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 put, imho.
Thanks, both of you. And now that I have acquitted myself, let me just say, “spade spade spade spade spade spade spade.”
Shovel shovel shovel shovel shovel shovel shovel.
Dr E “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.”
That isn’t all bad. I’ll be blunt - if I had to chose between asking Mad Dawg to pray about a problem I had, or asking you, I would do the former. Doctrinally, I’m closer to you - but God doesn’t save us by reading doctrine. I wasn’t saved by defining grace, or by knowing a list of doctrine, but by meeting Jesus in the lives of some Christian kids. Like the thief on the cross, I didn’t know much doctrine, but I knew I wanted to be with Jesus.
I have very strong disagreements with the Catholic Church. I am as appalled by Purgatory as I am by the idea that God SAYS “whoever”, but MEANS “my elect”. I don’t need to ‘do penance’ to be saved, nor do I need to wait until Judgment Day to find out if I’ve ‘qualified’ - “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
Anyone who wants to know how strongly I disagree can click on my name at the bottom of this post, then clink ‘in forum’ and read a few thousand posts on the subject over the last year.
They could do the same with you. And I believe many of your posts are insulting (Romanist? How often have you been told that terminology is offensive?), intellectually dishonest (pictures taken from websites that are not accurate, and a reluctance on your part to admit the error after it is pointed out), arrogant (’special grace’ to ‘special’ people, I guess), and with a perspective that seems to me to define itself as ‘Not Catholic’ rather than ‘Protestant’. I have honestly told Catholics that most Protestants don’t even think much about the Catholic Church, let alone define ourselves that way...MOST Protestants.
Now, I sometimes get mad at Mad Dawg, and have felt like reaching thru the computer screen to choke him (or annalex, or MarkBsnr...), but they have been honest in their arguments with me. They don’t post pictures of someone handling snakes and ask me why Baptists are like that (although I took a graduate class in Herpetology once). They may well feel, like you, that my posts “are becoming increasingly dogmatic , sarcastic, redundant, looong, contradictory and non-responsive”, but they deal with the issues I raise, or change the subjects.
Dr E “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.”
You gave me 5 paragraphs that are missing the point, since I agree God is sovereign...what I disagree on is what His sovereign will for man is!
A half dozen examples from scripture...which I may or may not have dealt with. I’ve posted so much this last week I don’t remember
I glanced at Pink’s “masterwork”, and found it wanting. However, I may next week post the pertinent chapter for discussion, since I found it to have so little sound basis in scripture.
As a quick example, he writes:
“”As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” Here we learn four things: First, that believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree. Second, that a limited number only are “ordained to eternal life,” for if all men without exception were thus ordained by God, then the words “as many as” are a meaningless qualification. Third, that this “ordination” of God is not to mere external privileges but to “eternal life,” not to service but to salvation itself. Fourth, that all-”as many as,” not one less-who are thus ordained by God to eternal life will most certainly believe.”
Except that is NOT required by the text.
From Robertson, who agrees with predestination,
“As many as were ordained to eternal life (osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiv zwhn aiwnion).
Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassw, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain” is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God’s side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away.”
Young’s Literal Translation has it “ 48And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe — as many as were appointed to life age-during”
A person CAN interpret it as Pink does.
But look at the CONTEXT - and the Catholics I’ve pinged to this have heard me say that ad nauseum - and we find:
“44The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
“’I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
The emphasis is that Gentiles believed, and were appointed for eternal life - remember, this is Acts 13, and Acts 10 & 11 dealt with the opening of the kingdom to the Gospel.
You can find more here, if so inclined:
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/11/favorite-calvinistic-proof-texts-acts.html
Either interpretation is possible, but mine does no violence to the words of Jesus when He said “whosoever”. So if Pink is a masterpiece, then I’d hate to see the bad arguments!
Dr E “God is in control; not you. He always has been and He always will be. You have never been nor will you ever be.”
Thank you for putting words into my mouth. However, if God GIVES us a decision, He is still sovereign, isn’t he? When I allow my horse to pick her path, I’m still the rider. And some days, when her heart isn’t in it, I respect her desires and call it quits.
(You see, annalex, that sometimes God uses my horse instead of an ass to teach me, if I have ears to hear...and if I can love her enough to care about her desires, how much more so God with us! Better that I repent when my horse speaks, than to wait for a stronger messenger from God.)
You cite this as evidence that faith is work: “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”
OK - and Jesus said that if believing is considered work, then that is the work God requires of us. However, you passage, IN CONTEXT, has nothing to do with believing faith being a ‘work’. As Barnes puts it, “Your work of faith.That is, your work showing or evincing faith. The reference is probably to acts of duty, holiness, and benevolence, which proved that they exercised faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Works of faith are those to which faith prompts, and which show that there is faith in the heart. This does not mean, therefore, a work of their own producing faith, but a work which showed that they had faith.
And labour of love. Labour produced by love, or showing that you are actuated by love. Such would be all their kindness toward the poor, the oppressed, and the afflicted; and all their acts which showed that they loved the souls of men.”
You cite 2 Thess 2 as proof. It reads, in the NASB, “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.”
A Calvinist says this means God chose you (of your name) from the beginning, and thus YOU are saved after God gives you faith in the truth.
The Armenian says this means God has chosen you (of your faith) from the beginning to be saved by sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. And note, the verse says we are saved “through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth”, not saved through election. And if God gives faith to the elected, and denies it to the non-elect, then we are saved by election, not faith.
And I would remind you that salvation has more than one meaning. It can mean justification, it can mean sanctification, or it can mean both. It has other meanings, but those suffice for now. God HAS chosen us TO something - we who believe are predestined to become like Jesus. And since this verse says we are chosen “for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit”, the salvation we are chosen for seems to be the definition that includes sanctification - includes our goal, what we were predestined to become if we believe.
Dr E “We have not chosen Him; He has chosen us. If you think it was your idea, tell it to Him.”
Thanks again for offering to shove another straw man into my mouth, but I’ll decline. I have repeatedly said that no man seeks God, and that we can only respond to his offer. HE initiates. HE crosses the divide. HE gave us Himself in sacrifice. WE believe, or not. “For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” - Romans 10
Well, there is another “dogmatic , sarcastic, redundant, looong, contradictory and non-responsive” post filled with...responses.
2 Timothy 2:2 affirms mentoring and the passing along of sound doctrine, something that’s been affirmed in Scripture for millennia. It does not affirm any kind of human apostolic lineage, any kind of “tag-you’re-it” mentality.
You asked, “Could you point out where ANY of the Reformers said that apostolic succession was invalid?”
Yes, John Calvin, among others. Here are some things he wrote on this topic:
“It therefore follows that this pretense of succession is vain unless their descendants conserve safe and uncorrupted the truth of Christ which they have received at their fathers’ hands, and abide in it.”
“... we deny the title of Successors of the Apostles to those who have abandoned their faith and doctrine.”
“... we deny not that there has been an uninterrupted succession of the Church from the beginning of the gospel even to our day; but we do not concede that it was so fixed to external shows — that it has hitherto always been, and will henceforth always be, in possession of the Bishops.”
“I know that this continuous Succession is extolled by Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, and some other ancient writers. But it is mere imposition to attempt to employ their testimony in defense of the tyranny of the Papacy, which has nothing in common with the ancient form of the Church.”
“Wherein does Succession consist, if it be not in perpetuity of doctrine? But if the doctrine of the Apostles has been corrupted, nay, abolished and extinguished by those who would be regarded as their successors, who would not deride their foolish boasting? By the same kind of argument I might prove that all tyrants have been the best supporters of freedom, since there was an uninterrupted transition from the republic to their monarchy.”
“... because by the tyranny of the Pope, the continuous line of ordination has been broken, a new expedient is requisite for the restoration of the Church. Vainly indeed do the Papists pride themselves on that chain, which, as I have said, they themselves have broken. For is the Papacy anything but a revolt from Christ? With what front, then, can apostates boast themselves successors?”
For Reformers, it’s all about sound doctrine and truth; for Roman Catholics, it’s all about a succession of people. They *can* be the same, but in some instances when the people down the line lose grasp of sound doctrine, they are not.
I'm just going back in my memory...as far as I can recall, Christ expounded on the law, not tradition. Which Jewish traditions did Christ teach against, do you have an example?
That's YOUR interpretation of the verse, that DOES NOT make it right.
It seems that the unordained lawyer denied the Church's CLAIM to succession, he did not deny the validity of the concept.
Why do you think that Lutherans and Anglicans still claim apostolic succession where they can?
Any comment on the pictures I posted?
Thanks for that post Mr R, it was incredible. If ALL of us could embrace your attitude, the Religion Forum would probably be a much more informative and less contentious place.
I agree. I was deeply touched by that post. Mr. Rogers has always reminded me of my son in law, a Baptist whom I admire.
“Here is the problem, men can not repent themselves, mans repentance has no weight with God...The work of God in us always precedes repentance.”
We agree.
From Wiki:
“Arminianism holds to the following tenets:
* Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace).
* Salvation is possible only by God’s grace, which cannot be merited.
* No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
* God’s election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
* Christ’s atonement was made on behalf of all people.
* God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
* Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace through persistent, unrepented-of sin.”
And the last point from Wiki is questionable - I believe Arminius said he lacked certainty about eternal security as a doctrine.
There is no mention of her life OR HER DEATH there is certainly no mention of her "assumption"
Seeing that the OT faithfully records Elijah but fails to mention such a" momentous occasion "as the assumption of the mother of Christ is noteworthy also that it was not told to the unbelievers to reinforce the nature of Christ is also unbelievable..
In my opinion she has been made the equivalent of a goddess by the traditions put in place by the popes.. so i do not believe that is of God..
The pictures are of icons that can easily become a source of worship.. so they actually put souls in danger of idolatry .
2 Tim2:2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable menwho will also be qualified to teach others.
Not a word on tradition there.. The letters of Paul (the scriptures) contain his words passed on ..they were preserved for us so that they not be distorted..
Sort of like the Statue of Liberty, or the one of Lincoln? Or that famous portrait of Geo. Washington? Or holding above all one particular incomplete, inaccurate translation of the Holy Bible does?
There's far, far, far more evidence for scripture alone than there ever will be for an immaculate conception...
If the evidence for Sola Scriptura comes from Scripture, how is it evidence?
1. We are told to “check THE historical documents.” Meaning: Their historical documents are THE historical documents.
2. We are told (or it is directly implied) that the only safeguard against error or heresy in the early churches was to come under their bishops. The Holy Spirit either didn’t indwell new believers or He was incapable of keeping a believer from error, if they are to be believed. And this in the face of the fact that worldwide there are people who are demon-possessed, worshippers of unclean things still standing at the front of altars controlled by the “SEE”, opening their mouths and having something called “His Body” put in their mouths every Sunday morning. They are not guarded from error even within the system, while it is denied that the Holy Ghost of God can keep someone from error outside the system.
3. We are told to believe that no individual believers ever left Syria, Palestine or Asia Minor and carried the Gospel of Jesus Christ to any other regions, and that none of them could have ever witnessed for Christ or formed congregations of believers elsewhere in the first century. Somehow, every one who ever trusted the Blood of Jesus and became a child of the Living God, like a robot held by some kind of giant ecclesiastical magnet, never got on a horse, rode a wagon, or walked north, or west, or east for that matter, with the message of the Son of God and the Cross. No believer was constrained by the love of Christ to personally witness for Christ, but were all like (evidently) the common systemites in my neighborhood who would never open their mouths on a public street and talk about sin, righteousness, Christ, the Cross, judgment to come, or the necessity of the New Birth—further they think anyone who would to be weird—“My religion is private and my own business; get off my door step” kind of people.
4. No Christians in the first century (if one can believe them) ever traveled and opened their mouths for Christ unless it was under the authority of bishops—THEIR bishops, of which there were really none yet, except that there must of always been some Babylonian mystery types who loved presenting themselves by robes and special head dress, and waving their hands in certain orchestrated configurations, so that they would appear hyper-authoritative and spiritual (which spirit?). There could not have possibly been any true ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who were just common men—and looked like common men, who went about as evangelists.
5. According to them, any true Christianity could only have spread itself along the ROMAN ROADS—The Apian Way. No poor child of God with the zeal and compassion of Christ in his bosom, taking goods north to the regions beyond, could have, in the first century, preached the Cross to anyone—there could never have been a congregation of believers where the “SEE” might not have seen.
6. The rural, non-urban regions bordering on the Barbarian regions, or into the Barbarion regions themselves, being Pagan, and worshiping false gods, ate for supper any wandering evangelistic child of God before he could ever utter the name, “Jesus.” That is, evidently, if one’s brain cannot think beyond “SEE”-approved histories. No Barbarion regions to the north could have possibly ever entertained a first century believer in Jesus Christ on his travels selling from a wagon things he had purchased in Antioch.
7. All Montanists and Donatists were heretics of course, if you read the “SEE” dominated histories on these people. And at the same time it is impossible that there were any true believers in Christ who were not “SEE”ists, Donatists, or Montanists, but simply CHRISTIANS who had heard that Blood had been shed by the Son of God to purge their consciences from dead works, reconcile them to a Holy God, and set them FREE, and were spreading that message. Oh, such a thing is impossible. Nobody could have known those things without the “SEE”, you see.
8. All bishoprics were tightly held, according to the “SEE”’s official accounting—and of course it is impossible that there were hundreds of bishops that the “SEE”’s bishops knew nothing about, and therefore were never included in their histories. Or they knew about them, and persecuted them, told lies about their beliefs or exaggerated minor points of disagreement into mountains of heresies, and held them only as heretics because they wouldn’t knuckle under, but rather knew how to be led by God’s Holy Ghost.
9. No region that didn’t use Koine Greek as the native language could possibly have received the Gospel of Christ from travelers and merchants who had learned the native dialects long before they themselves had become believers. That is if you accept the reasoning of people who believe the gospel could only be propagated along the Apian Way in the first century.
I know quite a few people who have learned to speak several dialects of Chinese without ever sitting in a language school, and some don’t have more than a high school education and perhaps got C- or D+ in their high school French class—but when they were regenerated by the Holy Ghost (that means SAVED, if one can ever think beyond the doctrine of the Apian Way), and God put a fire for the Christ and the Gospel in their hearts, the Holy Spirit also enlivened in them a new purpose for learning language, and so they found themselves bi-lingual and tri-lingual. But nobody in the first century could possibly have been so gifted and moved by God in the Barbarian dialects north of the official borders of the Roman Empire. Nobody ever sat around a night fire with Vandals or Barbarians Germanics in the first century and said, “Hey, I learned something about a Saviour from sin while I was buying these textiles in southern Byzantania, and I’d like to tell you about that Saviour.”
10, We simply must not allow in history the possibility that their were any soul-winning Christians where the “SEE” could not see—and control.
Except that she was called the Mother of God and her Son called her the Mother of the Church.
There is no mention of her life OR HER DEATH there is certainly no mention of her "assumption"
You CANNOT use the lack of something to disprove its existence.
Seeing that the OT faithfully records Elijah but fails to mention such a" momentous occasion "as the assumption of the mother of Christ is noteworthy also that it was not told to the unbelievers to reinforce the nature of Christ is also unbelievable..
Do you belong to a Nestorian sect?
In my opinion she has been made the equivalent of a goddess by the traditions put in place by the popes..
Thankfully your OPINION is wrong.
The pictures are of icons that can easily become a source of worship.. so they actually put souls in danger of idolatry .
So why aren't people DEMANDING that those particular "icons" be removed? Why were those particular "icons" even put there in the first place?
Not a word on tradition there.. The letters of Paul (the scriptures) contain his words passed on ..they were preserved for us so that they not be distorted..
Of course there's nothing about tradition here, Saint Paul is descrbibing Apostolic Succession. Jesus Christ and the Apostles speak at length about TEACHING the Church, there is NOTHING in there about laymen interpreting scripture for themselves.
You lost me right there. IMHO He/they taught against SOME tradition, not all.
Honestly, I am trying to find a place where Christ taught against tradition, instead of simply expounding on Jewish law to his followers, or answering the legal challenges of the scribes and Pharisees...
Do you know any tradition He taught against, just off the top of your head?
From MY POV, FWIW, "together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers," (Acts 1:14) sounds like she WAS singled out.
Golly dang that’s a pretty church.
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.