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.
They are. However, so we can speak on the same level, at times I will refer to salvation as that one-time event when we first receive Christ. Knowing that we can lose our inheritance, though, this salvation is not necessarily permanent. As such, neither is justification - the currently wicked are not jusified.
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.
I don't think Catholics think of "assurance" in the same way you do. We don't see salvation/justification as a legal issue, but a familial one. While it does have components of being legal, our relationship with God is described as between a Father and a child. There are legal issues in such a relationship, but these matters are very much secondary in our daily lives. Thus, we are told to persevere in our Father's love.
As to election, I think it is fair to say that we see it from the future looking back upon our past as we stand in front of Christ at judgment time and He says to us "well done, good and faithful servant, enter into my presence". Only at that time will we KNOW we are of the elect. I think we can say with relative certitude that we are of the elect when we look at our current actions and behavior, but this is not absolute certitude - we ALL can potentially fail. Thus, a man can abide in Christ today, thinking he is of the elect today, and then turn around and fall away - revoking Christ. Is such a man still of the elect? I would say the Scriptures refer to this sin of apostasy as sufficient to lose one's salvation. IF this happens even once somewhere, then absolute salvation guaranteed is false.
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:
He doesn't say that FK. Where does he say he is already saved?
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.
Really? You sure you want to discuss 1 Cor 3:14-17? Read 1 Cor 3:17 and you will find that Paul is not talking about rewards and rewards lost in heaven! First of all, in YOUR understanding of salvation, a person is not "just barely saved as if running out of a burning building"! Either you are saved or not. And it is not even your own doing. Thus, how can someone just "barely" be saved? Second of all, we have already discussed the Scriptures regarding rewards in heaven or loss of them. The Bible doesn't speak that way. Either one loses salvation and is condemned to eternal fire or they enter heaven. Have you not read the story of the vineyard workers who ALL received the same pay for various times at work? We ALL will receive the reward of heaven. These verses more properly would refer to the Catholic understanding of purgation.
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. :)
I don't do "verse-off's" anymore because that rarely settles any issues. That is the problem with Bible alone. It doesn't solve much of anything because people can always dig up and twist Scriptures to suit their needs. I would prefer to look at what the first Christians thought on the matter, since they heard with their own ears the ORAL AND WRITTEN teachings given by them. Your tradition is 1500 years removed from the Apostles.
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.
I disagree, because I didn't come out that way. I was one of those unbiased persons who wanted to come to Christ and I didn't find the Protestant view satisfactory - I found it contradictory in many places, esp. sola scripture and sola fide. When I read the first Christians, I noticed they didn't believe what you claim was taught by the Apostles. If I believe the Apostles' witness, if I believe they were guided by God, I cannot fathom the Protestant viewpoint. While I don't fully understand everything Catholic, I trust that it is the fullness of God's Church on earth. Knowing God transcends our understanding, I have accepted that some things will not be fully understood by me.
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.
No it is not invalid because the Eucharist WAS better developed in terms of its reality. The identity of Christ was NOT universally known and accepted by those same writers. All you need to do is read, FK. The evidence is clearly there. The major themes of the first three Councils were the identity of Christ. One of the greatest heresies was called Arianism - the idea that Christ was NOT the essence of God. Many in the East followed this teaching. Where do you find such disagreement on the Eucharist, FK? Again, if you want to know how the first Christians read the bible and understood the Apostles, you'll have to begin reading the Fathers of the first 2 centuries. That is how I became Catholic - by seeing that the Christian church was Catholic in beliefs and understanding of the Scriptures.
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.
Ah, but if something is taught by the universal Church "everywhere, by everyone, for all time", then it is considered an Apostolic Teaching and NOT subject to change. God protects this teaching. Thus, Rome CANNOT change such teachings. You will NEVER find the Church teaching contraception because it has been determined to be Apostolic in teaching and coming from God. The Spirit has guided the Church for 2000 years on this issue - and thus, CANNOT be changed.
Paul knew Christ's identity immediately upon conversion.
No, I disagree. That is not how God works - with ANYONE. Even Christ "learned" and "grew" in wisdom. I don't see Paul receiving divine revelation in an instant about His entire plan. The Scriptures tell us that HE ALSO stayed in Antioch and learned the faith immediately following his conversion.
Mary clearly didn't "get it" at that point, or do you argue against that?
I think this is what makes Mary's faith in God so great. While some theologians may say that Mary's knowledge exceeded all else about Christ (which may very well be true), I think, by the way God works, that He prefers to place us in opportunities where we must TRUST in Him. That is how we grow in Christ - not by instant, freely given knowledge, but by experience Christ through the difficult and often dry moments in our lives. I think Mary's act of faith would be more meritorious and pleasing in God's eyes had she NOT knew everything and merely trusted that God would do what He promised. Paul also struggled throughout - I don't think he knew everything. And his faith in God was that much more meritorious.
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. :)
I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement? As to Mary not being converted, I guess it is your natural aversion of the Mother of God. I suppose Jesus really appreciates such thoughts about His human mother whom He fashioned from scratch. I suppose this is another stellar example of your "veneration" and "honor" you give to Mary. With friends like you, who needs enemies...
Yes, you are joking that "reformed" Protestants give honor to Mary. There are some Protestants who give Mary some honor - as Martin Luther did. But most do not. Sadly, they are missing the profound link between Mary and the Church.