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?
So says Calvin.
Of course, Calvin's hand-made god sent Mao to earth to kill seventy million people (70,000,000!) in peacetime.
GOODNESS NO!
What a silly idea!
BTW, AB, in my experience hereon,
jerk-iness virtually always has to do with
—in terms of my experiences, feelings, ideas and perceptions—
with perceived attitude, demonstrated attitude and demonstrated tone.
And, JA:
jerkiness, jerks, bitterness, etc. can all be observed and identified in the most dispassionate, objective manner—particularly for shrinks—just another facet or 3 of the very fascinating human drama, the human tableau.
Of course, it helps is one’s ego is not all wrapped up in their craziness.
There is the added concern, though, for bitterness . . . a growing body of research indicates that Scripture is absolutely correct . . . it eats holes in souls and brings very prickly debilitating pains to joints . . . and possibly worse.
CUTE.
LOL.
This is one of the sickest parts of Calvinism.
The god invented by Calvin calls all to repent and believe, but deprives some of them of the ability to do so.
That's not the God of Scripture, it is a twisted tradition of men.
En Anglais, s’il vous plait?
And you can't have a loving God who loves only some of His children and hates the others so much that he determined before time that the latter would go to hell.
Well, I think the Bible is clear that there are different kinds and levels of love, both among humans and from God. For example, God loves all of mankind in that He provides rain to all. However, He does not love all mankind to the point of saving all of them given that He has the full power and right to do so. He has the right and justification to send all of us to hell or to save all of us, or any combination in between. It is clear what He has chosen and one way to express that choice is in terms of His love. He loved some so much that He single-handedly provided for and accomplished their salvation.
Others explain God's choice (above) in terms of God's love by saying that God loved all equally in giving all a chance for salvation, but accomplishing it for none. Given the power of God, of course my opinion is that this view shows a lesser love from God since ultimately He abdicates His right on deciding exactly who gets into Heaven thus passing the buck to humans. It is as if He didn't care enough to make sure that ANYONE made it into Heaven.
In any event, both of these views could be said to describe a "loving God", but just in different ways.
Also, since there is no free will according to Calvin, the actions that the latter group DID, that merited a go-to hell were all predetermined by God, even the original fall from grace was predetermined by the Calvingod.
Setting aside "Calvingod", :), this is essentially correct. The fact that all of us were born sinners was predetermined by the Fall, which was ordained by God. The Fall cannot be said to be an accident (that would presuppose a hapless and irresponsible God). If that was the whole story then it might be said that God was not a loving God because all would go to hell. However, we have Christ and everything that He is and did. I think that proves a loving God from almost any viewpoint.
... our companionship with the saints joins us to Christ, from Whom as from its Fountain and Head issues every grace and the very life of the people of God.
And vice versa, in Christ we find the joy and strength of communion with the saints.
I wonder if one reason they do not understand Mary's role is that they might be uncomfortable with the very notions of family and community. So much of their thought seems to be about the solitary sinner being raised to forensic righteousness and reconciliation with a solitary Deity sitting in austere and incomprehensible righteousness having predetermined that the Innocents of Bethlehem should glorify Him by their deaths.
This might also be connected to their vision of a cosmos of slavery, in which one is either a slave to sin or to righteousness, but never free. And THAT in its turn might be connected to a view of soteriology which is about being saved or rescued from perdition, but is comparatively silent on what we are saved FOR. Some of their writings are individualistic to the point of humorless solipsism.
And it goes further: The clear division of gifts among many members, each with its own function and class of functions, described wonderfully in I Cor 12 bespeaks a kind of courtesy, humility, and love among the members of the body. But that sort of community with its requisite humility impinges upon the individual who with Bible and God has everything he needs.
Their Church is invisible; their churches opportunistic assemblies of people so fractious that even if they agree on fundamental doctrine they fissiparate regularly into more and more particularly denominated groups, this one "Orthodox," that one "Bible the other "Evangelical," and so forth.
It is a strangely Lucretian Christianity in which particles of saved individuals swerve into accidental communities bearing an indeterminate relationship with the Body of Christ.
It's a different and not a Biblical vision.
Actually, that is not universal. It is the Nominalist idea of free will. Another view, held by those some call Scholastic Realists, is the free will is the ability to chose the good and to act on the choice.
It is one of the most interesting discussions in the whole thing. It's a shame that you probably won't want to read it, but Servais Pinckaers, O.P., The Sources of Christian Ethics, one of the most challenging books I've read recently presents an exhaustive, even magisterial discussion of this question.
I will say that our side often seizes upon the worst possible construction of Calvinism and then hammers on it without ceasing. It is not a no-brainer at all, and Calvin was not stupid.
That is beautifully stated. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is what differentiates man from the beasts of the field that behave as their instincts programmed at Creation demands.
That's a remarkably Catholic expression of God's will as to who shall be saved.
Or so it seems to me.
If, as we agree, that all men are called to repent and all do not is it God's failing or man's. Is failing willful or predestined? If man's failing is predestined did God ask the impossible?
BWHAHAHAHA!
And here I thought we had an agreement on what IS.
This is not true,if anything it's many protestant communities who preach people are cursed to hell.
To set the record straight ,dear Sister,here is what the Church says regarding protestants
From Dominus Iesus...
"those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church....these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”
“Free will is defined (universally, I believe) as the ability to select among a group of options with no outside influence exerted upon the man. Correct?”
Not even close. This is a discussion of free will vs predestination, and specifically sparked by my comments that I reject the L & I in TULIP.
L = Limited Atonement. Did Jesus just die for a prechosen few, the elect? Or did he die for all?
I = Irresistible grace. Does God, having chosen us as individuals, give us new hearts and then make us believe? Or did God choose to save those who believe, and cause us to come alive through our faith in Him?
If I have incorrectly defined the L & I, I stand ready for correction. Perhaps some define Limited Atonement and Irresistible grace differently. I’m a retired military officer, not theologian. I’ve never taken a class in philosophy, nor theology, with the possible exception of the Systematic Theology text our Sunday School class has started working through - and we haven’t gotten to the PD/FW chapters.
So correct away, and let us debate without the confusion of differing terms. We agree that scripture says we do not seek God, and that was certainly true in my case. God seeks us...but does he give us the choice of believing, or not?
And if I have utterly misunderstood the teachings of Reformed Calvinists...I apologize in advance.
Quix, I’ve known and worked with a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists in my nursing career.
NONE of them buy into that garbage spewed about bitterness and arthritis. Flawed research, discredited years ago, but you think what you like. :D What character flaw causes hypercalcemia? Any ideas?
Some people, finding what we actually teach a more difficult target, prefer to attack what we do not teach. They will not hear our teaching.
You and I haven’t reached an agreement on a common language, much less on ontology.
I think this is a valid point and have thought this for some time now. The only family unity they believe in is an invisible Church here on earth with no authority and many beliefs- This makes up a pretty dysfunctional family
Only a skilled practicing phrenologist can answer that question for you.
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.