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

Me

[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?

[Cronos]

[from Warfield:] "...(”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's a wrong argument. No creature has "escaped" from God's control, because free will is not "escape". If God wants to come tomorrow and make us all, including Satan etc just robotons, HE can. HE has that power, undeniably. But HE has given us the free will to choose not to accept Him.

It's like the difference between a parent that ties a child down and controls their very thoughts as opposed to a parent that directs a child, teaches a child, puts up safety nets, but allows the child to grow. That, latter, loving parent is God.

[Cronos]

Warfield is saying that if someone held that our actions could be outside of God's control, then that person is either wrong or there is no Biblical God

FK, God can control our actions, he does not make us do some evil, but our free will choices do not affect or in any way impugn His Will or His control.

[Cronos]

So, with the Hitler example, would we say that what Hitler did was part of God's plan all along, OR, would we say that God's giving Hitler free will meant that the "rule" was that Hitler could do anything he wanted and God wouldn't interfere, even if it disagreed with God's plan, because the "rule" said Hitler was free? If we say the latter then Warfield and we would say that's elevating man's will above God's and the implication of that would be that our God is no god at all.

And Warfield would be wrong. Hitler was wholly responsible for his actions, God did not direct or predestine Hitler to commit his actions. However, do not forget that the outcome of WWII was Israel's rebirth after 1876 years. Was that God's plan? God knows. Was it God's hand that directed Hitler to commit the Holocaust -- NO.

A creator cannot be sovereign and moral if he gives up control over his creation

And I repeat that the question postulated is wrong. Free will of man does not impact or negate or in any way dminish the sovereignity or control of God. Just because God is more a loving parent than a tyrannical though-police dictator, only enhances Him.

[Cronos]

Are these the folks that wear the brown thing around their neck so Machen/Calvin will get them out of purgatory sooner?

That's a different Blog.

[Cronos]

there is no indication that the BLOGsite was/is approved by the Vatican or the Legion of Mary. This is NOT an official blogsite, but something that someone has put up with good intentions. If you post a blog and state somethings about your grouping, do you have a group moderator who censors your data?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The legion of Mary (along with its blatant blasphemy even some FR Roman Catholics apparently have trouble with) is approved by the Vatican.

Period. Deal with it. Or don't.

[Cronos]

so, should we believe that the blogs about Presbyterians and Pentecostals are all sanctioned by the various groups? And even crystallinks is sanctioned by the Presbyterians/Pentecostals? Or do you come out and condemn those heresies?

[Cronos]

As the links says

Nice try -- the "link" is to a Freerepublic posted thread, which has as reference a link to another FR thread. Just circles. And do you claim that this is all "official"?

[Cronos]

Mr R: maybe Warfield doesn't even have the brains of a doorknob.

Dr E: What doorknob is sitting on the oft-posted horse?

Ah, now the insults. the final stages of the lost argument.

[boatbums]

So when Satan came to God about Job and basically said, “He only serves and loves you because you’ve given him so much.” In essence, who wouldn’t love a Santa-Claus God? What did God then say to Satan? “Do whatever you want to him, just don’t kill him.” What happened next we all know and we wouldn’t wish on our worst enemy, yet Job in the end said, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.”

My question is why the test? What would it prove if Job was predestined to weather everything that was thrown at him, not even knowing it wasn’t God who was doing it, because God programmed him to? Why did God even give us this tremendous example of faith at all? I might be thick as pea soup, here, but I just don’t see it. Again, I think it shows God to be so much more all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving when he is ABLE to fulfill his plan and make all things work together for good with angels and mankind free to choose or reject him. Where is the glory in creating robots?

[boatbums]

See previous post...mispelled your name...sorry!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

were you (xzins) predestined to say that at 2:40:16 PM on Thursday, January 28, 2010?

Yes. Or else he would have said something else.

Every hair numbered; every star named. It's all God, one way or another.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The key phrase here is "obtain for us", this is totally different from saying that she dispenses salvation.

A distinction without a difference.

Mary does not "obtain for us" anything, let alone obtain salvation for us.

You've been misinformed.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Why the test?

God doesn't "test" His saints as if He didn't know the outcome. God is refining His saints as part of their sanctification.

God determines, and we trust in His goodness and faithfulness to ultimately do what will bring us closer to Him.

"Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" -- Job 13:15

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Not sure what you're talking about.

The link gives excerpts of Arminius' writings wherein he asserts his position that the government is sacrosanct, even over church authorities.

I can understand Roman Catholics defending Arminius; he was very nearly one of them. And as evidenced by his opinions, he shared with Rome a peculiar attraction to authoritarian, dogmatic bureaucracies.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Roman Catholics dig the most curious holes.

The statement was made that the Legion of Mary is sanctioned by the Vatican. It doesn't matter if that statement is written in a blog, on a birthday cake or as exhaust fumes in the sky. It is either a fact or it is not.

If it is your position that the Vatican does not sanction the Legion of Mary and that the Legion of Mary blog is lying, where is your proof showing otherwise?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There is no "elite."

There are only fallen sinners saved by grace alone, and those who are not saved by grace who love their sins and couldn't care less about God and His Lordship.

[Forest Keeper]

The question is not, "Is God in control?", but, "What has God decided to do?" No one here claims God isn't in control, or that he wound the Universe up and walked away. Some of us ARE saying that God gives us decisions to make, just as I, when riding my horses, give them decisions to make. Not all of them - like people, I think, total freedom would terrify them - but some decisions.

Sure, and Warfield fully anticipated that approach. To reiterate what I have been talking about in recent posts, we cannot simply end the discussion with whether God gives us free will decisions. We must know the nature of these decisions. Does God give us the free will to thwart His own will? If yes, then Warfield's analysis continues correctly. If no, then there would be no disagreement, which does not appear to be the case.

By Warfield, it is not valid to just say that it was God's will to go along with whatever man decided to do, thus whatever man does is not in conflict with God's will. That would demonstrate a God who subordinated His own will to man's, or a God who had no will of His own and let man fill it in for Him. That is, a God who just didn't care. In any of these cases the Biblical God is annihilated.

In the case of your horses, you have reasonable control over things like where they go, how fast, how long they stay tied up, etc. However, at any given moment the horse could decide to bolt against your wishes and commands. Warfield holds that if anyone actually had that kind of power concerning God, that there would be no God as is described in the Bible. It would be some other god who was immoral and unloving of His creation.

One of my 3 horses arrived after a summer at a ranch in Colorado (the friend who sold me Trooper loaned him to the ranch while I arranged transportation. They used him for cutting cattle, and my friend THOUGHT they would take good care of him). Trooper arrived with holes in his sides from where they had spurred him thru the skin. The holes were about 3/4 the size of the palm of my hand. 18 months later, Trooper has two white spots where the holes once were, and he still is very sensitive to any touch there.

Calvin believed in a God who owned a ranch in Colorado. He believed God wanted to make every decision for us, and would do whatever it took to enforce his decisions. He expects us to stand before God someday, bloody holes in our sides, too terrified to do anything without permission.

I'm not exactly sure of the extent of your comparison to God's ownership of the ranch in Calvin's view. I think Calvin would say that God owns all the ranches, everywhere. And, that God has complete and total dominion over everything that happens at all of the ranches. We will stand before God someday and if we have holes we might call them our own sin. We will also have with us all the wrong that was ever done to us. I don't understand the significance of that as a Calvinist belief. Since we are not part of the world, the world WILL hate us and we WILL suffer. I think we all agree on that.

As to being too terrified to do anything without permission, what will be your reaction upon coming face to face with God for the first time? At that moment, what sorts of things would you like to be able to do without permission? :)

I don't believe in that style of riding, and I don't think it describes the God revealed in scripture, either.

Oh, well in that case it would not match Calvin because theoretically no good came to the horse for having gone through all that. In the Reformed view, "we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

I read every verse with believe and faith in the NT, and I didn't find one that supported the idea that faith is a gift given us from God, or that God gives us belief. Maybe I missed one, and so I'm sure someone will point out the 50-100 verses supporting this central idea of Calvin's.

Well, I know that you know that the idea of faith being a gift from God is axiomatic among many many Christians, so I won't list everything there is to list. Here are just a few:

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. [We come to God by faith.]

John 6:63-65 : 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

2 Tim. 2:24-26 : 24 And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (granting of repentance is the same as granting faith).

Heb. 12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

However, I found multiple verses where God (Jesus) rebukes someone for having 'little faith'...rather odd, for God to condemn someone for not having enough of what God alone gives, isn't it?

Perhaps at first blush, sure. But then Jesus chose to interact with many people He already knew were not given to Him by the Father. Maybe there were other people around who benefited by overhearing, I don't know. Perhaps some of those with "little faith" at the time would later receive stronger, saving faith. At the very least it set a perfect example to us that we should bring the Gospel to ALL people regardless of the fact that only some are elect. Plus, we also get all these lessons He knew would wind up in scripture.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And for your Bible lesson today look up the beginning chapters of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians to see the “all” to whom Paul is directing his comments.

[HarleyD]

I think that, at times, threads like this are a colossal waste; other times, not so much. There are those who sincerely ask a question, and sincerely appreciate an effort to answer honestly. Discernment is a GOOD thing.

Someone once said, "Let him/her who has ears hear."