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?
#7461: (1-30-10 6:09 pm est) I made no comment about the blog. Others did. And any “assumptions” are theirs.
#7228: (1-30-10 2:42 am est) We can assume that blog is likewise sanctioned by Rome...
Just one more false statement about a Catholic or the Catholic Church from Dr. Eckleburg.
When does it end?
Have you no shame?
"Faith" is not a name. It is a thing. And this thing comes to us through hearing and hearing by the word of God. You are apparently saying that faith cannot be given to a person "like an apple", but then this contradicts Corinthians which says that God gives faith in different measures.
Does that agree with the “Particular Baptist” Confession? Well, not if it is a confession produced by Particular Baptists, all of whom were, by definition, Calvinists.
Then what Baptist confessional do you adhere to? Please post the reference and I'll read through it.
Now, does faith take places apart from God? Of course not. Faith requires two.
Well, you just told me that it cannot be given like an apple and now your telling me that it requires God. What exactly does God do if not impart faith. Can't people believe on their own-manufacture this faith from reading or something? I'm not trying to be snotty but you need to have some scriptural references. I know of no confession that would make this claim.
Actually, a great many men go to seminary when young, and teach what they were told. Or agree to it without teaching it. Hence we have infant baptism, which is not taught in scripture.
I don't want to sound judgmental but I'm not impress with the level of training that comes from many of the seminaries today. As far as infant baptism goes, that is as old as the hills just as immersion. I understand the doctrine but I'm have mix feelings. I don't think baptism is as clear as either side purports. The importance is that one is baptized.
My pastor wants Grudem’s Systematic Theology (an updated version of Loraine Boettner) taught, because he was taught it and he trusts it. However, his sermons are Arminian. MacArthur teaches PD, but says we also have free will. J Vernon MacGhee was taught it, but later taught it was all about the ‘whoever wills, and whoever won’ts’.
I have MacArthur's commentaries. While I like MacArthur's commentaries sometimes he strays too far. He got into trouble several years ago with his Lordship Salvation message-that you can believe in the Lord but not be saved until you show your works. He has backed away from this stance but his focus is very work related.
In a way I don't fault MacArthur for being work center. I personally think that's the job of a pastor to give us a kick in the pants and get us going. Thus I think MacArthur is great. However, I think he isn't as scholarly as Calvin. You will find him vascillating all over the place on true election.
I was shocked to find that predestination, for example, occurred only 6 times, and two of them didn’t involve individuals, and two more were side by side in adjacent verses.
You may be more shocked to find that "free will" only occurs once and that is in regards to a free will offering.
When I then read all the verses in context, it seemed obvious that election wasn’t about a list of names at all.
I would suggest you search on "elect" or "chosen"
Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--
But I believe many Catholics ARE Christians with some poor doctrine that needs to be straightened out here, there, or in the air.
You won't hear me saying that Catholics are not Christians. I just think they have a very poor theology just like many Protestants. I'm here to change that. ;O)
“And yet we hear everyone can choose God. Well tell that to a Canaanite if you can find one. “
Does Rahab count?
“The fundamental argument of foreknowledge/omnipotence based predestination is simply to reinforce the free will of man to choose salvation.”
Incorrect. No one is arguing that man gets to save himself, or that man can force God to do it ‘our way’. If God chooses to take ‘whosoever believes’, then that is God’s doing, not ours. If confronted by God’s revelation, we accept or reject it - well, it is like in Acts 13:46 “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.”
If we accept, we are born again by God’s will, IAW His decree.
“So if we were to make a choice, how could God possibly have predestined us before the choice was made? How could He have “chose” us when He wouldn’t have known?”
I’ll let philosophers debate. What I read is, “29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Romans 8
If foreknowing and predestination were the same, they would not be differentiated in this verse. Foreknowing is different from predestination.
And those he foreknew he predestined, called, justified and sanctified.
The gates of hell will not accomplish what you've set out to do.
So sorry to disappoint.
So, are black people saved according to your beliefs? Is it possible that they could also number among the elect?
Not if Machen and his ilk have to ride the bus with them, or drink from the same fountain.
Gresham Machen was a filthy segregationist pig.
Jesus keeping the Law has no relationship to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary. The doctrine of sinlessness refers instead to her role as the vessel that held God. That vessel had to be pure.
She's not particularly burdened by the truth (see above).
Non Christian.
Some say it calls on Xenu like the Scientologists, but then the Orthodox Presbyterian Cult also has sub-cults that split away from it like the APC, BPC, EPC-RF etc. which seem to believe that Machen was only a saint, or some others believe Machen was just a demiurge, not a demi-God.
Non Christian.
OPCultists can post BLOGS as "Official authorised websites" and some like presumably OP are taught that they need to obfuscate and prevaricate by asking for proofs for this NOT being "Official authorized websites"
Non Christian.
And the OPC also uses NewAge websites and poses them as Christian websites
Non Christian.
Now you see why we warn you against this cult, the OPC?
The best examples of why this cult needs to be exposed and for all individuals to flee from come from the posts of the cultists themselves.
The doctrine of Mother of God is clearly defined in the Council of Nicea, but this was just a reiteration/emphasis on what was acknowledged by most (Nestorius/Arius being the exceptions) since +Ignatius of Antioch. It also falls pat into place if you consider Jesus to be wholly man and wholly God and not an adopted son or one whom the Holy Spirit possesses and then leaves on the Cross.
Suddenly I see rustling white linen and smell crosses burning.
Good analysis. It does look like there is a distinction in the two uses of blashphemy, and DP is in there also. Thanks for the pick up.
Thanks, but no thanks, that is still conjecturing scientific explanations to explain the vision of John of Patmos (who could not have witnessed the birth of Christ and would not have seen any mix of constellations)
The question is, however, from whence comes the doctrine, if it is Catholic doctrine, that Mary did not die but is body and spirit in heaven presently.
Not if Machen and his ilk have to ride the bus with them, or drink from the same fountain.
Gresham Machen was a filthy segregationist pig.
Only on his best day. Gresham Machen believed that black men were animals and did not deserve to be shown the benefits of civilization such as education, living quarters, or any sort of modern benefits. He was fine with the idea of blacks being slaves in the field or servants in the house.
That blatant racist bigotry remains to this day. The Catholic Church is arguably the most inclusive organization in the world. The OPC still hates blacks.
Well that will teach me, all right.
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.