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]

The church is the start of heaven.

Yes, exactly. Good Catholic post, keep them coming.

In fact, the Holy Liturgy is not a "start" of heaven. It is already Heaven.

[the_conscience]

Your justification happens based on your works at the end of your life, as the gospel explains.

er...um...but the Scripture I previously quoted contends just the opposite.

However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

[Mr Rogers]

“No one enjoys sin.”

If you say so.

But during my 25 years in the military, I met a lot of unbelievers who sure did a good imitation of enjoying sin! Guess they fooled me...

[Iscool]

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)

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Rom 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

As I see it, the Grace of God which brings salvation is given to everyone, as the scripture says...And, as scripture say, Faith comes by hearing the word of God...

And the word of God was preached to all...But some (or many) chose not to believe what they heard...

And then the scripture says, 'what about Israel'??? It goes on to say that Israel has been blinded (Rom. 11) to the Gospel of Grace to provoke them to jealousy and that 'branch' had been extended to a new nation...The nation of Gentiles...

And then at verse 20, the one you quoted, you apparently take that to apply to individuals, but I see it as applying to all Gentiles in general...The gentiles were not seeking after God but after hearing the Gospel, many sought Him out...

I believe the predestination spoken of in the scriptures pertains to the Gentile adoption (in general) into the Body of Jesus Christ, not the individual...

[annalex]

The question is not, remember, that without the sacrifice of Christ we would not be righteous. That is the Catholic teaching also, that all righteousness comes form Christ. I am looking for a scripture that would say that such growth in righteousness is imputed rather than genuine.

There is some language about “covering sin” or “reputing for righteousness”. There is nothing that would make the transformation a mere postulation without the substance being sanctified. For example, when Abraham sacrifices Isaac or goes across the desert, these are actual agonizing decisions God waits for him to make. God does not let him hurt Isaac, or let him stay home, and just imputes him a good intention. What Abram went through is the same mortification of flesh that St. Paul refers to in Romans 8:13. It is, plainly, works.

The Church teaches that the sanctifying grace makes us a new creation. Not makes God pretend we are a new creation, but plain makes us new.

[annalex]

You quoted, and I quoted. But yours does not say faith is a pretense of righteousness. It has got to be a sterling-real faith, so it can be tested by works. Like Abraham’s was.

[Cronos]

Done that enough hereon. I don’t find it fruitful to bother about it any further.

It is fruitful as predestination determines whether you believe it fruitful to preach your faith or just be content that you are an "elect elite" and that other elect elites will be born or made as predestined, with no need for any missionary effort from you

[blue-duncan]

“That’s interesting, I have never heard of that distinction and have used both terms to describe myself. Could you help me figure out what I am? :)”

It is determined by ones conception of the Ordo Salutis. The Calvinist Ordo is different from the regular Baptist Ordo. How we Calvinist Baptist differ from the Reformed is in eschatology and how we approach the theology of God’s working through time.

[annalex]

good imitation of enjoying sin!

Ah, yes!

That would be because it is Satan who imputes. God transforms. He's sovereign, remember.

[Forest Keeper]

The choice of these abrasive and inflammatory terms is taken personally as would RC ......

What is offensive about "RC"? Wouldn't that just refer to someone who is Latin Rite?

[Iscool]

Yes, a baptised Christian is a new creation precisely because he has been freed by "the law of the Spirit of life". So this is the work that we do: "I myself, with the mind serve the law of God". "If by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live".

Does it look to you that it is someone secure in his done-deal justification speaking?

Yes, but it's really helpful if you understand what being 'born again' entails...

[the_conscience]

. But yours does not say faith is a pretense of righteousness. It has got to be a sterling-real faith, so it can be tested by works. Like Abraham’s was.

That's right, faith is not pretense. Will faith be tested? Of course. That testing perfects faith but does not add one iota to our justification. Since faith is only the vessel by which we receive Christ's righteousness as our own the testing only reveals whether we truly rest on that righteousness.

[Cronos]

I love the way the link says "The Bible proclaims its own authority" -- it's pure circular logic: Why is The Bible authoritative? Because it says so.

The Re-formatted statement falls on it's face. In contrast, the Church position is that The Bible is justified due to the tradition surrounding it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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.

A logical, monergistic Amen!

"Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." -- 1 Thess. 5:24

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.

ForestKeeper, that is one of the finest explanations of 2 Peter 3:9 I've ever read.

[the_conscience]

I find something quite ironic about our FRiend, natural law.

Are not natural rights coterminous with natural law?

If so, why does our FRiend, natural law, wish to restrict natural rights?

[Cronos]

As for free will and predestination both being true, I find that an enormous and silly cop-out. Men are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness, according to the will of God.

And, according to that explanation:
1. CalvinGod wills who will be a slave to sin and who will be a slave to righteousness.
2. CalvinGod determined that before time
3. Calvingod also does not give you free will
4. Ergo, all the actions, good or bad that you do are directed by calvingod's hand, you have no will or say in that.
5. So, all the evil that Charles Manson did was directed by calvingod's hand, Manson had no "free will" to choose his path.
6. Calvingod decided before time that Manson would kill so many people and how Manson would kill them. Calvingod also decided beforer time that Manson would hence go to hell because of the murders that calvingod did through him


It seems that Calvingod is

Jean Cauvin's image of god -- as some kind of king Godzilla.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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

Amen!

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

Exactly. Because it is Christ who has hold of you and He has promised not to let go.

"But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.

And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ." -- 2 Thess. 3:3-5

[Natural Law]

"If so, why does our FRiend, natural law, wish to restrict natural rights?"

Does the dillweed believe that there exists a natural right to insult?

The Thomasian Natural Law, as applied to the case of human beings, requires greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free will. It is the our nature humans to act freely (i.e. to be provident for ourselves and others) by being inclined toward our proper acts and end. That is, we human beings must exercise our natural reason to discover what is best for us in order to achieve the end to which their nature inclines. Furthermore, we must exercise our freedom, by choosing what reason determines to naturally suited to us, i.e. what is best for our nature. The natural inclination of humans to achieve their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law. Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There are hundreds of verses proving men's justification is in the past tense. To deny this is to deny the entire book of Hebrews which says after Christ redeemed His sheep the sacrifice was complete and His sheep were acquitted of their sins. Past tense. .

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:18

Paul believed he was saved, having been justified by Christ paying for his sins.

Was Paul wrong?

[Quix]

Scripture speaks of the pleasures of sin for a moment.

I doubt we’d sin much if there were no perverse pleasure in it.