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 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?”
No. If God ordained before the world began that those who believed in Jesus would be justified, sanctified and glorified, then He would have perfect knowledge of who those would be - since He knows the end from the beginning. It wouldn’t surprise Him in the least, nor would it require ‘a change of plans’.
We are Pre-destined to a destination. “29For 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.”
The ones He foreknew (knew in advance) he ALSO predestined “to be conformed to the image of his Son”. God doesn’t force us to believe or not, nor is he surprised by our choices - and those who believe WILL - because of predestination - end up conformed to the image of his Son. I would view this more as teaching eternal security than it teaches salvation by grace thru election.
“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?”
No. No man can jump that chasm. But God has reached across the chasm. Do we take his hand and begin the dance, or not? Or does he grab us and pull us across the chasm in a kidnapping?
Also, I don’t say that man can come by himself or of himself to saving faith. No man seeks God. Explicit revelation. But if God has sought us out, and confronted us, what happens next? Does he grab us and carry us off, like the brides on 7 Brides for 7 Brothers (old musical ping!), or does he allow and honor our choice - because it is his choice to do so?
In response to my “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.”, you respond, “I don’t see how this supports a hypothetical argument that man can come to God on his own.”
It doesn’t. Paul goes on, “14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
We do not come to God on our own. Unless God seeks us out and reveals himself to us, we are lost. And we may STILL be lost, sinners that we are!
“Elsewhere in the Bible it is clear that faith itself is a gift from God (e.g., Eph. 2:8).”
Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t teach it, although there may be other passages.
And that (kai touto).
Neuter, not feminine tauth, and so refers not to pistiv (feminine) or to xariv (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex umwn, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God’s gift (dwron) and not the result of our work.
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=eph&chapter=002&verse=008
In essence, as this non-Greek speaking person understands it, Greek grammar indicates that the gift is salvation, not faith. And in a sense faith IS a gift, because we would have nothing to put our faith in unless God bridged the gap and came to us - while we were rebels and enemies! My point on Abram in Genesis 15 is that believing preceded justification, and I see justification and regeneration as facets of the same diamond. So belief comes before or with regeneration, not AFTER it.
“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 the highest goal of God was salvation for everyone, then Jesus was a failure. IF God’s highest goal was sons who willingly served Him from love, THEN Christ has been a total success - those who believe and accept His offer WILL become sons, and obey Him freely. IF God’s goal was to save a list of people picked beforehand, and if he refused to allow anyone off the list to be saved, THEN God is a liar, for that is not what He says.
At least, as I read it. I have been known to be wrong, just never to admit it! Or so my wife says...
You anticipate my reply, and write, “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”?”
No, because I see nothing secret about it! Gen 4: “The 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.”
Choose, Cain. What will you do?
“14 “Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”” - Joshua 24
Choose this day.
” 30”Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.” - Ezekial 18
“38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” - Acts 2
“18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” - Rev 3
I see nothing hidden about God telling us to choose.
“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.”
Suppose I went to a group of people - none of whom had any money - and said, “Anyone who has $5 can come in from the cold.” I then take out a list, and give $5 to everyone on the list. The ones I gave $5 to hand it back to me and enter, while everyone else stays outside.
Did I really mean “anyone with $5”, or did I really mean, “anyone on my secret list”?
“However, I am unaware of Calvin ever putting himself on a par with the Apostles.”
He didn’t. I like reading Calvin, even when I disagree. He may be more dogmatic in the “Institutes” than his commentaries and other works...haven’t read the Institutes much. I wish more people would read his commentaries and fewer concern themselves with him...and I think he would agree.
Remember “Lucy” from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles Schulz? What a fussbudget she was?
May I call you “Lucy”?
Which is fine. The interesting thing is that the total depravity, snow-covered dunghill team is happy to talk about error and sin in the abstract, but when it gets down to cases they're immaculate.
I know that this is a joke... but have you ever noticed that Catholics always have a St Peter at the gate joke... (my RC family has one every time I see them)
I think this reflects the church (as represented by Peter) as the gate keeper to heaven
The Mormons teach no one gets into the highest heaven until they pass Joseph Smith
But scripture says to be absent from the body is to be present to God.. no St Peter...no joseph Smith just the judgement os a Holy God.
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
I know that this is a joke... but have you ever noticed that Catholics always have a St Peter at the gate joke... (my RC family has one every time I see them)
I think this reflects the church (as represented by Peter) as the gate keeper to heaven
The Mormons teach no one gets into the highest heaven until they pass Joseph Smith
But scripture says to be absent from the body is to be present to God.. no St Peter...no joseph Smith just the judgement os a Holy God.
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
I didn’t just talk about the error in the abstract I actually pointed to it.
Now one must wonder who’s calling whom a liar?
Christ gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom, in my Bible. Who did He give them to, in yours? ;-D
I could point you to a wealth of fussbudgetry.
Lucy’s in the sky with Dawg.
Oh, antiques! I love them...I have an 1881 very colorful sampler from Germany (Hubby’s family). Ivory pieces are so beautiful, as they age...
So, Lucy, you don’t mind? Thanks!
I saw that you pointed to a message. I did not see that you pointed to an error.
Meant to add, I have no ivory, but I have an antique hartshorn handled meat carving set, it looks very like ivory.
Ping me when you have an argument. You know that's one which proceeds logically from evidence to a conclusion.
After all, you say
I consider myself to be Catholic
using the uppercase 'C', if you have something you think is an argument I'll take a look.
IF THE BLOOD OF JESUS is insufficient for use of a CAPITAL C, then NO AMOUNT OF powermongering arrogance by the Vatican magicsterical will ever be sufficient in a trillion years.
I bet you already guessed it was in great big blue letters.
So the whole “abstract” thing was more rhetoric?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you have an real argument, please make it. Let the references be clear and the steps be explained.
If on the other hand you do NOT have an argument, then don't make it.
But abandon these elusive hints. You may be making some kind of sense, but I am not sure what I am accused of (except lying) and what I did or said which is, in your mind, supposed to justify the accusation. You refer to a "next post" but I don't know what you mean.
But unless you make a real argument, I'll say that, as far as I can tell all you've done is accuse me of things and call me peculiar names. Until I see more, I'm going to consider that the best you've got, right in there with "is the ramblings".
ph
Sure...The scriptures...
Even you guys claim you are not a religion of a 'book'...The 'book' meaning the God breathed words of scripture...
And I have no problem with that...What I have a problem with is you guys while claiming your're not a religion of the book, you go then say you ARE the religion of the book, plus a lot...And that's not true...
Your religion does use some words that are found in the 'book' but that's about as close as you get...
Baptists and other groups are far, far closer to resembling the Christianity found in the NTscriptures, alone...
Granted, yours is a religion of x-tra biblical theology...And it was developed over centuries in time by your church fathers...Ours is bible alone, passed on from the very first church fathers ...Nothing added nor nothing taken away, over the same time frame as yours...
From what I read, He wasn't too happy about that!
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.