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?
A tenet of Hinduism is that God was born of a giant serpent egg, was first out of the nest and ate up the others. Is this the God of the bible?
But actually you think He is..you believe that the free will of man trumps Gods will in salvation. I can think of no greater act of God but to adopt some of His wayward creation as His children..but you think your will could trump His will to adopt you
If you say no..God's will is thwarted
Don't tell me what I think. It's against the rules and you don't seem to be any good at it.
I do not profess to be an expert in Hinduism, but I have read the Ramayana and the Bhagavad Gita. The Hindu's believe in one godhead with many manifestations. If you talk to a Hindu about it he will tell you that it is no harder to comprehend or accept than a Burning Bush or a Brilliant Light. If you talk to a Christian he will tell you that there is only one God and that others may mischaracterize Him, but they cannot change Him.
Why then would God call us to salvation when He could simply will or command us to Salvation? Was this not the consequence of acquiring the fruit if the tree of knowledge?
I have witnessed to Hindus and I learned some very scary stuff. It’s no accident they have temples to serpents all over Asia
“But actually you think He is..you believe that the free will of man trumps Gods will in salvation...you think your will could trump His will to adopt you”
Incorrect.
As pointed out before, if God’s chief desire is obedient sons, obeying freely because of love, rather than compelled servants, obeying because they are powerless to stop Him, then Petronski’s ability to say no comes FROM God, and is completely in accordance with the will of God - because God WANTS Petronski to choose.
To say free will trumps God’s will is to assume God’s chief will is obedience, regardless of cause.
And if that were true, there was no reason to put the tree in the Garden of Eden, for there were no choices for them to make.
I don't think so, but I am not that familiar with the Institutes of Vishnu. Its from the Bhavagad Vita per the Chapters I cited.
“If God sinned would He still be God?”
If God sinned, He would still be God, but He would not be the God revealed in scripture. Greek gods ‘sinned’, but they were not the God of the Bible.
The differences between Catholicism and Hinduism are fundamental. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) stated it very clearly:
The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces; nor is it the dwelling of demonic powers from which human beings must protect themselves. The sun and the moon are not deities that rule over them, and the sky that stretches over their heads is not full of mysterious and adversary divinities. Rather, all of this comes from one power, from God's eternal Reason, which became -- in the Word -- the power of creation.
I can't answer the "If God sinned ..." because I don't think He CAN sin -- because I don't think Sin is something about which we can say "can."
For:
-- Perfect freedom seems to me to mean freedom without defect.
-- To choose evil is to manifest a defect in, um, the entire willing apparatus - that is intellect and volition and whatever else.
Feeble attempt at analogy: It is not a limitation on cleanliness to say a clean thing can't be dirty :: It is not a limitation on freedom to say the perfectly free God cannot sin.
We have to move carefully and slowly, but I think you may enjoy the possibilities here.
Never.
That is logically consistent. However, as it actually happens in real life I would not use the term "forced obedience". That conveys the idea of "against one's will". We know that no one is dragged kicking and screaming to the actual point of accepting Christ. At that time people willingly accept Christ.
What we have to consider is WHICH will are we talking about. Are we talking about the will we were born with? Or, are we talking about the regenerate will that the elect receive by grace:
Reformers say that this happens BEFORE we say "Yes" to Christ (consistent with the text), and in fact, it is what allows us to do so. We say that the will we were born with is depraved and utterly incapable of accepting Christ without God's grace first having acted upon it (changing it). So, in this way God isn't removing our choice to say "yes" or "no" to Him, rather, He is mercifully granting us the choice (ability) to say "Yes" at all. Before the grace of regeneration we are not free to say "yes" and after it we are.
So, it is critical how one thinks of the will he is born with, and what part God's grace plays in coming to faith. If we are born able to say "yes" then perhaps God's grace would not be indispensable. That kind of thing.
“Does God have the right to decide what of His creations He chooses to adopt as His children or is His will dominated by His creations?”
Of course. However, the God of the Bible is HONEST.
So if he commands us to repent, but then doesn’t mention we CANNOT repent because he won’t allow one to, he is a liar.
It would help if you would buttress your case with scripture, rather than philosophy. I find it hard enough to convince Petronski using scripture, let alone just flapping my gums!
The problem with Hindu beliefs seem to be that they were corrupted with man-made ideas that over time, just grew worse and worse with vain imaginings.
You just nailed one of the trickiest questions. At present I really don't have an answer. We could both nibble around the edges, but if I have time I'm going to ask around among my more learned bubbas and sissies.
Clearly we cannot, and we really wouldn't want to, get out of all "personal" interpretation. It's our hearts that God wants. I think maybe the "polarity" would be about the role of the community and of the "apostles, prophets, teachers" in "forming" the thought of the community.
Oh this opens out into vast vistas!
As to me wrassling the angel: My fave teacher used to refer to "bad infinity." Bad infinity is like trying to be humble and then wondering if you're humble ENOUGH, and then concluding maybe you ARE and then realizing you just blew it again!
Cosmically the answer is, of course, our Lord. Existentially (but still by God's grace) it is to laugh.
"The devil is the prowde spirite. He cannot endure to be mocked."
“Reformers say that this happens BEFORE we say “Yes” to Christ (consistent with the text), and in fact, it is what allows us to do so.”
You bring up a point that first made me draw back fro the PD side...when I realized that folks thought it meant we were saved, and then had faith.
We can debate, or read...when are we justified?
“Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” - Gen 15
“for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” - Romans 10
“For by grace you have been saved through faith” - not election. Ephesians 2
“He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” - Acts 19 Thus it would seem the norm was to receive the Holy Spirit when they believed, rather than receive Him and then believe. That question would be, “Have you received the Holy Spirit and believed?”
“13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise” - Ephesians 1
You write, “If we are born able to say “yes” then perhaps God’s grace would not be indispensable.”
But if no man seeks God, and God seeks us instead, we are already totally dependent on God’s grace.
What I know they say is "Allah is greater!" The question is greater than whom ? YHvH ? Allah by his attributes describes the Evil One. I don't think I have ever heard that.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Really good post.
That train of thought doesn't interest me...What I'm interested in is what the scriptures say...
I agree that there is stuff in there that looks like personal predestination...There is however, plenty of scripture that says WE chose...
Seems people have a tendency to pick one doctrine over another...Way I see it, scriptures have to reconcile each other...For example when one scripture says justification is by faith without works and another scripture says justification is by works, the problem is not with the scripture...You don't throw out the scripture you don't like...You have to work it out so they both fit...And they do...
When Jesus says that His grace for salvation was given to all men, I believe Him...When Jesus says that if you call on the name of the Lord, you'll be saved, he means what He says...
And when Jesus said, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me., it doesn't appear that these people were predestinated to search Him out...
But hey, if it works for you,,,,....Either way, it works for me...I have found Jesus so in your eyes, I was predestinated...I don't see it that way but that's ok...
If I go with Free Will, I can be angry at those loved ones who rejected Jesus...IF I go your way, I can be angry with God for sending my wife, or my daughter or father to Hell...
I'll stick with Free Will...It makes me feel better and makes God look better in my eyes...
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.