Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
So Protestants are really just a sort of vague social club?
I would rewrite your erroneous job description as the following:
They form Christ's church on earth who are a community of believers that strive for unity, maintain observe the sacraments of Holy Orders and Eucharist the Lord's Supper and Baptism, and preserve the historical deposit of faith given the Apostles and the fathers of the Church Holy Scriptures as given to all believers in the inerrant word of God, and in a specific way given St. Peter who are led by the sure and certain hand of the Holy Spirit.
Saved by grace alone.
"They form Christ's church on earth who are a community of believers that strive for unity, observe the the Lord's Supper and Baptism, and preserve the historical deposit of faith, Holy Scriptures, as given to all believers in the inerrant word of God, who are led by the sure and certain hand of the Holy Spirit."
I think you forgot the pot luck suppers that Harley and I were talking about.
If ever I needed a reason not to be a Catholic, this would be it. Apparently the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit does not apply to individual Catholics.
Since I have already received the gift of the Holy Sprit, that would apparently disqualify me from membership.
The idea of double predestination (God elects some and others He doesn’t) isn’t all that far fetched or sadistic. God told the Israel to sprinkle blood on the lintels to protect their first born. He didn’t tell the Egyptians anything. Was that sadistic of God?
I would content that God hate evil and cannot stand the sight of it. The greater the evil the more repugnant it is to Him. He tolerates it and uses man’s evil simply so He can carry forth His divine plan.
“We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. 1Jo 5:18
Is John actually saying Christians do not sin? Not at all. John clarifies what he means:
“No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1Jo 3:9
Christians cannot PRACTICE sin because they are born of God. They are now slaves to righteousness (Rom 6). That does not mean that we have no sin. It simply means that we will no longer sin without great conviction and chastisement.
"The usual Protestant interpretation says that the Holy Ghost is given all Christians directly. This is without warrant. We have the Holy Ghost inasmuch as the Church of the Apostles informed us."
Alex, I'm afraid you've lost me on this one and I find myself in sympathy with our Protestant friends. This isn't what the Fathers taught, to my knowledge, let alone the NT. Am I seeing an example of the Barlaamism which +Gregory Palamas contested against?
I only have time for a short answer today. The Holy Spirit was given by Christ to the apostles, who formed the Church. Through baptism in the Church, one receives the Holy Spirit. This is consistent with all the scripture I've seen.
God ALWAYS initiates the covenant, but sometimes, there is an agreement between the two parties, such as the Mosaic Covenant. The people of God promise to obey the commandments, and God promises to be our God.
You said when we fall, God allows us to suffer the consequences of breaking the promise. How can we break a promise we never made, or, what was the promise we made that is broken when we fall?
When we are baptized, we promise to reject the glamor of Satan and to reject sin. We also express our belief in God and the rest of the Creed.
I also respectfully disagree that God "respects" our decision to sin. I agree that He allows us to freely sin, but I doubt that He respects the choice.
I mean that God respects that we have free will and can choose to reject or accept Him. If God did not respect our free will, then He would force all men to "choose" Him. Some don't.
I would say that I have nothing to do with determining whether I am saved
Well, in the sense that we can do nothing in where God "owes" us, you are correct. However, since God is righteous, we believe that He will fulfill His promise of eternal life to us when we obey His commandment to love others. I would like to point out that we do not earn salvation, that God grants it to us. But He will not grant it to people who do not abide in Him. There is some mysterious cooperation taking place between us and God.
By God's grace, I know the sincerity of the sinner's prayer I said, and I know the sincerity of my belief. Therefore, I know I can rely on God's promises. I know I am of the elect because I am able to have the faith I have. God gives this faith only to the elect.
God desires that we persevere. Thus, if we say the sinner's prayer in 1995, but then fall away from our Christian walk, what then? To say "he never meant the prayer" or something to that effect is bogus! Who are we to judge another person's inner motives when they call upon Christ the first time? Thus, it is not the sinner's prayer that "saves us" for eternal life, but our perseverance in our walk - cooperating with God's graces THROUGHOUT our lives. Salvation is a process. Note, of course, that all of this presumes that God is working within us the ABILITY to persevere!
I would say that true salvation, even IF only known by God, cannot be lost through subsequent sin because God would not allow it.
This is not knowledge known by us. Thus, it is pointless to argue about "true" salvation. I am certain you are aware of people who fell away from Christianity after the "sinner's prayer". So how do we know our own "sinner's prayer" took effect? I say it has little bearing on our eternal destiny. It is only that first step we take in obedience. To be saved for eternal life, we must become like Christ. This is not a one-day proclamation - I know this from my own experience!
If saved people can still occasionally sin, why can't the lost do good? The basic sinful nature, though, remains until salvation.
The "lost" CAN do good. The "lost" however, can never "do enough" to be saved. No one can "do enough", of course. But when we abide in Christ, "it is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me". The "lost's" inner motives are not the same as the Christian who walks by faith in Christ Jesus. Our love is focused on God and our neighbor, not on ourselves.
If you are God, and only heads fulfills prophesy, then YES! :)
That's based on a mistaken concept of how God operates regarding time. To God, time does not move. He sees all of time as one NOW. Thus, what happened at creation and what happened yesterday is part of God's eternal present. He then doesn't need to "make sure" that the coin flip turns up heads to fulfill a prophesy. He sees the prophesy and its fulfillment simultaneously.
I believe the Holy Spirit works in us, partly, through our consciences. Would you accept "compelled by conscience" instead of forced? On the last sentence, God does anything "not infallibly"?
I agree, the Spirit moves our will and aids our intellect. Thus, He effects the power of our own souls. Whether He "compels" people to do things, I don't know. I think that by clearing our intellect, allowing us to see better the eventual end or goal of our life, by cleansing our will to reach that end, we are more inclined to follow His Will. God works within us the will and means to accomplish His will. (cf. Phil 2:12-13).
Catholic theology understands that God desires all men to be saved. Thus, God grants "sufficient grace" upon all men. However, this grace does not become "efficacious" or effective infallibly. Paul says we can allow this grace to fall upon us in vain - 2 Cor 6:1. The entire Scripture clearly tells us that TWO choices remain open to us: the one of evil and the one of good. Although we would have a tendency to choose the evil, with our cooperation with God's sufficient grace, we WILL choose the good.
I wouldn't say sometimes, I would say always. The battle does continue throughout life, but I believe the victory of salvation can be sure to the believer
I agree that the battle is ongoing. We are those whom Christ talks about when He says that there are those who are battling to get into the Kingdom. It is an ongoing struggle to "enter" the Kingdom - meaning having a truly effective relationship with Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is not about talk, but about deed. Faith to move mountains without love is nothing. Thus, there is an ongoing battle to move our wounded wills to love others for their own sake (rather than our own motives). While we cannot be sure of our response to Christ in say five years, we can have a good idea whether we are abiding in Christ today. As 1 John tells us throughout, we know that Christ abides within us IF we are obeying the Commandment to love. If we can examine ourselves and see that we are truly loving others for pure motives, we can be morally sure that God, being righteous, will fulfill His promise to bring us to eternal life in heaven.
Brother in Christ
Perhaps you should look at the context where you site the above verses, noting that you underlined that verse. Your point was that God actively reprobates, being pleased to do so. I still contend that your initial post makes God out to be sadistic.
The idea of double predestination (God elects some and others He doesn’t) isn’t all that far fetched or sadistic
That's not my idea of what double predestination is. We agree on predestination, in that God actively chooses His elect. But regarding the reprobate, God does NOT actively choose the condemned - the Church says that God ALLOWS them to be reprobated. Thus, the huge difference between the Catholic and Calvinist idea of predestination.
I would content that God hate evil and cannot stand the sight of it. The greater the evil the more repugnant it is to Him. He tolerates it and uses man’s evil simply so He can carry forth His divine plan.
Fair enough. I can agree with that. I doubt that you or I will ever figure out God's ways while we are alive on this earth.
Is John actually saying Christians do not sin? Not at all. John clarifies what he means: “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1Jo 3:9
Christians cannot PRACTICE sin because they are born of God. They are now slaves to righteousness (Rom 6). That does not mean that we have no sin. It simply means that we will no longer sin without great conviction and chastisement
Christians cannot PRACTICE sin because they are born of God.
But they DO sin. John is telling us what he EXPECTS of the Christian, not what we actually DO. If we take it literally, there is confusion, as my previous post points out. When one sins, they are from the devil. When one believes, they are from Christ. Apparently, John did not believe that a person remained "in Christ" throughout their Christian walk. The NT over and over discusses that Christians can and DO return to the "vomit" of their former lives. Even committed Christians at times falter in their walk, either abiding in Christ, or abiding in the devil by doing their own will. Do we remain in Christ when we are sinning? I believe you are confusing the OUGHT with what Christians sometimes DO. "My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just" (1 John 2:1)
And yet the Roman Catholic Church finds a lot in common with the Orthodox Church who denies original sin?!?
Orthodoxy does not deny the fall of man and the lack of grace found in the post-Adam man preceding Baptism. If I am not mistaken, the only difference is that the Orthodox do not place a guilt upon the inheritor of original sin. The condition of man before Baptism is not one of sin, but one of a lack of God's grace, which, by the way, is the same viewpoint of Catholicism. Catholics believe that man is born without sanctifying grace, without the life of God within them - thus, we can say they are born in sin.
Paul is talking about the wicked. We are all wicked in God sight. Or would you say there are some who are better than others.
You didn't read all of Psalm 14, did you. Paul is not saying that ALL men are wicked. ONLY the WICKED will not turn to God. This makes sense, as a person who has been so blinded by habitual sin will not turn to God without some sort of divine intervention of grace. They will not seek out God on their own. Also, consider Psalm 5, which again, Paul is quoting to discuss the wicked. But as the last verses of Psalm 14, and better yet, Psalm 5 show, the righteous DO seek out God:
"But as for me in the multitude of thy mercy, I will come into thy house; I will worship towards thy holy temple, in thy fear. Conduct me, O Lord, in thy justice: because of my enemies, direct my way in thy sight. for there is no truth in their mouth; their heart is vain. Their throat is an open sepulchre: they dealt deceitfully with their tongues: judge them, O God. Let them fall from their devices: according to the multitude of their wickedness cast them out: for they have provoked thee, O Lord. But let all them be glad that hope in thee: they shall rejoice for ever, and thou shalt dwell in them. And all they that love thy name shall glory in thee: For thou wilt bless the just. O Lord, thou hast crowned us, as with a shield of thy good will. Psalm 5: 7-12
Unfortunately, many Protestants read Romans 3 without understanding the context that Paul draws upon to make their incorrect conclusions.
Regards
Apparently, annalex is speaking of the Spirit given to the successors of the Apostles to determine proper doctrine when members of the Church disagree. The Spirit IS given to each of us individually, but the Spirit does not give us the power to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. I believe this is what annalex is referring to. The proof of this is in the many diametrically opposed doctrines within well-meaning Protestants "guided" by the "same" Spirit.
Regards
You waited this long! Just kidding
You should quit lecturing us until we think you have it right. Then go for it by all means.
"The Holy Spirit was given by Christ to the apostles, who formed the Church. Through baptism in the Church, one receives the Holy Spirit."
I agree with this, but I do not see where baptism within the bounds of The Church is necessary for reception of the Holy Spirit. Like Orthodoxy, the Latin Church accepts the validity of Christian, Trinitarian, water baptisms performed by ministers of groups outside The Church, or so I understood. Am I wrong?
Though the question is an open one in Orthodoxy, it is the opinion of many Orthodox theologians that theosis by the power of the Holy Spirit might well be found outside the bounds of The Church even of persons who are not Christians and without baptism because they cannot define "whither the Spirit goes". This of course is speculation, which those theologians freely admit, and is related to the apophatic way in which Orthodoxy "does" theology.
How will I know that "I have it right" then? Are you going to let me know, so that I can then "go for it"?
Regards
That's pretty much what the Latins say when they refer to "no salvation outside the Church". The Church understands that the Spirit blows where He wills, bringing into the "Church" even those who are outside the VISIBLE walls. Thus, the Church firmly believes that even a non-Christian can be saved by the Spirit. The sacrament of Baptism is the normative means of entering the Church. But it is certainly not the only way, as God is not bound by the Sacraments (so says St. Augustine). I think what we see is Rome defining more broadly what "Church" is. Vatican 2 made it clear that the Church of Christ SUBSISTS within the Roman Catholic Church, but never said it IS the Roman Catholic Church. Sort of takes me back to geometry and sets and subsets... What I found interesting is that ONLY APOSTOLIC communities are "churches" per sec. Thus, Rome sees the Orthodox as an Apostolic Church, despite our schism.
Regards
Isn't the idea of an "Invisible" Church basically a Protestant concept?
Greetings jo,
You know it takes me so long to figure out how to respond to the simplest questions without e-sounding on the one hand arrogant & on the other condescending. I hope you can take this somewhere between the two.
My comment on "lecturing" was intended to be a bit of a joke; but as you are most assuredly aware there is usually an element of truth in many jokes.
The thing about lecturing had to do with the insurmountable difference there is between myself & you as to the church (small c). You know my position, which you reject; I know your position, which I reject.
I will join with Catholics of the same mind in regards to abortion – and do it heartily
Why don't you show us the "official" Roman Catholic Systematic Theological doctrinal statements in regard to the interpretation of Romans Chapter 3.
Do you even have one? I suspect that most Reformed Protestants would point to Calvin's Commentaries. You keep talking about what Roman Catholics believe and how protestants misunderstand these things, and you claim that the Catholic Church holds the singular keys to the understanding of all scripture, but where is your infallible statement on the correct interpretation of Romans Chapter 3?
Where is your official inerrant Catholic systematic theology?
Or are you once again simply giving us all the official doctrine according to jo kus?
Maybe you should state that you are merely speaking for yourself when you are merely speaking for yourself.
When you come on here lecturing Protestants on how we misinterpret scripture, I suggest that you should be prepared to give us the official infallible Roman Catholic interpretation or admit that you don't know what it is.
If you are going to speak for the Catholic Church, I'd suggest that you provide us with evidence that what you are saying is the infallible official position of the Roman Catholic Church.
Can you do that?
The problem most people have (be they Catholics, Orthodox, or many Protestants) is that they start man out in a "neutral" position. This is a false start. Man is dead in sin. Man doesn't choose whether he will go to heaven or hell. If given that true choice what do you think man will choose?
All men are dead to sin and already destined for hell. You beleive God extends His grace to everyone but yet cannot explain the conversion of Paul, John the Baptist, Jeremiah, on and on and on. Like Abraham God comes to us and rescues us. Paul was bent on destroy the early church and God zapped him. If He wanted everyone to be saved He would zap us all.
The trouble is your perspective of being born of God. You feel like you have to maintain this born again nature. This is false. Our Lord Jesus keeps you.
I'm being dragged off the computer so I'll have to get back to the rest later if I remember.
Well, of course what I meant was "except for the Mosaic Covenant". Didn't you infer that from my post? :)
I mean that God respects that we have free will and can choose to reject or accept Him. If God did not respect our free will, then He would force all men to "choose" Him. Some don't.
I suppose I disagree that you cite the only alternative, although I would agree that God has the sovereignty to create us as robots if He so chose. I would say that God, knowing that our natural choice would be to reject Him, disrespects our free will and therefore installs grace and faith in those He so chooses. This is done out of His love for us.
However, since God is righteous, we believe that He will fulfill His promise of eternal life to us when we obey His commandment to love others.
As I know you know, plenty of lost people love others. If you tie salvation to following any commandments, how is that not living under law?
God desires that we persevere. Thus, if we say the sinner's prayer in 1995, but then fall away from our Christian walk, what then? To say "he never meant the prayer" or something to that effect is bogus! Who are we to judge another person's inner motives when they call upon Christ the first time?<.i>
Thanks to Harley turning me on to the doctrine of "perseverance of the saints", I now understand that perseverance is necessary. In your example I don't think we need to judge anything, we only need look to God's promises. If someone says the sinner's prayer and then falls away, and I assume you mean on some sort of permanent level, without making any judgment, we are only left with two choices. Either the original prayer was insincere, or God is a liar. God promises us that He will carry on the good work He began in us to completion. If the person fell away, it would mean that God bailed. Can't happen.
That's based on a mistaken concept of how God operates regarding time. To God, time does not move. He sees all of time as one NOW. Thus, what happened at creation and what happened yesterday is part of God's eternal present. He then doesn't need to "make sure" that the coin flip turns up heads to fulfill a prophesy. He sees the prophesy and its fulfillment simultaneously.
But, the whole point of this segment was whether God causes things or stands back and allows them to happen, already knowing the outcome. If God gets everything He wants, and if God sees all time (I agree to both), then how can it be that random chance favored God's desires in every case? Did God mold His nature and teachings simply around His foreknowledge of time? Or, does God cause what He wants throughout time?
If your interpretation was correct (which I don't believe it is) then that would also confirm my fact that God created the righteous and wicked and there ARE slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness as described in Romans 6. There are two groups or "cities" as Augustine refers to them as. You only prove this point no matter how you interpret the passage.
This is further bore out in the following passage:
And here’s the kicker WE WERE ONCE LIKE THEM. Paul makes a distinction between them and us:
Children of wrath. Children of God. Slaves to sin. Slaves to righteousness. Two sets of group as designated by God.
To the praise of His glory. Amen.
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.