Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
As God wills. 8~)
Where or where to draw the line?
Yes, and another truism in the bible, is that the cattle on a thousand hills all belong to the Lord. So, even the unspiritual are still His.
You said by implication that the gift of life was given to me against my will, without my acceptance (by sarcastically stating that I refused it).
In my response, had you read it thinkingly rather than mechanically, you would have noticed that I distinguished between the mere reality of being alive and the reality of a gift of life. Until I was able to affirm or reject my own life I was most certainly alive and I was alive without my own free choice to accept. (I was not alive against my free choice--so any theory that God does things to us against our free choice is out the window--because I was incapable of making any choice for or against.) I was alive because of the choice and acceptance of my parents.
And until I accepted the gift of life it was not yet a gift to me. It was a gift to my parents because they did accept it before I was born. It became a gift to me when I was able to recognize it as such and accept it. Had I recognized it and refused it, it would be a gift-manque, a gift refused.
That existed, lived, was alive for a number of years before I knew about the gift of life does prove your claim that I had the gift of life without opportunity to refuse or accept it. There was simply a time delay before my acceptance or refusal became possible and during that time the Giver's intent to gift me was very much present but the giftedness was pending, as far as I was concerned, until I was able to accept or reject. The giftedness of my life was not pending but completed as far as my parents were concerned. They could, of course, have later rejected the gift of my life, having initially accepted it, by killing me. At that point my life would not be a gift to them for they would have rejected the gift.
Got any more gotchas? Perhaps you ought to sleep on the next one before firing it off. You're record so far is pretty lousy.
Ah, good Dr. Eckleburg, you ask such deep theological questions! Since mold spores and centipedes and such like, and bovines, ovines, equines, and sequins etc., cannot read English, Latin, Greek or ebonics, we will have to await whether Sylvia Brown, Oprah, or Dr. Phil, or maybe Pat Robertson, declares them capable.
.? You should be a Democratic historian. I said no such thing
I see. So you had the option then of refusing your birth.
"I see. So you had the option then of refusing your birth."
After seeing what was out there, I didn't want to come out. Does that count? Maybe that's why, after all these years, I curl up in a fetal position to sleep.
lol, no, it doesn't count. You may as well lie on your back, stretch out and snore. You have arrived.
I'll tell my wife, I'm sure she will be delighted with the snoring. You are sure about this, huh? Can't a man be born again after he is old? Maybe then, in the process, you can decide against it.
And in the course of human events, spawn 10,000 FR threads, lol
But, you (or Catholics) allege, that one must be a member of the Catholic church to be saved.
Consider the parable of the Talents. Not a word is spoken about faith. The Kingdom of heaven, in this parable, is dependent upon how we use the gifts that God has loaned us. The last man did no evil. He didn't use the gift given. And thus, he had no love. He was condemned.
I suppose I don't normally think of a gift as being on loan, although I have heard of "talent on loan from God" :) Loans are meant to be paid back, and the lender is meant to take possession back of the thing loaned. I don't see salvation working like this. I believe the gift is meant to be kept by us and not given back. Of course, we disagree on whether this is possible.
In the parable of the Talents, you're right that faith is not explicitly mentioned, although since it is a parable, the design is that we do interpret. Why was it that the third man buried his talent and did not put it to use? He freely admits that it was out of fear, IOW, that he had no faith. That is why he was condemned. It doesn't seem consistent to me that a man is condemned for making a poor business decision. He was condemned because he lacked faith, which, yes, God chose to withhold.
You are presuming that you WILL be one of the elect and that God will protect you infallibly from yourself. I am more of the thought that God gives us the necessary gifts to follow Him, but depends on us to make the correct choices.
An excellent summary.
The idea of "perseverance of the saints", as per Calvin, presumes that each Calvinist is one of the saints. It is man who has determined who is saved, not God. One PRESUMES that he is saved for eternal life and that God will infallibly protect him.
I admit that I'm not an expert on this yet, but I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the "presumption" angle. Man never determines salvation. The presumption of salvation is only to make the doctrine operative. "Assuming you are truly saved, God will keep you infallibly". There is no presumption of salvation just because someone calls himself a Calvinist. Salvation is just necessary beforehand for the doctrine to have any meaning.
God speaks through the Church, not to us individually (on doctrinal matters). Otherwise, we'd have no idea which was correct belief - How do I, as a Christian, know WHO is preaching correctly, IF God didn't leave a center of authority on earth?
I don't have a problem that God CAN speak through the Church, but I don't seem to understand the exclusivity. As to who is preaching correctly, I would say that you can know for sure based on the preaching's faithfulness to a very prominent center of authority God did leave us on earth. The Bible.
Sorry if I appear obstinate! Every spriritual book I read, either from a saint or a noted theologian note that no one can know if they have what is called the "gift of final perseverance" except if God makes it known in a rare revelation. Even the greatest of saints humbly submit to God's decision to judge their love as "insufficient". We are as nothing - worse - because "nothing" does not sin! With a humble attitude, we approach the Lord, hoping that we made due with the "Talents" He gave us. (Remember that parable and the poor charecter with a single talent?) Since our intellect and will are wounded and not perfectly clear, it is difficult to clearly see how God sees US!
I would "twist" it a little to say that we should not be overconfident because that is a false confidence. We would say that we take full confidence from God's promises in scripture, and that perseverance, which is absolutely necessary, will happen for the elect because God has ordained it so in His divine plan.
Fair enough. I will continue to "work out my salvation in fear and trembling"! I place my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that as long as He abides in me, I will be saved.
I learned from HarleyD the superior doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints". That holds that man does need to persevere through life after salvation, and that is in accordance with scripture. By whatever means, God will ensure that His elect will persevere because He keeps His own and does not forsake His own.
It is superior to "once-saved/always-saved". The only problem I see with it is that one presumes THEY are one of the elect! I wonder how many such Protestants think they are not! To me, at least, it seems like self-designation, but perhaps I am wrong!
So, what's an academically competitive but stupid 17-year-old kid supposed to do to make sure this dealy is in the books? I remember thinking at the time that it would all come down to sincerity. I remember reasoning that if I gave absolutely everything of my mind and of my heart, then how could I lose because of what God promised? I stand behind that reasoning today because I know what I experienced. Without getting all mushy, I just opened up as much as I possibly could have in that body at that time. I admitted I was a sinner, that I needed God, that Jesus was God's son and God, and that He died for our sins on the cross. And most importantly, that He was raised on the third day. All I can tell you is that I know for sure that when I said that to God I was changed. No burning bush action here at all, I'm just referring to how different I felt in my heart. That's all I have, so that's how I know.
Thank you for sharing that with me. We all have different experiences of coming to the Lord. Mine was a bit different. I read and read a lot of books about religion, but I didn't feel that inner experience until I went on a retreat and began to experience within me what my sins meant to God and what He did out of love for me. THAT'S when I became more serious, my second conversion, so to speak. This was when I was 35. But like I said, this was my SECOND conversion. The first was my infant Baptism! Catholics believe a seed was planted after Baptism, and God chose to allow it to bear fruit 35 years later. Interesting how God works.
People have written about religious experiences, and it is quite subjective. The trick, though, is "has their life changed"? Scripture is clear that we cannot love without God, so a person who loves, really loves selflessly, not for selfish reasons, we can rest assured that the Spirit of God rests on that person. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church - that the elect may be called from OUTSIDE the VISIBLE Church of Rome. This includes Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and even Protestants! (kidding!)
Brother in Christ
Not me, brother. No, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that one must go to a Roman Catholic Church on Sunday to be saved. I wish I had access to my other computer, I could cut and paste my response to that question, which comes up quiet often.
I'm in a hurry, so here goes...If one has been validly baptized in the formula used by Catholics (in the name of the Trinity, done with water and the intent that the Church means the action to have), then you are now a member of the Catholic Church, in some mysterious and hidden way, even if baptized by a Protestant. Congratulations!
We enter the Church through Baptism. Thus, you are part of the Church - although a person may not realize that. While a person can remove himself from the Church community by following the teachings that do not match the Catholic Church's, God will judge whether you are truly outside the Church or not depending on your knowledge and will - we call it invincible ignorance. If you believe you are serving God and are not aware of your Catholic roots or that the Catholic Church is the True Church established by Christ, then you are considered ignorant; if you know all of this, and yet refuse to enter into the visible Church, then such a person is obstinately refusing Christ. (he who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me and the One who sent Me). He has excommunicated HIMSELF out of the Church.
This only touches the surface. Write me if you want to know more, as I got to go.
Regards
Sigh.
No, no one refuses his own birth. A mother can refuse the birth of a child she has conceived by aborting him. If she does she is refusing also the gift of life for that child. But the child has no say in accepting or refusing his conception or his birth--but only because he is inacapable of accepting or refusing anything.
But gift of life does not equal birth and that's where you went wrong and why your gotcha ain't. Birth is a fact, a happening. Gift is a meaning. The same happening can have more than one meaning. A happening can be a gift if it is given with gift-intent or a non-gift if imposed against someone's will. Birth can be a gift to the mother giving birth but a mere happening to the child being born.
A spanking can be a great gift to a child if it helps him learn right from wrong. It can be a great non-gift and injustice if imposed in anger or in some other way unjustly and unlovingly. And before you say that a child has no choice but to accept a spanking as a gift, stop and think for a moment.
If the spanking was done justly and out of genuine love it would be a gift offered. The child may not know it to be a gift at the time and if he refuses to see it as a gift, it is no gift to him, despite it being offered as a gift of tough love. Now, parents who have a truly selflessly loving relationship with their child can deliver punishment in such a way that the child at some very deep level may actually realize that it is given with love and in the child's inchoate way, begin to accept it as a gift--which is one of the crucial ways that children begin to learn right from wrong and learn to love right and to become moral actors. But this is not easy for parents to do and they often fail to some degree, even if not totally. However, for all children, the day ought to come, after parents have at least most of the time acted in genuine tough love and justly rather than in injustice and tyranny, that the child, maturing, sees past spankings truly as gifts and accepts the gifts. Time-delay again, as you may have noticed. Meanwhile the gift-meaning hangs suspended until acceptance completes it.
If the parent did not offer the spanking justly and with love then it is not even offered as a gift and cannot ever be a gift and cannot ever be accepted as a gift by the child as he matures.
Birth is an act. To the mother who accepts the child, it is part of the process of the gift of life for her in the form of her child. To the child it is not and cannot be a gift until he is old enough to know it and accept it.
If you are going to play gotcha, you have to refute my claims without switching the terms. If you switch the terms (unless you employ strict synonyms, in which case you are not really switching), you are no longer refuting what I wrote but refuting a phantom claim.
That's what you just did. Again, you didn't stop to think about the difference between birth and gift of life.
They used to teach this in Philosophy 101--these sorts of basic principles about how words mean things and how meanings change and how the same act can mean different things depending on intent and circumstances and reception.
You really ought to consider quitting the gotcha game and taking a sabbatical to learn some fundamental principles of thinking things through.
This will be my last effort to converse with you on this topic. You don't really seem interested in thinking these things through but only want to play gotcha. I have better things to do. If you want to persist in the belief that you've vanquished me with your next gotcha, be my guest. Anyone who has followed this exchange can readily see that so far you are clueless as to the real issues involved.
Dozens of posts ago, I and others stated that this is manifestly false. Yet you trot it out again.
Who says we are obstinately refusing the Lord? The bible does not say it, not Peter, Paul, Jesus, or the HS.
The Vatican is built on a hill that was previously devoted to a pagan goddess. Popes are not followers of Peter ( and there is no record of him ever being in Rome, only in Jerusalem)but they are the political descendents of the vicars that ruled Rome, Pontiff Maximae.
lol, pardon me
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.