Forget unity, how about some basic social skills. I’m not seeking unity with protestants, outside of issues we both care about (abortion). I’ve no desire to see Catholic churches, worship, and doctrines become tolerable to protestants. But I don’t put on a sandwich board and stand up in the middle of a restaurant to interject sectarian conflict into everyone’s conversation.
[/quote]
It’s not about the same practice, it’s about the unity in Christ. We don’t need the same rituals, we need to understand brotherhood. That’s a higher level.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, everyone come back home to your Mother. She misses you. [/quote]Misses me he says. I live in her house Christopher and if you keep putting those rosaries and sacred hearts on my door I’m gonna tie ya to a chair and make ya listen to John MacArthur sermons at 100 decibels for a week. Ya understand me? [/quote]I party in the house of The Fog, 100 decibels is a whisper. [/quote]That little voice is tellin me I’m gonna be sorry for askin this, but could you please dear boy tell this old man what pray tell is meant by this now characteristically, shall we say, eccentric statement of yours? I’m gonna come down there and box yer ears Chris. No more of these pharmaceutically enhanced posts okay?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodyÃ?¢??Jews or Greeks, slaves or freeÃ?¢??and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.[/quote]Therefore, Truth = Unity[/quote]That was my quote my dear, thank you and YES. Truth and ONLY truth DOES equal unity indeed. There can be no actual God pleasing unity where and when the foundation’s of God’s own revealed truth are thrown aside in an idolatrous ecumenical quest for a feeble oneness in the name of sinful man’s insolent self deluded emotions. I almost fell into it at one time myself.
As narrow as the gospel is, people holding a rather wide range of theological positions within the scope of historic orthodoxy actually do have it. Here’s an example. Mr. Chen and I are on the exact diametric opposite ends of that scope of orthodoxy. We disagree about ALOT. So we can be goin at it" I DON"T THINK YOU SEE___… YEAH WELL LISTEN HERE, RAWR RAWR RAWR YADA YADA YADA!!!, but as as soon as a common enemy appears?(and I am NOT talkin about the Catholic people or anything necessarily even in these forums) It all stops, we join hands and go to war side by side as brothers in arms. Servants of the same Lord and Master. THAT is unity. The “drinking of one Spirit”.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodyÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Jews or Greeks, slaves or freeÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.[/quote]Therefore, Truth = Unity[/quote]That was my quote my dear, thank you and YES. Truth and ONLY truth DOES equal unity indeed. There can be no actual God pleasing unity where and when the foundation’s of God’s own revealed truth are thrown aside in an idolatrous ecumenical quest for a feeble oneness in the name of sinful man’s insolent self deluded emotions. I almost fell into it at one time myself.
As narrow as the gospel is, people holding a rather wide range of theological positions within the scope of historic orthodoxy actually do have it. Here’s an example. Mr. Chen and I are on the exact diametric opposite ends of that scope of orthodoxy. We disagree about ALOT. So we can be goin at it" I DON"T THINK YOU SEE___… YEAH WELL LISTEN HERE, RAWR RAWR RAWR YADA YADA YADA!!!, but as as soon as a common enemy appears?(and I am NOT talkin about the Catholic people or anything necessarily even in these forums) It all stops, we join hands and go to war side by side as brothers in arms. Servants of the same Lord and Master. THAT is unity. The “drinking of one Spirit”.
[/quote]
Tirib… I don’t know how it could be said any better. Precisely. “As narrow as the gospel is, people holding a rather wide range of theological positions within the scope of historic orthodoxy actually do have it.” Precisely. However, the issue is “what are the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy? How much variation in belief is permissible?” For some (perhaps including you - I don’t want to put words in your mouth) the Catholic church theologically is outside of those boundaries; for others (like Zeb), Catholicism is one more legitimate permutation. Consequently, I don’t think it is fair to demonize ecumenism as “an idolatrous…quest for a feeble oneness in the name of sinful man’s insolent self deluded emotions.” There are ecumenists with absolutely the BEST of intentions, who are drawn there not because they are willfully setting aside the obvious Truth (though I know, from your perspective, that the Truth is nothing less than obvious to the regenerate mind seeking to please God), but rather because they believe that, if there is room for Arminians, there is room for Catholics too. They might be misled in thinking so (i.e., they may fundamentally misunderstand Catholicism, for example), but I just don’t think it’s fair to attack their motives like that.
And honestly, if any position can be characterized as “ignoring obvious Truth,” it’s classical Arminianism. “God predestines us after he knows what choice we’ll make” - reeeeeaaally? You’re going to build an entire theological system on THAT interpretation of proginosko? That’s a huge assumption, one that cannot be justified on exegetical or lexical grounds. Classical arminianism, soteriologically speaking, has a much less firm basis in Scripture than Catholicism. Why then do you see (at least some) Arminians as those with whom you can have unity?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Tirib… I don’t know how it could be said any better. Precisely. “As narrow as the gospel is, people holding a rather wide range of theological positions within the scope of historic orthodoxy actually do have it.” Precisely. However, the issue is “what are the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy? How much variation in belief is permissible?” For some (perhaps including you - I don’t want to put words in your mouth) the Catholic church theologically is outside of those boundaries; for others (like Zeb), Catholicism is one more legitimate permutation. Consequently, I don’t think it is fair to demonize ecumenism as “an idolatrous…quest for a feeble oneness in the name of sinful man’s insolent self deluded emotions.” There are ecumenists with absolutely the BEST of intentions, who are drawn there not because they are willfully setting aside the obvious Truth (though I know, from your perspective, that the Truth is nothing less than obvious to the regenerate mind seeking to please God), but rather because they believe that, if there is room for Arminians, there is room for Catholics too. They might be misled in thinking so (i.e., they may fundamentally misunderstand Catholicism, for example), but I just don’t think it’s fair to attack their motives like that.
And honestly, if any position can be characterized as “ignoring obvious Truth,” it’s classical Arminianism. “God predestines us after he knows what choice we’ll make” - reeeeeaaally? You’re going to build an entire theological system on THAT interpretation of proginosko? That’s a huge assumption, one that cannot be justified on exegetical or lexical grounds. Classical arminianism, soteriologically speaking, has a much less firm basis in Scripture than Catholicism. Why then do you see (at least some) Arminians as those with whom you can have unity?[/quote]Yes, that IS a very superficial understanding of “foreknowledge”. Aquinas, with his (in my view failed) attempts to dance with Augustine is actually better there and even our English “prognosis” is nominally richer.
However it is also in my view a bit superficial to from this conclude that “Classical arminianism, soteriologically speaking, has a much less firm basis in Scripture than Catholicism.” Or actually I would restate the situation as follows: “Classical arminianinS, soteriologically speaking, have a much MUCH lower set of obstacles to overcome than CatholicS and do overcome them very much more of the time”.
I sent the following in response to a PM asking whether I believed that a man must understand and subscribe to “Calvinism” in order to understand the gospel: [quote]You ask huge questions ___________. I believe with all my heart that “Calvinism” IS the gospel of grace. I believe that a return to the sovereign God as RE-discovered in the scriptures in the reformation is the only hope for my country and the world. I believe that every truly regenerate child of God IS a “Calvinist” at heart despite their declared Arminianism. I believe that the only consistent comprehensive system of human thought and experience possible, as I am pursuing in the epistemology thread, rises or falls with the all governing God of Paul, Augustine, Calvin and Van Til.
Accordingly, I would say that to be saved at all a person already does understand the doctrines of grace in their heart as I say. As Spurgeon so rightly preached, I’ve never prayed with an Arminian. I’ve never heard “oh Lord my God I do thank thee and praise thee that thou hast blessed me with a glorious free will whereby I am enabled to thwart thine best efforts at my salvation and likewise empowered to choose thee well while my wicked neighbor doth not”.
No matter how many ways it’s sliced that IS, at bottom, the autonomous gospel of Arminianism. It’s built on the exact same contingent epistemology as is pure atheistic unbelief which is the point of that thread. Or one of the main ones anyway. Having said all that. I do not necessarily go through the tulip outline when witnessing to people, but I NEVER shrink from it either. >>>[/quote]This doesn’t even begin to do justice to your post as a whole, but I’m at work and I still owe you a meaty PM as well as a half dozen other projects, not the least of which is my pal Thunderbolt with that muscular mind of his. Of course dearest Christopher, who I suspect is angry with me again, requires and will always get some attention as well. This is an enormously significant group of topics we’re going into now though and they should be explored. Not enough hours in the day people.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
believe the Catholic Church is evil Chris. I do not believe it is Christian.
[/quote]
These are the comments that make you sound like you are over the top my friend. The Catholic church is not Christian? It is evil?
Please take a step back man.
Doesn’t it make more sense to speak about all of our similarities? Why go to war on a message board with fellow Christians?
Please reconsider. I assure you that the non-Christians on the board are having a good laugh. And those who are young and confused are now further confused because of this nonsense.
What good comes from this again?
[/quote]
I’m a non-christian, and i’m not that old (oops, forget i said that), but i do understand Tiribulus’s position.
For him, Christianity is not a political/cultural party. It’s the Truth, and there can only be one.
Unity at the expense of truth is not acceptable.
Not only do i understand this position - i actually respect it.
[/quote]
It’s a lie Kamui. That’s not the truth about Christianity, and while I greatly respect your philosophical expertise, I have to say I don’t think you understand how the proposed is not Christian. Whether you like it or not, withstanding. Truth it is not. You know philosophy admirably, but you do not know Christianity. In the end it’s always a personal journey, but it calls for unity, to lay down one’s life for their friend, not to say “My way is better and the rest of you fuckers are going to hell.” We’re called to tear down these walls if possible, and let the irrationality of love rule the day. [/quote]
I have no way and no right to judge what is Christian and what is not.
That was not my point here.
My respect is not for what he believes, nor for how he interacts with other posters. It’s for how he believes.
When he says “It is painful and exhausting, but I cannot stop myself. I can’t.”, i understand why. That’s all.
Forget unity, how about some basic social skills. I’m not seeking unity with protestants, outside of issues we both care about (abortion). I’ve no desire to see Catholic churches, worship, and doctrines become tolerable to protestants. But I don’t put on a sandwich board and stand up in the middle of a restaurant to interject sectarian conflict into everyone’s conversation.
[/quote]
It’s not about the same practice, it’s about the unity in Christ. We don’t need the same rituals, we need to understand brotherhood. That’s a higher level.[/quote]
Not me. Could care less about unity with the baptists and methodists. Neighborly? Sure. Polite and civil? Sure. To me a methodist or baptist might as well be my friendly Hindu coworker.
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< Not me. Could care less about unity with the baptists and methodists. Neighborly? Sure. Polite and civil? Sure. To me a methodist or baptist might as well be my friendly Hindu coworker [/quote]That’s what I’m talkin about. I respect this. Actually I should be declared an apostate and a heretic and burned alive for denying transubstantiation and volumes of other stuff I also deny.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, everyone come back home to your Mother. She misses you. [/quote]Misses me he says. I live in her house Christopher and if you keep putting those rosaries and sacred hearts on my door I’m gonna tie ya to a chair and make ya listen to John MacArthur sermons at 100 decibels for a week. Ya understand me? [/quote]I party in the house of The Fog, 100 decibels is a whisper. [/quote]That little voice is tellin me I’m gonna be sorry for askin this, but could you please dear boy tell this old man what pray tell is meant by this now characteristically, shall we say, eccentric statement of yours? I’m gonna come down there and box yer ears Chris. No more of these pharmaceutically enhanced posts okay?
[/quote]
Allen Field House, a.k.a. The Fog, KU’s Basketball Stadium.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body�?�¢??Jews or Greeks, slaves or free�?�¢??and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.[/quote]Therefore, Truth = Unity[/quote]That was my quote my dear
[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Actually I should be declared an apostate and a heretic and burned alive for denying transubstantiation and volumes of other stuff I also deny.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
But this is not exactly a gastronomic restaurant, this is PWI, something more akin to the canteen of a mental asylum. [/quote]
Well, when we’re trying to talk about the bugs crawling in and out of our skin, breaking into rants about Satan’s supposed Church incarnate on earth (but with even more sweaty, red-faced, late-night, public access broadcasting, televangelist hyperbole) tends to get on frayed nerves and delicate mental states.
[/quote]
I’ve been too busy to jump in of late, but I hope to after a bit.
I see nothing wrong with a good discussion. Cannot grown men disagree, even severely, without whining? Pat or Sloth can get all vehement and use foul language and it doesn’t bother me, although I will not use foul language towards them. [quote]pat wrote on pg 16:
What the hell are you talking about?..Or you can knock off your rediculous bullshit and attempt having an intelligent conversation about scripture, faith, doctrine, history and what not.
[/quote]What Pat melodramatically calls “hate” is just straight talk. He reminds me a little of Nancy Pelosi. Straight talk is necessary, and men are not afraid to engage in it. As KingKai has said, there are many admonitions toward unity in the NT, but this unity must be based on “sound doctrine”, as this is how the church began:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Act 2:42 KJV)
It’s what protects the purity of the church:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (2Ti 4:3)
It’s where the power comes from:
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power. (Luk 4:32)
If we want to speak of the love of Christ, the truth is essential:
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Eph 4:15)
Notice how “truth” is placed in front of “love”. This happens several places, and is no coincidence.
As far as non-christians knowing that I consider RC doctrine anti-christian, I believe they need to know this, and intend for them to know this. The differences are not just about how many times I think you should kneel and stand up in a service. The differences concern the very heart of the gospel. Paul warns of “another gospel”, and the RC doctrine of salvation is it.
I have no way and no right to judge what is Christian and what is not.
That was not my point here.
My respect is not for what he believes, nor for how he interacts with other posters. It’s for how he believes.
When he says “It is painful and exhausting, but I cannot stop myself. I can’t.”, i understand why. That’s all.
[/quote]
I see, that makes sense. How ever twisted, he is passionate.
Forget unity, how about some basic social skills. I’m not seeking unity with protestants, outside of issues we both care about (abortion). I’ve no desire to see Catholic churches, worship, and doctrines become tolerable to protestants. But I don’t put on a sandwich board and stand up in the middle of a restaurant to interject sectarian conflict into everyone’s conversation.
[/quote]
It’s not about the same practice, it’s about the unity in Christ. We don’t need the same rituals, we need to understand brotherhood. That’s a higher level.[/quote]
Not me. Could care less about unity with the baptists and methodists. Neighborly? Sure. Polite and civil? Sure. To me a methodist or baptist might as well be my friendly Hindu coworker.
[/quote]
For me, I think it’s very important. Standing united in Christ is a far more powerful stance that standing divided.
Fair enough.
But this is not exactly a gastronomic restaurant, this is PWI, something more akin to the canteen of a mental asylum. [/quote]
Well, when we’re trying to talk about the bugs crawling in and out of our skin, breaking into rants about Satan’s supposed Church incarnate on earth (but with even more sweaty, red-faced, late-night, public access broadcasting, televangelist hyperbole) tends to get on frayed nerves and delicate mental states.
[/quote]
I’ve been too busy to jump in of late, but I hope to after a bit.
I see nothing wrong with a good discussion. Cannot grown men disagree, even severely, without whining? Pat or Sloth can get all vehement and use foul language and it doesn’t bother me, although I will not use foul language towards them. [quote]pat wrote on pg 16:
What the hell are you talking about?..Or you can knock off your rediculous bullshit and attempt having an intelligent conversation about scripture, faith, doctrine, history and what not.
[/quote]What Pat melodramatically calls “hate” is just straight talk. He reminds me a little of Nancy Pelosi. Straight talk is necessary, and men are not afraid to engage in it. As KingKai has said, there are many admonitions toward unity in the NT, but this unity must be based on “sound doctrine”, as this is how the church began:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Act 2:42 KJV)
[/quote]
Strait talk? When you are telling non-truths, half-truth about what you think somebody else believes. If you are rewriting history and scripture to make a your belief sound correct and using it as means to elevate yourself, then your either acting hateful or your being plain dumb.
The passage you quoted I find interesting and ironic since they are speaking of the Eucharist.
Man, that’s a bad translation.
That’s technically irrelevant because your pulling from a terrible English translation and not original language. Second, 1 Cor chapter 13 disagrees with you.
Why do you consider it important that you tell people your opinion as if it’s a fact? You’ve been wrong about many things already and it had been proven, yet you hold on to the falsehoods as if fact? If it’s not purely emotive than what is it?
When you preach the garbage you preach, should you at least be prudent and try to find out if your right first? I submit:
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
(Matthew 7:3-5 ESV)”
If you support truth than how can you say faith alone will save your when the scriptures, clearly disagree for I further submit:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
(Matthew 7:15-20 ESV)”
Fruits are works, not the flimsy falsehoods that a mouth can make…
Then their is:
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
(Romans 2:6-7 ESV)”
Further, you have displayed no knowledge of Catholic doctrine, so how can you disagree with that which you do not know?
What doctrines do you disagree with? That we believe in one God? That we believe in Jesus Christ, his only son? That he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary and consubstantial with the Father? The was Crucified, died and was buried and rose again on the 3rd day? That he ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father? That he will come again to judge the living and the dead?
These are the doctrines of the Catholic church, if you disagree with that, then it’s not us who are anti-Christian.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
As far as non-christians knowing that I consider RC doctrine anti-christian, I believe they need to know this, and intend for them to know this. The differences are not just about how many times I think you should kneel and stand up in a service. The differences concern the very heart of the gospel. Paul warns of “another gospel”, and the RC doctrine of salvation is it.
[/quote]
Lol, LAWL! This is great stuff. Who hired this guy?
Please for all our sakes. Ask a question or get out. That’s what this thread is about, or did Tirib have alterior motives?
Anyway, curious. Can you name or even describe one RC doctrine, properly? We can make it interesting: explain one piece of doctrine that you disagree with, describe it properly, then explain why you don’t agree with it.
I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you’re stuck with me.
Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul’s teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It’s interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is “another gospel”, and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?
But let’s just do a short one in the interim:
I don’t think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as “Holy Father”, let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I think that was St. Paul’s quote.[/quote]Yeah, but I quoted it was my point.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Why should you?[/quote]Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen to heretics? Plenty of my brethren went out that way and Rome didn’t seem to mind.
I’m also not trying to be anybody’s Mama, but I hope we can keep it substantive. Nobody needs to leave and nobody’s stupid guys. At least in my view.