Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[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?

[Religion Moderator]

The first is "making it personal" because it presumes the fact and asks why.

The second is "making it personal" because it focuses on the Freeper in claiming his source intends to deceive. It would not be making it personal to say "The source you used has been thoroughly discredited" or "The source you used is known for its lies."

[Alamo-Girl]

I pray for your return to perfect health, dear HarleyD!

And thank you so much for sharing your insights and those beautiful Scriptures, dear sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Amen!

[shibumi]

"Without change there is no learning."

>"The man who never alters him opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."< - William Blake

[annalex]

Veneration of the saints may or may not be in scripture - define veneration. WORSHIP is not, but I agree with the Catholics on this board who reject the idea they worship saints

Ah, very well. So according to you, veneration of saints does NOT contradict Sola Scriptura, at least insofar that it is truly veneration and not worship.

The question still remains, where is even that watered-down version of Sola Scriptura, -- nothing essential to salvation and holy living can be outside scripture, -- in the Bible? (at this point you are excused muttering "give them Catholics a finger, they bite off the arm")

That baptism of children is without example is incorrect. When the scripture tells us "she got baptised and her entire household", the natural reading is that the children were baptised to regardless of age. We sure don't read "the entire household converted and therefore was baptized" (Acts 16:15, 16:33, with slight variations). What we have here is the idea of sponsorship: the parent or another believer undertakes to bring the children in the faith, and that allows baptism of children. You start with the assumption that for baptism to have an effect independent of the faith of the baptisee is "works based", and allow that assumption to cloud your reading.

We see no priests in the NT

"Presbyteros" is "priest", numerous occurences.

nor any instruction or example of church officers taking confession.

That was my point, there is no example. The Church developed the norm regaridng the secrecy of the confessional on the general authorization to "bind and loose" in matters pertaining to salvation (and the rule of scripture was not mentioned in it). But the instruction certainly is there, John 20:22-23.

[annalex]

But baptism FOLLOWS conversion, which is the new birth.

This is where we agree, because that part IS in the scripture: conversion of an adult makes baptism of an adult, and of his children, possible.

That conversion is in itself a new birth contradicts John 3:3-5, where "birth of the water" is spoken about in the context of being born again.

[xone]

ph

[Quix]

INDEED.

And in India.

What a come down from submitting to Christ Alone to submitting to a man and a club of bureaucratic political power mongers.

[annalex]

Scripture says “Repent”, not “Do penance”.

Sorry, I know it's late, but I cannot pass it up.

The Scripture says "μετανοειτε".

Morphologically, all it means is "change your mind". But is "repenting" disconnected from doing anything?

For one thing, in Acts 26:20 works of penance are mentioned specifically:

I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance.

The call to penance (or repenting, or mind-changing) first came from St. John the Baptist. Well, what example did St. John give? A hairshirt, fasting, solitary living, mortification of flesh. The medieval monks with their penance did nothing the scripture did not tell them to do. They wore hairshirts, many lived like hermits, fasted and mortified flesh.

Then Jesus repeated the call to "mind-changing". What did Jesus do? He fasted for 40 days, went into solitude, and let His body be abused.

St. Paul advises us to mortify our flesh (he left us a lot about the salvific value of works in Romans):

if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.

So, yeah, "do penance". Good translation that respects the context.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Knowing how the RCC idolizes suffering as a merit gainer, I shouldn’t have expected anything else.

[annalex]

I just read what’s’ written.

[HiTech RedNeck]

That’s how such stuff comes to be written.

[Forest Keeper]

AWWWW I wanted 3,000

I sorry. I wasn't even trying. :)

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "although it isn't exactly the same since many of the Israelites were not saved."

Is this an endorsement or confirmation of the principle of invincible ignorance? If not, how could any of them have been saved since none had a personal knowledge and acceptance of Jesus?

RnMomof7 is right in her answer. The elect of the OT and NT were all saved by the same method, grace through faith. The OT righteous may not have had as many specifics as we do today, but at core the OT God is the same as the NT God, so if one worshiped the true OT God, that was true faith in Christ.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The basic principle of Calvinism is the deceitfulness of God

Look, Mr. Rogers, maybe you've been hanging out with the Romanists too long because you're starting to sound like them in more ways than one.

Your posts are becoming increasingly dogmatic , sarcastic, redundant, looong, contradictory and non-responsive.

I give you five paragraphs about the sovereignty of God, a half dozen examples from Scripture, and link you to A.A. Pink's masterwork, "The Sovereignty of God." Your response is not to read it; apparently not even to glance at it. Instead you tell me to summarize it for you.

Hmmm... ok...

God is in control; not you. He always has been and He always will be. You have never been nor will you ever be.

And that is a very good thing for you just like it is for all who have been given true faith in Christ, for we are "His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2:10.)

Esquirette pointed out that even our faith is a work made possible by God, as are all good things in us and by us. But you wrote...

"I have never said or suggested we are saved by works, UNLESS you call believing work"

Here Paul sets you straight by agreeing with esquirette...

"Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father" -- 1 Thess. 1:3

PD teaches that man - specifically the PDers - get to tell God what His purpose is, and He dare not do otherwise. The entire sovereignty crock assumes first that you get to define the will of God, and you get to do so apart from scripture

PD? As in FW?

"Sovereignty crock???"

Calvinists don't define the will of God; God does, regardless whether men know that or not.

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" -- 2 Thess. 2:13-14

---

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." -- Luke 8:10 

Did you get that in 2 Thess. 2? "Chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and (through) belief of the truth."

Men don't sanctify themselves, nor do they give themselves faith nor the ability to believe. Men must first be born again by God.

And that's His call. Faith is the instrument God uses to bring His own to Him. "Saved by grace through faith." Grace saves.

We have not chosen Him; He has chosen us. If you think it was your idea, tell it to Him.

There were only three Arminians I've known on this forum who spoke as negatively as you about Calvinism. Two are now Calvinists and one got kicked off the forum.

May God utilize His "sovereignty crock" to lead you to the better fate.

[Forest Keeper]

Thank you my friend, and the same back to you.

[Gamecock]

Amazing who few people read Scripture.

[Cronos]

I believe in the See of Jesus Christ. There were churches following Christ up into the Caucuses Mountains and Eastern Europe, and all the way to Northwest Europe in the first three centuries which had never heard of the “See of Rome.”

Quite incorrect. The Churches you refer to are:
1. in the Caucasus (Armenian and Georgian) which were in communion with orthodoxy (i.e what is now termed the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) -- they are and were Apostolic Churches, part of the ONE Catholic and Apostolic Church. And yes, they not only heard of the "See of Rome", they were also in communion with it and with Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople etc. until Chalcedon.

2. In Eastern Europe, you refer to the Arians who only started preaching there around 3rd century -- which other groups do you refer to?

3. North-west Europe? You refer to Ireland? Those were converts through Rome and were in communion with Rome until the Barbarian invasions. Post that, their theology was the same (Celtic Christianity is a misnomer, the differernces are not theological but rather revolving around ecclesiastic versus monasterical authority and around dates of Easter).

4. India -- that does show lack of knowledge. +Thomas came to India (South india -- specifically to Kodungallur/Cranganore in the state of Kerala) because there was a Jewish community there who had been there centuries -- India was trading with Rome for centuries -- there is even a reference to this trade by Roman writers of this time. Hence, they were not only aware of Rome, there was regular contact with Rome (the monsoon winds brought traders along from Arabia Felix every June and they returned back in October)

[Cronos]

The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God

I don't see how this was a great 'discovery' by Calvin -- that is the principle of all of Christendom, right from Apostolics to various Protestants to Baptists to non-denominationals

[Cronos]

Any system which teaches that the serious intentions of God can in some cases be defeated, and that man, who is not only a creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans of Almighty God, is in striking contrast to the biblical idea of his immeasurable exaltation by which He is removed from all weaknesses of humanity.

But, the view of The Church is NOT that God's intentions can ever be defeated by a creature like Man. God has a plan for mankind -- and His plan WILL come true, irrespective of whether John Smith accepts Christ or not. God's plan works. The presence of our free will in no way negates or even affects God's plan for mankind. Assuming that the choice YOU make affects God is sheer egotism.

We don't believe that, we believe tha the choices we make are known to God, but not predestined by Him and they in no way affect His Master Plan.