Our Freewills

[Openly Curious]

'st. Worm

In fact I would go so far to say that all bad doctrine whether heresy or not is sin.

[Marnie]

SW says:

Dear soul, you are truly out of control. I don't wish to get into a baptism thread right now but for you to say that the New Testament does not teach the authority of the church means you have skipped some significant portions of your Bible. To say church authority and discipline are not biblical doctrines and not taught in scripture is beyond laughable.

Okay, Almighty St. Worm, one more time. I will type very slowly so you can understand this.

Infant baptism is not taught in the bible. Infant dedication is seen in the OT. Adult baptism is most definitely an ordinance established by Christ, but it not a means of grace, it is a "drama in miniature" of what happened at salvation.

I did not say that Church authority is not taught in the NT, what I did say that Church authority must come from the NT, not from man-made doctrines. In language you might understand: I do not recognize the Church's authority in telling me, for example, what kind of car to drive or what kind of music to listen to since those issues do not come under the purvue of Scriptural dogma.

Please never refer to me as "dear soul" again, it's condecending in the extreme.

[Marnie]

By you saying so, does not make it so.

They're all in Scripture. If you or anyone is

seriously interested in seeing the fullness of

Truth, i'd be glad to explain our Catholic beliefs

in separate threads as per Eric's request.

I would like to see your Scriptural evidence that supports:

Infant baptism

Consubstantiation

Multiple experiences of salvation

Authority of the Pope as head of the Church

You may do in in private if you wish; I know this is off topic and I fear I have offended Eric once too often.

[EricH]

Eric said,

I am assuming you are Catholic and view the church as the arbiter of truth.

.... As Scriptures tell us....

No actually they do not. But lets not morph this thread into a Catholic apologetic. There are numerous threads here regarding the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and their scriptural correctness. Do a search for them and add to them if you wish. My point in asking if you were a Catholic...

What, so now you know i'm Catholic so my views are not

permitted on a thread? i have to post only on "RCC only"

threads? Are you unwilling to respond here?

No, but we want to keep the thread on topic. Specifically the doctrine of Free-will. If you want to engage in a different topic (namely whether or not the Catholic Church is the sole possessor of truth), you need to either start a new thread, or post on one that adresses that topic. I am speaking in the moderator mode now.

Just so you know, we also do not allow cutting and pasting from Catchecisms that are in oppostion to the Statement of Faith here at Worthy, or Linking to sites that hold doctrines in opposition to our statement of faith. You are free to describe what you believe in your own words, but not to copy and paste doctrine

[EricH]

Yes, I am saying something could have foiled God's plan.

Then by definition you do not believe that God is sovereign. His sovereignty is limited by our choices.

[Marnie]

Then by definition you do not believe that God is sovereign. His sovereignty is limited by our choices.

I can't answer for my friend Butero, but I am pretty sure that is not his view. My view is that G-d willingly limits His sovereignty as it relates to man's freedom of will. By definition, if G-d is sovereign than He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants and to whomever He wants; this would include His allowing man to do as he chooses. Man's freedom of choise exists at the behest of G-d.

[EricH]

I was more than willing to hear what you had to say and respond with my take. I expected you to do the same. I find I learn more in these types of discussions, rather than avoiding them because they get hard.

Right. And I do owe you an apology. I didn't mean it to be a personal attack, and dont consider it so, I was dealing with a client and you got in my line of fire. G-d is patient and always merciful, I am not yet. So I am sorry to have offended you, but am surprised you didn't delete it! Bless your heart.

I also learn much in these discussions. The problem I have with Calvinists (I get the impression you are one and most here at Worthy) is that they esteem the doctrine of Calvin to the level of Scripture. I cannot and will not argue apart from the Bible. It is one thing to quote good sources, and surely Calvin is a good source, but it is another thing to simply quote from the same tired playbook. I would like have a discussion on this topic and hear from you, not from Calvin or Luther; they're dead and obviously you are intelligent and informed. And that goes for the rest you posting to this thread. OC is looking for our thoughts. If she wanted theological dissertations, she could google it and find pages and pages of dry as dust stuff. Doctrinal one-upmanship is so transparent and dull.

No discussion is too hard, by the way. The day I can't give an answer is the day I resign from my job and go to work for Wal Mart.

No apology necessary, but thanks. I am enjoying this discussion very much.

In terms of Calvinists and the Bible, you are correct that my understanding is basically Calvinist. The odd thing is that I came to that conclusion apart from reading Calvin or any reformed Theology. You will very rarely see me quote Calvin or Luther. I make most of my arguments from scripture. The only time I feel a need to quote Calvin is when someone misquotes him or takes him out of context. However, you will see my arguments come directly from the text, or as implications I see coming from the text

[EricH]

"A person that continues to divorce and re-marry for unbiblical reasons should be put out of the church"

And who asks them to leave and by what authority? You have implied that the church has no authority in matters such as heresy.

SW

I have made no such claim. First of all, the person is not guilty of heresy. They are guilty of sin. The bi-laws of the church gives them the authority to put the person out of the church. In reality, the Bible does, but many churches don't operate according to scriptural guidelines.

What I said concerning heresy, is that each individual church has different beliefs. What one might consider heresy, another might consider sound doctrine. Again, this is not a case of heresy, but sin. Some churches consider this a valid reason to put a sinner out of their congregation. Some do not.

It would probably be helpful to understand a distinction. Heresy is the purposeful leading of individuals into error. Heretics know that what they are teaching falls outside of orthodoxy and continue to teach it anyway. That is why heresy is a serious charge. On the other hand, it is possible for someone to be teaching something that is not true and not know it. That is doctrinal error.

That is why I am careful calling someone a heretic.

[st. Worm]

butero says:

According to 1 John 3:4 sin is the transgression of the law. What law of God is a person breaking when they believe something that is not true?

SW says:

Indeed sin is trangression of the law but that one statement does not limit sin to violations of the 10 commandments. Failure to love God and our neighbors perfectly 100% of the time also is sin. I don't mean to offend but I believe you are taking a rather shallow and legalistic view of sin and the law. The main reason Jesus talks about the summation of the law being perfect love is to show how impossible it is for anyone to keep the law. Keep in mind many thought that a surface keeping of the 10 commandments was really keeping the law. Jesus taught otherwise.

You also ask how heresy can be sin. Let me provide an easy example for you. Mormons and JW's do not believe in the Trinity and do not accept the deity of Jesus. That has been determined to be heresy by Christians of all types. In effect, they are worshipping a God of their own making. They have at the very least violated the commandment not to honor other so-called gods. Also, I would still contend too that all bad doctrine (and every denomination and every believer is guilty of this since no one has the perfect interpretation) is sin because it bears false witness to God's very Word.

[st. Worm]

OC says:

I hope everybody else heard that I certainly did "all doctrinal differences is now a sin" st. worm has spoken

SW says:

That is not exactly what I said and I think you know it. What I said was that all untrue and thereby false doctrine is sin. It bears false witness. All are guilty of this sin unless you can interpret the Bible perfectly. Are you saying you can do that because if you can I would love to ask you many questions?