Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Curious... why do you think choirs are “man made” additions to worship?
Well, thank you for that epiphany. If you read past the first few lines you would have found the following in my post "And Christian God does not deceive." But, then, that would deprive you from an opportunity to unload your usual barrage of unrelated verses and a sermon to boot.
The point of my post was simple and did not accuse God of lying. I disagreed with your interpretation that we can be led by God to believe that we have free will but in reality we don't. I said that would be a deception and God doesn't deceive.
Only mortal reasoning would presume that they must be mutually exclusive
And you are not moral, I presume? You offer theory that two mutually exclusive concepts are not exclusive. But you offer no proof.
Will we never learn? Even wave/particle duality stands as evidence against such presumptions
Humanity has done a great deal of learning in its history. I think it is both self-debasing and untrue to say that humanity doesn't learn. It's drama, as usual.
And then you spout your usual wave/particle theory as "proof," and I say to hat what I said the first time I read it: both are human models; both are mutually exclusive. Those who harp on it in a literalistic manner, the way some read the Bible, indicates more their lack of understanding than knowledge.
Light seems to behaves as a particle only if it is represented as a vector. It seems to behave like a wave if we consider its refractive properties.
Both instances are human observational models. One can design optical systems using only one, or both, depending on the intended use of an optical system.
And, what's more important with respect to the topic, they are very much mutually exclusive. They are not interchangeable, and their results are not mutually useful.
You can design a perfect optical system in one model that is a complete failure in the second model.
The refractory calculations produce a more "realistic" rendition of the radiomagnetic behavior as it could be observed, while the vector (particle) model accurately predicts position of "particles." For accurate, distoritonless, flat-field anastigmatic optics you entirely depend on the "particle" model. For maximum contrast on extended objects, the wave model minimums must be met. Two different criteria; two different models. Two different results and purpsoes. Neither represents what light really is. Both are man-made models for man's applications.
But you will continue to twist things around and even persuade the uninformed.
Thanks for your sermon.
If you go back to my post and read it one more time carefully...you will find that I am talking about instrumental music, not choirs.
More twisted repsonses! (see my last two posts regarding this trend). What's we you guys? Why all the deformations? Just to pick arguments?
It had nothing to do with heretics helping the Curch "grow" theologically. It's like an English phrase that someone new to the English language may use inappropriately (i.e. a double nagative). Something that is (or should be known) known to every English speaker suddenly has to be defined in order to preserve the correct usage from those who don't know the language and tend to corrupt it through their ignorance.
The Seven Councils proclaimed dogmatic statements in repsonse to inaccurate or outright erroneous, heretical teachings of various outside groups, specifically regarding the Holy Trinity and Christology.
***If you go back to my post and read it one more time carefully...you will find that I am talking about instrumental music, not choirs.***
No matter how ‘carefully” I read it, it still says “choirs”.
***I bet you, most Presbyterians never even think about their choirs as unnecessary, man-made tradition added to Protestant rituals.***
Above are the words you wrote. It says “Their Choirs”, it doesn’t say their band, their ensemble, their string quartet, it says their choirs.
Be that as it may, why do you think ANY music is a man made addition, whether it be instruments, or voices?
You'd better send two forms. I've been baptized twice. :)
A quote from the Fathers is historical evidence of what the early Church believed. Since we have a different opinion on what the early church was like, we quote to prove a historical point. We do not say: “St. Irenaeus wrote this so you better believe it” — we do not consider the patristic writing canonical anymore than you do. So it is still a useful quote as we have the same basic understanding of what the patristic writings are. With the deuterocanonical books we don’t share a common assumption, so it cannot close any scriptural arguments, and since it is not a product of the early Church, it doesn’t close any historical argument either.
I see... you are a Cosmology lawyer..
You seem to litigate the infinite..
It seems you will adopt the inverse to almost any stance..
With a hard know it all arrogant style..
I like that.. Challenging views to make them better supported..
But then I give you the benefit of the doubt..
Book mark to read later!
How’s it going mic?
But that's not all it says. You are cherry-picking the way your side cherry-picks the verses—out of context. It's distortion, deformation, cariacture. The context of what I wrote has to to with the subject matter, namely insturmental music, not choirs.
In shofrt, you re-read only a portion of what I wrote. Not surprising.
Untruncated, uncensored, un-dysinformational, this is what I wrote: "Why, speaking of traditions, Presbyterian churches did not allow any kind of instrumental music for a long time. [do you see it now?] I bet you, most Presbyterians never even think about their choirs as unnecessary, man-made tradition added to Protestant rituals."
But you don't see the "instrumental music" part, you only see what you want to see. Present-day Presbytaerian choirs have insturmental music.
why do you think ANY music is a man made addition, whether it be instruments, or voices?
First, because the original Church did not have insturmental music. Second, because the early Presbyterians knew that and tried to keep it that way. For that reason there was a specific ban on insturmental music in early Presbyterian assemblies.
It only shows that at least even the early Protestants were closer to the Church than they are today.
Two separate sentences, two separate messages.
What makes you think that the church did not have musical instruments? If you feel this way, why did they do it that way?
I don't know anyone around here who worships words. W(w)ords are not God, but they are His power. To the extent I have sympathy for what you are saying is one reason I like the NIV, idea for idea. However, I can't think of a SINGLE theological or material difference on anything, that I have with a devotee of the KJV, such as Dr. E., based on differences in text. The KJV is a wonderful text and I now consult it often. I've never found any major conflicts. I have been showed one or two examples that look pretty different, but nothing to cause me to change a view.
Then I and other Catholics have fallen short of the mark for being unable to get you to understand [Catholicism]. It is our failing, not yours. It is our burden and something that we shall answer for to Him.
Don't worry, all of you have done your noble best. I do not at all feel like I'm hurting for information. :)
Is FK going to eternal salvation? I would certainly think so, but that is entirely up to God.
I thank you for the sentiment and I do return it. It is definitely more charitable than others I have received. :)
You wrote: testing helps [sic] to sanctify us during our lives. You are making a relationship between testing and sanctification
And I asked basically what happens to those who are not tested (because there are people who go through the entire life as such), or to those who are tested in abundance (because there are many more who suffer)?
And you didn't answer that with you "testing helps to sanctify." How does it 'help', and to what degree?
If I may...
My wife suffered several different issues during her childhood that, because of her faith in God, have allowed her a certain amount of compassion for others who have suffered likewise. She is able to comfort, talk with, and council others who have suffered. Through all of this, she has been sanctified more. Also, as a result of my helping my wife through these issues, I have become more compassionate and helpful as I council my wife. All in all, the suffering has made us closer to each other, and more importantly, closer to God as we trust more in him. This is what I think Forest Keeper was talking about. FK, if I am wrong, please correct me.
Two separate sentences, one single message. They were not unrelated sentences. They were adjacent and contextually related; the second followed the first in subject and in intent. They also formed one single paragraph. Your strawman is obvious.
What makes you think that the church did not have musical instruments?
Judaism did not use musical insturments in the liturgy, and neither did early Christianity. There are no instruments in Orthodox churches. The liturgy is antiphonal, where the priest chants and the people respond. The people are actively involved in the liturgy. It's not a spectator sport. The choir represents the congregation (because not everyone can sing). But the priests always encourage the whole congregation to chant as well. It's not a muscial show, or entertainment. It's worship, prayers of gratitude and praise to God.
I know what he is talking about, and i understand what you are telling me. That doesn't answer my question: what happens to those who are never tested? Are they deprived of sanctification? And what happens to those who suffered more than your wife?
Are those who are not sanctified going to live in "basement" apartments in heaven and those who suffered more in heavenly penthouses? And where does it say so in the Bible?
***Judaism did not use musical insturments in the liturgy,...***
According to the Bible, there were temple musicians as well as a temple choir. Where did you get your information?
As far as your sentences, when I see the word choir, I never think of anything other than voices. When I see the word orchestra, then I think of instruments. You had two sentences one saying choir, one saying instruments. Two completely different subjects. No straw man at all.
Have you ever heard of anyone who was not tested? Everyone has moments, days, months, even years of trouble and termoil. Even me, though my son-in-law says that I just keep everything repressed.
While the nonelect will end up in hell, they were not created for the purpose of sending them there, as many on your side continue to allege. They were created to be used for God's purposes in order to glorify Him.
I'm not sure what you mean by permission. God has my complete permission, as if He needed it, to do whatever with me He chooses. In terms of His originally giving me faith, at that time I didn't want it since I was under original sin. My inner goodness, apart from God, was not nearly good enough to come to God on my own. If God did not do what He did then I would be lost. I know that many think of that as a total violation of the sanctity of man's free will. All I know is that if He didn't "violate" it, I would never be saved. Maybe that's how it is decided who will be Protestant and who will be Apostolic, the ones with no inner goodness whatsoever become Protestant. :)
Reformers have apparently truncated their Paul once again: 1 Tim 2: 1 First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, 2 for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. 3 This is good and pleasing to God our savior, 4 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
Well, either God is a colossal failure in what He wills, an extraordinarily weak God, OR, this passage does not mean what you are saying it means. Here, "wills" refers to a general desire or wish in an outward sense, or to the general nature of God, one of love. It is consistent that an all loving God would "want" all men to be saved, but that cannot be taken as literally true.
FK: ***Think about what you are saying. What could possibly be an allure to something one has no say in?***
Umm, you’re kidding me right? A personal get out of hell free card is not an attractive proposition? A disavowing of any responsibility and a guaranteed limo ride to Heaven is not of great allure?
Wow, your above certainly DOES sound alluring. Unfortunately, us Reformers don't have access to any of that. In any event, my point was that the sense of "allure" is meaningless to a Reformer since we know that God chooses His own. IOW, we don't "sign up" for a good deal from ourselves. We choose God BECAUSE He chose us first.
I do not know of any Reformed that believe that they are of the non elect. The beauty of it is that every sin that one commits is of no consequence and repentance is not required after one initially repents.
I do not know of any Catholics who believe they are going to hell. What does that solve? :)
All sins have consequences, Mark. God disciplines those He loves, and we know what happens to those He doesn't love. It's just that not every action we take on earth has salvific consequences. I couldn't imagine spending my whole life going from saved to damned to saved to damned over and over again. I wouldn't leave the house. :)
ROTFLOL!
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.