Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
No, I trust men of God lead by God.
Which does lead to the question, "How do you measure a man of God?" Is he simply someone appointed by the Church or someone else. Was Luther a "man of God" following his convictions of what was stated in scripture? Was Pope Honorius I, later deemed a heretic, a "man of God" because of the Church?
"Infallible" is not a word I would use in the same sentence with myself. I would say that I am 100% certain, but that is short of infallible knowledge. (How's that? :) ... How is it that you equate assurance with self-election? I am just relying on scripture for assurance, not my say so. God didn't write my specific name in the Bible as being of the elect because He wanted to surprise me. It worked! :)
We are justified currently, but that doesn’t mean we will be saved for heaven, as some of the previously justified have fallen away.
Since we see salvation as meaning different things, it makes sense that we would see justification as being different things. I see the two as being the same. What does justification mean to you, and when does it happen?
John’s Gospel makes it clear that we are to have “eternal life” [Christ] even now – meaning, God’s abiding presence. This doesn’t mean we will live forever, but that “eternal life” [Christ] dwells within us UNLESS we fall into sin.
"Eternal life" in the Bible means Christ??? This is brand new. :) "Eternal life" does NOT mean we will live forever? I'm almost speechless. But, while I'm thinking about this, it probably does take care of a lot of pesky verses in the Bible. Let me try the Catholic version of the grand daddy of them all:
John 3:16 : "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall have Christ, unless or until he falls into sin, and he may or may not perish."
This is your version of the Good News? Is this really the plain meaning to you? I think I'll stick to the actual words. :)
If we were infallibly chosen, from our point of view, what exactly is the point of perseverance? In this sort of theology, why does Jesus tell us to beware, and to persevere until the end? If I “know” I am of the elect, can’t I take a passive attitude towards final salvation, since it is God’s righteousness that covers me anyway?
In the Bible, God is clear to us that the elect cannot take this attitude. He commands us to persevere. (How many times does Paul say "By no means ...!") The truly regenerated heart wants to obey, so the elect will obey, to large extent. As for a reason, I have a personal view that it is for our own good. Since God wishes all good things for His children, I see this as being a part of that. Think about quality of life. If you could have the prayer life and communion with God that Jesus the man had, would you give up every worldly thing, knowing that God would provide? Sure, we all would. The more Christ-like we become (perseverance) the closer we get to that. This sanctification is for our benefit and peace.
FK: "God would be perfectly just if He did this. He would also be just if no one were saved at all."
Not if HE says that He desires ALL men to be saved and throughout the Scriptures says that He will draw men to Him and will provide the means for men to be saved.
Nope. You just recently told me that this type of "desire" by God is not a decreed one, therefore, the universe does not come to an end if it is not fulfilled. You would agree with me that there is no duty on God to save all men. However, God does say that He will save His elect. So, yes, there is a self-imposed duty there. Double however, those promises came after His plan was already in place. Since your response put time into play, He had no duty to save anyone at the time He made the plan.
We define justice, and to us, it means a particular thing. Thus, to say that God is “just” is to apply our terms of “justice” to God. Otherwise, we’d call God something else.
I look at it completely differently. We define man's justice, and God defines His justice. God's justice is definitional and pure, man's is not. The two are not the same. I think the reason is that God's authority is so much greater than any man could ever have over another man. Was it "just" that Joshua slaughtered thousands of women and children with whom he had no quarrel? By God's justice, of course "yes". What would man's justice say? By man's justice he would be on trial in Baghdad for crimes against humanity. :) That's why I don't think we can apply our terms of justice to God.
If God’s justice is as you define it, then it is not justice in human terms, and we can no longer call God “just” using our vocabulary.
Yes, that is my opinion. God's justice is very different.
Otherwise, what is the meaning of “God’s justice” to men?
The Bible simply defines it for us, whether it matches our senses of justice or fairness, or not. Every time I talk about God as the potter, or God has no duty, this is where it is coming from.
Clearly, the Scripture tell us that God died for ALL sin, just as Adam’s sin universally affects ALL men. Was Christ’s action inferior in scope to Adam? God does the actual saving, but His actual saving is conditional on His creation’s rejection of Him.
Well, if you're going to bring up the "L" word, I suppose we'll have to see what kind of Calvinist I am. :) I would agree that what Jesus did was sufficient for all men, but it was only efficacious for some. I fully agree with the following brief summary I found on the "L" in TULIP:
Limited Atonement: Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).
---------------
You believe that man is totally corrupt, that man cannot do anything BUT sin. We have already established that even an unregenerate man can do good deeds.
If you mean "good" in man's eyes, then yes, I have agreed to the latter, which means I don't believe the former.
You also believe that even AFTER regeneration, man continues to be sin, and is only externally covered with Christ’s righteousness. Thus, you rely entirely on God’s actions to save. There is no cooperation that man can do or is expected to do.
If you mean that man continues "to" sin or "to be a sinner", then yes. There is no cooperation that man can do, on his own behalf, toward his salvation. And, man must persevere.
Protestants believe that Adam was created with no supernatural capabilities. Everything that God gave Adam was his by right. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that God created Adam with a human nature endowed with supernatural characteristics – Sanctifying Grace. This was something added to human nature as a GIFT. It is not part of human nature.
This is new to me. I thought your view was that God gave everyone sanctifying (enough to save?) grace. I'm not sure what the difference is whether we are born with it or whether God gives it to everyone. We saw what good it did Adam. :)
Thus, during the Fall, when Adam lost this supernatural grace, he lost that gift that was not part of his human nature.
This is all completely new territory for me, so please bear with me. :) Is the oversimplification that 1.) Protestants believe that Adam was born as a man. This man had built inside him sanctifying grace, just as he had a heart or lungs. Later, Adam sinned and lost that special part of him which caused a total corruption because it was like losing a major organ. And 2.) Catholics believe that Adam was born as a man, with a special gift of sanctifying grace. But this gift was "on the side", like a magic ring. It was not internal, like a body organ. Later, Adam sinned and lost "the ring", but was otherwise the same in normal respects?
Catholics, though, believe that this Sanctifying Grace that Adam was given is given anew upon Baptism.
Again, please bear with me. This statement confuses me as to how you would define "sanctifying grace". I think I'm on fairly safe ground in saying that no Catholic baby has a punched ticket into heaven upon infant baptism. The sanctifying grace doesn't guarantee anything, but makes people "eligible" for salvation? If I'm OK so far, and if the sanctifying grace was not part of Adam's nature, THEN, Adam was born in a doomed state by nature, even though he was NOT born with original sin. I can't imagine you would agree with this, so I must have left the track somewhere. :)
[After regeneration] We have the supernatural gift of grace within us. Internally. Not only externally in a legal sense. WE ARE CHANGED!!!
Does this mean that a regenerated Catholic would be in the same condition as Catholics believe Protestants believe Adam was born in? Would this mean that a regenerated Catholic is in a superior condition to the Catholic view of Adam's birth? I'm just trying to form relationships to help me understand. This is very interesting stuff, thanks for showing it to me. :)
The only reason why the Passion was necessary was because it was decreed by God. It was not an act that God owed anyone. God choose this act willingly, not owing anything to the devil or some other force. What other way could have shown God’s will in a more loving manner than the Passion?
I agree that the Passion was decreed by God. I also agree that it was not out of any debt to be paid. I am attempting to answer the question of why He decreed it. The Passion certainly did show love. And so did the washing of the disciples feet. And so did many other things Jesus did. I still don't understand how the Passion translates into ultimate love if it was ultimately unnecessary. My argument is that it was necessary, to satisfy His own rules. In effect, God owed it to Himself, in order to accomplish the goal. Is the reason you don't believe that His death was necessary have to do with any reason you can't believe that Christ paid a price for us?
Good question. In the past, I would say that a "man of the Church" was not synonymous with "man of God", although I think the two have taken on similar means now that the Church is out of the political realm.
The question, back at you, is "how do you know a 'man of God' is led by 'God' and not his own whims, such as Luther"?
Regards
"In the past, I would say that a "man of the Church" was not synonymous with "man of God"
I meant "was not NECESSARILY synonymous"...
You probably knew that I meant that, but just to clear it up.
Regards
Interesting take as usual. Where do you learn this stuff? It is not biblical. You might be surprised to know that in their commentaries Jews show that they understand that they are not able to attain righteousness on their own, it must be imparted to them from the Lord.
A fair question. First, we must remember that God wills all men to be saved. HE predestines men before they were born - knowing whether they will accept or reject Him. It is His graces that enable man to do works of faith, hope and love. NOTHING we do without God can be pleasing or salvific to God. Recall, we believe we cooperate, we do not believe we initiate or are able to earn in a strict sense any merit. Thus, every good work we do is a result of God's good gifts given to us AND our cooperation with Him. Both are necessary, and thus, salvation is not earned by man.
The only sense that we "earn" salvation is in a secondary manner - relying on God's promises of salvation IF we obey His commandments. By obeying God, we merit a reward strictly based on God's righteous desire to reward us for accepting His gifts. But strictly speaking, we can merit nothing ALONE since we give God nothing that He has not already given us. Certainly, we cannot make God owe us anything, so our salvation is entirely dependent upon His righteousness and seeing an imperfect man as still righteous in His eyes due to His familial loving concern for His children. He has held out an inheritance freely given, and as long as we do not reject this inheritance, we are given this gift as a reward in heaven (for not rejecting Him).
Regards
There you go; this sounds like fuzzy logic. A man of God is one who is "led" by God but not by his own whims. What does that mean? You're assuming Luther wasn't a "man of God" because your judging him to have been lead by his own whims. What precisely are you basing this on? Perhaps he was led by God.
It depends on the context, but especially in John's Gospel, that is exactly what it means. "Eternal life" is Christ's abiding life within us even NOW, incompletely and conditionally given.
John 3:16 : "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall have Christ, unless or until he falls into sin, and he may or may not perish."
LOL! What exactly do you think is the ultimate reward in heaven? Pina Colada's and a nicely-cushioned chair with all the Sports Channels? Heaven is union with Christ, brother! I cannot believe this is new to you! What part of this don't you get? WHOEVER BELIEVES IN CHRIST SHALL HAVE CHRIST ABIDING WITHIN HIM. Even today, but perfectly in heaven!
I would agree that what Jesus did was sufficient for all men, but it was only efficacious for some.
We agree to your sentence, but not to your meaning of it. I would add that God also graces ALL men sufficiently. Limited Atonement assumes that Christ's Passion was good enough, but that many people were PURPOSELY not given ANYTHING regarding salvation, making Scripture lie when it says that God desires all men to be saved. The Protestant problem, I believe, is that they forget that man can reject God's Spirit. Thus, they claim that any Grace that God sends overcomes any resistance of man, which, of course, no longer makes a man free. We've argued this sufficiently.
We define man's justice, and God defines His justice. God's justice is definitional and pure, man's is not.
Sophistry. The word "justice" means the same thing to God and to us. The difference is what action is considered "just". Jesus has given us parables as examples of God's justice and how it EXCEEDS man's idea of "an eye for an eye" justice", or "equal wages for equal work". We have a hard time thinking it is just when God gifts someone who we think doesn't deserve it. BUT, the term "justice" still has the same definition! It is NOT just by any sense of the word to condemn someone for something they couldn't do anyway. I don't see Christ acting in this manner. I disagree in your concept of God.
There is no cooperation that man can do, on his own behalf, toward his salvation. And, man must persevere.
Quite a contradiction, isn't it... How exactly does man persevere if God does everything? Don't you mean "God perseveres"?
I thought your view was that God gave everyone sanctifying (enough to save?) grace. I'm not sure what the difference is whether we are born with it or whether God gives it to everyone. We saw what good it did Adam. :)
Sanctifying grace is NOT given to everyone. It was a gift given to Adam upon his creation and was taken away after his sin. As a result, man is born without it and must be regenerated, born from above, to receive it again. No one is born with sanctifying grace - this is called original sin, that lack of sanctifying grace.
1.) Protestants believe that Adam was born as a man. This man had built inside him sanctifying grace, just as he had a heart or lungs. Later, Adam sinned and lost that special part of him which caused a total corruption because it was like losing a major organ. And 2.) Catholics believe that Adam was born as a man, with a special gift of sanctifying grace. But this gift was "on the side", like a magic ring. It was not internal, like a body organ. Later, Adam sinned and lost "the ring", but was otherwise the same in normal respects?
Pretty much. Protestant believe that "sanctifying grace" was part of man's nature. Upon losing it with Adam's sin, man's nature (which properly includes sanctifying grace, for Luther), man is now no longer capable of anything. It cannot be "added back" (for Luther) - as man still retains some of the problems of original sin after regeneration, namely, concupiscience. Catholics believe this "sanctifying grace" was something given in the supernatural realm above our nature, and not part of it. This gift, though, is not "outside of us", it is part of our soul. It is not part of our human nature - it is a gift in addition to our human nature. But to your last sentence, man is NOT pretty much the same. It is sanctifying grace that keeps our flesh subject to the spirit. As a result of this missing element, we have a tendency to sin. This tendency, while reduced after regeneration, still remains - which is why we say man is WOUNDED.
I think I'm on fairly safe ground in saying that no Catholic baby has a punched ticket into heaven upon infant baptism.
You are wrong. Our salvation ABSOLTULEY DEPENDS on the presence of sanctifying grace within us to enter heaven. Without this, we cannot enter heaven. It is a freely given gift by God, as a seed planted in the ground, that bears fruit later in the infant's life. And the baby did NOTHING to earn it. Without this grace, God's presence, without "eternal life", we cannot enter into God's eternal presence.
The sanctifying grace doesn't guarantee anything, but makes people "eligible" for salvation?
Sanctifying grace, while present, guarantees heaven to those who have it. This presence does not necessarily remain with us once we receive it at Baptism. Christ's Spirit does not remain in one who grieviously and willingly sins.
I must have left the track somewhere.
Adam was born with a human nature that had no effects of original sin. No concupiscience. No ill effects such as death. In addition to this unadultered humanity, Adam was given the "breath of God", the Spirit. This is something that exceeds the natural world. God's Spirit was not given to any other material creation. It is a supernatural gift and not necessary for material life. This gift enabled Adam to subject his flesh to the spirit, thus potentially, he was able to be sinless (as Christ would later be). Upon sinning, the Spirit left Adam, the gift was lost, and now, man's flesh is out of control.
This distinction might seem minor, but it explains our different anthropological viewpoints - which effects our views on whether man cooperates, whether man has free will, and to what degree man is actually changed internally when he is regenerated.
Does this mean that a regenerated Catholic would be in the same condition as Catholics believe Protestants believe Adam was born in?
No, because God does not completely remove the effects of original sin. We find that God gradually restores our flesh to its proper place. Concupiscence, the tendency to desire to please the flesh, still remains, and will always remain. Man continues to be subject to pain and suffering. Baptism does not completely restores man to the pre-sin existence of Adam. We ARE, though, enabled to inherit eternal life and God's abiding presence returns to us. We are again children of God by adoption.
The Passion certainly did show love. And so did the washing of the disciples feet. And so did many other things Jesus did.
Yes, but all leads to the Passion as the culmination. There is a difference in degrees of love between "washing feet" and "dying for another, even when the other is unfriendly"
My argument is that it was necessary, to satisfy His own rules.
Love is not necessary. Love is freely given, not something required.
Regards
Or not... How do WE judge? We judge vs. the community of faith already in place, the Church. And they condemn his propositions.
Regards
They lost the income from the indulgences so of course those running the set-up were not happy. It has an eerie parallel to Jesus in the temple with the money changers.
It's my understanding that an infant baptized as a Roman Catholic would have a punched ticket into heaven by virtue of being baptized into the Roman fold.
I believe Catholic doctrine says when a person reaches some sort of "age of accountability" then confession and a priest's absolution are necessary for "sanctifying grace" to occur. After confession, the person is heaven-worthy, but immediately (most likely) starts sinning again and thus needs confession and absolution again, and so on and so on...
This accounts for the Roman Catholic view that justification is somehow the same thing as sanctification, an endless process of sinning, being forgiven, sinning, being forgiven, etc.
And thus the need for the Last Rites of the church upon death -- to take care of any remaining sin since the last confession.
LOL. I began to post Hebrews 11 yesterday, but was called away.
Heb 9:12
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:19
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book , and all the people,
Heb 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
" I was going to"
The story of my life!
First, every priest did not abuse Indulgences, only a few did. Secondly, this has nothing to do with the money changers. The idea behind Jesus chasing out the money changers was that the Gentiles were unable to worship God properly in the Temple, as the money changers were set up in the Courtyard of the Gentiles. With all that commotion going on, how could you expect God-fearing Gentiles to praise God properly? Reverant worship has little to do with abuse of Indulgences.
Regards
No one is "baptized into the Roman fold"... WE are baptized into Christ's Church. A Protestant infant who was properly baptized will share similar seating at the Wedding Feast in Heaven.
I believe Catholic doctrine says when a person reaches some sort of "age of accountability" then confession and a priest's absolution are necessary for "sanctifying grace" to occur.
WE, including Protestants, receive sanctifying grace during our Trinitarian Baptism. This sanctifying grace can be lost as the result of a future mortal sin, which destroys this gift. Only through the post-Baptismal cleansing of Confession does Christ ordinarily restore Sanctifying Grace necessary to reach heaven. Non-mortal sins (venial) wound this Sanctifying Grace, but does not eliminate it.
After confession, the person is heaven-worthy, but immediately (most likely) starts sinning again and thus needs confession and absolution again, and so on and so on...
You are placing ALL sin into one category. There are mortal and venial sins. Venial sins do not kill Sanctifying Grace in our souls. Only a mortal sin does. And those who come to Confession with good intention do not ordinarily continue committing mortal sins! The graces of the Sacrament aids a person in rejecting future temptations to mortally sin, and in time, to reject many future temptations to even sin venially. Our experience and teachings tell us the truth of this. Those who are faithful to Christ's presence through the sacraments rarely sin in such a manner.
This accounts for the Roman Catholic view that justification is somehow the same thing as sanctification, an endless process of sinning, being forgiven, sinning, being forgiven, etc.
The Bible speaks synonymously of sanctification and justification. They are both seen as ongoing processes. Justification is not a one-time event, as the example of Abram's multiple justifications attest to. As to the "endless process of sinning, being forgiven, sinning", perhaps you should recall that this is how God has ALWAYS treated His people. Have you considered this is precisely what happens in the OT Scriptures? The Jews sin, they beg forgiveness, God returns them to grace... Fortunately, Jesus says that God forgives "seventy times seven"...
And thus the need for the Last Rites of the church upon death -- to take care of any remaining sin since the last confession.
It's called "Anointing of the Sick", not "Last Rites". Is there a problem with begging for Christ's healing touch when we are sick, even physically sick? Did not the Jews consider that physical sickness was often the result of spiritual sickness? Thus, we beg for spiritual healing - and receive it - in the Sacrament. Sometimes, people ALSO receive physical healing.
Regards
Nice summary of this most important chapter. In the Orthodox Church's services, Hebrews 11 is featured very prominently, appearing on 3 major Sunday feasts.
On the Sunday of the Holy and Righteous Ones of the Old Covenant (the Sunday before the Nativity of Christ), we read Hebrews 11: 9-10, 32-40
On the Sunday of Orthodoxy (commemorating the restoration of the Holy Icons) we read Hebrews 11:24-26, 32-40
On the Sunday of All Saints (which concludes the season of the Pentecostarion) we read Hebrews 11:33 - 12:2
My favorite line is "what more shall I more say? For the time would fail me...."
That is one of my favorite lines as well. It's as though the writer didn't know where to stop.
BTW-As general information, I believe the person mentioned as being "sawn in two" is, according to Jewish sources, Jeremiah.
I should also have pointed out verse 35: "...and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;". But time failed me. ;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.