Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Foxes book is fictional.
not saying you are protestant —> I’m just saying that you’re picking and choosing what you call “Witness testimony” and what you don’t agree with, no basis on that.
Learn a little about Calvinism before you start criticizing it.
So, you’d believe anything that was anti-Catholic, just on that basis?
John 5:24 [ Life and Judgment Are Through the Son ] “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
My brain is working very slowly this morning. In looking for where this was it became clear how complex a topic judgment is. There are many kinds of judgment but the eternal live vs death one is satisfied in Him and believing in His name.
Well, let’s take it one point at a time. And there is nothing secretive about any of it - you are as free as I am to go to New Advent or the USCCB site or the Vatican site and peruse the files. If I am in error, I would be grateful for you or for anyone else to correct me, whether he be Catholic or no.
I’d also be interested in finding these aimiable atheists. I can’t say as I’ve run across many. :)
The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).
The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith.
Any theological position on election, however, must conform with the Church’s soteriological teachings. Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all conform, Calvinism does not. To conform, your theology must accept the following:
1) Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
2) Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
3) Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
4) Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
5) God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.
There are, of course, many other teachings on salvation, but these are the main ones. Thomism, unlike Calvinism, accepts all of them. The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects.
That whole wafer business is commanded to us three times, not just once. And we are commanded to do to; it isn’t just a suggestion.
Protestants may be following a damaged institution, yet some individuals within may be Judged by God to the Kingdom of Heaven. There are undoubtedly more holy Protestants than me and more than likely a whole bunch of them. If I am this far from purity right now, just imagine where I’d be given an individualist Protestant theology. As it is, I’m thinking of stocking up on asbestos underwear.
There are two types of proclamations - call them doctrinal and disciplinal. If the Church decides to enforce the no meat on Friday deal, that is a discipline and can vary accoriding to the century. Doctrinal matters, on the other hand, are not rescinded and are considered infallible.
Perhaps the early Christians were the elect - they got in on the ground floor and are now the equivalent of Microsoft millionaires. I’m not sure of that point. Perhaps someone could help out here?
Actually, the early Church had the wandering Bishops come by and scrutinize, instruct and admonish them. They weren’t little enclaves that operated in a vacuum. They came under the strict control of their Bishops.
And when the little enclaves wandered too far from the Church and into heresy, and wouldn’t come back, they were excommunicated.
If you go into the Baptist or CoC models, there is tremendous autonomy at the local levels, much more than that of the early Church. The Church Fathers had the authority and the responsibility to run the Church; not the locals.
According to Paul, He did. According to the Gospels, He doesn't force Himself on anyone.
At least four times in the New Testament Paul declares himself to be..."Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" (2 CORINTHIANS 1:1; EPHESIANS 1:1; COLOSSIANS 1:1; 2 TIMOTHY 1:1.)
I think you said it right: declares himself to be. Therein is the "problem."
You're missing the point of it all, I'm afraid. Christ fully accomplished what we could never do, even in small part -- He paid for every one of our sins in full for all time
His death was to get everyone out of jail to which all of humanity has been destined by Adam's fall. Now that we are free, we have to make sure we don't end up there again.
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. [John 5:28-30 ]
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what Christ taught about who is pardoned and who is condemned in the end and why. No, Dr. E, no one is saved yet. We are only free to be saved. And that depends on what we all will have done in our lifetime as free souls. Unfortunately, many a Christian is misled by Luther's heresy into believing we are "safe."
Clearly, judgment is not understood to be "rewards" in heaven as some Protestants have been led to believe, but punishment that awaits all who committed evil and have never repented. How many of those will be in the camp of those who believe that they had no reason to repent because the Spirit had "perfected" them and Christ had paid their dues in full?
A denomination having civil power to kill and persecute is wrong.. no matter what they believed..
No --- I would ask them the same thing that I am asking you: Where is your evidence??? Accusations against those who cannot defend themselves and whose literature and bibles were all summarily burned by Crusaders on the orders of Pope "Guilty" III do not constitute evidence.
One of the traditional Vatican-inspired accusations against them was that they did not believe in having children, and yet the Vatican claimed that they had to be stopped out because they were growing too fast. So which was it????Which "Bull" are you going to believe ----
The Crusades were defensive actions against Islam -- do you support Islam?? Islam had conquered the Christian lands of North Africa, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Anatolia (Turkey) etc. etc. and was forcibly converting people. The Western world reacted when pilgrims to Jerusalem were getting killed and when the Moslem rulers burnt down the Holy Churches in the Holy City. You support them, the Muslims?
The Crusades were not defensive wars against Islam.
They were attempts to claim what wasn't Rome's right to claim, the Jewish land.
And when they took Jerusalem they proceded to murder Jews by the thousands.
You are right: it is undeniable that Latin was the language of commerce and communication and of higher learning for centuries to come...I just think the other party is not interested in historical facts.
Thats true,... none no stranger than the Roman Catholic Church and its beliefs.. The very spirit behind the anti Sola Scriptura concept is pagan and cultic and Popish..
Jesus response to the Apostles when they debated who would be greatest in "heaven".. displays what Jesus thought about POPES.. You do know what his response was don't you?.. He MOCKED IT..
Please thank God for any wisdom in my post Brother.
Be careful that statement approaches anti-semitism.. Paints a fine line thats spurious.. For what purpose?... Hmmmm...
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.