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?
That sounds right, if I recall correctly. Judaism did take a serious turn about that time.
"Over our head" suggest heaven, and "witness" suggests acute interest in us and also martyrdom. So yeah, saints. What else?
The Apocalypse mentions prayers of the saints brought to God as well, in a few places.
No one denies anything in John 14 or any other scripture by prating to saints. Saints are testimony to the greatness of Christ. It is a deficient faith that does not pray with the saints and does not celebrate sainthood.
Default relies to heavily upon man. We ALL know what happens when man gets involved....
Train wreck anybody?
Good point, -- they are martyrs, as the saints of the Early Church all were.
Sorry, mans interpretation of "suggest" is NOT what I would bet my eternal soul on.
Truly she is all-holy.
No such Scripture.
They know it. We know it.
The rest is the rationalization dance . . . all to the tune of
!!!!TRADITION!!!!
Cue Tevya
Your statement was that men have the same will as God. What are you talking about here? Man was made in God's image. Do you understand what an image is? Our photographs are an image. A two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object, say.
The evidence that theChurch is looking for is whether the proposed saint left any teaching, writings, acts, and if so are they consistent with the Church’t teaching. It then looks into miracles that the saint worked. This is all forensic work that reasonable people can do, and they are not in a hurry to do it.
Then why do they continue the fight for it? They seem to believe it with their heart and soul.....there MUST be some back up!
Indeed, this is why there are people enjoying eternal life in heaven, just like I said.
What a fascinating concept. Do you guys think of Heaven as a sports arena, where the most righteous sit in the best seats? We are to be with Our Lord in Heaven, praising Him forevermore. Not vying to have the largest and dryest martini, or the largest bosomed virgins. What rewards? Are you guys heading over to the Muslim camp with the 72 virgins? What rewards?
“witness” in Greek is “martyr”. Same word.
God says He wants to be our God and for us to be His people. That is, He wants a relationship with us. Personal relationships require communication. Prayer is an example of that. That prayer is effective is evidence that God wants a loving relationship with us.
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?
If the prayer is not in accordance with His will then the answer will be "No" or "Wait". We know from experience that we don't get everything we pray for. God is not going to change His will for us (being perfect - Rom. 12:2) and what is His will He will do anyway.
Yet God says to pray. And fast. Why? What does that have to do with it?
While salvation is obviously important He also has a plan for us while we are down here on earth (Rom. 8:28, etc.)
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.
He wants a loving relationship with His elect and part of our love for Him is in obeying His commands:
Sure glad I retired before Obama, though...Oct 2008! Whew!
Me too. You had good timing.
Okay, I can understand that. However, only God can state whom is a Saint.
If God is the only one to state such a claim, why does the church bother?
God sanctifies. The Church observes and tells us what it sees. No one becomes a saint because the Church made him so.
I’ve got to run, the rest will wait till tomorrow.
The Church had developed much of Christian faith before writing, editing and selecting Scripture. It is our Protestant brethren that reject the Faith and the Church of Jesus, replacing it with the faith of Joe on the street corner or Dave in the local tavern.
John 1:9-13
“There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
“There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens the elect.” Wow!
Oops! “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.”
“He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.” The Jews, the Chosen People, by and large rejected Christ. Paul spend Romans 9-11 discussing how it was that the Chosen People, heirs of the promise to Abraham, REJECTED Christ. They did “not receive Him”!
“But as many as received Him...” The word translated “received” means “to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it...to take in order to carry away”.
If I receive a package from Fedex, does the Fedex guy knock me down and shove it in my hands, or do I have the possibility of refusing to take it?
In this case, receiving is equated to believing...
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God,
even to those who believe in His name”
These “were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
The PDs say this means birth is forced upon us by God. FWs say this mean God has offered us salvation. Neither believes man reaches up to God, but that God reaches down to us, seeking us out and giving us a gift. The difference is do we have to accept him...and in verse 11, we read “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.”
If they could reject, then why could we not? The FW interpretation makes more sense in context...the Chosen People did NOT receive him, but He DID go to them, didn’t He!
If Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace were true, then either He should not have gone to the Jews (but He did), or they should have had to accept Him (but they didn’t).
Sorry, but these verses argue FOR Free Will, not against it!
Tell me about the direct word of God. How did it get to the pages of your Bible? Tell me about the exact process.
Read Job and 2 Maccabees.
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.