Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Where's the credibility?


mulls

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 11 2004, 08:00 PM'] first what's POTS or POTE?  second: there are those who believe in OSAS, just because it's not your branch doesn't mean we can't refer to people who do believe OSAS.  there ARE such people out there.  maybe they're not "Reformed Protestants" but they are Protestants [/quote]
You're misunderstanding me

POTS = Perseverance of the Saints
POTE = Perseverance of the Elect

They both refer to the same thing. In essence, it is a much more precise way of saying "Once Saved, Always Saved". OSAS is an INCORRECT and inflammatory way of describing the classical Augustinian/Calvinist doctrine of perserverance.

The true Reformed doctrine of perseverance is NOT "Say a sinners prayer and youre saved". It is that nothing can separate those whom the Father draws from His love. Properly understood, it does not give license to sin, but rather, makes the redeemed know that they are restored to the divine image of God, and His Sons, and as such, ought to live in a way that is pleasing to their Father.

Edited by ICTHUS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually my 'branch' doesn't hold to it. I am an Anglican - we believe that orthodoxy is determined by adherance to the three creeds and Ecumenical Councils of the Church (at least, the ones that were truly ecumenical - after Nicea II there were none because the EO were not there) Anglicanism permits room for everything from Calvinism to Arminianism to Romanist soteriology.

[quote]who hold to OSAS.  they are all errors, different kinds of errors. [/quote] The Marian dogmas are all errors, different kinds of errors. Now that the insults are over, can we get to the substantiative issues, please?

[quote]perhaps you should join with us in arguing against OSAS then.[/quote] No, you fail to understand my point: I BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU WOULD CALL OSAS, but I refuse to express it that way (and neither should you, because it is wrong), because it does not entail the idea that perseverance is necessary, nor that Election is a Biblical fact.

Edited by ICTHUS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justified Saint

[quote]OSAS is an INCORRECT and inflammatory way of describing the classical Augustinian/Calvinist doctrine of perserverance. [/quote]

Your hypocrisy shows - you yourself employ the most infammatory and uncharitable labels on Catholics. And how do you justify that? You don't, you are a contradiction in terms. Besides, I am only using the language that your Protestant brethren use.

[quote]The Marian dogmas are all errors, different kinds of errors.[/quote]

Although your beloved Reformes didn't think so.

Edited by Justified Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 11 2004, 08:18 PM'] i call OSAS say the siners prayer and you're saved, even if years later you don't even believe anymore. and there are people who believe that. [/quote]
Okay..I understand, [i]if you use that narrow definition for the term "OSAS"[/i].

But I would appreciate it if you would refer to my beliefs about perseverance as either "eternal security" or POTE/POTS, because that is the technical term for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

homeschoolmom

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 12 2004, 08:40 AM'] Okay..I understand, [i]if you use that narrow definition for the term "OSAS"[/i].

But I would appreciate it if you would refer to my beliefs about perseverance as either "eternal security" or POTE/POTS, because that is the technical term for it. [/quote]
Then, likewise, would you please stop refering to us as Romanist and Papists... It's deragatory... and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Your hypocrisy shows - you yourself employ the most infammatory and uncharitable labels on Catholics.  And how do you justify that?  You don't, you are a contradiction in terms. [/quote] I only use such language after having been insulted by such as yourself and Ironmonk, as well as others.

[quote]Besides, I am only using the language that your Protestant brethren use. [/quote] You use the language that misguided Christians who misunderstand eternal security use. If you want to have an intelligent discussion with me on eternal security, I suggest you use the proper, Reformed terminology.

Edited by ICTHUS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 12 2004, 09:19 AM'] Then, likewise, would you please stop refering to us as Romanist and Papists... It's deragatory... and you know it. [/quote]
I try, HSMom, I really do. But it's incredibly difficult when there are arrogant, self-righteous geniuses like JS and IronMonk prowling about with the expressed purpose of trying my temper with their anti-Protestant garbage.

Edited by ICTHUS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no 'heat of the moment' on a message board. You have all the time you need to take deep breaths, type your response, view the preview, take a few more deep breaths, edit it, and then post it.

I do it all the time on anti-Catholic boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 12 2004, 12:28 PM'] I do it all the time on anti-Catholic boards. [/quote]
Point taken. However, "Protestant" /=/ "anti-Roman Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I operate under the same definition of anti-Catholic as Dave Armstrong put forth: Anti-Catholics deny that Catholicism is Christian.

My faith is not named Roman Catholicism, nor my Church Roman Catholic. My name is Benedict. Just as I should be addressed by my name regardless of whether one considers me a blessing or not, so too should the Catholic Church be addressed by Her name, devoid of qualifiers, regardless of whether one agrees or not with Her catholicity.

Edited by Benedict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hyperdulia again

Icthus, did you leave civility and appropriateness when you left the Church of Christ?

Mulls, Eulogies are against Church law. You, your family, and your step-grandfather have my prayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justified Saint

[quote]I only use such language after having been insulted by such as yourself and Ironmonk, as well as others.[/quote]

Here again you are dishonest. You are the author of threads and therein you begin by employing the most vituperative and vulgar of labels. All in the spirit of Calvin of Luther I suspect.

[quote]You use the language that misguided Christians who misunderstand eternal security use. If you want to have an intelligent discussion with me on eternal security, I suggest you use the proper, Reformed terminology. [/quote]

On what basis, by what right do you ask this? You except "proper, Reformed terminogloy" when you deride and mock every Catholic here with the most uncharitable labels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Armstrong on the Reformed Protestant use of "Romanist", "Papist", and the insistance on terming the Church "Roman" Catholic:

[quote]I think proper, accepted terminology is very important. People have a perfect right to be called whatever they want to be called. This is understood in our humdrum daily lives, where we will ask a stranger what their name is, how to pronounce their name (if necessary), etc. We would never think of deliberately calling them names which are offensive to them (unless we are self-centered bigots).

Yet in religious matters, all of this is too often reversed. Not only are folks called names that they object to (and have for sometimes hundreds of years), but the people who do it try to justify it on absurd grounds. Examples of this are the derogatory, pejorative terms for Catholics, such as papist and Romanist.

I've never heard a Methodist object to that name. Often, Calvinists like "Reformed" better as a title, but I've never really heard one object to being called a Calvinist (and that word is used in many many of their own books). There are commonly accepted terms for groups, and they ought to be used. It is simple courtesy and charity.

We may call people a sort of alternate nickname (I do it myself) -- and this may be in a critical sense, or with an "edge" to it -- but it is important to note that such a nickname is not understood as their primary name or the one they themselves prefer to be called. Such alternate titles or nicknames shouldn't be routinely applied to large, historically and sociologically significant groups. Everyone knows what their real titles are. And that's the whole point about titles: they are based on common, accepted usage (much like dictionary definitions of words which are ultimately dependent on real-life usage.

It's true that sometimes we can legitimately war against a title, because a principle is at stake. Hence, I refuse to acknowledge the terms Enlightenment or the abuse of the term Dark Ages (when it includes even the late Middle Ages) because those are prejudiced, deliberately hostile terms which arose from secularist, anti-Christian schools of thought. I vigorously deny that the so-called Enlightenment was some great advance of civilization. It was quite the contrary.

But the terms Catholic or Reformed or Lutheran or Methodist are not such that they can be overthrown by the whim of personal opinion. I deny that Reformed are truly "reformed" from my perspective (which has to do with how Catholics define reform from within their own paradigm and ecclesiology -- the term is already inherently weighted against Catholic Tradition), but I accept the title because a title is a title. For that matter, I deny that Jewish Orthodox are orthodox (which means "correct belief"). But I use the term because that is what they call themselves.

Likewise, some Protestants may resent calling us Catholics because to them this implies that other Christians aren't "catholic" (in the sense of the Nicene Creed); yet this is our chosen title. We believe that our Church is uniquely universal, just as you believe that yours is truly, uiniquely "reformed" -- even over against Arminian fellow Protestants -- (whereas ours is supposedly not, in fundamental ways). Both schools claim unique characteristics for themselves which exclude others in some sense.

It's unavoidable. We all have beliefs, and someone else is bound to be excluded (or offended) by them. A different belief-system shouldn't, however, be immediately offensive (unless it involves hatred or some other sin). On the other hand, deliberate use of offensive terminology (based on the stated preference of a group so-called) is a different story. It is far more a matter of respect and politeness and diplomacy than of theology.

The use of terms like Romanist, papist, and (to a somewhat lesser extent), papalist, and the deliberate refusal to use the commonly-accepted and preferred Catholic, or to always (and for a particular polemical purpose) qualify it with the preceding "Roman" (which actually excludes some 21 non-Latin rites in the Church, and was originally derived from polemical Anglican usage in the 16th century -- in the attempt to be "catholic" without the pope) is, therefore, a condescending, uncharitable, impolite act, which offends the great majority of Catholics.

Why is it that Catholics are so often singled out by being referred to in ways that we have repeatedly objected to? To me, that is a dead giveaway that prejudice and some sort of strong hostility is in play, either consciously or unconsciously. No doubt many people do this out of force of habit, since it has been going on so long in their circles. But that makes it no less obnoxious for those of us who have to put up with this unnecessary, childish, and rather silly annoyance.[/quote]

[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_socrates58_archive.html#110098196591895359"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_...098196591895359[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Dec 10 2004, 06:31 PM']Which makes me wonder, is there time in the afterlife?[/quote]
From what i've heard:in a sense, yes there is. time, for a temporal being is an irreversible state of change. We *do* change in purgatory, therefore, we are 'within time.'

Once we reach heaven or hell, however, we become immutable. Time ceases to have any relevant meaning when we can no longer change. Therefore, there is no time in heaven or hell.

****disclaimer**** i'm not certain that this is official Church teaching, but i heard it from a reliable source and it seems to make sense. Take it with a grain of salt, though.

Peace,
Joe :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...