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

Me

[Dr. Eckleburg]

No Presbyterian prays to Machen, nor calls him our mediator, nor considers him as a "dispenser of all graces," not thinks salvation comes through him, nor believes in "Machen's sacrifice."

Yet all those titles are openly, freely and pridefully given to Mary -- in defiance of God's holy word.

Repent.

Machen was a minister. Ministers are teaching elders. Elders are members of the congregation. The congregation, the priesthood of all believers, makes up Christ's church on earth. Read your Bible.

Oh, wait. Is this post also "making you stronger in your beliefs?" If so, maybe you should stop reading it.

Nevermind.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

One would think that if you were sincere in your concern or in a desire to understand Catholicism or even had an affinity for the truth and truthfulness you would post a point and ask for a Catholic response instead or hurling an accusation wrapped in lies and insults

I do not "hurl accusations wrapped in lies and insults."

Is it possible for RCs to post within the rules of FR? Cronos was just told not to call other FReepers liars and yet you do continually.

Discuss the topic; not the poster.

[caww]

...(”To imagine that we are not controlled is to imagine that there is no God. For when we say God, we say control. If a single creature which God has made has escaped beyond his control, at the moment that he has done so he has abolished God. A God who could or would make a creature whom he could not or would not control, is no God. The moment he should make such a creature he would, of course, abdicate his throne. The universe he had created would have ceased to be his universe; or rather it would cease to exist-for the universe is held together only by the control of God.”)...

This author seems to confuse control of creation with the free will of man in my opinion. I say this because God created us “in His image and likeness”...and “breathed into us “the breath of life”...”and man became a living being”

We are a reflection of Him, set above all His creation works, the animals, the ground(earth) etc. With this the ability to communicate with Him, not by instinct as with animals but with a mind to reason, and think, and determine in order to make choices...”to eat of the tree of life”...or....”the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Which was a choice...a matter of ones will or will not.
(I will choose this or that, or I’ll not choose this or that.)

This then seperates us from the creation/universe.

Further...I certainly do not think of control when I think of God, let alone that I would think there is no God if I’m not controlled. That just seems a senseless statement.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen. No “male temple prostitutes” in my KJV.

[Forest Keeper]

So while that text [Luke 2:48-50] under a certain understanding MIGHT BE construed to contradict the Integrated Circuit, uh, I mean Immaculate Conception, it does not necessarily do so.

Yes, I fully agree.

... I still think it's forcing things to suggest that he meant something like a proposition expressible in Boolean logic. ALL elements of the set MEN where the set excludes MEN who are also GOD, have sinned.

OK, I guess I would think it is forcing things to include Christ in the group given the context of the sentence:

There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

I would think no listener or reader would suppose that Christ needed justifying or redeeming. Plus, He is named separately here and I would think it reasonable that this means He was not intended to be included in the set of men.

FK: It would seem that Catholicism would be forced to claim there is an override from extra-Biblical Tradition, but not from scripture.

Well I wouldn't say "override" exactly.

I just meant it in the sense of a greater weight of authority saying that the plainest meaning is not the correct one. In that sense we use theological "overrides" all the time. :)

So, it looks like your default pattern is, FIRST draw the best conclusion we can from Scripture alone. THEN, if other paradosis contradicts what we got first, toss it out.

Well, yes, I suppose that's right. :) I would figure that inspired writing is always and forever superior to uninspired writing in cases of contradiction. But of course in many cases extra-scriptural Tradition does not contradict scripture. The teaching simply isn't mentioned one way or another. I do not immediately throw those out. No need. :)

But I'd say all along the Scripture has been the Queen of Tradition, but it has not been read outside of tradition.

Right, and so begins the debate about which is considered the greater weight of authority. I would say that scripture read in light of Tradition is completely different from Tradition being read in light of scripture.

[Natural Law]

"Cronos was just told not to call other FReepers liars and yet you do continually."

Are you attempting to make this about me and not the topic? Besides, I don't need to point out the obvious.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Saying that I "hurl lies" is "making it personal" and against the rules of FR religion forum.

Try to obey the rules.

[Iscool]

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence here, but a lot of folks who just use the online resources don't know that little tidbit of information.

Thanks for the info...

So now, if we look at the Strong's definition for 5302 and 5303, we can properly read it:

But wait a minute...The definition you posted has the phrase, 'that which is behind' in 5303...That's the word used in Col. 1:24...

First, from the 1978 Moulton's Analytical Greek Lexicon:

This source from Moulton appears to be a different word, since it has other words connected with it...Plus, it appears to be a translation from the LXX which the KJV translators did not use...

And finally from Thayer's:

Thayer's doesn't match any of the others...

I don't see the error here...Help me out...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Either God is in control or men are in control. And I sure hope it's the former.

Since you're up late you might want to read a nifty little piece by the theologian, Cornelius Van Til...

WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD

[Iscool]

Somebody pulled the statue in front of my St. Mary parish over, presumably with their vehicle and a rope, breaking it into several pieces. Probably it was no one on these threads, but I can easily recognize the mindset, yes.

Did any one see it??? Was it a green Ford pick-up, with a Michigan plate???

[Cronos]

............ I say that it is more accurate to say that we will not admit that we are controlled. For we are controlled, whether we admit it or not. To imagine that we are not controlled is to imagine that there is no God. For when we say God, we say control. If a single creature which God has made has escaped beyond his control, at the moment that he has done so he has abolished God. A God who could or would make a creature whom he could not or would not control, is no God. The moment he should make such a creature he would, of course, abdicate his throne. The universe he had created would have ceased to be his universe; or rather it would cease to exist-for the universe is held together only by the control of God.

That statemetn presupposes that our actions signify something outside God's control -- which is falsch. For God, His control is the ability he's given us to choose. He doesn't micromanage, yet He has His plan for mankind. If Hitler choose to be evil, that does not negate God's plan, nor does it mean God cannot come down "deus-ex-machina" and resolve things, but that would remove our free will.

[Cronos]

Don't RCs ever wonder how a mortal (Mary) in heaven now supposedly possesses divine characteristics like the ability to see "almost an infinite number" of people at the same time?

You've already raised this ad infinitum before and this has been refuted -- we do not believe she has divine characteristics -- all that Mary hears or answers is through God.

[Cronos]

So, does that imply that OPC’s are not Presbyterian since the OPC prays to Machen, calls him OPC’s mediator or God.

[Iscool]

The argument made for that (by Nestorius) was similar to yours that he thought the latter term (Mother of God) signified that Mary gave birth to the entire Godhead.

That's probably because that's the impression one gets when you spout off about Mary being the mother of God...

One doesn't have to differentiate between the entities of the Godhead...When we are speaking of God, we are speaking of the Godhead...

And no, Mary is not the mother of God...

Mary is the mother of one part of the Trinity...And she is NOT the natural mother of that part of the Trinity...It is not even conclusive that Mary was the natural mother of Jesus at all...

Jesus was produced from Mary's seed...Women don't have a seed...Was the seed part of Mary or was it deposited???

Jesus (the Trinity) had been alive for eons before he connected with the seed of Jesus that was in Mary's womb...

This was a super-duper supernatural event that God has chosen to keep mum about as far as the small details are concerned...

Elizabeth called Mary the mother of our LORD...NOT the mother of God...And yes, Mary is the mother of our Lord...

And of course, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all the Lord...I like to think of the Lord as our Shepherd...As opposed to the God of Creation...

You guys start calling Mary the mother of the Lord, I may buy that...

[Iscool]

Only a few of the supposedly Protestant or Baptist posters here (like Forest Keeper, though I don't agree with your points, FK, at least you keep it as a debate, not a name-calling exercise -- there are numerous others on FR of course and even on this thread,) really ARE Christ-believing as opposed to a "let's fight about something" group.

Now that's an extremely funny post in view of this:

Enemies of The Church are not your Holy, Christ-believing Christian Protestants. Rather, you have various cultic groups like the OPC, various "I believe in the Church of myself" nutcases and the UFO-ologist and Israelo-Christologists that inhabit these posts.

[Cronos]

The links you post are to lying websites. The examples posted as supposedly “Christian websites” are really “blogs” or “anti-Reformed, anti-Baptist, anti-Catholic” lying websites. And, the accusations thrown in these posts and websites are so hilariously wrong and false, they’re funny.

[Iscool]

Then I saw posters post things like "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."

HaHa...This is a true statement...But it's not just true of the Great Catholic church...It's true of all churches...But there's one interesting difference...

A demon possessed person can hang around i any church...But your's is the only church that will past out 'Jesus' to anyone that gets in line...Don't you think that's a little odd...

How do figure Jesus feels about getting eaten by a demon???

but KNOW the little lies (like "Easter" supposedly being related to 'Eostre' -- completely forgetting that in other languages, like Polish, it isn't called Easter, but "Great Night" or Pascha) that are used to led people away from The Church.

Sorry but Easter is a Pagan holiday...Always has been...Long before Jesus even showed up...

The attacks on Christ's bride, have only made Her stronger.

You didn't get into the bible deep enough...The Wedding takes place in Heaven...During the Tribulation...You guys plan on being here during the Tribulation...You're going to miss the Wedding...How you going to be the Bride when you miss the Wedding???

[Iscool]

Don't RCs ever wonder how a mortal (Mary) in heaven now supposedly possesses divine characteristics like the ability to see "almost an infinite number" of people at the same time?

They apparently don't have to wonder, about anything...They just follow each other up and down the ditch...

[Forest Keeper]

If God’s chief will is to have sons, not slaves, then he MUST give the potential sons the option of disobeying. Indeed, if he wanted slaves, he could have skipped the Garden of Eden and the Fall altogether.

Christ was describing God's will when He talked about the sons the Father would/did give Him. We know that not everyone born is a child of God (John 1:12-13), and in fact the definition of being a son of God includes accepting Him. So, for salvation purposes there is no opportunity to disobey because one has already obeyed to even be called a Son. (Do I sound like Edith Bunker?) Anyway, there ARE NO potential sons. There are only the ones the Father has given to Christ.

In addition I would say that if He wanted robots He could have skipped the Garden and the Fall. But He would rather have His children be slaves to righteousness with "A" will. Naturally, we slaves blow it sometimes and do not serve our Master well. We are then subject to His discipline, which we are all familiar with. :)

God’s grace to every man - whether it is ‘common grace’ or some sort of ‘prevenient grace’ (a term I hadn’t heard of until today) - via natural revelation is sufficient to show we are evil, there is a creator, and we need to repent. .... [Quote from Rom.1] .... Thus, an analogy of a little kid who doesn’t know to avoid traffic isn’t appropriate.

Why not? We tell little kids not to do stuff all the time. They know they are not to do such and such, but what happens? They do it anyway. Think of Adam. He had all the freedom in the world and one, just ONE rule to follow. What did he do? Did he act like an adult who made an informed, reasoned decision, or did he act like a four-year-old? :) The Bible teaches that all are without excuse, but it also teaches that God's teachings are nonsense to the unbeliever:

1 Cor. 2:12-16 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: 16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

So what does this make us as non-believers, more like a fully informed adult, or a clueless child?

Here is a passage I hadn’t thought much about: [Acts 10:1-6]. ...... This is before he heard the Gospel. It is before he received the Holy Spirit. Yet what does it say?

“A devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God...”Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.”

Kind of hard to argue that Cornelius did nothing approved of by God until AFTER conversion. God’s grace had sufficiently warned Cornelius that he was prepared to be saved. I suppose a PD would say that God had given Cornelius ‘saving grace’ already, or some such thing. But I think grace is grace.

I think you anticipated my response correctly. The part you quoted gave me a clue because God obviously heard and approved of the man's prayers. I would put him in the category of an OT righteous Jew, even though he was obviously a Gentile. He showed saving faith that would grow upon him hearing the Gospel.

And about receiving the Holy Spirit, I feel I should make a distinction. I think we may be contacted (touched) by the Holy Spirit in more than one way. At the very beginning the Holy Spirit can "touch" us to deliver saving grace (baptism of the Spirit, or regeneration), but at that point He does not indwell. Holy Spirit only indwells upon belief, which comes later.

1 Thess 4 says, “7For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.” - so yes, even Christians can disregard God.

Yes, but not to the point of losing salvation. IIRC you had said earlier that you agree with Perseverance of the Saints.

But we are not like 2 year olds left next to a busy street. We have no excuse for not apprehending the danger.He has revealed enough that WE have no excuse.

We have no excuse AND we act like two year olds. Just look at the whole OT and everything the Israelites did. How many times did you say to yourself, as I did, "How stupid can these people be?" They acted like small children. But then I realize that I am no different. I still make extremely stupid choices, unfitting for a Christian. So, I really am FULLY dependent on God for everything. Even as a Christian I wouldn't make it five minutes all on my own. That makes me a little child, not a fully informed and responsible adult.

[Mad Dawg]

I don’t think there’s a confusion., but I’m open to correction.

In our thought, every least bit of suffering that our lord underwent from conception until death was offered to God as part of His atoning sacrifice. His whole “work” (as they say) is an offering, a climax of which is the offering of Good Friday. But the crucifixion is different in degree, not kind, (I’m arguing) from every other moment of his life.

That resonates with the Catholic deal of “offering up” our own lives and suffering united, in the Spirit, with the life and pains of Christ.