Are Catholics Born Again?

Catholic Educators ^ | Mark Brumley

[Kolokotronis]

You both should read +John Chrysostomos' Homily XVI on Romans, which deals with Rom:ix. Its far too long to copy here, but +John Chrysostomos speaks of how "election" is a fact meaningful only in terms of God's perfect "foreknowledge" of everything. And of course "foreknowledge" itself is a human term which is of necessity innappropriate when dealing with an ineffable and eternal God.

I'll give you just a snip here:

"For “the children,” he says, “being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, it was said unto her that the elder shall serve the younger:” for this was a sign of foreknowledge, that they were chosen from the very birth. That the election made according to foreknowledge, might be manifestly of God, from the first day He at once saw and proclaimed which was good and which not. Do not then tell me that thou hast read the Law (he means) and the Prophets, and hast been a servant for such a long time. For He that knoweth how to assay the soul, knoweth which is worthy of being saved. Yield then to the incomprehensibleness of the election. For it is He alone Who knoweth how to crown aright. How many, for instance, seemed better than St. Matthew; to go by the exhibition of works then visible. But He that knoweth things undeclared, and is able to assay the mind’s aptitude, knew the pearl though lying in the mire, and after passing by others, and being well pleased with the beauty of this, He elected it, and by adding to the noble born free-will grace from Himself, He made it approved. For if in the case of these arts which are perishable, and indeed in other matters, those that are good judges do not use the grounds on which the uninstructed form their decision, in selecting out of what is put before them; but from points which they are themselves well aware of, they many times disparage that which the uninstructed approve, and decide upon what they disparage: and horse-breakers often do this with horses, and so the judges of precious stones, and workmen in other arts: much more will the God that loveth man, the infinite Wisdom, Who alone hath a clear knowledge of all things, not allow of man’s guesses, but will out of His own exact and unfailing Wisdom pass his sentence upon all men. Hence it was that He chose the publican, the thief, and the harlot; but dishonored priests, and elders, and rulers, and cast them out. And this one may see happening in the martyrs’ case also. Many accordingly of those who were utterly cast aside, have in the time of trial been crowned. And, on the other hand, some that have been held great ones by many have stumbled and fallen. Do not then call the Creator to account, nor say, Why is it that one was crowned and another punished? For He knoweth how to do these things with exactness. Whence also he says, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.” That it was with justice, you indeed know from the result: but Himself even before the result knew it clearly. For it is not a mere exhibition of works that God searcheth after, but a nobleness of choice and an obedient temper (gnwmhn eugnwmona) besides. For a man of this kind, if he should ever sin through some surprise, will speedily recover himself. And if he should even stay long haply in a state of vice, he will not be overlooked, but God Who knoweth all things will speedily draw him out. And so he that is herein corrupted, even if he seem to do some good things, will perish, in that he doth this with an ill intention. Hence even David, after committing murder and adultery, since he did this as being carried away by surprise, and not from habitual practice of wickedness, speedily washed it out. The Pharisee, however, who had not perpetrated any such crime (Luke xviii. 11), but even had good deeds besides to boast of, lost all by the bad spirit he had chosen.


Comments?

[HarleyD]

There are problems with the "foreknowledge" perspective. Please note these problems below by John Hendryx:

The Inconsistency of Synergists on Election & Foreknowledge

Synergists teach that ELECTION is as follows: God foreknew who would yield to the Spirit, and therefore elected to salvation all those whom He foresaw would do so. In this scheme the absolute free will of the natural man is necessary to preserve human responsibility. But this concept of foreknowledge actually grinds itself into nothing. There is no synergist living who can consistently believe this theory of foreknowledge, and still go around teaching his views as to salvation. Why so? Consider the following:

1. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, then who would say that He is trying to save more? Certainly, it is foolish to assert that God is trying to do something which He knew never could be accomplished. I have heard some synergists charge those who believe monergism that the Gospel preached to the non-elect is mockery since God has not elected them. If there is any validity in that objection, then it equally applies to them as well who preach to those who God knows won't be saved. God commands that the Gospel be preached to all, whether we clearly understand or accept His reasoning in the matter.

2. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? Let the Synergist consider that question. God could have just as easily refrained from creating those that He knew would go to Hell. He knew where they were going before He created them. Since He went ahead and created them with full knowledge that they would be lost, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners be lost, He evidently has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. The Christian humanist can complain against the truth that God chose to allow some men a final destiny of Hell all they want, but it is as much a problem for them as for anyone. As a matter of fact, it is a problem which synergists must face. If he faces it, he will have to admit either the error of his theology or deny foreknowledge all together. But he might say that God had to create those that perish, even against His will. This would make God subject to Fate.

3. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then teach that God punished Christ for the purpose of redeeming every single man that ever lived. Surely we should credit God with having as much sense as a human being. What human being would make a great but useless and needless sacrifice? Synergists say that God punished Christ for the sins of those whom He knew would go to Hell. This theory of the atonement--although synergists do not mention this--involves the matter of Christ's suffering exclusively for the purpose of man's salvation--the substitutionary aspect. They fail to have any appreciation for aspect of propitiation.

4. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world. The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear Synergists talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again. Bottom line, the Synergist makes a finite creature out of the Divine Godhead.

[HarleyD]

"The ONLY reason the Eucharist was even mentioned has nothing to do with Ratramnus, who was an ordinary monk of no ranking. His opinion was universally refuted and was never taken seriously. The Fourth Lateran Council is addressing Berengar of Tours, a leader of the St. Martin of Tours school - thus, he had a bit more standing....Berengar of Tours, evidently, believed in what is called consubstantiation - which Luther did

It doesn't matter whether the Council was addressing Ratramnus or Berengar. My point has been and the evidences shows (at least to me) there was always at least some confusion on the Eucharist until the Lateran Council. Berengar of Tours is just another example of this evidence. The only reason these things rises to Council level is because there is enough squawking below.

Sure some believed (perhaps most) in the Real Presence. Others did not. Berengar, Ratramnus, Tertullian, and Luther are examples of those who did not. Yet I keep hearing over and over EVERYBODY agreed. Ratramnus and Berengar MUST have had a following to have wound up being mentioned in history. I doubt if Ratramnus was some monk sitting by himself in a cold castle drinking hot cocoa and muttering to himself the Eucharist is just a symbol. And there would have been a lot of squawking with Luther's consubstantiation if his following (former Catholics) believed in the Real Presence.

[Kolokotronis]

Oh, HD, this doesn't even pass the milk through the nose test if the author truly understands that God is ineffable! To a Western, thoroughly committed to anthropomorphism audience, this might, wrongly, resonate, but to any Eastern Christian, comments like

"The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear Synergists talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again." or

"No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, then who would say that He is trying to save more?"
are laughable. The problem with some apologists is that they set up straw men and then crow when they knock them down.
God isn't "trying" to do anything. This writer knows absolutely nothing about Eastern Christianity.

"Now, how about this from Homily XII on Hebrews by +John Chrysostomos:

"Wherefore we ought always to “guard” ourselves, test at any time we should fall asleep. For “Lo” (it is said) “he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. cxxi. 4), and “Do not suffer thy foot to be moved.” (Ps. cxxi. 3.) He did not say, ‘be not moved’ but “do not thou suffer,” &c. The suffering depends then on ourselves, and not on any other. For if we will stand “steadfast and unmoveable” (1 Cor. xv. 58), we shall not be shaken.
What then? Does nothing depend on God? All indeed depends on God, but not so that our free-will is hindered. ‘If then it depend on God,’ (one says), ‘why does He blame us?’ On this account I said, ‘so that our free-will is no hindered.’ It depends then on us, and on Him For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.

And secondly the other explanation may be given, that he speaks of all as His, whose the greater part is. For it is ours to choose and to wish; but God’s to complete and to bring to an end. Since therefore the greater part is of Him, he says all is of Him, speaking according to the custom of men. For so we ourselves also do. I mean for instance: we see a house well built, and we say the whole is the Architect’s [doing], and yet certainly it is not all his, but the workmen’s also, and the owner’s, who supplies the materials, and many others’, but nevertheless since he contributed the greatest share, we call the whole his. So then [it is] in this case also. Again, with respect to a number of people, where the many are, we say All are: where few, nobody. So also Paul says, “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
And herein he establishes two great truths: one, that we should not be lifted up: even shouldst thou run (he would say), even shouldstthou be very earnest, do not consider that the well doing is thine own. For if thou obtain not the impulse that is from above, all is to no purpose. Nevertheless that thou wilt attain that which thou earnestly strivest after is very evident; so long as thou runnest, so long as thou willest.
He did not then assert this, that we run in vain, but that, if we think the whole to be our own, if we do not assign the greater part to God, we run in vain. For neither hath God willed that the whole should be His, lest He should appear to be crowning us without cause: nor again our’s, lest we should fall away to pride. For if when we have the smaller [share], we think much of ourselves, what should we do if the whole depended on us?"

[Kolokotronis]

"thers did not. Berengar, Ratramnus, Tertullian, and Luther are examples of those who did not."

HD, you're spinning, or at a minimum, selectively reading, Tertullian when you say he did not believe in the Real Presence. I do not understand Luther's "consubstantiation" to be a denial of the Real Presence, but rather of Transubstantiation. The real shame is that both Rome and Luther felt it necessary to define the miracle.

[jo kus]

Sure some believed (perhaps most) in the Real Presence. Others did not. Berengar, Ratramnus, Tertullian, and Luther are examples of those who did not.

With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. Questioning whether Christ is present with the bread or if He is alone does not deny His Real Presence. You are trying mightly to deny a simple obvious truth - the Church has always believed in the Real Presence. Your denial only tells me that your heart and mind is hardened to the obvious.

Luther ALWAYS believed in the Real Presence. Perhaps you don't know as much about the men of the Reformation as you think. What Luther is questioning is the Catholic use of Aristotilean philosophy to explain WHAT HAPPENS during the consecration - is the Bread no longer bread? Or is it bread AND the Lord? This does not deny His presence in either case!

This is akin to you listening to two children argue about whether the ice cream in their hand is chocolate or vanilla - and based on this conversation, YOU come in and conclude they are denying it is ice cream, calling the object in their hands pickles... Please. Some common sense is warranted here. It is quite simple. Berengar did NOT deny the Real Presence, nor did Luther!

Regards

[HarleyD]

Oooooo...you got the "666" post....

[HarleyD]

Quite frankly, I don't know why you would feel the need to have Christ in the Eucharist when the Holy Spirit is sealed inside of us.

[jo kus]

No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man.

How sad that you don't know what love is. Love DEMANDS a choice. IF God loves and desires to share that love with mankind, then He takes the chance of rejection. Certainly, God is trying to save each man. But each man does not desire to be saved - the Scripture is clear that we must choose. And if we turn from God, God leaves us to our own devices - our own punishment in of itself - because Hell is the state of existence WITHOUT God, without Love, without our ultimate sense of purpose or reason for existence. It's all about Love. Love is the driving principle WITHIN the Trinity, and it pours itself out into creation, desiring to share of Itself among men. But WE must willingly accept this love.

No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? Let the Synergist consider that question. God could have just as easily refrained from creating those that He knew would go to Hell.

Where does that leave the Calvinist? That God created a man SPECIFICALLY to torture that person forever? That is not the God of the Scriptures.

No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then teach that God punished Christ for the purpose of redeeming every single man that ever lived

Again, you don't know what love is. Christ died out of love for mankind. God wasn't punishing Jesus Christ! A ridiculous assertion. Jesus Christ WILLINGLY went to the cross out of love - KNOWING that some men would not use this grace won at Calvary. Is Calvinism so devoid of love? How sad...

No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world

Again, presuming that God WILLINGLY allows man to choose. Are you going to deny that man has been given a choice? There are too many Scriptures that talk about choice. And once you understand how love works, you will understand that God comes to all, even those He foreknows will reject Him. The Seed of the Sower falls on ALL Ground - and much does NOT come to bear fruit. For those who have ears, hear it.

Regards

[HarleyD]

Your comments are very nice but they do not address the issues raised by my author.

For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged.

So God doesn't know our choice???? Yet He foreknows us???? Doesn't this seem the least bit odd?

[jo kus]

Quite frankly, I don't know why you would feel the need to have Christ in the Eucharist when the Holy Spirit is sealed inside of us.

Ah, a valid question...

The Catholic Church calls the Eucharist the summit of our faith, the ultimate sacrament and reality. Why wouldn't a person desire to share communion with the one they love, Harley? The NT presents the image of Christ as the Bridegroom who is seeking TOTAL union with His Bride, the Church (us). WHY do married couples continue to share the marital act with each other even though they already "know" about each other's love, that they are in each other's presence?

Spouses share in each other's presence during that extraordinary time, that total giving to the other to renew and reaffirm their covenant of love in the most intimate exchange possible. The married couple is a dim image of the Trinity - that sharing of each other to the fullest expression that we are capable of.

The reception of the Eucharist is to a Christian's relationship with Jesus in the spiritual sense that the marital act is to the married couple (properly enacted) - a total giving and receiving and a reaffirmation of our covenant relationship in that most intimate expression. Through this act, Christ brings the HOLY SPIRIT! HE is the Sanctifier, He is the one who transforms us, makes us more holy. By this personal sharing of ourselves with God, we become more like Him. As the Eucharist is a symbol, also, we understand that it is a foretaste of what is to come in heaven - at the Wedding Banquet - we will share fullest communion with Him in heaven.

Thus, the Eucharist performs the closest unity with our Savior, foreshadows the Kingdom to come, and brings the Holy Spirit to us in a personal way to sanctify us. This goes beyond the "marking" that we receive during our Baptism, because sanctification is an ongoing, continuous process. The more we receive Christ into our hearts, the more we will become like Him.

Regards

[jo kus]

He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged.

How does His knowing our choice removing our free will?

I know that when my kid does something stupid, he will suffer the consequences. Knowing this, talking with him, even trying to prevent him from doing it - does that absolutely prevent his free will from doing it later?

God allows us to sin. EVEN the SAVED! Isn't this obvious?

Regards

[HarleyD]

HD, you're spinning, or at a minimum, selectively reading, Tertullian when you say he did not believe in the Real Presence. I do not understand Luther's "consubstantiation" to be a denial of the Real Presence, but rather of Transubstantiation.

I'm not spinning anything. You and I both know consubstantiation is not the same as transubstantiation.

You asked me early how I feel the Latin fathers fell into error. This is one of them. I think there is ample evidence to support there were some real divisions within the Church over this issue contray to what I keep hearing. During the period of the Fourth Lateran Council the Crusades had been going on for over a hundred years. It is a documented fact many were leaving the Church during this period simply because they did not wish to fight in the Crusades. It was also a time of the end of the Dark Ages when people were steeped in mysticism.

The Roman Catholic Church looking for money and manpower to fight the Holy Wars did what they could. I believe the Eucharist wasn't simply doctrinal insight of the Church. As cynical as this may sound it was an opportunity to make people stick around in Church. If grace could only be offered through the Church what other choice would people have?

It isn't a coincidence that the Fourth Lateran Council focus was on the Eucharist, classifying those leaving the Church as heretics, tithing to the Church, and immediate forgiveness for those wishing to fight in the Holy War. The more I read of these documents the more I become convinced. All of these things have nothing to do with scriptural insight (perhaps with the exception of the Eucharist) and everything to do with keeping people in the Church and fueling the cost of the war. Establishing the Real Present in the Eucharist was a convenient way of maintaining attendence. Certainly it would have been a mistake to say it was merely a symbol for how would that draw people to the Church. This is how error is introduced.

[Kolokotronis]

" So God doesn't know our choice???? Yet He foreknows us???? Doesn't this seem the least bit odd?"

No; "anticipate" in this instance means to act upon foreknowledge, not that he doesn't "know". The problem is language and unless one can accept, because we cannot ever understand or participate in, as humans, the the ineffable essence of God but rather only experience or encounter His energies, human language will never be enough to describe God. For this reason, the apophatic theology of the Cappadocian Fathers (and to an extent the experiences of those Eastern and Western Christians who have experienced the Uncreated Light of God as at Mount Tabor)is the only theology which gives a marginally satisfactory way to look at what God is in terms of theosis, or put another way, the fulfillment of why we were created, which, in the end, is precisely what we are talking about here.

When we use anthropormorphic terminology (which is pretty much all we have) and don't accept (again, we cannot "understand") the ineffability of God, we end up with a God who, in human terms and with a human heart, "damns" and "elects". The truth of the matter is that God does not "exist" in any sense that we can understand.

[banalblues]

Excuse me but I can't find the word "catholic" anywhere in my bible, could you please direct me to the spot? TYIA

[P-Marlowe]

Comments?

Paragraphs are our friends.

It sounded good to me. I still need to diagram some of those sentences.

[P-Marlowe]

Hezekiah 9:11

[Kolokotronis]

"Excuse me but I can't find the word "catholic" anywhere in my bible, could you please direct me to the spot? TYIA"

You won't find it there, bb. The first surviving written use of the term was about the year 100 by +Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple and friend of the Apostle John and the second successor of +Peter as bishop of Antioch. He used it to describe The Church in a letter to the Christians living at Smyrna. "Catholic" is what the early Church, and The Church today, calls itself, as in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It didn't need to be in the Bible, bb. The folks who put it together for you knew the name of The Church. Hope this clears up any confusion! :)

[Kolokotronis]

"Paragraphs are our friends."

I know, I know. That formatting, unfortunately, is the way it is set out in the 19th century translation I was copying. Sorry.

[P-Marlowe]

I know, I know. That formatting, unfortunately, is the way it is set out in the 19th century translation I was copying. Sorry.

Well, ya know, like, the least you could like do is, like uh, retranslate it into, like "Valley Girl speak" so that, like, modern American teenagers could, like, understand it, ya know?