Great pic, Dr. E.! Thanks. Now THIS is JUSTICE! :)
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I have already told you -- they believe in the same God. They just didn't see Jesus Christ as their God of Abraham. So, are you now saying that one must believe in God the Father and God the Son to be saved? The New Testament says we are saved by faith alone -- faith in one God, God of Abraham (who also happens to be our Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord Holy Spirit and our Lord the Father). Where does it say in the OT that one must be baptized to be made righteous before God? Or is that part of the OT you selectively reject?
My point was to show that their kingdom of God could be taken away from them even though they believed. To me that suggests that they were saved but were about to lose it.
They actively rejected the Christ
Almost all of Israel rejected Christ and Christians. By the time +Paul was writing his epistles, the Jewish followers of Chirst were being thrown out of the synagogues. Without Paul "selling" this new type of Judaism to the Gentiles, Christianity would have died out like Sadducees and Essenes have. So, please then tell me that the Jews are not saved because they believe in the God of Abraham, but we are. Where did the righteous OT Hebrews come from? Did they accept Christ? If Adam and Eve could be saved, I think there is hope for more than you believe.
In one of your more recent posts you were asking how could anyone not believe when God parted the Red Sea. Indeed, how could the Jews not believe in Jesus when he performed all the miracles. And wasn't Moses convinced of God's power by what we could call "magic" today? Such as turning his walking stick into a snake and back? If tricks and magic are what you call "revealed faith" you are sadly mistaken. Most of the "convincing evidence" in the Bible consists of such miracles and what we would call natural disasters.
Obviously, the Jews were not impressed with the parting of the Red Sea, or else they would not have made a golden calf or worshiped pagan gods on numerous occasions in their fickle history. Obviously, those who called Christ to come down form the Cross wre waiting for the same "sign" and miracle from a Miracle Maker He was renown for. That does not tell me that their faith, or even the faith of Christians was anything but based on observed miracles and hearsay, not based on spiritual revelations.
Yet today we believe that faith is "given" to us without miracles and without any faculty of logic or reason. In all these instances I see a lot of MEN doing and saying things they ascribe to God. The only thing mankind cannot manipulate is the message which none of us can emulate fully but know that is it s good.
I disagree with them, but they are not heretical according to the Catholic Church. The dogmatic belief is that God is the sole creator, and that Adam and Eve were physical progenitors of man who suffered the Fall, and, of course, that Christ is true God and true man who suffered, died and rose on the third day, left the Church behind, and will come again in glory, and judge us onto our resurrection in the body and everlasting life, as the Creed says. The other episodes of salvation history are allowed to be viewed as inperfect accounts of some events important for our formation for their spiritual messages.
One surprising thing this thread has shown me is that not all Christians believe that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.
The New Testament tells us it is not enough to simply "believe in God." Muslims "believe in God" while actively repudiating Christ's divinity.
The New Testament explains that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in the coming of Jesus Christ.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." -- Hebrews 10:5-10"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
And I give the Church the wisdom that I don't have.
"Eph. 2:10 turns the "plain meaning" into the Catholic doctrine of salvation through faith by grace sustained by charitable work"
Nowhere does it say grace is sustained by charitable works.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Verse 10 is a resulting clause. We do good works because we have been created in Christ by grace through faith. Grace and faith are gifts from God, not the result of good works, lest anyone should boast. You must be able to do better than that in arguing for a works based grace.
Thank you Dr E. Maybe you can show me a verse that shows that Abraham or Moses believed in the coming of Jesus Christ instead of +Paul's ex post facto one?
The Jewish idea of a messiah is completely different from ours.
The "anointed" one (moshiach)applied to kings, earthly kings, not God Himself. The Jews do not believe that man needs to be redeemed, reminding us that the OT clearly states that only those who sin are responsible and not their fathers or sons, and that no other man can atone for our sins.
Moshiach does not mean "Savior" and the Christian idea of a Savior (Christos) has no bases in Judaism or Jewish thought.
"The moshiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The moshiach is often referred to as "moshiach ben David" (moshiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5) He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.
It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the moshiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the moshiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the moshiach, then that person is not the moshiach."
And what will Moshiach do?
"Before the time of the moshiach, there shall be war and suffering (Ezekiel 38:16) The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15)."
The Moshiach will establish the "World to Come." That phrase (Olam-ha-Bah) is not the Christian "World to Come" but: "Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people. (Isaiah 2:4) Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity. All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated. In the Olam Ha-Ba, the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9). There will be no murder, robbery, competition or jealousy. There will be no sin (Zephaniah 3:13). Sacrifices will continue to be brought in the Temple, but these will be limited to thanksgiving offerings, because there will be no further need for expiatory offerings."
Jews do not believe in and the vast majority never believed or expected Christ, God, the Savior:
"Assuming that [Jesus] existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the moshiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.
On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kochba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kochba was the moshiach. Bar Kochba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a moshiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kochba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the moshiach.
Throughout Jewish history, there have been many people who have claimed to be the moshiach, or whose followers have claimed that they were the moshiach: Shimeon Bar Kochba, Shabbatai Tzvi, Jesus, and many others too numerous to name. Leo Rosten reports some very entertaining accounts under the heading False Messiahs in his book, The Joys of Yiddish. But all of these people died without fulfilling the mission of the moshiach; therefore, none of them were the moshiach. The moshiach and the Olam Ha-Ba lie in the future, not in the past."
Messianic scriptural references
"The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept: Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20; Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39; Ezekiel 38:16; Hosea 3:4-3:5; Micah 4; Zephaniah 3:9; Zechariah 14:9; Daniel 10:14. If you want to know how Jews interpret the passages that Christians consider to be messianic, see the Jews for Judaism website, especially the Knowledge Base under Resources. The Knowledge Base addresses more than 130 of the most common arguments that evangelists make to Jews." (excerpts from Judaism 101)
+Paul was preaching to the Gentiles -- for obvious reasons. They knew nothing of what the Jews believed.
The Councils were not new reveations of God, qua. The Councils met to deal with deviations from the faith, once deliveed, eternal and unchanging, so that heresies become more obvious.
I am still unclear on what sinners have to do with the continuing direct revelation of God with the Patristics
If I remember the thread in question, I stated that Christ established the Church but the sinners make up the Church. You came back and wrote that Protestants believe Christ made the Church. He did. We make up the Church.
I don't think God looks at all at our responses to make the decision. He neither ignores His foreknowledge, nor does He consider it. IMO, He bases the decision solely on His own will, not our actions.
IF you say God chooses the condemned, you say God is the author of sin - which is not a Christian concept.
In my view, God makes these choices simply by not affirmatively granting grace. How does this make Him the author of sin?
Why wouldn't God be in control when He foresees all of our actions and is able to aid those who even try slightly to come to God?
I was saying that if God takes a chance on man's will, which could go either way, in theory, then He would not be in control. If, as you say, God looks so much to His foreknowledge, then why would He bother with someone He already knows is a lost cause? Is God "hoping"?
FK: "Finally, I believe that God retains His justice because He has no duty to save anyone."
Strictly speaking, if God did not present any Scriptures, you'd be correct. But He has PROMISED He desires men to be saved! All of them. He DIED for ALL of them. He binds HIMSELF to the salvation of mankind ...
How would expressing a desire impose a duty? I desire a new Mercedes. If God bound Himself to the salvation of all mankind, then why shouldn't He fire Himself? I could agree that God bound Himself to saving the elect whom He chose at the beginning. On this, He is batting a thousand. But God has no duty to save any particular individual, just because he is human.
So how would you explain the many verses of Scripture that rules out the "judgment based on rewards within heaven"? There are quite a few that make it clear that judgment is for heaven or hell. Some of these verses are spoken to CHRISTIANS, the "saved"! What then?
I'm not aware of any "judgment" verses that rule out rewards not related to salvation. I think there are some verses that do refer to salvation and some that do not. ... I didn't think you believed in "saved" Christians. Given that, it is difficult to interpret who you really mean.
I think you mean that man's morality has little worth when it contradicts God's morality. Man has many ideas of morality - some really think it is OK to kill unborn kids...
It's just a different way of looking at it. Whenever I hear a man talk about his own morality I always laugh, especially when it involves liberal relativism. :) I find it simpler to think of there only being one true morality, that defined by God.
I have seen your "evidence" of Sola Scriptura, and frankly, I find it pitifully weak and illogical. If I can totally destroy the concept, it remains difficult to see why you are not aware of this flimsy "proof", since I am not a rocket scientist. You point me to Scripture that doesn't say anything about "alone", just Scripture is "profitable". So are a lot of things...
As to Sola Fide, the Scripture says quiet clearly, faith without works is dead. And CATHOLICS twist Scriptures?
The plain meaning? The plain meaning is that we are not saved by faith alone. The plain meaning? Scripture alone is NOT the sole source of Christian teaching. That much is pretty freakin obvious when the first 20 years of Christianity did pretty well without a NT Scripture. Nor did the average Joe have access to a Bible until the printing press some 1400 years later. Imagine, somehow, Christianity survived without everyone reading the Bible daily and doing group study questions on Job... Again, sorry about the sarcasm, but I tire of this exercise in pointing out the obvious over and over again.
The Bible is packed with examples of men using scripture as authority, not tradition.
The Scriptures THEMSELVES are Tradition. They were written dozens of years after the fact, in some cases, even more. Jesus didn't put down all traditions, he put down traditions that led people from God. As to Satan in the desert, he ALSO used Scriptures...
The Bereans, I already answered. You think the Bereans consulted the OLD TESTAMENT to read about how CHRISTIANS should worship and celebrate the Eucharist or celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday??? Paul calls the Bereans worthy because they, unlike the Thessalonians, were open to Paul's message! Not because they consulted the OT! SO DID THE THESSALONIANS! But they didn't believe Paul.
Notice they did not examine the Tradition to see if what Paul said was true.
WRONG. ALL Scripture reading is based on a particular traditional background reading, just like you read Scriptures with a tradition that claims that man has no responsibility for his actions and God condemns people without knowing if they would reject Him or not...
Note also that it is axiomatic to you that the Church is the only authority on earth to interpret scripture.
I never said that only the Church can interpret Scriptures! I do it all the time. It is just that we read Scriptures within the paradigm established by the Church, not our personal opinion. If I decided that God was a Duality rather than a Trinity, I would no longer be a Catholic. If I said that as a Protestant, what would happen to me? Nothing. I am the ultimate authority in Protestantism. If "the Spirit" leads me to believe their are only two persons in the Godhead, who are you to tell me I am wrong?
Thus, Catholics read the Bible with an overall background that God is love and that God desires the salvation of all men and that God has chosen to show His great love for man by dying on the cross to redeem ALL men. Thus, we read Scriptures through these lenses. I already told you the Church only infallibly declares about a dozen verses that mean "x" and there is no way around this. Otherwise, the Catholic is quite free to interpret Scriptures - as I have pointed out about our vaunted freedom that you despise. For example, I have the freedom to consider that Genesis 1 did not scientifically happen the way described. Or that Jonah was literally swallowed by an actual whale. YOUR fundamental stance PREVENTS that! And YOU tell ME that I am told how to interpret all of Scriptures? Come on, now.
Regards
You have just defined Protestant Reformation.
LOL!!! That's the funniest thing I have read all week! What is sad is that they don't get it... How on earth can a "totally depraved" man suddenly "discover" the "REAL" Gospel, one that differs from the Gospel given by Christ to the Church and upheld by the Spirit? What arrogance.
Regards
"All Old Testament believers (e.g. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) who died before Christ were saved in Christ by faith (e.g. John 5:46; 1 Pet. 1:10-12), just as believers are saved today. The sacrifices in the tabernacle were not themselves an effective means of atonement (Heb. 10:1-4; cf. Rom. 8:1-4; Heb. 9:13-14), and by the same reasoning neither were prior sacrifices (e.g. Abraham was counted righteous by God because of his faith, not because he offered sacrifices [Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6]). Rather, they pointed to Christ, who was the sufficiency behind those sacrifices (Heb. 9:1-15).Old Testament believers had far less knowledge of Christ than we do (they did not know he was Jesus of Nazareth, for example), but they trusted God and him alone for their salvation (Heb. 11). As Hebrews 11:39-40 teaches, God did not fulfill the ultimate promises to the Old Testament saints before Christ because he wanted to make them perfect with us, the New Testament saints -- and we all still await Christ's return for our final blessings so that all believer (even those yet to come to faith) will be perfected together. In the meantime, Old Testament saints are in heaven (e.g. 2 Kgs. 2:11; Heb. 11:5), as are New Testament saints (Christians) who have died, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies (Matt. 22:31-32 [// Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-38]; 1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-17). While they are in heaven, they are conscious and active (Matt. 17:3 // Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30; compare Rev. 6:9).
Unbelieving Jews and Gentile who lived during the Old Testament era perish for eternity in hell (Matt. 10:15; 11:22,24; John 5:24-29; 2 Pet. 2:4-9)." -- R. McLaughlin
And from the following excellent essay...
"...The Bible affirms directly that the elect were known by God before the foundation of the world and chosen by him in Christ before any one of them was born (Ephesians 1:4). Therefore God bases his blessing on Christ's merits prior to the events taking place in history. Therefore, since sin is only removed by Christ's work, and not by the symbolic representations of the sacrifices (Hebrews 10), we deduce that all believers, Old and New Testament saints, were saved by God's work of grace alone, based upon the completed work of the Messiah, applied to undeserving hearts by the Holy Spirit producing in the person faith, repentance and obedience."
Great pic, Dr. E.! Thanks. Now THIS is JUSTICE! :)
This is your spin. All we read, in plain text, is that works is something "God hath prepared that we should walk in them.". I happen to agree, as does the Catholic Church, that the entire passage gives the primacy to faith by grace, but I, and the Catholic Church read the gospel as written, and it does command us to do good works, -- something we know from other scripture will form the basis of our judgement.
You must be able to do better than that in arguing for a works based grace.
The Catohlic Church does not teach that, so I do not argue for "works based grace". The question was put to you, where does the Scripture teach sola fide, and I still await the answer. This passage doesn't teach sola fide.
Yes, the message is true, but the fact that you discount the truth of the event proves that you, or your leaders, put the interpretation of man ahead of the text. There is absolutely nothing in that story that suggests it is an allegory. Nothing.
I assume that you take the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection as a literal event, right? Those accounts also gave no indication of allegory. How are you to know when to believe and when not to? The only way to know is for your hierarchy to tell you so. Man's interpretation is always first, the Bible is always second.
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.