Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Perhaps, but by your logic, you state that God has directed that person A will sin in this way and will go to hell, according to God's plan. What we say is that God KNOWS and SEES the person sinning, however, he does not plan, he does not force someone to Hell. The person chooses it of his own choice.
As a genuinely intended compliment, I'd say you are pretty close to seeing what we believe. :) Look, the whole issue here is causation, right? God's overt action obviously "causes" things to happen. Does God's purposeful inaction also "cause" a result. I say 'Yes' because God has the absolute authority to determine. If God is all powerful, then to me, an omission to act is just as powerful as an overt act.
Is God's plan independent of man's actions because God determines everything (including allowing sin to occur without interference)? Or, is God's plan dependent on man's actions because He "respects" our choices and will accomplish His goals by working around all of the choices made by man? I hold that it is the former. When God already knows the result, His purposeful inaction I would count as a causation through knowing omission. I believe this is perfectly consistent with my prior statements that God is not the author of evil. To further His plan, God allows man to succumb to his own nature and sin happens. I am only arguing that on this level, omission counts as action when the actor has all authority. To be absolutely clear, I say again that God is not the author of any evil.
Here is Calvin's view which I though was a bit interesting and added a bit more information:
Since, then, Peter had Mark as his companion when he wrote this Epistle, it is very probable that he was at Babylon: and this was in accordance with his calling; for we know that he was appointed an apostle especially to the Jews. He therefore visited chiefly those parts where there was the greatest number of that nation. In saying that the Church there was a partaker of the same election, his object was to confirm others more and more in the faith; for it was a great matter that the Jews were gathered into the Church, in so remote a part of the world.
My son. So he calls Mark for honor’s sake; the reason, however, is, because he had begotten him in the faith, as Paul did Timothy. Of the kiss of love we have spoken elsewhere. Now he bids this to be the kiss of love, f58 so that the sincerity of the heart might correspond with the external act.
Many misconstrude the calling of the elect as hatred for others simply because Reformer teaches there are those who 1) are elected by God and 2) others are passed over by God. Why this is we do not know but it is a clear teaching in scripture although many would simply like to brush aside. It does not mean that God loves person A and hate person B. It simply means that God selected person A and ignored person B much the same way that God selected Abraham and ignored Nahor and Haran (his brothers).
Below is an excerpt on the Effective Calling by William Hill:
Section I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,[1] by his Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.[8]
1. Acts 13:48; Rom. 4:28, 30; 11:7; Eph. 1:5, 11; II Tim. 1:9-10
2. II Thess. 2:13-14; James 1:18; II Cor. 3:3, 6; I Cor. 2:12
3. II Tim. 1:9-10; I Peter 2:9; Rom 8:2; Eph. 2:1-10
4. Acts 26:18; I Cor. 2:10, 12; Eph. 1:17-18; II Cor. 4:6 5. Ezek. 36:26
6. Ezek. 11:19; 36:27; Deut. 30:6; John 3:5; Titus 3:5; I Peter 1:23
7. John 6:44-45; Acts 16:14
8. Psa. 110:3; John 6:37; Matt. 11:28; Rev. 22:17; Rom. 6:16-18; Eph. 2:8; Phil 1:29
Section II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
9. II Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 9:11
10. I Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-9; Titus 3:4-5
11. John 6:37; Ezek. 36:27; I John 3:9; 5:1
THERE is an outward call of God's Word, extended to all men to whom the gospel is preached, which is considered under the fourth section of this chapter. The first and second sections treat of the internal effectual call of God's Spirit, which effects regeneration, and which is experienced only by the elect. Of this internal call it is affirmed: --
2. As to the subjects of it, that they embrace all the elect, and only the elect.
3. As to the agent of it -- (1.) That the sole agent of it is the Holy Ghost, who uses (2.) The revealed truth of the gospel as his instrument; (3.) That the subjects of it, while they have freely resisted all those common influences of the Holy Ghost which they have experienced before regeneration, are entirely passive with respect to that special act of the Spirit it whereby they are regenerated; nevertheless, in consequence of the change wrought in them in regeneration, they obey the call, and subsequently more or less perfectly co-operate with grace.
4. As to the nature of it, it is taught that it is an exercise of the almighty and effectual power of the Holy Ghost acting immediately upon the soul of the subject, determining him and effectually drawing, yet in a manner perfectly congruous to his nature, so that he comes most freely, being made willing.
5. As to the effect of it, it is taught that it works a radical and permanent change in the entire moral nature of the subject, spiritually enlightening his mind, sanctifying his affections, renewing his will, and giving a new direction to his action.
(2.) The Scriptures distinguish between the Spirit's influence and that of the Word alone. 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; iii. 6; 1 Thess. i. 5, 6.
(3.) A spiritual influence is declared to be necessary to dispose and enable men to receive the truth. John vi. 45; Acts xvi. 14; Eph. i. 17.
(4.) All that is good in man is referred to God as its author. Eph. ii. 8; Phil. ii. 13; 2Tim. ii. 25; Heb. xiii. 21.
(5.) The working of the Spirit upon the hearts of the regenerated is represented as far more direct, powerful, and efficient, than the mere moral influence of the truth upon the understanding and affections. Eph. i. 19; iii. 7.
(6.) The result effected in regeneration is different from an effect proper to the simple truth. It is "a new birth," "a new creation," etc. John iii. 3, 7; Eph. iv. 24.
(7.) The Scriptures explicitly distinguish between the two calls. Of the subjects of the one it is said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Matt. xxii. 14. Of the subjects of the other it is said, "Whom he called, them he also justified." Rom. viii. 30. Comp. Prov. i. 24, and John vi. 45.
2. That this spiritual call embraces all the elect, and only the elect, is proved -- (1.) From what has been already proved, (a.) Chapter iii. sections 3 -- 5, that God has from eternity definitely and unchangeably determined who shall be saved; and (b.) Chapter iii., section 6, that God, having "appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto." Effectual calling being the actual saving of a soul from the death of sin by the mighty power of God, it is obvious that it must be applied to all who are to be saved, and that it cannot be applied to any who are not to be saved. (2.) The same is proved from the fact that the Scriptures represent the "called" as the "elect," and the " elect" as the "called." Rom. viii. 28, 30. Those with Christ in heaven are "called, elect, and faithful." Rev. xvii. 14. (3.) The Scriptures, moreover, declare that the " calling" is based upon the " election:" "who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." 2 Tim. i. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14; Rom. xi. 7.
3. That the sole agent in this effectual calling is the Holy Ghost; that he uses Gospel truth as his instrument; and that, while all sinners are active in resisting the common influences of grace before regeneration, and all believers in co-operating with sanctifying grace after regeneration, nevertheless every new-created soul is passive with respect to that divine act of the Holy Spirit whereby he is regenerated, may all be proved under the following distinct heads: --
(2.) The distinction between regeneration and conversion is obvious and necessary. Under chapter ix. we saw that the voluntary acts of the human soul are determined by, and derive their character from, the affections and desires which prompt them; and that these affections and desires derive their character from the permanent moral state of the soul in which they arise. In the unregenerate this permanent moral state and disposition of the soul is evil, and hence the action is evil. Action positively holy is impossible except as the consequence of a positively holy disposition. The infusion of such a disposition must therefore precede any act of true spiritual obedience. Effectual calling, according to the usage of our Standards, is the act of the Holy Spirit effecting regeneration. Regeneration is the effect produced by the Holy Spirit in effectual calling. The Holy Spirit, in the act of effectual calling, causes the soul to become regenerate by implanting a new governing principle or habit of spiritual affection and action. The soul itself, in conversion, immediately acts under the guidance of this new principle in turning from sin unto God through Christ. It is evident that the implantation of the gracious principle is different from the exercise of that principle, and that the making a man willing is different from his acting willingly. The first is the act of God solely; the second is the consequent act of man, dependent upon the continued assistance of the Holy Ghost.
That God is the sole agent in the act which effects regeneration is plain -- (a.) From the nature of the case, as shown above. The making an unwilling man willing cannot be co-operated with by the man while unwilling. (b.) From what was proved under chapter ix., section 3, as to man's absolute inability with respect to spiritual things. (c.) From what the Scriptures say as to the nature of the change. They call it "a new birth," " a begetting," "a quickening," "a new creation." "God begetteth, the Spirit quickeneth;" " We are born again," " We are God's workmanship." John iii. 3, 5 -- 7; 1John v. 18; Eph. ii. 1, 5, 10. See also Ezek. xi. 19; Ps. li. 10; Eph iv. 23; Heb. viii. 10. That, after regeneration, the new-born soul at once begins and ever continues more or less perfectly to co-operate with sanctifying grace, is self-evident. Faith, repentance, love, good works, are one and all at the same time "fruits of the Spirit" and free actions of men. We are continually conscious, moreover, that we are subject to divine influences, which we are either resisting or obeying, and which we are free to resist or obey as we please, while through grace we do prevailingly please to obey.
(3.) That the Holy Spirit uses the "truth" as his instrument in effectual calling is plain -- (a.) Because he never acts in this way where the knowledge of the truth is entirely wanting; (b.) Because the Scriptures assert that we are begotten by the truth, sanctified by the truth, grow by it, etc. John xvii. 19; James i. 18; 1 Pet. ii. 2.
That this Divine influence is perfectly congruous to our nature is plain -- (1.) From the fact that it is the influence of an all-wise Creator upon the work of his own hand. It is not conceivable either that God is unable or indisposed to control the actions of his creatures in a manner perfectly consistent with their nature. (2.) The influence he exerts is called in Scripture " a drawing," "a teaching," "an enlightening," etc. John vi. 44, 45; Eph. i. 18. (3.) By nature the mind is darkened and the affections perverted and the will enslaved by sin. Regeneration restores these faculties to their proper condition. It cannot be inconsistent with a rational nature to let in the light, nor to a free will to deliver it from bondage. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Cor. iii. 17; Phil. ii. 13; Ps. cx. 3. Every regenerated man is conscious -- (a.) That no constraint has been laid upon the spontaneous movement of his faculties; and (b.) That, on the other hand, none of his faculties ever acted so freely and consistently with the law of their nature before.
5. That this change is radical is proved from the fact that, as shown above, it consists in the implantation of a new governing principle of life; from the fact that it is a "new birth," a "new creation," wrought by the mighty power of God in execution of his eternal purpose of salvation; and that it is as necessary for the most moral and amiable as for the morally abandoned.
That this change is permanent will be shown under chapter xvii., on the Perseverance of the Saints.
That it affects the entire man -- intellect, affections, and will -- is evident -- (1.) From the essential unity of the soul. It is the one indivisible "I" which thinks, feels, and wills. If the permanent moral state of the soul is corrupt, all its functions must be perverted. We can have no desire for an object unless we perceive its loveliness; nor can we perceive intellectually the loveliness of that which is wholly uncongenial to our inherent tastes and dispositions. (2.) The Scriptures expressly affirm that sin is essentially deceiving, that innate depravity involves moral blindness, and that the natural man cannot receive the tidings which are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4; John xvi. 3. (3.) The Scriptures expressly affirm that all the "new-born" are the subjects of a spiritual illumination of the understanding as well as renewal of the affections. John xvii. 3; 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 18; 1 John iv. 7; v. 20. (4.) In the Bible the phrase " to give a new heart" is equivalent to effect regeneration; and the phrase "heart" is characteristically used for the entire interior man -- intellect, affections, and, will. Observe such phrases as "counsels of the heart," 1 Cor. iv. 5; "imaginations of the heart," Luke i. 51; "thoughts and intents of the heart," Heb. iv. 12.
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3,5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
The outward call of God's Word, and all the "means of grace" provided in the present dispensation, of course presuppose intelligence upon the part of those who receive them. The will of God, also, is revealed only as far as it concerns those capable of understanding and profiting by the revelation. His purposes with respect to either persons or classes not thus addressed are not explicitly revealed.
If infants and others not capable of being called by the gospel are to be saved, they must be regenerated and sanctified immediately by God without the use of means. If God could create Adam holy without means, and if he can new-create believers in righteousness and true holiness by the use of means which a large part of men use without profit, he can certainly make infants and others regenerate without means. Indeed, the natural depravity of infants lies before moral action, in the judicial deprivation of the Holy Ghost. The evil is rectified at that stage, therefore, by the gracious restoration of the soul to its moral relation to the Spirit of God. The phrase "elect infants" is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts -- (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other.
Section IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever,[17] be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]
15. Matt. 13:14-15; 22:14; Acts 13:48; 28:24
16. Matt. 7:22; 13:20, 21; Heb. 6:4-5
17. John 6:37, 64-66; 8:44; 13:18; cf. 17:12
18. Acts 4:12; I John 4:2-3; II John 1:9; John 4:22; 14:6; 17:3; Eph. 2:12-13; Rom. 10:13-17
19. II John 1:9-12; I Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:6-8
This section, taken in connection with the parallel passage in L. Cat., q. 60, teaches the following propositions: --
2. That the diligent profession and honest practice of neither natural religion, nor of any other religion than pure Christianity, can in the least avail to promote the salvation of the soul, is evident from the essential principles of the gospel. If any person perfectly conformed to the amount of spiritual truth known to him in every thought and act from birth upward, however little that knowledge might be, he would of course need no salvation. But all men, as we have seen, are born under condemnation, and begin to act as moral agents with natures already corrupt. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Rom. iii. 23. Hence it follows that an atonement is absolutely necessary, and consequently a personal interest in the redemption of Christ is absolutely necessary to salvation; for if a law, conformity to which could have given life, could have been given, Christ is dead in vain. Gal. ii. 21; iii. 21. To admit that men may be saved irrespectively of Christ is virtually to deny Christ.
3. That in the case of sane adult persons a knowledge of Christ and a voluntary acceptance of him is essential in order to a personal interest in his salvation is proved --
(2.) God has certainly revealed no purpose to save any except those who, hearing the gospel, obey; and he requires that his people, as custodians of the gospel, should be diligent in disseminating it as the appointed means of saving souls. Whatever lies beyond this circle of sanctified means is unrevealed, unpromised, uncovenanted.
(3.) The heathen in mass, with no single definite and unquestionable exception on record, are evidently strangers to God, -- and going down to death in an unsaved condition. The presumed possibility of being saved without a knowledge of Christ remains, after eighteen hundred years, a possibility illustrated by no example.
LOL. My personal thanks on a great post.
No, I haven't.
Please give me biblical verses telling me exactly how the Lord instituted the Catholic Church. My bible seems to be missing that section
I could give you Bible verses where Christ institutes a Church, rather than a Bible to be the visible authority on earth. Can you point to me where the Scriptures tell us that the Bible is the sole rule of faith? If not, then why do you hold to it? To answer your question on the Church, I would suggest you read the Church Fathers, the first Christian writers who followed the Apostles. THEY seemed to believe that the Catholic Church was established by Christ, and being only a generation removed, I'll take their word over Mr. Martin's. Look to Post #1394 if you want a few clips on what they have to say. Please understand that the Bible is not the only set of writings that came out of that era. Historically, we should look at everything written to determine what the early Christians believed and practiced. Seems they were quite Catholic...
Regards
We don't have absolute assurance. As I have said, spiritual writers note over and over that we cannot absolutely know where we stand with God. This makes sense, because we barely know ourselves, really. How can we know how God sees us? However, we can know with 'moral' assurance in that we trust in God's promises and that He is righteous and will reward His elect. It is based on what we believe God has revealed. Notice, I said "believe". Absolute assurance cannot be provided for ANY "belief", in the philosophical, Descartian sense.
Hope this helps, Forest. Brother in Christ
I will get back to Post #1385, it is quite extensive. Just to let you know I am not ignoring you.
Regards
Scripture ITSELF tells us that there are many things that Christ did that are not recorded! It never makes the claim that you try to give to it - a historical record of everything that happened within the early Church. Does the Acts of the Apostles record what the majority of Apostles did? Where did they go? Extra-biblical sources are quite reliable and show that St. Thomas went to India and died there. There is archeological evidence of this. It is pretty silly to claim that Scripture entails within it every historical event of the time it encompasses!
Regards
Regards
Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”(*) Loraine Boettner, "Roman Catholicism".Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner [(*)]. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
[...]
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.”
[...]
[Archaeological] evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
There are numerous patristic references to Peter leading the Church from Rome, see Peter's Roman Residency
There is a good reason to think that these are two events, not one. That is because the continuity is broken by "And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place" (Acts 2:1) If the narrative still placed them in the Upper Room, there would ne no need to time and place reference.
But that is not really my argument. Of course, the Holy Ghost can appear at any time to anyone, as well as Christ, the Blessed Virgin or the saints. When it happens it is a miracle of God. The scripture, however, also records how things are ordinarily: the Holy Ghost was given to a select group, some of which became priests and bishops. They proceeded to baptize and teach others, who received the Holy Ghost through their mediation. This practice continues to this day.
And here I thought you were brillant and a fast typist. ;O)
e-Sword is a great product and jokus would appreciate that they include the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible as well.
The absolute assurance is there following a valid confession (when necessary) and till the faithful commits another sin. At that point venial sin needs to be cleansed by a general absolution at mass, and mortal sin must be confessed, to restore the faithful into the state of grace.
It is important to avoid legalism here and not think of sin like we think of crime. Two processes happen to a Christian with vibrant church life. First, through the strength they gather at mass, and a regiment of penance, fast and prayer, sin is gradually conquered. Holiness is not an abstraction: we are all ordered to it, it is the natural condition of man. some do reach the state of holiness in their lifetimes, whether they are recognized as saints officially or not. As St. Francis (I believe) said, to be a saint is easy, you simply have to want to be one.
At the same time, sensitivity to sin grows as well. New Christians often think of sin as a violation of the Ten Commandments, and they intertpret them narrowly. Since most people do not worship idols, do not swear by God, go to church or at least rest on Sunday, remember their parents on Mother's day and Father's day, do not commit crimes or adultery, they see no sin in themselves. Gradually, sin is recognized in acts of selfishness, impure thoughts, anger, self-indulgence, etc. It is useful to recall that while the Decalogue lists sins by what they hurt, a Christian is asked to think of sin in terms of its origin. Another list, that of Cardinal Sins needs to be kept in mind:
So, on one hand, as one grows spiritually, every sin decreases but new sins are seen by the inward eye. We know that a sin has to be understood as such in order to convict the soul. For example, our culture desensitizes us to lust and a product of modern culture commits a sin of lust not understanding that he is sinning. It is then venial sin for him. But a serious mind would discard the cultural deception and recognize lust as sin. At this stage, he has a new sin to conquer. This is why our sinfulness is in constant flux. The absolute assurance of salvation that comes from the sacraments is rarely experienced, and should not be sought because it desensitizes. While there in a platonic sense, awareness of absolute assurance of salvation easily transitions into presumption, in itself a sin.
The virtue we ask for is hope, -- a sense of trust that as we struggle for holiness the merciful God will forgive us. On the two ends of that virtue are the sin of scruple and the sin of presumption.
Hmmmm...Calvin's remarks intrigued me so I'm doing a bit of research on this. Calvin plainly states that the dates given by the early church fathers are off and it's impossible for Peter to have been in Rome given the timeline. However based on newadvent, the Catholic Church states the dates are suspect because the fathers place Peter at Rome. Calvin seems to feel this is wrong based upon the dates but I'm at a lost as to why Calvin would believe the dates to be more accurate than the location.
I will have to look into this more but it's obvious there are some discrepancies here on one side or the other. It most likely will not be solved (otherwise it would have been) but it appears that the early church fathers writings are in conflict with themselves as to where Peter was and the dates of the building of the Alexandria Church and the martydom of Mark and Peter under Nero. I couldn't accept what the early fathers have to say about Peter's location simply because it most likely was handed down and could have been wrong.
Calvin feels the fathers dates are more accurate than the location of Peter. The Catholic Church feels the location of Peter is more accurate than the dates. Which do you choose?
I have absolutely no interest in knowing what Calvin feels about anything, least of all when his effort to vandalize the Church of Jesus Christ is transparent.
I admit that I am unsure that I am following you either, my dear friend :). If you are quoting John 19:30 and saying that God's "Plan" is already finished from our perspective, then we must be talking about two completely different plans.
I would say that John 19:30 does complete one of God's plans, an especially critical one, but that it didn't complete God's overall Plan. From our perspective, God continues to work in our lives. I would also respectfully disagree that God's plan for humanity is/was to save it, as in all of it if that is what you mean. I hold that God always gets what He wants. Clearly, not all are saved. Therefore it couldn't have been His plan to save all.
I do agree that it is part of God's plan that we do good works. I see it as one means of glorifying God.
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).
I agree that we are not cattle, but rather, we are sheep, among the dumbest animals. Simians, pigs, and dolphins are all geniuses compared to sheep. If enough food was available, a sheep would literally "eat" itself to death. I would say that we absolutely do need leading and we are led.
Your verse certainly does use the phrase "all men", but I would distinguish between a general wish and a decree. A general wish (I wish I had a Mercedes) is fine and does indicate something about the wisher. In this case, it shows God's love. However, I don't think this saying can be a part of God's Plan because it doesn't happen.
God interacts with us only for the purpose 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.
I have no problem with this part. Right after this, you refer to 1 Peter 3:18. This is my (Bible's) translation:
18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, ...
When I first read this I made the classic error of substituting "and" for "for". Since the word is "for" it must relate back to the previous clause. The righteous (Christ) died for the sins of the unrighteous (you would say all, I would say the elect because they are the only ones brought to God). As I have said, I do believe the blood of Christ is sufficient to pay for the sins of all, but it just wasn't God's intention because not all are saved.
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.
This is another matter of perspective. I would say that from God's POV, nothing is possible, it is certain. Of course from our POV, "all things are possible" with God. That is why I think you are switching perspectives within your overall thought in the above two paragraphs.
Only God could possibly see us as passive travelers because He already knows everything we will ever do. It is old news to God. But from our perspective, we cannot be passive travelers, indeed there is much to be done! We absolutely are slaves to righteousness, God is in control of our lives, but to us every day brings something new. There absolutely is meaning.
But He did good works. Jesus said he NEVER KNEW him. NOT THAT HE KNEW HIM AND THEN HE SINNED. But that he had never known him INSPITE of all those good works done in the name of the Lord. Can an unsaved man do any pleasing act to God?
You are again confusing “works” as an action that obligates someone to pay them, and “good works” or “deeds of love”. God does not condemn our actions!!! Our actions are not the problem, the problem is those who are like the Pharisees, religious hypocrites who say they do “x” and “y”, thinking that God owes them, but do not hold to the real meaning of the law, namely, mercy and forgiveness. Consider the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7. Christ is calling US to HEED Him. Look at the end of the Sermon:
“Every one therefore that hears these my words, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. And every one that hears these my words, and does them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof”. (Mat 7:24-27)
Note, Jesus, as He does throughout the Sermon, emphasizes our DOING. He is NOT condemning actions! Perish the thought! The question asked by Jesus, “did we not drive out demons in your name” is best explained by 1 Cor 13:2: “if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains (or cast out demons!), and have not love, I am nothing.” Christ is disdainful towards works without love. Action with love, however, is what HE COMMANDS! “Everyone who listens to my words (Mat 5 through Mat 7) AND ACTS UPON THEM will be like a wise man…but he who LISTENS to My words and DOESN’T ACT ON THEM will be like a fool”. (Mat 7:24, 26)
Clearly, Christ desires deeds of love. So does Paul. So does the rest of the NT writers. Christ left us ONE commandment: to love others as He had loved us. God doesn’t “know” the religious hypocrites who do works without love!
God expects us to be fruit inspectors
We can’t “inspect” the harvest until it has arrived, can we? Thus, we are not fruit “speculators” presuming we know how the harvest will be in five years, but “inspectors” of what is present and visible. We can only possibly inspect what we see growing – not what we THINK will be growing in five years.
You may doubt it if you like, but the bible is clear that the unsaved can do nothing pleasing to God.
But WE don’t know who the unsaved are. Only God has access to the Book of Life. Thus, it is not Christian to judge who is saved and who is not saved. That is up to God, not us. In the end, when we are judged based on our faith working through love, those who were evil and do not desire God’s eternal presence will be judged accordingly.
So as men we may see the act of the fireman as selfless and good, if it was preformed without faith to God it is a sin (a failure to seek and rely on him )
A sin is something against the will of God. Is saving someone against the will of God? Perhaps. But I think it is not really worth arguing over. It doesn’t sound as a Christian teaching, though, to say that a person performing a selfless act is sinning against God.
what is your definition of a "saved" person?
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
That’s it? I find verses that contradict that idea or interpretation of those verses in that manner. We see that as a Baptismal formula, thus, the words are spoken by a person who is being baptized (“lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art called, and hast confessed a good confession before many witnesses” 1 Tim 6:12). We are saved (healed) by Baptism. But our salvation is not “done” with that! Paul himself stated “For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power.” (1 Cor 4:20). We both know what James says in chapter 2 about faith without works (good deeds)… And John says “My little children, let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth” (1 John 3:18). Finally, Jesus makes a number of statements along this line, such as what we have been discussing in Matthew 7 and its parallel in Luke 6. He emphasizes DOING, LOVING. Not just talk. Thus, salvation requires more than just a simple Baptismal proclamation of faith. Salvation is an ongoing process, one requiring perseverance.
I expect God to be faithful to His word. We are saved by grace and mercy not our worth. Just as we can not save ourselves neither can we "keep" ourselves. To believe that we can dismisses the true Savior and turns to self dependance and self worth. I did not deserve to be saved on the day that God saved me, I do not deserve to be saved today nor will I deserve it tomorrow. I am saved soley by Gods mercy and grace, I am kept solely by Gods mercy and grace. I could not earn it nor can I keep it. HE is the author and finisher of my faith
I agree in the sense that we can do NOTHING with Christ abiding in us. As long as we are not part of the Vine, we cannot do anything of worth. We are judged on our response to God’s grace, not our worth – because God has given us EVERYTHING, both material and spiritual goods. Thus, we rely entirely upon God’s grace. We trust in Him as a child trusts their parents (when they are still young!). No, I do not deserve to be saved. I, too, am saved by God’s mercy and grace. Every gift He gives me, whether it is faith, repentance, or deeds of love, comes from Him. Thus, “He crowns only what He has already given us” (St. Augustine)
The doctrine of the preservation of the Saints (that is that the saved can not fall away is clearly taught in these passages,
The vast majority of those passages are telling us what OUGHT to happen – if we persevere. NOTHING can pry us out of God’s hand, as Paul says at the end of Romans 8. This is a joyful teaching. The devil and his temptations are held in check and cannot overcome God’s grace. ONLY WE can remove ourselves from eternal heaven. ONLY WE can decide to return to the vomit of our past life, to commit sins that God will not allow us to inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10, said to Christians!). Paul is PRESUMING that we will persevere and do what we OUGHT to do – to obey the Gospel teachings he had given to those Christian communities. He is clear that we CAN fall, however:
“Wherefore he that thinks himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12)
“If we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries.” (Heb 10:26-27)
“To day if you shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation; in the day of temptation in the desert, Where your fathers tempted me, proved and saw my works, Forty years: for which cause I was offended with this generation, and I said: They always err in heart. And they have not known my ways, As I have sworn in my wrath: If they shall enter into my rest. Take heed, brethren, lest perhaps there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, to depart from the living God. But exhort one another every day, whilst it is called to day, that none of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ: yet so, if we hold the beginning of his substance firm unto the end. While it is said, To day if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in that provocation. For some who heard did provoke: but not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. And with whom was he offended forty years? Was it not with them that sinned, whose carcasses were overthrown in the desert? And to whom did he swear, that they should not enter into his rest: but to them that were incredulous? And we see that they could not enter in, because of unbelief.” (Heb 3:7-19, similar to 1 Cor 10:1-11)
Thou stands by faith: be not highminded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee. See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again (Romans 11:20-23)
And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:5-11)
There are numerous others, but I think you get the picture… The ELECT will persevere, not the “saints”. We don’t know who the elect of God are. Whether the saints on earth persevere or not is not guaranteed by Scripture!
works were ordained for you before the foundation of the world( Eph 2) . They are Gods works in you and so they are pleasing to him . The works are indeed worthy before God and will be a part of one of the crown he gives you that you will toss at His feet acknowledging that HE not you deserve the glory for them
Ah, we agree again! See, it is just a matter of figuring out what we are trying to say!
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
That is the indwelling Holy Spirit . He is loving through us. If you do not have faith in Christ as your Saviour then you do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, so there is no divine love there,only carnal love . You seem to be agreeing with me that faith and love both come from the Spirit. They are BOTH fruits of the work of the Spirit. Love doesn’t automatically come from faith – for if it did, our faith would always bring forth love. It doesn’t! Even if I have ALL faith to move mountains, loveless deeds are worthless. And because the Spirit is operative through us, through our response to Christ’s graces, the action is OURS, both the Spirit’s and the man’s. Thus, we CAN say it is OUR work. Since we are saved by faith AND love, we can only be saved by cooperation with God’s graces – whether that grace be faith in Him, or loving our neighbor.
Regards
OK who invited all you anti-Calvin trolls to this thread? Why are you trying to hijack this thread with all your Anti-Calvin bigotry?
I think we should call out the Anti-Calvin Troll Hunters squad.
Oh wait, there isn't one.
Never mind.
Carry on.
What would be helpful would be the Navarre Bible, as it often gives the Church Father's commentaries on some verses. Maybe St. Thomas Aquinas "Golden Chains" of the Gospel! But now I am dreaming - that set alone is $100.
Thanks again.
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.