You have been given assurance of justification when you first "put on the mind of Christ". But you personally have not been given any assurance that you are of the saved elect bound for heaven. That is our HOPE. If Paul himself could speak of his "disqualification" in 1 Cor 9, what makes you supposedly a "super Apostle" that you have been given assurance that Paul was not given? Such thoughts are not Scriptural.
But you know better than I that there were plenty of heresies on things even more basic (and core) than the Trinity, such as Christ's identity. There are heresies about everything.
Which proves the error of your idea that a person can pick up the Bible and come to the same conclusions...
That is unknowable. {there was no heresies on the Eucharist or Apostolic succession because "everyone" knew about it and was taught it.} Are you telling me that screwups like the Corinthians got tons of things wrong, but on these issues they got it exactly right? You just can't know that, especially given the specious coverage of them in scripture. The argument that "everyone" knew just doesn't wash.
Are you aware of the VAST amount of Christian writings of the period we are discussing? I am sure you know there is a 34 volume book set that has SOME of the Church Father writings in them, from the second century up to maybe the seventh century? Only SOME of them! And where exactly do we find this "disagreement" you speak of? NOWHERE...
Your argument is invalid because it HOPES that SOMEONE taught that the Eucharist was not Christ. Yet, we have no evidence that an orthodox Christian taught that. Many taught or thought that Christ was the Adopted Son, was not the essence of the Father, and many other such matters. Some taught many variations that later were judged to be deviations from the faith. But where do we find the Eucharistic deviations among catholics??? Your argument from silence is wishful thinking, quite frankly.
An honest person in search of the truth will read the evidence and draw the conclusion that the Catholic position is correct - that the early Christians did indeed believe in the real presence. You pin your hopes on invisible and non-existing evidence. Is that what people do who are searching for the truth, or is it what people do who have already made up their mind that they are right and everyone else is wrong?
I would expect that from the Episcopalian leadership, not from a Roman Catholic. :) (The HS is doing a new thing, etc.) Whatever happened to always and everywhere believed?
Again, I will give you the analogy of receiving a text book on day one of Calculus. Now, if you have ever taken a college class, did you know everything there was to know about the class on day one? As we further analyze what we have received, guided by the Spirit, we grow in understanding as a community on what God has revealed through His teachings. They have many hidden and spiritually deep layers that one generation could not possibly pick up on. A cursory reading of the Fathers will show this to be true.
However, I don't see how this addresses whether men today have a greater understanding than did Paul.
See above paragraph.
Yes, He absolutely did! (Did Jesus keep secrets from Mary) Her faith in Him as God was not realized at least until Christ was 12.
What did the angel tell Mary again? And what did Mary do? Contemplate it in her heart, no? Read it more carefully. I do agree that all was not revealed to Mary. Nor was it revealed to Paul. That was my point, FK.
What? We don't honor her as you do, but none of the Protestants here I call friends has anything against Mary.
You are joking, right?
Take care.
Alex just told me that salvation and justification are interchangeable. Perhaps I am misunderstanding one of you. I would use salvation and election interchangeably in certain cases, but not in others. Maybe that's part of it. If you meant that the assurance of justification was potentially temporary, i.e., one could "take off" the mind of Christ and lose his justification, then I think that would match what Alex was saying. (Of course in that case, "assurance" would have no meaning of worth.) If true, then I would take it that you both do think of the concept of election as being a permanent status? I think of all three as being permanent.
If Paul himself could speak of his "disqualification" in 1 Cor 9, what makes you supposedly a "super Apostle" that you have been given assurance that Paul was not given? Such thoughts are not Scriptural.
The "disqualification" he speaks of at the end of 9 does not refer to salvation. He switches gears in first talking about the aimless person, and then about beating his own, already saved, breast. It refers to the same rewards in Heaven he speaks of in 1 Cor. 3:14-15:
1 Cor 3:14-15 : 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Besides, if you want to have a verse-off on whether Paul taught, preached, lived, slept and ate assurance of salvation/election, I would be more than happy to. I am CERTAIN of the outcome of THAT. :)
FK: "But you know better than I that there were plenty of heresies on things even more basic (and core) than the Trinity, such as Christ's identity. There are heresies about everything."
Which proves the error of your idea that a person can pick up the Bible and come to the same conclusions...
This goes back to the distinction I drew between understanding and belief. Anyone can read the Bible and understand the basics of my views, but to believe them is only by an act of God. To come away with Catholicism from the Bible I think would take an act of God in both understanding and belief.
FK: "That is unknowable. {there was no heresies on the Eucharist or Apostolic succession because "everyone" knew about it and was taught it.} Are you telling me that screwups like the Corinthians got tons of things wrong, but on these issues they got it exactly right? ..."
Are you aware of the VAST amount of Christian writings of the period we are discussing? I am sure you know there is a 34 volume book set that has SOME of the Church Father writings in them, from the second century up to maybe the seventh century?
What, these writings covered the truth of the Eucharist, but not Christ?
Your argument is invalid because it HOPES that SOMEONE taught that the Eucharist was not Christ. Yet, we have no evidence that an orthodox Christian taught that. Many taught or thought that Christ was the Adopted Son, was not the essence of the Father, and many other such matters.
Your argument is invalid because it presumes that the Eucharist was a better developed and accepted idea than the identity of Christ Himself. Therefore you are saying that some or many were completely wrong about Christ, but had the Eucharist just right. Unless you put the Eucharist higher than Christ, and I don't think you do, then this is impossible. It's not me hoping that I'm right, it's just logic. A false belief in Christ means a false Eucharist, which could include any number of errors about the sacrament itself. That's whether we have evidence of anyone writing about it or not.
Again, I will give you the analogy of receiving a text book on day one of Calculus.
Well, OK, but that DOES involve change in belief. The Episcopalian would say the God being against homosexuality was merely a teaching leading to the greater understanding that God thinks it's just ducky. All we need to do is reinterpret scripture using our greater understanding and all of this is clear, etc. The earlier Neanderthals up until the homosexual movement couldn't handle the truth, etc. The point is that anyone can simply SAY that in order to justify any change they want. "Evolving" to a greater consistent truth is all in the eye of the beholder. I thought that you would reject that. I put that into the same category of saying that we have a "living" Constitution.
What did the angel tell Mary again? And what did Mary do? Contemplate it in her heart, no? Read it more carefully. I do agree that all was not revealed to Mary. Nor was it revealed to Paul. That was my point, FK.
Paul knew Christ's identity immediately upon conversion. We don't know when Mary was converted, except that it was sometime after the scene at the Temple. Mary clearly didn't "get it" at that point, or do you argue against that? Would you talk to Jesus like that? :) Her thoughts are even revealed to us to prove the point. The centurion was obviously fully converted when he spoke, so he had greater faith than Mary. It would be better for your side to say that Mary WASN'T converted by then. :)
FK: "We don't honor her as you do, but none of the Protestants here I call friends has anything against Mary."
You are joking, right?
Nope. That is, unless you define not venerating her to your levels as having something against her. In that case the whole world hates Mary except you guys. :) There are tons of Biblical characters whom I would be "against" because they were bad actors, unrepentant sinners, etc. Mary is none of those. She was a wonderful and blessed woman, a role model for all of us in her faith. Is that having something against Mary? I've read everything from near the beginning of this thread and can't think of any examples from my friends on this side to the contrary at all.