Posted on 10/29/2011 10:01:19 PM PDT by marshmallow
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) – A Southern Baptist Convention official says one of the top challenges facing the nation’s second largest faith group behind Roman Catholics is the increasing influence of Calvinism in churches.
“I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism,” Frank Page, CEO of the SBC Executive Committee said in a blog interview posted Oct. 18 at SBC Today.
“Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public,” elaborated Page, who assumed the post of president and CEO of the SBC fiduciary and executive agency last year. “The reason is obvious. It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others. At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us. I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue.”
Page, a former South Carolina pastor who served as SBC president 2006-2008, authored an 80-page booklet in 2000 titled Trouble with the TULIP: A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism. In it he termed Calvinism a “man-made” doctrine not supported by Scripture and defended what he called "the true teachings of grace."
The book countered a common acronym for the five main points of Calvinism, a theological model named after Protestant reformer John Calvin. They are: Total depravity, Unmerited election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.
Page presented an alternative acronym of GRACE. “Given through Christ, Rejected through rebellion, Accepted through faith and Christ died for all” that summarized four points of a counter view of Calvinism called Arminianism. Page’s final “E” departed from Arminian thought with “everlasting life/security of the believer, a Calvinist doctrine held by most...........
(Excerpt) Read more at abpnews.com ...
And another one — Catholics have Mary as a hideous golum
On the contrary Church teaching is that The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety
Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." --> nowhere do we say that you are predestined to go to hell.
What part of that do you deny as a non-Catholic?
if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
How can you be guilt of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord if you eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner and believe that it is just bread and wine?
It is clearly stated -- sin against the body of Christ if you eat the bread unworthily. It is a sin against the body of Christ if you eat the body of Christ unworthily.
From the Lutheran LCMS.org website
Even Martin luther weighed in in favor of the True Presence in the Eucharist when he said:
All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."... Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here ........................that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ. So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?
Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body?
or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so?
It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.
You have demostrated difficultly in reading my last post.
Try again.
Jesus quotes from the Deuterocanonical books -- Matt. 6:19-20 references Sirach 29:11 and Matt. 7:16,20 references Sirach 27:6,Matt. 24:15 references 1 Macc. 1:54 and Matt. 24:16 references 1 Macc. 2:28 among others.
Some say incorrectly that Jesus never quoted from them, ignoring the above, Yet in the New Testament, the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are not quoted at all -- does that mean they are not inspired?
And to the point that only if Christ quoted them, then you have to junk out Haggai, Habbakuk, Amos and Joel. the Synod of Rome in 382 AD, council of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397,419) held the Deuterocanonical books as inspired
This was then ratified by the 2nd council of Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). So, I'm sorry but the Deuterocanonicals were held so long before Trent
Rejection of the Deuterocanonicals is done by those who have a doctrine unsupported by scripture.
Why are you making up what we believe?
I've told you already that Church teaching is that
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety-- Why are you first making a false statement about what we believe and then asking us to deny your false statement? nowhere do we say that you are predestined to go to hell.
Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."
Pictures, like statements formed as questions, are rarely "making it personal."
"Are you a heretic?" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal (mind reading.)
In the same way, if the poster had said "your posting history is like a one trick pony" it would NOT have been making it personal.
Don't read things into what the other guy posts. Or, if you can't do that, then ignore his posts altogether. There is no rule that just because someone pings you or sends you a Freepmail you are obligated to give him a hearing.
Remember the old Religion Forum adage, i.e. when a poster has ammunition he doesn't resort to spitwads.
Now, precisely the same things your posts are doing, but oooh, it's ok because Catholics are on the receiving end, right?
Do you agree with those who say
Do you agree with these? And these are the milder among what has been tossed at us this year alone -- and I don't recall you posting anything to these saying "stop attacking Catholics and comparing them to Mormons" and yet here your posts are, calling us all kinds of things. why?
You have demostrated difficultly in reading my last post.
Try again.
So, do you think such vitriol is acceptable on FR?
If not, then be an example and do not practice it yourself. It shouldn’t matter what I think; hold to your anti-vitriol convictions by not being snide toward non-Roman Catholics.
I see you quote Jesus from John 6:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing ...”
But you (allegedly, seemingly, apparently, etc.) refuse to take Him at His word.
The bread is “bread” (to use Paul’s term); it does not become flesh. The point of His “Last Supper” is to point us to a spiritual truth about Himself. For, as He explained, it is the Spirit who gives life; that element that you consider “flesh” really and truly does “count for nothing” as “flesh.”
Why are you making up what we believe?
I've told you already that Church teaching is that
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety-- Why are you first making a false statement about what we believe and then asking us to deny your false statement? nowhere do we say that you are predestined to go to hell.
Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."
Firstly -- why did you not object to such vitriol when it was directed at Catholics?
Secondly, why not object to it NOW? It's still going on on threads I've linked you to.
you ask for a stop to snide comments but for years when it was directed at Catholics, there was silence from such "knights" as yourself. And Catholics realised that the only way to handle such vitriol is to pass it back -- and note that the originators still continue and build more of it with no Theo telling them that they are being vitriolic to Catholics
If you start raising the same statements to them as well people would be inclined to consider your statements
How can you be guilt of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord if you eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner and believe that it is just bread and wine?
It is clearly stated -- sin against the body of Christ if you eat the bread unworthily. It is a sin against the body of Christ if you eat the body of Christ unworthily.
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.