Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
An interesting interpretation, thanks.
To sanctify the sinner.
And, where are you getting this fairytale from?
The Bible.
The overwhelming occurence of the phrase “being jutified” is in the aorist tense, punctiliar action with a definite leaning to the past. When the few times the present passive is used it is not as continuous action but a state of being; justification being a declaration, a judgment.
I’d like to know where in the Bible. The test I am familiar with is the test by the works, described in the second part of Matthew 25. If this is to sanctify the already justified believer, then why is the same test applied to those who are condemned? Why are the just already described and being saintly, giving of themselves to others? I think you are confused about what the Bible says, therefore I ask.
At any rate, that test you are talking about, is that by the works, or by what?
That reunion isn’t a high priority to Pope Benedict?
should read:
That reunion is a high priority to Pope Benedict?
I shouldn’t try to type while doing other things.
You stated...
“It is very significant here that Job is an intercessor,in spite of foolish Protestant claims that there can be no intercessor but Christ.”
Sorry holds no water...Job is Old test. Christ had not even been born yet to intercede. Gesh!
Once Christ came as the last and great high priestly king there is no need to send our prayers to any other than Christ. He completely fulfills the Priestly office.
Further non-catholics do indeed intercede in prayer for their friends and family and others . You statement is misleading and deceptive.
This whole thread is very messed up. It has already made at least one long time FReeper quit.
To prove that justification is a one-time past event you need something other than pure grammatical structure of the Greek participle.
And thus to the God of Abraham ? How do they trace themselves back to Abraham ?
I’ll have to disagree with you on the Greek. No, I don’t know Greek, but others do.
One commentary says, “The verb ‘have been saved’ is in the perfect tense which expresses the present permanent state as a result of past action. Because believers have been ‘made alive’ spiritually with Christ, they have been and are saved.” - Bible Knowledge Commentary, NT, page 623
Young’s Literal Translation has it thus: “did make us to live together with the Christ, (by grace ye are having been saved,)” and “for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you — of God the gift,”.
That is consistent with the Vatican posted NAB: “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved), raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus...”.
You write, “I fail to see the logic that distinguishes all that are being saved and an individual convert. Isn’t an individual convert part of “all”?”
An individual is a part of all, but only a part. The all applies to...all. That includes me, and I was justified in 1971 - far in the future for Paul’s writing, but by 1972, I WAS justified. Or more precisely, I am in a present permanent state of salvation as the result of what happened in the past. And since the act that put me in a present permanent state was done by God, I’m not worried about it being undone by someone stronger in the future.
annalex,
I’m generally not a fan of these types of discussions where each side throws out their proof texts and declares that that particular proof text wins the case. Exegesis of Scripture should take into effect the whole corpus of Scripture and a complete storyline from which individual texts, periscopes, and books are considered in the context of the whole.
We’ve had now over 500 years of debate of whether justification is on-going or whether there is a division between justification and sanctification. My suggestion to you is to post another thread from your side that rebuts the Protestant arguments of a two-fold grace of justification and sanctification and we can discuss those arguments.
Sound fair?
“Having been saved” is fine. The point is, it is the simplest grammatical form of Greek passive voice, which does not have all these English subtleties. It does not have a past perfect sense of “I had been saved” or “I was saved”. It is simply “I am saved”. It does not contradict your contention, but it does not support it textually.
We all agree that the Cross is a cardinal part of everyone’s justification and that is did occur in the past.
Surely if we speak collectively then there are people who were justified, who are being justified and who will be justified. This is true whether or not justification occurs at the time of death or at some time earlier. But the grammar of Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 is the same plain passive voice grammar, it is just that the translation you picked chose to translate the same grammatical structure two different ways. Why? Don’t get me started...
The proper term is ontologically deficient. Yet, they can't show me where and in what is the Eastern Church ontologically deficient in its catholicity. In fact, Pope John Paul II referred to the Eastern Church as the "other lung," yet Roman Catholic armchair theologians on the FR insist Eastern Orthodox Christians are merely a "guest lung." Apparently they think one cannot be a "true lung" unless one is subservient to the Vatican "lung."
I honestly don't know why you guys keep mending that thread that connects your two so-called branches of the same religion
That is coming rapidly to a close. I will follow in Kolokotornis' footsteps to a considerable degree. But rather than leave FR as he did, I will no longer post anything on Roman Catholic threads nor have anything to do with Roman Catholic posters, a few notable exceptions notwithstanding, and then only via PM.
Eastern Orthodox posters have trickled down to a handful and growing fewer by the day. Seems like there is a disconnect between the Roman Catholic laity and their hierarchy in the Vatican in their approach to the East. You can't be "fraternal" and a "guest" in the same house. You can't be a "true" Church but not true enough. But they don't see a problem in these mutually exlcusive concepts.
Such confused reasoning of theirs says volumes about them. This is how it all started to begin with when back when.
"What other church on earth has all that?"
Please don't make me say it out loud. It will open a whole other can of worms.....stinking rotting worms....kinda like the "fruit" it grows.
when back when = way back when
Why do people bow to the Pope and kiss his ring?
“Born again is one who received baptism. See primarily John 3:1-6, but also Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4, Col. 2:12, as well as, of course, Romans 8 that you cite, which speaks of divine adoption.”
Hate to let that slip by without answer.
John 3: “3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Now, the closest that comes to requiring water would be verse 5, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Now, some DO say that means the water of baptism...but John the Baptist said, “but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’”
So while John baptized with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. So what else could it mean? I used to say birth, since a physical birth must precede a spiritual one. However, I think John MacArthur makes more sense:
“First of all, Jesus says you have to be born of water and the Spirit...that’s connected. There’s no comma there, you have to be born of the water and of the Spirit, no. Of the water and Spirit. Now what does He mean “water”? What kind of water is this?
Well, some people say that’s H20. That the way you get saved is to get put in the water. I would daresay, ladies and gentlemen, that if you were to assume that salvation comes by water, that you have cross-grained every biblical principle of salvation by grace through faith. Salvation cannot be accomplished by an external bath. Water brings out no spiritual cleansing. It is merely a symbol...as it was in the Old Testament a symbol of purification. He cannot be talking about water.
Incidentally, in John 4:2 it says Jesus baptized nobody. And if it was that important, He’d have been baptizing somebody. It’s not the water baptism that saves a man. That’s the fallacy of various churches that take a little tiny baby and put water on it and assume that that seals its salvation. Salvation is by faith, otherwise Romans 3 is a lie and so is Ephesians 2. He’s not talking about the water of H20 type water.
Then someone else says, “Well, there’s another kind of water. That’s the water of physical birth. That He’s saying to Nicodemus you have to be born physically cause the baby is born in a physical way. When a baby’s born, it’s born in a sack of water.” And so what He is saying is, “Nicodemus, you have to be born naturally and then spiritually.” The only question is, why is He standing there telling this old man that he has to be born physically? He was born physically long ago. Plus the fact that that would be completely read into the text, appears no where else in the Scripture and is pure conjecture.
Well, then, what water is it? Well, let’s take the context. What water would Nicodemus have thought of? If Jesus said to him you must be born of water and the Spirit, what water would have come to Nicodemus’ mind? Very obvious. The Old Testament water used for purification. He would have immediately remembered that whenever an object or a person was defiled and unclean, that person had to go through ceremonial washing of water which symbolized an inward perfection. That’s what the baptism of John the Baptist was all about, it was symbol of cleansing on the inside.
Now think with me on this, don’t lose yourself. To the Jews, water meant cleansing. And Nicodemus’ brain would have gone right back, cause he knew the Old Testament, to Ezekiel 36:24 to 27. And you know what he would have read there? Listen, “I will sprinkle you with clean water,” and then two verses later, “I’ll put My Spirit within you.” In Ezekiel’s prophecy that God would redeem Israel, He says it will take two forms, I’ll sprinkle water upon you and you shall be clean, the water of cleansing and I’ll put My Spirit within you. That’s what it was. It was a symbol of cleansing. H20 water isn’t even there in verse 5, that’s not talking about water water, that’s talking about purification in the inside. So He is saying, “Except a man be cleansed, purified, he can’t enter the Kingdom of God.” And it’s interesting to me, also, that the agent of this purification is the Word of God. And we’ll show you this in a moment.
So, here’s the picture. This person needs to be purified. That purification is done by the Holy Spirit using this water. And what is the water? Ephesians 5 says that Christ shall wash His church by the water of the...what?...Word. The Holy Spirit takes the Word of God and purifies the soul of a man. That’s what’s here in view. You know what this is? And get it and get it good...this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, this is what that is. Now in the book of Acts, there’s a distinction because it’s transitional. Today and here, this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit in baptizing one at the point of salvation. We are cleansed by the Word as the Spirit of God administers it to us. We are regenerated, baptized, indwelt and sealed all at the same point. That’s why Paul told the Ephesians there’s one Lord, one faith, and 34 baptisms. Is that what he said? One Lord, one faith, one baptism...at the time of salvation is the only time you’re ever baptized with the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the Bible does it have anything to do with tongues or anything else. It’s only a point of salvation that involves the baptism of the Spirit.
And so, here is basically what this is about. That the Spirit of God purifies us by the water of the Word at salvation. It’s all done inside by the Spirit. And that’s what John the Baptist said in chapter 1 verse 33 when he said, “I baptize you with water but somebody’s coming after me who’s going to baptize you with...what?...with the Holy Spirit.” And that’s what this is. When a man is cleansed by the washing of the Word and the Spirit of God recreates Him, then he can enter the Kingdom of God. That’s exactly what Jesus is saying. Before a man can enter the Kingdom of God, the Holy Spirit must recreate him, must regenerate him and he accomplishes such a cleansing by the power of the Word of God.”
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1505B
Acts 2:38 says, “38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”
Now, I believe in baptizing, and I believe in doing it promptly...not after months or years. However, to quote John MacArthur again:
“But now watch this key point. “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sin.” Now this is what people get confused because they say, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” In order that your sins might be forgiven which means that baptism comes before forgiveness. You’ve got to be baptized in order to be forgiven. Now that can’t be true because that contradicts the Bible which says you’re not saved by works at all. It also doesn’t need to be that way, listen to this. In studying the word “for the remission of sins,” which is often translated by those ritualists as “in order that,” we find it to be the word “eis,” “eis.” takes many, many translations. One of those translations used with verbs of change is the translation “because of.” It is thus to be translated in Matthew 12:41 where it says the people repented because of the preaching of Jonah. They repented in response to preaching. Here we simply give it that meaning and that meaning it can well have and it reads this way, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of sins.”
In other words, you repent and then you are baptized because your sins have been forgiven. It is a public sign of what has gone on in the inside. And so repentance brought the remission of sins, baptism only made it visual in terms of a sign, or a symbol.
Isn’t it good what it says...just a footnote in verse 38...about the remission of sins? Isn’t it nice to know that when you repent, your sins are forgiven when you come to Christ? Isn’t it nice to know that you don’t have any sins piling up against you but that you’re free simply to agree with God about your sin and know that He’s already forgiven it? First John 2:12, “My little children, your sins are forgiven for His namesake.” Colossians 2:13, “He’s forgiven you all your trespasses.” Tremendous promise.
Then you’ll notice at the end of verse 38 he gets to the good part and says, “And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Now isn’t this wonderful because this is what the Jews have been waiting for? This is what Joel said, that God would pour out His Spirit. They’ve been waiting for messianic days, they’ve been waiting for the Spirit and he says, “Here’s how you can experience the presence of the Spirit.” Remember in John 14 Jesus said He’s with you, He shall be...where?...in you and He says there is a way to experience the indwelling life of the Spirit, that is by repenting and coming and identifying with Jesus Christ. The cost is high, but that’s the demand.
Now you notice what he says here? What is the condition to receiving the Holy Spirit? What is it? One word, repent...did you get it? Do you see anything there about tarry, wait, come on, everybody, we’re going to the Upper Room? Do you see anything about any kind of signs, wind, fire, vision, tongues? I don’t. Repent and then to show that forgiveness has been accomplished, be baptized and the receiving of the Spirit comes as a result. Now the Spirit of God doesn’t come as a result of water baptism, but of repentance. Every believer receives a Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation, 1 Corinthians 12 says, we’re all baptized by the Spirit into the same body. That’s salvation.
You say, “What is the gift of the Spirit? Well that’s the Holy Spirit Himself, that’s all that means. So, this is Peter’s appeal. Let me summarize, very quickly. For the Jews who had openly rejected the Lord, not only repentance but baptism, that they might identify publicly with Christ. And he knew the biggest stumbling block to their discipleship was the fear of persecution, and so he makes that the standard because he wants them to get over the one hurdle that will really keep him from coming to Christ. And he knows that if the ones that get over that hurdle, they’ll be the real ones.
You know what we try to do when we evangelize? We try to remove all the barriers so it’s real easy. Then we wonder why we have so many tares among the wheat.”
Much more at:
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1708
We can discuss Romans 6 & Col 2 as well, if you wish...but I’ve had a busy day and am about to fall asleep.
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Really??? Who's in the grave that will be listening to God??? Do you Catholics hang around in the graves when you pass on???
It's been the interpretation by the Church for a long long time.
Since the story of Job is somewhat metaphoric, it is interpreted to be the precursor of the story of Christ.
Further non-catholics do indeed intercede in prayer for their friends and family and others . You statement is misleading and deceptive.
I thought that Protestants claim that the only intercessor is Christ. Was I wrong?
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.