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?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: “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’.

Relatively speaking, how would this then not make God little more than sort of a scribe, in essence, with the population of Heaven being ultimately solely decided by humans and not God? From this I picture God holding out a hoop before all humanity. With His foreknowledge He simply observes which humans choose (will choose) to jump through it, and then writes their names down in the Book of Life. If this is the formula, then the Book of Life might contain the names of all people who ever lived or no one at all, or anywhere in between, and all of it depends solely on human decisions concerning the condition God set, belief.

Please correct me if this is not your position, but if it IS your position then I still think it makes the concept of GOD predestinating meaningless BECAUSE the decisions are actually being made by humans, not Him. One who is predestinating is causing something to happen. Here, it would seem God would simply be copying the results of humans "destinating" themselves.

I think that for the concept of GOD predestinating to have meaning it must include God making sovereign decisions concerning the direct objects of the predestination. The way I'm reading your scenario is that God's REAL predestination is NOT a causal action concerning which individual people get into Heaven, but rather a declaring of the MEANS by which people can choose to get themselves into Heaven (whomever those people turn out to be). Again, this would be more like people "self-destinating" rather than God predestining. This would not seem to match the text in Rom. 8, which clearly has God as the actor in the predestinating. The concept of predestining must be larger than that of simply copying something down that someone already knows.

And IF all of this is correct, then another huge problem I see is how you could account for God's actions within time concerning people coming to faith. Does God do anything for people within time to help bring them to faith? If "no", then there is no problem here. But if God DOES act within time then His foreknowledge INCLUDES His own actions AND the results of those actions. This creates a paradox.

For example, we start with the assumption that God's predestination means that He set the condition of faith for salvation and He used His foreknowledge to peek at who those people would be, and then He "predestined" them. This would be God not interfering with the free will choice of man to believe or not. Further, we assume that God acts in some way within time (by grace, leading, or other means) to help bring people to faith, without forcing. The paradox is that God can't leave man's free will unfettered because when He peeks at everyone's free will yes/no decision He must also be peeking at the peoples' reactions to HIS actions. That would put the decisions back in God's hands (since God chooses His own actions) and thwart the free will "predestination as category" idea.

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 don't understand your use of "because of predestination". What changes because of predestination? I thought you were using predestination as God observing what has "already happened" through free will choice. That would mean that people would end up conformed to the image of His Son BECAUSE they believed, not because of predestination.

And please let me inject here that I am only trying to interpret what you have been saying in your good presentations on this very complex subject as best I can. If I'm all wet about describing your ideas then I am very sorry in advance. :)

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?

Well, "yes" and "yes" (sort of). :) God gives a new heart to those He chooses first, and then with that new heart the person chooses to take God's hand and begin the dance.

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!

OK good. That helps me past a big hurdle. :)

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.

If one is already a full believer before regeneration, then what does regeneration do? Why would we need it (if we do)? Or, how would they operate together?

FK: “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”?

Well, both, I think. Your first statement to the group announces the condition that must be met for entry. That is, $5, as opposed to anyone who can do a handstand or has a hard boiled egg in his pocket, etc. The group is then on notice with valuable information.

Then, for your own reasons, you pull out your list and give certain people the $5, who then get in immediately. Everyone else sees this, and not only is your original statement proved true the rest of the people find out HOW it is true. It's true because the $5 was given. Now what will the rest of the people do? Well, I suppose some might walk away and never come back, and some might try again the next day. (The analogy can't be a one shot deal, it has to cross time.) So the next day comes along and you say the same thing to a different group and give out $5 to certain of them, and the process is repeated. It is very possible that someone from the first day who didn't get in will get in this time.

You make an outward call putting everyone on notice as to what the rule is. Then you decide by what method people will meet the condition, and provide for it as you see fit. You own the shelter, you make the rules. You have no duty to allow anyone in at all. But in your mercy you choose to give warmth to some.

I don't see anything sneaky or misleading by the original statement, it is simply a fact, whoever has the $5 gets in. I think it is especially above board since we are even told how one comes into getting $5. It must be given. The same rule applies to everyone.

I wish more people would read his [Calvin's] commentaries and fewer concern themselves with him...and I think he would agree.

I agree with you too. His words stand or fall the same as with any other uninspired writer, how well do they reflect the scriptures.

[John Leland 1789]

“And, a personal question — do you agree with the website that you posted to when it trashes all Baptist groups?”

---

Just for informaton, David Cloud is in fact a Baptist who had, years ago, been a missionary in Napal, and was supported there by churches affiliated with some prominent Baptist missionary fellowships.

He is still actually highly regarded among Baptists, and his Baptist Encyclopedia is quite widely used.

[markomalley]

Wellllll......

There is a legend that Joseph of Arimathea escaped to Britain (Glastonbury) shortly after the death of Jesus (apparently, he was not on Herod's hit parade, according to this apocryphal legend).

Interesting story, but I don't believe that there is any more archeological evidence for it than for any of the other, numerous, Arthurian legends that came out from SW Britain.

Maybe that is what our cheesy FRiend is referring to.

[Cronos]

Just for informaton, David Cloud is in fact a Baptist who had, years ago, been a missionary in Napal, and was supported there by churches affiliated with some prominent Baptist missionary fellowships. He is still actually highly regarded among Baptists, and his Baptist Encyclopedia is quite widely used.

So, why does he bash Baptist groups? And, do you agree with him?

[esquirette]

Too bad the witnesses are recalcitrant.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“That I perceive such “art” – e.g. Madonna or Santa on the Cross posted earlier on the thread - as an insult to the body and blood of Christ is clearly a Christian sentiment. If I didn’t love Christ or if I didn’t consider the Cross sacred, I wouldn’t care.”

I said art, not “art”. The fact that you resort to Madonna and effigy of Santa on a cross and put that on the same level as real art speaks volumes about your thinking. You’re just proving my point.

[Cronos]

Even if the unproven legend were true, the fact is that Britain was in the Roman Empire ever since 44 BC (or at least, what is now England and Wales), so to say they weren’t aware of Rome is hilarious

[John Leland 1789]

He and I have had our run-INS. I cannot endorse everything on his site, no. He tends to be more “Landmark” Baptist, which I am not.

[esquirette]

In all fairness, I will add that there are a few Catholic blogs that comment on this passage by O’Brien, and all the apologists I read said they find that quote extreme, but typical of language that would have been used 70 years ago.

The secondary point then becomes that while Catholicism maintains that it is monolithic, and Protestants are (in the words of another poster here) ‘fractured,’ neither is clearly the case.

[Iscool]

Then tell me by which process and by whose hand did Scripture come to appear in your bible if not through the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

The bible I believe and read came no where near your church...Your religion has no fingerprints on my bible whatsoever...

[Natural Law]

,I.'The bible I believe and read came no where near your church...Your religion has no fingerprints on my bible whatsoever...

If you are referring to a Christian bible then your point is historically and demonstrably false. Even if your church broke away from the Catholic Church in the 15th century your spiritual roots and history are in the Catholic Church.

[Iscool]

Iscool has oft stated that Scripture was self generating and every single believer had a copy and could read it in the original KJV printed in English that Jesus and the Apostles taught from. As an old CofC preacher in Texas once spat at me: if English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for all men.

While you're trying to be cute, you apparently don't realize that the earliest church fathers almost exclusively quoted the texts that were used to later construct the KJV...One might say they used the KJV in the original Greek...

I don't know what you mean by self generating but I do believe God when ye said he would preserve his words, forever...That would be the original writings of the Prophets and the Apostles...

The fact that your Jerome made up 50 of his own version to give to Constantine means nothing to me...The fact that your church has created many of it's own versions of the scriptures also means nothing to me...

Sure, your religion created it's own versions of God's word, but it didn't create mine...

[Iscool]

On WHAT do you base THAT? That's astonishing. There are plenty of priests who are barely competent in theology.

Then why would God ordain them???

[Natural Law]

"While you're trying to be cute, you apparently don't realize that the earliest church fathers almost exclusively quoted the texts that were used to later construct the KJV...One might say they used the KJV in the original Greek...

Just who do you thing the "earliest Church fathers" were? You don't get much earlier than Peter who was the first Pope and there is a clear (Apostolic) succession right up to today. Besides, if Luther were alive today he would be a Catholic. If Calvin were alive today he would be a Chicago Democrat.

[markomalley]

The bible I believe and read came no where near your church...Your religion has no fingerprints on my bible whatsoever...

What "bible" do you believe and read then?

Clearly not the Christian Bible...

[wagglebee]

It’s truly comical what some people believe.

One of the sources for the KJV was the Vulgate and the translators of the KJV used the Douay-Rheims to double-check their translations of the New Testament.

[wagglebee]

I challenge ANY of the anti-Catholics to find a single verse in the KJV that they can show as being demonstrably different in the Douay-Rheims and by demonstrably different I mean that the clear meaning is changed.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

That was wonderfully put, by the way (sorry to be so slow in response)

[Iscool]

We say that Scripture is insufficient since Jesus gave us much more than simply Scripture - as a matter of fact Jesus gave us no Scripture.

That's right...It's just a meaningless book...Jesus gave you tradition and your catechism...And Jesus gave the Mormons Joe Smith and the book of Moroni...

God gave the muzlims mohammed...And God gave the Hindus Buddah...And God gave the Christian Scientists Tom Cruise...

You guys can keep your various false religions and I'll keep on believing and reading the book...The scriptures that Jesus gave me...

But why did you steal the name Christian out of my book??? It doesn't belong to anyone other than those who believe the book came from Jesus...

It's interesting you tell us the scriptures are not sufficient...But your catechism is...What are the scriptures not sufficient for???

[Cronos]

The bible I believe and read came no where near your church...

So then, which Bible are you referring to? The Anarchists bible? Or the book of Moroni? Because the Christian Bible has been associated with The Church for quite a while now, you know....