Posted on 07/31/2002 9:27:40 AM PDT by Polycarp
They are certainly different, they are certainly infighting, and given the fact that they have respective nomenclatures for their positions, they are certainly denominated from eachother theologically
I do not share that which can only be described as an obsession with Calvinists, namely the desire to define absolutely using human words and understandings the nature of Divine Providence and election, predestination versus Free Will.
Its a mystery, OP. Get over it. Neither of us can or will be able to define the infinite mystery and wisdom of God.
Therefore, the Church of Rome, in her WISDOM, has refused to definitively define that which absolutely cannot be defined by men and mens words and mens finite intellect.
And that is why I flee violently from those who are so PROUD as to think theirs and theirs alone is the correct "soteriological position."
Think about it OP, and a light bulb will explode in your mind and soul.
And then your entire approach to Christian apologetics and evangelization will change and see far greater fruit than what it does now.
LOL. See my last post to you. I flee from your prideful insistance that yours and yours alone is the last word regarding God's Sovereignty and Absolute Predestination
You wanna convert me to being an OP?
Hide that little debate tactic away for a while. Its counterproductive to anyone who has studied the history of the debate over Predestination.
In fact, it proves to me that I never will have to take your claims seriously.
“Who wrote the Bible” is a question that can be definitively answered by examining the biblical texts in light of the external evidences that supports its claims. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book.
BigMack
Heb. 1:1-2: "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...".
God's speaking to us by his Son is the culmination of his speaking to mankind and is his greatest and FINAL revelation to mankind.
(The exceptional greatness of the revelation that comes through the Son, far exceeds any revelation in the Old Covenant as noted over and over again in the first and second chapters of Hebrews).
Once the writings of the New Testament apostles and their authorized companions were completed, we have everything that God wants us to know about the life, death, & resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time. In this way Hebrews 1&2 shows us why no more writings can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament. The canon is now closed.
It is not accidental that the apostle John wrote that warning (about adding or subtracting to the words of Scripture) in the very last chapter of the very last book of the Bible. [Rev.22:18-19]
For many books, their placement in the canon is of little consequence. But just as Genesis must be placed first (because it tells us of creation), so Revelation must be placed last (because its focus is to tell us of the future and God's new creation). The events described in Revelation are historically subsequent to the events described in the rest of the New Testament and require that Revelation be placed where it is.
Thus, it is not appropriate for us to understand this exceptionally strong warning at the end of Revelation as applying in a secondary way to the whole of Scripture.
Placed here, where it must be placed, the warning forms an appropriate conclusion to the entire canon of Scripture. Along with Heb.1&2 and the history-of-redemption perspective implicit in those verses, this broader application of Rev.23:18-19 also suggests to us that we should expect no more Scripture to be added beyond what we already have.
The warning God gave through John in Rev.22 shows that God himself places supreme value on our having a correct collection of God-breathed writings, no more, no less. He's quite able to see to it that we have them. The closed canon we have today is God's doing. What we have didn't depend on men.
In fact, some of the earliest writers CLEARLY distinguished the difference between what they wrote and the writings of the apostles. In A.D.110, Ignatius said, "I do not order you as did Peter and Paul; THEY WERE APOSTLES, I am a convict; they were free, I am even until now, a slave".
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would see to it that the disciples would be able to remember and record without error all that he had said to them when he was with them. [John 14:26; 16:13. See also: 2 Pet.3:2; 1 Cor.2:13; 1 Thess.4:15; and Rev. 22:18-19].
So in compiling the canon of Scripture, the work of the early church was not to bestow divine authority or even ecclesiastical authority upon some merely human writings --- but to RECOGNIZE the divinely authored characteristics of writings that already had such a quality.
This is because the ultimate criterion of canonicity is divine authorship --- (as Jesus promised) --- NOT human or ecclesiastical approval.
I realize that unless one has "the mind of Christ" he will consider the infallible Word of God (Scripture) as "foolishness" and won't be able to discern spiritual truth from error, so what I wrote above is only for those who have "ears to hear".
Becky
What a joke, OP. I can prove all Christians taught contraception was wrong for all time.
You've got nothing to hang this assertion on except the disputed interpretations of one Church Father's writings, Augustine.
I finally realized it, though I've been intimidated by your debate tactics for quite some time.
Your whole claim to orthodoxy just tumbled to the dust. I no longer need to fear that you will come up with an argument I cannot answer.
You have no claim to orthodoxy whatsoever, specifically because you claim to orthodoxy revolves around a single mystery that simply cannot be definitively defined by man.
Well, as an uncompromising Orthodox Protestant, I rarely consider the self-defense actions of Protestants in the Reformation to be "crimes" against Rome. We were under concerted, direct military assault.
On the other hand, I have no such fig leaf with which to dis-avow the blatant and obvious American Protestant attempt to use Government Force to undermine and de-catholicize Roman parish schools by instituting anti-catholic Public Skools in their place. This was a protestant crime against American Roman Catholics, nuff said. (I take some solace in that the break-away faction of Orthodox Presbytery was founded from its inception by libertarians who opposed such social engineering, but I'll still accept my protestant share of the guilt for this Sinful protestant attempt to steal and coerce American Catholics by the power of the state).
By the same token, I am equally content to accept that Modern Protestanism is in the main Wrong and Sinful in its endorsement of contraception. I do currently remain unconvinced of the Roman argument of "onanism" in regard to non-chemical methodologies, and think that even if you are right, NFP is just your own romanistic "fig leaf" to avoid having to tell Parishioners to "bite the bullet" and become pure providentialists. But it seems obvious to me that any chemical contraception in any situation is a violation of the Sixth Commandment -- and I don't need "magisterium" to tell me that, I've got "Decalogue" on my side. In endorsing chemical contraception, American Protestantism has the blood of unborn children on our hands -- and we are silent because we do not want to admit it.
That's about all the conciliatory common-ground I have for you tonight; sorry, I'm fresh out. ;-)
best, OP
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation [2 Pet. 1:20].
“Knowing this first.” Simon Peter says that this is the first thing we are to know. The word knowing is a knowledge that comes, not only from the Word of God, not only from facts that can be ascertained—if you have an honest heart, you can find out whether the facts in the Bible are accurate or not—but these are things which you can know by the Holy Spirit’s making them real to you.
As I have said before, I have long since passed the stage when I wanted the Bible proved to me. When I was young, I did want the Bible proved to me; and if I found that archaeology had dug up a spadeful of dirt somewhere that proved a fact in the Bible, I would clap my hands like a little child and shout, “Wonderful!” I don’t do that anymore. I don’t need a spadeful of turned-up dirt to prove the Bible to me. The Spirit of God Himself has made the Word of God real to my heart. I know there is a transforming power in God’s Word. There is power in the Word of God. This is something that we can know, and the facts, confirmed by the Holy Spirit, make it real to us.
“No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” What Peter is saying here is that no portion of the Scripture is to be interpreted apart from other references to the same subject. That is the reason I put up such an objection to the idea of pulling out one little verse of Scripture and building a doctrine on that one verse. If you cannot get the whole body of Scripture to confirm your doctrine, then you had better get a new doctrine, my friend.
I think a good illustration is the difference between riding in a good, solid, four-wheeled wagon and on a unicycle. If you have ever seen a person ride on that one wheel of a unicycle, you have noted that he does a lot of twisting and turning and maneuvering around to stay balanced on that one wheel. In the circus I once saw a man riding way up high on a unicycle, and all of a sudden it went out from under him, and he fell backwards. Believe me, he had a bad fall. And I thought, Oh, how many Christians are like that today. They base what they believe on a single verse.
While it is wonderful to have one marvelous verse of Scripture, if it tells a great truth, there will be at least two or three verses and usually a whole chapter on it somewhere in the Bible. Simon Peter is telling us that no passage of Scripture should be interpreted by itself. We need to confirm it with other Scriptures.
BigMack
You recommended just reading the catechism. Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church - Vatican website, 6th commandment
dealing with contraception at #2370,
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158and #2399,Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).But the basis cited for these two are not bible verses, but footnotes:
157 HV 16. (Humanae vitae)And these (encyclicals, I'm guesssing?) are not provided (at least not on the same Vatican website - though I will search elsewhere - rest assured I'll be quite frustrated if they're not available in english.
158 HV 14. (Humanae vitae)
159 FC 32. (Familiaris consortio)
So how does one study the basis for the RCC teaching on Contraception, as an example since the subject has arisen above?
A concession from OP. I can die in peace tonight.
You're a good man, OP, seriously. You are the sole protestant I have seen admit this on this forum. I like brutal honesty.
I'll restore my profile page HTML tomorrow. There you will find more than you ever wanted to know about the basis for the RCC teaching on contraception.
Cool. I'll look for it. Though you need not rush. I'll ping you if, say a week goes by...
Hey, that is progress! Remember your introductory post on the 1500 post thread about Protestantism only being completed by Catholicism? We've come a long way since then, OP.
We'll have to hash out this "Absolute Predestination = Orthodoxy" versus "Absolute Predestination = denial of mystery and an attempt to define the undefinable and as such is no measure of orthodoxy" in the future.
I'm not willing to concede one inch on this, since reading Fr. Most's analysis of the history of the development of Christian thought regarding predestination and free will.
If I may offer my thoughts. The way I see it is that the difference is that Protestants institutionalize their disagreements (i.e. Lutherans are different from Baptists, who are different from Anglicans, who are different from Presbyterians, who are different from...) and often relegating their differences to "Christian freedom" whereas with Catholics, there is a place where the buck stops.
In regards to the Thomist/Molinist debate, it is still, for Catholics, a valid and open area for discussion and disagreement. If the Church ever definitively ruled on the matter, that would be the definition of Catholic orthodoxy on that matter. Would the other side be disappointed that their view didn't, for lack of a better term, win out in the end? Undoubtedly. Would some reject the teaching of the Church? Sure. Would nearly all submit? Most likely.
On the other hand, if I go to different denominational Protestants and ask, "What does your denomination teach about Baptism?", the different answers I would get would be in direct proportion to the different denominations asked.
On the various issues which there is vigorous dissent in the Catholic Church today(i.e. contraception, women priests, the nature of the Church, etc...), there is still authoritative teaching with which to cling to which will never change, regardless of what the dissenters say. Seriously, who am I to believe, some theologian priest from South Bend or the Pope? I'll go with the Pope every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The Church Fathers infallibly defined the Absolute character of God's Sovereignty for us. We don't have to question them; they have defined the Faith for the Church.
Remember: Jesus, James, John, Paul, and Peter were Church Fathers themselves. And they unanimously defined Absolute Predestination as the Faith of the Church.
That which God has revealed, it is a form of blasphemy to call a "mystery". It amounts to telling God that He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Therefore, the Church of Rome, in her WISDOM, has refused to definitively define that which absolutely cannot be defined by men and mens words and mens finite intellect.
Balderdash. By the same token, you could say that it is Protestant WISDOM to say that the Decalogue "cannot be defined by men" and men's finite intellect.
But God has defined the Decalogue. Abortifacient chemical contraception is murder, and violates the Law of God. Anyone who says that this subject is a "mystery", therefore, is just looking for an excuse not to teach True Doctrine on the Sixth Commandment.
Same with the unanimous affirmation of the Church Fathers (Jesus, James, John, Paul, and Peter) in support of Absolute Predestination.
What a joke, OP. I can prove all Christians taught contraception was wrong for all time.
Likewise, I can prove that all Christian Authority once taught that Absolute Predestination was the Faith of the Church.
You cannot claim that Jesus, James, John, Peter, and Paul were not Church Fathers, Polycarp. Your OWN CHURCH says that the Bible is the very heart of Tradition, the very fount of the Magisterium. Indeed, for the Early Church, the writings and recorded words of the Church Fathers (Jesus, James, John, Peter, and Paul) were all the Magisterium they had to go by in reading the Old Testament.
And the unanimous teaching of the earliest Church Fathers (Jesus, James, John, Peter, and Paul) was that Absolute Predestination was the Faith of the Church.
If the modern "church" has apostasized therefrom, it is no more legitimate than their Apostacy in questions of Moral Doctrine.
Think about it Polycarp, and a light bulb will explode in your mind and soul.
You've got nothing to hang this assertion on except the disputed interpretations of one Church Father's writings, Augustine.
Augustine came late to the game. Augustine appeared over three centuries after the Church Fathers (Jesus, James, John, Peter, and Paul) had infallibly defined that Absolute Predestination was the Faith and the Magisterial Teaching of the Church. Augustine should be credited at beat for simply upholding the universal teaching of the Church Fathers of the First Century (Jesus, James, John, Peter, and Paul).... nothing more.
The teaching of the Church Fathers of the First Century (Jesus, James, John, Peter, and Paul) on Absolute Predestination is every bit as explicit as the teachings of later Church Fathers on the immorality of abortifacient contraception.
Those who say otherwise just don't like what the Church Fathers have defined as the Faith of the Church... exactly like pro-aborts and contraception-supporters just don't like what the Church Fathers have defined as the faith of the Church.
To call Predestination a "mystery" is as much an insult to the Church Fathers of the First Century, as calling Anti-Contraception a "mystery" is an insult to the Church Fathers of the Second Century.
And these (encyclicals, I'm guesssing?) are not provided (at least not on the same Vatican website - though I will search elsewhere - rest assured I'll be quite frustrated if they're not available in english.
For your edification:
Humanae Vitae
Familiaris Consortio
I remember the bru-hah-hah, but I don't remember the particular post (link it if you like)... but knowing myself I don't imagine that I have moved an inch.
I probably meant every word, and would probably say the same thing today (please do feel free to "refresh my memory" if you want... just for old-times sake).
Natch, I prefer to believe that I have not myself "mellowed", you have just become more accustomed to my confrontational style in theological argumentation -- Theology is the "queen of the sciences" (did Aquinas say that?) and so is always pretty serious stuff... but it's nothing personal, just business.
I don't think I have mellowed, I think that you have gotten accustomed to my confrontational style. But I like that and I compliment you for that. Our Lord Jesus hit the pharisee Nicodemus with all His confrontational guns blazing... and Nicodemus did not take personal offence. He listened, and discussed.
By contrast, the other Pharisees got all riled up in their personal pride, and put Jesus to the execution-stake.
Here is my quick summary:
1)All Barrier methods are condemned by the Onan incident in Genesis 38 (in which Onan was killed by God for coitus interuptus), according to every single Christian theologian who ever commented on it prior to the year 1930.
2)All chemical methods are abortifacient at least part of the time. This violates "Thou Shalt Not Kill."
3)Sterilization is essentially a barrier method. It is also self mutilation, a violation of Natural Law whereby a body organ that was not broken is "fixed" or medically broken. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Self mutilation is wrong.
4)Sex is for babies as well as for love. The two cannot be separated without consequences. To eat food then vomit forth its natural function, just to enjoy the taste without partaking of the nutrition, is an eating disorder called bulimia. To engage in sex then vomit forth the natural function of sex is a sex disorder.
The protestant reformers all called contraception sodomic sin, including Luther and Calvin. In other words, they thought it was as bad as homosexuality. They considered any sexual act deliberately made sterile to be sodomitic sin, whether it was masturbation, contraceptive sex, homosexual sex, sterilized sex, etc. God made our procreative organs for procreation as well as recreation, but only when its in the context of a covenantal marriage. Christian covenantal marriage is always between a woman and a man. Thus fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are all gravely sinful, either because they are non-procreative or exist outside of a Christian marital covenant or both.
That's a thiumbnail sketch, more on my profile page tomorrow.
Oh, NFP is intrinsically neutral. The comparison between NFP and contraception is similar to the comparison between eating disorders like bulimia and dieting.
Unlike bulimia, a dieter does not eat then throw up. A dieter just does not eat as much.
In NFP the couple does not have sex then "throw up" the natural consequences, like bulimia. They simply do not enage in the activity at certain times, like dieting. There is a fundamental difference between dieting and bulimia. There is also a fundamental difference between NFP and contraception.
Of course, NFP can be used selfishly too. But contraception is inherently (in other words, "always by its very nature") sinful. NFP is morally neutral. It is the motivation of the couple for not simply being "providentialist" and letting children come at God's pleasure, but using NFP to limit or space pregnancies that determines whether NFP is used sinfully/selfishly or not.
IMHO, Fr. Most is basically a Molinist who is looking for an excuse to repudiate the universal teaching of the First Century Magisterium (Jesus, James, John, Peter, and Paul) on Absolute Predestination by nit-picking a Fifth-Century defender of that Magisterium, saint Augustine.
In short, he's an Apostate against the First Century Magisterial doctrine of Absolute Predestination.
OP, give me the scriptures, then we'll swap the countering scriptural proof texts, then we'll swap early church fathers proof texts, etc., OK?
Then we'll see whether all Christian Authority once taught that Absolute Predestination was the Faith of the Church, OK?
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.