Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
It took me a minute to figure out what you were saying, but that's because you switched topics on me in between sentences. :) Sure, man chooses to sin. That is our common experience, whether saved or not. But I don't think this is at all the same as with the ultimate issue of eternal salvation. We both agree that God chooses an elect, and it is a certain elect. We also agree that the entirety of this elect have all chosen to sin. That makes it two different things, doesn't it? God's choice and man's choice.
Clearly, God does not force us to never sin. There is clear evidence. However, that still leaves it completely debatable about how an elect CERTAIN comes into being inside time. There is no similar evidence. It is a separate issue.
A real world example? One used by St. Augustine and St. Thomas might help. The sun shines equally on all people as a gift of light to mankind. We remain in this light - unless we willingly shut our eyes to it. ...
God also made clouds, and He puts them wherever He wants them! :)
Will is not free if something can not be rejected. Do you or do you not believe that man has free will? Can you, in any given moment, choose to reject a commandment of God?
The answer to the second question is an unfortunate "Yes". The first question is more difficult to answer because I think we see and use the term differently. I'll even give you that I've been more eclectic. :) Whenever I "downplay" free will, I am thinking of it from God's POV. I believe that God selected His elect without regard to His foreknowledge, and those specific elect WILL be saved, regardless. God will grace those individuals to whatever degree necessary, and they all WILL accept Christ, and they all WILL persevere. I understand that this does not "sound" like free will.
However, when I speak positively of man's free will, I am talking from man's POV, because that is what we really experience. When I said my Sinner's Prayer, before I knew a thing about theology, I really felt that I had made a free will decision to accept Christ. It was real to me at the time. I didn't feel forced at all. So, in that sense, I did have free will.
In addition, now that I am "saved", I believe I have free will from either POV. Clearly, sometimes I do God's will and sometimes I do my will, and I experience that I choose, although I now know that any good I do is really God acting through me. Praise be to God that as I continue through my sanctification, I have seen the balance tip ever more slightly toward the former.
Read from verse 18 to the end of Romans 1. Consider what IS the wrath of God...It is leaving men to their own will.
I just read it, and the message to me was that knowledge, without faith, equals destruction. I agree that leaving men to their own will leaves no chance for such a man.
They have a Law written on their heart (as per Romans 2). Even they are without excuse. We, with THIS LAW, CAN obey it - or choose not to obey it. But if we choose not to, God does what? He leaves man to their devices.
So man, just as he was born COULD obey the law? Is it just a coincidence that the scorecard so far is 20 billion (or whatever) to ZERO? I thought one of the points of the OT law was to prove that we could not live up to it.
Forcing men to "believe" in God is not what love is about.
I would say that saving men through whatever means necessary is what love is all about. :)
Man doesn't choose God separately, because God is intimately intertwined in all of our decisions. No one can take our thoughts and actions and divide them up and say "this part was God, and this part was me".
Why can't we divide them up? Not in a labeling sense, but just in the sense that some part was over here (God) and some other part was over there (man). Isn't that how you think of free will? You have said that free will is not coerced, which makes me think you mean it is independent of anything else.
With any free will agreement, two (or more) parties come together and must independently agree. That is why I see your salvation model as being that man agrees to accept Christ along with performing various duties throughout his life. God agrees to let him into heaven. Yes, God helps, advises, counsels, cajoles, and makes it sound like a really sweet deal, etc. However, if the man is still free to say "No", then it still is really an independent decision by the man, isn't it? For the elect, my view is that the man has no objective freedom to say "No". The man, like me, will be oblivious to this, but it is nonetheless true.
BTW, God is "intimately intertwined" with our decisions to sin?
I didn't say Christ died unnecessarily! I said that God the Father could have chosen a different manner of saving mankind. But once the Father chose to show His love for man through such a means, it remained for Christ to obey His Will. Certainly, Jesus didn't die unnecessarily!
There, you just said it again! :) If the Father had options short of death, but chose death anyway, then it was unnecessary. It was a preference. I don't see how the Father could have chosen to put Jesus through all that IF there were viable options that also would have satisfied His justice. What is one explanation?
What makes something that God does "necessary"? Is God forced to do anything? You might say it is necessary for us, but for God, nothing is "necessary".
Going back to my "big rock" argument, anything that is required to be consistent with His nature is "necessary" for God to do. I would say that God is "forced" to continue existing, He is "forced" to not lie, He is "forced" to keep His promises, etc. So, in this light, was Christ dying on the cross necessary to be in keeping with His stated natures of justice and of loving man (His elect)? I would say "Yes".
You said it, brother -- "goofy". The Church was established by Christ. The sinnsers make up the Church. And Christ left it to a particular group of sinners to lead and nourish it for, and with the rest of usnsinners.
The "pope" was used as a figurative stereotype. It implies that every individual Protestant interprets the faith in his or her own way, and considers it the truth by his or her own standards and capabilities. Thus, being your own interpreter and therefore creator of the "truth" based on how you read the Scripture is the ultimate in self-righteousness.
I don't give Pope too much credit. I used the word "pope" as a figurative stereotype meaning that the "truth" is reduced to personal opinion based on how each believer interprets the Scripture. The truth is then hinged on the interpretation of one sinner, his or her own, and no two people believe in the same thing. Thus, each individual presides over his or her own "church."
LOL!!!!
OK, correction noted. :)
It doesn't say we are saved by faith ALONE. Are you forgetting love?
Sola Scriptura; 2 Tim. 3:15-17
"Profitable" does NOT equal "ALONE" or "Absolutely necessary". Prayer is MORE important regarding salvation than the Bible. Also, check out Eph 4:11-13 for ANOTHER means of perfecting Christians in where the Bible is not mentioned. Thus, the bible is not ALONE.
Regards
That's not my belief, FK. That's my point. I think it is a story with a message. I don't for a moment believe that people turned wicked because (a) God didn't see it coming or (b) because He ordained it so. I don't believe God changes His mind, is grieved, sorry, or angry when we are wicked.
That whole section portrays God in human terms for early Hebrews to be able to relate to God, as most primitive people do.
It's not the physical event that it describes but the message that comes out of that story that matters: our wickedness (based on our choice to reject God) will bring (us) calamity. And it does! Without a fail.
In most of the OT, the people were scared into obedience and are scared into obedience to this day in some churches by being threatened with God.
That's unfortunate.
Among Hebrews, everyone believed in the God Abraham (that is when the God's chosen people did not worship pagan gods on numerous occasions in their history).
The Jews of the OT beieved in the same God we believe, I would say.
The wages of sin is DEATH - ETERNAL... A person does not have "faith" who does not convert His ways to Christ. Faith is not a one-time declaration, as we have discussed before - and I thought you agreed. "Many will say, 'Lord, Lord'", and Jesus will say 'I never knew you'". Chilling words to the self-elected...
Clearly, God does not force us to never sin.
If God allows us to sin "a little", why would He prevent us from sinning a lot, if that is what WE wanted? Again, I see God as One who KNOWS who rejects Him before He creates man. But God is a just God and has given even this man an opportunity. And of course, God's overall plan MUST include varying degrees of perfection - from the wicked to the righteous.
God also made clouds, and He puts them wherever He wants them! :)
You are missing the point. If God's clouds blocked the light, ALL men would be affected...
Whenever I "downplay" free will, I am thinking of it from God's POV.
I don't understand your aversion to free will. It is God's greatest gift to us. Rocks don't have it. Horses don't have it. Plants don't have it. Only rational beings outside of heaven have free will. That would be us. Alone. WHY would God have to "fight" against this force, this will, to execute His plan? How is it that God's great gift has become a liability to His ultimate plan? You are not giving God enough credit for being able to maintain control over His creation "despite" man's free will. Even in the face of poorly executed free will of men, God's plan will be accomplished, correct?
I believe that God selected His elect without regard to His foreknowledge, and those specific elect WILL be saved, regardless.
You still haven't explained - again - how God does NOT see who will reject Him AND have foreknowledge at the same time...Either He does or He doesn't.
God will grace those individuals to whatever degree necessary, and they all WILL accept Christ, and they all WILL persevere. I understand that this does not "sound" like free will.
I agree with this - but I will define free will from man's point of view, because WE are making a decision, one that God knows the outcome, but we don't. We don't know God's viewpoint or His foresight. And regardless of what you might believe, an individual does not know his final destiny until He is standing face to face with God.
I agree that leaving men to their own will leaves no chance for such a man.
And why does God leave men to their own ways? Because He foresees man's rejection. God desires ALL men to be saved - unless they refuse to be saved. That is the simplest way to put the Scriptures' view on this issue.
So man, just as he was born COULD obey the law? Is it just a coincidence that the scorecard so far is 20 billion (or whatever) to ZERO? I thought one of the points of the OT law was to prove that we could not live up to it.
Do you or do you not believe that man can perform a morally good deed? You said you did before, but now you say he can't. Which is it? Man CAN obey the law, but not consistently enough to earn the reward of heaven. If even PAGANS can follow the law in their heart sometimes, what makes you think NO ONE can obey the law even ONCE? And the OT Law was NOT given to man just to show him how worthless he was! That is sadistic thinking on whoever told you that. God gave the Law with the intention of it being obeyed, not to say "Na, na, you can't obey my law"... The Law was highly prized gift given to the Jews. Read Psalm 119 some day. It is a gift, a means to learning how to please the Almighty God! Perhaps you are confusing Paul when he says that God did not give man the means to OBEY FULLY the law - enough to EARN salvation. Thus, the need for the Spirit - which was available to some degree prior to Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.
I would say that saving men through whatever means necessary is what love is all about. :)
Heaven would be worse than hell for those who didn't want to be there in God's presence.
Why can't we divide them up? Not in a labeling sense, but just in the sense that some part was over here (God) and some other part was over there (man).
Because you can't tell what part was "yours" and what part God did. We presume that He guided us and moved our will, but we don't know to what degree or on what particular. Anyway, this sort of speculation probably leads to pride more than any sort of useful knowledge. I realize that I cannot do good alone without God. But I also know that God chooses not to force me to love Him. There is cooperation at some level, and it doesn't really matter at what point or to what degree. Alone, I am a branch not attached to the vine - and thus, I'd have no life within me. That is all that really matters.
With any free will agreement, two (or more) parties come together and must independently agree. That is why I see your salvation model as being that man agrees to accept Christ along with performing various duties throughout his life. God agrees to let him into heaven
God allows man into heaven purely on HIS desire to save ALL men - before even contemplating man's acceptance or rejection. Thus, we do not merit salvation. We attain it because we do not reject Him, such is His will. God doesn't await our acceptance. EVERYONE would be in heaven, if they didn't reject God's plea to ALL men.
For the elect, my view is that the man has no objective freedom to say "No". The man, like me, will be oblivious to this, but it is nonetheless true.
God chooses ALL men to be elect - unless they reject Him. Thus, you have free will to reject God, which would be your fault, or you can NOT reject Him, which would be God's free will to let you in heaven. You are not saved by your positive response, but you are condemned by your negative response.
An example:
Our parents love us because they are good, not because we deserve it. We know they will continue to love us, even if we don't cut the grass or wash the dishes. They love us regardless of what we do. However, over time, if we continue to refuse their love, we might be disinherited. Does any parent DESIRE this? No. But it is the child's fault, the one who no longer desires the unconditional love. In the same manner, God loves us, despite any good deeds (or even a few bad deeds) that we do. However, continued rejection of this unconditional love will sadly cause God to disinherit us.
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ...(Romans 6:23)
We do not earn heaven, it is an inheritance - potentially for all men. But individual men can lose salvation by "earning it" through continued sin.
God is "intimately intertwined" with our decisions to sin?
God does not cause us to sin. He is intertwined in our decision in the sense that He tries to lead us towards Him without overriding our free will.
There, you just said it again! :) If the Father had options short of death, but chose death anyway, then it was unnecessary. It was a preference.
Sadly, that's because you do not appreciate the Passion and Death of our Lord and Savior - realizing that it was an act of Love that led Him to give up His life for the rest of the world. God was not forced into sending His Son to death. He choose this manner to show man His love for ALL of us. Love overcomes obstacles. The greater the love, the greater the obstacle that can be overcome. I would say that death by crucifixion would be a tremendous obstacle of obedience for the Son - who overcame it to show His love for you and me and the world.
I would say that God is "forced" to continue existing
God is not "forced", it is His nature to exist, to be.
So, in this light, was Christ dying on the cross necessary to be in keeping with His stated natures of justice and of loving man (His elect)? I would say "Yes".
It is necessary only to the degree that God would show His love for man by the greatest means possible. I don't see God's Passion as necessary or forced, since that takes away His free will. He chose to save us in this manner. Certainly, God could have shown His great love for us through other means, correct? Who would demand that God must have died on the cross? Now you are starting to sound like God owed us His death!
Regards
Appropriate pastime.
Oh, I misspelled something obvious. I was in a rush. Please forgive me. How thoroughly insulting of me; quite deservant of mockery. Thank you. You made my day.
I find that on this thread. Because so much of Tradition is not technically found in the scriptures, it is independent. On issues such as infant baptism, purgatory, and Mary's perpetual virginity, there really is no supporting scripture. These beliefs stand on their own and are taken as truth.
However, with the Bible, there are many verses in which the plain meaning "apparently" directly contradicts the plain meaning of Tradition. There must be an interpretation. Something has to be nuanced. In every single case, which is it? In every case, it is the meaning of the Bible which is changed to match Tradition. The old, plain meaning is thrown out in favor of a Church approved new meaning in order to match. This is man over God's word. Tradition stands on its own, the Bible does not.
You might say that nothing was ever thrown out, that it has always been this way. If that is true, then Christianity is not a revealed faith EXCEPT THROUGH MEN. You believe that there is absolutely no way in the world anyone could correctly read the Bible without the interpretation of the Church. Again, this puts man over and above God's word.
Kosta, you yourself have said on this thread that you deny the historical accuracy of the Bible. I can't remember reading a verse that acknowledges that the Bible is really to be taken as a collection of morality plays, like the original Star Trek. There are many stories, especially in the OT, which by a plain reading give no indication that they are allegory, and yet you do not believe they actually happened. It takes men to make those decisions, God never said they weren't true. Men put themselves over the word.
We have not seen a plain meaning contradicting the Tradition, not on this thread or anywhere. We have seen the relatively modern tradition, either Protestant in origin or simply modern usage, contradicting the apostolic tradition. For example, the plain meaning of "your brothers are outside" as perceived by the modern usage is biological brothers. But the plain meaning of the same phrase 2,000 years ago was kinsfolk. You pointed out a few like that and you pulled them toward your tradition, and I and others pulled toward the historical reading. But you never pointed out a case where a Church father would say something like "OK, Matthew says they were Jesus's biological brothers, but I declare Matthew wrong and establish the Tradition that they were not". In all cases that Church father simply read the same text you are reading and the meaining was plain to him, because he had the cultural proximity to the evangelist and had the unwritten knowledge.
Then how is He omnipotent (using your own argument)?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I believe that God's omnipotence is secure because He never takes a risk of losing any of His elect.
But I think you are mistaken about [God] not letting you go. Matthew 21:43 says:
"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
And two of the next three verses say:
Matt. 21:45-46 : 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.
I would disagree if you are saying that these people were ever saved, and then lost their salvation. When did they ever accept Christ as Lord? Never. How could they have ever been saved? Do you really have a sense that these people ever had a faith that should ever be accorded to them as righteousness? I don't, except that at least Nicodemus showed some good signs. They actively rejected the Christ. How does anyone with true faith REJECT the very one they were supposed to be looking forward to? It only makes sense that if they did have true faith, Jesus would have opened their eyes. They weren't even baptized, were they? These are the same people who freed a serial killer in order that Jesus be put to death.
FK I find that on this thread. Because so much of Tradition is not technically found in the scriptures, it is independent. On issues such as infant baptism, purgatory, and Mary's perpetual virginity, there really is no supporting scripture. These beliefs stand on their own and are taken as truth.
Where exactly have you found on this thread that anyone said that the Church is above the Word of God? Please give me an example, as you are again putting words into people's posts. Tradition is NOT something ove and above the Word of God - it IS PART of the Word of God! You need to get out of the Protestant concept that the Word of God is found only in the Scriptures - which is entirely a man-made concept. The Bible says NOWHERE that it is ALL of the Word of God, nor does it say to ignore any Word of God outside of itself. Making such a claim refutes Sola Scriptura!
These beliefs stand on their own and are taken as truth.
As is the idea that the Bible is the Word of God. Or that the bible is the Word of God alone. Or that all that God wants man to know is found ONLY in the Bible. Whew...It's one thing to make false accusations, but beware - from where we are standing, Protestants fare much worse in "bending" the Word of God found in Scriptures.
However, with the Bible, there are many verses in which the plain meaning "apparently" directly contradicts the plain meaning of Tradition.
Plainly, that is your opinion. Plainly, you yourself hold to the very ideas you accuse us of, for example, "God didn't give man the power to forgive sins", or "God didn't tell us we must REALLY eat His flesh to have eternal life". What holds you back from belief on these points is your own personal concepts of God, not the Scriptures. I would seriously consider this a case of the pot calling the kettle black here...
This is man over God's word. Tradition stands on its own, the Bible does not.
The Bible is subject to interpretation by God's people. We have spent an inordinate time discussing Scripture on free will. And the plain meaning? There isn't one. The same can be said on many issues. WE have different interpretations based on OUR traditions. YOU look at justification through the lense of Luther who said that man is totally corrupt - an innovation of the 1500's. Your interpretations of Scripture are NOT the same as were held 1000 years ago. Who exactly is changing the Bible's meaning to fit their own opinions? If you want to know what the Bible REALLY means, find out what the first Christians thought it meant. Ignore them at your own peril. If anyone is changing the Bible's meaning, it would by yourself, not the catholic/orthodox Church.
You believe that there is absolutely no way in the world anyone could correctly read the Bible without the interpretation of the Church. Again, this puts man over and above God's word.
Here we go again, God speaks through only Protestants...I forgot that Protestants have a pipeline to the mind of God and know exactly how to interpret every Word...
God never said they [OT stories] weren't true. Men put themselves over the word.
Exactly when did God vouch for the truth of every written word to be taken literally as historical or scientific truth? You are confused on what the definition of "inerrant" means. Or do you still think, along with the literal interpretation of the Bible, that the world is flat and sitting on pillars? God speaks through parables, but in the OT, He isn't allowed to? Even people like St. Augustine regarded parts of the Scriptures as allegory - 400 AD! YOU with all of our scientific knowledge at hand can't admit what is as plain as the fact that the earth is round?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but your reply to Kosta was something else...
Regards
Yes, you have been shown much scripture to support these ideas. There is just as much evidence of these ideas as there is of the idea of the Trinity. However, men in your Church have made interpretations of these scriptures to reject the plain meanings in order that they might be in line with Tradition. Another example of men putting themselves ahead of God's word.
The Bible is packed with examples of men using scripture as authority, not tradition. One glaring example is Jesus in the wilderness. When He answered satan, how many times did He quote tradition, and how many times did He quote scripture? Here are other examples: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc.
Acts 17:11 : Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Notice they did not examine the Tradition to see if what Paul said was true.
Note also that it is axiomatic to you that the Church is the only authority on earth to interpret scripture. This is to the exclusion of even the Bible itself. I cannot think of a clearer example of men elevating themselves above scripture.
I doubt it. You keep confusing Tradition with the tradition of men. Infant baptism is what the Church practiced from the beginning. Mary's perpetual virginity comes from the Scripture which you Protestants reject and which the early Church had all along. Purgatory, likewise, is not something men just invented but found in Tradition that was with the Church since the Pentecost. The Orthodox do not believe in the Purgatory, but our theology is a hairline different and most of it is cultural and linguistic.
However, with the Bible, there are many verses in which the plain meaning "apparently" directly contradicts the plain meaning of Tradition
Really? That is interesting, considering that the Tradition is what produced the New Testament which you believe in and take for truth.
In every case, it is the meaning of the Bible which is changed to match Tradition
Tradition came before the Bible.
The old, plain meaning is thrown out in favor of a Church approved new meaning in order to match
You have just defined Protestant Reformation.
You might say that nothing was ever thrown out, that it has always been this way. If that is true, then Christianity is not a revealed faith EXCEPT THROUGH MEN.
I thought it was men who revealed the word of God through their own revelation (i.e. The Revelation of John). God did not write the Scripture. Inspired by and writing them are two completely different things. Only Muslims and some Protestants believe God "dictated" the Bible to the scribes.
You believe that there is absolutely no way in the world anyone could correctly read the Bible without the interpretation of the Church
I do. No one believes perfectly, and no one understands the Bible perfectly. Other than Job, the Bible does not name any other mortal to be a perfect man. The only semblance of truth can come from an unbroken Tradition started at the Pentecost and the Apostles, and the only way it can be maintained is by consensus patrum -- taking into consideration the vast knowledge that was revealed (through the Tradition and the Bible). No one particular father is perfect or without sin.
Kosta, you yourself have said on this thread that you deny the historical accuracy of the Bible
I am not a spokesman for the Church. My views are "heresy" for all I know. But I do believe the Bible is true and inerrant; just not as a historical and scientific encyclopedia. I believe in the Bile spiritually. And, no I don't believe there was a major earhquake when Jesus died on the Cross. No one recorded it. I find that strange. I don't believe Jonah lived in an oxygen-deprived acid-filled belly of a fish for three days, without suffocating and being dissolved by digestive juices into delicious food for the fish. I don't believe the Flood either. But I do believe that men lived in caves 60,000 years ago. That does not take away from my belief in God or in the Bible.
Blue Duncan's 5174 cited a verse cut from the next qualifying verse to support Sola Fide, while the qualifying verse, Eph. 2:10 turns the "plain meaning" into the Catholic doctrine of salvation through faith by grace sustained by charitable work. It also cited a verse whose plain meaning is that the clergy should augment their formation by reading the scripture, in support of Sola Scriptura. This kind of "plain reading" heavily colored by Protestant theological fantasies is rather typical. (See Joe's 5187 and my 5177 for details).
It is true that there is no plain scripture for the Holy Trinity either. The difference , of course, is that the Holy Trinity was taught by the Church as early as there was a Church. The Lutheran solas, on the other hand, were never taught by the Church. It is then incumbent on the Protestants to show why the Church was getting her soteriology and scripturology wrong for 2,000 years.
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.