Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
You consistantly ignore the choice issue....which mankind has had from the beginning. As well the scripture references I have given. It’s like a see-saw ride trying to discuss this issue with you.
Further you do not comment on my replys to your posts, rather you re-post your own post and ignore what I’ve stated. Or reframe what you’ve already stated commenting on your own statements.
The question is... is it worth it to continue?...not when the dialogue is repeating itself.
Therefore I will agree we won’t be seeing this issue on the same or similiar page in order to dialogue, and just leave it at that.
LOL!!! I love to see the court case of the word "vernerate" compared to "worship". It would put Bill Clinton to shame.
When I gave my answer you cautioned me. That might have something to do with some answers being hard to get.
I haven't ignored the choice issue. I stated that man, in his unsaved state cannot make a choice for God. Way back somewhere you gave a beautiful testimony to the fact that God saved you and it was all His doing. And now you launch on some campaign to say that you had a choice. Well, it was either His doing or you made a decision-one or the other.
Further you do not comment on my replys to your posts, rather you re-post your own post and ignore what I’ve stated.
If I have missed a post then I'm sorry. My time is limited and I read quickly. However, if you are refering to the post that stated free will can be had with incomplete knowledge or wisdom, I did answer that question and believe I added you to the list.
No, free will cannot be had with incomplete knowledge or wisdom. If there is any bias in the decisionmaking process, then the choice is no longer free. Something is tainting it. You can't choose to live for God if you don't clearly understand that Christ died for your sins. For free choice to actually exist, a person must be able to know what are the consequences of the decision and have the wisdom to make the decision they would be willing to live with.
Try looking at in in the light of God's love rather than a criminal activity,dear brother
Like this example...
Mother Teresa took care of the poor and DISPENSED food,clothing and love but always gave credit to God for OBTAINING the food,clothing and love for them,thus,Mother Teresa was an instrument of God.
Once people understand that everything comes from God, I would just encourage going back and rereading the scriptures. They’ll make a whole lot more sense.
“No, but it does put Mia outside of your total control. With that being the case Mia can thwart your will at any time.”
Calvinists seem to live in a 2 choice world. Black or white. A or B. The idea that there could be a dozen choices, with 2 bad and the rest OK seems beyond Calvin’s idea of sovereignty.
Also beyond comprehension is that God might want us to grow, and that requires making decisions and making errors. As an officer, I needed to allow my men to make some mistakes. Otherwise, they never grew. God wants us as sons, not helpless infants forever.
God doesn’t seem to desire to take total control of every decision and thought. It seems to be a part of the fundamental difference between Calvinists and Arminians - how much control does God insist on having.
God could make every decision for us. Since we all sin, it seems safe to assume he does not, unless God compels us to sin. Since God created a world in which Adam disobeyed, even knowing that he would do so, God seems to have given men the ability to make real choices - which may be a more accurate terminology than free will.
“Warfield understood that there is a difference between “being in control” and “forcing all actions”.”
Good to hear Warfield was an Arminian. I take back my comments about his stupidity. God IS in control, but God doesn’t force our decisions. Within the constraints God allows, we can make decisions - and since he commands us to repent, and believe, it seems those are decisions he gives to us.
“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?”
Not sure how Calvinists raise sons, but I valued good judgment in both my son and my subordinates. And one cannot train good judgment without allowing for errors. And some of my subordinates - one major in particular comes to mind - were lemons. No amount of training or practice would overcome their terrible judgment.
But if willing obedience from sons is God’s desire, then loose reins are required, to mix analogies. I think this is one of the fundamental differences in worldview we bring. Calvin seems to believe that ‘good-deeds’ are the ultimate good. Arminians seem to believe that sons of good judgment are the good God desires.
If the maximum number of good deeds is the goal, then Calvin-god is doing things right. If sons of good judgment is the goal, then Arminius-god is doing it right.
“Prayers are up for both of them to get through what is an amazing blessing and can sometimes be a difficult time.”
Thank you. I think they will be fine. But I laughed myself silly when I heard he was trying to limit her to ‘normal’ foods - I pity the fool who steps between a pregnant woman and a food-craving! It would be like getting between Chuckie Schumer and a camera!
We are talking past each other. What makes you think the teachings of Arminius in any way degrade God’s sovereignty?
If it pleases God to give everyone a chance to repent, who are you to tell him he cannot? If God’s choice is ‘whosoever believes’, then who are you to tell him no?
“If you really knew Dr. E you would know just how gracious, loving and patient she is, otherwise she would not waste her time trying to educate lurkers to the truth.”
All our fellow Freepers know of us is what they see in our posts.
“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.”
God gives us the opportunity to believe. But scripture teaches that men with the opportunity often reject it. Scripture teaches that WE often reject his will for our lives - it is called sin.
Every time we sin, we prove that we can refuse to believe God. But we can only believe because he comes to us and seeks us out.
So yes, we owe everything to him. Including choice.
“What makes you think the teachings of Arminius in any way degrade God’s sovereignty”
Because his teachings implicitly deny that God is righteous.
Psalm 73:25-30
Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
Why...or how?
Why does God command what he will not permit?
If you remove the Gospel of John from the mix, you have Jesus as a super David, an angel, a powerful OT man. Son of God in the OT was not a divine attribution. David was a son of God. All (NT) Christians are sons of God. Your NT proofs are John, I see.
Yes, but God is also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but Mary is not the mother of God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit, but she is the mother of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus who is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
This is not to deny the Trinity, nor to deny appropriate honor to different persons, but to recognize the language used when describing the relationships among the Godhead.
I'm not talking about history as supplement. I am talking about the Bible and the Church developing/forming together, under the same inspiring Spirit.
And I am a member of that community in which that sort of organic development occurred. It's a different attitude - in which Bible and Church/Tradition interpret each other.
As to SS and "formal sufficiency," I think ONE of the sticking points is "Nothing that cannot be proved thereby" (I think that's sort of like part of article 6 of the Articles of Religion, the one on the Anglican formulation of SS.) I think we would have to admit that the Marian Dogmata cannot meet that standard (though I'm open to correction from my side on that.)
I think I "get" the sola ecclesia notion. But it will lead to the disagreement which I will try to articulate later. For now I'd caution against too cut and dried a take on Thus, that a conclusion could be correct which does not conflate with what Rome has infallibly defined is held to be untenable. I would say it would have to flat out contradict beyond the power of Dominican or Jesuit to reconcile before it was ruled "untenable - get the lighter fluid, boys!"
That is I think that the understanding of, say nullus salus extra ecclesia has been developed and in a good way, leading (among other things) to the understanding of Church articulated in Dominus Iesus. Don't forget, to put it in what I hope is a funny, not offensive, way, "If you're baptized, you're a Catholic, just a really bad catholic."
That is, after centuries of prayer and thought, we refined our concept of Church so that we were clear that the membership was a lot larger than those with pledge cards. And, I think, this was a good development for ecclesiology in thought alone and helps to understand the meaning of all the divisions.
1. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible?Br> I answer that a person believes the RCC to be infallible by a gift from God. However that gift is supported among persons of a more scholarly bent, by the study of Church history.
2. Upon what basis did the RCC infallibly declare itself infallible?
The promises we understand God to have given to the Church and the bold declaration in what I will call an "encyclical" from the Jerusalem council, where they say, "It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us ...."
I hope it is unnecessary to remind you that infallibility is not applied to the persons involved in every situation. A scoundrel can be pope, and even a saintly pope can err when he gives an opinion under everyday circumstances.
3. To what degree does unanimous consent of the Father have to be to in order to be unanimous?
I hope you appreciate that that is a funny question. "How unanimous is unanimous?" I suspect you are talking about the so-called "consensus patrum," right?
I blush to say I have no clue. I'll put that one in the hopper and hope I get to it before the angel of death gets to me.
4. Can Catholics know for sure they are interpreting correctly the infallibly defined teachings of the Catholic church?
Hail no! (off the cuff answer.) Again. I'm going to try to address that later. For now I'll say that there are a whole lot of people to whom theology holds no attraction. Some of them may be very great saints, while some very fine theologians may need to spend right much time in purgatory.
5. To what degree do Catholics disagree with their churches teaching, and where is this allowed, how does this compare with evang. Prots in general?
Isn't that a sociological question? I think there's a lot of misunderstanding and some outright disagreement
As to "allowed": I don't know if the current vetting of some "religious" womens' orders gets any air-time in Protestant consciousness. For decades there have been some wild and crazy womens' orders. Recently a Dominican sister was photographed serving as an escort at an abortion clinic! And, on a less gawdawful level, there was some interesting but finally ruled out-of-bounds thinking on the Eucharist coming from a number of places a few decades ago.
And this ruling out of bounds thing is funny. There's a notion called "fundamental option," which (caricature alert) teaches that if you really intend your actions to proceed from a love of God and to serve Him and your neighbor, then go ahead and use contraception.
This is explicitly dissed in Veritatis Splendor[VS]. But I knew a deacon, who has shuffled off the mortal coil, who taught it in what you might call "enquirer's class," after VS was promulgated. Now I'd bet this guy never read VS and that he wouldn't have understood half of it if he did. AND I bet he couldn't have cared less if he DID understand it.
A stake was not put up in our churchyard.
I'll skip #6 as already answered by competent authority. ;-)
On to your next.
All my rejection of Ps 65:2 was was to show IT was incompetent to prove what it was sent out to prove. I did not prove the contrary nor claim to prove the contrary. There may be other texts, but it's not MY job to bring them up, is it? Don't I hold up my side if I just shoot 'em down as you present them?
But to outline the positive: Our side says that since we are told to make prayers and supplications and to give thanks for all men, intercessory prayer is licit. Further, our side says that it's okay to ask for intercessory prayers. AND our side says that the "Dead" are not dead and can, in the Spirit which unites us, "hear" our prayers. To pray to a saint is to ask for his intercession. Those, I think, are the propositions to be questioned.
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,br>In my view that "surely"presupposes that the sola Scriptura argument has been settled. We would say that in centuries of practice affirmed by saints and popes, the Holy Spirit has provided many examples.
And much of the rest of that post depends on the same assumption. We parted company as we left the starting gate.
You can argue better than the 1Kg2:1-25) argument. I nowhere said or implied that the mothers of kings in the OT had the graces of Mary. Those fallen kings gave their fallen mothers such honor as they could. Our King gives His immaculate mother such honor as He can. I think the analogy holds, within our system, and that we can therefore reasonably ask for Mary's intercession, trusting that she will only ask what accords with Jesus' will.
Your side always seems to act as if the Mt 12:50 quote were a new and telling blow against our side. We respond, who ever has done the will of the Father as well as Mary who said,"Thy will be done," when she had skin in the game.
And we do not say she is essentially different from us, just different in degree.
and the only way to reconcile the Bible with itself is the Trinity,
Tell it to NoGrayZone. I'll watch.
I'm watching, but not carefully, the Arminian/Calvinist debate and I'm not hearing, "We agree on the important stuff." YMMV, but I'm hearing one side telling the other that they dishonor God's sovereignty and are proud, and so forth.
And the final, I'll just say I did not adduce my experience as any kind of proof, but as supporting evidence to what must look elsewhere for proof.
Here's what I think: We trust God. We do not, will not, and, in a sense, cannot look to our own interpretation of Scripture to protect us against the Church. To trust the magisterium, to affirm the infallibility of the Pope, is to jump off the cliff and trust that God will catch you.
I'm not a complete fool. I know of scandalous popes. I know of scads of clergyd00ds, both Catholic and otherwise, who are not especially deserving of confidence. I mentioned one.
I hear that the Talmud says that God chose to give the Law on Sinai rather than, say, Shasta, Everest, Annapurna, The Matterhorn, or Mnt Blanc BECAUSE Sinai isn't much of a mountain. There is no question that the glopryof the Torah comes from itself and from God. The mountain has nothing to do with it. Many popes are quite amazing. I simply cannot believe how wonderful it is to read the writings of John Paul the Great. But in the aggregate, it is not the Pope qua guy that I am taken with. It is the challenge of trusting God to speak through Popes, and to protect the Church from error.
To go at it from another direction, I do not go to Mass as often as I can to learn some truth about God and the gospel. I do not say my daily prayers with that in mind either.
Now I am some sort of very inadequate and poorly trained theologian, but a bad theologian is still a theologian. I have that kind of mind and I find my enjoyment there.
Not everyone has that call. And I do not think that knowing a lot of theology is critical to sanctity, though it MAY help.
Blessed Margaret of Castello is an example to us Dominicans and, we think, to all, that intellectual understanding of God is nothing compared to knowing Him and living in His company.
I study, yes, to know what good thinkers have thought. And I think my thinking spurs me to praise God more. But my prayers and attendance and Mass are about being with God "on purpose" rather than knowing about Him, even knowing what the Bible says about Him.
We read the Bible, not only to learn, but to communicate with Him. Lectio Divina is a kind of prayer for us, one I ought to practice more often, though I recently had a wonderful time with Ephsians.
What am I saying? I won't know until I've said it a way that seems right to me.
Put it this way, maybe: To a lot of people I would say, "Don't worry about transubstantiation. Just let me tell you that when you go to Mass, Jesus is there, there for you. And when you go to adoration, He is there. Enjoy being with Him. Offer Him your heart, your life.
If you WANT to talk Eucharistic theology, fine. But the main thing, He is here, and HE is here because He loves you.
Proclaiming the good news is a happy duty of the Church. And such proclamation requires theology in the background. But in the foreground is one's life with Jesus.
So our primary focus is not this or that teaching. Our primary focus is Jesus. And similarly my confidence in the Church is not based on an argument. It is based on Jesus.
This is not some pious or subjective argument. It is rather an attempt to say why the authority of the Church is not the first thing in my mind.
Long enough for ya?
and why remove John? Maybe you can remove Isaiah while you are at it, or do as Islam does.
God provides comprehensive and progressive revelation in the Scriptures, and if you went to the provided link, you would see that there is a lot more than just John that testifies to the Deity of Christ.
(Rev 1:8) “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”
“Why...or how?”
Righteousness is a forensic term, derrived from the same root as justification. It means that God will judge right which He did with Jesus. From that flows that all who have trusted Jesus for salvation have been judged in Jesus as innocent; not, not guilty, which implies that there is not enough evidence of what did or can take place; but innocent, no more condemnation. They can’t lose that judgment since it is based on the faithfulness of God to His covenant; i.e. His righteousness.
The fifth canon of the Remonstrance says that man can lose that judgment of innocent or “rightness”. If that be so then God cannot be righteous since His judgment is conditional; based not on the efficacy of what Jesus did, but on the ability of man to hold on; a kind of probation period. That is not being faithful to His promise.
Ah, but you misunderstand me. I am a believer in the Triune God as defined by the Church. My point is that the NT Scripture is very weak in defining the Triune God and that it took a strong and dedicated teaching by the Church to make it stick. God provides comprehensive and progressive revelation in the Scriptures, and if you went to the provided link, you would see that there is a lot more than just John that testifies to the Deity of Christ.
Well, produce some.
(Rev 1:8) “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”
This is not proof of Divinity, nor of being the One True God. The title Lord is a human one; given to most OT patriarchs and kings. At most, this verse by itself indicates a subordinate god, such as the LDS have.
Article 5
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.
There are certainly scriptures that cast doubt on the question. "4For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned." - Hebrews 6
I haven't studied it, and wouldn't want to commit one way or the other. Neither did the Arminians of 1610...
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.