Gamecock, The Alexander Haig of the GRPL
Posted on 12/10/2003 4:11:16 AM PST by drstevej
I don't view Justin nor Irenaeus as "inspired" by God. Neither was your proof-text passage from the Apocrypha. Nevertheless, it appears that you do hold the uninspired words of men of higher esteem than the Word of God.
Regarding The First Apology ch XLIII, I don't know where Justin gets his theology, but it is apparent that he has created a strawman when conjuring up the Roman god Fate. The argument that Justin makes is aimed at distancing good vs evil from a impersonal Fate. I might as well be arguing against why I am a better driver than a space alien. Since there is no such thing as an impersonal Fate, Justin's argument is pointless and moot. If Justin were to recognize that God's predestination is personal, in that things just don't happen by accident but rather because of eternal purpose aimed at ultimately glorifying God, then I am sure that he would have come to a different conclusion. When saying that an impersonal, unseen, unpurposed cause cannot be the source of good or evil, Justin is correct in the hypothetical sense, in the practical sense, he is babbling.
The Holy Prophetic Spirit taught us this when he informed us through Moses that God spoke as follows to the first created man: "Behold, before your face, the good and the evil. Choose the good."
That command was never made to Adam. Justin is confusing Moses with Joshua (Jsh 24:15). The command in the Garden was for A&E not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Now if the "fate" of the entire universe was to be decided on Adam's action, how is it that Adam didn't balk at eating from the tree, but in all likelihood, ate the fig before the sun set on the seventh day? If man truly can choose good from evil, why was the only evil that man could commit - and a major one at that (no simple misdemeanor here, we are talking innumerable orders of magnitude more grievous than that of even capital murder), the first recorded act of man & woman? It's simple. The natural man can only choose evil, and evil is exactly what A&E chose the instant God left their presence. A choice that is not a choice is not a good definition of free, but rather one of enslavement.
Regarding Irenaeus "Against Heresies Book IV, ch XXXVII" (It would have been much easier to look this up if you provided a bit more detail in where you cut&pasted your material)
This is a classic example of failing to see the forest. Israel, was God's chosen people. God poured out His blessings on them, and from the previous phrase God summed up all of Israel's history by reminding them that they killed the prophets and stoned the messengers. The prophets all prophesized that Israel would turn against God and receive the judgment for their future actions. Free Will? Hah! Their will clearly was bound hopelessly to sin and death. If you were to flip a coin, and every time you tossed it, it landed "tails", at what point would you suspect that the coin was loaded and isn't truly random? Israel spit on God for thousands of years, several times into captivity, under all kinds of judgments, oppressions, trials and tribulations. And yet their Messiah was before them performing signs and miracles, and still it was inevitable that Jesus Christ would fall under their hands of death exactly at the appointed time.
The passage Irenaeus eisegetes from Matthew is quoted, yet then ignored, the meaning and intent of our LORD completely lost and trampled. Irenaeus, like his latter day sychophants work from an a priori supposition that there is a free-will, completely ignoring the wealth of Scripture that says that man is spiritually dead and hopelessly bound to as a slave to sin and death. The coin, no matter how often flipped by man keeps landing sin, sin, sin,sin... it never lands "righteous", until the hand of God reaches in and changes the "loaded" (aka "free") coin and replaces it with one is inclined to land "righteous", "righteous", "righteous"...
I am sorry that you must ignore the vast intellectual wealth of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in your church heritage, instead find some sort of sympathy in the company of Pelagians.
What a challenge. Prove a negative. Why don't you prove that there is no gold in your backyard. No matter how much goldless dirt you dig up, I can always suggest that it might lie deeper than you have explored just yet.
Nevertheless, I would like to acquaint you with the seven churches mentioned in the Revelation to John. It seemed that error was a given. If the church of Corinth was so perfect, why then did Paul have to write at least two letters to correct their errors? If the first Pope was so infallible and never incorrect, why did Paul have to "withstand him in his face" regarding his theological errors? If the church was never to teach error, then why did so many epistles from so many apostles, and why did Jesus Christ Himself warn all believers everywhere to constantly be on guard for those teaching error? Why did Jesus Christ Himself prophesize that in the end days, the church would be best characterized by error and apostasy - even to the point of asking the rhetorical question, "When I return will I even find the faith?"
Put up or shut up.
It seems that the ball is in your court.
Of course the question can be returned. I am more intrigued by your religion's adamant demand that the Holy Spirit be decommissioned. Your cabal of fellow travellers have figured out a way to remove the Holy Spirit's job description thus allowing Him to be removed from the payroll.
If regeneration, sanctification, fruit of the spirit and perfection are unnecessary because all man has to do, from a natural state of hate and rebellion against God, is to simply "walk the aisle before the music stops" then what work is required of the Paraclete? You have done all of the work yourself! If natural man needs nothing except his free will to choose a god (who may or may not be the one described in Scripture), then you have removed the office of the Paraclete. If sin is no inhibitor to your will (for you say that your will is free) then what role is the law? And if there is no room for the law, then how is sin defined? And if there is no longer any sin, then how can there be transgressions that merit death? And if there is no longer the sting of death, then who needs a savior?
How about that? A double package. You can serve pink slips to both the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.
Don't laugh. Your religion posits that every child below a certain age is considered as sinless as the Christ Child, and if he/she were to die before this alleged "Age of Accountability" that child would be automatically ferried into heaven. No faith, no repentance, no belief, no works of righetousness. Salvation would be granted on the basis of sinlessness. If Christ died for sinners, and infants are sinless, then there is no need for Christ. Similarly, if the only sin one can commit is to "reject Christ" (because the law of sin and death was "nailed to the cross") then it is axiomatic that not rejecting Christ requires no work on the cross, and for one to reject Christ would reject the work on the cross, therefore they would not have had any benefit from it anyway. Hence, the death of Christ, according to your sinless religion was superfluous and completely unnecessary.
Now since the natural man hates God, The Paraclete must act first to change the heart of stone to a receptive heart of flesh. The Paraclete does not run fruitless missions of failure for God does not fail in His purposes, therefore every act of regeneration commenced by the Holy Spirit will indeed be successful and the heart will be effectively changed to accept the gracious gift of faith. This faith, is a working faith, based on the death and resurrection of the sinless Son of God who died for our sins. (those sins that we were born dead to). Without the cross, we would still have those sins accounted to us - no matter what our age. Therefore the cross is the focal point of our faith and hope. I find your question rather insulting.
God did not need Jesus' incarnation, life, death and resurrection in order to do what your theory says
What exactly about this theory do you pretend does not require Christ's work of atonement?
Regeneration simply is the work of removing the enmity towards God from our heart, allowing the new man to understand and accept the gospel message (whereas before the gospel was considered foolishness and incomprehensible). Regeneration is not a free-will thing. being saved is not a free-will thing (well, not our will, but the LORD's). Nevertheless, a heart that believes in Christ still needs to suffer the pain of death for the sins we have earned. Christ still is that propititation.
I can only imagine the heresies that run rampant through your mind that can even entertain the idea that the truth of predestination absolves Christ from His work on the cross.
Gamecock, The Alexander Haig of the GRPL
Apparently, you are so infantile in your ability to read that you have missed repeated emphasizes by the Catholics here to the effect that the ability to choose God can only come from God. Nevertheless, faith is a choice. Man needs the grace of God plus the resolution of his will to come to it. Thus Christ says: "Everyone who is tuahgt by the Father and learns, comes to me." (John 6.45) To "learn" is an act of the will.
No OP. None of them are similar in anyway to Calvinism, because they all preach Baptismal regeneration and the necessity of a choice for God by the free will moved under the influence of grace.
Is the entire Human Race, every individual without exception, actually guilty of Sin in Adam, or not?
Not in a formal or personal sense, and not without exception since Christ and His Mother were excepted from original sin. The "guilt" or "essence" of original sin is the absence of grace, not personal guilt equivalent to an actual mortal sin. The specific malice of original sin is that the absence of grace in the soul prevents entry into heaven. The soul is not blemished by any wrong act upon its part, but the results of the wrong act of Adam.
In like manner, when God Raises a Spiritually Dead infant to Spiritual Life, He does not oppose the infant's Free Will, for He does not engage it in contest. (The objection that an adult man possesses a Free Will whereas an Infant does not is not relevant, for God regenerates each in exactly the same way. In neither case does God engage the Free Will in contest; therefore, in neither case does God oppose the Free Will. In both cases, the Free Will is simply not consulted).
Not so. The adult chooses Baptism, and the infant has Baptism chosen for it by another human. Nobody is baptised by God, therefore, we are not positing any regeneration of anyone without an act of a human will.
God does not Love Sin, for example
We've been here before. Sin is a nothing. It has no existence. God can't love what doesn't exist, nor can humans. Sin in humans is a misplaced love for a creature before the Creator. God obviously can't misplace His love.
And so, against the clear and explicit citations which I have provided from Psalms, Proverbs, and Romans, you've managed to "trot out no versicles" at all.
I don't need to OP. Your versicles aren't in question. Don't you get it yet? Nobody is debating you saying "man is good", "man loves God by nature", "man wants to love God", etc. We all agree man is inclined towards evil from youth and sets his heart upon it. This isn't in question.
The question is the method of regeneration. Does God prompt and carry forward the working of man's will to come freely to Him, or does God do a "Fiat"? That's the question.
I've pointed out several times that Titus 3.5 and John 3.5 point towards a free choice to be Baptised, in faith (1 John 5.1), with Baptism causing regeneration. I'm still waiting for you to show an alternative method approved by Scripture.
More later.
Excellent!
This sums up Free Will Theory. A contradiction in of itself.
Man needs the grace of God plus the resolution of his will to come to it.
Yes, Yes, I am aware that the false religion of Roman Catholicism says God is impotent and His grace is insufficient and only man can make God's Will and power complete. I don't care for the Doctrine of Demons, please lets keep our discussion to matters of the Bible and the things of the true God and Savior.
You can prattle about with your midget and crippled god that begs Rome to validate him. It is just not appropriate in this thread where we glorify the Almighty.
Exactly. You are correct. But I wasn't responding to Christians, I was writing to you and your fellow travellers.
I am relieved to see that you recognize what trouble you are presently in. Perhaps the Spirit will see fit to open your mind to the gospel. We can only pray.
I'm afraid you don't understand the purpose of the Church teaching. We needn't resort to strenuous hermeneutics to understand what she is saying when she teaches us. The words are intended to be plain and take their ordinary meaning. Mental gymnastics are not a prerequisite course of study.
Church teaching is meant to interpret revelation for us, which is why Christ, revelation Itself, promised "He who hears you, hears me." If the teaching of the Church needs "interpretation" to be understood, we are lost in infinite regress, because the "interpretation" perhaps then needs "interpreting". This is nonesense and poppycock. Church teaching is plain as day. When the Council of Orange speaks of "the regeneration of holy Baptism" (Canon 5, also 8 and 13), it means Holy Baptism is the cause of our regeneration. Thus it speaks in the conclusion of "grace [that] has been received through baptism" and that we can "after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to Him".
There is no need to force the words, which are plainly interpreting the Scriptures they copiously quote, in the service of what is obviously Catholic dogmatics.
You seem to be confusing several subjects and conflating them together.
1) Original sin. The essence of original sin is the deprivation of grace in the soul at conception. Considered formally, every person born is sinless in the sense of not having yet comitted any personal faults, since a personal fault requires an act of the will against God and towards a creature, and the newly born cannot make acts of the will, being infants by definition. However, the deprivation of grace in the soul automatically causes exclusion from God, since one has no share in His life. Therefore, even little children who have done nothing, either right or wrong, are excluded from salvation, since they lack a supernatural eternal connection with God.
2) The actual sinlessness of children once Baptized. We believe Baptism infuses grace into the soul. I'm not going to go into longwinded proofs of this assertion. You are aware of our position, and what evidence we use to support it, and that is sufficient for what is at hand here. If you will grant for a moment our belief that Baptism does infuse grace into the soul, the Baptised child then, not having the ability to do right or wrong since they cannot make reasoned decisions, is not only as innocent as Christ or the Angels, but is also filled with the life of God. So if they die, they die holy, connected to God, and fly immediately to their heavenly reward. There is nothing here illogical about this position in terms of consequences drawn from a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Your issue should be with baptismal regeneration, not the logical consequences.
3) The Faith of baptised little children. They do not have an active faith, such as an adult might have since they cannot think or act as an adult, but infused faith, which gives them the ability to accept revelation as it is taught to them. However, in the needs of eternity, there will not be needed faith, since we will be with God, but only love, which is given by the grace of God. Their lack of an active adult faith will not hinder their love of God and their fellow saved humans should they die in infancy.
4) Repentance. If one has not committed personal sins, one has nothing to repent of before God. This seems so obvious one wonders at it being questioned. What has an little infant, or a retarded person done to offend God? Nothing! Why then must they repent to Him?
5) Salvation for sinlessness. Salvation is granted to those who share in the life of God. One prerequisite of this is an absence of sin in the soul and the presence of grace. Since because of original sin all are born without grace, Jesus and Mary (an issue we will not discuss here) alone excepted, the personal sinlessness of humanity at birth does not grant them a pass to eternal salvation without Christ. Christ certainly died for sinners. He also died to open heaven, rescue the just from Hades, defeat the Devil, and to unite mankind spiritually to Himself in grace. The last thing is in fact the most important. No one will ascend who has not been grafted into Christ.
Unless you can disprove the point that God regenerates an individual without that individual's free-willed consent, I hereby claim that it is Just for God to regenerate an individual without that individual's free-willed consent.
This shall be Point 1 for you to overcome.
OP, I've already overcome this, and you continue to refuse to address it. Titus 3.5 and St. John 3.5 - regeneration is caused by Baptism.
Nothing is random. God chooses who shall be fruitful, and who barren. Thus, if Baptismal Regeneration be admitted, God alone chooses who shall be regenerated without that individual's free-willed consent. And it is therefore perfectly Just for God to choose any individuals or no individuals or whomsoever He pleases to be regenerated without that individual's free-willed consent.
This shall be Point 2 for you to overcome.
Unless you live in a world where God physically forces you to be baptized, you must admit an element of free will is involved, since one either can chose to be baptized, or chose not to be baptized. If you grant for sake of argument that God has tied regeneration to Baptism, then regeneration becomes a matter of who freely wills to be baptized (prompted of course to do so by grace).
I don't think there is any need to overcome something so obvious though. Jesus does not come down and drag men by their ear to the font. Men freely chose to be baptized.
When the desires are depraved, the Man acts out of those desires most freely. And when the desires are changed to Godly desires, the Man acts out of his new set of desires most freely. At all times the Man freely acts, and at no time need his Will even be consulted on the matter of his Regeneration.
At last some progress!
Are you claiming that regeneration is God removing the disorder of the concupiscible appetite so that in seeking pleasure, the soul seeks those pleasures ordered to God, and not those ordered to creatures? That is what it sounds like to me.
On the other hand, St. Paul describes a continued battle against his baser desires, which He is able to overcome through grace, but not to avoid. Did God forget to rewire his desires? Or did God give him the power to subject them to righteousness? If the latter, He didn't really change anything did He? God didn't rewire St. Paul's desires, He gave him a supernatural strength to overcome them. "My grace is sufficient for thee."
It was not. Peter was an important member of the Church, but she was already 4,000 years old by his day.
If something already exists, it cannot be "built" (Matthew 16.17). Rather, Christ should have said, "upon this rock I have already built my Church". But He didn't say that did He? Certainly Christ had an Church from the beginning. But He built a new Church at his coming to go with His new covenant.
We aren't dealing with justice or theories, but reality. God can do whatever He wishes, but He has revealed to us what He will do, and that is to regenerate men by way of Baptism.
Baptismal regeneration is repeatedly contradicted by the earliest sources we have, including the New Testament documents. People are justified prior to or without baptism (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, 23:39-43, Acts 10:44-48, Galatians 3:2-3), including in contexts described as normative (Luke 18:10-14, Acts 15:7-11, Romans 4:2-16).
All instances in the Gospels - not relevant because they are prior to the institution of Baptism and the new covenant, and they do not address regeneration in Christ but justification. Acts 10 (repeated in Acts 15) - specificially noted as a miraculous and non-ordinary occurance. Galatians 3 - attributes reception of the Spirit to hearing of faith (wrong order for monergism). Romans 4 - addresses justification in the Old Testament, not regeneration.
Not a good record. You aren't addressing the issue of regeneration, which is our rebirth as sons of God and citizens of heaven.
Clement of Rome, the earliest church father, repeatedly discusses justification without even mentioning baptism.
Discusses justification and how it still occurs through the instrumentality of faith. Doesn't address regeneration which is a formal effect of justification in the new covenant. Catholics expressly affirm the necessity of faith for justification and justification causing regeneration in the new covenant.
Ignatius, another early father, also discusses salvation without even mentioning baptism.
St. Ignatius doesn't discuss Baptism at all. What of it? Do you think this means he denied it?
Tertullian tells us that there were people in his day who rejected baptismal regeneration in favor of justification through faith alone (On Baptism, 13).
Tertullian says something quite different than implied here about such "miscreants" (his word):
Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, "Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith." But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added w the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The comparison with this law of that definition, "Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens," has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized. Then it was, too, that Paul, when he believed, was baptized; and this is the meaning of the precept which the Lord had given him when smitten with the plague of loss of sight, saying, "Arise, and enter Damascus; there shall be demonstrated to thee what thou oughtest to do," to wit--be baptized, which was the only thing lacking to him. That point excepted, he had sufficiently learnt and believed "the Nazarene" to be "the Lord, the Son of God."
He also calls folks such as yourself "heretics" who lead the faithful away to dry and arid places.
Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our ICHTHUS Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water! (On Baptism, 1)
Andreas specifically refers to people being justified through prebaptismal faith.
Who?
Titus 3:5 does not refer specifically to Baptism, or may be using Baptism simply as a figure of regeneration; But even if we presume it must necessarily be referring to Baptism, "Laver of Regeneration" can be understood in the same sense as "Medal of Honor" -- the Honor gives a right to the Medal, as Regeneration gives a right to Baptism; but the latter is not the Cause of the former. So this Verse is essentially useless to you.
OP, you are always good for some giggles with this type of stupidity. Didn't you read the verse and its context before commenting?
Titus 3.4 But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared:
5 Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost.
6 Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour:
7 That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs according to hope of life everlasting.
Its not that regeneration gives rights to the laver, but he says explicitly that we are being saved by Christ by "the laver of regeneration" and "renovation of the Holy Ghost". The two things are noted as the instruments of salvation. There is no reason to take "laver of regeneration" as a metaphor other than a desire to avoid the literal meaning. And using your "medal of honor" example, it would be akin to saying "we are glorified by the medal of honor", which gives no hint of glory being bestowed without the medal.
In John 3:5 you've added an "again" to make the phrase "born again", but no matter; this verse conflicts not at all with an understanding that when one is born again into the Church, there is both an Inward and an Outward change; Inwardly one is Saved, Outwardly he is admitted into the Church. The Holy Spirit is the Cause of the Inward aspect (that is, of Regeneration), the water-baptism of the Outward aspect (that is, membership in the Church); but the Outward aspect need not be seen as the Cause of the Inward aspect, nor does the Verse require any such reading. So, this Verse does you no good either.
I didn't add "again". I just quoted the Douai-Rhiems, which is a translation of the Vulgate. Don't like the "again"? Take it up with St. Jerome. And with St. Cyprian and Irenaeus and Augustine, all of whom quote it as saying "again".
As to your attempt at an explanation, its all giggles again. Why would Jesus even mention the outward aspect if it was unimportant to the point being made? Did Jesus come to confuse? Aren't His words plain enough?
1) Unless a man be born again of
2) water
3) and the Holy Ghost
4) he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
There is no grammatical reason to suppose "water" is not integral to the thought being expressed. One simply needs a violent prejudice to fail to connect "regeneration" with "born again" (re-generated if you prefer Latinisms), and both with "water". There is nothing expressed here about Church membership. We see Jesus discussing regeneration with Nicodemus, not Church membership enrollment.
You've another verse pertaining to regeneration, though not to Baptism (interestingly, it makes no mention of Baptism, which in fact hurts your own case):
1 St. John 5.1 ~~ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.
How could it possibly hurt my case? I never said regeneration is done apart from faith did I? My case incorporates all the data of revelation without any violent twists. St. John here expresses the need for faith to be born of God. He doesn't say "and there are no other needful things".
But "believing" being declared in all of Scripture to be an aspect of Spiritual Life, and declared in all of Scripture to never be an aspect of Spiritual Death, the only reasonable reading of 1 John 5:1 is after the manner:
Whosoever breathes air, is born of woman.
One must first be born to then breathe air, and this establishes the order of action in 1 John 5:1 congruently with the rest of Scripture.
Its not congruent at all if you reverse the order given, since it then conflicts with the only other verses discussing regeneration, which attribute it to Baptism. Nor does it make sense to reverse the meaning. If St. John meant the opposite, "Those who are born of God, believe that Jesus is Christ" he certainly could have written that. He didn't, unlike say in 1 St. John 3.9 "Whosoever is born of God committeth not sin". 'nuff said. No need to twist the words.
We are left, then, with Baptismal Regeneration refuted
In your dreams.
all his humanely-benevolent Works considered by God to be Unclean Fithiness (Isaiah 64:6)
Isaiah is hear discussing the fallen condition of Israel. Was Israel never in justice at the time of Isaiah? Otherwise, the verse doesn't apply to the discussion at hand.
he never freely wills the action of Spiritual Good (Jeremiah 13:23)
Jeremiah is discussing the fallen condition of Israel. Was Israel never in justice at the time of Jeremiah? Otherwise, the verse does not apply to the discussion at hand.
his heart is only and always set upon the doing of evil (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
The verse says: "For because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear." I don't see how this verse states what you claim it says. The word "always" is not there.
he is spiritually insane at heart (Ecclesiastes 9:3)
It says their hearts are filled with evil because at the time they saw no difference in recompense of the just and unjust. Spiritual insanity is not used as a phrase, and the applicability to today with the conquering of death and the opening of heaven by Christ is very questionable.
he always despises the light of Grace (John 3:19)
The word always is not used. Verse 21 notes the existence of men who "doth truth cometh to the light". Note the word order again - they do truth prior to coming to the light, not "they came to the light and were able to do truth".
he always rejects the ministrations of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51)
Specifically addressed to the hardened Jews who had rejected Christ, not applied to all men.
he NEVER Seeks God (Romans 3:10-11)
Not without God seeking Him first.
he NEVER wills any action whatsoever of Spiritual Good (Romans 3:12)
Not without God's prompting him.
it is defined as BIBLICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE that he should ever will any Spiritual Good (Romans 7:18)
Except with the help of grace - Romans 7.25
he will NEVER perform any God-pleasing Action of Will whatsoever (Romans 8:5-8)
Of course not. Works of the flesh are not pleasing to God, and works of the spirit are done with the help of God only.
and he is utterly incapable of knowing any Spiritual Truth (1 Corinthians 2:14).
The assertion contradicts Romans 1.19-21 and Romans 2.13-15.
That all being said, we must therefore REJECT the False and UnBiblical notion that Spiritually Dead Man will ever "make a single good and salutary choice prior to regeneration"
We can agree only if we are talking of a man not assisted with grace. A man assisted by grace can do anything, and the Bible gives many explicit examples of men without the Holy Spirit doing spiritual good aided and prompted by God. We've been here before.
I'm still waiting for a single citation from the Bible saying "God regenerates man without consulting his will". I know you won't find it, since the only mention of the term is in connection with faith and baptism, but one might hope you might try.
No. Israel and before them Adam and Noah et al were in the Church, loosely understood as referring to God's faithful before Christ came, and they all shared our faith. But they were not part of the new covenant until Christ rescued them from Hades. I think OP's thesis is incomplete, since it ignores Christ saying he is building a Church starting here and now. The Chuch is old becuase it includes all the just from Adam and Eve on down. It is new because it was born in the Upper Room and on the Cross with the institution of the new covenent - new covenant equals a new Church, because not all in the Old Covenant were included in the New.
I would say: God's Faithful Covenant People = Peter as Bishop of Rome and his followers = church. There is no distinction between the two concepts in my view because there can only be one faith of the covenant.
If you prefer, we could say "the renewal of Israel is built upon Peter", so we emphasize both the continuity of existence, and the renewal in Christ.
What about the followers of John the Baptist?
Unless they followed Christ, they were in no better a position vis-a-vis the body of Christ than an ignorant Hottentot.
And noting Paul's letter to the Galatians is written to Both the new (Gentile) and Old (Jewish) believers comprising that particular 1st century church further strengthens OP's position.
St. Paul carefully notes in many places that both belong to Christ by Baptism. Baptism brings one into the Church. Old believers had no advantage from belonging to the circumcision, and after the resurrection, all had to be Baptised to become members of the Church - the slate was wiped clean as far as the Jews were concerned. They all needed the Gospel, and they all needed Baptism. There was no "inside track" for Israel.
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.