Is popular sovereignty a myth?

[BillMcEnaney]

If I found out that a politician was obeying a church leader, especially a foreign leader, I would never vote for that person. Now, I don't mind if politicians follow their religious convictions as long as they don't try to impose religion on us. No religious leader should be telling our president what to do.

Many other people agree with you, my friend. But I don't know of any devout Catholic politician striving to force anyone to believe Catholic doctrine. In my opinion, everyone should be Catholic because Christ founded Catholicism, not generic Christianity. So I supported that belief by quoting the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus. After all, that council's fathers believed that it taught infallibly and that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority because Celestine succeeded him.On the other hand, Protestants reject council infallibility, papal infallibility, and Apostolic Succession when the early Church believed in those things. They do that because they doubt that the Bible justifies those things.

Suppose there's generic Christianity. Then it's probably the set of beliefs most Christians hold. Sadly, though, many Christians may forget that when we believe any statement, we agree, at least implicitly, with each statement that follows from it. That's why sola scriptura nearly guarantees that any sola scriptura fan's group of Christian beliefs will be logically inconsistent, that it'll include propositions that can't be true together.

Catholics often have the same problem. But we find the Papacy, councils, council infallibility, and Apostolic Succession in the Early Church. So if Catholicism is true, Christ founded a institution that can conclusively settle our theological disagreements.

Please forgive me for my long reply because it relates to what we're discussing. When Luther revolted against the Catholic Church, founded Protestantism, and invented sola scriptura, he introduced a kind of liberalism into Christianity. Libertarians tell you that everyone should have a legal right to do anything he pleases when it won't harm anyone else. Today, most Christians believe that the Bible is their only divinely revealed source of divinely revealed truth, man other people wonder what good its infallibility does if no one can interpret the Bible infallibly. When someone says that the Bible is his only infallible source of divinely revealed truth, that might hint that God isn't such a source anymore. I think God is the ultimate source of that truth. And no one guarantees that I'll interpret the Bible accurately. My acquaintance made a mistake or two when he concluded that God embodied Adam and Eve to punish them because they ate the forbidden fruit. Strangely, he didn't explain how a spirit could eat anything when spirits are immaterial persons who don't occupy space.

Anyhow, people should live by correct moral principles and obey their consciences. But that obligation presupposes that they can know what moral principles to live by. They also need a way to ensure that their consciences will warn they against genuinely immoral behavior. If our consciences fool us, we must retrain them.

I want to do what I should do and believe what God reveals. That's why I ask myself how I can know I'm obeying Acts 5:29 if there's no one here on earth who knows what God commands me to do. Sure, God will answer my prayer when I ask him what I should do. Unfortunately, we can still mistake our opinions for his advice. Some Protestants believe they know the Bible is divinely inspired because the Holy Spirit's internal testimony says so. LDS Church members cite Moroni 10 because they think internal testimony shows that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired. Christians disagree. Yet many of them still take a subjective impression as a message from God.

Getting back to coercion, no, I don't want to force anyone into becoming Catholic. Neither does the Catholic Church. Conversion at gunpoint will likely be insincere. But I believe firmly in the Catholic doctrine about Christ's social reign. Catholics know that Christ should rule their hearts and their lives. What's more, we believe he should rule societies, too, because the Holy Trinity invented government as such.

The Catholic doctrine about Christ's social reign says that each country is duty-bound to make Catholicism its State religion and to ensure that its laws are compatible with what the Catholic Church and the Bible teach about morality. Does that mean that governments should pass a law saying that if you refuse to become Catholic you'll go to prison? Of course not. For a society to become officially Catholic the vast majority of its citizens must already be Catholic. Non-Catholics may practice their religions in a Catholic society. But in that society, there's no religious liberty in the American sense. Instead, there's religious tolerance because there's only one religion that anyone has a God-given right to practice.

 

[Fantine]

I think I will file your comments under "things the nuns never taught me in Catholic school." They are definitely not the mainstream of Catholic thought.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

I think I will file your comments under "things the nuns never taught me in Catholic school." They are definitely not the mainstream of Catholic thought.

Then please tell me what nuns you mean. Did they teach before, during, or after Vatican II? I'll be happy to quote official Catholic documents to support everything I told you just now. To begin, here's the encyclical "Quas Primas" by Pope Pius XI.

Quas Primas (December 11, 1925) | PIUS XI

Encyclical Quas Primas of Pius XI, 11 December 1925

www.vatican.va

Here's part of what Leo XIII teaches about a country's duty to adopt Catholicism as its official religion.

Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.

Quas Primas (December 11, 1925) | PIUS XI

Encyclical Quas Primas of Pius XI, 11 December 1925

www.vatican.va

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here's part of what Leo XIII teaches about a country's duty to adopt Catholicism as its official religion.

I used to think that the "concerns" about JFK and the pope were just protestant anti-catholic bigotry, but now I'm starting to think they had a point about the pope. (Not Kennedy, though.)

 

[Fantine]

If you have to go back 100 plus years to get your sources, I'm sure they've been contradicted. How many empires have brought missionaries and bloodshed as they conquered and enslaved Africans, Asians and native Americans? How many priests in South America condoned brutal oppressive dictators to keep out "godless" rebels yearning to breathe free?

So much evil and brutality as explorers and pirates plundered in the name of their Christian leaders.

These experiences made Pope Francis the compassionate wisdom figure he is.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

If you have to go back 100 plus years to get your sources, I'm sure they've been contradicted. How many empires have brought missionaries and bloodshed as they conquered and enslaved Africans, Asians and native Americans? How many priests in South America condoned brutal oppressive dictators to keep out "godless" rebels yearning to breathe free?

So much evil and brutality as explorers and pirates plundered in the name of their Christian leaders.

These experiences made Pope Francis the compassionate wisdom figure he is.

Yes, some people have contradicted them, including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Wesley, and many others. But some things should be clear to most CF posters. Catholicism predated Protestantism, Protestants splintered into thousands of sects, and those sects still contradict each other. If you've read in the two chapters from the Commonitory by St. Vincent of Lerins, you know he anticipated sola scriptura. Notice, he doesn't tell us to use private judgment.

[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

I cite old sources to show that the Early Church was the Catholic Church. Protestants can trace Protestant doctrine to the 16th century. Catholics find theirs beginning in the first century and each following one. So let me give you two reasons Protestantism convinced me to stay in the Catholic Church. If you're like me, you'll see they undermine sola scriptura.

Here's a post where Dr. William Lane Craig agrees with the Monthelitism when he knows that an ecumenical council condemned it.

No earnest Christian wants to be considered a heretic. But we Protestants recognize Scripture alone as our ultimate rule of faith (the Reformation principle of sola scriptura). Therefore, we bring even the statements of Ecumenical Councils before the bar of Scripture. While one disagrees with the promulgations of an Ecumenical Council only with great hesitancy, nonetheless, since we do not regard these as invested with divine authority, we are open to the possibility that they have erred in places. It seems to me that in condemning Monotheletism as incompatible with Christian belief the Church did overstep its bounds.

Monotheletism | Reasonable Faith

Hi Dr Craig! I've been reading your Philosophical Foundation for a Christian Worldview. Unfortunately, my question was not dealt with when I was in seminary when I was taking MDiv a decade ago. With your explanation, I am more convinced of your position of monotheletism (pg. 611) though...

www.reasonablefaith.org

Hmm, that's strange, Dr. Craig says ecumenical councils have no doctrinal authority. So maybe he'll tell us whether the Council of Jerusalem was an ecumenical one. If no ecumenical council has any doctrinal authority, and the Council of Jerusalem was ecumenical, then that council has none. If it has none, why does the Book of Acts tell us what happened at that council?

Here's another puzzle for the professor from Biola University. He needs to tell us what it is to have a human nature. If Christ is fully divine and fully human, he must have a human will because each human bein has one. After all, I contradict myself if I tell you that although each human being has a human will, some human beings don't have one.

Years ago, I emailed with Michael Scheifler, the Seventh-Adventist who maintains the Bible Light Homepage at this site.

Scheifler's website

Since we discussed the Adventist doctrine about soul sleep, I quoted St. Justin Martyrs's second-century First Apology to show that Justin thought disembodied souls stayed awake in the afterlife; So Mr. Sheifler replied, "That doesn't matter. We have the Bible. The trouble is that Adventists, ZMormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones I know who believe in soul sleep.

CHAPTER XVIII -- PROOF OF IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION.

For reflect upon the end of each of the preceding kings, how they died the death common to all, which, if it issued in insensibility, would be a godsend to all the wicked. But since sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eternal punishment is laid up (i.e., for the wicked), see that ye neglect not to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that these things are true. For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practise by immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls, and those who are called among the magi, Dream-senders and Assistant-spirits (Familiars), and all that is done by those who are skilled in such matters--let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation; and those who are seized and cast about by the spirits of the dead, whom all call daemoniacs or madmen; and what you repute as oracles, both of Amphilochus, Dodana, Pytho, and as many other such as exist; and the opinions of your authors, Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates, and the pit of Homer, and the descent of Ulysses to inspect these things, and all that has been uttered of a like kind. Such favour as you grant to these, grant also to us, who not less but more firmly than they believe in God; since we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into the earth, for we maintain that with God nothing is impossible.

Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)

Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

 

[BillMcEnaney]

I used to think that the "concerns" about JFK and the pope were just protestant anti-catholic bigotry, but now I'm starting to think they had a point about the pope. (Not Kennedy, though.)

Please explain. What Pope is a bigot in your opinion? Are you suggesting that Pope Leo XIII was one because he taught that societies should be officially Catholic?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Please explain. What Pope is a bigot in your opinion? Are you suggesting that Pope Leo XIII was one because he taught that societies should be officially Catholic?

Do you really not know about when Sen. John Kennedy ran for president in 1960? How his opponents claimed that he would take orders (as President) from the pope? How Kennedy had to disavow such a notion and give a full-throated defense of the separation of religion and government?

As for "bigot" I was clearly referring to those that accused Sen. Kennedy of being the puppet of the pope. (Notice where I said "anti-Catholic bigot"? Think of it as a clue.)

As for that pope, I don't know if he was a bigot, but if he thinks societies should be officially Catholic that does make him an authoritarian theocrat.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Kennedy was no papal puppet when he refused to obey the Pope and the Church. Catholics aren't papal puppets if they disobey him when he tells them to sin

So I cited Acts 5:29 because it says, "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men." Biden may obey God in some ways when he goes to Holy Mass. But Archbishop Charles Chaput removed him from the Catholic Church when he excommunicated him publicly by name. Now if Biden wants to receive the Sacraments worthily, he must revert to Catholicism, and reject what he believed and did to get excommunicated. Notice the inconsistency. Sometimes he obeyed God. Other times he obeyed men instead of God because he separated his religious beliefs and hi religious obligations from his political career. He also supported or at least overlooked his son Hunter's corruption.

To return briefly to excommunication, I'll quote St. Cyprian of Carthage on the unity of the Catholic Church. He'll tell you that Catholics must obey their bishops when they command them justly.

Chapters 4-5 from St. Cyprian's book "The Unity of the Church"

Suppose you live in Our Lord's day when the Apostles still preach and teach. I'm willing to bet you'd obey them because knew that they taught what Christ told them to teach. If you were a politician, you wouldn't obey them at church and disobey them in your political career. You wouldn't disobey them to please your constituents. So tell us, if the Apostles had the authority to preach, teach, and obligate the faithful to obey them, why do most Protestants act as though no one has that authority now?

Louis Cardinal Billot defines liberalism as, "a many-sidef doctrine which more or less emancipates man from God and from his law, from his revelation, and as a consequence frees civil society from all dependence on religious society, that is, the Church which is the custodian, interpreter and teacher of the divinely-revealed law" (Billot xiii-xiv).op

After you reflect on that quotation ,St. Vincent of Lerin's thoughts, and 1 Timothy 3:15, I hope it'll be hard to call "the Christian Church" the pillar and stay of truth. "Pillar" signifies stability. But how stable is the support of the truth when disagreements keep splintering it? With thousands of splinters, it's already too hard to find the truth among the false opinions."

Many Protestants tell me that Christ the King rules their hearts. But since don't want "theocracy." they won't urge their governments to acknowledge him as the Savior. He created the world and government as such. But he's not supposed to rule what he invented? Our Lord should let our governments tell Him that he has no authority over them? That sounds like a great way to deny his divine absolute sovereignty. Satan told God he wouldn't serve him. Biden tells God, "I'll obey you in my private life and sometimes in my career. But if I need to choose between your rules and my political goals, I'll pick them."

Traditional Catholics long to see the countries acknowledge Christ as the Savior and Catholicism as the religion he founded. We're not advocating theocracy. Instead, we wan the Church and the State to cooperate with each other for the common good. The Church governs religious and moral domain. The government manages the temporal one. Non-Catholics may practice their religions in a Catholic State because it's a sin force anyone to become Catholic. If Catholicism is the only religion God wants anyone to practice, there's no God-given right to practice any other one. If it is the only one he wants anyone to practice, it's a sin to practice any other one. But in that case, many or even most may not be to blame for practicing others. God judges those people. I don't.

Billot, Louis Cardinal, S.J. Liberalism: A Critique of its Basic Principles and Various Forms. Trans. Msgr George Barry O'Toole and Thomas Storck. Waterloo: Arouca Press, 2019,.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Hans Blaster, you'll find a 38-volume set of writings from the Early Church at in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

I hope you see that my religious convictions determine my political ones. If some political belief is incompatible with Catholicism, I reject that belief, not my religion. I'll never run for an American political office, partly because I believe liberal democratic practices and party alternation harm my country. In my opinion, progressivism is immoral, classical liberalism atomizes societies, and so doe libertarianism.

Democratic alternation, moreover, is ruinous to the common good. A legislature busies itself enacting laws on ideological grounds or even to increase its popularity. The pernicious effects of these laws will not be felt until the following legislative term. Each government, each presidency, each administration, faced with the uncertainty of not having their power renewed, has the tendency to empty the state coffers and to enrich their party, leaving to the opposition the task of managing the deficit thus created. Democracy, instead of encouraging foresight and frugality, institutionalizes recklessness and waste. In democracy, the voters are forever dissatisfied and the campaign theme of change resonates very well, whereas the theme of continuity is rarely invoked. This is paradoxical since the population supposedly already has a government according to their wishes. But successive governments, not serving the common good, generate a profound dissatisfaction which only serves to favor the left-right alternation.[40] What might escape the attention of the political observer, however, is that the left always has a better

Buffin de Chosal, Christophe; Buffin de Chosal, Christophe. The End of Democracy (p. 112). Tumblar House. Kindle Edition.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans Blaster, you'll find a 38-volume set of writings from the Early Church at in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Don't care.

I hope you see that my religious convictions determine my political ones. If some political belief is incompatible with Catholicism, I reject that belief, not my religion. I'll never run for an American political office, partly because I believe liberal democratic practices and party alternation harm my country. In my opinion, progressivism is immoral, classical liberalism atomizes societies, and so doe libertarianism.

So you're just against everything the USA is built on. (Liberal democracy and all of its voting.) Please refrain from referring yourself as a patriotic American to avoid misleading people.

 

[DaisyDay]

I used to think that the "concerns" about JFK and the pope were just protestant anti-catholic bigotry, but now I'm starting to think they had a point about the pope. (Not Kennedy, though.)

Please explain. What Pope is a bigot in your opinion? Are you suggesting that Pope Leo XIII was one because he taught that societies should be officially Catholic?

I think you misunderstood - Hans Blaster did not say that the Pope was a bigot, but that the bad things he had heard about popes may have been bigotry from the anti-Catholics (but he's not so sure now after hearing from you).

 

[SimplyMe]

I have a friend that works in the embassy in Saudi Arabia and he mentioned some interesting thoughts he had over the last week. He said living in Saudi Arabia helped him understand the brilliance of how the US (and Western countries generally) have largely removed religion from ruling. He talks about how living in a Muslim country makes him appreciate how Jews lived in the time of Christ. In that time, you had "the Law," based on the Torah and the Pentateuch, that was a set of religious laws codified into national law.

In many ways, Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia live under a similar type of law -- the system of laws enforced by the government based on religious beliefs. In many ways, the average Saudi is pleased as there are clearly understood rules, how they morally should act, with clear solutions. But, much like in Christ's time, these secular laws become the "religion" -- at least seen as a key part of the religion -- on their own. The rules start becoming what is important, not the principles behind the rules; part of why Jesus complained so much about the Pharisees, who believed it was religious responsibility to ensure those rules were exactly followed (ignoring, for the moment, their hypocrisy). Christ did not seek to have a government to enforce the prevention of "sin" -- rather, he taught to obey the Roman government while leaving it to his followers to understand his teachings, not a set of law, and use those principles in his everyday life.

These ideas echo those of philosophers whose ideas were used in setting up the government of the United States. For example, Locke talked about "natural rights" and how people needed to have freedom of thought, speech and religion and that any government that didn't protect those rights should be abolished. It was this idea of Locke's that Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence. It is also worth noting the Founders had seen how "religious governments" (like seem to be promoted on these threads), which were prevalent in Europe at the time, just did not work. And, even if those government were officially Protestant, they were founded and based on precepts when the countries were Catholic.

As such, I would suggest that Pres. Biden, and other religious individuals who push for secular government and law are not betraying their faith, they are instead realizing we live in a pluralistic society where individuals should have freedom of thought and action (within limits to protect the freedom of others) and so should not force religious precepts (even just creating laws prohibiting "sin"). I'd go further to say that the success we've had in this country is based on our freedoms -- in fact, an argument could be made that things like women's rights would have failed in the type of country you envision, just as they've failed in strict Islamic countries to this day.

The Founders of the US were not perfect but they did tend to be intelligent and well educated and intentionally created a secular Republic. Yes, some Founders believed that individuals needed to be religious but they still believed the government should be secular and, as a general rule, not legislate religion. It would appear this type of government is a major factor in the development of the US as a world leader.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

I think you misunderstood - Hans Blaster did not say that the Pope was a bigot, but that the bad things he had heard about popes may have been bigotry from the anti-Catholics (but he's not so sure now after hearing from you).

Thank you. You probably are right.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Don't care.


So you're just against everything the USA is built on. (Liberal democracy and all of its voting.) Please refrain from referring yourself as a patriotic American to avoid misleading people.

No, I'm against everything the US is built on.

I can be a patriotic American who still criticizes American liberal democracy. So why do I love my country?

I love it because it's my nation home where I was born. It's where my parents raised me, where may family and most of my ancestors have always lived. My mother was laid to rest about 50 miles south of my current home where she lived with me for about six years. Americans are the kindest, most generous people I know. My country does the most to help other countries, and she's always ready to welcome refugees. American boasts gorgeous national parks and excellent places where we can enjoy high culture, including my favorite cultural gem, opera.

Though I'd support a moratorium on immigration to help end the border crisis,we can ignore that for now. But let me tell you about some problems I have with our country's government. A candidate for the U.S. Presidency must meet only one requirement. He must be a native-born American who's at least a 35-year-old. There's no presidential aptitude test. The candidate doesn't need to sign a code of conduct, and many Americans even overlook a president's immoral private life if they're happy with how he runs the country. But dishonesty at home is likely to appear in the Oval Office, too, if lobbyists are likely to manipulate him.

You already know how party alternation can harm a country. The U.S. economy thrived during the Trump Administration when our country was energy independent. Now, with Biden running the country, inflation oppresses us partly because o reckless spending. We hear about our corrupt President and his corrupt family. Since he suffers from dementia or something like it, his "puppeteers" tell him what to say and do. But nothing I know of in the U.S. Government does anything to solve these problems. But we, the American people are supposed to tolerate all this because after all, we chose President Biden. No, we didn't. The majority did, and the rest of us have to tolerate what it, the majority, decided.

Maybe now you know partly why Luther and the Protest Revolt introduced liberalism into Christendom. Again, Acts 5:29 teaches that we must obey God instead of men. But though many Christians let Christ rule their heart and their lives, they insist that he shouldn't rule their counties through officially Christian governments because that would supposedly produce theocracy or limit the liberty non-Christians enjoy.

What do John Stewart Mill, John Locke, and most American libertarians think liberty consists of? They believe it's legal right for anyone to do anything he pleases when it won't harm anyone else.

For Catholics, moral liberty is the ability to do what's right. If we say Christ shouldn't rule our societies through our governments, we prefer our will to his. A legal right to do anything I please when it won't harm anyone else implies a right to sin. Sin offends God, and as we know from Sacred Scripture, sin enslaves sinners. So to be free from sin, we need to stop sinning and strive to live holy, morally virtuous lives with God's help.

Please forgive me for my frankness because I'd hate to offend anyone. Still, I need to tell you that I believe Christians need to reject the most pernicious Christian misconception I know of, eternal security or once-saved-always-saved. Some versions of that doctrine promote license. Take Dr. Charles Stanley's version of it, for example. Dr. Stanley tells his viewers that a Christian will still go to heaven after he commits a horrible crime and refuses to repent.

There's a tiny Bible passage that disproves Dr. Stanley's opinion with Our Blessed Lord's words, the passage he says Judas would have been better off if he hadn't been born. That comment implies that Judas, an Apostle, was damned. You might argue that he only seemed Christian. That's hard to believe, though, because I doubt Our Lord would send a non-Christian out to preach the Gospel.

Let me close with another objection to OSAS. Suppose I answer an altar call at Dr. Stanley's church. I roll my wheelchair to the altar rail where someone leads me in the Sinner's Prayer. After it assures me that no Christian would commit a horrible sin such as murder. Outside the church, I fly into a rage, draw my pistol, and kill someone.

My conscience scolds me instantly, and I remember hearing that real Christians don't commit major crimes. Hurrying to another church, I tell myself, "I accepted Christ, but maybe he didn't accept me. I need to answer another altar call." You see the point, I'm sure. It's that OSAS prevents the certainty it's meant to supply.

What's more, it implicitly denies God's sovereignty by suggesting that he should let sinners into heaven despite the evil they do. Yes, salvation is a gift, and no one can snatch us from God's hand. But no one snatches me from it if he agrees to let me go. For me to become a Christian, I must invite Christ into my life. Do you think he'll insist on staying in it after my altar call if he knocks on door, I open it, yell, "Leave me alone. I don't want you anymore," and slam door in his face?

 

[Yttrium]

I can be a patriotic American who still criticizes American liberal democracy. So why do I love my country?

I love it because it's my nation home where I was born. It's where my parents raised me, where may family and most of my ancestors have always lived. My mother was laid to rest about 50 miles south of my current home where she lived with me for about six years. Americans are the kindest, most generous people I know. My country does the most to help other countries, and she's always ready to welcome refugees. American boasts gorgeous national parks and excellent places where we can enjoy high culture, including my favorite cultural gem, opera.

That's really nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism for a US citizen would be loyalty to the US Constitution.

 

[Petros2015]

That comment implies that Judas, an Apostle, was damned. You might argue that he only seemed Christian. That's hard to believe, though, because I doubt Our Lord would send a non-Christian out to preach the Gospel.

7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

Judas must have received something if he was cleansing those who had leprosy, driving out demons and raising the dead.
I'm not of the OSAS party, at least not as it understands itself. Every process that has a completion has a beginning. For those in whom it is completed, they might truly look back and say "Once I was saved, I was always saved". But I think it is for those who look back, and not for those that look forward.

As for altar calls...

“A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

 

[BillMcEnaney]

7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

Judas must have received something if he was cleansing those who had leprosy, driving out demons and raising the dead.
I'm not of the OSAS party, at least not as it understands itself. Every process that has a completion has a beginning. For those in whom it is completed, they might truly look back and say "Once I was saved, I was always saved". But I think it is for those who look back, and not for those that look forward.

As for altar calls...

“A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

I agree with you. But Catholics believe God continues to save us on earth. Water baptism incorporates the baptized person into the Catholic Church, even when a non-Catholic baptizes him. It remits any sins the baptized person may have committed before baptism. It sanctifies his soul, too. When a priest absolves someone of a sin that removed holiness from the person's soul, that holiness returns to it. His soul will holier when a priest absolves him for venial sins, the ones that leave the holiness in his soul, he'll get more of it. That's partly why Catholics believe that when God justifies someone, God changes him. God doesn't merely label someone "righteous."

That's partly why I disagree with Dr. Stanley when he tells us that after I "get saved," there's nothing I can do to lose my heavenly home. I don't know whether he thinks God makes us holy when sanctifies. But I hear Luther taught that we'll be incurably depraved in heaven, where Our Lord's blood will hide the depravity from God the Father. How you hide something from an all-knowing Person of the Holy Trinity is beyond me. Correct me if I'm wrong when I think Revelation 21:27 describes heaven when I read, "and nothing that defiles or profanes or is unwashed will ever enter it, nor anyone who practices abominations [detestable, morally repugnant things] and lying, but only those [will be admitted] whose names have been written in the Lamb’s Book of Life" in the Amplified Bible. I don't see how Luther can be right when the psalmist says, "Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

Catholics can agree with one kind of eternal security. We know that once someone goes to heaven, he'll stay there forever. Since God will give him everlasting perfect bliss there, he'll never feel even tempted to leave. We sin because we want something that at least seems good in some respect. But God is infinitely good in each respect. So we'll never prefer anyone else or anything else to him.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

That's really nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism for a US citizen would be loyalty to the US Constitution.

I don't know what it means to be "loyal to the Constitution." But whatever that means, the Constitution is still a brilliant document I'm happy to believe in. But it's still flawed from my perspective. Christopher Ferrara, the author of "Liberty: The God that Failed," says the Constitution would be easy to adapt for a Muslim country. He also quoted the Treaty of Tripoli in a lecture I watched on YouTube. Article 11 of that treat says, "

Article 11 of the treaty stated: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

First Amendment Encyclopedia

The Conservopedia defines patriotism as, "Patriotism means love or devotion and duty to one's country or homeland, including the values of that country.[1] The word patriot comes from Latin; the root is the same as that of "father": pater; also French patrie." So that definition seems consistent with what I said about that virtue. I described my love for the fatherland. If I could serve in the military, I'd do that gladly. But I still reject liberal democracy and popular sovereignty.

Patriotism - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Dr. Jason Paul Sorens, one of my best friend, taught political science at Dartmouth. So I asked him to recommend his favorite political science. So here's what the dust jacket says about it.

Why our belief in government by the people is unrealistic―and what we can do about it

Democracy for Realists assails the romantic folk-theory at the heart of contemporary thinking about democratic politics and government, and offers a provocative alternative view grounded in the actual human nature of democratic citizens.

Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels deploy a wealth of social-scientific evidence, including ingenious original analyses of topics ranging from abortion politics and budget deficits to the Great Depression and shark attacks, to show that the familiar ideal of thoughtful citizens steering the ship of state from the voting booth is fundamentally misguided. They demonstrate that voters―even those who are well informed and politically engaged―mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly.

Achen and Bartels argue that democratic theory needs to be founded on identity groups and political parties, not on the preferences of individual voters. Now with new analysis of the 2016 elections, Democracy for Realists provides a powerful challenge to conventional thinking, pointing the way toward a fundamentally different understanding of the realities and potential of democratic government.

Since you may wonder where Dr. Sorens land on the political spectrum, he's a right-wing libertarian. Here's his curriculum vitae. But he's now an administrator at St. Anslem's College.

Jason's CV