Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
“If they don’t kowtow to your own personal ideas, they must be apostate.”
Not my personal ideas, MS; rather what The Church always and everywhere has believed. That’s the yardstick those Fathers you scorn used to determine the canon of the NT in the bible you thump. :)
I am pleased to be a Bible thumper. It’s held me in good stead and kept me on the right track. The church is the body of Christ, not the EO or RC institution. I hope you at least worship Christ instead of church fathers and its dogma.
***Where in Scripture is a believer condemned for failing to be baptized?***
John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
***If they are different faces of the same God, then you should agree that the OT God was also personal, even if you do not recognize it. A being is either personal or impersonal. Slot machines are impersonal. Some people thing God is like that, acting randomly. ***
We are human and ascribe personality to things that don’t possess it. The OT God did not get ‘familiar’ with us in the way that Jesus, in His human person did. He appeared as a force of nature in the OT, and as a human being in the New.
None us have ever said that God acts randomly.
***Even if that is your personal view, you still agree that it is the same God, right? IOW, I hope you’re not saying that personality suddenly “attached” to God at some point.***
The person of Jesus was created for us so that we could relate to God. God didn’t require a human form. We were able to relate to God much better through Jesus than through fire and lightning and burning bushes.
***My only point is that if we say that God created, then He existed before He created, in human terms. Whatever you want to call that existence before creation, that is the time I am talking about.***
God always was, is and will be. Temporal labelling of God is inaccurate.
***There was love in the Trinity before there was creation, and love is an action that can be measured with time.***
Love is not an action. It is a decision.
***Jesus said that He would not lose THOSE FEW that were given to Him by the Father. That is totally different. You are saying that Jesus DOES lose some who were given to Him by the Father. That simply goes against what scripture teaches.***
No, He says that no one can snatch them out of His hands. That is what Scripture teaches; it also teaches that man, by his own decisions can imperil his soul.
***IOW, those who walked away from Jesus were not actually true followers in the first place. They were posers.***
Every one sins; everyone walks away from God at least on occasion. Does that mean that all are posers? Or can the non posers can sin with impunity?
***It sounds like you are confusing a temporary lapse with a full rejection of God by someone who claimed true faith, but never had it. If God allows true believers to renounce their faiths permanently, then God is a liar and we can trust Him for nothing.***
Micromanaging again. He’s gotta be one busy guy, this Reformed God. Where does God say that believers cannot renounce their faith?
***No, your hierarchy hasn’t accomplished anything in fact along these lines. I meant that logically the Catholic view would have to be that God intended to convey very little in scripture, since your tradition contradicts it so much.***
Such as? A short list might be of help here.
***God DID convey what He wanted, and some are able to see it.***
Ah yes. Being Jesus was rather tiring, wasn’t it? So God therefore had a 1500 year snooze before inspiring Luther and his merry band of Scriptural Visigoths.
***You are forgetting that it is God’s INTENTION to use His elect to reach others of His elect. So, in some cases my action is indeed required because that is what God planned. The cause of my action is wholly God, but it is still necessary for God’s plan to be fulfilled. That is the use of my preaching.***
Curious. Where does the Holy Spirit come in utilizing this methodology? Are you merely mechanically doing things that seem right to you just in case God wills it?
***When we preach to the non-elect, we also benefit from the experience, and the non-elect probably benefits from the interaction as well. ***
Probably? The Reformed non elect are going to hellfire and damnation forever. How in the world could they benefit?
***I really DO believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall. So, I have no idea what you’re talking about.***
There is a vast difference between belief and knowledge. I think that it might appear to be a factor in some of the discussions and disagreements that go on here.
I believe in God, the Father almighty...
I know that the sun rises in the east.
***How do you define your faith in your Church? Do you believe that your uninspired men are correct, or do you know it?***
I believe in God, the Father almighty...
I believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...
Belief, FK. Indwelling knowledge is Gnosticism and was the first major heresy to be identified.
You are objecting to our assertion that our clergy have certain charisms associated with their order.
But the charisms are ones you don't believe in - the charism to be a necessary actor in the "confection" of the Eucharist or to pronounce absolution authoritatively.
Is that a fair account of not WHY you object, but of what you object to? And if it is, is it interesting that you are objecting that we assert that our clergy can "do" what you think can't be done anyway?
Okay. Maybe it wasn't a thought after all ....
Correction: God gave us the Bible.
OK if correct, but then WHY DON'T YOU? :) You SHOULD have the right if everything the Church claims is true. The Latin Church claims exclusivity as the one TRUE Church of God. In Biblical terms, should your clergy (and your laity) be a "peculiar people"? I would think so. My analysis says that any believer, by definition, SHOULD be morally superior to any non-believer. (No props to the believer because it all comes from God.) Now, if only the Latin Church is true, then I would expect some separation away, in moral terms, from all of us heretical and blaspheming Protestants. :)
I do not claim to be morally or spiritually (whatever that might mean) superior to you, and I don't claim that my pastor is morally or spiritually superior to yours.
The Latin Church FORMALLY declares my pastor (and me) to be anathema. That sounds pretty morally superior to me. :) In your "official" eyes I am denounced and accursed. I am excommunicated and I am unworthy. There are other terms of derision and contempt used but I think you know where I'm coming from. :)
But don't worry, I'm tough. I can take it. :)
We Do claim a "superiority" (a superiority by gift) in the "means of grace" (the sacraments), and that would be in terms of reliability or assuredness.
Philosophically, I don't even begrudge that. I'm just saying I think it goes beyond that.
Okay, WE're patronizing and condescending? Have you read some of the characterizations on your side? "Anti-Christ"? "Whore of Babylon"? "Magicsterical"?
Yes, I've read all that. While it is not my personal style (most of the time :), and sometimes Luther and Calvin say these things, I do understand it. It is passion, John the Baptist style. :) So, YES, you guys are allowed to do it too. :) My underlying point just had to do with my claim of the Church's claim of moral superiority. I think if the Pope has any genuine ecumenical interests, then he either needs to change his views or hire better speech writers. :)
I do NOT think that our theological differences should be glossed over for the sake of unity. However, I think the relationship between Catholicism and Bible-believing Protestants could be legitimately better than it is now.
In general Protestants talk about an "invisible" Church, loosely attached or related (if it is attached or related at all) to ecclesial-type organizations. I would say you don't even want to be or think it possible to be what we mean by "The Church." So we AGREE with you that your organizations are not a Church as we think Church to be.
Protestants talk about an invisible Church as a Biblical fact. But we also talk about the local church, again a Biblical fact. The local church is a body of believers intent on worshiping the one true God, sometimes in one place together, like on Sundays. I see that your Pope spits on this concept for us. :)
And as for what we want, if you simply DEFINE "church" to be your idea of church, then of course we will disagree. I think that is totally artificial, and not supported by scripture. I do NOT see your METHOD of worship in scripture, in terms of practice, nor is mine explicitly laid out. But I do not claim that mine is the only correct way to worship.
There's a disagreement on the nature of "Church", and is it arrogant of us to think we're right but not arrogant of those who disagree with us to think THEY're right?
The beef is very simple. I say that you worship in a church, even though I have profound disagreement with it theologically. The Latin church denies us even that small respect. That is an example of the superiority claimed. I mean, I'll live and everything. :) I just think it is a totally unnecessary insult.
Anyway, a lot of the rest of what you're writing seems to me to confuse the claim of the plene esse of Church with moral superiority. The image I want is that of a lot of sick scoundrels and fools in charge of the best pharmaceutical supply-house in the world. And if somebody says, "How good can the medicines be if those guys are so sick?" I'll answer, "You should see them without the medicine!" If I haven't persuaded you of the distinction or that one in no way implies the other (not in my alleged mind, anyway) let me know.
You fully anticipated my follow-up, and I'm afraid that I remain unpersuaded. :) In the OT God explicitly set apart His people, that they should be a peculiar people. A light unto men. While that did not happen as WE might have imagined, it was not a total failure either. There WERE righteous men, and God DID protect the Jews. It seems that the Catholic Church is now saying that such a thing no longer applies. But I DO see a difference between believers, the invisible Church of God, and non-believers. I do NOT see a difference between Catholics and Bible-believing Protestants (in this context). That's what I don't get.
FK: "But that one Church is only you guys and no one else ..."
No. The FULLNESS of Church is only we guys. To me at any rate that's an important distinction.
I could fully deal with that as an honest disagreement. But as the article I linked to says, the Pope does not recognize me as being a part of or worshiping in God's Church.
You pray, or some of you do (as a few of us do), devoutly, and you commend and commit your lives to Christ. A lot of what you teach and preach is very fine indeed, and the manner of its expression ought often to be an example and rebuke to some of our preachers and teachers. I can with real spiritual benefit listen to some evangelical radio stations.
I believe that you truly mean that, so thank you. :)
As far as the Pope holding all aridly authority goes, if you have the time, check my tome on another thread.
I did, thank you for the link. In it you said:
So the claim of "rulership" has to be viewed in the light of subsidiarity, or it will sound like what a lot of Protestants seem to think, that the Pope can rightly (according to Protestant thought) reach into the details of our family lives and mess around with them if he wants. Further, again, the impossibility of exercising that kind of minute control, even if it were legitimate, over 1 billion people seems to be overlooked. Once the Pope acts, okay, no one overrules him, except in passive aggressive ways, I guess.
My understanding is that the Pope absolutely DOES reach down into the personal lives of his followers to declare what is allowable and what is not. Birth-control is an example. I am not arguing the merits, but the Pope DOES actually do this. Of course not all Catholics comply, but it is what Catholicism commands.
And specifically, when the Pope, say, defines the Assumption, a lot of Protestants think of that as a kind of sua sponte, executive function, but it's way more like an exercise of what we in the US would think of as judicial function (if we want to try to force it into modern political categories). The question is nattered about for a hundred or a thousand years and the Pope is petitioned and nagged and counseled and advised and argued with, and finally he says, "Okay. Enough already. Here's what we teach: blah blah blah, I declare and define, blah blah blah. Roma locuta, causa finita, next case."
I appreciate the distinction, but what about things like selling indulgences to raise money for a building project? A Pope fully endorsed that. I'm no expert on the history, but I always thought that was pretty new. That seems much more executive than judicial to me.
FK: "If Christ really truly died once and for all for the sins of the elect, then further human atonement would not be necessary. Since the Church teaches that after belief future works are required to be saved, then the threshold of salvation being certain for all time will only be crossed based on a work of a man." (emphasis added)
First of all, we should insert "ordinarily" before "required". If you get hit by a truck and in your expiring breath you conceive inwardly that Jesus really IS Lord and you want Him for your personal savior, don't worry, you're in.
Yes, for me, and I think most other Reformers, for these types of discussions, let's just agree to throw out the exceptions that we probably agree on anyway. I do not think that Catholics see the destiny of aborted babies materially differently than we do.
[Referencing my above quote from my last post:] Anyway, the hidden assumption is in the last prepositional phrase, "of a man". The "works" and their "merits" ARE graces.
That sounds great, but I don't understand how your idea of free will works into this. That's what I meant by "of a man". Giving God an "assist" does not change that a man decided to take the shot (and make it).
Haven't you ever done something right and been flooded with not pride but gratitude? For it was Christ who worked in you, both to will and to do.
Yes, sure. How does free will fit in?
I think the word "Rejoice" in "I rejoice in my sufferings" is overlooked. Paul's suffering and the works in which God summons us to walk are not burdens but gifts in which to rejoice.
Yes, on that I can fully agree with you. And this is from someone who freely admits that he has a ways to go himself on fully understanding and appreciating that. :)
I cannot help thinking that it will be good for the conversation to have discovered that you think WE separate works and faith and I think YOU do.
I am fully willing to listen and everything, but, ........ I do. :)
Amen.
When the anathemas of Trent are rescinded, we can all talk about our "moral equity" in the eyes of the RCC.
Mark: John 3:5...Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
Ooops! You are going to put out of business the whole Baptist community, Mark, by quoting scriptures they somehow "overlooked." Their theology insists baptism is not required for salvation.
No problem. Once the Protestantnts rescind their heresy, the Tridentine anathemas will be rescinded automatically. :)
I would agree with that from a Catholic perspective. But I would disagree with the idea that only true faith brings good works. Therefore good works is evidence only of faith and not proof. The heathen can do good works and the Reformed elect can do evil. Which proves nothing.
Do you mean good works in God's eyes? Truly good works? My position is NOT that the appearance of a good work proves true faith. We can't know that. But we CAN know that the heathen can do NO good works.
True faith is the ONLY thing that bears true fruit, good works, in God's eyes:
Matt 7:17-20 : 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit , but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit . 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
------------------------------
The question still stands: what is essential about good works from a Calvinist perspective other than the fact that is a nice thing to do and is mentioned by Jesus.
It is obedience to God. In my personal book, that is essential. :) I do not obey to earn points toward salvation, I obey because I WANT to with the new heart that God gave me.
What happens if one of the elect simply neglected to do good works?
That can't happen, simply on a definitional level.
Does it have any effect on his salvation (I understand that the Calvinist says no)? If not, then what does it have an effect on?
True believers CAN go through lapses in faith, entailing not doing works. However, it cannot be fatal ultimately because Christ loses NONE of those the Father has given Him. During such times, the person suffers in his personal life on earth. God WILL discipline all those He loves when we need it. I have been there and I'm sure I will be again. I am ashamed of this, but I still focus on the fact that God loves me.
FK: ***But I thought that the Catholic position was that through Apostolic succession any priest had the authority to absolve sin based on John 20:23. I have been told that Heaven accepts the decision of the priest (even one who has wrongly been fooled). That doesn’t match what you are saying.***
You appear to be correct. The Catholic doctrines that I have scrutinized support that. Based upon the passages in Matthew and John, that is the case.
Along with yourself, I like to think that my Catholic teachers are VERY good. :)
FK: ***That is the classic difference between God’s POV and man’s. Men fully experience free will, so it is fully real, for us. On a higher plane, God is in control. ***
Sounds like rationalizing to me. :)
I don't think so. I look at the realities of our children and how we shape them as parents. One classic example is having a small child "help" with something. Even though the actual help was negligible we still thank them and they feel like they have contributed. It's all good, but the realities, the experiences, are truly different. That's all I'm saying. There is a true analogy for this.
And on these truths we can rest secure and confident.
As God wills.
Correction: God gave us the Church which gave us the Bible.
Where do you find “scripture alone” in the scriptures, Dr. E?
Being a bible thumper is unbiblical. That in itself says a lot about bible thumpers.
I thought Protestants preach that only God gives faith!? Since when did he pass that ablity to bible thumpers?
Sure we do, and Matt 7:17-20 does not say otherwise. When a heathen does good works he does so because some intuitive knowledge of Christ, howbeit imperfect, has guided him.
In other words, where the Bible and the church disagree, does the church triumph?
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.