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?
"Well, koff koff, uh, bottom line is that even though we're wrong as can be and have been incredibly careless and irresponsible in throwing around accusations and have pretty much proved Dawg's point for him by mugging him for something he didn't do NOW we'll just sort of insist on the obvious and hope that nobody notices how unfair and hostile we really were. "
If we suppose that foreknowledge refers to a category as opposed to a known set of individuals, then we must also suppose that the category is of indeterminate members. That would seem to have God predestining "on the fly", as it were, in real time as new people became members of the category. Wouldn't that make the concept of PREdestination meaningless?
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”?
If I am following you correctly, then you appear to answer your own question. If you believe that scripture teaches that there is a chasm between us and God that only God can bridge, then mustn't you also believe that man is unable of himself to come to saving faith? Besides, if anyone believed that he could come to saving faith all by himself then he would be a Pelagian. If that described you, then you would be required to turn in your Baptist ID card. :)
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.
I don't see how this supports a hypothetical argument that man can come to God on his own. This verse confirms that all who believe are justified. It doesn't say anything about how one (ultimately) comes to belief. It doesn't say how one is able to confess.
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.
"Counted as righteousness" means "justified by faith". That is, after faith our slate is wiped clean and for salvation purposes our sins are counted against us no more. However, again it does not address HOW he came to faith. Elsewhere in the Bible it is clear that faith itself is a gift from God (e.g., Eph. 2:8). I don't see where the Bible indicates that Abraham (or anyone else) came to faith on his own apart from God.
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!
All of those verses calling for men to repent and believe are valid and represent an outward (general) calling that is consistent with God's nature in being a loving God. However, we know it is a fact (God tells us so) that not all are saved. Therefore, we are left with two choices; either Christ is a near total failure in achieving what He wants, or the outward call (theoretical) is not the same as the inward call (God takes action to ensure that His elect are saved).
If you consider this a "secret will" then consider where you are forced to go if you don't want to admit Christ as an abject failure. We would have to circle back to what you said earlier, that maybe God's higher wish is for free will choice, etc. Wouldn't that also qualify as a "secret will"?
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”!
But again, unless you are a Universalist (and I'm sure you are not) then you KNOW that not all are saved. Therefore, "whoever" CANNOT mean everyone. It refers to the subset of people who do believe. That is, EVERYONE who believes. This is perfectly consistent with the Calvinist view of predestination since it doesn't address how the "everyone who believes" comes into being.
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.
Sure. I don't know of anyone on FR who often agrees with me who believes that Calvin interpreted scripture infallibly. Indeed, such a notion would have been blasphemy to Calvin himself. Calvin knew that no one is infallible outside of God. We know that the Apostles were inspired so we know that God's word through them was infallible. However, I am unaware of Calvin ever putting himself on a par with the Apostles. We Calvinists sure don't! :)
Oh, just look for some of the early posts on this thread, you know, about the first thousand. I’m pretty sure you’ll find a few somewhere...something about old men in fancy dresses comes to mind...
Mad Dawg uses “feelthy papist” as a joke, calls himself that, and I think it’s hilarious, because of some of the things people accuse us Catholics of doing, ie idolatry, twisting scripture, using “rubber dictionaries,” etc.
Honestly, isn’t this all too silly for words? I am saving this thread for a really great laugh someday. How many times have we been accused of kissing old men’s rings, bowing to statues? Is that exactly name-calling? Romanist is not very nice, is it? Papist?
Christians! The key is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind and with all thy soul; and the second is like unto it: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Can’t we make love, not war? Do we HAVE to fight?
Love me! I’m adorable!
Even though I’m Catholic, I’m a really cute, nice, CHRISTIAN.
What does “Romish” mean?
and where its headed :)
Whew. The blowback from that kind of error could be fearsome.
Where does Scripture say are we to serve anyone in heaven but the Triune God alone?
"Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." -- 1 John 5:21
We need to grow thicker skin if we really believe what we proclaim.. call me a name and I will ignore it and address the issue.. I have old alligator skin
Just on Fox.....from Missionary Yvonne Trimble...30 yrs. in Haiti.
40 5.1 Tremors since the earthquake...last one @ 4.6 a few minutes ago.
Before Earthquake only 4hrs. day of electric..fuel shortages
Haitians now burning bodies in the streets
Great point.
I suppose it's something we really won't understand till we are in glory.
BTW, how did the case end up?
Nice sophistry. A rhetorical question that’s simply a question? Nice try.
“I have old alligator skin”
Spray WD-40 on new leather shoes before you start wearing them regularly. It will help prevent blisters by softening the leather and making the shoes more comfortable. To give the old “soft shoo” to squeaky shoes, spray some WD-40 at the spot where the sole and heel join and the squeaks will cease.
This may help soften that “alligator skin” and might even help creaking bones and tendons as one grows maturer. I don’t think it would be good to spray directly onto the face though. Perhaps spraying it on a tissue and rubbing it on.
I have more of these helpful hints if you are in need.
The same word used with one Freeper may offend another.
Some Freepers feel included by a word that makes others feel excluded.
And obviously humorous turns of phrases are returned as an offense.
We used to say "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me." Then again, I'm an oldtimer.
“BTW, how did the case end up?”
We argued cross Summary Judgment Motions just before Christmas. Probably won’t have a decision until late March. If you all have room on your prayer lists you might remember this church in its battle.
Of course, Archie Bunker once famously said “Sticks and stones may break my bones but you are one dumb Polack!”
That somehow seems appropriate to add to a discussion of which words might or might not cause offense.
Excellent, excellent post
You made a point that completely eluded me.. ( I am old and forget) ...The point is there is an outward general call to all men, so that when they stand before God in judgement they are without excuse..
The general call is the means the elect will hear, and the reprobate will spit out the name of God and hatred of Christ before going on with their life..
John 15: 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
Look at the response to Britt Hume just saying the name of Christ.. The gospel has gone forth for generation yet men still hate the name of Christ
It depends which part of the alligator. The alligator belly skin is fairly soft, the stuff on the back is hard as a rock.
LOL!
I’m all in favor of people using basically ANY name they want to describe the groups they dislike. I would far rather know what a person truly thinks about me.
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.