Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Sorry, daniel1212, I still don’t get it. Are you saying that the gospel preached in the book of Acts is the “gospel of least resistance” and that it no longer works today?
I am confused.
Forgive me for wasting your time. I was attempting to make the point that when the Apostles Creed was first written in Greek "catholic/universal" was not capitalized and was an adjective. For that matter the letters of Ignatius were written "catholic" was not capitalized.
Somewhere along the way "catholic" (adjective) became "Catholic" (and used as a proper noun.) ie. "Catholic Church".
MY existence was caused by God, so how can the existence of any of the Trinity said to be caused? To say "caused" means there was a time of non-existence.
I have already answered that in 5,677, and I do realize that your replies are backlogged. Of course, your post only shows to what level of rationalization Christian apologetics had to go through (and still do) in order to "explain" this conundrum called Christianity.
However, if (as a lawyer) you carefully read what I wrote, you will note that it says the Son and the Spirit are eternally caused by the Father, so your objection—that it means "there was a time of non-existence"—is unsubstantiated.
But this still doesn't explain what makes Son a son, and the Father a father! All this, of course, is part of the Christian riddle which gives it that "mysterious" appeal that requires a language that almost borders on psychotic (i.e. "I am in you and you are in me" type) yet trips all over itself because it is an amalgam of mutually exclusive and incompatible elements (Judaism, Platonism and Zoriastrianism), so much so that everyone has a slightly different take on it.
The fact that the caused and uncaused concepts of divinity (i.e. the "Godhead") appear to be alien to a mainline Christian only shows the chasm of mutual misunderstanding that exists in Christianity under the guise of commonly used terminology and a superficial unity in "core beliefs" among all Christians. Christianity is as heterodox today as it was 2000 years ago. If you scratch the surface, you find a bottomless canyon between various communities in terms of what they understand Christian concepts to mean and, ultimately, what they believe in.
OK. First, I hope you read the the rest of the post which this last portion came from, part of which stated,
This does not mean a sinner stops sinning to come to Christ, but as those who do come to Christ are choosing light over darkness, (Jn. 3:19-21) so those who come to Christ to be saved from their sins are those which have a basic change of heart, from darkness the light, which shall be manifest in works which correspond to repentance, “things which accompany salvation,” (Heb. 6:9) according to the light they have.
Then note in the last section at issue that the first paragraph presents what manner gospel preached in the book of Acts was as regards repentance, which was the context of the post. And in which what repentance meant to some as part of conversion was considered, with some preaching a “stop sinning and come to Christ” type gospel.
Beginning the second sentence the word “but” serves to make a distinction, qualifying that the repentance preached in Acts was a basic repentance of faith, that is, from unbelief in the Lord Jesus to faith in Him, which (consistent with what i described before) signified a basic turning in heart from darkness to light, and which results in the inner transformation that resulted in effectually turning away from sin to serve Him who died in rose again.
Beginning the second paragraph, the important word “but” is used again to signify a another distinction in describing a gospel which I had previously censured as as one that does not bring souls under the Biblical conviction which works to brings souls to see their need for mercy, and and it is that gospel-lite preaching which increasingly predominates today.
Sorry for presuming to much upon the context , and not making the distinction clearer.
“The gospel preaching in the book of Acts called souls to repentance, but it was a basic repentance of faith, recognizing Jesus is Lord and trusting in Him for salvation, out of which transformed lives result.
But it is the gospel of least resistance (and which is the least difficult to preach), and which does not work to convict men of sin, righteousness and judgment - and which [conviction] brings them to appreciate mercy - that marks the latter days we are in.”
Good affirmation. I see the Deity of Christ as something well attested to (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html) but the error that is often made is that positional distinctions disallow it, but while the head of Christ is the Father, to whom He will be subject to in the future, and the Spirit is subject to the Son, that does not negate their ontological oneness.
There is a question as to how much, if any, one must understand this relationship in order to be saved. My thinking is basically that the soul who first looks to the Son sent from the Father to be the Savior the world (1Jn. 4:14) for the salvation of his own soul, is implicitly attributing Deity to Christ, as well as to the Father. And as this is spiritually revealed, the saved soul should realize the basic core teaching of the Godhead of the Father Son and Spirit when enlightened to it by the Scriptures and scriptural teaching, if in as he continues therein.
“Somewhere along the way “catholic” (adjective) became “Catholic” (and used as a proper noun.) ie. “Catholic Church”.”
Pretty much after the Great Schism. In the West (and here on FR)the term “Catholic” became identified solely with the Church of Rome. In the East we still call The Church (Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox) “Catholic”. And we call the Church of Rome, the Roman Catholic Church.
Truth be told, it is funny to see Roman Catholics say that +Ignatius of Antioch was speaking, apparently exclusively, of the operation headquartered today in Rome and saying he used a “capital C” (in Greek which has no “c”) when he wrote to the Smyrneans that the “catholic” church was where the bishop is.
All double predestination means is that God is sovereign and He chooses His children and who will be with Him in Heaven. It is opposed to the idea that man is the one who chooses whom are God's children and will be with Him in Heaven. I am unaware of any concept of dualism that would include God choosing alone in His sovereignty what He alone has the right to choose.
FK-””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.””
Perhaps you don’t understand what the Church teaches regarding merit. From the Catechism...
...... 2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. (emphasis added)
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.”60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”62 (emphasis added)
I really may not understand what the Church teaches here as I find these two sections completely contradictory. One shares credit between God and man's free will (meaning will that has not been under God's control), and the other somehow gives all the credit to God. These would appear to be mutually exclusive ideas, but I have thought that the actual position of the Church is really the first. It would be a misnomer to refer to "man's merit" if the truth is that it is "God's merit through man". Plus, free will choice requires partial independent credit for man alone. Otherwise it would not be free will.
Maryz: I think a better case could be made that the Calvinist God is a throwback to a tribal god (as I suppose you could say the Muslim God is).
Kosta: How does either differ from the OT God?
I rather like that Kosta, thank you. The Calvinist God is unlike the Latin God because the Calvinist God is like the God of the OT. I love it! :)
Totally false, roaring rhetoric and simply an inane stab at trying to assert something you want others to think is true. Anyone with a semblance of intellect can see your "evidence" is clear as mud. Have we gone from the provably untrue number of 30K+ to "millions" now? Why should anyone take anything you say seriously with this kind of comment?
Since every Protestant is charged or enabled to come up with his own belief, there is theoretically one separate interpretation for every Protestant out there. When a Protestant of a singular belief attempts to convert another, then that opposes however slightly another Protestant attempting to convert another. This is what I mean.
You say in this post, "I have never trashed Scripture" and in the same one you continue to cast doubt that anybody can have a true version of the Word of God. Because of this very distrust you have of it, you choose to, instead of reading it yourself and allowing God to illuminate the truth to you, turn that power over to your "magesterium" to do your reading and interpreting. How is it you can trust demonstrably fallible men to tell you what you can believe about God's revelation to man but in the same breath disparage the very word they are interpreting to you? Where are they supposed to get the truth in the first place if not the Bible??? Sad.
The Magisterium was the group that wrote, massaged, chose and published the Christian Bible. If you don't like the history of it, that is up to you. However, if you do believe in the Bible, I would think that you oughta know what went into it, what changed, who changed it, and to the best of our knowledge, why.
The Truth? The original Christians - the Apostles? From Jesus. The succeeding generations - from them and from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Do you scoff? If so, consider this: you guys believe in the Holy Spirit guiding the individual. We have millions of individual beliefs resulting from that idea. The Catholic Church has one idea. There are some differences about a few things, but those are addressed in the context of One Faith. There is one Catechism. Not, as in the case of the Baptists (not to pick on them), of every single congregation picking and choosing their own beliefs. Or, following the escapades of the Presbyterians, it looks like a kitten unraveling a ball of yarn.
The Truth? From God, and from His stewards on earth. Where else?
Since God wills every man to be saved, we are in accord on this.
And when one derives their theology from what others "scrape out from under their toenails each day" it's better??? You really need a new shtick. This one is useless.
What those others are Jesus, the Apostles, and the Fathers of the Church, I'll take those scrapings.
***Since every Protestant is charged or enabled to come up with his own belief, there is theoretically one separate interpretation for every Protestant out there.***
Example?
In the last couple of days I have been told I am a brother in Christ, but other times I’ve been told I am going to Hell.
We have been told that Paul was a lunatic, but Rome tells us otherwise.
Goes on and on.
When FRoman Catholics can agree on all doctrines promulgated by Rome we’ll chat.
You: What those others are Jesus, the Apostles, and the Fathers of the Church, I'll take those scrapings.
The theology that comes from Jesus Christ, Moses and the prophets and the Apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God are not "scrapings". They are the words of life. The theology from the "Fathers of the Church", well some of what they said could be called scrapings, and worse. :o)
Not all Latins are exclusively Rome-centric. The ancient five sees are, well, the equals.
That is my understanding as well...
FK “I rather like that Kosta, thank you. The Calvinist God is unlike the Latin God because the Calvinist God is like the God of the OT. I love it! :)”
MB: “That is my understanding as well...”
I agree too, FK. That’s why I often observe that it seems we worship different Gods.
We have been told that Paul was a lunatic, but Rome tells us otherwise.
Goes on and on.
When FRoman Catholics can agree on all doctrines promulgated by Rome we’ll chat.
.
.
---------------- .
INDEED. Their hypocrisies on such matters are outrageously deep and broadly demonstrated. Yet, I don't recall
a SINGLE RC
in over 10 years on FR admitting a single such brazen hypocrisy.
What's WITH that?
The usual Vatican AIWSOTARM ARROGANCE TO THE MAX?
The theology that comes from Jesus Christ, Moses and the prophets and the Apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God are not “scrapings”. They are the words of life. The theology from the “Fathers of the Church”, well some of what they said could be called scrapings, and worse. :o)
INDEED!
Example?
Are Protestants not exhorted to read the Bible for themselves and go as the "Holy Spirit will lead them"?
In the last couple of days I have been told I am a brother in Christ, but other times I’ve been told I am going to Hell.
Catholics cannot judge another's final Judgement. That is only up to Christ. If we believe that you are a brother in Christ, that is one thing, but final Judgement is beyond us.
We have been told that Paul was a lunatic, but Rome tells us otherwise.
Paul is venerated as a great saint, but we are cautioned not to misunderstand him, as many have to their detriment.
When FRoman Catholics can agree on all doctrines promulgated by Rome we’ll chat.
I don't care what individual FRoman Catholics believe. There is the One Faith of the Church. I care about that. That is Catholicism, not what any individual poster may say, or any individual FReeper may interpret. The Catechism is final.
That is the purpose of the Magisterium. For example, Origen, one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, was excommunicated because he did not believe in the end, as the Church did. Augustine departed from Church beliefs, only to come back in the end, repudiating his extra-faith writings. The Magisterium is the consensus patrum - the one Faith and the one Belief. The extra-Magisterial writings are simply that - individual writings and have no weight on the Faith.
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.