Free Will

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy;6999368:

OK, thanks. But if groups define themselves how can an outsider know which of the groups if any have the right to claim that they alone are authentic? If the hypercalvinists are not considered orthodox by most Reform folks I guess most Reform folks are not considered orthodox by the hypercalvinists? Would the considerations of most Reform folks carry more weight than the considerations of the hypercalvinists? If so, why? Which group has the authority to pronounce on the matter?

Well again, we have to then review the historical development of the group and the doctrine. To go back to the Sunni/Shia example, Sunni beliefs are well documented and well known, so a person who upholds Shia beliefs can be exposed (for lack of a better word). This isn’t a case of two groups saying “We’re right,” it’s a case of one group demonstrating they’re right.

Thanks much. I think I’ve gotten as far as narrowing the groups down to either the Catholics or the Orthodox. But if I change my mind would that be called free will or false individualism?

 

[Sufjon]

I’m glad you agree.

Do you read much Bible? There’s a place in Romans where Paul says this:

So Paul realized his “free will” was hampered or limited. Don’t you think so?

Hi UniversalistGuy: I have read it many times, almost all of it actually, but I’m by no means an expert on it, so I don’t want to over-inflate my knowledge of it. I think my understanding of it is probably very limited. I have seen Paul mention his struggles I think in more than one place, this passage being one of them. He might very well be saying that his free will was limited. That was a good catch on your part!

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Thanks much. I think I’ve gotten as far as narrowing the groups down to either the Catholics or the Orthodox. But if I change my mind would that be called free will or false individualism?

Anal retentive? I dunno.

 

[Sufjon]

OK, thanks. But if groups define themselves how can an outsider know which of the groups if any have the right to claim that they alone are authentic? If the hypercalvinists are not considered orthodox by most Reform folks I guess most Reform folks are not considered orthodox by the hypercalvinists? Would the considerations of most Reform folks carry more weight than the considerations of the hypercalvinists? If so, why? Which group has the authority to pronounce on the matter?

Sorry I’ve just realized I’m off the topic. I apologize to the OP.

But I decided to post it anyway.

Hi UniversalistGuy: No need to apologize. You bring up an excellent point. There are so many claims to authenticity that it’s very difficult for someone who has no defined religious point of reference, and who is also trying to draw some conclusions. I’m kind of seeing it all like a tree at this point. There was a trunk which you might call Catholic, from which branches grew, which you might call Protestant and whatever else that happens to be Christian and perhaps Islam too, each producing beautiful blossoms or leaves of it’s own. Perhaps together they are one thing - the tree, or the church if you will, with Judaism as the tap root. In addition to that, there are other trees altogether in the garden. The garden of course all being created by the one thing (if there is such a thing). Which tree does that one thing that created the garden prefer? They all must belong to that one thing, right? This is just an idea on how I see it right now based on watching conversations on message boards, and not by any means something I would posit as truth. As an agnostic, perhaps I have no right to speculate, but to find answers it seems like I have to. You’re right, it’s a digression from the topic, but I’m glad you brought it up. Thanks!