Skip to comments.The first Episcopal church in the U.S. to become Catholic under...
Posted on 10/10/2011 12:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
If there is no free will and all is determined by God then the only one's clutches we are in is God's and there is no escape.
What you’re espousing is not the Biblical position and that’s exactly why no one taught it until Calvin.
Also don't forget that not only this but the "winners" gloat (as we see on this forum) over the losers -- but since the "winners" are just puppets gloating at other puppets, it's just the evil puppet-master god that they worship, being sadistic
When everything is up for interpretation, that’s the end result. As we see, this eventually leads to the Presbyterians saying gay marriage is ok, abortion is ok, etc. etc.
Well, you are beginning to be granted a peek at the problem.
I don't recall mentioning Calvin. But, if he got it right, then all the better. What we have been discussing is the biblical view versus Rome...Rome loses.
Yes, and the problem is with the anti-Biblical view that denies free will. I notice that you did not respond to my post # 48 which clearly shows that the Bible does indeed teach that we have free will and can resist the will of God.
What you have described in each of these passages is a demand by God of man to choose. There is no question that He asks, no requires, men to choose. I do not argue that the demand has not been made upon man. The matter at hand is whether the choice has been possible, unaided and undirected.
First, let me mention that it appears the Ecclus. passages are from the Apochrypha. Those are not in any accepted Bible except for the Catholic collection. They have no standing here.
Second, each of the remaining passages in fact do note that God has placed this requirement before man, but in each case there has not been a man in existence who has chosen rightly. If your organization does in fact believe in "free will" one would think that someone, somewhere along the line chose rightly. But, Paul clearly notes from Old Test. Scriptures that in spite of the cajoling, the demands, the threats by God, no man ever chose to seek God. The proofs are from David's hand and Isaiah's hand, those who also penned the demands. Rom. 3.
Now, which must subsume which? If you pound your fist on the table and demand that I lift this office building, and try as I might, I cannot, does that still make the demand possible? Well, only if something significant changes. But, a couple things are clear...you have made the point about what is required and if I am paying attention (and am permitted to see this) I now know my inability.
That was the entire point of the Law. Gal. 3:24. It taught the Jews (the ones upon whom the demands you quote were actually made) that they could not comply with the demands of holiness. Did God require it? Of course. Did any man every comply unaided by God? Well, if they did then Pelagian was right. There exists enough righteousness in man to save himself.
But, you might argue that all we are talking about is the choice to turn to Christ to make up for all the failure. Well, that is not all you are arguing, but it is the beginning. This choice matter is based upon "God has done all He can, now it is up to us to choose Christ or death." That choice, according to Paul, is just as much in the hands of God as the initial choice to be holy or evil.
When Paul reaches the climactic argument in chap. 9 of the letter to the Romans, the point is that, "so then it does not depend upon the man who runs (acts) or the man who wills (chooses), but upon God who has mercy...and He will have mercy on some and harden some." Now, from my perspective, this has to subsume the raw demands made earlier in the story. Like any unfolding narrative, the story develops and then the decoding begins. In this case, Paul holds the decoder ring for the entire book.
We now find from Paul that there has never been a man that could seek God, nor actually tried to seek God. There is none who obeyed , nor tried to obey. Not really. No one really even understood the first thing about righteousness. Even in your system, the "free will" was not very successful if everyone SHOULD become a Catholic to find forgiveness. Forgiveness? Why forgiveness if some men of their own "free wills" could have chosen to be good from the get go? Let's just keep hollering "Obey, doggone it!!!!" Salvation will be unnecessary
And the same goes for resisting Him. Of course we have resisted Him. Every man has resisted Him. That is Paul's argument. We all like sheep have gone astray...at God's management. Man plans his way, but God directs his steps. Proverbs. Why? So He could send the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the earth, to show His incredible Glory.
The whole matter of "free will" is foundationally impossible as I have mentioned before. Think about it. If God knows what sox you are going to pick out tomorrow, then that matter is really fixed...whether you "feel" it or not. He says He brings all things to pass. He is going to make all things that come into a believers life good. Just like He managed Joseph's life. This is how He directed all things to lead to the vicarious atoning death of His Son, per Peter Acts 2:22,23. Why would God predetermine to have His Son executed for men if some would choose to straighten up? Wouldn't He just want those who straightened up? But, Christ died for us while we were enemies. That is love.
The Catholic Church has confused the sense of turning toward Christ with an independent act of the man executing a choice apart from God's operation on him. Such a misunderstanding is either driven by a pride (at least we turned to Christ and they did not, so now we deserve salvation) or a misapprehension of just how lost, lost is.
No, my FRiend, these are the same old arguments that tend to put men on a pedastal. We are victims of God's will, His decisions, His mercy. Romans 9:19ff You and I are putty in His hands...thankfully.
Eph. 2:1ff "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience (everyone lost). Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of the our flesh, indlulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive togther with Christ (by grace you have been saved) and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Now, where is man's "free will"?
Did any man every comply unaided by God?
Here you show that you do not understand Catholic teaching. The statement above is Pelagianism and has been condemned by the Catholic Church as a heresy since the 5th century. The true Catholic teaching is that we obey God's will only by the aide of his Grace but that this obedience is not compelled and we can resist it. Interestingly in today's Office of Readings we have the following passage from St. Augustine from his Tract on the Gospel of St. John:
No-one can come to me unless the Father draws him. You must not imagine that you are being drawn against your will, for the mind can also be drawn by love. Nor should we be afraid of being taken to task by those who take words too literally and are quite unable to understand divine truths, and who might object to these words of scripture, saying: How can I believe of my own free will. if I am drawn? In reply I say this: It is not enough to be drawn of your own free will, because you can be drawn by delight as well.The whole matter of "free will" is foundationally impossible as I have mentioned before. Think about it. If God knows what sox you are going to pick out tomorrow, then that matter is really fixed...whether you "feel" it or not.
What does it mean, to be drawn by delight? Take delight in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart. There is a certain desire of the heart to which the bread of heaven appeals. Moreover, if the poet can say: Everyone is drawn by his delight, not by necessity but by delight, not by compulsion but by sheer pleasure, then how much more must we say that a man is drawn by Christ, when he delights in truth, in blessedness, in holiness and in eternal life, all of which mean Christ?
Or must we assume that the bodily senses have their delights, while the mind is not allowed to have any? But if the soul has no delights, how can scripture say: The children of men will take refuge in the shadow of your wings. They will feast on the abundance of your house, and you will give them drink from the river of your delights. For with you is the fountain of life: in your light we shall see light?
Show me a lover and he will understand what I am saying. Show me someone who wants something, someone hungry, someone wandering in this wilderness, thirsting and longing for the fountains of his eternal home, show me such a one and he will know what I mean. But if I am talking to someone without any feeling, he will not know what I am talking about.
Offer a handful of grass to a sheep and you draw it after you. Show a boy nuts and he is enticed. He is drawn by the things he is running to take, drawn because he desires, drawn without any physical pressures, drawn simply by the pull on his appetite. If, then, the things that lovers see as the delights and pleasures of earth can draw them, because it is true that everyone is drawn by his delight, then does not Christ draw when he is revealed to us by the Father? What does the mind desire more eagerly than truth? For what does it have an insatiable appetite, why is it anxious that its taste for judging the truth should be as healthy as possible, unless it is that it may eat and drink wisdom, righteousness, truth and eternal life?
Christ says: Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, but here and now! for they shall be satisfied, but in the future! I give him the thing he loves. I give him what he hopes for. He will see what he believes in but does not yet see. He will eat what he hungers for and be filled with what he thirsts for. When? At the resurrection of the dead, because I will raise him up at the last day.
And here we have the foundational error in Reformed theology. God does not exist in time, he is eternal. What we experience as time the past, the present and the future for God is an eternal present. "Before Abraham was, I AM." Thus when we say that God knows what I will do in the future it is incorrect to say that he has foreknowledge or knows beforehand what I will do. Rather, what I will do in the future God experiences as an event in his eternal present. Thus God's knowledge of the choice I will make in the future does not contradict my free will in making that choice.
First, let me mention that it appears the Ecclus. passages are from the Apochrypha. Those are not in any accepted Bible except for the Catholic collection. They have no standing here.
Ecclesiaticus (Sirach) is also held as Sacred Scripture by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (other than the Copts) and Assyrian churches, i.e. by 2/3 of the worlds Christians. The fact that the Protestants broke with 1500 years of Christian teaching and rejected what is properly called the Deuterocanonical Books is what should have no standing. In any case, I have provided enough Biblical references that the Biblical truth of free will is not dependent upon these quotes.
Calvin did not side with the Bible. Rome wins.
"Nor should we be afraid of being taken to task by those who take words too literally..."
Well, there you have it...don't be afraid of those of us who actually believe what the Bible teaches. You folks have your men in bathrobes to guide you. We leave you to them.
. Actually, you cannot take one phrase from the Bible while ignoring the argument being posited. Rome suffers badly from this error. Re: Matt 16...please, where is Rome in this?
Calvin? Actually, the Bible’s authority wins...Rome’s authority loses. Even Calvin would agree with this. Would Rome?
The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. Calvin only wrote the Institutes. The Church agrees with the Bible. The Bible agrees with the Church.
Now there, my FRiend, is an example of the unadulterated propaganda peddled by the most corrupt, most self-aggrandizing cult in the world. I will entreat God to open your eyes to the utter falsehood of this error.
God did open my eyes. That’s why I posted as I did. What I said is true.
If all the RCs believe this tripe, it explains why the darkness is so thick around them. Sad, but managed by God.
The darkness only surrounds you and your ilk, Dutchboy.
You may want to ask some other RCs if they actually believe THEY wrote the NT. Could you provide the Scriptural reference for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Jude joining the Roman Catholic Church? Any of them? Any single one of them? Just one...please. This is what the normal world calls a delusion, my FRiend.
Jesus established ONE Church. Your sect is a man-made one. It might date back to the 16th century at best. The Church on the other hand, can trace its roots back to Christ. No Protestant can claim that.
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.The keys, as is shown in Is. 22, are the symbol of the Master of the Palace or the King's Vicar. An office is here bestowed upon Peter. Acts 1 also shows that the office of the apostles is not limited to the original twelve but is continued by their successors. The Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope, is the legitimate successor of St. Peter as the holder of the keys.
If there is no free will then we believe what we do by the will of God and there can be nothing sad about it.
You have it backwards. The gospels show that our Lord gave authority to the apostles to lead the Church. Acts 1 shows that this authority is not personal to the original twelve but continues in their successors. St. Paul clearly describes a church lead by bishops, priests and deacons. History shows the continuation of that early church to the Catholic Church of today. So the proper question is when did Universal, i.e. Catholic, Church lead by its bishops as successors of the apostles cease to be the church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ?
"And I went up BY REVELATION [to Jerusalem] and communicated unto them THAT GOSPEL which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them WHICH WERE OF REPUTATION, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain."
And when JAMES, CEPHAS(PETER), and JOHN, who seemed to be PILLARS, PERCEIVED THE GRACE that was GIVEN TO ME, they gave to me and Barnabas THE RIGHT HANDS OF FELLOWSHIP; That WE SHOULD GO UNTO THE HEATHEN, and THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION". Gal. 2:2,9.
Here by a solemn agreement they, who had originally been sent into "ALL THE WORLD" and to "EVERY CREATURE", now promised Paul to CONFINE THEIR MINISTRY TO ISRAEL while Paul went to the Gentiles.
Were these leaders of the twelve out of the will of God in making this agreement? Of COURSE not. Subsequent revelation PROVES that they were very MUCH IN the will of God, both in LOOSING THEMSELVES from their commission to EVANGELIZE THE WORLD and in agreeing that Paul should go to the Genitles, for Israel's rejection of Christ had brought about a change in the divine program for Israel and the Kingdom to be established on earth.
It is impossible to maintain that the RCC of today is a perpetuation of the organization our Lord established while on earth. There is a VAST difference between the kingdom of heaven, proclaimed by the twelve, and the body of Christ, revealed through Paul.
Thus, by the RCC's own argument there can be no apostolic succession, for by the authority given the twelve (and which Rome steadfastly insists they had) they LOOSED THEMSELVES from their OBLIGATION TO CARRY OUT THE "GREAT COMMISSION" TO ITS COMPLETION, and recognized Paul as the apostle of the new dispensation. Of grace. What they BOUND ON EARTH WAS BOUND IN HEAVEN, AND WHAT THE LOOSED ON EARTH WAS LOOSED IN HEAVEN. The kingdom message had given way to the grace message.
Paul was added to the apostles; he was not in opposition to them. Paul would later join Peter in Rome. There were not two churches in Rome, one lead by Peter and the other by Paul. There was one church lead by Peter with whom Paul worked to spread the Gospel.
When was Peter in Rome?
Jesus established His congregation, His assembly. Your crackpot organization made up the term Roman Catholic Church sometime around 300AD. But, that has not stopped the bizarre self-promotion to which Rome has now become addicted. Nevertheless, just as Lucifer was part of His plan, so is Rome. We will watch and wait to see what He does with it.
But, your claim about apostolic succession is one of those manufactured myths of epic proportion. The believers here hope that you are not pinning your hopes on this being true.
Rome, however, must survive on sacerdotalism, ceremony, ritual, incantations and other such cultish activities, since Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, is not enough. We should be grateful for Paul's dispelling this nonsense about anything but Christ. Let Rome have their pointy helmets and bathrobes; we'll take Jesus.
Once again you prove my point about how ignorant Protestants are about history. You wrote:
“Jesus established His congregation, His assembly.”
Yes, His Church.
” Your crackpot organization made up the term Roman Catholic Church sometime around 300AD.”
Nope. The term “Roman Catholic Church” is actually a Protestant creation. Anyone can check the OED to see this for themselves. Or just check here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/roman-catholic-vs-catholic-proper.html
“But, that has not stopped the bizarre self-promotion to which Rome has now become addicted.”
Anti-Catholics, being wrong in thread after thread have not stopped being wrong now in promoting themselves as if they knew what they were talking about when in reality they are filled with ignorance (as you just helped prove).
“Nevertheless, just as Lucifer was part of His plan, so is Rome. We will watch and wait to see what He does with it.”
What will happen is this: you will die and go before the Lord. The Church will outlive you and will continue to serve the Gospel - the true Gospel you despise - until the end of time.
Yep. But never let it be said that they let the truth get in the way of deceiving the multitudes. The answers are there, in God’s Word. IF one is willing to read for themselves. And not give their salvation over to a religious organization to handle for them.
And what happened to the church established by our Lord and governed by the apostles and the bishops as their successors as described by St. Paul? From the letter of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, around the year 80:
The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed.St. Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch writes around the year 110:
The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, then, are by God's will. Receiving their instruction and being full of confidence on account of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth in the complete assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty: for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. Indeed, Scripture somewhere says: "I will set up their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith."
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.
Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, and such is your practice, that you do nothing without your bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery [i.e. the priests], as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but the servants of the Church of God. They must, therefore, guard against blame as against fire.Too bad history does not support your ideas. Jesus Christ established the Church upon the Apostles who appointed bishop to succeed them and which continues in an unbroken to this day in the Catholic Church. The idea that the Catholic Church was established by imperial fiat in the 4th cent. does not match the historical record and is pure fantasy.
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters [priests] as the council of God and college of the Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church.
Letter to the Trallians
Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the spirit by every commandment of His, who are filled with the grace of God without wavering, and who are filtered clear of every foreign stain, I wish an unalloyed joy in Jesus Christ, our God. Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you.
Letter to the Romans
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, THERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans
Yes, His Church.
You may wish to take up some elementary Greek and then reconsider your error.
And, there is no question that I will go before the Lord. At that time I trust I will, "... be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith," You may be found standing in Rome with that funny hat on.
Too bad the Bible doesn't support your remanufactured history.
“You may wish to take up some elementary Greek and then reconsider your error.”
I made none. The word “Church” is used to denote the Lord’s assembly even though it is actually derived from kyriakos. You know that, right?
“You may be found standing in Rome with that funny hat on.”
When you die I might be very much alive on this earth. The point is that the Church was sent by God and you weren’t. The Church will survive you without notice. At your death, you will get your reward.
The history that I showed occurred after the Bible. What the Bible does show is that Jesus Christ appointed the Apostles and that they appointed bishops. All the unsupported denials in the world will not change this fact. The history after the Bible shows the Church continued to be lead by bishops in uninterrupted succession up to the present day and was called the Catholic Church by the beginning of the 2nd century. What happened to this bishop lead Catholic Church when the alleged 4th century church was created by the Roman emperor?
There is no such word as “Church” in the Scriptures. But, that is a problem for Rome. The word you are trying to mangle to fit your preconception is ekklesia, or “public gathering, an ordinary congegation of people”. But, Rome needs the trademark. I will leave it to them and whatever they face when this is over. God knows His own.
This old saw has been debunked with all of the other urban myths peddled by Rome....but you are welcome to try and keep the dream alive.
The official name of the Catholic Church is Ecclesia Catholica. "Church" is just the English translation of the Latin "ecclesia". As vladimir998 pointed out, it is derived, through the German, from the Greek word kyriake"the Lord's [house]". All of the Romance languages use the term "ecclesia". Why English substituted a different word is a question of linguistics, not theology.
Unsubstantiated claims, such as this, are there own rebuttal and need no reply.
Unfortunately, spell check won't help in this case. And, why then a reply?
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/14/kansas-city-bishop-charged-for-not-bringing-pornography-to-police/#ixzz1anjxWBUn<"
Here are your men who claim to be Alter Christus. This is just the tip of the troubling iceburg.
“There is no such word as Church in the Scriptures.”
Nor “Trinity” nor “Bible”.
“But, that is a problem for Rome.”
No problem at all. No rational person expects every Greek or English word to appear in the Bible.
“The word you are trying to mangle to fit your preconception is ekklesia,”
I wasn’t trying anything. I simply succeeded in being right all along. I know the word ekklesia just as I knew the word kyriakos.
“or public gathering, an ordinary congegation of people. But, Rome needs the trademark. I will leave it to them and whatever they face when this is over. God knows His own.”
He knows His own. He knows no Protestant sect.
You may be getting the idea...no organizations are rescued. Only individuals among the elect.
I aklways got the idea. You, however, believe in heresy. I never have.
My suggestion is that you review the entire text of the New Testament epistles, concentrating on Paul's arguments regarding redemption. Let go of the party line for a while and just read.
“My suggestion is that you review the entire text of the New Testament epistles, concentrating on Paul’s arguments regarding redemption. Let go of the party line for a while and just read.”
What st. Paul taught is the party line.
Unfortunately for Rome, there is none of the RCC sacerdotalism, mariolatry, ritualism, cultish behavior, ceremonial hoopla, hail marys, rosaries, penance, pergatory, indulgences, prada slippers, gold embroidered robes, etc. found in Paul’s writing. So, just read him through listening to his simple message of grace provided by Jesus, alone. You might swim back over the Tiber...if He permits.