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 ... 5,801-5,8505,851-5,9005,901-5,950 ... 15,801-15,828 next last
To: Legatus
I HOPE that takes care of the disparagement of "hope".

I would hope you could distinguish the difference in promising the parents of the unbaptized The Church hopes for the salvation of your child" and the shopping list of Hope you have listed.

I am with the Priest who ignores the teaching of the Church and says "your child is in heaven with God."

5,851 posted on 09/17/2010 11:10:50 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5834 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
just out of curiosity, does your home page accurately reflect what you believe? thanks

It's a trap!

Does it accurately reflect what I believe? Yes. Do I accurately reflect what I believe? HAH!

Although... I often find myself asking my children "Do you think you're better than your brothers and sisters?" and when they say no I wonder out loud why they act like they think they're better. You'd think our words and deeds would accurately reflect what we really believe. Maybe we fail to live up to what we aspire to, but we never fail to accurately reflect what we really believe... which is horribly depressing.

5,852 posted on 09/17/2010 11:18:11 AM PDT by Legatus (Keep calm and carry on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5847 | View Replies]

To: Legatus

no need to get all hysterical, just asking


5,853 posted on 09/17/2010 11:22:53 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5852 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Hoisted by their own petards. (What exactly is a petard and how is it hoisted?)

Etymology: Middle French, from peter to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from Latin peditum, from neuter of peditus, past participle of pedere to break wind; akin to Greek bdein to break wind
Date: 1598

Somehow I don't think what they had in mind. :-)

"Blown up by your own bomb." is more likely.

5,854 posted on 09/17/2010 11:25:53 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5844 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Dr. Eckleburg

huh, and all these years I envisioned a sock or something attached to a jock strap device


5,855 posted on 09/17/2010 11:31:03 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5854 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

Here’s what I find from google:

“For ‘tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
petar” — Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv. “Hoist” was in Shakespeare’s
time the past participles of a verb “to hoise”, which meant what “to
hoist” does now: to lift. A petard (see under “peter out” for the
etymology) was an explosive charge detonated by a slowly burning
fuse. If the petard went off prematurely, then the sapper (military
engineer; Shakespeare’s “enginer”) who planted it would be hurled
into the air by the explosion. (Compare “up” in “to blow up”.) A
modern rendition might be: “It’s fun to see the engineer blown up
with his own bomb.”


5,856 posted on 09/17/2010 11:32:39 AM PDT by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5854 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Link:

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhoistw.html


5,857 posted on 09/17/2010 11:34:34 AM PDT by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5856 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
I am with the Priest who ignores the teaching of the Church

I think that's pretty much the bottom line here isn't it? When an attempt is made to demonstrate what is meant by the word "hope" from a Catholic theological perspective it's dismissed as a "shopping list".

A moment when a priest could explain that our "hope" is in Jesus Christ who never fails "placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit" is just ignored for a platitude as if our HOPE in Christ is a pedestrian, pious facade. The theological virtue of Hope isn't "I hope we have chicken for dinner".

5,858 posted on 09/17/2010 11:36:04 AM PDT by Legatus (Keep calm and carry on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5851 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Here’s what I find from google:

“For ‘tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar” — Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv. “Hoist” was in Shakespeare’s time the past participles of a verb “to hoise”, which meant what “to hoist” does now: to lift. A petard (see under “peter out” for the etymology) was an explosive charge detonated by a slowly burning fuse. If the petard went off prematurely, then the sapper (military engineer; Shakespeare’s “enginer”) who planted it would be hurled into the air by the explosion. (Compare “up” in “to blow up”.) A modern rendition might be: “It’s fun to see the engineer blown up with his own bomb.”

I like the passing wind better. :-)

I did put the more "correct" definition in tiny font.

5,859 posted on 09/17/2010 11:49:23 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5856 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; D-fendr
You mean to tlel me that you find "ruitful common ground" with Catholics or Orthodox? You could have fooled me. I don't recall many of your posts expressing fruitfulness and common ground with them.

Here's the problem (as I see it) in a nutshell. Within Catholicism, the definition of "outermost circle of Christianity" is the two-pronged "apostolic succession/papal submission" and "valid Eucharist" (transubstantiation). All other doctrinal issues, while not ignored, are secondary considerations. In this mindset, if you're a "real" Christian you must be Catholic. And if you're not Catholic, you're at best a member of an "ecclesial community" (Protestants), of a "defective church" (Orthodox), or not a Christian at all. Thus, the mindset of Catholicism towards the corporate exercise of Christianity is exclusivist by design. You're either (already) Catholic, or you're well outside the safety zone.

Now using that mindset, when Catholics look upon Protestant denominations, they believe that all denominations must similarly be fully exclusivist towards all other denominations. They think that Protestants exclude all denominations/members not their own from the full body of Christ, because that's how it Catholics themselves approach others. While some "Protestant" congregations and denominations (using those terms loosely) may act that way towards outsiders, the majority do not (and the creedal ones IMO less so).

I find it amusing that it was Calvinists and Presbyterians who came up with the "Five Fundamentals" (where the perjorative "fundamentalist" comes from) as an ecumenical tool to find common ground with Christians of all persuasions (including Catholics and Orthodox). I myself can find fruitful, common ground with any and all Trinitarian Christians (Trinitarianism being my personal "outermost circle" for defining Christianity. Sure, we might argue doctrine, we might argue about what are "doctrines of demons" or what is the "gospel of Satan", but those are inter-family squabbles as far as many of us are concerned. Catholicism and Orthodoxy cannot reach across the aisle and say the same, IMO.

Related threads:
The word is evangelical, not fundamentalist
The many forms of fundamentalism
Put that cup of coffee down [re the proper use of the religious term "fundamentalist"]

5,860 posted on 09/17/2010 11:51:51 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5835 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; 1000 silverlings

And speaking of hoping we have chicken for dinner, we’re NOT going to have chicken for dinner. We’re having cheese pizza because my wife is going with her mother to see Glenn Beck tonight. I get to stay home with the kids, and this is the day after my birthday.

Now I ask you: WHAT KIND OF BIRTHDAY PRESENT IS THAT?!

Then again, my wife gave me a king sized micro-fiber blanket for my birthday. WOW! I never thought I could be so excited about a blanket. It’s like being wrapped in angel wings... or possibly bunnies. Very, very soft bunnies.

It almost makes up for being left alone with the screaming loons this evening. BUT IT DOESN’T MAKE UP FOR THE CHEESE PIZZA! Plastic on cardboard?! Oh that sounds just lovely... maybe we could follow it up with some mud pies or road apple fritters...

Ahhhh... apple fritters. When I was a kid I had a paper route and on fridays I’d stop at a little bakery after I delivered all the papers and buy a carton of chocolate milk and an apple fritter.

There... that’s what hysterical looks like.


5,861 posted on 09/17/2010 11:56:13 AM PDT by Legatus (Keep calm and carry on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5858 | View Replies]

To: Legatus

happy birthday yesterday! you should have told us sooner, we could have baked a cake or hoisted you on a petard or something


5,862 posted on 09/17/2010 12:23:05 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5861 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
There’s no room for cranky old fogeys on this forum.

Shhhhhhh! Pretend this is Japan. We'd be held in a place of honor.

As opposed to the Senate of the United States?

5,863 posted on 09/17/2010 12:36:50 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5848 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

well, yes, otherwise you could go crazy trying to read each post! But, it’s still a sneaky way of suberting the rules, you gotta admit


5,864 posted on 09/17/2010 12:49:56 PM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5634 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; wagglebee; trisham; Running On Empty; Natural Law; HarleyD

good point


5,865 posted on 09/17/2010 12:52:10 PM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5647 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Err... we don’t say that “meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible.”


5,866 posted on 09/17/2010 12:55:56 PM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5660 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Now given the Westminster Confession above and the scriptural references (at site), what would you disagree with?

Double predestination. Chapter Three. While parts of the Confession say man has free will, others show what this means. Chapter Three denies free will. God predetermines and foreordains - heaven or hell "without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto."

Not based or foreknowledge, but "These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed." Unchangeably designed to believe or not believe. Man does not have this choice.

It critical to free will and salvation that the Confession says it is predetermined whether they will believe or not. The portions you posted have to do with the process, but it is an unchangeable process, predetermined for man. Man cannot but do and choose how he was predetermined and foreordained to.

To me, this is not free will, it programming. The human executes the program, in the same way as a computer does.

Thanks for your post and courteous discussion.

5,867 posted on 09/17/2010 12:58:31 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5807 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; kosta50; maryz

Highly unlikely. The Samaritans didn’t marry outside.


5,868 posted on 09/17/2010 1:01:07 PM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5675 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Well, what would happen if instead people really want to go to hell? We know God and what He is like but instead of wanting Him, we want to go to hell.

I agree with most of your post. I primarily disagree on double predestination.

I wouldn't say that all want to go to hell. We want what we want when we want it, and the result is hell. On earth. Call it God's subtle direction. Unless we repent and believe. Our difference, primarily, is I believe this is a free will choice.

As a sidebar, I don't think we can fully conceive what heaven and hell really are. I don't know if you've read Dante's Inferno, but it is a thought-provoking work postulating that Hell is where the unsaved only get what they really want.

5,869 posted on 09/17/2010 1:07:56 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5708 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Highly unlikely. The Samaritans didn’t marry outside.

May I quote? "Interestingly, many of the present day Palestinian Muslims may have Samaritan blood...."

I repeat; and so may you.

5,870 posted on 09/17/2010 1:20:33 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5868 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

Why am I not laughing


5,871 posted on 09/17/2010 1:25:39 PM PDT by Running On Empty ((The three sorriest words: "It's too late"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5862 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
It critical to free will and salvation that the Confession says it is predetermined whether they will believe or not. The portions you posted have to do with the process, but it is an unchangeable process, predetermined for man. Man cannot but do and choose how he was predetermined and foreordained to. To me, this is not free will, it programming. The human executes the program, in the same way as a computer does.

Council of Orange;

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

We have free will in our fallen state. In Our fallen nature we will never choose God.

Cats and Dogs are free to fly, however their nature does not allow them to.

5,872 posted on 09/17/2010 1:29:20 PM PDT by bkaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5867 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee
This is against Pelagius and not a statement of double predestination.

In Our fallen nature we will never choose God.

I agree, but we disagree about man and God.

Cats and Dogs are free to fly, however their nature does not allow them to.

So we would not condemn them for not flying. Neither would we condemn them or praise them for licking themselves - they cannot do otherwise.

A God who creates cats who can only lick and condemns them for would be unjust and cruel. A God who creates a human being who cannot believe and then condemns him for it would be the same.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


5,873 posted on 09/17/2010 2:06:05 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5872 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
This is against Pelagius and not a statement of double predestination. In Our fallen nature we will never choose God. I agree, but we disagree about man and God. Cats and Dogs are free to fly, however their nature does not allow them to. So we would not condemn them for not flying. Neither would we condemn them or praise them for licking themselves - they cannot do otherwise. A God who creates cats who can only lick and condemns them for would be unjust and cruel. A God who creates a human being who cannot believe and then condemns him for it would be the same.

So you do not see man inheriting a fallen nature from Adam?

Man is neutral in your view and God owes him a chance?

God chooses to save some and allow the rest to what they deserve.

If you want pure justice then ALL deserve hell.

Sounds like you are a semi pelagian. Man has been wounded but with help can choose correctly.

5,874 posted on 09/17/2010 2:51:15 PM PDT by bkaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5873 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
This is against Pelagius and not a statement of double predestination.

Correct ,nor does it say any person is to assume they are predestined to heaven. This would be the sin of presumption since we don't have the right to assume we are worthy of deserving heaven. It shows lack of humility

Scripture says even the just man sins multiple times a day

From Thomas Kempis Imitation Of Christ-Self-Abasement in the Sight of God

I WILL speak to my Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. If I consider myself anything more than this, behold You stand against me, and my sins bear witness to the truth which I cannot contradict. If I abase myself, however, if I humble myself to nothingness, if I shrink from all self-esteem and account myself as the dust which I am, Your grace will favor me, Your light will enshroud my heart, and all self-esteem, no matter how little, will sink in the depths of my nothingness to perish forever. It is there You show me to myself -- what I am, what I have been, and what I am coming to; for I am nothing and I did not know it. Left to myself, I am nothing but total weakness. But if You look upon me for an instant, I am at once made strong and filled with new joy. Great wonder it is that I, who of my own weight always sink to the depths, am so suddenly lifted up, and so graciously embraced by You. It is Your love that does this, graciously upholding me, supporting me in so many necessities, guarding me from so many grave dangers, and snatching me, as I may truly say, from evils without number. Indeed, by loving myself badly I lost myself; by seeking only You and by truly loving You I have found both myself and You, and by that love I have reduced myself more profoundly to nothing. For You, O sweetest Lord, deal with me above all my merits and above all that I dare to hope or ask. May You be blessed, my God, for although I am unworthy of any benefits, yet Your nobility and infinite goodness never cease to do good even for those who are ungrateful and far from You. Convert us to You, that we may be thankful, humble, and devout, for You are our salvation, our courage, and our strength.

5,875 posted on 09/17/2010 3:07:07 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5873 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee; HarleyD
So you do not see man inheriting a fallen nature from Adam?

Sick or wounded, not dead.

Man is neutral in your view and God owes him a chance?

If you love someone, would you give them a chance to get well, even if they didn't deserve it?

God chooses to save some and allow the rest to what they deserve.

The wounded deserve to die?

If you want pure justice then ALL deserve hell.

A just god would mean all go to hell or all go to heaven - this is the false choice a dilemma of double predestination. An injust god is not a satisfactory solution to it.

Neither is universal salvation. When you have formed a either/or for which both conclusion are wrong, it's a good indication that your formation is in error.

Sounds like you are a semi pelagian. Man has been wounded but with help can choose correctly.

Is believing a work?

Again, your theology presents a false choice. "Either All God or All Man" necessarily means that whichever way you choose, you eliminate the other. If you choose All God, you cannot hold Man accountable for anything - and you do not have Man but a programmed creature you mistakenly call man.

With free will you have relationship. You have the possibility of love. You have reality: God and Man and His love and grace and our response, choices and consequences.

5,876 posted on 09/17/2010 3:22:18 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5874 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Judith Anne; Alex Murphy; D-fendr
One last try. 8~)

There is no doubt that some passages in the Bible cannot be taken literally, such as where we encounter statements like "And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?" [Mat 12:23] Clearly, in context, the Greek pas mean all present, not all the people of the world. At other times, verses like "And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?" [Mat 21:10] it is clearly a figure of speech that cannot be taken literally because we know from context, again, that not everyone in Jerusalem was necessarily moved.

Then statements such as "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." [Mat 21:22] become a bit more difficult. Some would say "all" in this case means all things agreeable to God, all things God wills, etc. not anything one may ask. But we don't know, do we, what the scribe in this case meant without reading his mind. After all, is this not the same as "with God all things are possible?" [Mat 19:26]

Clearly, although in all instances pas is translated as "all" or words to that effect, the meaning is not always universal. I think we can find "common ground" thus far.

But we were not talking all of the Bible but rather 1 Timothy 2:4. The Calvinist interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4 simply does not fit the context of the leading verses. 1 Timothy 2 begins with the following verses:

  1. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men. 
  2. For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 
  3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
  4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I think you will agree that prayers etc. are intended for all mankind, and that therefore all men in verse 4 would be the same all inclusive statement—all mankind—or else it would make no sense.

5,877 posted on 09/17/2010 3:35:24 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5841 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Thank you for clarifying and elaborating. And thanks very much for the wonderful quote from Thomas à Kempis.


5,878 posted on 09/17/2010 3:40:19 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5875 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

When I was involved in a protestant community I was always amazed by the people running around telling everyone they were saved and guaranteed heaven. Meanwhile they would watch the smuttiest TV shows on and talk about it along with speaking about others behind their back. I realize we are all sinners and this is not indicative of all protestants, but this is brazen,it’s as if in saying you are saved gives one a license to be proud of sin


5,879 posted on 09/17/2010 3:57:42 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5878 | View Replies]

To: maryz
And in your theology, this desire for hell would have been implanted by God?

Didn't Adam choose the fruit?

5,880 posted on 09/17/2010 4:18:53 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5815 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
However, I"m not Jonah. Nor is Jonah you or me, or the world....Here, we are not talking about OT prophets, but about the world's salvation

The claim was made that we are free to choose our own paths. This is not what the scriptures tell us. Jonah is one of the most obvious examples but there are plenty more. If we truly had free will as some would claim, then when Jonah ran God would have simply shrugged and say, "Oh well, there's plenty more of those fish in the sea."

A question I've asked before: If free will choice were demonstrated to you to be true, would you accept it?

I believed in man's free will for 30+ years. I never even heard of Calvin during that time. But I could NEVER reconcile passages in scripture. When I would ask people they simply say "It's a mystery". Well, no, I don't buy into half the Bible being a mystery. God CHOSE a whole nation, and do people really want to argue that God doesn't choose people? The logic is a bit overwhelming.

Free will can't be demonstrated to me as being true because it has been demonstrated to me as being false. What kind of "free will" did Jonah have if God pursued him, made a fish to swallow him, and waited for Jonah to either repent or be digested? Clearly your not going to argue that Jonah had the freedom NOT to preach to Nineveh?

Non-Christians CANNOT make any choices that pleases God.

Christians ARE free to make choices that pleases God. This isn't an illusion. It is a loving Father who guides our hands to make the right choices that are pleasing to Him. He gives us our works but it is all His doing. It is His guidance that we chose wisely.

5,881 posted on 09/17/2010 4:43:11 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5810 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Consider eliminating the circle. He’s elect because he believed.

You have that exactly backwards according to scripture:

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

They were not appointed to eternal life BECAUSE they believed. They believed because they were appointed to eternal life. Otherwise Acts is wrong.

5,882 posted on 09/17/2010 4:50:04 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5812 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; wagglebee; trisham; Running On Empty; Natural Law

Except that Augustine was before Calvin and was a prominent Church father.


5,883 posted on 09/17/2010 4:51:59 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5865 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
To me, this is not free will, it programming. The human executes the program, in the same way as a computer does.

The end of the story is already written. Is that preprogrammed? Can you change the prophecy of scripture?

5,884 posted on 09/17/2010 5:01:48 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5867 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
If we truly had free will as some would claim, then when Jonah ran God would have simply shrugged and say, "Oh well, there's plenty more of those fish in the sea."

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow logically.

I believed in man's free will for 30+ years. I never even heard of Calvin during that time. But I could NEVER reconcile passages in scripture.

You are describing your thought process, weighing various factors, concerning your choice of what you believe.

Free will can't be demonstrated to me as being true because it has been demonstrated to me as being false.

And, therefore, you made the free will choice not to accept it.

QED, friend.

5,885 posted on 09/17/2010 5:03:56 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5881 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Otherwise Acts is wrong.

No, just a statement of foreknown fact.

5,886 posted on 09/17/2010 5:09:13 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5882 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Can you change the prophecy of scripture?

Does prophecy cause or foresee?

5,887 posted on 09/17/2010 5:10:26 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5884 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Meanwhile...

I grew up in a Protestant denomination that emphasized personal holiness and "entire sanctification", in practical terms that involved: going to church 3 times a week, revivals, tithing, praying for missionaries and meals, nightly family extemporaneous prayer and Bible reading. It also meant no movie theaters, no dancing, no tobacco use, no alcohol, no playing cards, no Sunday newspaper, no Sunday shopping. It meant camp meeting and district assembly every summer, oh, and a week of church camp as well. No family could have been more fully involved than mine.

I'm not saying all of that properly understood isn't fine, but I am saying: THAT WAS IT. I don't ever remember anything that could even remotely be considered instruction in how to apply all that Bible reading to personal conduct. Personal holiness in practical terms consisted primarily in what one didn't do. I was a preacher's kid, one would think that if there was some secret level of spiritual development I would have known about it.

No wait... I forgot James Dobson, and with good reason. Three years of therapy to get that mess out of my head, thanks a lot Jimmy.

Great, I think I blacked out for about 10 minutes, where was I?

Oh yes, it was Bible, Bible, Bible, interpreted however the Sunday School teacher, childrens church director, preacher, evangelist or youth pastor chose to interpret it. Much scorn was heaped on the Catholics who drank, smoked, danced and ran to confession every Saturday... as if that was all that was available to them and it wasn't their fault if they didn't make use of the enormous deposit of spiritual help.

There never seemed to be any introspection on back-biting, calumny, detraction, or GLUTTONY! The very word "charity" was a dirty word because the Catholics had used it to replace agape apparently (hey, I didn't make this stuff up). And of course the fact that all we had to do whenever we were "under conviction" was tell God we were sorry. Talk about a case of mass projection.

That was the thing, we were using everything the denomination had to offer and comparing ourselves to the absolute bottom line minimum Catholics, rejoicing in our self-righteousness and completely missing the point that we were as spiritually pathetic as the worst of Catholics.

Oh there were gems among all the places I lived... my mind may be playing tricks on me but I recall that most of them were ex-Catholics.

5,888 posted on 09/17/2010 5:13:41 PM PDT by Legatus (Keep calm and carry on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5879 | View Replies]

To: Legatus
Such a gifted writer you are,dear brother! I am sending you an article by freepmail from a friend and and great professor of history from Saint John's University

It kinda makes sense of what you're saying through the lens of the mistakes of Calvin especially

5,889 posted on 09/17/2010 5:50:27 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5888 | View Replies]

To: Legatus
Oh there were gems among all the places I lived... my mind may be playing tricks on me but I recall that most of them were ex-Catholics.

My experience both on FR and in real life agrees with yours. My boss is ex Catholic and is now a force in a rising wanna be mega church. He actively recruited me when I accepted employment; there have been other examples in the area of that as well. Given the apologetics that I learned, from among other places, here, he has not mentioned that rather new age feelgood non Biblical "Bible believing" cult in quite some time.

No wait... I forgot James Dobson, and with good reason. Three years of therapy to get that mess out of my head, thanks a lot Jimmy.

Anything in particular or just general semantics?

Oh yes, it was Bible, Bible, Bible, interpreted however the Sunday School teacher, childrens church director, preacher, evangelist or youth pastor chose to interpret it. Much scorn was heaped on the Catholics who drank, smoked, danced and ran to confession every Saturday... as if that was all that was available to them and it wasn't their fault if they didn't make use of the enormous deposit of spiritual help.

I never smoked very much and am not very fond of dancing...

5,890 posted on 09/17/2010 5:58:18 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5888 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; 1000 silverlings

Oh, yuck. 8~)

I thought it had something to do with pirate flags.

Clearly, smelly pirates.


5,891 posted on 09/17/2010 6:02:23 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5854 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I thought it had something to do with pirate flags. Clearly, smelly pirates.

That's something I admire about you, Dr. E. Consistency.

5,892 posted on 09/17/2010 6:35:07 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5891 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Anything in particular or just general semantics?

The book "Preparing for Adolescence" which was published in the late 70s almost single-handedly wrecked my life. I remember my mother crying out "You used to be so loving and kind, what's happening to you?" some years later I realized that what I had wanted to say was "if you could get all this Dobson stuff out of the house I might have a chance of actually becoming myself instead of this freak it's trying to turn me into." ... er, or words to that effect. So yeah... that took 3 years of intense therapy to work out. :)

30+ years later and if someone wants to send me into a feral rage all that has to be done is for a Dobson book to be tossed into my line of sight. Maybe I just didn't understand what he was getting at, but there's like a 14 year block of my life when I wouldn't allow another human being to so much as touch me, I mean down to little old ladies at church trying to hug me... I'd clothesline them. Sorry grandma, you invade my personal space and you're going down. And no, there's no deep dark secret lurking in my childhood, it's just how I reacted to Dobson's psychology.

We all have our little issues.

Hmm... I think I need to put him on my don't ask don't tell list. lol

5,893 posted on 09/17/2010 7:10:32 PM PDT by Legatus (Keep calm and carry on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5890 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; OLD REGGIE; 1000 silverlings
DR.E: (Hoisted by your own petard) I thought it had something to do with pirate flags. Clearly, smelly pirates.

That's something I admire about you, Dr. E. Consistency.

Your comment is indecipherable. Were you following this particular discussion or was this just another drive-by fruiting?

5,894 posted on 09/17/2010 8:02:15 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5892 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Here's the problem (as I see it) in a nutshell. Within Catholicism, the definition of "outermost circle of Christianity" is the two-pronged "apostolic succession/papal submission" and "valid Eucharist" (transubstantiation). All other doctrinal issues, while not ignored, are secondary considerations. In this mindset, if you're a "real" Christian you must be Catholic. And if you're not Catholic, you're at best a member of an "ecclesial community" (Protestants), of a "defective church" (Orthodox), or not a Christian at all. Thus, the mindset of Catholicism towards the corporate exercise of Christianity is exclusivist by design. You're either (already) Catholic, or you're well outside the safety zone.

Now using that mindset, when Catholics look upon Protestant denominations, they believe that all denominations must similarly be fully exclusivist towards all other denominations. They think that Protestants exclude all denominations/members not their own from the full body of Christ, because that's how it Catholics themselves approach others. While some "Protestant" congregations and denominations (using those terms loosely) may act that way towards outsiders, the majority do not (and the creedal ones IMO less so).

I find it amusing that it was Calvinists and Presbyterians who came up with the "Five Fundamentals" (where the perjorative "fundamentalist" comes from) as an ecumenical tool to find common ground with Christians of all persuasions (including Catholics and Orthodox). I myself can find fruitful, common ground with any and all Trinitarian Christians (Trinitarianism being my personal "outermost circle" for defining Christianity. Sure, we might argue doctrine, we might argue about what are "doctrines of demons" or what is the "gospel of Satan", but those are inter-family squabbles as far as many of us are concerned. Catholicism and Orthodoxy cannot reach across the aisle and say the same, IMO.

Great post and wonderful links, Alex. Thanks.

5,895 posted on 09/17/2010 8:07:44 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5860 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; D-fendr

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

They were not appointed to eternal life BECAUSE they believed. They believed because they were appointed to eternal life. Otherwise Acts is wrong.


In context, Acts 13 represents the first public preaching to the Gentiles. From verses 16-45, Paul and Barnabas preach to the Jews, and NOT the Gentiles. But when they reject the Gospel, we find verses 46-48:

46And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “’I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” 48And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

A POSSIBLE interpretation is the one HarleyD advances - that they were ordained to salvation as individuals, and then believed. And if this was a common phrasing of the conversion experience, that interpretation would have a lot of strength.

However, another POSSIBLE interpretation notices that 30 verses were addressed to the Jews, and only in verse 46 does it change. And what did P&B say to the Jews? That they “judge [themselves] unworthy of eternal life” - which doesn’t sound like irresistible grace.

In verse 47, they proclaim that they are also sent to the Gentiles, and in 48 “when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”

So another interpretation is that ‘as many as were appointed’ refers to the fact that it wasn’t just Jews receiving the message, but the Gentiles who were also appointed for salvation by God. Until this point, only Cornelius has received the Gospel as a Gentile, and he was a special case: “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.”


There is at least one other way of looking at it, found at this link:

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/search/label/Exegeting%20Acts%2013%3A48


5,896 posted on 09/17/2010 8:34:11 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5882 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; HarleyD
Thanks for weighing in on this, Mr Rogers. Would this be an example of the corporate view of election and predestination?
5,897 posted on 09/17/2010 9:16:57 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5896 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Forty_Seven; Mad Dawg
47:
Put another way, if I’m in a theological debate and I’m asked that question, I will answer, “The Church cannot say for certain as a matter of dogma”

But if a grieving mother asks me the same question, I would answer, “I’m sure your baby is in Heaven”

You may, at this juncture retort, “But that is contradictory; you can’t have both answers be true.”

Both answers can be true though because, one is answering a theological charge, who’s only purpose can be to trap the Church in some theological mistake, while the other is asking an honest, truly human question, that has a truly human need attached.

This is actually why the Church is quite reticent to define anything dogmatically until and unless there is sufficient reason to do so.
GK Chesterton in "Orthodoxy":
"Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. .....

He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus, he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. ....

It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man."
47 has not given two contradictory truths, but Chesterton's description still stands
5,898 posted on 09/17/2010 9:48:23 PM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5683 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

And yet, note that if Calvinist belief is that babies who die prematurely are all “elect” and going to heaven, does it logically also follow that Calvinists should kill all babies since they would then go to Calvinist heaven since they were all predestined?


5,899 posted on 09/17/2010 9:53:04 PM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5604 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; D-fendr
When I was involved in a protestant community I was always amazed by the people running around telling everyone they were saved and guaranteed heaven. Meanwhile they would watch the smuttiest TV shows on and talk about it along with speaking about others behind their back

Precisely because they were told they were saved no matter what they did. Remember Luther's pecca fortiter?

5,900 posted on 09/17/2010 10:16:29 PM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5879 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 5,801-5,8505,851-5,9005,901-5,950 ... 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