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?
See? That's just a wrong choice. You need to move to Iowa, where the snow is soft, along with the politicians' brains. Actually, whoever called Iowa flat can come and mow my yard any time...
Free will and determinism intersect at omnipotence and omniscience combined in our Holy God. There is nothing particularly surprising about that.
As P-Marlowe so carefully pointed out, what the Westminister Confession says is unknown is unknown. Therefore, it is inappropriate to claim that God will not or cannot do something in His secret counsel.
It is also impossible that God was unaware of the lives of those who were/are/will be part of His creation. One cannot say that they were not part of His deliberation if it was a secret counsel.
Some here just like to point aim and fire...good to ignore a fool who offers nothing but bombastic remarks.
Excellant P-Marlowe ...”in accordance with the the permissive and/or determinate will of God.”
...and then there is ‘His divine will’, perhaps you might enlarge on the difference even more...good topic for conversation as could lead to the truth of the issue of “control”.
One of the mistakes that men make is in thinking that God moves with us through time. God is everywhere and everywhen. Alpha and Omega. This will happen and it already has happened for Him.
As P-Marlowe so carefully pointed out, what the Westminister Confession says is unknown is unknown. Therefore, it is inappropriate to claim that God will not or cannot do something in His secret counsel.
I think that the WCF merely resorts to that when it runs out of logic. It goes so far (the damnation of all men except for some) and then merely says that it is unknown why. Even St. Paul calls this arrant nonsense.
By the way Quix...I’m not Protestant nor Catholic nor Luthern, nor Pentacostal, or SeventhDay, or Jehovah Wit, nor Scientologists, or any of the off branches of either. Just so you know.
How does that relate to John 1:12-13? You never explained these verses.
That is precisely the picture of God in the scriptures. The magnificent God who chose a people and called them out of Egypt, who nurtured them and cared for them fighting for their needs when they cried out to Him and chastising them when they were rebellious to bring them back to His tender and loving arms. Wanting and desiring His children to rely solely on Him and allow Him to avenge us all the while we imitate His Son.
People have simply created a distorted God in their own image that does not mirror the true and powerful God of scripture. While it may be appealing to think that God loves everyone, people forget that it is a simple matter of scripture that He doesn't save everyone. In short, they've created a God who is false and is inconsistent with what we know of God through the scriptures.
So there is only one of two choices. A person can either accept the God as He is revealed through the scriptures or they can create their own illusion of who God is and just say, "Duh, I don't know." when they arrive at passages that clearly defines God. In my mind, and I mean this kindly, I can't see any difference between pretending that God is something that He's not or erecting a golden calf and saying this is your god.
The key phrase in John 3:16-17 is “believe”. Even your faith is a gift.
“Even your faith is a gift.”
Scripture, please.
There isn't anything to be "read" into John 1:12-13. The verse clearly states that we are not saved by the "will of man but of God". Therefore your interpretation doesn't make sense. Wouldn't God giving us the "freedom to choose" be the "will of man"? What else would it be? The verse clearly states we are saved by God and nothing else.
If God’s will is to have loving sons vs obedient robots, then giving us that choice is critical to his higher will. He may want us all to be saved, but if he desires sons more than he desires compelled obedience, then he has to give us choices - that we may screw up badly.
Putting a full perspective on it, one must realize that since God is everywhere and everywhen, He already knows (foreknowledge). But the teachings of the Gospels are for us to grasp the reins on our own (with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and all the gifts that God gives us) and go. It is our choice and our decisions. Calling on somebody to repent and be saved is meaningless unless the person has the ability to repent and be saved.
Is the Beatitudes directed to robot slaves? No. Is Matthew 25 directed to robot slaves? No. Is the entire Gospel of John directed to robot slaves? No. Luke 6. Most of Mark. Jesus is trying to convince us. If the Reformed Holy Spirit leapt down out of the trees on us and infused Stockholm Syndrome so that we become the Reformed elect, then Scripture is of no utility. Evangelism is of no utility. Preaching is of no utility. Praying is of no utility.
Our choices. Not because I say so, but because scripture from Genesis to Revelation demonstrates it.
God will render to all men according to their works. If their works are not their own (ie God's), then all men are blameless and the responsibility is God's. And that is not the God of the Gospels.
Where does faith come from?
But Harley...do we not have two natures which war against each other? That denotes “a choice” of which nature we will or will not adhere to.
Christ gives us victory over that nature within but we can and do resist, just ask any man or woman who struggles with fidelity or other sins of the flesh. Even Paul struggled, and that was as a believer.
“I am crucified with Christ..yet..”....and that’s a big yet!
It's flat. I can't mow my yard at all.
Hmmm....then aren't the free will people claims that God gave man a free will advocating that they know what is in His secret counsel? Seems to me this is just as inappropriate since it is not known.
There is some debate on this even in Reformed theology. However, let's assume for the sake of argument there are these two natures. These two natures exists AFTER we become Christians-not before. Before we are saved we only seek after the things of this world-not God. Once we are saved then we do have struggles as we grow in righteousness.
That denotes “a choice” of which nature we will or will not adhere to.
No, we don't make a choice. That connotates that we see God's path on one side and Satan on the other. What the scriptures states is that we are "led". We are either guided by the Spirit or guided by our desires and lust. It's not a choice.
You’re stripping sentence fragments from their context to support a preconceived notion.
It’s not working.
Not really. At the worst it’s sanctified speculation. At best, it’s a biblical insight that breaks a logjam.
It's flat. I can't mow my yard at all.
Well my section isn't. I have to lean waaaaay out on the tractor fender or else I will roll off my lawn and into the woods (infected with hellish amounts of rose brambles) down the ravine into the stream at the bottom.
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.