Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The Bible makes it clear that salvation is not a ladder we climb. It is a transporter room. Beam me up.
We are transported from death to life. It is God's work and not ours. Your illustration shows satan's minions plucking people off the ladder. The Bible clearly states that nothing will pluck us from his hand. If you want a more accurate illustration, you should show the saved getting on an escalator and the damned bypassing the escalator and insisting on climbing the ladder themselves. In that case, Satan's minions will pick off every single one of them.
He caused it. I never said God merely observes everything.
are you expousing Catholic Theology here, or Jokus Theology?
Since the Catholic Church has not defined the matter precisely (one is free to accept Thomism, Augustinianism, or Molinarism), I am expousing "Jokus Theology", which falls within the limits of what is acceptable Catholic teaching.
Don't you just love the flexibility and freedom of thought found within Catholicism?
Regards
How else am I supposed to take your emphasis and underlining of the following Scripture without explanation: But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting {Him} to grief;?
I don't believe in "once-saved always-saved". I believe in perseverance of the saints.
And naturally, God told you that you are infallibly one of them... How many Protestants do you know of your persuasion make the same claim?
I would suggest you spend a bit more time in the Old Testament and a little less time in cathecism. If God didn't allow Adam to sin there would be no need for Christ.
Perhaps. I intend on reading the Book of Judith next week. "Oh happy fault, Adam, that brought us such a Savior"... An evil brings about the greatest of good.
All men ALREADY rejects God. It's a matter of God's divine grace to change our hearts so that we will accept Him.
I disagree. Man does not have the ability to do good consistently without God. We are born without sanctifying grace. Our intellect is clouded. Our will is damaged. This does not mean we REJECT God. To reject something means we must have full culpability and knowledge of what we are rejecting. Thus, Satan was given one opportunity to reject - and is forever cast out of God's presence. God gives us more opportunities because we do not have such a clear view of God's Will. God's graces rain down on the good and evil alike. It is whether the person is prepared to accept God's Graces or allow them to fall in vain upon them that will determine our destiny.
Regards
"We are transported from death to life. It is God's work and not ours."
We've already dealt with that. Your interpretation of scripture is a Protestant innovation no more than 600 years old used to justify rejection of The Church's teachings. As for it being "God's work", certianly orthodoxy has never claimed that "works" as works bring about theosis. Theosis is only by the grace of God.
"Your illustration shows satan's minions plucking people off the ladder. The Bible clearly states that nothing will pluck us from his hand. If you want a more accurate illustration, you should show the saved getting on an escalator and the damned bypassing the escalator and insisting on climbing the ladder themselves. In that case, Satan's minions will pick off every single one of them."
Again, a modern Protestant innovative reading of scripture. The icon I posted in its original form is from the 6th century as is the Ladder of Divine Ascent by +John Climacus. It demonstrates what The Church believed then and now. Your spiritual forebears chose to reject The Church. Their loss.
At base your observation about the Donatists is a good one. Fundamentally, why would Baptists care if they are Donatists? Whether Baptists are viewed as a new form of heretic or a reinvigorated old form by The Church doubtless makes no difference to them...which is why they shouldn't pretend they are The Church, rather accept that they are something else entirely which is good enough for them (ecclesial assembly?).
"First, if the men falling off are bishops, was that inspired by St. John Chrysostom ("the way to hell is paved by the skulls of bishops"?!)"
I doubt it. Recognizing the particularly precarious position of hierarchs was/is a common ability in the East.
"Second, is there an icon with Mary at the top of the ladder? I know some saints have had such visions of a ladder with her at the top. (like St. Francis of Assisi)"
Never saw such a thing though I suspect if such a picture exists it is both Western and a take off on the original.
It demonstrates what +John Climacus believed then and probably no longer believes now. I'm sure that he recongizes at this point that his own efforts contributed absolutely nothing to his salvation.
The true believer is yoked to Christ and his salvation is sure. He is not climbing a ladder to heaven that he might fall off or be plucked off. If he is yoked to Christ and he was able to be pulled off, then Christ would be pulled off with him. Is anyone (including yourself) capable of plucking you from the hand of Christ? If you think that, then you are not listening to the Shepherd. If you are his sheep you will hear his voice. His voice is clear:
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. (John 10:25-30 KJV)
Are you listening? Do you hear?
Your spiritual forebears chose to reject The Church. Their loss.
Wrong, my spiritual forebears chose to follow Christ. The Church exists wherever two or more are gathered together in His name.
how was Judas benefited by God respecting his "choice" to betray our Lord?
Judas's sin was redeemed, just like anyone else's.
God hardened Pharaoh's heart
The issue is, is God intending evil or not? In the same book, God talks to Moses, tell him what to do and makes promises. It is clear fromt he scripture that Moses's will is aligned with God's and Pharaoh's is not.
use Judas as a vessel of wrath
What wrath? God was wrathful at Himself Incarnate?
It is OK to ask for communion in faith before allowing communion in the sacraments, I agree. Specifically, a Catholic must be baptized and confirmed in faith before receiving the Eucharist, and whenever he is burdened by mortal sin, he is to confess that sin before receiving. (Or intend to confess at first opportunity when confession is not available prior to Communion). In addition, a Catholic recites the Creed prior to Communion, although not necessarily at every Mass. However, there is no test of purity, and in fact the Church understands herself as a ministry to the sinners. When a criminal, an addict or an adulterer comes to Church, she rejoices all the more because her obligation is to serve that man and assist him in reaching holiness.
Donatism is the notion that baptism is invalid unless the minister of the baptism is morally upright -- has fruits of the faith, as I put it. Since baptism is acceptance into the church, it means that the church membership is restricted by circumstances other than the will of the baptizee or his sponsors. My understanding of the Baptist theology is that the baptizee must profess faith whereby he is saved. That means that a sinner who does not consider himself a regenerated, sainted person cannot enter the communion of baptists. I admit that the considerable difference is that the baptists do not have priests, so while donatists place the restriction on the person of the priest, the baptists place the restriction on the baptizee, who is sort of his own priest at baptism. But the outcome is the same: the church membership is barred to those who desire regeneration but have not achieved it.
Meant to ping you.
I probably need to clarify this. Baptism is a sacrament that involves water touching the baptizee and is done with a Trinitarian formula on either an adult who wishes to become Christian or an infant whose sponsors wish him to become Christian. It remits the original sin but (unlike the baptist belief) does not confer ultimate salvation. The baptizee, in all probability will sin and whether or not he is justified at the end of his life remains an open question. The Orthodox may wish to modify my statement regarding remission of original sin; our differences here are not material in discussing church membership issues.
Confirmation is a sacrament that prepares one to begin receiving communion. It is done differently in the West and in the East. It does not confer membership in the Church (baptism does that). It advances one on his road to holiness, just like the Baptism that preceded it and the Eucharists that follow do, but it does not make one "saved" forever.
There is no sacrament of the Church that bestows the status of accomplished salvation on a living person.
The Catholic Church recognizes baptism when performed by a lay person, as long as water us used in the name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. In an emergency, valid baptism can be performed by a non-Christian. Certainly, baptisms done in a baptist church are valid. However, baptism is valid when it is validly performed, not when, if at all, a conversion of the heart happens. If Jake, 20 years of age, experiences a conversion to Christ, and is baptized in a baptist church, he is baptised when the baptismal prayer is said and the water touches his forehead. A baptist would say that Jake is baptized at the time of the conversion, while the water and the prayer are outward symbols. So, we agree that Jake ends up a Christian, but we disagree on the exact mechanism of becoming a Christian.
And your interpretation would be???
Limbo was used by the Church to answer the question of what happens to all the babies who die. Augustine states that he thought they all went to hell if they weren't baptized. The argument used by the RCC to change this view was that Augustine's view was invented and Anselm view was based more on "tradition". (Funny they didn't see this for almost 700 years.) I'm sure Augustine's view seemed none to kind to the ever "enlightened" Church as it was moving into the Renaissance era.
I wouldn't make the rash judgment of Augustine but it is closer to the truth than a "limbo" as proposed by Anselm which is a muddled mess of a doctrine, IMHO. If anyone can figure out the official view of the Catholic Church on limbo here is the website. Have at it. They don’t want to say Augustine was right but that would be to admit Pelagius was right.
Augustine was right to state that man's nature is corrupt. Paul states:
So? The Church is a ladder (post 508). It is one thing to say that the ladder is necessary, quite another to push away those lined up at the bottom.
I agree. As it currently exist in the "official policy" statements of the Church there is no salvation outside the Church. While I might disagree, I don't have a problem with what is officially stated. However, if I bring up to the Catholics on this board that there is no salvation outside the Church half would say I'm wrong. If I say Vatican 2 says people outside the Church can be saved the other half will jump all over me.
I'm sure this is some devious attempt to slowly drive me insane. (And you're pretty close.) :O)
Too late.
They will never admit to it, but the secret teaching is, every Christian dies Catholic.
Nurse, scalpel!
Pelagius?
Seems to me that his teachings are alive and well.......
"It remits the original sin but (unlike the baptist belief) does not confer ultimate salvation."
"A baptist would say that Jake is baptized at the time of the conversion, while the water and the prayer are outward symbols"
A Baptist would say that a person is saved (born again) at the moment he/she trusts Christ for salvation. The ordinance of Baptism can be carried out at any time after that and has nothing to do with the believer's salvation except as an outward witness of what has already taken place, i.e. the identification of the person with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It confers no saving grace, nor washing away of any sin; it is a symbol of an inner change.
Well, we're off to a good start because I'm with you for this whole passage. (maybe except for the booze part, bad memory, etc. :)
FK, if we are created with an evil nature, then God is indeed the author of evil, and yet neither you nor I nor many of the people here believe that, so how can this be?
OK first, just so we don't stumble over semantics, I do equate sinful nature to evil nature. You have nailed the issue I have been teasing for more than 100 posts. Are we born with a sinful nature, and if so, does God not therefore create evil?
The NT is replete with references to the "sinful nature". One example is:
Gal. 5:24 - "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."
(What is the Catholic explanation for all the references to sinful nature, especially in Rom. 8?)
To me, using "crucified" and "sinful nature" together signifies the truth and importance of that nature. No Bible verse I am aware of speaks of propensity to sin. The oft repeated idea is that we are born directly into sin. It (sinful nature) needs to be crucified because we were born with it. It must be eliminated before the Spirit takes its place.
I have posted many times that I do not believe that God is the author of evil, however, I do believe that we are created with a sinful nature. I suppose I must retire to my earlier posted distinction between evil nature and evil acts. God cannot commit an evil act, but God can create a baby that will be born and later sin.
Thanks, that is what I was trying to convey, but not agreeing with the theory makes it difficult to state it accurately.
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.