholly within the bounds of time. When God sarcastically interrogates Job as to his Godly abilities in chapters 38 to 41 it does not seem to have crossed God's mind to ask Job if he thought that God could see the future, even though it surely would have hammered His point home to Job better than any of the examples God actually used. No, never, not once, in forty two chapters of discussing God's relationship with creation and mankind (and as a side issue, with Satan), is the matter of God knowing the future assumed, discussed, narrated on, or even hinted at. Augustine certainly did not get his supposed enlightenment from the book of Job.
If Job teaches us anything at all, it is that God's relationship with creation and mankind is at least partly contingent on how events unfold, and not on some fixed future that God supposedly knows exhaustively. To dismiss these discrepancies as some would as an anthropotheism (attributing humanizing aspects to God) begs the question of the authenticity of the characters in Job, and the author of Job. And it also begs the question as to what are the human characteristics supposedly being anthropotheized. Were they all ignorant of the supposed eternal-now-god or were they just playing the part of dupes for our supposed benefit? Is it characteristically human to be idiots or play-actors? Is this the contention of the adherents of Augustine's supposed eternal-now-god? And to what benefit? What do we learn from a book where none of the characters are honestly portrayed? Instead we are supposed to suspend our intelligence and ignore that the characters are supposedly portrayed as imbecilic dupes or deceitful play-actors. Again - of what possible benefit? This just casts doubt on the authenticity of the book of Job and its author.
===
As this applies to "For God so loved the world", Augustine called God the eternal-now-god, which if it were true, begs the question again, why did not Christ say, "For God so loves the world” - present tense, in accordance with the idea of an eternal-now-god? You are making my argument for me, Steelfish - thank you.
It was the Gnostics who through their "secret knowledge" claimed that their god was supreme to the Christian and Jewish God because theirs was supposedly outside of time and could see all of time at once. They never claimed that they got this insight from the Bible. And for good reason - the Bible never claims or even acknowledges in any way that God can see the all of future as absolute. This is and has always been Gnostic nonsense.
>>>But this is what happens when Bible Christians don’t have an Augustine or Aquinas or Newman, or the early Church fathers. They rush to third-rate bloggers for a quick cut and paste argument.<<<
The only cut and paste I have done in this thread has been from my own research and writings.
It is you, Steelfish who is the cut and paste king, appealing to authority without rhyme or reason. It is especially humorous to me when you try to impress me with Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism. I find neither to be of much value in understanding the Bible, especially since they agree on many egregious errors - like the canonicity of James.
Great post. Worth a repost.
This is not a forum to school you on the absolute truths of Catholicism. I have purposely avoided citing the writings of renowned Catholic theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman Benedict (after whom colleges and universities have been named and their writings form part of the standard theological curriculum even in Evangelical colleges.).
I have tried to present in summary form those Protestant theologians who after years of study and scholarship, some trying to prove that Catholicism is wrong, actually ended up converting to Catholicism. In fact the preeminent Lutheran theologian of his times, Rev. Richard Neuhaus not only converted to Catholicism, he became a Catholic priest.
But all this is of not avail. DeprogrammerLiberalism attempts his hand at playing internet theologian with disparate scriptural quotes as do many of the others whose singular tact appears to be to let loose waterfalls of scriptural quotes. From this premise they argue that Catholic doctrine is wrong, or worse that “their” interpretations of scripture is the correct one.
What these Bible Christian don’t appear to understand is that is exactly what proves my point. This is why we Catholics have Petrine authority and a Catholic Catechism, and a Catholic Mass, and a Catholic veneration to the Mother of God that is for all, in all nations, and for all times.
Despite written historical references by the early Church fathers, and the Synod of Rome in AD 382, a full eleven centuries before the heresy of Protestantism and its thousands of variants washed ashore, and whose beliefs have been vindicated by some of the greatest theological minds known to making, we still have amoreperfectunion naively telling us that he is still “waiting for a list of authoritative traditions.” The answer is easy.
We have several traditions such as the Catholic sacraments. These traditions complement scripture as do ritual and practice. We have Petrine authority. We have the Catholic Mass. These are cogently explained in the Catholic Catechism, but if you don’t care to spend serious time reading this, there is not much we can do here.
Deprogrammerliberalism captures the sheer shallowness of Bible Christianity by supply a menu of scriptural quotes, and providing us with “his” definitive interpretation of these passages.
Here’s an example of sheer nonsense. He tells us:
“Why would Jesus say, “For God so loved the world” - past tense? Why would He not have said, “For God so loves the world” - present tense? Would it not make more sense, if God does indeed love the world?”
It does not occur to Deprogrammerliberalism that when we discuss God doing an action from outside time, we are often stuck with either using past tense or present tense when really God’s actions are not past, present or future, they are all of them and none of them.
But this is what happens when Bible Christians don’t have an Augustine or Aquinas or Newman, or the early Church fathers. They rush to third-rate bloggers for a quick cut and paste argument.
metmon; smvoice, elsie;and wvkayaker essentially keep telling us that they are unable to make the intellectual leap between the personal lives of saints, sinners, random utterances of individuals, and official belief.
We are speaking here of the latter. Formal beliefs. Billy Graham may be a nice and honorable man, but his heresy is no different from Joel Osteen or David Koresh in their failure to admit to Catholic belief based on scripture, the sacred oral tradition (John 21:25); and ritual and practice and most of all revelation in the Church’s choosing of God’s authentic written word against the gnostic writings.
elsie apparently expects the Nicene Creed to contain all the elements of belief. So she writes:
“Nothing in there about Mary except and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, Nothing in there about Canonizing ‘Saints’”
You may now understand the rut of Protestantism.
The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, “Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err” (Quodl. 9:8:16).
But now at least we know where wvkayaker “cult theory” is coming from. He writes:
“It is a group of people indoctrinated into the “traditions” that have been told to ignore what they see in Scripture.”
“Group of people!” “indoctrinated!” This is beyond breathtaking. Thus all the great Catholic thinkers, and Protestant scholars are just a “group of people’ who have been “indoctrinated”?
May be you should go down this illustrious list of Catholic converts that include Judge Robert Bork, Judge Thomas, Robert Novak (Jewish). But here’s an A-Z List of CONVERTS to Catholicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
I repeat this is not a place to offer Bible Christians a comprehensive schooling in Catholic theology. So here’s a work below (under $15 on Amazon) written by a former evangelist who converted to Catholicism.
It is written by Dave Armstrong (a former Protestant campus missionary) and is aptly titled: “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.”
You may try reading and absorbing this before you again keep posting blogger’s versions of scripture.
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Defense-Catholicism-Dave-Armstrong/dp/1928832954
http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/Assets/ProductImages/prodpdf/954.pdf