Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
As I have said before, I think Christ was also speaking about deeds of love when He spoke the verse of John 3:16. I think people run into problems when they try to make one cute little formula, execute it once, and then your worries are over, you have your ticket punched, and you go on living your life. I have read the Gospels numerous times, and I, frankly, see God calling us to a full-time discipleship, not a quick and easy formula that we do once and forget about Him. In the John 3 section, I would also like to point out (which many seem not to notice) is a few verses later, Christ says:
"And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God." (John 3:19-21)
Note, Christ links "works done in God" with faith. Again, this matches the entire theme that I see throughout the Scripture - that one must WALK in faith in God. When Christ speaks about obeying the Will of the Father, He ALSO is NOT excluding FAITH. Thus, when Christ speaks about faith, I note that He is also expecting us to walk in that faith. Thus, we are saved by faith AND works of love in Christ.
You have also said that you believe that people like me are also in heaven. On the other stuff, good Christians can disagree. Isn't such the way with eschatology? If there are two pastors on street corners arguing on the key elements of faith, then I would say there is a problem. However, in my experience I really have not seen this in the evangelical Christian community.
I believe that a person who can truly claim to be ignorant about the claims made by the Catholic Church can be in heaven - God will base His judgment on what we know and how we utilize that knowledge. I really cannot say where the line of "knowledge" ends where one can "claim" ignornance. That is between you and God. In today's society, it seems that there is an overemphasis on "tolerance" to the degree that no one stands for truth hardly anymore. "What's your truth is your truth, and what's my truth is my truth". I think we all have been infected with this to some degree. By preaching "over-tolerance", the truth is watered down - the REAL TRUTH, not one's own idea of truth. That is why I think one must pursue the truth and accept it, wherever it leads them. The important thing to remember, though, is that truth is NOT based on our own opinions! Truth is not a popularity contest...I leave you with that to think about.
Take your example of the Talents and add to it the story of the three men who went to work for the same man, started at different times of the day, but were yet paid the same. (I'm sorry I can't remember where it is in the Bible.) When I first read those stories I was really surprised at the answers. After long meditation and some study, I have reckoned with God on His teaching. I presume there are other stories in the Bible which I have not yet reckoned correctly. I figure this is what sanctification is for.
Ah, yes! It doesn't seem fair!!! But really, it tells us that God bases our worth on His own decisions, not on how much we do. It is a tough teaching to reckon with such teachings as "the harvest is ready, but the workers are few". What I like about Catholicism is that it is pretty flexible on such things! Believe it or not, the Church only truly defines like a dozen verses that can be taken only one specific way (most dealing with the sacraments). The rest, the Chruch recognizes several ways of reading the same Scripture. We have a Tradition (teaching) that we have been given, and we read the Scripture through that "lense". Thus, if we have been taught, we will just "KNOW" when a particular interpretation doesn't sound right. For example, our Calvinist friends who believe that there are verses that point to God's irresistible grace. We have been taught that man has free will, and that God does not force us to love Him. Thus, we turn our noses away from Calvin's heretical teachings. They don't "sound" right to our hearts.
Well, I guess I would say that Jesus gives scripture authority because he taught from it and quoted from it so often. While being tempted by satan, Jesus only quoted scripture and said nothing else. Even while hanging on the cross, when He said "My God, why hast thou forsaken me", He was quoting scripture.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Bible. It is a truly wonderful tool, PART of the total teaching of the Church from the Apostles. Remember, Jesus taught as "someone with authority". He didn't need to consult Scripture per sec. He actually taught NEW interpretations of Scripture - such as the Sermon on the Mount.... "you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shall not forswear thyself: but thou shalt ..." (Mat 5:33). I would especially like to note Jesus said "YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID! (as opposed to "it is written"). Thus, Jesus is refering back to the teachers, the priests whose job it was to teach the people. Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy, but Satan ALSO quoted Scripture! Thus, as we all are painfully aware, people can misuse Scripture. The very first Christians made the complaint that heretics did JUST THAT! Thus, the absolute need for an authoritative interpreter to fall back on WHEN people disagree on the essentials of faith. As far as I can tell, Christ only left one such interpreter, the Church heirarchy.
Yes, every book is subject to interpretation and that is why I believe that the Bible should interpret itself.
Unfortunately, a book cannot interpret itself. I can write one sentence, and you would have no idea what I am emphasizing:
I did not say you stole the money.
What do I mean by that, if you read that?
I didn't say it, Fred did?
I didn't say it, I wrote it?
I didn't say you stole it, I said you borrowed it?
I didn't say you stole money, I said you stole a ring?
And so forth.
Without an authoritative interpreter to say "The first one is correct", we can't know what God intended for us to know about that particular sentence.
scripture is God's revelation to us.
Of course, but we don't believe it is ALL of God's Revelation to us. There is absolutely NO indication of that within Scirptures themselves. The first Christians never write that way. I think where some people get confused regarding tradition is that they think it always means "oral" teaching. Not so! "Tradition" as we understand it means a legitimate Apostolic Teaching that is not in the Scriptures. Perhaps it was written down later. Perhaps it is "done" in the Liturgy, or prayed by the people. I believe it is common sense that there are a number of things that Christians did and believed that didn't make the letters of Paul or John. For example...Do we find an example of what the Christians actually did when the mention "breaking of the bread"? We don't know the words or prayers FROM SCRIPTURE. But from other writings, we can piece together exactly what they did and what it meant to them. This makes sense, because everyday things, we don't write about.
Have you ever taken an English class and had to write a descriptive essay on something we do everyday? Try thinking of what it would take to eat a bowl of cereal. Things we take for granted, we don't normally write about. And the same for early Christian practices. Certain things were taken for granted, and Paul and Peter and John found no need to write about them. But other Christians did. It makes no sense to me why we would exclude things from Christian practice BECAUSE it is not in the Scriptures!
I hope this makes sense.
I agree that Jesus sent out men to preach, but it must be that they also used scripture to support their own words, just as Jesus did.
Perhaps they used the OT to support that Jesus was the Messiah, the suffering servant of God. But the Resurrection? No, that was oral witness and visible power by miracles, by an extraordinary way of life of love. THAT is what converted people (and continues to today), not words in a book. That is useful, but really, it is words in action that converts and brings people to God. When we see people living the life they preach, then we realize it is something special. We want some of that, too. It isn't surprising that pagans (who were so subject to the depressing reality of the belief in fate) would be excited about free will from the creator of the heavens and earth.
Brother in Christ
To those who think that burying the talents has nothing to do with salvation, the end of the parable shows that the guy who buried his talent ended up in outer darkness.
Yes, and the beginning starts "and the kingdom of heaven is like..." This parable, along with the one about the "Laborers in the Vineyard" (Matt 20, where even the guy who comes in the last minute gets paid the same) is one of those difficult teachings. But you know what the Scripture says "God's ways are not our ways".
Regards
Catholics, OTOH spend too much time emphasizing the works believing that if they do all sorts of things this buys something. It should be noted that Abraham was saved by his faith 17 years prior to being saved by his works. Queen Esther was called, as far as we know, for one particular task and that was to save the Jews on one specific day. Isaiah was called to harden the people's heart so that no one would come to God. (How would you like that ministry-one that you would never see any fruit.) Works is a manifestation of the grace we have received and it can come in many forms. The Catholics, IMO, have this exactly backwards by saying we receive grace by our works.
I don't think "sola scriptura" is ONLY Luther's doctrine. I've read a number (not all) of early church writings and time and again they point to scripture as verification of their ideas, rarely to other contemporary theologian. There is some to be sure but not much. Many of the early church fathers based their theology directly upon scripture verses.
Sola scriptura is simply a beachmark by which sound theology should be measured. It isn't doing away with the church writings of which Luther and Calvin rely heavily on. It is merely stating that one should not willy-nilly accept what is being taught and go back to the scripture to see if these things are accurate. Had many of the cardinals and the Pope followed this advice the Reformation probably would never have happened.
Protestantism makes a distinction between man's spiritual depravity and his natural depravity. Both are dead to sin. God resurrects the spirit to a newness of life and cause us to walk in His statutes and obey His ordiences. This was His divine promise. However the body is still corruptable and we wait for the glorification of the body.
"For [the kingdom of heaven is] like a man going on a journey, [who] called his own slaves and entrusted to them his possessions. And to one he gave five talents, but to another two, but to another one, to each according to his ability..."(Matthew 25:14-15)Are you familiar with this parable? What happens to the slave (us) given ONE talent, BUT DOESN'T USE IT? What is that man's destiny as a result? Having the gift doesn't mean the man will USE the gift... Man has free will.
That does not address the issue. The man was given the talent he could not refuse it
This is not a salvation passage BTW this speaks of the rewards of those that use what God has given them in a wise and productive way. The elect still sin, but they are able not to sin, something the unregenerate can not choose, So the regenerate have an even greater amount of "free will" than the unregenerate.
Just lets say that God knows exactly what you will do or not do with your talent, he will not be surprised if you choose to bury it. No matter what you choose to do with the talent He will be glorified by it .
Your explanation doesn't make sense to me, sorry. You are contradicting yourself. First, you underline:
'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed
And then, you write:
This was someone who did not know the Master for He would never have said "I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed".
Say what? He certainly DID know the Master, for then the Master said "'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank
Sorry, Harley, you'll have to come up with something more convincing to explain this away.
It is a fallacy to think God only uses Christians to bring us to Him. He'll use anyone He darn well pleases. But in the parables of the talents it is obvious the one who went and buried his talent had no concept of his master.
I most certainly agree that God can use ANYONE to bring people to God. Didn't God use the Persians to free the Jews from Babylonian power? In Isaiah, I believe, the Scriptures twice mention that Cyrus was the tool of God. But this has NOTHING to do with the parable! Read what is there, read the context. Consider the immediately prior and following parables - all about the Kingdom of God and entrance to it is based on our God-inspired works...As I have explained to you before about the Virgins, and, of course, the Goats and sheep parable. The same theme. As I have shown, the lazy slave KNEW about his master's ways - and was subsequently punished.
Now, if he was invincibly ignorant...! :-)
Some Catholics don't believe anyone winds up in hell which is not what the above scriptures (e.g. Lord, Lord...) would indicate. Did the person who buried his talent go to purgatory?
The Church teaches that there are people in Hell, as well as demons and the devil. She just doesn't teach WHO is specifically in hell (human-wise). If someone teaches otherwise, they are teaching heretical doctrine. Harley, you should know better than trying to equate heretics to Catholic Teachings. Did the person who buried his talent go to purgatory? Perhaps. It would be speculation to make that determination.
Regards
And if the talent does not represent some gift or some grace given to the servant, then what is it that was given to him? Something was given and something was taken away when it was not used. What was that?
If Christ died and paid the penalty for the sins of all men, how is that God would then punish men eternally for sins that have already been redeemed? Does a just God expect double payment from some?
You're fired!
How's that?
It's not about refusing to accept it. It is about refusing to utilize it wisely and the purpose for which it was meant.
This is not a salvation passage BTW this speaks of the rewards of those that use what God has given them in a wise and productive way
You are mistaken. The parables in this section of Matthew ALL deal with salvation: The Wise and Foolish Virgins, the Talents, and the Sheep and Goats parables ALL deal with Salvation. And NOTE...There is no second-place prizes given out. The person judged unworthy is CAST OUT. This fits perfectly with Paul continuing to run the race for fear of being DISQUALIFIED (not being downgraded to a smaller room in heaven!) In each case, note the ends of the parables :
"Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting." (Mat 25:45-46) OR
"And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mat 25:30)
The gnashing of teeth is not a lower form of reward in heaven!
No matter what you choose to do with the talent He will be glorified by it .
I respectfully disagree. God is glorified SPECIFICALLY when we USE the gifts He has given us. How can God be glorified when we turn away from Him?
Regards
How's that?
LOL!!!
Don't hate me, but I do a lot of my posting from work! If I was fired, my wife would have a list of things for me to do!!!
Take care
I have a closet full of clothing that was given me as a gift that i hate and never wear. That does not mean it was not a gift or that I could have refused it when my in-law kids gave it to me :)
You are mistaken. The parables in this section of Matthew ALL deal with salvation: The Wise and Foolish Virgins, the Talents, and the Sheep and Goats parables ALL deal with Salvation. And NOTE...There is no second-place prizes given out. The person judged unworthy is CAST OUT. This fits perfectly with Paul continuing to run the race for fear of being DISQUALIFIED (not being downgraded to a smaller room in heaven!) In each case, note the ends of the parables :
The parable never says that the man was ever saved does it ? God gives gifts to the elect and the reprobate .
Of course they were gifts. And they were given to you to wear them (yuck!). Certainly, the gift-givers wouldn't appreciate that you aren't using the gifts they gave you. Now, imagine God. Of course, He gives gifts that are helpful, always matches whatever you have in the closet, useful in any weather (well, you get the picture, the analogy is running out of gas). God gives us gifts for OUR own good, not what is convenient for HIM (like when our in-law buys us something THEY like). He loves us and DEEPLY DESIRES our company in heaven. The gift is for OURSELVES AND OTHERS! We come to God through other people using THEIR gifts. But if we refuse to use what God has given us, then we are in the same position as the servant who was given one talent. It will be taken away. In other words, God will no longer give us graces, but they will be given to others who will use them. And, as we both agree, without God's graces, we cannot enter the Kingdom.
The parable never says that the man was ever saved does it ? God gives gifts to the elect and the reprobate .
"The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." starts all three parables in Matthew 25. Seems pretty clear that the parables are dealing with people equally - it is what they do during their lives that determines whether they will be cast out or not.
Regards
We look at it this way: Christ's death opened the way to heaven for those who live a righteous life. Before His death, even Moses did not go to heaven, but rather, to Sheol. Christ's work enabled the righteous to enter heaven. However, Christ did not pay the penalty for ALL sin! If He did, then no one would go to hell, as that is the ultimate penalty of sin, is it not? But yet, we believe that people go to hell.
Thus, Christ's death is called "objective redemption", which allows man a way into heaven - walking in faith as inspired by God's graces. We, however, must work out our salvation in fear and trembling - our own "subjective redemption", which means that we will be judged based on how we followed Christ. Christ opens the door. It is up to us to freely cooperate with the Gift of God's graces so as to enter heaven. We CAN choose to be good or evil.
Regards
Really? Here is what the Scripture tell us:
"Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also ( kai ) may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory" [2 Tim 2:10]
Imagine that: "...that they (the elect) may too (KJV) obtain salvation..." This must be the "other" Paul, the one Protestants don't seem to quote, for obvious reasons.
You Protestants take elect/chosen to mean something superior. No, it's a commandment. God chooses people to do good work in His name, to baptize, to spread the kowledge of the God of Abraham so that all nations would know Him.
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached throughout* ( olh ) the world for a witness unto each* ( pasin ) nations; and then shall the end come**" [Mat 24:14]
* both words translated as one word, all, in KJV
** In otherwords, if you (elect) do what God commanded of you, His Plan will be finished. I guess, you have some work to do! :-)
"Go ye therefore, and teach all ( panta ) [Gentile]* nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[Mat 28:19]
* according to Pualine usage
The chosen are the people who bring the Good News so that all nations may be saved, not just the chosen ones.
After a certain point, we can only speculate [jo]
Jo, read 2 Kings 20:1-6 or, for that matter, look at the word "repent." The Bible is full of references that show that God is moved to divine mercy by our prayers. That is not speculation. It has a lot to do with our intent. Remember, our salvation does not depend on how much we do and what we do, but how Christ-like we are when we do it, how empty we are of pride.
But most importantly, we may not ask for forgiveness and mercy unless we have forgiven those who trespassed against us, unless we have shown mercy. "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy" (Mat 5:7), says the Lord, and "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." (Lk 6:36), always remembering that "judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!" (Ja 2:13)
If Christ's atonement was effective for all men, all men would be saved. Or else it's a pretty paltry atonement.
But the shed blood of Christ is not wasted and Christ did not suffer indiscriminately. Christ's atonement was sufficient for all the world, but effective for the elect, as determined by God from before the foundation of the world.
All whom God gave to Christ to gather will see heaven; He will lose none of them.
Unfortunately, some men choose not to take advantage of Christ's redemptive work.
Natural man will never "take advantage" of God's salvation. Only the spiritual man who has been regenerated by His will and renewed by the Holy Spirit can "take advantage" of God's blessing of salvation.
Who goes to heaven except God's elect?
God bless.
Ping to the excellent post #1558.
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.