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?
The bottom line is, then, permit me to paraphrase, that The Church teaches baptismal regeneration, and The Church is the entity which administers baptism - that is The Apostolic Church (Orthodox, Orientals, etc.) and Church doctrines have pointed out the validity of certain groups among what we call “Protestants” — it’s so difficult to say who is or isn’t, so we do not label all “Protestants” the same and we don’t make it our business to say “you’re in and you’re out”
If you believe my administrative decision actually makes them superior to you in any respect, I suggest the problem is yours, not mine.
Only 100 posts behind this morning, so y’all have been slacking. I was 150 behind yesterday morning!
But the horses are fed, their corrals are clean, what I cleaned is in bins and I’ve hauled it to the curb for the trash company to take, the dogs are fed, I have a cup of coffee and from my window I can see 3 horses eating and 3 dogs playing, so I can settle down and get caught up.
Iscool: “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 agree.I copied what you wrote because it is such a good summary of my interpretation that I don’t need to waste time thinking of something else.
Iscool hits on the crux of much of the FW/PD debate. The scripture speaks of the elect, and of calling, and predestination, but do those terms apply to individuals for salvation, or to categories of people and their ultimate destination?
The PD folks seem to separate PD & calling as separate from what we are called TO. Scripture says:
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?”
‘Those who love God’ are the same as “those who are called according to His purpose”. Calling isn’t separate from purpose - he calls us TO something.
Further, “those whom He foreknew” are the ones he predestined, and predestined is defined, not as justification, but as “be[ing] conformed to the image of His Son”.
I don’t know Greek, but I’ve read the following set of events isn’t, in the Greek, sequential so much as a list of things that will happen: “these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Although I disagree with annalex about justification past or future, I’ve read this verse doesn’t support either in the Greek.
Robertson has it: “All first aorist active indicatives of common verbs (kalew, dikaiow, doxazw). But the glorification is stated as already consummated (constative aorists, all of them), though still in the future in the fullest sense. “The step implied in edoxasen is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels” (Sanday and Headlam).” Maybe that helps some of y’all, but it is Greek to me!
However, the verse doesn’t say if those He foreknew were names pulled from a “Elect Random Generator”, or that he foreknew those who would accept the offer of salvation by grace thru faith. It looks to me like it could even be that God foreknew that a category - those with faith in Jesus - would then be the category that he would predestine to become like Jesus.
This is the same approach Calvin used when asked about scripture saying God’s will is for all to be saved (”This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”). Calvin wrote, “Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. “If God” say they, “wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition.” They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man. But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom43.iii.iv.i.html
If Calvin can say a passage that reads “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” means all categories of men - when that is clearly not what the text plainly says - then it is neither unfair nor ‘childish’ for me to say a much more ambiguous passage (”For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined...and these...He also called; and...justified; and...glorified”) can apply to a category of people, rather than a list of names.
I honestly think the burden of proof is on the predestination side to PROVE me wrong from scripture, for a text like 1 Timothy 2 explicitly states that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”. Basic hermeneutics says to take scripture at face value unless there is a pressing need to do otherwise. So if someone wants me to interpret that passage differently that what it plainly says, tell me why.
FK wrote yesterday, “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.” & Dr. Eckleburg agrees, giving it “A logical, monergistic Amen!”
I didn’t reply then, but I disagree. What is total depravity? What does it mean? At least one Calvinist author describes it thus:
“”Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation - it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.”
OK, I disagree with “Total Depravity”
OTOH, Paul Little, in “Know What You Believe” cites this definition:
“Total depravity is intended to indicate that the evil principle...has invaded each part of human nature, that there is no part of it that can now invariably perform righteous acts or invariably think righteous thoughts.”
OK, I agree with “Total Depravity”!
Now, what does scripture teach?
Well, it teaches that all have sinned.
“For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.” - Romans 3
It also, in that passage and others, teaches that no one seeks God.
Scripture teaches that there is a chasm between us and God, and only God can bridge it, because our hearts are bad. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” - John 3
But does it teach that “man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel”?
Well, there are many passages that command unbelievers to repent. Romans 10 has it, “10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” Believing is before justification.
And in Genesis 15, we read, “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” Abram believed, and it was counted as righteousness, not Abram was made righteous, and then he believed.
Let’s go back farther, to the first unrepentant non-believer in scripture:
“5...but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it...9Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” 10And the LORD said, “What have you done?”
Hmmm...Cain was unrepentant and he was trying to approach God in the wrong way - yet God talked to him, and Cain responded - incorrectly, and evilly, but he interacted with God in a more direct way that I suspect any of us has experienced...except perhaps Quix? ;>)
I think Calvin takes the verses about our being dead in sin and carries the analogy too far. We are also called slaves of sin, but slaves are alive and know they are slaves and not free.
So while scripture teaches that when man fell, he fell totally - all parts of him fell - and it teaches that no one seeks God or merits God’s favor by his deeds, I do NOT see where it teaches that man must be born again BEFORE he can believe.
In fact, scripture is filled with verses whose plain sense is that we can, should and must believe, and that we must repent of our unbelief.
Again, the burden of proof is on Calvinists, to show the hundreds of verses calling on us to repent and believe are just a nasty joke God is playing on mankind, and that God’s “secret will” is that men NOT come to repentance, and that he forces them not to do so!
Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
The word translated “whoever” is elsewhere in the KJV translated: “all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11”. That sure doesn’t sound like “some”!
And it looks to me like God would be a liar if what he really meant (if we knew his “secret will”) was “For God so loved the predestined elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever God gives belief to shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
I’d also like to point out what I’m attempting here...
I don’t expect Dr E or other PDs to suddenly toss it aside. I am hoping to show that a reasonable and sincere person, desiring to follow what God teaches, may conclude that scripture wasn’t infallibly interpreted by Calvin.
Likewise, I do not expect my posts to cause Catholics to slap their foreheads, shout, “I shoulda been a Baptist!”, and run to the nearest First Baptist Church to be rebaptized. While I wouldn’t MIND either result, I’m not going to hold my breath.
For now, I’ll be content if folks will grant that Baptists, including this free will kind of baptist, are honestly searching and trying to apply the scriptures.
And in return, I’ll refrain from using terms like “RC” - although I have no idea why that is considered an insult...I also like RC soda - and I’ll refrain from telling Catholics they worship statues, although I find the whole mariology thing bizarre.
I’ve had it up to the eyeballs with the bitter attacks on each other that too often characterize the religion threads...and yes, there is blood on my hands as well, and I won’t guarantee that my old man will never rise to the surface again. But the attacks discredit God in front of unbelievers, and the bitterness brings no glory to God or to the side we think we are arguing for.
I want to explain and defend my views, but I hope to learn to do it without acting like a spoiled brat, or as if my father was Cain. So if I drop off a thread in the future, or simply stop responding, it MAY be my computer is down, or it MAY be that I’m unable to respond further without slinging some mud myself - and I don’t want to do that any longer.
Maybe it is a personal failure of mine, but I took a break in posting over part of Christmas, and it felt like a bath. And I’m ashamed of myself for getting to that level, and hope - well, I’ll TRY - not to do so again. If I cannot post without sinning myself, then I need to stop.
Hope y’all will understand!
You would certainly have a valid argument if you appeared on the Orthodox forum because it should not be called that at all. It should be called Eastern Orthodox caucus. Eastern Orthodoxy has no more right to monopolize what Orthodoxy means than the Western Church has to monopolize what Catholicity is.
Nevertheless we have labels that we need to use because they indicate some ecclesial and theological disagreements between various communities who consider themselves both catholic and orthodox. As for Orthodox Presbyterians, like Orthodox Judaism, there is an ontological difference, so your argument is invalid.
Orthodox caucuses should be labeled as Eastern Orthodox and those of the Western Church as Roman Catholic. Those are commonly used and well knwon labels which have no ontological meaning or claim.
The label “Catholic Caucus” is intended to give those who accept Papal Authority
-———————————————————————————That The intention is not clear obviously. You should relabel this “catholic caucus” Roman catholic caucus.
And if there is need for discussions and debate - create a caucus labeled Roman Christian catholic - Orthodox Christian catholic Caucus.
I suggest that, in the future, if you want quotes from VIS, you go to VIS, not some anti-Catholic blog on rapidnet.
Even the quote as you posted it does not say “worshiping Mary.”
Kolokotronis has left the FR over this. And I can see the rest of the Eastern Orthodox following in his steps. This is not a small matter, not to the Eastern Orthodox. Perhaps that's was the idea all along...who knows.
As for Orthodox Presbyterians, they have every right to challenege any caucus names Orthodox. It is too broad of a term and no one can monopolize it as his brand name. The eastern Orthodox Churches are commonly called Eastern Orthodox.
Likewise, every caucus named "Cathoic" is too broad of a term since the Roman Catholic Church does nto have ontological monopoly on it.
In my last post to you, I indicated as politely as I know how that I was done with this conversation. I offered to you that you could have the “last word” of the conversation, if you so desired.
Well, since that post, you've posted your "last word" to me FIVE ADDITIONAL TIMES concerning our conversation.
How many more “last words” may I expect from you?
Is this like the Eagles Farewell Tour[s]?
Thanks,
sitetest
William Barclay has an excellent (IMHO) commentary of Mark 4:9, but it runs 4 pages and I don’t want to type it all out. I’ll try later (busy now) to find something similar on the Internet, or I’ll try to summarize his discussion and post it.
sigh indeed, Cronos. There is no monopoly on orthodox or catholic. It needs a qualifier.
And yet when you identify yourself here, just now, you use the term "Eastern Orthodox." Twice.
You did not use the word Catholic (capitalized or not).
That tells me all I need to know.
I didn’t see that part. besides, you don’t have to answer. is there a ban on who can be pinged?
Also - I often disagree with Barclay, but I thought his interpretation of this passage excellent. Again, busy now...
2. The longer term is no less subject to dispute than the shorter one.
3. The term "Catholic Caucus" has been used successfully for years. The Orthodox have long been guests on those caucuses.
Only when the peace has been disturbed is it necessary to pull a post and instruct a non-member to leave the thread. If all the posters would treat a caucus like a closed door church assembly, meeting, service or whatever you may call it - then there would be no disturbances.
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.