Skip to comments.
MAN OF THE SHROUD
Various ^
| August 2002
Posted on 08/03/2002 6:33:43 AM PDT by NYer
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern, twentieth century science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages.
Arguments against the Shroud's authenticity are prima facia, supported by carbon 14 dating and a prevailing view of the way things are in the world. On the other hand, the case for authenticity is a compelling preponderance of scientific and historic evidence. So daunting is the evidence that we can only wonder if, as postmodernists suggest, "no such thing as objective truth exists, that historic reality is an inherently enigmatic and endlessly negotiable bundle of free-floating perceptions."1 The alternative is to consider, as C. S. Lewis contends: rare exceptions to nature are possible.
On this hot and sultry day in August, I decided to post this thread for those who enjoy mystery, adventure and the thrill of discovery. There are many web sites devoted to this topic. I suggest you begin here:
SHROUD OF TURIN
TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: shroudofturin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150, 151-200, 201-250, 251-299 next last
To: HumanaeVitae
That's not exactly true. What's not exactly true? The fact that I have been told there is no salvation outside the RC church, or that the RC doesn't teach that.
151
posted on
08/27/2002 8:30:23 AM PDT
by
Wrigley
To: HumanaeVitae
Is a RC basher someone who disagrees with the some of the teachings of the RC church? Who is a RC basher in your opinion?
152
posted on
08/27/2002 8:31:19 AM PDT
by
Wrigley
To: Wrigley
Official doctrine is that salvation is available to those outside the church; but at God's discretion.
In terms of Catholic-bashing, look at some of RNMom's posts. She calls interest in the Shroud of Turin "pathetic". I think "Rattlesnake" called the RCC a "false doctrine Church". I don't call Protestantism that, and I won't. I agree with evangelicals on all the major issues. My main opponents on FR are atheists and libertarians.
The point about the Shroud is that it is not to be worshipped. It is evidence of the Ressurection. That's our point. I think a lot of Protestants dismiss the Shroud simply because the RCC has it. So much I see on these threads is nothing more than knee-jerk anti-Catholocism. If the Catholic Church is for it, Protestants are against it.
To: HumanaeVitae
That's our point. I think a lot of Protestants dismiss the Shroud simply because the RCC has it.I don't dismiss the shroud, it could be what you say it is. However I don't need the shroud to tell me my Lord has risen. The Biblical account is enough for me. Thomas needed more than faith to believe.
154
posted on
08/27/2002 8:48:04 AM PDT
by
Wrigley
To: american colleen; fortheDeclaration
First off, the list of stuff you posted is bogus, and if you were indeed once a Catholic, you do know that. It is futile and pointless and a waste of time for me to refute each point line by line, because, really, you don't care anyway. Get off it Colleen I got that list off a CATHOLIC site...that list is accurrate..the apostles did not have masses or confessionals or believe in or teach the assumption etc. Those are all add ons ..a religion made by man.
As for your "shock" that I would be an "athesist " without the bible...why is that a shock?? How else would I know about God??
I find it very interesting how Catholics talk out of both sides of their mouths on the bible..They claim the "wrote it (*grin*) ..they quote it when it is convienient to make a pope a mini god or to say that a waffer is God.....but other than that they want none of it..
The Catholic Church invented proof texts.
You know the Mormons believe the bible is scripture as far as it is translated correctly
So as you can see ...a "partial scceptance " of the word means nothing!
To: HumanaeVitae; Wrigley
To: RnMomof7
Amen, Mom, Amen.
157
posted on
08/27/2002 6:32:41 PM PDT
by
Wrigley
To: RnMomof7
Oh, actually I can handle the debate. Go for it.
To: HumanaeVitae; Wrigley
To: Wrigley
Ok, I'll debate you both. Show me where the Bible condemns abortion.
To: HumanaeVitae
Thou shall not murder.
161
posted on
08/27/2002 7:06:58 PM PDT
by
Wrigley
To: HumanaeVitae
Sorry for intruding but I love to share bible knowledge. It even condemns neutering animals.
To: JesseShurun
It doesn't explicitly condemn abortion.
To: NYer
There is a presentation by a group using the shroud of Turin photos and the original Divine Mercy painting, (I think it is call the Villnious portrait) When these images are super-imposed on each other, they are an exact match.
164
posted on
08/27/2002 7:20:14 PM PDT
by
tiki
To: Desdemona
See 164
165
posted on
08/27/2002 7:22:10 PM PDT
by
tiki
To: RnMomof7
Actually all I need to say about predestination I can fit into one post.
Predestination is the idea that God has figured out whether or not you will be saved already, so nothing you do in this world matters as to whether or not you will be saved. So:
Since no one knows whether or not they will be saved, they can either assume a) that they will be saved, or b) they won't be saved.
If you assume that you will be saved no matter what, then why not indulge in sex, crime, drugs etc. whatever because you've already got your ticket punched. It doesn't matter.
If you assume you aren't saved, then why not indulge in sex, crime, drugs etc whatever because you're already screwed and thus you might as well live it up before you burn in hell.
That's a pretty strange doctrine there. I'll stick to the Catholic doctrine of free will--you can freely either accept good or evil--it's your choice.
By the way, you predestination fans might want to read into Christ's First Temptation: "Man does not live by bread alone".
To: HumanaeVitae
However, all the early church fathers condemn abortion from the get-go.
To: HumanaeVitae
Thou shalt not kill was the law given at Sinai. Maybe when the lawyers got a look at it, it changed, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.
To: HumanaeVitae
Do you believe that it's God's will that all children be born?
To: HumanaeVitae; Wrigley
You have proved your ignorance and that you do not know or understand the Doctrines of Grace...you should not bash what you do not know or understand
I assume this means you are afraid to debte what YOU believe on a protestant thread??
You can stick to what ever doctrine you choose ..but doctrine does not save
To: RnMomof7
Oh. Ok. I'm simply going by Calvin here. But, OK. Enlighten me. Tell me what predestination entails.
Unless of course you'd rather stick to insults.
To: JesseShurun
True. But this is not specific to abortion. By the way, what about the death penalty? I'm against it. What about you?
To: NYer
Finally we have something we can agree on. I also believe the key is the Sudarium. The coinciding stains are compelling evidence the shroud is authentic.
To: RnMomof7
Get off it Colleen I got that list off a CATHOLIC site...that list is accurrate..the apostles did not have masses or confessionals or believe in or teach the assumption etc. Those are all add ons ..a religion made by man. Get on it Terry - you did not get that list off of a Catholic website. The website you listed is this one:
The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem is a non-profit, non-denominational, global Christian ministry founded in 1980 to stand with Israel and the Jewish people. (see About Us).
The list of untruths that you posted are indeed from a NON-Catholic website.
As for your "shock" that I would be an "athesist " without the bible...why is that a shock?? How else would I know about God??
The exact same way the early Christians knew about God and His Son - through word of mouth and Tradition from the teaching Church He left us. There was no Bible. Wouldn't you have known God through the OT Scriptures?
I find it very interesting how Catholics talk out of both sides of their mouths on the bible..They claim the "wrote it (*grin*) ..they quote it when it is convienient to make a pope a mini god or to say that a waffer is God.....but other than that they want none of it..
Why don't you set up a strawman and then knock it down? I never said anything at all remotely like your statement. It isn't very Christian of you to create a falsehood.
Maybe you should expand your mind and read a couple of the many wonderful books on early Christianity (there is 1500 years of Christianity before John Calvin, you know). But you are afraid. To be deep in the history of the early Christian Church is to be a Catholic... not a Calvinist and certainly not a Fundamentalist.
"Mass of the Early Christians" by Mike Aquilina
"In his description of the historical context of these early documents, Aquilina rightly emphasizes the early Church’s belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. For St. Ignatius of Antioch “the distinguishing mark of heretics was their denial of the real presence.” As proclaimed by the great apologist Justin Martyr, “the food blessed by the prayer of his word . . .is the flesh and blood of Jesus who was made flesh.” Thus, it is no accident that many of the Church’s most prominent converts from Cardinal Newman to people like theologian Scott Hahn came to the Catholic Church through a study of the early Church Fathers. St. Irenaeus’ view that the real presence is what distinguishes heretics from the orthodox is still alive today when the modern Catholic Church gives preeminence to its close bond with the Eastern Orthodox as a sister church over ties with Christian communities that reject or are ambiguous about the real presence. As one reads these ancient documents, the continuity with the modern Catholic Church is obvious. The significance of the teachings set forth by these early Catholic Christians is still with us today. In the early church handbook called the Didache (or The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles) (approx. 90-100 A.D.), we see the sacramental system already in place: “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord …” The continuity and strength of this Catholic sacramental belief was evident when French Protestants were recently reported to be considering the removal of baptism as a requirement for participation in their Protestant Eucharist. The French Catholic bishops, fully in accord with the teaching set forth in the Didache, expressed serious alarm over the proposal because of its attack on the significance of Christian baptism.
In St. Justin Martyr, we see the early Catholic view of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Among many Catholics, it is no longer common to refer to the Mass as the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.” Yet, calling the Mass a sacrifice is not a late or medieval accretion to Christian piety. Already, in the second century Justin (circa 155 A.D.) proclaims the sacrificial character of the Eucharist:
Anticipating all the sacrifices we offer through his name—the sacrifices Jesus Christ enjoined us to offer in the Eucharist of the bread and cup— the sacrifices now offered by Christians everywhere throughout the world— God bears witness that they are well-pleasing to him. In effect, those liberals or neo-modernists who flippantly dismiss the sacrificial character of the Eucharist are misrepresenting the ancient Christian understanding of the Eucharist.
One of the most quotable of the early Church Fathers included by Aquilina is the previously mentioned St. Irenaeus of Lyons (125-203 A.D.). Aquilina makes the point that Irenaeus provides a bridge between the apostolic age and the later Church Fathers; Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna (martyred 155 A.D.), who in turn was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. Irenaeus speaks unambiguously of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist:
The oblation of the Church is judged by God to be a pure and acceptable sacrifice. The Lord gave instructions that it should be offered throughout the world. Consequently, to emphasize the sacrificial character of the Mass is to put us squarely in the apostolic tradition. Yet, modern liturgical ideas tend to downplay this sacrificial aspect and, instead, overemphasize the aspect of a communal celebration. Recovering the sacrificial view of the Mass will move us closer to recovering the ancient sense that participating in the Mass is a solemn and awesome privilege, not just another assembly.
Turning to the Apostolic Tradition (circa 215 A.D.) of Hippolytus of Rome, Aquilina presents the reader with “the most complete liturgy that has survived from the first two centuries.” He points out that the Apostolic Tradition has had great influence on the liturgical movement of the last century and is the basis for our current Eucharistic Prayer II. This ancient pedigree of the post-Vatican II liturgy may surprise those who have been misled, as the French theologian Denis Crouan says, “to believe that the liturgy was from time immemorial, over the course of centuries, such as it was before the Council; that the Roman Missal fell from heaven ready-made somehow and that Vatican II intervened to break this long, uninterrupted tradition.” In this context, it is worth noting that Crouan is a conservative theologian very active in promoting the use of Latin and Gregorian chant in the liturgy as president of the Pro Liturgia Association in France.
In the Didascalia Apostolorum (or the Catholic Teaching of the Twelve Holy Apostles and Disciples of Our Savior) dating from 200 to 250 A.D., we find the command to pray facing east during the Mass giving “thanks to God who rides on the eastern side of the highest heavens.” This extract supports the position of Cardinal Ratzinger that “a common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential.” For Ratzinger, “looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord.”
In the selection from St. Cyprian of Carthage (200-258 A.D.), there is frequent mention of a controversy concerning heretics who offered the Eucharist cup using water alone, instead of water mixed with wine. Cyprian adamantly condemned this departure for “in the sacrifice that Christ offered none is to be followed but Christ . . . .” This apparently arcane and ancient controversy nevertheless brings to mind the recent controversies over the use of gluten-free hosts. The modern mentality cannot understand the Church’s commitment to maintain what Christ chose to use. Yet, in all cases that I am aware of, the bishops have followed the example of Cyprian.
Happily, this rich fare is our Catholic heritage, and Mike Aquilina has performed a needed service in making this heritage accessible to non-specialists. I can think of no better way to end than with the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.):
Keep these traditions undefiled, and keep yourselves free from offense. Never cut yourselves off from Communion; never let yourselves be deprived, through the pollution of sin, of these holy and spiritual mysteries."
Not that I think you will read the following, but my conscience will bother me if I don't post it for you anyway.
Confession
"In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day,assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins,so that your sacrifice may be pure"
Didache,4:14,14:1(A.D.70),in ACW,6:18,23
"Confess your sins. Do not come to prayer with a guilty conscience."
Epistle of Barnabas,19:12(A.D. 74),in ACW,6:63
"Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop."
Ignatius,Epistle to the Smyraeans,9(.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:90
"Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God--a thing which frequently occurs--have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician."
Irenaeus.Against Heresies,1:13(A.D.180),in ANF,I:335
"Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, 'neither without nor within;' possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge."
Irenaeus.Against Heresies,1:13(A.D.180),in ANF,I:336
"The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops--issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' "
Tertullian,Modesty,1(A.D. 220),in ANF,IV:74
"[Prayer for the Consecration of a Bishop] O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, Who dwellest on high yet hast respect unto the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass; Who didst give ordinances unto Thy church by the Word of thy grace; Who didst foreordain from the beginning the race of the righteous from Abraham,instituting princes and priests and leaving not Thy sanctuary without ministers; Who from the foundation of the world hast been pleased to be glorified in them whom Thou hast chosen; And now pour forth that Power which is from Thee, of the princely Spirit which Thou didst deliver to Thy Beloved Child Jesus Christ, which He bestowed on Thy holy Apostles who established the Church which hallows Thee in every place to the endless glory and praise of Thy Name. Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest,that he may minister blamelessly by night and day,that he may unceasingly behold and propriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..."
Hippolytus,Apostolic Tradition,3(A.D. 215),in AT,4-5
"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord"
Origen,Homilies on Leviticus,2:4(A.D. 248),in JUR,I:207
"Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who, although bound by no crime of sacrifice to idols or of certificate, yet, since they have even thought of such things, with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God's priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds, and seek out the salutary medicine even for slight and moderate wounds, knowing that it is written, 'God is not mocked.' God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. Yea, he sins the more, who, thinking that God is like man, believes that he evades the penalty of his crime if he has not openly admitted his crime. Christ says in His precepts, 'Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed.' And does he think that he is a Christian, who is either ashamed or afraid to be a Christian? How can he be one with Christ, who either blushes or fears to belong to Christ? He will certainly have sinned less, by not seeing the idols, and not profaning the sanctity of the faith under the eyes of a people standing round and insulting, and not polluting his hands by the deadly sacrifices, nor defiling his lips with the wicked food. This is advantageous to this extent, that the fault is less, not that the conscience is .guiltless. He can more easily attain to pardon of his crime, yet he is not free from crime; and let him not cease to carry out his repentance, and to entreat the Lord's mercy, lest what seems to be less in the quality of his fault, should be increased by his neglect of atonement. I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord?"
Cyprian,To the Lapsed,28-29(A.D. 251),in ANF,IV:445
"For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, 'Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.' "
Cyprian,To the Clergy,9(16):2 (A.D. 250),in ANF,IV:290
"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." Basil,Rule Briefly Treated,288(A.D. 374),in JUR,II:26
"For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, 'Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.' They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, 'Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?' What authority could be greater than this? 'The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?' But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son."
Chrysostom,The Priesthood,3:5(A.D. 387),in NPNF1,IX:47
"The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its. own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition. So he who has not the power to loose has not the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord's word, he who has the power to bind has also the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as they who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: 'Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.' So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?"
Ambrose,Concerning Repentance,I:7-8(A.D. 388),in NPNF2,X:330
"Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty,but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed."
Jerome,Commentary on Matthew,3:16,19(A.D. 398),in JUR,II:202
"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven."
Augustine,Christian Combat(A.D. 397)
And don't try to tell me that if it isn't in the Bible, you don't believe it. That would be untrue. You live by the WORDS of John Calvin, whose words most certainly is not in the Bible.
To: HumanaeVitae
#166 - great summation of predestination. Straight to the point, no BS.
To: HumanaeVitae
I believe in evil, eg Ted Bundy. David and the Lord have no trouble dispatching them in the OT. However, it is a fact I think that the poor receive it more often than the well off, so I can sympathize to some extent. Plus I believe the police will pin a crime on the first person they can, whether there's evidence or not.
To: american colleen
To: JesseShurun
My point is there are many things that Protestants (rightly) believe that are not in the NKJV.
As far as the death penalty--believe me, this is trying for me. But I have to come back to one thing...Man is the creation of the Lord. We cannot destroy it. Only God can take a life. To do so on our own is to put our self in the place of God...Pride, the mother of all sins. I know many FReepers disagree, and I have no sympathy for Ted Bundy frying. But the Word is the Word.
To: RnMomof7
Terry: you were untruthful by not posting the codicil attached to that list!
From "Can A Christian Remain A Roman Catholic, by John Phillips"
"Note that John Phillips is not presenting a Catholic viewpoint. West (west1234@erols.com) says, "The statements and dates listed in this site seem to be based on the Protestant's confusion over the fact that when an ecumenical council or a Pope infallibly defines dogma, binding the Faithful is not when the Church came up with idea and started preaching it. In example the Assumption of Mary in 1950 and Transubstantiation in 1215. Of course the Church has always taught the eucharist is the actual Body and Blood, and The body of Mary was assumed into heaven." You may add your comments to this page here." "This page offers a place to respond to those who have been critical or propagate misinformation about the Catholic church."
I did not write the above, it is from the webpage you cite.
To: american colleen
Turning to the Apostolic Tradition (circa 215 A.D.)So how long did the apostles live after Christ..you carry the "Apsotolic tradition" to the pope in Rome today ..It has no meaning it is simply an excuse to add to the word of God the traditions of men
The original Apostles and the next generation and the generation after them did not have an "unbloody sacrifice "ritual ..they would have seen that as an abomination. It was adopted in 394 hundreds of years after the apostles were dead .
Remember Cain and His unbloody sacrifice?
Read my words Colleen I said the bible..
To: american colleen; Wrigley
#166 - great summation of predestination. Straight to the point, no BS.Yea you guys love a little Calvinist bashing...just dont whine when it is given back
By the way all it shows is his ignorance and the fact you think it is correct demonstrates yours...but there is one thing I know Catholics are scared to death to read the bible or learn another point of view...cause it could be true....then what?
To: RnMomof7
So how long did the apostles live after Christ..you carry the "Apsotolic tradition" to the pope in Rome today ..It has no meaning it is simply an excuse to add to the word of God the traditions of men OK, when did the last apostle die? So God left a vacuum for @ 300 years (or 9 generations) until the Bible was codified? Please.
The original Apostles and the next generation and the generation after them did not have an "unbloody sacrifice "ritual ..they would have seen that as an abomination. It was adopted in 394 hundreds of years after the apostles were dead .
Spoken by someone completely, willfully ignorant of Christian history. Read early Christian history and you will find that you are tragically, dangerously wrong in your interpretation of the Eucharist.
For gosh sakes, why do you find no problem with Calvin's words when he lived 1500 years after Christ, but you dismiss the words of the disciples of the Apostles?
To: RnMomof7
I am very familiar with the NKJV and Douay Bible. And predestination isn't in either. By the way, you haven't gotten around to refuting my definition of predestination.
I'll concede that Calvin has had more impact on the culture of the United States than any Pope. However, that doesn't make Calvinist predestination any more valid. For instance, in the 19th Century Baptists and Methodists were able to evangelize the West of this country by *explicitly rejecting* predestination. Ask yourself this: Calvinism was one of the first Protestant denominations in this country. Yet other Protestant sects quickly eclipsed Calvinism. Why? Answer: predestination is not only false doctrine, but it doesn't sell all that well.
To: HumanaeVitae
You may not like it but the Apostles understood that Salvation was of God..They understood
Eph 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
You are correct no one knows "for sure " if they are the elect until they are saved . As for that being a license to sin.All men are sinners or haven't you noticed? :>) I hesitate to quote scripture because Catholics have little use for it..but the Bible says that
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Will the Elect see the assurance given them by God as a license to sin? The new heart that God gives His people re engineers their will to a will that desires Him above all else. Can a saved man sin..of course. But because he desires God when he does sin he carries a grief and a sadness when the spirit of God convicts him,he repents ...a child of God desires God
I can do nothing to "earn " heaven it was bought and paid for on the cross..the proof of that is the Resurrection.
The unregenerate man can do NOTHING that pleases God
No man deserves to be saved no not one. no man was selected by God because of his works or character or holiness..
NO man deserves to be forgiven and saved. To God be the glory not to man
1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
To: RnMomof7
Yea you guys love a little Calvinist bashing...just dont whine when it is given back If this is not the correct understanding of Calvinism, I would honestly like your explanation (in as few words as humanae vitae was able to write).
By the way all it shows is his ignorance and the fact you think it is correct demonstrates yours...but there is one thing I know Catholics are scared to death to read the bible or learn another point of view...cause it could be true....then what?
Terry, I work with a Fundamentalist (although his is not Calvinist) and I read all the stuff he gives me (written lectures on Bible passages mostly). I'm married to a Lutheran, have attended their services and have read books on him (Luther) that my m-i-l has given me. If you have a book that you'd like to recommend to me, I would be happy to read it and talk about it.
I also read part of the Bible every single day, hear it at Mass on Sunday (and during the school year I go to Mass during the week as well, more Bible readings there) - your assertion that we are afraid to read the Bible just isn't true. You might have noticed that a Catholic on FR posts Bible passages (the ones said at Mass that day) on these threads EVERY SINGLE DAY! I read those, too.
To: american colleen
Yes but they posted it ..the dates are accurate that is just their attempt to spin it Colleen. . I was a kid in 1950 ..The assumption was never taught as "fact" (In fact I do not remember hearing of it before 1950..)
You can not have it both ways..When Protestants say you believe the pope is like God and can never make a mistake you all yell NO he is only infallible when he proclaims doctrine
By that defination until something is declared doctrine it is not an accepted truth it is as the Mormons say "speculation".
That list tells when the church made certian practices and beliefs universal matters of faith..DOCTRINE...so PLEASE do not try to tell me that these things originated in the Biblical era...by the original apostles or their followers or their followers....it was hundred of years
To: HumanaeVitae; RnMomof7
Predestination is the idea that God has figured out whether or not you will be saved already, so nothing you do in this world matters as to whether or not you will be saved.Predestination - This word is properly used only with reference to God's plan or purpose of salvation. The Greek word rendered "predestinate" is found only in these six passages, Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11; and in all of them it has the same meaning. They teach that the eternal, sovereign, immutable, and unconditional decree or "determinate purpose" of God governs all events. This doctrine of predestination or election is beset with many difficulties. It belongs to the "secret things" of God. But if we take the revealed word of God as our guide, we must accept this doctrine with all its mysteriousness, and settle all our questionings in the humble, devout acknowledgment, "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." For the teaching of Scripture on this subject let the following passages be examined in addition to those referred to above; Gen. 21:12; Ex. 9:16; 33:19; Deut. 10:15; 32:8; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 12:22; 2 Chr. 6:6; Ps. 33:12; 65:4; 78:68; 135:4; Isa. 41:1-10; Jer. 1:5; Mark 13:20; Luke 22:22; John 6:37; 15:16; 17:2, 6, 9; Acts 2:28; 3:18; 4:28; 13:48; 17:26; Rom. 9:11, 18, 21; 11:5; Eph. 3:11; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:2. (See DECREES OF GOD ¯T0001002; ELECTION.) Hodge has well remarked that, "rightly understood, this doctrine (1) exalts the majesty and absolute sovereignty of God, while it illustrates the riches of his free grace and his just displeasure with sin. (2.) It enforces upon us the essential truth that salvation is entirely of grace. That no one can either complain if passed over, or boast himself if saved. (3.) It brings the inquirer to absolute self-despair and the cordial embrace of the free offer of Christ. (4.) In the case of the believer who has the witness in himself, this doctrine at once deepens his humility and elevates his confidence to the full assurance of hope"
I included the entire definition from Easton's Bible Dictionary. I felt that was the best way to be sure that a proper definition was put forth at the outset.
Predestination does NOT teach that you will be saved no matter what, so you can do what you want. It teaches that God has chosen those who will be saved from before the foundation of the world. Those who will be saved, He draws to Him through Grace, and they will receive His Word and follow Him, leaving behind the worldly and sinful pursuits which they indulged in before they encountered the God of Heaven. Those who will not be saved are left in their sins, and already, for the most part, doing those things you listed. A sure sign of God's Grace on your life would be to feel alarm and a sense of doom that one wishes to escape from, at any cost, especially upon hearing this doctrine. A person feeling that should seek to know God. Those who are not predestined to be saved will probably scoff and shrug their shoulders, and go right on sinning without another thought. Their fate is certain.
That's a pretty strange doctrine there. I'll stick to the Catholic doctrine of free will--you can freely either accept good or evil--it's your choice.
Only problem is, you can't choose to accept good over evil, because you're born into sin, spiritually dead, and are incapable of doing anything but sinning. Apart from God's saving Grace, you can only sin. It is impossible for a sinner to choose to be righteous, which is what Christ makes you when you're born again, and you MUST be born again to see the Kingdom of God. You cannot choose to be born again, God chooses you. He enables you to make that choice, otherwise you can't make the choice, nor do you want to. You have no say in the matter, other than to respond to God's call, if and when it comes, and if God calls you, responding to Him is the only thing you want to do. That's His Grace in action, both to will and to do of His good pleasure. If that sounds foolish, remember that "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise", and "the wisdom of God is foolishness to men." It's not God who is foolish, it is you, if this seems foolish to you. To those who are called, it is the power of God.
By the way, you predestination fans might want to read into Christ's First Temptation: "Man does not live by bread alone".
"Man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God". What does that have to do with Predestination? The Word of God is food for the spirit. You cannot live a Christian life without it. It is God's Word which nourishes and feeds your spirit, and causes you to grow in the knowledge, faith, wisdom and power of God.
To: RnMomof7
You haven't answered my original question.
If salvation is predestined, then ethics is worthless. There is no reason to observe the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) or Christ's New Commandment (Matthew 22:35-40, the greatest words ever written) if predestination is true.
If predestination is a fact, Christianity is worthless. Without free will, then you might as well be an atheist. I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to engage in a debate regarding philosophical determinism vs. quantum mechanics-oriented free will (Karl Popper/Robert Nozick modern physics free-will) vs. the doctrine of the soul; but then again humor me.
To: RnMomof7
Terry, you are grasping at straws. The page you used is by (as indicated on the page itself) someone who is not Catholic and in fact is mistaken or misinformed or just plain willfully ignorant of the Catholic Way of Faith.
Boy are you changing the subject.
Terry, how would you know the Assumption was not taught as fact? You didn't know/weren't taught the Catholic faith or you would never have left the One, True Church. My parents, aunts, uncles, etc. are all probably your age, and you are either not telling the truth, or you were never Catholic in the first place.
Comment #190 Removed by Moderator
To: american colleen
Colleen the Gospels were written by the witneses to the events.
Acts was written by Luke a kind of diary of the early church...The letters are what are really interesting as these were doctrinal teachings..what you read in the epistles is what the apostles taught..
That 300 years allowed for alot of man made tradition to come in....and lets face it even after the NT was assembled..men just kept doing their own thing..and to justify it they had to develop a new "dogma" and interesting looks how late it was added.. Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
Seems that the early tradition of the church was to value the word of God
Look you say that Catholics do not even need the bible. How far ye have fallen
Read early Christian history and you will find that you are tragically, dangerously wrong in your interpretation of the Eucharist.
Read the Bible in its entirety and perhaps you will understand what Jesus was talking about...but to do that you need to understand the OT.I doubt you care enough to learn the truth ..it might mean you are in error.
For gosh sakes, why do you find no problem with Calvin's words when he lived 1500 years after Christ, but you dismiss the words of the disciples of the Apostles?
Colleen I have never read Calvin..or Luther (I have read small portions) I get my doctrine from the word of God..Calvin was just a man ..like the pope he put his pants on one leg at a time and he NEVER claimed to be infallible
Comment #192 Removed by Moderator
To: RnMomof7
"Yes but they posted it ..the dates are accurate that is just their attempt to spin it Colleen. . I was a kid in 1950 ..The assumption was never taught as "fact" (In fact I do not remember hearing of it before 1950..)"
Yeah, well I was a kid in 1988. Doesn't mean much.
To: RnMomof7
"Look you say that Catholics do not even need the bible. How far ye have fallen."
Yeah. And how far ye have fallen believing in a false doctrine like predestination, a doctrine that is the same as atheism, by believing in the false prophet Calvin.
To: HumanaeVitae
I am very familiar with the NKJV and Douay Bible. And predestination isn't in either. By the way, you haven't gotten around to refuting my definition of predestination. Both the word and the teaching are there you just choose not to se it:>)
New International. Ephesians 1 5he[1] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--
New American Standard Bible (NASB) New American Standard Ephesians 1 5 He (1) predestined us to (2) adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, (3) according to the kind intention of His will,
New King James version New King James Version (NKJV) Ephesians 1 5having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will
Douay Bible Eph 1:5 Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:
To: RnMomof7
Please explain to me why someone who is 'predestined' to salvation shouldn't kill people.
Oh. That's right. You have no idea who is 'predestined'. I forgot.
To: HumanaeVitae
. Ask yourself this: Calvinism was one of the first Protestant denominations in this country. Yet other Protestant sects quickly eclipsed Calvinism. Why? Answer: predestination is not only false doctrine, but it doesn't sell all that well.Men HATE the truth..
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
To: RnMomof7
You can quote the Bible all you want. You haven't a) explained why it is valid considering it was assembled by Catholics; and b) explained why predestination doesn't allow whatever moral depravities a man wishes; if you're predestined then it doesn't matter what you do.
You of course avoid this question because you know that it's irrefutable.
To: JesseShurun
"Do you believe that it's God's will that all children be born?"
Yes. Absolutely. Life begins at fertilization. Period. But nothing in the NKJV Bible states this.
I applaud Protestants that hold this belief. But again nothing in Protestant Scripture holds this point.
To: american colleen
Colleen my stated desire is never to "convert" anyone...it is to have people read the word..I THINK FR RC's are an exception to the rule.I think most do read the word ...but I push and I push ..because that is how God usually talks to us..>)
I am impressed with your study habits...(no RC pun intended) I have little interst in where folks worship..I have a huge interst in the Bible
Come to some of the Arminian /Calvinst war threads..you will get a better understanding of it..It is really not "strange "to someone that has been raised to believe that God is God and that He can do what HE wants:>)
No war..Peace
As I said I have not read the "works" of the reformers..I do like Piper and Mac arthur ..."Someday " I will read the Institutes and tell you if they are worth your time *grin*
I would recommend reading Genesis , Exodus with the express goal of understanding what a covenent was to the Jews from the first one with Adam to the one with the jews in the desert an how they saw it and how it was understood in the days of Jesus..It make the NT come alive..when you see Jesus fullfill the OT
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150, 151-200, 201-250, 251-299 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson