Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
Are you paying attention? We were discussing the Wyclif issue which was hand copied. We were also discussing the relatively few numbers that were available and that the vast majority of people were illiterate
And the Lollards who followed Wyclif and carried Bibles were such a threat to the RCC that they had to be persecuted.
So, the reason that literacy levels didn't reach higher levels is because of the RCC persecution keeping the Wycliff Bible out of people's hands.
Such was the irrational hatred for Wyclif that at the Council of Constance, they had his bones dug up to burn them!
This was the same Council that had THREE Popes claiming to be the REAL Pope, and each of them was as degenerate as the other two.
The Council also burned Jan Huss at the stake, after promising safe conduct and his death sparked a revolution in Bohemia that shattered European unity and laid the groundwork for Luther a hundred years later.
The truths? Jesus says to look after your fellow man in all ways, to give up your wealth to the poor and that all men are your own personal responsibility. Therefore your national model would look more like Sweden than the Wild West of the United States; nobody would be rich and there would be nothing like capital punishment.
You had better get a Bible and read it, since you clearly haven't.
Must be the selected, out of context scriptures that you have been listening to at Mass that has you confused.
2Thess. 3 states that if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat.
Rom 13 states that capital punishment is legitimate.
That is the type of thinking you get when you have a people who are Bible illiterates.
False
No, it is true.
[ Had those Bible not been printed and found the response that they did, there would have been no motivation for the RCC to produce an English translation. ]
False
No, once again true.
[ There never has been any desire for the RCC to see the common people with Bibles. ]
False
Again, true.
Final score: nil
Final score-3 for 3 as seen by your inablity to actually counter them with anything resembling a fact.
Douay Bible The original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence (emphasis added) to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. The object of the work was, of course not limited to controversial purposes; in the case of the New Testament, especially, it was meant for pious use among Catholics. The fact however, that the primary end (emphasis added) was controversial explains the course adopted by the translators.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm
You do know that all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire?
8 But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Douay-Rheims Bible
Idolatry and lies, the cornerstone of the Roman Catholic Church-mother of harlots!
3 And he took me away in spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery: Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications and the abominations of the earth
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev017.htm
Even the Roman Catholic Comments on Eph.2:8-9 deny what you are saying about it referring to Jewish Law.
8 For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. 9 Not of works, that no man may glory.
Comment- Not of works... as of our own growth, or from ourselves; but as from the grace of God. (emphasis added).
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/eph002.htm
My goodness that sounds PROTESTANT!
almost left out this, which makes those comments legimate Roman Catholic statements-
Imprimatur. +James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899
Nihil Obstat!
I'm gonna ask 'cause I don't know.
As to [b] yes, you confess the sins you know of and I think it's assumed there are plenty of sins you don't know of, but as long as there is contrition, I think [JUST my guess here] the sacrament is valid.
I've read in the little pamphlets about "how to make a confession" that if you remember a homper stomper sin, it's a good idea to bring it up in your next confession even if it's technically "put away" and already taken care of. I don't know, that sounds like an opinion to me, not hard and fast.
But in [a] I think the politician is gaming God and gaming the sacrament, and he is in deep doo doo, having just piled gaming the sacrament and God onto his other sins.
As an aside, this is a fine example of the organic nature of sin and punishment. The politician has held what (to judge by his professed religions affiliation) a wrong opinion. Now he is treating this wonderful stream of forgiveness and strength as a kind of tit-for-tat getting ticket punched exercise as though God were a vending machine. Such a God has to be viewed as a capricious and stupid tyrant, whom no free man would worship. So in this cynical abuse of the sacrament that politician is fracturing his own integrity. (Integrity? Politician? What am I saying?) He's not so much losing il ben dell'intelleto as throwing it away.
But the real question is what if the confessor KNOWS full well that the penitent is committing a humongo open sin (and there's no question that it's a sin and no question that the polly is committing it) and he comes to confession and confesses everything but.
First this would be the kind of thing that I would hope would happen to the priest in the next phone booth and not me, if I were a priest. The Mad Dawg translation of the next to last petition of the Lord's prayer is, "Keep me outta trouble!"
Also, you don't come into the phone booth (if you choose the anonymity option) and say who you are. So the priest officially doesn't know who he's hearing and therefore doesn't know what other stuff is not being confessed.
But the polly knows. And he knows that God knows. And so it would seem his contrition would be defective.
Assume for the sake of argument, that smoking is a sin. So say I smoke and I confess it. At that time I really want to quit and mean to quit, even though I"m no fool and realize that I might make it a couple of hours before I crumple and light up again. THAT, I think, is real contrition even though there's a good ch ance the sin will be repeated.
If I come into the phone booth and on my list of things to do is stop by the store for a pack of cigarettes, we don't have contrition. But in the case we're contemplating it's more like the penitent comes into the booth smoking AND savoring the taste of the smoke.
Yep, he's in trouble.
I'll ask this question (unless you want to refine it): Say I'm a politician, for example the senior senator from a state in New England. Say my schedule for the day has been published and at 2:30 I'm giving a talk at NARAL, and my pro-choice position is well-known. And say I come in for a face-to-face confession and none of the things I confess has anything to do with NARAL. "Whatcha gonna do NOW, Father?"
Does that cover it?
Pitiful.
The imprimatur does not legitimize misuse of the text, only the text itself.
***There was no English translations of the Bible before Wycliff.***
Your posts would indicate that your knowledge of history is equivalent to your knowledge of Scripture.
The Venerable Bede, Aldhelm and Aelfric (Old English)preceded Wyclif by many centuries. Orrm and Richard Rolle were two of the first to translate completely into Middle English.
***The Roman Catholic Church preaches a false gospel of faith plus works and combines it with pagen traditions of Mary worship, rosary beads, thinking a piece of bread is God, Popery etc,***
Boy, you seem to be really hung up on Rome. It is the Catholic Church (as opposed to an apostate one) to you and to the world since Jesus created it and the Holy Spirit commissioned it at Pentecost.
We have the Gospel of Jesus given to us by Him and proclaimed by us for 2000 years. Catholics don’t worship Mary. The Rosary is a means to assist in prayer. I assume that your particular brand of theology allows prayer, right? The Eucharist, begun by Jesus who instructed us do this in memory of Him, is now declared false by pope ftD? Faith plus works is also false? Is James purged from your Bible? How about the Sermon on the Mount? Is that relevant or has that been snipped from your already abridged Bible? How many verses do you have left?
***5 million people, 4.99 million illiterates and a couple of hundred copies created over 25 years. What was the effect on literacy? Almost nil.
Actually, the thousands of Bibles that were created did a great deal to end illitarcy. ***
Well, it didn’t help Protestant spelling very much. How great a deal did the couple of hundred copies created over 25 years make? Speak up now, don’t be shy.
***No thanks to the Roman Catholic Church who attempted to keep them in darkness and blindness.***
The Church worked with Gutenberg to mass produce Bibles. Your mantra of darkness and blindness is seeming even more silly as time goes on.
***The Roman Catholic Church had a control of Books just like it had a control of everything involved with the Government, since it was a branch of the Government. ***
Silly is as silly does. The Church was a branch of which Government? A one world government, or just selected countries?
***Freedom of speech is determined by the freedom to publish without restraints from any tyrannical organization. ***
This is God’s truth. No wonder you guys vomit forth people that range from Rick Warren to John Calvin since you appear to be postulating that anyone can publish anything and claim its truth. Anyone can say anything and as long as they hang up a shingle and sell enough snake oil, they become the next Messiah until the church secretary tells TMZ about the menage a trois with the preacher, her and a male prostitute.
***The Roman Catholic Church did not have anything to do with the Canon. ***
The Church declared it at a series of Councils. We determined it, you didn’t.
***Its Old Testament Canon is corrupt, having non-Canonical books in it and the New Testament was recognized by the real church before any corrupt religious organization got involved. ***
You believe the results of the Christian-rejecting Jamnia approximately 60 years after Jesus was resurrected and taken into heaven? Do you call yourself Christian or Jew?
***Freedom of speech means allowing those things that are untrue to be published, so that which is true can be as well. ***
So by this analogy, it would be good to claim that my food product had 10 grams of sugar per serving when it actually had 50. Or, if you were my neighbour, it would be perfectly acceptable to take out a MySpace account in your name and publish child pornography on it. Nice.
***What Christians believe is that the Pope is nothing more than a lying anti-Christ deceiving millions with the help of his father the devil (Jn.8:44) ***
John 8 relates the words of Jesus to the Pharisees in the temple. Christians do not believe anything of this kind about the Pope; however they do believe it when it relates to the WCF and other horrific works.
***There is still time for you to reject the RCC lies and receive the free gift of eternal salvation through faith in the Blood of Christ.(Rom.3:25). ***
Still relying on misunderstandings of Paul and denying the Gospel of Jesus (you may wish to crack open Matthew - chapters 5 through 7 are of particular interest).
***If you don’t, you will end up at the great White Throne Judgement with the rest of the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, nuns who put their faith in an apostate, wicked organization instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.***
So, in spite of the words of Jesus, you believe that you will not be Judged? Interesting. I’d love to be there to watch your reaction when you find yourself facing the Lamb of God.
***You had better get a Bible and read it, since you clearly haven’t.
Must be the selected, out of context scriptures that you have been listening to at Mass that has you confused.
2Thess. 3 states that if a man doesn’t work, he doesn’t eat.
Rom 13 states that capital punishment is legitimate.
That is the type of thinking you get when you have a people who are Bible illiterates.***
Still relying on misunderstandings of Paul? Try the words of Jesus: Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matt.22:37-40.
Give up the pride, the hubris, the stiff neck and come back to Jesus.
***You had better get a Bible and read it, since you clearly haven’t.
Must be the selected, out of context scriptures that you have been listening to at Mass that has you confused.
2Thess. 3 states that if a man doesn’t work, he doesn’t eat.
Rom 13 states that capital punishment is legitimate.
That is the type of thinking you get when you have a people who are Bible illiterates.***
Still relying on misunderstandings of Paul? Try the words of Jesus: Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matt.22:37-40.
Give up the pride, the hubris, the stiff neck and come back to Jesus.
Isn’t it interesting, all these folks (some of whom can even spell “Christian”) wander up, make up a bunch of things on the fly in the face of 2000 years of orthodoxy, pin the name on themselves and then claim that we are wrong.
Juvenile, self serving, and opportunistic theologies created by snake oil salesmen. The only thing that separates such as Calvin from such as Joseph Smith is that Calvin only created satanic creeds; he never pulled new Scripture out of a hat.
I'll bet the thought crossed his mind.
Same thing at my SBC church, and I agree with your sentiments. :) And we know who these people are. I WAS that guy in college. :) Sometimes they are unchurched visiting relatives of members who go to be polite, sometimes the are slacker members, and sometimes they are off the street. God bless them all for showing up at all. I don't think it is ever a reflection on the worth of the individual faith. It probably happens everywhere, and it is always an opportunity.
And people grow in such funny ways, advancing along this front while leaving that huge flank exposed, but then, years later, bringing up the rest of their assets all of a sudden.
Yes, we never run out of room to grow and the individual paths can be quite funny at times if we really look at them. :)
I think the majority of us enter Purgatory looking like an athlete who, say, did nothing but curls but never once did a press — huge biceps and atrophied triceps, powerful here and myasthenic there.
That's interesting, I've never thought of it that way before. Truth be told, I've never thought of it in any way before. LOL! But assuming the premise, that could well be. I think of myself as having some strong strengths and some GLARING weaknesses. :)
So yeah. there are immature Catholics, and a lot of them are probably "gaming" confession, and indeed gaming a lot of their life with Christ. But IHS is patient — and sneaky. I'll let Him handle them.
Same principle with us, and AMEN! :) I love it when our pastor calls them out (in general terms), usually on a weekly basis. :) He is very challenging which is one of the reasons I love him so much. He often tells us, in essence, that some significant percentage of us who even show up every week are not saved. I love that. Complacency is one of satan's most effective weapons in my mind. satan would love it if all of our churches were filled with useless, false believers who will one day say "Lord, Lord".
And this is buy way of riffing on your saying "it is always an opportunity" About the Xmas and Easter gang. And, yes, that's a HUGE 10-4. I don't care how or why they got to the hospital. ( I mean I DO care, but that's Dawg the sinner ...) They're here and I'm going to try to give them the medicine I have.
I still don't have the theological categories to discourse reasonably about "infused" v. "imputed" righteousness, and as I tried to indicate, I think our minds shatter on the problem of free will. (certainly mine does.)
Some of MY testimony would be this: Once Jesus began to thaw my heart, I wanted to serve Him and to administer (to the extent that's appropriate lingo) his graces to others, starting with the Gospel (and finishing with the Gospel and all along with the Gospel). And part of this was being a chaplain, and a counselor in times of crisis and pain.
So I had a mission. And the mission is what matters.
And, as I have said to folks a zillion times, If/Since IHS loves you, there is a certain obligation in a certain way to love yourself. You can't go around pretending you have higher standards than God.
And for some of us, that means, say, going to a pshrink, or going to the gym, or getting some more education, or even taking a vacation. I've known people who think that taking time out for prayer and reading the Bible is self-indulgent. (And maybe there are some for whom it is, but not many, I'd bet.)
And if you're all tied up in knots about doing something for yourself when you try to love yourself as IHS loves you, then do it to make yourself fit for the mission, as your spouse's and children's evangelist, as a clearer and brighter light for those with whom you work, etc.
And a lot of shrinks will tell you that a major part of at least the beginning of the cure happens when the patient walks into the office.
Anyway, the point is that for me, the motivator in Xtian morality is the Love of God, and the individual's contemplation of that. God, for reasons best known to Himself, thinks I'm precious. Okay, then I'd better act like I'm something He prizes. GOd wants to do stuf through me. Okay, then even though MY motivations for this or that "work of mercy" are corrupt, I'd better do it as though He were doing it, (since He in fact is) and punt the imagination of my heart, evil since my youth, to Him to deal with.
And the upshot of this is, as we crypto Aristotelian Thomists would say, is that, little by little, and along this or that narrow front -- with glaring problems persisting elsewhere we are developing virtues! We are developing the habit of listening alertly and patiently to the tediously garrulous and fussy little old lady who conceals under her dither a steely insistence on having her own way, and of, as we listen, commending her and ourselves and the whole interaction to God for HIM to work with and in.
In our lingo, a big "spiritual" concept is "recollection", which amounts to remembering ALL the time that God is here and His Love rules. Now whether this is imputed or infused, I don't care, though I suppose I ought to study up on it. But where the rubber meets the road, to me the issue is to practice living in the REAL Truth, instead of the bogus stuff that clamors incessantly in our minds. And part of that means that the desire and the ability to do so comes from God, not form ourselves. And that is not perceptible (usually), but is recalled, "recollected", but His working in us.
This riff has ramifications for the free-will/grace problem and for our thinking about purgatory. But I'm going to have to think some more about how to say that.
Yes, I know exactly what that is. I felt that way every week after teaching my Sunday School class. You feel some pressure and pray that God will carry you through it.
FK: "All I can say is that I have seen writings from the Fathers up to modern Catholics which exhort Mary to a high level of grandeur for her choice to say "Yes".
I could be WAY off base here. But I STILL assert that her "Yes," her choice, was a gift.
I (may -see next section) see it your way. All I can report is that many times when I have made that argument, very knowledgeable FR Apostolics have scolded me because if Mary did not use her "uninterfered with" free will, then she had no free will at all. I think that Mary was prepared by God for her role as God also prepares His elect to receive Him.
We have to come to an understanding about the "She (or any of the redeemed) could have chosen otherwise" problem. I'm not sure how to proceed except that it occurs to me that I COULD choose to hit myself on the head with my 16oz Estwing hammer.
Ah, that sounds easy enough, but I am forced to disagree. (And that's not just on a matter of general principle mind you. :) I go back to one of the top examples in scripture that shows God's will is always done. Jesus Himself prays for the cup to be taken away, but more so that the Father's will be done. We know the result, even over what His sinless Son prayed for. Now, if it is certain that the Father's will was that He die for our sins, would it not also be certain that it was the Father's unalterable will that Jesus be born? If Jesus was in no position to deny the will of the Father, then how could Mary have been?
We share the "angels twisting our arms out of their sockets" experience. The angel was doing the work, but even then we had to decide not to resist, from climbing up on the cot or table to not slugging her (with our good arm) when she twisted so much that tears started in our eyes ....
Please pardon this total aside, but are there female angels in Catholicism? I don't have terribly strong feelings about it either way, but the only ones I can think of that are mentioned in the Bible seem to be male. The truth may be that they are neither, but at least they "appear" to be described as being male.
Is all our "Cooperation" with grace a totally worthless illusion?
I suppose that might depend in part on from what we can derive worth. In the Biblical parent-child analogy I see all of us as totally dependent toddlers. So, we all know that sometimes a toddler thinks she has done something grand, when objectively that might not be the case. The parent lavishes credit nevertheless. I see nothing wrong with this. The experience of the child is real to her, and by the love of the parent, is right.
IS there a human will? Is the will in any way important. Does Divine grace make us automata, or lap-dogs, and if so, in what way? Or is will essential to being human. What does it mean to be "Free" [if] we cannot or do not choose?
I would say there sure is a human will and it is very important. It just cannot trump God's will. Sometimes they are in alignment and sometimes they are not. God always wins. God's will is His plan. Now, I do not know if God's plan includes everything, as in "everything" everything, but whatever it does include will happen regardless of whether the will of man (or "A" man) agrees or not.
I would also say that Divine grace prepares us for God's plan. We certainly do not experience being lapdogs, and we would never make that comparison when it comes to our own toddlers. We are led infallibly to Him, and make the choice in accordance with His plan.
Having a will is absolutely essential to being human, it is a vital part of being created in God's image. Being "free" is always going to be within the parameters of God's will. Experientially, there's a lot of room in there, but in truth God's will is always sovereign alone.
Can God "direct" our wills — can we imagine or say this without imagining, since it seems unimaginable — without compromising our freedom?
My position has been that it works very differently depending on whether the direction is to "good" or "evil", but I think the Bible says "Yes". But I don't think this would at all compromise our freedom if we accept that our freedom is not absolute. Rousseau and his ilk seemed to think that man had absolute freedom, but this idea led to ridiculous conclusions, such as that there could be no rational God. That is, the concept of the absolute freedom of man NECESSARILY shuts out a meaningful or sovereign God.
Yes, there's the Biblical metaphor of being clay in God's hands. But won't we insist that that is a metaphor which incompletely conveys the truth? In GOD's eyes, we are LIKE clay, but are we really no different from clay?
Well, to give you a direct answer, "Yes and no". There. :) I would say that in comparison to the rest of God's creation, in that theatre, we are nothing like clay. We are unique and special because we alone have been created in God's image. We alone have the reasoning powers and wills that only humans have, and we have the ability to commune with God. We alone were intended to have a personal relationship with God. These are very important. OTOH, in comparison to God's infiniteness, finite man IS the same as clay. We have no more right to question God than would a rock or a chimp. In that respect God stands alone, above all He has created.
FK: Yet, I perceive that they are thought of as being "above" or elevated over the rest of us.
Honor students. We're ALL students.
Well, my very rebutable impression was that Mary and the Saints all got to skip purgatory. Could a true student get to avoid purgatory?
As to perceptions by Protestants, First I think many individual RCs are probably superstitious, and more are sloppy in their speech. People of whatever persuasion often refer to images using "personal" language,"Look at this little statue I got." "Oh, she's lovely! Where did you get her?" This always gives me the heebie-jeebies, but at least some of the people who do it are perfectly sound theologically ......
I can accept that. I've never been TOO hung up on that issue, as I think I can see that there are many who get coverage who are probably not practicing approved doctrine, etc. I'm thinking of the grilled cheese sandwich crowd and whatnot. We see that stuff in the media, and, ........... well, you know. :)
To bring it back to merit and grace and freedom and will and all that: I am an irascible guy, to my shame. My impulse when somebody cuts me off in traffic or whatever is to show him my middle finger puppet and make various suggestions about the canine ancestry on his mother's side and so forth.
But you're a biker dude now. There has to be some sort of slack built into the rules for that kind of stuff. :)
But speaking 'after the flesh' I made a choice, I make it often, and it is becoming easier to make, and a leetle, teeny, tiny "work of mercy" is becoming almost a habit. I am less likely to take a header into the cesspool of rage. At the same time, I am becoming more aware of how anger and hatred and envy and competitiveness and a veritable swamp of nastiness are going on all the time in me and my thoughts are drowned out by the clamor of noxious peepers.
AMEN! That is exactly how I would describe the Spirit-led process of sanctification as working. We will never run out of issues, and every little improvement (victory) is so wonderful. Praise God.
I give up. Who can understand this stuff?
One great thing is that God leads us to try. :)
(Big stuff will have to wait. Big day for me.)
Well, maybe masculine and feminine, who knows? But I don't think male and female created He them. (I could be wrong. All those little roly-poly baby angels have to come from somewhere ....)
Distinguo: "male" and "female" are about sex and sex is about procreation, and our Lord seems to say the angels in heaven don't do that. "Masculine" and "feminine" are about gender (which I do not use in the debased manner of the current libertine age) of which sex is a, but not the, manifestation. It may be that we come to our appreciation of gender through sex, but that's a matter of pedagogy and not of the thing being learned.
The above is my opinion and I have no authority for it. Certainly "Gabriel" is a masculine name - "mighty man of God", and I know of no feminine names for angels. Angel and the Hebrew word for messenger are masculine.
You now know all I know.
That seems to make the most sense to me too.
Also, you don't come into the phone booth (if you choose the anonymity option) and say who you are. So the priest officially doesn't know who he's hearing and therefore doesn't know what other stuff is not being confessed.
That's true, I didn't think about that. But even for some, I can't imagine a Ted Kennedy (may he be healed) just "slipping in" unnoticed. :) I would doubt that he even bothers. I wonder though if a guy like Guiliani would bother. He might, so that would be an interesting problem for the priest.
Assume for the sake of argument, that smoking is a sin. So say I smoke and I confess it. At that time I really want to quit and mean to quit, even though I"m no fool and realize that I might make it a couple of hours before I crumple and light up again. THAT, I think, is real contrition even though there's a good ch ance the sin will be repeated.
I can accept that since no one I know of argues that smoking isn't really bad for the body. However, I do not think that everyone wants to stop the infanticide in this country, or wants to deglorify homosexuality. They want votes and power. You didn't argue this, but I don't think anyone says abortion is really wrong knowing that they aren't going to say or do a thing about it later. I don't think it's the same as a physical addiction. (I used to be a smoker. :)
I'll ask this question (unless you want to refine it): Say I'm a politician, for example the senior senator from a state in New England. Say my schedule for the day has been published and at 2:30 I'm giving a talk at NARAL, and my pro-choice position is well-known. And say I come in for a face-to-face confession and none of the things I confess has anything to do with NARAL. "Whatcha gonna do NOW, Father?" Does that cover it?
Yeah, I think so. If I'm the priest and I know it's him, then I tell him up front that I don't want to hear it unless........ :) I am reminded of the Eucharist flap a while ago when the Bishop right here in St. Louis put the word out to pro-choice Dems AND Repubs not to bother showing up to receive communion. No shoes, no shirt, etc. I thought that was GREAT! :)
I didn't know you had a radio show. That's cool! :) What was the format?
... I think our minds shatter on the problem of free will. (certainly mine does.)
Yes, I think there is a lot of trouble with the language. I know I have said in different contexts that Yes we do have free will, and in others No. That makes it extra tough.
Some of MY testimony would be this: Once Jesus began to thaw my heart, I wanted to serve Him and to administer (to the extent that's appropriate lingo) his graces to others, starting with the Gospel (and finishing with the Gospel and all along with the Gospel).
I think that words like "administering" and "dispensing" are also tough ones. :) I've heard explanations that I could kinda sorta go most of the way there with, and others that made me think of a million miles away.
And if you're all tied up in knots about doing something for yourself when you try to love yourself as IHS loves you, then do it to make yourself fit for the mission, as your spouse's and children's evangelist, as a clearer and brighter light for those with whom you work, etc.
Amen to that! :)
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.