Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Also, thanks dr. steve for your response to my initial post on this subject. It does seem to me that if one accepts OSAS, one essentially must argue 'irresistable grace,' at least after the point of conversion, making them, as you say, "functional Calvinists" disagreeing only with when grace becomes irresistable. Further, it would seem if one argues that until conversion grace is resistable, then one cannot escape the notion that, in the main, our salvation rests on just how we choose to exercise our will, thus making our own salvation at least somewhat dependent on our "work." Is this logical?
As to the first point, the answer is 'yes,'it is given to all and I think, quite honestly, we must say that, depending on the definition of 'work,' but for the 'action' of the will of the believer, there would be no belief. Many years ago, I came up with a rather cumbersome analogy. Imagine a lever balanced upon a fulcrum or pivot point with very large weights (thousands of pounds on either end of the lever) and you are standing on the lever astride the fulcrum point such that, if you look straight ahead, the lever remains perfectly balanced, but if you look either way, the lever will tilt that way.
Now, if the lever tilts and you are asked what 'caused' the lever to tilt in that direction, would you say the great weight supplied at the end of the lever or the slightest additional weight of the 'look'? Certainly, in one sense, what overcame the great weight on the other end of the lever was the great weight placed on the end toward which you looked. On the other hand, it was the very slight, marginal weight caused by the slightest turn of your head which was the causative factor in the tilt.
I believe that is the sense in which the believer's decision of the will 'causes' the result of conversion. Certainly, one must admit that the causative decision of the will is the marginal determination of the conversion (or not), but it is the grace supplied by God which overcomes the great weight of sin on the end of the lever and allows the decision of the will to be influential.
Secondly, I think you are also correct on the 'eternal security' question. I personally think it is very difficult to argue that free will is decisive until conversion and then disappears thereafter. I have heard the argument that, once saved, the believer sees so clearly the benefits that he would never want to sin and therefore never be tempted to reverse his decision for Christ. This, it seems to me, negates much of the express purpose of Johannine writing ("I write this that you need not sin" -- clearly written to believers) and doesn't meet with our actual experience. Not only do we as believers continue to meet the very real thrusts of sin and temptation, but we see and have seen those around us, whose experience (so far as any other human can determine) is so much like our own that we must believe they were saved and had that testimony of salvation within their experience, and yet later made another decision to renounce Christ. [BTW, 'fell away' may be an accurate third-party description -- it is after all Scriptural -- but in our modern vernacular, it has too much of an 'accidental' ring to it. It takes a similar decision of the will to renounce Christ as it took to accept Him in the first instance. One no more 'falls' out of salvation in the accidental or negligent sense than one 'falls' into it.]
So, I think your logic is basically correct and one must decide for himself which theological view most closely comports with the totality of the Scripture and ones own observation of believers in the church universal.
I doubt this is standard thinking for other Catholics, so I will guess it's one of the few scriptures your Church let it be known you were allowed to make up your own mind on. Lol
Ask your self, what was the will of the father? What was it he wanted from the boys. He told you what it was, and it wasn't being lied to, or lip service.
This setting was about the Jews of Christ day, not saved or born again Christians.
The scripture tells us what the will of the father was, read it, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
He wanted a particular job done by his sons, not lip service only.
The first son finally did the fathers will, the second son not only didn't do what he had promised to do, he lied and misled his father into thinking the job would be done, which could have resulted in a loss of animals or crops or such.
If you were to tell your son to go check on his baby sister and make sure she was all right, and he says sure dad, then goes out to play, let's see if you congratulate him when something bad happened to your daughter.
I can't believe you gave this any serious thought.
JH :-)
I definitely lean toward OSAS in my more lucid moments.
I gave it a great deal of serious thought. I even sat through a fairly long sermon several months ago on this very topic. And was shocked how even my priest could get this wrong. My son (a man who was instrumental in my conversion to Catholicism) and I hashed this out at great length.
Consider. Jesus sets up a scenario, and asks the Priests and Elders to make a choice. They chose the first son, the one who went. It seems like a no brainer, and they went for it, even though they knew he was trying to get them to trip themselves up (read previous scripture).
Aha! Jesus says: "verily I say unto you, even the Publicans and Harlots will get into heaven before you."
Now, for your interpretation to be correct, that the Publicans and Harlots were going to heaven because they repented, but the Priests and Elders were not (because they were all hat and no cattle) we would have to have some indication that these Publicans and Harlots had repented. There is none, only your memory from reading Scripture that Jesus dined with same, and presumably saved some.
Did the priests understand this? No.
Was Jesus being straight with them? Of course.
He was saying, therefore, that Publicans, and Harlots--collectively, stereotypically, unredeemed, unsaved sinners, were higher up on the salvation food chain than anyone who thought that people who denied the authority of God were better, and more obediant, than people who merely failed to achieve what they wished to do, out of Loyalty, for their Lord.
He was saying, therefore, that the correct choice, that the Priests and Elders should have chosen, was the second son. Who failed, who did not go, who was so typically, humanly, imperfect, but who at least loved his Father enough to say "Yes"
v.
You did get though, That you did, in fact, quote me out of context, right?
Just checking,
v.
God wanted Israel to believe and trust Him, so they asked the same question that Catholics ask us every time the word “believes” comes up, and that question is, “what does that word mean, to believe?” So Israel found 613 laws, that to them meant, if you were to keep them all, it would prove you believed.
Just as today, laws and regulations and doctrine don’t make you become a believer, only faith can, and only those with faith are able to read what Christ said, and believe it. All others dissect it, and do as Israel did, they develop countless laws and doctrine and traditions thinking that these will surly make them believers, but everything a man attempts to create something that will give him faith, it has the reverse and opposite effect, and destroys the faith you are trying to have..
If you were having trouble believing in God or Christ, because you haven’t the faith, remember what faith is.………….
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Now, if what you want to have faith in, can be seen and touched, then it is not of faith, but of substance and that thing which destroys faith, and that’s the sight, and touch, and being able to use your human senses to be aware of it.
God wanted Israel to have faith, that when they were in his hands, nothing could harm them. Christ wants us to have that same faith that comes from the inner man, and when we try to qualify as having faith, by the physical works we produce, we are destroying any faith we had.
Once we have true faith in God, all the good works you do will become rewards, and will fall into place in that order, but you can’t do works to create faith, its an oxymoron, it’s putting the cart before the horse.
It's like giving God 24 hours to teach you patience.
JH :-)
And to think he questioned my eisegesis! ;-)
It is obvious the "will of the father" in this parable is for the son to work in the vineyard. The first son did the will of his father, the second son did not.
V, I think you have a very unique interpretation of these passages. It would be interesting if you polled your Catholic compatriots.
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.