Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
“”Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Foreknew.
Set apart.
Appointed for a purpose.
Sounds like Romans 8: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined...And those whom he predestined he also called, ...justified, and...glorified.”
I know that my refuting ONE argument that you propose does not mean that I have established MY contention. I know that. I am not claiming to have established the Immaculate conception. So all this talk about my patting myself on the back is just silly.
Consequently everything in this post about the Immaculate Conception is irrelevant to me at this point.
Consequently, to me this paragraph is bizarre:
Was Jesus saying, 'all of us have sinned'??? Or was it, 'all of you have sinned'??? You have to dig a little deeper before you can attribute sinlessness to Mary...Would you insist that the roof of a house be shingled while the foundations were being poured? Don't you get the idea of doing things in steps?
When God tells me that everyone is a sinner, I can't imagine he is including himself in the accusation...When God say that none are righteous, I know he's not speaking of Himself...
Exactly. "All" does not mean "all" in the strict sense. That's what I wanted to establish. You are agreeing. All does not mean all.
You pick a verse and find a word (all) to play with and you think you can build a religion out of Mary by pretending God did not mean what he said...
You offered some words from Romans, where Paul quotes the Psalms. I looked NOT elsewhere but at the words themselves. You agreed with me that "all" did not mean "all." Now you say I am pretending God did not mean what he said? It makes no sense. YOU say I am building the dogma of the Immaculate conception out of "all"? That's crazy!
YOU offered the verse to show the dogma was wrong. All I did was get you to agree that the verse can't do what you sent it to do. That doesn't mean I'm right. It just means you haven't shown I'm wrong.
It's like somebody saying, "You're wrong, I'm going to prove it to you." And the other guy says, "Okay, go ahead." But the first guy just keeps on saying, "I'm going to prove it to you! You are going to lose so BADly, I am SO going to prove it to you."
So go ahead. The first "proof" didn't do it, as you concede. Fine, let's look at another.
I overstated it. I wasn’t thinking or talking about the local congregation.
Maybe I can get a do-over for clarification.
“You heard it here first: Jesus was a sinner. / Unless, of course, “all” doesn’t exactly mean “all.””
Silliness.
9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
But while Jesus obviously is not a sinner, the context doesn’t exclude Mary, does it?
So the burden of proof for the Immaculate Conception is on those who want to add it, not those who reject it.
Paul said, “26Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” What part did he leave out?
Jude said, “I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” If a faith has been once for all delivered, how can it be revised?
John said, “9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” How does one abide in what one does not have?
Scripture is filled with God using evil men with evil desires trying to sin to accomplish His will.
“5 Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger;
the staff in their hands is my fury!
6 Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of my wrath I command him,
to take spoil and seize plunder,
and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 But he does not so intend,
and his heart does not so think;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
and to cut off nations not a few; - Isaiah 10
8”Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words, 9 behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the LORD, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. 10Moreover, I will banish from them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the grinding of the millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the LORD, making the land an everlasting waste. - Jeremiah 25
I can't help but wonder if this is a moment when an element of free will enters. I have no doubt God saves all He intends to save and knows from the beginning who the elect are.
However, the one unforgivable sin:
Matt. 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this age, or in the age to come.
Is the speaking against the Holy Spirit resistance to regeneration? IOW, denying THE GOSPEL.
BTW, great post HD. I love it when a real discussion breaks out.
“Therefore what we are talking about must include a different idea of “regeneration.””
OK, I’ll bite. What do Catholics mean by regeneration?
Southern Baptists mean: “Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.”
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
“25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” - Ez 36
To base man's election of any kind of righteous work he may or may not perform, particularly the righteous act of belief in Christ, is to return the church to Rome where men presume their pious actions will store up God's favor on their behalf.
The Reformation was fought over exactly this egocentric, anti-scriptural error. Men do not seek God unless and until God grabs hold of them and changes their unwilling disposition from God-denying to God-glorifying. The natural man doesn't want to be saved. He likes his position in defiance of God.
Actually there are a number of problems with the interpretation in the question, not the least of which is that scripture reveals very clearly, that left to himself, man will always choose against Christ, because of his hostile disposition to God. Man is dead spiritually, and needs his heart of stone to be removed and a heart of flesh put in before he has any interest in seeking the God of the Bible (Rom. 3:11; Rom. 8:7, 8; 1 Cor. 2:14). Outside of regeneration, man by nature is the enemy of God. The interpretation also falls down because the word "foreknew" does not merely mean to know future actions beforehand. It has a much more precise meaning. The word "foreknew" (Greek: proginosko) in Romans 8:29 is a verb rather than a noun. It is an action word, and as the text informs us, it is something done by God. What exactly does God do then? The text says "those whom He foreknew..." To gain a correct biblical definition of this word foreknew, rather than assume its meaning (which is what many do), we need to do some homework and study. In this case it means we need to go to passages of scripture that have God as the subject of the verbal form, as here in this passage. This is because passages that have humans as the subject would differ substantially in their meaning from the ones where God is the subject, because, I am sure we will all agree, we as creatures "know" things on a very different basis to the way God does. When we do this we find the verb proginosko is used three times in the New Testament with God as the subject - here in Romans 8:29, then also in Romans 11:2, and lastly in 1 Peter 1:20. This proves to be significant when we ask the question "what, or who is foreknown by God?"..."...The real question then is "what exactly does it mean for God to foreknow somebody?"
This topic seems a good illustration of the benefit of a little "sound doctrine" which clarifies and amplifies a blessed and Scriptural assurance from God to his family -- we have not chosen Him because we are good; He has chosen us and made us good through Jesus Christ.
Now you're asking a different question. Those are broad terms speaking more to doctrinal positions instead of particular denominations and their theology and practice.
Evangelical has variant definitions depending upon the context. Sociologically the term generally refers to churches with a congregational polity and variable forms of worship. Theologically, in the broadest sense, Evangelical refers to those churches who hold to sola fide as the means to salvation. In that sense, yes, I'm Evangelical.
The term Calvinist has widened as well in it's meaning. There are many churches that hold to a calvinistic soteriology but not to traditional Reformed practices. Reformed and Presbyterian Churches are confessional churches who require the leadership of the churches to subscribe to one or several confessions of faith.
The members of the body of Christ that I assemble together with in the local Visible Church agree with the confession of The Gospel Coalition.
Because God was just kidding when he gave us a code of conduct????
BTW- why have you stopped acknowledging or answering my questions?
So naturally we said, Okay,shoot.
And somebody shot.
And we said "You missed."
The verse wasn't offered with a, "Hey, let's take a look at this together, MAYBE it contradicts blah blah." It was offered as a triumphant, obvious, indisputable refutation. It is none of those things, and I don't even have to defend the dogma itself to show that that verse, as presented, doesn't refute it.
So the burden of proof for the Immaculate Conception is on those who want to add it, not those who reject it.
That MAY be so, in general. But that isn't what was under contention. We were being given the usual ration about how nobody could really read Scripture the right way and still think what we think.
Again, even without defending what we think, it's clear that that is a stupid, ignorant, and unimaginative statement. (It's a legitimate QUESTION, however ...) But we do not suddenly have the burden of defending whatever anybody wants us to defend just because somebody turned that statement loose on an unsuspecting world.
If somebody is going to say, "Romans 3:23! Hah! So there!" which is essentially what happened, I don't think I have any obligation whatsoever, except to say, "Missed." BUT I did more than I was obliged to do and pointed out that "all" could not be taken simply.
And the response has been to say I'm patting myself on the back and being silly. That would be bad enough, but then, while saying that I'm being silly, people start constructing arguments to show that THOUGH my point is right, the quote still can (or must?) be interpreted to include Mary. So I'm being silly, but my silly point requires an argumentative response.
Fine.
Personally I think I have done the work necessary to show that we can't really play this kind of forensic game with that passage, and should avoid it with Scripture generally. I readily concede that that does not establish the Dogma, but I say again, that is not my burden.
It's kind of frustrating. You guys say we don't read the Bible as you do. We agree. Then you insist that we defend our dogmas as if we DID read the Bible as you do.
What sense does it make to say that we try to PROVE the Immaculate conception from 'full of grace' when we have already conceded that we do things differently?
What it may come down to is the provincialism of American Protestantism. It is just inconceivable to some that anyone could do things differently and have recourse to an intellectual, spiritual, and theological tradition of incredible richness and depth and yet almost entirely unknown to many in the modern United States.
People mock the question of angels on the head of a pin and think that NOT the actual question but their ignorant idea of it captures the essence of scholasticism, just as ignoramuses simply cannot believe that some of the first legal work on natural rights of the individual in anything approaching the modern understanding was done by Spanish Dominicans or that the Inquisitors (GENERALLY and with dreadful exceptions) were known for an emphasis on due process unmatched by the secular courts.
So sometimes I get a little impatient. Forgive me.
I’m too strung out to do it right now. I hope somebody else can do it, or maybe I can try tomorrow.
No, because true regeneration by the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. If it could, there would be no such thing as "irresistible grace" and Arminius would be correct that men whom God calls to Him can deny Him what He wants.
But we know that if God has numbered someone to be one of the elect, that person will succumb to the persuasion of God at a time of God's choosing. It could not be otherwise, if God is sovereign.
IMO "speaking against the Holy Spirit" is to deny the Holy Spirit exists in others and in the world around us. Since it is the Holy Spirit who enlivens Scripture and makes it knowable then any proclamation of the Scriptures and God's truth is by the Holy Spirit, which we both know many people "resist" and for which they are rightly condemned.
“To base man’s election of any kind of righteous work he may or may not perform, particularly the righteous act of belief in Christ, is to return the church to Rome where men presume their pious actions will store up God’s favor on their behalf.”
HOGWASH!
Find another bogeyman, because that one is too silly to scare.
God seeks us out, and presents us with a choice. Why do I say he gives us a choice? Because otherwise he is a liar when he commands us to repent and believe. Because scripture is filled, from beginning to end, with the need for us to choose.
What did God tell Cain - and since Cain was dead in his sin, how could he have heard God to find out what God was saying?
“”Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” - Gen 4
“”Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” - Joshua 24
” 37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 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.” - Acts 2
“3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness...” - Romans 4
Notice: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly” - belief is not “work”, save in the sense Jesus taught, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
“19For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” - 1 Cor 9
Who does Paul think he is? Does he think he shares in the work of the Gospel? “ I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.”
” 15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law...” - Galatians 2
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” - 1 John 1
“19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” - Rev 3
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
“But we know that if God has numbered someone to be one of the elect, that person will succumb to the persuasion of God at a time of God’s choosing. It could not be otherwise, if God is sovereign.”
Dr E, you are the one denying the sovereignty of God. You presume to tell God what His will is...and that it is to require men to obey.
But what if God doesn’t WANT compelled obedience?
Then in His sovereign will, He would give us a choice.
The question rests, not on the sovereignty of God, but on what God’s desire is, as revealed by scripture.
And I've been busy. I've missed half these comments.
Of course God gave us a "code of conduct." And those who are lost cannot keep it perfectly and those who are found keep it by the actions and leading of the free gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Calvin, Luther and just about every reformer for centuries has observed that Rome usurps (or tries to) the role and intent of the Holy Spirit.
God loved Jacob and hated Esau. You tell Him He was wrong.
Meant to ping you to 2,553.
“So sometimes I get a little impatient. Forgive me.”
On most of these debates, a little bit of humility shows that no one is going to suddenly discover an argument or scripture that hasn’t ever been noticed for the last 1000+ years.
The idea that I can PROVE beyond dispute XYZ from ANYTHING is a bit silly, or at least very presumptuous. At best, I can show WHY I interpret it the way I do, and let you decide if you agree.
Since Catholics consider sacred tradition to be of equal authority to scripture, Catholics will interpret scripture to make it conform with sacred tradition, just as I interpret James to make it agree with Paul.
I do hope to show that this results in sufficient discomfort to scripture that some will question if sacred tradition really is authoritative.
But a knock-out blow? I’m certain we both have enough sense to know that neither of us has a single verse, single argument, cannot be denied argument. Neither of us expects the other to slap his forehead and shout, “No one in 2000 years has ever been so wise!”
I’m usually content if no one slaps his forehead and shouts, “No one in 2000 years has ever been so stupid!” And I fail there, too...
Who or what hurt you to make you so bitter towards Catholics and the Catholic Church?
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.