Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intended Catholic Dictatorship
Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief

Intended Catholic Dictatorship

The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.

The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).

The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.

The Intentions Made Plain

The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:

"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization

"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.

"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.

"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.

"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.

Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.

This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!

In Their Own Words

The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.

[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]

Two Comments

First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.

This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.

Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.

—Reginald Firehammer (06/28/10)


TOPICS: Activism; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: individualliberty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 15,601-15,65015,651-15,70015,701-15,750 ... 15,801-15,828 next last
To: getoffmylawn

Are not Catholics seeking communion with the OE?


15,651 posted on 11/07/2010 1:25:59 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15650 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Are not Catholics seeking communion with the OE?

The Pope has made bringing the two lungs of the Church into communion once again one of his top priorities, but that has nothing to do with ridiculous head spinning statements such as "Catholics like to pretend that they and the orthodox are the same except for the papacy". Many of the differences have actually been brought up many times all over this thread.

Surely you have the ability to retain information long enough to remember stuff you've read in the last couple of days or months.

15,652 posted on 11/07/2010 1:58:14 PM PST by getoffmylawn (aka Cool Breeze)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15651 | View Replies]

To: getoffmylawn

The OE have a very basic set of differences with the RC ...yet reading some of the threads here you would think that they could simply forget Purgatory, the difference in the sacraments or the different view of the fall.. looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine.. in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are


15,653 posted on 11/07/2010 2:05:22 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15652 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are

Ummmmm... Okay, chief. Whatever you say.

15,654 posted on 11/07/2010 3:06:38 PM PST by getoffmylawn (aka Cool Breeze)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15653 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are

Ummmmm... Okay, chief. Whatever you say.

15,655 posted on 11/07/2010 3:06:51 PM PST by getoffmylawn (aka Cool Breeze)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15653 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; getoffmylawn; stfassisi; MarkBsnr

“...looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine.. in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are”

No, looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine... or dogma for that matter, but the remainder of your statement is absolute nonsense, R. The Latins and we Orthodox are all members of The Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, despite our dogmatic and doctrinal and ecclesiological differences which are manifested in the Schism between their hierarchs and ours. We have share valid sacraments, valid orders and hierarchs within the Apostolic Succession. You folks simply aren’t members at all, in any way at all.

And R, you protestants, being in fact the rebellious children of the Church of Rome, bear a striking resemblance to your Holy Mother the Latin Church.


15,656 posted on 11/07/2010 3:10:51 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15653 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; getoffmylawn
The OE have a very basic set of differences with the RC ...yet reading some of the threads here you would think that they could simply forget Purgatory, the difference in the sacraments or the different view of the fall.. looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine.. in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are

To use your arguments, why would geoffmylawn listen to someone who is not either Catholic or Orthodox? Your comments suggest that in order to say what you said you have either never read what the EOC and the RCC teach on the intermediates state of the souls after physical death, or that you don't understand it, or both, but lack of understanding seems obvious.

The fact is that both Churches believer in the purification of the souls and offer prayers and services for the departed who died without repenting of all their sin, in order to ease their discomfort of standing naked before heavens with all their sins exposed.

The difference has to do with the definition of the "purifying fire." The EOC objected to the idea that this is "real fire" as the RCC mentioned in the historical course of church teachings. Somehow the idea, no matter how preposterous, that God cold be "roasting" unrepentant souls to his 'satisfaction" never cough on in the East.

But Catholic apologetics will actually tell you that this is not what the Church teaches, so chances are the East will find reconciliation with the West on that subject the least difficult.

The differences on Immaculate Conception are real and are tied to the western notion of the original sin. In the East, such a dogma makes no sense. But since the original sin is not a dogma, the East wold not have any problems with the West continuing to believe Immaculate Conception as a matter of de fide limited to the West, but would object to insisting that it be accepted in the East.

As regards the original sin, the East believes what the early Church believed. Augustinian teaching are alien to the East and as such rejected as a theologoumennon (religious hypothesis), not as doctrine or, worse, dogma. It was never declared dogma during the undivided Church of the first millennium.

However, the resolution of this conflict is not impossible either. The RCC does not teach that you are born with an actual sin, but with the stain (consequence) of sin, namely the propensity for sin. It is a condition, like a disease, passed on to all succeeding generations by parents to children, because it is the fallen human nature.

The EOC teaches that man is born innocent of any committed sin, but with a "sick" soul, or deformed will, in need of healing and divine Physician.

You also mention sacraments. Which sacraments are different in the east as opposed the West? Both Churches recognize the same seven sacraments, bot churches recognize each others' orders as valid orders, and apostolic succession as the source of apostolic authority.

A Catholic priest is received into the Orthodox Church without having to go back to the seminary. That is not the case with any of the non-Catholic "clergy."

In short everything you wrote is dead wrong. I wonder who or what is your source of misinformation. But he or it is not doing you any favor.

15,657 posted on 11/07/2010 3:33:16 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15653 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; RnMomof7; Forest Keeper; Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr
The more common and sightly later teaching, of course, is that evil in the world feeds on itself and grows, that sin has and continues to so distort the world that “bad things happen to good people”

True, but the fact that we have to admit that "later teachings" even exist suggests that either St. Basil did not speak for the Church and should be quoted only when his teachings reflect consesus patrum, or that the Church did not have faith delivered once and believed everywhere and always. Take your pick.

 Why the Cappadocians held the pedagogic evils notion is something I have never understood since it flies in the face of their teaching which says that God is not the cause of any evil.

For the same reason the Blessed Augustine had to write his Retractions at the end of his life—he was speculating! People forget that individual Fathers are not infallible individuals and that they searched for answers just like everyone else did and does. Some things they get right, others they get wrong.

Without the consensus of the Church as whole, such individual speculations lead into Protestant-like error, and when we quote early Church Fathers we should be careful to make sure what they say agrees with the consensus patrum, rather than present their individual opinions as authoritative one-man "dogma".

15,658 posted on 11/07/2010 6:02:31 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15637 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis
Why did God send His son Jesus into this world? Was it not that He should die for the sins of the world?

Seriously, what kind of a father would do that? And why didn't the Father die for the sins of the world? What kind of an example is that to imitate?

The Jewish God never taught such a thing! No wonder, the Jews would not hear any of it.

15,659 posted on 11/07/2010 6:09:23 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15639 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Forest Keeper
Actually Jesus did teach progressive sanctification especially in John 17..19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth

Why does Jesus need to be sanctified? Does that really make sense to you? Do you think Jesus was not holy but had to make himself holy?

15,660 posted on 11/07/2010 6:15:14 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15640 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; blue-duncan; D-fendr; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr
It was a freely given act of love ,not an obligation to us undeserving sinners

SFA, the Calvinists believe in a God who is hijacked by Necessity. Even their God has no choice.

15,661 posted on 11/07/2010 6:19:12 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15642 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; stfassisi
They [the EO] deny original sin... so do you agree with them on that?

Are you delusional or just terribly misinformed? Where does the EOC teach that there was no original (ancestral) sin?

15,662 posted on 11/07/2010 6:24:40 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15644 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis

“The Jewish God never taught such a thing!”

Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of such a thing. John the Baptist in pointing out Jesus called him “The lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world”.

“Seriously, what kind of a father would do that?”

Jesus said it was his Father,

Matt 26:39,“Father, if it’s possible, let this cup {of suffering} be taken away from me. But let your will be done rather than mine.”

42, “Father, if this cup cannot be taken away unless I drink it, let your will be done.”

John 18:11, “Jesus told Peter, “Put your sword away. Shouldn’t I drink the cup {of suffering} that my Father has given me?”


15,663 posted on 11/07/2010 6:38:03 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15659 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; stfassisi
Catholics like to pretend that they and the orthodox are the same except for the papacy

You don't do much reading, do you? I mean, this is basic stuff...and to be so far off on that is rather sad.

They reject the teachings of Augustine on original sin..

They reject Augustine's teaching on the original sin.

they do not believe that man is born with the sin or the guilt of the sin of Adam, only with the effects of the fall

The Catholic Church also believes that man is born with the effects (stain) of the original sin, and not actual committed sin, which is removed at Baptism.

Catholic Catechism #404

And in $405 it says

This is a rejection of St. Augustine's total depravity which the Protestants scraped off from the bottom of his trash can. The Catholic teaching as stated in the Catechism is fully compatible with the Eastern Orthodox teaching on the subject. You will have to do the other half of the homework, or ask someone who knows what he is talking about.

15,664 posted on 11/07/2010 6:53:20 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15649 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Actually Jesus did teach progressive sanctification especially in John 17.

Ah, so He did. Thanks much for the correction. Any way we look at it, the totality of scripture is clear that the concept of sanctification is used in more than one way, including progressive sanctification.

15,665 posted on 11/07/2010 6:55:01 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15640 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis
Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of such a thing. John the Baptist in pointing out Jesus called him “The lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world”

John the Baptist was a Jewish sectarian, an apocalyptic Jew, very possibly an Essene, and hardly a representative of of mainline Judaism. By the way, the followers of John the Baptist, who still exist, insisted from the beginning that he, not Jesus, was the messiah. Christianity pretty much hijacked him. That's why I love the Christian history not tainted by the Bible.

Jesus said it was his Father

Yeah, I know what the Bible says Jesus said, but in your heart is this the moral guideline we should follow (you know, imitate God!): sacrifice your own son for a good cause? Is this the message we should take home with us after a Sunday homily?

15,666 posted on 11/07/2010 7:04:11 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15663 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr
Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of such a thing.

Well, the Jews do not read Isaiah 53 the same way. Why should I believe you? Jewish arguments are just as compelling, if not more so, than Christian. Do you think the LDS know the NT better than the Christians? If not, then why would you think the Christians know Jewish scriptures better than the Jews?

15,667 posted on 11/07/2010 7:09:30 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15663 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis

“Is this the message we should take home with us after a Sunday homily?”

Well I suppose if there is a better way to expiate sin it has yet to be discovered. Jesus did say he was the only way and as C.S. Lewis said “ A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.”


15,668 posted on 11/07/2010 7:20:11 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15666 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis

“Well, the Jews do not read Isaiah 53 the same way. Why should I believe you?”

You should not believe me. It’s like the old blues standard “Nobody loves me except my mother, and I think she’s jiving me too”. I may be jiving you so come to your own conclusion. I just gave you my take on the Isaiah passage. From my study it seems reasonable.


15,669 posted on 11/07/2010 7:25:02 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15667 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; RnMomof7; Forest Keeper; MarkBsnr
"[A Father]should be quoted only when his teachings reflect consesus patrum, or that the Church did not have faith delivered once and believed everywhere and always.'

I pick neither, Kosta. The Fathers are quoted all the time when what they are saying does not reflect the consensus patrum, when they reflect the consensus patrum and when there is no consensus...as has been the case for the past 1600 years on many things written by the Cappadocians. You know that! As for The Church having the "...faith delivered once and believed everywhere and always.", indeed it does, even when individual Fathers, or even groups of them didn't. As you and I have noted many times in past, there are points of theology we believe simply because The Church tells us we should believe them.

"...when we quote early Church Fathers we should be careful to make sure what they say agrees with the consensus patrum, rather than present their individual opinions as authoritative one-man "dogma"."

I can't imagine why any of us couldn't quote an early or a late Father whether the quote agrees or disagrees with the consensus patrum and to the extent that we are not post Vatican I Roman Catholics quoting some ex cathedra declaration of a pope, I can't imagine any of us presenting the individual opinions of a Father as dogmatic under any circumstances.

15,670 posted on 11/07/2010 7:34:06 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15658 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis
Well I suppose if there is a better way to expiate sin it has yet to be discovered

Yes there is. You'd think a perfect loving God would have created a perfect loving world without sin, since he hates it so much.

15,671 posted on 11/08/2010 1:36:25 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15668 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; RnMomof7; Forest Keeper; MarkBsnr
Cappadocian Fathers are one of the three columns of the official (Palamite) Orthodox doctrine; the other two being the desert Fathers and the hesichasts. Yet the Cappadocians have a good deal in their writings that is not official doctrine, and even outright contrary to it. Take, for example +Gregory of Nyssa and his teaching on the universal salvation (which he later retracted).

All I am saying is that if we do not qualify their writing as either doctrinally orthodox or unorthodox, one can easily get the impression that some things outside of the consensus of the Church are "orthodox" simply because they bear the brand name of one of the Capapdocian Fathers, or any other prominent early Christian apologist. 

People like to quote the Church Fathers as evidence that what the early Church believed back then is what the Church believes to this day—that the catholic faith of the Church did not change, or go astray from the beliefs she held originally; a certificate of authenticiy of sorts, if you will.

But the fact is that not everything they wrote is what the Church as a whole believed. Just because +Basil the Great believed God caused evil for a greater good doesn't mean the Church does. Or just because +John Chrysostom said that Christ annihilated death doesn't mean the Church does, or else the Paschal Troparion wouldn't say otherwise.

The point I was making, Kolo mou, is that quoting the Church Fathers, can easily lead outsiders, or the insufficiently catechized, to accept what they wrote as doctrinally authoritative even when it isn't. 

Finally, why quote such authorities if not to show what the Church believed?  Their unorthodox theologoumenna may be of interest to students of Church history and theology, but not as examples of orthodox faith. And last time I checked, there are almost no Orthodox posters left on the RF; most are either outside the Church or insufficiently catechized in Orthodoxy.

15,672 posted on 11/08/2010 4:26:07 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15670 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis
 I just gave you my take on the Isaiah passage. From my study it seems reasonable.

Reasonable that it's about Jesus? Without going into too much depth on this subject, because of its sheer complexity, I am just curious what you have to say about the fact that "Isaiah"—pretending here, for simplicity's sake, that it was only one author, despite evidence to the contrary—identifies God's servant as anything but Jesus, or even resembling Jesus:

But you, O Israel, my servant... [Isaiah 41:8]
But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen... [Isa. 44:1]
Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant... [Isa. 44:21]
For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen... [Isa. 45:4]
He said to me, 'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor'... [Isa. 49:3]

Do you really think that, after identifying the servant as Jacob, Israel all along, all of a sudden "Isaiah" in chapter 53 drops Jacob, that—is Israel, as his servant, and introduces another one? Just curious.

15,673 posted on 11/08/2010 4:48:42 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15669 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Thanks for the explanation.

Apparently some on here simply do not, cannot or will not attempt to understand.


15,674 posted on 11/08/2010 9:56:52 AM PST by Jaded (Stumbling blocks ALL AROUND, some of them camouflaged well. My toes hurt, but I got past them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15586 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; kosta50

What he said!


15,675 posted on 11/08/2010 9:57:47 AM PST by Jaded (Stumbling blocks ALL AROUND, some of them camouflaged well. My toes hurt, but I got past them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15588 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; RnMomof7
Why does Jesus need to be sanctified?

Perhaps the context was to be set apart from the world. Jesus was set apart from the world for His special purpose and so we are also to be.

15,676 posted on 11/08/2010 7:32:23 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15660 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
Goodness, FK, I don't know where to start! :)  You will have to forgive me for replying piecemeal. 

In the sanctification of the believer our glorification is implied as the last event in the change from glory to glory

Are you saying implied to avoid saying presumed?

The apostle Paul put glorification as the last and final event in the process of salvation (Rom. 8:28-30).

But  it doesn't say it has to be a life-long process! Grammatically, Paul is saying God already did that as a matter of fact, a finished, accomplished act (aorist, active, indicative). You of all people are the one who insists on interpreting the scriptures contextually, as a totality and not isolated verses. Well, Paul repeatedly uses the same grammatical form to drive the point that once you accept Chest you are saved, justified and sanctified. Period.

So, where are you getting this "life-long" process from?

The greatest promise in the Scriptures is when Christ appears, “we shall be like Him.”

What does  that mean to be like him? In what way will you be like him? Will you be perfect? Immortal? Holy? Glorified?

If the answer is yes to any or all, then you believe that you and all like you will one day be divine because only God is believed to be perfect and immortal, holy and glorified forever. How, then, does your belief differ from the LDS(Mormons)?

Glorification is a perfect, indisputable standing before God in the day of judgment (Rom. 5:6-11). In glorification believers shall be in a state of complete exoneration for any possible change

Nothing in these verses says anything about being "glorified."

I did not realize there was any controversy within Christianity on the concept of entering Heaven with glorified bodies and without the stain of sin. Do Latins or Orthodox dispute this?

They teach that the souls of the departed, who did not repent of all their sins before physical death, undergo "purification," the nature of which is a subject of dispute among them.

In this intermediate state, the souls of the saved are eventually "purified." and united to their new bodies at the Last (Dread) Judgment. I have never heard of them being referred to as "glorified."

It seems proper that the glory belongs only to God, as the appendix to the Lord's Prayer says "and Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever. Amen."

So if the "saved" will be "perfected," and shall "inherit the kingdom," and "glorified" then they will be divine! The whole concept of man being glorified is preposterous, imo. It implies that man, a creature, is elevated to the level of the creator, a pot elevated to the level of the potter, a chair made equal to the carpenter who made it, a thing begotten made equal to its maker. How can God "glorify" man unless man is made equal to God!?!

Where do you see reference to "glorified bodies" of the saved in the Bible? I really don't know where you are getting this from, FK. [...to be continued]

15,677 posted on 11/09/2010 1:29:28 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15630 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
I thought the whole theosis deal was to become "as a God".

By grace; not by nature. Holy, not divine.  

—o0o—

To wit, no one is ever elevated to literal Divine status, and Heaven is not a place conducive to the presence of sin. Therefore, if anyone is to enter into Heaven it must be in some form without sin. This is expressed in terms of glorification and having glorified bodies.

There is an ontological difference, FK. Only God is potentially without sin. When God created Adam, he was without sin, but not without the potential to commit sin. In his sinless state, Adam was neither God, nor was he "glorified." He was only like God in that he did not commit and sins (yet).

Theosis is restoring man to his original intended state, free of committed sin, in the likeness of God. Salvation is not being "rescued" from an angry God, but being restored to his likeness, which was lost in the Fall when our ancestral parents committed the first sin.

—o0o—

I also do not see controversy in the idea of standing before the Father. I suspect the reason the author put it this way is in keeping with the language in Romans 5:6-11. The idea is that we are reconciled TO God BY Christ.

Paul makes it abundantly clear that (in his mind) there is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6). Trinitarian Christianity, however, theologically understands God is one ontological entity, one nature (essence), in three separate, unconfused divine realities (hypostases), or "persons" as you call them in the West, in the economy of our salvation.

—o0o—

Economically speaking, that is, how God manages his "plan," it is not the Father who is to judge, but the Son. It is therefore Christ before whom the resurrected souls will "stand" (Matthew 25), and it is Christ who will judge them, not the Father.

So, if there is going to be any reconciliation of the souls before God, it will be by and through Christ, not the father—economically speaking.

—o0o—

As to when the saints will be perfected it appears to be a matter of some eschatological debate. I believe the final perfection is pretty much the last thing to happen before the elect then move into Heaven for eternity.

FK, the "kingdom of God" or the "heavenly kingdom" refers to Israel, God's own kingdom on earth. Apocalyptic Judaism believed in the restored, perfected earth, new earth with the new Jerusalem, not a castle in the sky.

—o0o—

 I think many Protestants believe, including Baptists, that at the point of death the saved are in the "presence" of God (2 Cor. 5:8)

What does "in presence of God" mean? besides, 2 Cor 5:8 doesn't say that. He says we prefer to be without the body but "at home with the Lord."

—o0o—

but that final perfection does not take place until after the second coming of Christ

Yeah, that final perfection inlcudes having a new body! 

15,678 posted on 11/09/2010 2:53:59 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15630 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
Before you even ask, I have no idea how the concept of time applying or not applying "applies" to all this. :)

Let's just chuck it as traditions of men. :)

—o0o—

We are positionally sanctified because of what Christ did, and our following faith, NOT because anyone becomes sinless upon belief.

Sorry, FK, it would be very easy to show that Paul and his ideological buddy who wrote 1 John imply that the believers are as good as sinless, because God doesn't see their sins any more. So, whether the elect sin or not, is irrelevant. In the Protestants' God's eyes, Andrea Yates' is as holy and free of sin as Mary.

—o0o—

By their deeds Paul considers everyone to be unfit for the kingdom of Heaven: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", ... "the wages of sin is death".

But the totality of his theology teaches that God is "blind" to the sin of the "elect" because he has committed their sins to oblivion and  "remembers them no more." What is so preposterous about Protestantism is that what the "elect" do on this earth simply does not matter to God. It may matter to Paul, but not to the God he created.

Whether you are Andrea Yates or Adolf Hitler, as long as you believe, you are as holy as it gets in God's eyes.  The Big Daddy in the sky simply does not see the terrible things his little monsters are doing. To him, they are his pristine little angels. Is there a religion more narcissitic than Protestantism?

—o0o—

Therefore, he cannot be referring to sinless people here or it would be pointless.

It is pointless, because God has decided from before the foundation of the world that some of his human creatures will be excused no matter what. They are sinless in his eyes.

—o0o—

I'm not sure what Protestant rituals you are referring to, but whatever they are they in no way make us more or less fit for Heaven.

Are they waving to God so he can see them? :)

15,679 posted on 11/09/2010 2:57:31 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15630 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; RnMomof7
kosta: Why does Jesus need to be sanctified?

FK: Perhaps the context was to be set apart from the world. Jesus was set apart from the world for His special purpose and so we are also to be.

Oh boy! Think about it, FK: was there any time when Jesus was not holy (i.e. set apart from the world)?

15,680 posted on 11/09/2010 3:10:53 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15676 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
[From the article I cited = "FTA":] In the sanctification of the believer our glorification is implied as the last event in the change from glory to glory

Are you saying implied to avoid saying presumed?

I think the author just means that we may reasonably infer from Paul in Rom. 8:28-30 that glorification is the last event. It seems clear that this author follows Sola Scriptura, and that includes what may be reasonably inferred from the text.

FTA: The apostle Paul put glorification as the last and final event in the process of salvation (Rom. 8:28-30).

But it doesn't say it has to be a life-long process! Grammatically, Paul is saying God already did that as a matter of fact, a finished, accomplished act (aorist, active, indicative).

As the articles cited indicate, the totality of scripture describes at least three uses of the concept of sanctification. All are correct for their purposes. Similarly, the concept of "saved" is used in more than one sense and tense. All of those uses are likewise correct. Citing one use in one passage in no way invalidates the others.

So, where are you getting this "life-long" process from?

From other passages of scripture which describe it, such as the ones already posted. The "all or nothing" approach simply does not apply. If we claim "Ah-Ha", the Bible is wrong because it uses the concept of sanctification in more that one tense or sense, then we might as well say the same thing about the concept of love.

FTA: The greatest promise in the Scriptures is when Christ appears, “we shall be like Him.”

What does that mean to be like him? In what way will you be like him? Will you be perfect? Immortal? Holy? Glorified?

We will be restored to His image without the stain of sin. (Per your later question) see also:

Phil 3:20-21 : 20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

The precise mechanics are not given but there will be some sort of transformation. And of course the image is not the thing so there is no pretense of any of us becoming Divine. God alone is Divine and always will be.

FK: I did not realize there was any controversy within Christianity on the concept of entering Heaven with glorified bodies and without the stain of sin. Do Latins or Orthodox dispute this?

.......... In this intermediate state, the souls of the saved are eventually "purified." and united to their new bodies at the Last (Dread) Judgment. I have never heard of them being referred to as "glorified."

That's interesting. I wonder what their interpretation is of verses like Rom. 8:30.

So if the "saved" will be "perfected," and shall "inherit the kingdom," and "glorified" then they will be divine!

I don't think that follows. The elect can all be saved, perfected, inheritors of the kingdom and glorified all still without having the eternal essence or Divine nature of God. For example, we know there is and will be worship in Heaven (e.g. Rev. 7:9-11) so we cannot be equal to God there.

15,681 posted on 11/09/2010 7:50:54 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15677 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
Salvation is not being "rescued" from an angry God, but being restored to his likeness, which was lost in the Fall when our ancestral parents committed the first sin.

I suppose the very essence of what salvation means is one of the major differences between the different Christian faiths. In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further? I would be very surprised if this was the case. I would say that once we had our glorified bodies there would be no potential for sin. And no, that would not make us Divine. It would make us finally changed.

Paul makes it abundantly clear that (in his mind) there is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6).

Paul gave full credit to Christ for being God:

Col. 1:16-17 : 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Phil 2:5-11 : 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

FK, the "kingdom of God" or the "heavenly kingdom" refers to Israel, God's own kingdom on earth. Apocalyptic Judaism believed in the restored, perfected earth, new earth with the new Jerusalem, not a castle in the sky.

The Bible refers to more than one "kingdom". There is God's kingdom on earth and an extraterrestrial (not of this earth) eschatological kingdom. I was talking about the one the elect will spend eternity going forward in:

Matt. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

This kingdom is obviously not on earth.

What does "in presence of God" mean? besides, 2 Cor 5:8 doesn't say that. He says we prefer to be without the body but "at home with the Lord."

It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :) Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously.

15,682 posted on 11/09/2010 9:04:40 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15678 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
So, whether the elect sin or not, is irrelevant. In the Protestants' God's eyes, Andrea Yates' is as holy and free of sin as Mary.

Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth. I have no credible information that leads me to think that Andrea Yates is/was saved (elect) so I'm not sure why you would think Protestants make such an assumption about her. We do not take profession as proof of belief.

What is so preposterous about Protestantism is that what the "elect" do on this earth simply does not matter to God. It may matter to Paul, but not to the God he created.

Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin. We have to make the distinction that post-conversion sins do not cancel the salvation of the elect because of the promises of Christ. If Christ was a liar, then those sins could cost us our salvation. But this doesn't make those sins meaningless. They have consequences and God will definitely and many times painfully discipline those He loves.

Whether you are Andrea Yates or Adolf Hitler, as long as you believe, you are as holy as it gets in God's eyes. The Big Daddy in the sky simply does not see the terrible things his little monsters are doing.

Salvation is not earned by racking up enough points by doing works. Grace through faith is what matters.

Is there a religion more narcissistic than Protestantism?

I think most Bible-believing Protestants would say that their faith is not a religion at all but rather a relationship. That is an important distinguishing characteristic.

15,683 posted on 11/10/2010 12:07:29 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15679 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; RnMomof7
Oh boy! Think about it, FK: was there any time when Jesus was not holy (i.e. set apart from the world)?

In and of Himself, no, there was never a time. However, it seems clear that the context is His being sanctified FOR our sakes. For example:

1 Cor. 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness [i.e. sanctification] and redemption.

So, Jesus "became" sanctified so that He was our sanctification. That seems to match John 17:19 - "19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified."

15,684 posted on 11/10/2010 12:26:19 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15680 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
Is there a religion more narcissistic than Protestantism?

I guess it depends on how one defines narcissism

I would say it is narcissistic to believe one can impress God enough that He would repay them by saving them

Psa 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were [any] that did understand, that did seek God.
Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.

15,685 posted on 11/10/2010 4:11:08 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15683 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi; kosta50
“I suppose the very essence of what salvation means is one of the major differences between the different Christian faiths.”

Yes indeed, FK. The differences between what the Latin Church since the Great Schism (or even perhaps since the 4th century) and its offspring the Protestant communities since the Reformation believe and what Eastern Christians believe are extensive, even vast. This is why I on occasion remark that we worship different Gods. "In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further." Orthodoxy teaches that when we die, our souls experience the "particular Judgment" and go to the "Place of the Dead" to await the Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is just what you think it is. In neither event can the deceased sin anymore. In fact, the deceased can't do anything after death one way or the other to effect where he or she will spend eternity. As always, that depends 100% on the mercy of God. "It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :)" The Russians have a concept of weigh stations where the soul is examined after death and some sort of foretaste of what awaits in eternity, but it is not dogmatic at all. FK, to understand Eastern Christianity, one has to understand that for us all creation is full of God's immeasurable and boundless love. This is fundamental to our understanding of everything. Without understanding this, no one can understand Orthodox Christianity. As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'" +Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'" On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures" Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!

15,686 posted on 11/10/2010 4:25:06 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15682 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi; kosta50
Sorry about the formatting!

“I suppose the very essence of what salvation means is one of the major differences between the different Christian faiths.”

Yes indeed, FK. The differences between what the Latin Church since the Great Schism (or even perhaps since the 4th century) and its offspring the Protestant communities since the Reformation believe and what Eastern Christians believe are extensive, even vast. This is why I on occasion remark that we worship different Gods.

"In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further."

Orthodoxy teaches that when we die, our souls experience the "particular Judgment" and go to the "Place of the Dead" to await the Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is just what you think it is. In neither event can the deceased sin anymore. In fact, the deceased can't do anything after death one way or the other to effect where he or she will spend eternity. As always, that depends 100% on the mercy of God.

"It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :)"

The Russians have a concept of weigh stations where the soul is examined after death and gets some sort of foretaste of what awaits in eternity, but it is not dogmatic at all.

FK, to understand Eastern Christianity, one has to understand that for us all creation is full of God's immeasurable and boundless love. This is fundamental to our understanding of everything. Without understanding this, no one can understand Orthodox Christianity. As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'"

+Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'"

On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures"

Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!

15,687 posted on 11/10/2010 7:47:41 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15686 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
I think the author just means that we may reasonably infer from Paul in Rom. 8:28-30 that glorification is the last event

We can reasonably conclude, based on grammar, that it is a done an accomplished package deal without regard what comes first or last.

As the articles cited indicate, the totality of scripture describes at least three uses of the concept of sanctification

So far I have seen only aorist used; not future tense.

If we claim "Ah-Ha", the Bible is wrong because it uses the concept of sanctification in more that one tense or sense, then we might as well say the same thing about the concept of love

I asked where does it say it is a life-long process, FK, not whether the Bible is at fault. But since you mentioned it, the veracity of the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.

We will be restored to His image without the stain of sin...the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.  [Phil 3:20-21]

It is not the image but the likeness of God that man lost in the Fall. In other words, being, and not looking God-like. As for the Philippians, Christ never promised that to his hand-picked disciples. Why should I believe a self-appointed apostle on his word? 

That's interesting. I wonder what their interpretation is of verses like Rom. 8:30.

In Slavonic, as in Greek, it has a slightly different "flavor": them whom he predefined, he also invited, and the ones he invited them he excused,  and the ones he excused them he celebrated.

The elect can all be saved, perfected, inheritors of the kingdom and glorified all still without having the eternal essence or Divine nature of God. 

I agree that what makes God God is his (presumed) eternal nature which obviously humans can never have. They will still fall short of God's glory, so what is there to glorify? 

if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further? I would be very surprised if this was the case

I don't know. However, the pre-Fall Adam did have that potential. Only God can have free will and never commit sin. Which means, your perfected man will not have free will. How "perfect" (complete) is that?

So far, the "glorified" man will not share God's eternal nature and will not have free will. Doesn't sound very perfected or worthy of glory to me, FK. :)

15,688 posted on 11/10/2010 8:00:32 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15682 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
Paul gave full credit to Christ for being God:

He does, because he describes Christ as the demiurge, the firstborn of all creation...However, Paul refers only to the Father as God in no uncertain terms: "there is but one God, the Father.."

Phil 2:6- Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God...

Your NIV is misleading you, FK. The Greek text uses the word mophe which means "external appearance," not the nature or essence. But this wouldn't be the first NIV doctrinally motivated alteration of the scriptures, and probably not the last. :)

I was talking about the one the elect will spend eternity going forward in: Matt. 16:19  

Having the keys to the kingdom in heaven does not say the "elect" will spend eternity [sic] there. It simply means the disciples will be given the means to act on God's behalf as his trusted servants (which seems a little ridiculous given that God is (1) omnipotent  and omniscient, and (2) already has obligate servants—angels—specifically created for that purpose, who did just about all his work on earth in the Old Testament; why does he need a new set of proverbilal "elfs" is curious).

And eternity, FK, is something that applies to prehistory as well as the future, without the beginning and without the end. Those who have been created in time can never live in eternity because there was a time when they did nto exist.

It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :) Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously.

Prayer, the Orthodox Church believes, does not bail out the soul in unrepentant sin, but eases its discomfort (caused by shame) in the presence of God.

The memorial services (panikhidas) are not petitions for God to save the soul of the departed, but services of gratitude in hopes that he did.

Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously

You yourself said that one can not know if another person is saved or not. Saying that the deceased is "at home with the Lord" contradicts your statement by implying that one does know.

15,689 posted on 11/10/2010 8:07:22 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15682 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi

Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth.

Big deal.  What can here on earth match the guaranteed limo ride to heaven to cause one to change his ways?

I have no credible information that leads me to think that Andrea Yates is/was saved (elect) so I'm not sure why you would think Protestants make such an assumption about her. We do not take profession as proof of belief.

Because they say that the departed is in a "better places" or "at home with God" or "in heaven" etc. And because Paul indented the idea that the spouse of a believer is automatically saved, along with children, even if the other spouse is not a believer.

Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin.

That's like a billionaire living in a dump and saying he hates it! Why doesn't he make the sin just go away?

We have to make the distinction that post-conversion sins do not cancel the salvation of the elect because of the promises of Christ. If Christ was a liar, then those sins could cost us our salvation. But this doesn't make those sins meaningless. They have consequences and God will definitely and many times painfully discipline those He loves.

Baloney, FK. The Bible is full of examples that God ordered destruction of children. Religious nuts tell us that God sends hurricanes to tsunamis to "punish" the world. Even some Church Fathers believed these were 'pedagogic" punishments for a "greater" good. Killing innocents for a greater good...beginning with the Flood...and still no improvement.

Salvation is not earned by racking up enough points by doing works. Grace through faith is what matters.

Obviously because what we do doesn't matter. Whether you drown five children or kill six million Jews and three million Poles, and a few millions others, or whether you perform 1,000 fornications a day (the example given by Luther) it doth not matter as long as you believe. By the time you die you will be "glorified." In God's eyes Andrea Yates and Hitler could be as "innocent" as Mary.

I think most Bible-believing Protestants would say that their faith is not a religion at all but rather a relationship. That is an important distinguishing characteristic.

It is a religion because they share basic tenets common to all of them, namely the authority of the same Bible, same core beliefs, that one is saved by faith alone, "justified", glorified", etc. Saying it's a relationship does not describe Protestant mindset. Everything is a relationship, FK. It's how we deal with he world. Protestant mindset is defined and shared by other Protestants in an organized manner and shared tenets of faith. That make sit as religion.


15,690 posted on 11/10/2010 8:37:27 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15682 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; RnMomof7
In and of Himself, no, there was never a time. However, it seems clear that the context is His being sanctified FOR our sakes. For example: 1 Cor. 1:30...

Paul simply states that "we" have become righteous, holy and redeemed through him, not that he became holy, just or redeemed. It still doesn't answer: why did Jesus need to be sanctified?

So, Jesus "became" sanctified so that He was our sanctification. That seems to match John 17:19 - "19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified."

No it doesn't. God says to his people "be holy because I am holy." He doesn't say "I make myself holy so that you may be holy." Only someone who is not sanctified can become sanctified. And on another occasion, Jesus asks the Father to sanctify him...yet in John 17 he sanctifies himself..etc.

The Bible is full of these little inconsistencies. I love the one where Jesus says they can't touch him because his body was not glorified yet (!). When did his body become "profane"? LOL. They were shooting in the dark, FK. And once you realize that, the magic is gone.

15,691 posted on 11/10/2010 8:51:12 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15684 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness"...

Need we say more?

15,692 posted on 11/10/2010 9:00:54 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15687 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Forest Keeper; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
"The memorial services (panikhidas) are not petitions for God to save the soul of the departed, but services of gratitude in hopes that he did."

In the Greek and Arab Churches the Memorial Service asks for God's mercy on the soul of the deceased and is somewhat different from the Slavic panikhidas. Here's a small part of the text from a Greek/Arab Memorial service:

"Priest: May the Lord God place his soul where the righteous repose. Let us ask for the mercies of God, the kingdom of Heaven, and the forgiveness of his sins from Christ our immortal king and God.

People:Grant this, O Lord.

Priest:Let us pray to the Lord.

People:Lord, have mercy.

Priest:O God of spirits and of all flesh, You have trampled down death and have abolished the power of the devil, giving life to Your world. Give rest to the soul of Your departed servant in a place of light, in a place of repose, in a place of refreshment, where there is no pain, sorrow, and suffering. As a good and loving God, forgive every sin he has committed in thought, word or deed, for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your word is truth.

Priest:For You are the resurrection, the life and the repose of Your departed servant, Christ our God, and to You we give glory, with Your eternal Father and Your all holy, good and life giving Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages."

15,693 posted on 11/10/2010 9:09:15 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15689 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
I would say it is narcissistic to believe one can impress God enough that He would repay them by saving them

That would be narcissistic. That's why Orthodox and Catholics never think they have even come close. Unlike the Protestants, who adopt Jesus and "know" they have impressed God enough forever.

15,694 posted on 11/10/2010 9:11:20 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15685 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Forest Keeper
That would be narcissistic. That's why Orthodox and Catholics never think they have even come close. Unlike the Protestants, who adopt Jesus and "know" they have impressed God enough forever.

Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

We do not believe anyone impresses God with anything they do ...By His MERCY and GRACE

See we really do believe it is a gift and not wages earned.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

15,695 posted on 11/10/2010 9:32:14 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15694 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper

Makes ya wonder why God even made a hell huh?


15,696 posted on 11/10/2010 9:36:58 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15687 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“Makes ya wonder why God even made a hell huh?”

Or if He actually did....


15,697 posted on 11/10/2010 10:05:44 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15696 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

So the bible contains error?


15,698 posted on 11/10/2010 10:09:31 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15697 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; kosta50; Forest Keeper; MarkBsnr; stfassisi

“So the bible contains error?”

The English translations are riddled with errors. Give me a quote and I’ll let you know what I think. Beyond that, I think the simplest answer is yes, the bible contains error. Bats and locusts, for example, are clearly not birds and there is little or no reason to believe that 1 John 5:7-8 is anything other than spurious....


15,699 posted on 11/10/2010 10:54:13 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15698 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Whoo boy, you've stepped in it now. The "Biblical Inerrency means no error of any kind" crowd are reaching for the flamethrowers as we speak, I'm sure.


15,700 posted on 11/10/2010 11:02:47 AM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15699 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 15,601-15,65015,651-15,70015,701-15,750 ... 15,801-15,828 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson