Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Thank you, Dr. Eckleburg, for all the quotes and for the great link to the book on predestination. I look forward to reading it.
HD: "If you promise not to tell my other Calvinist brothers, I'll tell you the secret to Calvinists' "wisdom"."
I agree with what he said. :)
The silly part is that of all these people only the Calvinists, to my knowledge, would provide Bible quotes by the dosen in order to "biblically prove" something understood with or without the Bible, then pretend they somehow defended Calvin's theological hoax.
Of course. Why would we ever need to defend our beliefs by quoting the Bible after perfectly well reasoned, and non-attacking posts like this?
Write a book, AG. You are one of His poets.
When I see a hoax, I attack it. Nothing wrong with that.
When a quote from the Bible is supporting an argument, it is used properly. If quotes are used to bulk up the post that do not reinforce the argument, then such quote is not used properly, and if the unrelated to the argument quote is proclaimed as deciding the argument, then what we have is an attempted hoax.
So all men are saved, then??? The Bible says that Christ died for the sin of ALL men. EVERYONE. Despite your ignoring these Scriptures, it is so. And yet, we know that some people will not be saved. We know that Christ gave men the power to forgive sins, AFTER His resurrection, when His work was "complete", according to you. WHY? Christ died for the sin of the world, but it remains for us to actuallly repent. We continue to ask Christ for forgiveness of sin. He CONTINUES to intercede for us, as does His Spirit!
"the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" Romans 8:26
Present tense. Right now... Why would the Spirit be interceding for us NOW, after "it's all done"?
It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us Romans 8:34
Now, Christ is INTERCEDING right NOW? In the present? AFTER He died for our sins and said "It is finished"?
"Wherefore he (Jesus) is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them" Heb 7:25
Apparently, Paul has a different idea than you regarding what Christ had already done and what He CURRENTLY is doing.
Asking for forgiveness, after being saved, is an obedience to God, as He commands that we do so. It is for our own good, and when we obey Him we love Him. It is part of our sanctification.
So when God commanded us to ask for forgiveness, it wasn't so that He'd forgive us our sins? What exactly are we asking for? Why the evasion on God's part? Why don't we just ask Him for our "sanctification" (whatever that is for, in the mind of the Protestant, I don't know). Why does God give men the power to forgive sins AFTER His Resurrection? What is Paul talking about in 2 Cor 5 about the "ministry of reconciliation"? Is this all a sophisticated charade to mask what is really happening? If all my sins are forgiven before I even ask for forgiveness, then why aren't all men saved?
He already knew who would be saved and who would be lost. Yet, He spoke to many of the lost anyway. Why would He waste His time?
Say what? It's not a "waste of time" to reach out to people, those you love, even when you know they are heading down a path of being "lost".
"I [am] the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: [and] they walked in their own counsels. Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, [and] Israel had walked in my ways! " Ps 81:10-13
God PINES for us to turn to Him! Can't you hear His voice? The God of Love loves unconditionally - even His "enemies". He reaches out to ALL, the wicked and the righteous. "oh, if only they would listen to me". That says it all, brother.
He that is predestined to be of the elect will believe and not be condemned, etc
Come on. How many times have I said WE don't know we are of the elect? Is this really such a difficult concept? God foresees our actions, our responses to His initiative.
But your whole faith is based on a ping-pong salvation model. :) Confess today and you are saved. Commit mortal sin tomorrow and you are lost forever. Go back to confession the next day, and you are saved again. Don't you go back and forth again and again your whole lives? This seems inconsistent with what you are saying above.
It's not, because I was talking about MORTAL sins, not minor venial sins. People in Christ do not "pin-pong" back and forth between mortal sins and love of Christ. As to the rest, it is certainly Biblical...
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Ez 18:21-24
Brother, isn't it clear that WE can come into righteousness, or come into wickedness, even after our Baptism/Sinner's Prayer?
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Romans 8:13
I know that we have different ideas of salvation, but when you say that a person's status can't be known until death, even if a hypothetical, then you are evading. I have been told by Catholics on this thread that if you commit a mortal sin, and never are forgiven, and there are no special "outs", then the person is lost. That's the ping-pong model.
What you give in the first sentence, you take away in the last. We have different ideas of the word "saved". We don't consider being saved as being irresistibly and infallibly marked for eternal life. Saved to us means we are healed. We have taken the first step to eternal heaven. This does not mean we will MAKE IT to heaven. Thus, our "salvation" here on earth, our Baptism, is not salvation for eternity, like it means for you. Thus, what "ping-pong" are you talking about? We never said we are "saved for heaven infallibly" to begin with!
My problem is that you are "simultaneously" (OH-HO) using God both inside and outside of time to suit your purposes. When you make a point, God is inside time and magically does what you need Him to do. Of course, when I make a point, God is magically outside of time and so nothing applies
I detect frustration. The problem is that you are mixing God's view with our view. Of course, God acts upon time - He created it. Thus, when He reaches into time from outside of it, from His NOW, He has entered a chronological point of view. However, to Him, this reaching into time occurs simultaneously as His other reachings into time. Have you considered the Creed "{Jesus} IS eternally begotten" What does that mean? Eternity is NOT a "long time"!!! It is ALL of time compressed into one event. Thus, while God is outside Time, He views our responses to various stimuli all as one action. He reaches into time (entering OUR chronology) through His graces. When He interacts with us, His grace enters time.
Thus, God reaches into time - Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection. But God is outside of time - the Crucifixion is ALWAYS PRESENT to Him. Thus, if we go to the beginning of this tome, and look at Christ INTERCEDING for us, Christ's one-time action is His PRESENT INTERCESSION, during His one NOW. And to us, in time, Jesus intercedes for man until the end of time. This is how during the Mass, Christ's Passion is re-presented to us.
Regards
HE didn't change, but man's understanding of Him changed, correct? The OT did not have total understanding of God's attributes - unless properly read in light of the NT. Thus, the Jews had difficulties with a suffering servant as the Messiah...
(Regarding Ephesians quote) Being sealed doesn't mean that WE will infallibly go to heaven, nor is an indication of permanent presence. Being marked by God is only the first step in the process, our first installment. The many verses I have given you quite recently show that even a "marked" person can fall away from God, returning to the vomit of his former life (says Peter)
I would suggest some research but you'll find that I completely correct on this particular matter.
I disagree. Christ talks about love. It is His only commandment - to love others as He had loved us. Christ mentions hell and punishment for those who turn away from God. But His teachings on the fulfilment of the Law, esp. seen in the Sermon on the Mount, are based on love. His table habits, His view on legalism - based on love. His whole life is based on love of man, even though we were in sin. I think your reading of the Gospels are incorrect and miss the point. One of Jesus' main purpose of teaching men was to show us what God was like, in human form. To model Jesus is to see God in action in human form. All based on love - not vengeful wrath.
The flooding of the world and drowning just about all the inhabitances is not a passive response I would say.
That is true. But that doesn't discount all of everything else I have said. It is something that is beyond me, except that God does things for His own reasons. Because God reaches out actively in time doesn't mean that He actively reprobates.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, ...who is protected by the power of God through faith..." 1 Peter 1:3-5
This doesn't say anything about God actively condemning the reprobate. It merely says what Catholics already say - that God predestines the elect and actively secures their salvation. On this subject, where we disagree is our knowledge of WHO the elect are. You seem to have inside knowledge of this, to include 20 years from now, that you will remain the elect, despite all of the many verses I quote you to the contrary. How about this one from Peter?
"But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1:5-10
Regards
Including those who commit the unpardonable sin? If Christ died for the sin of ALL men then aren't they justified before God?
You've told me that even though you must come to God you really don't know if you have God's grace. Therefore you must work for God to secure your salvation. So much for the "grace" of God. God will give you grace but only if you cooperate with Him. Even then you don't know if God is giving you grace.
This makes a lot of sense. /sarcasm off
If you get an answer to that one, will you please ping me? It seems universalism knows no bounds.
Amen, Harley.
For he saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength. He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work. Then the beasts go into dens, and remain in their places. Out of the south cometh the whirlwind: and cold out of the north. By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened. Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud: And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth. He causeth it to come, whether for correction, or for his land, or for mercy... Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict. Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart." -- Job 37:5-13;23-24"God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.
You are correct, paradoxically, I might add. The New Covenant theology based on God's awesome revelation – that He is Trinity, a perfect Love between three Hypostases in one Essence #150; is a different theology altogether from the one based on the Old Covenant!
But, as stripes1776 observes, the OT God is a shadow of God's full revelation in Christ, and the OT it thereby not a witness but a messanger of the coming Messiah.
Jesus proved it to you and me, but certainly not to everyone, for everyone is not saved. Even eyewitnesses to Christ were not saved. So what are the credentials that Luther was supposed to have? It is easy for you to invalidate the Reformation because you, through your hierarchy, claim sole authority to speak for God. It's that simple, and Protestants disagree. We just as easily declare that your leaders do not speak for God because God does not contradict Himself. There is the impasse.
I don't know that Luther ever claimed any of his teachings were on a par with a Biblical Gospel. Do you say that he did? Of course, we each have our separate opinions on Whom was leading him.
The Keys are only given to the Pope - there has been some 250 over 2000 years, not millions.
OK, maybe I'm not familiar with the term "Keys to the Kingdom" as a being a defined term. I was referring to all Catholic clergy, past, present, and future. If only the Pope has the keys, then how does this fit in with a "consensus" (which I assume includes others besides the Pope) declaring infallible doctrine? Do they not have the keys?
Look at it this way... When you leave on vacation, you give your neighbor a spare key. That person has authority over your house while you are away. Yet, you still have ultimate authority. Your neighbor doesn't own your house! When you return, you have your own key, AND you will hold your neighbor accountable for the care of your house. Christ will do EXACTLY the same thing to His pastors that He has left behind until His victorious second coming.
That is an interesting way to look at it. I suppose I've just never thought of God being that much removed from us. I know you're not saying that God abandons us or anything, but for your analogy to work, there has to be some level of removal by God from the scene to a much higher degree than simply His assumption. I'm not sure how that squares with dozens of verses in the Bible, including in the Great Commission. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely inactive, how active do you see God as being in our lives? I'll shock you and say that I believe it is a 10. :)
The problem is that we disagree on Bible interpretation, not that Catholic teaching is ANTI-Biblical.
Without being accusatory, what's the difference? :)
[continuing...] An example is Romans 3. Clearly, you believe Paul thinks that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God, none are righteous. WE interpret that passage differently, that Paul was not speaking universally, but was quoting the OT Psalms that the wicked will never turn to God.
Yes, I believe Paul means that we are born that way and cannot come to God from only within ourselves. I'm still not sure about what your interpretation means. You agree that people need to come to God to be saved. Those who don't are lost. But surely, Paul agreed that some people who were formerly wicked, do come to Christ. He would probably start by naming himself. Therefore what is Paul's point, that those who are lost forever are lost forever? If so, this does not appear to be terribly instructive. :)
Put on the Jehovah Witness theology on, and you will think that the Bible says something else.
Do you know if they even use a scripture that is compatible with either yours or mine? I've read some of their pamphlets. Freaky stuff. :)
Unfortunately, the Bible is not a systematic theology book. Clearly, it is not divided into subjects that lay down in plain language what we are to believe on EVERY subject, like a Catechism would.
Why would the Bible have to be topical to be systematic? Why couldn't God's "system" have been to lay it out just as it is? It is loosely chronological, so we both like that. But, it does intermix common subjects throughout. Why couldn't the system have been to reinforce same ideas in different contexts? That seems like a logical teaching mechanism to me. It also appears to be an effective technique to show cohesiveness within the Bible, i.e. "yes, all these verses really do go together", etc. We obviously do disagree on how much of it was written in plain language.
So why does a Protestant KNOW he is saved after repeating it [sinner's prayer]? Getting my drift?
No. :) You have been shown and given access to multiple assurance passages. Your leaders interpret them all out of existence, or assign new meanings to them contrary to plain meaning. I, also, do not know what I can say.
All this time, you've been a crypto-Calvinist!?!?!?!?!
Thanks for the differentiation between Catholic/Orthodox. I think you all are being more honest about a difficult thing that affects all of our faiths.
But back to the point: where is God's sovereignty, if it is not God's will that man (certainly his chosen ones) not divorce, and yet it happens?
I don't see how this threatens God's sovereignty at all. God allows divorces for the same reason He allows gay marriage, and other terrible things. It suits His plan to allow sin. God tells us that the Godly way is to not get divorced. Some, on all sides, do it anyway and in many cases, it is a sin. Sin can be forgiven, and God remains in full control. One note from my church, in order to be eligible to become a deacon, the man, if ever married, must have never been divorced.
The alternative is to say that divorce is frequently very much God's will -- or that God doesn't have a will in this regard one way or another -- or that divorce is a sign that the people getting divorced are not among the elect.
I think we would agree that God told us what His will is concerning marriage. "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." This includes the spouses themselves. Of course, since we have a common sense God, there can be limited exceptions, such as when the life of one spouse is in jeopardy, etc. UnGodly divorce is sinful as any other sin, and the elect also commit it. It doesn't mean they are no longer, or never were, of the elect.
Thank you for your whole answer. Please forgive my ignorance, but is there one man who is the head of your Church? If such a future Council were to be called, who would be contacted on your side to set it up, and who would participate on both sides?
Imagine if you lined up 500 Protestants and 500 Catholics, who had each been through a divorce or an annulment, respectively, and asked them: "On your wedding day, did you truly believe (and intend) that you and your (then) spouse were entering into your marriage covenant as an 'indissoluble union that [was] faithful, free, and open to life'. My guess would be that 450+ of the Protestants would have said "Yes", and 500 of the Catholics would have said "No". If I am even close, doesn't this say something?
Yes, He [Jesus] gave an example of an exception [annulment] that would invalidate the marriage - if one had married their brother or sister. (incest)
That is one mother of an "out", and I will give it to you, gladly. :) However, given the current annulment rates, if this Biblical example is used only 0.0001% of the time, then doesn't this say something as well?
That day will never arrive. The process of sanctification will never bring two Protestants of different persuasions (Armenian and Calvinist, for example) together on doctrine.
You are right that Protestants will never agree completely on everything. And yes, there are important differences on such things as even salvation, so I cannot sugarcoat that. However, there are quite a number of "Bible-believing" churches, which have much in common. So, the sanctification process never ends in the same place for any two of us. Does it with any two of you?
Christianity is a revealed religion, not one based on our own private thoughts and interpretations.
LOL! I'm laughing because I am very confident that we both deeply and honestly believe this is the absolute truth, and yet look at us ... :)
The only head of the Church is our Lord Jesus Christ. On earth, the Church is where the bishop is, the clergy and laity. Each individual church is a full Body of Christ (i.e. represents fullness of faith and sacraments). This is the original Church organization.
A bishop is an Apostolic minister, whose spiritual authority can be traced by direct lineage to one of the twelve Apostles. Bishops who share the same faith (theology) are in communion with each other.
One of them is given the honor of being their spokesman and a chosen spokesman and representative of their communion, who is considered "first among equals," or "first in love" but not in authority; he has no legal authority over other bishops.
Ecclesisastical, theological and other church matters are decided by a synod or council of bishops, with the "first among equals" having the same vote as others. He has some privileges such as to convene a Synod, and he presides over a Synod, and his words are taken with reverence because of his role, and so on.
Orthodox Church is a group of "self-headed" (autocephalous) Orthodox Churches, each headed by a Patriarch or an archbishop. A patriarch is first among equals in a local (usually national) Church. Some national churches have what is known as Metropolitan in Slavic and Archimandrite in Greek churches -- basically an archbishop. The fourteen patriarchs are in communion with the Bishop of Constantinople, and together with him form a Synod of the Orthodox Church. He represents the Orthodox world, but is not the "leader" of the Orthodox Christians as he is often portrayed in the western media.
Hope this helps.
Doesn't justification include the person proclaiming Christ as their savior and Lord? Does a person who commits the "unpardonable sin" make it clear that Christ is their savior?
Regards, brother
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.