PREDESTINATION; LIVE BY GRACE; NOT BY WORKS (WEEK 8)

St. Louis Center for Christian Study ^ | Greg Johnson

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If salvation is all of grace -- if God is God and he has chosen us for salvation even though we did nothing to deserve it -- then we ought to live by the grace we have received. Of course, some of you will look at that and say to yourselves, “Yeah, I really need to do better at living by grace. I’ve really been a failure there. I hope God will forgive me again.” If that’s you, you still don’t get it. Go back and re-read the last seventeen pages and (if you’re a believer) remember that you’re one of the elect!

Our hearts so quickly try to relate to God on a works-basis! It’s our pride, really. I’m convinced that that’s the problem with free-will Arminianism. People naturally process it like this: God requires one work from me, to believe. Once I believe, I’ve done my work and deserve heaven. Of course, in more hard-line Arminian circles, it goes a step further. Unless I’m holy enough, I’ll still go to hell, and maybe I’ve even committed the unpardonable sin and will be damned even if I’m sinlessly perfect from here on out. Legalism. Legalism. Legalism. Such a religion is barely recognizable as Christianity.

But Calvinists can fall into legalism just as easily. You see, I understand predestination. I’m a superior Christian. I’ve got all my theological “t”s crossed and my Reformed “i”s dotted. I sure am close to God. Pride is the Presbyterian’s favorite form of legalism, so watch out! But if God really is for us, and if we had nothing to do with that decision -- if even our faith was given to us by the Father -- then there’s no room for boasting. God’s sovereign choice of us leaves us free from pride. It leaves us aware of our brokenness and humble before God, but all the while confident that his eternal purpose will stand, that we will glory in God forever as objects of his saving mercy. As God’s eternal blessing really begins to sink from our heads into our hearts, we see a new freedom that we never would have imagined when we first encountered the raw, holy, sovereign power of God. Among the newfound freedoms:

1. Freedom from shame, guilt & Insecurity

Read Romans 8:28-39. Nothing can separate you from God’s love -- nothing in the past, nothing in the future. No one can stand against you. No one can accuse you. Even bad things (“all things”) are working right now to your benefit, to make you more like Jesus. God didn’t choose you because of your faith, and Jesus is not ashamed of you—even at your worst (Hebrews 2:11). He’s proud to have you in the family, proud to call you brother or sister -- even knowing what he knows. He’s displaying the glory of his mercy, remember. God’s law is no longer your enemy, but a friend. You can have confidence before God.

2. Freedom from destructive Perfectionism

If God really is for you, then you can quit trying to look good. If you’re trying to be good enough for God, he’s not buying it -- he didn’t choose you because of your great faithfulness. If you’re trying to be good enough for other people, don’t bother. God wants to display his mercy -- that means we have to be broken. God’s glory is not displayed by trying to look like you have it all together. Faith is not a work, and even if it were it still wouldn’t earn you any brownie points. Let God be God. If you won’t show your weakness, then others won’t see God’s power displayed in it.

3. Freedom from legalistic man-made rules

Some of the biggest practical opponents to living by grace are those legalistic little rules that we live by. We love to judge other with them -- they make us look good, and help us feel better about ourselves. (Pride again.) Dress this way, not that way. Wear this much makeup, not that much. Work. Don’t work. Home school is God’s way. Public school is God’s way. Christian school is God’s way. Drink. Don’t drink. Smoke. Don’t smoke. Dance. Don’t dance. This is God’s worship style. If we’re all about God’s glory, there’s no room for any of this. Do whatever you do for God’s glory without comparisons. God has freed you from judging others. You don’t understand God’ sovereign grace until you realize you are a beggar who’s been blessed without cause. You had nothing to do with it -- you’re just a receiver.

4. Freedom from Penance

Even repentance can be a sham if we’re trying to approach God with some vestige of self-reliance. Biblical repentance is a freedom we can enjoy daily, while penance is its counterfeit.

Repentance/Penance

Comes with empty hands/Tries to bargain with God

Acknowledges real sin as against God/Makes excuses for sin

Grieves over displeasing God/Grieves over getting caught

Asks for help to do better/Promises to do better

Is willing to publicly confess, if needed/Is too proud to publicly confess

Relies on God's promises to us/Relies on own promises to God

Turns outward, away from self, to God/Turns inward on self

Produces freedom, joy, and confidence/Produces guilty feelings, anxiety

God has obligated himself to receive any repentant sinner who comes to him. Without this realization, true repentance is impossible. Until we realize that God is for us, we cannot truly be for God.

[Forest Keeper]

Did you read in post #11 on that thread? --

I sure did. I also noted that the author of the KJV comment also said it was accepted Catholic teaching that Jonah was just a metaphor. I KNOW that we weren't told that as a fact on the L&E thread. If that guy was right, I wonder how many other whole books of the Bible are completely thrown out as myth under accepted Catholic teaching. If they can toss the vast majority of the KJV, then it could be up to all of them. That is, except the Deuterocanonicals of course. :)

[xzins]

3. Which came first, believing or salvation? From God's POV, salvation. From man's POV, believing.

The text of the story calls this answer into question. Paul's response is:

Acts 16: 29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."

The scripture uses the future tense to describe the sequence between believing and salvation. In short, it appears to be saying, "Believe and AFTERWARDS you WILL BE saved."

I'm not asking what you believe at this point. I'm simply asking if you can see how, based on this text, a general reader could come to the conclusion that believing precedes salvation?

[adiaireton8]

The Holy Spirit only talks to your men on important issues.

Where does the Catechism say that? No where.

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.

Where does the Catechism say that the Spirit chooses not to communicate with all believers? Again, no where You are leaping from the *authoritative* interpretation being found in the Magisterium to the Holy Spirit not communicating to laity. That is, a non sequitur.

So, I take it then that the Spirit guides the laity with inauthentic and unauthoritative interpretation.

The laity are led by the Spirit, and the Spirit typically works through the Church. But the "interpretations" reached by the laity themselves, are not authoritative.

Face it, that kind of leadership is useless.

That statement is an example of why you need such leadership. You're trying to use pragmaticism to determine how the Church should be structured. Naaman wouldn't have washed in the Jordan if he had been a pragmatist.

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,

That's a straw man. And, you sound like an ecclesiastical anarchist.

Where else can one get the true meaning of scripture according to #100?

There is no where else you can go to be sure that the meaning you are getting is the "true meaning". But that does not mean that you cannot get the true meaning just by opening your Bible and starting to read.

-A8

[AlbionGirl]

It's my understanding that Marcion was considered the most dangerous of heretics. And I think it was because his disavowal and rejection of the Old Testament so threatened the survival of the New. And that makes a lot of sense to me. If it's impossible for Jonah to have been in the belly of the whale, then it's just as impossible for the Incarnation and the Resurrection to be true. All need to be taken on Faith. Science will verify or confirm none of them. In fact, it will certainly deny them all. "Logic" will see to that. Sts. Peter and Paul who were given the deposit of the Faith whole and sound would consider denial of the truth of OT as accursed.

Insofar as the KJV and the imprimatur is concerned. That horse left the barn centuries ago. They can disapprove all they want: here's a Euro boys, call someone who cares. No person whose Being is being moved by the Holy Spirit will say as soon as they sit down to read the Scriptures, say, I need to call Rome to see if they're 'down with this' translation. They need to get real.

I'm pretty sure that during the Council of Trent the powers that were, reverted to the translation of St. Jerome -that sainted, but mean old coot- not because it was the best translation out there, but because it best suited their myopic needs. Luther's red-hot polemic aside, he really was a conciliarist and when the Council of Trent was finally convened, so much had happened that he said it was too late.

I do think that schisms are God's way of protecting His Remnant. The primary schism between the O&RC laid the egg that hatched the rest, IMO. That schism took place between two entities that consider themselves the 'true church', yet it doesn't seem to me that they really do share the same faith, and the massaging of terms and conditions will heal nothing, because truth is not subject to nostalgia or necessary alliances, to say nothing of politics. Union based on anything other than Truth will produce

The falcon [that]cannot hear the falconer;
Things [will] fall apart; the center cannot hold

.
The church can't be as was once said of England, that it has no eternal friends, just eternal interests.

[Forest Keeper]

I'm not asking what you believe at this point. I'm simply asking if you can see how, based on this text, a general reader could come to the conclusion that believing precedes salvation?

Sure. Since the Bible was written for people it's only natural that much of it is from man's POV.

[adiaireton8]

also said it was accepted Catholic teaching that Jonah was just a metaphor

More rubbish. Where in any official Catholic document does it say that Jonah was a mere metaphor?

I'm getting the impression that this is the Protestant version of National Enquirer. Just one unsubstantiated rumor and lie after another. -A8

[Seven_0]

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 am not sure that you can be certain on this statement. You said in your post #787, "Paul certainly knew about predestination and election." While Paul certainly knew about predestination and election, he did not necessarily have a better understanding than we have today.

My wife and I memorized Ephesians about twenty years ago. At that time I did not pay much attention to "predestination." Likewise when I did Romans I didn't even notice "election." It is not until you are challenged on a particular point that you begin to pay attention.

Did Paul know that he was writing scripture? (I suspect he did) and if he did know, did he realize that he was writing way over his head?

[HarleyD]

More rubbish. Where in any official Catholic document does it say that Jonah was a mere metaphor?

It's a shame that you didn't spend any time on the Luther/Erasmus thread. It's all there. One of the things we find about Catholics is the consistency about the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

[adiaireton8]

It's a shame that you didn't spend any time on the Luther/Erasmus thread. It's all there.

Uninformed Catholics will say anything. What matters is what the Church officially teaches, not what some rogue self-styled theologians think. And if you want to know the official Church teaching, you have to look at official documents. Don't just believe whatever you hear, and then repeat it. Demand that it be substantiated in official Church documents. Where in any official Catholic document does it say that Jonah was a mere metaphor?

-A8

[Forest Keeper]

More rubbish. Where in any official Catholic document does it say that Jonah was a mere metaphor?

Well, 100% of the rubbish to which you refer was authored by a Catholic (see post 11 of Dr. E.'s link in her 781). As Harley mentioned, the three of us (and everyone) got a lot of this type of stuff over on the L&E thread. Your lashing out at Protestants is completely misdirected. Your argument isn't with us on this, it's with your own.

It is not at all surprising to us that individual Catholics would contradict each other with regularity. How can individual Roman Catholics be expected to be consistent, when the declarations of their governing body are so inconsistent with scripture? It is to be expected that the fidelity an average Catholic will have to the actual scriptures versus the fidelity he has to the past and present Magisterium will vary.

Be that as it may, we have also been told that the Magisterium has not in fact ruled on EVERY issue concerning the faith. We have been told that good Catholics may indeed disagree on this or that issue, if it has not already been decided for you. You appear to argue against that notion. You appear to be saying that any opinion of a Catholic, such as what I and Dr. E. cited, is automatically "rubbish" (or better yet a Protestant slur when we only report it) if it has not been officially sanctioned by the RCC. Is this really your view? If so, then you have no view on a vast array of subjects, unless you really want to attempt to tell me that the RCC has already ruled on everything.

[adiaireton8]

Just as I suspected. The link to which you referred nowhere says that Jonah was a mere metaphor.

I am getting more and more amazed at the sloppliness at the way you handle positions that differ from your own. You just read into them what you want to see.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

You appear to argue against that notion.

Where?

-A8

[adiaireton8]

You appear to be saying that any opinion of a Catholic, such as what I and Dr. E. cited, is automatically "rubbish"

I never said that any opinion of a Catholic is rubbish. But, it is quite possible that every lay-Catholic opinion that you and Dr. E. have cited is indeed rubbish.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Among Catholics there is room for freedom of opinion on various issues, of course. But you seem to want to use the expression of some of those opinions (the ones with which you disagree) as a way of bashing the Catholic Church. "Hey, look at what unbiblical notion the Catholic Church teaches!" When, in fact, there is no official document teaching the particular claim in question.

-A8

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Just as I suspected. The link to which you referred nowhere says that Jonah was a mere metaphor.

This is the link to which FK refers...

BIBLE & CATECHISM

From the link...

"So, when you read a bible make certain it is one with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. This will insure that the cover-to-cover contents, including teaching footnotes and introductions explaining the scriptures, are accurate teachings approved by Holy Church. For example, The New American Bible - St. Joseph Edition says in The Book of Jonah that Jonah disobeyed the Lord so he was swallowed by a whale for three days before being disgorged and sent on his mission. In the introduction to the Book of Jonah, the censor tells us that this 'story' is a sublime lesson telling us that, "Jonah stands for a narrow and vindictive mentality, all too common of the Jews of that period".6 With the previous explanation in mind concerning the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, we know that the introduction just quoted about the Book of Jonah is an approved and accepted teaching of the Church. In the situation of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, this is a 'story' used to teach about the mentality of the Jews at that time.

[HarleyD]

Your lashing out at Protestants is completely misdirected. Your argument isn't with us on this, it's with your own.

Amen. I see no correction of Catholics by other Catholics on such matters. One would think that Catholics who would see other Catholics wandering from the fold would point them to the doctrinal stanze of the Church. Oops...perhaps that's the problem. ;O)

[Forest Keeper]

I am not sure that you can be certain on this statement. You said in your post #787, "Paul certainly knew about predestination and election." While Paul certainly knew about predestination and election, he did not necessarily have a better understanding than we have today.

Well, I would respectfully disagree because Paul wrote about predestination and election, and he was an inspired author of God. Therefore, I would give him credit for knowing more than any person around today on those subjects. As inspired, we consider Paul's writings "perfect" and not subject to being improved upon over the ages.

It is not until you are challenged on a particular point that you begin to pay attention.

Amen, and good for you and your wife for your memorization. I have memorized long passages before, but not a whole book. I agree with you that memorization, while always good, does not necessarily mean full comprehension. As I continue to learn today, I revisit old memorized passages and discover further meaning.

Did Paul know that he was writing scripture? (I suspect he did) and if he did know, did he realize that he was writing way over his head?

The first question is comparatively easy for me to address, and agree with you, that Paul knew he was writing scripture. Peter acknowledges that Paul's writings were scripture in 2 Pet. 3:14-16. So, if Peter knew ......

The second part was much harder for me and I went around and around about it. My conclusion was that to the extent that scriptures are comprehensible by man, Paul knew more about what he wrote than anyone since. He was an inspired author, and if Paul's own writings were above his head then who could have understood them? If no one, then the purpose of the Bible would be thwarted as the revealed word of God.

At the same time, I don't think Paul would have claimed to have had an equal understanding of all scriptures, for then he would have had no potential left for growth himself. But, I think this is OK, since the revelation to and the witness of each author in scripture is unique. Each author wrote what the author witnessed, either through experience or through revelation.

[adiaireton8]

Those underlined sentences are true. But they don't say that Jonah is a mere metaphor.

-A8

[Forest Keeper]

I am getting more and more amazed at the sloppliness at the way you handle positions that differ from your own. You just read into them what you want to see.

Forgive me, in the future I will try to heed your words and be less "slopply". :)

What Dr. E. so very kindly posted in her 815 was EXACTLY and PRECISELY what I was referring to. The Catholic author of the comment put the word "story" in quotes TWICE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? I'm sorry for shouting, but what can't you see about this? It is obvious and plain as day. The author even explains the metaphor. There is nothing to miss.

If you think I'm making this up, then honestly what do you see from the quote in 815?

[adiaireton8]

The story of Jonah is a story. Every story is a story. But that does not mean that the story of Jonah is a mere metaphor, or that the story did not actually take place. The story of Jonah has symbolic meaning that goes beyond the literal account. But that does not imply that the actual account is false or never occurred, or that the Catholic Church officially teaches that the Jonah story never occurred.

-A8