| 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 ...
In what way do you think I have not?
They basically avoid the subject as much as possible, but then that leaves the congregation more or less in the dark as to what the passages in John and Ephesians and Romans etc. mean.
As you recall, when I first came on this forum I was a fire-breathing Calvin hater. I have to thank people like you and blue Duncan (has anyone heard from him lately) and Dr. E for lovingly teaching me and helping me to realize that what I was railing against were not the Doctrines of Grace but what I thought the doctrines of grace were. I used every straw man argument that Spurgeon talks about in his expository sermon that I posted earlier.
Have I come around completely? Probably not enough to qualify for ministry at an OPC church, but I believe that I am currently more Reformed than many, if not all, of the liberalized Reformation Churches which appear to have abandoned sound doctrine for doctrines of demons.
Thank you guys for helping me to see past my prejudices and seeing the Doctrines of Grace in the true light of scripture and the true light of understanding. I'm sure you guys still think I have a long way to go. Keep working. I have learned so much from these discussions over the years.
It is interesting that now I find myself arguing against the very same straw man arguments I made over the years.
Growing in Grace.
I may be reading you wrong, but I have sensed a very arrogant and condescending attitude from you.
Maybe it's just the forum we are using and maybe you are a really nice humble guy, but from your posts, I honestly (and I mean HONESTLY) don't see the fruits of the Spirit in your postings here. I view your attitude as one of moral superiority and condescension to those with whom you do not agree.
You asked. I answered.
If my assessment of you is wrong, then I apologize. If so, prove me wrong. Show me your humble side.
In what church?
>> What about the story of the Ethopian Eunich in Acts Chapter 8?<<
I’d love to sit with one of the apostles. We now have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit so that sort of trumps men especially those who follow someone like Calvin. While Calvin may have gotten some things right the kind of man he was and the spirit he followed was evident in the way he treated Michael Servetus.
>> If so, should you not be teaching in the church? Shouldn't you be the one giving the sermons?<<
No, they should read scripture and meet to discuss what they have learned with other like minded believers just as we do. Focusing on one “preacher” is what leads to error as has been proven over and over again.
>> 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?<<
They shouldn’t without “searching the scripture”. Just as Paul commended the Bereans for doing.
Ah, the Servetus Card.
.
Harley, how many times did I play that card over the years?
BTW CB, do you agree with the theology of Michael Servetus?
His followers are all members of the Unitarian Church.
How many souls do you suspect are destined to Hell because they believe the Universalist teachings of the Unitarian church?
Just Askin.
Who is "we" and what do you "do"?
This is not a definition but a philosophical discussion of free will. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy cannot define it. I also went out on the Catholic website and they can't define it as well. So how can anyone say the dictionary is incorrect or "flat"? And, if the dictionary is incorrect, then what is the correct definition and by who's standard?
I see a lot of people out here who say they support sola scriptura, yet no where in scripture is the term "free will" used (there is one place of a "free will offering"). However, "free will" seems to be something that everyone insists that we have even though
2) no one can define "free will", and
3) Augustine linked the idea of "free will" with Pelagius, calling it out in those specific term.
With all due respect, I think the Encyclopedia saying we really don't know what free will means is a total cop out. People know exactly what it means. They just don't want to admit that they are in error so they torture the concept and refuse to define it. Augustine knew what "free will" meant and it's clear his audience knew what it meant.
I went back to the Council of Orange's Canon which is where, from my understanding, the Church first formally denounced the idea of "free will". Without getting into all of the Canons (and the specific use of "free will"), please note Canon 6:
Love – would it be loving to watch error and say nothing? Or is your version of love the kind that liberals have in that one shouldn’t say anything?
Joy – My joy is in the Lord. How do you think one should exhibit joy in a forum like this?
Kindness – Would it be kinder to just stay quiet when people post beliefs that contradict what scripture teaches? How about when Mormons post? Should we just be kind and let them draw people to their beliefs or would it be kinder to show the truth of scripture?
Forbearance – Patience is staying and discussing issues here. If there were no patience one would just leave people to believe whatever even if it led to damnation by God.
Kindness – Once again, would you say kindness is saying nothing when you see teaching that you believe is contrary to scripture? And how is posting scripture to correct someone unkind?
Goodness – Would it be showing more goodness to ignore the error of teaching?
Faithfulness – Faithfulness in staying here even though it seems futile to discuss with people who have their mind made up even though contrary to what scripture says? Unfaithful would be to just do other things even though you feel the Spirit is telling me to stay for those who are reading these threads who need to see both sides.
Gentleness – I don’t confuse gentleness with capitulation. Jesus was never gentle with error in teaching.
Self Control – It takes self control to not say some things I would like to here.
>>Show me your humble side.<<
Its God’s message not mine. That’s why I post scripture more often then not when responding to a post. I boldly proclaim the message of God.
Flat out missed the point on that one did ya? So you would agree with the Catholic Church during the inquisition that anyone who taught against their teaching should be put to death? And in the most cruel and torturous way possible? Really? Just askin.
There are only two views of the scriptures, synergism (Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Arminianism) and monergism (Reformed). They are opposite.
Christians who meet in home gatherings to praise God and study together just like they did during the time of the apostles. Those Christians who have denounced the errors of the Catholic Church and her daughters. Those who scripture refers to as the Bride of Christ, the church.
It is hard to find a good Reformed church these days. I found one several years ago but we’re going to be moving in about two-three years to an area that I think there is none. As long as I can find a non-committal bible-believing church I don’t mind. Every time they talk about “free will” I just whistle a happy tune and look the other way. :O)
LOL!!!! What goes around comes around. :O)
You might wish to remind CB that King David committed adultery with another man's wife and then murder her husband, the honorable Uriah. Did that make David any worst in God's eyes or wrong in his understanding of God? God said David was a man after His own heart. We are all sinners saved by grace.
I think I'm done with CB.
Theology, yes.
Attitude, no.
I appreciate all that you say, Harley. It is true that predestination is frowned upon almost everywhere, and it is also true that there is scripture that leans in that direction. There is also scripture that leans in a foreknowledge direction.
That is why I think we’re missing something, because I think the idea of works salvation is wrong, and I think making God suspect as the author of sin is wrong.
And you wonder why I compare Calvinists to Catholics?
The only one we need to assist us in the interpretation of Scripture is the Holy Spirit.
Why do I feel like I'm posting to a Catholic?
Pretty much the same isn’t it.
If you are convinced that every doctrine you believe is 100% correct and you fully understand every single scripture in the 66 books of the Bible, then I suppose we should all consult you on the soundness of all doctrines.
Obviously you think that what you believe is 100% in line with what the Holy Spirit teaches all those who would only listen to Him. You listen to the Holy Spirit, and therefore you're doctrine is correct.
Personally, I must admit that I do not have a 100% understanding of anything. For some reason, I'm not convinced that every doctrine I fell warm and fuzzy about is correct. I need teachers.
Since you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit has taught you all things and that your understanding of scripture is basically infallible, then perhaps I should just ask you about every doctrine and then you can assure me that since this is what the Holy Spirit taught you, that it cannot be wrong.
So first Question:
Ephesians 1:11 says the following:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Could you explain to me just what that verse is talking about. What does the Holy Spirit tell you about the predestination that Paul is referring to there?
Thanks for your help.
Does your church not have sermons? BTW, to what church do you belong? I am a Methodist.
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.