Hubris. How nice of you to throw in your own definitions and throw out the fact that Paul C does understand! Your logic has refuted faith alone. You have contradicted yourself 5 times in your post. That was not your fault, per se. It was the fault of Faith Alone through the fruits of true believers and Sola Scriptura because you claim your authority better than Paul C’s.You’re not understanding this passage in relation to the whole of Romans. First, recall that in chapter 2, Paul is describing salvation as a Jew would understand salvation. Salvation is primarily by keeping the law. But as we read on to chapter 3 and following, Paul is going to deny that salvation is by works, that no one in fact does seek glory, honor and immortality through perseverance in good works, which means the entire point is moot anyway, because there isn’t anyone who fits this description. That said, even if this were a description of the Christian in the state of grace (as some commentators take it), none of these things are imperatives, but rather all are indicatives. On this reading, Paul would be describing what a saved person looks like, not prescribing the requirements that must be met in order to go to heaven. In short, the true believer does these things because he is saved, not in order to gain, earn, or maintain a salvation not already secured for him/her in heaven.
I suppose that depends upon what you mean by “free will.” If by “free will” you mean human autonomy free from the power of sin that can decisively incline our will against God and thus make us naturally rebellious, then yes, I most certainly do deny free will. If, however, you mean the power to make choices (volition) and act upon them, that we are not automatons and that no one has a gun to our head when we sin, then I would embrace free will.So, you deny that we have free will?
If we are already “free,” then how does it make sense to say Jesus sets us free? If we are slaves to sin, then how does it make sense to say we have free will?8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”
So you assert, but you give no reasons in support of your assertion. First, why don’t you define “free will” for us. The, go ahead and prove it. And then we’ll see who is in “error.” (Have fun!)This is your error.
Until we get to the Fall…just a minor detail.We most certainly do have free will. This was made abundantly clear in the first few chapters of Genesis.
So are you saying man prior to baptism does not have free will, but then after baptism does? Where do you get the idea, apart from your “Tradition,” that baptism liberates the will? And anecdotally speaking, wouldn’t you say that the vast, vast majority of the baptized live lives nearly indistinguishable from their unbaptized, secular neighbors?Man was given everything he needed but was given the choice of accepting it and living in God’s grace, or rejecting it by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man today is given that same choice after baptism.
Objection! Relevance? We we’re talking about whether or not Luther and Calvin held the view you attributed to them. You words were, and I quote, “[They] thought their obligation to God ended with a mere assent of faith.” Don’t bait and switch your original contention by introducing the red herring about predestination. Back up your claim that the two greatest Reformers defined faith as “mere assent” and that this was the limit of of their obligation to God. (Again, have fun!)I understand them only too well. Calvin stated unequivocally that man’s destiny on earth was predetermined…
Smells like a “tradition” to me. So, why not give them communion too then? If they don’t need their own faith to ask for baptism (“unless one is born again, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”) then they don’t need their own faith to receive communion (“unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you”). Where’s the consistency?!For infant baptism: Their parents are standing in for them, as they do in all other actions, and the infant is given grace on the strength of their parents request.
A nice articulation of the insufficiency of baptism. It apparently needs another sacrament–nowhere mentioned in scripture-- to complete it.Ultimately, as the child becomes old enough to speak for him/herself, he/she will repeat these vows and be sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Confirmation.
Then it’s earned in the “loose” sense?Entry into heaven is not earned either in the strictest sense.
And if you don’t cooperate or do so insufficiently, then what?
- you merely must cooperate with God’s will.
So Christ will then lose some of those the Father has given him after all?It might be more accurate to say that we can lose heaven by turning away from God.
What seems “clear” to you isn’t at all clear to most commentators who at least acknowledge that there are a number of plausible readings of this difficult passage, none of which is without problems. In other words, it’s difficult to understand this passage in light of everything else Paul says. On the one hand, Paul bends over backwards in Romans 3-8 to show us that we are saved by grace though faith and not by works of the law. But if we take what he says here in Romans 2 as determinative, then it renders meaningless virtually everything else he goes on to say about the universal sinfulness of humanity, the fact that “no one seeks God,” and the example of Abraham who was justified by faith “apart from work,” etc, etc. Everyone who comments on this, Protestant and Catholic, realizes that a surface reading of Romans 2 seems to contradict everything else Paul will go on to say. So how does it fit in? There are a number of theories. I’ll just sketch 2:Your argument shows your confusion in that you are forced to try to explain away what Paul says quite clearly: you will be judged based on your works with those who do good works attaining to eternal life and those that do evil with condemnation.
MiguelWhat seems “clear” to you isn’t at all clear to most commentators who at least acknowledge that there are a number of plausible readings of this difficult passage, none of which is without problems. In other words, it’s difficult to understand this passage in light of everything else Paul says. On the one hand, Paul bends over backwards in Romans 3-8 to show us that we are saved by grace though faith and not by works of the law. But if we take what he says here in Romans 2 as determinative, then it renders meaningless virtually everything else he goes on to say about the universal sinfulness of humanity, the fact that “no one seeks God,” and the example of Abraham who was justified by faith “apart from work,” etc, etc. Everyone who comments on this, Protestant and Catholic, realizes that a surface reading of Romans 2 seems to contradict everything else Paul will go on to say. So how does it fit in? There are a number of theories. I’ll just sketch 2:
I think both theories have a lot going for them. I haven’t made up my mind as to which makes most sense.
- Just as Paul indicted the Gentiles in Romans 1, so now he indicts the Jews in Romans chapter 2. By Jewish standard, it isn’t the “hearer of the law” who is justified, but rather the “doer.” In other words, no Jew worth his salt would have accepted the idea that it was merely enough to be born into Judaism and simply “know” the law intellectually without actually complying with it. Thus Paul is simply summarizing what he expects his Jewish interlocutor to agree with up to this point. Until he gets to Romans 3 where he will then turn the tables on them as well. The “gotcha” moment is when the Jew is faced with the fact that, despite all his covenant privileges, he stands just as condemned as the Gentile he loathes. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” On this reading, Paul isn’t teaching the church the principle that we can be justified by our good works; rather he is simply “suckering” the Jewish listener in order to later spring the “trap.”
- Paul has more or less temporarily lost his train of thought and is now thinking of both Jewish and Gentile Christians, showing that God will reward them with immorality according to their works so that this part of Romans 2 becomes a parenthetical section about how Christians will be rewarded, after which he resumes his diatribe against Judaism and then will go on to indict them as well. But even on this reading, no one would argue that Paul is suddenly reversing himself, teaching that while we’re initially justified by our faith, apart form the works of the law, that we will finally be justified by our good works, and the degree to which we seek immortality, glory, honor etc.
What I mean by free will is the ability to choose between sinning and not sinning at each decision point in your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
So, you deny that we have free will?
We are freed from sin when we are baptized. That is when we gain the grace to avoid sin. That is what Jesus is talking aboutBut here is why I don’t like the term.
Quote:
- The Bible doesn’t use it, but certainly could have. It uses the word “free” and “will” in many, many places, but never uses the term “free will.”
- It is undeniably a term that carries a lot of humanistic, and post-modern baggage. How can I be sure that when people use it, they’re using it free from the presuppositions that are inherently antagonistic toward the idea of objective truth and divine revelation?
- The gospel of John:
8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”
If we are already “free,” then how does it make sense to say Jesus sets us free? If we are slaves to sin, then how does it make sense to say we have free will?
Free will is the ability that man has to sin or not sin at each decision point in his life. Do you feel that you are forced to sin? If so, by whom?Quote:
This is your error
So are you saying man prior to baptism does not have free will, but then after baptism does? Where do you get the idea, apart from your “Tradition,” that baptism liberates the will? And anecdotally speaking, wouldn’t you say that the vast, vast majority of the baptized live lives nearly indistinguishable from their unbaptized, secular neighbors?Quote:
We most certainly do have free will. This was made abundantly clear in the first few chapters of Genesis.
No, you still have free will prior to baptism, but baptism gives you the grace to do the will of God. And I would say that those that cooperate with the graces they get in baptism are very distinguishable from those that do not. They are the ones who do God’s will on a consistent basis.
Tell me this Miguel, in either Calvinism or Lutheranism, does man’s actions beyond the mere assent of faith have any bearing on whether they go to heaven or not?. if you answer “no” , you have proven my point.Quote:
I understand them only too well. Calvin stated unequivocally that man’s destiny on earth was predetermined…
Using Catholic Tradition is nothing to be ashamed of. The New Testament itself sprung from Catholic Tradition.Quote:
For infant baptism: Their parents are standing in for them, as they do in all other actions, and the infant is given grace on the strength of their parents request.
As for the sacraments, your questions are valid so let me explain. Baptism is entry into the new covenant, giving you forgiveness of prior sins (including original sin), the grace to do good works and membership in the Church. This can be done by the parents if they agree to raise their children as members of the Church. To worthily partake of the Eucharist (and see 1Corinthians 10 and 11, to see the supporting scripture), you must be in the state of grace. This means you must be baptized AND if you have sinned, gone to confession. This requires the child to be able to understand the theology behind the eucharist.
Baptism frees you from original sin, gives you the necessary graces to do good works and makes you a member of the church. Confirmation is indeed the completion of Catholic Initiation. In this sacrament, you are given the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This is described in Acts 8:Quote:
Ultimately, as the child becomes old enough to speak for him/herself, he/she will repeat these vows and be sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Confirmation.
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit,
16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.
As in Acts 8, confirmation can only be administered by a bishop.
I say this because there is merit in doing God’s will, even if its expected of you and even if you couldn’t earn heaven on your own without the grace of God.Quote:
Entry into heaven is not earned either in the strictest sense.
You are condemned to hell with the rest of the unfaithful if you don’t reconcile sacramentally (confession)Quote:
- you merely must cooperate with God’s will.
No, he won’t lose any of those that the Father has given him. But not all those that say " Lord, Lord will go to heaven, but only those that do his Father’s will (Matthew 7: 21-23)Quote:
It might be more accurate to say that we can lose heaven by turning away from God.
I’d say you’ve got Colossians 1:24 up your sleeve, that you’re about to play your trump card, and that you’re drawing a conclusion from it that not even Rome does:Miguel
What if I was to say that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient and needs our works to complete it?
If you say, on the basis of this verse, that the Atonement is in any way insufficient, you commit about a dozen heresies. Do you really think that Paul thinks that the Atonement isn’t sufficient to atone for your sins? Or is Paul saying that the followers of Christ will suffer too on behalf of the church because there is still a lot more suffering and persecution for the “body of Christ” (the church) to endure? Be that as it may, if you cite any official Catholic sources or even a theologian who thinks that Christ’s death on Calvary wasn’t sufficient, by all means, let us know…24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
Catholic Commentators don’t have this issue. Romans 2 is talking about going to heaven. Romans 3-5 are talking about entering into a covenant relationship with God.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Your argument shows your confusion in that you are forced to try to explain away what Paul says quite clearly: you will be judged based on your works with those who do good works attaining to eternal life and those that do evil with condemnation.
This is foolish. Paul isn’t writing to a Jewish audience so why would he be trying to “sucker them” He’s writing to the Gentile church in Rome.So how does it fit in? There are a number of theories. I’ll just sketch 2:
- Just as Paul indicted the Gentiles in Romans 1, so now he indicts the Jews in Romans chapter 2. By Jewish standard, it isn’t the “hearer of the law” who is justified, but rather the “doer.” In other words, no Jew worth his salt would have accepted the idea that it was merely enough to be born into Judaism and simply “know” the law intellectually without actually complying with it. Thus Paul is simply summarizing what he expects his Jewish interlocutor to agree with up to this point. Until he gets to Romans 3 where he will then turn the tables on them as well. The “gotcha” moment is when the Jew is faced with the fact that, despite all his covenant privileges, he stands just as condemned as the Gentile he loathes. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” On this reading, Paul isn’t teaching the church the principle that we can be justified by our good works; rather he is simply “suckering” the Jewish listener in order to later spring the “trap.”
This interpretation is also foolish. You actually prefer an explanation that Paul would send a very important letter to the Romans that demonstrates that he has lost his train of thought and is confused on his own doctrines?
- Paul has more or less temporarily lost his train of thought and is now thinking of both Jewish and Gentile Christians, showing that God will reward them with immorality according to their works so that this part of Romans 2 becomes a parenthetical section about how Christians will be rewarded, after which he resumes his diatribe against Judaism and then will go on to indict them as well. But even on this reading, no one would argue that Paul is suddenly reversing himself, teaching that while we’re initially justified by our faith, apart form the works of the law, that we will finally be justified by our good works, and the degree to which we seek immortality, glory, honor etc.
Isn’t the Catholic reading so much more cohesive since it does not need to deny what is actually written. It says that we will be judged based on our works. It says that it doesn’t matter if we are Greek or Jew because God shows no partiallity. It further says that we have the natural law within us so we know what is moral whether we have access to the Jewish law or not. It continues by saying that circumcision and the works of the law are not required to enter into a covenant relationship with God, but that all that is required is faith. It says that if we have faith and enter into his covenant, we should be dead to sin, living a moral life. Finally, it says if we lose faith, we will be condemned, detached from the VineI think both theories have a lot going for them. I haven’t made up my mind as to which makes most sense.
Then you recognize clearly that faith alone will be of no benefit to you or me so please surrender this faith alone silliness and come to the truthI’d say you’ve got Colossians 1:24 up your sleeve, that you’re about to play your trump card, and that you’re drawing a conclusion from it that not even Rome does:
If you say, on the basis of this verse, that the Atonement is in any way insufficient, you commit about a dozen heresies. Do you really think that Paul thinks that the Atonement isn’t sufficient to atone for your sins? Or is Paul saying that the followers of Christ will suffer too on behalf of the church because there is still a lot more suffering and persecution for the “body of Christ” (the church) to endure? Be that as it may, if you cite any official Catholic sources or even a theologian who thinks that Christ’s death on Calvary wasn’t sufficient, by all means, let us know…
Newsflash, Paul. Probably most of the Christians in Rome were originally Jews and there were still Judaizers present in many churches. But it’s not the people to whom he is writing, but rather his “interlocutor” that he has in mind. If you know anything about literary forms, then certainly you’ve heard of the “diatribe.” It was a rather popular way of making a sustained argument, part of which involved writing with your objector in mind, whether real or imagined.This is foolish. Paul isn’t writing to a Jewish audience so why would he be trying to “sucker them” He’s writing to the Gentile church in Rome.
I don’t prefer this interpretation. I’m just pointing out that its a commonplace among exegetes to see this part of Romans 2 as somewhat parenthetical to the flow of his argument. “Lost the train of this thought” isn’t the best way to put it, so I’ll withdraw that. But certainly the “order” in which he makes his points isn’t necessarily linear.This interpretation is also foolish. You actually prefer an explanation that Paul would send a very important letter to the Romans that demonstrates that he has lost his train of thought and is confused on his own doctrines?
NewsFlash, Miguel, The Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in 49 AD. They even discuss this point in Acts 18:2.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
This is foolish. Paul isn’t writing to a Jewish audience so why would he be trying to “sucker them” He’s writing to the Gentile church in Rome.
1 After this he left Athens and went to Corinth.
2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. He went to visit them
3 and, because he practiced the same trade, stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade.
It seems that the commentators you trust so much haven’t done very much research, or even read the Bible that closely. Also, in the introductor paragraph in Romans, Paul makes it clear that he, as apostle to the Gentiles, is addressing this to the Gentiles in Rome: Romans 1: 5-7
5 Through him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles,
6 among whom are you also, who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;
7 to all the beloved of God in Rome, called to be holy. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
These reason that reading Romans in its entirety creates conflicts for you is tat you are reading it through the faulty lense of the Reformers.Quote:
This interpretation is also foolish. You actually prefer an explanation that Paul would send a very important letter to the Romans that demonstrates that he has lost his train of thought and is confused on his own doctrines?
Lets reveiw the content of the first six chapters of Romans
1 1- 15. Paul introduces himself and tells how eager he is to preach the gospel to them
1: 16-17: Paul states" the one who is righteous by Faith shall live
1: 18-23 Paul states that God makes himself known to everyone and that the pagans have no excuse for exchanging the glory of the immortal God with idols
1: 24-32 Paul states that God handed the pagans over to their degrading passions, who proceeded to commit all manner of evil, even though the pagans know that the practice of such evil means death
2: 1-11. Paul reminds his readers that they will be judged by the same standard that they judge and that those whodo good works will have eternal life and those that do evil will be condemned, whether they are Gentle or Jew because there is no partiality with God.
2: 12-16: Paul introduces the concept of the Natural law, saying that everyone’s conscience guides them to the moral truths so no one has an excuse to sin because they didn’t know it was sin.
2: 17-28: Paul then points out that desptie the Jews having a written law, still sin and that those who are circumcised but still sin have no benefit over the uncircumcised
3 1-2 Paul says there is an advantage to being Jewish because they were entrusted with God’s word
3: 3-20 Paul points out that just because the Jews had the law, it didn’t make them any less sinful and that observing the law didn’t make them justified, it just made them conscious of their sins
3: 21- 30: Paul then points out that true justification comes from Faith in Christ Jesus and not from the law and that this justification is open to Gentile and Greek alike.
4: 1-25: Paul, using Abraham as an example, demosntrates more fully that justification is by Faith. (Indeed there is no entry requirement to become a member of the church, other than a desire to repent and to do God’s will).
5: 1-21 Paul then discusses how Jesus sacrifice nullified Adam’s sin for the believer and freedom from sin
6: Paul points out that, having been justified, we must think of ourselves as dead to sin and living a life in Christ . He concludes that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in hrist Jesus our lord.
So Paul points out that we will be judged on our works but justified by our faith which calls us to a new life in Christ, where we must not sin, because the wages of sin is death. There is no inconsistency or problem reconciling chapter 2 with chapters 3-5 as he brings them back together in chapter 6.
Miguel says elsewhere that he was a Catholic for 14 yrs. in parishes on both the East and West Coasts. They were cold and made him feel isolated, or else they were unable to discuss religion knowledgeably with him. Therefore he reverted back to Protestantism where fellowship is much better and people talk about religion all the time. I’m sure his experience was unpleasant, but I can’t help feeling that he may also have contributed to the situation himself. In any event, I don’t think Miguel is interested in objective discussions, but rather justifications for him returning to Protestantism after having been confirmed in Catholicism, and partaking in the Holy Eucharist. I believe his difficulty is not really with Catholic teaching, but with Catholic living and worship.These reason that reading Romans in its entirety creates conflicts for you is tat you are reading it through the faulty lense of the Reformers.
Interesting (name removed by moderator)ut. I did not realize this. However, in his posts here, his issue IS with Catholic teaching and he hasn’t mentioned Catholic living and worship.Miguel says elsewhere that he was a Catholic for 14 yrs. in parishes on both the East and West Coasts. They were cold and made him feel isolated, or else they were unable to discuss religion knowledgeably with him. Therefore he reverted back to Protestantism where fellowship is much better and people talk about religion all the time. I’m sure his experience was unpleasant, but I can’t help feeling that he may also have contributed to the situation himself. In any event, I don’t think Miguel is interested in objective discussions, but rather justifications for him returning to Protestantism after having been confirmed in Catholicism, and partaking in the Holy Eucharist. I believe his difficulty is not really with Catholic teaching, but with Catholic living and worship.
So what? The church (probably 5 houses churches, actually) existed in Rome well before the expulsion and was made up of both Jewish and Gentile converts. That’s beyond dispute. That the Jews were later expelled doesn’t necessarily change the constitution of the church itself that preexisted the decree of expulsion, though it stands to reason that many Jewish Christians probably did leave. But even if the Roman church were made up of 100% Gentile converts, that wouldn’t change the fact that Paul is employing the literary form known as the “diatribe,” in which it is a commonplace to reply to either a real or imagined “interlocutor,” anticipating his/her likely objections. Moreover, Claudias died in 54 and Nero, his successor, reversed the decree allowing the Jews to return. Since Romans was written around that time, it’s hardly inconceivable that some of the Jewish converts may have been back at the time. When Paul Greets a number of people at the end of the letter, at least some of them were known Jews, including Prisca and Aquila (“a Jew and native of Pontus”, [Acts 18:2-3]). So not only is it possible that there were Jewish Christians among Paul’s intended audience, it’s probable. Also, given the prominent place of the Jews in the letter, the teaching that the Gentiles have been grafted into the original olive tree (not the other way around), the ultimate fate of the Jews, etc, it just simply isn’t credible to posit a Gentile-only audience.NewsFlash, Miguel, The Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in 49 AD. They even discuss this point in Acts 18:2.
It must be nice to be able to pontificate from such a neutral vantage point, unencumbered by any bias.These reason that reading Romans in its entirety creates conflicts for you is tat you are reading it through the faulty lense of the Reformers.
Yes and no. I went through RCIA with a Catholic seminarian who was teaching me one on one. I had a lot of questions and objections fairly typical of most Evangelicals and he had, what seemed at the time, very good answers. My entry into Catholicism was actually through the “apologetics” angle. I had read books like Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism, listened to all of Scott Hahn’s tapes, had a This Rock subscription etc. So I was fairly well informed before and shortly after I became Catholic. Further study, however, lead me to the conclusion that the entire apologetical edifice upon which I had originally “justified” my decision to “cross the Tiber,” was no longer tenable. I remained Catholic for years after that, until finally I could take it no longer. But as for “cold” parishes. That’s partially true. It all depends upon the parish and even in those that are “cold,” there’s usually a “warm” center.Miguel says elsewhere that he was a Catholic for 14 yrs. in parishes on both the East and West Coasts. They were cold and made him feel isolated, or else they were unable to discuss religion knowledgeably with him.
But that’s not why I left.Therefore he reverted back to Protestantism where fellowship is much better and people talk about religion all the time.
Yes, that is true. When one comes to know the facts, one becomes accountable to them. Following one’s conscience is a duty.I’m sure his experience was unpleasant, but I can’t help feeling that he may also have contributed to the situation himself.
I’ve never witnessed an “objective” discussion in my life. We’re all mired in bias and subjectivity to some degree. What I won’t do is deliberately obfuscate, throw out red herrings when my opponent makes a good point, and misrepresent my opponent’s position, which I probably know at least as well as they do, most of the time. That said, I will draw out the implications of one’s position, expose the inconsistencies when I see them etc. But I won’t pretend that I have no agenda or bias. Of course I do. Why would I be here If I did not? Why would anyone?In any event, I don’t think Miguel is interested in objective discussions,
Actually, it’s both. Catholic living and worship follow from its teaching. Of course we should not exaggerate our differences. There is still much we share in common. I have no problem with the idea that many Catholics are among the elect and that many Protestants are not.I believe his difficulty is not really with Catholic teaching, but with Catholic living and worship.
What most made you believe that going back to protestanism was the proper thing to do after converting to catholicism?Yes and no. I went through RCIA with a Catholic seminarian who was teaching me one on one. I had a lot of questions and objections fairly typical of most Evangelicals and he had, what seemed at the time, very good answers. My entry into Catholicism was actually through the “apologetics” angle. I had read books like Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism, listened to all of Scott Hahn’s tapes, had a This Rock subscription etc. So I was fairly well informed before and shortly after I became Catholic. Further study, however, lead me to the conclusion that the entire apologetical edifice upon which I had originally “justified” my decision to “cross the Tiber,” was no longer tenable. I remained Catholic for years after that, until finally I could take it no longer. But as for “cold” parishes. That’s partially true. It all depends upon the parish and even in those that are “cold,” there’s usually a “warm” center.
But that’s not why I left.
Yes, that is true. When one comes to know the facts, one becomes accountable to them. Following one’s conscience is a duty.
I’ve never witnessed an “objective” discussion in my life. We’re all mired in bias and subjectivity to some degree. What I won’t do is deliberately obfuscate, throw out red herrings when my opponent makes a good point, and misrepresent my opponent’s position, which I probably know at least as well as they do, most of the time. That said, I will draw out the implications of one’s position, expose the inconsistencies when I see them etc. But I won’t pretend that I have no agenda or bias. Of course I do. Why would I be here If I did not? Why would anyone?
Actually, it’s both. Catholic living and worship follow from its teaching. Of course we should not exaggerate our differences. There is still much we share in common. I have no problem with the idea that many Catholics are among the elect and that many Protestants are not.
That is a remarkable thing. I’m not sure how to interpret what originally “justified” your decision to cross the Tiber, or what foundation your untenable apologetical edifice was built upon.Further study, however, lead me to the conclusion that the entire apologetical edifice upon which I had originally “justified” my decision to “cross the Tiber,” was no longer tenable.
I myself am always fascinated by why people go back and forth. What exactly is the basis for their belief and/or conversion and then back again?That is a remarkable thing. I’m not sure how to interpret what originally “justified” your decision to cross the Tiber, or what foundation your untenable apologetical edifice was built upon.
I don’t know if there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. I my case, it’s simply following where the clues lead you. If you’ve ever jumped to a conclusion only to find that after having more information you were in error, then you’d probably agree that the only sane thing to do is to draw another conclusion. (It happens a lot driving in New England where the roads make next to no sense.) Science does this all the time. It’s only when we become dogmatic for dogma’s sake that we get into trouble. When we commit ourselves in principle to the idea that my church or tradition can’t possibly be in error, we’re in trouble. I reserve that for the Word of God. But if asked to “prove” that the Bible is God’s word and free from all error, I don’t think I would be able to come up with a satisfactory answer for everyone. Rather than “prove” this, I just preach it. If the Bible is what I think is, (God’s Word) then it is going to do it’s job whether I have a good argument for it or not. And what job is that? It will save the elect and harden the reprobate; it will separate the wheat from the chaff, because that is what the Word does.I myself am always fascinated by why people go back and forth. What exactly is the basis for their belief and/or conversion and then back again?
Did you go back to the faith that you professed prior to becoming catholic? I certainly understand making changes as the evidence presents itself but we dont usually go backwards. If something makes you change your mind in the first place and you move to the next seemingly obvious conclusion somethign else comes along and suggest that you were right from the beginning? Is that it?I don’t know if there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. I my case, it’s simply following where the clues lead you. If you’ve ever jumped to a conclusion only to find that after having more information you were in error, then you’d probably agree that the only sane thing to do is to draw another conclusion. (It happens a lot driving in New England where the roads make next to no sense.) Science does this all the time. It’s only when we become dogmatic for dogma’s sake that we get into trouble. When we commit ourselves in principle to the idea that my church or tradition can’t possibly be in error, we’re in trouble. I reserve that for the Word of God. But if asked to “prove” that the Bible is God’s word and free from all error, I don’t think I would be able to come up with a satisfactory answer for everyone. Rather than “prove” this, I just preach it. If the Bible is what I think is, (God’s Word) then it is going to do it’s job whether I have a good argument for it or not. And what job is that? It will save the elect and harden the reprobate; it will separate the wheat from the chaff, because that is what the Word does.
And when people don’t heed the word, well, that’s hardly a surprise. The fleshly mind is hostile to God’s word, it does not submit to it, nor can it, said Paul.