Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The sacraments are the pre-eminent means of receiving God's graces, although they certainly are not the only means. Catholic spiritual writers constantly vouch for the effectiveness of the Sacraments in one's walk to become more virtuous. Considering that we must become Christ-like, to become Holy as God is Holy, the sacraments are "required" normatively, but not absolutely. It is through the Eucharist where we recognize and partake in the work of Christ most fully. I am not introducing a new means of salvation - it is quite old! Christ commissioned His Apostles with the power to forgive sins and to visibly connect the faithful to that heavenly offering of Christ's sacrifice to His Father eternally.
We believe that salvation is completely achieved by the acceptance by the believer of Christ as Savior and Lord into his or her heart.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but is your definition of salvation focusing on a past event? We call that first event (we - Baptism, you - Sinner's Prayer) "initial justification". In a sense, we are "saved", but as in anything else in life, we can become "unhealed" (to save means to heal). Because we have been healed once doesn't preclude another onslaught of disease or sickness. I believe the Scriptures bears this out when it discusses perseverance, fighting to the end, running the race, etc.
The ongoing process of sanctification, I believe we agree with. However, we also understand that during our walk, we may turn away from God through deadly sin. Thus, we believe we require a "rejustification". In other words, we must be made righteous in God's eyes again. This doesn't mean that the mark the Spirit left on us after Baptism has left us. But we must reconcile with our Father, just as the Prodigal Son did.
And finally, when Catholics say "we are saved", they are normally refering to that moment when we "stand" before the Throne of God and are judged based on how we responded to God's grace, much like Matthew 25:31-45. As a sidebar, our response is a cooperation with God - we can do nothing good without Christ abiding within us. Thus, our good deeds are actually mine AND Christ's - sort of like an amalgamation of two persons. Thus, we can say we cannot boast and that they are not our works alone that save.
Regarding the "books", the OT books are probably more refering to books of life as you mention. Psalm 69 discusses these books, as well. However, most Bible scholars believe that there is a spiritual connection in the OT between the Promised Land (dirt) and the Promised Land (heaven), as well as death (our body) and death (the second death) in the NT. The OT speaks of typology that foreshadows a deeper meaning in the New. At any rate, there are other verses that discuss how we can lose "salvation", such as:
"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb 10:26-27)
There are enough verses along these lines that would make the concept of losing salvation difficult to "explain away" so often. It is a re-occuring theme.
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 admit that I find that a bit of a contradiction. Perhaps part of the misunderstanding comes from our different definitions of what it means to be saved. Has God's grace become effective on the person who has faith to move mountains but has not love? Paul says that faith is worthless (1 Cor 13:2). Is worthless faith going to achieve eternal heaven for us? Would you say that God expects that His gifts are used by our display of love for our neighbor? James is not impressed with such "faith", either, nor is John. And Jesus, well, Matthew 7:21 tells us we must DO the will of the Father. Our faith should lead us to do good, otherwise, it is worthless faith. If it doesn't, then what?
This is where I am lost by the "once saved - always saved" doctrine. Paul admits that faith alone DOESN'T save, but requires LOVE. Even ALL FAITH, he says, can be worthless.
I agree that the battle is not over once, in my view, salvation is achieved.
Ah. What battle is left to fight then? NOTHING can separate us from the love of God, correct? But ourselves... I believe that God's promise should give us full confidence that Satan can not pry us out of God's Hands. But I do believe WE can turn away - perhaps a gradual falling away, or maybe one particular extreme event. But if we continue to fight a battle and cannot fail, what is the battle's purpose?
We believe the Bible is simple enough for a child to understand
Yikes! Then why so many different opinions on even KEY elements of the faith? The very basic message is not difficult to understand, but the Scriptures themselves require some understanding of past interpretations. I think it is a mistake to "re-invent the wheel". I think it is too easy to take for granted what our pastors and priests teach us.
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
Certainly, as long as we have a humble heart ourselves. Being humble requires that we also take into account the Church's interpretation on Scripture. We realize that the Spirit has been operative in the past Church members, and the same Spirit is operative in us today. Thus, if our prayers lead us to interpret something that is out of line with what the Spirit has taught the Church throughout history, as we being humble? Is the same Spirit going to lead us to different, diametrically opposed understandings of the same verses? The Spirit of Truth works within us, but not to lead us astray from what He tells everyone else.
Brother in Christ
Catholics (and Orthodox, if I may) also believe that repentance is inspired within us by God. But not irrestibly. Even the "saved" (your definition) do not repent for everything. People who are "saved" hold grudges for many years towards people who are family members. That is our human nature. As I have mentioned before, God gives us sufficient grace in all cases to make the decision to say "I forgive you" or "God, forgive me". Unfortunately, some choose not to do this. Forgiveness, then, is not independent. To help me with this, I think about the parable of the sower and the seed. The ground that the seed falls upon will determine the fruit, correct? Of course, without the seed, there will be NO FRUIT! We cannot bear fruit without being part of the vine...
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.
Technically, we believe we are born without sanctifying grace (the inner life of God). As a result, we are not abiding in Christ. Since we can do NOTHING to achieve heaven by ourselves, we are born in a state where we cannot achieve heaven - which many will say is a state of sin. It is not personal sin, but it is sin just the same, because anything without God is sin. Original sin leaves us with the tendency to choose evil, which doesn't go away after we are 'saved', without God's graces.
Whether we have it in our control to sin or not is probably more a general statement. Before I turned to God, I found that I was able to do good, but usually, looking back, I choose the "evil" or something that was my will, not God's will. Catholics have a different idea of anthropology, the plight of man. We believe that man is wounded, man cannot choose the good often. Even when we do, it is out of poor motives. Naturally, we cannot do what is necessary to achieve heaven without God. All men have eventually turned from God at some point in their lives. But again, we don't call man totally depraved, but wounded. We CAN choose good, sometimes, as God has placed His Law into all men's hearts - with sufficient grace to obey it. Most men, though, without knowledge of Christ, will not obey this law. Thus, the greater need of Christ in our lives in an active sense.
Therefore, do you believe that you had the free choice to not sin from birth? Have you always been in control?
I think our sinful tendencies are likely to drown out that "natural law" placed in our hearts by God without God's further graces found in the sacraments and so forth.
When you repent and confess, you say you're sorry only for those things in your direct control?
Scripture points to also being sorry for involuntary or unknown sins. We are urged to examine ourselves, but to also be sorry for any ways in which we offended God, intentionally or not.
Brother in Christ
Forest Keeper-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?
God’s decrees were established before the foundations of the world. Man acts out these unchanging decrees. However, from our perspective we feel that we are capable of changing the decrees of God which is simply not true. There are several places in scriptures that talks about names being blotted out or erased from the Book of Life (Ps 69:28, Rev 3:5). OTOH we know that the Book of Life was written before the foundations of the world (Rev 13) and those whose names are in the Book of Life are saved. If one argues that names can blotted out of the Book of Life then the passage in Rev 13 is completely false; peoples names were not written from the foundation of the world and scripture is in error. And that is something jokus will find hard to explain.
If one starts from the premise that all those who are going to be saved have their names in the Book of Life then the other verses in Psalms and Rev 3:5 poses no problem. They are nothing more than an exhortation by God to do what He has already decree. They are not idle chatter on God’s part but true Christians are motivated by these exhortations to love and good works; understanding that God runs the show-not us.
It’s like God ordaining Moses to carry His message to the Egyptians and then seeking to kill him because Moses failed to circumcise his sons. God knew what would happen and what it would take to motivate Moses (actually in this case Moses’ wife) to do what was proper. Or it could be likened to God casting Jonah into the sea (Jonah 2:3) and then bringing him up from the pits (Jonah 2:6). It was only after God threatened Jonah with death was Jonah willing to do the things of God. (BTW-Note that Jonah doesn’t say it was the sailors who threw him into the sea or that he, Jonah, made a choice to be thrown into the sea which many today would claim. Jonah rightfully and accurately stated that it was God who caused the events to happen.)
The verse jokus provided is nothing more than an exhortation from God similar to the exhortations of Moses or Jonah. We are never to take our salvation for granted even though it has been granted us. And true Christians will never take their salvation for granted, persevering to the end. It has nothing to do with our salvation for this was written in the Book of Life before we even existed.
Great examples of how imperfect translations become "standards" of truth.
I would like to add a couple.
(KJV) Mat 5:39 "But I say unto you that ye resist not evil." and (KJV) Mat 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
In both of these cases, the word "evil" is used as a proper name and means the "evil one" or Satan. The importance of this could be a topic for another discussion, but I think everyone understands the world of difference between not resisting crime and not resisting a criminal, or being rescued from crime as opposed to being rescued from a particular criminal.
(KJV) Mat 6:12 "And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."
The verb to forgive in this case is known as the "historical present" and would be better translated as forgave rather than the present tense to forgive. This has an important implication in understanding God's mercy being conditional on our responsibility to do unto others as we would others do unto us: that we may not ask for forgiveness unless we have forgiven others. This is not at all the message that comes from using a simple present as KJV does.
This is of course tied with the Orthodox/Roman Catholics understanding that we may not hold a grudge and ask God's forgiveness for our sins.
These small semantic points along with your examples Cronos, such as the very essential one in your first example (Mat 5:48) "become" (future tense) rather than "be" (present tense), completely defeat the naive Protestant notion that the Bible is so simple and easy to comprehend something even a child can understand.
It also illustrates how those who go through life trusting their own interpretation of the Scripture are making sure they never fully understand it.
Finally, this also shows that different versions of the Bible (redacted and re-edited by human hands and human minds) by necessity corrupt the original in meaning and content, even if not intentionally. One more reason not to all our trust in the Bible alone, as jo kus properly pointed out a few posts ago.
Kosta holds Blessed Augustine to be one of the Saints and Fathers of the Church who, like many others, hypothesized on a variety of issues that the undivided Church of the first millennium did not universally accept.
The Orthodox East became fully familiar with his works only very late (15th century or so) and then accepted some of his writings as fully orthodox and others as contrary to what the undivided Church taught all along, and what the Orthodox Church continues to hold unchanged.
The Roman Catholics, likewise, rely on more than one single source of religious opinion, unlike the Protestants, who almost, if not actually take +Augustine as inspired and faultless (relying on doctrines of men, ey?)
Both sides of the Church allow religious speculation but only that which is known and in line with Scriptures en toto can be considered faith. Faith is not an opinion, lest if become relativism (i.e. individual interpretation of the Bible), one of many Protestant errors.
Borrowing from Bishop Minatios's work On Predestination:
"Thus Judas betrayed Christ not because Christ foresaw his betrayal, but rather Christ foresaw the betrayal of Judas because he intended to betray Christ."
In other words, the Protestants believe that foreknowledge is the cause of things. Thus, knowing that Judas (on his own will, lack of faith and greed) intended to betray Christ is why Christ chose him, but Christ did not make Judas betray Him.
The error of the Protestant mindset is that all the blame goes to God! (whether you see it that way or not) Just as Adam blamed God for giving him that woman, and Eve blamed it on the Serpant -- ultimately it was all God's fault! If God didn't make me do it, then someone else did, and if that fails, blame it on the devil! But since God is cause everything and all -- he must be the cause and reason for my evil as well. How ungrateful! How wrong! How totally off track!
Also, it is not true that everything is the way it was meant to be. God has unlimited options and can change His mind as He pleases. Thus, in 2 Kings 20: 1-5 it is obvious that God did change King Hezekia's predistined death, as Bishop Minatios amply illustrates.
Another Protestant error is that God's foreknowledge becomes a necessity which even God cannot change because He has preordained everything. False! God is not subject to necessity. And neither are we. Only beasts are subject to necessity.
Obviously, God can and does change his Plan as He sees fit, and He rewards those who follow Him. For us to follow Him meaningfully, it must be out of love and on our own free will. Otherwise we are back to that tractor beam, God leadings us by a leash. Wrong, totally wrong.
Given these terms, and given that Jesus specifically taught that we sin even in thought, are not all Catholics (and everyone) in a virtually perpetual state of sin? Do Catholics believe that pre-physical-death salvation is only complete from the time of the last confession to the next committed sin? (a very short time for even a good person)
On another thread I asked a Catholic what happens to a person who dies having sinned, but before the next confession. The answer amounted to if the person intended to confess, he would still be saved. I wondered if this was the official Catholic response because it can happen to anyone that he simply loses his way in faith for a short time. But if he dies during that time, then what?
But at the same time we read of salvation of those who came in contact with Christ directly, like the Good Thief, and did not undergo a formal baptism. We also speculate that the righteous of the pre-Christian era were saved by Christ in His healing work on the Holy Saturday. So we say that these were extraordinary means of salvation, ...
Since I am none of these things, and since I am not Catholic, I must be doomed. :) I'm not offended and I appreciate your honesty about your beliefs.
We believe that Christ judges all the baptized, Catholic and non-Catholic, based on the holiness of their lives. While there is no assurance of salvation outside of the Apostolic Catholic/Orthodox Church, a Christian life well lived in the love an in imitation of Christ leads to salvation.
The key here is what kind of judging we are talking about. Protestants believe that there is a "judgment" made as to salvation (is the person's name written in the Book of Life?). We also believe there is a judgment on the deeds of one's life, which determines reward in Heaven.
Non-Catholics should worry if they let their anti-Catholic sentiment get in the way of their own sanctification.
There is a creature sitting on each of my shoulders. One of them is an angel. :)
As St. Paul says, there is a basic moral law written in everyone's heart.
Given what I am arguing, this is something I need to know about. :) Would you happen to have a verse?
So if a pagan does not know Christ, never rejects Him, but holds on to what his religious instinct tells him about right and wrong, Christ will save him, or so we hope.
With all due respect, religious instinct????? What if this person's religious instinct about right and wrong, is ALL WRONG?! How do Hitler and his ilk not pass this test?What is your reaction to this? :
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
---------
Me: Does this mean that some do not [commit actual sin following baptism]?
Yes, -- for example those who die before age of reason, or unable to use reason due to a mental illness.
I can only infer from this that Catholics do not believe that a believer's baptism is necessary, that an infant sprinkling is sufficient. (You're saying that the baptism took place before the age of reason.) Is this right? If so, then how does one get credit for completing a sacrament "against" one's will, since a baby makes no choice and does not participate out of love? The same line of reasoning applies for the mentally disabled. The baptism could not have been chosen by the person.
Here's the problem with your entire premise. You are confusing God's "time" with our time. God sees everything as one NOW. He lives in the eternally present. The Scripture speaks in human terms - that God decrees before we existed. However, God is not subject to time, since He created it. Thus, God does not literally plan things on T minus day one of creation, then goes to sleep, wakes up, and then each day, consults His pre-planned chart of things to do today and ensure that it will happen! Thus, it is more accurate to say that God's plan are of the ultimate in fluidity, as they take everything done into account in His eternal PRESENT.
Since God sees yesterday, today, and tommorrow as ONE EVENT, His decrees ARE our actions! Thus, free will is not destroyed, nor is God's omnipotentence and foresight. I believe your mistake comes from applying time to God. Thus, you believe that our names cannot be blotted out. You think they are already written 6000 years/20 billion years ago - to God.
Regards
What is interesting is that some people only take PART of St. Augustine's writings, ignoring the rest. St. Augustine had a lot to say about predestination, and it certainly is not what our Protestant brothers are projecting. Would a "proto-Calvinist" say "He who made you without your own self will NOT justify you WITHOUT YOURSELF"? (St. Augustine, Sermon 169). What is even more ironic is what St. Augustine says on OTHER subjects, such as on the Pope, the Eucharist, the sacraments, the saints in heaven, Mary, and so forth. You'd think St. Augustine was Catholic! If St. Augustine is a "source" on predestination, why do some totally ignore his agreeing with the practically universal idea of the real presence in the Eucharist? Doesn't it sound like some people have their minds made up on theology and are just looking for support of their theories? Wouldn't it be better to explore what was believed in actuality, rather than finding a scattered quote twisted out of context?
Regards
Being sorry is not repentance. Repentance (metanoia in Greek) means changing your mind for the better -- so that you never repeat the same error. It is a difficult and life-defining moment to repent of something. Unfortunately, people take it very lightly -- it's a lot more than saying "I'm sorry."
Judas could have repented and asked God for forgiveness if he truly believed that life without Christ is meaningless. Instead, he gave in to hate, he followed Satan's advice raher than God's.
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
My point is this: if everything is set in stone, and everything has been predetermined by His foreknowledge (Protestant error), then we are on a set of tracks that allow no deviation and nothing will change what destination we arrive at. God is in the driver's seat; He gave us a ticket, but it's up to us to get on the right train.
Protestants believe that God actually puts us either on the train destined to hell or to paradise! You don't see anything wrong with that teaching? I wish you would.
You will find precious few Protestants who have read the works of any church father-much like the Catholics and Orthodox. (I never did until a few years ago.) Nor will you find the ones who have read Augustine (including myself) to consider his writings "inspired and faultless".
The difference is simply that Orthodox and Catholic have others who read these works and tells them what to believe. Protestants read these works (hopefully) and make up their own minds. Protestants believe the Holy Spirit will lead people to all truths.
LOL!!!! :-)
And he even believed in -- (don't tell them): free will.
But you are right on target, Jo. They look for out-of-context support for their innvations and distortions, instead on the faith delivered in en toto.
We must possess sanctifying grace (the inner life of God) within us (you may recognize "Christ must abide within us") to enter eternal heaven. This cannot happen if we lose this sanctifying grace (which we never possessed BEFORE Baptism). When do we lose it? When we commit a mortal or deadly sin (as per 1 John). This sin is the sin that prevents us from inheriting eternal life, as per Paul. Thus, minor sins do not remove this sanctifying grace from us. Confession is only NECESSARY (although suggested more often, as you remember, sacraments are means of grace, and we all can use more!) when we commit mortal sins.
When a beginner advances in his walk with Christ, He rains more graces upon Him, stengthening the man's will to resist temptation. It becomes much more unlikely, then, that a man who is walking in Christ would mortally sin. It is not impossible, but not as likely. The more one grows in humility and in daily prayer, the more one grows in virtue and can resist serious sin.
On another thread I asked a Catholic what happens to a person who dies having sinned, but before the next confession. The answer amounted to if the person intended to confess, he would still be saved. I wondered if this was the official Catholic response because it can happen to anyone that he simply loses his way in faith for a short time. But if he dies during that time, then what?
He is correct. The Sacrament is a visible SIGN of God's graces. But the graces are dependent ALSO on the inner disposition of the recipient. We trust to God's mercy to deliver us from an untimely death when we fully intended to confess our sins. As to a person who "loses his way in faith", it depends on his inner disposition towards God. Any unrepentant mortal sins leave the soul in a state of death.
Since I am none of these things, and since I am not Catholic, I must be doomed. :) I'm not offended and I appreciate your honesty about your beliefs.
This is the subject of a whole thread. When the Chruch says "there is no salvation outside the Church", it is not quite so simple and clear. First the Church SUBSISTS in the Roman Catholic Church, but the Vatican 2 Fathers never said the Church IS the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the fullness of the visible Church, but the Catholic Church admits that through a valid Baptism, a person MAY be united to her in a mysterious and hidden manner. Also, recall that we do share many Catholic beliefs, Catholic traditions, Catholic practices, and we read a Catholic book. To the effect that you follow Christ, you are, in some manner, Catholic! And there is always that term "invincible ignorance"! If one is saved, it is through the Catholic Church - even if one does not contribute to a Catholic Church's collection plate on Sundays.
This does not mean we stop evangelizing other Christians. God desires all men be saved AND come to the KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. We believe that the Catholic Church possesses within itself the fullest of God's revelation to man, as well as offering of God's plenitude of graces through the sacraments and prayers. One could say, then, if all things were equal, that a given person is more likely to grow in Christ within the Catholic Church then another community. But one can grow in Christ DESPITE not sharing the fullness of the faith.
Whew.
We also believe there is a judgment on the deeds of one's life, which determines reward in Heaven.
Nowhere in Scripture does judgment speak of "lesser rewards" or "greater rewards" in heaven, that I am aware of... Judgment is ALWAYS in the context of heaven or hell.
Given what I am arguing, this is something I need to know about. :) Would you happen to have a verse?
The natural law is pointed out by Paul in Romans 2:12-29. Note, again, the internal disposition that God requires. Here, Paul, if I may paraphrase, calls it "spiritual circumcision". Again, our inner self determines whether we are God's people or not. Since we can do no good alone, if we happen to be obeying that law for the right reasons (love of God and neighbor for their own sake) we can rest assured that God is operative within us.
So if a pagan does not know Christ, never rejects Him, but holds on to what his religious instinct tells him about right and wrong, Christ will save him, or so we hope. With all due respect, religious instinct????? What if this person's religious instinct about right and wrong, is ALL WRONG?! How do Hitler and his ilk not pass this test?What is your reaction to this? :
When Catholics talk about conscience, they are not considering any old conscience. We are wounded creatures! We speak of a properly informed conscience, one guided by the Spirit and our intellect properly formed by the Church. Once we are so informed and led, our conscience is a very reliable guide (if we'd only listen to it!). Obviously, Catholics also believe in objective truth. Thus, the "subjective truth" that Hitler wrote about doesn't apply. We contend that he KNEW right from wrong, but his intellect and will became slowly clouded, subjected to the temptations of the devil, to follow his own deviant will and intellect. Thus, Hitler chose not to follow the natural law, that objective Law written on our hearts, such as "thou shall not kill". Man doesn't need the Mosaic Law to tell him that.
I can only infer from this that Catholics do not believe that a believer's baptism is necessary, that an infant sprinkling is sufficient. (You're saying that the baptism took place before the age of reason.) Is this right? If so, then how does one get credit for completing a sacrament "against" one's will, since a baby makes no choice and does not participate out of love? The same line of reasoning applies for the mentally disabled. The baptism could not have been chosen by the person.
The concept of infant Baptism most CLEARLY describes salvation as a GIFT! What can a baby do to earn anything? Some brag about their faith - can a baby? Catholics believe that the sacrament is operative, NO MATTER the recipient's disposition, age, etc. It is ALWAYS a grace-filled action that visibly shows the invisible passing of grace. Paul in Col 2 parallels baptism with circumcision, which ALSO was a ritual that brings people into God's chosen people. As you know, it ALSO was practiced on infants. The idea, of course, is that the parents stand in proxy for the child. THEY promise to teach the faith to the child.
In time, Catholics have another sacrament called "Confirmation", where the person HIMSELF affirms his belief in Christ. I suppose the Baptism/Confirmation sacraments are similar to what you do in the Sinner's Prayer, FK. If you look at infant baptism, it is a merciful thing - for infants who die, or for people who cannot make informed decisions (maybe because they are mentally handicapped). Through the Church's actions, God opens His Kingdom to even such as these. This suggests that GOD is the one who determines the saved, not our own faith proclamation.
Annalex, I hope you didn't mind that I answered some of these. I C.C.'ed you a copy to prevent duplicate answers.
Brother in Christ
That's true, but I give Harley credit for even reading St. Augustine. I hope he continues to read other Catholic (meaning Catholic/Orthodox before the Schism) Fathers. It is quite helpful, at least for me, to see their insights into Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, the total teachings of the Church. What I hope he begins to do is to read the Fathers through the lenses of the Church, as they were written.
Brother in Christ
You may read the Desert Fathers, the Cappadocian Fathers and St. Gregory Palams too. It may shed some light on your conviction.
But to respond to your last sentence -- do you think Judas thought that Satan was his guide?
Hiding behind this catch-all Trump card "I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding me" is something that is not only freely absued, but something that has been shown to be historically and theologically invalid on numerous occasions.
Very much so. Which is the same reason I hope this discussion is going on: we are trying to find out more about their way of thinking, to see where we share things in common and where they depart. It is imperative to know that if we are to have clear understanding of our differences and to know why we recte or accept them.
While God is not subjected to the laws of time, His creation and creatures are. The universe, the angels and man are all subject to time and will forever be subject to it. God works within the bounds of time but He is not bound to it and, make no mistake, neither is His creation if He so deems. There are two places in scripture that shows God physically altering time (one in Joshua and another in Isaiah). God can alter time just as He can change anything else but apart from these two incidences there is no indication that He is so inclined. When God sent an angel to Daniel, Satan withstood him for 21 days until Michael came to help (Dan 10). God works within the framework of time unless He doesn't want to. That's His business.
God is always one step ahead of everything in His created universe. Satan hindering angels, God incremental creation and the Book of Life all shows stop and start points. God is not bound by these but He works within this framework. Scriptures state the Book of Life was created and sealed BEFORE the foundation of worlds. I personally believe just that.
kosta-"...do you think Judas thought that Satan was his guide?
Each person is to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. You can only do this by researching this information out; not by relying upon what someone tells you. Judas wasn't interested in the message of Christ. The little that we do know about Judas from scriptures is that he was a thief who stoled out of the general funds. This wasn't the message our Lord Jesus was preaching. Had he examined himself, he would have reached that conclusion except we know that Judas was preordained for the purpose of betraying our Lord.
A converse question to yours: Do you think our Lord Jesus prayed that Satan wouldn't get a hold of Judas in the same way He prayed Satan wouldn't get a hold of Peter?
OOOOHHHH OOOOHHHHH
I just had to post 1000!!!!
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.