Posted on 09/28/2005 4:44:24 PM PDT by NYer
And ... Jesus said that such wasn't to be in His church ...
In your verses from Mark, Jesus is not telling the Apostles that they would not rule, but they would not rule LIKE THE GENTILES. In other words, the leader would serve, just as Jesus washed the feet of His disciples. Leadership with humility does not do away with authoritative leadership.
So that you may see the context, here are SOME quotes from St. Chrysostom...
"And if anyone would say 'How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?", I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world..." (Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, Migne PG 59:478, Giles page 164)
"...The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere." (Chrysostom, on Genesis, Homily 24, Migne PG 53:211, Giles page 165)
"Peter, therefore, turning seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also reclined on His breast at supper, following, and saith: 'Lord, what shall this man do?' Why did he mention the reclining? Not without reason or by chance, but to show what confidence Peter had after his fall. For he who then had not dared to ask a question, but committed it to another, was given the presidency over the brethren. And he not only commits his own case to another, but even himself puts a question to the Master about another, and John this time is silent, while it is Peter who speaks....Peter loved John greatly...Since then He foretold great things for Peter, and entrusted him with the world, and predicted his martyrdom and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, Peter wishing to receive John as his fellow, saith: And what of this man? Shall he not go the same way?"
Note, this is from an Eastern Archbishop of Constantinople from c. 400AD
Brother in Christ
I think we are getting off topic regarding faith and good deeds and there need for salvation...
What do you think about imputed vs. infused righteousness?
Are deeds (my definition) needed to enter heaven?
Thanks in advance.
Brother in Christ
OOPS! I did make a mistake with my dates. I've forgotten my own birthday so it doesn't come as a surprise I forget Augustine's. Sorry and I appreciate the correction.
As far as the EO's Semi-Peligian beliefs and the Council of Orange's (circ 529) Augustinian beliefs I have had this unfruitful discussion multiple times before. The Council of Orange set out to condemn Semi-Peligian and synergism. The Council of Trent set out to condemn the Reformation and monergism. There is not a third choice.
What do you think about Phil 2:12-13? It appears that there is a cooperation, don't you agree? We work, but it is God who puts in us the desire to work.
Brother in Christ
Claiming to have humility is bragging!
As far as "God given talents" go, without pictures there's no real way to tell, it could still be bragging. -:)
Once we are released from our bondage we are "free" to work out our salvation "with fear and trembling". But we have become "new creatures in Christ" with a desire to serve through the changing of our hearts by the Holy Spirit (albeit the level of faith in everyone varies). Just because God has mercifully changed us we always must keep in mind our place. God is not a "pal" or "buddy" but our holy and righteous Father.
"Peter, therefore, turning seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also reclined on His breast at supper, following, and saith: 'Lord, what shall this man do?' Why did he mention the reclining? Not without reason or by chance, but to show what confidence Peter had after his fall. For he who then had not dared to ask a question, but committed it to another, was given the presidency over the brethren. And he not only commits his own case to another, but even himself puts a question to the Master about another, and John this time is silent, while it is Peter who speaks....Peter loved John greatly...Since then He foretold great things for Peter, and entrusted him with the world, and predicted his martyrdom and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, Peter wishing to receive John as his fellow, saith: And what of this man? Shall he not go the same way?"
This is actually quite an interesting passage.
Per my reading ... after Jesus reconforms Peter's love for Him ... and assigns him the task of feeding His lambs/sheep, ... Peter inquires of the Lord as to what John is to do.
Seemingly, ... Jesus answer to Peter is that ... what John is to do is not his business ... and that he (Peter) should attend to the task of following Him.John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; (which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?)
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
I think we are getting off topic regarding faith and good deeds and there need for salvation ...
What do you think about imputed vs. infused righteousness ?
I believe that both are present in God's plan of salvation.
God imputes the righteousness of Christ (as the atoning sacrifice) ... to our account to justify us ...
... and God embarks to perform a transforming work in our hearts to infuse His righteousness into our being.
His promise is that He will complete this work.
Are deeds (my definition) needed to enter heaven?
Faith is the declared requirement for entry into the kingdom of heaven.
In fact ... I would contend that those with faith in Jesus Christ have already entered into the kingdom of heaven (i.e. abiding under the reign of God).1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:And ... those with faith in Jesus Christ will perform such good works as are consistent with their faith.
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Such works are the natural result of the spiritual nature which God revives within us.
BTW ... I would say that God not only inspires and enables good works in His children, ... but that He also presses upon us and chastens us ... to bring such good works to pass.Hebrews 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:It is worth noting that Paul says that ... though we have received this revived spiritual life, ... that we must still contend with our old earthy (fallen) life, ... which is in the process of dying away.
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
To the extent that we yield to the Spirit in our lives ... we hasten the dying of the fallen earthly man.
Thus we are exhorted ... and thus we are to exhort one another.Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Greetings:
You: Remember. Both faith and works are from God.
I agree, however do we agree that without faith and being filled with Christ we cannot do the works of love that God has prepared for us?
In Christ...
I agree. I especially respect the Calvinist's attention to the sovereignty of God and reverence for Him, rather than a "buddy". As in anything, we must be careful of not going too far, as some strains of Calvinism tended to downplay God's Love. But Catholicism has also from time to time swung the pendulum a bit away from the center from time to time (Reformation).
The Reformed view does not dismiss the "free will" of man
I am not sure of that - if man is totally depraved, how can he have free will? It certainly is a difficult question, and Scripture constantly has God's foreknowledge in tension with man's freedom. I agree that man is bound and a slave to sin, but we believe that grace aids us in making the decision to repent (Trent was clear that God was involved even in our initial coming to Him). If man is made in the image of God, he must have a will, which presumes that he can make a choice. Yet, the choice for good must also come from God. That is why I think Phil 2:12,13 is so critical to help us understand this cooperation. It defeats determinism AND Pelagianism.
Brother in Christ
We do not choose to accept or not accept God's grace, that is freely given...We are brought to God through the Holy Spirit and are in God's grace through this, however,we can walk away from God's grace by denying Christ and his act of salvation...But God's grace is still present, we have turned away from it..
Think of it as floating in an innertube down a river...the river is always there, we though can choose to drift to shore and leave...does this mean the river then is gone? No, but we left the river on our own...we have chosen to accept or not accept the river, it's constantly there...
Luke 18
18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'[b]"
21"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
26Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
28Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"
29"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."
Christ told the rich man that he still lacked on thing... to leave everything and follow him...do you not believe that Christ was saying put all your trust in me? The rich man couldn't receive heaven even though he upheld all of the laws...doesn't that mean that even though he did his works, without faith in Christ, that total trust to leave everything and follow Christ he could not be saved? This story is clear, obey God and follow Christ and ye will receive the gift of salvation...Christ said what is impossible with men (to fulfill the law) is possible with God! He was showing us that our works cannot save us, that the only way to salvation is through him!
That is precisely what Augustine struggled with and argued.
God has to change the corrupt nature. We must be born again. And if God changes the nature to make a choice between heaven or hell what do you think a person would choose?
Augustine had it right. He hadn't reached a point of understanding "free will" but he knew it was not true. There is nothing that we have that we did not received-including our faith.
Blessings
Yes, that is what the Catholic Church teaches. Without God abiding with us, giving us sanctifying grace, we cannot perform deeds of love. We cannot please God without faith and a loving response to His gifts.
Brother in Christ
Agree. Our nature is wounded and corrupt - but not utterly depraved. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have take on our nature - Jesus and evil cannot co-exist. And regarding hell or heaven, wouldn't it be a "hell" to force someone into heaven against their will? Some people, no matter what you do for them, will not accept your offer of love. I have experienced this in life, and it is true in the supernatural world, as well. Satan saw God's love, but rejected it. We agree that Satan was/is more intelligent then we are, correct? For God to offer Himself in Love to us, He is taking a huge risk that we will reject Him. For Him to call it love, we MUST have a free choice to accept or reject. And God foreknows this choice - but it is His will not to force us.
Augustine had it right. He hadn't reached a point of understanding "free will" but he knew it was not true. There is nothing that we have that we did not received-including our faith.
yes, there is nothing we have that is not a gift - BUT - we see this as a gift that we can use or not. When we give a gift to our child, they can use it or not. If they don't accept our gift, we become disappointed, but we don't force them to accept it - that is not love. As you probably know, love means the giving of our selves, our egos, everything, to the other (and God does this perfectly). God rains His gifts on all, good and evil alike, Jesus told us. The parable of the sower and the seed is a good example of how God spreads His gifts on us - BUT some do not accept it...
Brother in Christ
you responded :I believe that both are present in God's plan of salvation.
It sounds like you are saying that we are imputed Christ's work to our "credit" ledger, (Prot. justification) and then we are transformed as part of Prot. sanctification. We see infused righteousness as a righteousness that comes from God, but which God gives not as ONLY a mere "credit", but as an infusion of actual righteous quality INTO a person. Rather than being a "credit entry", we are seen as "credit worthy". To my understanding, Protestant imputed righteousness is not your own, but Christ's. Is that correct? We believe we really are made righteous by God as a result of the Atonement of Christ. To those who avail themselves to the gift given, we are now under the system of Grace - where absolute perfection is not required. Christ's perfect righteousness satisfied the Father's wrath, turning aside the system of the Law and its absolute requirement of perfection and opened the way for a gracious familial relationship between God and man. As a father does not expect absolute perfection of his children, neither does God.
Thus, while there is a legal aspect of justification, it is secondary - and simultaneous - to an infused and ontological righteousness that God gives to us.
Faith is the declared requirement for entry into the kingdom of heaven.
In fact ... I would contend that those with faith in Jesus Christ have already entered into the kingdom of heaven (i.e. abiding under the reign of God).
True, faith is necessary to enter heaven. Also, those with faith are already "entering" the kingdom of heaven. The Gospels seem to have a "there", but "not yet" aspect to the Kingdom. In one sense, it is entrance into the church (by baptism). In another sense, it is an ongoing process - as Jesus instructs the Rich Young Man - "you are not far from the Kingdom of Heaven", or the Scribe who agreed with Jesus regarding the most important Commandment. But we also understand that we must persevere - so it is a "not yet". It seems that the Scriptures often times make the presumption that the Christian will persevere - and makes eternal salvation as already achieved. But in many other places, it also warns Christians that turning back to the "flesh" will disinherit the Kingdom.
And ... those with faith in Jesus Christ will perform such good works as are consistent with their faith.
Such works are the natural result of the spiritual nature which God revives within us.
Generally speaking - we are presuming that this works will follow faith. But neither is from ourselves. Since God gives us both faith and deeds as a gift which we are called to respond to, it does not follow that deeds will follow faith - works can be refused, just as faith can be refused. They are all separate gifts from God, and can be rejected separately. But one cannot have deeds without faith. And faith without deeds is dead. I agree with your statement that God "begs" us to obey Him through our good deeds. God desires that we be saved and enter into union with Him - so we must naturally please Him with our faith and deeds.
It is worth noting that Paul says that ... though we have received this revived spiritual life, ... that we must still contend with our old earthy (fallen) life, ... which is in the process of dying away.
To the extent that we yield to the Spirit in our lives ... we hasten the dying of the fallen earthly man.
Agree. We are continuously seen as righteous or unrighteous in God's eyes, depending on our current response to His gifts. It is a slow battle, the sanctification of our souls. I beleive, though, with our continued positive acceptance of His gifts, we continue to grow in holiness and strengthen ourselves against future temptations of the flesh. Persevere to the end, Paul and Jesus tell us. We KNOW the Spirit is within us if we obey the Commandments (Acts 5:32).
Brother in Christ
And this my friend is the Pelagius error. WE make a decision. WE use. Augustine realized this problem. As he points out, what precisely are we "using" to make this determination that we haven't been given by God? Our minds? Our intellect? What are we choosing once we've been "enlightened"? Whether we want to go to hell or not? Seems to me once we are "enlightened" the decision would be a no brainer.
How we make this determination is precisely because of God. Everything that we have and are comes from God.
Even our will to be cleansed has to come from God. If we have no will to be cleansed then it has never come from God. This "we can" is what binds the EO, the RCC and many Protestants together today but it was never the view of Augustine or the early western church. There is no choice.
That is not true. Pelagianism is the idea that we can make such decisions WITHOUT God and His grace, either before or after our initial justification. He believed that the unassisted human will takes the determining initiative in the matter of salvation. He didn't believe in original sin. The Church has refuted those positions. But don't go in the other extreme by saying that man, even with the aid of God, cannot make a decision to choose Him. He is our Father, not an unloving tyrant who forces us to follow His will.
Again, I point you to Phil 2:12,13. God gives us the ability to choose Him. He stirs within us the desire and will to do good. But choosing to do good with God's aid is not Pelagianism. Otherwise, WHAT is God saving? He is no longer saving someone who is in the image of God. Being in His image, we have freedom - we can reject God, which presumes that we can accept Him (but not without His aid).
Also, you are incorrect that the Early Church felt that man had no freedom. They taught that God gives sufficient grace to everyone for faith and salvation. The Scriptures also say that Christ died for the SIN of the WHOLE world. That man can decide to accept or reject God's gift does NOT deflate God's sovereignty - it is God's will to love! Love DEMANDS a choice.
Brother in Christ
Unfortunately Semi-Pelagianism continued and was the substance fought over during the Reformation. Protestants had no sooner got their Augustinian footing back when along came Joseph Arminian who took the Semi-Pelagian model and remolded it into Arminianism. Below is a short definition of Semi-Pelagianism and Arminian beliefs. Please note how close Arminianism is to what you are saying.
Semi-Pelagianism
While not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, Semi-Pelagianism maintains that the first steps towards the Christian life are ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.
Arminianism
In contrast to semi-pelagianism, Arminianism teaches that the first steps of grace are taken by God. This teaching derives from the Remonstrance of 1610, a codification of the teachings of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609). Here are the 3rd and 4th articles of five to show how close it actually sounds to traditional Calvinism, but still left with a small island of righteousness for man, as you will see:
III.That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good--nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God [John 15:5].
IV.That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].
Reformed Theology by contrast teaches that the natural men may have common grace, common illuminations, and common affections that are from the Spirit of God. Natural men have sometimes the influences of the Spirit of God in His common operations and gifts, and therefore God's Spirit is said to be striving with them, and they are said to resist the Spirit, (Acts 7:51;) to grieve and vex God's Holy Spirit, (Eph. 4:30; Isaiah 63:10;) While indeed fallen men resist grace every day when the gospel is presented to them, for that is their nature and desire. But it is important to note that God can and does make His grace effectual or irresistible at a time of His sovereign merciful choosing (John 6:37, 39, 44, 63-65; John 3:8; Matt 11:27; 1 Corinthians 1:9; Paul's conversion in Acts 2:39, Acts 9; Rom 8:30 ROM 9:11-24; 1 Cor. 1:9-26; Gal. 1:6-15; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 1 Thess. 2:12; 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:14; Eph. 1:18; 4:1-4, 5; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3-10). If this kind of effectual grace can be resisted, as Arminians claim, then faith is understood as a natural preparation for saving grace, as the fulfillment of a condition for receiving supernatural grace by the performance of something that is within man's natural capacity/desire to do. Man, in this scheme, cooperates with God's prevenient grace according to his native ability. But the Scripture teaches that salvation is not a faith-contribution or a principle standing ultimately independent of God's action of grace. Rather, it does not owe exclusively to man's natural endowment with a free will and does not arise out of an inherent capacity of the natural man, as Arminians teach. Rather, God acts unilaterally and exclusively, taking the sole initiative in a free act of sovereign grace—grace that is altogether prior to, and productive of, justifying faith.
Hannah More said:
"The sacred writings frequently point out the analogy between natural and spiritual things. The same Spirit, which in the creation of the world moved upon the face of the waters, operates on the human character to produce a new heart and a new life. By this operation the affections and faculties of the man receive a new impulse -- his dark understanding is illuminated, his rebellious will is subdued, his irregular desires are rectified; his judgment is informed, his imagination is chastised, his inclinations are sanctified; his hopes and fears are directed to their true and adequate end. Heaven becomes the object of his hopes, and eternal separation from God the object of his fears. His love of the world is transformed into the love of God. The lower faculties are pressed into the new service. The senses have a higher direction. The whole internal frame and constitution receive a nobler bent; the intents and purposes of the mind, a sublimer aim; his aspirations, a loftier flight; his vacillating desires find a fixed object; his vagrant purposes a settled home; his disappointed heart a certain refuge. That heart, no longer the worshiper of the world, is struggling to become its conqueror. Our blessed Redeemer, in overcoming the world, bequeathed us his command to overcome it also; but as he did not give the command without the example, so he did not give the example without the offer of a power to obey the command."
While it is clear that Arminian Theology and Semi-Pelagianism have a different view of grace; (Arminianism believes God must initiate with grace and Semi-pelagianism believes man must initiate to receive grace), but both systems ultimately share in common a characteristic - synergism. The question Arminians still need to answer is why do some people believe the gospel and not others? Is the power/desire to cooperate with God's grace itself a work of the Holy Spirit or of the natural man? How can a natural man produce holy affections without God illuminating the mind and heart? What ultimately makes men to differ? grace or faith?
I must say that I did not come to these conclusions lightly but through a lot of research on church history, reading the writings of many of the humanistic church fathers during the 11-15th centuries (the age of the Renaissance with it’s man-centered philosophies), and rereading the scriptures from a Reformed point of view. An article of interest that I stumbled across just now that articulate this history is Outlines of Theology: Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism & Augustinianism ..by A. A. Hodge. Please note of special interest #6, 7 and 8.
Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and the Protestant Arminianism were the evolutionary process of the same heresy. The Catholic position, as you have outline it is the true Arminian position. That is why there is very little difference in the Luthern/Catholic/Presbyternian/Eastern Orthodox/... churches anymore. Just about everyone follows the Arminian model which was based upon Semi-Pelagianism which was based upon Pelagianism. I don't know what you want to call it for everyone has variation of the same thing. (Even the Protestants can't decide.)
After 30 years as a Christian I believe I was in error. The Reformed position traces its roots straight back to Augustine. Luther and Calvin just refined Augustine's writings but the doctrine remains the same. It has not changed over time as has Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism/Arminianism and that is why I believe the Reformed position to be the true doctrine of the western church.
God saves man according to His good grace and elects those who He so desires by His sovereign choice. The scriptures are clear and the traces of this belief goes straight back to the apostles. I do believe a great many Christian brothers and sisters are in error over this.
Blessings
Trent doesn't teach that! So Catholics aren't that bad after all! For example "...because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of his sons; and are, therefore, said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works merit the grace itself of justification; for if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works; otherwise, grace is no more grace" (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8)
"It furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace..." cf., Lamentations 5:21; Jeremiah 3:22; Zechariah 1:3 (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5
"If anyone shall say that man's free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby disposes and prepares itself to the obtain grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothign at all and is merely in a passive state; let him be anathema (Session 6, Canon 4)"
The Fathers taught that grace/predestination does not destroy free will; Irenaeus - Against Heresies; Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man; Gregory of Nyssa, the Great Catechism; Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Homilies on John, On Romans, On Ephesians, On Hebrews; Jerome, Against Jovinian, Commentaries on Jonah; Augustine, Letters, Sermons, Questions to Simplican, Debate with Felix, Forgiveness of sins, The Spirit and the Letter, and so forth; John Damascene, the Source of Knowledge. All of these Fathers and more talk about our cooperation with God's grace - which comes first and takes the initiative. Why do you think Semi-Pelagianism was also refuted at the 2nd Council of Orange? WE do not take the first step towards God. But with God's grace, we are enabled to begin repentance, to fear God, to hate sin. We are prepared by God for our justification. And when God justifies us, in His eyes, we are made righteous. Perfection is not needed, as we are adopted sons of God.
God saves man according to His good grace and elects those who He so desires by His sovereign choice. The scriptures are clear and the traces of this belief goes straight back to the apostles. I do believe a great many Christian brothers and sisters are in error over this.
The Catholic view on predestination are not defined. There are some in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas who believe in absolute predestination - and that God negatively reprobates men to hell (as opposed to positively reprobating - what some call double predestination). On the other hand, Molinists take a different view. But one that holds the tension of God reaching out to us first - and our cooperation - intact. One that keeps God's freedom of action and sovereignty intact, along with man's freedom to choose to use or reject the gift God has and continues to give him over his life.
I obviously don't believe that the Church believes in Semi-Pelagianism, either, because we have condemned that position. We do not say that WE can come to God first. Nor can we come to God on our OWN at any time. To be quite honest, Grace and Free Will are mysteries of God, and we probably will never know fully how they interact completely. But we do know that we cannot come to God without His gifts that allow us to repent, nor does God force us to repent and turn to Him.
If I might speculate, perhaps part of the problem goes much deeper. I believe it is the nominalist view that Protestantism took up in the 1500's that is behind much of the discussion on this and on salvation. Catholicism emphasizes the divinization of man by the infusion of God's grace, or the supernatural life, which enables us to actually become more like God. As a result, justification for Catholics is an internal act upon man. Nominalism (and Protestantism) does not believe this - but rather - that God imputes some sort of label on man, falsely calling man just. This external, legalist viewpoint is at odds with Catholic soteriology. I believe this is behind why we sometimes talk past each other. If man is totally depraved, he lacks free will and the ability to know what is right. Thus, God acts ENTIRELY for the sake of man, labeling him justified, even though he really isn't. This denial of free will is a key article of faith where Catholics and some Protestants must realize is critical to our continued separation. The denial of free will has not been the teaching of the Church.
Thanks again for the conversation
Brother in Christ
Since Sep 11, 2005
Amazing how obnoxious one so new can be...
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.