Theological Debate

[Merenwen Inglorion]

Would someone who believes in extreme predestination (as in, "nothing outside of what will happen will happen") explain it to me??
I can't see how someone can believe in that, yet still hold that God created people with free will... ?_?

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Dec 16, 2015 15:09:25 GMT NightBlade said:

Aviar Goldeneagle Alvar
Well, in light of the other discussions I've had with Aviar, I personally place the "cut off" concept in the meaning of being in a relationship with God and receiving His blessing and help. Israel was indeed "cut off" from His blessing many times, such as their imprisonment to Egypt or Babylon. But God always pursued them, delivered them and returned them to his blessing by His own initiation. He made a promise to them...was salvation not the New Covenenant that God swore in?
I believe that once we are sworn into the Covenenant with God, we are forever in it with Him. We can wander like the Israelites, cut ourselves off from His vine of blessing, but He will always extend His arms to us again because we still being to Him again. Like the sheep that the shepherd pursued.

EDIT
Unfortunately I don't have time to exegete, but is this instance of "calling" the same that Paul uses to refer to our being "called" by Christ for good works, the same "called" that is often shown to evidence predestination?

Hey I almost totally agree with what you say there, Nightblade. The only thing I would differ with you on would be that we will always return to Him. God is always going to keep coming after us, but I don't see us always returning. (Judas would be an example of this).


Merenwen Inglorion:

Would someone who believes in extreme predestination (as in, "nothing outside of what will happen will happen") explain it to me??

I can't see how someone can believe in that, yet still hold that God created people with free will... ?_?

I don't know if there would be anyone who believes in extreme Predestination (i.e, the Calvinistic predestination--double predestination as it's sometimes called) who also believes that God created people with Free Will.
I believe that God predestines--the Bible says so--but I also believe that humans have free will to accept or reject God. I believe that God predestined us to have a free choice in whether to accept or reject Him.

[NightBlade]

Oh yeah I agree some people don't come back to Him. But I do believe He never gives up and never breaks His end of the Covenant (forgiving our sins so we can be with Him)

[Ellron Silvertree]

I think I agree with you there. I mean, by God's very unchanging nature it would be contradictory for Him to go back on His Covenant. And if he has a changing nature then that means that we can't trust anything that comes from Him and therefore the entire foundation of our Faith crumbles. So yeah, I agree with you :P

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Dec 17, 2015 14:43:15 GMT NightBlade said:

Oh yeah I agree some people don't come back to Him. But I do believe He never gives up and never breaks His end of the Covenant (forgiving our sins so we can be with Him)

Are you saying that once someone is saved they can go ahead and live any way they want?

EDIT: I guess I should add to that a little more to explain what I mean. What it seems to me that you're saying is that if we leave God, He's still gonna save us because He's forgiven all our sins already at an earlier point in time, because that is His end of the Covenant. However, it would seem to me that it only takes one person to break a covenant. If we break it, then we're not going to get the benefits that we would have gotten had we kept it.

I totally agree with you that God is never going to break the Covenant, and also that He never gives up in trying to get someone to return.

[Alvar]

Dec 19, 2015 6:32:19 GMT Aviar Goldeneagle said:

Are you saying that once someone is saved they can go ahead and live any way they want?

You seem to throw that question around a lot.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Dec 19, 2015 6:35:00 GMT Alvar said:

Dec 19, 2015 6:32:19 GMT Aviar Goldeneagle said:

Are you saying that once someone is saved they can go ahead and live any way they want?

You seem to throw that question around a lot.

Haha, maybe I do. But it's something I really see the Bible *not* teaching--so I guess that's why I do it. 

[NightBlade]

I think the Bible very extremely much teaches about that. Do not sin simply to multiply grace, continue in the good works, love God and keep His commands, etc etc etc

[Merenwen Inglorion]

Aviar Goldeneagle: That's what I've always figured.

As for the current topic of discussion, I think Romans 6 just about covers it.
That poem The Hound of Heaven always comes to mind when this topic comes up.
www.bartleby.com/236/239.html
Also, the modern adaptation of it. It's pretty cool. The lady talking has an accent, though, so sometimes it's hard to understand what she's saying.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXlgz4aBKt8

[NightBlade]

Does anyone's church read the Bible in Latin? What is the specific reasoning for that?

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Some Catholic churches say the Mass in Latin, but when the Bible is read, it's usually read in English, I believe,although it may sometimes be read in Latin as well.

The reason is because that's how it used to be done because everyone used to speak Latin. And some people today like hearing the Mass in it's ancient form. Nowadays though it's usually read in English.

[NightBlade]

So not yours, is what I was asking?

That's one reason, true. But I mean, nobody reads it in Greek it Hebrew (at least not that I know of)
For the first few hundred years the church killed everyone who tried translating the Bible into English, so that was a thing.... I liked Tyndale :/ and they dug up Wycliffe's bones and burned them...

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

No, I go to the English translation of the Mass, which is by far the most common among Catholics in the Roman rite. It's the same format as the Latin Mass but translated into English.

That's why if it's read in Latin, it's also read in English. Or if it's not also read in English, there's the English translation in the missal so you can understand what's being said. At least, that's my understanding--I haven't been to a lot of Latin Masses. It's never, like, "read in Latin so the laity can't understand it" though.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "first few hundred years". In the first few hundred years of the Church everyone spoke Greek or Latin. And the church didn't kill everyone who tried translating the Bible into English. Before Tyndale there were already approved English translations in use. Tyndale's version was condemned because it apparently (according to the bishops of London) had over 2000 willing mistranslations where he tried to make Catholic teaching appear wrong. Now that may not be entirely accurate, but there certainly were already English translations in use. There was no need for more--especially not ones that often mistranslated. But I don't think it was good that he was killed--even though technically it wouldn't have been the Church that killed him, but the state, who would have been made up of Catholic people.

Wycliffe's version also had mistranslations and notes that he wrote himself saying that the Catholic Church was bad. That was why a lot of translations were condemned. Because they had mistranslations and lot's of anti-Catholic writing and commentary in the margins. So no wonder the Church didn't like them.

[NightBlade]

Ah interesting. I heard a little bit of one once. I was like "daheck" xD

Wycliffe was quoted to have said that he was translating it to English so that men could understand it in their common language. The Archbishop of Canterbury falsely accused him of hate speech against the church and causing revolts but there was no founding to those claims. His was the first translation into English, which was attempted to be eradicated. It was from this time on to the 1500s, including Tyndale, that I meant by the few hundred years.

"Mistranslation" was also just a claim made against him, which wasn't founded. Though it was true that he did challenge the church's view based on Luther's teachings. The way I see it, they just wanted to kill him as Luther because he undermined their authority and they tended to kill everyone else who did that. His Bible went on to be one of the most common English Bibles.

[Ellron Silvertree]

The reason it was originally translated into Latin was because far more members of the Church spoke Latin over Greek or Hebrew. The gentile Christians began to outnumber the Jewish, and Latin was the common, or vulgar tongue of the time. That's why the Latin translation is also known as the "Vulgate". It was translated so that the majority of followers could understand it. The Bible as one book and its canon wasn't even finalized until like the 300s, so there's that. Over time, even though Latin began to fall out of use the Church kept it, partially because it was more accurate to the Greek and Hebrew (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), but also because the Latin was established by the Early Church Fathers and was a part of Church tradition. Also, most lay people couldn't read anyways for many years, and most learned people were taught Latin(again, this is more of a fairly educated guess. If someone has evidence to the contrary, please bring it forth), so English wouldn't actually be as helpful as it is now. That being said, I don't know if there was a good reason for not having the Mass translated into the common language of the area, other than the value placed on the unchanging nature of Latin. Unlike English, which is constantly changing. Which is also why Latin is used for scientific terms, because the words and colloquialisms never change. It's actually more straightforward than English, I think.

Also, to your first question, my university has a High Extraordinary Form Latin Mass once a month.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Haha.

Wycliffe's wasn't the first translation into English. St Bede translated part of the Bible into English back in the 8th century, and there were other English translations before that as well. Wycliffe may have been the first person to translate the *whole* Bible into English, but there were large parts already translated. His translation was attempted to be eradicated because it didn't always translate accurately and because of his own personal interpretations and notes which he put in there that argued against the Catholic Church. But before this there were Bibles that the lay people could read themselves in Latin, which most people spoke. This was if they were able to read. If they couldn't then it was read to them in church. It's not like the Bible was kept away from the people, because if they read it for themselves then they'd realise the Catholic Church was false. The Catholic Church has always encouraged the reading and hearing of the Bible.

Are you talking about Wycliffe or Tyndale in that last paragraph? I would assume Tyndale because Wycliffe lived about 100 years before Luther. I think I could fairly say it's a historical fact that Tyndale's Bible had mistranslations, although I haven't done enough research to say with certainty. The London bishops say so, and I don't think that they would have lied about it--unless of course they were mistaken. But I would tend to trust them over Tyndale who was not a fully qualified scholar. And even if it wasn't mistranslated, it still contained a prologue and notes that showed great contempt for the Catholic Church--so no wonder the Church rejected it.

As for the Catholic Church killing everyone who disagreed with them, it was the secular authorities who actually executed heretics, and it wasn't everyone who disagreed with them. Now I think this was wrong. But you've also got to take into account the time that they lived in, and also don't forget that the Protestant churches executed many Catholics too. Both sides were wrong.
Basically, the Catholic Church viewed heresy as a worse sin than murder. Because with murder you're killing bodies, but with heresy you could be killing souls. So when you think of it in that way you can see why it was done.

EDIT: After reading Ellron's post... the Bible was first canonised at the council of Rome in 382. This is where it was finally decided which books were inspired and which weren't.

Also, I'm not sure if the Latin was more accurate to the Greek and Hebrew, but even after it began to fall out of use, people understood it much better than Greek and Hebrew.

[Ellron Silvertree]

I'd like to qualify that they viewed *heretics* as worse, rather than heresy. Heresy is making a claim that contradicts the teachings of the Church. But that's easy to do if you don't know better. However, if you *do* know better, and continue to do so, and if you are told by the Church that you are speaking heresy and need to stop, and still continue to do so, then you are a heretic and can be excommunicated.
This is my understanding of the matter.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Ellron Silvertree: Yes, that is a better way of putting it.

[NightBlade]

Well, yes, Bede started translating it in a Catholic way. And by his time, in fact, English speaking populations were growing greatly.
In the documentations I've seen, the state/church (they really were essentially the same thing, let's be honest) claimed that he was misinterpreting. This is far from an empirical fact... yet many consider Muhammad's claims to be empirical as well (and interestingly both groups killed each other a lot back then). But anyhow, what we do know for sure is that Tyndale had a different doctrine that disagreed with the Church, undermining their owe and trying to place it in "layman's" hands as did Luther.
No, no I really don't see any good excuse to burn people out otherwise execute them over belief issues. Not okay for Muslims, not okay for Catholics, not okay for ANYBODY.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

NightBlade:

In the documentations I've seen, the state/church (they really were essentially the same thing, let's be honest) claimed that he was misinterpreting.

Are you talking about Tyndale here? And what do you mean by misinterpret? Do you mean mistranslate? Sorry, I just found your last post a little confusing. If you are talking about Tyndale, I would say that he misinterpreted the Bible, and he also mistranslated it--which would, I think, be a very easy thing to do if you're translating mostly on your own. In my opinion it seems more likely the Bishops of London were correct rather than Tyndale. And anyhow, even if it wasn't mistranslated, another reason the Church didn't like it was for it's anti-Catholic prologue and notes.

But anyhow, what we do know for sure is that Tyndale had a different doctrine that disagreed with the Church, undermining their owe and trying to place it in "layman's" hands as did Luther.

Yes, he and Luther believed different doctrines from the Catholic Church, and they also would have believed different doctrines from one another. This is based on what I believe was an erroneous interpretation of Scripture, (such as the belief of sola Scriptura), and because of these erroneous views they also had the wrong idea of what the "Church" was. You probably disagree, but that can be discussed if you wish.

I wasn't saying that burning people was good. All I was saying is that you can see why they did it. I mean, many states of America still have capitol punishment, and if the Church viewed killing souls as worse than murder then it's understandable.

[NightBlade]

Yes, that is who I was talking about. But actually I think it applies for both come to think of it. And yes mistranslate, meaning he made mistakes, which I have no reason to believe he did other than the clergy's claims. But I'm not attacking your beliefs, if that's what you believe. I suppose that accounts for our different denominations.

I believe strongly in Sola Scriptura, keeping in mind that there are other suboordinate governances beside it such as parental and other authorities. I also really like not having to go to purgatory or having to buy my grandma out of it. But I am used to having a lot of friends who believe a lot of different things so it doesn't bother me anymore.

I kiiiind of see why. Except in the light that it was absolutely horrible and is literally comparable to Muslims killing people on accounts of belief or "heresy".

[CNGoodhue]

For another topic:

How do you guys feel about the Apostles' Creed? I know that some people are anti-creedal, but I think that the Apostles' Creed is a good thing. It sorta creates a symmetry/foundation for what we believe; it's a summary. I was reading up on it, getting some answers on some of the controversial things ("holy catholic church", "Jesus descended to He11"). Turns out when the creed says "catholic" it doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church, it refers to Christendom universally. And "Jesus descended to He11" - www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-Heck.html

Really interesting stuff.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

NightBlade :

Yes, that is who I was talking about. But actually I think it applies for both come to think of it. And yes mistranslate, meaning he made mistakes, which I have no reason to believe he did other than the clergy's claims. But I'm not attacking your beliefs, if that's what you believe. I suppose that accounts for our different denominations.

So do you think that the London Bishops were mistaken? And I want to make it clear that I'm not attacking what you believe either. I fully believe you are a Christian.

I believe strongly in Sola Scriptura, keeping in mind that there are other suboordinate governances beside it such as parental and other authorities. I also really like not having to go to purgatory or having to buy my grandma out of it. But I am used to having a lot of friends who believe a lot of different things so it doesn't bother me anymore.

Can you show me anywhere in the Scripture alone where it teaches sola Scriptura? As for Purgatory: "I also really like not having to go to purgatory or having to buy my grandma out of it." Haha, I firmly believe Purgatory is taught in the Bible, but the whole difference between Protestant and Catholic soteriology is behind my understanding of it. But I would rather not have to go to Purgatory either. Not sure if there's much chance of it, but hopefully I won't have to. xD

I kiiiind of see why. Except in the light that it was absolutely horrible and is literally comparable to Muslims killing people on accounts of belief or "heresy".

I can see your point of view too there, and again, I wish that they hadn't been killed, I don't agree with it.


CNGoodhue:

For another topic:

How do you guys feel about the Apostles' Creed? I know that some people are anti-creedal, but I think that the Apostles' Creed is a good thing. It sorta creates a symmetry/foundation for what we believe; it's a summary. I was reading up on it, getting some answers on some of the controversial things ("holy catholic church", "Jesus descended to He11"). Turns out when the creed says "catholic" it doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church, it refers to Christendom universally. And "Jesus descended to He11" - www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-Heck.html

Really interesting stuff.

We say either the Apostles' or Nicene Creed at Mass each Sunday. I also think it's a good thing and is something to be able to show people so we can clearly say "this is what we believe as Christians." As for the word "catholic" it is referring to the universal Church, but at that point in history, every Christian *was* Roman Catholic.
I agree with you on Jesus descending into He11, which was actually Sheol. And it is indeed interesting stuff.

[NightBlade]

I just think they were making claims against Tyndale because they were angry and wanted rid of him. The way I saw the church and state in history, they were doing whatever it took to keep power. Not anymore of course, and not originally at its institution, but for quite some time during the period of excommunication and the false Donation of Constantine and stuff like that.

I think that the Bible is supreme because it is our one true, physical, inspired piece of God's word (canon disputes aside) and I don't see any compelling reason why anything else (such as the idea of apostolic succession) should have more authority.
And I can't find anything in Scripture that convinces me that my friends are sitting in purgatory waiting for their sins that Jesus already forgave, or for somebody to pay the Catholic church to get them out.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Hmm, okay. I would agree that some Popes and bishops of the Church haven't always acted in the way they should, and really, I haven't seen Tyndale's Bible for myself or read anything really in depth on it so I'll leave it at that. What exactly do you mean by the period of excommunication? As for the Donation of Constantine, yes, it was a forgery, although not necessarily one written by Rome--and even if it was, I don't see it having any bearing on whether or not the Catholic Church is true or false. Actually, talking to you has been great, because you seem to me someone who has looked somewhat into the history of the mediaeval-ish Catholic Church (you may not be understanding it all correctly, but hey ) and have brought up some good issues, some of which have forced me to do a little bit of research, which is always a good thing. It's been good.

You say that the Bible is the one true, physical, inspired piece of God's Word. Now, going by sola Scriptura can you show me anywhere where the Bible teaches it is the one true, physical, inspired piece of God's Word? I agree with you that it is inspired, but what I'm wondering is, can you show me how you know that going by the principle of Scripture Alone? I actually think the Bible teaches that it is not the only authority.
As Catholics, we believe that our sole authority is God's Word. However we don't believe that God's Word is limited only to Scripture. The Bible is a huge part of it, but not all--and again, I believe the Bible itself teaches that. Also, we don't believe that the bishops and Popes of apostolic succesion are above or equal to the Word of God. They are the Guardians of the deposit of Faith (2Tim. 1:13-14) but are not above or equal to it. (I also believe apostolic succession is taught in the Bible )
And lastly, you seem to have a common misunderstanding about Purgatory. Those who are in Purgatory already have their sins forgiven by Jesus, as you said--however, there still remains the temporal punishment for sin. This is a suffering that purifies them ready to enter Heaven. Just a real quick Biblical example of this is the example of David. When David committed the sins of adultery and murder, after he repented when Nathan came to him, God immediately forgave him of his sin. And this is what happens to us when we come to Christ and ask forgiveness--we are immediately forgiven. However, there still remains the temporal punishment for sin which helps to purify us and make us better Christians more ready for Heaven. In David's case, even after he repented, he was still punished by having his baby, after it was born, die. So basically, even after we are forgiven, there still remains some sort of punishment that God uses--and this punishment often involves suffering because suffering is something that can purify us. (Heb. 12:6, Rom. 5:3-4)

[NightBlade]

Jan 16, 2016 8:10:46 GMT Aviar Goldeneagle said:

Hmm, okay. I would agree that some Popes and bishops of the Church haven't always acted in the way they should, and really, I haven't seen Tyndale's Bible for myself or read anything really in depth on it so I'll leave it at that. What exactly do you mean by the period of excommunication? As for the Donation of Constantine, yes, it was a forgery, although not necessarily one written by Rome--and even if it was, I don't see it having any bearing on whether or not the Catholic Church is true or false. Actually, talking to you has been great, because you seem to me someone who has looked somewhat into the history of the mediaeval-ish Catholic Church (you may not be understanding it all correctly, but hey ) and have brought up some good issues, some of which have forced me to do a little bit of research, which is always a good thing. It's been good.

You say that the Bible is the one true, physical, inspired piece of God's Word. Now, going by sola Scriptura can you show me anywhere where the Bible teaches it is the one true, physical, inspired piece of God's Word? I agree with you that it is inspired, but what I'm wondering is, can you show me how you know that going by the principle of Scripture Alone? I actually think the Bible teaches that it is not the only authority.
As Catholics, we believe that our sole authority is God's Word. However we don't believe that God's Word is limited only to Scripture. The Bible is a huge part of it, but not all--and again, I believe the Bible itself teaches that. Also, we don't believe that the bishops and Popes of apostolic succesion are above or equal to the Word of God. They are the Guardians of the deposit of Faith (2Tim. 1:13-14) but are not above or equal to it. (I also believe apostolic succession is taught in the Bible )
And lastly, you seem to have a common misunderstanding about Purgatory. Those who are in Purgatory already have their sins forgiven by Jesus, as you said--however, there still remains the temporal punishment for sin. This is a suffering that purifies them ready to enter Heaven. Just a real quick Biblical example of this is the example of David. When David committed the sins of adultery and murder, after he repented when Nathan came to him, God immediately forgave him of his sin. And this is what happens to us when we come to Christ and ask forgiveness--we are immediately forgiven. However, there still remains the temporal punishment for sin which helps to purify us and make us better Christians more ready for Heaven. In David's case, even after he repented, he was still punished by having his baby, after it was born, die. So basically, even after we are forgiven, there still remains some sort of punishment that God uses--and this punishment often involves suffering because suffering is something that can purify us. (Heb. 12:6, Rom. 5:3-4)

(I'm using the quote tool cuz I can't see the post when I reply on my phone)

Yeah I'm not criticizing Catholicism, its just a different belief than mine. I am however open to what I believe was a pretty awful period of tyranny back in history. And it's understandable that we view that time of history differently. You from a Catholic standpoint, and I from a (mostly) Protestant standpoint.

Well that being said, I do believe that God instated churches and other state authorities to be in place and that He often works His will through them. (I can get verses later Im heading out right now) However, its just that I believe that the Bible canon as I know it is the supreme legislation and I don't really buy the other canons such as the Apocrypha.
I see your example, but that makes the point from my belief that we still have to pay for some (not all) of our sins here in earth, if God deems it necessary orto teach us or expedient to His plan. However, I don't see anything in Scripture that says we are suspended by our sins before we can go to heaven.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Haha, yes we view it differently, although definitely there have been guys in the Catholic Church who have not been good people. But again, I don't see any evidence that they ever officially taught anything wrong, even if some people in the Church didn't act in good ways.

I agree with what you said about churches and state authorities, but I'm wondering again--how do you know that all the books in the Bible are part of the inspired canon? What makes you see the deuterocanonicals as not being Scripture? Where does the Bible tell you that it is the supreme legislation? Because if it doesn't, then you must be appealing to something *outside* of the Bible--and thus something that in your view is not God's Word.
Well the principle is the main thing that I was trying to show--that the temporal punishment of sin is not contrary to Scripture. And again, the sins themselves have all been forgiven. All God's doing is preparing us to enter Heaven, because nothing unclean can enter it and we usually still have that sinful nature and tendency to sin still with us when we die.

[NightBlade]

I'll admit that I don't know its teachings (I know a good bit and I believe differently) as well as I know their history. But if you're not proud of that history then I'll readily believe that your Catholic church is better than those of the past.

Glad you asked cuz we are studying that this semester. The canonical scriptures as I know them are the most historically well documented and preserved texts. I'm sure you could find sources that say otherwise but I encourage you to look into it.
Verses that deal with the divine inspiration of Scripture include 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21, and its continued relevance is shown in Matthew 5:18.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Yeah, I'm not proud of what some Popes and Bishops in the Catholic Church have done, but in the whole history of the Catholic Church, those moments that I'm not proud of are pretty small compared to all the great moments. . The Church has always had people in it who don't act well, and it's always had people that are Saints--and I guess it's always going to be like that. But yeah, there have been a few pretty horrific Popes for example.

I've also done a lot of research into this issue, haha, it's very interesting. What would be your main reason for not including the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha in the canon? They have been included in the canon since it was first decided at the early councils.

Alright, I agree with you that those verses do talk about the inspiration of Scripture, but I guess I should ask you, how do you know that those verses themselves are inspired? How do you know that the books are part of the canon? The Book of Mormon also claims divine inspiration for itself--but we know it's not. Is the canon decided by what texts are most historically well documented and preserved? Also, another thing, none of those verses say that the Bible is the *only* inspired Word of God. Instead, there are passages which teach that the Apostles oral tradition and teaching were inspired and the Word of God as well, not just what they wrote down. Such as 2Thes. 2:15 and 1Thes. 2:13,

[NightBlade]

New discussion:
Does every believer have the privilege of approaching God in prayer through Jesus and without the aid of a human mediator?