Universalism and Particular Redemption

[Clare73]

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, He is not governed by a book.

The people are the head (authority) of the United States of America. They are not governed by a document.

Do you know what governed the OT church which Jesus was born, raised, preached and died under?
It was the Scriptures! As demonstrated in post #148.

The Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible is not governed by the Bible,

The church, whose foundation is the apostles, and whose chief cornerstone is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:19-20), is not governed by the apostles' teachings as found in their writings?

Wow!

if that were the case the Catholic Church would have put in a preface ceding over power to the Bible.

Power? . . .Ceded by men to God's word written? . . .God is subject to man's power now!

Wow!

The table of contents listing the books chosen by the Catholic Church is not part of Holy Scripture, yet you use most of the books and
keep the same order chosen by the Catholic Church.

And that proves?

People on earth do have their faults and presumptions, the tares have not been pulled out, that is the way it was and is before, during the choosing of the books, and after
the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible in the late 300s.

Actually, the Christian Church of the apostles, nowhere called Catholic by the apostles, which simply means universal Christian church, determined which writings were not apostolic, the apostolic writings manifesting in themselves their authorship by the Holy Spirit, which the Church simply recognized, it did not grant.

 

[Valletta]

The people are the head (authority) of the United States of America. They are not governed by a document.

Do you know what governed the OT church which Jesus was born, raised, preached and died under?
It was the Scriptures! As demonstrated in post #148.

The church, whose foundation is the apostles, and whose chief cornerstone is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:19-20), is not governed by the apostles' teachings as found in their writings?

Wow!

Power? . . .Ceded by men to God's word written? . . .God is subject to man's power now!

Wow!

And that proves?
Actually, the Christian Church of the apostles, nowhere called Catholic by the apostles, which simply means universal Christian church, determined which writings were not apostolic, the apostolic writings manifesting in themselves their authorship by the Holy Spirit, which the Church simply recognized, it did not grant.

 

[Valletta]

Do you know what governed the OT church which Jesus was born, raised, preached and died under? It was the Scriptures! As demonstrated in post #148.

What do you believe ruled before Moses?

 

[fhansen]

Of course we choose! Where did I say otherwise? Of course he wants us to value his Word! When did I say otherwise? I am saying that his Word is what it is regardless of what we think of it, and its authority is a fact whether we think of it that way or not. It is not defined by us.

Of course it's not defined by us. But it must be understood by us and that's why great extrapolations on the meaning of God's word have been made, and theologies and catechisms and confessions created for the purpose of clearly laying out its prescriptives.

And in your particular theology God chooses what you'll choose-not us on the basis of hopefully gaining understanding and having a change of heart/mind. The difference is very distinctive.

 

[fhansen]

Here is why I said we are talking past each other. You insist on the value of the human POV. I insist on the value of God's POV. You keep talking about the one, as if that is the only consideration. I know you know better than that, but there you keep going.

No, I speak about both. The human POV necessarily comes into play because...that's our POV! God's POV will hopefully modify and correct ours but we must know it first. And you're acting as if you have a monopoly on that in no less certain terms than the church does, while earlier defending some position saying that we can't really know it so certainly anyway.

 

[Clare73]

What do you believe ruled before Moses?

Scripture reports it was the word of God. . .spoken.

And from Moses to Jesus Christ. . .the word of God. . .written.

And from Jesus Christ to the present. . .the word of God. . .written

Problem?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And that's your imagination working. The church isn't going to look exactly the same after 2000 yrs. And I have no idea about hero worship. The gift of infallibilty is just that, a gift, and one that many popes never even exercised. It can be accepted with humility, or with arrogance I suppose. And everytime a Sola Scriptura adherent speaks knowingly and confidently about what the bible has to say, they are doing nothing different from the pope and the magisterium in maintaining the correctness of their intepretation of revelation. Anyway, the evidence is that the Catholic church along with the EO, consistent with the ECFs, still teach the same basic doctrine on what it means to be right in the eyes of God and to remain there, among other doctrines. The Reformers strayed.

Exactly HOW did the reformers stray from the rock solid authoritative RCC? (Here I expect a strawman in response.) Do you maintain the RCC authority over conscience?

It's good to attend to the word of God. It's best to understand it well while attending to it. That's what the church has always been about. The Bereans, studious as they were, still could not interpret the OT on their own without the help of Christ's disciple Paul. Same with the Ethopian Eunuch and Philip.

So you are about apostolic succession. I have a real problem with that, far as the RCC, not to mention the Church in general, has strayed. I don't deny the work and responsibility of the Church. But it has no authority over conscience.

Sorry, but just determining that the bible is from God is subjective.

Whoa, there, Nelly!!!

Its circular reasoning to maintain that its the word of God because it says it's the word of God. Somewhere along the line the person must begin to come to the realization that the word he's hearing is different: authoritative on matters that we cannot ascertain on our own, the voice of Truth from the Source of truth. Then we begin to trust its words. But what difference does that question even make here? Everyone in the Christian world beginning with the eastern and western churches and including Protestants, Mormons, and JWs agree that the bible is the Word of God.

Maybe I'd just better shut up.

 

[fhansen]

Exactly HOW did the reformers stray from the rock solid authoritative RCC? (Here I expect a strawman in response.) Do you maintain the RCC authority over conscience?

No, over novel private interpretations. It's the church, including the EO, for example, that Reformed theology is pitted against. on justification, let alone some other peculiarities, some set forth in Calvinism. Again, its just your inffalible interpretation vs the church of Christ's infallible interpretation. And your's may well diverge significantly from the infallible positions of other Spirit-led Sola Scripturalists.

Whoa, there, Nelly!!!

Why?? Ask yourself that honest question.

Maybe I'd just better shut up.

Well, at least you'll stop communicating error that way.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And in your particular theology God chooses what you'll choose-not us on the basis of hopefully gaining understanding and having a change of heart/mind. The difference is very distinctive.

Can you rewrite this? I don't follow. "And in your particular theology God chooses what you'll choose" followed by, "-not us on the basis of hopefully gaining understanding and having a change of heart/mind."

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I speak about both. The human POV necessarily comes into play because...that's our POV! God's POV will hopefully modify and correct ours but we must know it first. And you're acting as if you have a monopoly on that in no less certain terms than the church does, while earlier defending some position saying that we can't really know it so certainly anyway.

But, if we cannot know or understand God's point of view fully at present, it is nevertheless incumbent on us to modify and correct ours according to what we DO understand, and to continue to do so.

I have no monopoly, nor does the RCC. My position, as this conversation has gone, is that the written Word of God has the monopoly, not the Church. Once again, whatever my theology, it is subject to the Word of God, not to the RCC, nor to any church. If I am teaching error, the RCC (represented by you, I suppose) and every church, has the responsibility to correct it, and thank you for trying, but so far you have not been convincing. I too, have the responsibility to do the same to you. And the delight in explaining the best I can, the truth, the absolute Grace of God. THERE, is my heart, and Luther's and Calvin's, I think, in what we see as unimaginable, unspeakable, love for unworthy creatures, and in the Glory of God's Purity, His power and justice and wisdom.

(Haha! No, I'm not wagging my head and shouting "Glory" like Sanford's Aunt Esther!)

I do hope, at least, that you can agree with me on that delight.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, over novel private interpretations. It's the church, including the EO, for example, that Reformed theology is pitted against. on justification, let alone some other peculiarities, some set forth in Calvinism. Again, its just your inffalible interpretation vs the church of Christ's infallible interpretation. And your's may well diverge significantly from the infallible positions of other Spirit-led Sola Scripturalists.
Why?? Ask yourself that honest question.
Well, at least you'll stop communicating error that way.

My Laugh rating was not sarcastic nor derisive, btw. I just thought your comment was funny, considering the circumstances and heat.

But please, I do not, nor will I ever, claim infallibility. Nor Reformed theology, nor Calvinism, nor do I think Luther nor Calvin claimed it. Please understand that what comes across as 'sure', is in the heart-breaking pleasure we find in the absolute Grace of the Gospel, and in the love of Christ. I should hope the RCC and EO would do the same, but maybe not, as (according to you), the Word of God seems to be mostly just a help, and not the infallible authority that "The Word of God" implies (and, indeed, claims to be).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Whoa, there, Nelly!!!

Why?? Ask yourself that honest question.

Is that the RCC position on the Word of God? I will not go into whether the question is honest or not, but into the obvious assumption that it is all subject to your human POV and its logic. If the Word of God of God is the Word of God, then the claim is not circular, but a dead stop fact! And you are skating on thin ice.

 

[fhansen]

Is that the RCC position on the Word of God? I will not go into whether the question is honest or not, but into the obvious assumption that it is all subject to your human POV and its logic. If the Word of God of God is the Word of God, then the claim is not circular, but a dead stop fact! And you are skating on thin ice.

Nonsense! Do you believe the Quran is the word of God just because it says it's the word of God, or because someone else believes and says it's the word of God? As I stated, Catholicism insists that the bible is the Word of God. So do I. There isn't any other way to state that fact.

 

[fhansen]

My Laugh rating was not sarcastic nor derisive, btw. I just thought your comment was funny, considering the circumstances and heat.

But please, I do not, nor will I ever, claim infallibility. Nor Reformed theology, nor Calvinism, nor do I think Luther nor Calvin claimed it. Please understand that what comes across as 'sure', is in the heart-breaking pleasure we find in the absolute Grace of the Gospel, and in the love of Christ.

This is a case of not being totally honest with oneself IMO. The Reformation was a major shift in Christianity, an upheaval that caused great changes in western society. That didn't happen while thinking they might not be quite right about the gospel, but because they were absolutely sure that they were right and the CC wrong on certain basic doctrine. One doesn't have to claim infallibility in order to effectively practice it. The CC is just honest about the need for and the possession of the gift.

I should hope the RCC and EO would do the same, but maybe not, as (according to you), the Word of God seems to be mostly just a help, and not the infallible authority that "The Word of God" implies (and, indeed, claims to be).

Ok, and this is a case about not being totally honest with what's been stated IMO. I never came close to implying that the word of God is "just a help", only that it can be difficult to understand in places and that understanding is exactly what we need. You're simply ignoring the obvious fact that people come up with very different interpatations of Scripture for very reasonable and plausible reasons when going by Scripture alone. The problem is your, apparently unarticulated, insistence that the bible is perfectly perspicous on all important matters, while it's not. The missing link, which you sort of alluded to with an appeal to being Spirit-guided in your understanding, would be the acknowledgment that God must and has provided a means by which humans can have certainty that we're understanding His Word rightly-and not just the claim, conscious or not, that you, individually, necessarily have it right.

 

[fhansen]

But, if we cannot know or understand God's point of view fully at present, it is nevertheless incumbent on us to modify and correct ours according to what we DO understand, and to continue to do so.

But that's just evading the heart of the question. We need to know what we need to know-and that's what God has revealed to us. So while of course we dont know everything about Him, that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and just keep drawing our doctrinal line further back in the sand just so we can accomodate a broader range of beliefs and feel united in disunity. Where do we draw that line? Who draws that line? Should we allow for the beliefs of Mormons and JWs, with the latter, at least, certainly going by Scripture alone?

My position, as this conversation has gone, is that the written Word of God has the monopoly, not the Church.

 

[Der Alte]

The people are the head (authority) of the United States of America. They are not governed by a document.

Do you know what governed the OT church which Jesus was born, raised, preached and died under?
It was the Scriptures! As demonstrated in post #148.

The church, whose foundation is the apostles, and whose chief cornerstone is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:19-20), is not governed by the apostles' teachings as found in their writings?

Wow!

Power? . . .Ceded by men to God's word written? . . .God is subject to man's power now!

Wow!

And that proves?
Actually, the Christian Church of the apostles, nowhere called Catholic by the apostles, which simply means universal Christian church, determined which writings were not apostolic, the apostolic writings manifesting in themselves their authorship by the Holy Spirit, which the Church simply recognized, it did not grant.

We should not get too hung up on the word "Catholic" most folks don't know that it is a scriptural word which is a compound from καθ ολης from kata "according to" and olos " the whole."
καθ ολης occurs in the following verses; Luke 4:14 Luke, 8:39 Luke, 23:5 Acts of the Apostles 9:31, Acts of the Apostles 9:42, Acts of the Apostles 10:37
"Katholes" refers to the whole church not a organization located in Rome with a Pope at its head.
There was no Pope in Rome until 1073.

1073 Gregory VII (1073-1085), “Hildebrand,” believing the Forged Decretals to be authentic, enforced them. Also, in A.D. 1073, at a synod held in Rome, he pronounced the title of ‘pope’ the sole and peculiar dignity of the Bishops of Rome. In his Dictatus Papae (1075), he stated that the pope had the right to depose emperors, that the pope’s authority is the authority of Christ, that the papal office alone was universal in its authority, that the pope alone (without a synod) could depose bishops without giving the accused a hearing, that no one could condemn an appellant to the apostolic see, that no council was canonical without papal approval, and that no book or decree was canonical without papal assent. In addition, he claimed that the Roman church had never erred, not would it ever, “to all eternity.” The notion that the papacy alone is universal and plenary, while all other powers in the world are particular and dependent, is called the “plenitude of power.” In authoring the Dicataus Papea, Gregory employed the forged decretals of Pseudo-Isidore.
It is important to realize that for about 200 years before this, the power of the bishop of Rome had been very limited. The great bishoprics and abbeys of western Europe had flourished with little or no assistance from Rome, and with no effective papal jurisdiction over their affairs.
[URL="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chrono11.htm"]Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos[/url]


​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nonsense! Do you believe the Quran is the word of God just because it says it's the word of God, or because someone else believes and says it's the word of God? As I stated, Catholicism insists that the bible is the Word of God. So do I. There isn't any other way to state that fact.

So, to you, the Word of God is so, sort of, because we say so.... Have it your way, and we've talked enough.

 

[fhansen]

So, to you, the Word of God is so, sort of, because we say so.... Have it your way, and we've talked enough.

 

[fhansen]

Can you rewrite this? I don't follow. "And in your particular theology God chooses what you'll choose" followed by, "-not us on the basis of hopefully gaining understanding and having a change of heart/mind."

Choice means nothing if God so changes one's disposition such that they cannot possibly do otherwise than choose a certain way. In the "old-time religion" we're to participate in the change, in accepting and appreciating and then also growing in it, and the more willingly we do so, the greater the change, into the likeness of God. Grace, but not apart from human choice. And that choice, and continous choices, impact our eternal destinies.

The entire bible from beginning to end operates on that dynamic, of God patiently working with His beloved creation-us-over time, to draw us into rectitude with His will. God's purpose is to produce something, not without struggle: beings who've come to see what's truly good and of value and what is not, and so to finally choose the good which was so easily and foolishly dismissed and rejected in Eden. He's cultivating beings who love, who love Himself and neighbor. And to the extent that we do, to the extent that we get on board and then grow in that love, our purpose is attained.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I have received this notification when I tried to answer something @wendykvw said to someone else, but can't find why:
Christian Forums - Error
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.

So I'm here opening another thread:

@wendykvw said, "We have a common goal. To learn from the Lord Jesus. Jesus is Lord. Satan is not Lord. But if you continue to believe human will prevents God from accomplishing what He wills you grant Satan Lord of All creation. You think Satan wins the majority of creation? That is blasphemy. Romans 8:38-39 states nothing separates us from the love of God. Not the devil, not the angels and not even death."

Particularly, I (MQ) note: "if you continue to believe human will prevents God from accomplishing what He wills you grant Satan Lord of All creation."

Glad you have some insight into a basic principle of who God is. I could almost believe you have a Reformed-like view of the "two wills of God" (variously, "his Hidden will and his Revealed will" or "his Plan and his Command" (which one way of putting it, I find maybe the most useful for argument) or to put it another way, his Eternal will and his Moral will). As John Frame put it, (while I must find qualification for what he means by "everything [God] values") "God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends."

But what you take to be a failure on God's part to save anyone, is not, if he never intended to save them, but instead to show his justice, purity, power and glory to the 'objects of his mercy' —the Elect. I agree it is blasphemy to claim human will can defeat God's eternal will, But I note that we all (including the Reformed) fall short in describing God and 'his plan for the ages'. We are, after all, human; and it is, after all, his 'hidden' will. So it is only by God's grace that we are not all disqualified and condemned for our blasphemy.

For those of us who have found God in our hearts, that is, for those of us in whom the Spirit of God has taken up residence, it is incumbent on us to be patient with those believers whose words, like ours, do not adequately describe the Gospel. Our own words may condemn us, if we require absolute accuracy from anyone else. The Gospel is, after all, not quite ours, but God's, to know and express. As are our very lives.

More on "what [God] values" at your request.

I don’t understand the two wills of God I have read the Bible many times and can not find one place it talks about God having two wills. Is he at odds with himself?