Why should Catholics Abhore OSAS?

[thessalonian]

Sonseeker,

“I agree with you 100%. In Is 1 God indeed has had enough of external rituals acts.”

Since when is sacrifice = ritual? Is’nt it adding to the word of God if you choose to add meaning to a word or equate it with a word? Seems to me it is. Yes, sacrifice is done in a ritualistic manner, but since ritual applies to other things rather than sacrifice, I don’t see how you can use the verses I spoke of to condemn other forms of ritual in other places in the Bible. In reality you are superimposing a Protestant tradition that is against ritual over the scriptures, where there is no condemnation of ritual. In fact if the whole book of revelations is not about ritual I don’t know what is. Read Rev 5 and the incense and censors being placed before the throne of God. If God is against ritual then why is the last book of the Bible so full of ritual. Now you are correct that God desires that our hearts be in our actions but that does not mean there cannot be ritual.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

By the way, I find it interesting how many times I run in to protestants who will say down with ritual and then the topic swings to baptism and the say “OH IT’S GOTTA BE DONE BY IMMERSION! NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION BUT IT’S GOTTA BE IMMERSION!”

 

[sonseeker]

thessalonian:

Sonseeker,

“I agree with you 100%. In Is 1 God indeed has had enough of external rituals acts.”

Since when is sacrifice = ritual? Is’nt it adding to the word of God if you choose to add meaning to a word or equate it with a word? Seems to me it is. Yes, sacrifice is done in a ritualistic manner, but since ritual applies to other things rather than sacrifice, I don’t see how you can use the verses I spoke of to condemn other forms of ritual in other places in the Bible. In reality you are superimposing a Protestant tradition that is against ritual over the scriptures, where there is no condemnation of ritual. In fact if the whole book of revelations is not about ritual I don’t know what is. Read Rev 5 and the incense and censors being placed before the throne of God. If God is against ritual then why is the last book of the Bible so full of ritual. Now you are correct that God desires that our hearts be in our actions but that does not mean there cannot be ritual.

Blessings

Ritual not prescribed by God is not good. That is why Christ continually busted the Pharisees. They added some 600 “rituals” to the law, that did not come from God. Anything man-made in the form of ritual doesn’t sit well. As far as the “ritual” of baptism and full immersion, that was the practice of the N.T., wasn’t it? As far as Sacrifice = ritual, the Mosaic law is often referred to as the ritual law, because it was a ritual law.

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

sonseeker:

Ritual not prescribed by God is not good. That is why Christ continually busted the Pharisees. They added some 600 “rituals” to the law, that did not come from God. Anything man-made in the form of ritual doesn’t sit well. As far as the “ritual” of baptism and full immersion, that was the practice of the N.T., wasn’t it? As far as Sacrifice = ritual, the Mosaic law is often referred to as the ritual law, because it was a ritual law.

Bill

You are very confused with regard to ritual, sacrifice, works of the law, and works of love. You use an arguement and then take the legs out from under it yourself. Novel.

You seem to have difficulty with the wording of my post which I was careful of. I nowhere said that the sacrificial laws were not ritual. They were a type of ritual. Because a duck is a bird, does that mean that all birds are ducks.

Blessings

 

[sonseeker]

thessalonian:

You are very confused with regard to ritual, sacrifice, works of the law, and works of love. You use an arguement and then take the legs out from under it yourself. Novel.

You seem to have difficulty with the wording of my post which I was careful of. I nowhere said that the sacrificial laws were not ritual. They were a type of ritual. Because a duck is a bird, does that mean that all birds are ducks.

Blessings

My apologies. Perhaps I missed your point in your previous post, please straighten me out, and tell me what I missed.

Bill

 

[Matt16_18]

sonseeker

Do you believe that men and women have free will?

Do you believe that you can choose to be disobedient to God’s perfect will?

 

[thessalonian]

sonseeker:

Ritual not prescribed by God is not good. That is why Christ continually busted the Pharisees. They added some 600 “rituals” to the law, that did not come from God. Anything man-made in the form of ritual doesn’t sit well.
Bill

Where are you getting this figure of 600 from? I know of a few such as handwashing in the NT that are mentioned. Back in Exodus Leviticus I know that there are 600 prescribed laws of the Mosaic Law, but God did not “bust” the pharasees over these. They were the laws that he put forth through Moses. Animal Sacrifice was God’s Law, thus it was good.

As far as man made ritual being bad, I guess you are against wedding cerimonies with the bride trapesing down the eye and the Bride’s Maides and little kiddies with flowers and rings following them up. How about those vows and the ring cerimony afterwards. Nasty ritual. No, I don’t see God condemning rituals by man anywhere. He does condemn it when they neglect his word over it such as with the Korban rule in which the pharasees were neglecting their parents by squirrelling away their money through giving it to the temple, where they controlled it anyway. This allowed them to neglect for the care of their elderly parents as God commanded.

Blessings

 

[sonseeker]

thessalonian:

Where are you getting this figure of 600 from? I know of a few such as handwashing in the NT that are mentioned. Back in Exodus Leviticus I know that there are 600 prescribed laws of the Mosaic Law, but God did not “bust” the pharasees over these. They were the laws that he put forth through Moses. Animal Sacrifice was God’s Law, thus it was good.

You can find them in the Halakhah and Midrash teachings. There were some 619 extra rules based upon rabbinic interpretation of the scripture, none of which God required. They went from not spitting on the sabbath because your spit could cause dirt to be moved (considered to be work), to killing a chicken that the broke the sabbath by laying an egg; you must, of course, wait until the next day to kill it, as you could not work on the sabbath; it was also OK to eat the egg. Extra rituals not prescribed by God. There is a book dealing with them, I believe it is called “The Pentateuch as a Narrative,” by a guy named Thanmayer. I’m not sure of the author, but I believe that is the title.

Thessalonian:

As far as man made ritual being bad, I guess you are against wedding cerimonies with the bride trapesing down the eye and the Bride’s Maides and little kiddies with flowers and rings following them up. How about those vows and the ring cerimony afterwards. Nasty ritual. No, I don’t see God condemning rituals by man anywhere. He does condemn it when they neglect his word over it such as with the Korban rule in which the pharasees were neglecting their parents by squirrelling away their money through giving it to the temple, where they controlled it anyway. This allowed them to neglect for the care of their elderly parents as God commanded.

C’mon. You are being silly. What do you think non-catholics want the sick and the elderly to die? Are you a democrat? Re-read my post to you about works. Works are not ritual, and are you saying that liturgical practices are not ritual?

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

Matt 16_18:

Now let me ask you some direct questions. Do you believe that you have free will? Do you believe that you can choose to be disobedient to God’s perfect will?

No. I do not believe that anyone has a free will. Do we have a will? Yes; we are volitional creatures, created in the image of God; God is volitional, and that attribute of volition is seen in man.

No one can be disobedient to God’s perfect will. It is, so to speak, set in concrete. We can, however, be disobedient to His revealed will, ie., the Decalogue and other of God’s commandments, such as to repent, don’t engage in sexual immorality, don’t follow false gods, false gospels etc. If one can be disobedient to God’s perfect (decreed) will, than God is no longer God, and the creature has powers to contend with God absolutely.
Matt 16_18:

How do you explain evil if you believe that God is sovereign?

How is this question connected to your first question? Evil is not something created, for unlike the good, evil can have no existence in and of itself. God does not create evil, and God is not the source of evil, for God is light, and in him is no darkness.

Evil is always the result of angels or men being disobedient to God by their abuse of the good that God has created.It is connected to the first question by your statement that Calvinism forces one to accept that God is the source of all evil. Do you have a reply to the scripture I listed?

Yes evil is not created (Gen 1:31). You make an interesting statement: ”…evil can have no existence in and of itself.” How is it that evil exists?
Matt 16_18:

Evil is always the result of angels or men being disobedient to God by their abuse of the good that God has created.

Sin/evil in the world is the result of one man. Yes, others propagate it, but scripture says it is the result of one man.
Matt 16_18:

By an act of God’s sovereign will, God has decreed that angels and men are to possess free will, and their free will makes angels and men agents of free cause. God allows

angels and men to exercise their free will by choosing to be disobedient to him, but that in no way affects God’s sovereignty over all creation, for God has made it clear that disobedience to him results in just punishment. God will exercise his sovereignty over all creation at the final judgement when he will mete out just punishment to the unrepentant angels and unrepentant men.I agree. Will you explain, please, what you mean by “free will,” and “free cause?”
Matt 16_18:

Calvinism collapses in on itself when we examine free will and the Fall. Adam and Eve were not created in a state of total depravity, for God did not, and cannot, create evil. Adam and Eve were created in the grace of original justice, and they were given the freedom to choose to either be obedient or disobedient to God’s explicit commandment that Adam and Eve were to avoid eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I do not understand what you mean, “Calvinism collapses in on itself.” Please explain that; otherwise, I agree with what you are saying, although we have not yet examined free will and the Fall.
Matt 16_18:

Adam and Eve chose to be disobedient to God while they were in a state of grace

. This proves that it is entirely possible for men and women to be in a state of grace, and then to freely choose to be disobedient to God.No argument as yet with that. Every man/woman/child/created thing lives under God’s grace, and they choose to disobey.
Matt 16_18:

Which means that men and women can choose to sin and fall from a state of grace. This is what Catholicism teaches, and this is what OSAS believing Calvinists deny.

Explain what you mean by “state of grace.” Everyone lives under God’s grace, and disobeys God; how do Calvinists deny that?

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

Thanks for the info on traditions. I will contend however that God did not condemn man’s traditions as long as they were not contrary to scripture and did not nulify the Word of God. Why would he be against hand washing before eating even as a ritual?

sonseeker:

C’mon. You are being silly. What do you think non-catholics want the sick and the elderly to die? Are you a democrat? Re-read my post to you about works. Works are not ritual, and are you saying that liturgical practices are not ritual?

Bill

Where did I say anything about you wanting the sick and the elderly to die. You need to reread your post.

You said:
I agree with you 100%. In Is 1 God indeed has had enough of external rituals acts.

Now if we are to somehow misunderstand you then why is it you you seemingly associate good works with ritual. That is why I said you seem very confused. At least what you wrote is very confusing.

"Please, do not misunderstand me; I am not saying stop working and have a good time. A true believer will work, and a true believer will bear much fruit (Jn 15:5). My wife and I are heavily involved in ministry at church and outside of church. My faith is shown by my works (Jas 2:18). "

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

By the way, the point I made above that you continue to deny is that Is 1 clearly shows that there are works of the law and works of charity. Romans 2:4-8 and Matt 25, the sheep and goats discourse clearly show that works of charity are a prerequisite for heaven. Read them again.

 

[Matt16_18]

sonseeker:

No. I do not believe that anyone has a free will.

The first time I ever heard a Calvinist deny that he had free will I was flabbergasted. How could anyone expect me to take such a claim seriously? Now, I am no longer shocked when I hear a Calvinist deny that he has free will, but I still don’t understand how anyone can spout such patent nonsense.

If you don’t have free will, then what does it mean to commit sin? How can a being without free will be in any way disobedient to God? Why would Jesus need to be a sacrifice for sin, if no one ever made a choice to commit sin? Christianity makes no sense at all if men are really nothing but meat robots without the ability to choose to reject grace and to be disobedient to God.

No one can be disobedient to God’s perfect will.

What about Lucifer? Did he rebel or not? What about Adam? Did he choose to disobey God or not? What you are saying is so absurd that it beggars the imagination.

God explicitly told Adam that he was not to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. That was God’s perfect will for Adam. But you are saying that Adam was incapable of being disobedient to God’s perfect will, which means that it was also God’s perfect will for Adam to commit the sin of disobedience! You have made God the cause of Adam’s disobedience, which is why the religion of Calvinism is blasphemous.

Let us accept for a moment incomprehensible notion that God’s perfect will for Adam can be for both obedience and for disobedience at the same time. The God of Calvinism obviously has both a good side and an evil side, and God’s will for the good of obedience is in conflict with God’s will for evil of disobedience. Which is the more powerful side of the God of Calvinism, the good side or the evil side? Well, obviously the evil side of God is the more powerful, since Adam was conflicted in what he was supposed to do, but in the end, disobedience was what Adam manifested, and not obedience. Why should anyone believe God’s promises if he has both good and evil within him? Since the evil in God is the most powerful part of God, then the promises that God has made may be all lies, and we should suspect that they are! Who has any reason for hope if there is evil in God?

Sin/evil in the world is the result of one man.

In what way can a Calvinist claim that Adam sinned? You said that it is impossible for Adam to do anything other than God’s perfect will, therefore, if Adam was disobedient, then it was God’s perfect will for Adam to be disobedient! What does a Calvinist mean when the say Adam committed a “sin” when Adam was only following God’s perfect will in being disobedient?

Every man/woman/child/created thing lives under God’s grace, and they choose to disobey.

What can a Calvinist possibly mean when they say that a man can CHOOSE to disobey God? If a man has no free will, then he CANNOT choose to disobey God, he can only do what God wills him to do. If a man rapes a woman, he did not choose to rape that woman, he HAD to rape that woman because it was God’s perfect will for him to rape the woman. The rapist had no choice but to do God’s perfect will!

And such is the blasphemy that is Calvinism.

 

[sonseeker]

Matt 16_18,

I’ve pulled your post and will read it over and respond by tomorrow, but in the meantime, will you answer this question:

Can you choose to be sick, choose to get well, choose not to die?

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

sonseeker:

Matt 16_18,

I’ve pulled your post and will read it over and respond by tomorrow, but in the meantime, will you answer this question:

Can you choose to be sick, choose to get well, choose not to die?

Bill

Your kidding right? Are you saying we can’t choose anything. Not between McDonalds and Wendy’s. That we are puppet’s waiting for God’s will to lead us off to the next sin or charitable act? Blown about by every wind of doctrine is what comes to mind.

By the way using natural analogies, does a man have anything to do with his coming in to existence? Certainly you would say not. I would say that God chooses to involve our parents, though he forms us in our mothers womb. Of course he is ultimately responsible since he created our parents in the first place. But our physical life is a free gift. Now once we are alive we need food and excercise to stay healthy, right. If we don’t we die. See where I’m heading. Physical life is no less of a free gift because we have to maintain it or because we jump off a bridge and end it.

Spiritually we have the free gift of life in Christ. That life must be excercised and fed. It makes it no less of a gift because we excercise it through good works and feed it by the word of God and the Eucharist.

 

[sonseeker]

Matt 16_18,

I read your post. Now I get it!

You are an Arminian. Are you a liberterian free-willer, or what kind of free-willer are you?

I have had this argument before, and must say that it is exhausting. I do not know if I want to continue with it. Do you?

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

thessalonian:

Your kidding right? Are you saying we can’t choose anything. Not between McDonalds and Wendy’s.

I said nothing about McDonalds or Wendy’s. If you don’t want to answer the questions then don’t. I’ll assume that the answer is no.

thessalonian:

See where I’m heading.

Haven’t a clue; tell me.

Bill

 

[deb1]

sonseeker:

Matt 16_18,

I read your post. Now I get it!

You are an Arminian. Are you a liberterian free-willer, or what kind of free-willer are you?

I have had this argument before, and must say that it is exhausting. I do not know if I want to continue with it. Do you?

Bill

Just curious, what is an Arminian, liberterian free willer?

 

[sonseeker]

Matt 16_18,

I’ve been re-reading the posts between me and you on this thread. No wonder you avoided my question about God’s sovereignty, that is where your whole theology “collapses in on itself!”

Ha! This is funny. No wonder your posts sound so harsh.

Well, if you want to continue, I’m game. But if we hit the dead-end early, we will have to stop.

I ask two questions:

Is God Sovereign? Does His sovereignty take a back-seat to your free will?

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

deb1:

Just curious, what is an Arminian, liberterian free willer?

Ask Matt 16_18; I’d hate to misrepresent him.

Bill

 

[Matt16_18]

sonseeker:

Matt 16_18

I read your post. Now I get it!

You are an Arminian. Are you a liberterian free-willer, or what kind of free-willer are you?

No, I am not an “Arminian”, nor a libertarian. I am a Catholic and a sane person that believes that he can make moral choices in this life. I can sin if I choose to sin.

Can you choose to be sick, choose to get well, choose not to die?

Certainly I can choose to poison myself and get sick. But that would be a moral choice, a choice not to take care of the temple that God has given me. Our free will is exercised in our moral choices. Obviously if I choose to jump off a building, I cannot exercise my free will over that law of gravity. I am subject to the physical laws of nature, but I am free as a Christian to obey or disobey the moral laws of God. I can CHOOSE to be obedient or disobedient to the moral laws of God because I have free will.

A dog cannot commit a sin, because a dog has no knowledge of the moral laws of God. If a dog kills a deer, the dog is not sinning, the dog is only doing that because he has the nature of a dog. By denying that you have free will, you are making yourself the moral equivalent of a dog – i.e. merely an animal.

No wonder you avoided my question about God’s sovereignty …

I didn’t avoid your question. I explicitly said that I believe that God is sovereign over all creation.