Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
That is an error. Clearly, you may not have read Augustine's Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints or the many excerpts from it that have been posted on this thread.
Many have been posted. I shall refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia in order to show that the excerpts are out of context, in much the same manner, as many post out of context Bible verses:
The history of dogma shows that the origin of heretical Predestinarianism must be traced back to the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of St. Augustine's views relating to eternal election and reprobation. But it was only after the death of this great doctor of the Church (430) that this heresy sprang up in the Church of the West, whilst that of the East was preserved in a remarkable manner from these extravagances. Beginning from the anonymous author of the second part of the so-called "Prædestinatus" (see below) up to Calvin, we find that all the adherents of this heresy have taken refuge behind the stout shield of Augustinism. The question therefore to be answered at present is this: Did St. Augustine teach this heresy? We do not wish to gainsay that St. Augustine in the last years of his life fell a victim to an increased rigorism which may find its psychological explanation in the fact that he was called to be the champion of Christian grace against the errors of Pelagianism and Semipelagianism. Still the point at issue is whether he, in order to establish the predestination of the just, gave up his former position and took refuge in the so-called "irresistible grace" (gratia irresistibilis) which in the just and in those who persevere destroys free will. Not only Protestant historians of dogma (as Harnack) but also a few Catholic scholars (Rottmanner, Kolb) even up to the present time have thought that they found in his works evident indications of such a strange view. But among most of the modern students of St. Augustine the conviction is constantly gaining ground that the African Doctor at no time of his life, not even shortly before his death, embraced this dangerous view of grace which Jansenism claims to have inherited from him. Even the Protestant writer E.F.K. Müller emphasizes the fact that St. Augustine, with regard to the liberty of the will in all conditions of life, "never renounced his repudiation of Manichæism, a step which had caused him so severe a struggle" (Realencyk. für prot. Theologie, Leipzig, 1904, XV, 590).
The only ambiguous passage containing the expressions "unavoidable and invincible" (De corrept. et gratia XII, xxxviii: indeclinabiliter et insuperabiliter) does not refer, as is clear from the context, to Divine grace but to the weak will which by means of grace is made invulnerable against all temptations, even to the point of being unconquerable, without, however, thereby losing its native freedom. Other difficult passages must likewise be explained in view of the general fundamental principles of the saint's teaching and especially of the context and the logical connexion of his thoughts (cf. J. Mausbach, "Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus", LI, 25 sq.; Freiburg, 1909). Hence St. Augustine, when towards the end of his life he wrote his "Retractations", did not take back anything in this matter, nor had he any reason for doing so. But as to God's relation to sin, nothing was further from the thoughts of the great doctor than the idea that the Most Holy could in any way or for any purpose force the human will to commit sin. It is true that God foresees sin, but He does not will it; for He must of necessity hate it. St. Augustine draws a sharp distinction between prœscire and prœdestinare, and to him the infallible foreknowledge of sin is by no means synonymous with a necessitating predestination to sin. Thus he says of the fall of Adam (De corrept. et gratia, 12, 37), "Deo quidem præsciente, quid esset Adam facturus injuste; præsciente tamen, non ad hoc cogente" (cf. Mausbach, ibid. 208 sq.). The question whether and in how far St. Augustine assumed, in connexion with the absolute predestination of the elect, what was later on known as the negative reprobation of the damned, is quite distinct from our present question and has nothing to do with heretical Predestinarianism.
If the truth actually mattered to Roman Catholics, they would read the works they're tossing around like popcorn.
Strange and novel theologies require that one takes good and holy writings, tosses them in a wood chipper, and when retrieved, a certain number of words and phrases are arranged in random order in order to mean something other than what the author intended. I hadn't thought of that before - the wood chipper is the legacy of the Reformation.
Was it hidden in a Dominican trunk somewhere and Calvin fetched it out?
It may have been in a trunk, under lock and key by Rome. But thankfully, men were printing the Bible in a variety of languages and as men, Calvin included, began to read the Bible for themselves, the truth became clear.
A variety of languages, accuracies, and meanings - as Luther began - in order to support heretical theologies. Wasn't it Luther who twice sneaked in the "alone" and mistranslated "grace alone"? And attempted to take an axe to much of the NT, to go along with his amputation of the Deuterocanonical books of the OT? There was no way that Calvin could take that, so he did better. He created a new cruel and tortured religion, and imposed it upon the good burghers of Geneva.
Rome stood condemned by its error, as it does today.
The Reformation gave us wood chippers and fuzzy logic generators which are useful in their own way today.
The history of NT Scripture is reasonably clear. I must get more Windex. My windshield is getting dirty again.
Where’s the copyright notice for it?
How many copyright notices were issued in the first three centuries after Christ? Darn bug spots...
As you say, “Sure. We categorize heresy as a mortal sin” then logically heretics, whether excommunicated by formal action or automatically, suffer the punishment set forth in the Catechism?
If they were Judged by God to be heretics. We have evidence here that they are - and expel them from the Christian community, but that in no way holds God to man's judgement. The difference is in what we think about someone, versus what God knows and Judges.
A child’s faith is simple, trusting, and it is both treasured and protected by...
Faith is belief, not knowledge. Even while arguing with me, you post on faith. Paul writes extensively on faith, belief, hope. If you know something, there is no hope, there is surety. You are using the term 'know' here to indicate fervent belief. Okay, be that as it may. When we debate, I will not accept that.
THAT is simply false. The sampling was NOT from "a small area of the US . . ." nor even from only one study with a robust sample size from all across the USA.
1. The sampling was across quite a number of studies over a number of years where EACH ONE had quite a sizeable sample size that covered the USA
2. So your whole question is GROSSLY, UNMITIGATEDLY MISLEADING AND FALSE. I'd think someone of your brilliance would KNOW that . . .
which would make the evidently deliberate posting of something highly likely to be known to be grossly missleading and false to be at least slightly puzzling .. . particularly if it were over any number of other screennames.
3. And I gave qualifying indications in every brazen extrapolation of mine that I understood it was quite a stretch to extrapolate USA statistics GLOBALLY to the whole RC world.
4. And still y'all kept silent . . . except now, to carp and whine in a BRAZENLY GROSSLY INACCURATE, FALSE, DECEPTIVE way about robustness of the sampling and how widely each study was done across the USA.
5. And still some RC's wonder why Proddys scoff so automatically at some of their whining and chronic assertions. Sheesh. What a stinking pile of horse feathers.
EXCELLENT.
Archiving it with the rest on my homepage.
Thx.
Hmm, tempting. We could use them against the children of the Reformation and confuse the heck out of them. But you are going to have to take Mel Gibson and his bunch as well as throw in 1000 liters of good ouzo.
What are you talking about? I was referring to the study with 41 individuals referred to by Cronos.
So your whole question is GROSSLY, UNMITIGATEDLY MISLEADING AND FALSE. I'd think someone of your brilliance would KNOW that . . . which would make the evidently deliberate posting of something highly likely to be known to be grossly missleading and false to be at least slightly puzzling .. . particularly if it were over any number of other screennames.
Can you put this into English please?
And still y'all kept silent . . . except now, to carp and whine in a BRAZENLY GROSSLY INACCURATE, FALSE, DECEPTIVE way about robustness of the sampling and how widely each study was done across the USA.
I was certainly kept amused by the blathering, true.
And still some RC's wonder why Proddys scoff so automatically at some of their whining and chronic assertions. Sheesh. What a stinking pile of horse feathers.
You ought to look at those you associate with and what they think of you before you attack Catholics as their useful tool while they stand back and snicker while you take the heat.
"God foreknows nothing contingently, but foresees, and purposes, and accomplishes every thing, by an unchangeable, eternal, and infallible will. But, by this thunderbolt, Freewill is struck to the earth and completely ground to powder. Those who would assert Freewill, therefore, must either deny, or disguise, or, by some other means, repel this thunderbolt from them."
"Hence it irresistibly follows, that all which we do, and all which happens, although it seem to happen mutably and contingently, does in reality happen necessarily and unalterably, insofar as respects the will of God. For the will of God is efficacious, and such as cannot be thwarted; since the power of God is itself a part of his nature: it is also wise, so that it cannot be misled. And since his will is not thwarted, the work which he wills cannot be prevented ; but must be produced in the very place, time, and measure which he himself both foresees and wills."
"If God does not foreknow all events absolutely, there must be defect either in his will, or in his knowledge ; what happens must either be against his will, or beside his knowledge. Either he meant otherwise than the event, or had no meaning at all about the event, or foresaw another event, or did not foresee any event at all. But the truth is, what he willed in past eternity, he wills now; the thing now executed is what he has intended to execute from everlasting; for his will is eternal: just as the thing which has now happened is what he saw in past eternity; because his knowledge is eternal."
I gave the link in the post before my last one that you were presumably referring to:
Here’s both links with the original source link on the bottom:
RC STATS POST:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657209/posts?page=1670#1670
FROM SOURCES HERE:
DERIVED FROM SOURCES HERE:
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4
This last sentence explains why a Christian would not take anyones life because they are deemed heretics whatever they felt God’s judgement to be upon them.
Everything Christ taught tells me we don’t have the right, the authorization or the knowledge to do so and no human can give such to another.
Unlike typical cults or cultic systems, the Roman religious system does not require strict doctrinal conformity to all it's teachings, but typical of all such systems, she fosters implicit trust/dependence upon something less than Christ alone, that of the Roman Catholic System. Catholics typically therefore believe in a Jesus that will save them partly upon their own merit and that of the Catholic institution, which autocratically declares itself to be the one true church, to whom all are to submit. Her autocratic Caesario-Papacy and vast hierarchical system is much patterned after the Romans Empire in which the church found itself, and lacks the necessary Biblical warrant to justify it.
Based upon this gross falsification of the description of the Catholic Church, in which the author claims to be a former Catholic, I will decline to accept anything that this site offers. As the failed Catholics on FR show, it is not about the theology, it is about the extermination of the Faith, often because of nagging guilt at leaving the Faith. If you follow the posts, a pattern will emerge that those who leave the Faith do so for reasons of self interest and self indulgence. Those who convert to the Faith do so for theological reasons. I have seen no exceptions and know of none.
I know that, and provide that to some who seem to otherwise, or in comparison w/ prior statements, but i was referring to the OPC.
“The history of NT Scripture is reasonably clear....”
It absolutely is — it was breathed out by God and written down by those inspired by God. NOT by Roman Catholics (or Catholics of any stripe) — but by Spirit-filled Christians.
Might want to use that Windex to clean your vision...it’s obviously off.
Nice try. But again, you fail.
Hoss
There's a world of difference between expelling the immoral brother and killing someone who doesn't believe as you do. The difference is hardly subtle but still, it manages to escape some.
I also notice that as of yet we still have not been provided with Scripture supporting the murder of those anyone else deems to be heretic.
1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."
That is sometimes the case with an otherwise good church, and i consider it the downside of commitment to doctrinal purity, when it tends to go beyond the real essentials to teach somewhat debatable things which require more objective inquiry, as detailed dogma requiring complete assent. On the other hand, a sectarian spirit of elitism is easy to slip into and is always to be avoided
If you're equating the Eucharist with communion, then no Protestants I know of would say communion is not in scripture. However, what is in question is the purpose of communion. Catholic teaching is that the Eucharist is a means of imparting God's grace. There is nothing in scripture that supports this notion. What is in scripture is the Lord Supper proclaims our Lord Jesus' death and is a memorial until He returns.
1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Because no man is perfect but Christ. As Paul said very clearly, if we say we have no sin, we are a liar and the truth is not in us.
And look around. Do you see anyone who is without sin? I don't.
What purpose does it serve?
I'll ask God when I see Him. Until then, I can only speculate according to Scripture that the "purpose sin serves" is to continue to facilitate the display of God's mercy in those He graces with faith in Christ, and the display of God's perfect judgment in those without faith.
No, my eyes were opened and all I saw was man-made superstition and fantastic tales.
And yet you continue to defend the most superstitious and fantastic of tales which are so clearly outside of the written word, namely the veneration of Mary, the apostolic priesthood, the fiction of the mass, etc. There's a long list.
I do understand your hesitation to accept the declaration of "I know I am saved."
Seems to me it's logical to say "I know I am saved because in my heart I love Christ above all else." I believe people can perceive that validity in themselves.
Some may perceive incorrectly, but that doesn't negate the fact that others are truly experiencing their salvation as real and effectual.
Whereas to say "I know there is a God," is a less certain statement. We have a reasonable certainty that there is a God by faith, but it's not possible to say "I KNOW 100% that there is a God."
So from my perspective, it's correct and believable to say "Assuming there is a God (an assumption which I embrace,) according to the word of God and my own experience, I believe and therefore I know that I am saved."
Ultimately, our life will either affirm our belief or it will not. If we're brought down by life and made weary and alone, it may be difficult to see the truth of Christianity. But if, during life's trials, our faith literally sustains us and eases our way through the bad times and lifts us even higher during the good times, then that is a type of proof in itself. When I first became convinced of things, it was only as I looked back that I saw God there all along. And only then was I able to anticipate God in the future.
And so far, He's been there. I don't ask for more. I don't need His body in the wafers. I don't need "another Christ" beyond the "only" Christ. I don't need a "mother of the universe" or a "co-redeemer" or other dead saints to plead my case. I don't need any of that. All I need is the word of God and His Spirit. The first I know I have; the second I believe I have.
Lysdexia - the peech imspediment we live to learn with. :o)
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.