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?
In no place did the church use physical means to chastise its members, HOWEVER, it IS a role of the Church to discipline and enforce, and so they did, by spiritual power, (1Cor. 4:19-21) even using the devil (1Cor. 5:1-5; 1Tim. 1:20) as well as by the passive means of disfellowship. (1Cor. 5:11)
God had constituted the church to exist and overcome by spiritual power. It is not given to the church to war after the flesh, (2Cor. 10:2-6) in defending the faith or expanding it, but by spiritual means (Eph. 6:12) overcome, even as the apostles and N.T. church testified and exampled. (2Cor. 6:1-10; 13:2-4; Heb. 10:34)
Nor is part of the charter of the church to rule over those without (1Cor. 5:12,13), but which power and the sword (an instrument of death) is given to secular powers, to be used justly that is, (Rm. 13:1-5; 1 Peter 2:13,14) And the more the church brings souls to be ruled from within, the less they need to be controlled from without God control versus gun control.
However, i do not think this may disallow a believer from helping Caesar fulfil his function, if it can be done without comprise. Nor does this prevent appealing to the justice and power of the State, (Acts 22:25) as well as exposing injustice, at least as relates to unlawful hindering the gospel. (Acts 16:35-37)
And while we are to forsake retaliation (much in contrast to the Qur’an) and are to rely on spiritual power, i do not think this disallows spanking your kids if need be, as you are the government there, though it would be much better if they feared the power of our prayers!
But taking pacifists arguments to their conclusion, i do not think any use of physical force can be disallowed, from stopping a suicidal man against his will, to (as prayerfully as possibly) stopping the lost from being unjustly hurt or killed.
“I don’t think a valid argument can be made saying that God retains control by GIVING UP control.”
Why? If God’s will is that we learn to choose, or that we freely choose X over Y, then letting us choose is critical to accomplishing God’s goal. You mistake the means for the end. God sets the goal, and he sets who will attain that goal - NOT by a list of names, but by setting what conditions are involved.
This is a fundamental disagreement - what does control mean? To the Calvinist, it means controlling every step. It means telling poor Mia, who would be tired of being used as an example, that she must put her right front foot there, then her left rear foot must go there, and so on as she walks thru the desert. I’ve read that some jump riders do that - they walk a course in advance, and decide exactly how many strides their horse must take between each jump, and then try to control the horse to do it - their way.
Others believe that if the horse likes to jump, you merely need to point out the next jump, and the horse can decide how many strides it needs.
In the military, since I WANTED my subordinates to show initiative and use their creativity, I set the goals. Then, depending on the person, I gave differing levels of supervision to help them achieve that goal. But I never did the work myself, or told them every step to take.
God created man in His image. That means he gave us reason, creativity, imagination, will - and he desires for us to use them for His purposes. We cannot do that if he forces us to do A, then B, then a half-step right and do C...
As an officer, I was totally responsible for my subordinates actions, although as a human I obviously wasn’t in total control of them. That is why a Navy Captain can be fired for a mistake by the helmsman while the Captain is in his bunk. How much more so God, who knows everything about us?
“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?”
It seems Paul wrote letters that are NOT scripture, as well as some that were. John MacArthur uses this as an example of free will and predestination - Paul wrote Romans. God wrote Romans. It was 100% / 100%, not 50/50. How does that work? We don’t know.
I think MacArthur overstates the case. Peter wrote, with experience, “19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” - 2 Peter 1
When it came time for God’s message to be made in written form, the writers “were carried along by the Holy Spirit”. God decided more control was needed for that activity, and he provided it.
It is this differing idea about what control consists of that distinguishes between Calvin and Arminius. Calvin believes God loses control if he doesn’t actively control every twitch of our muscles. Arminius believes God makes our muscle twitches possible, but directs us to go across the room and talk to someone about Him.
“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:
John 3:16 : 16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
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.”” - FK
If God says, “Whosoever believes in him shall have eternal life” but MEANS “Whosoever I give belief to will have eternal life”, then it is a lie. And God had the option of saying the latter, which reflects Calvin’s belief.
Now if it were only one verse, I might grant your point as saying it isn’t conclusive. However, when Jesus says “Repent”, if he meant, “Those I give repentance to”, then he lies. Because he COULD have phrased it the latter way, IAW Calvin’s teaching. God says:
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, [you] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
God didn’t say, “When I sealed you with the Holy Spirit, you heard the gospel message and believed...”
At some point, when hundreds of texts have a plain meaning of A, and that plain meaning conflicts with Calvin’s interpretation, then Calvin is wrong. Otherwise we can toss out Sola Scriptura - if we cannot read plain texts plainly, then scripture has no value. We can then all read the Catholic Catechism instead...
Look at the texts involving healing and faith. Not once does the healing precede the faith - and faith is person A believing person B can and will do X.
Mar 2:5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”
Mar 5:34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”
Mar 10:52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.
Luk 17:19 And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”
Luk 18:42 And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.”
That is a sample. There is not a single case of Jesus saying, “Be healed, and then believe!” When Jesus said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners”, he made it plain that his healing was an example of our salvation.
“But is the New Covenant REALLY a two-way Covenant?” - FK
A covenant is two way, by definition. You make a covenant WITH me, not AT me.
Random House defines it as;
“an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.” or, in theological terms:
“Bible.
a. the conditional promises made to humanity by God, as revealed in Scripture.
b. the agreement between God and the ancient Israelites, in which God promised to protect them if they kept His law and were faithful to Him.”
A covenant is not one way.
2 Cor 3 says, “12Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. 14But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.”
When do we (or the Jews, in this case) enter the covenant?
“15Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.”
Not, when the veil is removed they will turn to the Lord, but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
“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? :)”
Depends. If we’re talking about the loving God I believe in, I’d rather leave it in his hands. However, Calvin taught that God WANTS perhaps 90% of men to burn in hell to show his power! Not that God allows them to choose hell, but that God actively desires for all those not on his list to go to hell, “for His pleasure”!
If we’re talking about the God of Calvin, then I prefer to trust my own judgment.
The whole premise of your argument gives glory to sin in that we can not know God without sin. This is Un-Christian because sin is founded in hateread of God
RN7””So then God does not have a free will..His will is governed by His Holy nature right?””
No,God does a free will...
excerpt from Aquinas
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc3_73.htm
“The last end of every creature is to attain to a likeness to God therefore it would be contrary to providence to withdraw from a creature that whereby it attains the divine likeness. But a voluntary agent attains the divine likeness by acting freely, as it has been shown that there is free will in God (B. I, Chap. LXXXVIII).
RN7-”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 “
Free will!Adam and Eve’s free decision TO SIN.
In your world holiness and love can only be known due to sin-which makes evil in control from all eternity if you say sin originates from God. You have things backwards
Satan is off the hook according to your logic.
I spent enough time on this already.
I wish you well on your search for truth!
BUT, this is going to get beyond my capacity really fast, so I am going to ATTEMPT to be concise as can be. ADD and reading issues don't go with my academic desires. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.)
Your first points highlight agreement with the lack of Scriptural support for ( as distinct from scriptural incompatability with ) the Marian Dogma.
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.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference in ecclesiology.
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,
I think it is the most important, not logically trivial. That is, I am aware of the self-reference in our ecclesiology. Unless you said something I missed (VERY possible) I would suggest that the same kind of self-reference characterizes SS.
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.
Barring the Marian part (which I mostly concede), I think that's a little unfair. The "Scripture interprets Scripture" argument is used by your side to certify whichever view is being examined. If one is to make a coherent theology from the Bible there are going to be some texts which get more oomph than others. I don't see that as being avoidable.
As a general hedge, I would ask: Are we now saying that the decision of Acts 15 was unanimously upheld? I don't think so. Judaizers were a problem afterwards, were they not? And it is not a bad thing, is it, that the Catholic ecclesiology is self-consistent? Is self-contradiction a good thing?
... 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.
Slipping from description to argumentation is confusing. I would substitute "disputed" for erroneous, for the sake of clarity. We know on which side the other stands. ;-)
Further, I think we may have a difference over the works-theology of ex opere operans and ex opere operato> If anything metastasized it is our rejeciton of Donatism and our radical dependence of God, rather than the virtues of this or that pope.
God can indeed raise up children of the covenant from stones, and some of those children, in holy orders or not, may have heads full of rocks even after their raising up.
As Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal Yves Congar [Dominican and considered by many to be wildly liberal] stated .../i>
Again, unanimity or consensus is a standard that I think hasn't been met since Acts 15.
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 really irritates me when people do the 'same yesterday, today, and clear into next weekend' thing. I know what they mean, but the development of doctrine makes the claim needlessly obscure and confusing.
I'm guessing, I don't know, that the "history ... treason" thing (the guy needed some lessons in outreach, IMHO) means only that the conjectures about a certain ecclesiastical purity in the apostolic and sub-apostolic age contradicts our notion that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church and protected her from [critical] error from Pentecost (or Easter -- or the Annunciation) to now and will to the end of the age.
And I think Luther, despite his faults, served in that unction and function.
I think Luther, like many of his time, were the inevitable fruit of a Nominalist view of the will and other errors not directly associated with ecclesiology. Nevertheless, if Luther had not renounced the Church, he would have been an awesome prophet. It took us too many centuries, but the clear and partially deserved accusations of the reformers have, "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," done us great good, on the positive side, and on the negative side, union with the "Eastern Church" and with our Protestant brothers would do the Church a world of good. When I'm not arguing with you all, I am grieving that we are not 100% on the same team.
I say again that Dominic and Francis showed other ways to do reform which were just as critical of the luxury and venality of some of the bozos as anything Luther did. Nothing like walking miles barefoot and begging one's supper (and laughing when the supper is not forthcoming) to witness to faith. Some say it beats swords.
As to interpreting correctly: This illustrates (to moi) the Protestant failure to deal correctly with 1 Cor 12 and other passages about diversity of gifts. Not every Catholic is going to be looking into these comparatively recondite matters. I make it through my spiritual day (if I don't log on to FR) only sometimes dealing with theology. There's talking about God and there's living in and with God. You don't need to be a theologian to do the latter. Blessed Margaret of Castello again. She is as much my hero as Aquinas is, and more so in some respects.
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)
Why is the exclusion of cults not an artificial distinction? The Jehovah's Witnesses make imposing arguments to support their Arianism. By what standard is one group called a cult and another not? Also, what is a "basic salvific truth?" Isn't that itself a matter of debate? To observe the Arminian/Calvinist tussle here, one would conclude that the Calvinists are accusing the Arminians of something right next door to the Sin against the Holy Ghost.
The disagreements of the Catholic in the street to me indicate how we hope to preach and teach the Gospel and to provide other spiritual helps, but leave the "increase" to God. A Buddhist saying is "If you hold a lotus to a rock long enough, who knows, it might take root." Similarly, if we pray, preach, teach, celebrate the sacraments, who knows, one day somebody might be touched. It makes no theological or ecclesiological difference to me that Mrs. Concetta McGillicuddy uses artificial contraception. Straight is the way and narrow the gate; people wander and bump into the gate posts all the time. That's no reflection on the way.
Roman Catholic theologians debate the level of authority of this teaching.
Oh goodness! Of course they do. It's their job. But there's no question what the teaching is and where the average Catholic's duty lies.
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.
When Rome is falling apart and the Barbarians are at the gates and the eastern Emperor says, "I can't find anybody to run the joint, would you please take charge?" the Pope should have said, "Alaric, Schmalaric, it's not my job."
The very Biblical (in their view) Puritans had no trouble with the idea of hegemony in Massachusetts, to the distress of the Baptists. How did Calvin end up in a position where he could see to the execution of an Arminian (I THINK I have my facts right there, but I won't go to the mat.) It seems to me a little picky to get on our case for exercising civil power when nobody knew the difference between civil and ecclesiastical power or that they could be separated. It took a while to 'get' some things. It still takes a while.
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”, Forgive me, after the tenth or so time that I go into the relationship between eternity and time and after I have already said in this exchange that the Holy Spirit clearly (I'm tempted to say "obviously") provides the unity of the Body of Christ and therefore must logically mediate communication with the saints, I tend to assume the point has been made.
That the departed can hear is speculation,
There is one body. In what other body do the members not communicate? I stub my toe, my adrenal medullae secrete adrenaline, superficial blood vessels around my body contract.
heavenly objects of intercession,
Objects of requests for intercession. GOD is the object of intercession. (Vocabulary/usage issue).
I'm going to leave the "billions of prayers" thing for somebody else. It hinges on the idea popular among some protestants that God and especially the Holy Spirit, are subject to time rather than lords over it.
I THINK the rest amounts to if we're wrong, we're REALLY wrong. True. But if we're right ...
Thank you for your kind words about my alleged honesty. If there is any in this cess-pool, it's God's gift. Let us praise Him as I praise Him for you and for your excellent posts. As to convicting of sin, would our pastor saying last week, "The ONLY THING any of us can take credit for is SIN," be enough?
blah blah blah. I wonder if this will fit in one post.
All you all: Hats off to daniel1212! This is a highly impressive piece of work.
(Rev 6:9) “And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:”
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
(Mat 10:28) “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Is it his work?
I agree...
Rev.20:13...And they were judged, each one according to his works.
I don't see that working out to well.
No, I don't see it working out at all...
So then Gods will is NOT completely free is it?
If He can not choose to sin His will is not free... Is God free to change His promises and prophesies ?
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.
Unsaved man can do nothing but sin in Gods eyes
Rom 14:23 — And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Well, absent attribution, I’m going with yeah.
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
That's pretty comprehensive. "All things consist" of Him and by Him and for Him.
Sounds like God to me.
The Trinity is not a difficult concept to understand if viewed as all part of God's chosen means of revealing Himsef to men in time and space as well as in eternity -- God the Father elects from before the foundatuion of the world for His own purpose and glory; God the Son redeems 2,000 years ago and on until the end of the world; God the Holy Spirit sanctifies in this life, personally, within time on this earth now until we die and are glorified in His name. .
It's all the same God, carrying out His perfect plan for redeeming the sheep He has given to Christ to bring home as the Holy Spirit sanctifies their lives by the knowledge of their only God and Savior.
Yep. And they will have to answer for every time they looked away from Jesus Christ to something else for anything.
I am not free to be thirsty while I am quenched. I am not free to be weak when I am strong. God is not free not to be God.
But being God is in no way a limitation. Being Just, which God is, is not a limitation. Cleanliness perfected, not limited, by the absence of dirt. The lack of imperfection is not a limitation on perfection.
God is not free not to be free. That is not a limitation on freedom, it is the fullness of Freedom.
That we can say "square circle" does not mean we are making sense. To sin is not an act of freedom but evidence of a lack of the ability to know, to chose, and to do the good.
Maybe that's clearer.
So now omniscience is not a unique attribute of God? Angels have it as well???
He announced to Mary that WHICH WOULD BE because it had been ordained before the foundation of the world. There was no question of its accuracy.So how could that be so sure if Mary had the free will to say no?
But God's irresistible grace had preceded that announcement, her will had been changed by that grace and now her will was aligned with Gods.
Mary, however, did consent, as the Bible teaches us, in verse 38 of the scripture you quoted.
She acknowledged her agreement with the plan because God had ordained it to be so. The agreement was not an independent act for which Mary is due accolades. The agreement was an act of Gods grace in her for which He should get glory.. not her.
Interesting that one confessing the so-called believer baptism would not recognize one when he sees one.
So now you are calling this a baptism? Why would Mary need to be baptized you do no believe she had original sin right?
We agree, God does not have a free will then.. He is bound by His nature and attributes and He can not violate them
In the same way man is not free not to be man, he can not in himself violate or get freedom from his nature
San Fransodom? Californicate? Is that in the Greek?
Do you really believe that your every thought and deed will be analyzed and that you will be admitted to Heaven based upon the entire body of your work?
Doesn't God already know these things?
How does this fit with the concept of election and the various Solas of Calvinism?
Isn't it enough that you love God with all of your heart and soul at the moment of death?
It always gets back to the same Pelagian error -- that men are inherently capable and willing to do the right thing, thus negating the Fall and its disastrous repercussions.
"Nobody who has not the Spirit of God can see a jot of what is in the Scriptures. All men have their hearts darkened, so that even when they can discuss and quote all that is in Scripture, they do not understand or really know it... The Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture...The will of man without grace is not free, but is enslaved, and that too with its own consent..." - Martin Luther" "Grace does not destroy the will but rather restores it." - Augustine On Grace And Free Will
That is odd.
Calvinist Heaven is based totally on the luck of the draw. A person is either saved or damned and this was all decided prior to Creation, so NOTHING we do has any impact on Salvation. It doesn't matter what a person does or doesn't do, what they believe or what they deny, it is simply a lottery drawing. This is the reason why the most ardent Calvinists are often some of the most hateful people you will ever encounter, they are totally convinced that how they act is unimportant.
Didn’t I go over this before?
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.
8,119 posted on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:25:06 AM by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
##############
Nice summary, imho.
Thx.
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.