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?
Great point. Sadly, we've witnessed even "conservative" Roman Catholics buying into the socialist agenda of a one-world "global authority," and popes who tell us muslim beliefs will earn a man a seat in heaven.
It is a liberal church because it believes men are capable of goodness on their own, regardless of some of its adherents' correct stand on subjects like abortion.
By the way, John reiterates this later (actually in many places). Note this verse:
I don’t belong to any church or any group, yet. I am still looking.
I was raised Lutheran and left when I was old enough not to be forced to go.
I then went back because I was seeking the Lord. I could not find Him there. I thought it was just me because my x-church now has a husband/wife Pastor team.
The church seemed a little “loose”. They spoke of Jesus’ return as figuratively, not literally as I believe.
So, for now, it’s just me and my Bible AND great threads like this. So many scriptures posted and so much research into my Bible.
One big Bible study!!
If I remember correctly, the Dr. believes in the trinity, or Triunal God (I probably got that name wrong, sorry).
So what of it? Is this your "divide and conquer" attempt??? Pretty lamo Cronos.
Why are you speaking of Jesus in past terms?
Your concession that you had to resort to a personal attack to cover your lack of a real argument is noted.
Calvinists are all about everybody else’s depravity. They themselves are immaculate in their own eyes, especially when it comes to the case in point. They might concede, albeit rarely, erring elsewhere, but never on the matter at hand, however ridiculous their lack of concession makes them appear.
FR Calvinist motto: Victory before Truth
I completely love it!
Well, this is not exactly using the word “lie” in reference to another Freeper. It’s saying the other Freeper is using the concept in reference to oneself or one’s own side. At least that’s how I intended it.
Exactly!
The major points of your posts have been to be personally insulting to me.. thats fine ...they spit on Jesus..if I say something you perceive as "insulting"to the church is because I disagree with the doctrine. That my friend is not insulting it is apologetics .
Your post is 90% personal insults and lacks any apologetic substance.
Were the church fathers infallible?
Once again I point out that transubstantiation was not a DECLARED a doctrine until 1215..before that one was free to believe what one chose to believe and still be a catholic..that was decided at that council BECAUSE there was DIVISION in the church on that point.
Is flesh holier than spirit?
“But, when I brought that up elsewhere to state that we need to differentiate between Protestants and Baptists, I was told that no one had ever heard of such a claim”
I think I’m the one who said I had never heard such a claim - and I hadn’t, until I read it here. So I was wrong - there ARE Baptists who claim Baptists have existed since Apostolic times. There is a Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism
I apologize for MY error.
“Unless you’ve realised it by now, The Church is not a denomination.”
The church is also not a hierarchy. It means assembly, and sometimes had the meaning of a religious assembly, although the word is also used of a riot - so perhaps my charismatic sister isn’t so far off as I sometimes say! But there is nothing in scripture to indicate a hierarchy. The offices of the ‘church’ - assembly - are plainly set out. The question before us is if the Apostles left us “the full counsel of God”, or not. Did they tell us what offices are needed by the assemblies, or did they just give temporary advice on the matter?
“Yes, a non-Trinitarian is in the list of Protestants too...”
Anyone can CLAIM to be a Protestant. There is no copyright on the word. However, the 5 solas would be a better description, since those are what pulled folks away from the Catholic church, regardless of what denomination they end up in. And plenty of tares have left congregations, and set up NEW ‘churches’ that reject the 5 solas.
FK: “think we need to be careful when we use the word “saved” because it can have several perfectly correct Biblical uses that don’t appear to say the same thing. Sometimes we say “saved” when we mean “by God’s promises salvation is certain”. God’s promises are so airtight that “will be saved” can functionally equal “saved now”. If someone said “the elect were saved from the foundations” I would know exactly what the speaker meant and agree with the sentiment, even though the elements of salvation had not yet taken place within time. All of this is to say that perhaps your concern above might be alleviated when considered in this context.”
No, not really. I understand and have often stated that saved has multiple meanings in scripture. My point and problem with PD is that it has God justifying us, not by grace thru faith, but grace thru election. If I said, “Everyone who says Mr Rogers gets a piece of cake”, and then refused to listen to anyone saying Mr Rogers who wasn’t on my list of names, then I was lying when I said anyone who says Mr Rogers. I REALLY meant anyone on my list.
If God commands us to repent, but makes us unable to do so, then God isn’t being honest. If God commands us to do things, and then prevents us from doing it, He is dishonest. When Jesus said he came because he loved the world, if he really meant he came because he loved the elect, then Jesus was lying in John 3.
And God is NOT a liar.
The entire breadth of scripture assumes we make choices, and those choices have consequences. It is sophistry to say we are saved by faith, if God gives faith to those on his list, and denies it to everyone else. That is salvation by election.
FK: “And given that God is a loving God, for what good things would you NOT want to be fully dependent on Him? This question really helped me when I was thinking about all this before. Why would I want to BE or DO anything independently from God?”
I don’t. But if God comes to me, seeks out someone who wasn’t seeking him, and offers me a gift, taking it doesn’t mean I earned the gift, or that I compelled God to give it to me, or that I attained the gift apart from God or outside his will.
“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).”
No, we are left with at least THREE choices: Christ failed, Christ was after something else more important, or God doesn’t say what he means.
HD: “What I think is REALLY clear is this:
Joh 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
This passage tells us exactly HOW we are born...I think John is saying there is nothing we can do externally (will of flesh) through our works or internally (will of man) though our inward being to be born of God. The only way to be born of God is through His efforts and then we receive and believe.”
If you are invited to a party, have you EARNED the invitation? Did you FORCE the invite? Or did someone else CHOOSE to invite you, and you only have the possibility of going because of THEIR will for you to be there? “ The only way to be born of God is through His efforts...” - correct, He must come to us, we cannot force our way in. “and then we receive and believe.” - except God’s invitation says “whosoever believes”. It doesn’t have our name on it.
It is like when the Koreans would invite 7th AF/A5 to a party. Anyone in 7AF/A5 could come, but no one was compelled to come. The invitation was to a category, not individuals.
HD: “By the way, John reiterates this later (actually in many places). Note this verse:
1Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
The construct of this verse tells us that the only reason we believe is simply because we have been born of God.”
Context. 1 John 4 is about discerning false spirits: “1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world...13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit...20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.” Now, one verse later, John writes, “ 1Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.”
Look around you. Worried about false prophets? “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.”
It does not teach that we are born again first, and then believe.
What some fail to understand is that one can know the unintended and possible results of one's action and can still pursue the action without intending the "second effect."
I intended my question as asked. I wanted to know, well, what I asked. I hoped that in coming up with an answer (instead of the pages and pages of avoiding the question that I got) your side might realize that they weren't making a lot of sense. But I wanted to know the answer and looked forward to pursuing "not many," "some," "a whole lot," or whatever quantitative answer I got.
The way MOST people use "rhetorical question," there is an "expected answer." I had no expected answer. So I deny that the question was intended as a rhetorical question.
Now I DID think that the argument would finally lead to a conclusion that even our side had to admit that nobody thought that you were always calling us "feelthy papists." But that does not make the question rhetorical. It only makes it part of a discussion. Still it does have a quasi-rhetorical aspect, one might say a proleptically rhetorical side. This is because ONE DAY when truth is triumphant, your side would know that the obvious answer was "none." But I didn't expect that you knew it now, the obvious not being your side's strong suit.
So it was neither an accusation nor a rhetorical question. The response to my showing that the charge was ridiculous was to make more charges, which pretty much proves my point.
Then you declared that the rhetorical nature of the question was meant to be answered in the negative that no Protestants call Romanists names and that no Romanists take any terms as "names"
This is almost surreal in it's internal self-contradiction. And clearly you do not distinguish between something I think may happen and something I intend to happen.
Failure to make distinctions seems to be a problem for your side. YOU take my "Ah a gentleman to the last," as a whine, when the only thing it shares with a whine is that it notes the ignorant boorishness of the post. Personally I kind of enjoy it when my adversaries display their ignorance, crassness, and inbability to think clearly, so what you called a whine was kind of a celebration. Of course, in the gloomy Calvinist view, the difference between complaint and celebration is maybe not so clear.
When I pointed you to that post as a contradiction to your previous declaration that no Romanist thinks Protestants use names, you claim I called you a liar and that Calvinists only talk about sin and error in the abstract:
Another festival of misinterpretation.
Then I pointed out that I was NOT speaking in the abstract but actually pointed you to the error. At that point you claimed you knew of the claim but saw no error thus making your claim that Calvinists only speak to error and sin in the abstract false:
This is funny. Some think that all they have to do is to say something is an error and it is so. No explanation necessary. In my training we called this the transparent skull syndrome. The assumption is "Everyone can see what is going on inside my head, so I don't have to explain it."
So they think anyone who doesn't immediately see what these folks are talking about and does not immediately understand their alleged reasoning is just being perverse. They don't really get the whole "communication" thing. This leads to language like "is the ramblings," with the comical failure of verb to agree in number with subject. It's not inability so much as lack of desire.
So, I think the intentions were good. An argument was attempted. The next area to work on is learning to distinguish what is inside one's mind (where most other humans can't see it) from what is outside one's mind (where most humans CAN see it.) Also learning that one's failure to understand what somebody else says does not excuse personal abuse might be useful.
It's the intern angels. Sometimes they get impatient.
See, this looks like a page/section/subsection/paragrah/line from the tax code. It's all loaded up with clauses and no punctuation to clarify things. I got stuck there, and couldn't go on with your posts, because (while I have great reading skills) that just plain makes no sense.
Could you just clarify that one sentence for me please?
262. Q. When and where are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?
A. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the consecration in the Mass.
263. Q. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
The Holy Sacrifice is called Mass probably from the words the priest says at the end when he turns to the people and says, "Ite Missa est"; that is, when he tells them the Holy Sacrifice is over.
Baltimore Catechism
Do you think God accepts unbloody sacrifices??
It may be Turkey now...But it wasn't in the time of Jesus...Turkey didn't exist...
And of course there are two Antiochs in Paul's journeys...
Did you know that the original Baptist confession of faith disagreed with you
Chapter 9: Of Free Will
1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )
2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )
3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )
4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )
5. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
( Ephesians 4:13 )
www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/1689econtents
Arminianism came late to Baptists. They, although not “Protestants’ in the sense they did not protest Rome... still found the doctrines of Grace in their scriptures
It was in Syria at the time of Paul's travels...Try to keep up...
Now, that is typical -- posting an incorrect piece from some strange website and stating it as FACT.
Sure...Every bit of information out there that repudiates something from your religion is false, fake, satanic, a lie, gossip and on and on...Everybody lies except for your religious institution...Yep...
There are two separate Antiochs referred to in the Bible...
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.