Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict

catholicculture.org ^ | July 2, 2010 | Phil Lawler

[kosta50]

poing=point

[xzins]

you have to believe in both

That seems to be an admission that you believe in neither since one of the two is pink unicorns. But, I think you've sort of said the same in other ways in the past.

You do, however, seem to be drawn to religious things. I think d'fendr noted that recently, and there's really no denying it.

Wonder why? What do you think?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think you are missing the poing

The poing hasn't been gone long enough to be missed.

[kosta50]

I did notice you were giving the reformed perspective. I just wish you believed it. 8~)

I give it its due when I see it.

PS I was a little confused with your replies. Now that you clarified it, please disregard my post #700 too.

[kosta50]

Before the foundation of the world God mercifully chose for Himself, for His own glory and purpose, some men to redeem by the death and resurrection of His dear Son who has purchased their sins and paid for every one of them. These people, from all nations and races and eras, make up the family of God on earth. They have always been His.

A-G, is this sufficiently deterministic for you or do you still wish to make your case that only atheists have deterministic views?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

the Reformed believe man cannot resist God's will.

"Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?" - Ecclesiastes 7:13

---

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." -- Isaiah 46:10-11

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think it’s you who’s missing the poing now.

See post 683.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2546145/posts?page=683#683

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Wesley, though an earnest Christian, was an Arminian. George Whitefield bested him up and down.

WHITEFIELD'S LETTER TO WESLEY

[kosta50]

You do, however, seem to be drawn to religious things. I think d'fendr noted that recently, and there's really no denying it

My interests are Church and Bible history. Theological arguments, theories, well up I suppose as natural offshoots of that work.

For example I just discovered today that Act 13:48 in the Latin Vulgate Bible was altered under Augustine's (4th century) influence by inserting the prefix prae to the word ordinatti to conform the scriptures to Augustinian doctrine of predestination.

Thus, the verse reads praeoridnatti (pre ordianed, preset, prearranged) instead of simply arranged/ordained (oridantti) as it read before. Thus, more evidence of corruption of biblical manuscripts in the early Church for doctrinal reasons.

Fascinating. The things they didn't tell my in Sundays chool. :)

[kosta50]

You are right I missed the poing... :)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So where did you learn that from? Wesley?

[kosta50]

Wesley, though an earnest Christian, was an Arminian. George Whitefield bested him up and down.

Quite possible. I will gladly read your link. Thank you. I inlcuded John Wesley only because I like the way he succintly summarized the non-Reformist view of Acts 13:48.

Early Church interpretation points towards a non-predestinaitonal interpretation of that verse. Lack of Patristic commenatries on that verse seems to confirm that the early church did not see it as problematic.

[kosta50]

Actually it’s on Wikipedia under “Predestination.” I checked my version of the Vulgate. It’s late but tomorrow I will see if there is any other source that corroborates this.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Probably because the predestination of all that was and is and will be by the will and purpose of God was such a given in the early church. Many of those men had seen God in the flesh and witnessed the miracles firsthand. If you had seen Christ raise a dead man back to life how could you doubt God was in control?

It just makes sense, if God exists and really is who He says He is in Scripture.

From the moment of creation, all that was ever going to occur in this life on this earth (or anywhere else) was determined by God for His glory.

Or else it would be different.

We’re living God’s thoughts after Him.

Or else there is no God. There’s just you and me and them and dust and space and endless intersecting lines moving out towards who-knows-what.

One or the other. God, or else...

[Quix]

Interesting.

[Quix]

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. – John 1:12-13

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5

---

PRICELESS VERSES. THX THX. VERY PRICELESS AT THIS TIME.

[Quix]

WELL PUT.

[Quix]

WELL PUT.

[Quix]

HMMMMM

[annalex]

we do not have the sense of separation that I interpret you describing above. Indeed, it is the Catholic side which seems to split faith and works into two separate categories.

If you don't separate faith and good works, you wouldn't have the man-made dogma of salvation being by faith alone. Yet that is the cornerstone of Protestantism, an it sure separates faith from good works. Naturally, given the divisive slogan "faith alone", and given the fact that indeed some works are pronounced by the Bible to be not salvific, a ppor atholic like me has to get a bit analytical and discuss faith, good works, and works for temporal reward (lumping works of Jewish law, works for wage, and works for "boast" together) part by part.

This false doctrine has severe moral implications as it impedes sanctification through the contact with the Holy Gospel, the only means of sanctification that remains in the Protestant communities of faith. Had this false doctrine been rejected by the Protestants, they would be able to read the Gospel as written without the need for phoney hermeneutics to explain it away at nearly every verse. Had that doctrine been rejected, Protestant men would have been able to get on with their pious efforts rather than falling to the vice of presumption of their once-received salvation. This invention of Luther is a real menace of mankind. This is the menance that desecrated monasteries, ridiculed consecrated life, vandalized churches and lead nations to war with themselves. You cannot say it doesn't exist.

The separation between real faith and declared but empty (St. James says, "dead") faith is a valid distinction, you would agree. That is a distinctions often made by the Protestants as they try to justify the absurdities of "faith alone", see for example, my recent dialogue with Quix here.

The separation between good works and works done for temporal reward is also valid and is often made by St. Paul as he disputes with the judaizers in Galatians and with the nation-conscious Romans. That distinctions is lost on most Prtoestants given that I get about three posts per day on Galatians 2 and Romans 3 trying to "prove" Faith Alone.

The separation between real faioth and good works is heretical and is condemned at Trent:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. (The Sixth Session)