Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I know...:-)
Take care, brother
Regards
LOL! But, since these are Paul's words, I suppose you escape....FOR NOW! :) Seriously, perhaps we can now say that you and I agree that Paul's writings used a plain meaning approach to the meaning of the word "works", and professed that good works done to earn anything would not earn salvation.
Whew!! Well, Paul does use the word "save" in the past, present, and future tense. I think this can make it confusing for us, at times. In Titus 3, Paul must be talking about that initial acceptance of Jesus Christ and Baptism. We (you and I) agree that we are "saved" by faith without any merit on our part regarding initial salvation. God certainly prepares us to receive Him, but nothing we do earns or merits that first gift of initial salvation. Thus, we together can agree with Paul's writing to Titus. He clearly tells us that being "saved" is the Baptism event, although in other places, he talks about being "saved" as a future event. Thus, our discussions!
I know you must mean to include the sacraments as deeds of love, not done for the purpose of earning anything. I'd like to know how "works" (not required for salvation) are distinguished from "deeds of Love" (necessary for salvation). Is it counted by God as whatever is in the heart of the person at the time? I ask because any two people could have completed the same good deed or act, with one doing it for the thought of profit and the other doing it out of love. Is this part of the mix?
I don't think we see the sacraments as "deeds of love". We see them more as means of grace - like Baptism is. They are not things that earn us salvation, but a manner of Christ coming to us invisibly through a ritual, visible means. For example, the sacrament of Confession. We realize that the priest has been given the power by Christ (through the Apostles) to forgive sins. And while confession in one's own room to God is effective in minor sins, the Church teaches us that major sins require absolution through the sacrament. In the sacrament, God's mercy is made visible through the words of the priest "I absolve you of your sins". We can ask for advice, and through the penance, we are more in-tune with the proper disposition - sorrow and a desire to make amends for our sins. Thus, the sacraments are a tool, a means of grace in the visible realm. Psychologists tend to agree that confessing our faults to others (rather than ourselves) is more healthy and allows closure. So emotionally and spiritually, God "saves" (heals) us through the sacrament.
The sacraments themselves are effective in that they ALWAYS pass grace to the person, no matter their disposition. However, their effect will vary, depending on that person's piety and disposition towards Christ. As we have discussed, a sacrament always extends sufficient grace - but whether it will be efficacious will depend also on the recipient (without getting into "secondary causes"!)
As to a deed of love, yes, I think Christ teaches that our inner disposition is very important. For example, he teaches the Pharisees that their deeds of tithing or extra fasting was not bad in of itself, (which showed their desire to be closer to God) but the attitude of pride made their action centered on themselves, rather than God. So yes, a person's disposition will determine whether we are cooperating with God's graces in moving our will to do His will.
Not to nitpick, but if your "close-parens" is where you want it, I would just note that as a Southern Baptist, I believe that baptism has nothing to do with salvation.
Really? What's the point of it? Can I use Titus 3:5 again? I'd prefer not to change the subject now, but this seems something that we can discuss later.
The Scriptures (both OT and NT) talk about a person's name being blotted out of the book of Life!
"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." (Rev 3:5 - implies that one's name CAN be blotted out.
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto [the place] of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them." (Ex 32:33-34)
It seems that God reserves the right to cast us out, based on His judgment of how we walked in faith.
When you first prayed, did you just let go and open your heart completely? In your mind, did you stand there naked before God and say "Here I am God, I am nothing, you are everything, please save me?"
I believe so. And I can examine my own walk and see that God is slowly guiding me to become a better Christian. I agree that we have a good idea (but never presume) that TODAY, we are walking in Christ (Scriptures tell us that we know this when we are obeying the commandments). It seems unlikely, but I can't predict the future and my walk then. Perhaps something terrible will happen and I will lose my faith in God's Providence. Perhaps I will then slowly drift into sin or indifference. During this gradual rejection of God's graces, I may then commit those sins that Paul says prevent us from inheriting the Kingdom (1 Cor 6). If I continue, without repentance, and subsequently die, according to the Scripture, I would expect my name to have been blotted out of the Book of Life.
Paul, esp. in 1 Cor 10:1-12 and Hebrews 3-4, he makes it clear that we must not presume that we are saved for eternal life. The 1 Cor 10 story about the "saved" Jews is rather poignant on this. He ends the story with "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." (1 Cor 10:12) We can have confidence that God will not fail us. It is myself that I must pray to continue the race, to walk the narrow path, to carry my cross, etc. Final perseverance cannot be merited. I think this line of thinking helps keep us humble and not overconfident.
All you have to give, is everything you have.
Have you spoken to people who have fallen away, after making this "sinner's prayer"? I realize that people often say things and really mean it during such an emotional moment. But we must walk in faith. WALK! Not talk! I have confidence that the Lord will provide everything I need to enter the Kingdom of Heaven in its fullness. But, as Paul discusses in Romans 7, I continue to fight the flesh. I don't get the idea that the battle is over when I read the Scriptures, just because of my Baptism/sinner's prayer. If I am saved irrefutably on that day for eternal life, what is the point of sanctification? Aren't we "covered with the blood of Christ", once we make that confession? What would be the need to continue to fight, unless there is something more? Moral exhortations are pointless for already "saved" people who cannot loose their salvation.
Brother in Christ
I admit my ignorance. And I suggest that you admit your ignorance too. For, you claim to know not only the Scripture, but that your interpretation of the Scripture is complete and perfect!
I trust that the 2,000 year old collective wisdom of the Church knows how to read Scripture and how to interpret it. You actually claim that you know better.
This is the kind of arrogance and pride that I am talking about when I say that I just don't see Protestants emulating Christ. Instead, I see individuals deifying themselves as the final interpreters of the Scripture, perfectly and completely.
The problem is that your interpretation of the faith is different, radically different from the truth known to the Christian world from the beginning. You want me to "deal with it" as you see it.
It is not the Church that bows to the traditions of men, but rather the Protestants who place individul interpretation as nothing short of absolute truth.
Don't flatter yourself.
900+ posts and this thread is still going stong.
Now I have a lot to review...
It is what Paul taught. It is what Jesus taught. It is revealed throughout all of scripture.
It is not the Church that bows to the traditions of men, but rather the Protestants who place individul interpretation as nothing short of absolute truth.
No the Protestants simply believe that the scriptures are inerrant and perspicuous and that traditions which render the word of God of no effect are to be rejected.
Absolutely! But because we (in the Church) do not agree with multitudes of Protestant and cultist versions of the "truth," we are accused (why am I not surprised) of denying the omnipotence and omniscience of God.
Protestants, like narcissistic Gnostics, claim the "inner knowledge" and offer "trust me, I know the Scripture" as their only argument. They accuse the Church of being a "tradition of men," yet they not only put complete trust in themselves as men, but themselves personally as the final and absolute arbiters of what is truth.
On the contrary, God is the ultimate micromanager. Scripture teaches us that ALL things work together for our good. So what precisely are you willing to leave out of that scripture verse? If you go to the dresser to wear your favorite socks and discover they're in the dirty clothes hamper isn't God working that for your good? If you run to catch a bus, miss it and are late for work isn't God working that for your good? If you have an important business presentation and discovered afterwards that you had a piece of spinach on your front tooth, isn't God working that for your good?
You can't separate a tiny event from a major event as most Christian try to do simply because you don't know how eating a salad relates to nabbing (or not) an important business deal. That is why we are to give thanks in ALL THINGS.
One more thing about this. The Jewish thought process was to always looked at God controlling the good and the bad, micromanaging our lives. Consider this exchange between Eli and Samuel:
I would disagree PM. I think it's simply because you, as a Protestant, are closer to the concept of election and predestination. These are directly tied to God's omniscience and omnipotent attributes. The Orthodox abandoned election (if they ever had it) very early on. The Roman Catholics officially abandoned election during the Reformation even though as Augustine pointed out it was a major belief of the Church. Protestants are slowly losing this concept and today you'll find a lot of Protestants either agreeing with the Catholics and Orthodox or they will sit silently by. As this article points out, this was the main contention of Luther and Erasmus.
If people thought it through a bit they would come to the same conclusion Augustine came to; "There is nothing that we have that we have not been given by God."
You are getting closer... :-)
We don't know why Judas betrayed Christ for a few coins. But God knew that he would. The important thing is, Judas could have repented afterwards, just as Adam could have repented. He could have chosen to die with Christ on the cross. He could have asked for His forgiveness. He chose not to.
God uses us for His plan, but He always offers His salvation to all. It's up to us to accept His gift of Grace, or to reject it.
However God's Plan was degined, we are offered a chance to be that thief on the right side of our Lord who repented. The Church understanding of God is that we don't know why He does things the way He does things, but He gives us a chance until the last breath to come back to Him.
The problem with Protestant theology is that repentance becomes meaningless in the elect-and-condmened-from-eternity scheme of things, as does Adam's sin and even Christ's redemption.
If we are made to sin, because we are just God's puppets-on-the-string, to repent would mean to say I am sorry for something we had no control over. And the whole idea of sin and our fall would become irrelevant. For how can you redeem something that was never yours to begin with?
"Humans can say "no" to evil, but they don't. In doing that, they re-invent evil every time"
" The real sin of Adam is not that he and Eve were foled by the cunning Serpent, but that Adam blamed God for his sin"
The sin of Adam was the same sin Lucifer/Satan committed, he wanted to be like God and decide what was best for himself; the sin of idolatry, graven image, blasphemy all wrapped in presumption. Every time we sin we commit the same sin over again, we re-invent nothing. There has not been a "new" sin invented since Lucifer/Satan's. It's boring, all we do is figure out ways to package it.
Repentence has nothing to do with the transaction in the garden. When Adam sinned the whole race and creation was infected. Only his death could have paid the penalty for his sin and then God would have had to start over again and Lucifer/Satan would have won. Instead He provided the sacrifice for sin and doomed the enemy.
Interesting, it was God who allowed Lucifer/Satan into the garden to tempt Adam during this probationary period of innocence, much like He did with Job. For even after Lucifer's fall he was still subject to God and could only do what God allowed.
At this point it is simply spinning in circles.
If that were true, we would all be singing the same tune. If the Protestants were right, there wouldn't be thousands of their denominations each claiming what you just said.
and that traditions which render the word of God of no effect are to be rejected
And the final judge as to what is of no effect is...?
Including the freedom to choose. I believe Blessed Augustine maitained that man was created with free will, otherwise he would have been a heretic. What he said is true because, contrary to your implication, the Orthodox anc the Catholics believe that God knows everything and all, and that He is the source and the cause of everything and all, including the free will.
Again, if everything is God's micromanagement and doing, and we have no autonomy within His creation, we are not guilty of anything. The whole concept of sin and redemption becomes meaningless.
Then why are there so many denominations and disagreements as to what is Truth? The whole Protestant idea of sola scriptura emphasizes personal interpretation as the ultimate avenue to the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Is that not the ultimate in arrogance and pride and self-love?
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.