- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t “revel,” except in the sense that I admittedly like catching Catholics out on their generalizations about Protestants, and claiming to be one helps!
I wish “Protestant” were not an accurate label for me. But, alas, it is. As, historically (but not, on the whole, theologically), it is for you.
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
Would you prefer herectic? smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_1.gif
smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb112&pp=ZS
G
GKC
Guest
M
mariars
Guest
Augustine on Peter as “rock”
Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229).–So then, this self–same Peter, blessed by being surnamed Rocky from the rock, representing the person of the Church, holding chief place in the apostolic ranks (Sermon 76).–
Previously, of course, he was called Simon; this name of Peter was bestowed on him by the Lord, and that with the symbolic intention of his representing the Church. Because Christ, you see, is the petra or rock; Peter, or Rocky, is the Christian people (Sermon 76).
St. Augustine: Treatise on Predestination
CHAP. 34 [XVII.]— THE SPECIAL CALLING OF THE ELECT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BELIEVED, BUT IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE.
"Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe. For the Lord Himself also sufficiently explains this calling when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For if they had been elected because they had believed, they themselves would certainly have first chosen Him by believing in Him, so that they should deserve to be elected. But He takes away this supposition altogether when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” And yet they themselves, beyond a doubt, chose Him when they believed on Him. Whence it is not for any other reason that He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” than because they did not choose Him that He should choose them, but He chose them that they might choose Him; because His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt. Therefore He chose them out of the world while He was wearing flesh, but as those who were already chosen in Himself before the foundation of the world. This is the changeless truth concerning predestination and grace. For what is it that the apostle says, “As He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world”? [Eph. 1.4.] And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;” when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him. Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so. The Apostle James says: “Has not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him?” [James 2.5.] By choosing them, therefore; He makes them rich in faith, as He makes them heirs of the kingdom; because He is rightly said to choose that in them, in order to make which in them He chose them. I ask, who can hear the Lord saying, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” and can dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are rather elected to believe; lest against the judgment of truth they be found to have first chosen Christ to whom Christ says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you”? "[John 15.16.]
covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html
M
mgrfin
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Sorry about that. I’m a massive, and long standing Lewis fan. I’ve collected, read, and studied him for 42 years. Belonged to a couple of Lewis societies, etc, etc.Sorry again I’m still confused. I’m not that bright you know. So are you saying you are a C.S. Lewis fan or not a C.S. Lewis fan?
What I was saying was that I was not an Anglican of Lewis’ stature, but still one who accepted the concept of purgation, as did Lewis. It seemed to me the question was asked whether Edwin knew any Anglicans who did. I said I was one such.
Could have been mistaken about the qustion, I suppose.
GKC
S
StandUp4Truth
Guest
If someone told me that St. Augustine was a Protestant I’d laugh in their face! I can say the grass is purple, but that doesn’t make it so.
Augustine learned to view the world through the lens of Catholic theology, so of course he was Catholic! Unfortunately, Protestants haven’t been around that long, so they piggyback off of Catholicism’s greatest minds and achievements without creating anything new of their own. Meanwhile, Catholics are still creating powerful works of moral theology (e.g. JPII’s “Theology of the Body”), while Protestants are still arguing with each other and splintering apart.
It must be nice to take what you like and leave the rest, like reaping all the benefits of the greatest theological minds in history without following the doctrines and principles that they lived by which made them great.
Who knows? Maybe in two hundred years they’ll be saying that Pope John Paul II was really a Protestant at heart!
Oh dear, it’s already begun:
“What I saw was that many a Protestant came closer to being in John Paul II’s flock than many a Catholic who clearly stood outside it.”
^This author doesn’t speak for all Protestants, but this may be how the hijacking starts!
Augustine learned to view the world through the lens of Catholic theology, so of course he was Catholic! Unfortunately, Protestants haven’t been around that long, so they piggyback off of Catholicism’s greatest minds and achievements without creating anything new of their own. Meanwhile, Catholics are still creating powerful works of moral theology (e.g. JPII’s “Theology of the Body”), while Protestants are still arguing with each other and splintering apart.
It must be nice to take what you like and leave the rest, like reaping all the benefits of the greatest theological minds in history without following the doctrines and principles that they lived by which made them great.
Who knows? Maybe in two hundred years they’ll be saying that Pope John Paul II was really a Protestant at heart!
Oh dear, it’s already begun:
“What I saw was that many a Protestant came closer to being in John Paul II’s flock than many a Catholic who clearly stood outside it.”
^This author doesn’t speak for all Protestants, but this may be how the hijacking starts!
S
stpetric
Guest
I’d guess the average Catholic couldn’t tell you much about Pelagianism, either – or whether it’s a heresy!
The original reformers – pre-eminently Luther and Calvin – are best understood as medieval theologians. I didn’t say they were Catholic, but they *were *medieval. And St. Augustine was the foremost theological authority in the middle ages (even Aquinas defers to him). Consequently, Luther and Calvin were entirely conversant with him, and cite him often. Modern theologians – Catholic as well as protestant, alas – are much less familiar with Augustine than the 16th century reformers would have been. He was just in the air they breathed, metaphorically speaking.
E
Excelency
Guest
Speaking of Protestants, I notice guys like John Hagee are now trying to deconstruct the role of the Catholic Church in history. He says that Peter was not the rock whom Christ chose. He is all too proud of the FORCED and “alleged” “cooperation” of the Church with the nazis. He is even in denial that the Jews had anything to do with the Crucifixtion, it was all Rome. I heard him quote from the Bible where it says "If you don’t work, you don’t eat. From all outward appearences the pastor is a very hard working man indeed, but I remember something about “Let it be on our children and our childrens children” And some guy named Pilate who wanted to release our Lord and tried repeatedly to do so. I don’t recall any reference to orders from Rome to get rid of Christ, Can anyone enlighten me here?
M
mgrfin
Guest
I have watched Hagee a number of times. He is a compelling speaker.
I don’t know if he is a Seventh Day Adventist or what, but he certainly is a biblical literalist. He has all the numbers down to the actual month and day. He has a fascination for Revelations.
Like the rest of the televangelists who are on in L.A., he pushes hard for money.
peace
mgrfin
C
Contarini
Guest
Obviously I wouldn’t prefer it, but I don’t object to it. From the Catholic perspective, I am at least a material heretic, and I’m all in favor of calling a spade a spade.
Edwin
T
timmo
Guest
Fascinating forum
General comment not in reply to any particular post. No follow-ups, except possibly clarification.
A Catholic revert- forty years in the wilderness. The thought of being involved in any Christian religion was like a bad dream; the thought of coming back to the Catholic Church – a nightmare. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Reading a biography of Dietrich von Hildebrand and paraphrasing: he could not delay conversion to Catholicism any longer. Although he had serious reservations on contraception he would accept and abide by the teaching. Some time after his conversion when he again revisited the contraception issue he found it quite logical and had no difficulty with it.
I would like to make a couple of observations on the topic under discussion with particular reference to an earlier quote “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”
Firstly – despite occasional and understandable knee-jerk responses, there seems to be plenty of charity on this forum.
Secondly- a large part of this discussion appears to me to be concerned with non-essentials. I say non-essential, because they cannot possibly be reasonably discussed without first reasoning on the essentials. Otherwise prejudice will trump over common sense every time.
The essentials (some of them)
Did Jesus establish one or several Churches?
Did He give Peter Authority?
Did He say that the powers of hell would not prevail against His Church?
Did He give it the power to lose and bind?
Did He guarantee His Church the protection of the Holy Spirit?
Where did the Bible come from?
Who has the Authority to interpret scripture?
Did Jesus say “he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in me and I in him, and I will raise him up on the last day”? “unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood you have no life in you”?
Did the early Church believe that the Eucharist was the flesh and blood of Jesus?
Did He say “he who hears you hears me”?
Without wanting to inflame anyone, I humbly submit to you that it is unreasonable to conclude that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is the only one that was there at the start which is extant today.
In recent years the Catholic Church has been blessed with some real heavyweight protestant converts whose depth of faith and clarity have been an enormous help to me (and I’m sure to many others) on my journey.
If you’re not inflamed yet, let me turn up the heat! I strongly suspect that many of you non-Catholics are far closer to being catholic than you may even realise. I will be praying for this (you know us Catholics, we pray for everyone, even the dead!)
Best regards
Tim
General comment not in reply to any particular post. No follow-ups, except possibly clarification.
A Catholic revert- forty years in the wilderness. The thought of being involved in any Christian religion was like a bad dream; the thought of coming back to the Catholic Church – a nightmare. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Reading a biography of Dietrich von Hildebrand and paraphrasing: he could not delay conversion to Catholicism any longer. Although he had serious reservations on contraception he would accept and abide by the teaching. Some time after his conversion when he again revisited the contraception issue he found it quite logical and had no difficulty with it.
I would like to make a couple of observations on the topic under discussion with particular reference to an earlier quote “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”
Firstly – despite occasional and understandable knee-jerk responses, there seems to be plenty of charity on this forum.
Secondly- a large part of this discussion appears to me to be concerned with non-essentials. I say non-essential, because they cannot possibly be reasonably discussed without first reasoning on the essentials. Otherwise prejudice will trump over common sense every time.
The essentials (some of them)
Did Jesus establish one or several Churches?
Did He give Peter Authority?
Did He say that the powers of hell would not prevail against His Church?
Did He give it the power to lose and bind?
Did He guarantee His Church the protection of the Holy Spirit?
Where did the Bible come from?
Who has the Authority to interpret scripture?
Did Jesus say “he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in me and I in him, and I will raise him up on the last day”? “unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood you have no life in you”?
Did the early Church believe that the Eucharist was the flesh and blood of Jesus?
Did He say “he who hears you hears me”?
Without wanting to inflame anyone, I humbly submit to you that it is unreasonable to conclude that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is the only one that was there at the start which is extant today.
In recent years the Catholic Church has been blessed with some real heavyweight protestant converts whose depth of faith and clarity have been an enormous help to me (and I’m sure to many others) on my journey.
If you’re not inflamed yet, let me turn up the heat! I strongly suspect that many of you non-Catholics are far closer to being catholic than you may even realise. I will be praying for this (you know us Catholics, we pray for everyone, even the dead!)
Best regards
Tim
M
mgrfin
Guest
P
Palladio
Guest
Tim:
OUTSTANDING.
AND I’VE NEVER MET A TIM I DID NOT LIKE.
GOD BLESS YOU.
YOU ARE INDEED HONORING GOD!
OUTSTANDING.
AND I’VE NEVER MET A TIM I DID NOT LIKE.
GOD BLESS YOU.
YOU ARE INDEED HONORING GOD!
M
Mike_Brick
Guest
Amen, Tim, Amen, and welcome to the forums. You are right, we spend too much time arguing the lesser essential essentials of Christian faith, and talking past each other rather than with each other.
God Bless:thumbsup:
Mike
S
Sixtus
Guest
I am not sure Protestants have hijacked him. Don’t forget we both share a common history. He is as much their predecessor as ours. 
- Status