That's too bad. I think it comes from your idea that man is totally corrupt. We see man as wounded. In either case, we absolutely require God's aid, but we also see a cooperation within that necessary aid. Thus, being just means to give God his due that He deserves. We believe that man can do that - or refuse that - at different points in their lives.
OK, that's what I was trying to nail down, thanks. My side believes that God promises that this never happens.
Only the elect. Again, however, we don't know who the "true" elect are until we are judged. ALL are judged upon death. This would be unnecessary if we already knew we were elect. We would just flash our badge...
Paul says he is already saved all over the place in his writings. Here are just a couple:
Rom 10:9 : 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I was refering to 1 Cor 9, not an entirely different letter within an entirely different context. The confusion is that Paul is often ambiguous on "salvation". Sometimes, it refers to that one moment where we accept Jesus as our Lord and beg for forgiveness. Sometimes, it is refering to a current healing or sanctification, and at times, he refers to entering the Kingdom of Heaven after we die. Thus, it is a mistake to appropriate the definition of one meaning and apply it to ALL of Paul's use of the word.
Again, Paul would obviously include himself in this. There can be no doubt of any kind that PAUL knew he was saved and of the elect according to the Bible. The only question that can be asked is whether he was right, since Tradition disagrees with Paul.
Paul never comes out and says "I'm of the elect of heaven" or "I am going to heaven, regardless of what I do". He says he is saved with confidence that IF he continues to persevere through the grace of God, he will attain the goal, have finished the race. He never says he has completed the race already. The very idea of race doesn't give in to the idea of "already a done deal".
While "destroy" in 17 can certainly mean "kill" or refer to death, it can also mean severely punish for sin, without the loss of salvation
Now you are using special pleading to twist the meaning of the word "death". When does death mean "punishment without loss of salvation"? Can you point me to an example of a person dying spiritually while maintaining his seat in Heaven???
That is reasonable since we all do "something" in this category during our lives, and our salvation is not lost.
WHICH salvation is not lost?! That one moment in time of the past, or our current status in God's eyes or our future position in heaven? See what happens when we discuss the word "salvation"? It has multiple meanings. What you are doing is taking the first meaning and applying it to everytime the word is used. The word is used in the past, present, and future tense as something being gained or yet to be gained or already gained. This is causing you to believe we can never loss salvation, because you narrow the definition to only the past and apply it to all other uses of the word.
You are right that my position is that no one is just barely saved, he either is or he is not. I do not see this concept anywhere in our passage. 15 says that if a man's works are lesser, then his Heavenly reward will be lesser, but nonetheless, he will still be just as saved as before. Here, the comparison is to being alive. Whether one has burned edges or not, alive is alive. I think that is the point.
The comparision in Protestant commentaries on these verses is to note that a person is just barely saved AS IF he had just escaped a burning house, with his clothes singed. This is a very problematic set of verses for Protestant theology. Also, you are again reading into the Scripture what is not there. NOWHERE does the verses discuss "heavenly rewards" or loss of them while retaining heaven! In context, they are speaking of eternal heaven or loss of heaven. Again, verse 17 seals the deal. NO ONE who is "dead" or "destroyed" spiritually will enter heaven!
Now when we both face our reward judgment, as I claim, it is possible for us to still come out the same, even though you did many more great things for God than I did. This parable can reasonably be seen in more than one way.
Scripture can be read in many different ways... This is why I do not believe that Scripture is self-explanatory.
And, how does purgatory fit into this? From my understanding, purgatory is (de)merit-based. That doesn't seem to fit the model of this parable.
The parable doesn't detail everything about how salvation works. It only discusses an aspect of it. Purgatory is dependent upon our response to God, true. However, once we are purified, we will all receive the same God as our reward. The difference in heaven, I believe, is that those who loved more will be more open to the Union in heaven.
my tradition is not an authority to me. :)
Sure it is! You have the tradition of Sola Scriptura. You know deep down that the Bible doesn't mention that anywhere. You know that the Catholic attack on Sola Scriptura makes sense. However, to maintain your own tradition, you doggedly stand by it, defending it, although you must know that common sense nullifies the doctrine. If Sola Scriptura was true, God would have mentioned it at least once in the Bible, don't you think? But He didn't. Thus, you maintain a tradition that is not found in the Scriptures. Worse, you maintain Sola Fide, which is DENIED in the Scriptures. This is to maintain the tradition that has been handed down to you, not because you came up with this teaching on your own reading of the Bible!
Alright, I'll cut right to the chase: when the Arians worshiped, did they perform a valid Eucharist, believing in a Christ that neither you nor I recognize? I can't imagine that is possible. "Ex opere operato" does not stretch this far! :) If any whole (Arian) church was apostate, then how could anyone be rightly disposed to receive the sacraments? It's not possible. They didn't believe in the correct God.
AH, that is exactly what St. Athanasius challenged the Arians with! He asked them "HOW can you worship Jesus as God in the Eucharist, in Mass, if Jesus is not God"? This question on the liturgical practices of the Arians brought out the separation between practice and theological belief. They worshipped Christ and then said He wasn't God! How could they be true Christians - since only God is worshipped? They worshipped correctly but did not think out their heretical beliefs. That is generally the case with heresy - incorrect theological assumptions or questions leads to a theological matrix that is not supportive of other beliefs within the matrix.
However, the first thing we learn at the conversion "scene" is Paul recognizing Jesus as Lord. I don't see how there can be any question of this. Paul WAS "zapped" with special wisdom and faith instantly. He then went away for three years and developed it (under God) to be able to give us the writings he has. God's perfect plan. From scratch, Paul went from Saul the Christian hunter to Paul the author of most of the NT in three years. That is not possible without SPECIAL divine intervention.
It appears that you agree with me that Paul grew in knowledge of God. As to Paul's conversion, we continue to see such things even today. I know of people who hated Christians and became one later in life. Yes, it is not possible without divine intervention. But that goes without saying as ALL OF US require divine intervention - FAITH - to call upon His Name.
I wrote : I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement?
You responded : I just reasoned that if his was the greatest faith in all of Israel, then he must have been converted. So, to answer your question, I had to look it up. I found this:
You are missing my understanding of "fully converted". Where does the Gospel tell us that this man "dropped everything and became a disciple of our Lord"? He had faith in Jesus' POWER TO HEAL, His authority over sickness. It doesn't follow that the Centurion had ANY clue that Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God or the Savior of the world. I think you are going way too far on your assumptions from what is written. IF the Centurion was "fully converted", he would have put aside his former life and followed Christ, which is what all disciples of Christ do.
I believe Mary was fully converted at some point, but I don't think we can be sure about when that was. Surely she was not when Jesus was 12.
Mary KNEW better than any other human that Jesus would be the Savior of the world. The angel told her so at the Annunciation. She was fully converted, according to your definition. The incident in the Temple that you speak of is Mary not completely understanding God's plan of salvation and how she would be involved. Perhaps Mary was thinking of their relationship as mother-son in human terms too closely. Jesus transcends that relationship, here, but even more so during His ministry, beginning with Cana, WITHOUT dispensing of it. Mary had to "ponder these things in her heart" just like we all must. That is why I do not believe that ANYONE, including Paul, is given absolute and perfect knowledge about God's Will.
It describes a faithful Mary. For that I do honor her.
In what ways? Explain your devotion to her. I would imagine you revere your favorite soap opera star more than the Mother of God.
If I meet her in Heaven, I doubt her reaction will be "Why didn't you pray to me and bow down before icons and statues of me and venerate me properly?"
Of course she won't. Mary is humble, and humble people don't ask such questions. YOU will ask YOURSELF that question once you discover Mary through the eyes of the Church. As a hint, consider reading "Mary" whenever you see the Bible speak about the "Church". Its purity, its holiness, being mother and virgin, and so forth. Then, it will become more profoundly clear what exactly the Church teaches about herself and Mary.
Regards
You are right that under my belief there could be a "pro forma" element to it. However, being formally judged as among the elect is an experience I do not want to miss, anyway. :)
The confusion is that Paul is often ambiguous on "salvation". Sometimes, it refers to that one moment where we accept Jesus as our Lord and beg for forgiveness. Sometimes, it is referring to a current healing or sanctification, and at times, he refers to entering the Kingdom of Heaven after we die. Thus, it is a mistake to appropriate the definition of one meaning and apply it to ALL of Paul's use of the word.
Well, as you well know, salvation "can" be a complex issue, hence two good Christians may disagree about it. On one level, salvation may be as simple as John 3:16. On other levels there is disagreement about how it is obtained. I think Paul does an excellent job of covering ALL the angles. For example, Paul preaches Sola Fide, and at the same time throttles the plain meaning of OSAS. Theologically, that's quite a balancing act, but God (through Paul) pulls it off flawlessly.
"Salvation" can correctly be used in all three of your examples above. Yet, there is only "one" salvation. Paul emphasizes different aspects of it to different audiences, based on their needs. When all of his writings are taken as a whole, one coherent theology emerges.
Paul never comes out and says "I'm of the elect of heaven" or "I am going to heaven, regardless of what I do". He says he is saved with confidence that IF he continues to persevere through the grace of God, he will attain the goal, have finished the race. He never says he has completed the race already. The very idea of race doesn't give in to the idea of "already a done deal".
What??? :) Paul doesn't hedge on this. He shows the same assurance that he preaches:
2 Tim 4:6-7 : 6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
These are the words of a man who has no use for "ifs". He is absolutely clear in his assurance of salvation.
[Re: 1 Cor. 3] FK: "While "destroy" in 17 can certainly mean "kill" or refer to death, it can also mean severely punish for sin, without the loss of salvation."
Now you are using special pleading to twist the meaning of the word "death". When does death mean "punishment without loss of salvation"? Can you point me to an example of a person dying spiritually while maintaining his seat in Heaven???
Where is the word "death"? The word is "destroy", and I was saying that it can have more than one meaning. ...... It is not possible for one to die spiritually after once having been alive spiritually. Therefore, the question is moot.
WHICH salvation is not lost?! That one moment in time of the past, or our current status in God's eyes or our future position in heaven? See what happens when we discuss the word "salvation"? It has multiple meanings.
Salvation does not have multiple meanings, it has different ways of being expressed through different emphases. Paul spent much time emphasizing Sola Fide, and he was correct. James spent much time emphasizing that works are included with true faith and will/must happen with the true believer. James was also correct, but both were speaking of the same salvation. And, the totality of scripture is clear that the one salvation revealed cannot be lost, once truly held.
[continuing re: 1 Cor. 3] The comparison in Protestant commentaries on these verses is to note that a person is just barely saved AS IF he had just escaped a burning house, with his clothes singed. This is a very problematic set of verses for Protestant theology.
Why is it problematic? I think you are stuck in semantics. Someone on my side could say that a person who will receive small reward in Heaven was "barely" saved, but that misses the truth that God saves whom He will, not "barely" but absolutely. I don't know which commentaries you are referring to, but I will be happy to disagree with them if I need to. :)
Again, verse 17 seals the deal. NO ONE who is "dead" or "destroyed" spiritually will enter heaven!
Your new favorite Protestant commentator, Barnes, strongly disagrees that this is the point of the verse. :) After explaining that "you" in the preceding verses refers to "the Church" as a whole, he goes on to say about verse 17:
1 Corinthians 3:17 : [If any man defile ...] Or, "destroy, corrupt" ftheirei. The Greek word is the same in both parts of the sentence. "If any man 'destroy' the temple of God, God shall 'destroy' him." This is presented in the form of an adage or proverb. And the truth here stated is based on the fact that the temple of God was inviolable. That temple was holy; and if any man subsequently destroyed it, it might be presumed that God would destroy him. The figurative sense is, "If any man by his doctrines or precepts shall pursue such a course as TENDS to destroy the church, God shall severely punish him. (from Barnes' Notes)
---------------
You have the tradition of Sola Scriptura. You know deep down that the Bible doesn't mention that anywhere. You know that the Catholic attack on Sola Scriptura makes sense.
LOL! You had me going there for a minute. :)
Worse, you maintain Sola Fide, which is DENIED in the Scriptures. This is to maintain the tradition that has been handed down to you, not because you came up with this teaching on your own reading of the Bible!
No, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchs deny Sola Fide, the scriptures don't. It is just a coincidence that Sola Fide severely threatens the power claimed and exerted by men.
AH, that is exactly what St. Athanasius challenged the Arians with! He asked them "HOW can you worship Jesus as God in the Eucharist, in Mass, if Jesus is not God"? This question on the liturgical practices of the Arians brought out the separation between practice and theological belief. They worshiped Christ and then said He wasn't God! How could they be true Christians - since only God is worshiped? They worshiped correctly but did not think out their heretical beliefs.
I'm intrigued, so what's the answer? :) Can non-Christians correctly perform and participate in the Eucharist? By my original point the answer has to be "no". That must be the case since you won't let a deadbeat Christian like me participate. :)
It appears that you agree with me that Paul grew in knowledge of God.
Yes, somewhere I have written to the contrary, but then I GREW, and recanted. :)
You are missing my understanding of "fully converted". Where does the Gospel tell us that this man "dropped everything and became a disciple of our Lord"? He had faith in Jesus' POWER TO HEAL, His authority over sickness. It doesn't follow that the Centurion had ANY clue that Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God or the Savior of the world. I think you are going way too far on your assumptions from what is written. IF the Centurion was "fully converted", he would have put aside his former life and followed Christ, which is what all disciples of Christ do.
By your standards neither of us is "fully converted" either. Christ does not command that all of us quit our jobs, sell all we have, and enter the ministry full time. In order to discount the story, you manufacture an artificial standard for the centurion. Christ did not ask him to do that.
How in the world do you infer from the text that the centurion's faith is limited ONLY to Jesus' power to heal? There is ZERO context for that. Jesus praises the man's faith, PERIOD. Do you seriously believe that the centurion thought that Jesus was just some sort of traveling psychic healer? If you were correct, then Jesus completely misspoke, or was flat-out wrong. Do you really think that Jesus would praise (and reward) such a man? NO WAY!
Mary KNEW better than any other human that Jesus would be the Savior of the world. The angel told her so at the Annunciation.
One would think so, yes. And yet ....
The incident in the Temple that you speak of is Mary not completely understanding God's plan of salvation and how she would be involved.
Baloney! :) In the first breath you tell me that Mary "KNEW". In the second breath you tell me she didn't "understand". Come on. :) At any given time she either knew/understood the identity of Christ or she didn't.
FK: "It describes a faithful Mary. For that I do honor her."
In what ways? Explain your devotion to her. I would imagine you revere your favorite soap opera star more than the Mother of God.
In that case you have a very vivid imagination. :) In any event, I do not have spiritual devotion for Mary, as I only have spiritual devotion for God. The following describes the honor and respect for her that I have IN ADDITION to that which is due because she gave birth to our Lord and Savior: I do honor and respect Mary partially because of the way she handled herself at the Annunciation. She was a young teenager and faced a supernatural appearance. A normal reaction might be one of complete terror, but she held her own. Then, when she was told what was going to happen to her, she may have realized how dangerous this position was going to be for her, and yet she was gracious and accepting. More points for Mary. Finally, in her questions we see nothing but pure honesty. We see no sign of her questioning God's will. Here, she leaves Moses in the dust (under similar circumstances) by leaps and bounds! More points for Mary.
After the Annunciation we are given no concrete evidence (in my mind) that she sinned. That doesn't mean to me that she wasn't a "sinner", but I do infer that she was generally a righteous woman, a woman of God. She was a role model to us all. Then, she showed up at the cross along with John. Now, it might be expected that a mother would be there, but in this case she was risking her life AND BEFORE the cross she had every excuse in the universe to be an emotional basket-case. Yet, she showed up. More points for Mary. The last thing I can think of right now is that God honored her by bringing her first to the opened tomb. If God honored her thus, then I should give her honor also. ...... I didn't look any of this up, I thought you wanted a gut response as to why I do honor Mary. This is my honest answer.