| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/07/2013 8:58:03 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 01/16/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by marshmallow
General audience, Benedict XVI defines the Incarnation as "something unimaginable, the face of God can be seen, the process that began with Abraham is fulfilled." The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, he asks "for the great gift" to "proclaim together that Jesus is the Savior of the world."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "The desire to know the face of God is in every man, even the atheists," but this desire is only realized by following Christ, in whom, in the Incarnation, "something unimaginable took place, the journey that began with Abraham is fulfilled. He is the Son, the fullness of all Revelation; the mediator who shows us the face of God. "
And "to proclaim together that Jesus is the Saviour of the world" Benedict XVI asked for incessant prayers for "the great gift" of Christian unity in the forthcoming week, which begins on the 18th of this month.
Previously, in his catechesis, he again reflected on the meaning of Christmas, in a commentary on John's Gospel in which the apostle Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The answer of Jesus, "introduces us to the heart of the Church's Christological faith; For the Lord says: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).This expression summarizes the novelty of the New Testament, the novelty that appeared in the cave of Bethlehem: God can be seen, he showed his face is visible in Jesus Christ".
The theme of "seeking the face of God" is present throughout the Old Testament, so much so that the Hebrew term "face", occurs no less than 400 times, 100 of which refer to God." The of Jewish religion which the religion forbids all images, "for God can not be depicted," and "can not be reduced to an object," tells us that "God...
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
Your tactics in this line of accusations remind me way too much of a certain Catholic FReeper who accuses others of holding heretical positions and asking them why they believe it and to defend their beliefs.
Nobody is defending the unrealistic definition of *free will* that you keep posting. Find me ONE person who says that they believe in your dictionary definition of free will that we all know cannot exist, and defends it, which you keep stating that they believe in and defend . Provide the links or links.
Heresy against whom or what? You keep throwing that out as well. It's a nice vague accusation made to discredit someone but I haven't seen anywhere where it's been stated what the heresy is against.
Who and where? Links to posts please.
That's kind of a given, and does not mean that God decided to send them to hell as in picking and choosing before time who He made for the purpose of destruction, never giving them a chance to repent as He has commanded all men to do.
I've seen you post that people can choose as well. So why when I say it, does it by default mean that I believe in the unrealistic definition of *free will* that you gleaned from a secular dictionary, but when you say it, it doesn't?
I don't believe that most people knowingly choose hell. What they choose is to reject God, which results in going to hell. I've said it before, they got what they wanted, an existence without God, but I'm sure it's not what they expected.
Whoever said they are unwilling to surrender their free will? Understanding that people have to take some responsibility is not claiming that one is unwilling to give up their free will. It’s simply acknowledging that there is some personal responsibility.
>> The semi-Pelagian clings to their free will as if their salvation is dependent on it;<<
Now why you would you inject something like that? No one here has stated any such thing that I have seen. In every post that I have seen there is the underlying premise that but for the grace of God and His calling none would be saved. If the position of those who think “we are just along for the ride” is so weak that those types of statements have to be made rather than backing up their beliefs with scripture it gets rather obvious that their beliefs are not sound.
I didn’t know, so thanks.
Branding any believer as an anything is wrong. Labeling people sets the stage for making people respecters of persons, differentiating between the have's and the have nots, between the *You've arrived* or *You haven't arrived, you need to get to the level of spiritual maturity I'm at*.
I've had my fill of that out of the Pentecostal movement with their speaking in tongues/slain in the Spirit stuff. And with the Catholics with the *I'm doing better works than you are* mentality.
It sets the trap for spiritual pride and many fall into it.
Let me ask you something metmom. Would it upset you if God chose you from the foundation of the Earth based solely upon his counsel and that your free will had nothing whatsoever to do with it; in fact, because he loved YOU before you were ever formed he chose you and changed your will to His in order that you would then willingly come to Christ?
Would it upset you if you realized that YOU did not make the decision to follow Christ, but that God alone made that decision and that he changed your heart and your will to conform to his before you ever asked?
If you answer yes to either of those questions, then I would have to put you in the category of those who are unwilling to surrender their free will.
The fact of the matter is that until God changes our hearts our "free will" we will always choose the path that leads away from God because our unregenerate hearts cannot turn to God.
We are responsible for our sins. We are not responsible for our salvation.
If we were responsible for our salvation, then the blood of Christ is only partially sufficient. If we are responsible for our salvation, then we become our own Saviors. We become co-redemptors in our eternal destiny.
Well, post your definition from a reliable source.
Provide the links or links.
Oy vey!
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church . the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
There is NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL AS HAS BEEN DEFINED ON THIS THREAD.
It is pointless to use it as it CANNOT exist.
Don’t put me in a category of what you think I believe and then demand that I defend it. I’ve dealt enough with that from certain Catholic FReepers and have put them on my *Do not respond* list, and I will do the same with anyone who tries to pigeon hole me and demand that I defend something I never claimed to believe but that I am accused of believing.
17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”
Here's my comment.....
Nobody is defending the unrealistic definition of *free will* that you keep posting. Find me ONE person who says that they believe in your dictionary definition of free will that we all know cannot exist, and defends it, which you keep stating that they believe in and defend . Provide the links or links.
Here is a statement from your home page.
>>”God elects, chooses, before the foundation of the world whom he will save and whom he will pass by and leave to unbelief and sin and rebellion. He does this unconditionally, not on the basis of foreseen faith that humans produce by a supposed power of ultimate self-determination.”<<
That by definition is double predestination. It’s even stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith that you wanted me to read.
>>”By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”<<
Now there are some fudge word’s Calvinists like to use to hide their true beliefs like the Catholics do in trying to defend their beliefs to hopefully somehow align with what scripture says but like the Catholics they fall far short.
Foreordained or predestined, it’s all the same. The belief of Calvinists leaves no wiggle room really. As was stated earlier in this thread. Calvinists believe that we are “just along for the ride”. So deny all you want but it’s right there on your home page for all to see.
Thanks, CB. It is pretty clear.
OK, just a minute.
Does that mean you are not going to answer those two questions?
They were simple yes/no questions.
You WILL choose life IF God changes your WILL.
If God does not change your will then you will choose death. It is the nature of unregenerate man to reject God. It is like the story of the scorpion and the turtle.
The scorpion needs to cross the river and so he asks the turtle for a ride. The turtle says, "Do you think I am crazy? If I let you get on my back, you'll sting me."
"Don't worry," said the scorpion. "If I do that, we would both drown in the river."
So the turtle gives him a ride. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the turtle. And as the poison starts to work and the turtle and scorpion start to sink into the river together, the turtle says, "Why did you do it? Now we're both going to die."
The scorpion, in his last few breaths, says, "I couldn't help it. It's my nature."
You don’t understand “pass by” and “leave”. In fact, you’re relying on a stereotypical view of Calvinism rather than on what they themselves say. There’s no reason you should know that much about Calvinism; there was a time that I, too, thought they all believed as the Primitive Baptists do.
Boy was I wrong.
the doctrine that God has foreordained both those who will be saved and those who will be damned.
Foreordained or predestined, it’s all the same.
No, it's not the same and wording is important. Otherwise God (via Paul) would have been redundant when He said, "Those who He foreknew he also predestined...". There are distinct differences between "foreknew" and "predestined". And the order of those words are important. However I hate to post any more from the dictionary since it seems to be such a heretical document. I'm running to the dictionary so much my "D" key is sticking.
Now you never answered my question. Do men purposely choose to go to hell? I'll answer it for both you and metmom who don't seem to want to address this. Of course they do not choose to go to hell. And that is what the confession tells us. As metmom rightfully stated in one of her post, men are deceived into going to hell. So how can you say there is a "free" choice if they're deceived?
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.