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?
Every conservative believer - no matter how bizarre his beliefs - ought to have a place on the RF where he can speak without being challenged by those who disagree with him. That is the point of the "caucus" label.
Along with a place to argue pro/con freely ("open" threads) - sanctuary is fundamental to Freedom of Religion, one of the strong principles of this Free Republic.
John 12:40 refers to the people of Israel, in a long passage fulfilling a prophecy of Isaiah, which includes this promise from Christ: “46 I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness.”
I understand your argument, but it isn't what the Catholic Church believes.
In Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church is not deficient as a result of the schism of the Orthodox Churches from the Church. She remains The Church. The Orthodox Churches do not, of themselves.
“Otherwise, the Pope would not be making reunion his No. 1 priority, and Orthodox prelates would not be working with him to find a way to reestablish that communion.”
Another reason for making this a high priority (to the Orthodox this may appear as the “No. 1 priority,” but I'm not so sure it is to Pope Benedict) is that it is that for which Jesus prayed.
“What is the ‘ontological’ difference between the two particular Churches? You are tossing around a term which, I am beginning to think, you do not fully understand.”
Sorry, but I have a personal rule about leaving discussions when the posts of my interlocutor have become condescending, at least in those parts where they have deterioriated thusly.
In any event, your argument is with the Catholic Church, not with me.
“Show me that the Orthodox Church is not ontologcially catholic and you can have your labeling.”
I've already posited that it's beside the point. I've written some rather long sections of posts about why. Our conversation has gone on fairly long, and I ask pardon that I don't want to repeat myself on the points that I've posited as to why the issue of ontology is beside the point anyway.
I think the horse is well-past dead, it seems to me that we've rounded the corner and begun to reiterate what's already been said.
As to the rest of your post, I've already answered most or all of it, but you seem to reject what I argued and why I think that what you suggest isn't quite right. That's fine, but I'm not going to re-argue it.
I will leave, if you like, the last word to you.
God bless you.
sitetest
Very true, but the nation was elect, predestined for the purpose of His plan of salvation..but Israel is still a perfect picture of the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men.
Look to the day of atonement.. as I am sure you know..the entire OT is about Christ and pointing to Him.. The day of atonement foreshadows Gods ordained plan of forgiveness
When the High priest went into the tabernacle to offer the atonement once a year (a typology of Christ) was that an unlimited atonement?
God made a covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel (Gods elect nation) at the foot of Mount Sinai. Animal sacrifices were offered,as God had prescribed Then "Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you.
Hebrews 5 through 10 is a New Testament commentary on Leviticus, emphasizing the priesthood of Christ and his atoning death. there is nothing there to indicate the sacrifice of the High Priest was an unlimited atonment .
The sacrificial system of Leviticus foreshadows tha sacrifice of Calvery
"On the Day of Atonement the priest made a special sacrifice. At this annual event, the High Priest would make a sacrifice for the nation of Israel as a whole. He would take two goat kids, one of which would become a burnt offering.
The second kid was a sin offering,( "scapegoat." )The High Priest would place his hands on the goat's head and confess over it the sins of the nation of Israel . Israel's sin was symbolically transferred to the goat. Then the goat was released in the wilderness, to die in the wild .
Both these goats were types of Christ. The first died for Israel's sins. The second, the scapegoat, symbolized the carrying away of their sin, where it would be lost and forgotten. Like the first, Christ died for our sins and like the second He carried away our sins "as far as the east is from the west" , But when that High Priest placed his hands on those goats he knew who's sin he was transfering. It was specific to the nation of Israel
All of this was peculiar to the agreement between God and Israel. It was not a general atonment by the Lamb. It was a specific atonment for a limited preselected people.
Deu 7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
Deu 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
An elect nation , an elect people ... Gods choice .
This type of Christ demonstrated a limited atonement-
That principle is displayed all throughout the scriptures .
The Father imposed His wrath , and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.
What is your position ?
Thank you for your extensive and well thought out reply.
The bottom line is, then, permit me to paraphrase, that the Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration, and the Catholic Church is the entity which administers baptism.
Therefore, there is no regeneration without the Church, and no salvation is possible outside of the Church, correct?
I am actually discussing this very topic with Catholic relatives who say that I am incorrect.
What part of that is uncertain to you?
I am convinced that Pope BXVI didn't utter this in English and that its translation into English was not as smooth as it might have been. He did have to tip-toe in the use of words so as not to mislead or offend. The alternate words to show Mary's role could have been participated, contributed, facilitated, aided, assisted, or abetted, but each would have implied a greater role.
Irrelevant, since we are talking about the Catholic Church.
This part of the discussion is beyond my pay scale, but if it helps any, the (old-school, not silly liberal) priests who baptized my daughters and oversaw our pre-baptism classes made it very clear that any and all Christian baptisms were equal - no need for Catholic-brand holy water or anything like that.
Perhaps you could explain why or how it was that each of the preceding covenants (the Covenant of Adam, the Covenant of Noah, the Covenant of Moses, etc.) were broken by the freely exercised will of man and how that precedent no longer applies to the New and Everlasting Covenant established at the Resurrection?
Such a mannerly response, and really not something to read to fall asleep. Quite the opposite.
However, that said, your response does disclose that the term "free" as you have quoted it must be modified, or rather extended, in order to find an alternate meaning to, "without any outside influence whatsoever". Now my turn to ramble a bit... In heaven, we receive the inheritance of righteousness and will find our natures remade, aligned with Christ, with new wills now completely oriented toward that end to which we were intended. There will be no conflict, no broken flesh hanging on to deceive me and tempt me. This is now a will oriented toward God, and still not "free" in the sense that I used the term. And, I don't want it free.
So, if we are running in circles saying, of course, we are not free here, but let's just call it "free" since we don't feel any constraints, that seems disingenuous.
My suspicions (and I admit evil) are that those wanting to have "free will" be true (that is, without any input), really want something to commend them to God. That is, as one man told me, "At least I chose Christ. The others did not and that is why they should go to hell." If we have no free will (a view I believe supported by the Scriptures), then to be drawn into the Kindgom of Christ has no trace elements of my merit. This is repugnant to a lot of folks that want something to be traceable to the man.
Baptiso means immersion, not splashing, not sprinkling, not wetting the top of your head. Unless there is evidence of complete immersion (either dunking into a baptismal font, or pouring water over the head of the person being baptized) an Orthodox bishop will almost always "err" on the side of baptizing. That way he knows the Church did everything in her power to assure the well being of a soul.
Roman Catholic baptism is basically wetting the top of the head. At other times in the history of the Latin Catholic Church, sprinkling was practiced. I have observed Roman Catholic baptisms. They are not baptisms as the Church understood them in the East and the West in the first millennium, and in the East all along.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. That the Catholic Church regards her baptisms as valid? That the Catholic Church doesn't re-baptize Orthodox folks?
The Orthodox do not re-baptize Roman Catholic folks either; they baptize them when and where there is reason to believe they were not baptized as the Church has understood baptism.
Well, I certainly haven't met all the Orthodox in the world. Not by a long shot. But I've seen a few here on FR, and I've met more than a few in my 49+ years, and I think that my remarks fairly represent my own experience
And that experience is that they are contemptuous and condescending bunch? So, your anecdotal acquaintance with, say, one, two dozen eastern Orthodox, if that many, allows you to draw such broad conclusions? It is nothing but a personal impression stated as a matter of fact. What evidence do you have that your sample is large enough and random enough to allow you to paint some 400 million human beings with such unflattering labels?
What God says
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law said, it said to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also
: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;
Give Glory to God in Christ for your salvation... because not one deserves it ..there is NONE good no not one! Only God is good!
Are you contending that there is more than one God or that Muslims have the ability to change God through the descriptions of their faith?
What part of Yah'shua's words do you not understand ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Mark 12:29 Yah'shua answered, "The foremost is,
'HEAR, O ISRAEL! YHvH OUR ELOHIM IS ONE YHvH;
Actually some of the most famous and successful missionaries were are reformed (calvinist). Spurgeon one noted if the elect had a tattoo on their backs we would be running around lifting up shirts..Our church subsidizes missions in Africa and China and South America, a reformed Baptist Church near me does missions to Puerto Rico
We go because we are called to go and tell.. How will they know unless they hear?
God will make sure there is a witness everywhere there is an elect man.
Acts 18:5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. 6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. 7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. 9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. 11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
“Nothing in my hands I bring,
Simply to thy cross I cling;
Naked come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly,
Wash me, Savior, or I die.”
(From the Hymn: ʺRock of Ages written by a Calvinist A.M.Toplady 1740-78)
In the eyes of the Catholic Church, any baptism in the Trinitary form of Matthew 28:19 is sufficient.
Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!
“If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.”
If God’s highest value was for all men to be saved, all would be. However, if God prefers the willing obedience of sons, given in love, to the forced obedience of those without choice, then He will allow us to choose wrong as well as right. That isn’t a denial of his sovereignty, but an acceptance of it!
James White, a guy I’ve read a lot by and respect, argues that if Jesus died for all but all were not saved, then Jesus would have failed in his goal. However, again, if God’s goal is willing servants and sons, then it would be entirely appropriate for God to die for all, knowing that many would refuse His offer of salvation. It is GOD’s goal that is of interest, not ours.
“Men are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness, according to the will of God.”
Incorrect. I’ve been saved, but I certainly couldn’t call myself a “slave of righteousness”. If so, I’m a mighty poor slave at times!
What does scripture say?
“12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.” - Romans 6
Paul is encouraging us to...what? “Present yourselves to God”. We are involved, and Paul wants us to choose right.
To cite the passage you allude to:
“17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.”
Note, this is an analogy - Paul says “I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations”. He then tells us to do something: “For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.”
Just as our choices were once to let our deeds reveal our hearts of stone, let us now do deeds that reveal a heart of flesh. Let us give obedience, not from fear, but willingly...”Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?”
Paul argues for us to make a choice...to give ourselves to obedience which leads to righteousness. However, he does NOT say, “You are slaves, so God will make you obey”.
In Galatians, he writes, “13For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. 16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.”
Why would he warn us not to “use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh”, unless it were possible? And while I cannot speak for others, in my own life, I find it all too easy to do exactly that. But instead, Paul tells us to “walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” If we had no choice, Paul would have no reason to write. These are words written to people who have a choice, and whose choices have consequences.
Romans 8:28 is followed by Romans 8:29 “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
Notice, he doesn’t say, those God predestined, he called. Paul writes, “those whom he foreknew he also predestined”...so foreknowing is different from predestination. Predestination refers to the goal of the saved - to be conformed to the image of his Son. And these are the ones whom God called, and justified, and glorified.
I understand them, but if you are contending that Allah is a different God than the one God you do not. That would make you a polytheist. Muslims can be wrong about God, but they cannot change Him or create another God in his place.
The problem is that you give one sect the right to identify themselves as the organic Church. Sure, they can have their sanctuary but if they are more accurately described, as you put it, as those who accept Papal Authority then that caucus should be named to reflect that fact.
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.