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?
” Jesus? point throughout is that there is no exercise of faith in himself as the supernatural Savior, no repentance, and no true discipleship apart from this new birth...active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause...”
No, actually, in that exchange Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Limited atonement? Not hardly. “God so loved the world...whoever believes”.
He then said, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” Again, we see God doesn’t hate the world, but wants to rescue it - to save it through him. And how?
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Do you want to be born again? Do you want God to change your heart? “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
Whoever believes. Not whoever is on my list.
Is faith a gift, or something we have in response to God’s revelation? Here are 227 verses...enjoy:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4102&t=ESV
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Faith is something we do. Believing is something we do. If you receive a gift, you do it.
Nowhere do we read, “Be born again, if God chooses, then accept the gift of faith and believe”. One would think, if that were true, that SOMEWHERE in 450 verses it would be mentioned!
We’ve had a number of flash floods in Arizona this week, so let’s use that as an example...these scenarios used to play out about a 1/4 mile from where I grew up. (Pantano wash at Golf Links, before the bridge was built).
Bob is drowning. The river has washed his car away. Bob was stupid and drove into the river thinking his 4-wheel drive would get him through - but it didn’t!
The USAF sends a helicopter. An airman throws out a rope. Bob grabs the rope and holds on. The USAF pulls Bob out of the river, saving him.
Was Bob a hero? Nope.
Did Bob save himself? Nope.
Was Bob an idiot? Yep.
Did Bob’s actions put him in a position to die? Yep.
Was anyone else responsible for Bob’s potential death? Nope.
Who saved Bob? The US Air Force.
In that scenario, no one thinks highly of Bob. Everyone thinks Bob is an idiot. But the USAF saved him...but yes, Bob had to accept the rope and hold on.
The Apostles would not say that Bob saved himself, or that he was rescued because of his good work or merit. The Apostles would say Bob deserved death, but was rescued by the grace of the USAF. And if Bob rejected the rope, saying it was too thin, or that he didn’t like ropes and wanted to swim to shore by himself, then the Apostles would say Bob rejected salvation and deserved to die.
We cannot swim to shore. Nor can we be saved as long as we cling to the car - and several folks died when I was a kid because they refused to abandon their car...and it was swept away. We must repent of what we have done and trust our Savior. If you call that work, then as Jesus said, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
You said:
The former is part of our salvation and sanctification (however your theology defines such things) but the latter is the unflinching trust in God that only a few have.
My mother was one of these so gifted in faith. When she prayed about anything, she laid it down at the Cross and did not pick it up again. It was a done deal. Obviously, there were many miracles in her life.
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
Around here, as a Lutheran, I'm surprised no one has suggested my 'ph' as 'papist hater'.
” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:11-12
On this point I find myself agreeing with the Calvinists. A man can grit his teeth, put his hands over his ears, jump up and down, humming and saying repeatedly to himself “I believe.” That does not make it so.”
FWIW: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:”
This supports my argument - to those that believe on his name, he gives the power to become the sons of God.
And why does this happen? It isn’t my will, or anyone else’s. We haven’t reached into heaven. We didn’t make God do squat. God and God alone chose to save those who believe.
“A man can grit his teeth, put his hands over his ears, jump up and down, humming and saying repeatedly to himself “I believe.” That does not make it so.”
Faith and belief is not an intellectual act. But if we act on our belief, then yes, it is so.
Beautifully expressed.
That’s what that means???? Ohhhhhh, hahahaha. I spent all this time trying to figure it out! D’oh!
As for me, I discern the two verses together, the "which were" qualifying "them that believe on his name" to be those who "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
However, it should also be noted that the NIV translation gives a different phrasing of those verses as compared to the KJV and Douay-Rheims. The NIV version comports with your view, the others comport with mine.
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
See you tomorrow ....
I remember you saying you loved the book of John. And truly, it is a work filled with the wonder and splendor of our benevolent and merciful Father who has loved us and adopted us as His children even before we loved Him.
Grace is everything.
You mention your mother's ability to lay everything at the foot of the cross. Anyone in difficult times who has tried to do this, to rest in Him completely, knows how rare that kind of complete trust is. It is a gift. One which we pray for. One which, once we know it is not in ourselves to accomplish, we work all the harder to realize because we now understand the reason for it - God's glory and our welfare.
BTW, I have been looking for any other translation to support the NIV's on that passage and have not yet found one.
Oh come on Mad!!!! I’ve asked for some scripture to back up the trinity and besides a couple of responses, I’ve received a “you speak like a mormon”!!!!
“Whoever believes. Not whoever is on my list”
Ephesians 1:11 is perhaps the clearest expression of the concept of the sovereignty of God, though there are other verses that teach the sovereignty of God (Ps 115:3; Prov 16:9, 33; Dan 4:34-35). In verse 11 Paul continues the theme of God’s predestining us in Christ for salvation. Paul says that such a marking off of the believer beforehand was done “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will.” The clause beginning with “who” is a relative clause modifying him. According to this verse, believers are predestined to salvation in accord with the purpose of God, and God does all things, including predestining to salvation, according to the counsel of his will. The clause, then, broadens the scope of the verse to speak of God’s sovereign control not only over election to salvation, but over all else.
As to the phrase according to the counsel of his will, the distinction between “counsel” and “will” is that the former involves purpose and deliberation while the latter simply denotes willing. The basic thrust of the phrase is that God chooses after deliberating on the wisest course of action to accomplish his purpose. Thus, this verse refers to a plan resulting from deliberation. This verse, then, indicates that what occurs is foreordained by God, and nothing external to God such as the foreseen actions or merits of God’s creatures determines his choices. God deliberates, chooses and accomplishes all things on the basis of his purposes. How does God accomplish all things? Some are done directly and exclusively by God without use of other agents, but most are accomplished through the agency of others (humans, angels, donkeys, etc.).
Clearly, this verse teaches the absolute sovereignty of God. Just as clearly, with such a notion of sovereignty, there is no room for indeterministic freedom. Given indeterministic freedom, God cannot guarantee that what he decides will be carried out. No matter how much God inclines someone’s will toward what he has chosen, such inclination, on an indeterministic account of freedom, can never be sufficient to produce God’s decreed action. Given indeterminism, there is no way for God to be in control of the world as outlined in Ephesians 1:11
But it sure seems like they stretched a few important points, not the least of which is substituting the curious "male shrine prostitutes" for the clarity of the word, "sodomites."
I think it is clear to nearly everyone who is a hater and who is not. Catholics do not go looking for people to hate them. If you do not, it will show in your posts. If you do, you have been very quiet about it.
Anyway, no one will admit hating Catholics -- they will only admit to hating the beliefs they have convinced themselves are ours.
What part of the Trinity do you think lacks scriptural support?
One God?
Three persons?
The Father is God?
Jesus is God?
The Holy Spirit s God?
What is the problem?
Well of course there are, dear xzins, and of course they do! The Bible uses natural language; i.e., syntax and semantics. What I was trying to express might be put another way: One does not read a poem and a textbook in the same way. Poetry is far more allusive and symbolic than a textbook text. The Bible is not a textbook, and should not be read as if it were.
Thank you so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
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.