| 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 ...
Who was it again who accused who of heresy?
BS.
Here is your response when I asked you to review a sermon on the doctrines of Grace:
Why don’t you folks just follow who you will follow and I will follow Christ.
If you were not insinuating "anything" then what the hell was your point?
Obviously to anyone on this thread who can read the point you were trying to drive home is that those who disagreed with you are not following Christ, but following someone else.
If you feel threatened for some reason it’s not my concern.
If you believe that men can be influenced to either follow Christ or not influenced by factors other than the unmerited and irresistible grace of God, then aren't you the least bit concerned that your snide and insulting attitude towards those who do not believe as you do may just turn them away from the Gospel and contribute to them rejecting God and ending up in Hell for eternity?
Would you not then be partially responsible for their damnation?
Oh my! I sense a little rage coming through.
>>Would you not then be partially responsible for their damnation?<<
How could that possibly be? They are going where they are going and nothing man can do will change that. Right?
Thank you, sister.
“If the saved are predestined to be saved and the lost are lost and nothing is going to affect that, why evangelize? Aren’t we working against God by preaching the gospel to those He “passes by” by His choice? Why would Jesus say to “go out into all the world”? Why waste our time evangelizing if all is predestined. After all, those who are elect will be saved no matter what and those who God has chosen to “pass by” will never respond anyway. Why does God have us preach to people who He “willed” not to respond? Why would anyone listen to your message anyway? If they are one of the elect they will be saved without it”
Why evangelise? Because we are commanded to. Because that is God’s chosen method to reach the elect.
Romans 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
This is no different than Catholics appealing to THEIR church fathers and other writings.
Calvinism is too much like Catholicism in too many ways for my comfort. They just appeal to different writings.
So all doesn’t mean *all* does it?
It means some of all. Or all of some. Or all of the the elect.
Or something.
But it CAN’T mean *all* all.
I agree, you aren't. But that doesn't stop some one from mind reading and/or making assumptions as is noted over and over.
Follow the teachings you feel called to follow.
And that appears to be the call of confusion.
(I dislike "reductionism" of any and all stripes....)
Don't you mean to reach the lost?
But Jesus did say..
Jesus told him, "Follow ME, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Show me where I have accused anyone of Heresy?
Are you going to read the sermon I posted?
I'd like to see your comments on the sermon. Perhaps you could just comment on the little excerpt that I posted.
I don't think I've ever seen that analogy posted on this board before. If anything, Calvinism is the polar opposite of Catholic theology.
Did you happen to read that sermon that I posted from Spurgeon? I'd like to know your thoughts about it.
You may not have noticed that the post you just responded to was in answer to this statement. “I fail to see the danger of which you speak.” The danger of the Calvinist position that those who are elect will be saved no matter what anyone does and those who are destined to be lost will never be reached was that too often the attitude is “why spend great amounts of money or time on evangelism”. And that is pretty well evidenced by the disparity in the amount of time and money Calvinists spend on evangelism and other churches or denominations. I have been in many Calvinist churches where the time spent on evangelism or calls to repentance is woefully absent. That’s the danger I was speaking of. Not that I question whether to “go into all the world”.
Can it be any different? We are constantly being sent to read “sermons” or “writings” of men rather than scripture. We post scripture that counter what they believe but again are sent to some writings of man.
Holding the doctrine of grace has nothing to do with it. Look at who you send me to every time. Is it scripture? No, it’s the sermon of a man. Do you show scripture that illustrates that the scripture I post fits the Calvinistic view of predestined? NO, again I’m sent to read the writings of some man. Where are Christ’s words that explain why God didn’t mean “all men” when He said all men? Just like the Catholics each time I am sent to some writing of man rather than Christ’s words or the words of the apostles.
Perhaps but one has to admit the scriptures favors the latter. Paul verses "I will have mercy on who I will have mercy", "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated", and the like now fits. Charges that were levy against Paul, "Are we to continue in sin...", "Why not do evil...", and the like are the exact charges Reformers get. All of these various issues indicate we are in line with the teachings and reasoning of Paul.
I'll tell you something that I've never shared. I've done a lot of research on this matter over the years. I've looked at history, read through the early writings, read through the Protestant confessions, looked at the different views posted here by Dr. SteveJ, Dr. E and the like as well as the counter views-many of which I held. There are bits and pieces of things that convinced me like the London Baptist/Westminster Confessions and the writings of Cyprian and Augustine.
But one of the most pronounced reasons why I am absolutely convinced the Reformers' perspective is correct is simply the reaction one gets from it. A beautiful gospel of God richly bestowing His grace and mercy on us perspective is absolutely hated. And you do not have to go very far to see this attitude-only a few posts back. But that's not the only place. While researching back I went to atheists sites, arminian sites, and just about every church site imaginable. Atheists while they doggedly accept evangelical, they absolutely hate Reformers. Now this has been about seven years ago but you could probably go out to their sites and see this blatant attitude. So does everyone else. People hate the gospel of grace. Billy Graham is a nice person. John MacArthur or John Piper not so much. So we are told. Now if it wasn't for the scriptural alignment, the historical context, the confessionals, etc., one has to wonder what on earth causes people to go simply bonkers about this view? Eastern Orthodox, Catholics and evangelicals, they might trade barbs with one another but at the end of the day you'll see them in some sort of ecumenical agreement. Reformers are simply crazy, evil and down right nasty people. PM is only beginning to get a taste of this.
If it wasn't for Cyprian's word to Augustine, just the sheer attitude would make me believe this IS the true gospel. It's not a popular message but it is the truth.
Read my post again. I did not say that you did. It was however we who were accused of heresy by the Calvinists on this thread. Not the other way around.
>>Are you going to read the sermon I posted?<<
NO, and for two reasons. First an foremost is that I follow what Christ and the apostles said and avoid as much as possible the sermons of man. Second, that post was almost unreadable with no paragraphs. Oh, and please don’t bother wasting the band width by reposting it.
>>I'd like to see your comments on the sermon.<<
I’d like a lot of things I don’t get.
>>Perhaps you could just comment on the little excerpt that I posted.<<
I agree with him on that.
Then perhaps you should practice what he preached.
That has been my experience as well. I always went to good "bible believing" churches that gave good teachings. Many of them utilized Calvinist books like MacArthur, Sproul, Spurgeon, Piper in their bible studies. Some of the best commentaries that I often referred to are people like Matthew Henry or John Gill.
So you reject the idea that you are in need of teachers in the church?
What about the story of the Ethopian Eunich in Acts Chapter 8?
Are you smarter and wiser than others so that you do not need anyone to assist you in the interpretation of scripture?
If so, should you not be teaching in the church? Shouldn't you be the one giving the sermons?
BTW if we are to reject the sermons of men on issues of theology, then why should anyone here pay any attention to what you have to say?
Shouldn't you be ignoring us and shouldn't we be ignoring you?
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.