Posted on 01/05/2010 8:25:32 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Surely, the humorless non-Protestants on this thread will grasp at any straws to justify this nonsensical doctrine.
Joh 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
John is very clear that the "will of man" cannot cause one to be born of God.
Many Protestants simply don't understand their creeds or their history.
I think conflict is inevitable with this subject. I’m sure God has His reasons for creating us this way.
Just because we do things that we know are wrong, doesn’t to me, mean we are going against God. After all, He creates us regardless of the fact that He knows everything we are going to do, right or wrong. Thus, we are not in opposition, we are just doing as God knew we would.
There are two possible interpretations of that formulation.
The first would be that everything happens as it does because God wills it to be so (i.e., the "no free will" position). In that case there could be no such things as sin or evil. I don't think that's correct, and it's certainly in contradiction to Scripture.
OTOH, if God (being God, with an eternal vantage point) knows what will happen but is not the cause of it, then it is possible to go against what God would wish us to do. As an analogy, we compare it to the way we sometimes decide to let our kids make mistakes.
It was an insult, PWT, and not a very subtle one. I'm surprised you were unable to understand it on your own, but I will interpret it for you: your comment was stupid.
How is everything?
Hey, I thought it was funny, but then again I liked the movie.
First, thanks for the thread. It is nice to see someone post a thread dealing with weakness in their church, rather than attacking others. I’m Baptist, and we baptists have ample faults ourselves. Still, so many religious threads are attacks rather than explanations.
Second, my guess for the problem with ‘joy’ is the reverse of the problem of Baptists. While we spend far too little time discussing doctrine, it is also possible to miss the mark by an overemphasis on doctrine.
The Sunday School class I attend is working it way thru a systematic theology text...but it is worth remembering that God didn’t give us systematic theology - he gave us scripture. And scripture was written for our salvation and to lead us to holy living, not to make us ‘smart about God’.
Look at the Trinity. Although scripture supports the idea of the Trinity, it certainly does not explicitly teach it. Apparently, a very precise understanding of the Trinity is not required for salvation or holy living. That doesn’t make the Trinity false, just not of primary importance in becoming the people God wants us to be.
As a Baptist, I find it disconcerting that I cannot remember the last time I heard a sermon on baptism, let alone any other doctrine. That is a fault as well.
But Calvin wrote, “Doctrine is not an affair of the tongue, but of the life; is not apprehended by the intellect and memory merely, like other branches of learning; but is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds its seat and habitation in the inmost recesses of the heart. Let them, therefore, either cease to insult God, by boasting that they are what they are not, or let them show themselves not unworthy disciples of their divine Master. To doctrine in which our religion is contained we have given the first place, since by it our salvation commences; but it must be transfused into the breast, and pass into the conduct, and so transform us into itself, as not to prove unfruitful.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/chr_life.iii.html
I agree it is in contradiction to scripture.
I do not make analogies between man’s behavior and God’s behavior. Personally, I don’t think analogies are valid or even possible because I do not believe it is possible to truly know God’s nature.
...but I will interpret it for you: your comment was stupid.
I need not your interpretation, oh great one, and await any evidence of your having something intelligent to say about "free will" or your developing a sense of humor.
Taking pride in insulting someone is surely exhibiting a free (and fallen) will -- free from God's hand and benevolent guidance.
Pray for His restraining grasp.
Amen. Always a fact worth repeating.
So, that is not what Matthew said, but what r9etb thinks this should be interpreted as, since he speaks this way all the time. As others have said, "You don't have this power." If Matthew wished to record what Rome wanted, it would have used identical genders or the word "You". If your organization wishes to live in fantasy land, but don't spread that tripe around here.
My take on the verse has the benefit of making sense; unlike yours, which (last we left it) still has the church being built on a girl.
You find his misunderstanding of language worth repeating? How odd.
This would be laughable if it were not so typical for the Catholic Church. And, you have part of this correct...you certainly have left it.
1) I'm not Catholic.
2) You still haven't explained your logic.
You've said that the verse can't refer to Peter because the gender of "this rock" is feminine rather than masculine. Therefore, Jesus must be building His church on somebody to whom the feminine gender is appropriate -- and thus not Jesus (a male), either.
On what rock, then, is the Church built, if not Peter?
Much better. Creatnine levels took a healthy plunge this past week. Pray they keep plunging. Still weak because of heart problems.
LOL...
She already has the power she craves. Look at all the poor Catholics who have been deceived...
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.