Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
“”This is wrong according to Augustine and Cyprian. Christ does not “invite” people to have faith. Faith comes from God.””
BOOK 7
From Writings of Augustine
Book 7 http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/Pusey/book07
7.1.1
Deceased was now that my evil and abominable youth, and I was passing into early manhood; the more defiled by vain things as I grew in years, who could not imagine any substance, but such as is wont to be seen with these eyes. I thought not of Thee, O God, under the figure of a human body; since I began to hear aught of wisdom, I always
avoided this; and rejoiced to have found the same in the faith of our spiritual mother, Thy Catholic Church.
Dear Brother, Then that Faith that came from God was found in the Catholic Church,so says Blessed Saint Augustine.
Perhaps you should follow His advice since you seem to think of yourself as an Augustinian.
Got work to do...I wish you Blessed Day
Actually I normally use the NAB. We have a table-sized family NAB Bible at home and online I normally use the NAB version available on the USCCB website.
For my Palm Pilot, I normally have a D-R version downloaded from one of the Bible websites.
You mean that you don’t like:
The Theory of Predestination post prœvisa merita
This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales “as the truer and more attractive opinion”, has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prœvisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.
This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God’s salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:8), who knows that there “is laid up” (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven “a crown of justice”, which “the just judge will render” (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matthew 25:34 sq.): “Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat” etc. As the “possessing” of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the “preparation” of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matthew 25:41 sq.): “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat” etc. For it is evident that the “everlasting fire of hell” can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits.
We Catholics do not support double predestination, only predestination to Heaven. Certainly Paul, Mary and John the Baptist were chosen before they were born. And no, we don’t believe that God makes exceptions either. God is impartial.
I’d look at it like this.
James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, just like Paul was the Bishop of the Gentiles. Each Apostle had his own territory. Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254) writes that the apostles divided up the work of evangelizing the world between them — Peter, for example, took Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, and at “the last came to Rome, and was crucified head-downwards; for he requested that he might suffer thus.” According to Origen, other apostles went elsewhere; Thomas was assigned Parthia (today’s India), and John was given “Asia.”
The Pope is still a Bishop of the Church - the Servant of the Servants of God. He is not a tyrant in the secular sense, he is a leader - we believe chosen by God, but still a leader, not a dictator.
Peter was the leader of the Apostles (see proofs in New Advent and elsewhere if required) and is mentioned in the Gospels many more times than all the other Apostles combined. His leadership, confirmed in various ways by Jesus, simply carried on after the Ascension.
His leadership followed him, obviously, and as he was Bishop of Rome when he died, his successor, as Bishop of Rome assumed the mantle of leadership as well. Now, he is first amongst equals with the other Patriarchs of the Churches - a very real thing now, and getting closer to formal declaration.
Off to walk 50km for MS. Also giving the opening prayer. Orate Fratres pro me.
LOL
DO you mind if it's in Latin?
Harley Be my apostle to the Protestants,plpease, and get them to pray for me. Not only am I walking 50 km for MS tomorrow and SUnday but also I am tasked with giving the opening prayer.
Actually it is you that is being silly.
It is the context of a word that ultimately determines it's meaning in a sentence.
So, the word 'affection' can be used to refer to an emotion.
The context that the word is used in will determine its particular meaning for that sentence.
Your reasoning regarding definitions is the same as those who run to some Greek Lexicon, like Strong's, and find an alternative reading for a Greek word and then insist that the word really means that particular definition, disregarding the context that the word is being used in.
Since we’re quibbling here, I’ll remind you that I actually wrote that I considered affection to be an emotion and never claimed that it wasn’t.
Affectionately yours,
Mark
:)
Good luck with the walk, sounds like a very good adventure.
And, I can’t leave home without my soldier’s cross...
Your opening prayer should include a special one that Dawg will be able to put one foot in front of the other for 50,000 meters.
whew..
Ho hum, nothing new here.
The changes that the 1611 between then and the 1769 were simply updates in spelling and sentence punctuation.
The actual text of the 1611 was not changed, and every edition reads exactly as the rest do.
Also, if one claims the original 1611 KJV is the only inspired, infallible Word of God, he is claiming that Purgatory is true, since the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 version and it teaches Purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:45). Are you prepared to enter Purgatory at the end of your life, if you are judged worthy of everlasting life in Heaven?
Ho hum.
The original 1611 had the Apocrypha in the middle of the Bible, as not it was not considered part of the Inspired Canon of Scripture.
Apocrypha was put in for reference purposes only, unlike how it is put into the RC bibles, which have the books dispersed throughout the Old Testament Canon.
So, the King James translators (no Protestant's did) ever regarded the Apocrypha as equal to the Canon for doctrinal purposes and it was not considered part of the Inspired Canon.
Jude 25: “To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen” (NIV). “To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen” (KJV). John 14:14: “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (NIV). “If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it” (KJV).
And the problem with the two King James verses above are what?
a comparison between the KJV and Young’s Literal, which were both based on the TR! Acts 16:17 reads: “The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation” (KJV). “. . . who declare to us a way of salvation” (Young’s Literal). Comment: The KJV (and the NIV) are both wrong according to the actual Greek rendering! The Greek does not have the definite article which would yield “the way of salvation.” Young’s Literal translation is exactly as its name indicates — a literal Greek to English rendering of this verse based on the TR — “a way of salvation.”
Gee, the translators of the Douey-Rheims 1582 had the reading just as the King James did, with 'the way of salvation'
Now, translators have the freedom to translate sentences that do not have definite article based on the context of the passage and the need for correct English.
To prove that the King James is incorrect, you have to prove that a particular verse cannot be translated as it was, not that some commenter disagreed with how it was translated.
Dr. Robert Young wrote in the preface to the revised edition of his translation of the Bible: “For example, in Mat. 2. 4, Herod is represented as enquiring “where Christ” should be born. But “Christ” is the surname of the man Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation is, that King James’ Translators omitted the definite article which occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where “the Christ” should be born. Herod knew of “the Christ,” the Messiah, the long promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears up the whole. There are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original”
Once again the Roman Catholic Douey-Rheims has the same reading as the King James, as does the Geneva, the Great Bible, and Tyndale, and the modern KJ21, with no article before Christ.
So, again, translators have to use their own judgment regarding articles and when to translate them and not to.
There is no hard and fast rule regarding their translation.
Also note Jn. 3:16 in Youngs, regarding the continuous tense for believe: “For God did so love the world, that His son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.” This translation, with the verb tenses, opens up the clear meanings of Scripture, hidden to people who only read the KJV.
LOL!
A person couldn't even understand what that passage said!
You Interlinear guys crack me up!
The Roman Catholic NAB, reads, For God so loved the world that he gave his Son [left out begotten], so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life
Same tense as the King James translators, and every English translation of that verse.
A translation is not an interlinear.
Another verse from the 1611 edition of the KJV is Rev 21:8. Please note how hard it is to read:
Hard to read, after what you tried to give us with Jn.3:16!
“But the feareful, and vnbeleeuing, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all lyars, shall haue their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death.”
And what is the problem with this verse?
In our personal library, we have a book written by Ralph Earle titled, Word Meanings in the New Testament, published by Baker Book House. He comments on the words “now full” as used in Mark 4:37 of the KJV: “The Greek does not have the aorist tense, suggesting completed action (see the Blass-Debrunner Grammar), but the present infinitive of continuing action. So a better translation is ‘already filling up’ (NASB) or ‘nearly swamped’ (NIV). If the boat had been ‘now full’ (KJV), it would have been at the bottom of the lake!” (p. 37). Earle also comments on the KJV rendering in Romans 8:16 of “itself” (on page 179):
Well, all of the pre-1611 translations, including the Douey-Rheims had filled, as does the modern KJ21.
So, it can be translated that way and
Maybe the boat should have sunk but didn't because God would not allow it to.
“The KJV reads: ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ The RSV changes ‘itself’ to ‘himself.’ Orthodox Christianity has always held to the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Modern liberalism has frequently denied both. The KJV rendering here would seem to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, calling Him an ‘it.’ Even if one is reading the KJV in the pulpit he should always change ‘itself’ to ‘himself.’ By doing so we affirm our faith in the Holy Spirit, not as an impersonal influence, but as a living Person who dwells in our hearts.
I never change a word of the King James when I am in the pulpit.
The problems people have with it is due to their own ignorance of the Original languages, the English or theology.
Now, after running to the Greek to change the King James translation, the 'scholars' then just ignore the Greek word 'auto' which is in the neuter gender.
The translation of the word 'itself' doesn't attack the person of the Holy Spirit at all.
When someone calls your house and you are busy, you yell to the person taking the call, 'who is it'.
Does that mean you think that the person calling is a thing?
The King James translators correctly translated the neuter pronoun, as does Webster, and Darby in their translations, and so does the modern KJ21.
and there are a bunch of other errors noted in more detail at
Well, you haven't proven a single one.
There were some verses that I wasn't sure what the problem was, such as Jude 25 and Jn.14:14, and Rev. 21:8, so you can post them to me as well.
So, once again, to prove an error you have to prove that the verse cannot be translated as the King James did, not that you don't like how it is translated or that there is an alternative way to translate it.
If I may presume to advise, speak for yourself and avoid making assumptions. If you say "absolutely" to a lawyer, he will hear something other than if you say it to a starlet. Mutatis mutandis, immutable/theologian. All language is rich to someone whose first language was not English and who has spent a little time, at least, in 6 other languages of which "some are dead and some are living, in my life I've loved them all."
Which doesn't change the fact that what the word immutable means in English.
If you want to discuss what it means in one of those other languages, then do with someone who speaks them.
We are discussing the use of an English word, immutable, not a French, Spainish or German one.
So, I am not making any assumptions, since the language you are writing to me is in English.
Save the double-talk for someone else.
glad to hear it.
The amulets and jujus don't have power in themselves. Of course not. The remind me to take shelter under the shadow of His wings, to be still and let Him fight for me. They're just little mnemonics.
Well, then the ultimate defense is God's words, not anything man-made.
Ah.. incantations work best for you then..
;)
No, God's words hid in my heart, not meaningless chants.
It could be. That changes nothing as far as your ultimate state is concerned, does it? So, to claim that somehow your moment of death is ordained is a conjecture. We could say that God knows when it will be, but that the actual cause may be circumstantial.
It surely could change our ultimate state if it is possible that our physical deaths are random. The reason is that it would mean that the wonderful scripture that Dr. E. posted in her 6,066 would have to be all WRONG! :) (Job 14:5, Psalm 139:16, Acts 17:26, etc.) If those scriptures are wrong, then any scriptures can be wrong, and Christianity itself falls by default. No group of men could hold it together if their authorizing statute was just as suspect as the rest of scripture.
FK: "Ah, so parents make us."
Yes, according to the laws of nature God created. Is God still creating or did He finish the job the first time? Yes, we know mountains erode and glaciers carve the landscape. Is that God doing it or the laws of nature playing themselves out?
Of course God is still creating. Do you believe He operates at all within time, or does He just sit back and watch the show? If He does anything within time, then He also creates within time. You have already been showed the verses. Are ALL of them wrong? :) Kosta, I know you are not a Deist, but what do you make of this quote from John Orr (1934) "English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits."? (This is from the Wiki entry on Deism):
Both [theists and Deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator.... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.
I mean, does this sound familiar? :)
[FK quoting:] John 11:35 Jesus wept. 36 Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"
I hope you understand that this doesn't make any sense (just one of verses!). He knew that He would raise Lazarus, so why would He be weeping over him? Just because everyone else was crying?
Did Jesus really experience what it was to be human?:
Heb 2:16-18 : 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Jesus experienced the loss of His friend, just as we do. It is more evidence that He understands all of our problems COMPLETELY, and is able to help us in every circumstance. ...... I also note that the verse you say makes no sense is a Gospel verse. :)
--------------------
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. [Rom 8-28]
This suggests that God is not impartial and that He can be swayed by those who love Him because they love Him! It also asserts that only the good have been called to His purpose. Does that mean that Judas, Pharaoh and other popular biblical villains have bypassed His purpose and were acting on their own, and contrary to His will? Otherwise they need "credit" too because without the villains the God of the Reformed created His plan would "stuck."
I don't see how any of that follows from the verse. It doesn't say that God is swayed, it states the fact that God works in ALL things for the good of His children. That is, He is not a part-timer, but rather a full-time God. He is active rather than passive. Who does He do this good for? Those He has called according to His purpose. God is in full control.
There is NO assertion at all that only the good have been called. You have it backwards. Only sinners are called. EVER. ...... None of the Biblical villains you mention have bypassed God's purpose. God has used them FOR His purpose. They deserve no credit because they did nothing in obedience to God. They just followed their own fallen natures. What credit is deserving for that?
Amen, then we are in agreement, that God does indeed have emotions!
I usually end up saying them, or just “God help me.”
Yep, sometimes over and over...
I apologize if that sounded harsh.
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.