Posted on 04/28/2015 6:01:54 PM PDT by Salvation
People of faith do not always do what they should. We all sin. We all at times do things against God’s commandment and there are times for all of us when we do not do what God commands us to do. As Paul tells us in Galations 5:17, “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would.”
What does the Bible say about a person of faith who lives by the Spirit, but at times does not do the things that they would or does a work of the flesh?
Are they still saved without doing anything? Or would they need to come before God with a contrite heart and ask forgiveness for their sin? Or is it something else?
I have already answered your question, so let me ask you a question: Do you agree with James that you must keep the Law to establish and maintain your salvation?
“Clearly such a candidate would be preferable while available.”
Not only preferable, but specified. No other path to replacing Apostles is given in Holy Writ.
“This does not, however, imply that their office would cease once these no longer existed.”
Sure it does. It is an argument from silence in the Scriptures, as no other method is given. No criteria is given, as it is with elders and deacons. Further, the Apostles & Prophets are called the foundation of the Church.
“...then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord”
“By your reasoning Paul himself would not qualify as an apostle.”
Here you’ve discovered the second revealed way of choosing an Apostle - The Meet Christ on the Road to Damascus and Be Struck Blind Method. Further, since Paul was not with the Apostles from the beginning, so the glorified Christ caught him up into the heavenlies to personally instruct him and reveal His Gospel of Grace along with things that were unspeakable.
That said, unless God intervenes on earth, Paul is gone to glory and there are not others being snatched up into heaven or being struck blind.
“Not true, they were appointed for each church.”
I refer you to the Epistles where instructions are given on how to choose elders.
“The presbyters were not appointed by the local congregation but by one who had already been invested with the apostolic authority to do so. “
At times yes. It is not required in Scripture.
“None of the inspired writers were infallible. God “moved them” as He willed, to write his word.”
This is not the point we are discussing. There were hundreds of fragments of writings and these were painstakingly sorted out for nearly 300 years and in the Synod of Rome AD 382, the canonical texts as sorted out by the early Church fathers were both, declared infallible as the Word of God and were “infallibly” assembled by Peter’s successors.
Protestantism came on to the scene 11 centuries later. All the saints, martyrs, theologians then and now have agreed that the CatholicChurch is the Church Christ founded by Peter. And whatever it binds or loosens on earth will be bound or loosened in heaven. That Petrine infallibility, never went away.
The lives of saints, martyrs, stigmatists, and theologians compel the conclusion of One Church, and One Truth, and for All times. It cannot be otherwise.
The doctrine and teaching of this one truth is the same in every church form Timbuktu to Russia to Alaska.
This is different from the neighborhood Foursquare Church pastors where congregants migrate from one church to another until the pastor interprets scripture acquiring to “their” views. This could be a gay pastor, or a Rev. Wright, or a Joel Osteen.
“This is not the point we are discussing. There were hundreds of fragments of writings and these were painstakingly sorted out for nearly 300 years and in the Synod of Rome AD 382, the canonical texts as sorted out by the early Church fathers were both, declared infallible as the Word of God and were “infallibly” assembled by Peter’s successors.”
The inspired texts were inspired before any declaration occurred. As to the process, it started long, long before any Roman declaration - as Christ’s Assembly started long, long before the rise of the Roman church.
I commend for your reading sites such as this one that delve more into the earlier historical development of the canon we know today.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html
“Protestantism came on to the scene 11 centuries later. “
No problem. God has no grandchildren. Only children. The Bride of Christ was purposed in eternity in the mind and heart of God.
“All the saints, martyrs, theologians then and now have agreed that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded by Peter.”
By your own words, it is all they to knew. God, however, did not fail to keep His Word to be with His assembly always. When Rome failed, He was faithful.
“And whatever it binds or loosens on earth will be bound or loosened in heaven. That Petrine infallibility, never went away.”
Nor did “Petrine infallibility” ever exist.
“The lives of saints, martyrs, stigmatists [ha! These are the Roman Snake Handlers], and theologians compel the conclusion of One Church, and One Truth, and for All times. It cannot be otherwise.”
Well, friend, I certainly understand your repeated claims and insistence of this, but having examined it, I find it wanting as a doctrine and worse as Biblical teaching. So do hundreds of millions of others. As such, there is nothing compelling, unless it is “pre-believed” and read back into Scripture.
“The doctrine and teaching of this one truth is the same in every church form Timbuktu to Russia to Alaska.”
McDonald’s can make a very similar claim. Scripture does not on most issues.
“This is different from the neighborhood Foursquare Church pastors where congregants migrate from one church to another until the pastor interprets scripture acquiring to “their” views. This could be a gay pastor, or a Rev. Wright, or a Joel Osteen.”
You selectively choose your straw men to make your argument, but reality does not line up with your preferred argument - any more than a few hundred pedophile priests are emblematic of all roman priests. It really doesn’t help your argument from my perspective to pretend otherwise. It weakens your argument, which I don’t think you want.
Kindest regards.
1. McDonald’s can make a very similar claim. Scripture does not on most issues.
“This is different from the neighborhood Foursquare Church pastors where congregants migrate from one church to another until the pastor interprets scripture acquiring to “their” views. This could be a gay pastor, or a Rev. Wright, or a Joel Osteen.”
2. “You selectively choose your straw men....like pedophile priests.”
A. McDonald’s does not teach a universal truth of salvation, and even their menus differ from China to India to Pakistan to New York
B. You said “straw men”? Really! Comparing the lives of individuals with what is Truth is worse than a straw man’s arguments. It is illogical from the get-go. Sinners can become saints but you can’t change the ONE truth.
C. And just so that you know, we have Protestant pastor pedophile, adultery, fornication, and even murder
“just so that you know, we have Protestant pastor pedophile, adultery, fornication, and even murder”
Indeed as I pointed out, the problem is the old nature that is present in the life of Christians until the resurrection.
Kindest regards.
“McDonald’s does not teach a universal truth of salvation, and even their menus differ from China to India to Pakistan to New York”
McDonalds has a very, very specific book of extensive franchise rules - their universal truth. Their menus (or in your denomination, rites) do vary.
Wrong.
The Catholic Credo, Sacraments, Catechism, are all the same. Been so from Peter to this day for 20 centuries. Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Ritual.
The McDonald’s analogy is more appropriate to Protestants. Low-fare fast food theology served up with various side plates and menus. Think Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, Rev. Wright, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Moonies, and every corner street Foursquare Neighborhood Church, and every First AME, First Calvary, First Baptist, First Pentecostalist, First Methodist, First Presbyterian.......
Little wonder that America’s pre-eminent Lutheran theologian, scholar, and teacher, Rev. Richard Neuhaus who when converting to Catholicism said he finds “the fullest expression of Christ in the Catholic Church.”
So also say, the long litany of Catholic saints, martyrs, stigmatists, scholars, and theologians, and doctors of the Church including Augustine and Aquinas after whom major colleges and universities have been named around the world.
“The Catholic Credo, Sacraments, Catechism, are all the same. Been so from Peter to this day for 20 centuries. Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Ritual.”
“Credo, Sacraments, Catechism” - McDonald’s Franchisee Operating Hanbook of Rules, Procedures and Hamburger University.
Menu Variations - Rites
“Been so from Peter to this day for 20 centuries. “ - Oh, then you should be able to prove this truth claim.
Please list proof before 100 AD for the following:
Praying to Saints - alive or dead
Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Assumption of Mary
Also, if you have time, please post the list of Official Sacred Traditions that Paul referred to.
Thanks in advance.
Mormons have some entertaining fictions too.
I have already answered your question, so let me ask you a question: Do you agree with James that you must keep the Law to establish and maintain your salvation?
Your answer did not add to my understanding of Sola Fide. My question has to do with the impact of sin entering the soul of a person of faith. Is that person’s righteousness permanent and never taken away or does that person lose righteousness until he repents for his sin?
In response to your question about James, I am more concerned with what Christ says. James is somewhat demanding (show me your faith) and insulting (you ignoramus). I agree with the things he says that are consistent with what Jesus commands us to do; love one another, do not commit adultery, do not kill. James writes that if we fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” that we are doing well. Paul makes a similar statement in Galatians 5:14; “For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
I am inclined to believe that God deals with each one of us individually, based on what is in our heart.
When I pray, I start like this:
I enter into the presence of God.
A God who is greater than I can possibly understand.
Yet a God who is close to me, closer to me than I am to myself.
A God who loves me.
When a person of faith loves God as He commands, that person is returning a shadow of the love God has for him. God also calls us to share the love He gives us with each other.
Through this love God has for us and we return to Him, a person of faith has a great desire to please Him, and becomes upset with himself when we does something that is not pleasing to God or does not do what God wants us to do. I am mindful of what Paul says in Romans 7:15, “For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.”
God loves us and gives us every opportunity to repent when we fall into sin. A man of faith regrets the sin he commits almost as he is doing it, and God forgives his sin because He knows what is in the man’s heart.
Is this in line with what Sola Fide instructs or am I way out in left field?
James advocates keeping the Old Covenant Law. James as the head of the Church in Jerusalem sent his men to challenge Paul's teachings of a grace-only gospel. It was only at the council of Acts 15 that Paul prevailed with his grace-only gospel. The epistle of James was obviously written during this Law-based gospel period since James insisted that members of the Church must keep the O.C. Law. Indeed, the Church was being run out of the temple in Jerusalem for the first two decades of its existence. Christianity at this time was only a sect of Judaism. If they had not kept the Law they would have been at best driven out of Jerusalem, and at worst stoned to death.
What did the false witnesses say against Stephen? "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law." This was a false witness (Ac.6.13), meaning that Stephen had not been preaching against the temple (and everything it stood for) or keeping the Law. Stephen then turned it around on his accusers and accused them of not keeping the Law. He claimed that they were "uncircumcised". No wonder they stoned him to death.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that once a person becomes a believer, he is no longer a sinner regardless of whether or not he commits sins?
Have you heard of the 1997 movie, The Apostle? If not, the synopsis is below.
Please help me understand. Could you review the plot and share with me at what times Sonny would be considered a saint and when he would be considered a sinner?
Sonny (Duvall) is a charismatic Pentecostal preacher. His wife Jessie (Fawcett) has begun an adulterous relationship with a youth minister named Horace. She refuses Sonny’s desire to reconcile, although she assures him that she will not interfere with his right to see his children. She has also conspired to use their church’s bylaws to have him removed from power. Sonny asks God what to do but receives no answer. Much of the congregation sides with Jessie in this dispute. Sonny, however, refuses to start a new church, insisting that the one which forced him out was “his” church. At his child’s Little League game, Sonny, in an emotional fit, attacks Horace with a bat and puts him into a coma. Horace later dies.
A fleeing Sonny ditches his car in a river and gets rid of all identifying information. After destroying all evidence of his past, Sonny rebaptizes himself and anoints himself as “The Apostle E. F.” He leaves Texas and ends up in the bayous of Louisiana, where he convinces a retired minister named Blackwell (Beasley) to help him start a new church. He also begins a dating relationship with a local radio station’s employee (Richardson).
With Sonny’s energy and charisma, the church soon has a faithful and racially integrated flock. Sonny even succeeds in converting a racist construction worker (Thornton) who shows up at a church picnic intent on destruction. While at work in a local diner, Sonny sees his new girlfriend out in public with her husband and children, apparently reconciled. Sonny walks out, vowing never to return there.
Jessie hears a radio broadcast of the Apostle E. F. and calls the police on Sonny. The police show up in the middle of an evening service but allow Sonny to finish it while they wait outside. In the poignant finale, Sonny delivers an impassioned sermon before telling his flock that he has to go. In the final scene, Sonny, now part of a chain gang, preaches to the inmates as they work along the side of a highway.
The following analogies are from my book MetaChristianity V - Unlocking Sinner Bible Mysteries:
There is no forgiveness for unbelief - only repentance. Unbelief is akin to a disease. The condition of this disease is that of being a sinner. One is infected with unbelief from birth - indeed conception. Adam was created neither in belief nor unbelief. God gave him a choice of one or the other. Adam did not choose well. He became a sinner and he sinned, eating of the forbidden fruit and breaking God's commandment. The sin was a symptom of his condition as a sinner.
Let's use the typical biblical disease of leprosy as an example. Leprosy is the disease - unbelief is akin to the disease. Those with leprosy were considered Lepers - those in unbelief are considered in the Bible as sinners. The obvious skin afflictions were the symptoms of the disease of Leprosy - sins are the symptoms of the disease of unbelief. All who are born of the lineage of Adam are thus born into the same disease - unbelief. And therefore all are born as sinners. And all will display the same symptoms - sins.
Of course, even saints may display actions of the fallen nature that are the equivalent of sins, just as a man may have skin problems, some of which may be similar to the look of Leprosy. However, just as not all skin problems are symptoms of Leprosy, neither is bad behavior necessarily a symptom of a sinner. We are not judged as a sinner because of how we behave, just as a person is not diagnosed to be a Leper because they have a rash. A person is diagnosed to have Leprosy because they have the disease itself, just as a sinner is a sinner because they are judged to be one because of their unbelief which can be likened to a spiritual disease. The difference in the judgment between the behaviors of the sinner and the saint are that the sinner is in a state of unforgiveness, so his bad behavior is held against him as sin, whereas the saint is in a state of forgiveness, so his bad behavior is already forgiven because of his belief in Christ as savior.
God determines a sin that is still in need of forgiveness based on the same way a society defines a crime – through laws. If a person comes under the laws of a society and breaks one of them they will be convicted a lawbreaker. But if foreigner with diplomatic immunity commits a crime, even though the society's laws are still in effect for the citizens of that society, the foreigner with diplomatic immunity is not considered a lawbreaker for committing what is otherwise a crime. They are not a citizen of that society under those society's laws. It is the same with sins. Unbelievers are held accountable to the law of sin because they are citizens under that law. A believer has become a foreigner with diplomatic immunity to the laws of sin. He cannot be held accountable as a sinner for practices which break a law that he is no longer under. Just as the diplomat cannot be charged with a crime, so too is it with the believer - he cannot be charged accountable with a sin. But just as it is advisable for a citizen of a society not to commit crimes, it is just as reprehensible for a diplomat to commit crimes. And just as it is reprehensible for an unbeliever to commit sins, the same is true for believers. The moral outrage is the same for both. The only difference is accountability. When it comes to righteousness, one is accountable while the other is already legally pardoned.
==================
But this is all a divergence from the topic of this thread. If you want a full explanation of how it all works, I suggest that you read my book series. You can read the first book for free here.
(Back to the topic at hand)
The epistle of James is not canonical, thus proving that this "Sacred Magisterium" is bunk, because it upholds the epistle of James as canonical.
Okay, thanks for sharing. It’s not that I am hung up on sin; it’s that I have never encountered an explanation like yours. It’s an interesting concept.
Peace
My pleasure...
You may wish to study the teachings, liturgical practices, and rituals of the early Church fathers and the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium and dogmas before you wade into waters that might be too deep.
Perhaps a Protestant historical scholar who converted to Catholicism might better explain this to you. Of course, we Catholics are mindful that asking a Protestant to think deeply is like asking a fish to fly. But let’s give it a try.
A VERY SHORT ABSTRACT OF EVANGELICAL HISTORIAN
DR. A. DAVID ANDERS
MADE RIGHT TURN ON HIS ROAD TO SHOW
WHY CATHOLICISM IS WRONG
From Dr. A. David Anders, who was born, raised and educated, as an Evangelical Protestant and graduate of Wheaton College. He set out deliberately to show why Catholicism was wrong. He ended up a Catholic convert. He brilliantly essays the belief in the Eucharist in these compelling terms. But first a short summary of his journey,
PROTESTANTISM: A CONFUSED MASS OF INCONSISTENCIES
AND TORTURED LOGIC
“By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles.
I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.
The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”
THE EUCHARIST
“Scripture teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12). Evangelicals tend to dismiss this as mere metaphor, but the ancient Christians thought of it as literally, albeit mystically, true. St. Gregory of Nyssa could say, “He who beholds the Church really beholds Christ.” As I thought about this, I realized that it spoke to a profound truth about the biblical meaning of salvation. St. Paul teaches that the baptized have been united to Christ in His death, so that they might also be united to Him in resurrection (Romans 6:3-6).”
“This union literally makes the Christian a participant in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). St. Athanasius could even say, “For He was made man that we might be made God” (De incarnatione, 54.3). The ancient doctrine of the Church now made sense to me because I saw that salvation itself is nothing other than union with Christ and a continual growth into His nature. The Church is no mere association of like-minded people. It is a supernatural reality because it shares in the life and ministry of Christ.”
CATHOLIC SACRAMENTS
“This realization also made sense of the Church’s sacramental doctrine. When the Church baptizes, absolves sins, or, above all, offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is really Christ who baptizes, absolves, and offers His own Body and Blood. The sacraments do not detract from Christ. They make Him present.”
“The Scriptures are quite plain on the sacraments. It you take them at face value, you must conclude that baptism is the “bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5 NAB). Jesus meant it when he said: “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55 NAB). He was not lying when he promised “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them” (John 20:23 NAB). This is exactly how the ancient Christians understood the sacraments.”
ANCIENT CHRISTIANS & CATHOLIC PRACTICES
“I could no longer accuse the ancient Christians of being unbiblical. On what grounds could I reject them at all? The ancient Christian doctrine of the Church also made sense of the veneration of saints and martyrs. I learned that the Catholic doctrine on the saints is just a development of this biblical doctrine of the body of Christ. Catholics do not worship the saints. They venerate Christ in His members. By invoking their intercession, Catholics merely confess that Christ is present and at work in His Church in Heaven.”
“Protestants often object that the Catholic veneration of saints somehow detracts from the ministry of Christ. I understood now that the reverse is actually true. It is the Protestants who limit the reach of Christ’s saving work by denying its implications for the doctrine of the Church.”
“My studies showed this theology fleshed out in the devotion of the ancient Church. As I continued my investigation of Augustine, I learned that this “Protestant hero” thoroughly embraced the veneration of saints. The Augustine scholar Peter Brown (born 1935) also taught me that the saints were not incidental to ancient Christianity. He argued that you could not separate ancient Christianity from devotion to the saints, and he placed Augustine squarely in this tradition. Brown showed that this was no mere Pagan importation into Christianity, but rather tied intimately to the Christian notion of salvation (See his The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity).”
MARIAN DOGMAS
“Once I understood the Catholic position on salvation, the Church, and the saints, the Marian dogmas also seemed to fall into place. If the heart of the Christian faith is God’s union with our human nature, the Mother of that human nature has an incredibly important and unique role in all of history. This is why the Fathers of the Church always celebrated Mary as the second Eve. Her “yes” to God at the annunciation undid the “no” of Eve in the garden. If it is appropriate to venerate the saints and martyrs of the Church, how much more is it appropriate to give honor and veneration to her who made possible our redemption?”
Steel fish,
I hope this finds you well today.
I read through your post and I’d like to reflect back to you my impressions.
1. First, your posts seem to constantly include ad hominem denigration of those who hold a different view than you. I mentioned this to you in a post earlier this week.
When you include insults, instead of arguing facts, evidence and logic, it screams that you have little to support your claims - or worse. This habit weakens your claims and makes your posts come across as less that I suspect you would prefer. I find it off-putting when anyone who claims to be a Christian does this - any denomination.
2. In regards to the convert you put forth as your champion, I personally do not find his story compelling. Maybe it is that my theological education was longer than his. Perhaps it is my close association with so many other students of theology. I witnessed many with personal issues that colored their “theological views”. It was often sad.
3. That said, his credentials do not impress me. His conversion to Catholicism doesn’t impress me. I sincerely wish him the best. No doubt he will be looked upon as some sort of trophy to affirm the beliefs of Catholics that they are right.
4. As a Christian with a high view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, his arguments - rationalizations really - are not compelling and certainly not convincing.
I continue to wish you the best.
For a professed Christian engaged in apologetics you seem to have a bad 'tude. My guess is that you have esteem problems based on insecurity. This leads you to overcompensate by grabbing onto a groupthink solution (in your case, Roman Catholicism) where you can feel safe as a part of the herd and not have to think for yourself. Instead you can have your thoughts handed to you from elite visionaries viewed as authoritative and look down on anyone who does not agree.
Insults are never about intellectual engagement, but of projecting intimidation because one has no confidence in one's own arguments. Of course, being a part of the herd helps you feel safe to throw stones.
I suggest you break away from the herd and perhaps get some professional help.
Or you can remain as part of the herd and continue on your path toward more bitterness.
Your choice...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.