Posted on 11/19/2013 6:10:28 AM PST by Gamecock
I have this on good authority (the Bible) that Mary knew her Savior. So don’t worry about her eternal state. Blessed among women is (as Paul tells us) absent from the body and present with the LORD.
“Augustine said exactly the opposite in the citation I gave you.”
No he didn’t, since Augustine’s view is that any who do fall away, were never of us to begin with, as I already showed, and as the scripture proved. Augustine’s argument in your post is that Perseverence is the gift of God, but he denies that it is possible to know who is of the elect until after they have died, since only the elect persevere. It does not deny anything I have said, but only confirms it.
“God infallibly foresees the salvation of the blessed. The grace of perseverance is just that, a gift from him.”
A practically meaningless assertion since you fail to define it. What do you mean by it? If you mean what we mean, then you are a Reformed/Augustinian. If you mean it like this:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
Then perseverence is not a gift, from the Augustinian/Biblical perspective, but is a reward for continued obedience and acquiring of merits. If a gift IS a gift, it must be completely gratuitous, and not require anything from the receiver.
Rom_4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom_11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
This is what a gift actually means. It is not earned by works, but is given despite of them.
“For who makes thee to differ, and what has thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. iv. 7). Our merits therefore do not cause us to differ, but grace. For if it be merit, it is a debt; and if it be a debt, it is not gratuitous; and if it be not gratuitous, it is not grace. (Augustine, Sermon 293)
“He also respects their freedom at all times. They are not machines or automata. If by “secures their salvation” you mean that he provides for them all things that are needful, fine. If you mean that they have no other choice, they always have a choice.”
A contradictory statement, since earlier you were asserting that grace precedes faith. Now if grace precedes faith, then free-will cannot have faith by its own choice, but must depend on the graciousness of God to supply what it lacks. It therefore, without the grace of God, is free only to do evil.
But our difference is that you believe that there is something good in our wills, a spark of goodness ignited by God, that allows man to make that final righteous point. IOW, to meet God in the middle.
This contradicts many scriptures, such as:
“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”
(Rom 9:16)
Here’s how Augustine explains it:
“And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed of his works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged to him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward he had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he says: “For it is God which works in you, both to will and to do of His own good pleasure;” (Php 2:13) and in another place: “So, then, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.” (Rom 9:16) Now as, undoubtedly, if a man is of the age to use his reason, he cannot believe, hope, love, unless he will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the high calling of God unless he voluntarily run for it; in what sense is it not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, except that, as it is written, “the preparation of the heart is from the Lord?” Otherwise, if it is said, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, because it is of both,” that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God, so that we are to understand the saying, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” as if it meant the will of man alone is not sufficient, if the mercy of God go not with it—then it will follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of man go not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, it is not of man that wills, but of God that shows mercy, because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it in the converse way: “It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills,” because the mercy of God by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this, “It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills,” lest he should openly contradict the apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” is that the whole work belongs to God, who both makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it for assistance, and assists it when it is prepared.” (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 32)
God is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY. We cannot be in His presence with one speck of sin on us. That is why we need the Advocate.
“I don’t consider the NAB notes to be particularly blasphemous, but I might use words like “lame” or “dumb”.”
The NAB notes deny that the Holy Scriptures are inspired. If you think that is merely “lame” or “dumb,” then you are no Christian.
“Where did I do that? You posted a citation which stated that it was wrong to use a certain verse in Genesis as a justification for enslaving black people. “
You literally ignored my response two times, wherein I made it clear that it had nothing whatever to do with justifying atrocity, but in the accusation by your scholars that the Jews inserted that verse into the text in order to justify their own atrocities. IOW, the Bible is not inspired and has been manipulated to benefit racism.
Please stop falsely accusing me of making this argument.
I thought Rick Santorum was the only Evangelical Catholic:)
I remember the first night the PAGAN press called him that. I said his goose was double cooked:)
By "figurative" I mean not literally. The disciples who quit following Jesus at that John 6 retelling left AFTER Jesus said:
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:61-66)
So, sure his talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood was a "hard saying", but that was not why they left him.
As for the rejection of transubstantiation, the Reformers did so because of both idolatry AND because the Mass was presented as a Eucharistic sacrifice. They all held this was a primary error. The Eucharist is not something we offer to God, but God offers to us. We are not doing a good work to please God, but he is offering something to help us.
From the site http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=reformers+on+the+eucharist, we learn:
The Positions of Luther and Zwingli on The Lord’s Supper
The Reformers differ due to their different perspectives.
LUTHER: We are saved not by our work but God’s. Our works of righteousness will not save us, but God’s work of righteousness in Christ will. This influences Luther in all his work.
Luther evaluates the medieval teaching on the Lord’s Supper: he sees the central error of Rome as the Eucharistic sacrifice, because it teaches that we offer Christ again to God, and that by our offering God is pleased with us and blesses us. Luther condemns this as works righteousness, and therefore a denial of the gospel.
Luther says we must understand the Lord’s Supper as something God does for us. God in this sacrament gives us a gift: Christ himself. Therefore Christ is present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.” When we receive the elements we literally receive Christ. This isn’t transubstantiation, but an elaboration of what is in the promise of God: it’s better understood as Consubstantiation: the substance of the body of Christ is received with the substance of the bread, which builds us up in faith and commitment to Christ.
ULRICH ZWINGLI: Ulrich Zwingli shared similar concerns with Luther on the Lord’s Supper, in that both knew the Roman Catholic concept was in error. Luther’s position was based on a critique of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which he understood to be ultimately works righteousness. This was what Luther thought to be Rome’s key error. Zwingli though saw transubstantiation as the key error of Rome, but agreed with Luther on Rome’s error of works righteousness.
Zwingli’s position against the Roman Catholic Church: The idea of a repeated sacrifice of the actual Christ was abhorrent to Zwingli. He reasoned, “you couldn’t have a sacrifice of Christ if Christ were not present, therefore the primary error of the Roman Catholic Church is transubstantiation.” Therefore, do away with transubstantiation, because it leads rapidly to idolatry. The error of idolatry is to focus on earthly things, not heavenly things: this was the error of the medieval church, it calls to bread, rather than to Christ, it calls to the alter and the actions of priests, instead of to heaven and the action of Christ. Therefore get rid of the idea that Christ is miraculously called down to the alter and re-sacrificed. Zwingli stressed the ascension of Christ: Christ is risen, ascended and seated at the right hand of the Father. Christ said he was going to depart, therefore transubstantiation is idolatrous and a violation of the Apostles Creed.
Zwingli’s position on the Lord’s Supper
Zwingli held the Lord’s Supper is a memorial; a pledge of allegiance. What is received in the supper is by faith, therefore let’s exercise our faith: remember Christ and rest in his accomplished work. Through the Lord’s Supper let’s testify to the world that we belong to Him. Zwingli saw the Lord’s Supper as a “wedding ring”: the wedding ring isn’t the marriage itself; it is only a reminder of a relationship that exists.
And we have this:
1 John 5:11-14 NASB
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
You just can’t run out of Bible passages in threads like this:)
Good point. Let’s visit, well, the well:
John 4:7-15 NASB
There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.”
*********
Now we have this passage in the same chapter!:
John 4:22-26 NASB
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He. “
You make a logical conclusion based on our modern understanding. However, John 6 is all about Jesus declaring He is Messiah, the Son of God. They wanted a sign even after feeding thousands of them from a few pieces of food! Food is what was what they were fixated on. He gave them a sign. Jesus showed that He was God by doing the worldly impossible.
Now when did food come back into the discussion? When they wanted a sign they discussed Moses and manna. They wanted Jesus to do what Moses did even after miraculously feeding thousands of them. That is why Jesus ends the dialogue telling them that what He speaks is spiritual and not of the flesh.
So what was more offensive to them? The similtude of eating flesh and drinking blood or declaring He was greater than Moses and declaring Himself the Son of God?
I will add if we don’t read the Gospel of John without first understanding John 1 we will get the remainder of the Gospel incorrect.
Important to put in context (below). Clearly a reference to the parable of the soils. Notice well what is written after the verses you provided:
Hebrews 6:4-20 NASB
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints. And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, “I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you .”
And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
Pelikan says elsewhere:
"All the more tragic, therefore, was the Roman reaction on the front which was most important to the reformers, the message and teaching of the church. This had to be reformed according to the word of God; unless it was, no moral improvement would be able to alter the basic problem. Rome’s reactions were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition."[Source: Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52].
We need only look at those documents that came out of Trent with its various anathemas against the doctrines the Reformer defended on justification by faith alone. Perhaps this is another example of semantics and maybe talking past each other. When you say the "efficient cause of our justification is the mercy of God", I would agree. But I also know that this doesn't go far enough. Though you are denying that our "inherent righteousness" is the cause of our justification, you cannot deny that Catholic dogma says our righteousness contributes to our salvation. That our "cooperation" with grace, through various acts, is required on our part in order to be justified, made righteous, sanctified and have a chance at making it to heaven one day. Must I quote your own Catechism to you on these?
Finally, IF Catholic teaching on justification is that our merits do not factor into it, then why the fierce reaction every time a "Protestant" claims assurance of his salvation? Why are there accusations of "sins of presumption" for saying we KNOW we have eternal life?
I agree. The Hebrews references deal with the parable of the soils and also apostasy. It seems by the language the apostasy is not just sinning but turning and denying Christ.
Your conclusion is based on the assumption the language has no reference to the Eucharist or to sacrifice, but only to the manna from heaven, but it is instructive that John is the only Gospel NOT to include the words of institution, and that his was the last to be written, and at a time when the Lord’s Supper was how the Church worshipped on the Lord’s day. I say this knowing full well that nowhere in the New Testament is there a description of the form of Christian communal worship. On the other hand, we know from Justin Martyr what it was in the 2nd century, and he describes a Holy Liturgy including a communion service. IAC, since John, like the other Gospel works rather freely with the events of Our Lord’s ministry, it is reasonable to contend that this an discourse on the Liturgy and that a test of discipleship is consuming the “body and blood of Christ” literally.
What should guide this human experience?
The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Presbyterian Church, Episcopal, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Anglican, etc. ARE human constructs - organizations built around interpretation of the Christian experience. Neither ONE is THE CHURCH. The Church of Jesus Christ is the spiritual building of which each member (those who have received Christ) are being built into and made a part of His body. Some of these visible organizations consist of more real believers than others, but they can certainly be found within them. What I reject, and which I believe was NEVER held by the Apostles and first Christians, is that any one local church was superior over another. It took HUNDREDS of years for Rome to assert her dominance, but it was not something Scripture says must happen. I think history proves it wasn't a great idea.
Robby respectfully, a lot of assumptions there all tied to a similtude within a complex but clear dialogue. We do well to believe the words of Hebrews 10:12.
We are all agreed that there is but one priest and one sacrifice and that we but observe in time what is once and for all.
‘You all seem to have more in common with John Wesley and his methodism than Calvin.’
Bless you.
That’s the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a long time
will
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.