Fut:  I like your, "Futbol wouldn't have the courage..."  with this statment, you live me very little wiggle room.  If I don't admit to this, deny it, etc, I am a coward, (I know, not literally.  I know I am not debating Leon or Syrius).  If I do admit to it, then I am admitting that the RCC is wrong, right? 

I said I was gambling.  Any wiggle room is fair, right?  Even your 1%, remember?  >;) 

I'm telling you to bring it.

Fut:  I am unsure how much you know about the RCC, but I do not, ever have or ever will, or know of any Roman Catholic that believes in Predestination.  Free Will all the way baby.

Then you are a full-blown Pelagian and not an Augustinian. 

Fut:  St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both known as Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church and devout defenders of our Faith.  Both considered and actually are/were geniuses beyond Theology.  But these two Catholic Saints are considered Doctors of the Church.  Unsure how they wouldn't be supporting RCC. 

I'm waiting for your proof that they in fact, are.   You're even welcome to bring in a substitute debater if you wish. 

Fut:  Unsure what you mean by your #3, but the debate is welcome. 

The statements do not chain together logically from sentence-to-sentence and subject-to-subject.  See parenthetical questions for clarification(s). 

Fut:  By the way, what religion do you practice.(?)

I'm a Reformed Augustinian Monergist.  Everyone seems to forget that. 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Fut:  You asserted that the RCC is Pelagian.  I 100% challange you on this.

o_O < ???

:rolleyes: 

Um. . .Fut?

Fut:  Before this debate can continue, you need to prove that the RCC is Pelagian in its believes of free will and Original Sin (which are tied together in this debate).

Futbol, I already DID that.  I have been waiting for you this whole time to read the links I provided and to catch up.

Fut:  You made the above assertion without showing, proving, linking to teachings, Dogmas, Doctrines of the Church on this matter that show how the RCC is Pelagian.

:tapping fingernails:

Look dude, I totally did!  See above.  Even you yourself said you would read it even though it was written by a Calvinist.  What's going on here, man?!?? 

Fut:  1)  does the RCC not teach that we are all born with Original Sin?  Yes.  Open the Roman Catholic Catechism, it is one of the first things that it teaches.  We are all born with Original Sin, we inherit the Sin of Adam and Eve.  This is 100% aligned with St. Augustine.  Not even close to being Pelagian and not even Semi-Pelagian.  This don't jive with your assertion above, right?

Keep going.  I asked you later on in the debate if you agreed 100% with Augustine, and you subsequently stated that you did.  Then you went off about necessary_sacraments and works to guarantee heaven.  This is in opposition to Augustine's writings on both merit and assurance.

Quote: [Futbol:  One last thing, being a Roman Catholic, Baptized and all doesn't guarentee you Heaven and salvation.  We must work at it.]   

From my link:  "Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanity’s utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all."

Thus, it is not 100% Augustine.  I'm sorry.  I cannot give you even 1% wiggle room on this here.  If you are even partially dependent on merits, sacraments, or anything else that you do according to your free will to please God, then it is in some measure Pelagian.  Maybe it's not full-blown 100% Pelagian, but neither is it 100% Augustinian either.  Sure, you can have free will all you want.  It's just not any will to please God.  Dead works.  Why do you think Jesus debated the Pharisees to begin with?  Dead works.     

Again, from the same link I cited: 

This is precisely what was at issue in the battle between Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth century. Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean? It helps, it makes it more facile, it makes it easier, but you don’t have to have it. You can be perfect without it. Pelagius further stated that it is not only theoretically possible for some folks to live a perfect life without any assistance from divine grace, but there are in fact people who do it. Augustine said, “No, no, no, no . . . we are infected by sin by nature, to the very depths and core of our being — so much so that no human being has the moral power to incline himself to cooperate with the grace of God. The human will, as a result of original sin, still has the power to choose, but it is in bondage to its evil desires and inclinations. The condition of fallen humanity is one that Augustine would describe as the inability to not sin. In simple English, what Augustine was saying is that in the Fall, man loses his moral ability to do the things of God and he is held captive by his own evil inclinations.

Thus, we have free will, but no free will to do anything truly good that will please God.  All our righteousness is as the filthiest of rags for the dirtiest job.  There is none that truly seeks after God.  No, not one.  You can do-do-do all of these verbs, and still you have no ability in and of yourself to truly please God.  Yes, Adam's fall affected all of us, but in what way?

Our capacity for righteousness and goodness died in the garden.  That was the promise of certain death, that was immediately fulfilled within our souls, and our flesh eventually goes with it after a mere handful of decades.  That is the true nature of Adam's sin.  We are all infected with it and 100% incapable of doing anything to help ourselves out.

Futbol, do you believe grace facilitates righteousness?  You appear to believe that with baptism?  How does that ceremonial act make it easier to do good, when it is impossible to do good to begin with?   

Fut:  I will be honest.  I will not accept someone elses interpretation of RCC teachings, Dogmas, Doctrines, etc.  I want specifics directly from Vatican II, Cannon laws, etc, etc that show the Pelagian leaning of the RCC.  What specific Dogmas, Doctrines, are these which you speak of?  Where can I find them? 

I was referring to Augustine's debate with Pelagius.  I began with a commentary, and we can both link directly to it word-for-word.  I am also willing to go from the summary straight to the relevant quotes, but you need to have something to disagree with first.  You need to find an error first Futbol, and bring it to me. 

Don't forget that you yourself agreed that you had the responsibility to refute Sproul's writings. 

Quote:  yes, it does fall upon me to point out where Calvin, Sproul, and you are wrong when it comes to the Church, St. Augustine, etc.  But it also falls upon you guys to show where we are wrong...which you have done by pointing to your links. 

So....the ball is in my court now, right?

YES.  The ball is still in your court, and I hate to say it. . .but right now you're pretty much stalling. 

Fut:  Anyways, I am sorry that I may have disappointed you, but I told you.  It is much easier for me to defend my Conservative political views and believes than my Roman Catholic views and believes.  I feel like I have to apologize some how since you expected a better challange.  Sorry.  :( 

Like I have stated before, it's not completely incumbent upon you.  You're supposed to have all the resources of the RCC behind you.  Right? 

Where are your siblings?  Where is your priest(s) or a seminary professor?  This is where you are in your greatest hour of need and the church should be there to squash me!  Where in heaven or hell is your backup?!??

Fut:  I will be honest.  I will not accept someone elses interpretation of RCC teachings, Dogmas, Doctrines, etc.  I want specifics directly from Vatican II, Cannon laws, etc, etc that show the Pelagian leaning of the RCC.  What specific Dogmas, Doctrines, are these which you speak of?  Where can I find them? 

I have stated all along that I am not here for your church.  I am here to take Augustine from you.  That's all.  Get it?  

And if you leave Mary alone, I get to carry her off as well. 

You are now in check.  Concede?

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

My link clearly states the RCC condemned Pelagianism several times during history.  But the point Sproul makes is that it drifted back to a synergism of faith and works theology in the 16th century.

The RCC isn't going to straight up say they practice Pelagianism, will they?  But it is evident in the very works that you yourself have stated.  See above.

From your first link:  

Unable to admit the absolute gratuitousness of predestination, [the semipelagians under Cassian]  sought a middle course between Augustine and Pelagius, and maintained that grace must be given to those who merit it and denied to others; hence goodwill has the precedence, it desires, it asks, and God rewards. Informed of their views by Prosper of Aquitaine, the holy Doctor once more expounded, in "De Prædestinatione Sanctorum," how even these first desires for salvation are due to the grace of God, which therefore absolutely controls our predestination.

The items in bold are examples of compromise.  You yourself have elevated baptism and "we must work for it" to that same level of compromise. 

I'm reading the second link, but so far all I have is one giant "just so" statement that presumes to speak for Augustine, and does not use his actual words.  If I don't have you on free will (which in fact, I totally do), I absolutely have you on predestination.  In which case, the Protestants are more than happy to let Augustine do the talking for himself, instead of this. 

Nonetheless, I am willing to field each accusation of Protastant contradiction one-by-one.  But you Futbol, had originally volunteered to point it out.  They say the reformers exploited and perverted his writings.

"It is not, as theologians very wisely remark, that the will cannot accomplish that act of natural virtue, but it is a fact that without this providential benefit it would not. Many misunderstandings have arisen because this principle has not been comprehended, and in particular the great medieval theology, which adopted it and made it the basis of its system of liberty, has not been justly appreciated. But many have been afraid of these affirmations which are so sweeping, because they have not grasped the nature of God's gift, which leaves freedom intact. The fact has been too much lost sight of that Augustine distinguishes very explicitly two orders of grace: the grace of natural virtues (the simple gift of Providence, which prepares efficacious motives for the will); and grace for salutary and supernatural acts, given with the first preludes of faith. The latter is the grace of the sons, gratia fliorum; the former is the grace of all men, a grace which even strangers and infidels (filii concubinarum, as St. Augustine says) can receive (De Patientiâ, xxvii, n. 28). 

Sparse quotes.   No direct citations.  Very dodgy and I may say liberal in it's doublespeak.  In so many words, they are saying as the Nanny Staters do, "It's too complicated for you to understand.  Just let us handle it for you.  Nothing to worry about here."

In fact, they don't even appear to understand what they are themselves interpreting.

"not but what it does not depend on the free choice of the will to embrace the faith or reject it, but in the elect this will is prepared by God"

The elect?  But that's predestination! 

Augustine protests: this absolute equilibrium existed in Adam; it was destroyed after original sin; the will has to struggle and react against an inclination to evil, but it remains mistress of its choice (Opus imperfectum contra Julianum, III, cxvii). Thus, when he says that we have lost freedom in consequence of the sin of Adam, he is careful to explain that this lost freedom is not the liberty of choosing between good and evil, because without it we could not help sinning, but the perfect liberty which was calm and without struggle, and which was enjoyed by Adam in virtue of his original integrity.

Yet that explanation itself is conspicuously missing!  Augustine is using a sinful metaphor here.  We need to see the quote verbatum here. 

Note also in this very quote the clear admission of Augustine that the equilibrium in Adam was destroyed. . .but then the Catholic encyclopedia here magically regenerates it at the end as if it was always there to begin with.

The long and the short of it is if we had the liberty to not sin, we could please God without Christ's sacrificial atonement on the cross.  Almost as if to say that in the garden we did not surely die, but were rather crippled.  Yet still able to work merit to achieve our place in Eden again. 

God is not the author of confusion.  Though this encyclopedia is doing it's best to take that title. 

Here are the main lines of this theory: The will never decides without a motive, without the attraction of some good which it perceives in the object. Now, although the will may be free in presence of every motive, still, as a matter of fact it takes different resolutions according to the different motives presented to it. In that is the whole secret of the influence exercised, for instance, by eloquence (the orator can do no more than present motives), by meditation, or by good reading. What a power over the will would not a man possess who could, at his own pleasure, at any moment, and in the most striking manner, present this or the other motive of action? - But such is God's privilege. St. Augustine has remarked that man is not the master of his first thoughts; he can exert an influence on the course of his reflections, but he himself cannot determine the objects, the images, and, consequently, the motives which present themselves to his mind. Now, as chance is only a word, it is God who determines at His pleasure these first perceptions of men, either by the prepared providential action of exterior causes, or interiorly by a Divine illumination given to the soul.

Note that the foundational premise of this argument is that the will never decides without a good motive.  But did Augustine say that?  Or is this an attempt to force a resolution to a conflict that ultimately condemns us?  Towards the end of the same passage above, God Himself is saddled with the seed of all humanity's thoughts and motives.

But what about self-motive?  What about motives that don't include God?  This passage above would even go so far as to blame God for the first perception David had with Bathsheba!  What about Romans 1?  Can God be blamed for man's rebellion?

God forbid!   

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Fut:  He talks a lot about Evangelicals.  Also about the history of the original fight between Pelagian vs. St. Augustine, but once again, at no moment does he point out the Dogmas, Doctrines, Theology of the RCC that are Pelagian.

He doesn't have to, since it's pretty obvious you've been stating them all along.  He's not pointing out the official Dogmas, Doctrines, or Theology of the Evangelical church that are Pelagian either!   However, he DOES point to those responsible for those beliefs in history.

Listen, the link was only meant as a springboard.  And you yourself are clearly demonstrating  the Dogmas, Doctrines, and Theology of the RCC that are Pelagian by your own admission.   

Fut:  I am unsure if you missed this from RC Sproul. The Captivity of the Church, "If Martin Luther lived today and picked up his pen to write, the book he would write in our time would be entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church."  It is obvious he is NOT taking about the Roman Catholic Church. 

You cherry-picked without regard to the greater context and here's why.  Sproul is pointing the finger at all of us here, Fut. 

God forbid the Southern Baptists return to their theological roots.  God forbid the RCC return to its theological roots.  No, they simply continue to "evolve" to. . .what?  Where are they going with their combination of both merit and (mystified) grace? 

Fut:  Here is another statement which make it clear he is talking about Evangelicals, NOT the RCC, "“If God takes a thousand steps to reach out to you for your redemption, still in the final analysis, you must take the decisive step to be saved.” Consider the statement that has been made by America’s most beloved and leading evangelical of the twentieth century, Billy Graham, who says with great passion, “God does ninety-nine percent of it but you still must do that last one percent.”

This also applies to the Catholic encyclopedia quote I made above.  It also applies to your statements.  It doesn't matter if the Evangelicals or the Catholic are saying it.  The "decisive step" there, or your "will to choose" is all wrong no matter what church it comes out of.  Get it?  Hence, not anti-Catholic, but anti-Pelagian.  Get it?    

Fut:  here the Church, once again agrees with St. Augustine, God does ask from us, and God gives us the grace to do what He asks of us.  I do not see how this is is different from RCC Theology. 

It does agree with Augustine, but only to a point.  See below. 

Fut:  I dont' even see Pelagian's point.  God knows that we can do His will, because He will give us the grace to do His Will.  Whether we accept this grace or not to do His will, it is our Free Will. 

Stack it up Futbol.  Give me A, then B, then C.  Line it up for you and me.  Where does the grace, then the acceptance, then the will come into play?  Let me demonstrate my side to start, okay?

A. Man is fallen and he can't get up.  =)  He is in fact not just ill, but completely dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1-3, look it up).  This is the doctrine of original sin.

B. Next, God (through His sovereign will) elects the fallen individual from before and beyond time, and regenerates his heart to recognize that there is sin, there is a holy God, and that he is in trouble without grace.  This is the doctrine of predestination.  

C. The choice of salvation is then made by the one regenerated by the Holy Spirit.  Thus 100% of the credit goes to God alone.  Even the motive to choose is 100% to God's glory alone.  So then the choice is made in total trust and faith on the part of the man.  

D. The truly regenerate man will then choose further to please God, and then begin the path of sanctification.  His will is then at this point (point D.) truly free to choose good or evil.  He was completely unable to choose any good at point A.

E. The process of sanctification, along with the crucifixion of the flesh, self-desire, worldliness, and its lusts, will continually chip away at the old man of death, and will subsequently lead to his glorification.   Thus we can cast our crowns before the throne with all honesty; holding no merit back for ourselves.

There, now you do yours.  Yours is a doctrine of merit.  Some glory goes to you. 

Fut:  Is this not what St. Augustine said too?  Yes.  My statement is very much in line with St. Augustine, which is very much in line with RCC teachings. 

Read the entire link you were citing to begin with.  

We do not have the power to "accept" as you say.  In all your posts, you are leaving a smidge of room for man to "accept His grace."  That acceptance is the will to choose.  That will to choose is a merit.  That is semi-Pelagian. 

Fut:  St. Augustine in His prayer was asking God to command him to do His will, but at the same time to give him the power (grace) to do His will, right?  This is EXACTLY what the Church teaches. 

St. AA:  "O God, command what you wouldst, and grant what thou dost command.”

Sproul:  If God is just, if God is righteous and God is holy, and God commands of the creature to do something, certainly that creature must have the power within himself, the moral ability within himself, to perform it or God would never require it in the first place.” Now that makes sense, doesn’t it? What Pelagius was saying is that moral responsibility always and everywhere implies moral capability or, simply, moral ability.

Your Catholic encyclopedia cleverly slid that very same ability into the mix in the quote that I pasted above.  Remember?  The motive is a good thing.  And further it came from God. 

Here are the main lines of this theory: The will never decides without a motive, without the attraction of some good which it perceives in the object. Now, although the will may be free in presence of every motive, still, as a matter of fact it takes different resolutions according to the different motives presented to it. In that is the whole secret of the influence exercised, for instance, by eloquence (the orator can do no more than present motives), by meditation, or by good reading. What a power over the will would not a man possess who could, at his own pleasure, at any moment, and in the most striking manner, present this or the other motive of action?

Thus according to the Catholic encyclopedia, the motive for the human will must be good (or of God).  This is the very nature of Pelagius' dispute with Augustine.  The RCC interpretation of free will is given to all (including the reprobate), and that will is somehow "good" in and of itself.

What Augustine is saying is that man has abandoned himself to his own will, and that is nothing but a mess of sin.  The will of all men is stuck in only one gear.  Sure, the car runs (free will), but it only runs in reverse.  Can you drive a car like that?  Sure, you can theoretically say it runs fine, but it'll never go forward. 

Fut:  Once again, I agree and the Church agree with Calvin here.  We have free will, we all do.  It is the free will to allow us to choose that what we desire.  Obviously it doesn't mean that everything that we desire will lead us to Heaven. 

Not everything?  Well then you are admitting that at least some of what we desire is under God's wrath, no?  God cannot allow the least little bit of it into His presence.  But your encyclopedia gives too much grace for man's desire, because after all, the motives of man are based on good.  That's the interpretation that is slapped on in an effort to "help Augustine out."  He doesn't need any help!

Fut:  It also seems that Calvin, in the last sentence of the above paragraph is speaking that we can excercise our free will to choose that which is God will without first being Baptized....(monergestic regeneration). 

I'm fuzzy on what you're stating here.  Calvin is clearly saying we all have a free will to choose what we desire, but not a free will that can will ourselves into God's favor.  Because our free will is limited only to self (original sin).  Not without God's work of regeneration.  That's what "monergistic" means:  One and only one does the work of it all, and that's God alone. 

Example:  I have free will!  Right?  I can therefore will absolutely anything I want to!  Right?  Great!  I will myself to levitate into the clouds with only the power of my own will. 

Nothing's happening.  But I have free will!!!  I will myself to spontaneously generate a third arm!  Nothing's happening.  But I have free will!!! 

Our will is therefore limited; especially in regards to original sin (as you assert, but then later contradict).  Original sin totally limits us to bargain with God on any level to get us back into Eden.   

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Fut:  Your statements seem to be very strong anti-Catholic. 

No.  Rather, I am simply strongly opposed to anyone who is anti-monergist.  Any member of any denomination can be a monergist.  But eventually their convictions will clash with others in their church who embrace Pelagianism to some small or large degree.  That's how I swing.  You heard it from the horse's mouth.  Believe me or believe the gossip.    

Fut:  He also has, which you ignored, at the beginning of the essay the whole thing about if Lutheran were alive today, he would be writing a book that would say.....blank, blank, agains the Evangelical Church. 

You really need to understand the difference between historical context and a main idea.  If I begin an essay with a historical outline on Islam, then merely mentioning it is not my endorsing it. 

For example, Sproul happens to refer to a lot of Luther's theology.  Does that mean we can fairly say that Sproul hates Jews?  You don't have to swallow the whole thing.  There's reason, and there's what you do if someone refuses to listen to reason.  Thus I am not Lutheran in that regard.  Nor are the Lutherans for that matter.  =)  

Thus, drinking only at the well of the RCC exclusively really hurts you in the wider scope of things.  Having only the church as your theological frame of reference limits your knowledge of God.  Why not depend on the Bible as the final authority instead? 

Fut:  If Sproul is talking about ALL Christian religions, why didn't he have a section on each, why didn't he say that Luther if alive today, he would be writing a book against each Christian denomination.  Nope Trach, you are wrong on this one, Sproul is ONLY talking about the Evangelical Church.  I have read the essay quite a few times now.  I am 100% sure of it.

Sorry, but I quoted him!  Maybe you missed it.  Sure the article was largely written for his audience, but he's NOT ONLY talking ONLY about the Evangelical church.

Sproul:  What was this person trusting in for his salvation? Not in his works in general, but in the one work that he performed. And he was a Protestant, an evangelical. But his view of salvation was no different from the Roman view.

The gist of the entire essay is that the rules have changed.  It's not about Catholics versus Protestants anymore.  That's old news and we agree on that.  The current problem with Christianity is that the whole is so fractured, ignorant, and totally flaked-out, that Protestants are no longer Protestants and Catholics are no longer Augustinian.  Understand?

Now this would appear to make my first post in this thread cancel itself out.  Because I'm essentially saying we're all taking up Pelagianism to some degree.  But this does not include the classical Reformers who still exist today. 

Fut:  You seem to question everything and anything I say, that EWTN says, that the Catholic Encyclopida says, that the RCC says.  Yet, you don't seem to question anything that Sproul says, or even your believes on the RCC. 

I did so!  I absolutely did!  I asked you about your beliefs from the outset and corrected myself along the way! 

Fut:  It just seems that all you want to do is prove the RCC wrong.  It becomes a bit frustrating when you show people how they are wrong, yet their responses become circular and the back and forth is the same. 

I get this a lot from non-Catholics.  Trust me.  If you're frustrated, then you're welcome to quit anytime. 

Fut:  I repeat myself, nothing I say will convince you that the RCC is no Pelagian, or even Semi-Pelagian.  You have made up your mind, right?  I know, you will say "c'mon futbol, show me were I am wrong."  I have, and you won't accept it.

"Just so" statements don't count.  I got you cold with the Catholic encyclopedia. 

Fut: Your problem, as you have admitted, you see Christian religions as Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, and Monergestic.  I don't. 

Why is that a problem again? 

Fut:  You do not understand RCC Dogma, Theology, thus because you disagree with it, you interpreted how you want to interpret it to fit your believes, right?  are you not doing this? 

But you have not told me why it is wrong to view Christianity only three ways. 

Fut:  I mean, you are right, all man are born evil, humanity leans towards evil because of Original sin.  To answer your question above.  Yes, humanity, man is born evil.  Baptism removes the Original Sin, but I want you to think of something.....

Ah-ah-ahh. . .that contradicts what I quoted in the encyclopedia.  Who's spinning who?  Who's really going circular now?  WHICH baptism removes original sin?  Was it the priest, desire, blood, or what?  YOU NEVER TELL ME THAT!     

Fut:  Yes, humanity is born evil.....but according to what you said, that we cannot be saved until we accept Christ on our own, what happens to the innocent babies that are aborted in the mother's womb? 

That's a good question and I was really up against a wall about it for awhile until I read this book that revealed all the relevant scripture on the subject.  It covers abortions, miscarriages, infants, crib death, all of them.  Because God gives grace to those who are not of age to know their right hand or their left.

Grace is not changed by this.  According to my theology it is still unearned merit on the part of God.

However, you're in a sticky situation if grace is earned for you, but not the baby.  

Fut:  This is also where the Church says that a person that follows Natural Law and his/her ignorance of the Truth is no willful (of his/her own making) can also enter Heaven.  You seem to believe that only individuals of your religion can enter Heaven....my friend that would be quite an empty Heaven, don't you think? I ask you, what happens to a person that is born in an place where no one is able to tell him/her that Christ is his/her Saviour?  What about this, Trach? 

Romans 1:18-32, Futbol.  We are all held equally responsible, and all humanity is as Paul states, "without excuse."  You're saying you can enter Heaven without God.  Oops!  You're also saying God's justice extends in unequal amounts depending on where you live.  My theology states that God is perfectly just with all humanity in all cases everywhere.  

Fut:  Your line of.....God---->Bible----->Church----->Pope---->Futobl is completly and utterly wrong when it comes to the RCC...

Then why will you refuse to listen to God without the filter of Church/Pope in front of you?  See below. 

Fut:  When it comes to matters of Faith, Dogma, Theolgoy, the Church, the Pope is infallible, once again, why?  Because God, sending the Holy Spirit, is speaking through the Pope, through the Church.  I my eyes it is.....God--->Futbol. 

Though not direct access as Hebrews states.  You have a few arbitrary intercessors set up between you and God where the Bible states only one, Christ alone! 

Fut:  The more you say about the RCC, the more it becomes evident that you do not know RCC Theology, rather you have interpreted what you want it to mean to feel comfortable with your believes.  NO, not an attack Trach, just stating what it is evident to me. 

Hence, I asked.   

Fut:  I enjoy this, let's keep on going, don't even think for a second that  iam giving up, OR insulting you.  As I said, if it came accross this way, I apologize.

We're cool. 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Trach,

You are funny.....I do like the self-congratulating post....but I believe it is FAR from what you have said and that your "wins" are only wins as perceived by you.  Here we go.....oh by the way, love the Princess Bride and that clip of Indigo Montolla!  The question is....are you Indigo or am I?  :)

1)  Trach:  1.  I asserted that Reformed theologians are far more Augustinian than the RCC with regards to free will, and that it is the Catholics who are more Pelagian than any other denomination.

Trach:  Status:  Much progress has been made.  Free will is still pretty ambiguous on the other side, and I believe it will continue to remain so until General Futbol concedes, (which isn't likely).  But as long as he refuses to nail the definition of this down (free will to do exactly what?) then I have the upper hand and continue to own this territory.    

Ambiguous to who?  Only to you.  I believe that I have defined Free Will.  Which is....a gift endowed to humanity by our Creator, God which enables humans to choose right from wrong.

2)  Trach:  Status:  Very revealing.  Fut claims his God is more merciful, but lost justice along the way.  My theology is open to accusation, but not if everything lines up precisely.  In Fut's world, God is limited (and surprised) by man's choice.  God may see into the future, but it still hinges on the power of man's will.  Thus man saves himself; not God.  Chalking this up as territory that I cannot lose. 

When the heck did I ever say that God is Mericful, but lost Justice along the way?  This is YOUR interpretation of what I said.  Trach, it is like I read what you think I typed, and I am like...."What!!!!....I never said that, I don't believe that either."  It is like I tell you, to go back to the math example, 2+2=4 and you say, well Futbol what I read from what you are telling me is that you believe that 2+2=5.  EH?!

I know that God is ALL perfect, He has infinite Mercy, infinite Justice.  He did not loose any of these along the way.  These two (along with Him being infinitly perfect) go together and I believe that it is you that is trying to understand God's perfect Justice and perfect Mercy using mere human logic.  Trach, i believe that it is impossible, it is like an ant trying to understand why humans breath. 

In the real world God is no where near being limited by men's choices.  Far from it my friend.  Once again, God endowed humanity with Free will (ability to choose right from wrong).  God, if He wanted to, could force you and I, all of us to choose good over evil 100% of the time.  However, how does that earn me, you, humanity Heaven?  How?  Didn't God give Adam and Eve the Free Will to "eat from the forbidden fruit"?  If He gave Adam and Eve this choice, why would He not give it to us too? 

Furthemore, it seems that in your religion God is all Just, but not all Merciful.  This is a frequent thing that I see in Protestant religions.  They talk a lot about Hell, and that we will are all damned, etc, etc, they talk about God's Wrath, Justice, etc....but they forget to talk about His Mercy.  In your religion, God has no Mercy.  I believe that it is you that is given God limitations, not I.  God has NO limitations.  An impossible concept for us, mere humans, to understand. 

Yes, you are right, God is all Just and the hypothetial man in that island is actually not hypothetical when you think of the many remote areas on Earth where Christianity has not been allowed to be preached, correct?  So, yes, God is all Just and like I said in another post, which you seemed to have ignored is, that just because you are ignorant of the truth, it does not mean that the truth doesn't exist.  Futhermor, just because you do not know that Original Sin is inherited by all humans, it doesn't mean that you are not born with Original Sin.  This is part of God's infinite and perfect Justice.....but how about His Mercy?  What happened to God's Mercy in your religion?  Why is it gone?  Do you not see that it is you the one putting limitations on God, a perfect being, with no limitations? 

God holds ALL humanity accountable for Original Sin.....but in His immense, perfect, infallible Mercy and Justice, He will not fault you if you have never heard of Jesus Christ.  How can you accept that which you do not know exists?  God in His perfect Wisdom, in His perfect knowledge, combined with His perfect Justice, etc, etc, will judge you on the gifts and knowledge that He has given you.  Those to whom He has given much, He will ask much.  Those to whom He has given little, He will ask little.  Is this not a parable in the Bible?  I believe so. 

3)  Trach:  Ladies and gentlemen, for Fut's next magic trick, he will take this Original Sin you see before you in one hand and "POOF!" voila!  Original Sin is suspended in mid-air and overruled either by man's own ability to overcome it ("ooh!") OR God's violation of consistent justice ("aah!").  "Clap-clap-clap."  Thank-you, please try the fish. 

Wrong, once again it is one of those things that I have to scratch my head and say..."Where did Trach get this from....??"  Sorry, the only Being that can do way with Original Sin is God and He does it through Baptism.  Once again, I point to the fact that while you are 100% correct, God is an infinite, perfect Just Being, you seem to forget, you seem to put a limitation of God (a perfect being) when it comes to Mercy.  Does your God have Mercy Trach?  Is this Mercy perfect without limitations? 

It seems to me that you beleive that the RCC says that once you have been Baptzied you are saved, you don't have to accept Christ as your Lord and saviour.  Wrong Trach, while I was baptized, as a Roman Catholic, in order to be saved I have to lead a Christian life, and how do I do this?  By accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and saviour on a daily basis, with every task I do or don't do.  With every action that I do or don't do.  With how I take care of my family, how I take care of my job, my interaction with strangers, with friends, with loved ones.  Having a revelation, seeing the light and accepting Christ as my saviour is the FIRST step to salvation, but with Original Sin on the way, it is almost impossible to accept Christ as my saviour.  That is why God gave humanity the gift of Baptism.  I must accept Christ as my saviour every single day, every single second of my life and it involves a lot more than just saying, "I accept Christ as my saviour". 

Put it this way....

Original Sin= God's infinite, perfect Justice.

Baptism= God's infinite, perfect Mercy 

You talk a lot about God's infinite, perfect Justice, but you have never ONCE spoken about His infinite, perfect Mercy.

Well, I am at work...I will respond to the rest of your post later after work, 5pm CST. 

But the duel continues......by the way, in the mean time, why don't you read this link.   All about sin.

And sorry about my friend, I just shot him an e-mail asking him for his respone to your Pelagian accusation.....Nothing as of yet.  No, no Trach, not that he can't do it......as he put it.....Not in his list of priorities to do.  I'll pressure him to do it though.

Take care mi amigo.....I can hear it right now Trach, "My name is Tracheostomy, you have attempted to kill the Christian God, prepare to die!"  :)