Posted on 11/30/2003 5:21:17 PM PST by drstevej
|
|
||
Bruce Nolan: How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God: Welcome to my world.
Make him stop.
The only things "no longer valid" among us would be something like the false decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Basel, which were rejected by the Pope and the later consensus of the Church for placing a Ecumenical Council without the Pope above the authority of the Pope. I'm surprised though you'd call something said today by the GOARCH to be a "source of doctrine" as no longer valid. Or maybe that is not your intent?
Catholics don't just live nestled amongst the Ecumenical Councils and Decrees of the Popes, but also the writings of all Christians holding the truth faith. Even someone who turns heretic, like Tertullian, can provide useful witness to truth in the midst of his heresy. That's why we publish those huge collections of the past like Fr. Migne's collection of Patrologia Latina and Graeca, which has all Christian writings available up to 1453, and Mansi's collection of all councils ever held east or west.
When you hold the true faith, there is nothing to fear from the witness of a Tertullian or a Theodore of Mopsuestia.
All the more reason to post them and discuss them.
LOL, don't buy more trouble than you can handle. My spiritual father once said that we are like circled wagons in the old west, except we fight inside the circle among ourselves. Nothing could be more true.
The Serbs have been exposed to much western influence, sadly, and seem to have been unable to truly withstand it. I knew this, but I did not know they had succumbed to the acceptance of Trent as their doctrine, and from a canonized bishop to boot.
Do I need to post the Emperor's speech given upon the reconciliation of Sts. Ignatius and Photios again? It said that much more eleoquently, but it had a happy ending.
I can guarantee you that the Serbs have not accepted Trent. Keep in mind the problems with translation. This comes before St. Nikolai came to the US (and obviously before his time in Dachau) so he would not have been doing the English himself.
To summarize what I'd always been taught in the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Church rejects a physical change but accepts a mystical one with a real presence.
The only citations from Palmers book that you have provided in order to "prove" that he is a "hyper-Calvinist" was here: Post #98 on the "NIV Footnotes" thread. In that post, you were attempting to show that Palmer was a hyper-Calvinist by quoting him saying that all things are foreordained by God.
Your contention was that a "hyper-Calvinist" was a person who believed that all things -including all sin- were foreordained by God. It should also be noted that even though you never gave the definition of "hyper-Calvinist" in your own words -you attributed the correct definition of "hyper-Calvinist" to Philip Johnson's A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism website.
No where does Philip Johnson define "hyper-Calvinism" as a belief that all things -including all sin- are foreordained by God.
In fact, in the very next post (Post #99), I showed that the Belgic Confession as well as the Heidelberg Catechism profess this very truth.
A few months later, you attempted to prove your contention one more time by quoting Palmer in Post #290 of the "Predestination: Are You Just a Pawn" thread.
Once again, I will note, that this is an attempt to link Palmers belief that God foreordained all things -including sin- as "hyper-Calvinist". That was never one of Philip Johnson's criteria for being a "hyper-Calvinist".
Then, you attempted to repost your first quotation of Edwin Palmer in your Post #99 on "The Institutes Book 1, Chapter 3" thread.
In my response Post #101 I noted that the belief that God has foreordained or predetermined all things -including all sin- is basic to Calvinism. I quoted Calvin himself as professing this very belief. In addition to my previous quotations from the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, I also quoted from the Westminster Confession that also supports this belief.
You never quoted from Palmer again. However, you did continue on your attempt to equate "hyper-Calvinism" with the belief that God foreordained/predetermined all things -including all sin.
In response to this, in my Post #617 of the "Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Pelagianism" thread, I made a summary of no less than 7 major Calvinist confessions that professed the belief that God foreordained/predetermined all things -including all sin. I also included this same belief as expressed by John Calvin himself.
So, for review, you have claimed that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist". While you steadfastly refused to define "hyper-Calvinism" yourself, you did defer to Philip Johnson's definition of "hyper-Calvinism". Philip Johnson never equates "hyper-Calvinism" with the belief that all things -including all sin- are predetermined/foreordained by God. That belief is part of mainstream Calvinism. It is not regulated ONLY to "hyper-Calvinism".
So, NO! -you have not provided any proof that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist" -only your silly notion Edwin Palmer's belief that all things -including all sin- were predetermined/foreordained by God is "hyper-Calvinism". That is not "hyper-Calvinism" -that is Basic Reformed Theology 101.So, put up or shut your trap!
If you have a quote that shows Philip Johnson to be a "hyper-Calvinist", then post it. If not, then shut up. (remember: "hyper-Calvinism is NOT the belief that God foreordained/predetermined all things -including all sin.)
Jean
Except you were asked to provide your definition of God's love in your own words.
Since we don't know how ~you~ understand a specific quote from the Bible, it is imperetive for good discussion for a person making a claim to give the understanding of a specific text in his own words according to his own understanding.
If quoting a text without expounding on that text was all that was necessary, why do we have ministers of the Gospell preach in our churches? They explain the text.
You steadfastly refuse to do that.
We all know that one person's understanding of a specific text is not the same as another's understanding. That is why it is important for you to define God's love in your own words.
Anything else is just a weak cop-out.
Jean
The problem as I have noted above, is that you have indicated that "hyper-Calvinism" is the belief that God has predetermined/foreordained all things -including all sin.
Not only is that definition missing from your authorative source of the definition of "hyper-Calvinism" (Philip Johnson's article), the belief that God predetermines/foreordains all things is common to all the major Calvinist confessions including Calvin's works himself.
Jean
You have never provided a quote from Spurgeon that defines "hyper-Calvinism".
In the article you linked to in your post, Spurgeon never once even mentions "hyper-Calvinism".
Jean
Non of the FR Calvinists have ~EVER~ claimed that there is no such thing as "hyper-Calvinim" or "hyper-Calvinists".
Why would you consider my disputation that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist" as a denial of the existance of "hyper-Calvinism" or of "hyper-Calvinists"?
Jean
"And I think you still owe drstevej an explanation in your own words of just how God's love is defined." -Jean Chauvin
"drstevj does not think the words of the Bible cannot adequately explain or illustrate the love of God. He apparently thinks something needs to be added to scripture."
Again, you have been consistently asked for a definition IN YOUR OWN WORDS!!!!
"If you think you can improve on the Bible, give it a try."
Since the Bible is often erroneously interpretted, it is important that we know how you-yourself understand a given passage. That is why you have been asked to give the definition IN YOUR OWN WORDS!!!!
Jean
In the first place, I never maintained that Christ was speaking of "doing the same thing in both places at once" -- you made up, me making that up.
In fact, as your own citation of the relevant Scripture indicates, Christ is talking about Miracles which could have "been done sequentially" -- for He says that Tyre and Sidon would have repented "long ago". Thus, salvific Miracles could have been performed in Tyre and Sidon "long ago", which in no way precludes Miracles from being sequentially performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida. Nor is the effect of the miracles claimed to be dependent upon their particular palestinian subjects as you assert; it is the demonstration of the Miracles themselves, upon Tyrians and Sidonians, which is (as a conditional statement of fact) declared to have foreknown salvific effects therein.
Ergo, there is no trade-off in this passage as you claim. Nor, I would add, have you cited anything from either Augustine or Aquinas claiming such a thing -- and I would venture that this is because nothing in the works of either can be found making such a claim, because neither Augustine nor Aquinas asserted anything of the like.
Some scriptures are so clear that they need no interpretation or construction. I will not fall into a trap set by those who attempt to claim that words mean something different when the words are so unambiguous.
As an attorney, I suspect P-Marlowe will confirm this logical/legal principle.
Since the Bible is often erroneously interpretted, it is important that we know how you-yourself understand a given passage.
so you admit that you may, attimes, erroneously interpret the Bible; or do you exempt yourself from that possibility? That you may have a problem with very clear and unambiguous passages of the Bible is your problem; not mine.
OK ace, since you agree that hyper-Calvinism and hyper-Calvinists exist; please define or give examples of what you consider to be hyper-Calvinism. You can do this in YOUR OWN WORDS, or the words of others. This should be interesting.
I do not believe that the Orthodox reject transubstantiation. We dislike the word "transubstantiation" because of its connotations of Aristotlean philosophy and medieval scholasticism, but very few people today – even Catholics – use the word in the technically Aristotlean sense. Most people mean by transubstantiation simply the doctrine that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Body and Blood in the Eucharist, which is Orthodox. The Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical write that "the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual true Body of the Lord". They use four words here, including "transubstantiated", to show that they are equivalent in meaning. In any case, is not the Russian word "presushchestvleniy" a translation of "transubstantiation"? It is important not to quarrel over words if the doctrine the words refer to is the same.
And some try to "explain away" the trext to mean something other than the plain meaning of the words. All one needs to do is look at the plain words of 1 Tim. 2:3,4. Spurgeon and I have no trouble understanding that it means that God desires that all men be saved, but the swarm, in order to maintain their collective theology, must insist that it has a different meaning.
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.