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 plural is either dogmas or dogmata. I like the latter.
and so were the angels. Genesis 3:7 describes the fall of Adam and Eve.
Foreknowledge is not predestination.
I believe the Church leaders were making the religion more palatable to more people.
1 Corinithians 9: 19 7 Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became like one outside the law--though I am not outside God's law but within the law of Christ--to win over those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.
Paul was a master salesman; a chameleon, as it were. Paul marketed Christianity to anybody who would listen, using whatever means and abilities he had.
A. Jesus Christ is God
or B. That the Blessed Virgin Mary is His mother.
It is an issue with the basic belief system and self-generation of theology versus the Church's theology. If you wish to justify the self generation of theology, you must repudiate the Church. That is the real issue.
Your rejection of Ps. 65:2 is what is “bogus twice”. First, that was merely one of multitudes of statements that testifies that God is the only one who can hear prayer and answer it, bandwidth unlimited. Here is a compilation which includes every prayer to Heaven i found in the Bible, http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BIBLE-PRAYERS.html, and if you can find praying to someone else, let me known.
Secondly, Psalms such as this can indeed teach doctrine, as the Lord and Peter and N.T. clearly evidences. (Mat_22:42-45; Act 2:34; Psa_110:1; Heb. 1:10; Psa_102:25-27)
>He hears prayer, maybe others do to. to argue from that text to hearing requests is incommunicable is weak. There is no explicit statement that the ‘departed’ can hear prayers.<
What is weak are such attempts to make an argument from silence, that if something as this is not explicitly disallowed it may be sanctioned. The fact are, whenever instructions on believers prayer are given, or examples thereof, then God is the object. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He said, “Our Father which art in heaven.
You postulate “maybe others do it”, but in reality you must believe they do, yet only God is set forth as the object of prayer, and as this is such a fundamental holy practice, surely the Holy Spirit would not fail to provide at least one example of praying to a departed saint, instead of only to God, and encouraging believers to pour out their heart to Him, etc. You simply have no real substantiation for your position, and to overcome the weight to the contrary.
One might as well sanctioning consensual (if you die first I’ll have you for dinner) cannibalism as a practice, as it is never explicitly doctrinally condemned, though animals are set forth as lawful food. But even then there may be an exception due to need, while we have zero need to pray to anyone else in heaven, esp. after what Heb. 4:14-16 testifies, and the Bible examples, nor is the ability to meet the need evidenced to be the same.
>There are two reasons for people not making some things explicit. One is that they’re not true. The other is that they’re not only true but so widely known that they’re not thought to need saying<
So widely known that out of the multitudinous prayers of the Bible by believers not one is directed to anyone in heaven (pagans however, did), while the Father is set forth as the object, and Christ the all-sufficient intercessor?
>To us in full communion who have thought deeply on what it means to be united by the Spirit in one body, it goes without saying.<
To those who teach for doctrines the practices of men, that is. The aspect of “full communion” in praying to the departed honestly finds its support in the occult, and such is utterly unnecessary for those who are born again.
Moreover, asking prayer on earth is restricted to physical means, not ESP., while only God in heaven is seen able to hear prayers of the spirit. And the Spirit of God prays to God as well.
>There is ample demonstration in the OT that the “queen mother” has a position of honor and respect.<
And of this you extrapolate not only Mary interceding in heaven (which possibility itself is not contested with here) but that she can hear and answer billions of prayers. But if you will resort to such, then know that should be a discouragement to such motherly intercession, as she not only sought to help an usurper, but the answer she obtained resulted in his death. That type of intercession one should not want. (1Kg. 2:1-25)
>His progenitors honored their mothers highly.
What is extrapolated out of “honor” is the problem, while He said, “whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Mat 12:50) And doing this will was also consistent with what was written, and so prayer by Him and in the N.T. was made to God alone.
“we settled the Trinity in a few centuries.<
If you know you know history, early father required conformity to the Bible, and the only way to reconcile the Bible with itself is the Trinity, and such fundamental doctrines, and who to pray to is, are easily substantiated Scripturally. However, praying to saints cannot be reconciled with or substantiated by the Bible, and the manner of argumentation that is resorted to in seeking to defend this practice puts all doctrine in danger.
(Rom 10:13) “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
As for Nograyzone, the above text applies, as it is speaking of YHWH in Joel 2:32, but here is applies to Christ. See also http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html
As for Arminians and Calvinists, they can can argue about predestination, which is a deep issue, but both camps can agree on how to be saved, and thus Whitefield and Wesley both labored together effectually in preaching the gospel. And both helped stave off false gospels.
>those of us who are devoted to our Lady find increasing evidence in our lives that, even in the face of our doubts, God seems to pay special and remarkable attention to Mary’s intercession.<
The subjective are certainly Biblical and have their place, but they must be subject to the established objective authority. Many faiths say they see evidence in their lives such and such is true, and i may not contest that it is, but by itself does not validate it is right. Gal. 1:6-9
In those times, to refer to yourself as The Son of God, and that God was your own Father as Jesus did (Jn. 5:18) conveyed ontological oneness, and the guardians of the truth rightly perceived the import of Jesus claim, and thus they went to kill him for “We have a law [Lev_24:16; Deu_13:1-5], and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (John 19:7) Their blindness was in not recognizing God manifest in the flesh, the I Am of Ex. 3:14 (cf. Jn. 8:24; 18:5,6 in Greek)
There is no way to reconcile the attributions to Christ by the Holy Spirit of attributes, glory and titles which are otherwise given to God only, unless Jesus was God, being of the same nature, yet subject to the Father, as in marriage, in which both are one flesh, there is a hierarchical order. See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html
Thanks. Long, if little content. Guess it shows humor is most popular.
Then Warfield has the brains of a doorknob. If I allow Mia (Arabian mare) to make choices about what route to take, or to end a session of riding because her heart isn't in it that day, does that make Mia my rider?
No, but it does put Mia outside of your total control. With that being the case Mia can thwart your will at any time. If it is the same with men and God, then the God of the Bible does not exist. The god who submits to man's decisions is some "other" god.
If God gives us a choice about obeying him, or about responding to his invitation to dance, that is still God's business and his sovereign will.
I suppose that theoretically such a god could exist, however, as Warfield points out, such a god could not be the one described in the Bible (there would be no such God), and indeed would be an immoral, irresponsible, and unloving god. THIS is the type of god that would grant free will as free will advocates view free will.
FK: "Further, Warfield is saying that not only CAN God control us, but that He WILL control us. For if He did not, if He gave away what He alone made, then He could no longer claim that this is HIS universe, etc."
OK, maybe Warfield doesn't even have the brains of a doorknob. If God doesn't force us to do every little thing, if God doesn't force us to commit sin, then God is not in control of the universe?
Warfield understood that there is a difference between "being in control" and "forcing all actions". Warfield even understood the mindset that jumps from the former to the latter in a knee-jerk reaction. It is man's nature to be repelled at the idea of being controlled by anything, especially God. It would not have surprised Warfield in the least to hear that you thought he had not the brains of a doorknob. He knew exactly why you think that.
Thank God! I don't want to be in control of my life. However, if I am to become a son, then I need to make some decisions - and God will decide how loose to hold the reins!
If it is good for God to be in control of your life, then why must something "bad" happen (you are back in control for decision purposes) for you to become a son of God? Wouldn't it make more sense and be a greater testimony of God's love if He was the one in control of that also?
Now - completely off topic - prayer request. My daughter-in-law recently learned she is pregnant. ......
Prayers are up for both of them to get through what is an amazing blessing and can sometimes be a difficult time. I'll pray that they always have God at the center of their marriage and for her to feel better and for all of God's blessings to be with them at delivery. Congratulations to the new grandpa and the mother and father! :)
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
We, in our unsaved state cannot accept the things of God. They are folly. We are unable to spiritually discern them unless God grants us His wisdom.
Yes.
And while I have x on the line, you might find it amusing that my son is dating a girl from the United Methodist Church. He attended their youth group last night. I told him he should take the Westminster Confession of 1646 along with him.
Woe is me. I am undone.
I've just written a beautiful essay on the difference between "free will" and "will" and this is how you respond?!? Free will requires the knowledge and wisdom to make the choice. And, yes, it does require perfect knowledge and wisdom or else you cannot say that it is "free". Otherwise it is incumbent on something that will bias a decision and, by definition, is not free. Man doesn't have the knowledge or the wisdom to make proper choices.
The Israelites certainly did not exhibit free will. They were practically dragged into the Promise Land. Nor could one say they were "free". God was fulfilling His promise to Abraham, whether they liked it or not.
caww-A sinful nature prone to sin.
Actually one could argue that God gave you that as well.
“”Does God have a free will?””
God wills only what’s good because His essence is good.If God willed sin and evil than sin and evil would be part of His essence and God would be in error and not perfection
Here is more from Saint Thomas that might help you....
GOD has will inasmuch as He has understanding. But He has under- standing by His essence, and therefore will in like manner.
2. The act of will is the perfection of the agent willing. But the divine being is of itself most perfect, and admits of no superadded perfection (Chap. XXIII): therefore in God the act of His willing is the act of His being.
3. As every agent acts inasmuch as it is in actuality, God, being pure actuality, must act by His essence. But to will is an act of God: therefore God must will by His essence.
4. If will were anything superadded to the divine substance, that substance being complete in being, it would follow that will was something adventitious to it as an accident to a subject; also that the divine substance stood to the divine will as potentiality to actuality; and that there was composition in God: all of which positions have been rejected
___________________________________________________________
That the Object of the Will of God in the First Place is God Himself
GOOD understood is the object of the will. But what is understood by God in the first place is the divine essence: therefore the divine essence is the first object of the divine will.
3. The object in the first place willed is the cause of willing to every willing agent. For when we say, ‘I wish to walk for the benefit of my health,’ we consider that we are assigning a cause; and if we are further asked, ‘Why do you wish to benefit your health?’ we shall go on assigning causes until we come to the final end, which is the object willed in the first place, and is in itself the cause of all our willing. If then God wills anything else than Himself in the first place, it will follow that that ‘something else’ is to Him a cause of willing. But His willing is His being , Therefore something else will be the cause of His being, which is contrary to the notion of the First Being.
____________________________________________________________
That God in willing Himself wills also other things besides Himself*
EVERY one desires the perfection of that which for its own sake he wills and loves: for the things which we love for their own sakes we wish to be excellent, and ever better and better, and to be multiplied as much as possible. But God wills and loves His essence for its own sake. Now that essence is not augmentable and multipliable in itself
, but can be multiplied only in its likeness, which is shared by many. God therefore wills the multitude of things, inasmuch as He wills and loves His own perfection.
3. Whoever loves anything in itself and for itself, wills consequently all things in which that thing is found: as he who loves sweetness in itself must love all sweet things. But God wills and loves His own being in itself and for itself; and all other being is a sort of participation by likeness of His being.
6. The will follows the understanding. But God with His understanding understands Himself in the first place, and in Himself understands all other things: therefore in like manner He wills Himself in the first place, and in willing Himself wills all other things.
This is confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture: Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of the things that thou hast made (Wisd. xi, 2)
RN7-””So Gods actions are dependent on ours?””
Nope!God willed all things love,we either follow the love He willed or rebel against His love.
RN7””If there was no sin you would have no way to know God””
Very strange comment RN7.
I would say that it is through love that we know who God is...sin does not draw you closer to God ,it draws you away from God.
If we make "right" decisions, it is simply because God has given us the wisdom to make right decisions. Do you think you can make a right decision apart from God?
We CAN agree on some points, can’t we.
Of course we can ,dear sister
You won't find me saying this. EVERY CHRISTIAN-EVERY CHRISTIAN-deep down (and sometimes it's pretty deep) knows that God has done everything in their lives. That is what makes a Christian a Christian. I don't think there is one Christian out on this board that will truly say that they did ANYTHING for their salvation when you go down deep enough. The trouble is that people who know this then back away with some twisted logic of mangled doctrine that does not match what they truly know-God has given us everything including our faith.
My questions really are not very thought provoking. All I ever say is, "Well, were did you get (fill in the blank) from." But at times I feel like a dentist giving a root canal to extract an answer.
The only errors come from people within the Church who do not follow or ignore the dogmatic teachings,not from the dogmatic teachings themselves.Certain changes serve to reinforce what the Church teaches throughout history,thus,the church reforms from within
God made them concrete and unchangeable, not Catholics and He did give them to His Church, the one comprising all He calls via the Holy Spirit.
That Church IS the Catholic Church,the same Catholic Church that exists today that Christ gave the unchangeable concrete teaching.
I wish you a Blessed evening,dear friend
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.