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?
It’s not altogether astonishing that the decay of belief would tend towards the dissolution of the family.
“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...”
MD, you are better than that! That doesn’t describe the Baptist church I attend. All the Baptist churches I’ve been in teach we are a body, and cannot neglect each other. 2 Tim 3 instructs Timothy to use scripture to teach, rebuke, etc - not for him to toss out Bibles and hope they somehow take root somewhere. And since the pastor of the church I’m part of works part time in addition to being pastor, he’s a pretty strange opportunistic fellow. In fact, we rent a place for worship...we’re not exactly rolling the the dough. And if anyone wants to know our finances, there are quarterly statements available near the entrance.
Maybe they could just analyze my typewriting...
I think looking at scripture as a whole, you see God had set aside a people for himself throughout history.
He chose Noah,Abraham,Samual,David..the nation of Israel.. each of the apostles, Paul etc
I believe that God predestined those to whom He would give the ability to repent and those to whom He would give faith. Not based on anything that they had done, for this was before the world began..but based on His own will.
Is it necessary for us to individually repent and believe ..YES..but I would argue that it would be impossible for us to do that without an act of Gods grace and the Holy Spirit.
Unregenerate man has no interest in and does not desire to come to Christ in a saving way.
Scripture tells us “I was found by those that did not seek me”(Romans 10:20)... that is because none seek him, until his the Father draws them (John 6)
Not only does God not give the grace necessary to repent and believe to everyone, but He actually blinds some that they may not see or understand
Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand
John 6 is the strongest predestination chapter in scripture.. that is the message of that chapter
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Our salvation really is a gift, not an earned reward for being smarter or more clever than others.. Salvation is all of God from beginning to end!
Another one of Calvin's twisted traditions of men.
On the contrario, one benefit one gets in the denominational congregation is a result of the intentionality AND also of the way protestant pastors are trained. I have seen ham-handedness among Catholic pastors that just leaves me breathless with astonishment.
What I meant by opportunistic was NOT people seeking their own good, like Lewis's hell, in constant competition. It was more like the two black Baptist churches down the road. The reason there are two is so that when people get mad at one they can go to the other. In our rural community they are about 1.4 mile apart. And similarly with the flavors of white Baptist Church in Scottsville. There are at least three white Baptist churches, One was founded because the son of the patriarch (no better word, really -- I know this guy and we have double-teamed some people together) was a fulminant alcoholic who got in a lethal and crippling DUII accident and the congregation decided he was fit to be a pastor if he had kids like that. (His daughter is promiscuous as well.)
Or the splitting, dividing, combining of different Episcopal Churches in my life time. Then there's the proliferation of groups descended from the Wesley boys.
So there's the (I admit oft-exaggerated) number of various denominations. How many sorts of Lutheran are there in the US? And then when the conscientious and devout lay person moves to a new community he or she may not find the denomination from which he came.
TO me this would be a problem. I would drive the necessary miles to a Catholic Church. But it seems that, among the kind of group I'm trying to describe without using an unintentionally offensive descriptor, one doesn't find THIS sort of Wesleyan, but it doesn't really matter, one just finds a group with whom one feels a certain compatibility.
THAT's what I meant by accidental and opportunistic. Sorry. I have an archaic vocabulary, which I don't want to change, until I offend someone.
By contrast, as an Episcopalian And a Roaming Calflick, I just went to the nearest place. Even if the pastor was a commie, HE didn't really matter. It was the sacrament I was there for.Mind you, once I had "done my time" as parochial administrator and it would be a bad thing for me to stay in the congregation when the job was done, I was delighted to have a "good reason" to go to my current congregation where the only official connection I have is I do some security work for them (and even that is not paid work. And if my health doesn't turn, that's going to be coming to an end.)
It's a university parish. The students make it the most fervent and fermenting place I've been in in a long time. I get to do some teaching and some mentoring. And I LOVE IT! But I never would have gone for that reason until I had a good, pastoral and canonical reason to cut loose from the church down the road.
Because I am a Catholic and I bloom where I am planted, and I go to St George's rather than St Thomas's because that's where the Diocese told me to go and "serve" as a regular lay-guy. And there I dealt with what I found, nourished (as we think of it) not by the pastor or the teaching but by Jesus himself.
And to say it again, that is why many protestant congregations are far more vital and exciting.
I'm not saying this correctly, but my main purpose is to clarify and in so doing salve any wounds I may have caused. WE can go back to clean up the details.
I thank God and you for the affection in your rebuke.
First of all, you are close from a working stand point. The Lutheran view is that you are saved by grace, but also that your love for God will lead you to do His will. If you say you love God, but don't do His will, do you really love Him? In other words, you have to walk the talk. The works don't save you, but if you really love God you will want to do His will.
Second, the JDDF is a flawed document. The reason most of the more conservative Lutheran bodies didn't sign it is because after the appendix came out, there was very little to sign. While the prior document had listed many points in common, the appendix basically said “no, we don't think so”. The current pope was pretty upset about how that worked out, and I wouldn't be surprised if something is in the works right now to modify that. I do know that the LCMS has sent a representative to the Vatican, possibly for just that sort of thing.
And lastly, the LWF is a bit like the Anglican church right now. Parts of it are pretty good, most of it is way off the rails. Think women priests marrying their gay lovers and talking about the holy “sacrament” of abortion type of thing.
That is mumbo-jumbo intended to give some the power to grant a get out of jail (hell) free card and to deny others their just reward. It is about reinforcing a kingdom on earth, not a heavenly kingdom.
God knows from the beginning what your decisions will be, but He doesn't make them for you.
Predestination is a term used to identify God’s plan of salvation, in which according to His own decree, He “accomplishes all things according to his will” (Eph. 1:11). God gives us the gift of salvation through grace and faith. In turn, we must use our free will to persevere in good works “prepared beforehand” by God Himself (Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Phil. 2:12, 13).
There are two opposite and equally erroneous positions about predestination that have always been rejected in authentic Catholic teaching. The first is that of the Pelagians. Pelagius taught that a person, by the exercise his free will, could obtain salvation unaided by grace. The obvious error here is that God has nothing to do with salvation.
Calvinists and Jansenists teach the second error. They teach that Christ died only for the elect; those predestined to salvation. The rest He predestined to eternal damnation by His own decree. Furthermore, they taught that if God predestined someone to eternal life, it is impossible that he should fall away. Likewise, one chosen for damnation has no choice in the matter, but will surely perish in hell. In short, the individual has nothing to do with his own salvation.
One of the reasons I get all cranky about the fracture of the churches is that I know there are people with wonderful gifts, natural and spiritual, (stand by for syntax) of the benefits of whose gifts we are deprived.
When I was still an Episcopalian and I was teasing a Cahtoic friend about the fercoiously awful hymnody in some of their parishes I said, "When we left, we took beauty with us." He said, "well, we want it back!"
That's kind of how I feel when I see the piety, devotion, wisdom and other graces among some of y'all.
That you don't care about the accuracy of your statements is not an excuse to make inaccurate statements. Please avoid them.
With all due respect, this doesn't address the problem. The "ability to choose the good and act on the choice." is meaningless as a definition of free will if you actually mean, "As long as God enables a man to do so". It is the "free" portion of the term that has to mean "without any outside influence whatsoever" or it really is nothing more than a definition of "conditioned" will. And, that is precisely my point. Our wills are conditioned, not free.
Thanks for the recommendation of Servais Pinckars. I'll see if I can fit it in. But, the musings of folks about ways to mitigate the digital nature of this problem don't interest me. It is like, "There is sort of a God." "There is a little bit of both being saved and not saved." "She is kind of pregnant".
Phil. 4:6 doesn't say that.
What else you got?
Yes, it comes naturally to pray for a saint known for some particular virtue. However, that the prayer of a saint has a greater effect is biblical, see James 5:16. It is the righteousness of a saint that makes us expect greater effect, not his "specialty".
A canonized saint is certain to be in Heaven. However, it is not wrong to ask others to pray for your intention, dead or alive. Obviously if the person such addressed is really in Hell, or simply lacks any virtue, his prayer will have nil effect, but no harm will occur either.
In fact, the only way for one to be canonized a saint is to have people pray for his or her intercession, -- pray, that is, BEFORE he is canonized, on the faith that he has heroic virtue waiting to be recognized.
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what know of Baptist communities(I'm no expert) some allow women pastor's and other restrict it to only men according to the Southern Baptist Convention-many of the communities allow freemasonry and others are completely against joining.Also,I have never seen any united teaching by Baptists against being a Homosexual or Lesbian.
Where is your unity or concrete unchangeable teaching that you must adhere to on these things. If you are truly united than you would have them.
Thank you for you fine clarification! I appreciate it, and apologize for my thin skin...
I think you make a valid point about a weakness in Protestant approaches: “But I never would have gone for that reason until I had a good, pastoral and canonical reason to cut loose from the church down the road.”
With many Baptists and Protestants in general, it can quickly become about the style of song or the pastor’s grin. One of the most vibrant churches I attended was one with significant internal conflict between the charismatic-style & formal-style worshipers. I think it was the NEED to love folks one didn’t always want to that drew so many folks in. They could see the differences, but also feel the love that was demanded between people who had differing approaches to life. I think many Protestant churches would benefit form people trying to find a way to love their fellow man, rather than seeking out a place where the fellow man always thought like them!
"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.
Beg to differ. If you cannot define your terms, you cannot defend your argument. I am setting out what it is that Free Will is understood to be, and then would follow up with why it is mutually exclusive with predestination.
As far as Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace, I see no problems with these working defs.
Yes.
we cannot make a blanket statement about “Protestants” or Baptists.
We can, since the anathemas of Trent apply to them directly.
But we also should distinguish between heretical doctrines and individuals being heretics. That certain Protestant doctrines are heretical, there is no doubt. But for an individual to be a heretic he needs to be well versed in the theology of the issue from the Catholic perspective as well as from his perspective, and that is not at all common.
Thank you. As usual you are right, but I didn't want to get into another "tastes great, less filling" argument. What it says is, in "prayer and petition", to make your requests known to God. It doesn't say to make them known only to God or directly to God.
I haven’t seen any refs to the latter. Henry Wright might have some on his website
But I’m too busy to get to that or to type up the summary of the arthritis research.
Thankfully, the hundreds of people who could not move much at all, . . . who were racked with horrendous pain for decades and are now totally free of it without medication and without any hint of any such arthritic problem
found out that the analysis and prescription were spot on.
Jesus asked a fellow . . . “Do you WANT to be healed?”
Clearly HE KNEW that some did not, . . . not really.
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.