Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Actually, everyone who is elect would say that, not just Calvinistic-Protestants.
The difference comes out when the story is later retold by the Christian who was rescued.
The reprobate would continue to paddle off thinking there is a better boat somewhere else.
So, you are saved from death first and then purified? That's a new one! I think your logic is reversed.
Sanctification means to be set apart and/or made holy. God obviously touches us before we can become saved, but this is a different concept. This is from the Southern Baptist Convention website:
"Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit: The third person in the Trinity; Jesus promised the Apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit after his Crucifixion and Resurrection; it came on Pentecost) dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life."
--------------------
But it is becoming clear to me why you think the way you think. The biblical tense of a word "saved" is one of future, of something that has not occurred yet, and not of an accomplished act. Yet the English term in most English-language bibles is one of something that has already been accomplished! ... Your whole theology, which begins rather than ends with salvation, is founded on a term interpreted in a wrong tense.
Well, I'm not in a position to argue about verb forms in languages I do not know. However, if what you are saying is all there is to it, then a core holding of most Protestants would be worthless. It would mean that ALL of the most brilliant Protestant minds who have variously lived throughout the centuries, people who knew these languages 10 times better than either one of us, they all were wrong in order for you to be right.
I can appreciate if that is what you believe, but I also cannot accept that it is not disputed by men way smarter and holier than I am now. If I'm not mistaken, I believe I have even heard Catholics on this thread say that the word "save" appears in all three tenses in the Bible. Regardless, that is what I believe.
Kosta's boast analogy pretty well defines what a Catholic or Orthodox person would thing -- by your reply, Forest, I guess you'd think along the same lines.
well, if we remain polite we can learn a lot more about how fellow Christians think: I would also like to point out NOW we see our common foe: Islammm rising it's head to threaten ALL.
"Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit: The third person in the Trinity; Jesus promised the Apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit after his Crucifixion and Resurrection; it came on Pentecost) dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life."
FK, in general this sounds very Orthodox.
FK, I was using the ship as the "mark" Koloktoronis uses in his posts: our Lord Jesus Christ. The Protestants say "I accept Jesus as my Savior" and you consider yourselves "saved." The Orthodox/Catholic accept Christ and only begin the process that may lead to their salvation. We have to actively follow Christ and hope that our hearts will be changed so that we may conform to the likeness of God, so that we may be saved.
Thus, in my analogy here, the Orthodox/Catholic would actively work in the direction of their salvation. Your account of the Protestants is incompatible with the Protestant notion that salvation is "an instant" (when you accept Jesus as your Christ).
Well, it's not only harsh, but it's nothing what Jesus taught. God does not hate His creation.
No, God does not hate His creation. What I haven't heard from you is how, if God loves us equally, is it that some are saved and some are lost? Doesn't God have the power to arrange anything He wants? Is God "loving" us by watching some reject Him and go to hell? If I ever loved my kids like that I would rightfully be arrested for child abuse.
So, then, can Love hate? Can absolute and pure Love find room for evil? Can pure Love return evil with evil? No! Because God is unchanging. So love is then always love.
Apparently, to you love CAN hate! God loves us all, is omnipotent, and yet does nothing for those who reject Him. You call that love. You're making my point for me.
I know, the Bible babblers will quote a passage where it says that God hated. Again, reading the Bible "cold" (literally) is just that. It leads to error. ... It's for simple minds.
Yes, us simple-minded Bible babblers will tend to do that, quote the Bible. Shame on us, I know. Sometimes, we even go so far as to accept the actual words in the Bible, and not trust someone else to interpret them out of existence. Silly us again. That Bible thingy just can't be trusted until your leaders give me my view of it. But, Hey wait a minute. You don't even trust Catholic leaders to give you your opinion. That's why you don't have unity, and this could not have been over a trivial matter. Is the Church hierarchy infallible or not? Apparently, you would say 'NO' as to Catholics.
***FK, in general this sounds very Orthodox.***
What's your take on this, from the Westmister Confession of Faith.
Chapter XIII
Of Sanctification
I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]
I'm not exactly sure what this means:
"They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated,...."
That said, compare the Westminster Confession with these:
"Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?' (Prov. 6:27) says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god." +Symeon the New Theologian
And these from +Gregory of Sinai:
"A person is perfect in this life when as a pledge of what is to come he receives the grace to assimilate himself to the various stages of Christ's life. In the life to come perfection is made manifest through the power of deification."
"He will share in Christ's glory who, through being formed in Christ, has received renewal by the Spirit and has preserved it, and so has attained to ineffable deification. No one, there, will be one with Christ or be a member of Christ, if he has not become even here a receiver of grace and has not, thereby, become 'transformed by the renewal of' his 'mind'"
And this by +Gregory Palamas:
"Moses and David, and whoever else became vessels of divine energy by laying aside the properties of their fallen nature, were inspired by the power of God... They became living icons of Christ, being the same as He is, by grace rather than by assimilation."
Looks pretty much the same if we understand the words the same way.
Hmmm....In the shipwreck analogy it seems to me the Protestant has placed their faith and trust that the ship has spotted them and will indeed rescue them. The Orthodox does not indicate this faith hoping that if they do something (e.g. swim out closer) they will be spotted and rescued. I think that is a fair analogy.
You Protestants are so Pharisaical! Your arguments are like those of the High Priest on Golgotha telling Christ "If You are the Son of God, step down from that Cross and we shall believe in you." Or words to the effect "What kind of a God is He if He can't smite these Romans who are flogging Him?"
I was paraphrasing your +John Chrysostomos in Homily VI on Phillipians:
"As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost,...
Then I said: "... Isn't it clear in this passage that we are stronger than the hand of God? God's hand is strong, but not strong enough to overcome our desires? To me, interpreting "no one" into "no one except me" renders the whole verse useless. It completely negates the point of the verse."
You are attacking your own guy. My arguments are not Pharisaical. I know that Christ COULD have stepped down from the cross with no effort. He chose not to because it was not God's plan for Him to do that. Therefore, your only out is to say that it was part of God's plan that some whom God loved would slip right through God's all powerful fingers and be lost. But, that would make you agree with the Bible babblers. Not a pleasant situation to be in.
Evil has been in the world since Adam and Eve and rears it head at various times and in various ways. As Christians we are to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with our God. I presume doing "justice" means to live my life according to God's commands including standing up for those things that are wrong.
But in the end it's all in God's hands. He's the one that raises up nations and rulers. Who's to say God isn't raising up Islam to inflict judgment on us Christian "nations" who support abortion, homosexuals, pediophiles, divorce, etc. What we should be doing is confessing our sins and asking God for His mercies. We have million dollar churches and nobody's on their knees.
People COULD do it. The Old Testament went unwritten for many years. I am quite amazed what the human mind can do when tasked to do something. You realize that the Iliad was completely memorized by bards, retold over and over, for many years, before it was written down. Men CAN spread the Gospel without reading it. As you have said before, the Gospel message, the core, is not difficult. We argue about verses of Scripture, but these are theological details that probably don't bother most people. I have given you an example from St. Ireneaus' time on how he praised a community who had NO Bible but were quite orthodox. People into the Medieval period didn't read the Scriptures - they "read" it through stain glass, through traveling artists in skits, through the liturgy (we hear it proclaimed at Mass) or practiced in daily living. This we call Tradition. The living faith of the Church. But really, does a person need to read the entire Bible to understand the Gospel message - love?
I have no problem with an oral teaching that is from the Bible or is at least consistent with it. I do have a problem with teachings that lead away from God or the Bible. One example would be any teaching that discourages the individual's reading of scripture.
I agree. Regarding your last sentence, I think you'd have to understand what was happening with the Reformation and the call to read and come up with your own interpretations that led people astray of the Church. I believe the Church found it necessary to issue a warning to beware of reading the Bible APART from the Church. It still does this today - but encourages us to read the Bible.
I wrote "We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church)."
You responded I had never thought of it that way. Is the difference between the last two that one "is" the teachings and the other "are" the people giving the teachings?
Not sure I understand that question. The Magesterium are the Bishops who interpret the Bible and the 2000 year history of HOW the Church previously interpreted the Bible (Tradition). They make the teachings of Christ pertinent to OUR problems today, such as stem-cell research.
But, as you like to point out, at that time there was no full Bible yet. So, I don't see how this example refutes Bible self interpretation. Another thing I find interesting is that it was specifically the Spirit who moved Phillip to go and witness to this man.
There was an Old Testament. It follows that the New Testament is also supposed to be read in light of the Church's teachings given to them by the Apostles. There is nothing wrong with reading the Bible - the Church encourages it! We just must be careful not to come up with our own interpretations that disagree with what God has already revealed through the Church. God is truth and does not disagree with a past revelation given.
I just believe that Jesus doesn't need the self of man to explain Him outside of Biblical teachings. Of course we disagree on the authority of different men throughout the ages.
Then Jesus' teachings can never be known without doubt...
I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
Then Jesus didn't intend for His Church to last beyond the Apostles...
I think Jesus gives us the answers in other places in the Bible. At the time, though, I'm sure He did more fully explain many of His teachings to audiences He wanted to understand. Much is not recorded in the Bible, but everything we need is.
Proof texting is not the way of determining a teaching of Christ. I believe that theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next. When an Apostle went to a village, he gave a Body of Teaching that exceeded the entire content of the Scriptures. Scriptures did not explicitly encapsulate all of these teachings, although we can find them implied within. I gave you the example of intercessionary prayers to saints in heaven.
We don't believe that we interpret scripture based on ourselves. We believe the living Spirit within us guides us.
That's the rub, brother. If I use Protestant theology, how can a totally depraved human KNOW that the Spirit of God is "speaking" to that person? The Catholic theology of "wounded man" doesn't help, in this matter. We just DO NOT KNOW! We are told to TEST the Spirit. But test it against WHAT? Our own opinions? Other interpretations that we came up with before? No, we are to test it against the teachings given to us by the Church. I find it difficult, myself, to determine what is God's will in my specific life. I find my own self interjecting itself, perhaps the devil. Thus, we can not really know if the Spirit is speaking on a particular belief WITHOUT the Church as a point of reference. Without a reference, you are blowing in the wind...
How could one know anyway? I may not be sure what you mean by Protestant dogma. We try to always use the Bible to back up any practice or teaching.
Say Calvinism vs. Arminianism. The idea of man and free will. We BOTH know that there is Scripture that point to BOTH points of view. These two groups will NEVER agree because they only see their own proof texts and they disregard the other's. Without a Church to say "man has free will in a secondary sense. Man does cooperate with God and is expected to bend himself, with God's help, to God", how is a third person supposed to KNOW? This is what I mean. And even an honest Calvinist - when addressed with texts that show man's cooperation - what does he think about it then? God didn't leave us in the dark to argue about such matters!
The Spirit is not error-prone. He is perfect. We can make errors, just like individual Saints did. If you believe that the Spirit is God, what is wrong with depending on Him alone?
You seem to have a difficult time understanding my point - that we do not KNOW that the Spirit is speaking a specific doctrine into our heads!
We know it is the Spirit speaking to us if the insight points to God
You mean YOUR idea of God. Again, you are relying on your own human abilities to "hear" the Spirit and determine what God "is" through your own intellect. If it matches what the Church teaches, great. But if it doesn't, well, the Church must be wrong.
I suppose it {writing a book that no one understands} makes as much sense as saying a Mass in a language that very few understand
LOL! Touche! It would take too much time to explain that earlier thought on the Mass concentrated more on what was happening, the sacrifice of Christ being represented, rather than on people participating in that.
The Bible did not come from men who are fallible. God used the fallible men for labor, but did not let their fallibility interfere with the creation of His word. I'm not sure if you are arguing that the authors of the Bible were perfect.
The reason why people of the time believed that the compiled Bible WAS the Word of God was because those same people knew that the Church claimed infallibility on such matters. They knew that Christ had established it and was protecting it from error. They had experienced God working through those men previously. Thus, when they said "this is Scripture", they believed it, as we do today.
Jesus taught and quoted from the OT all the time. How could He have done that if the God of the OT was different from the God He was? If they were different Gods then all of Christianity is a fraud. I never thought of the Gnostics as real Christians anyway. I'd lump them in with the JWs.
Because not everyone understood Jesus as the same essence as God. Recall that the Greeks had a different understanding of God, and the demiurge or other lower levels of "gods". The Gnostics could use the message of Christ while still maintaining their concept of multi-level dieties. St. Ireneaus in "Against Heresies" (180 AD) writes quite extensively against these "Christians". It would take too much time to detail it all here. Suffice to say that already during the time of Scripture's writing, there were other people who did not follow the orthodox teachings of the Apostles. Look esp. to the latter books, Jude, 1 John, Colossians, Revelation. They all talk about the battle that orthodox Christianity was already involved in.
Bible contains everything we need to know from God
If you add "...when properly interpreted", then it makes more sense. I have previously posted from men of 100-200 AD who noted that heterodox men "confiscated" Scriptures to back up their own fancies, such as Gnosticism or Arianism. Without the correct "lense" to read Scripture through, you won't come to the same conclusions and understandings then in the sense that it was written. All I need to say is "Eucharist".
Regards
We're shooting for 5000 posts...!
Take care
In 2,302 I went to a search engine and sorted out the occurences of "saved" by tense. Some are in the present tense; the issue is, are they in a continuous mood. Yes, they are, as other scripture shows, but no, it is not as simple as figuring out the grammatical tense.
It brings me great pleasure to agree with Harley for a change. I would go further and say that publishing those cartoons was a very un-Christian thing to do, and it set our struggle against Mohammed back.
Now I know the we're in the end times. :O)
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.