GOD
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
This thread has given me a lot of detailed information, I think I'm going to put it on my list of re-read
What's with you guys? Did I ever say that God doesn't work through us?
The plain and simple logic tells us that our free choice affects us and not God. We cannot affect God, change His plan, etc. God, however, loves us and accommodates us as He sees fit.
You are contradicting yourself. You say that we cannot affect God or change His plan, but in the same thought you say that God accommodates us. To "accommodate" is to make a change in that which existed before. So which is it?
Following your citation of the story of King Hezekiah, who was to die, but then pleaded for his life to God, and was spared the reaper for another 15 years (2 Kings 20):
Obviously God's plan is not set in stone, as God retains perfect freedom to adjust things as He sees fit. The final destination is known, but the route which God takes to steer Creation to the conclusion of His plan -- of which all options are known and available to Him -- is up to Him to decide. Thus, if He decides to spare one of us for His purpose, He shall do so.
The message of this chapter is that the king lived for another 15 years because the Lord heard his prayers and seen his tears and changed His mind, and not because the date of the king's death was an absolute certainty. God simply responded to the king's choice.
I admit I am sensing mixed messages from you folks here. (Is this a distinction between RCC and EOC?) On the one hand, God transcends time itself, figuratively standing on a mountain top knowing and experiencing all events throughout time simultaneously. (I am not even violently opposed to this yet.) But on the other hand, we have God, listening to prayers and changing His mind on something He ordained!
Do you really think that God changed His mind based on the act of a human? (I still remember being creamed on this thread for allegedly ascribing to God human attributes. Who is wearing that shoe now?) How CAN God change His opinion? If He already knows the argument is coming, and that it will persuade Him, then why bother with the initial decision? Up until the post to which I am now responding, you have not addressed my earlier examples. Did God call out to Adam in the Garden "Where are you?" because God did not know? Did God truly have an arms-length bargain with Abraham over Sodom?
If our free choice can cause God to change His mind and plan, then He is dependent on us.
God does things for us because He loves us, and not because He needs us to accomplish His plan. ... Saying that our free will can somehow deter God from accomplishing His plan is giving humans way too much credit.
AAAAAARGHH! :) You are saying that our free will changes God's plan. Your whole argument is that God absolutely needs us to accomplish His plan. (Not only do we necessarily alter the Plan because He accommodates us, but we also free willingly cooperate with God even in our own salvation, part of God's plan. He needs us to cooperate to get what He wants.) "THE PLAN" is much more vast than simply the ending part. You say God accommodates us and changes His mind mid course based on our actions, all headed toward one end. You say that God can take many different paths, based on our decisions, to arrive at the same destination. I would say that all that stuff in the middle is also important and precious to God. It is also part of the Plan, and won't be changed by the sorry likes of people like us. God doesn't need our help to accomplish any part of His plan. He is God.
Here is an interesting article by Warfield on Evangelical Arminianism and Evangelical Lutherans. You'll note that the author referred to, McGarth, is Evangelical Lutheran so I stand by my statement that he isn't in the position to say whether all the Reformed writers throughout the ages misread Augustine. Also please note the Doctrinal Position of the Lutheran Missouri Synod Of Conversion (1932).
This is not to say all Lutherans do not have monergistic beliefs. There are synergists everywhere and (a few) monergists among some.
BTW-I especially like the article I posted in post #1150 on the difference of an anthropocentric verses a theocentric theology. I think it hits the nail on the head.
There are either synergists (man cooperates in salvation) or monergists (God saves man alone). Catholics, Orthodox and a good many Protestants in many denominations today are synergists. I am a monergist. If I had to classify my denomination I would place myself with the monergistic Reformed Baptists.
And that logic is????
2) Not all men have faith.
3) Therefore God does not give faith to everyone.
Your problem is that you don't stop to think about what certain words mean and imply and how they relate to other words. You have a procrustean bed of assumptions and you force words into your system even though the words themselves refute your claims.
Well aren't you an acerbic fellow? For someone who places such import on the meaning of words, I am surprised that you have completely blown it yet again. In your torch example, the answer is that of course you HAVE received it. You may not have received it willingly, but you nonetheless did, in fact, receive it. The proof is that your hand is on fire. (You might want to put some ice on that.) The adverb modifies, but does not negate the verb. To "receive" has nothing necessarily to do with intent or perception.
It appears that you might benefit from giving some thought as to what words mean. You may also want to reconsider which of you has the "procrustean bed of assumptions". Remember, you are the attacker, you are the one who shows contempt for other views.
What else is there for God to do? Surely He is not waiting for us! What is His plan for humanity? To save it. Done.
Does that mean He no longer interacts with us? No. It means He does not act while we sit and wait for Him to take us to our destination. We must iteract with God, we must do work of faith so that His light may shine through us for others to see. (Mt 5:16)
God endowed us with reason with which we can make choices and not be beasts driven by necessity. None of what we do will disassemble His Creation, and nothing we could possibly do can thraten His plan that has already been accomplished. The only thing we can change, with His overwhelming help, is where we end up in Hs plan. So, when it comes to our salvation, it has a lot to do with us and what we do about it.
We are not cattle being led to the gates of heaven or hell, but human beings, God's creatures whom He loves very, very much and would have us all saved (1 Tim 2:4).
Hence, repentance -- which is what my examples showed you. The Bible is full of examples where repentance changes the destination of individuals and even whole cities, and the king in question (2 Kin 20) without changing God's plan, which has been accomplished and which we could never affect.
God interacts with us only for the puprose of helping us, not because we somehow determine if His plan will work or not. Oh, it will work with or without our cooperation, trust me! God is not obliged to save anyone save for His love for humanity. So, He gives everyone His love. He died for all (1 Pet 3:18), not just the "elect."
With God everything is possible (Mat 19:26), so if we repent He can and does change our destiny. The Scripture teaches that time and time again.
In your faith the whole cocnept of sin, fall, repentance and redemption for our sins becomes meaningless because you are just a "slave to rigtheousness," a passive treveler who neither sins nor repents on his or her own.
Unfortunately, many people of today have lost the concept of what it means to sin against an infinitely loving and powerful God. Sin has been redefined as a "mistake", something that is no big deal. "Jesus is our buddy"! As to your question about a "forgotten" mortal sin, you can tell the priest that you also confess any sins that I cannot remember right now. Sins of omission or commission that have not come to mind. We are forgiven of those sins, although with the caveat that we confess them if we remember them. Obviously, this doens't count for those we remember but don't want to tell!
Based on my own standards which I have professed, I have always thought of Catholicism as a true faith with which I have some disagreement, as opposed to a false faith with which I have some agreement. I do truly believe there are many Catholics in heaven, and I do appreciate the opportunity to learn from my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. :)
Thank you, you are very kind. It is my experience that most people are not aware of what Catholicism really teaches, so I try to explain what the Church teaches. It is up to God to do the conversion. I also enjoy learning about other people's faith, although I find it interesting the some people base their faith on contradictions. Religion can be an interesting discussion!
I read you, then, to say that man is born with "some" good already written on his heart (natural law). If so, then would you comment on the following very personal account of Paul, particularly regarding his assertion that "nothing good lives in [him]", in his sinful nature which is the nature he was born with? -
We are born without the life of God within us. Nothing good remains within us. However, God DOES instill within us the natural law, a knowledge of basic right and wrong. Without God's graces, we will not follow that law within us. In time, we will disregard it. Catholics believe that man is NOT totally depraved. From time to time, he might choose good. But his tendency is to choose himself. He won't be able to earn heaven. But the Spirit blows where He will, and from time to time, an "unsaved" man might choose to do good. However, it has no or very little supernatural value.
Does infant baptism count, by itself, as initial salvation?
We would say "yes" because it is God's grace that matters, not the acceptance of the baby. Recall that Jews also allowed infants into the People of God, as well. Christ said to not hold the children away from Him. Ancient writers of Christianity verify it as an Apostolic practice. Considering many of the first converts were Jews, it shouldn't be strange that they, too, wanted their infants to be allowed into the Kingdom, with the provision that they would teach them in the faith, and that the children would some day verify their own stance in the faith. Again, the idea is that Baptism is a gift from God, not something we receive because we have "x" amount of faith.
We would note the great commission, in which Jesus gave a particular order to the disciples of what should occur, belief first, then baptism
I suppose the commission to the infant Church was given to spread the word to adults, because THEY are the ones who would bring their families into the Church. With the second and third generation, families would naturally want to bring their children into the faith. I am satisfied with it because the Church had practiced it from the beginning. There is NO writing against the practice. As a matter of fact, in the 200's, their is complaints that children had to wait for 8 days to be baptised (as per circumcision)!
In our SB church, instead of infant baptism, we have something called a "baby dedication". In front of the whole congregation during a normal Sunday service, the pastor first explains the spiritual translation of the meaning of the baby's name, then he prays over the baby. The parents pledge to raise the baby in a Godly manner, and the congregation pledges to support the family toward that end. It's really quite nice.
Yes, it sounds nice. It is pretty supportive to the parents to know that the community stands behind them - it is a big responsibility to raise children in a Godly manner, especially nowadays. Sounds like the same thing we do, minus the actual water baptism.
LOL! Sign up one forest keeper for a ticket on that train! :)
If we persevere to the end, we can count on the Lord.
Brother in Christ
I have asked this question about a dozen times on this thread, but have been ignored every time. Apparently, some people here already have their minds made up and would rather not address what the Scriptures say. If faith automatically led to love, then why does Paul suggest that faith can be had, but not love? What does Paul consider more important in the salvation formula?
(My Bible actually uses the word "love" instead of charity.) Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish the type of love Paul is talking about here. It appears to be agape (Godly) love. This is as opposed to eros (e.g. spousal), or phileo (e.g. friendship), or whatever else my footnote would say if it were longer. :)
If this is right, then I can see Paul saying that faith (in existence of God?), without love for God, is useless. If I am to be consistent, then I know I have to say that love for God is included in the gift of faith. I do say that. So, the only way my explanation works is if Paul meant by "faith" something other than the normal way we have been referring to it on this thread. In 13:2, Paul does say "a faith" rather than just faith. That could be a distinction. (?) Sorry if I couldn't give you a great answer on this one, I thought I would try my best anyway. :)
God bless.
I would agree. I think we can identify the difference between a love-filled action and a self-serving action. We KNOW deep inside why we do the things we do. We must love the Lord with our whole selves for the sake of loving Him, not to earn something.
The inner disposition of the person? Do you mean the heart? God tells us the heart is deceitful and who can know it? We could call that self deception. The man in Matthew BELIEVED he had done works for the Lord, that is why he called attention to them. But Christ said they were inequity.
You must be speaking of the Rich Young Man. "What can I do to earn salvation"!!! Notice Christ says "He loved him". But there was one thing keeping the rich man from entering the Kingdom (having a loving relationship with Christ) - money. Money does not allow us to rely on Christ, but ourselves. Jesus wants us to set Him as our first priority. Christ says we can approach Him with a pure heart, if He abides in us.
So the question is, if the heart is deceptive, even to the man it is in, and the man believes what he is doing he is doing in the Lords name, he could be wrong, correct? God could say to him "I never knew you"
Again, I think we can know deep within us whether we do something for ulterior motives or not. Even the little things, we can offer up to Christ. When my boss tells me to do something I'd rather not, I can cheerfully obey, offering that up for the sake of Christ. Any little thing can be spiritually given for the sake of our Lord. I think the ones who God will say "I never knew you" will be those who saw themselves as religiously righteous, but were doing so to draw attention to themselves or to bring more power upon themselves. Christ criticized the Pharisees inner motives, but not their actions. He never said anything bad about their extra fasting and tithing - except for the fact that they were proud in it. However, one can do these quietly for the sake of our Lord.
Do the unsaved abide in God? I am asking a salvation question. If a man is not saved, then his works are "filthy rags "not coming from the love that comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit. That would mean to God those good works are not coming from divine love and are inequity to Christ. They would not add a wit to his salvation right?
When you write "unsaved", are you talking about those who have not yet completed the "sinner's prayer" or Baptism? Because quite frankly, we don't KNOW who God's elect are. The Church has taught that God is not bound by the sacraments. He can save whom He will. Thus, strictly speaking, Baptism is not an absolute requirement. The Spirit blows where He wills. Thus, a pagan, with the "Law" written on their hearts (see Rom 2) can act as if they had been spiritually circumcised, as opposed to those who have been physically circumcised, but not of the heart. Thus, it is possible that some people who never are baptised can be saved. We just don't know WHO are God's elect.
When we here on earth say person "x"'s works are as worthless rags, we are pre-judging that person, because we really don't know if the Spirit is moving that person outside of Baptism. We judge a person by their fruits. Who you call an "unsaved" person may be more saved than you or I (in God's eyes) because that person is responding to the little graces he has received more than either of us, with all the aids that we have through Scripture reading, the Eucharist, and so forth. God gives us many gifts through the Church, but we can reject them. Recall that Chrsit said that prostitutes and tax collectors are entering the Kingdom first...Thus, we should be careful on whom we exclude from the Kingdom!
But the unsaved can not do any good works as i have pointed out all their works are sin to God and can add only to their damnation not their salvation. So we have a problem. A man can not be saved with works that God sees only as sin, there must be an inward change , a work of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit to have works that God considers meritorious .
That's true. Our works before Baptism cannot earn us heaven. Those works are as "dirty rags". As before, there must be an inward change as a result of Christ's abiding presence. Only Spirit-filled works, for the Christian, have any meaning come the day of judgment.
That is what I would say, only the actions of the saved are acceptable to God. That being the fact they can not be "saving" because one needs to be saved to have God pleasing "works" .
Of course. But we don't know in the end who will be saved for heaven until we are standing before His Throne.
So do works save..NO , something needs precede them to make them meritorious, that something is Faith
I agree. We cannot be saved by works alone. We must possess faith in God and walk in that faith through loving deeds. IT is through "faith working in love" that means anything (Gal 5:6)
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Note Paul places salvation as coming from Faith, and the works only later as being ordained for us to walk in .
Faith comes first. But that doesn't mean that we will love. We must do both. If we don't let our faith take action by love, our faith is worthless (1 Cor 13:2). I keep bringing that verse up because I think it is important to see that faith, even ALL faith, doesn't necessarily lead to love. We must have BOTH for salvation to be effective within us.
Sometime this is difficult dialog, because we use the same terms, but we mean different things
You said it! The word "works" throws people into a fits!
Regards
Perish the thought! Prostitutes and tax collectors are entering the Kingdom before some Catholics...Roman Catholics are NOT the only members of the Elect!
Regards
If love was included in the gift of faith, then Paul wouldn't be making the distinction, nor would James. Faith and Love are two different things, although I see in the Gospels that there are times that when Jesus talks about "faith", it seems He is also presuming love. When I read the entire Gospels, I understand that when Christ speaks of having faith in Him to have eternal life, He is also ASSUMING that we will also walk in that faith. Thus, it is never faith alone. And vice versus, when Jesus says we must obey the will of God and obey the commandments, He is naturally not excluding faith in God. Thus, the overall message is that we must have both faith in God and we must love God and our neighbor. "faith working through love" is the only thing that matters (Gal 5:6).
Brother in Christ
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.