Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
No.
I don’t believe I’m infallible.
Just not as fallible as the traditions of men edifice of the RC . . . structure etc. . . .
but it’s just an old version of many such structures of men . . . and thereby MORE vulnerable to traditions of men errors.
Vocabulary time . . .
MORE than is DIFFERENT from LESS than.
MORE is different from 0.00.
“A” as MORE fallible than “B” does not mean that “B” is 100% INFALLIBLE.
Are you saying that 2000 years worth of holy men are wrong and YOU are right?
= = =
It’s better when you don’t put words in my fingers.
Yeah, 1600 years of some traditions of men are less right than my convictions about some Spiritual things.
Doesn’t mean I consider myself infallible at all.
Seems like there are a LOT of “EITHER/OR” handicapped folks on our forum. LOL.
There is none righteous, no, not one . . .is an error voiced by Christ Himself?
Christ didn’t voice “no, not one” is righteous. Paul wrote that while quoting the Psalms attacking self-righteous and wicked Jews. And being righteous has nothing to do with error in doctrine. Being righteous is being just in God’s eyes.
= = =
Yeah, I felt I was wrong on that before I posted it but was in a hurry. But it’s still true Scripture even though via St Paul.
Oh, I think being righteous has a lot to do with being in error—especially at some point for certain periods of time and to certain degrees.
Oh, I greatly respect folks who have been more spiritually on beam with God’s highest for their lives and with God’s priorities in general . . . than I’ve managed to be.
But I still recognize them as fallible human beings.
I’ve been close to or observed at close range, rather, a number of ‘spiritual giants’ of my era. Some deserved the label. A lot didn’t.
I think certain historical facts
and
certain Scriptural facts leave me no choice but to conclude that many of the traditions of men of the RC edifice are
horribly wrong.
Thank you so much for your beautiful post!
You must be joking. Now, you are less fallible than the 2000 year mind of the Church...
Is that a vast improvement on your last claim? You still are saying you are right and the entire 2000 year Church is wrong. Based on your "less fallible" nature, no doubt...
Thank you so much for your engaging post!
It's better if you answer my question rather than claiming that I am making a statement which I certainly did not write! I ASKED you if you were infallible, I didn't say YOU said you were infallible, nor did I say you were infallible. I was asking for clarification.
Yeah, 1600 years of some traditions of men are less right than my convictions about some Spiritual things.
Based on your say-so? Based on what evidence? That you are less fallible??? You have not said anything essentially different from what I have previously stated on my theory - that Protestants have this uncanny "knowledge" that they are right and those who disagree are wrong. Not only are they so sure of this conviction, they are INFALLIBLY so. Without possibility of being wrong. Only someone who thought that way could make such statements as "1600 years of some traditions of men are less right than my convictions about some Spiritual things".
I think certain historical facts and Scriptural facts leave me no choice but to conclude that the Church established by Christ subsists in the Catholic Church of today.
Since neither of us is infallible, (although you claim to be "less fallible"!), your writings are your own opinions and do not necessarily state fact. Since they are not objective facts, but opinions that could be incorrect, perhaps it would wise to take on a more humble attitude about WHO you claims holds the truth (the Church or you). Considering the Bible states that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, it might be wise to consider that Scriptural idea.
Yeah, a host of proties and myself are more right than 1600 years of RC magicsterical pontifications on a number of points.
Just a fact.
So . . .
your question about whether I was infallible or not
was REALLY a question that you had no set-in-concrete-opinions about? You really wanted to know something you didn’t know?
LOL.
I’m not THAT stupid!
In terms of the evidence . . . at 15,329 posts . . . I seriously doubt that MORE evidence would help you much at all.
Cheers.
Well, that is not what you said recently...
All that to say . . . I’m not very impressed by “holy men” who have any sort of titles
Apparently, titles cause you to turn up your nose towards an otherwise "holy man"? Odd. My experience is that titles do not make the man, and we shouldn't judge them just because they have a title. Thus, I am impressed by holy men, WHETHER THEY HAVE A TITLE OR NOT.
That is subjective opinion based on the idea that the Catholic Church cannot be right where it is different from the accepted "less fallible" opinion of the Protestant. The theory still stands. You are "more right" than the Church, a claim that has very little supporting evidence. Yet, it is held as an infallible doctrine - the mere fact that you are "more right" than the believing Church of 2000 years. Unfortunately for this idea, there is no supporting evidence, just hearsay and opinion.
It comes down to proper interpretation. Who holds it? That is a question that was pondered from the beginning. Even in the Sacred Scriptures, we find this question coming to the fro. Clearly, the Bible and extra-biblical writings of the first few centuries express that the CHURCH has the "right reading" of the Bible. Thus, the Church is infallible. The evidence is the bible and the men who wrote it.
aHHHHH
But
THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL
is not at all
the same thing
as the 1600 year old RC edifice
Oh, strictly speaking, I’d agree with you about titles.
But in my experience . . .
they’ve tended to be more badges of hogwash, error and pride vs holiness and attractive spirituality.
Odd you haven’t noticed that.
The early horrid fallacy
that the 1600 year old RC edifice = THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL
is the source of all kinds of error.
Is God susbject to "situations?" Is He 'caught" up in the storm or is He the maker of a storm?
Is he wondering if He should go right or left?
So God cannot have qualia, desire, hopes, and preferrences?..
That's right. God is not sbject to passions; Christ did not suffer and die in His divine nature.
God does not hope because He is in control and He knows the outcome. He doesn't hope that you will be saved or won't be saved; He knows. Faith is hope. God has no reason to have faith.
God wills what He wills – and what He wills happens. He doesn't chose based on hope or possibilities. God is impartial, so as far as His dealings with people are concerned, He is absolutely neutral as nothing we can do is something He needs, nor can God be bought with bribes and flattery.
DAMN!!.. how can he be my friend?..
He is not your friend. He is your God.
But who created Satan? Is Satan running free of God's control, or is Satan a creature who exists by the will of God alone? When we struggle to free God of His responsibility in creation, we demote Him to bystander. The world is not God against Satan, thesis vs. antithesis, because that would give Satan power equal to God's power.
Huh? :) I just meant to agree with Kosta that God is not a tempter of men. Also, he and I have been talking about whether God is an author of evil, and my position (though not always believed :) has been that He is not. So, I agree with the characterization the God allows it. God could have any level of control above zero, and it could be said that "He allows sin". Full-control God allows it because He could prevent it, but in specific cases it suits His purposes. Partial-control God allows it, perhaps because He doesn't care, or He doesn't want to interfere with free-will choices even when they thwart what would have been His plan. I am most assuredly in the first camp. :) satan's power is nothing compared to God's power.
So ultimately, as difficult as it is to grasp, God is the first cause of all things.
There is nothing wrong with this statement. And, there are still plenty in the loyal opposition who try to hang the "God causes evil" thing around our necks. It's a loaded term, and any admission can be used to restate or repeat as it was never meant. I have sort of evolved into only referring to "cause" as God zapping evil into an individual, meaning a direct infusion of evil. God doesn't have it to give, so I really don't think God does that.
To avoid the situation of all of us emulating satan in all that we do, I figure that God must sustain all people, even the lost, to some degree. I also think that such sustenance can be turned up (as to salvation), or turned down (as to evil acts out of previous character). In the latter, I don't happen to call this "causing" because there is no duty to sustain at all. It is God's sovereign right to dial down and let man "cause" for himself. However, if God chooses to dial up, then that IS causation because the default level of protection owed by God is zero.
God planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil smack in the middle of Eden and told two naifs not to eat it. That's pretty tempting.
Well, for some unknown large number of years I suppose, it did not prove to be much of a temptation at all, as far as we know. However, when the serpent entered the Garden to DO the tempting, then they lasted about 5 minutes! :)
The point isn't that God doesn't tempt men because the truth is men are tempted every day of the week by a thousand distractions that deny and demean the Triune God.
Yes, you are absolutely right. I was quick to agree with Kosta that God doesn't tempt men to FURTHER show that I do not believe God is the author of evil, and that I am aware of:
James 1:13-14 : 13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.
I think "testing" and "tempting" are two different things. From God's POV if a test "succeeded" then the person did the Godly thing. If a temptation "succeeded" then the person sinned.
Thankfully, Scripture tells us that those who have been "bought with a price" will be able to withstand temptation... [1 Corinthians 10:13] ... He is an amazing Creator. He thought of everything. 8~)
Indeed, Dr. E.! Amen! :) God has the way to escape.
Yes. When I first became a Calvinist, people would tell me God was completely in control down to the last atom. I found this difficult to grasp until you start thinking about how everything MUST be in His control otherwise He would not be all knowing or all powerful. If you lose this concept (and many have or are) then you slip into Open Theism.
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.