Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[PeaceInChrist]

Deut 30:19
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life

God does not “pretend” to offer the choice.

osh 24:15
15 Now if you are unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve,

Gen 4:7
And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

Those are good Scriptural references. Seeing that I was referencing the fathers of the Church, I’ll also add to yours with the reasoning of Ireneaus, who argued for free will by using the words of the Lord:

This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not,” Matthew 23:37 set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But do you despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you store to yourself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that does good.” God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

~Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 37.

The Church has been fighting similar battles for the entirety of its existence.

 

[brb3]

G4…

God pours his grace upon all, …the just & the unjust. Those who respond to his grace are the ‘called’, the regenerated, the ‘reborn’… ---- so you said earlier.

All the seed are planted. Then comes the rain, the sun, the storms, etc. Their creator, the gardener, looks in on the field daily. Supplying all needs equally, w/o discrimination. Nevertheless, its a struggle to raise any crop to maturity…to fruition. Those who respond to the creators graces …will get more, Those PLANTED SEED that don’t… will run out of supernatural energy, and perish…of their own choosing.

Christ perished for ALL, and rose again that All might live, in him. John 3:16 is undeniable…proving Calvin wrong.

 

[brb3]

Poco …

Now, for u to consider… John 3:16. Our Key passage.

"…that WHOSOEVER believith…might NOT PERISH …but have EVERLASTING LIFE.

There is physical death, and spiritual death … keep that in mind when considering the planted seed…and its transition from seed to fruition stages.

 

[pocohombre]

Ignatius was from Antioch. Irenaeus was not from Rome, either. He said that all other churches must agree with Rome. Besides, the ‘Peterine’ doctrine of ‘the rock’ is actually just straight Scripture, and when united with the works of the fathers, it becomes quite obvious that Rome held authority. What else do you want? And how does that conflict with Petrine doctrine, that all Apostolic Churches must agree with Rome?

Yes, this topic deserves more than the minute wev’e given it. Heck, hours and hours of writings have been devoted to just one scripture of just what is the church built on -the “rock” discourse. So Iraneus can be discussed equally from differing points of view. Absolutely if I were Catholic I would say iraneus says Rome is head as Peter was head. But just as absolutely a Orthodox or Protestant could argue that all churches-heretical - must be corrected to be in line with the “ancient church”( which was not Rome but Jerusalem and Antioch etc). If Iraneus meant Rome preeminence, one must not assume it is cause of Petrine doctrine. He certainly does NOT state it …t is preeminent why ? The blood of the two greatest apostles ? That is ALL Iraneus states. A good argument towards heretics .Because Rome was considered to be the center of the world, all roads leading to it, and the largest body of believers were there ? Maybe, though he does not state that either. But if I were a heretic I would be impressed with anything out of Rome, including church issues. I mean an organization headquartered in Manhattan is more impressive that if it were in Utica or Syracuse. Just assumptions though…Again ,if I were you I would stick to your statements ,and I will certainly stick to mine

Also, you didn’t address the actual quote. You simply asked questions that have no bearing on what he actually said.

Really ? You did not address the errors in your reding of it, as far as the church being founded in Rome, and that Peter and Paul founded it .

SYou didn’t even touch the other excerpts

,No not in forty seconds.There entire threads devoted to the fathers .They werenot hidden from reformers either.Protestant/Orthodox postulations remain intact ,even strenghtened.

The first apologetic work among Christians is, after all, quite opposed to Protestantism,

Only from your point of view. Again, we can’t even agree on the best -scripture itself.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Yes, this topic deserves more than the minute wev’e given it. Heck, hours and hours of writings have been devoted to just one scripture of just what is the church built on -the “rock” discourse. So Iraneus can be discussed equally from differing points of view. Absolutely if I were Catholic I would say iraneus says Rome is head as Peter was head. But just as absolutely a Orthodox or Protestant could argue that all churches-heretical - must be corrected to be in line with the “ancient church”( which was not Rome but Jerusalem and Antioch etc). If Iraneus meant Rome preeminence, one must not assume it is cause of Petrine doctrine. He certainly does NOT state it …t is preeminent why ? The blood of the two greatest apostles ? That is ALL Iraneus states. A good argument towards heretics .Because Rome was considered to be the center of the world, all roads leading to it, and the largest body of believers were there ? Maybe, though he does not state that either. But if I were a heretic I would be impressed with anything out of Rome, including church issues. I mean an organization headquartered in Manhattan is more impressive that if it were in Utica or Syracuse. Just assumptions though…Again ,if I were you I would stick to your statements ,and I will certainly stick to mine Really ? You did not address the errors in your reding of it, as far as the church being founded in Rome, and that Peter and Paul founded it .,No not in forty seconds.There entire threads devoted to the fathers .They werenot hidden from reformers either.Protestant/Orthodox postulations remain intact ,even strenghtened. Only from your point of view. Again, we can’t even agree on the best -scripture itself.

Oh, my. More baseless assertions. How, exactly, do any of the fathers strengthen the Protestant cause? I can see the Orthodox disagreeing, but that is because they have Apostolic bishops. What do Protestants have? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Personal opinion based on what they thought the early church was like, based on Scriptural reading. This is despite the fact that most people couldn’t read. This is despite the fact that you claim ‘Sola Scriptura’, you still get your theology from sources outside the Bible.

And I did, as always, address my ‘errors’ in reading Ireneaus. He says that all churches must agree with Rome. You are now postulating something other than what he wrote. You are making completely baseless assertions as to why he said this. He says it was because of Peter and Paul. How does this weaken the case for Roman primacy? Not only did Peter die there, but also Paul. If anything, he uses both to strengthen Roman primacy.

Again, all you’ve done to ‘address’ the fathers is state that many interpretations can be made, that you have yours and I have mine, and that there isn’t enough time to address them in one thread. That is an extraordinary cop-out. You have not addressed whatsoever what the father actually said. Bear in mind that I am only responding to your statement that the fathers ‘are universal to all Christians’. So, Poco, are these excerpts universal? They all proclaimed regenerative baptism, the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ, the authority of apostolic bishops, and the ability of the Church to remain one through these bishops in councils. HOW is that universal to Protestants? You haven’t answered this.

 

[PRmerger]

God gives every human person He creates enough faith to respond to His drawing grace. Those who choose to respond mix their faith with His grace. Those who do not die in their sins.

Indeed.

Grace is always sufficient. It is, however, not always efficacious.

 

[brb3]

Regarding SA …Catholic style.

It is grounded in the 3 theological virtues: faith, hope and charity.

See CCC # 1813 …“they are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of MERITING ETERNAL LIFE ( ie. SA). They are the pledge of the presence and action of the HS in the faculties of the human being.” …

 

[brb3]

Now, Catholic faith & ‘gracious’ works defined…

CCC# 1816. " The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it: All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks. Service of and witness to the faith are NECESSARY for salvation: “So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Fatherhood is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” Matt 10: 32-33

 

[pocohombre]

Oh, my. More baseless assertions. How, exactly, do any of the fathers strengthen the Protestant cause? I can see the Orthodox disagreeing, but that is because they have Apostolic bishops. What do Protestants have? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Personal opinion based on what they thought the early church was like, based on Scriptural reading. This is despite the fact that most people couldn’t read. This is despite the fact that you claim ‘Sola Scriptura’, you still get your theology from sources outside the Bible.

And I did, as always, address my ‘errors’ in reading Ireneaus. He says that all churches must agree with Rome. You are now postulating something other than what he wrote. You are making completely baseless assertions as to why he said this. He says it was because of Peter and Paul. How does this weaken the case for Roman primacy? Not only did Peter die there, but also Paul. If anything, he uses both to strengthen Roman primacy.

Again, all you’ve done to ‘address’ the fathers is state that many interpretations can be made, that you have yours and I have mine, and that there isn’t enough time to address them in one thread. That is an extraordinary cop-out. You have not addressed whatsoever what the father actually said. Bear in mind that I am only responding to your statement that the fathers ‘are universal to all Christians’. So, Poco, are these excerpts universal? They all proclaimed regenerative baptism, the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ, the authority of apostolic bishops, and the ability of the Church to remain one through these bishops in councils. HOW is that universal to Protestants? You haven’t answered this.

I meant this topic is for an entire thread, as i just looked with advanced search and there are some that deal with early church and timeline /fathers although thread is closed. Again, I said the earliest fathers. As you alluded to that as time goes on, writings get more and more Catholic, and in my opinion less universal.
I would say Iraneus could be a turning point. Is it the Catholic position that the church was founded in Rome by Peter and Paul ?

 

[PRmerger]

Is it the Catholic position that the church was founded in Rome by Peter and Paul ?

No, the Catholic position is that that the Church was founded by Jesus in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

 

[pocohombre]

No, the Catholic position is that that the Church was founded by Jesus in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

Thanks-is the Catholic position that Peter and Paul founded the church that was at Rome ?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks-is the Catholic position that Peter and Paul founded the church that was at Rome ?

There is no Catholic position, as far as I know, regarding whether Sts. Peter and Paul “founded” the Church that was at Rome.

Why is that important to you?

 

[PRmerger]

You said the unregenerate do seek after God , we are made that way . I disagreed.

What say you, then, to the example in Scripture of Cornelius, who was unregenerate and did seek for God?

 

[guanophore]

I said the earliest fathers. As you alluded to that as time goes on, writings get more and more Catholic, and in my opinion less universal.

This is a strange opinion, since 'catholic" means “universal”.

I would say Iraneus could be a turning point.

What would happen if the Early FAthers revealed that the universal Christian Church was, indeed, Catholic?

Is it the Catholic position that the church was founded in Rome by Peter and Paul ?

Yes and no. Obviously we can see from the letter of Paul that a church was in existence in Rome prior to any visit from an Apostle. It is possible that there were people from Rome in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

Their faith was already strong, as the Apostle testifies:

Rom 1:8-9

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world.

Clearly Paul knows many of these believers personally, as he greets them in the last chapter.

He expects to come to Rome and bring them some Apostolic teaching. Rom 15:29
I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ.

And in fact he did go, possibly not before Peter arrived there, but the two of them labored until they were martryd building up the church (laying the foundation).

Although they both arrived there to find a strong, faithful church, it had not been planted there by an Apostle or had the benefit of apostolic instruction.

 

[pocohombre]

What say you, then, to the example in Scripture of Cornelius, who was unregenerate and did seek for God?

Good question. Who said he was unregenerate before peter came to him ? Does not the Church say there is a way to be “righteous” if one never heard the gospel (say the Indians or pygmies or Eskimos before any missionaries came along) ? That is they all don’t go to hell, correct according to CC ?

 

[pocohombre]

This is a strange opinion, since 'catholic" means “universal”.

Yes, an oxymoron that I noticed as I wrote it, but what I have written I have written.

What would happen if the Early FAthers revealed that the universal Christian Church was, indeed, Catholic?

They have, to Catholics.

Yes and no. Obviously we can see from the letter of Paul that a church was in existence in Rome prior to any visit from an Apostle. It is possible that there were people from Rome in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

Their faith was already strong, as the Apostle testifies:

Rom 1:8-9

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world.

Clearly Paul knows many of these believers personally, as he greets them in the last chapter.

He expects to come to Rome and bring them some Apostolic teaching. Rom 15:29
I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ.

And in fact he did go, possibly not before Peter arrived there, but the two of them labored until they were martryd building up the church (laying the foundation).

Although they both arrived there to find a strong, faithful church, it had not been planted there by an Apostle or had the benefit of apostolic instruction.

Very good .He did not mention Peter as being there in ch 27. I forgot where Paul says he would not take credit for laying upon anothers foundation, or something like that. Not clear that Rome was in need of apostolic direction,or correction or addition, other than it would just plainly be pretty neat/inspiring.

 

[pocohombre]

There is no Catholic position, as far as I know, regarding whether Sts. Peter and Paul “founded” the Church that was at Rome.

Why is that important to you?

Thanks. Was Iraneus just being rhetorical when he siad Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome ?

 

[brb3]

Thanks. Was Iraneus just b

eing rhetorical when he siad Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome ?

I doubt it.

Irenaeus was privy to the Full Tradition of Church, and the audience he wrote to also knew facts thereof. He wouldn’t make up history, he recorded it better than most of his day.

Most likely Peter, in his capacity as Pope, visited a lot of major cities with churches. Certainly there before Paul came, and Paul knowing this …desired to go there himself, recognizing it as the Church with Petrine Primacy.
Rome being the origin and endpoint of all roads… certainly it was one of first destinations of some of the 12.

 

[Porknpie]

Thanks. Was Iraneus just being rhetorical when he siad Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome ?

Poco,

Iraneus was not being rhetorical. But clearly the Church of Christ was built upon St Peter. Eusebius, the historian of the early church recognizes this … Even before there was a bible. There’s also a Catholic Church in Rome…a basilica that reflects this.

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

But back to Iraneus. You have to read more of his discourse to see the point he is actually making

3.** Now it is within the power of anyone who cares to find out the truth, to know the tradition of the Apostles, professed throughout the world in every church**. We can name those too who were appointed bishops by the Apostles in the churches and their successors down to our own time… But inasmuch as it would be very tedious in a book like this to rehearse the lines of succession in every church, we will put to confusion all those who, either from waywardness or conceit or blindness or obstinacy combine together against the truth, by pointing to the tradition, derived from the Apostles, of that great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops in their succession. For with this Church, because of its more powerful leadership, every church, that is to say, the faithful from everywhere, must needs agree, and in it the tradition that springs from the Apostles has been continuously preserved by men from everywhere…

4.** Seeing, therefore, that we have such testimony, we do not need to seek elsewhere the truth which it is easy to find in the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man at a bank, deposited lavishly with her all aspects of the truth, so that everyone, whoever will, may draw from her the water of life. For she is the door to life, and all others are thieves and robbers. For this reason we must shun them and love the things of the Church with the utmost diligence and keep hold of the tradition of the truth**…

Iraneus echoes St Paul in exhorting us to hold fast to what we have been taught by both what is written and spoken. This Tradition, this Truth, includes believing in and receiving Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist as well as six other sacraments and the belief that Christ established one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

 

[Porknpie]

Thanks. Was Iraneus just being rhetorical when he siad Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome ?

After having my coffee this morning…looking at what Iraneus actually said about Peter and Paul …“founded and organized” …could also be read that Peter founded and Paul organized or both did it together. They were working together in Rome. Also is clear through the ECFs and scripture that the Church was built upon St Peter and the chair of St Peter can be traced by back in line of succession from the current, newly elected Pope to St Peter.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

1. Now it is within the power of anyone who cares to find out the truth, to know the tradition of the Apostles, professed throughout the world in every church. We can name those too who were appointed bishops by the Apostles in the churches and their successors down to our own time… But inasmuch as it would be very tedious in a book like this to rehearse the lines of succession in every church, we will put to confusion all those who, either from waywardness or conceit or blindness or obstinacy combine together against the truth, by pointing to the tradition, derived from the Apostles,** of that great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, **and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops in their succession. For with this Church, because of its more powerful leadership, every church, that is to say, the faithful from everywhere, must needs agree, and in it the tradition that springs from the Apostles has been continuously preserved by men from everywhere

:coffeeread: