Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Those synergistic Christians who stay very close to the Reformed sovereign God concept will believe in man's sinfulness and fall, God's redemptive grace, His guidance in our lifes to effect change, our redemptive guarantee. Those synergists who stray further away from the Reformed sovereign God perspective become more vocal in insisting upon's man's free will, denial of original sin, salvation is unknown, etc. History (especially Roman Catholic history) has shown the farther people have moved from a sovereign God perspective the more they've lapse into greater and greater error. There is no greater evidence of this then the posts on this thread.
Well, first, grace is understood as the Holy Spirit coming to us, correct? It is described in various ways in the NT. For example:
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (John 6:56-58)
In the sacrament of the Eucharist, God comes to us in the form of bread. He promises to abide in us in a special way through a visible means.
Another example is marriage:
"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery (sacrament = mystery): but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband." (Eph 5:28-33)
We have already discussed Baptism, and I believe I have shown that the Holy Spirit comes to a person and that sins are forgiven (remission of sins) during the ritual.
We would deny that baptism saves the infant and now that salvation is his to loose. I would say it is an outward sign of an inward change. The change preceded the symbol, just as it does in scripture... unless the infants can repent and believe BEFORE that baptism .
What is salvation? It has several definitions. To me, it means a "healing". In the spiritual realm, that means that sins have been forgiven. There has been a remission of sins. Again, I have quoted verses that show that Baptism provides a remission of sins. Merely saying "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not going to "heal" me. While the Spirit is operative within you before your water baptism, sins are not forgiven until the Baptism. It is through the visible signs that God works behind the scenes and cleanses our inner invisible self. The water ITSELF does nothing but gets us wet. However, when we SEE the water, and KNOW what the Church is doing, WE KNOW that that person is being saved.
The regenerating efficacy of baptism is conveyed in, and by, the divine word alone.
Of course. The water does nothing in of itself but SIGNIFY that a person has been cleansed internally. When the Church performs the ritual, God has promised that the Spirit would come and forgive sins. He is thus saved (healed).
Does the infant baptized speak a word of faith FIRST?
The "word" comes from the priest performing the ritual. He says "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The "word" is the Trinity, God. Not the person's faith proclamation. You seem to be saying that Baptism is a work of the person being baptized. Does anything show that Baptism is entirely a gift from God like infant baptism does? The infant has done NOTHING to deserve salvation. By your line of thinking, it appears that we must first conjure up enough faith within yourself for our baptism to be effective - a work.
There are few Muslims that have not HEARD and refused the gospel. Their denial of Christ IS hatred of Christ. It seems you have no problem believing contrary to scripture that men can be saved without Christ, and the Holy Spirit of God will indwell one that does not know Christ.
I disagree. First, Muslims haven't heard the Good News, only a distorted version of it from the mullahs - who don't know it either. Only another Christian can preach the Good News, it is not a philosophy you get from reading a book. Thus, they are not denying Christ, only a straw man of Christ. Next, I never said that they can be saved WITHOUT Christ. Christ is operative, we KNOW, when that person performs good works, fruits of the Holy Spirit. A person doesn't need to be a Roman Catholic to produce good deeds of love, which can ONLY be performed through Jesus Christ. The Spirit blows where HE WILLS. Not where we will. We cannot limit God's Spirit to only certain groups of people. Jesus did not limit Himself to only the Jews. On occasions, He healed (saved) Gentiles. This, from the Gospels, should be proof enough that God CAN save even those who are non-Christians. They will be saved by Christ, not Hinduism or Islam. They will be saved by the Spirit of God working in them.
All your verses speak about those "of the world". But if a person LOVES, he is not of the "world", is he? Christ is operative within that person, as shown by the fruit he produces, the deeds of love for others - without ulterior motive. I agree there will not be many of these people, ratio-wise, but just the same, we don't know who the elect are. Just as 2000 years ago, He reached out to Samaritans and Gentiles, He continues to do so today.
The bible says we can have an assurance of our own salvation. I can only say I have a peace with my eternity, I know God has saved me. I did not deserve it, I did not earn it and without His ever present grace I could never persevere in it. God has replaced that deceptive heart with a new one, on which he sits on the throne.
1 John tells us that we can have an assurance that we are saved BY the fruit that we produce. In other words, IF we are obeying the commandments out of love, we KNOW that the Spirit of God is operative within us. It is not ourselves!!! It is God working WITH us. (as the cookie story tells). A key verse, for me, is the following:
He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:12)
Simple and to the point. If Christ abides in you (think to John 15 and the vine), you will have life. How do we know He abides in us? Our good works. Thus, if we are sinning, Christ is NOT abiding in us. We will NOT inherit the Kingdom, as Paul says. Thus, "my" good works SHOW that Christ is abiding in me. This is why it is necessary to have faith and works. As Paul states, faith without love is worthless (1 Cor 13:2). But we cannot love without faith! We need both.
That is dying well because of that inner assurance :)
I volunteered to bring Communion to Catholics in the hospital for a few months, I understand what you are saying. But inner assurance doesn't guarantee heaven. Hitler has an inner assurance he was doing the right thing by killing millions of Jews. We can know we are saved by heaven by our faith AND works. If a person dies in that state, they are assured of heaven BECAUSE God is righteous and has promised us heaven for our obedience to His graces. (not because we felt sure of it)
I would just say the bible says if you get the praise of men there are no eternal rewards
In Matthew's Gospel, the fifth chapter (Sermon on the Mount), Jesus talks about prayer, fasting and almsgiving. In each case, he tells us to DO them, but NOT to gain human praise! Thus, again, our motives are what is important. We are to fast, pray, and give to the poor - out of love of God. Jesus condemns those who do it for selfish gain. I think if a person does something out of love without intent of getting anything in return, but is praised latter on by someone who finds out, this will not take away our reward in heaven. Doesn't the Scripture tell us that NO ONE can separate us from the love of God? If we did something out of love in the first place, no one can take away our reward.
I do not know about you, but I know that my ego is still sinful enough that I like the appreciation of men, I have to be conscious at all times that the work is Gods and the glory is Gods, i am simply a tool in the hand of the master
Excellent advice. That is what St. Francis de Sales suggests in "Introduction to the Devout Life". He says to fight fits of pride (if we are good at something), we are to constantly remind ourselves that God is the giver of the gift, and He could have NOT given it to us. I try to remind myself of that as often as possible.
Now you know that was the implication of the entire story. She said look at the cookies I MADE. Lying by omission is still lying :)
Wow, I never got that response before from that story! I think you are looking beyond what even YOU do all the time:
When you say "I love you" to your children, by your logic, you are denying that God is loving through you! You are loving carnally, and thus are sinning by making such a statement...This line of thinking is utterly ridiculous. Get rid of it. When you say "I love you", it is not necessary to say "Oops, I meant, God is allowing me to love you". It is just understood. You are not DENYING that God is operative when you say I love you. In the story, the Father KNOWS the kid didn't do it alone. The KID never makes that claim either. We UNDERSTAND that God is working through us. We don't deny it. But we don't verbally say it everytime we say "I love you", do we?
The son of God praised the work of the Father IN Him .
On numerous ocassions, He did not mention His Father when He said He preached, or teached or healed. Does this mean Jesus was denying the Father??? Come on. Let's be realistic. It is not necessary that every statement of "I" be followed by "God is the source" or "God is the power behind it" or whatever. As long as we don't take pride in our action, recognizing who IS the source, then we are on the right road.
You said you were not aware of a judgment of rewards, that is was always about salvation, I pointed you to the scripture that says the elect have rewards in heaven. Perhaps there were no scriptures that said that those that 'loved less " got less rewards because there is no such scripture.
Thus, judgment is either to heaven or hell, correct?
What you do not see is Baptism or Purgatory (regarding the good thief)
We don't know that! First, how do you know the good thief was not baptized before by Christ? How do you know He didn't follow Christ, then went away in John 6 or some other point? Even if not, it is a common belief that martyrs are considered "baptized by blood" - that the Spirit is obviously present for a man to die for Christ. And secondly, we don't know how time works in the after life. It is perfectly feasible that the thief spent "time" in Purgatory and that same "day" went to Paradise. The Church has not defined this matter of how "long" our purging is in Purgatory.
He was saved by faith alone
No he wasn't, he also opened his mouth and defended Christ. He repented for his sins. That is not faith alone. It is also repentance and love in the face of persecution
Remember when Peter recognized Jesus as Lord? What did Jesus say to him?
I agree, the action of the thief was brought on by the Spirit. But it is not the only fruit (faith) that was in action within the thief.
Did he? Or did he say that the Sheep ( the elect) preform God pleasing works, and the Goats do not? He never says that they are saved by their works, He only speaks of the works done by both groups. The goats were never sheep and the sheep were never goats.
Read the parable again. The judgment is BASED upon what they did. Whether one is a sheep or a goat is determined by what they did. No sheep was judged to be uncaring, no goat was judged to be caring. Thus, judgment depended on their actions to others.
I know a works based salvation is a very tempting thing to believe. That makes us responsible for our own salvation. Men like to be responsible for themselves. There is no scripture anywhere that says one can not be saved without works, but there are scriptures that say one can not be saved without faith.
Yes, it can be tempting. But it is not what we have been taught by the Church. There are plenty of Scriptures that say that faith without works is dead or worthless - not capable of saving.
Regards
Along with Harley's good point and good verse in #1720, I would only add that you have to distinguish between your meanings of "intend" and "pre-ordain". We believe that God's plan was perfect and completely formed from the beginning. We don't believe that God makes adjustments to His plan based on "how things are going", or based on "human decisions and cooperation".
I thought we agreed that God's omniscience transcends time. If so, why would He need to change anything? God has always known about sin, and when and how it would occur throughout time. So, according to us, if God's plan was etched in stone from the beginning, then "sin" was necessarily a part of it. In fact, when you think about it, how much of God's plan is directed toward the defeat of "sin"? Tons, right? We could even go so far as to say that the existence of sin is integral to God's plan.
I see--you were referring to theologians, not the magisterium, defining/refining theological understanding of the mysteries. True. But the development of Scholasticism was directly in response to the budding commercial and political changes in the West. With the growth of commerce, the growth of kingship, with the great project to recover as much of the ancient knowledge lost at the Fall as possible (that's the project of the schools and universities in the 11th-13thc--Richard Souther, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe is the best source on this now) etc. came new questions: how does mystery X apply to this new development in war, government, commerce, intellectual life.
The East did not experience that same pattern. They had always been the more developed commercially and politically but then spent the period after 900 fighting off the Turk, exactly at the time that the West was emerging from the last great obstacle to it's take-off--the Viking invasions in the north and the Saracen raids in the Western Mediterranean.
Take the doctrine of transubstantiation, for instance. Berengar mounted a frontal attack on real presence (though Henry Chadwick thinks he was not really denying it, most scholars think he was; the controversy between Ratramnus and Paschasius in the 800s did not involve from either disputant an attack on real presence). In response to Berengar's denial, theologians spent the 1100s trying to think through a credible explanation for how the mystery they already believed in could be better understood. No such attack took place in the East. The same goes for questions about marriage and divorce, crusades, just war, usury etc. John W. Baldwin's book, Masters, Princes and Merchants, Princes (Johns Hopkins, 1972?) shows how the late 1100s early scholastics were responding to these kinds of practical questions and that's what birthed scholasticism.
The East never had the Enlightenment, which challenged belief in miracles, in revelation etc. So the West's theologians refined more and more the explanations for what both East and West had always believed. Anselm's Atonement theology was a direct response to challenges by the Jewish community in France--he owed them an accounting of our faith, as St. Peter tells us always to be ready to render.
So yes, it's true that the West, both magisterially and by theologians' work in the schools, has done more defining and refining. But in both spheres, it's because more questions were raised in more fundamental ways in the West than in the East. And in large part that's because the East was largely under the domination of Islam.
There may also be cultural differences at work: the Greek love of art and philosophy, the Roman love of law and structures. But I would be very, very cautious about giving this much explanatory power. To begin with, it's mostly a caricature of the two cultures, though, like all caricatures, it has a germ of truth to it. Secondly, even to the degree that this cultural difference exists, other, much better explanations (as I tried to give above) are more credible.
Don't embarass yourself.
Good one!!! After watching both AFC games, the truth bears this out!
regards
It is a mystery to me, one that is not fully explainable by us. Even the Church doesn't make a definition on this interaction between grace and free will. Certainly, God uses our actions to build us up. Would man learn the virtue of fortitude if everything went our way without struggle? But I don't believe that God leads His elect to sin, thus, I think we should take into account our own responsibility. My point is that I DO cooperate.
I agree with you that the source of truth does not come from me, but rather from the Spirit. It seems to me that our approaches are not completely different. Without meaning offense, I see the Catholic approach to getting truth as just including a "middleman". Ours doesn't, but we do use other teachings if we find them consistent with scripture. We just aren't bound by the view of another.
To be honest, EVERYONE receives God's teachings through "middleman", if you will. Do you believe that the Christian Scriptures are similar to the Koran, where the angel Gabriel brought them to Mohemmed (which is why Islam can NEVER reform. There is no intermediary of the "word". God's "word" about having 4 wives and killing infidels, thus, can never change...) We, as Christians, understand that God's Word came to us through other men. The Gospel of Mark came to us through Mark. We have the notion that we have God's Word AND man's interpretation or theology behind it. Thus, as history shows, Christianity is much more pliable with the "Word". Slavery. Usury. Taking oaths. We hold different views today. That is because we understand that the Scriptures must be read in human terms, as well. Otherwise, we would literally take the Scriptures at face value. NO OATHS! NO LOANS FOR MONEY! Multiple wives could be argued.
In addition to that, what about Commentaries? Preachers? We also form our beliefs based on hearing and reading these sources. No one approaches the Scriptures alone independently of any other person.
You rely on God and the Church, I rely on God and the Bible.
I don't see the Church's approach as excluding the Bible. However, I see the "Bible and me" approach to be limited and not historically accurate means of Christians coming to God. First, you forget that the Church came first. The Church taught and teaches, even without the Bible. St. Ireneaus wrote in 180 AD about people who held to the faith ENTIRELY WITHOUT the Scriptures. We see this even today in the third world, where people can't read. Christian evangelists are finding that giving out Bibles is not the answer. We hear the Word through preaching. Sure, the preachers are well-versed in the Scriptures, but it is not necessary for the lay people to be. Very few Christians owned Bibles before 1500, not because of Luther, but because of lack of literacy and expense of hand-copying the book. Yet, the faith continued on through the teachings of the Church.
Not to be flippant, but one side reads the book, and the other side reads the book and adds other stuff. The difference is whether it is OK to add other stuff.
I have already addressed this partially above. It would be more accurate to say "one side teaches, using a book and using other means" and "one side teaches ONLY from a book". The Scriptures themselves never make the claim that Protestants make: The Scriptures are the sole rule of faith. The Church never makes that claim either. Rather, the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. From the CHURCH came the writings of the Apostles. It was only later on did Christians realize these writings were inspired by God - ONLY because they were totally in-line with what they had been taught, both oral and in written form (2 Thes 2:14). The chronological and theological precedent was set by the teaching and preaching Church, not a book. Again, Christ left a body of men to continue His presence in the world and bring the Kingdom of God to others. He didn't leave a book. It would be more accurate to say that Protestants LEAVE OUT teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
The Bible gives us everything we need to know, not everything we want to know
The Bible doesn't explain its position on many issues. How about the Real Presence of the Eucharist? According to Catholics, it is crystal clear. To Protestants, it is some sort of symbol. What about infant baptism? Christians for centuries believed and practiced it - until the latter Reformers came along (not Luther). The Scriptures are not a systematic Catechism, but a compilation of letters and narratives. THEY ALONE do not give us everything we need to know. Although they describe liturgy, what EXACTLY is to take place in Christian worship of Christ? How EXACTLY are we to Baptize? There are many practical issues that the Scripture ASSUMES people already know. Remember, Christian evangelists FIRST went to communities and taught by oral word and practice. They didn't pass out tracts and leave the next day. The Scriptures note that Paul stayed at some of his communities, such as Ephesus and Corinth, for a number of months. I seriously doubt they practiced NT Bible study!
Yes, because it wasn't written yet. (Scripture) I don't think we can know (or, I don't know) whether Jesus said anything about a future scripture. But, if we believe that scripture was God-breathed, then it must have been the intent of God that it be written. And so it was.
God's intent, as you have pointed out, is what happens. Thus, no Scripture, no intent. Yes, Scripture is God-breathed. We base our belief on it and the teachings of the Church, which form ONE body of teaching. Who first taught? Apostles. Who wrote Scriptures? Apostles. Thus, the two should match and not contradict. If we believe that God is protecting His Church, as He promised, we can believe that solemn pronouncements ARE indeed protected, since Christ said He would protect His CHURCH from the Gates of Hell. If we believe in Christ and trust in Him, it is not a big step to trust that the Church is executing God's will when it defines doctrine to be believed by the faithful.
Regards
Probably. Perhaps, though, it is like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg. Western Catholic culture was responsible to a large degree for the above political and commercial changes in the West, correct? I think there is a recent number of scholars who are beginning to see the connection to Catholicism and Western Europe's culture and way of life, esp. in education, law, commerce, and scientific study.
The East did not experience that same pattern. They had always been the more developed commercially and politically but then spent the period after 900 fighting off the Turk, exactly at the time that the West was emerging from the last great obstacle to it's take-off--the Viking invasions in the north and the Saracen raids in the Western Mediterranean.
Agree. Byzantium provided much of that and the fall of Rome in the 400's certainly set both cultures onto different paths of development. To a degree, I would say this had something to do with theological thought, both orthodox and heterodox. I do find that heretical thinking was quite rampant in Constantinople. I believe the bishop was removed for heresy some 18 times before the Schism. I would imagine most would attribute this to Caesaropapism in the East. I am not too familiar with Eastern development of doctrine after 1054, so I can't say if this continued. However, it seems clear that the Pope continued to fight against secular powers trying to usurp power, sometimes successfully, while the East seemed to fall in line with the secular powers of the area. Again, I think this might have more to do with development of theological thought.
The East never had the Enlightenment, which challenged belief in miracles, in revelation etc. So the West's theologians refined more and more the explanations for what both East and West had always believed. Anselm's Atonement theology was a direct response to challenges by the Jewish community in France--he owed them an accounting of our faith, as St. Peter tells us always to be ready to render.
It would be interesting to speculate why there was no Enlightenment in the East. Probably a combination of science, philosophy, and the development of religious thought that began to call into question things taken for granted in the past. Once you start questioning traditional viewpoints, it is only a matter of time before religious origins and traditions are questioned. Remember, "everyone" knew the earth was flat...
So yes, it's true that the West, both magisterially and by theologians' work in the schools, has done more defining and refining. But in both spheres, it's because more questions were raised in more fundamental ways in the West than in the East. And in large part that's because the East was largely under the domination of Islam.
I would also add that the East did not have a FORM of bringing such doctrinal disputes to rest. I believe the East has learned that the Papacy had a legitimate purpose - especially evident when one looks to the number of Ecumenical Councils held in the East...none. Without an Ecumenical Council, such matters cannot be resolved.
There may also be cultural differences at work: the Greek love of art and philosophy, the Roman love of law and structures.
It's easy to fall into such quick and easy answers to complicated historical questions. The truth is that there are many more factors involved behind the scenes. History is a complicated science of interaction.
Regards
No, I am not explaining God with Pats either by likening God to Pats or by making God a Pats' fan. I am merely making a comment about the nature of causation, and I make use of the Pats who cannot be said to cause their own defeat. Or at least properly you cannot. You can say that a particular fumble "caused" the defeat, for simplicity of language, but it was not willful causation. Beyond that, God has nothing to do with the Pats. God "causes" evil only in the sense that He allows some free agent to cause it in order to preserve that free agent's freedom. In St. Augustine's formulation, God does not will or cause evil, but it allows evil to happen so that to prevent a greater evil, which He, in His infinite wisdom, perceives.
So the Holy Spirit indwells you BECAUSE of Communion? So everyone even an infidel that is not a believer "gets the holy spirit IN him and gets eternal life because he went to communion?
That is but one problem I see with that reading of John 6, when it is not taken as the metaphor it was, but literally. Then it says that EVERYONE that ever went to communion is saved for eternity. So then we come back to can the Holy Spirit indwell an unsaved man?
Please show me anywhere in scripture that Jesus promised to give grace for confession. marriage, holy orders etc.
I believe the Catholic definition of a sacrament is that it was instituted by Christ to give grace. Other than Communion, I see no evidence of the institution of a sacrament by Christ, nor that HE promised it would give grace.So I would be very interested in what kind of Biblical citations are used for the institution of a sacrament or that it gives grace.
The regenerating efficacy of baptism is conveyed in, and by, the divine word alone.
Of course. The water does nothing in of itself but SIGNIFY that a person has been cleansed internally. When the Church performs the ritual, God has promised that the Spirit would come and forgive sins. He is thus saved (healed).
I believe that the church teaches it is the "ritual words "I Baptize you ....." are what regenerates.
Seeing scripture demands that a man repent and believe, the passive child has a ritual preformed that regenerates hi m. Is there a scripture that teaches that a passive child, with no desire in their heart ( Baptism of desire) and without repenting and believing is regenerated?
BTW This is a sacrament that was not 'instituted by Christ but is one traditional to jews at that time and practiced by John, what text does the church use to prove that it was instituted by Christ to give grace?
What is salvation? It has several definitions. To me, it means a "healing". In the spiritual realm, that means that sins have been forgiven.
Call it what you will
God chose Greek as the language of the New Testament because it is a precise language. The word salvation (soteria ) has a definite meaning
1) deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation
a) deliverance from the molestation of enemies
b) in an ethical sense, that which concludes to the souls safety or salvation
1) of Messianic salvation
2) salvation as the present possession of all true Christians
3) future salvation, the sum of benefits and blessings which the Christians, redeemed from all earthly ills, will enjoy after the visible return of Christ from heaven in the consummated and eternal kingdom of God.
++++ Fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and most importantly the pleasure of sin. A.W. Pink
That is what Salvation means and the meaning that God intended us to have
There has been a remission of sins. Again, I have quoted verses that show that Baptism provides a remission of sins.
Those verses were applied to those that have repented and believed, the repentance and belief always came first
Merely saying "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not going to "heal" me.
I agree that the practice of believing the "sinners prayer" has any power to save is in my mind equivalent to believing pouring water over some one does. There are many that believe loved family members are saved because they "said the prayer" . I will say however that an unsaved man can not say that Jesus is Lord from a regenerate heart . He could mouth the words, but Jesus is NOT his Lord or Savior
While the Spirit is operative within you before your water baptism, sins are not forgiven until the Baptism.
We disagree. I was baptized as an infant, that was my parents decision, thirty years later I fell on my face before God in repentance, and gave Christ my life. THEN I was a new creature in Christ, then I was born again. My infant baptism was a ritual, yes like circumcision .
It is through the visible signs that God works behind the scenes and cleanses our inner invisible self. The water ITSELF does nothing but gets us wet. However, when we SEE the water, and KNOW what the Church is doing, WE KNOW that that person is being saved.
We disagree :)
Does the infant baptized speak a word of faith FIRST?
The "word" comes from the priest performing the ritual. He says "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The "word" is the Trinity, God. Not the person's faith proclamation.
Please show me that in scripture? Show me where the confession of another saved someone.
You seem to be saying that Baptism is a work of the person being baptized. Does anything show that Baptism is entirely a gift from God like infant baptism does?
Biblically baptism was preformed on professing men and women here was no power from the one performing it
The infant has done NOTHING to deserve salvation. By your line of thinking, it appears that we must first conjure up enough faith within yourself for our baptism to be effective - a work.
No GOD must give us the faith to believe.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God!
Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Do you believe that? Did you believe that as an infant?
<There are few Muslims that have not HEARD and refused the gospel. Their denial of Christ IS hatred of Christ. It seems you have no problem believing contrary to scripture that men can be saved without Christ, and the Holy Spirit of God will indwell one that does not know Christ.
I disagree. First, Muslims haven't heard the Good News, only a distorted version of it from the mullahs - who don't know it either.
The gospel has gone out to all the world. Every Muslim American has heard of Christ and has heard the gospel on TV, Radio or on the internet. The Muslims in other parts of the world are also exposed to the gospel by Missionaries ( in Europe and Africa) and in all other nations by Radio and the internet and TV. They have heard it and reject it.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Only another Christian can preach the Good News, it is not a philosophy you get from reading a book.
Even nations like Iraq have a Christian population there is a Christian witness , God has a remnant of His people everywhere to carry out His commission.
Thus, they are not denying Christ, only a straw man of Christ. Next, I never said that they can be saved WITHOUT Christ. Christ is operative, we KNOW, when that person performs good works, fruits of the Holy Spirit. A person doesn't need to be a Roman Catholic to produce good deeds of love, which can ONLY be performed through Jesus Christ. The Spirit blows where HE WILLS. Not where we will. We cannot limit God's Spirit to only certain groups of people. Jesus did not limit Himself to only the Jews. On occasions, He healed (saved) Gentiles. This, from the Gospels, should be proof enough that God CAN save even those who are non-Christians. They will be saved by Christ, not Hinduism or Islam. They will be saved by the Spirit of God working in them.
So let me understand your position. The Holy Spirit indwells people that refuse the gospel and deny the divinity of Christ? So that one that worships a cow may be saved because Christ by the Holy Spirit indwells him?
Could I have a scriptures to confirm that ? MY bible says the work of the Holy Spirit is to convict us of sin and lead us into all truth. My Bible says the Spirit of Christ only indwells those that are Christ's . The fact they deny Christ is PROOF that they have no indwelling Holy Spirit
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Their very denial of Christ testifies that they do not have the Holy Spirit in them. No man can say Jesus is Lord BUT by the Holy Spirit.
According to your theology Jesus had no need to send the apostles out into the world to give them the gospel, we have no need to send missionaries. There is not one wit of scripture to support this position of yours.
The bible says we can have an assurance of our own salvation. I can only say I have a peace with my eternity, I know God has saved me. I did not deserve it, I did not earn it and without His ever present grace I could never persevere in it. God has replaced that deceptive heart with a new one, on which he sits on the throne.
1 John tells us that we can have an assurance that we are saved BY the fruit that we produce. In other words, IF we are obeying the commandments out of love, we KNOW that the Spirit of God is operative within us. It is not ourselves!!! It is God working WITH us. (as the cookie story tells). A key verse, for me, is the following:
He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:12)
And this says what about works?
Simple and to the point. If Christ abides in you (think to John 15 and the vine), you will have life. How do we know He abides in us? Our good works.
Here is what my bible tells me
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
Gods work in us is a mark of our faith and salvation. But even the heathen does "good works" so if one looks to his works as PROOF of his salvation he might be very surprised on judgment day when Christ says "I never knew you"
Thus, if we are sinning, Christ is NOT abiding in us. We will NOT inherit the Kingdom, as Paul says. Thus, "my" good works SHOW that Christ is abiding in me. This is why it is necessary to have faith and works. As Paul states, faith without love is worthless (1 Cor 13:2).
Does he ?
1Cr 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
he says HE is nothing if he is not motivated by the Love . He does not say it is a test of salvation or that his Faith is useless. No one disputes the importance of love in our lives, families and ministries, but even the heathen can "love" the important difference is who generates that love and what is it source? We return to the fact that the unsaved do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit or Christ.
Do you know anyone that does not sin? Can any man keep the law perfectly? if we use that as a test, then Christ came in vain and died for nothing, I simply earn my own salvation
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5
Romans 3:28"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Galatians 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
But we cannot love without faith! We need both.
I agree that the love of the unsaved is carnal and self serving and of no eternal benefit. But in honesty we need to say that do love, so love is not an assurance of salvation IMHO>
That is dying well because of that inner assurance :)
I volunteered to bring Communion to Catholics in the hospital for a few months, I understand what you are saying. But inner assurance doesn't guarantee heaven.
If one doubts the Holy Spirit can give the assurance He promises in scripture I can see why you would say that
Hitler has an inner assurance he was doing the right thing by killing millions of Jews.
How do you know that ? Hitler was following his carnal nature he has no witness of the Holy Spirit. Please do not confuse human desire and assurance with the assurance that is promised to those that are his.
We can know we are saved by heaven by our faith AND works. If a person dies in that state, they are assured of heaven BECAUSE God is righteous and has promised us heaven for our obedience to His graces. (not because we felt sure of it)
Actually we do agree here that we also know because God is faithful to his promises.I do not see anywhere we are saved by works, in fact scripture says just the opposite. You substitute love for works when you look for supportive texts, but the heathens love and the heathens do "good work" . Love is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. It is a PROOF of our salvation not its roots.
You said you were not aware of a judgment of rewards, that is was always about salvation, I pointed you to the scripture that says the elect have rewards in heaven. Perhaps there were no scriptures that said that those that 'loved less " got less rewards because there is no such scripture.
Thus, judgment is either to heaven or hell, correct?
Salvation is a gift, scripture indicates there are rewards given for faithfulness in the Christian life I believe our greatest reward is Christ. But scripture indicates that there are rewards for our faithfulness and obedience
“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Rev 22:12-13)
1 Cor 3:5-8 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.
Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
These rewards are actually for His work in us and in gratitude that day we will caste them at His feet
What you do not see is Baptism or Purgatory (regarding the good thief)
We don't know that! First, how do you know the good thief was not baptized before by Christ?
If he was, and it was an essential matter of faith it would have been recorded by the Holy Spirit. We can not make up doctrine out of silence
How do you know He didn't follow Christ, then went away in John 6 or some other point?
That is doctrine built on sand :) There is no evidence that the man ever knew Christ. I believe that the recording of that account is there as a lesson to us on the nature of God's grace and mercy and the work of the Holy Spirit in men to bring them to repentance.
Even if not, it is a common belief that martyrs are considered "baptized by blood" - that the Spirit is obviously present for a man to die for Christ. And secondly, we don't know how time works in the after life. It is perfectly feasible that the thief spent "time" in Purgatory and that same "day" went to Paradise. The Church has not defined this matter of how "long" our purging is in Purgatory.
Did Christ say to Him this day , after you have paid for your sins you will be with me in paradise ? This would have been an ideal time for Christ to confirm the need for Baptism and the reality of purgatory. But instead He said THIS DAY you will be with me in Purgatory. Christ was still alive and still operating on the human clock of time.
He was saved by faith alone
No he wasn't, he also opened his mouth and defended Christ. He repented for his sins. That is not faith alone. It is also repentance and love in the face of persecution Actually he followed the protestant soterology, Repent and believe. Was that Human love or the love of the Holy Spirit in him?
Remember when Peter recognized Jesus as Lord? What did Jesus say to him?
I agree, the action of the thief was brought on by the Spirit. But it is not the only fruit (faith) that was in action within the thief
The knowledge and the recognition, of who Christ was that led to the repentance and the confession of faith, that came from the self same Holy Spirit that led Peter to say Christ was Lord , and that led me to fall on my face before a Holy God. That Holy Spirit must open our eyes and bring us to repentance and faith. not the kind of faith that says the train will be on time, but a faith to salvation .
Read the parable again. The judgment is BASED upon what they did. Whether one is a sheep or a goat is determined by what they did. No sheep was judged to be uncaring, no goat was judged to be caring. Thus, judgment depended on their actions to others
NO I think you need to read it. Before Christ ever judged them he put the sheep on one side and the goats on the other. Goats are goats and sheep are sheep, goats were never sheep and sheep were never goats. Jesus was very clear
Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
The sheep fed the hungry and clothed the naked BECAUSE they were his sheep, because they followed His voice. They were not his sheep because they did good deeds, they were his sheep because they knew his voice and followed Him .
The goats may have done "good deeds" but they were carnal and were self serving. To God their "'good works" because they were not attached to the vine they were dead works
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
I think this summary of that final judgment written by David Brown is meaningful ( and seeing it speaks of the Love of God and works done from that love
The whole story of this their blessedness is given by the apostle, in words which seem but an expression of these: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." They were chosen from everlasting to the possession and enjoyment of all spiritual blessings in Christ, and so chosen in order to be holy and blameless in love. This is the holy love whose practical manifestations the King is about to recount in detail; and thus we see that their whole life of love to Christ is the fruit of an eternal purpose of love to them in Christ."
I know a works based salvation is a very tempting thing to believe. That makes us responsible for our own salvation. Men like to be responsible for themselves. There is no scripture anywhere that says one can not be saved without works, but there are scriptures that say one can not be saved without faith.
Yes, it can be tempting. But it is not what we have been taught by the Church. There are plenty of Scriptures that say that faith without works is dead or worthless - not capable of saving.
There is ONE scripture that says faith without works is dead, and that is addressing already saved men on how to show their faith.
As a protestant I see all belief that grace comes through sacramental participation as a work. You do something and then God responds by paying you ( in a sense) . As a protestant I see that the thought that one is saved as an infant and it is now theirs to keep or loose as a works based salvation because the works are self benefiting
We have a very different soteriology .
May I ask a question of you? As a Catholic do you see your salvation comes through the church?
Hmmm. This could be interesting. :) I suppose I see the writings in the Bible in the sense that God was the source subject and final editor. The writers were really ghost writers, not truly authors. Of course we see individual writing styles, distinct personalities, and appropriately targeted audiences in the writings. But, every jot and tittle of the finished product was produced by God.
For this reason, I see the Bible as inerrant, and not subject to the personal interpretation of any of the physical writers. In your example, do you believe that Mark's personal interpretation of God's truth is found in his book? I know that you'll agree that there was inspiration, but do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and independent of man's "translation" through the physical writing by the "authors"?
That is because we understand that the Scriptures must be read in human terms, as well. Otherwise, we would literally take the Scriptures at face value. NO OATHS! NO LOANS FOR MONEY! Multiple wives could be argued.
I would say that the scriptures themselves already provide for that. Jesus Himself taught that common sense could be used:
Matt. 12:9-12 : "9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 11 He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
So, due only to scripture, and not through man's extra-biblical interpretation, we know that, say, police and medical personnel can do "works" on the Sabbath, and not violate a Commandment.
In addition to that, what about Commentaries? Preachers? We also form our beliefs based on hearing and reading these sources. No one approaches the Scriptures alone independently of any other person.
Very true. My test is always whether the teaching holds water against the Bible. I hold my own pastor very strictly to this test. If he ever said anything I didn't think matched scripture according to my own understanding, I would ask him about it. He would either be able to back up his teaching with the Bible or I would not accept his teaching. I would even test his own interpretation against all of his other interpretations for consistency.
I don't see the Church's approach as excluding the Bible.
I really didn't mean to imply that. I know the Bible is important to you. My angle was from the point of authority. I meant to posit that if there was a point on which your "gut" and the Church teaching disagreed, that you would accept the teaching of the Church. I have interpreted that for you, Church declaration trumps what might make the most sense to you. (Maybe this has never happened?)
... I see the "Bible and me" approach to be limited and not historically accurate means of Christians coming to God. First, you forget that the Church came first. The Church taught and teaches, even without the Bible.
Well, yes, but what they were teaching is what is now in the Bible, for the most part. I have nothing against oral witnessing at all. God intended that we do it. My point is that the things in the Bible, whether read off a page today, or communicated orally back then or to the illiterate today, are the authority. Jesus showed me what He thought of scripture during the temptation in the desert. He did not utter a single original word. He only quoted scripture. I see a teaching from Jesus in that.
Christian evangelists are finding that giving out Bibles is not the answer.
??? Could you please elaborate on this? I don't know of anyone who thinks that you can just throw a Bible at someone, leave, and then expect results. That's why missionaries stay in the community for long periods of time.
Sure, the preachers are well-versed in the Scriptures, but it is not necessary for the lay people to be.
I would say that it isn't necessary for salvation, for the essence of the gospel message is understandable even to a child. But, I would say that it is absolutely necessary to everyone for the process of sanctification. To love God more is to know Him better. If no scripture is available this "can" be done through men, as long as the teachings are correct by God's standards. If scripture is available then I would commend every Christian to read them, meditate on them, and ask questions of those who know the truth. The purpose is to increase our love for God.
The Scriptures themselves never make the claim that Protestants make: The Scriptures are the sole rule of faith.
Perhaps not directly, because it did not exist until it did. None of the writers could have known which other writers and teachings would be in the finished product, the Bible. However, I think there is a case that the Bible asserts its own authority. Here is a short passage from A.A. Hodge on the authority of scripture:
"What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?
1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.
2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.
3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.
4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.
------------------------
Again, Christ left a body of men to continue His presence in the world and bring the Kingdom of God to others. He didn't leave a book. It would be more accurate to say that Protestants LEAVE OUT teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
What was Jesus supposed to do? Zap a book into existence, throw it into the sand and tell them "Have at it"? At the time when Jesus ascended, much of the NT had not happened yet, so how could there be a book? You might be supporting your point on the losing end of a logistics argument here.
Protestants do leave out extra-biblical teachings as AUTHORITY in and of themselves.
The Bible doesn't explain its position on many issues. How about the Real Presence of the Eucharist? According to Catholics, it is crystal clear. To Protestants, it is some sort of symbol. What about infant baptism? Christians for centuries believed and practiced it - until the latter Reformers came along (not Luther).
I agree that the Bible doesn't explain everything.
John 21:24-25 : "24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
Catholics look to Church hierarchy to fill in the holes. We look to see what is consistent with the Bible. On infant baptism, I know many Protestant churches still practice it today. As a Southern Baptist, I had no problem having both my (then) infant children baptized in other churches for family reasons. It was no big deal. I just knew that it didn't mean much because Jesus clearly laid out the order, first belief, then baptism.
Although they [scriptures] describe liturgy, what EXACTLY is to take place in Christian worship of Christ? How EXACTLY are we to Baptize?
Perhaps by not laying out specific instructions, God is telling us that the form is not so important, but rather the faith.
Just a suggestion.
Carry on.
I will try to limit the subject on my next posts to these people. It is taking me a long time to answer each of these two Christians!
Regards
There are numerous replies to that question on this thread alone. The short answer lies in the interpretation of all as in all men. Since Scripture is inerrant & since Scripture under illumination of the Holy Spirit is properly used to interpret Scripture it is advisable to do so. So if you will note there are many Scriptures that seem to the natural man to say the opposite.
So if you are concerned about such things you might perform a word search in a study of the various meanings of all. If you performed that word study of the underlying word which is translated all you will find that all is frequently not meant in any universal sense. That of course is also true of the plain old English use of the word in everday life.
I admit that man being involved in a separate but equal sense in his salvation gets God off the hook, but only superficially, for "how in the world did sin get into Adam & us!?"; that in spite of the three omni's of an all loving God; but God is off the hook only superficially.
If I could answer the question of sin under the light of nature or the light of grace I would be God; realizing that, I have not asked the question you have asked since January of 1970 when confronted with Romans 9. At that time I realized that my asking that question alone implied that I was making myself more righteous than God (I was helped by Job 4:17, Job 40:8, Rom 9 & ...)
Your answer is superficial in that, in view of the three omni's of an all loving God, you also have a question beyond the question. Take a guess at that question; it begins “Why would a …?”
Currently some so-called theologians are removing at least one of the three omni’s to get God off the hook for the entrance of sin; or they might simply deny God’s sovereignty over His creation. All of this is in my opinion replete with the worst kind of sophistry.
The only answer natural man has to the epoch event that ushered in sin that is consistent with the three omni's of an all loving God is universal salvation; salvation for all angels & men (all in the universal sense you posed in your opening question). That does not appear to me to be consistent with Scripture; however there are men who hold that view.
The only answer, in my opinion, for believers is to not ask the question; after all what were the answers Jesus gave to Satan & others regarding entrapment type questions. We must of course trust & rely on the Scripture that God is not the author of sin. Then for those of us who believe that that old heretic from the 1500’s had it right when he spoke in a teaching way about three lights, the lights of nature, grace, & glory, we can resort to the light of glory. As for myself I guess that none of us will either want to know and/or be told the answer
I will even go so far as to say that neither you nor I should challenge the other with the question because it will nearly always be asked in a rhetorical sense. I believe that some have honestly asked the question so I am not trying to avoid it when asked honestly outside of what is clearly a debate. However I am quite certain the answer will be the same as, or similar to, the “old heretic of the 1500’s” non-answer.
I will try to answer the other half of the first question on another post. To be continued:
I think RN's last post may have set a record. But I must confess, I didn't read it. I'm waiting for the Readers' Digest version. :-)
make that, a common modern perception.
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.