Replies

I don't think Catholics think of "assurance" in the same way you do. We don't see salvation/justification as a legal issue, but a familial one. While it does have components of being legal, our relationship with God is described as between a Father and a child. There are legal issues in such a relationship, but these matters are very much secondary in our daily lives. Thus, we are told to persevere in our Father's love.

I see what you are saying. I think there is a much greater difference in how my side views justification vs. salvation. We see justification as being only and purely legal. We have no real involvement or participation of any kind. Salvation is more familial, since our love for Him is involved and participates (within the Reformed view, of course :).

Thus, a man can abide in Christ today, thinking he is of the elect today, and then turn around and fall away - revoking Christ. Is such a man still of the elect? I would say the Scriptures refer to this sin of apostasy as sufficient to lose one's salvation. IF this happens even once somewhere, then absolute salvation guaranteed is false.

OK, that's what I was trying to nail down, thanks. My side believes that God promises that this never happens.

[Re: 1 Cor. 9] FK: "The "disqualification" he speaks of at the end of 9 does not refer to salvation. He switches gears in first talking about the aimless person, and then about beating his own, already saved, breast. It refers to the same rewards in Heaven he speaks of in 1 Cor. 3:14-15:"

He doesn't say that FK. Where does he say he is already saved?

Paul says he is already saved all over the place in his writings. Here are just a couple:

Rom 10:9 : 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

It is clear to me that Paul believed he had already completed this requirement when he made his statement. He doesn't say "you 'might' be saved". See also verse 13.

Eph 2:8-9 : 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Surely Paul already believed this also applied to him. Finally:

2 Thess 2:13 : 13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Again, Paul would obviously include himself in this. There can be no doubt of any kind that PAUL knew he was saved and of the elect according to the Bible. The only question that can be asked is whether he was right, since Tradition disagrees with Paul.

Really? You sure you want to discuss 1 Cor 3:14-17? Read 1 Cor 3:17 and you will find that Paul is not talking about rewards and rewards lost in heaven!

Well, then it's a verse-off between 15 and 17. I see no reasonable way to interpret around 15. While "destroy" in 17 can certainly mean "kill" or refer to death, it can also mean severely punish for sin, without the loss of salvation. That is reasonable since we all do "something" in this category during our lives, and our salvation is not lost.

First of all, in YOUR understanding of salvation, a person is not "just barely saved as if running out of a burning building"! Either you are saved or not. And it is not even your own doing. Thus, how can someone just "barely" be saved?

You are right that my position is that no one is just barely saved, he either is or he is not. I do not see this concept anywhere in our passage. 15 says that if a man's works are lesser, then his Heavenly reward will be lesser, but nonetheless, he will still be just as saved as before. Here, the comparison is to being alive. Whether one has burned edges or not, alive is alive. I think that is the point.

Either one loses salvation and is condemned to eternal fire or they enter heaven. Have you not read the story of the vineyard workers who ALL received the same pay for various times at work? We ALL will receive the reward of heaven. These verses more properly would refer to the Catholic understanding of purgation.

Yes, I have read the story. :) While I think your reading is perfectly reasonable, I also think there is another, equally reasonable reading. That is, if this parable was about the type of rewards in Heaven that I am talking about, then it is still useful for teaching. For example, let's say that you and I both became Christians today with equal faiths and zeal for God. We both strike forth eagerly to do good things for God. Well, one month from now, I am run over by a bus. You miss me terribly, but you soldier on and do many many wonderful and great things for God for the next 40 years. Now when we both face our reward judgment, as I claim, it is possible for us to still come out the same, even though you did many more great things for God than I did. This parable can reasonably be seen in more than one way.

And, how does purgatory fit into this? From my understanding, purgatory is (de)merit-based. That doesn't seem to fit the model of this parable.

Your tradition is 1500 years removed from the Apostles.

That's OK because my tradition is not an authority to me. :)

No it is not invalid because the Eucharist WAS better developed in terms of its reality. The identity of Christ was NOT universally known and accepted by those same writers. All you need to do is read, FK. The evidence is clearly there. The major themes of the first three Councils were the identity of Christ. One of the greatest heresies was called Arianism - the idea that Christ was NOT the essence of God. Many in the East followed this teaching. Where do you find such disagreement on the Eucharist, FK?

Part of my point was that your first sentence here CANNOT be right. By definition. :) Alright, I'll cut right to the chase: when the Arians worshiped, did they perform a valid Eucharist, believing in a Christ that neither you nor I recognize? I can't imagine that is possible. "Ex opere operato" does not stretch this far! :) If any whole (Arian) church was apostate, then how could anyone be rightly disposed to receive the sacraments? It's not possible. They didn't believe in the correct God.

FK: "Paul knew Christ's identity immediately upon conversion."

No, I disagree. That is not how God works - with ANYONE. Even Christ "learned" and "grew" in wisdom. I don't see Paul receiving divine revelation in an instant about His entire plan. The Scriptures tell us that HE ALSO stayed in Antioch and learned the faith immediately following his conversion.

Knowing Christ's identity and having everything figured out are two COMPLETELY different things. I think it was on this thread that I had to revise an earlier statement to acknowledge that Paul did indeed grow in faith after his conversion. However, the first thing we learn at the conversion "scene" is Paul recognizing Jesus as Lord. I don't see how there can be any question of this. Paul WAS "zapped" with special wisdom and faith instantly. He then went away for three years and developed it (under God) to be able to give us the writings he has. God's perfect plan. From scratch, Paul went from Saul the Christian hunter to Paul the author of most of the NT in three years. That is not possible without SPECIAL divine intervention.

FK: "The centurion was obviously fully converted when he spoke, so he had greater faith than Mary. It would be better for your side to say that Mary WASN'T converted by then. :)"

I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement?

I just reasoned that if his was the greatest faith in all of Israel, then he must have been converted. So, to answer your question, I had to look it up. I found this:

On Matthew 8:10 : [I have not found so great faith] The word "faith," here, means "confidence" or belief that Christ had power to heal his servant. It does not of "necessity" imply that he had saving faith; though, from the connection and the spirit manifested, it seems probable that he had. If this was so, then he was the first Gentile convert to Christianity, and was a very early illustration of what was more clearly revealed afterward-that the pagan were to be brought to the knowledge of the truth. (from Barnes' Notes)

And this is from Matthew Henry:

[2.] He applauded him in what he said to them that followed. All believers shall be, in the other world, but some believers are, in this world, confessed and acknowledged by Christ before men, in his eminent appearances for them and with them. Verily, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. Now this speaks, First, Honour to the centurion; who, though not a son of Abraham's loins, was an heir of Abraham's faith, and Christ found it so. Note, The thing that Christ seeks is faith, and wherever it is, he finds it, though but as a grain of mustard-seed. He had not found so great faith, all things considered, and in proportion to the means; as the poor widow is said to cast in more than they all, Luke 21:3. Though the centurion was a Gentile, yet he was thus commended. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible) (emphasis added)

And these were the first two places I checked. I didn't think it would be any problem to find support for that the centurion was converted. The text tells us. He knew without seeing. From a Gentile at that time, it just screams true faith to me.

As to Mary not being converted, I guess it is your natural aversion of the Mother of God.

I believe Mary was fully converted at some point, but I don't think we can be sure about when that was. Surely she was not when Jesus was 12.

I suppose Jesus really appreciates such thoughts about His human mother whom He fashioned from scratch. I suppose this is another stellar example of your "veneration" and "honor" you give to Mary. With friends like you, who needs enemies...

Jesus appreciates truth, which is given to us in His word. His word does not describe a perfect, sinless Mary. It describes a loving mother, Mary. It describes a faithful Mary. For that I do honor her. If I meet her in Heaven, I doubt her reaction will be "Why didn't you pray to me and bow down before icons and statues of me and venerate me properly?"

Yes, you are joking that "reformed" Protestants give honor to Mary.

We honor her humanity as well as her deeds. I wonder what she would think if she knew that hundreds of millions of people would effectively take away her humanity by elevating her above it. If it is meant to be, I look forward to seeing her in Heaven, and I will have a clear conscience.

We see justification as being only and purely legal. We have no real involvement or participation of any kind.

That's too bad. I think it comes from your idea that man is totally corrupt. We see man as wounded. In either case, we absolutely require God's aid, but we also see a cooperation within that necessary aid. Thus, being just means to give God his due that He deserves. We believe that man can do that - or refuse that - at different points in their lives.

OK, that's what I was trying to nail down, thanks. My side believes that God promises that this never happens.

Only the elect. Again, however, we don't know who the "true" elect are until we are judged. ALL are judged upon death. This would be unnecessary if we already knew we were elect. We would just flash our badge...

Paul says he is already saved all over the place in his writings. Here are just a couple:

Rom 10:9 : 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I was refering to 1 Cor 9, not an entirely different letter within an entirely different context. The confusion is that Paul is often ambiguous on "salvation". Sometimes, it refers to that one moment where we accept Jesus as our Lord and beg for forgiveness. Sometimes, it is refering to a current healing or sanctification, and at times, he refers to entering the Kingdom of Heaven after we die. Thus, it is a mistake to appropriate the definition of one meaning and apply it to ALL of Paul's use of the word.

Paul never comes out and says "I'm of the elect of heaven" or "I am going to heaven, regardless of what I do". He says he is saved with confidence that IF he continues to persevere through the grace of God, he will attain the goal, have finished the race. He never says he has completed the race already. The very idea of race doesn't give in to the idea of "already a done deal".

While "destroy" in 17 can certainly mean "kill" or refer to death, it can also mean severely punish for sin, without the loss of salvation

Now you are using special pleading to twist the meaning of the word "death". When does death mean "punishment without loss of salvation"? Can you point me to an example of a person dying spiritually while maintaining his seat in Heaven???

That is reasonable since we all do "something" in this category during our lives, and our salvation is not lost.

WHICH salvation is not lost?! That one moment in time of the past, or our current status in God's eyes or our future position in heaven? See what happens when we discuss the word "salvation"? It has multiple meanings. What you are doing is taking the first meaning and applying it to everytime the word is used. The word is used in the past, present, and future tense as something being gained or yet to be gained or already gained. This is causing you to believe we can never loss salvation, because you narrow the definition to only the past and apply it to all other uses of the word.

The comparision in Protestant commentaries on these verses is to note that a person is just barely saved AS IF he had just escaped a burning house, with his clothes singed. This is a very problematic set of verses for Protestant theology. Also, you are again reading into the Scripture what is not there. NOWHERE does the verses discuss "heavenly rewards" or loss of them while retaining heaven! In context, they are speaking of eternal heaven or loss of heaven. Again, verse 17 seals the deal. NO ONE who is "dead" or "destroyed" spiritually will enter heaven!

Now when we both face our reward judgment, as I claim, it is possible for us to still come out the same, even though you did many more great things for God than I did. This parable can reasonably be seen in more than one way.

Scripture can be read in many different ways... This is why I do not believe that Scripture is self-explanatory.

And, how does purgatory fit into this? From my understanding, purgatory is (de)merit-based. That doesn't seem to fit the model of this parable.

The parable doesn't detail everything about how salvation works. It only discusses an aspect of it. Purgatory is dependent upon our response to God, true. However, once we are purified, we will all receive the same God as our reward. The difference in heaven, I believe, is that those who loved more will be more open to the Union in heaven.

my tradition is not an authority to me. :)

Sure it is! You have the tradition of Sola Scriptura. You know deep down that the Bible doesn't mention that anywhere. You know that the Catholic attack on Sola Scriptura makes sense. However, to maintain your own tradition, you doggedly stand by it, defending it, although you must know that common sense nullifies the doctrine. If Sola Scriptura was true, God would have mentioned it at least once in the Bible, don't you think? But He didn't. Thus, you maintain a tradition that is not found in the Scriptures. Worse, you maintain Sola Fide, which is DENIED in the Scriptures. This is to maintain the tradition that has been handed down to you, not because you came up with this teaching on your own reading of the Bible!

Alright, I'll cut right to the chase: when the Arians worshiped, did they perform a valid Eucharist, believing in a Christ that neither you nor I recognize? I can't imagine that is possible. "Ex opere operato" does not stretch this far! :) If any whole (Arian) church was apostate, then how could anyone be rightly disposed to receive the sacraments? It's not possible. They didn't believe in the correct God.

AH, that is exactly what St. Athanasius challenged the Arians with! He asked them "HOW can you worship Jesus as God in the Eucharist, in Mass, if Jesus is not God"? This question on the liturgical practices of the Arians brought out the separation between practice and theological belief. They worshipped Christ and then said He wasn't God! How could they be true Christians - since only God is worshipped? They worshipped correctly but did not think out their heretical beliefs. That is generally the case with heresy - incorrect theological assumptions or questions leads to a theological matrix that is not supportive of other beliefs within the matrix.

However, the first thing we learn at the conversion "scene" is Paul recognizing Jesus as Lord. I don't see how there can be any question of this. Paul WAS "zapped" with special wisdom and faith instantly. He then went away for three years and developed it (under God) to be able to give us the writings he has. God's perfect plan. From scratch, Paul went from Saul the Christian hunter to Paul the author of most of the NT in three years. That is not possible without SPECIAL divine intervention.

It appears that you agree with me that Paul grew in knowledge of God. As to Paul's conversion, we continue to see such things even today. I know of people who hated Christians and became one later in life. Yes, it is not possible without divine intervention. But that goes without saying as ALL OF US require divine intervention - FAITH - to call upon His Name.

I wrote : I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement?

You responded : I just reasoned that if his was the greatest faith in all of Israel, then he must have been converted. So, to answer your question, I had to look it up. I found this:

You are missing my understanding of "fully converted". Where does the Gospel tell us that this man "dropped everything and became a disciple of our Lord"? He had faith in Jesus' POWER TO HEAL, His authority over sickness. It doesn't follow that the Centurion had ANY clue that Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God or the Savior of the world. I think you are going way too far on your assumptions from what is written. IF the Centurion was "fully converted", he would have put aside his former life and followed Christ, which is what all disciples of Christ do.

I believe Mary was fully converted at some point, but I don't think we can be sure about when that was. Surely she was not when Jesus was 12.

Mary KNEW better than any other human that Jesus would be the Savior of the world. The angel told her so at the Annunciation. She was fully converted, according to your definition. The incident in the Temple that you speak of is Mary not completely understanding God's plan of salvation and how she would be involved. Perhaps Mary was thinking of their relationship as mother-son in human terms too closely. Jesus transcends that relationship, here, but even more so during His ministry, beginning with Cana, WITHOUT dispensing of it. Mary had to "ponder these things in her heart" just like we all must. That is why I do not believe that ANYONE, including Paul, is given absolute and perfect knowledge about God's Will.

It describes a faithful Mary. For that I do honor her.

In what ways? Explain your devotion to her. I would imagine you revere your favorite soap opera star more than the Mother of God.

If I meet her in Heaven, I doubt her reaction will be "Why didn't you pray to me and bow down before icons and statues of me and venerate me properly?"

Of course she won't. Mary is humble, and humble people don't ask such questions. YOU will ask YOURSELF that question once you discover Mary through the eyes of the Church. As a hint, consider reading "Mary" whenever you see the Bible speak about the "Church". Its purity, its holiness, being mother and virgin, and so forth. Then, it will become more profoundly clear what exactly the Church teaches about herself and Mary.

Regards