Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I agree with you for sure,Dear Kosta.
This is also why Our Lord called Saint Peter satan- because Peter did not wanting a suffering Christ.
The lesson learned is that denial of the suffering and humility of Christ is the essence of the demonic
It always bothered me when I attended protestant churches that Christ body was stripped from their crosses
Hi, Irish.
How’s it hanging?
***Mark, I know you weren’t looking for it, but you just officially won the “Irony of the Week” award!!! :)***
What do I win? The way I’m feeling now, a top end rye whisky (barley will do in a pinch) might be a good prize.
***This is also why Our Lord called Saint Peter satan- because Peter did not wanting a suffering Christ.
The lesson learned is that denial of the suffering and humility of Christ is the essence of the demonic.***
The evidence is overwhelming.
***It always bothered me when I attended protestant churches that Christ body was stripped from their crosses***
It isn’t just the body of Christ that is removed from the cross, it is the body of Christ removed from their Lord’s Supper (the ones that bother to maintain some imitation of it), it is the religious icons and spiritual setting that are usually removed (except for some of the more conservative churches - I’ve been in some beautiful old Presbyterian, Anglican and Lutheran churches) and often even the altar is set aside to create a stage in which the players strut up and down and preen and shout or be a rock star.
Protestant prayer barns give one a different mindset than an iconic cathedral or basilica or even a humble yet iconic country church.
Is God going to allow anybody in heaven, or only those whom he has chosen? Is there someone somewhere who God does not want into heaven, but will go anyway?
Well, went to Disneyworld last month, going on a cruise to Alaska next month, and in between I am trying to pay for it all :>)
You?
Is our God a God of absolutes or of hypotheticals?
... secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time.
Eternal glory by merit? OK.
This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit.
It appears that God is leaving out somebody pretty important here. Maybe the name slipped His mind. :) I hope that I am just misunderstanding this whole thing.
It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.
The fatal flaw in this is that it only potentially works if God created, and then turned His back completely on His creation and just watched what happened. If one believes, as I do and I "think" all Catholics do, that God is active in our world, then God is foreseeing His own actions. Therefore He is already a part of the action and CANNOT rely solely on what He foresees as the actions of others to make His predestination determinations. He's already involved. The hypothetical thus falls apart.
As the “possessing” of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the “preparation” of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed.
A perfect example of what I'm saying. This theory requires that good works are done TOTALLY APART from God. But if good works are God working through us, then the whole thing reverts back to the Reformed position on predestination. It makes no logical sense for God to predestine based on foreseen good works, IF God was involved in those good works.
Mark: The dogma of double predestination assumes that God is the author of sin and death. We reject that. If God gives the whole world His grace, then He has made it possible for everyone to be saved.
Then you don't accept the definition of double predestination by those who believe in it. You redefine it and disagree with THAT. This has nothing to do with us. Double predestination means that God in His sovereignty infallibly predestined some to glory by giving them saving grace. By logical extension, it also means that God did not predestine others to eternal glory because He did not give them saving grace. That's pretty much it. Where is God authoring evil in any of this? Do you hypothetically call God evil for choosing not to give someone saving grace? If so, on what basis? God DOES give SOME grace (or blessings) to all men, but not saving grace.
Ah, Terriergal, no we won’t (smile).
LOL!!!
Ain’t that the troot.
That’s because he’s not on the cross anymore. HE ROSE!
Kosta: Lots of them! :)
Astounding.
What are some of the many options men have for their salvation?
***What are some of the many options men have for their salvation?***
First there is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”, then there is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”, and don’t forget “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. Did I forget any? :>)
LOL. No, I think you’ve covered all the “options.”
Good, I wouldn’t want to leave any out.
Who gets to spend eternity either in the heavenly penthouse with a view, or a basement of the heavenly skyscrapers. :)
But even that has been "preordianed" by the Reformed God, so when the Bible says all over the place that we will be judged for what we have done (for our deeds) it is only a "figure of speech" to the Reformed eyes and ears. They don't see those words and they don't hear them; and for sure their random verse generators don't recognize them.
That's because in the Deformed world what you and I do is not really "our" doing. Everyone has been prejudged for things God preordianed they will do.
The bottom line is: We are judged, like everything else in the Reformed theology, "just because."
Indeed, but then how do you explain what Paul and 1 Peter infer when they say that he (Jesus) was rased by God {sic]?
OK, but the Gospels do teach the NT, right? Jesus preached the New Covenant. Maybe I'm not understanding where your point leads.
God does not need to choose because He wills us all sufficient grace to be saved and gives us a free will to follow or reject it.
We either love God's WILL OR WE SELFISHLY REJECT GOD'S WILL IN FAVOR OF OUR OWN WILL
Only the prideful think of themselves as the chosen by God.
Jim Jones and others made these claims that they were chosen by God
***Only the prideful think of themselves as the chosen by God.***
My dear friend, if I were worthy of being chosen by God, then I would have pride. I am not worthy, I have done nothing spectacular, significant, or noteworthy. I am a sinner, chosen by God, now called by him to be one of his children. There is no pride in that, because I didn’t have any thing to do with his choosing me. There is MUCH rejoicing, though, as God calls us to do in Philippians 4. Much rejoicing.
***We either love God’s WILL OR WE SELFISHLY REJECT GOD’S WILL IN FAVOR OF OUR OWN WILL***
While we are still unregenerated, we cannot love God or his will. It is only when God chooses us, regenerates us, changes us, can we come to him and love him. We reject him from birth, and only when he changes us came we accept him. Remember what it says in Romans... no one seeks God, no, not one.
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.