Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
You asked in what sense God has authorship of the Bible, and I say that in both cases, of inspired inerrant scripture, and a hymn or an icon, God uses a human worker who receives an approval from the living body of Christ, the Church. Definitely there is a difference between canonical scripture and other works of the Holy Tradition, and that difference is defined by the Church: one is inerrant when interpreted through the eye of the Church, the other is a contribution to the inerrancy of the entire living Word that abides in the Church, but for some reason or another (how can a hymn be inerrant?) is not declared inerrant.
aren't all Paul's letters written to specific audiences, and are thus not applicable to the rest of us Christians?
This is not what I am saying. We should listen to Paul, but the fact that his, and most other, writings are written to correct errors and confirm historical facts for an audience that has already received the Word in the form of the Holy Tradition illustrates that it is the Holy Tradition, and not written scripture alone that is the Gospel of Christ.
If you and I met the same man, and we each gave him an opposite teaching, would you judge the correctness of the teaching by which of us convinced the man?
Again, this is not the right corollary of what I am saying. If Jake and Jim met a man and each spoke to him, and Jake sent him to Christ then Jake spoke the truth, even though Jim might have succeeded in sending him to Satan.
I understand that you believe that God has deposited "the truth" into the hands of a very select few men. We believe that God has done the same thing, but just to "more" men.
The issue is, which men. Protestantism encourages a democratic model, where not just more men, but everyone, decide moral issues for themselves. Communism says that the state decides. Catholicism says that the truth has to be historically tested and conform with the deposit of faith as preserved by the Church, an institution that persisted since Christ, before it can become social teaching, irrespective of what the state says and what the elections say.
Yes, but God is still sovereign. He can override human decisions, He just doesn't want to.
Never happened. When you find something not in the Bible, e.g. veneration of saints, it does not make it unbiblical, it makes it not part of the written canon of scripture.
Thank-you for the ping, Alex.
FK, I have re-read many of the posts on this thread and I have sincerely tried to understand the apparent rejection by Protestantism of the first 1500 years of Christian theology on salvation in favor of a once saved always saved mindset. Where does this come from? I have read the proof texts presented, but when I read the Fathers on this, I see a unanimity of understanding and expression which is nearly without peer in Christian belief and that is that salvation, or theosis, is a very individual process which most of us "work out with fear and trembling" in our liturgical communities. It is also clear, especially from the Desert Fathers who were writing for the instruction of their monks, that even the most advanced in spirituality and in spiritual practices can come up short, even end up destroyed, if, in their presumptuous arrogance and pride, they either never develope, or do not exercise the divine gift of discernment.
This idea of an instant salvation I think is particularly dangerous, especially to people who really believe this has happened to them because then they can fall prey to all sorts of demonic mischief. Indeed,it seems to me that if anyone, and I do mean anyone, believes that he or she is saved in a particular instant and that is quite literally the end of that, the ticket has been punched and can't be unpunched, he has no discernment at all and is, likely, doomed to destruction by the Evil One. It says to me that these people have not been properly guided by someone in the capacity of a spiritual father, an elder if you will. +John Cassian relates this story about monks discussing the process of theosis with +Anthony the Great, the founder of monasticism. The story is about 1800 years old:
"I remember the years when I was still a boy in that section of the Thebaid where the blessed Anthony used to live. Some older men came to visit him and to talk to him about perfection. Their talk lasted from the evening hours until dawn and the problem we are now discussing took up the greatest part of the night.
"There was a most searching inquiry into which of the virtues and which observance could always preserve a monk from the snares and deceptions of the devil and could lead him with firm tread on a sure path to the summit of perfection. Each one offered an opinion in accordance with the understanding he had of the matter. Some declared that by means of zealous fasting and the keeping of vigils the mind would be enlarged and would produce purity of heart and body so as to enable one to come all the more easily into union with God. Others posited detachment from everything in order that the mind, shorn of everything, freed from all the snares which were holding it back, would come more speedily to God. Others thought that what was necessary was to get completely away, to have the solitude and secrecy of the desert where a man, living there always, could converse more intimately with God and where union could be achieved more directly. Some opted for the practice of charity, that is to say, the works of hospitality, since it was to people of this kind that the Lord in the gospel promised especially that he would give the kingdom of heaven. 'Come, you blessed ones of my father, come and possess the kingdom which has been ready for you since the beginning of the world. I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me a drink,' and so on (Matthew 25: 34-35).
"Thus it was that the different virtues were said to give a more certain access to God. And most of the night was spent in this inquiry.
"Finally, the blessed Anthony spoke. 'All the things that you have spoken about are necessary and helpful to those thirsting for God and longing to reach him. But the countless disasters and experiences of many people do not permit that any one of these virtues should be said to be the prime influence for good. For very often we have seen people who have been most zealous in their fasts and vigils, who have lived wondrously solitary lives, who have endured such total privation of everything that they would not allow themselves to hold on to even a day's food or even a single coin of the lowest value, who have hastened to do all that is required in charity - and who have suddenly fallen prey to illusion with the result that not only could they not give a fitting end to the work they had undertaken but they brought to an abominable conclusion that high zeal of theirs and that praiseworthy mode of life. Hence if we probe the exact reason for their delusion and fall we will be able to recognize what it is that, above all else, leads us to God. The virtuous activities, of which you were talking, flourished among them. But the lack of discernment prevented them from reaching the end. No other cause can be found for their downfall. Lacking the training provided by older men they could in no way acquire this virtue of discernment which, avoiding extremes, teaches the monk to walk always on the royal road. It keeps him from veering to the right, that is, it keeps him from going with stupid presumption and excessive fervor beyond the boundary of reasonable restraint. It keeps him from going to the left to carelessness and sin, to sluggishness of spirit, and all this on the pretext of actually keeping the body under control."
I think you're both wrong. God's plans have nothing to do with our decisions, good or bad. Tertullian deals with this in Book II of his Contra Marcion. The following is Chapter 7.
"By such a conclusion all is reserved unimpaired to God; both His natural goodness, and the purposes of His governance and foreknowledge, and the abundance of His power. You ought, however, to deduct from God’s attributes both His supreme earnestness of purpose and most excellent truth in His whole creation, if you would cease to inquire whether anything could have happened against the will of God. For, while holding this earnestness and truth of the good God, which are indeed capable of proof from the rational creation, you will not wonder at the fact that God did not interfere to prevent the occurrence of what He wished not to happen, in order that He might keep from harm what He wished. For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself, surely He from His very authority in creation permitted these gifts to be enjoyed: to be enjoyed, too, so far as lay in Himself, according to His own character as God, that is, for good (for who would permit anything hostile to himself? ); and, so far as lay in man, according to the impulses of his liberty (for who does not, when giving anything to any one to enjoy, accompany the gift with a permission to enjoy it with all his heart and will? ). The necessary consequence, therefore, was, that God must separate from the liberty which He had once for all bestowed upon man (in other words, keep within Himself), both His foreknowledge and power, through which He might have prevented man’s falling into danger when attempting wrongly to enjoy his liberty. Now, if He had interposed, He would have rescinded the liberty of man’s will, which He had permitted with set purpose, and in goodness. But, suppose God had interposed; suppose Him to have abrogated man’s liberty, by warning him from the tree, and keeping off the subtle serpent from his interview with the woman; would not Marcion then exclaim, What a frivolous, unstable, and faithless Lord, cancelling the gifts He had bestowed! Why did He allow any liberty of will, if He afterwards withdrew it? Why withdraw it after allowing it? Let Him choose where to brand Himself with error, either in His original constitution of man, or in His subsequent abrogation thereof! If He had checked (man’s freedom), would He not then seem to have been rather deceived, through want of foresight into the future? But in giving it full scope, who would not say that He did so in ignorance of the issue of things? God, however, did fore-know that man would make a bad use of his created constitution; and yet what can be so worthy of God as His earnestness of purpose, and the truth of His created works, be they what they may? Man must see, if he failed to make the most of the good gift he had received, how that he was himself guilty in respect of the law which he did not choose to keep, and not that the Lawgiver was committing a fraud against His own law, by not permitting its injunctions to be fulfilled. Whenever you are inclined to indulge in such censure (and it is the most becoming for you) against the Creator, recall gently to your mind in His behalf His earnestness, and endurance, and truth, in having given completeness to His creatures both as rational and good."
The necessary consequence, therefore, was, that God must separate from the liberty which He had once for all bestowed upon man (in other words, keep within Himself), both His foreknowledge and power, ...Tertullian does not deny Divine Foreknowledge; nor do I insist on God's overriding man's freedom. Would Tertullian say that God cannot override it? He merely does not want to, -- separates his power from man, -- just like I said in 2202.
We both agree that the Apostles COULD NOT be in error when teaching the faith.
I do believe the Apostles themselves were given special abilities to spread the truth, so I am not inclined to scream bloody murder at this. There's a bone. :)
Me: "But if the Bible is inerrant, then it could not have been subject to human error."
You seem to be lumping "sin" and "error" in the same definition. Again, we believe that the Apostles and their successors, due to Christ's promise, cannot err when, as a group, teach the faith. This includes putting pen to paper, teaching in public to the Galatians, or deciding what books infallibly belong in Scripture.
But ONE PARAGRAPH AGO you saw me list sin and error separately. I was making a distinction. In my next statement I only said "error". I didn't think it possible for sin to be involved in the writing of scripture, so I also eliminated error. Notwithstanding unintentional sin mentioned in the OT, I am using these words to mean "sin" (intentional) vs. "error" (unintentional).
Me: "Through God's given grace and faith, I am able to see that the Bible is true and accept it."
... We have discussed the anthropology of man before, and you seem to agree that man is at the very least a wounded specimen, incapable of coming to God alone. Yet, now you "know" that your wounded (or depraved?) intellect is able to point out what Scripture is - alone and without mediation from another? I find this an interesting argument - "I know that Scripture is God's Word - because my (depraved) mind tells me it is". Really, is that it?
I believe that when we are born, man is much more than wounded, he is DEAD in sin. Perhaps this is a semantics issue. I said that God gives me grace and that God gives me faith. Through these, then, I am able to "see". My intellect has no ability of its own. The Spirit translates and interprets for me, but in my own weakness I am still capable of missing the correct interpretation. Sanctification makes me better able to avoid that error on my part. I believe this is consistent with what I have been saying all along.
The Scriptures are not meant to be read alone separate from His Church. The Scriptures merely help to verify the proclamation that needs no Scriptures - JESUS IS LORD! Our witness is stronger, in the eyes of others, than a book. The reason people look to the book in the first place is because they trust your witness and your word that your source for your peace is God and His Word - found in Scriptures.
While I would never say the scriptures "merely" do anything, I do agree that witnessing is very important. God tasked us with this honor. I did not mean to imply that I chat with someone, throw him a Bible, and say "let me know how it works out". :) I always follow up with further teaching and encouragement.
I do not believe my little witness will ever be stronger than God's word. Since my witness is based upon it, the best I can do is not blow it. I can't surpass it, and I am not perfect, God's word is. I fully agree with you that seekers are very attracted to the peace that we hopefully exhibit. I firmly remember being that seeker.
If you believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, how does one explain that fallible men put it together? If one is infallible, so was the other.
One of the main points I have been making is that fallible men did not put the Bible together. God alone did through His use of men. There were no accidents, there was no luck. God takes no chances based on the decisions of fallible men.
The Jews, the authors of the OT, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. What this means is that prophesy is subject to interpretation. Prophesy ITSELF does not prove Jesus was the Messiah, because prophesy is by nature vague.
I agree that prophesy is subject to interpretation, but then, so is everything. Some "Christians" interpret that Jesus was married. You and I appear to interpret the same on this even though we differ on the path. Many Jews chose to not see what was in plain view, "live". Later Jews are forced to throw out the whole NT, it never happened, all lies, etc. We know this is not a reasonable interpretation.
I would say that the shear volume of prophecies about Christ, vague or not, interpreted or not, DO prove the identity of Christ as Savior. Statistical probability studies have been done and there is no doubt. If someone wants to interpret away the prophecies that doesn't change the truth.
The truth of the matter is that either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or our Lord.
You are quoting Josh McDowell. Outstanding! :)
Isn't it obvious that individual men are not given the ability to infallibly determine what IS the Scriptures and to collate them into one book? This took the Church, infallibly guided by the Spirit, to make such judgments.
Yes, it is indeed obvious. I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".
Thus, since the vast majority of the NT is letters, why would anyone expect everything taught by the first Christians to be in there? Doesn't Paul make it clear that he taught many things to his communities, some of them found in the written traditions, some not?
Yes, I can accept that, and I wouldn't expect that everything taught would be included. It just seems odd to me that so many controversial (according to Protestants) teachings were not included. Were they not written down by anyone, even just for reference? If you were a free will writer of scripture, wouldn't you want to include the core doctrine of practice in your writings, at least somewhere? You made the analogy that no one writes down how to eat a bowl of cereal. The difference is that from the time of the first bowl until today, no one has ever argued about it. Not so with Catholic tradition.
And why would he rehash EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that he taught them in a letter? For the Protestants who would leave the Church 1500 years later???
Of course he wouldn't rehash everything. I would think that he would rehash some more of what is now known as tradition. After all, aren't there many very important principles in the traditions that we have only the faith in men to know are true? As for not being able to see potential future problems in doctrine, I guess the writers were not nearly as blessed as we were led to believe. You rely on the special powers of the Apostles for authority, but none of them was wise enough to foresee a major doctrinal split ripping Christianity apart. That seems strange to me, if it was a bad thing.
Did he [Paul] not ordain men to continue his work, or did he leave a book to teach future men? And yet, you seem to forget this and place your faith in a book alone which is not self-attesting?
Of course. I'll put my trust in God's word, and you can put your trust in other men you hope have been inspired. Ask yourself why you believe the Bible is not self-attesting. It is only because men of the Church instructed you to interpret it this way. Why do you believe these men of the Church are infallible? Because they said so. What do you use as proof of their infallibility? A non-self-attesting Bible.
Why is it that last month, the Spirit was leading you to the former belief, and then, today, He has changed His mind, leading you somewhere else? Isn't this proof enough that the Spirit doesn't lead every one of our actions and beliefs and thoughts?
The Spirit never changes His mind, He changes my mind. This is what we call sanctification. I'm surprised that you do not appear to believe in it. I take it then that everything you know today you knew at the first moment you became a Christian? Further, that you don't expect to learn anything else in your faith for the rest of your life? This is perfect proof that the Spirit does lead. The Spirit knows that, unlike others, I am unable to absorb all truth in a single moment. The Spirit therefore leads me on a pace that I can handle. This will last for the rest of my life and I give all glory to God for it.
How do you KNOW such thoughts are from the Spirit, and not your own intellect, or even worse, Satan???
That's what faith is, and I'm sticking to it. If I am no more than a useful idiot to Satan then I will pay the price later. I live in God-given confidence and power that this won't be the case.
Me: "On the question of who's to say whether my interpretation or that of the JW is correct, I can simply rest in how the Spirit leads me."
You won't convince many people on that argument, because they say the same thing. Either the Spirit is lying, or one (or both) are misinterpreting what the Spirit is saying. The question, then, is :" how do you discern infallibly the Spirit"? How do you know the JW is wrong and you are right? BOTH of you 'claim' the Spirit! ... I will call this pride and leave it to you to discern if I am correct or not.
I would never use that argument on anyone else. I thought I was being clear enough that this was an argument I would use with myself. You are right that it would not work on another person.
From all of your posts on related matters, it is becoming more clear to me that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads non-Catholic-clergy at all. Every time a Protestant says the Spirit has led me to such and such, you immediately dismiss the idea and equate it with vanity and pride in the so-called believer. What can I say? I know the Spirit lives in me. I know the Spirit loves me. I know the Spirit leads me. If I can't convince you, then I can't convince you.
Oh, I understand that, I wouldn't expect you or any good Catholic to cherry pick from the Pope! He wouldn't be the Pope if he didn't know Catholicism inside and out. :)
Thus, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is quite old - it is just not DOGMA - infallible teaching - until 1854, I think.
Thanks for the info on this. I had no idea about the connection between Mary and Eve.
Seemed determine to catch me here, huh? ;-) We cannot know how much a person realizes that the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church, that it subsists within it, and that it was formed to bring people into union with Christ.
Yup! :) But, I accept your answer. It beats the heck out of a declarative "All non-Catholics will rot in hell!". That would have been a total bummer.
The Spirit certainly can come [to a saved person] in a "more direct manner", but not to the exclusion of the Church, which is what I believe Protestantism teaches.
I understand how you could say that. As for myself, I certainly do not believe that the Spirit bypasses Catholics and only leads Protestants. And on this thread, among other Protestants, I don't feel lonely at all in this view.
If you say that the Spirit is leading you through the Church to believe in a thing, then I am in no position to accuse you of being a liar. On the same issue, I might say that the Spirit is leading me in a different direction. I agree with you that there is only one truth, therefore one or both of us is wrong in receiving the Spirit's leadership. So, we work through it as best as we can. I can't explain why this happens, all I can say is that we'll find out someday.
Me: "OK, why would anyone say "NO"? Who wouldn't accept such a gift? "
Faith is the gift, correct? What is faith? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). It is not seen yet! The PROMISE made is just that - a promise of eternal life. Thus, people are free to not accept the promise for whatever reason (we've heard a number of excuses).
This is fascinating. Here is the same verse from my NIV:
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. [Emphasis added]
This completely changes everything as far as how we look at this verse, doesn't it? I can't think of a bigger difference in all the verses we have swapped. Very interesting.
But, getting back to your point, it appears you are saying that the lost person never gets to the stage of turning down a sure thing because he first rejects the required faith. OK, but you would have to admit that the person still has no conception of what he is rejecting. Else, he would obviously accept the gift. That was my point. With fair knowledge, who would say 'No'?
Me: "My faith says that the Spirit will always point me toward the narrow road, even if I sometimes stray through briers or rocky sidepaths."
:-) as long as you can identify the "voice of the Spirit", that would work great! Sometimes, that is hard to do. Discernment is a difficult ART (not a science) that takes a lot of work and prayer.
True enough. Between my bleatings, I pray I will recognize my Shepherd's voice when He calls. :)
NO!!! You are tempting my primary vice...
LOL! God bless.
"Tertullian does not deny Divine Foreknowledge; nor do I insist on God's overriding man's freedom. Would Tertullian say that God cannot override it? He merely does not want to, -- separates his power from man, -- just like I said in 2202."
I took your comment in 2202 to mean that God's "plan" was in fact, as FK said, dependant on man's decisions "in a mathematical sense". The fact that God has foreknowledge doesn't mean He is bound by man. He is bound by Himself only.
About the pronunciation of filioque, thank you both for the help. At least I can attempt to talk in person to others about it now. :)
FK, I have re-read many of the posts on this thread and I have sincerely tried to understand the apparent rejection by Protestantism of the first 1500 years of Christian theology on salvation in favor of a once saved always saved mindset. Where does this come from? I have read the proof texts presented, but when I read the Fathers on this,
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Best read the BOOK not the fathers.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
You replied: You are quoting Josh McDowell. Outstanding! :)
I have read some of his work, but I was actually quoting C.S. Lewis and "Mere Christianity".
I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".
What is the distinction? In either case, God is the power behind it. Catholics don't make the claim that our leaders are infallible based on their own ability! It is clear that the Tradition of the Church, the Scriptures and the Fathers, note that God infallibly guides His Bride. Thus, when I mention earlier that the Council determined the contents of Scripture, this is based on the Holy Spirit's guidance, Who was able to "guide" those men to infallibly determine Scripture.
Whether it is on the contents of Scripture OR making a decision on a belief ("is Jesus the same essence as God the Father?"), do you not agree that God would protect His Church, the Faithful, from error? If you think that the Scriptures are infallible, I do not understand why you refuse to accept God working through these same men to make decisions on the Faith. What good is Scriptures, frankly, if people have incorrect ideas about God that are not corrected?
It just seems odd to me that so many controversial (according to Protestants) teachings were not included.
They were NOT controversial at the time! Paul wrote to the Galatians about Judaizers and circumcision. Why? Because of false teachers who were influencing the community. Paul didn't write about irregular practices of the Eucharist (as in Corinth) because there WERE no such problems. Things like "Mary is the Mother of God" hadn't come up while the Apostles were alive or everyone agreed with that teaching and it never came up. Again, the writings were directed at people from the First Century, not the Sixteenth Century. Thus, it is illogical to believe that Paul should have discussed things that didn't come up - either because they were commonly held (Eucharist is Christ's Body) or were not theologically discussed yet (Mary was Assumed into heaven).
Can you tell me why God would change how He leads His Church? What He did with the Apostles, we believe He continues today and until the end of time. A visible Church that authoritatively interprets Scriptures. In matters of faith and morals, we need a Body that protects what was handed down - the Deposit of Faith. This is serious business, because we believe that Deposit CAME FROM GOD. It is not subject to our spin or change with the culture. Nothing is added to it (there will NEVER be a fourth person in the Trinity, women will NEVER be ordained by the Church, and so forth - no matter what culture says).History has taught us that men alone will not agree on what the Scripture tells us. Thus, we need an authority protected by God Himself.
Thus, while people say that the Spirit leads them to believe "X" or "Y", we MUST disagree, as the Spirit of Truthy doesn't teach two different things. THAT is what the Church is for. Can you imagine if no one could point to a teaching (is God one, two or three or four persons) that was TRUE? What would BE the point of Scriptures if there was not something to back it up and say "THIS is what it means"?
I'll put my trust in God's word
Can you go through the process of proving that the Bible is God's Word WITHOUT the witness of the Church? The Bible is not self-attesting in its individual books! Explain Philemon or Jude. Why? I have yet to hear an answer on this front.
From all of your posts on related matters, it is becoming more clear to me that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads non-Catholic-clergy at all.
I never said that! What I am saying is that YOU (or HIM) cannot be sure if the pastor at your church is teaching the truth, or his own version of the truth. Sure, he might happen to coincide with the Apostolic sense of the Scriptures - what God meant for Scripture to teach. He might happen to teach VERY Catholic teachings, such as on abortion or the Trinity. But when they deviate from Catholic teachings, rest assured, they are wrong and are not following the Spirit, but their own personal ideas. God does not teach its Church one thing, and your pastor another.
The Spirit is most certainly active in your pastor. We can know someone by their fruit. But we are speaking on two different levels. I am not speaking about a person's personal sanctification. I am speaking about a person's knowledge of God, about proper teachings that God has given His Apostles. Those don't change - despite what you pastor thinks is his personal abilities in the Spirit to be holy and free from sin. God has given the Church Apostles, teachers, preachers, prophets, and so forth. We are not ALL teachers. We are not ALL prophets. Your pastor has heard God's calling to proclaim the Word. But it is not supposed to be according to HIS opinion, but God's. He has already given this to the Apostles and their teachings - both oral and written. Deviate from that, and you are following men, whether you admit this or not.
Regards
Well, it is not a matter of the Pope's innate wisdom per sec that leads loyal Catholics to obey, but the fact that we understand that God works powerfully through his teachings - even if not infallible, they rate our obedience, as Hebrews 13:17 (among others) states :"Listen to your pastors, and do not resist them, for they watch for your souls as those that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief; for that [is] unprofitable for you."
An interesting note is the definition of "catholic". It means more than "universal". It means "the totality" or "the whole of the parts". Thus, it can be said that there is no such thing as a cafeteria Catholic. By picking and choosing, you de facto say you are not "Catholic". Thus, we follow everything that is legitimately taught to us. You would, too, if you accepted the Church's establishment is based on the Foundation, Jesus Christ.
I had no idea about the connection between Mary and Eve.
When I teach people about Mary, I focus on the early Church's connection between the two (which is a natural parallel that Paul makes with Jesus and Adam).
Here is an example:
God, by a rival method, restored His image and likeness...For into Eve when she was yet a virgin had crept the word that established death, likewise, into a Virgin was to be brought the Word of God that produced life; so that what had gone to ruin by the one sex might be restored to salvation by the same sex. (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, c. 200 AD)
There are similar such quotes by St. Justin the Martyr in 150 and St. Ireneaus in 180 AD. They saw that the disobedience of Adam and Eve should be canceled out in the SAME manner by the obedience of two people. These people would be similar, also - Since Adam and Eve were born sinless, and Jesus was born sinless, then the Church viewed Mary, also, as sinless. Thus, the argument for the Immaculate Conception was very early, an idea that no one refuted.
I understand how you could say that. As for myself, I certainly do not believe that the Spirit bypasses Catholics and only leads Protestants. And on this thread, among other Protestants, I don't feel lonely at all in this view.
As I have said elsewhere, the Spirit operates on two levels within the Church. The first level is for our individual sanctification. While the Sacraments are the par excellence of God's coming to us, we also can receive Him during prayer and Scripture meditation, for example. Certainly, Protestants are quite open to receiving the Spirit in this manner. The second level is the Spirit guarding the teachings of the Christ. Christ is not visibly present on earth for all time, so to maintain what HE taught, we must rely on some divinely-guided body to ensure that men (who are wounded of intellect) do not stray over hundreds of years of Christianity from God's teachings. This second level is given to the Bishops, those men following in the footsteps of the Apostles (this laying of hands, the passing of the torch, is clearly seen in the Pastorals).
But, getting back to your point, it appears you are saying that the lost person never gets to the stage of turning down a sure thing because he first rejects the required faith. OK, but you would have to admit that the person still has no conception of what he is rejecting. Else, he would obviously accept the gift. That was my point. With fair knowledge, who would say 'No'?
People have various levels of faith (due to their own disbelief or skepticism). A person can have an intellectual faith, but it does not lead us to love. I know this from experience, as my first 6 months in Christianity was like that. Intellectual with little love. A person who rejects God at that stage certainly does not know what He is rejecting OR He doesn't have a strong enough faith to believe that it is really true. What is "fair knowledge"? I am sure that both of us are aware of people who have fallen away from Christianity, in some cases, many years after following Christ. The problem is often skepticism creeps in. Or a strong presence of evil appears. But knowledge is not enough to hold us to God. It requires an ongoing relationship with Christ.
Regards
Dewey, I've read your proof texts in both post #2211 & 2212. More about personal proof texting in a few lines. I am, I must say, right back where I was when I said I simply can't see where you people are coming from with your "once saved always saved" theories. As I understand what you profess to find in the bible, "Salvation is obtained through confessing to God that your a sinner. Asking for forgiveness and by faith asking Christ to come into your life. In to your fife (sic) for what purpose? To lead rule and guide through his word (the Bible)" Is this all? Does this happen at any random time in life? Suppose I lead a sinful, self absorbed life for 25 years and then decide all of a sudden on my 26th birthday to do exactly as you have suggested. Having done that, and assuming I live to be 101, will I spend the next 75 years in a completely sinless state? Or, conversely, am I now free to sin vigorously, as Luther unfortunately put it, without consequence to myself or creation around me?
Dewy, I suspect that your concept of what it means to be saved and what I mean when I say that one may attain a state of theosis are very different things. For you, what exactly does being saved mean; is it a temporal thing, an eternal thing, both? In this life, how does it manifest itself? After death? Finally, how do you conceive of the Fnal Judgment? How are we judged; what's the measure?
As for proof texting, allow me to suggest that unless one has received knowledge through the Holy Spirit, it is quite impossible to correctly interpret scripture. As you undoubtedly know, what you use for scripture, for the most part, was determined by The Church long prior to the rise of anything like Protestantism in councils of the hierarchs of The Church including many of the men we call The Fathers. Let us posit for the moment that these men, including the Fathers, were filled with knowledge by the Holy Spirit in order to perceive, among the many contenders for inclusion into the canon of scripture, those writings which indeed are inspired by God and appropriate for the inculcation of the Faith in an authoritative way. I assume you will accept this proposition since to say otherwise is to view Christian scriptures in the way Mohammaden heretics do theirs. Now, if the Fathers and other hierarchs and holy men of The Church were so inspired by the Holy Spirit as to correctly recognize true scripture, does it not necessarily follow that a) they were saved by your definition of salvation and b) on account of that salvation and the knowledge and understanding which flows from that, were in a position to correctly interpret those scriptures?
Assuming your honest answer is yes, what explains the fact that none, not one, of The Fathers, nor any hierarch nor holy man within the Church for at least the first 1500 years of its existence, ever suggested the sort of "salvation" you apparently believe in and further believe is testified to in scripture. What happened? Were The Fathers inspired as to what was appropriately scripture but the world had to wait until the Reformation before a correct interpretation of the scripture came about? Were they "sort of inspired", "sort of saved"? Clearly Dewy, all the proof texting in the world cannot substitute for proper interpretation now can it? If the Rev. Billy Bob Jeff with his degree from Ed's Bible College tells you one thing about the meaning of a verse from scripture, and a man who was in part responsible for the inclusion of that piece of scripture in the canon tells you something else, who are you going to believe?
John 10 speaks of those who "hear his voice" and asserts their security from the devil. But the passage does not tell us who these faithful sheep are and when they became that way. The assertion you imply, that a declaration of faith converts one into a faithfull sheep is not in the text.
Let us read Ephesians starting with the passage you excerpted in Chapter 2:
1 And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins, 2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: 3 In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: 4 But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) 6 And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. 7 That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.Note that St. Paul draws a contrast between the works of the world and faith obtained by grace. Now we understand what "works" he is talking about: the works of the world done for selfish reason. But wait. Where is Paul going with this? Let us read some more (Chapter 3):
17 That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity, 18 You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: 19 To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. 20 Now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we desire or understand, according to the power that worketh in us;So, that faith is there to bring forth fruits: charity, knowledge, and power. St. Paul concludes his thought(Chapter 4)
1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.And on and on, for two more chapters, St. Paul urges those you fancy "saved" to "walk in love". Toward the end, that walk becomes a battle (Chapter 6):[...]
11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; 14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. 15 But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ:
6 Not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, 7 With a good will serving, as to the Lord, and not to men. 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the LordLoks like St. Paul wants those "once-saved-always-saved" to do quite a bit of work before they can be safe from the "spirits of wickedness".[...]
11 Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. 12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. 13 Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect.
But why even pick lines from John ans Ephesians when Christ told us in no uncertain terms that a lifetime of faith working through love is the basis of our salvation, and declarative faith is not?
This is who will be saved (Matthew 25):
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to meThis is who will not be
42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. 46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.And this is what declarative faith gets us (Matthew 7):
21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.Now it is time to remember those sheep from John 10. When do we know that they are those faithful sheep? Is it when they call "lord, lord"? Or is it when, their life's work of charity done, Christ separates them from goats?
Christ is God, the origin and definition of Free Will. Before the Fall, Adam was in a state of potential theosis, though likely far more advanced than any of us. His free will was natural to him and not at all a flaw. Free Will is an attribute of our Triune God and Adam was created in the image and likeness of God. The exercise of that Free Will, to gain knowledge when he wasn't ready for it and then lying about it to God was Adam's doing, Adam's sin, not God's. God is never the author of evil, my friend.
Firstly, I fully agree that God is not the author of evil, I have said so explicitly several times on this thread. My premise for asking the question was that Adam was not created in perfection, because he had the free will to sin, and of course, he did. In heaven, there is no sin, so we will be "perfect" then, although not equal to God or His essence in any sense. So, another way to ask my same question would be: "could Jesus have used His free will and sinned"? I would answer 'No', not because He doesn't have the power to do whatever He wants, but because it is not His nature to sin. The incarnation of Jesus was in perfection, unlike Adam.
Thank you very much for your comments on the filioque. That was very informative.
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.