Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
As far as the concepts of Predestination and reprobation before creation go, I think they are often miles apart for Calvin. I agree with you that he seems very careful to encourage us not to dwell on things that are not explicitly detailed in Scripture. And who goes to hell is one of them. We have enough before us just realizing our own salvation and working through it with confidence and industry.
But Calvin is rock-solid when it comes to Predestination. For me, that is the one detail of faith that rings most true. Either God names every star, numbers every hair, sent Christ for our salvation, controls every atom He created, or He doesn't. Between those two choices, the former seems clearly correct.
I think God loves His sheep to such a great extent that those whom the sheep love are covered by His promise. God has obviously given you great faith, and the knowledge of who He really is and what He really does. I don't think there's a place in that faith to worry about your brother's salvation. If heaven is our reward and all happiness is in heaven, then be confident you will see his face again.
Ultimately, we trust in Him.
As far as Holy Week goes, Protestants observe it, too. Easter morning is the most important day on the Christian calendar because it proved the promise true. Easter morning is what separates Christians from all others. The Trinity prevails.
As far as the external rituals of being a Roman Catholic, it may take some time to unlearn 50 years of behavioral patterns; "entanglements," as Calvin calls them. But ultimately, I think it's a worthwhile undertaking, and one which we are instructed to obey.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." -- John 4:24
A lot of extraneous effort tends to pack itself around the pristine truth of Christ risen. In my own life I've found that paring down the externals really reveals the sparse truth of the internal -- saved by Christ alone. Here's a good examination of the topic...
I was going to use your argument to support mine. :) I see it as significant that Jesus did not lift a finger to correct them after Mark 2:7, even though it was clear that He was reading their thoughts. He corrects them on everything else, why not this? I don't see the thinking of the Pharisees as being rhetorical, they were looking to nail Jesus for blasphemy (perhaps a poor choice of words), and in their minds this was the ticket.
Yes. So, while we can predictably subject gravity to test, God is not readily verified by experiments.
That is true, but it is because the theological fact that God cannot be tested is a part of that very theory of God.
Gravity is part of this world; God isn't. Gravity affects the world physically. God affects us spiritually.
Indeed, the symmetry only goes so far as the dynamics of knowledge: in either case we have faith and build up a theory from faith. Faith in science precedes science and faith in God precedes religion. But you are correct that religion and science are fundamentally different in that science relates to the created world and religion -- to the Creator.
But the pharisees were not incorrect on that. Only God has the power to forgive sins. When a priest forgives a sin, he evokes that divine power.
But I thought that the structure was set up so that you would know something is correct and protected if there was a consensus. (I have no idea how often the Pope has decreed without a consensus.) I don't see how it is different from a normal democratic system in terms of the "business" of the Church. I thought that protection was identified by consensus.
No man can forgive our sins. Only God forgives by His mercy alone. No intercessionary figure required.
"...he evokes that divine power."
With as much respect as I can muster, that's straight out of the occult.
I don't know if a single instance exists when a pope overstepped the consensus of the Magisterium. It is, however, what Papal Infallibility allows for. Ultimately, there is one set of keys and it is in the hand of the successor of St. Peter.
I am flagging someone, who, I trust, can tell us more.
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.I prefer the gospel to Calvin's phantasies.John 20
I believe in intercessory prayer.
There is only one mediator between God and Man.....Jesus Christ.
"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness."
True.
"No man can forgive our sins. Only God forgives by His mercy alone. No intercessionary figure required."
As has been pointed out many times:
Hbr 4:14 "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
1Ti 2:5 "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
Why mess with the hired help when you can go straight to the boss?
***in the hand of the successor of St. Peter.***
Who just a few short verses later was called Satan by Christ himself.
Because the Gospel says so. See John 20, just posted, and James 5:16 "Confess therefore your sins one to another".
True, but it is not when St. Peter was made pope. In the "get behind me satan" episode Peter suggested to Christ, unknowingly, the same temptation Satan used, that of temporal power without the Cross. Peter committed a worse offense, too, by denying Christ. He was, however, given the charge of the sheep by the resurrected Christ, which signified the forgiveness of his errors.
20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit - (According to the tenor of the Gospel, that is, supposing them to repent and believe) they are remitted, and whose soever sins ye retain (supposing them to remain impenitent) they are retained. So far is plain.But here arises a difficulty. Are not the sins of one who truly repents, and unfeignedly believes in Christ, remitted, without sacerdotal absolution?
And are not the sins of one who does not repent or believe, retained even with it? What then does this commission imply? Can it imply any more than,
....A power of declaring with authority the Christian terms of pardon; whose sins are remitted and whose retained? As in our daily form of absolution; and
....A power of inflicting and remitting ecclesiastical censures? That is, of excluding from, and re - admitting into, a Christian congregation.
***but it is not when St. Peter was made pope***
Your right, it was right after he was "made Pope."
Wesley was a very perceptive theologian. He is right, of course, confession and repentance are possible outside of the priestly confessional on an extraordinary basis. Throughout the gospel Christ forgives sins on an act of faith without a formal confession. And today, a Christian who is somehow prevented from the benefit of a priestly confession relies, and with a good reason, on the abundant mercy of Christ.
The gospel does not reflect St. Peter's ascention to the papacy, because it does not directly reflect his taking charge of the bishopric of Rome, although the reference to "Babylon" is his letter indicates that he was in Rome, and of course, his leadership following the Pentecost shows that Peter, as well as all the apostles, were changed men since then.
He gave him the keys in that verse, did he not?
4500!
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.