Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Kolo: More Manichean, sfa. In fact, I'd suggest that Calvinism really is more Manichean than Christian.
I can only assume that the comparisons to dualism, Islam, and Manichaeism are founded in misperceptions that Calvinism stands for a God who is both evil and good, and that man has no personal responsibility for his own actions. Both are categorically false, of course, but I can understand these perceptions coming from faiths that are dualistic themselves in supporting both a sovereign God and a sovereign man, especially when it comes to salvation. Without man having the full power and control over his own destiny it is thought that God must therefore be to blame for sin and everything else.
So, accusations of dualism work both ways. But one thing that doesn't seem to fit here would be a claim of self-denial. I actually see quite the opposite in Apostolic faiths. No one gets to Heaven without first making free will wise choices and completing some requisite number and/or kinds of works. Where is the self-denial in that? Self-denial would be relying on Christ's righteousness, not one's own. That is why I used the phrase "glorifying the merit of man". If getting into Heaven is the name of the game, then it cannot be accomplished without the key ingredient of man's merit. That exposes the dualism of who is really in charge of the universe. Calvinists, at least, are very clear and consistent on that point. :)
As is usual, people end up believing just whatever they decide to, sometimes without any outside evidence. I choose to believe what the Bible says, because I am convinced that because God is the author, he is the one who sees to it that his words are preserved from destruction and from error in such a way as to allow us confidence in the doctrines of truth they proclaim. An excellent source I just found concerning the date of Luke's writings is www.harvardhouse.com, It contains biblical as well as non-biblical sources for this information.
Or co-equality? Even when Jesus says the Father is greater than I?
Jesus also says that He and the Father are One and that he who sees Him also sees the Father.
Where does the Bible says all three are co-equal and co-eternal?
The earlier website shows that there is one God (or just use 1 Cor. 8:4) and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God. Genesis shows that God is eternal.
For if the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit is something that "comes" out of both of them, then then the cause of the Spirit are both the Father and the Son and you have double cause. How is the Spirit co-equal then?
From what I have been able to discover there is great controversy over what "begotten" means. For me it is enough to know that all three are co-eternal and co-equal. The idea of them fulfilling different roles would not disturb this, but I can see trouble arising when trying to establish that the Father is somehow greater. I don't need to go there and don't understand why it is so important to some other Christians. Apparently, it is a HUGE deal between the Orthodox and Latins, but I have never heard the issue come up a single time as a point of discussion in the 22 years I have been going to my church.
The Spirit doesn't have everything the Father has, as the Son does.
This is exactly the kind of statement that makes no sense to me as it has God lacking something. I have never understood that to be a Christian idea.
Like I said, you're not a trial lawyer. Lying or insanity has nothing, usually, to do with what people see and hear and then recall even minutes later, let alone months or years later. Sometimes the differences can be dramatically different, not just in trivial matters but also in material ones.
I think we must not be hearing each other on this one. :) Everything you say above is very basic and of course correct. Perhaps I should not have commented on a result based on an impossible premise. I am fine with leaving it that I agree with you that very often eyewitness testimony makes lousy evidence.
BTW, in the confusing English translation, it's "proceeds" not proceeded and the word has nothing to do with "sending" but, as Kosta points out, with origin. This makes a difference because we are trying, in the Creed, to describe the Triune God we worship. It is not bad theology to say that the Spirit is sent by the Father or by the Father through the Son but that is not what the Creed is talking about.
Assuming you would say that "origin" does not negate the concept of "eternalness", of what import is origin in describing a co-eternal and co-equal God? If it is purely extra-scriptural then we may well ascribe different meanings to the Creed we jointly recite. That wouldn't be the end of the world for me since Creeds are only human summaries of what I consider authoritative, they don't have authority on their own.
It sounds like maybe "caused" is like "origin" is like "begotten"? But I have no problem with saying that the Father is the "cause" of certain things as the initiator. That is Biblical, but I would also say role-related. So are such things as "agent" or "means". This does not make the Father "greater" to me. I don't see how the ideas of monarchy (traditional) and co-equalness can both be true.
Our non Catholic friends and opponents support that idea with overwhelming evidence.
Boy, have you ever 'missed the mark' saying that! What is so funny (ironic funny, not haha funny) about that remark is simply the salient fact that not one non-Catholic yet has agreed with yours and Losta, I mean Kosta's constant trashing of the Words of God in Scripture. How many times have you both high-fived each other over your shared distrust of the written word in the Bible going so far as to say you only consent to even believing it because you trust in your Religion first, and, well, since they say it's true, then, shucks, I'll believe it, too. BUT, only 'cuz they said to!
What is "dissonant and imprecise" is both of your own speculations on the truth regardless of the proofs easily found to the one who is honest about their search. Please don't try to pan off your own insecurity of your faith onto those who are sure of theirs.
Origin does not negate "co-eternalness". The Hypostasis of the Trinity "is" before time came into being. Origin from the Father, however, is important lest Christians fall into any of a number of heresies; Arianism, Nestorianism, Macedonianism, Modalism (especially)...there are others.
"If it is purely extra-scriptural then we may well ascribe different meanings to the Creed we jointly recite."
You are of course free to believe what you will. The days of the Inquisition are over. The Church, however, has never had multiple "meanings" for The Creed, aside from the West unilaterally changing The Creed by inserting the filioque, which did change the meaning and was correctly anathemized by the East.
"Creeds are only human summaries of what I consider authoritative, they don't have authority on their own."
Because the Nicene Creed was adopted as a dogmatic statement of our Trinitarian Faith, it does indeed have authority on its own, at least within The Church.
Thanks, but while gloves help, the dexterity is an issue even when not cold, and the software can be helpful when i do use it as long as it is proof read. Which I see I am not alone in sometimes being deficient in.
What prophesies? All these "prophesies" are either twisted into being prophesies or written after the fact, such as in the book of Daniel, the last book of the OT to be written (2nd century BC), which pretends to be written 400 or so years earlier.
The issue was your statement that the scriptures also say it is wrong (2 Peter 1:20) in response to my statement, And the Scriptures affirms men testing claims by the Scriptures as available to them. (Acts 17:11) And which i showed you that you were in error, but rather than admit that or attempt to argue it, seeing something that upholds the integrity of the Scripture you simply go into your default “attack the Scriptures mode,” in which you refuse correction, as previously demonstrated. Among others fallacies promoted by you, no doubt you still would yet assert that the Bible does not condemn father-daughter incest!
Here you evidently reject out of the evidence that Daniel was not a late addition. But as you seem incapable of dealing with the anything related to the Bible and God without ending up in your narrow minded denigrations of both which you show yourself unreasonably committed to why should i give you excuse to express more of the same?
No, the objection by the Church (not just by Rome) is that by private interpretation the morality of the Bible becomes relative. It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read.
And just where is this clear? When he often reproved “experts” by the Scriptures, and choose unlettered fishermen-types over professors, and referred them to the written Scriptures, affirming the writing of revelation as a pattern? (Mat. 12:3,5,17; 19:4; 21:13,16,42; 22:29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54; Lk. 24:27,44)
Paul, on the other hand, is inconsistent, as usual. On the one hand, he teaches that Bereans could somehow "verify" his preaching the risen Christ (the only one he supposedly witnessed) through the Old testament, and on the other hand he writes that God appointed (ordained) some people for specific roles in the Church , and that no all can be apostles, prophets, teachers and interpreters, etc. (1 Cor. 12:28)
Not so, as not only was it Luke who wrote Acts 17:11, and Paul reasoned with Jews out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2) and never said that you needed to be an apostle, prophet, or teacher to study the Scriptures, and commended Timothy having known as a child the holy scriptures “which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2Tim. 3:15)
And Rome changed its position as regards the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue being indiscriminately allowed.
The Church teaches that there is no certainty in faith, just hope. There are those who say "Lord, Lord," and believe, with certainty that they are saved, and yet the Bible says otherwise. (Mat. 7:21) The Church teaches against excessive self-confidence in second-guessing God.
But there is a caveat which affirms otherwise: "If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema." — Trent.CANON XVI
And by which “the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture.”
Well, if no one's interpretation is infallible, then the truth isn't and cannot be known. End of story. I could have told you that from the beginning.
There was no need to, as that is not the real story. Rome's statement is referring to its assuredly infallible interpretation of history, and the problem is not whether something can be know infallibly, as it can be if we can know anything for sure, but the basis for it, as regards Rome's assuredly infallible criteria.
Whether you place your faith in an infallible magisterium of men or in your own personal infallible magisterium, it is fallible human beings interpreting writings of other fallible human beings. Second, if the Holy Spirit guides you personally why not the magisterium? Are members of the magisterium also not believers in whom indwells the Spirit?
As per above, the issue is not whether Rome can teach infallible truth, which must be allowed, but that she is supposedly assuredly infallible according to a criteria regarding content, scope and personnel, which is what makes her substantiation, if offered, infallible, although Ott held that “infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.”
So you say. Naturally, those seeking for a way to deny the authority of the Scriptures invoke this as a convenient hypothesis.
Asserting the authority of the scriptures is a matter of faith. The Jews reject your scriptures as Christians reject Mormon scriptures; and all three accept theirs on faith alone.
But, here is the futility of all these arguments: the Bible contains enough self-contradiction, because it's so open to personal interpretation, and because of factual contradictions, as to make it possible for every extant sect and cult to defend its beliefs using the very same Bible! All heresies are judged and founded on the biblical interpretation.
Such are the typical attempts to discredit the integrity of the Bible, and i would like to expose such allegations of supposed contras as spurious such as i have already done to yours, while many web sites deal with such, as well as the relative few copyist errors in every manuscript of any real import. As for this aspect enabling “every extant sect and cult to defend its beliefs using the very same Bible,” that is not the case. The variant beliefs of the different churches very rarely turn on textual or manuscripts differences.
As for personal interpretation, that is an expected reality in every field, and while theology is an extensive one, core truths find almost universal concurrence in Protestantism has a whole, with opposition to those who deny them, which are typically groups in which an authority is effectively held as superior to that of the Bible. And again, what is necessary for salvation and growth is not a great intellect, that of a humble and contrite heart before God.
What I wrote about John's Gospel is a reflection of history, namely that the tensions between the Christians and Jews were intensifying and that by the time John & al wrote their Gospel, the Christians were declared apostates and cursed by the rabbis. Since then Christianity took a progressively anti-Jewish turn, and became progressively more Hellenized.
Finding possible cause with conjuncture is all it takes it seems, however the problem is that the Old Testament is also quite harsh on the Jews when guilty of spiritual declension, and it is in the earlier Gospels that the harshest words are used against Jerusalem, representing Israel as those against their leaders. Of course, no reasonable explanation for any negative connotation of the Jews in John's Gospel can be allowed , even though he was speaking in the overall sense, and also addressed his audience as the gospel applied to them, as did each of the writers without actual contradictions between them, except for the contrived types you have exampled.
Certainly they would,, and I affirmed Jesus correctness in reproving their forerunners, as both denied the Scriptures which manifest the devil as a real entity, and the New Testament treats such stories as historical events
The NT is a reflection of a particular sect adhering to Zoroastrian dualism, which is unknown to Judaism before the Persian liberation of the Jews from Babylon, and is soundly rejected by Judaism.
Meanwhile, to hold the Scripture as infallible and supreme judge does not deny that other religions have some truth, and in fact Rm. 1+2 affirms that men have a basic revelation of truth, but which can become radically corrupted.
And the same can be said of Christianity.
Yes, Zoroastrianism and like other hopeful explanations, have been around for a while, in which some similar concepts, despite critical differences purport that Christianity was a copycat, and are swallowed whole by the willing, while ignoring refutations or dismissing the problems with their hypothesis.
Matter of faith not fact.
Warranted faith based on evidence
Such as?
Such as? From energy and a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws which testifies to an intelligent cause which thus far denies a more warranted purely naturalistic explanation otherwise as causative, to effects realized daily which corresponded to the examples and promises of Scripture, contingent upon cooperation with it.
How do you know it's from God?
Initially, one takes a step of faith, but as that results in reality in accordance with obedience, in which defy natural explanations in terms of either “degree of difficulty” or coincidence, then it becomes increasingly irrational to deny the supernatural and the God of it, examples of which abound.
In this case, Luke was guided by God in collecting the research and inspired in writing it.
How do you know that?
First, this began in response to your assertion that inspiration was not recollection, which neither the church whose authority you were attempting to uphold, nor their Scripture support. As for knowing, that is according to the above means.
Should be "Hypostasia" not "Hypostasis". Sorry! You all might find this article on the Trinity as seen by +John Chrysostomos interesting. It is thoroughly Orthodox Christian.
The issue being RC's authority, part of her expression of this is fitting: Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part...
Oh, sure, Luke was there in person in Chapter 1...so much for that. Luke never saw Jesus in person.
This is altogether too typical. First, you were defending realms interpretive authority, yet when shown that were contrary to its definition of inspiration, you respond by seeking a fault in part of her statement on such. And in which you left out the rest of the sentence which reads, “or which were related to him.”Moreover even the part you chose to quote is not untrue as the author of Acts later in that book did narrate events in which he himself took part. Whether Luke saw Jesus in person is not relevant to the issue of what constitutes inspiration according to Rome's definition of it.
I have responded to your narrow thinking in this before, and God was never under any delusion that majority would choose the broad path of destruction
Oh yeah, raise a lot of children and let the dumb ones play in traffic. The smart ones will survive and enjoy your rewards. Nice God.
Despite such seemingly constrained skewing of the revelation of God, being smart is not is not how you get on the narrow path, but by contrition for sins and faith in the Lord who gave himself for you, while those in the broadway to destruction think themselves too smart to have such a need, or to believe in a just and yet sacrificially merciful Almighty God, whose long-suffering many take delight in pushing.
But neither was i only referring to overt miraculous, but also to endure suffering and afflictions, needed for individual and corporate character, and overall that of the transformative effects of the new birth, with immediate new affections
Oh sure such as John 3:9. The born again do not sin, to which some say "as a habit." Oh, really? Every religion claims some transformative effects as a "sign" of its authenticity. Hogwash.
First, it is not is John 3:9 , but first John 3:9, and the word for “commit” (poieō) like as in “committed sin” (1Jn. 3:8) is the opposite of “does” (poieō) righteousness” (1Jn. 3:7) and is in the continuous sense, as in 1Jn.3:4, such as “walk in darkness” (1Jn. 1:6) And John has established prior to this that one who denies he has sin is in deception and does not have the truth in him. (1Jn. 1:8) Thus a believer is one whose life is characterized by righteousness, and confession and repentance when convicted of sin.
Meanwhile, while you broad brush all such transformative effects as hogwash, what is more substantive are observable effects that require faith in naturalistic explanations to deny.
I have no antagonism towards God, whatever God may be. Nor do I hate the Church as some former Catholic seem to. As for condemning biblical collusion and extensive doctrinal "harmonization" of biblical authors and copyists by using manipulative techniques to get people to believe them ..
Kosta, need i post some of it and let other judge?
If that would please you, I don't mind. When I say I have no antagonism towards God I mean whatever God may be, not whatever man has made God to be.
My original statement was that “you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically,” not some undefined abstract Deity .
Nor do I, as a matter of habit attack the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I do object to some of their manipulative practices that are common to all partisan organizations, but not as to what the Church seeks to accomplish in good faith.
No, your primary target is evangelical Protestants, And having joined a forum which says it is for pro-God people you have plenty of them, who you variously described (just of the few I've seen) as those who” seek low self-image therapy and food for their narcissistic nature,” while “Reformed "worship" is like "a pagan-like spectacle one would expect to see in a pagan temple, all swaying their hands in the air like something from "Indiana Jones" movie” (though Catholic charismatics were far more like that then typical Reformed churches), while misconstruing the God of the Bible as one who is “narcissistic” because He demands people to believe and worship him (Response) being “moody, narcissistic, selfish, petty, inefficient, somoene always capable of being driven to violence, demanidng, and endlessly wheeling and dealing and fixing things without rellay fixing anything,” (Response) who “throws fits and commits genocide,” with “selfish motives,” (Response) being moody “man-made or man-imagned” and sacrificing himself on the cross, and what not, and the world is as evil and wicked as ever.” (Response)
By which characterization on this forum you intractably hold to regardless of attempts to appeal to objectivity, while asserting imagining contradictions no matter how much you are corrected, yet accusing others of being ideologically driven.
By the way, my referencer to john 3:9 was being sarcastic. You reference some person by the name Cryle (apparently a 19th century nut) who says (I quote from the page you referenced): "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;" and again, "Whosoever is born of God sinneth not." - John 3:9; 5:18." is delusional. Those verse say no such thing.
john 3:9 says "Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?" and John 5:18 says "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
What reference to john 3:9 are you taking about? You are the only one that referenced that, and wrongly so, rather than 1Jn. 3:9 I referenced Mt. 3:9 regarding validity by lineage which you wrongly referenced as referring to the devil. As for Cryle, i have no idea what they is all about.
Maybe it wouldn't hurt to check on those references every now and then.
In-deed. THis should cease .
It's like a religious Rorschach test. Everyone sees something different in it.
It's a matter of belief. When Paul asserts that all scriptures are God-inspired or God-breathed, he neither specifies which writings are "scripture," or how they are identified, or what he meant by this term theopneustos. It is his own verbal coinage from Θεός + πνέω (God + breathe, or blow) that appears nowhere else in the entire Bible, and it can mean a number of things, just like so many other biblical sayings.
The Bible is like dough. You can shape and make it any way you want, to suit your taste and purpose.
Well, first of all, do you know for sure who "went" to heaven and why? Will works of faith hurt?
Second, the self-denial is to not follow yourself as a measure but what Christ did, but imitating him. Imitation implies works of some kind, whether mental or physical works, it doesn't matter. It is an effort, a struggle (Slavonic podvig) to conform to Christ in faith and in everything else.
Those who rely, indeed excuse everything they do, on Christ's righteousness simply because they call on his name, are actually relying on their own and not his. They only use his name as an excuse for their doing whatever they want to do.
Does that unlocked you too?
An excellent source I just found concerning the date of Luke's writings is www.harvardhouse.com, It contains biblical as well as non-biblical sources for this information
Post it as a thread and we can take it apart, piece by piece. It is an Intelligent Design pseudo-scientific front with thin and naive arguments.
Does that inlcude you too?
An excellent source I just found concerning the date of Luke's writings is www.harvardhouse.com, It contains biblical as well as non-biblical sources for this information
Post it as a thread and we can take it apart, piece by piece. It is an Intelligent Design pseudo-scientific front with thin and naive arguments.
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.