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 will not find Arminius view in the early confessions of the Protestant church. They are Catholic in nature stemming from Pelegius and Cassian. So I don’t consider Arminius or his followers to be a viable source. I would suggest going back to the early creeds of the church.”
You mean, the Ecumenical Councils? HarleyD! I’m shocked!
But I mention Arminius because so many put words in his mouth that he neither spoke, wrote, or agreed with. I don’t do it for authority - I leave scripture for that. And since 4-500 verses support my view, I think I’ll keep it.
We don't want to be like the blokes in the joke on the house top in the flood who resisted the canoe, the motor boat and the helicopter and complained that God didn't come for them.
This is a wonderful parable. With your permission, let me re-tell it.
The man had a conversation with God and concluded that he is from then on saved.So when the radio announced that there is going to be a flood, he said "I am fine. I am saved already."
The waters advanced and the neighbors knocked on his door. "Fast! we have room in our truck, let us help you evacuate". No, he said, I am saved already.
The roads became impassable and the police came in a boat. It is not too late to evacuate, they said, hop in the boat. "No" the man replied, "I know from God that I am saved already".
Finally, the Coast Guard dropped a ladder from a helicopter, as our man was sitting on the roof of his by now submerged house. Same result.
Next, the man drowned and went to heaven. "God", -- he said, -- "I admit I am a bit shaken in my faith. Didn't you tell me that I was saved? Yet, I drowned! And you, God, did nothing!" -- "Who do you think sent you the truck, the boat and the helicopter?", God replied.
Interestingly,
I started, at the time, to chide you a bit . . . that it was unnecessary and beneath you. I just felt in my spirit to let it be, that God would let you know. Interesting.
Besides, I was certain that some would guffaw to the point of dangerously choking on their own spit if I did so publically. IIRC, I was going to do so privately but felt to not even do that, oddly.
I think God fashions HIS arrows uniquely each for its own purpose. I think you do extremely well what you normally do. PRAISE GOD FOR THAT.
Understanding hearts is such a tricky GOD-ONLY-FOSTERED thing. It’s fairly common for vivid things to obscure, hide, disguise MORE subtle things. PRAISE GOD FOR HIS FAITHFULNESS.
I think I live all my heart brazenly on my sleeve in front of God and everyone. Yet, I know that probably most folks have trouble having a clue about my heart and a lot else about me. LOL.
Humans are such complex critters.
Yet they are a real kick to love, regardless . . . sometimes regardless of THEIR infuriating insufferable-ness! LOL.
RELIGION is probably THE area of life where it’s easiest to miss the forest for the trees in one another.
It’s very human to try and throw the baby out with the bath—and that in harsh, all encompassing black/white ways.
Yet, there’s no greater kick than Loving God and loving others—regardless. PRAISE GOD.
I don’t know that I do anything very perfectly, except be imperfect.
I certainly don’t love God or anyone else perfectly. I do try, by His Grace, to keep at it. And, I try to keep my heart toward others as clear of negative stuff from hell, by God’s Grace, as I know how to do.
I make no bones about fierce hostility toward things which I understand God to hate. However, the people involved are persons made in God’s image. Besides, in many cases, I’ve been in similar boats on many similar things. I remember what it’s like.
And it was the fiercest folks with the most hostility toward some of those boats—and sometimes even against me personally—who helped me out of them, the most. I realize God can use anything. Nevertheless, that’s always stuck with me. Many times when I was wailing and whining to God about such treatment, He had the audacity to say that they were right in the outrageously insufferable thing they’d just said to me. LOL.
God can be quite nonplus-ed in HIS audacity! LOL.
Anyway—FR is a kick. And the Religion Forum is the greatest kick on FR.
Now if we could just tweak a little more light out of some of the heat! LOL.
All I have to add to this is that our passions are typically opposed to spiritual forces. We should not be expecting a rich emotional life in heaven, but we should be expecting a rich spiritual life. We can only see it darkly now. But, the natural body, — the seat of passions — dies and the spiritual body rises. The time is working with us.
Sometimes it does seem like many Roman Catholics et al
know about as much about Roman Catholicism etc
as many Mormons know about Mormanism.
And something is wrong with US for not agreeing with her stunning inability to process the entire text of the Catechism.
If Catholics can’t understand their Catechism then, yes, they do need lecturing on them. I’ve been called “stupid” by some of the Catholics out here. Well sorry, but I find that Catholics can’t even read their Catachisms nor can they understand them-even when I post them in plain sight.
I don’t need to read the entire catechism to reconize heretical-bordering on blasphemous-doctrine. If a person does not understand that the wrath of God rest on them and accepts that our Lord Jesus paid their price, they are simply not saved. This is the gospel handed down by the fathers. If the Church is not teaching this, and it’s not, then it is not teaching the gospel.
############
Plenty truth in both paragraphs, imho.
However, the INSTITUTION (and I suspect the Catechism) is all over the water front, the landscape. Individual pastors in some congregations do teach such Biblical truths as a more or less accurate understanding of Christ’s Blood bought Redemption for us.
You’re trying to judge the Catholic Church based on what is missing from a few paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church but is nonetheless present throughout the rest of that Catechism.
Excellent points, imho.
Thanks for your thoughtful Biblical postings.
But you haven’t read the Catechism either, have you?
I believe I've already pointed out the verse in John that we believe because we belong to Christ. You rejected it without offering a reasonable interpretation. Faith, which is cause of our believe, is a gift from God and is documented in Corinthians. Yet you don't seem to want to admit that. I have pointed out the verse in Timothy that states God brings us to repentance. But somehow I didn't receive a logical explanation but only more scriptures taken out of context. I see no discussion of John 6 of how God the Father gives us to the Son and the Son keeps us.
Of course, you agree that man can resist God’s ‘public call’, and you agree that we can resist God’s will in our lives
No, I never made that claim. No one can resist the will of God regardless whether they are saved or not. Jonah certainly didn't want to go to Nineveh. You could say that he exercised his "free will" and headed in the other direction. God brought him back.
It says we have power to STRIVE: ...Do you deny it?
Absolutely. It's heresy. We rest in Christ. The Lord is our Shepherd who guides us even though we walk through the valley of death. We can do nothing without Christ and we have NO power within us to strive against the darkness.
Someone forgot to tell Jesus & Paul.“Mat 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
What, the WE can strive against the world. This is Catholic doctrine. Wasn't it Paul that stated, "I can do all things IN CHRIST who strenghtens me"? Or how about Christ who said, "I am the vine you are the branches. Without me you can do nothing." No, I think Jesus and Paul were both informed.
First the Father draws. And if God does not intervene, none of us have the choice of coming. But God HAS drawn us, and those who respond by coming
This interpretation falls flat in light of Romans 1-3. God does not draw all men. Judas was one of many scriptural examples.
Now why would the Holy Spirit forbid speaking in certain places? Don’t know.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to try to understand why?
The SBC says there is ample room for both in the Convention, so the official SBC position is that we are not heretics.
I might point out, this was the same position the Pope took with John Cassian and Augustine interpretation of scripture about 400 AD. It eventually lead to the Reformation.
LOL.
Great version.
Thx.
However, it would appear . . . from his last conversation with God, that he really was ‘saved already.’ LOL.
My understanding from those who’ve had extended visits to Heaven . . . is that . . .
PASSIONs are intensified there.
Even the grasses are !ALIVE!
Then there’s the bit about LIVING STONES.
It’s in the Que.
I’m still on
TEN SERIES OF MEDITATIONS ON THE MYSTERIES OF THE ROSARY
With the Vatican/Papal imprimateur on it.
I am sometimes skeptical that you and others have read the Catachism.
Presentations of it hereon have been all over the waterfront.
Allay your skepticism.
I read its 2800+ paragraphs in 1996.
Ahhhh . . .
This should be interesting, then.
reparation means to repair. Christ did not "repair" anything. He "replace" us.
Oh my goodness. I guess in your book Jesus is a one-trick pony. Specifically he cannot repair the relationship between God and Man because he atoned it. No possibility that atonement might be a kind of repair.
Further, in our language when we want to say "repair" we say, um "repair." In contrast to that, when Germany lost WWI we insisted that they pay "reparations." That does not mean that we asked them to 'repair" buildings and stuff. It means we exacted a penalty proportionate (we thought) to the damage they had done and the criminal motivation and nature of the war.
There was (and is) a penalty for disobedience. Jesus paid it. That's how we use the word reparation. We do not take our cars to the auto-reparation shop. It sounds ridiculous, it looks ridiculous, most people, seeing the little switch from the first complaint to a quibble about language will note the implicit admission that your first ridiculous accusation is weak, as anyone who looks in the CCC for more than 5 minutes could have seen without this waste of time.
When you see see clear and convincing proof that you are wrong, you just redefine the words. It's embarrassing to watch.
And the same with faults.
Your reading of the "No, man, not even the holiest ..." passage is frankly incredible, and just as embarrassing. The NEXT SENTENCE is:
The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all. Remember, You said we do not teach that IHS takes on himself the sins of the world. This asserts that because of his divine Nature Jesus WAS able to take on himself the sins of all men, the very thing you said we do NOT teach. So you are mistaken. And so you changed the subject to the union of two natures in one Christ. Embarrassing again.
There is NO denial in this statement of Jesus' humanity. Once again you are taking the impossibility of expressing everything in one sentence or even one paragraph as a pathetic excuse to trump up a bogus criticism of the Catechism. A person who REALLY WANTED to KNOW what the catechism said, who preferred knowledge to falsehoods and slander, would find out what we say about Christ's humanity, BEFORE he claimed we deny it.
No, Christ did not take the whole weight of "evil". He took on the whole weight of sin. There is a significant difference.
Of course there's a difference but the conclusion you draw is .... Nonsense again AND another attempt to change of subject! Sin is a subset of evil; non-sinful evil is a consequence of Adam's sin. IF Jesus took on the whole weight of evil, then he took on the whole weight of sin. It was the underlined part that you said we didn't teach. Now the objective observer will see that the CCC DOES teach it, and that this is an evasiionm of the point you brought up.
Is there some uncertainty about what an "instrument" is? Jesus makes atonement. An instrument with which he does so is His blood. You claimed we do not say Jesus makes atonement. This shows that statement to be wrong. The passage says he does so with the instrument of his blood.
So the unnecessary quote from Romans is not contradicted but rather confirmed by the quote you criticize.
YOu made some simple and simply false assertions about what the catechism said. They were a shade imprecise, but that's okay, precision takes time.
Now when it is obvious that the only way one could say the things you said is by avoiding reading the text, now we are picking nits about the relationship between evil and good. It won't do. And it's embarrassing to see such evasive arguments.
I'd just be thrilled to learn you had read it.
As for the comment about all the footnotes referring to this and that? No, I don't expect or ask a graduate-level study of the text. But the footnotes are there, to demonstrate the source for everything therein.
Reading it is your choice, and I'm glad for it. I demand nothing. I hope to read your reactions after you have finished reading it.
“I believe I’ve already pointed out the verse in John that we believe because we belong to Christ. You rejected it without offering a reasonable interpretation.”
You’ve rejected hundreds of verses without ANY explanation. We’re saved by grace thru election. Regardless of what scripture says. OK...
Faith is a gift in 1 Corinthians? Well, sort of...that old context thing is a killer, isn’t it HD!
“4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.”
The spiritual gift of faith is not to salvation, for these gifts the Holy Spirit “apportions to each one individually as he wills”. Unless you are saying we can be saved without any faith, given or not!
Calvin wrote: “The term faith is employed here to mean a special faith, as we shall afterwards see from the context. A special faith is of such a kind as does not apprehend Christ wholly, for redemption, righteousness, and sanctification, but only in so far as miracles are performed in his name. Judas had a faith of this kind, and he wrought miracles too by means of it. Chrysostom distinguishes it in a somewhat different manner, calling it the faith of miracles, not of doctrines.”
At least Calvin read it in context!
Timothy “24And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
That is entirely in agreement with what Arminius taught and I’ve frequently stated - we do not save ourselves, nor seek God by ourselves. After conversion, we still need God’s intervention! And as I have said repeatedly, God gives his grace in different measure. So will he give more explicit revelation, or write them off? Paul doesn’t know. After all, no one expected Paul to convert either - except God, who foreknew all.
“I see no discussion of John 6 of how God the Father gives us to the Son and the Son keeps us.”
Actually, I discussed it at length. You might not agree, but it is not the same as not discussed.
“No one can resist the will of God regardless whether they are saved or not.”
Ahhh...so we sin by God’s will. Fascinating. I hope you will understand if I think that is utterly unscriptural. You are the first person I’ve met who says God wants us to sin...indeed, compels us to sin.
And you call Arminius a heretic??????
“What, the WE can strive against the world.”
“4As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” 1 Peter 1
” 3But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not become partners with them; 8for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,
“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” - Ephesians 5
“12Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
14Do all things without grumbling or questioning, 15that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. “ - Phil 2
I could go on, but just pick up the scripture and read passages at random. You won’t go far before you discover we are not called to idleness. And John Calvin agreed with me, not you.
“5. I insist not that the life of the Christian shall breathe nothing but the perfect Gospel, though this is to be desired, and ought to be attempted. I insist not so strictly on evangelical perfection, as to refuse to acknowledge as a Christian any man who has not attained it. In this way all would be excluded from the Church, since there is no man who is not far removed from this perfection, while many, who have made but little progress, would be undeservedly rejected. What then? Let us set this before our eye as the end at which we ought constantly to aim. Let it be regarded as the goal towards which we are to run. For you cannot divide the matter with God, undertaking part of what his word enjoins, and omitting part at pleasure. For, in the first place, God uniformly recommends integrity as the principal part of his worship, meaning by integrity real singleness of mind, devoid of gloss and fiction, and to this is opposed a double mind; as if it had been said, that the spiritual commencement of a good life is when the internal affections are sincerely devoted to God, in the cultivation of holiness and justice. But seeing that, in this earthly prison of the body, no man is supplied with strength sufficient to hasten in his course with due alacrity, while the greater number are so oppressed with weakness, that hesitating, and halting, and even crawling on the ground, they make little progress, let every one of us go as far as his humble ability enables him, and prosecute the journey once begun. No one will travel so badly as not daily to make some degree of progress. This, therefore, let us never cease to do, that we may daily advance in the way of the Lord; and let us not despair because of the slender measure of success. How little soever the success may correspond with our wish, our labour is not lost when to-day is better than yesterday, provided with true singleness of mind we keep our aim, and aspire to the goal, not speaking flattering things to ourselves, nor indulging our vices, but making it our constant endeavour to become better, until we attain to goodness itself. If during the whole course of our life we seek and follow, we shall at length attain it, when relieved from the infirmity of flesh we are admitted to full fellowship with God.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/chr_life.iii.html
“This interpretation falls flat in light of Romans 1-3. God does not draw all men.”
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” - Jesus
However, “draw” does not mean conversion. It means to pull us around to see Christ. See Matt 22:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2022&version=ESV
Mr R “Now why would the Holy Spirit forbid speaking in certain places? Don’t know.”
HD “Don’t you think it would be a good idea to try to understand why?”
Well, YOUR explanation was “The only obvious answer is because it is His will that they DON’T repent.”
What does scripture say, although Calvinists don’t seem to pay it much mind...
“3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” - 1 Tim 2
“31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.” - Ezekial 18
Who does this passage REALLY apply to:
“’You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
15For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’ - Matt 13
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.