Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
We all agree that any works done are to be attributed to Christ. What we stress is that you must cooperate with Christ in order to acheive these works. I am not compelled to leap out of bed and start helping the poor or feeding the hungry. I am not a robot. I have to decide with my human mind to cooperate in doing Jesus' work, or not.
It is in this sense of cooperating in the works that the Catholics stress. We all agree that one who does not show these works is not really saved. So if someone claims they are saved but has nothing to show for it we know that they are not saved.
You say that works must naturally follow from placing your faith in Jesus. We say that you must have works or your faith is not real. There is no essential difference except...
We recognize that people can have an emotional episode and feel that they are "saved" but that this can wear off. Or 20 years later a "Saved" person can have doubt or fall into sin. Our lives are not changed by a one-time decision, but rather by a lifetime of decisions to help be Jesus to the world.
SD
;^)
-ksen
I, for instance, ploddingly say the Hours twice a week in a small chapel, despite the fact no one comes to say them with me--something the natural fallen man would not do, regarding it as a waste of time--however, I do not shine with the Uncreated Light as did St. Seraphim of Sarov. He partook in his earthly life of more grace than I have (yet--all pious Orthodox pray and struggle in hope of obtaining sanctity in this life, not just the next.)
Is that from the KJV? The RSV says something different.
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.
This says that those who commit apostasy crucify him again and hold him in contempt. Not that they would need to crucify Him again to gain forgiveness.
The point here is that once you are filled with the Spirit and taste the goodness, apostasy is really, really bad.
SD
Thank you for your words. I like how you mention "being saved" as if it was a process and not a moment.
SD
Thanks to our conversation, I thought, read and prayed more about this and I can only say that I was wrong.
The Body of Christ = the church
The church = believers
Believers, therefore = the Body of Christ
Blushing in my humility, I stand corrected.
--------------------
ALL: And a good morning to the rest of you. Dave and JohnnyM ... the first reading may help clear the air with your "can you lose your salvation" debate.
| Wednesday, October 24, 2001 Saint Anthony Mary Claret, bishop - Optional Memorial |
||
|
From wau.org ...
If there was one thing Paul was absolutely insistent about in his letter to the Christians in Rome, it was this: We have power over sin. No habit, weakness, or pattern of sin need dominate us. We don't have to live as slaves! Too incredible? Too optimistic? Too idealistic? Paul didn't think so. He went to great pains to explain that sin need no longer have dominion over us (Romans 6:17-18). In Christ, we have a choice about what we will yield to and whom we will obey.
On the cross, Jesus won freedom for us in a radical way. He died for us--instead of us--and our old, fallen life died there with him. The whole body of sin was put to death on the cross, and through baptism we are incorporated into that death. We didn't conquer sin. We died to it. Now, raised up with Christ, we are free from Satan's grip. We don't have to be ensnared by the voice of temptation any more.
This is good news. In fact, it's the very heart of the good news of Jesus Christ. Believe it. Embrace it. Put your faith in the finished work of the cross. Rejoice that you are not powerless over sin! The cross is your weapon. It makes available to you all the power you need to put sin to death by rejecting the habits that lead to sin. The more you truly believe this, the easier it will be to obey God. For what is obedience, after all, but faith put into action?
Today, as an experiment, make an extra effort to examine your thoughts. Listen to them carefully. Are they in tune with the reality of your freedom in Christ? Or are they negative, angry, accusing, fearful, or condemning? If so, take them captive in the name of Jesus. As they come up, tell Jesus you want to lay them at the foot of his cross to be judged for what they are. In your thought life, taste the freedom that is yours as a child of God. As you persist, you will see the victory of the cross become reality in more and more of your life.
"All praise to you, Jesus! By your cross, you have redeemed us for the Father. By your cross, you made us a people who are called to reign on earth."
--------------------
Have a good day, everybody.
JohnnyM ... stay tuned.
No I've been accused of that before. People say I think in unusual ways, caused me problem in philosophy class
Were these questions answered to your satisfaction? I would appreciate an answer before you go flying off in another direction, change your words, and then accuse me of not paying attention to what you say.
I do not change my words. And no they were not, Jesus was never a Bad child and He obeyed his parents. Being human doesn't mean you have to be normal.
If we are to continue a dialogue it is important that one be consistent with his questions/arguments.
Post #1529 you asked:
Who was the first person to hear the Word of God and really keep it in a literal sense? Jesus is not admonishing his mother, but stating why she is truly Blessed.
And what does this mean? Word of God? Look at your post #1527 and you will see what I was responding to.
Do you believe it is fair play to change the content of your question from one post to another and expect the recipient to check whether you are accurately restating the original question?
There was no change, you didn't understand the first time I asked it. So I elaborated on my post some. I also did not understand you at first. Assuming you understood my post, I could not figure out what Zechari'ah had to do with my point.
Do you still insist Mary was the first person to hear the Word of God?
Yes, she was the first person to hear about Jesus and to know Him.
Do you acknowledge you changed your question from first to last post? This is important to me as a matter of honor.
No I did not. Do you not know who the Word is?
If someone is saved, born-again, then it does not matter how they "feel". Our feelings come and go, but they do not dictate our salvation. There are times when I am not pleased with my wife or children, to be truthful it is usually the other way around ;^), but that does not negate our family relationship.
King David wrote in Psalms 51:12,"Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit."
David did not ask for his salvation to be restored, just for the joy of the salvation that God had given him to be restored.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
On a side note, in reading through this "thread" (can anything with well over 2,000 posts be rightfully called a mere thread?) I have seen you infer a couple of times that relying on sola scriptura could lead one to believe in two Gods. Would mind explaining to me how this is so?
Thanks.
-ksen
The question of Petrine succession, is, of course, handled differently in the East. As did St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome (called in the West St. Gregory the Great), we recognize three sees as having Petrine foundations: Antioch (where Peter was the first bishop--a fact never disputed by the Roman Church); Rome, where St. Peter was martyred, though there is some question as to whether he really was the first Bishop of Rome; and Alexandria, whose first bishop was St. Mark the Evangelist, who was consecrated by St. Peter. (incidentally, the Bishops of Alexandria are also titled Pope--so there are three Popes, the Pope of Rome, the Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, and the Coptic (monophysite) Pope of Alexandria).
We, of course, reject the notion that there is a special inheritable Petrine charism which inheres in the Bishops of Rome--the verse cited most often in support of this speaks of "founding" the Church, we regard part of the problem with Rome since the 11th century as their attitude that "founding" has to occur in every generation. The second most cited verse speaks of "the keys" and we regard this charism as identical to the power to bind and loose, which is also bestowed upon the other Apostles. The honor and administrative power of sees was always correlated with the position of the city in the Empire (cf. the canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which attribute the preeminence of Rome to its position as Imperial Capital, and the fact that Jerusalem, despite its indisputable apostolic foundation, was suffragan to the Metropolitan of Ceasarea for centuries).
I suspect the Papal arrogation of power has its intellectual roots in the fact that Rome was the only Apostolic See in the West. In the East there are many (even if one only counts those founded by the 12), including two Petrine sees, and it is thus natural to hold to the conciliar model evidenced in Acts 15 and in the history of the Holy Ecumenical Councils.
Yes, it is from the KJV.
You make an interesting point with your reading from the RSV. I guess it depends on what the word "seeing" in the KJV means.
-ksen
#2306 And I agree that Jesus died for all, but only those who accept Him will receive the gift of eternal life. I have showed you countless Scriptures that say no one has an excuse, and your response to this is human reasoning with NO SCRIPTURAL support. I have showed you countless number of Scriptures to refute what you think is reasonable and fair and just, but we are only justified through Christ Jesus His Son. We are only justified through ACCEPTING Him as our Lord and Savior.
Okay ... first of all, let me say this. As Dave put it yesterday, I don't believe (nor does the RCC) that God's grace gives every person on the face of the earth a "get out of Hell free card." (thanks for the analogy, Dave). That was not my point. But I still say that God's grace through the saving blood of Jesus Christ is granted to all people. Jesus didn't come to this world for the just, but for those that needed justification.
That being said, here's what I've managed to find in scripture ...
In regards to my example of a person who has not yet committed his/herself to Christ ... The RCC does not make a firm judgment about their salvation, but leaves open the possibility that God may save some people who, through no fault of their own, have not accepted the gospel of Christ. Matthew 25:31-46 tells us about the judgment of "the nations" on the basis of works of charity. Belief in Jesus Christ is not mentioned. Romans 2:12-16 (as we discussed yesterday) says "Gentiles without the law" will be judged according to God's law "written in their hearts" or "conscience." These may be exceptional cases, but the fact is ... these cases do exist.
We need to avoid presuming that those who don't believe in Jesus and His gospel (again ... through no fault of their own) are cut off from God's grace. But we should also avoid presuming that these people will be "saved" without accepting the gospel. If I didn't say this in so many words yesterday, I apologize. I, in no way, meant to say that even without Christ, people will go to Heaven.
The Bible says the message has reached the ends of the earth, yet you have no faith in that. The Bible says that none have an excuse, yet you have no faith in it. Where is the Scripture that supports your case??? I will ask you again. How does someone who has sinned become justified before God without accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and please, please, please, please, please cite Scripture or your argument will be baseless.
1 Timothy 2:4-6 & 4:10 - "(God) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all ... we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (emphasis mine)
Now, if God's grace didn't extend to all men, why would Paul say these things and then add "especially ..." to the end of this passage? Also, if you think God's grace doesn't extend to all, consider this. A young child (let's say 8 or so years old) who is not baptised, and is still too young to really understand what Christianity is all about, dies without ever "accepting" the gospel of our Lord. What would happen to this child? Do you think he/she would go to Heaven or would God say, "Sorry, kid, you never accepted my son as your savior. Buh-bye."? Personally ... I wouldn't touch this one. It's not my call, but God's.
--------------------
#2350 so, you're a Jew al_c?
Nope. And I don't play one on TV, either. ;o)
Seems the truth about the Catholic Church has surfaced.
And that would be ... ?
They do not beleive Christ's sacrifice was sufficient.
Sure we do.
They do not beleive you are saved by faith.
Actually, I think the bible says "by faith through grace."
They do not believe in the inerrancy of the Word.
Sure we do. But we question some peoples "translations" of the Word.
They do believe that you can enter heaven without accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior.
See above reply to your #2306.
That the testimony of Christ is null and void. Sounds a little like Judaism to me.
We can all thank the Jews for our faith/religion today as we can all trace our faith's/religion's roots back to the Jews.
If you can enter heaven without Christ, then why did God send his Son to die for us??
He died for all of us, whether or not we accept that. I could deny that He died for me until I become blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that He did die for me. But by denying Him, I would be doing Him and myself a grave injustice.
If there was already a way to get there, then sending His Son sure was a waste. And once again you have failed to cite Scripture.
No, it was not a waste as it gave every person an avenue to His kingdom. See scripture above.
I will no longer reply to anymore of your responses until you cite Scripture. Don't pass the buck to someone who doesn't even believe Christ is the Son of God. If you can't answer this most basic question on your own using Scripture, then you better return to the Word and seek the Truth.
I am tired of playing word games. Can you or can you not enter heaven without accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior?? If you think you can you better have Scripture to back it up.
I hope you've calmed down a bit overnight. I enjoy the opportunity to learn from one another, but I do not enjoy trying to converse with someone that gets bent out of shape during a debate. That said, I hope we can learn some things from others on these threads. I know I have in the past, and continue to grow on my walk with Christ.
We have a winner! Congartuations.
SD
Take a look at Romans (2&3 I believe). For several verses Paul says things like "The doers of the law will be justified" & each man being judged according to his works. Then Paul goes on to talking about Faith being necessary for salvation.
The protestant position is usually: These are two plans of salvation. That is, plan one, you can be saved if you keep the law completely, but nobody keeps the Law. Plan two is that Jesus kept the law for you, so you put your faith in him for salvation.
The Catholic position is that there is but one plan of Salvation: You must keep the Law (obedience) in order to be saved, but only through Christ (faith) can you keep the law in any way that God recognizes and only through Christ can you be forgiven of your failure to keep it completely.
Now... if that is a reasonable summary of the positions... Which makes more sense? That God instituted TWO plans of salvation (one of which was a null-set with no participants)? Or ONE plan of Salvation throughout all time?
Who were the "they"?
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
V-2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
V-3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
I mentioned this to call attention to the fact that Paul and Barnabus were not ordained by apostles, but bu the Church and it's people.
There goes your idea that only the apostles could ordain ministers, and claim apostolic succession.
We are leaving the territory of "thread" and rapidly approaching "spool" status.
On your question, there was a poster named "vmatt" who held the view that Jesus was a second god, as opposed to being One with the One God.
He reached this conclusion through his reading of Scripture and what he considers to be the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (The interesting thing is that his proof texts for the two god theory are the exact ones we use to show Jesus' unity with the Father.)
The point being that without an authoritative Church to which to listen, to allow to teach the true meaning of Scripture, vmatt was lost. Following our principles of having an infallible guide to reading Scripture and not trusting in just your own reading for coming up with theology vmatt never could have done this. He would "read" about two gods, but be swiftly informed of his error by checking any authoritative Catholic source.
Following the principles of Sola Scriptura vmatt had to abide by what the "Holy Spirit" had taught him in his private reading of Scripture.
Bottom line, when no authority is final except what the "Holy Spirit" tells an individual, you will have individuals who are lost.
SD
Don't you think that it is kind of unfair to condemn those who rely on Scripture as their only authority, by using the most far out example to say that is where everyone who uses Scripture alone will wind up?
In the two churches I have been a member of, and in the seminary that I am enrolled in, "proof-texting" has always been condemned. I was always taught context, context, context. I suppose that if we were to take those "proof-texts" in context we would reach the conclusion that Jesus and the Father are One.
The point being that without an authoritative Church to which to listen, to allow to teach the true meaning of Scripture, vmatt was lost. Following our principles of having an infallible guide to reading Scripture and not trusting in just your own reading for coming up with theology vmatt never could have done this. He would "read" about two gods, but be swiftly informed of his error by checking any authoritative Catholic source.
Has no one in the 1,700-year history of the Catholic Church ever taken your traditions out of context (proof-texting them, if you will) to come up with some unorthodox ideas?
Following the principles of Sola Scriptura vmatt had to abide by what the "Holy Spirit" had taught him in his private reading of Scripture.
More likely, following his own principles.
Bottom line, when no authority is final except what the "Holy Spirit" tells an individual, you will have individuals who are lost.
The Scriptures are the final authority, after all what is the final authority for the Catholic traditions? If an individual does not check their "new doctrine", i.e. two Gods, against the rest of Scripture, the problem is with them, not with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
-ksen
BTW, thank you for replying.
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.