Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Regarding "final perseverance", it can ONLY be a gift. We cannot merit this, but we pray for it, especially in the second half of the "Hail Mary": "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen" We address our prayer to divine mercy rather than justice. I suppose the key problem I had was with "absolute" assurance. It is difficult to judge anything as "absolute", especially when we base our religious beliefs on faith - which is, by nature, things not yet seen.
Regards
>>I have absolutely no interest in knowing what Calvin feels about anything, least of all when his effort to vandalize the Church of Jesus Christ is transparent.<<
Were you pinged to this thread, Annalex?
If not would you kindly refrain from coming onto a thread that is clearly meant for Protestant discussion.
If you were, than you are just stating the opinion that you were asked for. Am I correct?
To P-Marlowe, thank you for pointing out that a Catholic came onto a thread that was clearly a discussion for Protestants. I told you that as an Anti-Catholic Troll hunter, I would have no problem coming onto one of your threads to admonish this rude and crass practice. However, if the poster was invited here, I am at a loss.
OK, very fair enough! :)
Religion can be an interesting discussion!
Indeed, yes, and thank you for your kind words. My two favorite topics of discussion just happen to be the "forbidden" ones. :)
There is NO writing against the practice [of infant baptism]. As a matter of fact, in the 200's, their is complaints that children had to wait for 8 days to be baptized (as per circumcision)!
I agree that I am unaware of any writing against it. I suppose it all goes back to whether it is ........ (quick, what's another word for "efficacious"?) :)
Thank you very much for your answers to all of my other questions. God bless.
Sorry, I forgot to add your name on the recipient line of post 1,482.
...nor do they care for Christ, provided Peter be left to them. Moreover, let them only retain the name of Peter’s chair, and they will not refuse to set Rome in the infernal regions.Wow, Calvin could sure be nasty!
There is a good reason to think that these are two events, not one. . .But that is not really my argument.I'm sorry if I misrepresented your point.
To be clear, it seems to me (and maybe me alone) that the events of Acts 1 took place over a period of time, and that the events of Acts 2 took place later, which accounts for the scene-setting you referred to.
And I, of course, agree with you that the Holy Spirit was given to a select group, which then baptized the 3000.
Mom, we enjoy these discussions and sometimes the discussions get a little carried away, but we are not about to stifle discussion merely because ammalex does not agree with our theology or even if annelx thinks we are all heretics or apostates or whatever.
The essence of free republic is free discussion. I was joking about annalex's post. He's as welcome on these threads as anyone and we look forward to his participation.
thank you for your concern, but we don't need an Anti-Calvin troll squad to protect us.
Thanks for the compliment.
Thanks Harley!
>>Mom, we enjoy these discussions and sometimes the discussions get a little carried away, but we are not about to stifle discussion merely because ammalex does not agree with our theology or even if annelx thinks we are all heretics or apostates or whatever.<<
That's okay, but we don't.
I have to say that pinging me to this thread has really openned my eyes. I have a friend who has recently attended classes to become a Catholic. He told me how much some of the people at his Bible Church really detested Catholics. He couldn't understand why Catholics didn't tell him about our truths. Why we didn't "spread the good news"?
I told him that we feel that Protestants are brothers in Christ. Your way to heaven is your way. A good relationship with Jesus was what you needed and what you have. We have the Body of Christ in our Mass but you have the Holy Spirit. God is God. We have been taught this since Vatican II and our Charismatic Movement, which is fully approved by the Vatican was the blending of our Mass with people of other religions.
He laughed and told me that the feeling is not mutual.
And the really funny thing is, he and his family back at his Bible Church and all I said when he left was, put in a good word for us.
I didn't realize how much distain you have for us. I thought we were Brothers and Sisters in Christ?
I'm really glad that my hubby never felt the way that some of the people on this thread do. My children would have never been born.
Well, well. A shining example of how some pick and choose what writings to believe.
I haven't had time to research this but as I've thought about this I believe that even with flexibility in the dates it would not account for Peter being in Rome as long as our Catholic friends make him out to be. I kinda wish I could call Calvin up and ask him but I don't believe in praying to the saints. ;O)
Ooooooo boy you have no idea. Many of the Protestant writers of this era were very "critical" of the Catholics and it shows in their writings. This is understandable as many of the Catholics were frying them at the steak. This isn't much different then the many antisemitic remarks of the early church fathers. One has to remember the church fathers were be tortured and killed by the Jews. We are to love our enemies but that doesn't mean we can't write nasty things about them. :O)
Frankly people need to look past this and understand what is being said. These were different times and eras.
Getting to read them, well...There doesn't seem enough time in the day to keep up with writing here, reading, and then, oh, yea, living my life!
Thanks, Joe
Thank you very much, as well. You have been a most gracious and open Christian in our conversations. I wish you all the best.
Brother in Christ,
Joe
who invited all you anti-Calvin trolls to this thread?
I think PETA sent out some RSVPs.
Yes, I can read. And between your insults I read what you used as an example for your point:
Or to put it another way: if I give my sister-in-law a gift of some tickets to the New York Knicks game and she angrily refuses them because I forgot to pass a message on from her to her mother-in-law and her mother-in-law is now not speaking to her, my "gift" to her has become nothing but a pair of tickets. Had she received them, I would have gifted her and she would have been gifted and grateful. True, my intent to gift her, to be kind to her, is still very real and true even if she refuses to receive. But as real as my intent is, she has received no gift--no gift-reality exists, no gift exists. She was offered one, true, but she has not received it and no gift was given.
You clearly condition the existence of a gift to whether it is accepted. I merely pointed out to you that you were wrong about that, the gift exists regardless of whether it is accepted. The nature of the gift is independent of whether it is accepted or "received". You are the one who made up this "gifting process" out of thin air, but that is independent of what a gift is.
And in your answer to the wrong question you implicitly concede my point, though you didn't realize it. Your answer presumes that a gift can be refused because we all know that gifts can be refused and that a "giver" who will not permit his gift to be refused is not truly a giver but a raper, an imposer, someone who does not give generously and give without caring whether his gift is refused but a "giver" who rapes the freedom of the recipient of his "gift."
An interesting reference to God, but it is consistent with your other insults. Of course in the normal course of life we see gifts that are accepted and refused. But some gifts cannot be refused. When I buy socks for my child it is because he needs them. I give them freely and out of love because I know he needs them. I expect nothing in return. The child is uninterested in the socks, but since I have the full authority as the parent, he is not free to refuse them. I know what is best for my child, so he shall have socks.
I thought you were talking about the distain that's been shown Calvin on this thread.
Somehow you've turned that around to a trashing of Protestants...again.
>> Somehow you've turned that around to a trashing of Protestants...again.<<
I'm married to a Protestant. I do not trash them. I trash the rude and crass that feel that distain for a Christian denomination is fair game. Those who are smiling and happy to tell people how wrong they are. Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish.
I do however feel great sadness that people of God, fellow Christians in this modern day and age don't see the pain they cause each other.
If you are a Christian, why do you think that coming onto a thread discussing another denomination and throwing in your disagreement with them is going to win them over? Flies with honey, not with vinegar.
I did not write this but this person makes the most sense.
" 'Wow, Calvin could sure be nasty!'
Ooooooo boy you have no idea. Many of the Protestant writers of this era were very "critical" of the Catholics and it shows in their writings. This is understandable as many of the Catholics were frying them at the steak. This isn't much different then the many antisemitic remarks of the early church fathers. One has to remember the church fathers were be tortured and killed by the Jews. We are to love our enemies but that doesn't mean we can't write nasty things about them. :O)
Frankly people need to look past this and understand what is being said. These were different times and eras.
1,493 posted on 01/14/2006 5:22:54 PM EST by HarleyD ("No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..." John 6:44)"
Would a better analogy be that a gift can be given and remain boxed and unused? Or has that already been argued, and thought to be too simple or basically the same thing?
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.