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 wonder, do you think this guy is clearly not asking questions rather stating his stance pretty forcefully and surrounding his words with a bunch of fluff to make it palatable.
IMO, in this article Warfield is not exploring a new idea that he is considering himself and trying to prove. He is sure of his position. I think he is repeating the "we are controlled" theme in order to seriously introduce what to many readers is a brand new, and very uncomfortable, idea. No one likes to hear "we are controlled", by anyone including God. It goes totally against not only our innate natures, but also against us culturally.
We (Americans) have fought and died for freedom. How can we now accept and want to be controlled? Warfield is putting this right in our faces to deal with, if we will. To accept this we must understand that the sovereignty of God is incomparable to our own political sovereignty. God is sovereign over not only us, but also our enemies. God is in control of EVERYTHING.
I think that part of Warfield's approach is to get us to understand that when we think of being controlled we think of losing something, of having something taken away from us. However, with God in control He already owns everything so there is nothing for Him to take away. Warfield is describing a condition which already exists, he is not proposing that we change somehow by "giving in" or "giving up" (except by personal acceptance of what is already true). And with this new way to see what is already true, we can rest easier and in peace with our God KNOWING that He is in control.
LOL! How much time do you have? :) The problem with the easy answer is that in discussions like this "free will" can mean ten different things to ten different people. But I can still try. :)
My belief is that when we are born we are born with "A" will, and that will is free to sin. In fact, that's all it knows how to do. At some point the elect (those already chosen by God) will receive grace. That grace will change (or change out) our old wills and something new will take its place. This new will differs from the old in that it has eyes that can see and ears that can hear. This new will is able to perceive the truth, something the old will could not.
So this new will is free to see God and when the new will sees the Truth it is inexorably drawn to it (to Him). These are the sheep who follow Christ's voice. I am perfectly comfortable in calling this freely choosing God, especially since that was my experience. My experience in choosing God was no different than anyone else's "yes" to Christ and I certainly felt free to decide.
But I understand that many will disagree, and consider this "fake" freedom because it was all orchestrated by God, infallibly for His elect. So if I, as a Reformer, accept for purposes of discussion the free will advocate's view of free will, then I would say that we do not love God of our own free will, since all was ordained by God long before I had a will of any kind. It all depends on how we look at it.
Go back to what Christ says about the sheep. He says that when sheep hear their own shepherd's voice they will follow, (but they will not follow a stranger's voice) because that's what sheep do (John 10:4-5). In the same way when the regenerated elect hear Christ's voice they will likewise follow because that is what the elect do (v. 14-16, 27). Is that free will? I suppose we can take any side we wish, but of course it will not change whatever the truth is according to Christ.
(Mutters in beer.)
Consarned nominalists! They think when they fall in love they've lost freedom when they're just beginning to find it!
(morer beer.)
The question I would have is this:
When Voodoo worshipers who also claim Catholicism go to the church, do they take the Eucharist with the approval of the priests?
In the Philippines, one can walk from shop-to-shop, house-to-house, cafe-to-cafe, and see the god shelves on the walls, with red lights or candles, Buddhist figures (I’m taling about in areas where people from the Asian Mainland generations ago mingled with the native Filipinos) along with Catholic figures (figurines of Mary, Joseph and a “Santo Nino”). Somebody is blending something with something.
These go to the church and nobody questions anybody about their loyalty to Christ, or whether they have merely added a form of Christendom to their Buddhism. They still also abide my many of the Buddhist superstitions. You can purchase books on this very subject in the National Bookstore (chain).
They receive the “host” into their mouths without any scrutiny whatsoever. The church demands no allegience to Jesus Christ from these people, it would appear. It is impossible that the priests do not know this is happening-—this dual worship.
That's a wrong argument. No creature has "escaped" from God's control, because free will is not "escape".
Free will IS escaping God's control if it conflicts with God's will AND prevails. Free will advocates say all the time that God's will is for all to be saved. Therefore, when free will is used to reject God, that is going outside of God's control. Saying that it was OK with God to go outside of His control is no answer. That nullifies the God of the Bible.
It's like the difference between a parent that ties a child down and controls their very thoughts as opposed to a parent that directs a child, teaches a child, puts up safety nets, but allows the child to grow. That, latter, loving parent is God.
No, it's nothing of the kind. :) We certainly don't experience the former, do we? And of course God allows us to grow. He sanctifies us in love. The difference is only between who is in ultimate control, God or man?
And Warfield would be wrong. Hitler was wholly responsible for his actions, God did not direct or predestine Hitler to commit his actions.
Hitler WAS wholly responsible for his actions and God did NOT direct him to commit them. God did, however, ordain everything that has happened, including in war. This is totally consistent since God's ordaining involves both action and inaction. God didn't have to order or force Hitler to do anything. All God had to do was leave him alone to his own nature and everything that nature led him to do, he did. That is why Hitler remains responsible. God could have stopped Hitler to any degree, or no degree at all. What happened is what God allowed, no more and no less.
FK paraphrasing Warfield: A creator cannot be sovereign and moral if he gives up control over his creation
And I repeat that the question postulated is wrong. Free will of man does not impact or negate or in any way diminish the sovereignty or control of God. Just because God is more a loving parent than a tyrannical thought-police dictator, only enhances Him.
I think I missed a couple on the ping list in my last response so let me repeat that the free will advocate's view of free will DOES INDEED supersede God's will and control if God's will is for all to be saved and the free will of many men is to reject Him, and they do reject Him. It cannot be argued that God retains control by GIVING UP control. So saying that it is God's will that man be able to thwart God's will is no argument.
a. Only select people who are chosen by God beforehand are given the ability to love God. They love God because God gives them that love.
b. People who are blessed by God and given only the good things in life love God. God is loved because they are happy.
c. Some people love God, not because he makes them or because of all does for them, but purely by their own free will because of who he is and what he means to them.
When Satan came to God about Job, the argument he made was that Job only loved God because of how much God had blessed him materially. God knew Job's heart and allowed the trials Satan brought down on him. Some people say this was an object lesson to Satan to prove how wrong Satan was in rejecting God himself. He had been the anointed cherub in heaven and because of pride he wanted to take the place of God. He was cast out of his place in heaven and will one day be cast into the lake of fire for the rest of eternity.
In my view, God is most glorified when we, by our own will, choose to love him. In spite of all we may suffer in this life, we still choose God. Not only is God glorified, but I believe Satan and all his angels are stunned by the fact that we weak, powerless humans can freely choose to believe, follow and love our creator and see him as our Heavenly Father.
Oh please with the 3 gods shenanigans! I have answered this question repeatedly. If you truly want an answer, go look through my posts, although I suspect you won't, because you don't.
Amen. I wish I could fit that whole thing in my tagline.
“I think I missed a couple on the ping list in my last response so let me repeat that the free will advocate’s view of free will DOES INDEED supersede God’s will and control if God’s will is for all to be saved and the free will of many men is to reject Him, and they do reject Him.”
ACTUALLY, the free will types, myself included, argue that God’s highest Goal is to create sons who freely obey. That is why he gives us true choices, and why in choosing - regardless of the individual choice - God’s will is done. The desire to see all saved is superseded by his will to create willing sons - what he has predestined.
Thus, everything that happens is IAW his will. His will is accomplished regardless, for the chosen are those who respond to his grace with belief.
The problem is when one discusses total depravity without discussing the grace of God, given to all in some amount. Those who reject it lose it. They are truly totally depraved, for to be cut loose from God’s common or preventing (prevenient) grace is to be utterly depraved.
But God gives most men some moral enlightenment. While Romans 1 says:
So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
But Romans 2 adds:
12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
So we see that God’s grace normally restrains the depravity of man, and makes moral choices possible - including repentance. Apart from God, no man can repent, and no man will be convicted - but the norm is for God to give man enough revelation and enlightenment that repenting is possible.
But if man rejects God’s gracious enlightening, then God may well cast him off, and there is no hope for that person.
So it is all of God, yet God gives us real choices - the man you meet CAN repent, but many will not, because men remain rejecters of God.
This may have already been addressed, but I don’t think I want to take the time to search 8000+ posts! How then does a Calvinist explain the verse that says, “It is God’s will that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.”?
Authority? It's called the free will of man. First thing, we must establish what a seal is, especially as applied to men by God.
Esther 8: 1 That day King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, enemy of the Jews, to Queen Esther; and Mordecai was admitted to the king's presence, for Esther had revealed his relationship to her. 2 The king removed his signet ring from Haman, and transferred it into the keeping of Mordecai; and Esther put Mordecai in charge of the house of Haman. 3 In another audience with the king, Esther fell at his feet and tearfully implored him to revoke the harm done by Haman the Agagite, and the plan he had devised against the Jews. 4 The king stretched forth the golden scepter to Esther. So she rose and, standing in his presence, 5 said: "If it pleases your majesty and seems proper to you, and if I have found favor with you and you love me, let a document be issued to revoke the letters which that schemer Haman, son of Hammedatha the Agagite, wrote for the destruction of the Jews in all the royal provinces. 6 For how can I witness the evil that is to befall my people, and how can I behold the destruction of my race?" 7 King Ahasuerus then said to Queen Esther and to the Jew Mordecai: "Now that I have given Esther the house of Haman, and they have hanged him on the gibbet because he attacked the Jews, 8 1 you in turn may write in the king's name what you see fit concerning the Jews and seal the letter with the royal signet ring." For whatever is written in the name of the king and sealed with the royal signet ring cannot be revoked.
A seal is a proof that the things sealed are true, What God promises is true, forever more. But we can break our own covenant with God, breaking the seal ourselves.
Ephesians 1: 13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed 7 with the promised holy Spirit, 14 which is the first installment 8 of our inheritance toward redemption as God's possession, to the praise of his glory.
The seal is a mark of the first installment of our inheritance. A mark only.
2 Corinthians 5: 5 Now the one who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a first installment. 5
A first installment.
Romans 2: 5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, 6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 3 7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, 8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. 9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. 10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.
25 Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? 27 Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law. 28 One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. 29 Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.
Obedience is a requirement of God. If you are disobedient, you break His covenant on your side, not on His.
1 Thessalonians 4: 7 For God did not call us to impurity but to holiness. 8 Therefore, whoever disregards this, disregards not a human being but God, who (also) gives his holy Spirit to you.
When you disregard the Holy Spirit, you reject the covenant and break the seal of God.
Ephesians 4: 30 And do not grieve the holy Spirit of God, with which you were sealed for the day of redemption. 13 31 All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice.
Or else you break His seal and reject His promise.
1 Samuel 16: 14 2 The spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and he was tormented by an evil spirit sent by the LORD.
'Nuff said? The seal is put onto us by the Holy Spirit, yet we can willingly break it by our disobedience.
Personally, I don't understand why you would need to "study" it unless you entertained the idea that losing one's salvation could be true. It certainly sounds like you don't know at best. Don't you think that would be an important thing to find out?
So then God does not have a free will..His will is governed by His Holy nature right?
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.
Often people that do not know or understand the full nature of God keep falling back on love, I assume that is not true of you YES ..God is love, He is also Holy, Just, wrath, merciful .God willed and ordained all things for His glory..
RN7””If there was no sin you would have no way to know God””
Very strange comment RN7.
No not at all strange.. Let us consider a garden with out the fall..How would you understand Holiness with out something to compare it to. ..namely evil
How would you understand the wrath of God and the Justice of God in that garden ..if there was no sin
How would you know the grace and mercy of God if it never had to be exhibited
In your mind why did God create Adam and Eve? Why did God create you??
Just for the record: wrong.
>Nothing that cannot be proved thereby"... 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.)<
Despite the caveat, praying to saints, perpetual virginity, sinlessness and bodily assumption simply cannot be proven, with the former being the most baseless, and the most contrary to what is established. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey even states that some current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church (Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.)
Regarding the assumption of Mary, Karl Keating (who also affirms, "no grace accrues to us without her [Mary's] intercession"), states, "Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." (Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275)
This assertion is foundational and is the reason for my rhetorical queries.
>I would say it [an interpretation] would have to flat out contradict beyond the power of Dominican or Jesuit to reconcile before it was ruled "untenable<
"In matters of faith and morals pertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of the Sacred Scriptures which the Holy Mother Church as held and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scriptures, and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the said Scriptures against this sense or, likewise, against the unanimous consent of the Fathers." ( Vatican 1, Session III, April 24, 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith: pgs. 222-223, confirming the decree of the Council of Trent--Fourth Session, April, 1546)
While i am aware that there is more room for disagreement than many suppose, as regards some teaching, and also that Rome has labored to reconcile past teachings with more modern ones, we are dealing here with basic RC and Prot. differences, which the above entities have no interest in reconciling, and as Trent further evidenced, such cannot be allowed, no matter how weighty and warranted the evidence might be, due to what the doctrine of infallibility requires.
>1. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible? "by a gift from God." "by the study of Church history."
The first would be a given, but even that presumes some basis for assent, and your second but not exclusive means appeals to one's interpretation of history, and as the plethora of RC apologetics shows, quoting Scripture is engaged in, in seeking to persuade souls that Rome alone infallibly authoritatively interprets the Bible, while private interpretation is rejected as the means of assuredly determining salvific or doctrinal truth. Thus RC apologists appeal to private interpretation in order to persuade a soul that private interpretation is disallowed. Scripture is quoted to support the perpetuated Petrine papacy, etc., but contrary Scriptural evidence is rejected on the basis of the basis of private interpretations being disallowed, while Mariology on steroids, by Biblical standards, abounds.
2 Pet. 1:20 is invoked as the basis for this, and that the scriptures are not to be taught based upon any one's private judgment (footnote on 2 Pet. 1:20, Douay- Rheims Version, p. 582), leaving Catholics confused in the vast Rome in which has not officially taught on, yet that verse is not even dealing with understanding what the prophets wrote, but about how they wrote it.
>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 ...."<
In reality, while the first ecumenical council, before the completion of the canon, saw that what was happening was Scriptural, and mightily attested to supernaturally, and thus issued a disciplinary ruling clearly based on Scripture, (Exo. 34:15-16; Num. 25:2; Lv. 17:3,11; 18) and as evangelicals evidence and argue, early fathers are seen as only upholding what can be Scripturally defended. But what seemed good to Rome was, in the process of time, to declare herself conditionally (i am indeed aware) infallible, when certain criteria (yet open to some interpretation) are met, which fits the declaration of infallibility, and by such her interpretation of Scripture upon which she bases her claims (incldg. to infallibility) can be declared infallible. This certainly lacked unanimous consent, and papal infallibility also had the help of some creative writing, but as Rome's pronouncements are infallible, and as a matter of faith, they are all self-consistent, and thus she can define what she has and reject all contrary challenges.
And as many Roman Catholic scholars attest, this doctrine of infallibility was a result of quite a development of doctrine, not due to real unanimous consent, rather its real basis is a (presumed) Divine prerogative, by which she infallibly declares herself (conditionally) infallible.
The main difference in substantiating her claim versus that of the LDS type cults, who also presume unquestionable interpretive authority, is that of her history, but her highly problematic unbroken succession of popes. And which itself is based upon an erroneous idea of what constitutes the authenticity of a church or Christian, which is not formal organic ecclesiastical lineage, but effectual faith which Peter confessed, and by extension, Christ Himself, and by which the church exists and overcomes. Abrahamic lineage does not make one a true Jew (Rm. 2:28,29), and if God could raise up true sons of Abraham from stones (Lk. 3:8), so He continues to build His church using stones (1Pt. 2:5) he raises up, who like Peter, effectually place their faith in the Rock. But unlike in the O.T. Levitical priesthood, carnal pastors, from Caiaphas types to papal impenitent adulterers, could not even validly be or remain in office, even if the latter was perpetuated.
>3. To what degree does unanimous consent of the Father have to be to in order to be unanimous? I blush to say I have no clue.<
Thats honest, but here is where "development of doctrine" takes on a life of its own. Considering the charge that is given to the magisterium, (The Trentine / Tridentine Creed) it was necessary to define this in a way that allows sanction for things which greatly fail the unanimous consent criteria. While unanimous consent provides a very substantive sound to Rome' declaration, that of conveying there was a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church, to varying degree this is misleading.
As Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal Yves Congar stated: 'In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare.' And he uses the fundamental passage for all of Rome's authority as an example, that being the rock passage of Matthew 16 in which he candidly admits that the present day Roman/papal interpretation of that passage contradicts that of the patristic age." He thus concludes, "It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity." (Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.)
Cardinal Manning (1808-1892), who was a supreme proponent of Roman ecclesiastical power, stated that Rome's doctrines were as pure as the light, and like Jesus, were the same yesterday, today and forever, yet they in no way were dependent upon historical continuity, “But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church?…I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.” ( Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228).
Part of Manning's reasoning, and that of Roman Catholic apologists, is that the channel of truth must be preserved, and that “historical evidence and Biblical criticism are human after all”, thus necessitating an infallible authority. However, the Jewish nation had no infallible magisterium, but God preserved the faith, albeit within a remnant (as usual) and this was ultimately (as regards the human instrumentality) accomplished through real prophets (who do not depend on lineage for their office) who reproved leaders and called God's people back to Biblical faith. And i think Luther, despite his faults, served in that unction and function.
>4. Can Catholics know for sure they are interpreting correctly the infallibly defined teachings of the Catholic church? Hail no! (off the cuff answer.)
This also is honest. My point was that even an infallible authority does not solve the problem of different interpretations, and as precious little of the Bible has been infallible defined,, “the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers) And and these things themselves are open to some interpretation, again, they can use their own private judgment of what the fathers taught and what Scripture teaches, in appealing to our private judgment, to convince us that we cannot possibly be right if in conflict with Rome, regardless of the warrant of Scriptural evidence.
Those who hold to SS cannot do so, as if they were little popes, but must Biblically substantiate their doctrine, and be subject to sound examination on that basis. Adherents of SS (which does not include cults) are characterized as holding to basic salvific truths, as is seen in their affirmations of the apostle's creed, but also including salvation by grace (whether irresistible or not), while they are the, or among the foremost apologists against those who deny such. As their agreement with traditional Catholic teaching is based upon Scriptural support, so their disagreements are due to the lack of it (sometimes due how it is practiced), and their disagreements among themselves in other areas are limited by the degrees on which the texts will support such. And that their popular unity is of the Spirit is testified to by the extensive interdenominational ministries and fellowships they support, though due to the general declension among us (which among Catholics some RC apologists say attests to Rome being true), this is increasing worldly. And i am not sanctioning all the division that exists, though not to the degree that some make it out to be, and the more extreme and liberal interpretations are not due to the exercise of SS as classically exercised, but to a reliance upon the subjective authority of feelings, or that of “higher criticism” and revisionist forms of the historical-critical method, such as seen in feminist and homosexual apologetics (which i think you fight as well). This does not negate the viability of a general ecclesiastical authority, but not one of a autocratic nature.
>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? I think there's a lot of misunderstanding and some outright disagreement<
Indeed, and as every formal study I've seen shows, great percentages of Catholics disagree with many official official church teachings, and overall come in far below Evangelicals in evidences of faith, both practices and basic affirming doctrines http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4
As for what is allowed, it is interesting that as evangelicals require belief in certain basic truths, so the dogmas of Rome's infallible Sacred Magisterium (infallible teaching of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium by the Pope, Solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, or the ordinary universal Magisterium) require an assent of faith (or “theological assent”), with the opposite being heresy, while the “ordinary assent” (or religious submission of will and intellect) is required for non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium may allow for a limited amount of dissent, as such teachings may contain error and are subject to revision or even revocation, while those of the General Magisterium may include the possibility of significant error. http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm
>For decades there have been some wild and crazy womens' orders.<
Yes, and while i disagree that the New Testament church ordained a separate class of sacerdotal priests, i see the Bible clearly upholding the headship of the male, and the patriarchal order in general. The manner of argumentation used by feminists against this actually militates against such being teachers.
>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..<
While one who does an inherently bad thing with a good motive can more mercy, this is a dangerous principle. But as regards contraception, Roman Catholic theologians debate the level of authority of this teaching.
>nullus salus extra ecclesia has been developed and in a good way...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<
This could easily be a thread all its own, and is another testimony to the degree of interpretation that can take place over time within Rome itself, and i will just say here that I am aware of the development of doctrine concept and the basic reasoning used in order to render statements such as "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Bull Unam sanctam, 1302. which Manning affirmed was an infallible decree), and that "none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal" (Cantate Domino, 1441), as not really excluding baptized Prots, as long as they are invincibly ignorant that Rome is the one true church (the presuppositions of which are a real issue). But i think that if Rome still had her unBiblical civil powers, and liberals did not have so much sway in V2, then this would have a decidedly harsher understanding, as sedevacantists contend.
>All my rejection of Ps 65:2 was to show IT was incompetent to prove what it was sent out to prove.<
If i not assumed that you would not contest the obvious, that “one of God's Divine attributes “is the ability to hear and answer infinite numbers of prayers”, which is no where manifested of any others, then i could have provided far substantiation for to. Those who want to score points by rejecting a given as having insufficient attestation had better have their own.
>intercessory prayer is licit.... AND our side says that the "Dead" are not dead and can, in the Spirit which unites us, "hear" our prayers...Our King gives His immaculate mother such honor as He can...we can therefore reasonably ask for Mary's intercession.<
That the departed can hear is speculation, but while we do so on earth hearing and answering infinite numbers of prayer is only evidenced to be one of God's incommunicable attributes, and while communicating that way om earth to others is a practice of the occult. That Jesus would honor his mother in not an issue, nor that intercessory prayer is valid, but the issues are whether saints are empowered by God to hear billions of prayers, and more critically, that they are to be a heavenly objects of intercession, and that honoring Mary means exalting her a Rome does. For that manner of empowering and honoring you have no real precedent or precept, and it is contrary to what God does abundantly provide on the issue. Who did souls pray to, who were they instructed to pray to, and who is set forth as the wholly qualified direct heavenly object of pray only point to the Being called God. That is what is evidenced to be the will of God. Using While we ask each other in earth to pray for us, only God can hear we also do other things which are not done is heaven
>fallen kings gave their fallen mothers such honor as they could.<
Again, that is not the issue, but they being an elevated as a universal object of intercession is, and all you really is have is a evil man asking a bad request, with bad end. No real substance or encouragement for what Rome has extrapolated out it. And in addition, and in the light of what the Holy Spirit provides in encouraging prayer and to who, there is neither warrant or need to pray to anyone else.
>In my view that "surely"presupposes that the sola Scriptura argument has been settled.<
Your premise here is an argument against church tradition, as unlike primary traditions which may be to validated to some degree by Scripture, directly or substantively derived, and if consistent with it, such as women wearing a head covering, (1Cor. 11) praying to the departed and the Mary being the heavenly dispenser to salvation and all grace is so wholly based upon the bottomless pit of uncodified tradition that one may wonder if there could be any limit to such things. Along that line, I really think that if the Reformation had not happened, with its resultant challenges for chapter and verse, there would have been more ex cathedra affirmations of the manner of the last one (hardly based upon unanimous consent either!)
>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 think by infallibly defining yourself (conditionally) infallible, exalting yourself as the entity which alone can authoritatively defines what is the Word of God and its meaning, while lacking the manner kind of supernatural Divine attestation afforded Moses, and the manner of purity, power and Scriptural probity of a Paul, is to jump off cliff - and take a lot of others with you.
>Now I am some sort of very inadequate and poorly trained theologian,<
And i think honest. And i am a former truck driver, with formal education ending at H.S, and am a slow thinker and not particularly smart, but God teaches me things (with so much more i could learn if i was more spiritual), and what is required above all is one “who is of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word”, (Is. 66:2) and that is my most constant need.
>If you WANT to talk Eucharistic theology, fine. But the main thing, He is here, and HE is here because He loves you....So our primary focus is not this or that teaching. Our primary focus is Jesus.<
It may surprise you if i said that i believe one can believe in transubstantiation and be saved, even though i do not see this as being the most warranted interpretation. And the main thing is Jesus, and preaching His gospel. That is why i have said that even if Rome would but labor to convict souls of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment, rather than treating them as Christians in recognition of their (the majority) infant sprinkling via proxy faith, and that they were utterly destitute of any merit by which they might escape Hell fire and gain eternal life, and instead, call them to look directly to God for mercy, trusting in the sinless shed blood of Christ to save them by faith (which produces following its Object), then the relationship between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals would be much different. But instead, what is officially taught, and especially what is effectually conveyed, is that of confidence in one's own merit and the power of Rome for salvation, and which her bureaucratic system depends on. Meanwhile, Roman Catholics who preach and believe more evangelically are the decided minority.
<Long enough for ya?<
Yes!, and i am even more wordy, and thus i split it up. Not fully proof read either
Thank you. I hoped some would be blessed by it.
1Ti 2:4-6
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
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.