Posted on 07/07/2008 10:49:08 PM PDT by Gamecock
Free will means that, although God sent His only Son so that whosoever believed in Him might be saved, others would choose not to believe in Him.
No universalism.
>> Agree on the Truth. Sadly, hard-core RCs will not understand. <<
Really? Would you care to demostrate where I, for instance, don’t understand? You can refer to my posts #9 and #10. I’d say the people who don’t understand are the members of PCUSA, ELCA, TEC, etc., or, yes, even the liberal, fallen-away “Catholic” Am-Church who think we can do whatever we want as long as we worship together... and maybe we don’t even need to do that.
Before insisting what Catholics won’t understand, read “The Soul of the Apostolate” by Dom Chautard (commended as nightly reading by Pope Pius X AND Benedict XVI); or “The Story of a Saint” by Therese Lisieux (the most read book in the world, after the bible). You want to truly understand what is meant by abandoning oneself to the mercy of God, try such books.
A fine explanation.
Thanks.
I'm going to start backwards here.
Why did Yeshua have to take on our sin? Because there is NOTHING we could do gain salvation. Is there a work you can think of which earns you salvation?
If there is nothing we can do to gain salvation, how is it attained? I'm assuming your answer with be via the grace of God - and I'd agree. I never once claimed you can earn salvation. Now let me ask you a question - does God force salvation on us, does He only offer it to some of us, or is salvation available to anyone who accepts it?
You're skirting the issue which is, the will of the Father...
Right, only to those who accept his gift. You are making an excellent point, but here's where I think we differ. The acceptance is what is required. Not a show of the acceptance, eventhough we all do in our own way. What I think with people as yourself is you have a hard time accepting the premise God's contact of unconditionality. When God say's, you will never perish there is not condition for that. When God says, no one can snatch you out of my hand there is no condition for that. When God says, you are an inherited child there is no condition for that.
The strangest thing many Christians have a hard time grasping when they backslide is not how they are going to live without God in a personal relationship, but how are they going to live WITH him? Why, because...
HE will not let you go!!!!
I'm glad we're coming to some sort of agreement here. I completely agree that acceptance of His gift is required. However, God has specified HOW to accept His gift. Not just calling Him "Lord, Lord," but rather doing the will of the Father. Now...what is the will of the Father? Jesus taught us in two simple commandments - Love God, and Love your neighbor. Doing such does not merit salvation, nor does it earn salvation - Faith and Works are the means of acceptance of His gift.
What you liturgicals don't seem to understand is that it is this hypocrisy of condemning the Torah while insisting on the rituals and commandments of a "new law" that gave birth to protestantism in the first place.
If the commandments spoken by the very Mouth of G-d Himself are vain and meaningless (and an insult to the Holiness of G-d) then what are we to think of the traditional rituals of chr*stianity that (unlike those of the Torah) are nowhere to be found in the Bible?
At least the Protestants are more consistent. In theory if not practice they reject all post-Biblical commandments and rituals, not merely the Biblical Jewish ones.
This single-minded hostility to Biblical rituals while defending post-Biblical ones from Protestants is I am convinced related to the hostility liturgical chr*stians have towards the stories and narratives of the "old testament." The liturgical churches are far more tolerant and understanding of the feelings of American Indians, Eskimos, and "gay and lesbian persons" than they are people whose religious traditions have committed their consciences to an inerrant Bible.
PS: Every argument liturgical chr*stians make for the validity of their rituals goes in spades for the defense of Torah observance, which they attack and disparage every bit as Luther and Calvin did the "popish mass."
The author almost has it, but slips at the very end.
Verses which tell us we are saved by faith alone, lest any man should boast are also true with verses which tell us faith without works is dead.
The author is correct to point out that when an apparent contradiction exists, but through faith in Christ we have a friendly check and balance upon our thinking processes. Our past scarred thinking processes in our mind and soul, are evidenced in the outpouring of our heart. Whenever we think we see a contradiction in Scripture, our first response is to place the issue in God’s hands, let Him provide for us and if in His Will, grace us with the understanding He has intended.
BTW, this might not always be a painless process, but where we suffer it is due to our past sin rather than by His harm. Divine discipline might be in order, but it due to His love for us that He corrects us.
WRT faith and works associated with salvation, there are definite doctrines developed by many denominations which approach the issue from different directions.
The Catholic perspective recognizes salvation is spoken of in three tenses. One regards initial salvation associated with saving the believer from a judgment condemning the believer to the Lake of Fire eternally.
Other passages speak of working out our salvation, an ongoing process by which the believer is saved from many consequences of sin.
A third version is of perseverence which saves us from losing many crowns predestined for us in eternity past.
Other denominations might also discuss these doctrines but from building upon a slightly different ordering of verses and topical names of doctrines. Many Protestant doctrines look at the same verses with respect to initial saving faith, confession and justification, forgiveness and sanctification.
Upon initial salvation, when the believer receives the regenerated human spirit, the believer has eternal life. He is also sealed by the Holy Spirit.
Post salvation sin occurs, but this doesn’t remove the human spirit from the believer, rather it moves the believer out of fellowship with God. The believer still will not go into the Lake of Fire because he is part of the Royal Family of God, regardless if the degenerate believer wants that or not.
The degenerate believer, out of fellowship doesn;t get away with something by post salvation sin, rather he fails to be in the right place at the right time to perform by God’s Plan and leaves a crown predestined for him, sitting on the shelf eternally in heaven.
A believer sinning after salvation doesn’t result in the believer being sent to the Lake of Fire, nor is it proof that the initial saving faith was insufficient for God to recognize it for initial salvation to regenerate the human spirit, it merely manifests the believer slid back into temptation, not exercising proper faith at the time of his decision to sin.
Before I go on in this conversation, what religion are you? Why do you replace the “o” in “God” with a hypen, but the “i” in Christ with an asterisk? Why don’t you capitalize Christianity? Is this some sort of a purposeful disrespect?
And who says we condemn the Torah? Because we make exceptions for the circumcision of grown men, not making the slicing of their genitals a prerequisite for conversion? The Torah preserved a purpose, preserving a godly culture. But Catholicism is for bringing godliness to all peoples, as God commanded should be done. What was beneficial for godliness was retained; what was a hindrance to conversion of gentiles was relaxed. But Catholics fought hard to preserve the Torah, in the face of Manicheans, Gnostics, Arians, etc., who argued that it was no longer relevant.
>> Every argument liturgical chr*stians make for the validity of their rituals goes in spades for the defense of Torah observance, which they attack and disparage every bit as Luther and Calvin did the “popish mass.” <<
Give me one modern example of a Catholic disparaging the Torah.
>> And Jesus said to pluck your eyes out <<
No he didn’t. Your omitting an enourmously important conditional clause in his statement. But if my eyes were to cost me my salvation by leading me into grave sin, I would pluck them out, as he would recommend. Since I don’t believe I’d be any less inclined to mortal sin if I were blind, I keep mine.
>> You’re skirting the issue which is, the will of the Father... <<
No, actually I was bringing it back up. The will of the Father is that we should believe on Christ. Christ gave us commands as to what we need to do.
Wow. No-one has yet responded to posts #9 or #10. Fascinating.
For initial saving faith, sola fides is fine.
He made us to perform good works, and such are only divinely recognized as divinely good when performed through faith in Christ.
I agree with the bulk of you comment, although I also find those who appeal to an obvious sin as proof a person isn;t saved to be more grievous error, than simple faith alone in Christ alone.
I am a Noachide. The hyphen is out of reverence. The asterisk is to avoid writing in full the name of a false "gxd." Most Jews and Noachides use an X (Xmas, Xtian, Xtianity), but I long ago made the personal decision not to do this because I felt that the "X" should not have any anti-chr*stian implications for chr*stians writing in a hurry, as at university lectures. So I go to the trouble of avoiding the "X" so that chr*stians themselves may use it without feeling like they are betraying their own religion. Instead it seems to have been mostly misunderstood for the nine years I've been here.
And who says we condemn the Torah? Because we make exceptions for the circumcision of grown men, not making the slicing of their genitals a prerequisite for conversion? The Torah preserved a purpose, preserving a godly culture. But Catholicism is for bringing godliness to all peoples, as God commanded should be done. What was beneficial for godliness was retained; what was a hindrance to conversion of gentiles was relaxed. But Catholics fought hard to preserve the Torah, in the face of Manicheans, Gnostics, Arians, etc., who argued that it was no longer relevant.
So why can't you understand why protestants question your own rituals and traditions such as prayers to saints, rosaries, etc.? If you're going to eviscerate the Holy Commandments, don't replace them with something else!
Every argument liturgical chr*stians make for the validity of their rituals goes in spades for the defense of Torah observance, which they attack and disparage every bit as Luther and Calvin did the “popish mass.”
Give me one modern example of a Catholic disparaging the Torah.
You mean aside from insisting it was adapted from Babylonian and Canaanite paganism? :-)
How about your own use of the term "Judaizing" for people who refused to give up the Commandments spoken by G-d's Mouth? You can see the beauty of non-Biblical Catholic rituals and consider protestants cruel for wanting you to drop them. But look at how you treated your own original co-religionists who didn't do exactly this with regard to the Torah!
Have you never considered how the charges and accusations of protestantism merely mirror what Catholics and Orthodox have always said about Jewish rituals, commandments, and oral traditions? For every Protestant attacking "Papish superstitions" there has been ample Catholics or Orthodox who attacked the Talmud. You see the Protestants as cruel for wanting you to drop your traditions. Let look at what you demand of the Jews!
The experience of Catholics in Protestant America has been a tit for tat reliving of its own persecution of Jews and Judaism--the attacks on "doctrines and commandments of men," the "chr*stless works religion," the whole shmeer. And Catholic apologetics has consisted of such responses as "we're older than you(???)" and "you have no idea of the beauty and meaning of our ancient traditions." But apparently your ears do not hear what your own mouths are saying.
Protestantism was risen up by G-d to give Catholicism/Orthodoxy a taste of its own medicine. How do you like it?
And again, I see a connection between the rejection of Jewish rituals and commandments (on the one hand) and the rejection of the historicity and facticity of the Bible's stories on the other. Certainly Catholics are more skeptical of the "old testament" than the are of medieval or modern miracle stories.
Why do keep insisting Jesus was lying??? THIS is the will of the Father...
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
It's as clear as day in the scriptures...
Here is a warning to those that chose not to believe Jesus...
Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Joh 5:39 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Note Jesus did NOT say to search the commentary by the Catholic church which is their catechism...Jesus did NOT say to search the opinions of the Catholic church fathers...Jesus did NOT say to search anyone's tradition...
Jesus said to Search the Scriptures...And if you don't, you do not have His word abiding in you, which can be evidenced by all these false references and teachings put out by the Catholic church...
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
How is one going to come to Jesus if the one doesn't even know the will of the Father???
Doing such does not merit salvation, nor does it earn salvation - Faith and Works are the means of acceptance of His gift.
If you try to win God's favor by following the law, you'll be judged by the law...You have given up ALL grace...
Search the scriptures...
Pitting James versus Paul reminds me of the teaching of Dr. Gene Scott. He referred to James as James the Jerk. I do think he had a point that James is where the legalists camped out, and legalism is the foundation for the hypocrites.
And how do you believe in Christ? By following His words? And what are His words...maybe I quoted them above?
Jesus said to Search the Scriptures...And if you don't, you do not have His word abiding in you, which can be evidenced by all these false references and teachings put out by the Catholic church...
Really? Jesus told people to search the Letters of Paul? Maybe as an observant Jew, teaching to observant Jews, he meant the Old Testament...just a crazy thought.
For the record, not an accurate statement when made. At that point, 9 had 1 reply, and 10 had 2 replies when 54 was posted (And 9 got an additional response 4 minutes and 25 seconds later).
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.