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?
The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 that Mary is “Theotokos”. Doesn’t that mean God-bearer, or the one who gives birth to God?
I suspect most Protestants would find Theotokos - Bearer of God - easier to understand as a concept and less susceptible to misinterpretation than ‘Mother of God’. FWIW.
Mary was given the title “mother of God “ to clarify the error in the Nestorian Heresy.
Many protestants have a problem with it because it does not specify that she was the mother of Christ and not the mother of God the Father.
It is a historic title and nothing to debate IMHO she bore Christ and gave birth to Him..
The triune God existed for all eternity, He has no beginning and no end and so He has no mother
I “think” we can all agree on that Christian doctrine
Heb 11:31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.
Hmmmm....I wonder where Rahab got her faith from?
Incorrect. No one is arguing that man gets to save himself
That statement is incorrect under the doctrine of free will. You are arguing that your faith is a joint effort. If so then God has to put in something and man has to put in something. You will find this is what the Catholics believe in cooperation. It is not a "original" Protestant belief.
If foreknowing and predestination were the same, they would not be differentiated in this verse. Foreknowing is different from predestination.
I've never stated that foreknowledge and predestination were the same. Foreknowledge, in the biblical sense, means that God developed and foreknew exactly what He wanted. Predestination means that God predetermined the course of what He foreknew. That is why foreknowledge comes before predestination. So the verse reads:
For those whom he foreknew-He determined by His counsel His divine plan for each of us
he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son-Those of us that He foreknew were meant to be conformed to the image of His Son
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
And those people whom he predestined are called. So if you been called of God, you were predestined. And if you are called then you are justified, and someday you will be glorified.
This is called the Golden Chain. It is simply the way things are.
You’re number one on my list. ;O)
Jesus IS God.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.”
“Being (uparxwn).
Rather, “existing,” present active participle of uparxw. In the form of God (en morphi teou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.” - Robertson Word Pictures
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=php&chapter=002&verse=006
According to this Father, Brown’s novels seem to be increasing the church membership and tourism to Rome.
http://www.zenit.org/article-25933?l=english
No, He isn't.
You state..."In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God"
Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God....He is NOT God. He is of God, but IS NOT God. John 8:42 - Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
There is nothing to read into. Please look at the verse:
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Faith comes from hearing the word of Christ. Why would it even need to come if faith is a "two-way" street?
But let's, for the moment, say that faith is a "two-way street". Then you are still implying that God has to give at least a half measure. What is the difference between God giving us a half measure of faith or a whole measure of faith?
NO WAY. Another !!!!CONTROL!!!! PHREAQUE Roman Catholic et al compulsion rears its head yet again.
READ MY FINGERS:
MANY Prottys find “Mother of God” misleading, insulting to God, offensive, blasphemous.
YES, WE KNOW “all” about Jesus being God. That STRAW DOG is NOT THE ISSUE. SHEESH!
WHENEVER anyone uses “Mother of God” many of us Prottys will feel grieved in our spirits. We will grieve for the cheeky affrontery to God Almighty. We grieve for the idolatrous blasphemous use of Mary. We feel angst, outrage, insult and all that for WHAT WE SEE AS evil reasons.
We realize that Roman Catholics et al disagree. That’s your right. However, you don’t have the right nor the power to deny us our perceptions nor to deny us our spiritual experience of such matters.
Would it help you understand how offensive it is to some of us if I used “Idolatrous Bead Flingers” every time I wanted to refer to Roman Catholics et al? I don’t think even that would give you much more than a hint of a clue.
I think you’re right.
No, He isn't.
John 10: 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you 12 and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify to me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, 13 and no one can take them out of the Father's hand. 30 14 The Father and I are one." 31 The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?" 33 The Jews answered him, "We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God." 34 15 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? 35 If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated 16 and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37 If I do not perform my Father's works, do not believe me; 38 but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
Jesus is God. Admittedly there is a plethora of subordinationism in the Bible; there is also a huge case for Jesus being a super David - a man, and not God at all. It was the Church that made that decision. The same Church that decided the content of Scripture.
Well put.
The difference is almost the entire Gospel of Matthew, most of Luke and substantial portions of Mark and John.
Hmmmmm.
The Church clarified it here, certainly.
The triune God existed for all eternity, He has no beginning and no end and so He has no mother
Can you clarify your own post? Either Mary is the Mother of God or else she isn't. Either the Gospels are correct or else they are not.
I disagree. There are plenty of Scriptures affirming His deity etc.
However, I have no interest in haggling with you about it.
“I wonder where Rahab got her faith from?”
She saw God’s hand at work and believed. That defines faith.
Me “No one is arguing that man gets to save himself”
HD “That statement is incorrect under the doctrine of free will.”
You don’t get to decide what someone else believes. And this is just silly.
“man gets to save himself” = ONE actor...that is what ‘saves himself’ means. That is one side of monergism. As you note, I say that God reaches down, and we accept or reject, IAW scripture. That is two, with God doing all the work. You say we are passive - we have ZERO input, thus another side of monergism.
But no, I am NOT saying man saves himself. A debater who can only defeat straw men is obviously losing the debate.
“It is not a “original” Protestant belief.”
Protestant or not, JESUS CHRIST SAID, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life.”
If I have to choose between being an “original Protestant” and a follower of Jesus Christ, I’ll take the latter!
“Foreknowledge, in the biblical sense, means that God developed and foreknew exactly what He wanted. Predestination means that God predetermined the course of what He foreknew.”
Thank you for the Calvinist interpretation. The word is used thus in scripture (all instances below):
Act 26:5 since they have KNOWN about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived {as} a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.
Rom 8:29 For those whom He FOREKNEW, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Rom 11:2 God has not rejected His people whom He FOREKNEW. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in {the passage about} Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
1Pe 1:20 For He was FOREKNOWN before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, {KNOWING THIS BEFOREHAND], be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
In scripture, it means knowing something in advance.
And predestination means God has predetermined the final state, which is for those he “foreknew” to be conformed to Jesus.
It seems reasonable to me that we would conform faster if we would listen to what Jesus said, rather than superseding it with our own man-made beliefs.
No, He isn't. Your own scripture proves it....
The works I do in my Father's name testify to me.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, 13 and no one can take them out of the Father's hand. The Father and I are one."
can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated 16 and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37 If I do not perform my Father's works, do not believe me; 38 but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
"Admittedly there is a plethora of subordinationism in the Bible; there is also a huge case for Jesus being a super David - a man, and not God at all."
But that's the whole thing. Just because I do not believe Jesus is God, but the Son of God, does not make Jesus a "mere man". Scripture says otherwise...
Phillipians 2:9-11....Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I thought they were great.
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.