Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The claim made by Protestants as they interpret the scripture is that they can do so outside of the authority of the Church, and in fact against such authority, because, don't you see, they've got the Holy Ghost. By that logic the Holy Ghost would lead every commuinity of baptized Christians away from error, and it is a plain fact that it cannot be so if only because they plain contradict one another.
I agree that the Holy Ghost can appear extraordinarily outside of the walls of the Visible Church, primarily for the purposes of individual salvation. Nevertheless, the fact that the laity ordinarily receives the Holy Ghost from the Church, as per the scripture cited here my me and others, means that the gift of correct public interpretation of the scripture is confined to the Church. It is analogous to the Body and Blood of Christ: it is possible that one receives it from the Church, carried it outside and misuses it. But once the Precious Body and Blood is carried away in such manner, it no longer works as intended and does not deliver to the mis-communicant any graces, -- that's putting it mildly.
I apologize for not giving everyone, who made cogent remarks to me today, a one-on-one reply. I will go over the thread in a few days and try to reply to everyone who raised substantive points.
I should've emphasized that the only reason the children of righteousness are saved (any Christian at all) is simply because of God's grace. There is no other reason. We didn't work harder. We weren't more intellectual. We didn't have greater vibes. We don't make a decision on faith. We don't cooperate.
We are saved only because God was rich in His mercy to choose to open our hearts as He did Lydia's and make us understand the gospel. We have to be born again and only God can birth us. Why He doesn't do this for everyone is unknown and, quite frankly, it's none of our business.
This is a VERY important point. There is not one scrap of anything we have that God has not given us. Let us all remember this, this Lord's day and truly give thanks that He saved us not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.
In a way, yes. Any community that claims itself separate from the Apostolic Church and yet is invisibly connected to the "Church of Christ" is invented. But I think there is a precedent where a person can unknowingly belong to the Church, the Apostolic Church. I think we can see this in the idea of re-baptism. Early in the Church History, about 250 AD, the Church decided that properly baptized men and women were considered Baptized, even if Baptized by heretics. So I think that there is something to be said about belonging to the Church of Christ, the Apostolic Church established by Him but not knowing it. We Latins call it "invincible ignorance". At what point this ignorance becomes obstinancy, only God knows.
Brother in Christ
I understand completely. Sometimes I re-read my own posts and think to myself "that's not the way I wanted to present that case"...
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.
It is difficult to NOT sound as if you are lecturing when one corrects (from his point of view) an error being made. That is the bad part about this type of forum. There is no visible communication, body language and such. It takes awhile of knowing the other people here to figure out whether one is being a smart-ass or is just trying to present another point of view. I try to be open as possible to other people's opinions. Naturally, I will try to interject my own opinions. Hopefully, I don't appear to be arrogant, but I am sure that some will take me that way.
"If I were trying to win man's approval, I surely would not be serving Christ" (Gal 1:10)
Take care
If I had a dollar for every person who interpreted for me Romans 3 and concluded that either "Mary cannot be immaculate or sinless" or "all men are born totally depraved", I would have a big pile of money here. To properly read Paul, however, one must be cognizant of the context of what he quotes. And a simple reading of Psalms 5 will show that Paul is not refering to EVERY single human person. He is refering to the wicked. Paul himself admits that righteous persons DO seek out God. He tells us that even those WITHOUT THE LAW can do what is in the Law, because it is written in their hearts. By a more in-depth study, a person can conclude that ALL men universally are not evil by nature.
This is Catholic Teaching. There is no "infallible proof-texting" in Catholicism. Only about a dozen verses in the Scripture have such interpretation attached to it. What is more important than listing each and every verse and attaching an infallible statement to it is the infallible teachings of the Church. Christ established an infallible Church, not an infallible book. The Scriptures are merely PART of the Tradition (teachings) of the Apostles. The Apostles themselves have taught the Church the anthropology of man. They taught us that man is wounded, not evil by nature. Knowing this, we disregard your Romans 3 interpretation. Not only because it takes Paul out of context, but because it is not in the spirit of the teachings handed down by the Apostles.
If you desire "infallible" teachings of the Church's position on man and his woundedness (vs. being totally evil), I can do that. We can look to the Councils when they make such determinations and define the meaning of the Apostolic Tradition (Scripture, oral teachings and the daily practice of the Church, and liturgy). If you truly want to dialogue on this subject, I will give you what our Church teaches on the matter.
For example "Adam's sin is transmitted to his prosterity, not by imitation, but by descent" (De fide)
"Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God" (De fide)
"Human will remains free under the influence of efficiacious grace, which is not irresistible" (De fide)
The Teaching Church, not you and I, make such solemn and binding declarations. That is the way Christ intended, and that is the way the Church will continue to operate, until the end of time.
Regards
That's as clear as mud. Who gets to interpret that?
"Human will remains free under the influence of efficiacious grace, which is not irresistible" (De fide)
Again that is clear as mud. If efficacious grace is not irresistible, then why is it efficacious? The only way it becomes efficacious is if you don't resist it. Hence efficacious grace is, by definition, that grace which a man cannot resist.
"Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God" (De fide)
What is that supposed to mean? Beatific Vision of God? Is heaven a mirage?
So the church has the exclusive ability to interpret scripture, but who has the authority to interpret the interpretations of the Church? You?
You just posted that so you could get the #666. :O)
The Teaching of the Church on Grace and Freedom is not finely tuned. That is true. As I have mentioned before, we do have some freedom in this regard. We can accept Thomism, Augustinianism, Molinism, Congruism, or Syncretism, and still remain within the broad teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all men, but only a part of mankind achieves salvation. Thus, the Church has defined two types of graces: "Sufficient grace", graces that are enough to save a man, but do not fulfill the desired effect, or "efficacious grace", graces which do.
There remains a question as to whether the ground for this difference in efficacy lies in the grace itself or human freedom. The Reformers sought to radically deny human freedom of the will. None of the above systems deny or are opposed to the teachings of the Church.
When proposing a system to answer the above question, we must keep in mind the following "de fide" statements:
The Human will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irrestible. Scripture stesses both the human factor of the freedom of the will and the Divine factor of grace. There are numerous admonitions to penance and to good works - this presupposes that grace does not abrogate the freedom of the will. St. Augustine NEVER denied the freedom of the will in relation to grace. He defended the freedom of the will when he attempted to instruct those "who believe that free will is denied, if grace is defended, and who so defend free will, that they deny grace, and maintain that grace is given according to merits." Later, he writes "He who created thee without thy help does NOT justify thee without thy help."
The second teaching to keep in mind is : There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious. Sufficient grace is grace which, under a particular concrete circumstance, makes an act possible, but which, on account of the resistance of the will, remains inefficacious. St. Augustine recognized the difference between the two: "His mercy comes before us in everything. But to assent to or dissent from the call of God is a matter for one's own will".
The problem most people have (be they Catholics, Orthodox, or many Protestants) is that they start man out in a "neutral" position
Catholics do not start out in a neutral position. We are born WITHOUT sanctifying grace. By our own power, we can never obtain sanctifying grace. Without God Himself giving us this gift, we cannot obtain it and enter into heaven. But it does not follow that we cannot choose the good in a particular circumstance or that we are evil by nature. I agree, man does not choose between going to heaven or hell. Again, this is based on the fact that man can never earn sanctifying grace - but it does not follow that man is evil. Remember, no matter how "good" we are, we cannot earn salvation anyway. Thus, you are placing the burden on man to be good so as to earn heaven. Grace is a gift. Thus, even IF a man COULD choose the good in every circumstance, it wouldn't bring about the wages of eternal salvation.
If He wanted everyone to be saved He would zap us all.
This ignores another factor called free will. God, by His own choice, allows man's free will to factor into the equation on a particular persons' destiny. Since He loves us completely, He has given us this ability to read within one's heart the Law written there and to choose whether to follow it or not. This, of course, doesn't mean we save ourselves. But when God sees a response because His initiative of graces were acted upon, God continues to draw that person to Himself. God doesn't save a person without their own free choice.
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.
God does not irrestibly draw us. As I have noted before, Catholic teaching states that a man CAN resist God's graces. Scripture is clear on this. We CAN choose the evil, even AFTER being shown the teachings of Jesus Christ. We see practical examples of that throughout ALL denominations and Catholicism. We are all aware of people who have fallen away. By you trying to posit the blame on that person's initial "sinner's prayer" merely places doubt on your OWN "sinner's prayer". Can we judge that person's "sinner's prayer", the one who had fallen away? I'm sorry, but our views on life change. Our paradigms are ever changing to adapt to our views of life and what we find in our environment. If a person falls away, it is not based on an event 20 years ago that wasn't done correctly or with full vigor!
Regards
Because God desires that we love as Christ did - not to obey an external law or an obligation, and certainly not to earn salvation. Here is the problem. We are required to perform certain acts - obey the Commandments. However, God does not desire that we account our obedience as our own works, nor does He desire that we do them out of some obligation to earn something. God desires that the inner disposition is pure - that we give of ourselves totally in love to the other. Christ NEVER abandons the moral law. He criticizes the Pharisees because their interneal disposition to WHY they obeyed the Law was not what He wanted.
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.
That is a false dilemna. There is a third option that you overlook. When a person falls away from Christianity, it can also mean that that person is freely choosing to return to his former life. Since God loves us, He allows us to have what we want, even if this means eternal separation. God is not a liar. And a prayer made 20 years ago has very little effect on our walk in Christ today, quite frankly.
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.
God's promise presumes that we DESIRE to unite with Him. There is a cooperation between God and man. If a person fell away, it meant that the PERSON bailed, not God.
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?
I don't believe in "random chance". If God's plan and its execution happens simultaneously FOR HIM, then it is not random. Certainly, He is molding things. But He also is able to take our actions into account. What I must say, though, about this subject is that we will likely never discover the interaction between freedom and grace completely. It is one of those things that Catholics call "a mystery". This means we can never plumb the depths of this subject and we just accept what the Church teaches, ensuring that our opinions on the matter remain within the broad bounds of the teaching that Christ left to His Apostles. Quite frankly, I don't think our rational thought will ever successfully figure this out.
Regards
God doesn't create "wicked" and "good" men. He creates men without sanctifying grace. This was not His initial plan for mankind (as we note in Adam's initial creation of goodness). Men CHOOSE to be wicked or good. This choice does NOT bring about sanctifying grace, necessary to enter heaven. Again, God wrote into EVERYONE'S heart the law of right from wrong. This presumes that we are able to obey it to a limited degree. When God sees that we cooperate with this sufficient grace, it become efficacious grace, and grace falls on us in greater quantity. We become more able to do God's will. Psalm 5 shows that men CAN be righteous and men CAN be wicked. The wicked are so blinded that they can no longer normally choose God. But it does not follow that all men become naturally wicked.
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
The word "especially" does not exclude non-believers. It only means that the Savior is of greater help to believers who naturally turn their will to match God's Will.
His blood only atones for ONLY those who God makes righteous in Christ. Christ did not died for the wicked. His blood does not atone their deed.
1 John says that God died for the sin of ALL men, not just the "righteous". God atoned for all men, even those who were in sin and those who would NEVER turn to Christ. This atonement doesn't mean that a man is saved. The atonement merely means that sanctifying grace is being made available to all men. Whether we accept to receive it is another story.
However we were JUST LIKE THE CHILDREN OF WRATH but God saved us.
Peter warns us to beware, not to return to the vomit of our past life. God saved us in the past - God healed us. But it does not follow that we will REMAIN healed. When you recover from a disease, can you not get sick again? The whole concept of perseverance presumes the possibility of falling into our previous lifestyles - for which NO ONE will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor and Gal)
Regards
Exactly. God merely crowns what He has already given us. (St. Augustine). Perhaps if I may, an analogy. If you give me a present, a gift, that is extremely valuable, would you be pleased if I tossed it in the attic, or used it daily, asking you to help me use it and ask for more?
Regards
The Divinely instituted teaching authority, the Church.
So the church has the exclusive ability to interpret scripture, but who has the authority to interpret the interpretations of the Church? You?
Of course you can interpret Scripture for yourself. However, we, as the Church, are to do it through the lenses of what we have been taught by the Church already. We don't reinvent the wheel or deny what has been taught as dogma before. If you question my interpretations of the Catechism, you are more than welcome. But please provide me with a counter point of view with appropriate citations from a Council or Papal declaration, rather than your broad accusation.
Regards
Amen
We will never know even in the light of glory
Nor should we attempt to know
Nor should we invest man with the free will to chose or not chose salvation in order to answer the question - it does not
Nor does it get God off the hook when He is measured according to our standard of fairness. The attributes of God include the three omni's; so if we search for an answer to what seems to us the unfairness of God in choosing some & not others (Rom 9 always comes to mind) we hit another insurmountable barrier.
God is the Righteous One
Mans only righteous is by For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith Galatians 5:5 (King James Version)
The only answer is trust Him through faith and do not ask
How about the inspired declarations of Peter, Paul, Jesus, Matthew, James, Jude, Mark, Luke. Do they count?
When the subsequent councils clearly contradict the inspired declarations of Paul and Peter and Jesus, who are we to follow?
The church is the body of believers, the body of Christ, whom God has called out from among men. As such it is an invisible church known only to God. The visible Churches consist of both believers and professors only.
"Man doesn't choose whether he will go to heaven or hell. If given that true choice what do you think man will choose?"
HD, I assume you believe everyone would "choose" heaven. I think you're right. Do you think we think "choosing" is all there is to it?
" The only answer is trust Him through faith and do not ask"
I don't doubt that you believe the first part of this. Would you really insist on the second?
On the contrary. That is not what the book of Romans states. Man left to his devices will choose evil.
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.