Thank you. The Gospel is the most wonderful thing in the world!
I believe God carries EVERYONE for SOME time and, if they develop eyes with which to see and ears with which to hear they save themselves. He deposits the Holy Spirit in ALL. It is up to each to believe or to turn away.
If you try to figure out the purpose of it all or to understand how this island of free will can exist in a sea of God Creation and God Control, you will of course, drive yourself nuts.
I’m curious on this Our Lord’s Day (and if this is meant to be a Caucus thread please have the Moderator delete this post), and I don’t intend to debate (so I won’t post again unless I feel this question is misunderstood, but even then most likely not as further posts may be taken as argument). I really am curious what you and others may think about this:
How is this position different than the Catholic position WRT the Sacrament of Baptism? That is, the Church has condemned as “anathema” the notion that Original Sin is not a fact (with the condemnation of the teachings of Pelagius), thus the pure, unmerited Gift of the Grace of God is required for “salvation”, in a strict sense in the Church when speaking of God’s Grace.
So, given this, and only focusing on the topic of His Grace, how is the Church’s teaching different than the teaching of this post, again, strictly speaking of grace (if different at all)?
I’ve been thinking for a long time it’s not different. Of course Catholicism also requires co-operation with this Grace, typically after Baptism, so the Church doesn’t teach Monogerism in a strict or any sense.
I’m not suggesting that.
I have been struck by similarities here though, especially given the practice of infant Baptism in the Catholic Church. After all, a child certainly can’t “do” anything to receive God’s Grace, so to me, it seems that is perhaps the clearest example of what the passage cited in John 6 is talking about.
I am well aware (from previous debates) that the objection to that is that “God doesn’t need man to dispense His Grace; He can do it directly”, to which I, at least, have no objection. However, the way I see it, given He is all powerful, He still CAN use Man to dispense His Grace, even though He doesn’t “have to”. IOW, just because He doesn’t have to do so that way, He usually (not always, since He is not bound to His Sacraments, but usually) chooses to do so in that manner. He may, of course, choose to confer the Gift of His Grace any way and anytime He chooses, outside His Sacraments, but He usually chooses to use the Sacraments to do so. This has been my experience at least.
But I digress;please don’t focus on the last two paragraphs if it will cause you to not focus on my actual question here (I added it just for clarity of my faith, and the at least apparent importance of His Grace in it).
So, for fear of “getting off track” with a debate on Baptism, or any of the Sacraments, (and I absolutely will not respond to such), let me make this clear: What I’m merely saying (and asking for anyone’s opinion on) that the necessity for God’s Grace first, then faith, seems to be taught in both faith systems, IMO.
What do you (anyone) think of that last statement (that both teach necessity for God’s Grace must be received first, before Original Sin can be considered overcome, and thus a true faith can flower)?
There is no caucus label, but may I suggest that treating this as an ecumenical thread is the prudent course?
There is too little despairing these days and too much prosperity, "God loves me..." ministry. I think we've lost something not only in our salvation but in our growth as Christians in understanding the providence of God. I remember OrthodoxPresbyterian use to tell me how this was God's great teaching ground for Christians. I finally understand what he meant and couldn't agree with him more.
Sounds like Scripture to me
John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
That is why many people that do not even seem to be Christians in their conversations may do the very works that Jesus told us to do, for instance just work, work, work, for some one who happens to be broke down along the road, or giving some one something to eat, or maybe just refusing to bash some one who have just let their self be tempted by the devil.
And no, i am not talking about some one who is deliberately working for the devil, i am not talking about politics.
Maybe they are the real Christians