Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
LOL! If I willfully sin (commit mortal sin), I am "unsaved". Again. Pretty clear - but we disagree! Wow, if we only had an authoritative interpretation on this. I guess we'll never know what if we can willfully sin and still enter heaven...
I don't understand your reaction at all. I was merely pointing out our difference. You would say that such a defiant sin changes a person from saved to unsaved. I would say such a sin means the person was never saved in the first place.
FK: "Habitual behavior like some of those Jews would be good evidence that they were not saved yet."
That sounds like something a "works" salvation person would say! Isn't this so interesting? So when you make the sinner's prayer, you don't really know you are saved, because you first must see the "habitual behavior"? Hmm. :-)
No, no, no. :) I meant that it would be good evidence to those of you all who NEED evidence, along with the Protestant believers who have not reached a certain level of sanctification. The mature Christian needs no evidence, he lives the evidence.
I will fully admit that probably most Protestants who say the sinner's prayer have no full clue what they really have after it's over. That was the case with me. It was years before I could say with confidence that I was 100% saved. I now know that I have no need to see any further evidence that isn't already a sure thing.
Being disqualified does not entitle a person who raced a prize, does it? Again, either a person is judged worthy for full entrance into heaven, or he is disqualified to hell. You are reading what is not there, even using your NIV (I presume), which is not the best of translations, being it is not a literal one.
I thought you were focusing on the "not running to an uncertain thing" part. I don't see Paul at all being unassured, I see him teaching that we should be mindful not to take a OSAS attitude, lest we be disqualified. I don't see how this SHOWS that Paul was unassured. What am I reading that isn't there?
Yes, I am using the NIV. I like it expressly because it isn't word for word, but rather idea for idea. I believe Kosta used a similar argument several posts ago to defend the belief in the Bible's inerrancy even given the various translations, sources, etc.
It seems to me that you got me going in circles, after so many posts. Do you believe you are saved during the sinner's prayer or not? What role (if you are saved on that day) do actions play, then?
Well, I may have explained what I mean better in a future post to yours that I'm responding to now, but I would say that salvation is complete in one moment "as far as we're concerned". God PROMISES that Christ will continue the good work that He began in us, so the future actions WILL happen.
We are not "concerned" about our salvation, it is complete from God's POV from the beginning of time. From our POV, it is complete at the sinner's prayer, SINCE the future included actions are automatically included in a true salvation. So, we don't WORRY about whether we will do them, we WILL, if the salvation was true. This is how we "rest".
Are future actions part of the picture? Yes. We don't wonder at all if they will occur because God already promises us that they will, if we are truly His children. God promises to keep us, as He loves His children. If I believe I can reasonably put myself into this picture of salvation, including all of God's promises, then I have assurance.
FK: "There is no choice involved, there is no free will involved to do good. God runs everything."
Man has no free will? Oh, I hope we aren't going down that road again...
This just goes to my holding that God deserves all the credit for all good done. We PERCEIVE in our existence that we participated in doing good, and even that we chose to do it. That doesn't make it real. Just like in your cookie story with the daughter.
FK: "We don't know what's going to happen so we don't know how our sanctification is going to take shape, but we do know that it will happen. [Along with] Sure, Christ carrying on His work until completion is necessary, but since it's a lock for the truly saved, I see it as being wrapped up for all intents and purposes initially."
AHHHHHH! (Hair being pulled out). I'll never figure out this if you keep going back and forth! I thought you KNEW you were of the Elect! You are starting to sound Catholic - you don't know what will happen, but rely on God's graces to sanctify us. Well, let's keep talking!
Please, save your hair! If I had any to spare I would give it to you. :) I am being perfectly consistent. If you look at my first statement, the key word is "so". That connects the first part to the second part. In the first part I am saying that we cannot tell the future in terms of specific events.
THEREFORE, I continue, we can't know exactly how our sanctification will play out. (I think I was saying this to show the usefulness of sanctification from our POV.) In the third part of my first statement I confirm the idea that we don't know HOW or WHEN we will do whatever good deeds we will ever do, BUT THAT they will happen for all those of the elect.
My second statement just backs this up. Yes, we do KNOW we are of the elect. We can't read the future in terms of specific events, but we know that whatever saving events or actions that are required to reach heaven will be achieved by God's elect. God promises us that this will happen. So, we can "rest", but not turn away. God promises that He won't let that (permanently fall away) happen either.
God Bless.
I think your characterization of what I'm saying is very accurate, Kolo, AND, I think I know where Kosta is coming from in his objection. From what I have learned about theosis, I would put that at the end of our life-long sanctification process. When I said my sinner's prayer, I was not mature or whole or fully Christ-like, or any of those types of things. Sanctification brings us toward that goal.
AND, in the same breath I say that at the sinner's prayer I was "saved". So, if I had died the day after saying the prayer, with no sanctification, I'm still in. Or, if years later I raised my fist and cursed God defiantly and on a permanent basis, then my sinner's prayer was false and I was never saved in the first place. (Based on what I know now, I don't worry that this is a possibility because of God's promises.)
I have been saying that salvation is a one time event, WITH future included actions that are certain to occur. Not to be too legalistic, but I believe that these future included actions are both a "guarantee" by God through scripture, and a "guaranty" by God's authority. Jesus clearly teaches us what the saved man looks like. God will ensure that all of His elect look like that.
I agree with FK and he is perfectly consistent in what he is saying. Calvinists do NOT believe that man has no will. Calvinists believe man's will is bound to sin. The Son sets us free from that bondage. Once God has set us free His work is perfect and complete and WE WILL make the decision to follow Christ. But one we are set free we will ALWAYS make the decision to follow Christ.
God enlightens the mind and we choose to follow Christ. Where we disagree from Orthodox, Catholics and many Protestants is over this issue. Everyone else feels that somehow God enlightens and we sit around thinking, "Hmmmm, heaven, hell, heaven, hell????" The fact of the matter is that once God shows us the road to heaven, we have found the pearl of great price and truly desire it.
This was the whole concept of being a "bond servant" which the apostles compared themselves to. We WANT God to put a ring in our ear to be His servant forever more. It doesn't mean servants don't do stupid things. It means that we are now the property of a King.
So, now we are introducing yet another twist to theology, according to FK, that has heretofore not been mentioned – on a permanent basis. I won't go into what "permanent" means, maybe we can discuss that on another thread.
But, I suppose, you can raise your fist and curse God every now and then and still be saved? Is that what it means?
However, you still fail to tell me who is doing all this – your will or God's will. If it is God's will, as I would imagine you will say, then why worry about it? Right? You are doing God's will either way, correct?
Since God is just, then your damnation from all eternity is just as well. It makes no difference in your theology whether you accept Jesus Chirst as your Savior (the "accept" here is only illusiory anyway, since it is God who makes the decision whether you will accept Christ or not): you are doing God's will either way and are therefore always obedient to God (there is no choice in this at all according to your theology), even if you are enslaved by sin (again, only if God wants you to be enslaved by sin!).
So, even if you shake your fist at God, "on a permanent basis" instead of pray sinner's prayer (why pray, God does not change His mind!?), be glad that it's all in the Plan.
Either way, you are where God wants you to be and will end up where God already determined you will end up. The rest is gravy. That's Calvinism for you. Saved or unsaved, it's none of your doing, you are in God's hands! So, wherever you end up, don't worry, be happy.
I still don't see any "twist" in FK statement. Peter denied Christ three times well after saying Jesus was the Christ. Certainly we would all agree he didn't lose his salvation. If anything he was made more stronger for the situation.
People see people fall away all the time and misconstrued they've "lost" their salvation. This is man's perspective. If God is "out of time" as many of you claim (and I would agree) then God knows when that person is going to raise their fist and fall away. Why then would we believe they had salvation and then lost it? God never granted it to them in the first place. John states that "They went out from us for they were not of us, for if they had been of us they would have continued with us." That sums it up nicely.
Thank you for all of your answers on this, they are very consistent. As I was thinking about this I slapped my head and said "Forest, you idiot! You're an evangelical!" :) It's funny, at this very moment our Youth Minister has a small team in Torino for the main purpose of riding around on shuttle buses, wandering through the Olympic Village, etc. and striking up conversations with whomever. He's been doing this every two years since 1996. He then blogs back to us how it's going and they really are interesting stories.
Even in every normal Sunday service, we will ask that any visitor tear out a portion of the worship guide, write down their contact info, and leave it in the collection plate. One of the staff will then follow up with a phone call to visit with them and answer any questions, etc. It's a pretty "soft sell". :)
True, liturgical tradition is not considered "Apostolic". But the "sense of the faithful" is often expressed in the Liturgy, even if unknowingly. For example, I believe it was St. Athanasius who argued vs. Arius that Jesus MUST be God BECAUSE even the Arians were worshiping Jesus as God during the Mass! Lex orendi, lex credendi, right? I would agree with you, that the various rituals are indeed subject to change, the language, and so forth. But the overall "scheme" of the Divine Liturgy is a teaching moment that extends back to the Apostles, I believe.
Brother in Christ
+Peter never stopped believing in Christ, nor did he ever curse God. There is a slight difference there, counselor.
My point is, from the Calvinist perspective, "why does it matter?" Peter's denial of Christ was only what God wanted him to do. Just as Judas' betrayal of Christ was obeying God's will. Just as Pontius Pilate and the Pharaoh were doing God's work and, ultimately -- to reiterate the belief held by Judaism -- that satan is but God's obedient servant which, by necessity, Calvinism must admit too.
It doesn't matter, because regardless which role you play in this "plan" you keep brining up, all the actors on the stage of this world are God's obedient servants, whether they be villains or heroes. All are God's chosen one way or another.
Which begs the question: why pray, why repent; why redeem; why save? Your prayers could not possibly be of hep, because you say God doesn't change His mind; he sealed everyone's fate from the beginning. Your repentance is spiritually void because you say that whatever you do is simply because it's God's will. Our redemption is unnecessary because we never sinned; we simply obeyed God. We don't need to be saved, because we did not sin; we only did and do and will do what God and no one else pre-ordained to be done.
If everything is is God's will, lest we "thwart God," then nothing is our will. If nothing is our will, then we are always slaves to righteousness, since either way is God's will, and His will is always righteous and just.
The "Gospel" is an oral proclamation first. Certainly, it is recorded in Scripture, but I don't see the necessity to say that the Scriptures have encapsulated ALL of the Apostolic Teachings in clear format. Much of the Christian teachings through history were given by a person's knowledge of Christianity, not by necessarily reading a book, but by one's actions and the proclamation - that Jesus is Lord and is Risen!
Acceptance is only meaningful if we understand at least the basics of what Christianity is
History has proven that men can know God WITHOUT the Bible in hand, true? Now, we probably are arguing a moot, meaningless point - the Bible IS available to many people. But even in third world countries were illiteracy is high, we see Christianity IS expanding. I believe that even in the case of Protestant Evangelists, they are able to spread the Good News more by their actions, by being a light of Christ, rather than reading about some 2000 year old Jews. It is one's witness that brings people to the Bible, not vice versus.
Maybe I have been misinterpreting what "tradition" is all along. I pinged you to a post a little while before this one on this topic. I have been thinking that tradition is extra-Biblical, not automatically wrong, but not in the Bible.
We divide Tradition into two components: Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical. The latter is changeable. Things that the Church instituted to promote piety or virtue, etc. Things such as Fasting on Friday during Lent. That is not set in stone, but we obey it because the Church has given it to us as a means of advancing our sanctification. The former, Apostolic, are Traditions that are not EXPLICITLY in the Scriptures - but are NOT EXCLUDED by Scriptures, either. They ARE written and expounded on, but not within the Scriptures. Latter Christians witness to their source - the Apostles.
A good example of this is infant Baptism. It is not EXPLICITLY mentioned in Scriptures. One COULD see it - Christ said do not keep the children away from Him, the Scriptures say that whole families were baptised. By Scripture ALONE, the issue is unclear, is it not? However, by looking to the first few generations of Christian writers, we DO see that THEY considered the practice as holy, pious, and taught by the Apostles! Thus, we have an Apostolic Tradition, a teaching of the Apostles that is not clearly laid out in Scripture, but was considered EQUAL to Scripture by the first Christians.
Why can't the Church, theoretically, flourish under either of our views? What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
We believe that Christ passed along a power ONLY to the Apostles - the power to bind and loosen, the power to forgive sins, and the power to confect the Eucharist. As in the Old Testamant, they passed this power (the Spirit) through the visible laying of hands. Thus, a visible sign was given that others could see - an authority was given, a power, to another to continue Christ's Church. We believe that such things, called sacraments, are visible signs of God's graces that continue to come to us. Christ continues His ministry of men here on earth through the successors of the Apostles, the men whom they had laid hands upon. If Christ had intended for all men to have such power, He would have given it to them. We follow what we see in Scriptures, not what our democratic society tells us that we should do (let women be priests, etc.)
What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
Of course, but why did He give men the power to forgive sins in the first place in John's Gospel? Note, this is AFTER the Resurrection! The Sacraments (Reconciliation in this case) was given to men so that we could SEE God's work within us. We are body and soul, made that way by God, so we are more effectively worshiping God and following Him when we give our entire selves to Him and when He blesses us through the material world (as well as the spiritual world).
Do you mean chronologically, or in importance? If the latter, then the interpretations of men, even God aided, supersede the inerrant word of God?
As I said, theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next. God gave His Gospel orally first. The Apostles gave it to others orally first. The Scriptures didn't come until AT LEAST ten years later, if we believe that an Aramaic version of Matthew was written in the early 40's. Thus, the first ten years at least saw Christianity spread without any Gospel writings, any Epistles, etc. Later, when these same men of God wrote letters and the narratives of the Gospels, they naturally taught the SAME thing that they taught orally earlier to others. Thus, the oral teachings preceded the written ones, and the written ones did not overturn the oral ones. Nor does it say anywhere that oral teachings are encapsulated completely within the Scriptures. This is a Protestant assumption that is proven incorrect based on the writings of the first Christians.
I believe the Spirit has led me to make the advancement from the Arminian view to the Calvinist one.
Then who was leading you to the Arminian view 2 months ago? How do you know that the "Spirit" won't lead you to another view next month? See, there can only be ONE Truth, and you cannot KNOW it in this manner! I find this means of determining proper doctrine as totally dependent on one's current opinion, a subjective matter, rather than an objective one coming from outside of one's self. As a Catholic, if I take on the opinion that there is no Purgatory, and I want to remain a faithful Catholic, understanding that Christ established a Church and protects it, then I MUST submit my opinion to Christ's, and put aside that non-belief of Purgatory. I begin to read WHY the Church defends Purgatory. But I don't make things up and then try to prove them with bits of Scripture, tossing out verses that don't match.
I'm really starting to get the idea that there is something about the Eucharist's importance to Catholics that I don't understand. If it is, why is it different from the importance of other sacraments?
Well, hold on, here is your chance to learn, as I am preparing to give a class on just that subject this Thursday. The Eucharist is THE source of our Christian walk. Christ comes to us and abides within us in visible form. From this abiding, we believe that Christ sanctifies us in a most perfect manner - when we are open to receiving Him. Yes, the Eucharist is of primary importance to us.
Brother in Christ
By all means! The core of the Divine Liturgy (you Latins used to call it Holy Mass, if I am not mistaken, not just Mass) is the Eucharist. That was the core when the Apostles were still ministering on earth, and when their first generation bishops took over the apostolic ministry by ordination form the Apostles in person (+Ignatius, +Polycarp, etc.).
So, the essence or nature of the Divine Liturgy has not changed from the beginning (1st century) while the outward expression of it certainly has, in colorful and different rites and traditions and cultures of the people who make up the the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
People who are not familiar with the Eucharist, as in the case of FK (and by no fault of your's FK, nothing personal here), and even of some of the people who partake of the Gifts, often think the Eucharist is a means of achiving some kind of unity or right of passage. The Eucharist can only be an expression of unity of faith, and never a means of achiving such unity. That is why, close as we are, we cannot partake in each other's celebrations of the Precious Body and Blood.
Thank you Alex. I think you said it very well. We don't want to compel anyone. Since we believe God does all the saving anyway, we couldn't even if we wanted to. :)
If that were true, brother, than we can NEVER know that the sinner's prayer is effective! Catholics believe that God's grace in Baptism is ALWAYS effective. But then, some people later in life refuse God's graces given to them during Baptism - acting as the Prodigal Son when he left his father's house. If a person cannot know he was saved in the first place, then how do you know you are saved at all?
It was years before I could say with confidence that I was 100% saved. I now know that I have no need to see any further evidence that isn't already a sure thing
YOU determine whether you are saved or not? That doesn't strike me as a Biblical idea. It defies the idea of perseverance to the end! It defies the possibility of falling back into our former lives, as Peter mentioned. I reject the idea of absolute salvation because a person can ALWAYS choose evil - he can yield to temptation to return to that life of the flesh. Thus, Paul calls it spiritual warfare, not spiritual mopping up. Warfare presumes that one can lose the war.
I don't see Paul at all being unassured, I see him teaching that we should be mindful not to take a OSAS attitude, lest we be disqualified
If Paul thought that he could be disqualified, despite being "saved", that doesn't bode well for some Protestants who have said the sinner's prayer and rest on their laurels. Being disqualified means not receiving ANYTHING from the Lord. Does this not sound like hell?
We are not "concerned" about our salvation, it is complete from God's POV from the beginning of time. From our POV, it is complete at the sinner's prayer, SINCE the future included actions are automatically included in a true salvation. So, we don't WORRY about whether we will do them, we WILL, if the salvation was true. This is how we "rest".
If you are not concerned with your salvation, you are not of the same mind as Paul, who told the Phillipians to work out their salvation in fear and trembling. He told the Corinthians to beware, lest they fall. He told the Galatians that if they did certain things, they would NOT inherit the Kingdom of God - despite their baptised status. He told the readers of Hebrews that they could have their salvation taken away if they willfully sinned. Thus, if taken away, they MUST have had salvation to begin with (versus your idea that "a person never was saved to begin with). Paul tells the Romans that they will be judged based on what they do. I don't know about you, but even Paul seems to think along Catholic lines on this subject.
This just goes to my holding that God deserves all the credit for all good done. We PERCEIVE in our existence that we participated in doing good, and even that we chose to do it. That doesn't make it real. Just like in your cookie story with the daughter.
I don't think it is necessary to have God "pretend" anything with us. Everything that God gives to us is a gift. We return it back to Him - and He appreciates the use of His gifts in such a manner. Thus, we are not "fantasizing" in our participation. It MUST be participation, because we can't do it alone, and yet, God made us secondary causes. God doesn't need to fake our participation in His works, but He loves to share with us His divine nature (as Peter says).
I am being perfectly consistent. If you look at my first statement, the key word is "so". That connects the first part to the second part. In the first part I am saying that we cannot tell the future in terms of specific events.
It's OK, I have lots of hair! We don't know what's going to happen so we don't know how our sanctification is going to take shape, but we do know that it will happen.
When you say, "we don't know what is going to happen", what are you refering to? The process of sanctification, or the idea that we are saved? And "we do know that it will happen", again, the sanctification process, or being saved?
we don't know HOW or WHEN we will do whatever good deeds we will ever do, BUT THAT they will happen for all those of the elect.
Previously, you said we cannot know we are of the elect - since the sinner's prayer may not have "worked". So if "x" work of love occurs, it doesn't mean you are of the elect, does it? I think it only tells of our CURRENT status.
Yes, we do KNOW we are of the elect.
SEE! (More hair flying around. Beginning to look like a barber shop in here!) Thus, my confusion. If the sinner's prayer didn't take, you were never saved. This might occur after years of specific and daily loving actions done under the influence of the Spirit. But then the falling away occurs - and the reason - because you never were saved to begin with! And now you KNOW you are of the Elect...How??!! Those loving deeds by the "saved" person told him NOTHING of his future falling away!
If the possibility exists that you can fall away in the future, then potentially, you were never saved to begin with (which is what you are saying - although this line of reasoning is foreign to a Catholic - we ARE saved upon our Baptism - and become UNSAVED by willingly turning from God, as Hebrews 10:27 states).
Either you are saved irrevocably during the Sinner's Prayer, (making all talk about perseverance and sanctification worthless) or you don't really know, based on your future response to God. (making one's knowledge of the elect suspicious or uncertain at best).
Regards
That is not true, as John tells us Christians that we continue to sin - despite being released from bondage. Paul in Romans 7 continues to fight against the flesh. We WILL make the decision to follow Christ? Then no one can ever fall away - a thought that is proven wrong by experience...
Regards
If that is true, then you can NEVER know you are of the elect, as NOTHING you do, even say the sinner's prayer, is enough to know that God has you as one of the elect. Nothing you do can guarantee that you are of the elect. And if a person falls away, as you mention, then that person never had salvation to begin with???
"For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful hope of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Heb 10:26-27)
Paul disagrees with that idea. When we are baptised, we are saved (healed). But we are told to persevere - that our status with Christ and in Him is not permanent - there is the potential of falling away, of losing His sacrifice for sins applied to us. Since we cannot know the future, we cannot know we are of the elect. Our actions today do not necessarily mean we will continue in them in five years.
God works salvation within us, first during our Baptism. THIS is effective assuredly. But this salvation doesn't imply that we will continue to run the race and not be disqualified later on.
Regards
"If God is "out of time" as many of you claim (and I would agree) then God knows when that person is going to raise their fist and fall away. Why then would we believe they had salvation and then lost it? God never granted it to them in the first place. John states that "They went out from us for they were not of us, for if they had been of us they would have continued with us." That sums it up nicely."
Harley, your remark points up the disingenuousness of proof texting. What does 1 John 2:18 talk about? The AntiChrist and "antichrists". And those "antichrists" are the ones who were in The Church but then left it and by their leaving manifested that they were not of The Church but in fact were "antichrists". These antichrists were and are the heretics through whom the AntiChrist does his work. Those people, those heretics, were apparent even when +John wrote this epistle. +Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Ephesians gives us a good report about this situation...and Harley, you remember who +Ignatius of Antioch was.
Only a Calvinist, and a Calvinist with absolutely no knowledge of the history of the very earliest days of The Church, could see that as proof that if you are "saved" you can never be unsaved.
We believe that when we are born there is no actually resident and indwelling Holy Spirit within us. We would say that at the point of regeneration, not baptism, the Holy Spirit literally takes up residence within us, as a "brand" of God. We are marked and identified as members of the elect for life.
At the same moment sanctification begins and the Spirit guides us through the life long process, including scriptural interpretation (I know, I know :), and prayers on our behalf. Another interesting benefit is that the Spirit prevents demons from entering into us. "There's no room at the inn." That makes watching movies like "The Exorcist" a lot easier. :)
So, when I spoke of "the moment" I meant the time that the Holy Spirit enters the body and sanctification begins.
"Another interesting benefit is that the Spirit prevents demons from entering into us"
Interesting. FK, have you ever been at a service in your parish, praying mightily, when suddenly some salacious thought enters your head? I suspect you have; if not you are the only human being I've ever heard of who hasn't had this experience. Those thoughts are placed there by little demons called "Logismoi". I suspect further that those thoughts might have thrown you completely "off task" at the service. That's why they do it.
Throughout the history of The Church, the Fathers and other holy people have continually warned us of the truly astonishing power of The Evil One over all of us and advise us that our lives will be a constant struggle with him and his minions. Your belief as outlined above, is just about the most dangerous thing any Christian can believe.
Think on these comments:
"Nor should it astound anyone that the Devil is reported in this Book as having first spoken the Name of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Lk. 4:32-34). But Christ did not receive from him the Name which the Angel brought down from Heaven to the Virgin (cf. Lk. 1:31): it is a mark of the Devil's impudence that he first usurps something among men and brings it down to men as if new, in order to instill terror of his power. Then, in Genesis, too, he is the first to proclaim God to man, for thus ye have: "And he said to the woman, 'Why hath God commanded that ye should not eat of every tree'" (Gen. 3:1)? So each is deceived by the Devil, but healed by Christ." +Ambrose of Milan
"When the sly demon, after using many devices, fails to hinder the prayer of the diligent, he desists a little; but when the man has finished his prayer, he takes his revenge. He either fires his anger and thus destroys the fair state produced by prayer, or excites an impulse towards some animal pleasure and thus mocks his mind....You should also know the following subterfuge of the demons: at times they divide themselves into groups. Some come with a temptation; and when you ask for help others come in the guise of angels and chase away the first, to make you believe that they are true angels, and fall into vainglory, through having been granted such a thing." +Nilus of Sinai
"The whole essence and effort of the devil is to separate and remove our attention from God and entice it toward worldly concerns and pleasures. He works interiorly, in the heart, suggesting good works and resolutions and reasonable, or rather unreasonable, thoughts. We must not pay the slightest attention to these things. The spiritual combat consists in keeping the mind fixed on God, in not entertaining or approving impure thoughts, and in not paying any attention to the phantasms which the detestable, diabolic picture maker stirs up in our imagination." +John Chrysostomos
"The devil also transfigures himself into an angel of light, not that he may reascend to where he was, for having made his heart hard as an anvi, he has henceforth a will that cannot repent; but in order that he may envelope those who are living an Angelic life in a mist of blindness, and a pestilent condition of unbelief." +Cyril of Jerusalem
The men who wrote these words were among the holiest of Christians, and yet they struggled daily with demons and sometimes lost those struggles, at least temporarily. Now unless you are willing to announce that none of these men, nor virtually any other Father or holy person in The Church, were not saved as per your understanding, you really should re-think your position on demons.
Good points and perfectly in line with Paul's warnings in Romans 7 - that so few Calvinists enjoy reading about. Where does Logismoi come from, by the way? Thanks,
Brother in Christ
"Where does Logismoi come from, by the way?"
I suppose its from the plural of "Logismos" which means reasoning or thought, but it does mean as sort of demon or demonic thought in the context I used it in.
I wasn't using 2 Cor. to prove the fact of how the Romans understood Paul, I was using it to show Paul's state of mind. I assumed you would not argue that Paul changed his mind from the time of his letter to the Corinthians, therefore, he must have meant the same thing to the Romans. If you believed that Jesus is naturally excluded, then why did you use that as an argument? Why do you equate a "righteous" man to a man who has never sinned? You are changing the argument.
Other Christians who preceded the Letter to the Romans MUST have taught them differently - that Christ was without sin, etc. This is why I contend that Paul did not imply that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God. First, he is quoting from OT Psalms that speak of the wicked, not a universal claim for all men. Secondly, the Scriptures themselves call other people righteous - in the OT and the NT...
I'm sorry, I don't follow what you are saying here. I don't think that Paul is saying that all are perpetually wicked, but that all have been wicked "All have sinned..." All men are born in evil and cannot come to God of their own account. Do you say that a "righteous" man as referenced in the Bible never sinned? I'm just not sure where you are coming from.
Do you think Paul thought that HE wasn't turning towards God?
No, but I do know that Paul said there was no good in him. You are veering off the argument.
We don't know what Paul thought about Mary. However, we DO know that two generations later, men were writing about Mary as the New Eve and referring to Romans 5.
We do know what Paul thought about Mary. In all of his Biblical writings he never made a single exception for her being sinless. Wouldn't Paul have thought that was important if true?
Paul is not making a point that men sin. He is saying that the wicked will not turn to God. If Paul's point in Romans 1-3 was that all men sin, it wouldn't make sense to say that some men are spiritually circumcised, or that men will can follow the Law written on their hearts.
So, when Paul says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", Paul doesn't mean at all that all have sinned. He means something COMPLETELY different. Paul was pretty miserable at saying what he meant, wasn't he? I mean, if he agreed with your explanation, why didn't he just say that? Instead, he chose words that to the casual reader sound just the exact opposite of what he meant. It must have been a God-established secret code only decipherable by the Church hierarchs.
I appreciate that you are forced to argue this, but on this kind of stuff, I will forever be invincibly ignorant. :) I also note that you have chosen to reframe the argument for some reason. The majority of your argument is against things I never alleged. I never argued that Paul was saying that all men are in a perpetual state of sin. You chose to build that in. Paul was saying that upon our first sin, we were unfit for heaven, but for what Jesus did. AND, that ALL have sinned and are in need of Jesus.
BTW, I do agree with you about Abraham and I also agree that Christ was active in people before the incarnation. So, at least we have something on this round! :)
God bless.
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.