Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
There is a blindspot in Calvinism here. God foresees my choices, this does not mean I don't choose. God forsees the effects and changes that come from my choices. This does not mean that I do not choose and my choices have consequences.
That God foresees them in no way removes free will choices or consequences.
Let's try this analogy: I film a man making choices. I watch the film. I know what he will choose. Did he not make a choice because I know what he will choose?
God can watch the film prior, knowing what the man will choose, but he still chooses. It is two very separate things.
Knowing in advance what choices I will make and making these choices for me are two different things.
Of course, you’re right. How could I forget? Paul the Gnostic. Paul the kook. Paul the second to Peter.
The author of more than half the New Testament, and FR RCs want him relegated to comic book status.
No, the question was did God force Paul to love him. This is contrary to a loving God and contrary to Paul's own view of God.
Yes! This is the same arguments that Mormons use! Sweet! Of course that didn't stop Joseph Smith from quoting it verbotem as new revelation, even to the punctuation
Yes, some of the Tirnitaruian and Chrisotlogical heresies do come from the canonical books as well, but many came form non-canonical, or the non-canonical books were used to "support" the heretical views found elsewhere.
The canonical books are full of ambiguities and textual variants that give "proof" to such views. Others are related to such factors as grammar. Take for instance the Jegovah's Witnesses' claim regarding John 1:1it's all about one (nonexistent) indefinite article!
That's my point. Rome declares what it wants to declare.
It all depends on who showed up.
It’s corrupted where translation errors are made,not where they are not.
Lets not get carried away now
The KJV says God repents-do you actually believe this?
Amen. Certainly those are the very words of Scripture when Christ refers to believers as his real mother and brothers and sisters.
Since I didn't say that, it's something internal to your thought processes that came up with it and needs examining if you want to pursue you own mind on the matter.
Are you really willing to say that only Rome is guilty of that?
8~)
what does the bible say? And by the way, the Catholic church did not, no matter what you claim, write the Hebrew scriptures
The hardware in the horse’s mouth is a full cheek snaffle bit, which is generally considered one of the gentlest bits made. The horse standing next to me in the picture doesn’t need or use a bit, but the horse my daughter is riding is green broke. Using a bit makes it easier to communicate what is desired, and makes her more comfortable than when bitless.
I suspect people are sometimes like horses. Those sensitive to God don’t need a bit, while those of us who are less sensitive won’t know what is going on unless God uses a bit clearer guide...
But none so until the moment of their death.
Half right. We don't know for certain anyone else's salvation. Therefore we continue to preach the Gospel to all men everywhere forever, confident that those whom God has given new ears will hear the truth and believe to the saving of their souls.
We do have an indication -- by either the good fruits or evil fruits a man produces. Christ tells us that good trees produces good fruit and corrupt trees produce evil fruit.
But life is long and who is to say God will not turn the eyes of today's unbeliever to the glory of Christ tomorrow?
We DO have a reasonable certainty of our salvation because the Bible tells us that God's free gift of grace through faith in Christ is evidence of our adoption by God.
Don't let any man or church deprive you of the blessed assurance Christ has given His flock -- that He will never leave them and never let them suffer beyond what they can handle and that He will be with them until the end of time.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:18 ", Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." -- Acts 16:31
How ethical is it to ignore the topic and use the post to make a personal attack in violation of the rules?
“”I would encourage you to actually read Augustine rather than cite clips form the internet approved by Rome””
I have read Blessed Augustine and agree with him when he is in line with consistent church teaching
Blessed Augustine had some error in thought like we all do sometimes but always submitted to the Church. and stayed within the Church.
The late Fr Willam Most explains some of Augustine’s error in thinking .
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.HTM
The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis: God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin alone, without waiting for any personal sin.
God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to hell.
He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it, but that was a denial of God’s love. For to love is to will good to another for the other’s sake. If I will good to another not for that other’s sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving that person, but using him.
So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son see, he explicitly denied several times that “God wills all to be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it means
nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance.
Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on, in about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his sense of God’s goodness took over his thinking
What former Catholic made these statements?
BTW it is a bit ingenuous to word your observation on married priests as you do ... you should explain that as of RIGHT NOW, only married "priests" of other faiths that convert are allowed in the priesthood, and if their spouse dies they vow not to remarry
So are there married priest ...yes.. but that is a very special catagory
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.