Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Especially since they are in direct contrast to what the Word of God actually says? Let me guess, not lol
HA!HA! You really are reading! :O)
When you show me where any defender of free will on this thread called those who study the Word diligently and rely on Christ heretics, I'll quote you their verses. But none of us ever said that and for you to imply that we claim that is insulting and dishonest.
We take issue with your interpretion of verses. We applaud your trust in Christ and diligent study. We just find the conclusions you draw from your diligent study unpersuasive and we find being accused of not diligently studying the Scriptures insulting. May you be blessed for trusting Christ. May you also discover better methods of interpreting Scripture.
Your argument here is once more an ad hominem. I wouldn't call you a heretic. Heresy comes from a Greek word that means deliberate, knowing, persistent choice.
You certainly are persistent. But I'm not sure that you knowingly make your interpretive choices. You seem incapable of evaluating arguments and making substantive responses, so you resort to ad hominems. Your best hope is to stay invincibly ignorant so you can't be a heretic. Some of those who have taught you, however, might indeed know what they are doing and they'll have to answer for that.
And if I were you, I'd stay away from these threads because after you've been presented with alternative Scripture interpretation for the thousandth time and chosen not to have an open mind toward it, it's just possible God will hold you accountable for your refusal to know. You should quit while you are ahead--stay within your invincible ignorance and talk only to your fellow invincibly ignorant.
And that's not an ad hominem. It's a reasoned assessment of the strategy of argumentation, or lack thereof, that you pursued.
Enjoy your pity party. "Oh, poor me, those mean old Catholics call us heretics and all we ever did was diligently study Scripture and rely on Christ. Oh how mean they are."
I just thought it was lunchtime
Are you offering to teach me? No thanks, I'll decline, freely.
lol. You really are quite amusing.
Harley, I believe that statement is entirely consistent with classical Reformed Calvinism.
And you are just a lovable li'l fuzz ball yourself.
The insult was on the part of those who called fellow FR Christians "heretics," and the dishonesty may be yours, but perhaps you just missed the post since you were not pinged.
The remarks were made yesterday by Kolokotronis in post #1053:
"I have sat this one out for a couple of days now, not only because I have been busy but because so much of this thread seems to be contesting with those whom our forefathers in The Faith would, without qualm, call heretics. You all remember the words of +John Chrysostomos in his Homily VI on Titus:..."
yada
yada
yada
Nice try, gotcha gal.
But Kolokotronis was referring not to your diligent study of the Bible or trust in Christ but to your interpretive conclusions drawn from your study. We do not call you heretics because you study the Bible but we call you heretics, if we do, because of the conclusions you draw from the Bible. Zeeba was trying to pass himself off as a li'l old just-studying-my-Bible-so-why-you-guys-hittn'-me-all-the-time victim.
Stand up and stand behind your interpretations, defend them as you wish, but don't give me that "I'm just a poor old Bible-studying fella" business.
And, as you will note, I don't even call Zeeba a heretic for his conclusions because I don't think he knows what he's doing enough to be culpable. Calvin, yes, I'll call him a heretic. And the Catholic-derived Jansenius as well. But Harley and Zeeba and you, you're just invincibly ignorant, at least, so I hope. I don't get to make the final judgment call on these matters. You've had plenty of warning, so you're playing with fire if you continue to refuse honestly to engage alternative conclusions but it's up to you. After all, you are free to choose what you believe and what you reject.
Harley, the Council of Orange II did NOT say that man had no free will. Can you be more specific and point out something from Orange II that backs your claim up?
Regards
I wondered if you would apologize for your clear error.
I got my answer.
That is correct, when all is said and done. Our faith, our good deeds of love, our repentence. Catholic doctrine that refutes Pelagius has stated this as so nearly 1500 years ago. And yet, God does not save us without us. There are numerous Scriptures that point to our judgment based on our actions (our response to God - not our own actions. All actions of merit are enabled by God). Thus, God moves us to do His will, but not irresistibly. Proof? Look to the many "saved" people who fall away. Look to the many "saved" people who do NOT love. They are all around us.
Rejoice, Jo kus, your good works are the result of God's choosing to save you from before the foundation of the world. Be confident in He who guides you. Read the Bible more and find Him there, speaking directly to your heart.
I do realize that God is the cause of my good works. But I also realize that I and God are partners. God is my helper. He doesn't move me against my will. I DO sin. The fact that a saved person sins should be proof enough that we still have free will.
Regards
"Hail, thou that art highly favoured" (Luke 1:28) is sorely tendentious. "Kecharitomene" is a unique to Luke word formation from "charis", grace, and KJV elsewhere correctly uses "grace" to translate "charis". There are a few exceptions, but none in the Epistles of St. Paul where the theology of grace is defined. To translate "kecharitomene" as "highly favoured" tortured both the language and the meaning. St. Jerome's "gratia plena", "full of grace" is the only reasonable translation.
"that disciple took [Blessed Virgin Mary] unto his own home" extrapolates "home" without warrant. There is no "home" anywhere in the original, which says "eis ta idia", "to/with his own". Again, St. Jerome has it "in sua". It is possible that the King James translator wished to "correct" what seemed to him an incomplete sentence, but the result is that millions of Protestants are now misinformed of the last words of Christ. It is of course important, because adding "home" puts the adoption of St. John in a flat economic context, when the real meaning is adoption by Mary of the entire college of Christian disciples.
King James routinely translates "presbyteroi" as "elders". This purposely ignores "priests", which etymologically means the same thing, but came to be quite distinct from "seniors" or "ancients". St. Jerome, again, uses common sense translating "presbyteros" as either "seniorus", or "presbyteros", depending on context. Occasionally, King James's anticlericalism goes too far, as in "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (James 5:14). Now, what do you call a man who comes to the sick, prays, annoints and calls on the Lord? Answer: an old man.
These three errors have crept into every English Protestant translation of the Bible, so all of them should be avoided. Those of Protestant persuasion should instead read Douay-Rheims and when their eyes wander over the books Luther banned, piously avert their eyes.
Since you're discussing zeeba neighba at such length, I'll do the polite thing which you overlooked and ping him.
Don't bother to thank me.
We believe that love is necessary, not works of the law. You are confusing the two. Actions of love are necessary for salvation. A work is something we do for pay, love is something we do for the other, not for ourselves. Without love, our faith is not "saving" faith. The exact same action can be considered either a "work" or a "good deed of love". It depends on the inner disposition of the person. Doesn't Jesus make that clear enough? It is our inner self that matters.
Last I looked love is a FRUIT of the Holy Spirit, so it is something the unsaved can not have . They may have a carnal human substitute, but it is not divine love indwelling them. So their work come from self love, carnal self seeking love not ordained by God for HIS glory .
Everything we do while abiding in Christ is a fruit of the Spirit. Whether it is faith, repentance, or love. I agree with you.
Here are men that believe their good works , done in the name of the Lord, works will save them
Perhaps the definitions are resulting in us talking past each other. Good deeds with loving intentions are NECESSARY for salvation. Faith alone doesn't save. Works cannot save because they do not have proper inner disposition. As long as we abide in Christ, our actions are meritorious.
Regards
Madam, I made no error and therefore no apology. You falsely accused us of accusing your buddies of being heretics for studying the Bible. I corrected you. You refuse to be corrected and come back with a snide reaccusation of my "error" and lay on an additional sin for not apologizing for my "error."
I have nothing to apologize for and your stack of required apologies grows with each new false accusation against me.
I will apologize for failing to ping your buddy, Zeeba. Guess you don't care about my overlooking old Kolo--by the way, did you ping him when you sent 1189? Perhaps it's just missing from my screen.
And thanks for pinging Zeeba for me. I know you so graciously said I didn't need to, but thanks anyway. You contribute so much to the civil tone of FR threads.
Actually, no one was hitting on me. I took it upon myself to correct you all, and you all do need correction.
You and that other guy have vanity names too long to ping. We try and we try, but I can't get the software to take them. Maybe you can get a shorter handle. To match your fuse. :)
Thanks for your answer. I have a quick question on the difference between mortal and minor sin. Does it have to do with breaking one of the ten Commandments? I scanned 1 John and saw a reference to walking in the light, but I did not pick up on a distinction.
Also, it must be the case that some Catholics do not habitually practice confession. (No slam intended, many SBs don't practice what they ought either :) Anyway, I wondered what happens when a person commits a mortal sin, but by the time of the next confession it is innocently forgotten. So, there is no intention to confess and the sin is left "hanging" there. Can this be overcome using a "totality of the circumstances" type of approach or are rules, rules?
Also, recall that we do share many Catholic beliefs, Catholic traditions, Catholic practices, and we read a Catholic book. To the effect that you follow Christ, you are, in some manner, Catholic!
LOL! I can actually accept that, and I very much appreciate the olive branch. Based on my own standards which I have professed, I have always thought of Catholicism as a true faith with which I have some disagreement, as opposed to a false faith with which I have some agreement. I do truly believe there are many Catholics in heaven, and I do appreciate the opportunity to learn from my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. :)
Nowhere in Scripture does judgment speak of "lesser rewards" or "greater rewards" in heaven, that I am aware of... Judgment is ALWAYS in the context of heaven or hell.
I meant judgment in the sense of "a thing to be decided". I was referring to verses like these:
Matt. 5:11-12 : "11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Matt. 6:1 : "1 Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."
Luke 6:35 : "35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
---------------------
Obviously, Catholics also believe in objective truth. Thus, the "subjective truth" that Hitler wrote about doesn't apply. We contend that he KNEW right from wrong, but his intellect and will became slowly clouded, subjected to the temptations of the devil, to follow his own deviant will and intellect. Thus, Hitler chose not to follow the natural law, that objective Law written on our hearts, such as "thou shall not kill". Man doesn't need the Mosaic Law to tell him that.
I'm not so sure. I read you, then, to say that man is born with "some" good already written on his heart (natural law). If so, then would you comment on the following very personal account of Paul, particularly regarding his assertion that "nothing good lives in [him]", in his sinful nature which is the nature he was born with? -
Rom. 7:15-20 : "15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. "
-------------------
The concept of infant Baptism most CLEARLY describes salvation as a GIFT! What can a baby do to earn anything? Some brag about their faith - can a baby? Catholics believe that the sacrament is operative, NO MATTER the recipient's disposition, age, etc.
But, I know you have said that the gift of grace must be accepted to "count". Can the personal gift of salvation be accepted through proxy (parents)? Does infant baptism count, by itself, as initial salvation?
I suppose the Baptism/Confirmation sacraments are similar to what you do in the Sinner's Prayer, FK.
It's interesting. I really don't have much against infant baptism, I just don't see it as counting toward salvation. We would note the great commission, in which Jesus gave a particular order to the disciples of what should occur, belief first, then baptism. Both of my children were baptized as infants in other churches for family reasons, etc., so it's no problem for me.
In our SB church, instead of infant baptism, we have something called a "baby dedication". In front of the whole congregation during a normal Sunday service, the pastor first explains the spiritual translation of the meaning of the baby's name, then he prays over the baby. The parents pledge to raise the baby in a Godly manner, and the congregation pledges to support the family toward that end. It's really quite nice.
This suggests that GOD is the one who determines the saved, not our own faith proclamation.
LOL! Sign up one forest keeper for a ticket on that train! :)
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.