[HarleyD]

No, Jonah was repentant and knew that this action was from God. Thus, he choose to conform to God's will, not out of necessity.

Oh, brother.... Jonah sat inside a stinking fish for three days before he decided that perhaps it wasn't a very wise thing to run away from God.

It is God who brings us to repentence (Rom 2:4, 2 Cor 7:9, 2 Tim 2:25) yet you are saying Jonah brought himself to a point of repentence. This is clearly Pelagius thinking and totally unscriptural. Jonah was far more holier than either of us will ever be yet God did not bring him to a point of repentance for three days-simply to show the world that he was a type of Christ, being in the belly for three days. Even in his rebellion to God, God used it hundreds of years later.

If you do not understand this fundamental concept, then you do not truly understand God's grace. While spiritually we are born again to a new hope, as Christians we are continuously rebellious children due to our sinful nature. God is constantly and lovingly reproving and chastening us to perfect us for His glory.

Has anyone here said we do ANYTHING independently of God's grace?

See above.

Pelagius said we can choose good without God.

I know this it the line of the Catholic Church to the masses. This isn't what Augustine stated nor history has shown to be the believe.
In opposition to Augustinianism, Cassian taught that though a sickness is inherited through Adam's sin, human free will has not been entirely obliterated. Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God. In other words, divine grace and human free will must work together in salvation. In opposition to the stark predestinarianism of Augustine, Cassian held to the doctrine of God's universal will to save, and that predestination is simply divine foreknowledge of who will chose God. - The Semi-Pelagian Theology of John Cassian

This is the very argument you are using. It was condemned by the Council of Orange. Now perhaps you may be like your Orthodox brothers that feels the Council of Orange was simply a local Council. However this places you squarely against Augustine.

Yet, you would have it that God abides in even wicked "Christians" who commit half of the sins of 1 Cor 6:9-10 AFTER their "salvation"! Merely SAYING "Lord, Lord" isn't enough to justify such presumption. Isn't it clear throughout the Gospels that Christ expects ACTION from us?

The only "action" we can do is what Christ does through us. Paul makes it very clear that Christians have a new nature and they will no longer want to go on sinning...
Rom 6:14-18 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Oops...there's that "slaves or righteousness" again. How would you interpret being a "slave" to righteousness?

If you read the OT in light of the NT, it will make more sense to you.

Foolish me. I thought ALL scripture was inspired by God. I thought it was the Old Testament the Bereans "searched to see if these things were so". I thought it was the Old Testament that our Lord referred to when He told the Pharisees they "knew neither the scriptures nor the power of God". Please note what our Lord Jesus stated:
Joh 5:46-47 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

Our Lord Jesus stated a prerequisite for believing in our Lord Jesus' words was believing in Moses' writings. Your statement indicates you have this entirely backwards. If we don't understand the fundamentals then we don't understand the message of Christ-that He came to seek and save which He lost.

God came and chose the Israelites to be His people. He nutured them and cared for them. He led them to the Promise Land. He didn't do this for everyone. He did it for Israel whom He had chosen.

That is what our Lord Jesus is doing for us. We don't come to Him. He choses us out of darkness and leading us to the Promise Land. We rest on His promise that what He has said, that He will do.

BTW-It was never the Old Testament that didn't make any sense to me. It was the New Testament especially John and Romans. Now it makes perfect sense.

[kosta50]

He led them to the Promise Land. He didn't do this for everyone...He choses us out of darkness and leading us to the Promise Land

That would we Promised Land, HD.

[annalex]

totally unscriptural

You understand what is scriptural?

[jo kus]

Jonah sat inside a stinking fish for three days before he decided that perhaps it wasn't a very wise thing to run away from God

Jonah recognized the storm and its source - and why God called it up. Thus, Jonah, rather than continuing to run or denying the source of the storm, chose to accept God's will. People fail to see God's power in their daily lives all of the time. Just because there is a storm doesn't mean that God is reaching out to Jonah - so the doubter can say... When a person has such an experience, it is subject to interpretation - was it God? was it natural forces? Is there a 'who cares'?

It is God who brings us to repentence (Rom 2:4, 2 Cor 7:9, 2 Tim 2:25) yet you are saying Jonah brought himself to a point of repentence.

I agree, God brought Jonah to repentance - but as St. Augustine says - NOT without man! Again, you forget that Catholics believe that BOTH are operative in these actions. Jonah realized God's work and acquised to it - but it was God working in Jonah to move Jonah's will. It is not a case of either/or. It is NOT Pelagianism, as I have explained over and over. NOWHERE do I say that we come to God ALONE. You are twisting my words. When I say "Jonah did "x", it doesn't imply that Jonah did it WITHOUT God. I have quoted Phil 2:12-13 more times than I care to count. Is this really such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

While spiritually we are born again to a new hope, as Christians we are continuously rebellious children due to our sinful nature. God is constantly and lovingly reproving and chastening us to perfect us for His glory.

Of course.

St. Augustine didn't teach that man's will was destroyed. I have read enough to know that is flat out false. As to the Church's teachings, I have posted from the 4 greatest Fathers of the first 2 centuries of Christianity and they all talk about free will as existing, even after the fall. You are delusional if you think that Christianity taught that there is no free will - the ability to choose life or death. Your problem stems from your paradigm that man is evil and can do nothing, even WITH God. God is required to do EVERYTHING. Thus, you are blinded by what the Scripture says when it talks about being judged for our deeds, for being told to follow commandments, etc...We aren't commanded to do something that we are not able to fulfill - through the power of God's gifts!

It was condemned by the Council of Orange.

Prove that my point of view was condemned by the Council of Orange (2). Stop asserting it. As to my Orthodox brothers, the Council of Trent reaffirmed everything from Orange, so I will not be using that line of defense (which is a legitimate one for them. I bind myself to Rome's decisions on such matters - they do not. That is fine for this argument). Now, prove to me that Orange and today's Catholicism differs regarding grace and free will.

The only "action" we can do is what Christ does through us. Paul makes it very clear that Christians have a new nature and they will no longer want to go on sinning...

YES!!!! YES!!!! YES!!!!! AMEN! It's sinking in!

Oops...there's that "slaves or righteousness" again. How would you interpret being a "slave" to righteousness?

We are slaves to sin or to God. We are not "our own". When we turn away from God - even then, we are not truly free. When we follow God's ways, we become free - being slaves to righteousness. But Paul doesn't use "slave" in a negative fashion. A slave follows His master - whether it is satan or God. We were bought at an expensive price, correct?

I thought ALL scripture was inspired by God

It is. But Scripture makes it clear that the OT is not perfection of revelation to mankind!

"God, having spoken many times and in many ways in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last times spoken unto us by [his] Son" Hebrews 1:1-2

Isn't the OT covenant a shadow of the NT covenant? Why is it a shadow? Because it is not perfected. God's revelation to mankind is clearly not perfected in the OT. The question regarding evil is a big example of imperfect revelation found in the OT. Only through the Passion and Death of Christ does evil make sense.

Our Lord Jesus stated a prerequisite for believing in our Lord Jesus' words was believing in Moses' writings. Your statement indicates you have this entirely backwards. If we don't understand the fundamentals then we don't understand the message of Christ-that He came to seek and save which He lost.

Read Matthew 5-7 to see what Moses said - "but I {Jesus} say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother out of control shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall insult his brother shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say, Thou art impious, shall be in danger of hell. (no provision for the 'saved')" Matthew 5:22

Imperfect revelation was given to the Jews. Christ fulfills the Law with these teachings and His life.

BTW-It was never the Old Testament that didn't make any sense to me. It was the New Testament especially John and Romans. Now it makes perfect sense.

That's interesting. As a Catholic Christian, we always concentrated on Jesus Christ and His revelation. We then read backwards into the OT to figure out what it means. Thus, our paradigm is with Christ in mind - and why we refuse the idea that man is evil or man has no free will.

Regards