Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[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?

[markomalley]

To whom it may concern,

Please stop pinging me to this thread. I stopped following the thread several thousand posts ago. The posts to which I am pinged, featuring long, well considered, arguments are serving to only clutter up my “pings” list. While I would love to address points, I am so far out of sync with this thread that I would have to read over 100-200 posts in this thread just to get up to speed enough to make an intelligent comment. I simply don’t have the time to do so.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

In Christ,
markomalley

[Judith Anne]

LOL! You haven’t missed anything. Just take what came before, and the stuff on all the other anti-Catholic rant threads, and you will know as much as if you had read the whole thing. There is NOTHING NEW in the arguments.

;-D

[Forest Keeper]

In our baptism, we were sealed by the Holy Spirit. A mark was put upon us - the promise of adoption into the True Vine. That is all. We can tear that seal off and discard it.

THAT IS ALL? :) By what authority do you claim the right to break the seal of God? Perhaps it is not so easy as you think:

Rev. 5:1-5 : 1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

So it seems that maybe a little more pull is required to be able to break a seal of God. Seals were used to authenticate documents or property. When the believer is sealed he is marked as the property of God, property bought at a price:

1 Cor.6:19-20 : 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 : 21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Therefore what God seals no man may break.

[Cronos]

You've linked to the official website of the Legion of Mary (NOTE: it's the website of the Legion of Mary, a lay organisation, not the official website of the Vatican). Eckleburg linked to a BLOG (Nuslegion at blogspot)and claimed that the BLOG was somehow an official Vatican website, with all it's posts "sanctioned by your church" "...with Vatican approval." "still sanctioned by the Roman Catholic church. "

[markomalley]

Please read post #8021. Thank you.

[Cronos]

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.

Ah, yes, the truth of the orthodoxpresbyterianc ult. The truth where blogs are posited as "official Vatican websites", where links to ufo-ologist (crystallinks) are posited as "Catholic websites", where links to vanity threads are posited as "proof", where we have a link to a website wayoflife.org sent to refute Church teachings but rather which says says this about Calvinism:

The following is from Pastor Chris Matthews, Smoky Valley Independent Baptist Church --

“I am not certain if this will be what you are looking for or not. These are some observations I have made over time, they are solely my opinions.

“1. Many have turned to Calvinism as an answer to the lactose or nonexistent presentation of repentance in salvation given by most present day IFBs. 1-2-3 repeat after me is the extreme opposite of Calvinism and both are ditches on either side of the narrow way.

“2. Others yet have seen it as the ‘intellectual’ theological view. This is how many on the web present the doctrine, especially as they speak of the reformers’ writings.

“3. Another possibility is that many want to have an excuse to live like the devil and blame the fact that their kids turned out like hellions on ‘my children were not of the elect.’ I don't see this as a conscious decision but a possible reason none the less.

“4. Most have not heard a clear cut presentation on the errors of Calvinism from their pastors and/or church leaders. Nor have they heard the biblical definitions of biblical words that Calvinists pervert.

“5. Many look at Charles Spurgeon as next in line after the trinity and want to be like him. It would be better in my opinion if they would just smoke his cigars instead of choking on his Calvinism.

“6. It is a status symbol to say I am of the elect.

“7. Calvinism's cohorts seem to think that they have a better understanding of God than anybody else.

“8. Possibly the biggest reason is the infiltration of churches by Calvinists. Every now and then you hear about a church into which a family comes and secretly spreads the lie of Calvinism among the people and then leads a church split. This is not just happening in Baptist or fundamental churches, either

br />4. CALVINISM INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE BY THEOLOGY RATHER THAN BY CONTEXT.

Its doctrines are not supported by the plain language of Scripture but are read into the Scripture. In Bible interpretation, the principle rule is to interpret according to the plain language of the text and according to the context.

Calvinism assigns preset definitions to theological terms instead of allowing the context to define them.

God’s omnipotence means God’s will cannot be resisted by man.

Election means man has no choice.

Total depravity means man is unable to respond to God and cannot even believe.

Let’s consider the doctrine of Total Depravity more carefully. According to this doctrine man so dead in trespasses and sins in such a sense that he cannot even believe on Christ for salvation, that he cannot make any choice in regard to salvation. I have challenged Calvinists to give me even one Scripture that teaches this, and I have examined books by Calvinists for such a proof text, but in vain. The Scriptures they quote do not teach their doctrine. They cite, for example, Eph. 1:1-4, but that passage says nothing about the sinner not being able to believe. It says the sinner is dead in trespasses and sin, walks according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, is a child of disobedience, and is by nature the child of wrath. But that is not the same as the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity which goes beyond the actual words of Scripture and adds the business about the sinner not being able to believe. They also cite Gen. 6:5 and Jer. 17:9 and Isa. 64:6-7 and Rom. 3:10-18, but again there is nothing in these verses about the Calvinist doctrine that the sinner is unable to believe, that he cannot exercise his will in receiving or rejecting salvation. After citing the previously mentioned Scriptures, Jeffrey Khoo of the Far Eastern Bible College concludes: “Man’s freedom of choice has been forfeited since the Fall. ... The Bible teaches human inability and total depravity” (Arminianism Examined, p. 4). Yes, the Bible definitely teaches that man is totally depraved in the since that the sinner is corrupt and there is nothing good in him that would warrant or that could earn salvation, but the Calvinism goes beyond this and adds its own unique twist that is not supported by Scripture.

Consider the doctrine of Limited Atonement, that Christ died only to save the elect and that He did not die for the non-elect. “He died in order to procure and secure the salvation of the elect only. ... the atonement is limited or particular in its design and intention.” Khoo quotes Augustine, who said that Christ’s death was “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.” In other words, though Christ somehow made it possible for all sinners to be saved in this age, only the elect can actually be saved, because only they are effectively drawn and regenerated. There is not one Scripture to support this doctrine. Khoo quotes Matt. 1:21, which says Jesus will “save His people from their sins,” but this does not say that Jesus died for the elect only. “His people” here refers to the Jews, and we know that Jesus did not die only for the Jews. The Calvinist quotes Eph. 5:25, that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, but this does not say that Christ died only for the elect. That Christ gave Himself for the church is not to say that Christ gave Himself ONLY for the church or any other such Calvinistic twist. The Calvinist quotes John 6:38-39, where Christ said, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” Again, this does not support the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. In fact, it says nothing whatsoever about the extent of the atonement.

The Calvinist must support his doctrine, every point of it, from the Scripture alone interpreted properly by the plain meaning of the words and by context. This he cannot do. If he is not allowed to read his doctrine into the Scripture, he is not able to support his doctrine from Scripture.

5. CALVINISM MISSTATES WHAT NON-CALVINISTS BELIEVE.

There are many strawman arguments that the Calvinist erects and defeats, but by defeating them he has only defeated a figment of his own imagination.

Calvinists claim, for example, that the non-Calvinist doesn’t believe in God’s sovereignty. I can’t speak for others, but this non-Calvinist certain believes in God’s sovereignty. God is God and He can do whatsoever He pleases whensoever He pleases. As one man said, “Whatever the Bible says, I believe; the Bible says the whale swallowed Jonah, and I believe it; and if the Bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe that.” If the Bible taught that God sovereignly selects some sinners to go to heaven and sovereignly elects the rest to go to hell or that He chooses only some to be saved and allows the rest to be destroyed, I would believe it, because I believe God is God and man cannot tell God what is right or wrong. But the Bible reveals, rather, that the sovereign God made man with a will and that the sinner can still exercise that will in receiving or rejecting Christ. This does not detract from God’s sovereignty one iota.

They claim, further, that the non-Calvinist believes man is saved by his own will. I can’t speak for others, but this non-Calvinist does not believe that. No sinner can believe unless God enables him to do so. The Bible plainly states that Jesus enlightens (Jn. 1:9) and draws (Jn. 12:37) every man. Man is not saved by his will; he is saved by the grace of God in Christ and because of the blood of Christ. Jn. 1:12-13 leaves no doubt about this. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Verse 12 says as many as receive Jesus and believe on His name are born again, but verse 13 says this salvation by faith is not “the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Thus, believing on Christ is not some sort of “will salvation.”

They claim that the non-Calvinist doesn’t believe that salvation is 100% of God, that by saying that the sinner can believe on Christ is to say that “he contributes to his salvation” and “thus, the work of salvation is not totally God’s” (Jeffrey Khoo, Arminianism Examined, Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore, p. 2). Arthur Pink says that if the sinner could yield to or resist Christ, “then the Christian would have ground for boasting and self-glorying over his co-operation with the Spirit...” (p. 128). Again, while I can’t speak for others, this non-Calvinist most definitely believes that salvation is 100% of God. It is God who enlightens (Jn. 1:9), convicts (Jn. 16:7-8), draws (Jn. 12:32), and saves. Man does nothing but receive a Gift and that is not a work and is not something to boast of! As with salvation, so with Christian living, it is all of God and man has nothing to boast of. “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13); and, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Salvation is all of Christ, from beginning to end. This idea that receiving a gift leaves the recipient in a position to boast is ridiculous. The recipient of a Priceless Gift does not boast of himself but of the Giver. The man who is rescued from the sea and escapes certain death does not brag about what he did for himself but about what the rescuer did, even though the drowning man perhaps took hold of a life preserver that was thrown to him or relaxed in the arms of the life guard.

They say that the teaching that man can believe on or reject Christ means that one believes that the sinner is not truly depraved and that man is a “free moral agent.” Arthur Pink says this in his chapter on “God’s Sovereignty and the Human Will.” He presents many strawmen in this section. He says, “Does it lie within the province of man’s will to accept or reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour? ... The answer to this question defines our conception of human depravity. ... Man is a rational being and as such responsible and accountable to God, but to affirm that he is a free moral agent is to deny that he is totally depraved...” (p. 138)

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "The Muslims are excluded because the God of Abraham IS our Trinitarian God and includes Christ. "I and the Father are one"."

Sorry, but your logic falls short. For you to be right there would have to be more than one god, which there isn't. Muslims are called to Salvation by God and a plan for Salvation exists for them. Muslims worship and describe God incorrectly but they cannot escape being salvageable children of God.

Well, I suppose by that reasoning EVERYONE worships the correct God, but just not the right way. The Bible PLAINLY says that can't be true because it prohibits worshiping false gods and idols. That would be worshiping the wrong god and who cares in what way. According to the Bible, since they reject Christ, Muslims follow a false god. That doesn't mean there are no people who call themselves Muslims in Heaven, it just means that following Islam is following a false god and one who in fact followed that false god would not go to Heaven.

Muslims are not like the Corinthians, who had a good foundation but were rough around the edges and needed clarifications. No, Muslims are like Baal worshipers. They do not worship the Christian God imperfectly, they worship another god entirely.

[Forest Keeper]

Now a child may get really excited about something and race toward that without thinking or knowing of the danger ahead,the parent rushes and rescues him from that danger or removes the danger. I think God does that for us but we are making decisions of the will as we go.

So in this case we ask ourselves what would an omnipotent and loving parent do? Does the omnipotent and loving parent ALWAYS rescue the child from disaster, OR does the omnipotent and loving parent only do that sometimes and other times allows the child to break his neck falling down the escalator because it was the child's wish to play near there? I would say the loving parent is always in control and will always save the child because HE CAN, despite the contrary will of the child.

As the child grows and learns the differences of life..that which is good or evil..and how to make good choices, though the dangers are still the same, he has developed the wisdom God has promised. So do we.

To some extent, but never to the point of independence, never to the point of not being dependent on God. Even with Christians the remnant of sin remains. We all still make dumb mistakes. Look at how dumb the Israelites were time after time with God right in front of them. Are we smarter or better than they? No, we're not. :) Even as adults I think we are much more like little children who need everything from God as parent. I do not think we are like adult children who can converse on a near equal level with the parent, making our own decisions. Human history bears that out I think.

[Mad Dawg]

Because we follow Jesus and trust HIM, we are not a man-led religion, dependent on the teachings of our local "pastor" or "preacher".

Our leader is Christ.

This is a hard sell, but I believe it to be the truth. We have no 'thing' we can point to and say "This is our guide."

[NoGrayZone]

"is interesting, do you believe that Christ was created by God the father? Or that Christ was a part of God the Father? And, if the former, than was He created before time or in time?"

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.

John 12:45-50 - And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

John 8:28-29 - Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

It seems to me, that Jesus was with God, prior to sending Him to us.....Galatians 4:4 - But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Once Jesus took on the form of a servant (man) and remained true to God, as a man, He was exalted by God Phillipians 2:8-10 -8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 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;

I can't find Jesus' name in the Bible, prior to Him becoming man. If there is scripture, please let me know.

Conclusion (finally, lol).....Jesus's spirit was with God, prior to Him being sent to us. Jesus chose to come, as MAN, a servant. Jesus was obedient through and through and God "rewarded", His term exalted, Jesus to King of ALL.

Jesus did not go back "into God"...but is now WITH Him, seated on God's right, as King of all. God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit work in unison....ALWAYS.

[NoGrayZone]

I’m a she, not a he. =)

[Mad Dawg]

LOL!

I need to get a job writing that kind of stuff. Speech writer for inarticulate conservative academics.

After I wrote it I went to sleep fearing it was too harsh, so I'm relieved and delighted that you enjoyed it.

It was St. Thomas Aquinas day. Two of my 'sisters' made their first (3-year) promises to the Lay Dominicans and we received 8 novices, all of whom are delightful and a few of whom are intimidating theologians ... and YOUNG -- in their 20's. (Some lay groups have a tendency to what I think of as the "lace doily" approach, so it's nice to see some younger people involved.)

So I was giddy.

[NoGrayZone]

" mean, for example, we settled the Trinity in a few centuries. Nograyzone, not trusting the Spirit to instruct the Church as Scriptures say it does, starts the whole thing de novo. He is currently reproducing a version of the Arian heresy. I cannot imagine which of the several Christological heresies will eat up his time if he works through to the correct answer on the Trinity.

True -- NGZ, you are explicitly repeating an early Christological heresy. Initially I thought you were talking about adoptionism, and now you seem to veer towards Arius.

I don't know who this Arius is. I know what I read in my Bible.

Let me ask you something. Scripture diligently points out Jesus came down as a man, a SERVANT. And as a servant, He was true to God. God was very pleased so Phillipians 2:9 - Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Phillipians 2:8 - And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

If Jesus came down as both man and God, it wouldn't be too hard for Jesus to stay obedient to God, which is why God was SO PLEASED.

[Mad Dawg]

NGZ, in a way is working his knowledge of Christ forward -- at least he is open to learning more.

Troo dat. Our Lord says he who seeks will find, and we can pray that NGZ will find and be found quickly.

But it IS doing it the hard and perilous way. One cannot duplicate the early Church and the milieu in which tradition and Scripture arose. So a little frowardness and artificiality is necessarily involved.

[NoGrayZone]

"To some extent, but never to the point of independence, never to the point of not being dependent on God. Even with Christians the remnant of sin remains. We all still make dumb mistakes. Look at how dumb the Israelites were time after time with God right in front of them. Are we smarter or better than they? No, we're not. :) Even as adults I think we are much more like little children who need everything from God as parent. I do not think we are like adult children who can converse on a near equal level with the parent, making our own decisions. Human history bears that out I think."

Correct. I don't think that's what caww was stating though.

The children he talked about IS us, and God our parent.

[Mad Dawg]

When we do as we ought, God who enables and spurs us to do it, uses the works He gave as a conduit for His grace. So, God is due prayer and praise. If he gave us nothing more, we would still owe Him his due. But when we pray and praise, as mysteriously as wheat germinating and growing in a field, he grows grace in us.

So also, in our seeking, however inadequately, to convey the truth about Him, He who needs no defense is not made stronger. We are.

[Mad Dawg]

Oooops! (There ought to be some mandatory gender indicator. No maybe not — not in this culture ...) ;-)

[NoGrayZone]

"Troo dat. Our Lord says he who seeks will find, and we can pray that NGZ will find and be found quickly.

"But it IS doing it the hard and perilous way. One cannot duplicate the early Church and the milieu in which tradition and Scripture arose. So a little frowardness and artificiality is necessarily involved."

And what makes you so sure you're found? Who says I'm trying to duplicate anything?

It's most of you here on this thread doing that. Take the trinity for example.....you guys agree on that point, but go your separate ways after that.

Which one of you is right? Take a look back on the thread when you get a chance. I certainly don't see a bunch of "saved people".

A lot of you seem to be so caught up in your own religion that you can't see what's directly in front of you.

[NoGrayZone]

"No maybe not — not in this culture ...) ;-)",/i>

In this culture, no....but this is Free Republic, so I'm sure it would be okay!!

[Mad Dawg]

In the first 350 years, give or take, there was a lot of back and forth about just exactly WHAT Jesus was. Thus resolved into a dilemma: Either Jesus is a creature, a created thing. If so certainly he is the first and supreme creature. Those who maintained this said first, "There was a time when the Son of God did not exist," and then they "revised and extended their remarks" to say, "There was when the Son did not exist."

The main proponent of this view was a man called Arius, so the view is called Arianism. Arianism held the middle of the Christian world for a while.

The other view was that the Son is "Begotten, not made," "Begotten of the Father before all worlds," or "Eternally begotten." In this view the incomprehensible doctrine of the Trinity has its beginning.

There are a couple of decent things to say in favor of the Trinitarian view. The first is that "like begets like." That is, if "begotten" and "son" are to be applied strongly, then the Son must be the same KIND of thing as the Father, namely: God.

Also, in the Arian view, we are stuck with 'God so loved the world that He said to his boss angel, "Hey Shermy, go die for the humans."' In the Trinitarian view God Himself came to live our life and die our death. It's, so to speak, a more personal investment in the game.

ALl the verses which you adduce to show a subordination of the Son to the Father are explained in our account EITHER by the Son's giving up Himself "emptying Himself" and taken the subordinate status of a creature, OR by the analogy of Son to Father, where that which is begotten (ideally among humans) does the will of the Father.

In our view the Father is Source and Origin, while the Son mediates, and so is the Justice of God (since justice applies the standard of Justice to particular things) and the Word of God (since words make manifest what originates in the depths of our mind.)

This is not a defense or argument. It is a tour d'horizon with the pointing out of a few highlights.