You dishonor your husband (or boyfriend, as the case may be), guanophore.Oh, I think she is having GREAT sport with all of us misled Catholics.
It is becoming increasingly clear that she has very little understanding of Catholic faith.
Thank you, Wesley, thatās the Protestant understanding of Scripture as well.
This is a very difficult passage of scripture to understand in light of other, clearer, stronger statements in Scripture concerning the assurance of the believer.
Iām a patient guy.
If I claimed to have one, it would certainly be a gross dishonor for the commandments of God.
So, if we are in agreement that all the scripture needs to harmonize, why are there so many scriptures you are unable to integrate into your theology?
It is not difficult for those who have received Apostolic faith. We know that our assurance is in Him.
Clear, yes. But what it means must be understood in relation to other verses.
This is what we mean about fastening on to one verse of scripture and trying to extract a doctrine from it.
Yes.
Not a one.
List those scriptures, please?
Iāve told you repeatedly, guanophore, thereās only one faith (Eph 4:5). Will you never learn that?
āSeemsā being the operative word.
Brilliantā¦
I said āpromises,ā guanophore; itās plural, you know, āthe promises of Christ in the many verses in which He promises His promises.ā Capish?
You oughta knowā¦
Something describing the unsaved, who arenāt āsealed,ā and āindweltā by the Holy Spirit as are the truly saved.
Then Iāve convinced you that āno oneā in Jn 10:29 means no one, not even the sheep. Excellent.
I think it would be prudent to wait until you respond to the ones that have already been offered in this thread. I am still waiting to learn what you think it means to be āpartakers of the Holy Giftā.
Certainly the Aposltes and their successors only had āone faithā. But during the Reformation, many other faith traditions were created, and as a result of the error of Sola Scriptura, more are being created daily.
You are not showing much brilliance, WCH. What you have shown is that you are not able to integrate the other scriptural references into your theology.
Jesus did make made great and precious promises. However, trying to build a doctrine on one, or even a handful of them leads to errors.
Ok. This is similar to what I have heard from other Paulists and Reformed Christians. So, how can the unregenerate taste the heavenly gift?
I know you enjoy patting yourself on the back, WCH, but we never had a disagreement about whether no one could snatch the sheep from Jesus. They separate from Him just as it is written above in Heb. 6. They commit apostasy, and crucify the son of God afresh on their own accoutn. They were land which has drunk the rain, but bears thorns and thistles.
I hope it is, because unfortunately I do not see the evidence of that in the way you are interpreting scripture.
You cannot simply dismiss as āvery difficultā or āunclearly statedā whatever you cannot harmonize with your theology!
I suggest you reevaluate and change your theology to make all of the scripture verses make sense. After all, isnāt that in the spirit of Sola Scriptura? Your theology is your ātraditionā, but since you believe in scripture above tradition, you can always change your tradition. So I suggest you change that tradition. Show me how you harmonize that with your theology, if indeed you interpret scripture as a whole and not in isolation.What does it say -
Yes, but I perceive that the reason why they are off the top of your head because you have been taught a wrong theology (tradition). In Catholic theology, these passages are not difficult at all! They all make sense. I invite you to consider Catholic theology more seriously if you want all of scripture to make sense.
No. Jesus is perfectly able to save his sheep. But the nature of Jesus is such that he doesnāt do it against someoneās will. Jesus intends to save everyone (see 1 Tim 2:4), but the reason I got saved is because it was my will to be saved, and so I accepted Jesus. See what Jesus said in Matthew 23:37 -
On the contrary, this has clearly become a pattern. That is why I am curious why he is here at all.You cannot simply dismiss as āvery difficultā or āunclearly statedā whatever you cannot harmonize with your theology!
I think the avoidance of this examination is exactly why he refuses to dismiss anything that he cannot fit into his theology.
I donāt get this either. Would Jesus claim a branch belonged to him that didntā?What is so difficult about āEvery branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes awayā (John 15:2) ? What is so unclear about it?
The story is that the sheep is covered under the āno oneā that can snatch. He is not able to jump out of Godās grasp.
Indeed this is exactly what Calvin taught - irresistable grace. It is the āIā in the TULIP of heresy.
But, you see, they were not really His sheep. they followed HIm around, but they did not really belong to Him.
Will you please list all of the Scripture which Iāve interpreted on this forum in the 3 days since I came onto this forum, and cite the post #ās in which those interpretations are found so we can get an idea of the volume of interpretation Iāve done? You know, for the life of me, I donāt remember interpreting any Scripture, but when you list my interpretations weāll see.
Where did I say that I did dismiss difficult passages Wesley?
You misunderstand me, Wesley.
Last time I checked, āno one,ā meant, āno one.ā No one includes the sheep Wesley, unless you have some alternative definition of āno oneā youād like to offer and cite?
You misunderstand my colloquial use of the phrase, āoff the top of my head.ā
I understand, Wesley. Catholics can believe scripture is saying anything they want it to be saying, so long as what they want it to be saying doesnāt contradict what āthe Churchā says itās saying. Right?
That would intimate that you think someone is saying that Jesus DOES save people against their will. Who do think is saying Jesus saves people against their will, and why do you think that?
If itās Jesusā intention to save everyone, then everyone would be saved. But because we know that everyone isnāt saved, it cannot be Jesusā will to save everyone.
This is one of the tactics that you are using to prevent meaningful dialogue. Instead of dealing with the topic under discussion, you want to send people on wild goose chases that have nothing to do with it.
Your actions have said it repeatedly. Every time you refuse to engage in any dialogue over the Scriptures, it appears that you are evading or avoiding.
Isnāt that the purpose of all this game playing? Idā say it is working rather well.
Yes, and how we understant āno oneā in this context is enlighted by other scriptures that shed light on the subject, just as he posted. You are unwilling to look at those, because it might upset your theological apple cart.
No, there are stricter guidelines than this, but you have once again demonstrated the state of your abysmal catechesis.
This is a good example of creating a strawman. Instead of responding to what he wrote, you make something up to blow smoke. He answered this question in the very same sentence. Pay attention, WCH.
This is certainly the Calvanist position.
I answered it for** you**.Letās see how guanophore answers this post for you???
Sorry, thatās simply too large an amount of work to do. Iāll agree with guanophore on this one.
You did not say it and neither did I say that you said it. I told you not to do it, because I see you doing it. This is evident in your replies. You donāt show us how you harmonize some verses with your theology. You merely refer to them as āvery difficultā when they are plain and clear. This sounds like a clear dismissal of the passage because it is so clear and no one can say it is very difficult.
And last time I checked, no one snatches himself, but rather snatches someone or something else.
We donāt make scripture say what we want it to say. That is done by those who read scripture in isolation. But we read scripture as a whole, guided by the church in harmony with the living tradition handed down by the apostles. Iāll take the living tradition of the apostles over the traditions of Calvin any day!
I think it is the person who says that someone cannot leave Jesus once they have accepted him. If this is so then it means that a person cannot leave Jesus even if he/she wants to, which would imply that Jesus saves that person against his/her will.
And why so? You provide no proof of this claim at all!
Your statement flatly contradicts 1 Tim 2:3-4 which says,
This is one of his/her favorite tactics of avoidance that has shown up in many posts. Sending the respondent on a wild goose chase just to avoid the point of the subject. It is clear from your response that you were referring to a specific scripture on a specific point.
These strawmen are also very common with this member. Rather than responding to content, the member (he/she?) makes up something that was not said, and responds to that instead. It is what makes the responses appear shallow. There does not seem to be any real desire for discussion.
I think we should understand this from the point of view of the poster. It stands to reason that, since Calvin crafted his theology from certain passages, and made no effort to incorporate those scriptures that did not support his points,his followers are, by definition, faced with this ādifficultyā. The truth is that the theology is not supported by the whole of Scripture. I have had Refomed Christians tell me that Jesus really did not have a lot to say about salvation - that it was primarily contained in Paulās letters.
Freud would say that your unconscious complex could snatch you.And last time I checked, no one snatches himself, but rather snatches someone or something else.
This fact really puts WCH in over his/her head, because she/he is not well prepared to address these. Hence, we see the dodging, avoiding, strrawmen, and ad hominem responses. Yesterday she/he said that my question was a red herring.
Irresistable grace - the āIā in Calvinās TULIP. I canāt see how anyone can read the letters in Revelation, and still think this. Also, why would Jesus tell the faithful āI will not blot your name out of the book of lifeā if it were not possible for this to happen? Doesnāt that make Jesus into a liar?
I have heard that this verse is categorized in stages:
I will join you in prayer about this, but WCH has been demonstrating here on CAF that a reasoned, mindful examination of anything may be too far out of the ball part.
He refers to Jesus as Good Teacher. Jesus confirms that the rich man thinks of Him as who He is. He believes that Jesus is who He is.
Because, just like the rich man, they value something more than grace. Jesus, in this exchange, isnāt telling us, literally, to sell all we own and give it to the poor. Heās targeting the weakness if the rich man. Heās testing him. So, this is an example.Why is it so hard for the wealthy to enter the kingdom, I wonder?
Lol.Freud would say that your unconscious complex could snatch you.
Ya, it would make him a liar. One OSAS Christian told me itās Godās way of scaring people into following him, so that they at least follow him out of fear, if not out of love, but God doesnāt really intend to carry out the threats he makes!
Lol! Seriously?
Hats off to the one who came up with this!I remember Scott Hahn once said that he used to do this - reading Paulās letters first and then reading what Jesus said. After his conversion to Catholicism, he referred to that method as the **ātail wagging the dogā ** instead of the other way round.I have had Refomed Christians tell me that Jesus really did not have a lot to say about salvation - that it was primarily contained in Paulās letters.
You think that the man believes Jesus is God incarnate?