Posted on 09/12/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by armydoc
As letters to the editor go, it was certainly out of the ordinary, stretching to more than 2,500 words and not one of them veering on the irate or indignant. But the missive received by Eugenio Scalfari, co-founder and former editor of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, nonetheless made it into print on Wednesday – on the front page and under the impressively brief byline of "Francesco".
Sorry, Guardian articles must be excerpted
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
“You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the term “believe in me””
I’m pretty sure it means “believe,” and not, say, “be a good Atheist.” There is no parable about getting into heaven by being the “good Samaritan,” nor is there any sense that “believe in me” means that we don’t have to believe in Him, but just have to be “like Him.” Which is ridiculous and blasphemous, because it makes the Christ who said this:
Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Into nothing better than a liar, since all He really did was put forward a moral system and did not require any faith in Himself or devotion to Him.
“This was ONE teaching (even before the New Testament was written down some 60 years after the death of Christ)”
To say it was written down “60 years later” is basically to confess the liberal Catholic position, which is that the New Testament wasn’t written by the Apostles like they claimed or by any eye witnesses, but by other people. Actually the New Testament was written mostly before 70AD, with most of the Apostles perishing in the 60s. It was only John, the oldest Apostle according to church history, who wrote any books after 70AD. Namely, his Gospel, being the last, and possibly Revelation.
I get no pleasure in seeing this pope being a grave shortcoming compared to the previous two
How many Catholics actually agreed with his relativism and good works social justice utterances
Simply incredible
I honestly feel empathy for devout traditional Catholics hoping for a stalwart
This guy reads like Chopra
Romans 9 concerns God's dealing with Israel and with Pharaoh. God's message to both was clear and it was understood. One of the basic principles of Biblical interpretation that I have seen for sola believers is that one must acknowledge to whom a passage of Scripture is addressed.
Who are you to challenge God on why He damned all the people in the new world, or people on remote islands? Do you think that God is not the God of providence, who ordained that they should be born in those lands where they would die without ever hearing the hope of the Gospel?
I would emulate Abraham who did challenge God when He told Abraham that He was going to destroy Sodom, lock, stock and barrel. I believe that Abraham could not reconcile what he was hearing with what he already knew of God's nature. So he challenged God and four souls escaped the destruction. Likewise, I would challenge the man made idea that souls are predestined for hell.
God is not obligated to save everyone.
But, he does desire that all men be saved. (1 Timothy chapter 2.) If He is unable, by some means, make a way for his creatures to fulfill His desires, then He is not omnipotent. This is not universalism, as man does have the freedom to reject, but he cannot reject what is not known.
Part of a prayer in Orthodox liturgy includes the petition, "O despise not the work of Thy hands...". For me, that is a caution lest I would dare to think that there is some part of God would would do such a thing.
A God who creates for ultimate destruction is not a God I can love. THAT God is not the God revealed in his actual dealings with mankind. The true and only God, as another prayer says is "a good God who lovest mankind..."
This good insight carried through to my teaching of RCIA students. I always tell them that "conscience" has nothing to do with "a gut feeling," an intuition, a mystical inner locution, a warm glow in the heart, or an instinct (whatever that may mean.) Conscience is simply the operation of the mind --- the intellect --- when it is working on questions of right and wrong.
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction!
RE: tagline
I always heard the quote as “acquire the Holy Spirit...”
I'm willing to go with the minority on this. Must be a translation thing.
It seems the Pope confuses fuzzy thought and mushy good will for the Gospel.
I think he seems VERY SELF-CENTERED. He strikes me as proud of his humility. He is the papal equivalent of one of those action movies where the hero just needs to want / believe / care enough, and then he will suddenly have the strength to win. Don’t want a war? Just say no - and ignore the problem of the other side also getting to make choices. Want to go to heaven? Just feel good about yourself, and God will follow YOUR conscience, not His own. We aren’t required to be changed into the likeness of God because we can just tell God to change into OUR likeness...
It is also possible to be "more gracious than God" by championing a salvation granted absent faith or repentance (or works, for that matter). God has NEVER promised to redeem those who reject Him. In fact He adamantly promises the contrary. But to we who are frail this is a hard teaching, and some cannot bear it.
I am deeply concerned that Francis I, like many Protestants before him, may have a foot in the latter trap. I wish no ill for this Pope or for his church. Rather, I hope I am wrong.
Thank you!
You “believe in Him” by following not multiple (35,000) teachings but one teaching and one truth handed down by Peter and his successors. We call this the Catholic Church. These were the great oral and received traditions of the times. Scripture itself informs us that there were many things Christ said and did that were not recorded. It’s absurd to suggest that someone who acts and behaves like the Good Samaritan does not go to Heaven. Agnostics and atheists may not believe for a variety of reasons just as Protestants have been misled into believing that the Catholic Church is not the One, True, Apostolic Church. Atheists and agnostics did not fall from the sky. Some of them were raised with no instruction in faith. We have for example, CINOs, Catholics who have no clue of the rich meaning of the Church’s ancient liturgies and rituals dating back to the Old Testament in which Christ Himself as a young boy participated in the temple rituals. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
In short, just as countless Mormons, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and the never ending litany of Joel Osteens, Jimmy Swaggarts, Schullers, Benny Hinns, TD Jakes’, and Jeremiah Wrights, David Koreshs’, Jim Jones’ have been misled and continue to mislead their followers, so have the agnostics and atheists.
To “believe” in Christ is to believe in His Church. Pope Francis, like Christ, keeps the door of mercy open to all, atheistic Good Samaritans, included, and this would include the atheistic soldier who lays down his life to take a bullet and save the life of an innocent child.
How does YHvH define "church" i.e.Ekklesia ?shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Is it all those called out by YHvH ?
A study of the word "church", in the Koine Greek : Ekklesia.
Was the "church" started at the YHvH commanded
Feast day of Shavuot (pentecost) as some say ?or
Did the "church" exist earlier ?
Using the LXX as a guide we see that the Ekklesia
is first used in Deuteronomy 4:10NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before YHvH, your GodAlso see : Deu 4:10, Deu 9:10, Deu 18:16, Deu 23:3, Deu 23:4, Deu 23:9, Deu 31:30,
at Horeb, when YHvH said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let
them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on
the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Jos 9:2, Jda 20.2, Jda 21:5, Jda 21:8, Jdg 20:2 Jdg 21:5, Jdg 21:8, 1 Sa 17:47,
1 Sa 19:20, 1 Ki 8:14, 1 Ki 8:22, 1 Ki 8:55, 1 Ki 8:65, 1 Ch 13:2, 1 Ch 13:4, 1 Ch 28:2,
1 Ch 28:8What was the purpose of the Ekklesia ?
Was it a temporal corporation to rule on earth ? No !
Was it to have a temporal head ? No !
It was a gathering of YHvH's chosen people to hear His Word ?
and learn to Fear YHvH all their days ?
And to teach their children the same ? Yes.
-------------
Ekklesia is from the Hebrew Qahal (kof, hey, lamed)
(kof => The HOLY ONEwhich is haQahal The assembly (hey, kop, hey, lamed)
hey => grace, breath of G-d
lamed => teaching and learning)
In scripture it is always used to describe
those who have been assembled by YHvH.
It begins in Exodus 16:3 ( the bread from heaven )
and continues to Nehemiah 8:17 (living in Booths)NAsbU Nehemiah 8:17
The entire assembly of those who had returned from
the captivity made booths and lived in them.
The sons of Israel had indeed not done so
from the days of Joshua(Yehoshua)
the son of Nun to that day.
And there was great rejoicing.
Prophecy of the Popesshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachI draw your attention to Petrus_Romanus
This kind of old hat exergetes has been debated and settled by councils and theologians. We now have a 2000-year old tradition of One Church revealed by sacred tradition, liturgy, and scripture, and revelation of its saints and martyrs.
“Romans 9 concerns God’s dealing with Israel and with Pharaoh. God’s message to both was clear and it was understood. One of the basic principles of Biblical interpretation that I have seen for sola believers is that one must acknowledge to whom a passage of Scripture is addressed.”
The ironic thing here is that in your challenge you failed even the most basic principles (not just of biblical exegesis, but if rational argumentation) of showing that these passages concern Israel as a state, and not, say, regarding Paul’s desire to demonstrate that “not all [are] Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom 9:6), or, in other words, differentiating between the children of the flesh and the children of God (and of His promise) (Rom 9:8). I know it is fashionable for FRomans these days to not bother giving logical points or supporting evidence for their sweeping assertions, but at least you could take the time to fake it before you start thumping your chest as you did here.
“I would emulate Abraham who did challenge God when He told Abraham that He was going to destroy Sodom, lock, stock and barrel. I believe that Abraham could not reconcile what he was hearing with what he already knew of God’s nature.”
Again, more of your ceaseless baseless assertions. Where does it strike you that Abraham did not believe destroying an entire city was outside of God’s nature? Or, perhaps, are you saying that God was unaware of Lot and his family? (Though one of them famously looked back, and was turned to ash for doing so. Was that against God’s nature too? Was that an accident of the divine?) Does God lack knowledge of His own people whom He might destroy by accident, or lacks knowledge of the future to know what He Himself would do in sparing some and condemning the vast multitude? Is God an accidental God?
Such are the logical questions that arise from Rome’s new Quasi-Universalist approach to scriptures.
” Likewise, I would challenge the man made idea that souls are predestined for hell.”
Well, if by “challenge” you mean that you would write a sentence saying that you would challenge it, I suppose that would make sense considering the way FRomans defend their doctrines these days. But, as a Christian, touching upon your statement that “no one is predestinated to hell,” I am forced to side with the scripture which declares: “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Pro 16:4). And again, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” (Rom 9:21).
It does not stand to reason that, if we are predestinated before the world began, not according to our works, but according to God’s grace (as Paul says, and Christ, and later Augustine says) that no one is predestinated to condemnation. Since by the very act of predestinating some from eternity, and not others to salvation, God very necessarily must make the choice to not elect someone to salvation, and therefore they must be reserved by God to condemnation.
“This is not universalism, as man does have the freedom to reject, but he cannot reject what is not known.”
Certainly it is universalism, or at least quasi-Universalism, an irrational form of universalism that contradicts itself, a universalism based on good sentiments and fraudulent “good” works, with which to save a person who does not believe, despite the clear scriptures that puts all men under the curse of sin, and without excuse.
But as to 1 Tim 2, and for some reason you don’t even bother to give the verses, the context is in classes of men, as Saint Augustine explains:
“Or, it is said, “Who will have all men to be saved;” not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by “all men,” the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, “For kings, and for all that are in authority,” who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,” that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” [I Tim. 2:1-4]. God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: “Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb” [Luke 11:42]. For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by “every herb,” every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by “all men,” every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if “He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth” [Ps. 115:3]. as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.” (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. 2:4: “Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved”.)
“A God who creates for ultimate destruction is not a God I can love.”
Such men who say these things have embraced an idol, and have made no effort to understand the scriptures or the reasons why God does what He does. In which case, though they are not predestinated to salvation, yet they can’t claim that they rejected the Gospel because God forced them. Yes, they are reprobated from eternity, since it follows that whoever is not predestinated to life must necessarily die. Yet, they willingly chose to embrace sentiments over Gospel truths, so how can they blame God for it? The Reformed faith and Augustine never argued, in their firm belief in double predestination, that God forces anyone to sin. We have always said that when God predestinates one, and leaves another, that in the first place both men are children of wrath already, rightfully condemned and dead in the sin passed down by Adam. If God chooses to save one of these people, what’s it to you? If God does not save the other, knowing full well that this man will lead a life of sin and will never have the righteousness in and of himself to be saved, who are you to question it? If God saves one, it is in mercy that He does it. If He condemns another, it is in judgment that He does it. As Augustine explains in more detail:
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “lie hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth” [Rom. 9:18]. And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, “who being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger” [Rom. 9:12]. And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” [Rom. 9:13; Mal. 1:2-3]. But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid” [Rom. 9:14]. For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, “not of works,” but, “of future works,” and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, “God forbid;” that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” [Rom. 9:15; Ex. 33:19]. Now, who but a fool would think that God was unrighteous, either in inflicting penal justice on those who had earned it, or in extending mercy to the unworthy? Then he draws his conclusion: “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” [Rom. 9:16]. Thus both the twins were born children of wrath, not on account of any works of their own, but because they were bound in the fetters of that original condemnation which came through Adam. But He who said, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” loved Jacob of His undeserved grace, and hated Esau of His deserved judgment. And as this judgment was due to both, the former learnt from the case of the latter that the fact of the same punishment not falling upon himself gave him no room to glory in any merit of his own, but only in the riches of the divine grace; because “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” And indeed the whole face, and, if I may use the expression, every lineament of the countenance of Scripture conveys by a very profound analogy this wholesome warning to every one who looks carefully into it, that he who glories should glory in the Lord [cf. I Cor. 1:31].” (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chap. 98. Predestination to Eternal Life Is Wholly of God’s Free Grace)
Therefore, from these lofty heights with my friend Augustine and all the scriptures, I must conclude that the Atheists are all damned, no matter what claims they have to their own good works, that no one is saved outside of Christ, no matter their claims of ignorance or if they were actually ignorant. For the God who saved us is not a weak God, or an accidental God, but a God who promises that “All that the Father hath given me shall come to me,” and therefore we conclude that none of the elect can ever remain ignorant of Jesus Christ, or fail to come to Him.
All forms of Paganism were introduced and Seek YHvH in His WORD. The Roman "church" was created out of whole cloth in
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
325 CE at Nicea by the Pagan Emperor Constantine.
the WAY of Yah'shua was rejected.
“These were the great oral and received traditions of the times.”
Yet here is some of that oral tradition for you to chew on!:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
” It’s absurd to suggest that someone who acts and behaves like the Good Samaritan does not go to Heaven.”
Why is it absurd? What part of “none is good, save one, that is, God” (Luke 18:19) do you not understand? So it follows that there really isn’t a good Samaritan, or that his goodness falls short of the glory of God, exactly as the scripture confesses (Rom 3:23). So how does a “good” Samaritan, who is not as good as he must be, get to heaven by being an atheist or an agnostic outside of Jesus Christ? You preach blasphemy and absurdity, and I question even if you will enter into heaven when you die, when you hold to these dangerous and ugly doctrines.
“Agnostics and atheists may not believe for a variety of reasons just as Protestants have been misled into believing that the Catholic Church is not the One, True, Apostolic Church. Atheists and agnostics did not fall from the sky. Some of them were raised with no instruction in faith.”
Rom_1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom_2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom_3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Sorry, but I’m going to have to side with the scripture over these blasphemies of yours.
“To “believe” in Christ is to believe in His Church. Pope Francis, like Christ, keeps the door of mercy open to all, atheistic Good Samaritans, included,”
So to believe in Christ is to believe in your apostate church, but yet belief in your apostate church is not required, because the doors are open to “Atheistic good Samaritans” who, by definition, do not believe the church!
Such is the absurd and contradictory ravings of Rome’s Universalists. They want to thump their chest that their religion is superior, while at the same time save those whom God will not save.
Fits right into what Papists believe about works.
“Fill in the blanks: The good Samaritan is saved by works, or so they say.
Fits right into what Papists believe about works.”
So much for all their harping about faith AND works. It seems they meant “works” all along!
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.