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)?
We are dead in out sins, dead to the things of God. We don't want God. Don't want salvation. In fact we are at war with Him.
Allow me to refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Chapter IXThe Scriptural references are available at this site. I'm under the weather or I would have hyperlinked in the above them for you.
Of Free WillI. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.
III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.
V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.