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?
I believe there is only 1 God, God the Father. I believe He has His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of all. I believe the Holy Spirit is God’s “force” that He uses to communicate, because NO MAN can see God and live.
I believe the 3 work in unison, always.
No, to Catholics this is a false tradition of men ironically not found in Scripture.
Putting it together then we get: "God's word being the final authority is a false tradition of men .....". Doesn't this sound odd to you at all? :)
I’m glad you see it that way . . . that all Good she got from God.
Glad you see the inate as inapplicable.
Even though in the incarnation the two natures are co-mingled, Jesus was God before He took upon flesh, thus “mother of God incarnate” might be somewhat more acceptable. If her biological contribution makes her the MoG, so can Eve be called such, except for another Scripturally unwarranted tradition.
While it can be said believers are redeemed by God’s own blood, (Acts 20:28) the ownership is His, and the efficacy of it is due to His sinless and righteous nature.
While MoG can be properly understood, when the Bible declares just whose Son Christ is, is, then it emphasizes His essential nature. Thus Jesus Himself objected to the use of the term “son of David” as denoting His real ontological father, and the Son of God was the real revelation. (Matthew 16:13-16; 22:42-45)
This said, the real issue is that of MoG being part of a larger exaltation of Mary, as in making her a prime heavenly object of prayer, due to the exaltation of tradition, which is even more the foundational issue.
#############
VERY WELL PUT. THX.
Sure, it seems to be human nature to attempt to distill the essence of the relationship between God and man into words, AND to have those words make sense. When I read a short trilogy by Francis Schaeffer I found that he had an amazing and simple insight into this. The whole ball of wax, he said, comes down to where we start. The Renaissance thinkers and their progeny all tried to start with man and then build God around that. They all miserably failed, naturally.
According to Schaeffer, and I agree, the only ones to find an answer that made sense started with God through His word, and then saw how man fit in with that. So, the search itself for the answers to the REALLY BIG questions is not at all misguided IMO. Whether or not that search results in satisfaction and peace (glory to God) or a maddening, hair-pulling, tearing of clothes, futile mind screw will depend on the presuppositions we start with. Do we take as given absolutes, antithesis, etc., and what do we say about the nature of God and His word? That brings us to:
###########
INDEED.
THX.
Putting it together then we get: “God’s word being the final authority is a false tradition of men .....”. Doesn’t this sound odd to you at all? :)
#############
I think that’s one of the things that is most shockingly stunning to me . . . the many convoluted leaps of illogic that are accepted as Holy Writ . . . Still boggles my mind and all the more so the more immersed I get in their writings.
It’s a very slippery slope when one wants to equate Mary with Christ or then apply her in a familial relationship as a Mother rather than as a servant or daughter of man, but instead attempt to elevate her as “Mother of God”. because the object of that title is Mary and not God.
Additionally, the slope gets slippery when one attempts to hinge their identity of Jesus Christ as both human and divine nature in one person upon demands that Mary must also be of the same nature as the Son of God.
The reason for the question about the soul, is that Jesus Christ is also man, with a human body, a human soul, and a human spirit, but as the second Adam, each was perfect as the Perfect man.
Appealing to reason the identity of God more than what He provides in His image and revelation assumes we know more about Him than He does or has provided.
The fallacy presented in your post is also referenced as the problem of de re - de dicto in naming.
Denying Mary as the Mother of God, does not deny the Divinity of the Son, nor that Jesus Christ was God, nor that Jesus Christ was human, nor that He was and has those same natures in one person today as then.
Sorry, but by definition free will must require full knowledge or it can't be free. You can't make a choice for heaven or hell based upon flawed information and still expect it to be "free" will.
We are ALL saying God must reveal himself to us, and that he does so in varying degrees.
God does not reveal himself to us in varying degrees. He has revealed Himself to everyone. It's just that everyone chooses to reject Him.
But ALL men have enough for them to be responsible for their choice,
Now we moved from God giving man faith (which seems to be rejected), God and man working together in partnership with faith, to men being responsible for their choice. See where this leads?
The debate is if God seeks a few irresistibly, because he loves them, and irresistibly damns all the others, because he hates them, all to show off his power to his glory.
God doesn't damn anyone. People are damned by their rebellion to God. The question is why God doesn't save everyone? No one knows except to say that we would not know mercy and grace if all we knew was justice.
Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Also true words.
You will find that many of the Protestant confessionals of the early 1600s contain many of Calvin's beliefs. Whether these were his beliefs that were poured into the confessionals or whether these were Protestant beliefs that he articulated in his Systematic Theology which is still in use today, is argumentative.
Calvinism has been in decline (until recently) since the late 1800 due to the likes of people like Joseph Armenian who challenged the confessionals or Charles Finney who introduced a social oriented doctrine. That doesn't make Calvin wrong. Instead, it makes other Protestants wrong who believe the confessionals starts out as, "God has a wonderful plan for your life." and is concluded in three more steps.
I liken the errors of Protestantism to the errors of the Catholic Church who have bastardized the gospel so much that it is unrecognizable. People need to go back and look at what the scriptures actually tell them rather than making up things. While not perfect, a good place to start is Calvin's Systematic Theology.
People need to go back and look at what the scriptures actually tell them rather than making up things
#####
MUCH AGREE WITH THAT!
Additionally, the slope gets slippery when one attempts to hinge their identity of Jesus Christ as both human and divine nature in one person upon demands that Mary must also be of the same nature as the Son of God.
My lostness is specifically this: WHO says (much less demands) that Mary must (also) be of the same nature as the Son of God?
I'm not sure it's relevant, but in classical Ephesian/Chalcedonian Christology we say that IHS has 2 natures, human and divine, in one person. Mary is of the same nature as ONE of His TWO natures, namely the human nature.
“Sorry, but by definition free will must require full knowledge or it can’t be free.”
No, it doesn’t. You make choices daily without perfect knowledge, but those choices are freely made - without compulsion from a more powerful being who refuses to give you choice.
Unless you are using a definition that Cronos & the rest of us, including Arminius, are not. And if you are doing that, you are arguing with yourself.
“God does not reveal himself to us in varying degrees.”
Really. We all have equal knowledge of who God is and how he would have us live? So someone with a dozen Bibles in his living room has no more explicit revelation from God than does someone living in a small tribe in the deep Amazon? Why do you suppose that children of believers are far more likely to believe than children of non-believers?
But it is good to know. Please tell the Wycliffe Translators to stop their work and relax! Dang, and I’ve been giving to missions for nearly 40 years...
“Now we moved from God giving man faith (which seems to be rejected), God and man working together in partnership with faith, to men being responsible for their choice. See where this leads?”
I don’t know where you are moving, but I’m pretty stationary. From the first, I’ve said that God gives man varying degrees of revelation, and that man is responsible for what he does with the revelation God has given. Those who believe will be given more, and those who refuse may lose what they have. But we are responsible for our choices.
And if we choose to believe, that is faith - one person’s trust in another person’s actions. If we choose to reject, it becomes damnation instead. “He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” - John 3
HD “God doesn’t damn anyone. People are damned by their rebellion to God.”
Actually, God will damn them for their unbelief - indeed, they are damned already, unless they repent.
“The question is why God doesn’t save everyone?”
Because not everyone believes, and that is the condition God set.
“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. / Also true words.”
True words, but often taken out of context. It is a quote from Malachi, not Genesis, and refers to their descendants as heirs of the promise to Abraham, not individual salvation for Jacob, Esau, or anyone else. That is why that verse is quoted in Romans 9-11, concerning why the Chosen People have rejected Christ, and what will be their fate.
No, either you are correct or you're not...And you are not correct...Mary was never called the Mother of God in the Gospels or any other place in the scriptures...
Why not? We make decisions all the time without full knowledge. I had some blueberries with breakfast. They looked nice and juicy so I ate them. They were quite unsweet, not how I like my berries. I should of had strawberries! And when we are talking about eternal matters, God very clearly says he will reveal the truth to those who seek him.
The God I believe in is so all-knowing that he is able to know an outcome before he actually puts the action into place. He even knows all the "what ifs". I imagine that in heaven he may share with us the life we could of had if only we had trusted him more. No scripture for that concept, just something I think about.
You are so right. Every church has to deal with this.
I would like to point out that for thirty plus years I never heard of Reformed theology. There are many parts of scriptures that did not make sense to me. Instead of accepting winds of doctrines (and there were plenty over these years), I simply decided to reserve judgment until I could understand these pieces of scriptures and how they fit together. My desire is to know God as He truly is-not the way I would like him to be.
When I first encountered Reformed theology on this site I was shocked to hear about this. Instead of going back to Calvin and the Reformers, for who I thought would taint my theology, I went back to many of the early church fathers-particularly Augustine. The early fathers only confirmed what the Reformers were stating. Many of the people who have know me on this site for the last several years will give testamony to this evolution.
I don't just come from a "Calvinist" view but I understand both points of views very well. I'd suggest becoming familiar with the Protestant confessionals. You will find many of the very early confessionals of the Protestant religion give clear and detail scriptural references of the doctrines I'm laying out. I have no hidden "Calvinist" agenda or some affinity for Calvin. In truth all I'm doing is reading the scriptures and the confessionals for what they say. Whether you accept or reject these is your decision.
In truth I know very little. What I do know I know very well. God is sovereign, holy and just; and He elects and choose His own.
I will point out that while I believe Augustine documented my arguments in "A Treatise of the Predestination of the Saints", everything can be summed up in the question the early church father Cyprian asked Augustine, "What do you have that has not been given to you by God." If you can answer this question truthfully, you will become a Reformer.
The way you have defined "God's word," there is nothing odd to it at all.
Sola Scriptura is a false tradition of men. Run from it, if you can.
My sins. But for Christ, they would have me.
You think the controversies dealt with at Ephesus and Chalcedon were matters of marketing?
Crucifying Christ was man’s free decision along with ALL sin, FK. Christ did NOT Crucify Himself. The Resurrection triumphed over Man’s free decision to Crucify OUR LORD shows He is in control.
FK-In addition, if God's will had nothing to do with the crucifixion, then how do you think about the men who demanded and carried out the crucifixion of Christ? If it was their will that was controlling then should we not be everlastingly grateful to them for killing Christ?
First of all, FK, EVERYONE’S sin is responsible carrying out the crucifixion, according to your logic you’re grateful for your sin that crucified Christ
What makes you think God wanted there to be sin in the first place and wanted to be crucified? If you say God WANTED sin in the world than God Crucified Himself
FK-After all, where would we be if that had never happened? We would all be damned. That kind of puts us in an uncomfortable place I think.””
This should make you understand that God is merciful, not some monster God that calvin invented who creates some people for hell only
FK-Well, God letting man sin against Him by design sure WAS an act of love.
God giving man a free will was the act of Love, man freely sinning against God is opposite of love.
FK-Is the "one now" idea any different than regular omniscience? If it is basically the same thing, then it does not solve the luck problem in that our eternal salvation was completely dependent on the chance that men would sin as they did, killing Christ.
Since God knows everything at once in one NOW, all of our free decisions are before Him and already seen ,thus our Salvation is not by chance.
FK-If God is truly a purely reactionary God, who rolled with all the punches thrown at Him simultaneously in the one now, and just accepted history as it was dictated to Him by man
The love that God wills is the first cause of everything, thus not reactionary and that love conquers all sin and evil forever. God knowing the history of man’s free decision does not mean history is dictated to God , it only means God allowed man to freely reject or accept His will
James 1:17-”Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is NO CHANGE, nor shadow of alteration.” James 1:17
FK-But if God wasn't in charge of the crucifixion then we cannot say that gift was only from Him. God's gift would only be in agreeing to man's gift (killing Him).
Without man being freely and totally at fault you end up with Christ killing Himself .Your scenario’s let men off the hook for sin
Again ,you’re forgetting that the Resurrection proved man’s sin has been defeated and death lost
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.