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?
You see, it's another example of how one myth about us breeds with a truth and produces a falsehood. The first myth is that of an iron-handed paranoid, and minute control over everything whatsoever. The truth is that some books sometimes want an "imprimatur". The resulting falsehood is "Since they don't permit anything they don't completely approve of, they must completely approve of any book with the imprimatur."
I know there are differences in some phrases. What I asked for is a verse from the KJV that is demonstrably different in the D-R.
You wrote:
“My disapproval of anything or anyone being draped on the Cross as if to say it or he is equal to Christ is a matter of spiritual discernment not art appreciation.”
You lack discernment. The figure is not draped on the cross. She has one arm - one arm - draped on one cross beam and it is clearly a sign of her longing for the figure Who had been there - Jesus Christ. There is nothing in the sculpture that even remotely hints that the artist meant to portray the the woman (Mary?) as equal to Christ or that the artists intended you to come to that bizarre conclusion. The misinterpretation is cleary entirely on your end. You have no discernment worth speaking of in this matter.
For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God. - Deut 4:24
“To God be the glory, not man, never man!”
You do realize that your verse from Deut. has NOTHING to do with the actual statue since there is no indication whatsoever that the artist was trying to supplant God?
Also, God will share His glory with us. Even Protestants usually admit this. It’s in their Bible translations:
“With Your counsel You will guide me, And afterward receive me to glory” (Psalm 73:24, NASB 1995).
“For the Lord God is a sun and shield; The Lord gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly” (Psalm 84:11, NASB 1995).
Do I even need to mention 1 Cor. 15:43 or Philippians 3:21?
How about 2 Timothy 2:11-12? Heb. 2:10 ring a bell?
Okay, I was just clarifying.
Your posts are so congenial. I really appreciate that.
Say - didn’t you have work to do. . . .
My very favorite Bear. :-D
What??? A mother was touching the tool used to kill her Son in a way that indicated sadness????? There’s a sculptor that will burn in hell, no doubt....
Love God. Believe Him. Trust Him.
The Latin term for "let it be printed," which signifies the approval by a bishop of a religious work for publication. Authors are at liberty to obtain the imprimatur either from the bishop where they reside, or where the book is to be published, or where it is printed. Generally the imprimatur, along with the bishop's name and date of approval, is to be shown in the publication. According to a decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1975), "the Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be vigilant lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and consequently even to demand that the publication of writings concerning the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval, and also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals." (Etym. Latin imprimere, to impress, stamp imprint.)
Approved by the diocesan censor to publish a manuscript dealing with faith or morals. The date of the approval and the name of the person approving (censor deputatus, delegated censor) are normally printed in the front of the book along with a bishop's imprimatur.
It can be printed. Permission that a religious receives from his major superior to publish a manuscript on a religious subject. This implies approval of the writing by the superior and clearance to receive a bishop's imprimatur.
Imprint usually present on documents:
"The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."
The above quote is very important to understanding a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. Those certifications simply state that the diocesan censor and bishop do not find doctrinal or moral error. They does not mean that approved books are official teachings of the Church, rather that they do not, as far as the censor and bishop can tell, contradict those official teachings. Big difference.
Also, see Code of Canon Law Canons 822-832, which provide the legal requirements.
Yes, shocking indeed!
You wrote:
“We obviously have completely different spiritual discernment on this matter.”
Yes, but mine is based upon the facts of the matter and common sense, while yours seems to be based on feelings. You cannot produce any reasonable explanation thus far as to why this statue is a problem.
“And you are welcome to your opinion. And I am welcome to disregard them.”
Yes, you are. But a person who disregards an opinion that is more sound, reasonable and logical than her own is doomed to error.
My New Year’s resolutions were to gain weight and procrastinate more. I’m doing pretty well ....
Hmmm. I want to moderate your thesis thus: In the infrequent places where the two differ it is because the KJV folks had an agenda.
moderate = modify.
I think there are doctrinal differences going from D-R to KJV, I’m not so sure about going from KJV to D-R.
But a person who disregards an opinion that is more sound, reasonable and logical than her own is doomed to error.
In my case, the most certain knowledge I have is Spiritual revelation - both direct ("Jesus Christ is Lord" did not come from me) and indirect (words of God revealed by His prophets.) For me, all other forms of knowledge, e.g. sensory perception and reasoning, are greatly subordinated.
For instance, if the indwelling Spirit is telling me to persevere even though every thing I see and project tells me to run, I will stay put.
And in this case, the revulsion I have for things placed in lieu of the body and blood of my Lord Jesus Christ stems from deep within my spirit.
For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God. – Deut 4:24
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
“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).”
Oddly enough, the verse that most strongly turned me away from ‘predestination’ was Romans 8:29. I always liked the story of the man who said, “If scripture says the whale swallowed Jonah, I believe it! And if it said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I’d believe that!” Like many, when I first started studying this last summer, I mostly heard the PD side, and scripture DOES speak of election, chosen & predestination - so who am I to tell God otherwise?
But then I read in Romans:
“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. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
What does predestination mean, in scripture? It occurred to me I might be looking at it wrong - that predestination (predetermined destination) might mean that those he foreknew were predestined to a goal, to a destination. And election is TO something, but not to being born again.
After all, in a human election, whoever meets a predetermined criteria (most votes cast, most votes cast but must be over 50%, most votes cast by eligible voters and women don’t vote (1800s - the Golden Age of democracy!), whoever meets a criteria set in advance is elected - TO go and hold office.
And in Romans 29-30, those God calls are also the same as those he foreknew, as are the ones justified, sanctified, and glorified.
When I went back and looked at a list from the Concordance of predestination and election and elect, I concluded that this interpretation explains those verses as well as Calvin’s did. And did so while still allowing the hundreds of explicit verses about ‘choose’, ‘repent’, ‘decide’, and ‘turn’ to be taken at face value.
I’m not asked to believe Jonah swallowed the whale...just that the whale swallowed Jonah.
God determined, before creation, who would be saved - ‘whosoever believeth’. These he foreknew, and he predestined them to be conformed to his Son. And he has & will call, justify, sanctify and glorify them so his will is achieved.
For reference, here are all the verses with ‘predestine’:
Act 4:28 “to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
Rom 8:29 For 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.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
1Cr 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
God has predestined...well, Calvin says a list of names, I say ‘whosoever believeth’...to be: “conformed to his Son”, adopted, and obtain an inheritance.
Predestination sets the end state: sons, conformed to His Son, adopted by God and with a certain inheritance.
The word eklektos appears 24 times in 22 verses:
Mat 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Mat 24:22 “And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
Mat 24:24 “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
Mat 24:31 “And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mar 13:20 “And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mar 13:22 “False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mar 13:27 “And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Luk 18:7 “And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?
Luk 23:35 And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!”
Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Rom 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.
Col 3:12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,
1Ti 5:21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Tts 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 2:4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,
1Pe 2:6 For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
2Jo 1:1 The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,
2Jo 1:13 The children of your elect sister greet you.
Rev 17:14 “They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”
There are other words involved, so this isn’t a complete scripture list, but it isn’t biased in any way...I pulled it from Strong’s Concordance in total.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1588&t=ESV
“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.”
Maybe. John MacArthur claims there are paradoxes that we are meant to accept rather than explain. I agree. As a Sola Scriptura kind of guy, I get nervous when we move beyond what God has revealed and start discussing details we were not provided with.
Does God give grace - in this case, revelation of Himself - to people who don’t deserve it? Yes.
Does He give it in equal measure? No.
Do I know why? No.
But God is just. At our service last night, our pastor (who isn’t Catholic) pointed out these verses:
“14And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” - Matt 10
George thinks Jesus meant it. He pointed out what Jesus said in Luke 12: “47 And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”
A more explicit revelation of God isn’t always a good thing, in the sense that those who reject it will have greater guilt than one whose revelation was creation, the seasons, etc.
“14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
So do I understand it all? No. I think scripture is clear that God’s grace is given out in different measure, and God doesn’t explain why. After all, He never gave Job an explanation as well. Several chapters of challenge, and not a single attempt at an explanation. But in the end, Job says:
5I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.” - Job 42
When we meet God, our questions will cease.
HOwever, we ought to TRY to understand as much as God has given us.
“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.”
This sounds like the ‘Can we see an atom?” argument...our looking would disturb the atom, so what we would see would no longer be the true atom. But I don’t see it as such a dilemma applied here.
My son is in his 20s. Money burns a hole in his pocket. I’m not even sure he has a pocket! So do I give him money to help him out? No. I see no reason to hand him money he will waste. Based on past experience, rather than perfect foreknowing, I refuse to hand him money he could really use. My actions impact his, but it is still his choice when he spends food money on a video game.
“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 risk error when we try to tie God’s hands and say he must do X before Y. And when I say we must believe first, I take the same risk as those who say God must give a new heart first.
However, the new heart argument is largely based on the idea that we are “DEAD” in our sin. But we also read that we are slaves of sin, servants of sin, children who sin, sick...
Also, the idea of ‘prevenient’ grace is that God starts working in our lives to save us, and that which he does prior to conversion is prevenient grace, and afterward is called saving grace.
I just call it grace, which leads to greater damnation if rejected, or salvation if accepted. And I reject the idea that God must save you fully and make you born again prior to belief. Cornelius had some belief approved of by God prior to his conversion. The Jews in Jerusalem on Pentecost were cut to the quick BEFORE conversion. The Ethiopian was asking prior to God telling Philip “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”
And I reject the idea God hates those who aren’t on his list. The rich young ruler walked away - yet Jesus loved him.
“If one is already a full believer before regeneration, then what does regeneration do?”
People aren’t full believers before conversion. I didn’t tell anyone about my conversion in the 7th grade, and a couple of months later we moved.
For the first year or more, I thought every time I sinned I lost salvation, and needed to convert all over again. I converted a LOT before the 9th grade - I may hold the record for the most ‘conversions’ in history. No one told me any different. I wasn’t baptized until after the 9th grade - no one told me about baptism. I read of it in the Bible, but I didn’t notice it for a long time.
This fall will be 40 years since my conversion, or 45 if you date it to my prayer in 2nd grade. I can’t say I fully believe now, and don’t expect to this side of Heaven. The more I learn, the less I know, so to speak.
“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...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 disagree. To make this an analogy, someone CANNOT come back the next day, because who gets $5 was set before any of them were born. I’m saying someone with $5 can come in, but in reality only those I give $5 to will be able to enter, and I’m actively preventing the rest from getting $5.
So what really matters is my list, not the $5. The $5 is a red herring, and red herrings are meant to deceive. When scripture tells someone to repent, or believe, and that faith is the means of our salvation, I take that at face value.
With a hundred verses on that side, I use those to provide light for 3 or 4 verses that seem to say otherwise. The more verses I can take at face value, the better my interpretation is. It is like mathematical modeling of biological systems...you take the model, make predictions, and then see how closely the predictions match reality. The fewer disconnects, the better the model.
One big difference is that the KJV was based upon the Stephenus Greek text from the 16th Century for the NT and the ben Asher Masoretic Hebrew (from the 10th Century). For stylistic purposes, it also copied a lot from the Douay.
The Douay Rheims, of course, was based on the Vulgate.
Interestingly, though, there would have been more ancient Greek and Hebrew texts available to Jerome than would have been available to Erasmus or Estienne.
Makes ya wonder doesn’t it?? just who’s church is it anyway.. mothers or Sons ???
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.