Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I think it's very important to reflect on such things and I don't mean to detract from this reflection. However, it's interesting that you would identify yourself with Judas' betrayal and not Peter's denial. I would argue that we're more like Peter in his denial than we are like Judas in his betrayal.
Yes, I would agree with stripes. A majority of Protestants have abandoned the monergistic view of salvation and adopted the synergistic (free will) view. Wesley, while not accepting everything the Arminius had to offer, accepted the "free will" view.
Today most Protestants have no problem agreeing to the Catholic view of man, even though it was never what Protestants were originally about. It doesn't surprise me that jokus wouldn't have much difficulties in becoming a Methodist or why some Protestants become Catholic.
That's not the way it works in Arminian theology. The majority of Protestants do not believe in once saved, always saved.
All I can do is generalize, trying to come up with common beliefs
You might want to leave once saved, always saved out of your general categories for Protestants. If it is general, then it applies to a majority. And that isn't the case for this category.
Really? Well, I apologize again. I had realized that Classical Protestantism, such as Lutheranism, had taught that once a person had accepted our Lord and Savior into their lives, then His righteousness would be applied to the person, imputed justification. And as a result, this person could not lose salvation. Are you then saying that Arminian theology, besides considering free will vs. the Reformed theology, also considers one's holiness and sanctification as a process - and how one proceeds along this path determines salvation? I had realized that Methodists were similar in thinking, but Arminius is now the point of contact here?
Is there a place I can learn more about this? We have the Catholic Catechism that details such things, but where would I find a SHORT discussion on point regarding Arminianism/Reformed theology on major topics?
I will refrain in the future from chareceterizing all Protestants as "once saved, always saved" people.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards
yes, you have said that a number of times. but I hadn't realized that this also covered salvation issues. I thought it was only indirect - man cooperates with God, but it is God alone who gives man the ability and who saves man. Catholics do believe in predestination. What about Arminians? Arminians believe that they are not automatically saved? Sorry for the ignorance. It seems Protestants classify themselves into many different groups and theological mindsets and it can be difficult to understand them all.
Today most Protestants have no problem agreeing to the Catholic view of man, even though it was never what Protestants were originally about.
I don't know where we stand in regards to Arminians. I get the idea that we are in between you and them on the issue of free will. I don't know about how this effects your guy's ideas on salvation. All I do here is expound on Catholic ideas. When someone expresses their ideas that differ from Catholicism, we discuss it. So I am not in the know on all the various groups theories.
It doesn't surprise me that jokus wouldn't have much difficulties in becoming a Methodist
{Chuckle}. Now, Harley, I didn't say that I'd have difficulties in becoming a Methodist! Only that IF IF I already WAS a Protestant, my current paradigms, experiences, and "self" interpretations of Scripture lead me in that direction - IF I was not Catholic! I couldn't image leaving the Eucharist. We don't want to start any vicious rumours now, especially before Lent! :)
To be fair to your theological bend, I also ask you for some SHORT link that compares our ideas of salvation to yours and Arminians' (I already asked Stripes, who I presume is an Arminian).
Regards
Arminians hold to the 5-points of the Remonstrant. These 5-points states:
The Protestant TULIP, which was developed in response to the Arminian Remonstrant, believes:
It's a muddled mess.
Link: What is Arminianism?
Kolokotronis "Crushing" is exactly the right word!
And I though I was the only one feeling that in each Divine Liturgy. What is even more devastating is that no matter how much one feels repulsed by his or her own actions and choices whereby we betray Christ daily, we find it difficult not to repeat it. The feeling of weakness of one's faith becomes that much more obvious and "crushing."
Yes, the stuff in green looks like a fair summation of the Catholic theology of predestination.
It, of course, leaves our Arminian Protestant friends much room for error in other areas where they stray from the Church, such as necessity of the Holy Tradition, necessity of sacraments of the Church, necessity of charitable work, infused grace, veneration of Mary and saints, the papacy, and purgatory. Anything I forgot?
Jo: "Nowhere does that suggest that Jesus meant FUTURE sins, as well. ... There is nothing in the Scripture that suggests that a person could not fall away."
No one is saying that when Jesus said "your sins are forgiven" it meant the person would never sin again. It just means that ALL of the person's sins (past, present, and future) were forgiven at once. Does Jesus have the authority to do that? I would say "YES". If Jesus had the authority to die (pay) for all of our sins at once, why doesn't He have the authority to forgive all of our sins at once.
Of course, the Bible commands us to confess our sins both to God and to one another. That is good, and we have assurance they will be forgiven of God. The real difference we have is whether or how this is tied in to salvation or not.
1 John 2:1-2 : 1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Under what circumstances will Jesus not speak for a believer? If he hasn't confessed his latest sins yet?
Ps. 103:12 : as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
That is, only until the next sin?
Rom. 8:1 : Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, ...
Does this mean no one is in Christ Jesus until he confesses his last sin before he dies?
One has to wonder if Jesus could look down the "corridors of time" and foresee our acceptance of Him, couldn't He look down that same corridor and still forgive a person of all their sins (past, present, and future)?
However, I prefer to believe they've strayed from sound Protestant teaching. Consequently they are correct on things such as veneration of Mary and saints, the papacy, and purgatory.
Outstanding post.
Arminius was a Dutch Reformed Calvinist who reacted against Calvinism. It's not that Methodists evolved directly from Arminius (Wesley spent a great deal of time reading Greek Patristics), but there is a set of general beliefs that theologians call Arminian. If you asked most Protestants who Arminius is, I doubt that they would know. But it is this set of general beliefs that the majority of Protestants subscribe to.
Is there a place I can learn more about this? We have the Catholic Catechism that details such things, but where would I find a SHORT discussion on point regarding Arminianism/Reformed theology on major topics?
There is no Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith nor a catechism for Protestantism, although some Protestant denominations do have a catechism for their chuch. I see that HarleyD has already provided you with a link to get you started.
If you are interested in anything more, I would recommend going to your local library and cheching out a couple of books with a good history of the Protestant Reformation and subsequent history up to the end of the 19th century. And then read over the next 6 months or so to get a good idea and feeling for the different schools of thought among Protestants and how they have developed over time.
First of all, unlike Arminianism, we do believe in Predestination! We believe that the Elect are irresistibly led by God (if one would look back on their life, they would see God's effect. We can't see it very well from our point of view since we can't see into the future).
For example, "God, by His eternal resolve of Will, has predestined certain men to eternal blessedness". DE FIDE!
"God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins (a bit different then the first one), to eternal rejection" DE FIDE!
As you probably know, St. Augustine defended predestination against the Semi-Pelagians who thought one could come to God after Baptism without grace. Predestination is a part of the Divine Plan of Providence.
The big "problem", however, is whether God has taken the Predestination of the Elect with or without the consideration of the merits of the man. Many early Catholics would say "no", such as St. Augustine and St. Aquinas. However, more recent Catholic theologians would say God MUST take it into account, as God sees everything as one "NOW", thus, makes decisions "simultaneously" with out actions in time. This is an open question in Catholicism and one can hold either point of view - as I have said before. This appears to be a difference between us and Arminianism. Of course, we do not believe that God predestines the reprobate, which Calvin taught. Thus, I say that Catholics fall in between the two extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism.
With this said, thus, Catholics would see that #1 and #2 could be potential sticking points with the Remonstrants. Number one has the potential to turn to Semi-Pelagianism, and #2 suggests that God MUST consider our merits when determining His elect - we do not teach either point infallibly. I would say 3, 4 and 5 are pretty much in line with our beliefs. However, with TULIP, 2, 4 and 5 are pretty close, 3 we can reword to say "efficacious" graces save but not sufficient graces. Number one, we'd reword that one to say "inability to choose God alone without His help".
My knowledge of Protestantism seems to be stuck in classical Protestantism, and I admit that I need to do some more reading to when Protestantism split between the two schools noted above. I have purchased the 5 volume set of Pelikan's The Christian Tradition, A history of the Development of Doctrine, and have read the 4 books - but not the last one, which covers from 1700 to now. Maybe I should read it? But I should know better, as the 4th book does cover the Remonstrants and the Reformed Theology, as well as toucing on the Anabaptists.
Sorry, there is already enough to know as a Catholic, with Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers, the Catechism, the Liturgy and Sacraments, and 2000 years of history!
Regards
Again, you are having a problem with time. Christ's sacrifice on the cross forgives ALL men's sins potentially, the elect and the damned. But who will ASK FOR THIS FORGIVENESS? We are REQUIRED to REPENT to be forgiven. Consider the Lord's Prayer. God's forgiveness is conditional. Thus, the wicked, who do not seek God, will not be OFFERED the Lord's work. We (I hope you and I) will and be offered Christ's forgiveness. Christ's forgiveness, thus, is not applied until that time when we sin and beg His forgiveness.
Under what circumstances will Jesus not speak for a believer? If he hasn't confessed his latest sins yet?
See above. But another point to consider, my brother, is that sin is not only a legal status, but also an ontological stance. We actually suffer, our human dignity, suffers as a result of sin. We are held slaves to it. We are wounded by its effects. Thus, Christ provided His ministry of Reconciliation to HEAL us from those effects - not only to change our legal status with God, but to give us life and give it to us to the fullest (as much as possible) even here on earth.
Does this mean no one is in Christ Jesus until he confesses his last sin before he dies?
Is someone in Christ when a Christian murders or commits adultery? You be the judge. There is more to being a Christian than a name. Only those who DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN shall enter the Kingdom.
Regards
Sure, if the forgiveness of sins was ONLY a legal status, and not something that actually HURTS us and our relationships with God and others. Sin is more than harmful to our legal status of righteousness. Thus, we are HEALED when we are forgiven. Healed of ruined relationships, of slavery to things other than Christ, of shameful deeds committed, etc...But as I said before, God's forgiveness is conditional. He offers it to those whom ask for it.
Regards
Another reason why I like him.
If you are interested in anything more, I would recommend going to your local library and cheching out a couple of books with a good history of the Protestant Reformation and subsequent history up to the end of the 19th century. And then read over the next 6 months or so to get a good idea and feeling for the different schools of thought among Protestants and how they have developed over time.
I was hoping for something more of a summary, not a full exposition of Protestantism. I prefer to read more about Catholicism and the Church Fathers, and then refute the various Protestants, no matter their theological bend. It would be nice to know more of their background, but quite honestly, who knows a Protestant's background of theological beliefs until he starts to express them. I am more interested in general concepts.
Thanks
Not hardly. It's precisely BECAUSE Protestants do NOT follow sola scriptura that they get into trouble. Protestants end up listening to this or that thick haired guy espouse some sort of "wonderful" theology that sounds very nice. Yet they seldom compare it to the scriptures to see if these things are so. Hey, we can spend three hours watching a football game but let's not spend too much time (if at all) reading God's word.
It's like the veneration of Mary, purgatory or indulgences. None is mentioned in scripture yet here you are practicing it simply because someone states that it's so. Priests and pastors give all sorts of fluffy reasoning which sounds totally rational.
Protestants are no different. It's easier to be told what to think. So instead of praying to Mary you have Pentecostals being "slain in the Spirit"; instead of purgatory you have wacky Protestants who believe the United States is the lost tribe of Israel. What's the difference? Just so long as we all maintain "free will" then it doesn't matter, right?!? Just don't drink the Kool-Aid.
The sad thing is that we have relegated God's holy and inspired word to a bookshelf while we espouse on our pompous theology finding individuals who will support our views. Instead of harmonizing scripture as the early church fathers sought to do, we seek to circumvent it by shrugging our shoulders, saying "I don't understand it." to simple passages and carrying on playing church. Thinking has become a dying art.
I much more appreciate an individual who will tell me I'm wrong about a certain doctrine or passage, laying out clear, concise reasoning using sola scriptura than to have someone tell me I'm wrong but they don't really know why or because Benny Hinn or Pope Benedict XVI says I'm wrong.
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.