Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by 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?
I think if you will consider what you are saying, you will find it doesn't make too much sense. I find the bolded section especially unclear.
SOME here, rather than every member of my "cult", are arguing about the name they prefer.
How arguing about a name ends up having to do with "how others should regard them," is unclear. You argue for your positions, we argue for ours. It's not clear how one is more controlling than any other.
I have been "corrected" (if that's the right word) many times about the use of "Protestant" and "protestant" and it has been argued that the word does NOT refer to protesting the role of the Papacy rather is more like "professing" or "confessing." I did not think nor complain that somebody was trying to control how I regarded him.
As to the facts about the contribution of Catholic thinkers to the notion of natural rights, if you don't like 'em, you don't have to believe 'em. But that doesn't make them untrue or revisionist.
In my college we discussed the most controversial things politely. We used surnames and honorifics and we avoided personal remarks. It was very difficult and frustrating but it was good. No contact, no arm around the shoulder -- just good, careful, thoughtful discussion of the issues.
;-)
There is but one name under heaven, by which man may be saved. Every man with volition has the ability to choose in his thinking, to think and act through faith in Christ, or independently of faith in Christ.
This initial issue is primary or fundamental to performing any work.
The same issue is involved in repentance and confession, the requirement of cleansing after baptism and later missing the mark, and demonstrated in the actions of the priests outside the Tabernacle prior to entering the Holy Place.
Our criterion for divinely righteous action is by His standards, not ours independently of Him. The work in question, might still be good in a worldly fashion, but we are not of the world, although we are in the world.
There might also be good works which He has predestined from eternity past, which logistically provide for believer and unbeliever alike. Not every good work, though, is good by Divine Standards.
This is one of the Adversary's deceptive ploys, because one consequence of the garden of Eden and Original Sin, is that man now is able to discern between good and evil. We also have enmity against the Adversary. It is easy to confuse righteousness with good and sin with evil, but these are different meanings.
For example immorality is indeed sinful, ie, it misses the mark, the target of our focus per His Plan, but not all sin is immorality. Whenever we fail to do something in a right fashion, we still have failed to perform a righteous work. If even believers perform a good work, but while out of fellowship with God, we still have not performed it through faith in Him, and our only rewards for that good work is what we might receive here in a worldly fashion.
Worse, if we continue to live outside of faith through Him, we degenerate our thinking, our mind, our soul, and then our heart, by scarring our thinking into associating that past work with a given set of circumstances, making our immediate ability to act through faith in Him in the future testing, even more difficult. We essentially scar our souls when we perform good works independent of faith through Him.
May I say that the misrepresentation of what we teach doesn't impress me as peacemaking?
It seems to have been "so drilled into" some Protestants that the only possible disagreement with them is Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian, that when they encounter someone trying to say something neither antinomian or pietistic nor Pelagian or semi-Pelagian they simply cannot hear it and resort to language about conditioning.
Two can play at the "You're too conditioned to hear me" game. It's not a very useful game.
I don't think there's going to be a universally agreed upon taxonomy of deviations. Dante considers Mohamed a heretic - which probably reflects the thinking of his time (1300's). I would think LDSers would be heretics, just in a whole lot of different ways. I dunno though.
We will use the word "heresy" for a line of thought or a doctrine, but a heresy can be held in error rather than stubbornly.
(Hint: We don't really think that Mary and Jesus handed Dominic - who was NOT a "munk" - and Catherine Rosaries.)
So what's the deal with criticizing what the Church does not teach? What's that about? I'm confident that all over the place there are people who do not believe the official teaching of their church. I remember in the 70's there was a survey which indicated that the vast majority of Lutherans did not believe in sola fide.
Misstatements of our doctrine followed by comments or refutations of the teaching as misstated may do something for some. I'm not sure about what they have to do with the Truth.
Too funny! I also share with sorcerers and witches the notion that the sun tends to rise in the east.
But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him."I'm not saying that proves we are right. I think it knocks the stuffing out of saying we are definitely wrong.
... people, who are not here,(but have indeed died and with God), ...We think God is with us. If they are with God, and God is with us, then they are with us, and we with them -- all members of the one body.
We are not saved based upon good or evil, but upon faith through Christ.
So, then what is Original Sin according to you?
Yes. Important to understand. Usually, this is the point, -- the mentioning of works -- where the Protestants begin to fight with windmills.
I'll get to the rest of the posts to me in the afternoon.
May I say that the misrepresentation of what we teach doesn't impress me as peacemaking?
What misrepresentation...Any one can dig up the goods from any number of Catholic sources where this statement and many just like it are commonplace...And many have already done that on FR...
One can only conclude that you are the one doing the misrepresenting, or, your religion changed horses in the middle of the stream...
Justification is not in the future tense. Salvation is sometimes past tense and sometimes present or future. “You are saved” is past tense. I also quote either the NASB or ESV, not the KJV. If I need to choose a translator between someone on the Internet, and the translators of the NASB, I’ll take the latter.
http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php
Now, why is it sometimes have been saved, and others being saved?
Salvation sometimes refers to justification, and sometimes refers to both justification and sanctification.
HAVE BEEN SAVED. Justification.
BEING SAVED. Sanctification.
Once you understand this, passages that seem in conflict come into agreement.
CONTEXT. If a passage is discussing what happens apart from Christ’s intervention, then that passage, taken out of context, is NOT the Gospel. That is nor some strange Protestant doctrine, but simply reading like an adult.
“That ends up in the necessity of believing in His presence in the Eucharist, does it not?”
No. It does not. Just as Jesus is speaking there of spiritual life, he is speaking spiritually when he calls himself bread...and he makes that clear repeatedly throughout John 6. He contrasts manna, that brought physical life, with Himself, bringing spiritual life.
It takes a special sort of blindness to take one verse in a chapter, say it is physical, but all the other verses are speaking about spiritual matters. I don’t choose to be blind. Jesus was consistent in John 6.
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.