To take Biblical principles all together is not the same as to mash up texts. I didn't even put full quotes around anything, at that point, but 'scare-quotes' around 'to whom he chose to show mercy', if I remember right. All Scripture is interpreted by Scripture. Using many different Scriptural principles together is something we all do. Except maybe you? Idk.
You are the one stretching it. My point was that it is still obviously OUR will, that God has regenerated. If you prefer, don't even say it is the will that is regenerated, but the heart, which affects the will. The POINT is that we have been regenerated. Your act is always an effect of your own 'free' will. Whether obedient or not, your will always, concerning your part in God's plan, accomplishes God's decree.
Why should I care what Kat Kerr says? Who is Robin D Bullock, that I should listen to her (him?) If you give advice, get advice: It is better to follow Scriptures, than some supposed prophet or revelator. I'm getting off this train here.
It's because Catholics are not "like everyone else", the truth is that only some are, as you say, "like everyone else". Numerous churches, including many Lutheran churches will not admit non-members to communion. And how can any church have church discipline if strangers off the street receive full communion? Will you just give up on church discipline?
Not a bad attempt at a parallel, but not really that good a one either.
And they're wrong too.
So you think those who are members on the church book let's them know who is worth of taking communion?
Where are you getting this. If I come to your church and am not a member you're saying I need disciplined? Why?
But hold it now. Look at what it says. It says for the person to examine himself.....NOT YOU or somebody for them.
And I do agree. But remember it says they should examine themselves. Not you or a church religious system.
No they can't. A person of their congregation could have that very day committed a great heinous sin and had not repented of. They can't therefore ensure ANYTHING. Thus the instruction in scripture let a man examine himself.
That does not support closed communion. Closed communion actually says when one comes to such a church who isn't a member of the institution that we're not willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a brother or sister. If they are they are and they shouldn't have to proof it to your satisfaction. Remember...it says let the person examine themselves not others.
Doesn't matter what they feel reinforces something. It's NOT their place to hold back communion from one wanting to take it.
For the reason they're going wrong doesn't mean they have a right to misinterpret the scripture. Sorry but they need called out for not being willing to accept another member of the body of Christ. Ok they might not be a member of their chruch affiliation but they're a member of Christ. They should be given the right hand of fellowship and that includes taking communion.
Nonsense. Jesus would even ask crippled people if they wanted to be well, or if they wanted to be healed. And if they came to one of his meetings to have hands laid upon them by their will they were showing they wanted it. Remember scripture says they came to hear AND be healed. Lk 5:18 That's what their will was wanting.
But that is exactly what you are saying, don; t you see that? You are proposing a regenerated will. i.e. the will itself and not our mind. And this regenerated will apparently has a preset default position of accepting Christ. You are not proposing a presentation of an argument or the presence of The Holy Spirit drawing man and then man deciding. You are missing out the man deciding bit and going straight to the will.
I am not sure if you see the irony of your statement but pot . kettle, black anyway.
Of course, and you are right. How could I not see it?
Yes, the church knows the members and they receive spiritual food at communion. But you would have the person who does wrong, is excluded from communion as an act of loving discipline, be admitted to communion at any church they turn up at. Let that person wander down the street to another church and take all the communion want. It doesn't matter, right?
You're not a member so you're not disciplined, you are kept in the same place that all who are not members of the Church are kept. Treated as a Catechumin who may hear the word preached, then go to learn the full meaning of the gospel, hear of the sacraments, and in due time be admitted to the sacraments when ready and following confession of the faith of the Church.
Until a person knows what the Eucharist is how can self examination be conducted? Honestly, you object to things as if your foot stamping angry words should convince the Church that you can safely partake!
But you say "I will decide when I am ready to do self examination". But why ought the Church believe you, the Church has no assurance that you're not ignorant of the basics of Christianity, you've just come in and now you demand service like the church is a bar and grill handing our free crackers and wine!
Yes they can! They can listen to the confession of faith given by the person, hear the things that are believed and what things are rejected, and so be assured if the person has been properly prepared or not. It is for the safety of the soul of the person who desires to partake. It is not for you to decide what the Church must do for you. It is not your demand that should convince the Church to give the Lord's body and the Lord's blood to you when the Church has no good evidence that you understand the meaning of the Eucharist.
The Church does not know that the person demanding communion is a brother or sister. The Church has not had you politely explain your faith to the local priest who you demand serve you. It's shocking bad manners to turn up at the wedding feast of the Lamb of God unprepared, and demand a seat and that you be given the heavenly food. No, the Church is right to say, "Son, may we know you and your faith before you partake? Will you not spend time and discuss these matters with us and take the steps needed so that we can explain what the Eucharist is and then we can both decide if you want to become a Catholic"
Why? Is it just because you stamp your feet and say "I demand communion!". I think not.
Since you are so convinced that Catholics have it all wrong then why do you want to go to a Catholic church and receive communion? It's absurd to call Catholic teaching wrong and then demand that a Catholic priest give you communion! Go to a church that you think may be right, find a place that will accept your beliefs.
That's entirely irrelevant, I know the two never met in person. Their differing doctrines, is what the whole debate is about. Neither of them invented or discovered the two views which divide the Church. Those views have always been there and are still there to this day, the two men just became famous because they made the best arguments for the two views.
As I understand it, Lutherans and Calvinists agree that unregenerate man is limited to sinful acts, but Luther believed that such a man could freely will sinful acts whereas Calvin did not. That is, Calvin denied libertarian free will in a way that Luther did not. Specifically, Calvin held that all acts of unregenerate man (and probably of regenerate man as well) are necessitated by internal causes, but since they are not coerced by external causes they can still be said to be "free". This is a fairly clear denial of what we now term 'libertarian free will', for an agent whose acts are necessitated cannot be said to possess libertarian free will. Hence, as @jameslouise inferred, on Calvinism I am not able to "make a decision myself." Instead, causes internal to the agent necessitate his acts.
See Anthony Lane's article, "Bondage and Liberation in Calvin's Treatise against Pighius" (Calvin Studies IX).
Those causes internal to the moral agent ARE from "yourself". Causation is necessary. Sorry, but it is simple logic. And yes, it all descends logically from God's speaking his creation into existence. There is no escaping it.
