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?
Lies, shadowing the truth, and evading reality. Sounds like the current state of the OPC today, when we know that they will be gone within a generation. No children, and no influx of recruits to the cult. Will you mourn them when the last church closes?
Shock -- don't let her find out that FreeRepublic is a blog "authorized" by the Vatican.
Jim Robinson has not confirmed that he is actually a Cardinal in the Vatican in the diocese of Free Republic. No doubt, this is to encourage the apostate to expose themselves so that we can deal with them appropriately.
The corpse of Gresham Machen, thirty-thousand nutbags and a truckload of lies.
Not much of a church.
Thanks...Rock Hill is REAL close to Charlotte. They are probably getting the same system we are. What I like about here is we do get four seasons, but they are rarely severe either direction. Huge change from nine months of summer in Florida!!! Couldn’t take the heat anymore.
Y’all stay toasty, too. :o)
Not much of a church.
With 10,000 of those nutbags in approximately the same shape as Machen, they are even less.
“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)”
But many writers of both Old and New Testaments wrote without the full knowledge of their words, because, of course, the entire book is divine.
I think your response is a vivid example of how
HUGE
the cultural gulf is.
I think MadDawg understands something of the size of the Gulf. Perhas MarkOMalley does. I don't honestly know if Betty Boop does, or not.
It's shockingly huge. Even after all these years of exchanges hereon, I was still shocked to see how huge it is.
And that's in a sense--the case even with laying aside all the WHAT IS TRUTH issues.
In SOME respects, Vatican et al/Protty galactic clusters are MUCH further apart than male/female galactic clusters.
For example, even now, after all these years of exchanges hereon, seeing "Mother of God" can easily make my skin crawl if I think much about it. It's extremely blasphemously offensive to me. And there's NO WAY I can communicate that to you effectively. You go through your logic and your frame of reference and you seem to think that said logic and frame of reference should be sufficient for me to
SEE YOUR "TRUTH."
NOT on that issue. Not by a trillion trillion light years.
We professionals can talk about how men's and women's brains and therefore their worlds are soooo far apart--so incredibly different in some key ways. And those differences seem to conspire ruthlessly to make communication between the sexes at least challenging if not chronically problematic to the max.
Given the level of brain research coming out more and more, I think it is quite logically empirically accurate to say that Vatican/Roman Catholic et al brains are markedly different from Protty brains.
I don't know how long it would take a convert's brain to show the dramatic differences but given sufficient time and inculturation, the differences would manifest at a physiological level. I suspect that will be outrageously shocking to a number of folks.
It's actually fairly elementary. OUR THOUGHTS DESIGN OUR BRAINS. Not the most basic general substrate structure. But within that structure, they design enormous differences related to HOW WE THINK--AND HOW WE DON'T THINK.
I think it's fairly safe to say that Vatican dogma etc. is very structured in terms of AUTHORITY. And, it's very structured in terms of ritual, customs, habits, RELIGIOUS duties etc. etc. etc. etc. literally (for Prottys) ad nauseum.
If I understand remotely accurately, all such is extremely comforting, affirming, reassuring, strengthening etc. etc. etc. to each individual Vatican associate that earnestly believes and goes about all that beyond a certain surface level.
THAT MEANS THAT YOUR NEURONS IN YOUR BRAINS ARE DRAMATICALLY CHANGED ALONG THOSE LINES COMPARED TO PROTTYS who's whole religious experience is ON AVERAGE, markedly different.
No. I'm not talking about brain physiology research proving this. I'm talking about VERY BASIC brain physiology that is solidly true. AND GIVEN THAT IT'S SOLIDLY TRUE, THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE. We now know emphatically as never before the truth of the SCRIPTURE: AS A MAN THINKS IN HIS HEART, SO IS HE.
Vatican associates think markedly differently about eternal issues, associations, priorities, facets, 'truths,' deities, dogma, duties, . . . . than do Prottys. MARKEDLY DIFFERENTLY . . . from the gitgo.
Sometimes it seems like it's a miracle that we can communicate the time of day to one another congruently and hearably.
It's somewhat even hard to impossible for us to agree on WHAT THE NATURE OF TRUTH IS from the founding of Christianity onward.
There still seems to be an illusion on the part of some of us on both sides, that MORE PROOFS . . . MORE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE; MORE SCRIPTURE ROOT WORD STUDIES; Earlier documents; . . . better shared dictionaries etc. etc. etc. will do the trick.
NOPE.
It's worse than being on different planets.
In SOME respects, using the same language--English--is a bigger handicap than if we were translating from Martian and back again. Using English together gives us repeated delusions that we mean something similar by the same or similar words.
NOPE. NO WAY.
It's probably even worse than the difference between "INFANTICIDE" and "CHOICE."
There is little to NO WAY that most non-Vatican associates who were not reared as such . . . can very effectively put themselves in the skin, perspective, heart, frame of reference AND BRAIN of a Vatican associate--certainly short of a Holy Spirit level miracle of empathy. And vice versa is certainly the case, as well.
There's some mentality that IF WE CAN JUST COMMUNICATE BETTER, we can build a bigger, better, more effective bridge between the two camps. NOPE.
Oh, it could be BETTER in this or that way . . . here and there around the edges, . . . maybe some distance on this or that somewhat isolated point . . . for a brief distance or period. However, that BETTER is extremely relative and shallow compared to the vast gulf.
On the whole, it's NOT a communication problem. The differences are fairly well known and have been known and INTELLECTUALLY understood SOMEWHAT for centuries.
In some respects, super spectacularly clear communication would only mean that both sides then were more starkly aware of how great the gulf was . . . and how impossible it was to bridge--particularly in the natural, in human terms, by human means.
Clearer more robustly accurate and effective communication is not going to turn more Prottys into Vatican associates nor vice versa any more than it would turn Shrillery Klintoon into Mother Theresa.
Folks who have been deeply and intensely in either camp for decades are not LIKELY to change much at all nor much of anything about their perspective on God and a relationship with God. Lurkers who are BETWEEN . . . i.e. not all that rigidly or firmly settled on any particular SPIRITUAL CONSTRUCTION ON REALITY could learn a lot to help them decide one way or another. imho, that's the ONLY rational hope of any rational use or good out of our exchanges.
Given such a "pessimistic" perspective, will I wholesale withdraw from the fray? Of course not. I enjoy such intense exchanges too much--regardless of how rational they are or aren't. More importantly, I learn a lot and I have the fantasy that occasionally someone learns something from my poor words. It's a mission field far too ripe and far too easily accessible for this missionary to pass up.
I just want my fellow Prottys to understand and as many Vatican associates as possible to understand at deeper levels how BIG the problem is.
Maybe we can respect one another more if we can respect the size of the gulf more.
That’s essentially correct.
I see both constructions on reality in Scripture. I have no solution for the seeming contradiction. I accept both as true. I await God’s clarification.
On the whole, I’m Arminian. sp?
What is faith? “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.” - Hebrews 11
According to Vines, the word used in the Greek is “hupostasis lit., “a standing under” (hupo, “under,” stasis, “a standing”), “that which stands, or is set, under, a foundation, beginning;” hence, the quality of confidence which leads one to stand under, endure, or undertake anything”
So faith is a strong assured confidence that X will happen because Y said so. If no Y, then no faith, for there is no object to the faith. You cannot believe, trust and feel confident and assured of...nothing. There has to be something or someone to be the object of your faith. That is why the quantity isn’t important, but who it is placed in.
That is why Jesus said, “And he saith unto them, Because of your little faith: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.” - Matt 17
If you footing is rooted in the will of God, then amount isn’t the question.
I think the passage you mention is the one in Romans not Corinthians, and I apologize in advance if I’m wrong. It has been a long day and I admit I’m not firing on 4 cylinders right now...
“Here is that passage in context:
” 1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
3For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.”
If that is the passage, I’d view the measure of faith as referring to what follow in the next verse, that starts off with “For”: “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us...”
I think it refers to the different gifts we are given by God to serve the body. The word ‘measure’, according to vines, means “a portion measured off”, so our part of the body seems consistent. I don’t think it means we have a quart of faith, or a gallon. To that extent, I think it reflects our certainty that X is God’s will.
When we pray, we do so in Jesus’ Name. That is supposed to mean on behalf of Jesus, to further his work and desire. I know if I am truly confident X is the will of God, I have no trouble praying with faith. But the less certain I am that it is his will, the less faith I have that the answer will be what I hope.
“Then what Baptist confessional do you adhere to? Please post the reference and I’ll read through it.”
I don’t have one. I use the 1689 more than any other, but it obviously doesn’t reflect my views on PD. I wouldn’t care if faith was a gift - that is what I’ve always been taught - I just cannot find a scripture reference that says so. And since I’ve read over 200 verses with involving faith, I find that a bit odd - IF the gift of faith was critical to our salvation.
“You may be more shocked to find that “free will” only occurs once and that is in regards to a free will offering.”
Free will isn’t exactly what we are talking about. We are debating if we have the choice of believing God’s revelation to us, or rejecting it, and if that choice comes prior to being born again. And there are a ton of verses on that!
But free will is a bit of a straw man framed by Calvinists. Arminius didn’t believe in ‘free will’, but in God’s revelation thru grace making it possible for men to repent, while allowing them to reject. If men repent, it is prevenient grace leading to salvation, and if they reject, it becomes damning grace, since they knew enough to repent but refused to believe the revelation God gave them.
Last post for the night - getting punch drunk. Sorry. Maybe I’ll think clearer tomorrow.
So you now retract your earlier statement that the BLOG was an “Official Vatican-approved and sanctioned website”?
Well then, thank God the Turks didn't get you.
Wait...you're not that old...
The problem is not likely to be solved when terms like "Vatican associates" are still used instead of the proper terminology. I call Pentecostals and Reformed and Baptists and Anglicans by their claimed names. Why is it that you do not do the same?
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.