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?
Wait a minute..wasn't there a huge denial of the word atonement being in the bible?
Where does the church get off using it :)
You need “home makeover 2.1 “ ...LOL
Do have someone check for mold.. they have this handy little gadget now that can find it lurking
See the question is not is belief necessary, but who has the desire and ability to believe..
The Day of atonement was a day of repentance and forgiveness for the Jewish people..it was a type of Christ as high priest and a type of Christ as sacrifice . The sacrifice was solely for the elect nation of Israel it was not an unlimited atonement it was limited to Gods chosen people... We have a God that does not change
We need to remember that this was written without punctuation AND VERSES
That sentence reads as follows
...his own received him not. but to as many as received to them HE gave the power to become the sons of God
This is talking about the jews (His own people) ..they did not receive him, BUT to those that did.. HE gave the power to become the children of God.. THEN John , under the guidance of the Holy Spirit qualifies the sentence telling us it was not their lineage or their "free will" But they were born again only by the will of God ...
I am just NOT seeing such a big deal about how God's sovereignty, foreknowledge and omniscience is threatened at all by his giving us the freedom to accept or reject him. He is able to work all things together for good for his children. Ephesians 3:20 says he is able to "do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us". Above what we ask or think seems to imply that we CAN ask for more strength, grace and faith for our Christian walk.
Why do you think I’m saying we are born again by the will of man? Man did not create the means of salvation, he did not envision it, he did not carry it out. All we need to do is believe - and THAT is taught by a gazillion verses!
NO MAN REACHES UP TO HEAVEN AND PULLS GOD DOWN! But IF God has chosen to save those who believe, then THAT is his will, and those who believe will be saved, not by the will of man, but by the will of God.
There is no conflict - none at all - between John 1:12-13 and Arminius. However, there IS conflict with Calvin. For John says belief is involved, and Calvin says election. To say we must believe, when belief is something impossible for the rejected and inescapable for the chosen is sophistry. It PRETENDS it is about faith and belief, when neither are the point.
It makes God a liar.
If Calvin is right, and God is honest, then these verses should read:
“He came to his own, and his own people could not receive him. But to all whom he elected he gave belief and the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
And John the Baptist should have said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the elect!”
Indeed, if Calvin is right and God is honest, then there should be 500 verses about election, and 30 about believing.
Ephesians 1:11 doesn’t say his predestination is to salvation. It says “in whom also we did obtain an inheritance, being foreordained according to the purpose of Him who the all things is working according to the counsel of His will” - “to obtain an inheritance”. We should receive an inheritance, since we were predestined to be made sons, not servants (Rom 8:29; Eph 1:5).
We were not predestined to receive faith and belief as gifts after being born again. As Ephesians 1:13-14 (just one verse after 11) points out:
“13 In Him, you also, AFTER listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—HAVING ALSO BELIEVED, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit OF PROMISE, 14 who is given as a PLEDGE OF OUR INHERITANCE, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.”
We receive the Holy Spirit AFTER listening to the Gospel, and after having also believed. THEN we receive the Holy Spirit as a PLEDGE. We become SONS.
This is not subtle. God smacks us in the face again and again. God uses a 2 by 4 - won’t you listen?
MD-No.
My question was, Do you believe Christ faced the wrath of God on the cross as a punishment for our sins and His blood was spilled as atoning for our sins? I noticed you did not answer this question but danced around with all sort of other things and then say I'M making a false representation. I am doing nothing of the sort and my references support my claims.
The Catechism that you point out and continue to point out does not accept Christ being the punishment for our sins. NewAdvent states that this doctrine has evolved to a point where the Catholic Church no longer believes that Christ died as a punishment for our sins. And to be perfectly honest, I don't give two hoots as to what some of the "latest and greatest" Catholic "scholars" have to say about the subject. The fact remains that the early church fathers and the scriptures confirms that Christ bore our punishment. The Catholic Church pretends they go back to the early fathers only where it suits their interests.
So I'll ask it one more time, Do you believe Christ faced the wrath of God on the cross as a punishment for our sins and His blood was spilled as atoning for our sins?
I noticed that rnmom and Mr. Rogers quoted you the exact same passages that I quoted way back. Fancy that. And here I didn't even peek. I'm always late.
"...Christ being the punishment for our sins?" Since when is Christ a punishment?
P-Not only can we do so, we already have done so.
And indeed you have. I was not clear in my definition of "sacrifice for sin" and I'm at fault.
Your Catechism does not view this sacrifice as Christ taking God's wrath in our stead. Instead, your Catechism views the "sacrifice for sin" as Christ living a good life and then simply dying. His death after such a noble life is sacrifice enough for the sins. Your Catechism's statement, No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. is just plain incorrect.
Baloney.
You truncated it, changing its meaning. Here is your quote with the sentence that follows:
No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. 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.
If you were to concoct a standard that the Catholic Church does not meet, why would anyone be expected to care?
Let's be clear. I said Christ being THE punishment. You changed that to Christ A punishment.
Do you believe that Christ was made sin for us and that the Father's wrath rested upon Him instead of us? Not that I expect a straight answer.
Isa 53:5-6 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Here is a link to the relevant section of the Catechism (roughly 613 and below at the link):
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm
I don't have a Catechism.
You're not describing Catechism of the Catholic Church either.
617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451
623 By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).
There's no quarrel here dear brother in Christ!
Yes. My question to you is and remains: since when is Christ a punishment? Of any kind?
Christ a punishment?
It's bizarre.
I did nothing of the sort. The silence on this to my legitimate points is deafing and you’ve done nothing to address New Advent or my points. Just admit you don’t believe in Christ bearing our punishment and be done with it. But please don’t try to spin the nonsense. It’s like saying Catholics don’t “worship” Mary when if you Google it you get 10,000 hits taking a person to all sorts of Catholic sites about worshiping Mary. Heck, it’s like the Democrats saying they support the health care bill without even knowing what’s in the thing.
Matthew 7:6, I guess.
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.