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
I know you wrote this sentence, but did you read it? :) "Eternal" means incomplete and conditional??? That can only speak for itself.
Heaven is union with Christ, brother! I cannot believe this is new to you! What part of this don't you get?
The part that stands John 3:16 on its ear! :) To me, "eternal life" means eternal life in heaven in the presence of and in communion with, God. "Eternal death" means eternal life in hell, permanently away from God. You appear to be saying that "eternal" means "maybe". However, the more I think about it, this may be the best "out" you have in Catholicism. If the promise in John 3:16 was actually true, and since it is in the present tense, then that would concretely confirm the ideas of salvation before death, and assurance while alive. Such ideas must be eliminated. So, if "eternal" can be changed to mean "not eternal, but fleeting", then that kills two birds with one stone. Whoever thought it up, I do give him credit.
The word "justice" means the same thing to God and to us.
Really??? How about the word "love"? Does that mean the same thing to God as it does to man? You're giving us corporeals a wee bit too much credit I think. :)
How exactly does man persevere if God does everything? Don't you mean "God perseveres"?
Yes, the elect of men persevere by God acting through them. So, your correction is better.
FK: "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.
Huh? Could you read what I said again? If I am still wrong, then I am not fairly safe, but fairly lost. :) You are now espousing a OSAS model from infant baptism. For you, this is a bit.... irregular. :)
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.
LOL! So to those who have it, sanctifying grace is really, truly a "guarantee" of NOTHING. It is a temporary condition, that when lost, may or may not be restored. You call that a "guarantee"? When you go to get your car fixed, and the shop owner gives you a "guarantee" of his work, is this the sense in which you accept it? The work is guaranteed, until the car breaks down, and then it is no longer guaranteed, but might be again if you hire the same guy to fix it a second time?
Adam was born with a human nature that had no effects of original sin. ... In addition to this unadulterated 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.
Except ........., or as some good Catholics believe also .........., or if you're Orthodox perhaps even ......... :)
FK: "My argument is that it was necessary, to satisfy His own rules."
Love is not necessary. Love is freely given, not something required.
I wasn't referring to His rules of love, but His rules of His justice. Man is sinful, making him wholly unfit for heaven. All men. A price must be paid in atonement. This is God's way as we see throughout the OT. Man does not have the required price, only God does. So He decides to pay it Himself out of love for His creation. But what is this price exactly? What would be enough to "cover" the debt? My argument was that if the true answer was a finger snap or a prayer, AND He decided to die on the cross anyway, then that would have been unnecessary suicide. That would not have been true love at all.
My position is that therefore, the God-determined price, according to His justice, must have been the death of Christ on the cross. That makes the sacrifice real, and fully selfless. It was necessary and He did it because if He did not do it, none of us are saved.