Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[kosta50]

You trusted your own judgment more than mine. It was STILL your choice

That's what I was saying. Are you agreeing wiht me or just repeating it?

[Forest Keeper]

Somehow these guys seem to be unable to say that Christ died for their sins.

As you know, but for the benefit of lurkers, they cannot say that honestly, for in the Apostolic theology Christ did NOT die for anyone's sins. For them, Christ's suffering and death, and resurrection, was only good to give man the possibility to decide for himself if he wanted to be saved. So in their theology, Christ finished nothing, He just handed the ball off to man and waited to see who gained enough yards to be saved.

[xzins]

I am saying that calvinism says all have a choice, and that even those disinclined toward you still have a choice.

Let me ask you this.

Could you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008?

[kosta50]

Of course it does. God doesn’t check denominational background to determine who gets saved

So you can believe anything you want, as many gods as you want (i.e. LDS believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, three separate "Gods" but one in purpose!), as long as you throw in JESUS, you are saved?

Amazing! This is just getting more and more heretical...

[xzins]

Kosta, Jesus does not demand you have your doctrine right in order to be saved. He came to call SINNERS, not the righteous to repentance.

There is nothing at all heretical about that.

In fact, it would be the reverse that would border on heresy.

[kosta50]

As you know, but for the benefit of lurkers, they cannot say that honestly, for in the Apostolic theology Christ did NOT die for anyone's sins. For them, Christ's suffering and death, and resurrection, was only good to give man the possibility to decide for himself if he wanted to be saved. So in their theology, Christ finished nothing, He just handed the ball off to man and waited to see who gained enough yards to be saved

If that is your opinion, FK, the you have been deceived. You have not read anything regarding Orthodox doctrine as you claimed you did, because you could not say something so completely off base if you did. What you wrote is a cheap caricature of what Orthodoxy teaches.

I would ask you to substantiate your characterization with Orthodox sources (and please leave out any hetretics! We don't go by them).

[kosta50]

I am saying that calvinism says all have a choice, and that even those disinclined toward you still have a choice

That's a different kind of Calvinism you are preaching vis-avis other Calvinists on these threads (just how many "Calvinists" are there? Will the real Calvinists please stand up and be counted!).

Others tell me that everything is God's will, whether I choose God or Satan,and that everything has been predetermined, including my choice, before foundations of the world. So, how can Calvinism teach that we always have a choice?!?

Could you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008?

I could by I won't.

[xzins]

and please leave out any hetretics!

theatrics?

chiropractics?

Metritics?

Netretics?

So I googled it. And this is what I found:

wow..tutankhamun is inside the pedestal? i thought he was a minor pharaoh who wouldnt have much significance...its interesting how he was regarded so importanly in his time...afterall, ive heard later on..other pharaohs tried to "take away his name" from temple walls along with akhenaton, nefertiti, and so on because tutankhamun was related to them and egypt didnt want to be affiliated which such..hmm.."hetretics"

:>)

[xzins]

I don’t think you could. You are absolutely, totally DISINCLINED to do so.

And you won’t.

ADMIT IT!! LOL!

[jo kus]

It must be God's will for man to repent. The evidence is all around us. If God really desired for all men to come to Him, they would come to Him. God commands, and then He must grant what He has commanded.

I think we have discussed this before. I don't have the references handy as I eat my sandwich, but I recall that God's will is at two levels....

First, God desires all men to be saved. God desires that men obey His commandments. These are God's will. Yet, we know they are not done. Thus, at some level, God condescends to man to allow Him a choice. Thus, God's will is that man have a will DESPITE His will that He is obeyed. This divine condescenion is seen at the foot of the cross as well as the words of the Bible.

Secondly, God's will in other things will assuredly happen. HIS elect are called. The universe was created. And so forth.

Sorry, this peanut butter is good, so my attention is diverted and I can't do better at this time. However, I think it is clear that God's will is at different levels.

Regards

[jo kus]

All men ARE able.

They are not WILLING. They are given a choice and they reject it.

I agree. Thus, MEN are judged. IF man had no choice to choose, than God is judged for saying He desires all men to be saved but not give them the means to choose. I need not say that this would make God a liar.

Regards

[xzins]

God desires all men to be saved

Does God tell us in the bible that some men are going to be lost?

If so, then His foreknowledge tells Him that not all men will be saved. Therefore, when

[Mad Dawg]

Besides, everyone knows that God is a Cardinals fan. However, the Cardinals have apparently sinned grievously, and are being lovingly disciplined by our Lord, .... for a whole month. But of course, our God is a merciful God. Why, just last night the Cardinals only lost by 17 runs at home against the Astros. God is good, God is great. :)

Wait wait! I'm getting confused. I'm the Catholic here .... Still, an impressive array of citations. Who can argue with such a preponderance of evidence. And as to Cardinals Sinning, that's what we've been saying all along ....

---

ears are not designed to be able to taste.I wouldn't have taken Paul's analogy to that extent. Parenthetically, actually, SOME laity are not clearly "designed to be led by the Spirit in matters of interpretation ....", I think. It is not only a matter of being led to certain disciplines of study, thought, and speech, but simply not having the capacity. As I like to say in my bitter arrogant moments, "Remember, 100 IQ is AVERAGE! Loosely speaking, for every one as smart as you, there is someone that much dumber than average!" And at least in terms of teaching and working out doctrine, I don't think that's a trivial as it may sound. I think some people are quite sincerely confused about matters like homosexuality, matrimony, and abortion -- confused or easily misled.

But it's not just a matter of design. I am happy to interpret, to engage in haute vulgarization and do forth, but on a very derivative level. I WANT to be guided and corrected by other wiser and holier folk. I pester them, in fact, with requests for "inquisitions", and a lot of the stuff I have posted on FR I run by them for comment. (So far, they are not building fires in the church yard, but I DO tent to scope it out before I leave cover and walk in .....)

The fun part of the issue is
God wants an intimate and personal relationship with each of His children. I don't see how that could happen with such a barrier erected between God and you and me. One man's barrier is another mans gateway. Interestingly a major collection of koans in the Rinzai Zen tradition is called the Mumonkan, which can be construed as The Gateless Gate.

Okay, Mad Dawg, get a hold of yourself! What do you mean?

Struggling here ...

- A reason I could be a hospital chaplain was that I didn't have to be a nurse or a doc. That was taken care of, so I could tend to the patient in MY area of responsibility.
- I will never know what it is like to praise God in a beautiful solo (where "never" means, before I die. Who knows what I will know after I die?).
- My wife knows things about the Nativity I will never know. And yet nurses, docs, Sopranos, and mothers are always teaching me about God and His love. I can teach and have taught some clergy about the basic considerations in deadly force encounters, as well as the wound channel such encounters make in the soul. They teach me things I need to know to be a better LE chaplain (if I ever get back in that game ...)

That's what I mean about it's not seeming like a barrier to me. The diverse gifts of the Spirit benefit me, make me grateful, and evangelize me all over again. !

---

I was just thinking of the amount of power that would be SUBJECT to whimsy, regardless of whether it happens that way in practice. I wouldn't imagine that any Pope would feel completely free to declare "anything" (not contradicting a prior Pope). :) That is, although technically, as I understand it, he "could".

Here's where I do my Protestantism/mercantilism/nationalism rap, which is probably just foolishness ....

The Catholic Church in all the multifariousness and splendor of the Office of This and the Secretariat of That, and the Commission of the Other certainly gives the appearance of Byzantine (funnily enough) complexity). And looking at it in terms of power and political structure seems natural enough.

We post Hobbes- and Locke ians tend to view polities as the shaky result of a careful argument and negotiation. Our Constitution is a kind of a treaty.

And I'm all over this way of doing things politically. I don't generally like it when the other guy, holding firmly to his ax, says,"Aw, come on. Trust me. Put down your ax."

Um. No thanks. You put down yours, then we'll talk ...

But it was not always like that. I got a glimpse of another possibility when I realized that my [late] Mom, being a Limey, really LOVED the Queen.

So when I consider the Holy Father ("Pope" being a kind of informal title) I have that momentary gasp of "Jeez! Ratty could do ANYTHING!" But I deal with that, as I've said before, by remembering that the Church is what it is not because of the guys in dresses, but because of God's providential guidance. And the very risk of allowing the guys in dresses so much authority is a spur and challenge to greater faith and trust.

That he COULD, but hasn't, helps me to put my confidence in the Lord's pledge to be with us to the end of the age.

This is not meant to persuade so much as to depict how it looks from here and how that appearance integrates with the whole ball of wax.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

in January 1525, his dispute with Grebel and Manz led to a break between Zwingli and the Brethren.

For the sake of clarity, you still have not corrected your comment that Zwingli was an Anabaptist. It should read along the following lines...

"Grebel, a student of Zwingli (who always believed in infant baptism and never wavered) departed from the reformed faith and gathered followers to himself who later became known as Anabaptists who believed in rebaptism as adults.

Grebel rebaptized a former Catholic priest, Georg Blaurock, and in doing so, implied Blaurock's infant baptism was invalid, an act that was seen as blasphemy. Grebel and his followers then took off for Moravia and southern Germany to escape persecution.

It should also be mentioned that a major tenet of the Anabaptists was pacifism.

Gee, I wonder who would benefit by former Reformers becoming pacifists?

[Uri’el-2012]

x>Rom 10:13 - for whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved

You are not asnwering(sic) the question: does this include the LDS, or any sect, dneomination(sic), cult, whatever, who call on Christ?

6,884 posted on 09/21/2007 9:36:19 AM MDT by kosta50

In my search for salvation, I researched all the Eastern religions,
I did not find a Loving God in any of them.

When I was called by the Ru'ach Hakodesh, I was not called to any denomination. I was called to the Word of G-d.

In Christianity, I realized Paganism was introduced in the second century
and third century and Paganism was codified into Christianity in the fourth century and beyond.
Anti-Semitism and rejection of the Torah accompanied the Paganism.

The Reformation corrected many things in Christianity, but much of the Paganism was retained wholesale.

I know that the same Elohim who inspired the Torah also inspired the New Covenant
as spelled out in Jeremiah 31:31 and brought to all mankind in the form of Yah'shua HaMashiach.

If I were to identify myself, it would be found closest in the Plymouth Brethren.

shalom b'shem Yah'shua

[xzins]

Californians.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

How sinful did man become after the fall? Was it totally sick or just partially sick?

Amen, x! Dead is dead.

It's this very fact that makes God's unmerited gift of grace so much more beautiful and generous.

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins...

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" -- Ephesians 2:1;4-5

[MarkBsnr]

Ah yes.

You are correct. Thank you - it was my omission.

[Alex Murphy]

There are so many errors in that one sentence I think perhaps you intended to mislead people. Extraordinary. It's going to take some time before I'm able to read another post of yours and not see this one.

Oh, I stopped taking most Catholic-on-Protestant apologetics seriously a long time ago. They're about as well-researched and fact-filled as a David Cloud tract.

[MarkBsnr]

I pray that the Jedi do.

How DO you folks keep everything straight?