P
pocohombre
Guest
Amen.
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, I think a great many Catholics have been given an imbalanced understanding of the Gospel of grace.
Nothing I have every heard or read in Reformed theology seems to assert this. The reason Catholics are so reactive about the relationship between sin and OSAS is that the theology seems to indicate that the nature of sin has somehow changed. Any mortal sin, no matter how short it’s duration, is still mortal. The OSAS theology denies this.
I think there are many criteria given in scripture by which one can discern whether he is “in Christ” or “inhering the Kingdom”. All of them are clear tht it does not occur when one is in sin.
No. It means that you may have been in a state of grace, left it, and returned. You can do that all your life. At the end of your life, you may decide not to return.
God remains faithful to us, even if we disavow Him.
I think that our conscience are given so that we can know when we are not in a state of grace. So it is important to be able to feel guilt when we are in sin. However, to an extent I think you are right, our “feeling” about whether or not we are in a state of grace is also irrelevant. The Aposltes left us objective criteria.
Yes.
Can you explain this further or give an example?
G
guanophore
Guest
No, the CC rejects the heresy of Calvin on “total depravity”. The Apostles taught that faith is created in humans, and that all have sufficient faith to be saved. Some put their faith in riches, power, people, themselves and anything but God. Those who choose to place their faith in God can receive the grace to be saved. This is why Jesus continually says “your faith has saved you”. The person has chosen to place their faith in God, and in doing so, it meets with grace and produces God’s desire.
God created humans for Himself, and He created in us the innate desire to seek Him. After He fashioned us this way, He called His creation “good”. So both things are true, we are incomplete without Him, and the image of God in which we are created continually longs for Him.
It is a long story, but it has to do with laypeople not taking on the responsibility to educate themselves in the faith to which they were baptized, and depending upon the ordained clergy to do the work of the ministry.
I think that the majority of American Catholics do commit mortal sins left and right. It the polls where they self confess the beliefs and behaviors they do are anywhere near accurate, the majority reject the teaching of the Church and pick and choose what they want to believe. Some of this is poor catechesis, some is rebellion.
I am taking an online catechesis course now that has a lot of reading, reflection, and writing involved. It is quite time consuming to really study the faith. I suspect that many Catholics do not take the time to do this.
Yes. People are always in need of reform. The trouble started when the Reformers thought they needed to reform the teachings of Jesus.
I don’t think your speculation holds any merit. Whatever the causes of poor catechesis, the notion that one is “all set” is not one of them. Even well catechized Catholics would never claim to be “all set”.
P
pocohombre
Guest
guanophore;10459586 said:
I think so ,they would say a saved man will not end up blaspheming the HS.
Sin is sin .Catholics seem to deny the existence of of the two natures that exist in the Christian. Sin is missing the mark, as in not being perfect. Paul said he did what he wished he would not and what he wished he would not, he did . Was he in and out of grace ? Was his soul in and out peril ? Some where there is a big disconnect between CC teaching and so called protestant teaching.
His ways are much higher and while strict calvinsm may seem “cold’ to the sense of free will, your statement seems " cold” to the senses of God’s sovereignty and power to save. One is cold to God’s love for all, the other is cold to His righteousness and our comparative depravity.
Amen
.I would say to know when we are in the “flesh”,not in danger of hell fire,the death of the new inner man.
From my point of view, the criteria is so that we become all that we were meant to be in Christ.It is also to make sure we are genuine in the first place, saved , not just with unmatured seed in us, not regenerated.
P
pocohombre
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
Not just that but the Calvanist model presents that all sins are forgiven in the cross, including those not yet committed, so the believer need not be concerned about any sins, which no longer separate him from God.
Rom. 7 was written by a Catholic, for Catholics. How anyone can read it and say the CC “denies the existence of two natures in the Christian” is a mystery to me.
Sin does leaave us out in the cold.
Matt 7:21-22
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Matt 13:41-43
41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
When Jesus told the parable of the seeds/soils, it is clear that three out of the four seeds sprouted and brought forth life. Only one of those persisted until harvest. Clearly Jesus did not teach this notion that one who is choked by weeds never sprouted!
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Of course I wasn’t talking about Catholic bishops. I am referring to any teaching authority besides Scripture. Protestants determine themselves which elders are worthy to receive obedience, and even then, it is obedience often based on the most pleasing or convincing doctrine or won by the best speaker. This is nowhere close to the obedience described by Clement and Ignatius.
How is this too broad a brush? Do Protestants have obedience to bishops for the same reasons outlined by Clement, Ignatius, and Ireneaus? Whatever obedience they have is based on personal opinion or agreement with the ‘elder’ that they choose. The ‘authority’ that Protestant elders have is an illusion that is not even close to the magisterial teaching authority that Clement spoke of. Pocohombre’s claim that Clement was speaking merely as a companion congregation, and not with the authority of a revered bishopric, was false, and prompted me to state that Protestants have no obedience to bishops at all. Perhaps I should have said they have to obedience to any teaching authority at all outside of the Bible. All else is supplemental, including the teachings of their ‘elders’, which is a FAR cry from the writing of the three fathers I mentioned.
This has little to do with the obedience Protestants give their elders. If anything, it simply shows how much personal opinion is involved in the decision of a Protestant to render obedience outside the Bible. As some Ante Nicene fathers were being discussed, determining teaching authority based on personal opinion rather than divine mandate is an extremely foreign concept to these fathers.
They hold as much sway as anyone else that has read the Bible and can convince someone of doctrine. This has nothing in common with the Fathers in question, as they do not write of bishops merely ‘holding sway’, but rather having real, divine authority.
Nothing that a bishop ever did could justify ignoring the teaching authority granted to the bishops as a whole (as indicated by the whole of the history of the Church in its battles against heretics). They could all be fornicating murderers, but that would never justify denying the actual office of bishop and the teaching authority of the Church. Christ warned that there would be false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing. He also bade the Jews obey the Pharisees in regards to their teachings on account of the chair of Moses, but not in their actions. Where did this disconnect in a divine teaching authority held throughout the history of the Church and obedience come from? Many saints came out of the Reformation period who lived holy lives and attempted to restore order to the Church through holiness WITHOUT rebellion. In light of this, pride is my guess for the reason behind the rebellion, regardless of the ‘good intentions’ behind it. The road to Hell is paved with those.
B
brb3
Guest
B
brb3
Guest
B
brb3
Guest
Not just that but the Calvanist model presents that all sins are forgiven in the cross, including those not yet committed, so the believer need not be concerned about any sins, which no longer separate him from God.
Rom. 7 was written by a Catholic, for Catholics. How anyone can read it and say the CC “denies the existence of two natures in the Christian” is a mystery to me.
Sin does leaave us out in the cold.
Matt 7:21-22
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Matt 13:41-43
41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
When Jesus told the parable of the seeds/soils, it is clear that three out of the four seeds sprouted and brought forth life. Only one of those persisted until harvest. Clearly Jesus did not teach this notion that one who is choked by weeds never sprouted!
pocohombre;10467836:
YES !!! John 6:28-30 above is key teaching on works …that Protestants ignore/fail to see.
We believe any & all works of believer are enabled (graced) by God. As Christ taught " you can do nothing w/o me"
P
pocohombre
Guest
QUOTE=guanophore;10467987]
Matt 7:21-22
I think we agree that Jesus did die for the sins of the world, all of them, which means past, present, and future. We all should be concerned about our sins.That is where interpetations split .Waht does it mean to be concerned about sin ? Is it cause we are saved so let’s start living victoriously, or cause it makes us unsaved ? And forgiveness. just what is a contrite heart and do we have to confessperfectly ? Calvin may be one end of the spectrum, but the other is needinfg the priest, in a confessional, for his absolution and doing penance for forgiveness. Those to me are extreme interpretations.
Who is it that sins in you, the new man or the old ?Rom. 7 was written by a Catholic, for Catholics. How anyone can read it and say the CC “denies the existence of two natures in the Christian” is a mystery to me.
Yes, as in erring in scriptural interpretation.
Matt 7:21-22
Again,religious peolpe that aren’t regenerated. Jesus says, “You sinner”, or “I never knew you -that is your sin”. ?
So sprouting is new life ? It is not clear that all 3/4 were born again . I have stated earlier that only the 4th was regenerated ,bore fruit-newe life.The others only had seed and seed growth, but did not lead to rebirth. How many “believing”, professing disciple-duh, they were disciples-left cause they did not believe “from the beginning”. They departed cause they were never of us.
The old man has faith, as you say ( to cross the bridge, open the faucet and drink, operaste a car, get in a plane etc. ). None of this is spiritual faith, Godly faith , saving faith .It is dead faith in that regard. It must need divine intervention to make it otherwise.
Again ,not saving faith .The creation faith is dead, and has no spiritual effectiveness aprt from a second creation in us. And no one in the first creation seeks after God, no one. No one unregeneraed seeks after God.
.Yes he was, as are many religious people.Their faith is stench in God’s nostrils, dung, leading to death except for divinely getting knocked off our high horses.
He helps us to choose, he helps our willeven. WE can not boast "I found, I chose " this is contradictory to other scripture that says "You did not choose me, I chose you ". Still he says, "Choose you this day ", and I say it is impossible unless God enables you to choose rightly. Again you get to the pearly gates and it says on one side 'Choose you this day " and on the other side it says , "Chosen since before the foundations of the world " It is God’s work , Hence your scripture " This is the work of God "- making you believe
B
brb3
Guest
Poco…
God doesn’t expect us to fully understand predestination. That is beyond our ability to comprehend. Yet, we know John received from Christ …John 3:16…whosoever will believe …can become children, reborn into the Father’s family. Christ didn’t discriminate while here on earth. He welcomed, healed, forgave sins of all who approached him in faith. Even they who were not Jewish, the dogs of that day. And, he gave his 12 the Great Commission …to all peoples/nations.
We are all predestined to become Children via Adam/Eve…but, our forebears made grave error. So, now we must respond affirmatively to the grace God sends to us. And, we must persevere in our disciplship. We will be judged on basis of the light/grace we are given. Only we know what we have received and done with God’s invitation to us. Only God truly knows… & Christ alone can/will judge us ‘fairly’ …by the light we were given.
God doesn’t expect us to fully understand predestination. That is beyond our ability to comprehend. Yet, we know John received from Christ …John 3:16…whosoever will believe …can become children, reborn into the Father’s family. Christ didn’t discriminate while here on earth. He welcomed, healed, forgave sins of all who approached him in faith. Even they who were not Jewish, the dogs of that day. And, he gave his 12 the Great Commission …to all peoples/nations.
We are all predestined to become Children via Adam/Eve…but, our forebears made grave error. So, now we must respond affirmatively to the grace God sends to us. And, we must persevere in our disciplship. We will be judged on basis of the light/grace we are given. Only we know what we have received and done with God’s invitation to us. Only God truly knows… & Christ alone can/will judge us ‘fairly’ …by the light we were given.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Yes,amen, He does save us.
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually I have been told by my Reformed brethren on these threads that Catholics continue to have a “sin issue” because we are “concerned about sins”. They say that sin no longer has any power over us, and that we should not have any concern about it at all.
Certainly the Christian is victorious, and it is right to live as such. However, the nature of sin has not changed. Sin still separates people from God.
John 8:34-36
34 Jesus answered them, "Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever.
When people become enslaved by a sin, they are no longer living victoriously.
T
Yes and no. Yes we should have a contrite heart, but it is not always possible for us to confess “perfectly”. There are aspects of our psyche we don’t even know, and we may have hidden attachments to sin that only God knows about. All we can do is give our conscious best.
Certainly one should confess a sin as soon as one is able, repent, and turn again. But there are some sins (mortal) for which the prayer of repentance is not sufficient. This is the way Jesus set it up. Who are we to say it is “extreme”? Perhaps, since mortal sin is “extreme”, He put in a way of healing it.
And I think you would agree that all sin causes damage. Penance is to repair the damage. When the tax collector said he would restore fourfold whatever he had extracted, it is making a repair for the wrong that was done.
There is but one will and consciousness. Even though it is the “old” that falls into sin, the whole person is taken by it. Jesus didn’t say “when the old man in you commits a sin, the old man becomes enslaved”.
So, are you saying that, because Catholics believe the nature of sin has not changed, then we are “out in the cold” and for that reason, misinterpret the Scriptures?
How is it that the powerful Jesus we see reprimanding His Church in Revelation became so weak and sickly within just a few years, that He allowed His whole Church to go astray? How is it that he did not keep His promises to guide her into “all Truth”? Why did He allow the entire Church, for 1500 years, to believe that the Apostles had it right, when they really didn’t?
This may seem like a convenient way to try to explain away all the Scriptures that are directed toward the faithful. However, such a perspective is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. They taught their disciples, and those also committed to faithful men who taught others also, that a born again person could fall away from the faith. They could be enlightened, washed (regenerated), and become partakers of His divine nature, then spurn the blood that bought them. One cannot partake of the divine nature unless one is joined to the Head, and one cannot be joined to the Head unless he is born again into His death and resurrection. This is not a matter of going through the motions. It is a spiritual seal that cannot be reversed.
Yes.
John 12:24-26
24 Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
Once the seed sprouts, it can never go back to being a seed. The seed “dies” and new live begins.
Mark 4:27-29
…the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come."
In the parable, 3/4 of the seeds sprouted and began to grow. Only one of those survived. If it is not clear to you that those seeds that spouted represent being born again, it might be a good time to read it again.
Jesus is explaining why the other seeds did not bear fruit.
Yes. You have to espouse that view in order to uphold the Calvanist doctrines. But this is not consitent with the Apostolic faith.
G
guanophore
Guest
Many. And others left who did believe from the beginning, and it got hard, so they gave up.
Some, yes, but some were of “us” and fell away.
We are not in disagreement on this point.
This is a Calvanist invention, and is inconsistent with the Apostolic faith.
You have taken the verse out of context. The unregenerate do seek after God. He fashioned us that way.
No, the faith of man is never a stench in His nostrils. Sometimes what man chooses to do with his faith may be, but Saul of Tarsus was not reprimanded by Christ because he was zealous. He was corrected because his zeal was misdirected.
At what point was Cornelius regenerated?
No arguement here.
This is the difference between the concept of monergism, and synergism. The Apostles taught that God loves us, and created us for HImself, and leads our hearts to Himself. But, because it is Love, not coercion, He waits for us to choose. He does not “make” us believe, but our faith, meeting with His grace, produces salvation in us.
God desires that all be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but some people reject God’s purpose for themselves.
P
pocohombre
Guest
The role of bishops is a good discussion . Of course we can elect them for superficial reasons as easily as you can. Their method of election has changed, their roles have changed. The idea of what just constitutes “church” has changed. Petrine doctrine has evolved. What others have done you have done also .When a bishop goes bad you dump him. Clement is very careful to say Corinthians wrongly dumped “good men”, he hammers that home, they were totally upright with no doctrinal /personal problems. Now if they were bad presbyters then it is not only Ok to dump them but required. Luther may have been proud, but you just disagree with his assessment of the bad things he saw. Anyways, I do not follow Luther, or Calvin or Wesley. They are Protestant. My heritage in faith perhaps goes further back, closer to baptists ( lumped into Ana-baptists). They have no founder per say and many of their basic elements go back to being postulated around 4 th century, as the church was evolving, into what they claim with things that were " not from the beginning" . Again, nothing perfect with the anabaptists either , but give honor where honor is due, whether it be to Catholics, anabaptists ,Lutherans, Orthodox etc.
[/QUOTE]
G
guanophore
Guest
Many. And others left who did believe from the beginning, and it got hard, so they gave up.
Some, yes, but some were of “us” and fell away.
We are not in disagreement on this point.
This is a Calvanist invention, and is inconsistent with the Apostolic faith.
You have taken the verse out of context. The unregenerate do seek after God. He fashioned us that way.
No, the faith of man is never a stench in His nostrils. Sometimes what man chooses to do with his faith may be, but Saul of Tarsus was not reprimanded by Christ because he was zealous. He was corrected because his zeal was misdirected.
At what point was Cornelius regenerated?
No arguement here.
This is the difference between the concept of monergism, and synergism. The Apostles taught that God loves us, and created us for HImself, and leads our hearts to Himself. But, because it is Love, not coercion, He waits for us to choose. He does not “make” us believe, but our faith, meeting with His grace, produces salvation in us.
God desires that all be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but some people reject God’s purpose for themselves.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Crying out to the Lord (for salvation) is saying -“God, make me believe” . Shall I then say I chose to cry out ? Then I would say He led you to cry out. Saul became Paul as a slave, willingly. Saul gave up, died. It was not coercion, it was love. Yes we choose, and he enables even that. Are we going in circles yet ??
P
pocohombre
Guest
Don’t think so .
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, Paul chose.
Yes, but only because you are avoiding.
When was Cornelius regenerated?
If God desires for all to be saved, how come some are not?
- Status