Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The debates that you have, the spiritual struggles, all we say is to read the Church Fathers -- ...
Is it arrogant to think that the questions, the doubts, the clarity you have, haven't been thought of in 2000 years by men of God made wiser by the Holy Spirit than you or me? Yes. And note that the Church Fathers DID doubt, did question.
Well, in this case by faith I meant trust, given previous discussions I should have been clearer. It seems to me that you presume that RCC leadership has special insight into scripture and that you are to trust them definitionally, even to the point of adopting unscriptural views. Our side does not trust any leader unless the teaching is solidly backed by scripture. Our trust is in the Bible itself, rather than mechanically following the holdings of other fallible men. (You admitted that the hierarchy makes mistakes.)
I and my brethren do not begrudge you your choice to follow teachings of the Catholic hierarchy. We simply and honestly disagree with some of them. We also agree with some of them.
I still do not understand this charge of arrogance. Our side does not presume to be the first to ask the questions we do. In addition to our spiritual questions we also question the authority of the answerer. We tend to say that if the authority is God, then good, but that if it is man, then bad. Do you think we are arrogant simply because we dare to disagree with you? For that WE are the arrogant ones? Tsk tsk. :)
Some folks say the darndest things don't they.
I read sermons & commentary from the era that used that text with my KJV handy. The era (which even includes the present & foreseeable future) of Pink, Spurgeon, Hervey, Toplady, Gill, Owen,...
And I said that it is impossible.
Unless God performs a miracle on your cold dead heart, you will no more want to accept God's grace than you would want to drink a bucket of vomit. It is only because God has given you the desire to come to him that you will come to him. On your own and left to your own devices you will never come to Christ. It is impossible. Not merely "hard". Impossible.
I would agree that God knew -- He IS omniscient.
Which comes first, God's plan or God's creation of the participants in His plan? If God's plan comes first then certain things must necessarily happen, independent of chance.
I don't believe it -- I don't believe God forced Judas to betray the Christ. Judas did it of his own free will and was damned out of his rejection of God's grace.
I do not mean to mock you, but I must ask about this and every other act done by humans in conformity with God's plan: "Was God just lucky then, that Judas betrayed Christ?" If Jesus isn't betrayed, then He isn't crucified and scripture is proven a fraud. My position is that it was all ordained in the beginning.
I read that, thanks. Indeed, all that God calls are free to receive Baptism, as the passage explains.
You are trusting in the Catholic Church for your salvation
Yes, I do, and you should too. It is not, however, either the physical plant or the faithful, although these are components of it. The Church is a community of believers dead and alive, founded by Jesus Christ Who is Her bridegroom. The Church and Christ are in a spousal relationship whereby both trust and fulfill each other. Thus Christ protects the Church from error while the Church is free to legislate Divine Law on earth, which Christ respects in Heaven. The Church is bodily united in Christ as a spouse should, she forms the house of Christ on earth and it is possible to speak of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. The Church has been handed down through history from the Apostles and is sustained by its bishops, priests, monks and nuns. She gives us her holy Sacraments through which Divine Grace flows to men. Her true boundary is drawn by Christ. There is no salvation outside of it because there is no salvation outside of Christ.
And, -- reiterating my earlier point, -- it denies God his true glory.
"Grace," says the divine Chrysostom (St. John), "though it is grace, yet it saves only those who desire." "Salvation," according to the words of the Theologian (St. Gregory), "must be our work and God's." Rain falls on the ground. Yet the earth does not produce fruit if the husbandman does not labor. The sun shines everywhere. Yet, one who desires to accept its light must open his eyes. This means that God grants all the grace and help, yet the will of man must cooperate with this grace. God desired to save Noah during the flood in which the entire world perished, but He required that he build the ark with his own hands. God wanted to cleanse Nehemiah from leprosy, but He required that Nehemiah himself go and wash in the Jordan. He wants to open the eyes of the one born blind. Yet here again He requires that the blind one wash himself in the pool of Siloam. God desires salvation for all people, but requires that each cooperate in his or her salvation. Man is free and must choose between water and fire, life and death. Man is rational, he is directed by his mind. He can discern good from evil, light from darkness. Written on the heart of each person is the natural law, showing the true way to salvation. Therefore, what is necessary for predestination, if not the freely granted grace of God and the free will of man? God desires; if man desires also, then he is already on the way to salvation.[...]
If you are ill, does not God know whether you will recover or die? But just because of this is it true that you should not call a physician, refuse any medicines, and sit with your hands folded and await either health or death? In such a case you would be very unwise, even foolish. It is one thing that God foresees your healing or death (and this is certainly true). It is completely another thing to assume that God's foreknowledge grants you health or death (and this is certainly false). If you take care of yourself, you will be healed, and in the opposite case you will die. God foresees both cases, yet neither is brought into existence by God's foreknowledge. You will either get better or die. Only one of these two is true, but not determined definitively. Try to understand this more fully. God definitely foresees whether you will be in paradise or in hell. In a mirror we are reflected just as we are in reality. The beautiful are beautiful and the reverse. Likewise in Gods pure foreknowledge we appear as we are in actuality, either written in bright letters in the book of life or inscribed in the eternal book of death. If we are righteous, then we are among the ranks of the righteous who are saved. If we are sinners, then we are on the list of condemned sinners. A mirror reflects our appearance. God's foreknowledge reflects our will. This is the view of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "The righteous judgement of God takes into consideration our disposition. He grants to us according to our inner feelings." A mirror, which reflects both the beautiful and the horrid, does not make them so. Likewise the foreknowledge of God, in which one is predestined for paradise, and another is condemned to torment, in actuality does not force one to salvation and the other to condemnation. "Foreknowledge of God, the Theologian tells us, is intuitive and not active." This means that you are saved or condemned, not because God foresees your salvation or condemnation, but that either by your good works you cooperated with Gods grace and God foresees your salvation, or that by your evil deeds you avoid the grace of God and will suffer for it, and God foresees your torment. Thus Judas betrayed Christ not because Christ foresaw his betrayal, but rather Christ foresaw the betrayal of Judas because he intended to betray Christ. Ibis is how the wise Justin, philosopher and martyr speaks about this: "The cause of future events is not foreknowledge, but foreknowledge is the result of future events. The future does not flow forth from foreknowledge, but foreknowledge from the future. It is not Christ who is the cause of the betrayal of Judas. But the betrayal is the cause of the Lord's foreknowledge." If you live in a way which is pleasing to God, you will be saved. If you lead a corrupt life you will perish. God foresees both the first and the second. But neither the first nor the second predetermine God's foreknowledge. You will either be saved or perish. One of these is definitely true, yet not determined beforehand.
[...]
Once an evil man came to Apollo of Delphi with a sparrow in his hands, covered with a piece of clothing. He requested them to tell him whether the sparrow was living or dead. This man was sly. If the oracle said that it was lifeless, he intended to show the living sparrow. If he was told that it was living, he intended to suffocate it and show that it was dead. Thus, he wanted to trick the oracle. But his trickery was discovered and he received the following answer: It depends on you to decide, to show what you hold as living or dead. You too, oh Christian, ask whether eternal life or eternal death is in store for your soul. It depends on you to decide. Your predestination depends on the will of God and your will. The will of God is always ready. This means that things are determined only by your will. God desires (your salvation); if you desire this also, then you are predestined for eternal life.
Now you're toying with me. :) I thought I understood that Catholic belief was that salvation is finally achieved through God's grace and the lifelong taking of the sacraments. I thought the sacraments were required for final salvation. Is the last statement meant to introduce a new concept of salvation or are you just messing with my mind? (LOL!)
Really? What's the point of it [baptism to a Baptist]?
We believe that salvation is completely achieved by the acceptance by the believer of Christ as Savior and Lord into his or her heart. To us, believer's baptism is very important, and is required for church membership. We see it as a public obedience to God, Jesus did it, said we should do it, so we should do it. It is an important symbol of regeneration, however, baptism does not save because the one to be baptized is presumed to have already been saved.
"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.
Thanks for this and the following verses. I'm not sure I buy this one as support, though. Sure, God can do anything, but here He is specifically saying that He will not blot out a name. Of course, He can, but it doesn't imply that He will
"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)
This verse, OTOH, is much more "troublesome". I looked it up in my NIV and there is no issue of translation. The footnote I have says that this OT "Book" is a book of the physically living, and that being blotted out means an untimely death. The NT "Book" in Revelation is the Book of Life that I am familiar with. By itself, this explanation doesn't exactly rock my world, so I admit I can't say about this one. Dr. E or Harley (or anyone), can you add anything to this?
Perhaps something terrible will happen and I will lose my faith in God's Providence.
Nah, never happen. Hey, I'm a Protestant, I know these things. Trust me. :)
Final perseverance cannot be merited. I think this line of thinking helps keep us humble and not overconfident.
I always applaud the seeking of humility. I think this is where my side takes some unfair criticism from others for being arrogant, etc. There is nothing in our beliefs that involves resting on our laurels because we already have a "ticket". We also do not believe that we can be sure because we declare it so. We just honestly believe that there are many promises in the Bible that lead to surety. Our approach, when clearly appropriate, is to take a plain meaning of the promise and then to rest in joy and thanksgiving.
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?
I agree that the battle is not over once, in my view, salvation is achieved. In fact, the new believer can be sure of an increase in attacks by satan. One beauty of salvation is its simplicity, another is that it begins the lifelong process of sanctification with the new help of the Spirit.
God's ordinance is that we be sanctified and grow ever closer to Him throughout our new Christian lives. We believe the Bible is simple enough for a child to understand (that which is needed for salvation) and deep enough to envelop the greatest thinkers of all time. With the new help of the Spirit, many of the mysteries of the Bible can be discovered, and we will lead better, more Godly, and happier lives while on earth.
You continue to cite personal opinion without reference or sources, and thus your objections lack substance.
I'd be interested in your commentary on the link in Kosta's 956, from which I quote in 972.
The errors are known. You can compare the same against the Catholic Bible derived from the Vulgate.
You may wish to read Augustine's A Treatise on Predestination. Kosta doesn't hold Augustine in high regard so it's understandable that he won't accept what Augustine has to say. The Catholic on the other hand hold Augustine in high regards but ignores this important work.
I guess we all pick and choose what we want.
Here are two passages I found. One is in Luke 22:1-3, describing the Wednesday before: "1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.
But the clincher is in John 13:2: "2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus."
God knew satan would enter Judas and He allowed it. Sounds like a plan.
The important thing is, Judas could have repented afterwords, 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. ... However God's Plan was degined, we are offered a chance to be that thief on the right side of our Lord who repented.
This is very interesting to me. You appear to agree with me and everyone else that Judas did not repent and was not saved. When you also brought in the thief on the cross it got me to thinking. Here is what we know about the thief:
Luke 23:40-43 : 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
And this is the last we know of Judas:
Matt. 27:3-5 : 3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4 "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Isn't that an eerie comparison? We all believe that the thief was saved, but Judas was not. The key difference between eternal salvation and eternal hell came down to one sentence? Judas "missed it by that much"? I don't know, it still sounds like a plan to me, with the added bonus of illustrating the simplicity of salvation.
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.
Protestants agree that we must repent of our sins. I believe John the Baptist spoke on this issue a time or two. :) We only disagree on how that happens. Our side simply says that the ability to repent comes from God, because it is not in us when we are born and we cannot acquire it through our own means. I would guess that your side says that repentance is an independent choice of the individual.
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.
I wouldn't agree to a puppet analogy. God's love for us is much different than that He could have for any inanimate object. On your last point, I would say that Protestants believe that we are all born into sin, through Adam. We have no control over our nature to sin. I thought Catholics believe that we are born with a tendency to sin and I would presume that they would also agree that all have sinned.
Therefore, do you believe that you had the free choice to not sin from birth? Have you always been in control? When you repent and confess, you say you're sorry only for those things in your direct control? I supposed in an earlier post that 8 billion people have ever lived. Does it sound like we are in control if the sin count just happens to turn out to be 8 billion, minus one, to one?
A very interesting article Dr. E.
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.