Posted on 11/13/2006 11:01:10 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg
Where does it say that the Holy Spirit turns His back on the laity?
He only guides the Magisterium with interpretation.
No, what it is saying is that the task of providing authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture belongs to the Magisterium. It does not say that the Holy Spirit does not guide the laity as the interpret Scripture.
The above says that the true meaning of scripture is unavailable to anyone except through the filter of the Magisterium.
Where does it say that? I don't see that anywhere.
Try not to read into it what is not there. When you don't do that, you end up being an uncharitable intepreter of the Catechism.
-A8
[Disclaimer: In none of the following is it in my heart to parenthetically add "as opposed to you". This is just my little story as plainly as I can tell it. :)]
I suppose I was something like an Arminian Protestant, although I had never heard the term before at the time. I believed it was totally up to me to decide to choose Christ or not, and that I would be cooperating with God throughout the rest of my life in trying not to sin as much, doing good deeds more than otherwise, and going to church. While I believed in the plain meaning of OSAS, the general plan was that I would keep God happy (thus proving to myself that my faith was true), and He would let me into Heaven.
Then, I studied with a mentor for several years in private Bible study. Interestingly, he never once mentioned the names of Calvin or Luther, and never mentioned "Reformed" theology. (I hadn't even heard of Reformed theology until FR.) Anyway, there were two things about this Bible study which really changed me. One was his focus on Christ himself. He harped all the time that EVERYTHING is about Christ, and nothing is about us. He did it so many times that I OFTEN wondered to myself "yeah, yeah, I get it, I heard you the first time". I didn't get it. It wasn't until later, so now I understand why he did it.
This really got me to start to change my thinking about my whole role in ....... "everything". At some point I had completely re-prioritized my outlook away from men (me) and toward Christ. I think it was at that time that I probably became a Calvinist, even though I still had no idea what that term meant. When I later learned about what Reformed theology was, here on FR, the concepts were absolutely simple to absorb.
The other area that changed me was his focus on scripture. He made me memorize tons of it. We made a game of having "verse-offs" every week to see who had done his homework. :) At the time I just thought that he knew best so I went along with it. I didn't understand why until later. I think in part he was showing me how easy it is for a person to fall back into his self-absorbed ways. Knowing the scriptures in your heart will always be a strong check against that. I see that same focus in the Reformers.
Sorry if this is more than you wanted you know. It just brought back a lot of memories so I went with it. :)
1. Which came first, believing or baptism?
Believing.
2. Which came first, seeking or believing?
Seeking.
3. Which came first, believing or salvation?
From God's POV, salvation. From man's POV, believing.
4. Which came first, believing or regeneration?
Regeneration. Otherwise, there could be no believing. Dr. E. said it very well:
[Dr. E.:] God FIRST opened the jailer's eyes to the light and God FIRST opened his ears to the truth and God FIRST gave the jailer a heart of flesh in place of his heart of stone and THEN the jailer believed -- the EXACT SAME WAY you and I and all believers came to faith.
Well, I lumped election in with grace to give me a 10 point TULIP.
I've noticed I haven't received any response to my questions or Order of Salvation. I guess the "moderate Calvins after Arminius" must be having a difficult time sorting it all out. After all, Arminius wasn't very clear about being born again or the workings of the Holy Spirit or how God can interfere with man's free will now was he? Did he even have an "Order of Salvation"? Perhaps he just thought -*-POP-*- people believe and that's that.
Perhaps they can discuss it during their devotions and hopefully get back to us. I noticed their talking about grace. That's #1.
A8-In saying "The Church has received this name from the Lord", it is saying that the Church received from Christ the name "Holy Spirit" as the name of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, not as the name of the Church.
I have tried to parse your sentence. You have totally lost me.
Paul did the latter. However, since Paul certainly knew about predestination and election, this tells us something about how to deal with seekers. Paul didn't write about predestination and election for nothing, so we can infer that these concepts might normally come later on as part of the sanctification of the believer. No one comes to belief with everything in the Bible already thoroughly figured out. That's one unreachable goal of sanctification.
-A8
Do you suppose that Paul ever studied his own letters as we do today?
Absolutely right. We are also told that after Paul said what he said, then they ministered to the jailer and his family. I don't think we need to take any great leap of faith to suppose that Paul covered repentance during that ministering, and before the jailer believed.
Dr. E always asks a good question: how does one resist the Holy Spirit? One can reject him, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's the same thing. Is it the same thing? Anyway, what I'm wondering is at what point of resisting grace does one lose their salvation or peform poorly enough not to earn it? However that's properly understood. IOW, is it a continuous resisting of grace or is it the final resistance seconds before you die that sends you to hell? I read that some of the Christian big-wigs used to postpone full acceptance of Christianity until they felt their mortality really closing in on them, then they would begin to take the faith and the sacraments seriously. Constantine is probably a good example of what I'm talking about here.
Earlier on in the thread someone remarked that Love is a dance, and Dr. E noted that it was a good metaphor, and added that it was God who was in the lead.
I thought that was good. But it might even be a better metaphor than previously suspected, especially from a Calvinist POV.
I studied dance in my earlier years and so I began to really think about the metaphor and it came to mind that God not only leads, HE is the Choreographer par excellence. And anyone that has taken any dance lessons knows that it's the choreographer that designs the whole dance and that in order for a performance to come off without a hitch there can't be any improvisation. It's a higly studied, indefatigably rehearsed routine. Modern dance is a little different, but I leave that metaphor to anyone that wants to go there.
Hey, that's pretty good. :) I'd forgotten about that one. Good find.
The only people who successfully reject the Holy Spirit are those who have not been predestined to grace.
The important thing to remember is that all those who reject the Holy Spirit do so because that's what they want to do. Their fallen natures have not been been graced "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5).
Anyway, what I'm wondering is at what point of resisting grace does one lose their salvation or perform poorly enough not to earn it?
No one can "earn" their salvation, and if someone successfully resists the Holy Spirit then they never had God's grace to begin with.
Either/or.
The moment when we realize our own salvation by Christ's atonement is determined by God. And like the thief on the cross, it will happen when God wants it to happen. From that point on, it grows, it ebbs and flows, but it eventually blooms into repentance, gratitude and a new life lived in Jesus Christ.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law." -- Galatians 5:22
I like your choreographer metaphor. As we learn the steps we appear to be improvising, but our movements are actually devised by the originator of the dance.
I was very interested, thank you so much for the link. I didn't realize how hostile the RCC was to the spread of the printing press, but it makes perfect sense. It threatened the power of their monopoly on the "truth". Of course they hated it. What a coincidence it was that just as the press was being established and developed, along came the Reformation. Go figure. :)
Did you read in post #11 on that thread? --
"...I am not saying that a KJV of the bible is totally inaccurate as it does contain some truths."
"Some."
I don't understand what you don't understand. The Holy Spirit only talks to your men on important issues. Since the Spirit "could" communicate with all believers, as we believe, but chooses not to, as you believe, then He turns His back on them.
FK: "He only guides the Magisterium with interpretation."
No, what it is saying is that the task of providing authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture belongs to the Magisterium. It does not say that the Holy Spirit does not guide the laity as the interpret Scripture.
So, I take it then that the Spirit guides the laity with inauthentic and unauthoritative interpretation. Oh joy for the laity. Face it, that kind of leadership is useless. The ONLY interpretation that matters for anything is only given to a very few powerful old men. My point stands. In part, the Spirit only ministers based on class. There are the kings of the Magisterium, whom the Spirit has time for, and then there are the rest of the serfs, whom the Spirit does not have time for, so they better listen to their kings if they know what's good for them.
FK: "The above says that the true meaning of scripture is unavailable to anyone except through the filter of the Magisterium."
Where does it say that? I don't see that anywhere.
Who has the official interpretation of the Catechism? :) Here's the quote again:
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. (emphasis added)
Where else can one get the true meaning of scripture according to #100?
I think your cold has turned into a fever.
Hope you're getting better. 8~)
Does this whole thing refer to :
John 20:22 : And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. ...
If so, then what is the point of the section? Christ revealed this name to all believers when He revealed it to the Apostles, through their original oral teachings and the scriptures. What is important about this such that it needs to be pointed out?
I suppose I doubt that Paul would have needed to study his own letters the way we need to study them today. I'm not sure where you're going.
I would say the L&E thread was a confirmation, but I think I actually made the switch toward the end of my mentoring. The funny thing is that I didn't know there was a name for all these things I believed, and had no idea there were masses of people who thought exactly the same way. :) Once my mentor really got me to understand that it was all about Christ, then I think I was home.
Dr. E always asks a good question: how does one resist the Holy Spirit? One can reject him, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's the same thing. Is it the same thing?
That's a very interesting question. In my opinion, in this context "rejecting" and "resisting" are the same thing. To me, both connote some notion of an advancement by, or an offer made by, or at least a presentation (of some sort) by the one rejected or resisted. Since I follow the doctrine of irresistible grace, I don't see how either is possible. For the reprobate, the Holy Spirit never shows up to face either rejection or resistance. I might use a word like "deny", as in "the existence of". In that case, no knowledge is required, and the Spirit doesn't have to be involved at all to be denied. ....... It's probably a thin line. :)
Anyway, what I'm wondering is at what point of resisting grace does one lose their salvation or perform poorly enough not to earn it? However that's properly understood. IOW, is it a continuous resisting of grace or is it the final resistance seconds before you die that sends you to hell?
Apart from what we "think" or what our "experience" is, I think the actual fact is that our salvation is completely out of our hands altogether. Part of my transformation was to come to believe that there was never anything I could have ever done to either win or lose my salvation at any time. If that is correct, then it would not be possible for me to have refused any grace given by the Spirit for my eternal life. Whatever part of me that could have possibly attempted to refuse (reject, resist, etc.) was automatically trumped by the grace in the first place. IOW, when I was a lost person God didn't ask me if I wanted the grace. He just gave it to me, and that was that. --- In my opinion, it is a person's sin that causes him to go to hell, period. (I don't see it as a matter of any decision to resist, etc.)God may or may not have decided to bail him out of that, but whatever that decision was, it was final.
I studied dance in my earlier years and so I began to really think about the metaphor and it came to mind that God not only leads, HE is the Choreographer par excellence.
I agree, and like the metaphor also. In my clumsy way I would say that Christ is the dance instructor and we stand on His feet. :)
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.