Are you infallible?

One Fold ^ | December 10, 2013 | Brian Culliton

[CynicalBear]

So you agree that it’s faith alone but that true faith produces fruit! Excellent!

[daniel1212]

Glory to God who works such conversions. An effect which has a cause, which cannot be reasonably attributed to merely naturalistic causes, esp. when such have been replicated time and time again.

I have challenged atheists to go to a strong evangelical church and ask for some solid Christians to interview, Find out what their lives were before and after conversion, and how it corresponded to what they believed. Changes in heart and life which correspond to claims of Christ and are contingent upon faith in them, and blessing obtained by obedience to Him.

Not all are that Years ago a couple “soul winners” in the Baptist church i was part of about 20 miles north of here were going house to house and witnessed to man, Kirt, who was quite open to talking about the Bible and Christ, unlike most in this RC area. But then again, he was from the Caribbean.

His GF did not want them around however, and so the left him with a gospel tract. And prayed for him. Well, two things happened to awake him to his need for Christ: His GF left him and his father died, and he was quite depressed and suicidal.

Before before he did something terminal, in his desperation Kirt walked to the Catholic church close by to see the priest. However, they were playing Bingo in the church and the words of Christ about turning His house into a place of commerce came to his mind, as in his country they read the Bible in public schools.

Then he thought, “Maybe there is an address on the paper the two guys who talked to me about my soul left with me.” And sure enough there was, and so he walked the two miles to the church, which was open, and knocked on an office door where a man was sitting. Asleep.

It was the assistant pastor, who had converted to Christ, coming from an Episcopal church. He was searching for Christ as a Episcopalian found the Bible preaching in a Baptist church alive and became born again. Then he sensed God’s call to the ministry, and asked the Lord that God if it really was from Him that someone would offer to buy his house even if he did not advertize it was for sale. And indeed a man showed up at his door one day and said he wanted to buy his house and he went into ministry in his 50’s, and was mostly paid from voluntary donations.

The pastor had to be at the church very early due to the Christian school there, so we can sympathize with him napping a bit at his age, only to be awakened by Kirt knocking on the door.

He opened it up and asked if he could help him and Kiry says “Yes, i need to be saved.” Well, do you know that you are a sinner?” Yes, I know that I am a sinner and I need to be saved!” So (i am smiling) while we were out going house to house and facing closed doors and hearts, this napping pastor has a man waking him desperately wanting to be saved!

And as “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit,” (Psalms 34:18) it was not hard for this man to find Christ and be born again. And as this was a real conversion and this was a Wednesday, that night Kirt came wanting to be baptized, and was, and took the Lord’s supper.

And as he confessed he was hear illegally, we worked to get him back to his Island, while in the interim we worked at the church as a real help to the ministry.

Such a conversion could have occurred at many other evangelical churches, and it is due to such regeneration with its profound changes in heart and life that such converts share a essential unity of the Spirit which transcends their tribal identifications, as they all were saved by the same Christ, and it is their shared relationship with Him that is central.

This is often realized even spontaneously in meeting other believers, but is not realized with mere religionists. I used to often meet disciples of a Church of Christ cult, very zealous, but it was their church one must be in, and likewise that is the security and gospel which most Caths preach out of the abundance of their hearts.

However, the evangelical fellowship in Christ, which actually pertains to a relative remnant, does not minimize the importance of related doctrines, and contentions due to love for the Truth, but if it driven for love for the Truth and the Christ of the Truth, then they share a unique and critical unity that is greater than their differences.

Spurgeon: Although upon doctrines of grace our views differ from those avowed by Arminian Methodists, we have usually found that on the great evangelical truths we are in full agreement, and we have been comforted by the belief that Wesleyans were solid upon the central doctrines. (Sword and the Trowel, May, 1891)

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in “A Defence Of Calvinism,” The Banner Of Truth Trust edition)

Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his high Churchism, but I love George Herbert from my very soul, and I have a warm corner in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12, p. 6; http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs668.pdf)

Benjamin Franklin: And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. (Benjamin Franklin, “Information to those who would Remove to America,” John Gould Curtis, American history told by contemporaries .... Volume 3, p. 26; http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/quotes_compare.html)

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859. French political thinker and historian; best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) — The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth... (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)

[editor-surveyor]

I have Yehova’s word; your modifications thereto are from your daddy, Lucifer.

[paladinan]

How many BTTT's have been posted on FreeRepublic in the last 17 years or so?

I have no clue... nor do I have any idea why you'd ask. Are you seriously suggesting that I was poking fun at your comment, NOT because of its specific anti-Catholic "crowing", but simply because it was a "bump to the top"?

I've seen that fairly recently done by one of the RC sisterhood to comments which were then far enough out-of-line, those same "bumped to the top" comments ended up being deleted, with it occurring (fairly recently) twice in the same thread. lol.

So what's this complaint about high-fiving?

Oh, heavens... it wasn't the high-five-ing, per se (the Protestants/Evangelicals dominate the competition, in that category, on FR); I'm not affected by that in the least, nor is there anything at all wrong with it (no matter who's doing it: Protestants, Catholics, LDS, atheists, etc.). It was the specific anti-Catholic CONTENT which was pretty extreme in its flamboyance (it's like listening to one of the Chicago "super-fans"). But again: the overall effect of the hyper-inflated thetoric was comical, not infuriating. It was a bit like watching a semi-berserk fan of a sports team, covered in body paint, hop up on a car hood and bellow a list of "team spirit" comments for the TV camera. That's why I responded as light-heartedly as I did.

Ah, you got me there, on poor choice and ill-usage of a word.

:) FRiend, I usually let those go without so much as a thought; I'm certainly not infallible in my own comments, and I'm usually disposed to give complete benefit of the doubt to all others. It's only when commenters gets combative and belligerent-sounding (and especially when they commit errors which are glaringly ironic--such as [for random examples, not specific to this thread] misspelling words while calling someone/something else stupid, using inflammatory language while berating someone else for being "mean", etc.) that I'm at all tempted to comment on such things at all.

I'll even let you in on a secret: even my more flippant sounding teases on this forum are ALWAYS aimed at those who "shot first"--those whose vitriol toward the Catholic Church leads them to be hostile and incendiary toward all things (and sometimes all people) Catholic. You can see, even on this forum, that this is true: those who address me (and others) politely will never be the recipient of flippant comments or dismissals from me, since I admire their sincerity (even if I disagree with their position completely), and I especially admire their level-headed-ness. I've just learned, through awkward experiences, that the best way (especially given the current rules in force from the RM's) to handle hostility and acerbic comments from anti-Catholic-Church people is for me NOT to take them seriously. When any person finally settles down to a real point (rather than hyperbolic rhetoric, sneers, put-downs, canards, etc.), then I engage them in all earnestness. Go and check my comments (and those to which I replied), and see if this isn't true.

Case in point: when you mentioned the word "Romish", you're quoting (and I'm not angry about it, BTW--this is just a tactical point) a slur... just as it would be a slur for me to address Protestants by the slur "Prots" or "Proddies". Such things add nothing substantial to ANY discussion, and I avoid them completely. It would be a good idea for EVERYONE to avoid them completely, IMHO.

Notice that that comment, was not addressed to you.

Of course. So... is your point that I should only be concerned for myself (i.e. be selfish)? Or should I so distance myself from my heritage that slams against the Church should be matters of complete indifference to me? That doesn't sound like the response of a faithful Christian, if I were to do that. "For zeal for thy house has consumed me, and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me. (Psalm 69:9) And again: I'm not upset; I'm just baffled that you'd suggest that you're justified (and you are!) in intervening/commenting on behalf of others in discussions which weren't weren't addressed to YOU (as you did in the very comment we're discussing), while suggesting that I was somehow "not good" in replying to YOUR comment which wasn't addressed to me. Shouldn't we BOTH have the freedom to jump into discussions, like this? I think so, anyway.

[paladinan]
..and re: the hyperventilating paroxysm about "bullying little people": what ARE you talking about? Which people are you calling "little people", and what do you see as "bullying"?

[BlueDragon]
There's plenty of that.

I'm sure. But could you be just a wee bit more specific (about the people suffering it, and the comments which demonstrate it)... especially since you're accusing me of having done it? Perhaps you could quote some, and explain clearly how these are "bullying"? Among other reasons, I ask this because a common liberal tactic (as anyone on FR knows, if they've experienced our culture for more than 5 minutes) is to throw the "bullying" label around in efforts to "shut up" any voices or positions or comments which they don't like; so no one on FR (me, included) is usually inclined to "roll over" and accept it when the accusation comes their way.

Try searching your own comments.

Um... how about you try QUOTING from my comments which you have in mind, since YOU know what you're looking for, and I don't? How on earth would I be able to "search" in my hundreds of comments for something which you claim is "bullying", but for which you haven't give me a shred of a clear definition?

If you can't see it, then my pointing out particular paragraphs and explaining them --- how in context is often equates to a form of bullying likely as not won't help.

Ah. The "if you don't know what's wrong, then I'm certainly not going to tell you" school of commentary. Gotcha. That's known as "drive-by criticism" (i.e. a quick attack, followed by a speedy get-away in order to avoid repercussions)... and it's neither logical nor good style (or manners, for that matter). Should I call this "bullying" from you, do you think? :) Yet I was intending reference to bullying to not be limited solely to any one individual who engages in bullying promotion of[alleged] papal 'authority'. My apologies for having seemingly aimed that only towards yourself.

:) How generous of you. But since your further comments clearly single me out as a "guilty party" (cf. "Try searching your own comments."), I'm afraid that's not very impressive as an apology... especially since I was objecting to the accusation AT ALL, and not to the idea that I was somehow "the only one" you accuse thusly.

[delchiante]

Editor,

you and I won’t agree,.

You begin your day at night.
I begin my day at light.

Rome is with you on that.

if I am going to see someone at 9 PM tonight, I can use the word tonight.
You have to use the word tomorrow if you are consistent

You have to discount the fact that Elohim called the ‘Light’ Day before He called the ‘dark’ Night,

I am okay with starting with His 12 hours in His Day and not the 3 (at least) watches of the Night.
He gave the greater light to rule the ‘day’ and the ‘lesser’ light to rule the ‘night’.

40 days seemed to be followed with 40 nights at least a few times in scripture.
I guess a study could be done how many times day is stated before night and vice versa and maybe that would be n interesting study and the one who has the most ‘wins’?

Yeah, it won’t determine salvation but does determine what gospel one believes,. And I suspect you and I differ on that too..
I know what Leviticus 23:32 means when it says from evening to evening the Day of atonement Sabbath is to be observed....

And why the 8th day in the evening to the 9th in the evening like was observed by the Antichrist rabbinic Judaism this past year was not worshiping in Truth..

John gives us some detail of who is Antichrist in his letters..

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:

That describes rabbinic Judaism as they deny the Son.
So by that standard , they don’t have the ‘Father’..
Rabbinic Judaism, Antichrist according to scripture.

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Those describe the Roman Catholic church with their doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception, leaving her ‘sinless’..meaning her Son was not born with a ‘sin’ /carnal nature or not born ‘in the flesh’..

Roman catholic church, Antichrist by scripture..

You are relying on two different sides of an Antichrist coin for your work and worship..
I have tested and proved those things and saw the errors of Judaism and Hebrew roots thanks to Him—

I am happy to call today His 1st day, the 16th day of His 2nd month.
I pray you have the scales come of your eyes..

[MHGinTN]

What a beautiful message you bring. Strong meat, with taste for a banquet.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for your post. It will serve as the thing I was searching for in order to write to a friend who needs to awaken to the Gospel. He is an Historian. Your post is spot on for what his heart may receive eagerly. Your posts are bright flecks of faithfulness. Thank you

[Springfield Reformer]

Such a conversion could have occurred at many other evangelical churches, and it is due to such regeneration with its profound changes in heart and life that such converts share a essential unity of the Spirit which transcends their tribal identifications, as they all were saved by the same Christ, and it is their shared relationship with Him that is central.

Amen, brother. Worth repeating.  But difficult to convey to those still hung up on tribal identification (you know who you are :) ).  

And a very moving conversion story.  God does do the most surprising things when we least expect it.  There was a critical turning point in my time of darkness when I was in LA and "deprived" of my spending money by a street person.  As he was walking away, he looked back at me and said, "The Lord works in mysterious ways."  Sometimes it's hard to recognize the significance of something when it's happening, but I now know on reflection if I had had that money that night, my whole life might have turned out a lot worse.  It was during that week in LA that I came to the end of my running from the Hound of Heaven.  Mysterious ways indeed, and worthy to be praised.

Peace,

SR

[redleghunter]

I have challenged atheists to go to a strong evangelical church and ask for some solid Christians to interview, Find out what their lives were before and after conversion, and how it corresponded to what they believed. Changes in heart and life which correspond to claims of Christ and are contingent upon faith in them, and blessing obtained by obedience to Him.

Amen! The immediate changes...the changes that come as The Father promises to conform us to the Image of His Son...And Praise be to God the change that is coming in the blink of an eye! Forever in His Presence and Glory!

[RnMomof7]

If we Christians are honest, I would suspect the vast majority of us struggle daily with sin.

We all battle with the "old man "...and one of the effects of being born again is we are more aware of our sin.. things we never would have thought of as sin in the past now shake our conscience ... I always think of John Bunyan's comment that His holiest prayer was sin before God .. we see our selfishness, our self centeredness, our anxiety, our self pity, our anger etc as sin ..where before because they were not on some list we would have overlooked..

[RnMomof7]

In post 1006 you said..... see post 937...metmom got her inspiration from a guy at work that everyone thought was nuts.

Funny Thing is God saves "jerks" and uses them for His purposes too ....

[RnMomof7]

No good works, no fullness of faith; no fullness of faith, no salvation.

What "good works" did the thief on the cross preform ?

[knarf]

I've been hung up on the word "conscience" for over a week now

A compound word;

con ... with

science ... knowledge

I believe everyone has a conscience flavored by and with the God who allowed the birth .... and that whatever life experiences one has or chooses is filtered through that con science.

Still meditating on the word and it's fascinating to allow God to work in my heart and mind ...

I return you now to your regular programming ...

[Springfield Reformer]

There's a chasm of difference between "works-based" and "works-are-not-optional". We are justified and saved by faith--but not by faith "ALONE" (i.e. not by what some Evangelicals and other Protestants call "faith apart from works"--those people usually neglect to quote the rest of the verse: "works OF THE LAW"--i.e. the Old Covenant Mitzvot). Works are an essential requirement of our salvation--NOT because of any nonsensical idea of "earning" our salvation (as if we could possibly get God to "owe" us anything on the basis of justice), but because God has freely chosen to make our salvation contingent on having the type of faith which MANIFESTS GOOD WORKS. No good works, no fullness of faith; no fullness of faith, no salvation.

I'm with CB on this.  This is amazing.  The closest thing to a Catholic stating the Protestant position as I've ever seen on FR.  Although I think if we poke at it a bit we will still see some differences.  But this really is remarkable.  

The anticipated objection is that Protestants/Evangelicals don't believe in justification by faith plus works, but by faith alone, and that is true.  But this is one of those semantic problems we've seen so often here. When we say "faith apart from works," or "faith alone," we do not and have never meant that faith occurs by itself, without accompanying works.  This is one of the oldest and dustiest straw men we evangelicals are seemingly continuously refuting here at FR.  It's so senseless.  We don't teach faith comes to the party alone.  We teach, just as you said, exactly as you said, that saving faith "manifests good works."

But what I think happens is this word "apart" or "alone" gets applied to the wrong category.  True faith produces action.  Abraham believed God, and because he believed God, he chose one set of actions over another.  But Paul tells us in Romans those actions are not what saved him.  It was the faith that made the difference. It is in that sense we say faith is "alone/apart from" works, because the judicial act of God in acquitting us of sin and accounting us as righteous is based on us having genuine faith, not on our performance against any particular set of rules, Mosaic or otherwise.  That indeed is why Abraham, who was justified before there ever was a law of Moses, or even a Christian list of rights and wrongs, makes such a good example of the point.

And as RnMomof7 has pointed out, the lack of formal good works did not prevent the salvation of the thief on the cross.  But one could argue his faith was already producing good works, because he began his new life of faith by offering to defend the good name of Jesus against the unbelieving taunts of the other thief. We may not think of such things as good works, but whatever flows from the heart as an expression of love for God or love for our neighbor is in fulfillment of the two highest commands God ever gave, and would certainly qualify as good works.  But they did not cause the thief's salvation.  They were the inevitable byproduct of a heart that God Himself had marvelously changed, even if within only a few hours of his decease.

So to reiterate, the sense in which we say faith and works are separate is NOT in the category of occurrence, or in the category of cause and effect, because we agree that saving faith will both precede and be accompanied by good works.  We just don't see them as co-causal to salvation.  They are a result of having a changed heart.  They are a consequence of having saving faith.  Not a co-requirement of salvation, as though faith and works were two independent, parallel sources of God acquitting us of sin and granting us new life through His Spirit. Rather, just as you appear to be saying, true faith is the logical predecessor of truly good "good works."  

And really, how else could it be?  How good can good works be if they are only done to avoid punishment of the narcissist that lives within each of us?  Doesn't that change "good works" from the unselfishness of love to raw self-preservation?  I think this was at the heart of the Pharisees' problem understanding the true meaning of God's law.  They couldn't grasp the unselfishness of divine (agape) love.  So much of their works-doing was ultimately centered on the self, not the other.  It was a formal appearance of love, but inwardly hollowed out to an empty shell of self-serving actions.  If we could see our own "good deeds" the way God sees them, down to the deepest hidden motivations, I wonder how they would look to us. Sort of like putting an ultraviolet lamp on that rug you thought was so clean, and seeing the stains of truth.  Thank God for His grace, without which we would be undone.

But in any event, I am encouraged we have come so close to saying the same thing concerning the relationship between faith and works.

Peace,

SR

[MHGinTN]

Yet another keeper! Printing in progress ...

[paladinan]

I wonder, do you realize that Jesus set Nicodemus straight when He said, ‘that which is born of flesh is flesh’?

Yes, I do.

"...born "anothen" (which can mean "again", or "from above")--Jesus obviously meant the latter, since He chides Nicodemus for assuming that it meant the former."

"Did you miss the fact that Jesus didn't APPROVE of that answer?"

How could you miss the plain teaching of Jesus?

Where are you suggesting that I did that?

[MHGinTN]

When Nic tried to understand being ‘Born Again’, he went straight to the natural man explanation of being born again from his mother, in the water world exit to the air world. Jesus immediately took Nic from his natural man perspective to the Spiritual perspective, from the water of birth to the Baptism of The Holy Spiritual birth. Jesus referred first to the natural man perspective —born from the mother in the water of birth— to the spiritual, Born Again from above. Jesus indicates that He is not focusing Nic on the water of birth from the mother, but instead He is focusing Nic on the birth from above. The passage indicates clearly that Jesus referred to the water of birth from the mother by His saying ‘that which is born of flesh is flesh’. Your posts have sought to focus us onto some ritual water baptism as necessary for salvation. Jesus did not do that with Nicodemus in John 3.

[BlueDragon]

Ah. The "if you don't know what's wrong, then I'm certainly not going to tell you" school of commentary. Gotcha. That's known as "drive-by criticism" (i.e. a quick attack, followed by a speedy get-away in order to avoid repercussions)...

If you are otherwise so concerned with form, style, and being polite, then perhaps you may be able to comprehend how if I were to need go through comments, isolate offensive paragraphs, go into detail about how those could be bullying sort of personal critique aimed towards others here (engaged in by yourself) then can you not also see that to do so would be to make the thread all about people here, rather than about issues themselves?

It was yourself who had interjected and made comment towards a thing which initially had not included yourself...

It's been all downhill from there.

As you told another here;

scoot.

[MHGinTN]

BTW, when Peter spoke in the House of Cornelius, the hearers got Born Again before Peter offered the outward testimony of water baptism. As the Scriptures show on many occasions, the water baptism was an outward sign of the faith sealed in the believer by the Holy Spirit, a sort of bowing into the body of fellow believers that He is The Truth and The Light and their Savior. The water baptismo does not save, it is the saved one’s outward proclamation that they have believed and it is now counted unto them righteousness and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit unto that day of full indwelling (growing nearer than most would even believe it to be). Baptismo by the Holy Spirit doesn’t even save, it is the thing which happens spiritually ‘when’ we believe what Jesus congratulated Peter for acknowledging by the Spirit revealing it to him right before Jesus gave Peter the keys to open the new dispensation of the Church Age.