Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
We are born guilty before God... Innocence died at the fall,
Consider the flood.. did not God drown all men,women ,and children he had created because they were all guilty before Him? Was that unjust? Can God be unjust?
What men do not like is the justice of God ...the Catholic church always taught that an unbaptized adult or baby could not get into heaven.. That was because of the fall.
I believe I have a just God that always does right.. and that includes the eternity of infants and unborn children
****Divine power makes us willing, but we must accept, we are not puppets.***
Unregenerate men are not able ..as Paul tells us, men are slaves to sin, until freed by Gods grace
You will excuse me if I say that I think that observation is disrespectful of God as God ?
Was Noah a puppet of God? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? Moses? The Pharaoh? Joshua? David.? Solomon ? Or were they a part of Gods foreordained plan of Salvation?
Was John the Baptist a puppet? Mary? the apostles? Judas ? Jesus?
Gods sovereignty over people, nations and events is found throughout the Bible . (Pro 21:1** The king’s heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will. )
He raised up Nations and He tore them down. He set up leaders and caused wars. Prophecy come true because God has ordained the events prophesied. Rom 13:1 — Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Jhn 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. .
The term KING of Kings is not subject to human permission .
We need to understand how the will of man works.
A man will always will to chose what he prefers.If you hate spinach you will never order it.
Our preferences are placed in us by the creator. He know exactly how we will act in any given circumstance. We do as we will, we make free choices guided by the preferences that we are created with.
Every man chooses exactly what He chooses to do . Every man is fully responsible for those choices.But not one of our choices are a surprise to God..He does not consider the works of men a mystery novel . He wrote it and know how it ends..not by dumb luck ..but by his direct interventions in the affairs of men .
Romans 11:1 “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Certainly not! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew....
What then? Israel did not obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? ?
3’Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.’
4 ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’
5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
6 And if it is by grace, then it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? Israel did not obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
8 as it is written: ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, down to this very day
8 as it is written: ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, down to this very day.’
Gods sovereignty in the affair of nations and people..
The creation of God are not “puppets
A. Humans are self-aware, puppets are not.
B. Humans make choices, puppets do not.
C. Humans use logic, puppets do not.
D. Humans have emotions, puppets do not.
E. Humans have preferences, puppets do not.
F. Humans act in accordance with their preferences, puppets do not.
G. Humans consciously do what is determined for them, puppets unconsciously do what is determined for them.
H. Humans understand why they are doing what they are—they act for a reason; puppets do not.
I. Puppets are determined by physical necessity, humans by moral necessity.
Since the fall men have sought the same thin Eve did ..”ye shall be gods” . Men do choose , and men are fully responsible for the choices..and yet every choice is within the will and plan of God and will be used to accomplish His purposes.
Let me ask you something. Is there something the matter with the creator having sovereignty over His creation? Can you grant God the same free will you want for yourself?
Can God choose a man? Or is man sovereign over God?
The problem is that men think God owes them a shot at salvation..when in reality what God owes each of us is hell. He owes us nothing. The only one concerned with “fairness” is Satan . Mercy is not getting what you deserve. If you do anything to earn it it is no longer Mercy
* Rom 9:19** Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? **
* Rom 9:20** Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? ** *
Rom 9:21** Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
Adding to my discomfiture about these 'sources' is the following:This Roman influence is the source of our vestments, genuflection, kneeling, and the strict formality of Mass.
I'm not so sure about his comment on genuflection and kneeling. I thought they came in much later. However a canon of Nicea, if I recall correctly, forbade kneeling during the 50 days of Easter. And you generally don't write laws to prohibit what nobody is doing, so SOMEBODY must have been kneeling if they went to the trouble to forbid it.
But evidence from artwork suggests that the formal attire of alb (tunic) amice (neckerchief/hood -- ring-around-the-collar-preventer), maniple (evidently descended from a handkerchief carried as a status symbol but 'rationalized' as the towel a servant might carry), and chasuble (and maybe cope as well) derived from 'high class' attire of Byzantium, while the Deacons 'dalmatic' came from the attire of Dalmatia. (What are the chances of THAT?) The most obscure article of official clerical attire is the stole. My own personal guess is that it is derived from the tallith ('prayer shawl') of Judaism. I am free to guess since there seems to be no clear derivation.
The chasuble, which is a poncho sort of affair, is clearly (from art, AND from common sense and the history of tailoring generally) derived from customary rough weather or travelling outerwear. The ornate and very helpful mosaics in San Vitale in Ravenna (which Google) are a great source for information on imperial and clerical garb in the time of Justinian (EASTERN Emperor, i.e. NOT Roman)(482-565). The emperor's cloak is fastened with a pin at his right shoulder, leaving his right arm free. There is also what looks like a humeral veil, while what I take to be deacons seem to have something like an "epigonation", the Eastern version of the maniple, hanging from their arms.
All of this is to say that when somebody, especially somebody who seems to have an agenda, makes a number of statements about things some of which I know about while most of which I don't, AND he is wrong (or at least doubtful) about the things I do know about, then I don't trust him in the things I don't know about. So I'd count your change after putting your money on this guy.
But All of this is not to the purpose. This is the last time I'm going to say this:
Metmom said that her statements were to be believed because she had been a Catholic. BUT her statements were incorrect.
I am NOT attacking her. As far as I know she's a wonderful and pious person. This is not about her in general. It is about her claim to authority.
-1- Whether or not the doctrines of Real Presence and Transubstantiation are true, it is clear to anyone who spends a minimum of time on the question that the teaching on transubstantiation says that the appearances of the elements do not change. THEREFORE an argument against the doctrine founded on the absence of any change in the appearances is necessarily an argument that displays that the doctrine is not understood.
-2- The statement that it is a matter of Catholic teaching (as opposed to discipline in the largest sub-group of the Church) that marriage and clerical status are incompatible is demonstrably false. Whether the falsehood comes from imprecision of expression has nothing to do with the question because the question I was addressing is "Whether metmom's experience as a Catholic makes her a reliable source on Catholic teaching?"
-3- And, mutatis mutandis, so also with the chalice at communion.
I do not assign blame for the conjectured poor catechesis. I do not condemn or disparage metmom in any way OTHER THAN with respect to her claim of authority based on experience.
EVERYTHING else is a distraction from this simple argument. I bit off a small piece and everyone is trying to make it into something more than I can chew.
Metmom may be a fine arguer from Scripture. There may be other excellencies she exhibits. I was not making a general characterization of her or her merits. I was only addressing the claim of authority based on experience.
That's it. If anyone wants to discuss this ridiculously inflated issue further, let him freepmail me, and MAYBE I will respond, life being short and time limited and all. But it's quite ridiculous to argue against something I did not say and to defend it on the grounds that I should have considered things metmom might have said but didn't.
IN fact the persistence in making this impossible kind of argument leads me to wonder if your side is really interested in argument or is interested only in winning by hook or by crook, and especially by rope-a-dope, or getting us to spend our energy on bogus issues raised only to tire us out.
In a nutshell, as I understand it, it would be the ability of the individual to to choose to follow or reject God; to obey or disobey at the discretion of the individual, without being forced or compelled to.
I’m sure that some will find that lacking in some area, and there are probably things I could add, given more thought, but that’s basically it.
Yeah. While I don’t believe that works earn us salvation, it does require a response on our part, somewhat equivalent to throwing yourself on the mercy of the court.
It’s not really *works*, per se.
ooh ooh! Me, teacher! Over here! [waving hand wildly]
Free will is the ability to know the good, to choose it, and to do it.
Now may I clean the erasers?
All I’m looking for is evidence of a quote allegedly made my me that the Catholic church never permitted married priests.
It currently does not allow priests to marry, but that is not the same as not permitting, under certain circumstances, men who are married to remain so while becoming priests, as opposed to requiring them the only other option, that would be the sin of divorce. And a priest whose wife dies it not permitted to remarry, IIRC.
They are two different statements that the Catholic church does not ever allow married priests and that the Catholic church does not allow priests to marry. Even MD said essentially that.
If you can’t see that, I’m sorry to hear it. I’ll pray that you would be enlightened to see the not so subtle difference.
Carried to its extreme -- not a great distance -- this is the kind of distinction which permits abortion.
Jesus from the moment of His conception was and is the real Jesus.
Besides, the carping up til now was that we worshipped the dead Jesus on the cross. Now it's only the infant or toddler Jesus?
Maybe your side should retire and agree on the nature of our crimes before we are charged with them.
We do trust them (Church Fathers) when they are united and don't trust them when they are not united with the teachings of the Church
Herein lies the difference in identity of the Christian Church and the RCC identification of the Church. The Christian Church also trusts the Church Fathers when they are united and don't trust them when they are not united with the teachings of Christ. One has the object of a grouping of men labeled the Church, while the other focuses on the object providing foundation to the Church.
Oh. Well, if that's your definition of Free Will, Calvinists don't deny that.
Rather, Calvinists state that since the Fall, Unregenerate Men (which is all of us, prior to God's regeneration of our dead spirits) freely choose to Reject God, because that is what Unregenerate, Spiritually-dead Men want to do.
What would be heretical would be the suggestion that any Unregenerate Man would ever freely choose to Follow God while yet in their Spiritually-Dead condition; because the Bible clearly states that while a man is yet Spiritually-Dead his desires are Totally Depraved:
And so, while yet in his Spiritually-Dead state, the Unregenerate Man will always freely choose to Reject God. This is the express teaching of the Bible:
To suggest, therefore, that Men will freely choose to Follow God while yet in their Unregenerate State, is to preach the lie of Satan: that Fallen Men are not really Spiritually Dead, and will still sometimes freely choose to perform God-Pleasing actions. "Ye shall not surely die".
Thus, we as Calvinists understand that Men only freely choose to Follow God, after they have been Quickened unto Spiritual Life by the Efficacious Grace of God.
Calvinists do not deny Free Will.
Rather, we simply affirm that Fallen Man REALLY IS Spiritually Dead. And that while a Fallen Man remains Unregenerate, he will always freely choose to Reject God, because that is what he Naturally wants to do.
Thus, only those whom God chooses to Regenerate unto Spiritual Life, do thence freely choose to Follow Him.
Only good? So those with Free Will cannot do Evil?
Your definition is lacking. Try again?
Wrong. The Limbo of unbaptized infants (as distinct from the Limbo of the Fathers) was never more than a hypothesis, never a doctrine (though admittedly a widely accepted hypothesis). And of course "baptism of blood" rose pretty early, "baptism of desire" probaby later but I couldn't swear to it.
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
I realize that my position is not far off from Calvinism, yet I remain convinced that in the end, for all the calling, drawing, enlightening, and pressure God brings to bear on men to give them an opportunity and reason to follow Him, that He leaves the final decision to the man.
Yes, it is God's will that all come to repentance, but I still find plenty of Scriptural support that God gives us the choice.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
I see what you’re saying. However, I think that God gives everyone the opportunity and the ability, through a removal of the blindness that Satan has put on them, the chance to repent and then gain eternal life, to become spiritually alive.
The order is different. They are enlightened, given the chance to choose, and then either granted eternal life or not based on that choice.
maryz: Wrong
Of course, just as in everything we were taught in the Catholic church while in it. /s
maryz: The Limbo of unbaptized infants (as distinct from the Limbo of the Fathers) was never more than a hypothesis, never a doctrine (though admittedly a widely accepted hypothesis).
Again, your church has some serious problems since there is so much teaching in it at the local level that you guys keep saying isn't the official position of the Catholic church. I knew Catholic parents who were terrified of taking their newborns out somewhere before they were baptized, lest something happen to them.
Limbo certainly is taught in the Catholic church. Amazing how different former Catholics remember the same *wrong* teaching. How can so many people who don't know each other and grew up in separate parishes have so many of the same (alleged) errors in belief if it weren't the pervasive teaching of the church?
Once agaain:
It is impossible to respond to a poster who continually changes the question, all the while insisting that a)the question wasn’t asked and b)wasn’t answered, and c)if it was answered, it was in response to the wrong question or d)the issue was never addressed.
In such cases, the poster has an agenda that does not include asking questions and receiving answers.
"Enlightenment" does nothing, so long as a Fallen Man's heart remains Unregenerate. Even Satan himself knows of God -- he just does not desire to Follow God.
If an "Enlightened" Man (for that matter, Adam and Eve were "enlightened" unto the knowledge of good and evil -- and knew that they were Evil, Spiritually Dead and at Enmity with God), still Fallen and Spiritually-Dead in his desires, is given the choice to Follow God or Reject God, he will always freely choose to Reject God.
As Scripture instructs us in Romans 8:7-8, while yet Unregenerate, a Fallen Man will never choose the God-Pleasing choice. "Enlighten" him all you want; while he yet remains Spiritually Dead, he will always freely choose to Reject God.
Free Will without prior Spiritual Regeneration, just means that every single human being will freely choose to Reject God.
Show me the original post, or any post, where I said that the Catholic church never allowed married priests and I’ll admit that you are right.
Somehow the whole married priest thing got lumped in with other comments I made about the teaching of the Catholic church that I was taught that I’ve related. I don’t recall addressing the issue until it was implied that I said it.
If there’s no post forthcoming, it’s because I didn’t say it.
Of course -- the Church always taught that baptized infants who died went straight to Heaven. Definitely. It taught that Original Sin is a bar to heaven, but also that a just and merciful God would not consign an innocent to Hell. Hence, the hypothesis of Limbo -- not a doctrine because the Church didn't claim to know the what and how of the fate of dead unbaptized infants.
"Bapstism of blood" and "baptism of desire" ring a bell?
Catholic's believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit through the magisteriun and consensus patrum are the "teachings of Christ" which are also made up of the Church Fathers , thus, we have set dogmatic teaching on much of this to protect the flock from error
Those outside the Church read the Bible and decide what teachings of Christ fits their own agenda.Sometimes you get it right and sometimes you don't.There is not set united teachings to adhere to,it's like ...In the words of Frank Sinatra ..."I did it my why" theology
The Church also teaches that our separated protestant brethren "Churches"are "Christian communities" and do not call them Churches since we believe in one Church
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.