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?

[annalex]

"Justified." Past tense

Funny, not a single one of your quotes is in past tense. In the English grammar, passive voice is formed by a past participle, "justified", and the tense is determined by the auxiliary verb. Past tense would be "have been justified", "had been justified" or "was justified". The Greek is a bit different, but neither of these are in the past tense in the original either:

τουτω πας ο πιστευων δικαιουται (Acts 13:39, this part corresponds to "every one that believeth, is justified")

δικαιουμενοι δωρεαν τη αυτου χαριτι (Rom. 3:24, "Being justified freely by his grace")

εις το ειναι αυτον δικαιον και δικαιουντα τον εκ πιστεως ιησου (Rom. 3:26, "that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ")

[annalex]

maybe a case could be made for heresy?

May be. Why is it important to you?

Remember, aside from the technical meaning the word is used broadly. "Dumping the changed oil in the sewer is heretical".

[annalex]

Justification is not in the future tense

First, it is inaccurate just textually. See, for examples, Mt. 12:37 "will be justified", the same in Romans 3:20 and 3:30. It looks like people start with the artifical division between justification and sanctification and no longer look at what is actually written.

passages that seem in conflict come into agreement

I have not seen passages in the Scripture that are in conflict. I see plenty of passages that are in conflict with the Protestant heresies, but that is not my problem.

Just as Jesus is speaking there of spiritual life, he is speaking spiritually when he calls himself bread

There you go again. How is calling someone a physical matter "spiritual", especially followed by an invitation to eat it because it is "food indeed"?

[Mr Rogers]

“If you cannot define your terms, you cannot defend your argument.”

If you wish to define my belief for me, then you are free to argue with yourself. If I am going to argue my side, I get to say what my side is. I refuse to defend what you say I believe, when you have never even met me!

It makes me sympathize with Catholics who get tired of being told they worship Mary...how does one argue for a belief he doesn’t hold, unless he is a lawyer, in which case he probably deserves damnation on general principles.

[Quix]

Given the plentiful spread of the obnoxious infection . . .

on all sides . . .

Inocculations of humility might be highly in order. LOL.

I would ask questions about where such stuff comes from . . . alas, I know all to well.

And besides, the answers are not overly popular.

[Judith Anne]

Quix, that man is a charlatan. Making money off others’ misery, with NOTHING except a few cherry-picked bible verses to gull the rubes with.

St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be thou our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into hell satan and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

[Judith Anne]

Well said! LOL!

[Quix]

Actually, Joya went through his week long seminar.

I suspect she feels differently about him.

As, no doubt, do the 100’s of MD’s who are sending their incurable patients to him by the dozens . . . to lasting healing effects.

And, who consult with him frequently on their own cases.

[HarleyD]

I would suggest that your tenses are incorrect. However, rather than getting into a discussion over word tense and the subtle shades of meanings, I would simply point out that as Christians our position has changed. Please note the following:

We have gone from being slaves to sin to being slaves to God-Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Sin no longer has dominion over us. We are no longer under the law but under grace. - Rom 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

We are no longer children of the flesh but children of God-Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

We are no longer children of wrath - Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

We have been raised with Christ and seated with Him - Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

We are children of the light - 1Th 5:5 For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.

We are called children of God - 1Jn 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

These are but a few of the positional changes we have in Christ and they are very clear. These aren't in the future when we get to heaven. They have occured in the past when we accept Christ.

The question someone should be able to address as a Christian is whether they believe themselves to be a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness? If one can answer this question truthfully then they'll know their position in Christ. If one cannot answer this question, then they should examine themselves to see if they are in the faith.

If your position has changed, then you can't lose that position.

[Mr Rogers]

What a difference a day makes! 400 posts later...

“Funny, not a single one of your quotes is in past tense.”

If you will tell me what past post you are referring to, I’ll try to respond. I am guessing post 1455, but I don’t know.

[Mad Dawg]

This may serve to illustrate my POV. If you're having any difficulty getting to sleep, some of my posts are well suited.

Try here
and
here(from the Catholic v Presbyterian thread.)

You said:

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.

I THINK my response is to say that I think you are moving too fast for me. There's no question that my will is conditioned, one way or another. I guess one way to look at what I'm proposing is that I'm asking "What would a free will be like, if we ever saw one."

Sorry to be so incoherent. It's related to the question of whether "God is able to lie." If you look at it one way, you'd reject the idea of any limitation to God's freedom and say, Yes, He is able to lie.

BUT (here's the nub of the other proposal)

The ability of free will to choose between various things in conformity with the end ['end' as in 'that for the sake of which', man was created with the 'end' of the vision of God] shows the perfection of freedom; but to choose something not ordered to the end, that is, to sin, evinces a defect of freedom. Therefore the angels, who cannot sin, enjoy greater freedom of choice than do we, who can.

Summa, First Part, question 62, article 8, reply to objection 3

But to make a LONG, LONG argument short, Pinckaers proposes (following Aquinas) that freedom is "Freedom FOR excellence" before it is freedom FROM anything. I would add that it is because we are sinners and everything we see is affected by that, it is quite understandable that our first thought of freedom would be "freedom from." But as we live, pray, think the Gospel, we see that freedom is really freedom TOWARD.

Part of the appeal to me of this approach is the way it handles the "Can God lie" question. And it also deals with the problem of the (hypothetical, not usually experienced in real life) free will which has no constraints at all. Is love of the Good a constraint? If so, is the will free? If not, why would or should it choose the Good?

I am not going to the mat on this. It was the "universal" that perked up my ears and the interest of the question which led to all this wordiness.

[Forest Keeper]

Forest Keeper: “The SBC is not “Reformed Baptist” in that it does not teach Reformed theology at its core, as you went on to indicate. Rather, it seems to purposely and ambiguously teach a mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism. IOW, the SBC doesn’t take a stand, but it DOES tolerate Reformers in their churches even though the majority is Arminian.”

Agreed. A weakness of the SBC is its lack of interest in doctrine. However, it is also a strength. The SBC exists largely to support missionaries. It once broke with Northern Baptists over the issue of missionaries owning slaves...I don’t think they want a repeat.

A long time ago I went to the official SBC website to see if it mentioned the issue and could not find anything. But just now I tried again and BEHOLD, :), I found this at SBC FAQs:

7. What is the SBC's official view of the doctrine commonly known as "Calvinism?"

The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken an official stance on either Calvinism or Arminianism. If you surveyed Southern Baptists across the nation you would likely find adherents at both ends of the spectrum with plenty at each point in between.

I fully agree. And, I understand what you're saying about this lack of a stance being an asset with regard to missionary work. It sort of goes with the old saying "preach like an Arminian but pray like a Calvinist". I am very pleased and thankful to God for the missionary work of the SBC. It really does not bother me that the first hearing among unreached people groups is often Arminian Baptist. That leaves so much wonderful room for growth! :)

At least, I THINK that is why the SBC waffles the way it does [greater missions outreach]. But in terms of what folks in the pews believe, I’d guess it is strongly free-will, regardless of its heritage.

Yes, I don't know for sure either, but it does make perfect sense to me.

FK: “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.”

Then I’m NOT Arminian! I don’t believe that someone who has been born again will be unborn.

Good, you support the "P" here in TULIP.

I also don’t feel very synergistic. That has connotations of believing we do something to approach God, and gain his favor, which I reject. No one seeks God, but God seeks us. And if I accept someone else’s payment on my behalf, I sure haven’t done anything to merit having the debt paid.

Well, I see this as relating in part to the "I" in TULIP, which you said earlier you disagree with. Here is an excerpt from a decent article, Monergism vs. Synergism by John Hendryx, a monergist:

... Synergism is the doctrine that the act of being born again is achieved through a combination of human will and divine grace. (From Greek sunergos, working together : sun-, syn- + ergon, work). The Century Dictionary defines synergism as "...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."

In other words, synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God's action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation. Unregenerate man, in this scheme, is left to his freewill and natural ability to believe or reject God. Synergists teach that God's grace takes us part of the way to salvation but that the [fallen, rebellious] human will must determine the final outcome. It does this by reaching down into an autonomous principle within in its fallen unrenewed nature in order to either produce a right thought or create a right volition toward God.

So, does this describe you? :) Here is where all of us have to be pretty exact about what we mean when we talk about free will. When I was first going through these ideas I considered that if I bought the "T" (total depravity) then it only made logical sense that grace was irresistible, since we didn't have the individual capacity to agree to any good offer from God. Therefore, synergism can't be right, etc.

FK (can I call you that for now?):

Oh sure, everyone does. Beats the heck out of other things I've been called on these boards. LOL!

FK: “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.”

You answered with quotes from 2 Pet. 3 and John 3, purporting that God wishes all to be saved. The standard Reformed response is that words and phrases like "all" and "the world" when used in these passages cannot mean literally all humans because THAT would mean that God is not omnipotent. I.e., if God was omnipotent and God really wanted all men saved, THEN all men would be saved. Therefore, we can be sure that all men being saved is not a primary desire of God since He is unwilling to take the necessary (easy for Him) steps to make it so.

Similarly, we could posit the question: "Did God want to watch His Son die on the cross?" Well, the reflex answer is of course "No", but since He had every power and right to stop it, but didn't, we must reconsider how we look at it. I think that frequently we can better discern what God really wants by looking to His actions (or nature) and then interpreting His words in that context.

John MacArthur was asked what he preached when he encountered a passage about predestination. He said predestination. What about when you encounter a passage supporting free will, he was asked. I preach free will, he replied. So how do you reconcile them, he was asked. And he replied, I don’t. God’s Word teaches some things I don’t fully understand, so I just preach what I find. That seems good advice.

I happen to like John MacArthur, but this sort of has him sounding like he thinks it's OK to preach what he doesn't understand. I hope he didn't mean that. :) I would want to know in what way he would preach free will. For example, it could be just fine if it was from an experiential viewpoint rather than from God's viewpoint. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Dr. J Vernon McGee said: ......... There is a theological argument that rages today on election or free will. There are some people who put all their eggs in the basket of election. There are others who put all their eggs in the basket of free will. I’m not proposing to reconcile the two because I have discovered that I cannot. If you had met me the year that I entered seminary, or the year I graduated, I could have reconciled them for you. I never have been as smart as I was my first year and my last year in seminary. I knew it all then. I could reconcile election and free will, and it was a marvelous explanation. ......

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I am glad I don't know anyone like that. :)

[Mr Rogers]

“First, it is inaccurate just textually. See, for examples, Mt. 12:37 “will be justified”, the same in Romans 3:20 and 3:30.”

Lets start with Romans 3...

“19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

This is not addressed to specific believers, but a general future case - no human will be justified by the law. This sentence has nothing to do with the argument that we individual believers have been justified by faith.

Notice what follows in verse 21: BUT NOW!

As Barnes puts it, “ But now. The apostle, having shown the entire failure of all attempts to be justified by the law, whether among Jews or Gentiles, proceeds to state fully the plan of justification by Jesus Christ in the gospel. To do this was the main design of the epistle, Romans 1:17.”

Romans 3:30 says, “since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.” Once again, he is not referencing a person, but a generality - the circumcised and uncircumcised will both be justified by faith.

And note Romans 5: “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”

Now look at Matthew 12:

34”You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36 But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Note first that he is not talking about believers post resurrection, post new birth, post receiving the Holy Spirit, but of a ‘brood of vipers’. I don’t think either of us expects Jesus to say of them “You have been justified.”

At the day of judgment, all who reject Christ are condemned already (see John 3), but they will also be shown to deserve condemnation (see Romans 2:14-16).

“How is calling someone a physical matter “spiritual”, especially followed by an invitation to eat it because it is “food indeed”?”

Because he is talking about spiritual life. Because Peter isn’t still alive physically. So if he says eating his flesh gives life, and he is speaking about spiritual life, then it isn’t a big jump to conclude the eating is spiritually as well.

[HarleyD]

What a difference a day makes! 400 posts later...

LOLOL!!! My eyes popped out when I noticed that.

[Mr Rogers]

“In other words, synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God’s action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation.”

I guess I figure there comes a point where God reveals Himself to us, and we say yes or no. Nothing happens apart from God’s intervention. It is like turning on a light...the man in the room can see, or close his eyes. If the latter, it is his fault. If the former, it is the light’s credit.

But a part of me suspects it goes deeper than that. God enjoins me to pray, and says prayer is effective. Why? If it isn’t his will, is he going to change his will for me? And if it is his will, won’t he do it anyway?

Yet God says to pray. And fast. Why? What does that have to do with it?

And he says to be baptized. Why? How does that really change anything, and if it doesn’t, why does he command us to do it?

Yet God does. He seems to want us to participate. He not only invites us to, but commands us to.

Why? Don’t know.

“I happen to like John MacArthur, but this sort of has him sounding like he thinks it’s OK to preach what he doesn’t understand. I hope he didn’t mean that. :)”

I’m a layman. I don’t even teach Sunday School on a regular basis. But I have no problem with telling people we need to pray, or joining them in prayer, or telling someone they need to be baptized, or take Communion...and I don’t UNDERSTAND all that.

Maybe it is the ex-military in me...I don’t have a problem with doing something I don’t understand, if I trust the one giving orders.

Sure glad I retired before Obama, though...Oct 2008! Whew!

[annalex]

our position has changed

Yes, very much so. The Sacraments of the Church make us a new creation; we are no longer struggling for righteousness on our own but rather it is Christ showing us the way. Should we stumble, we can seek forgiveness of sins and we receive supernatural food in the Eucharist and the companionship of Mary and the saints on your journey. The difference is radical.

But the question was not the regenerative power of Baptism, but whether our justification is a one-time event in the life of a believer. That, the previous quotes did not show and the new ones did not even address. The distinction between justification, salvation, and sanctification, and simply growth in righteousness, is artificial. The Biblical truth is that all these words refer in the Bible to a process that culminates at the moment of individual's judgement at the time of his death, described in great detail in the second half of Matthew 25. That judgement is based on our works.

[annalex]

tell me what past post you are referring to

My post #1861 is in response to Dr. Eckleburg's post #1604.

I also made a response to your post (1863) and the response was similar, because the points you two made were similar. But I did respond to both separately.

I also responded to your 1455 in 1468. Mad Dawg also responded to it, in 1458.

[HarleyD]

The Sacraments of the Church make us a new creation

Do you see anywhere in those scriptures that the Church has made you a new creation. This is blasphamy.

But the question was not the regenerative power of Baptism, but whether our justification is a one-time event in the life of a believer. That, the previous quotes did not show and the new ones did not even address.

Well I don't see in the scripture how you can be a part time slave to sin and a part time slave to righteousness; or a part time child of wrath and a part time child of God. The scriptures are rather clear that your either one or the other. If that is the case, as it is, than justification is a one time event.

If you are believing in your works to save you, you will be very disappointed.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

we are no longer struggling for righteousness on our own but rather it is Christ showing us the way.

Christ does not show us the way. Christ is the way.

We are justified by Christ's righteousness imputed to us. To get that wrong is to just about miss the point of the Christian faith entirely.

[annalex]

At least those quotes show that in addressing a Christian audience in Romans 3:20 and 3:30 St. Paul still uses the future tense when describing justification. In verse 21 the reference is likewise to the ongoing justification and not to any kind of single past event.

In Romans 5 the reference is to justification, but the context is the atonement of the Cross, indeed a past single-time event. It is notable that salvation is still in the future tense in that verse, because, plainly, the Christian yet is to apply the Cross to himself through his own faith and works.

I don’t think either of us expects Jesus to say of them “You have been justified.”

Indeed not, but I expect them to be condemned. The moment of judgement cannot occur only for the righteous, but also for the unrighteous. Matthew 12:37 is a reference to judgement that awaits both the righteous and the reprobates, just like Matthew 25 teaches.

So if he says eating his flesh gives life, and he is speaking about spiritual life

Yes, but He also makes sure everyone understands that the eating is literal, -- he uses "sarx" rather than "soma", and "gnaw" rather than "eat", and the question about whether it should be taken literally is specifically asked and answered. The theme is picked up, again in no uncertain terms, at the Last Supper. It is a big jump you are making, and a self-serving one.