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?
No, there is a distinction between an inheritance of the kingdom of God and eternal life.
There are some believers who sincerely believe they haven’t sinned for many a year. I sometimes wonder how that makes them feel. Does that makes them proud? ;^)
There are two different perspectives on the warning verses you’ve mentioned.
In one fashion, perceive these while one is in fellowship with God through faith in Christ.
In the other fashion, one can identify with those passages when out of fellowship.
They have two entirely different meanings.
When out of fellowship, a common experience is shared amongst believers how we anticipate His fiery indignation.
While in fellowship, after refacing Him and confessing our sins to Him, resting in Faith that He is also faithful and just forgiving us those sins, we aren’t looking at fiery indignation, but recognize even those sins had been redeemed on the Cross.
If we continue to dwell on His fiery indignation, that is a truthful indication that we really haven’t confessed our sins through faith in Christ, OR we really didn’t face back to Him in confession, but merely admitted those sins to anybody else or while we weren’t facing Him.
Funny thing about faith in Him, all those sins when confessed are forgotten by Him and He continues His work of faith in us.
When we recall them, we simply fall now into a sin of guilt. Again, we have to face Him through faith alone in Christ alone, confess those known and unknown sins, and again He is sure and just to forgive those sins.
There are four senses of Forgiveness related to Redemption.
A Judicial Forgiveness, where God’s Perfect Justice forgives based upon the redemption of sin on the Cross.
A Positional Forgiveness, where the unbeliever’s faith alone in Christ alone places us in a position before God where we have been redeemed by Christ on the Cross by His blood.
A Confessional Forgiveness, whereby 1stJohn 1:9, His redemptive work frees us from the consequences of sin in our thinking, allowing us to return to Him and confess, with his forgiveness of the sins which placed us out of fellowship with Him.
A Relational Forgiveness, exemplified by His redemption and grace in not anticipating anything in return for that redemption, which we also are commanded to also exhibit in our agape love of our fellow man, just as He provided His Redemption for all mankind in His grace and obedience to the Plan of the Father.
IMHO, another way of looking at the fornicator or those who sin, is to refer back to those who are fearful, for they also fail to inherit the Kingdom of God. If one is fearful, have they returned to Him, so He can return to them, or are they simply overlooking what He has provided in His redemptive work on the Cross, thinking there is something, in any little or maximum bit they could possibly do to remove His seal and salvation?
The easier solution is to turn back to Him, confess any and all known sins, THROUGH FAITH in what He has done, and stay back in fellowship with Him again,...then its an irrelevant issue other than to further glorify God.
I’m glad you stayed up to post! So of which basic school of thought of OSAS are you?
In your first one, the “perserverance of the Saints” as explained in Calvinism says that all true believers in Christ will never be lost. That no true child of God, though he may sin due to the old nature, will never stop believing. He cannot become unelected (impeached?).
In the second, a true believer will have works in his life that demonstrate a living faith. Versus a dead, lifeless faith. If he sins, when he sins, he will be convicted in his heart by the Holy Spirit and will confess and foresake his sin and God will restore fellowship. If the believer continues in sin despite the discipline and chastisement of his heavenly father and causes the name of Christ to be blasphemed, God will take him home. He can never be condemned once he is saved. Because his salvation is never based upon his own merit but by grace alone through faith alone.
Finally, I think you are saying that a believer CAN lose his salvation if he forsakes his faith in Jesus Christ and tries to go back to his old ways of working for his salvation and earning eternal life. In Galations 5, I think Paul is not just speaking to believers, but also some who were not convinced yet that Paul was speaking the truth about the role of faith in having eternal life. He is telling them that if they want to be saved by the law, they must fulfill all the law and that to rely on works for salvation is to fall from grace, they were never true believers who don’t rely on grace and grace alone. He says in Romans that it is either grace or works, either a free gift or earned and that it is either/or because it cannot be a combination of both.
As far as the usual comeback when people hear OSAS, “Oh then you can just go out and live as you please, raping, stealing, murdering, and God will still let you into heaven?” We know from the Scriptures that God creates a new nature within his child, his Holy Spirit now indwells, we are created unto good works which God has “forordained” that we should walk in them. A true child of God is changed from within. He no longer will be content living in rebellion from God. Will he fail in his walk from time to time? Yes, in fact God says if we deny we do we are lying. But he has provided a way that we can come to him in repentence. We confess (name it like he names it) our sin. He says he will be faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Do some people try to take advantage of this grace? Yep. Will they get away with it? Nope. Because we now have a father from whom nothing can be hidden. He knows everything we do, every thought and intent we have. Kinda hard to get anything past him.
So where am I on the idea of Once Saved always Saved? I say yes, we are.
Lastly, regarding those awful “fornicators”, the verses say:
1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
I think we ALL fit in there somewhere but he doesn’t end it there. Thank God he says:
1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
” . . . the substitution of the names of Catholics saints for the names of African animist spirits by voodoo practitioners.”
Do the priests discipline the church? Do they not insist on separation from false gods and unclean spirits?
I feel the same way. Yes we sin, yes we can be led away. But there is no real pleasure in sin, and we realize it and come back. And he is always waiting to forgive and take us back and, hopefully, each time this happens, our faith grows stronger, our sadness over grieving him grows deeper and we get a little better each time.
MadDawg may be able to testify if this story I heard is true or not. Even if it isn’t, I still believe the concept, because it happened to me!
The story is about how a shepherd who had a lamb that was always running off from the fold, getting lost, getting in trouble, risking being eaten by wolves, would take that lamb and break its leg. He would then splint the leg and carry the lamb upon his shoulders until the leg was healed. After that the lamb would never stray again.
Sometimes God has to let us go off and do our own thing. He then allows that rebellion to break our hearts - which sin will ALWAYS do. Then when we come back to him in tears and sorrow for our sins, he forgives us and carries us until our heart heals. We learn that true happiness and joy can only be found in him and we don’t want to ever be away from him again.
Its not about religion, its about language. The Catholic Church uses the term "Pontiff" for its highest office. The word is on Roman origin but has nothing to do with the Roman religion.
No, the role of the Church is not to discipline and enforce, it is to educate and nurture. It is based upon redemption and forgiveness. Priests are to lead us on the path to salvation, not drive us with a whip and threats of damnation. Even excommunication does not interfere with ones relationship with God, it only places the excommunicated in a state of exile with the Church.
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.
You are making the same error of sola scriptura, reading one solitary verse out of context. What does 1 Corinthians 2 say:
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
“No, the role of the Church is not to discipline and enforce, it is to educate and nurture. It is based upon redemption and forgiveness. Priests are to lead us on the path to salvation, not drive us with a whip and threats of damnation. Even excommunication does not interfere with ones relationship with God, it only places the excommunicated in a state of exile with the Church.”
In Haiti, one can be a Catholic and still practice Voodoo. Where is the education and nurturing in that (?), seeing it is on no small scale . . . and . . .
In the Philippines one can be a Catholic and still practice Buddhism. Where is the education and nurturing in that (?) likewise seeing that it is open and prolific across the country.
Some, then, are blending, and some others are NEITHER educating nor nurturing.
Basically these people have just added a form of “Jesus” to their native religions-—trying to cover all the bases, and this brings reproach upon the Saviour.
Now, if someone will just admit that Catholicism does not claim that Jesus Christ is the ONLY truth, the ONLY way, and the ONLY life, then we hava different story going on.
“Its not about religion, its about language. The Catholic Church uses the term “Pontiff” for its highest office. The word is on Roman origin but has nothing to do with the Roman religion.”
Thank you for the link and I did check out the earlier website in question. However, I really did not see it as a laughing matter. While the website does appear to be run by some woman whose cheese has slipped off the cracker, that fact is irrelevant to the page Dr. E. linked to. That page appeared to contain various news accounts from organizations such as the AP, CBS, and the BBC, all describing various sightings all around the world by Catholics claiming to have seen bleeding statues. The stories also described the profound significance that these "events" had to the Catholic witnesses.
Therefore, the credibility of the woman running the website, for these purposes, is irrelevant. The question is whether these were actually news stories run by commonly accepted news organizations. If they were, then I would suggest that the proper scrutiny here would fall on those who were making all the fuss about the weeping statues, not on the crazy woman who cut and pasted these news accounts onto her website. The thing to worry about is not whether this site is Vatican approved, but whether it is true that Catholics all over the world really are turning handsprings over these purported "miracles". If that really is true, then that spaceship might need to make some extra room. :)
Actually Mary was never asked if she would choose to be the mother of Christ ...she was TOLD she would
Luke1:26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
She was told she would conceive a son and what His name would be. The angel never asked her if it was ok did he?
So then God could choose to sin?
That assumes we are out of God’s control because we choose to be. But if God gives us a choice to make, and allows us to make it freely, that is within his will and his control.
I have to disagree. I don't think a valid argument can be made saying that God retains control by GIVING UP control. I have agreed with your recent postings supporting what "God-breathed" means. Your postings seem consistent with the idea that God was in full control of the content of scriptures. Could you still say that if God just kept out and let the authors write whatever they wanted? Would that still be "God-breathed"? I doubt you would say yes. "God-breathed" means God was in full control. If He chose to let the authors use their free wills to write anything, then God would be giving up that control, and then the Bible, God's own word, would be outside His control.
FK: “The key question to answer is whether God gives us the ability to choose against His will.”
Well, look at scripture. Does it clearly teach we are to repent? Yes. Does it clearly teach we are to believe? Yes. Are these presented as something we decide, decisions for us to make? Yes.
Well, perhaps on the surface it could be interpreted that way. That doesn't make it the correct interpretation. I have seen you quote tons of scripture on this issue and very many of those quotes can legitimately be taken as either plain statements of fact, or as arms-length offers. Even the "biggie" is a prime example:
I look at that statement and say "Yes, that is a true statement, whoever believes will have eternal life. But this statement does not specifically address how it is that one comes to believe." From your other postings I would infer that you would take this as an offer from God, "if you choose to do this then I will do this ...". It would appear that both of us use other scripture to explain the "how" of coming to faith. Ours relies more on the nature and actions of God as described throughout scripture. The free will advocate's approach seems to focus more on bargaining and deal making between God and man.
Interestingly, it occurred to me that perhaps a reason for our differences on this relates to seeing differently what the New Covenant actually IS. In the OT God made several covenants with His people and the vast majority of them were one-way covenants. The Mosaic Covenant, of course, would be one big exception, but it was just that, an exception. The Mosaic Covenant, being a two-way covenant functioned similarly to how free will thinkers see the New Covenant acting today, that is, if man does this then God will do that. But is the New Covenant REALLY a two-way Covenant? Perhaps the earliest mention of the New Covenant was in:
This passage appears to directly state that the New Covenant will be one-way in distinction to the two-way Mosaic Covenant. The New Covenant does not sound like an arms-length agreement, it sounds like a declaration by the Lord of what He is going to do. This would be just like the covenant He made with Abraham. In addition, note the reason God gives for making a new covenant. It was that the people broke the old two-way covenant. One sure way of avoiding that situation would be going back to the one-way covenants that cannot be broken.
If God’s will is to have loving sons vs obedient robots, then giving us that choice is critical to his higher will. He may want us all to be saved, but if he desires sons more than he desires compelled obedience, then he has to give us choices - that we may screw up badly.
The concept of robots never even enters the picture since robots have no wills. We have always maintained that God has given all of us a will. I don't understand why you are saying God is compelled to give us free will choices if He prefers sons to compelled obedience. God simply prefers the sons He has already chosen, so He saves them. Since He is omnipotent He can save ALL of the ones He wants, infallibly. Why would He be compelled to take the chances you seem to think He would want to take? If you were in God's place would you take chances with the ones you loved, or would you be sure about them because you loved them so much?
As an officer goes up in rank, one of the greatest challenges is to figure out how much freedom to give a subordinate. Too little, and you stifle growth. Too much, and you permit failure. And failure can mean death, or it may mean being fired for your subordinate’s actions.
This comparison does not fit at all since God can make the decisions about who He wants AND He can grow us in the faith at the same time. Here, too much freedom would be any freedom at all since the stakes literally ARE eternal death. If God TRULY loves, then He will not take any chances. No one in hell is ever going to say "Thanks, God, for loving me so much that you let me blow this and now I'm stuck down here forever." :) I mean face it, with two seconds left on the clock, and your eternal destination is on the line, who do you WANT handling the ball, you or God? :)
Sorry. I did supply the link, but the other party still required of me to provide the verses, and it was late, and i shouldn’t have to rewrite it all.
There are two ways to look at freedom, my way, also known as the right way, and the Nominalist way.
The Nominalist way views the will as free when it is entirely free from any influence whatsoever. the cartoon way to look at it is the will says, Door A: misery, sin, injustice, etc. Door B: bliss, virtue, justice, etc. What to do, what to do?
The other way is to think of the will of the sinner as ALMOST completely unfree. Freedom in this view is the ability to know and to choose the good and to act on that choice. In this view, for anyone to sin, to choose evil is not an instance but a defect of Freedom. God is not free TO sin; He is completely free, therefore He does not sin.
You know nothing of our relationship to make such a statement.
IF YOU read the whole thread,
I've been following the entire thread. You think I remember every name that has responded?
"I've read this whole thread and is wasn't until #6200 or so that your unbelief in the Trinity became manifest."
Wrong. You're about 3000 posts off.
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.