Posted on 01/13/2015 3:49:07 PM PST by NYer
The Catholic Church twists the meaning of all of scripture. Thank God that you don't see what they profess to see.
Semi-Pelagianism was a theological movement common in France in the fifth and early sixth centuries. It was an attempted compromise between Augustine's teachings on grace and those of the heretical monk Pelagius.
Pelagius said the human will freely commits good or evil and that grace is needed only to help the will do what it already can do on its own. He said that we do not inherit original sin, physical death, or spiritual death from Adam. We learn to sin only by following the bad example of our parents and others.
Finally, Pelagius said that Christ does not bring us new life; he merely helps us by the good example he set for us on the cross, and by following his example we gain grace and are saved.
Semi-Pelagianism was nowhere near this extreme, but it still denied important points of the faith. Its basic claims were: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace; (3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.
All of these propositions, together with those of full-blown Pelagianism, were condemned in 529 at the second Council of Orange (can. 5, 10, and 18) and again in 1546 by the Council of Trent (<Decree on Justification>, chs. 5, 6, 8, and 13). It is thus impossible to say that Catholic views on grace and free will are semi-Pelagian, for the Church explicitly condemns the errors of the semi-Pelagians.
I do believe in free will. If we don't have free will to choose, then what's the point of any Scripture. It there isn't free will, then God has already decided who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. Nothing anyone can do one way or the other. It's all a sham. Might as well party.
Of course, that's not how I feel or what I believe. We, sinners all, decide our fate and do so by choosing to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, repent of our sins and live by His Commandments.
Some choose this. Some do not. But, it's a matter of choice and action as near as I can tell.
Not just knowing the words to quote at will, but also taking those words to heart and then living by those memorized words and phrases. "By their fruits you'll know..."
I am sorry that those of us who see Divine Determinism as the perspective described in the Scriptures have made discussions about the matter unpleasant for you.
Thank you, but there's no need for being sorry and the discussions weren't unpleasant.
Rather, I was the one who was being unpleasant in the discussions and I regret my poor behavior.
Had I understood better what I still don't really understand, I wouldn't have bothered being a bother.
Instead, I'm baffled...which is situation normal for me.
One group calls us heretics and their brothers call us infidels...
You neglected to mention the main things that forever labeled them as heretics in the eyes of the Catholic religion...
They refused to bow down to your pope as a vicar of Christ...They refused to accept your story that the Catholic religion was the one Jesus Christ founded...They were protestants before Protestantism was in vogue...
Au contraire, my FRiend. The position of semi-pelagiansim is precisely where the Catholic organization lands. Re-read the statements and notice this is exactly what Rome peddles.
1. God has done all He can to draw the man, NOW it is time for the man to COOPERATE with this universal grace (similar to Arminianism) and respond. Otherwise, Rome would have to admit that only some are granted grace, the elect. And, they deny this important biblical truth.
2. Please re-read most of the RC posts around here. Man must merit salvation by works that include the seven sacraments...or he is lost. And, even after the seven sacraments have been followed "faithfully", there is purgatory to burn off the excess dross left in his yet unclean spirit.
3. Men are RESPONSIBLE for all sin committed between baptism and death. They are to attempt confession and absolution by the bathrobe man, but few escape without purgatory. That is what buying indulgences is for. To pay for one's (or someone already dead) currently unsolved sin. Grace is supplied to men either by their actions or the actions of another man. God is almost nowhere in the picture.
You may claim this is not semi-Pelagianism, but if walks like a duck...
Not to be argumentative, but this is exactly what Paul is discussing in his letter to the Romans, chap. 9. Notice:
10ff - And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to HIS CHOICE might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." just as it was written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion on whom I have compassion" So then it does not depend on the man who chooses or the man who acts but on God who has mercy...
You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?'"
Paul was routinely faced with folks who made the same argument you raised here...it is not fair if we are automatons. And, his answer?
"On the contrary, who are you O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this?' will it?"
It is a startling thing to recognize that the Bible teaches God is managing our decisions. We are not puppets, because puppets are dead, and we are alive. God is just a genius beyond words and can manipulate those whom He has chosen into His family. This may be difficult to swallow, but it was the message of the apostles and the message of some of the reformers. Today's evangelicals have often lined up behind Rome in this matter. Grace to you, my FRiend.
I did read several different translations, but I'm still not at the same place as you.
Probably God doesn't want me to understand it and is directing me away from comprehension and understanding.
Which reminds me of an American History teacher I had saying that the Puritans believed if you read the Bible and didn't get it, you weren't one of the chosen.
Oh well...sucks to be me, I guess...
Thanks for trying.
LOL. No, no my FRiend. If the Scriptures are really teaching what we are saying, then "getting it" is not required, either. If God has you written on his hand, and chosen you before the foundation of the world (Eph.1), then you are safe in His care...even if you think that your decision got you there. There are some rescued Catholics (not due to the teaching that they listen to), and rescued evangelicals (even though many of them believe a health/wealth error). As Paul says, this stuff is "meat" and not "milk".
I always hoped this was a true story, as it would put me and my uncertainty in good company.
Even with Jesus' promise, I probably should head back to Arizona and get re-acclimated to the heat...just in case those Puritans are right.
I am in AZ now, and I suspect even the summer heat is nothing like that other place. Still, I don't know why you keep implying that you are lost. The Scriptures don't place a condition that you recognize divine determinism on your rescue
But, you certainly are in good company with CS Lewis. He was a stalwart "free will" fellow. As much as I enjoy his writing, I believe the Scriptures argue against his view of this matter.
Absolutely ... With their 'free will" they go to confession to get grace, then they go to communion to get grace ... they do good works to "get" grace ..
Grace is giving what is not deserved ..
Bingo..give that man a "holy medal "..He wins
Verse 20. - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. By "knowing this first" (γινώσκοντες) is meant that we must recognize this truth as of primary importance, or, before we commence the study of prophecy; the phrase occurs again in chapter 2 Peter 3:3.
The literal translation of the following clause is, "that all prophecy of Scripture [there is no article] is not; all... not" (πᾶσα... οὐ) being a common Hebraism for none, οὑδεμία; but the verb is not ἔστι, "is," but γίνεται, "becomes, arises, comes into being." The word for "private" is ἰδίας, "special," or commonly, "one's own" (see 1 Peter 3:1, 5; chapter 2 Peter 2:16, 22; 3:3, 16, 17). The word rendered "interpretation" is ἐπιλύσεως, which is found nowhere else in the New Testament; the corresponding verb occurs in Mark 4:34, "He expounded all things;" and Acts 19:39, "It shall be determined or settled."
These considerations, strengthened by the context, seem to guide us to the following explanation: No prophecy of Scripture arises from the prophet's own interpretation of the vision presented to his mind; for it was from God that the prophecy was brought, and men spoke as they were borne on by the Holy Spirit. ..Pulpit Commentary
Did you know that there is no "infallible interpretation of this scripture by the magisterium ??
So Catholics are giving it THEIR private interpretation..
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20. τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες. “Recognising this truth above all else” (in your reading of Scripture). The False Teachers appealed to the O.T. scriptures in support of their doctrine. ὅτι πᾶσα … οὐ γίνεται. πᾶσα … οὐ need not be regarded as a Hebraism. It is as normal as in 1 John 2:21, John 3:16. ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως. This passage is a noted crux. (1) Hardt, followed by Lange, Spitta and others interpret ἐπιλυς. = dissolutio. “No prophecy of S. is of such a kind that it can be annulled”. But no satisfactory instance of ἐπιλυς. in this sense can be adduced. (2) Accepting the sense of ἰδ. ἐπιλ. = “private,” or “human interpretation,” Von Soden sees a reference to the methods of the false teachers in their attitude to Scripture (cf. 2 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 2:1). ἰδίας “is opposed to the φωνὴ ἐνεχθεῖσα of 2 Peter 1:17”. (3) It seems most satisfactory to understand ἰδ. ἐπιλ. as the meaning of the prophet himself, or what was in the prophet’s mind when he wrote; the fulfilment in any particular generation or epoch. “The special work of the prophet is to interpret the working of God to his own generation. But in doing this, he is laying down the principles of God’s action generally. Hence there may be many fulfilments of one prophecy, or to speak more exactly, many historical illustrations of some one principle of Providential Government” (Mayor, p. 196). The genitive ἐπιλύσεως is gen. of definition and not of origin. “No prophecy is of such a nature as to be capable of a particular interpretation.”,
Expositor's Greek Testament
"I always hoped this was a true story, as it would put me and my uncertainty in good company.
...........................
Regardless of what dear Lewis thought, Jesus and the Apostle John had much to say about knowing.
John 10:27-30
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. “I and the Father are one.”Jesus ties the assurance of the eternal security of the believer to the omnipotence of the Father and to His own deity.
I John 5:11-13
"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."If you have the Son of God, you have eternal life. John wrote this so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.
The only question is, do you have the Son???
Source wasn’t given for your post.
Salvation, the Expositor’s Greek Testament is the source - it is an exegetical tool. I do not know if it is available online anywhere.
Every time an RC invokes this text to disallow personal interpretation of Scripture then manifest that if it applies to anyone, it would apply to the likes of them.
This itself even is private interpretation of a text, unless they can show where this is a binding interpretation of that text, but in any case it is manifestly not what the texts is referring to.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
What this refers to is the giving of prophecy not being a product of the minds of men according to their natural wisdom, as in prophesying of the grace that should come unto believers, they themselves wondered "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:11)
It is not speaking about doing what the noble Bereans did out of a love for Truth,
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
Yet nor does SS exclude magisterial authority, which even fallible civil authorities have, but not as possessing perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is nowhere taught nor necessary in Scripture. As even Westminster affirms,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
"tenant" should have been "tenent"I had it right at first, but the spell checker said "tenent" was misspelled and, me being a consistent D+ to C- grade level speller, I took its word for it.
My apologies.
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.