Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[the_conscience]

I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I know, and have known, quite a few Catholics in my day, and I can personally attest to:

burying a statue of St. Joseph in the yard of the house you want to sell.

praying to ST. Christopher for sea-going mercies.

praying to St. Agatha for breast cancer.

St. Anthony for things stolen

St.Jude for things lost.

I know these folks may not have the "proper" viewpoint in their praying, but the fact remains, many, many people pray TO saints for specific things. Right or wrong officially, they do.

Worth repeating. One glance at the internet reveals thousands of Roman Catholics praying to an assortment of dead people to obtain all kinds of perks.

They even go so far as to pray to Mary to forgive their sins.

From a first-up Roman Catholic site on google...

"...We pray the rosary every day for peace and not war. Jesus and Mary forgive our sins and make peace on the nations who are at war."

[Forest Keeper]

Is there anything faulty about my logic above, group?

Nope, not a thing my friend. Any disher-outer SHOULD be able to accept LESS than what he is dishing out! :)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

All this stuff of Mary reaching down from heaven and handing some munk or whoever the first rosary beads. Calling her Queen etc...it?s just too hocus pocus. But then I suspect some might need to feel significant unto themselves........it is sad.

Amen. Well-said.

"...need to feel significant unto themselves"

Exactly.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It (this thread) was ostensibly started out as a question about what do we call a particular Caucus. But it was never intended as such by the originator (as you can make out by subsequent posts) and was rather intended as what it became: a free-for-all

You are imparting motive and that is against the rules of the FR religion forum.

By your posts and this comment you've shown you consider this thread a "free-for-all." I can assure you, many of us don't.

But this does go a long way in explaining your behavior.

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks much for Piper's TULIP link, I will definitely listen to those. :)

I heard there's been some shaking and rattling somewhere near out your way. I hope you were spared.

[NoGrayZone]

"Finally, you need to ask yourself about what God is -- just a law-maker, or a judge, or a punisher, or love."

He is all the above.....He is everything.

[Cronos]

Rather, it seems to purposely and ambiguously teach a mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism

Aren't those antithetical to each other? I can't see how you can combine beliefs that you are a superior caste chosen before time as opposed to a loving God that wishes all to come to Him and be saved.

For example, I'm right now travelling through India and I've met a large number of very devout Baptists in the N-E of India (incidently, did you know that 3 of the 28 Indian states are 100% or nearly 100% Baptist?) and their theology is purely Arminian. By removing the concept of an "elect", the Baptists have demonstrated how egalitarian Christianity IS, to Indians and any barriers to listening to the word have been broken. I think it's a great work they are doing there in the N-E of India.

[Cronos]

This “Calvingod” doesn’t happen to have a buddy named Hobbes does he?

Nah, Calvingod likes to roar and stomp on his little people. Seems like Calvingod likes to make his creations and then torture them or destroy them :)

[Cronos]

Depends on which denomination — the Anglicans, Lutherans, Wesleyans, Baptists preach Scriptural truth. Many Presbyterians probably do, but they’re warped by the belief in Calvingod. And the OPC with their belief in Machen the creator of the OPC (seems like some even here on this forum consider MAchen a saint and others a demi-god depending on the sub-denomination of the OPC)

[Cronos]

So, that’s what a Baptist author wrote about J Gresham Machen, but what about the OPC, BPC, EPC, RPC etc. — some of which consider Machen saint, some a prophet, some a demi-god? As Machen wills?

[Cronos]

I just for the life of me cannot understand why anyones own prayers are not sufficient before God,

That's incorrect. Your prayers are sufficient

further that something within people feels the need to ask people, who are not here,(but have indeed died and with God), to pray for them.

For the same reason you ask your friends and family to pray for you.

They can’t hear you?

They can -- because God lets them, this is not invokation of the dead or conjuring up of the dead. Any ability they have to hear is because of God alone.

This is just not biblically sound at all, and borders too far into cultish like activity as I see it.

We believe that our relationship with other Christians does not end with death. While we live together on earth as Christians, we are in communion, or unity, with one another. But that communion doesn’t end when one of us dies. We believe that Christians in heaven, the saints, remain in communion with those of us on earth.

So, just as we might ask a friend or family member to pray for us, we can approach a saint with our prayers, too.

And do the prayers of the saints help? Remember Luke 15:7-10 ----Those in heaven could not rejoice over a sinner repenting on earth unless they knew about it.

And is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us

This in no way violates the sole mediatorship of Christ,

But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).

The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.

You also, quite logically ask "Why not pray directly to Jesus?" The answer is: "Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!" But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).

Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–18). Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.

Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13–14). That’s something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us.

[Cronos]

When Protestants discuss the Rabid Calvinist Cult they offer up the truth and support it with Scripture.

When Rabid Calvinists discuss Protestant churches, they concoct idiotic fables and fallacies. Probably because that's what they're used to

Why do the Calvinists do that?

[Cronos]

And the Orthodox Presbyterian C (OPC) believes that government should mandate religion to create a Presbyterian theocracy like Geneva and then throw out all Lutherans, Apostolics, Anglicans, Baptists. That’s the structure in the OPC, right? A Calvinist theocratic terror state like Geneva was?

[Mad Dawg]

We toil, but the energy comes from God. Makes no literal sense, but it is true.

Yeah. And it's a saving truth. It's a lot easier to enjoy feeling grateful than it is to parse out what it is about me and my efforts that made this whatever-it-is not me a total mess. Giving God the glory is the most fun, when all is said and done.

[Mad Dawg]

Yep. Absolutely.

Very important to clutch Jesus by the hand. One can get lost otherwise.

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks for your perspective.

[Mad Dawg]

I’d be happy with you thinking up any label to substitute which you felt fitting and which did not push my buttons vis a vis heresy etc.

Why is a similar stance on the part of RC’s et al so impossible?

Very interesting. My daughter is always on at me about calling people the names they give themselves. I tend to think that Tony, Antonio, Antoine, are all the same name. The 'orrible brat child disagrees with me and is big on "It's HIS name ..."

I'm gonna have to think about this puppy. Mind you, I hardly notice what we get called. I'm more of a "When you call me that, smile!" kind of guy. The tone matters to me more often than the actual word.

[Mad Dawg]

I would think that the vast majority of Protestants WOULD get heartburn from this because it presupposes the possibility that Christ would PREFER (at least in some circumstances) that prayer be directed away from Him and to another.

Gives me a tummy ache, fer shur.

I have too much to think about for one day, but while I happily pray the Rosary and 'send up' my little Marian 'dart' prayers, I don't have in my heart taking time off from being with IHS.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: Rather, it [SBC] seems to purposely and ambiguously teach a mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism.

Aren't those antithetical to each other? I can't see how you can combine beliefs that you are a superior caste chosen before time as opposed to a loving God that wishes all to come to Him and be saved.

On some issues they are antithetical, but not on others. For example, Arminians believe in Sola Fide and total depravity. However, Arminians also believe that true faith can be lost and hold the synergistic view that salvation is partly due to man's choice to believe. IOW, Arminians believe they are elected from their faith and Calvinists believe they gain faith because they were elected.

So, what I am saying is that in my experience of attending an SBC church for about 20 years, the differences such as the above are not talked about. Some sermons talk about us making the free choice for Christ, while others highlight that God chose us before we chose Him. These technically conflicting views are spread out enough so that no one notices, except perhaps Reformers. :)

IMO, the "out" for this, thus not making the SBC ridiculous, is that these statements "can" all be true depending on the POV taken, which shifts. For example, even as a Reformer I can honestly say that my conversion experience involved the free will choice to ask Christ into my life. That was my experience, although at the time I had no idea what was really happening "behind the scenes". Now, intellectually, I believe that what happened was that I was the recipient of irresistible grace which necessarily resulted in faith and my asking Christ into my life. This shifting POV idea was confirmed for me when I read the SBC's confession: the "Baptist Faith and Message". There are several such examples that work just like this.

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in a loving God, but we disagree on some of His methods and directions of expressing that love. So, when my Pastor does the invitation at the end of the sermon under the premise that God wants all to be saved I do bite my tongue a little. However, his action is still correct. All should be invited because we cannot know who among them is of the elect, and God commands that we try to make disciples of all nations. So, this type of "conflict" really doesn't bother me all that much.

For example, I'm right now traveling through India and I've met a large number of very devout Baptists in the N-E of India (incidentally, did you know that 3 of the 28 Indian states are 100% or nearly 100% Baptist?) and their theology is purely Arminian. By removing the concept of an "elect", the Baptists have demonstrated how egalitarian Christianity IS, to Indians and any barriers to listening to the word have been broken. I think it's a great work they are doing there in the N-E of India.

I didn't know there were that many Baptists in India, thanks for the heads up. I'm glad you approve of their work. Concerning that they are PREACHING Arminianism, that doesn't surprise me at all, and in fact I have sympathy for it. I was taught and began my walk as an Arminian. That was the milk I needed at that time because it allowed me to maintain some measure of power and control over my disposition. I was making the choice about what I thought was right and what I thought made sense, etc. Well, it worked and I asked Christ into my life.

But then later I was ready for the meat. At the time of God's choosing He showed me that it wasn't at all about what I was choosing or what I thought or reasoned about anything, or how many good works I was doing. Instead, it was all about Christ and what He was thinking, doing and choosing. Accepting the TOTAL sovereignty of God was a graduation for me, and, at least in my case, it would have been very difficult for me to have accepted that meat at first. So, by God's grace He gave me what I could handle, as I could handle it, according to His time table. I am so thankful to God for taking special care of me all the way through, including whatever growth that is yet to come for me.

[caww]

Where we greatly differ:

(On Speaking with the Deceased)

You stated:

“...when one of us dies. We believe that Christians in heaven, the saints, remain in communion with those of us on earth.”.....”that communion doesn't end when one of us dies.”

---

That belief is very much in common with witchcraft, sorcery, occults and various others who are in direct opposition to God. How you go about speaking to them is not relevant..the end result is the same, you are attempting to speak with the deceased.

Further, comparing this with family and friends or associates who are living, who pray with and for us is a deceptive tactic.