Faith Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timmy_Z
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you, Peter.
You bless me greatly in your revilement of me, and you fulfill the Lord’s prophetic Word
in so doing. 🙂
No blessing there dude. Just a simple advisement for you to take under consideration. IMHO and ISTM that you may be in need of repentance. I seeth no good fruit of thy tree. As other’s have pointed out, you exhibit an air of Pride and Sarcasm and when presented with truth, you evade answering like a vampire evades holy water.
 
The Elect are a subset of those that will ultimately make it to heaven. The Elect are not the sole persons that will make it to Heaven because that would mean that God has predestined the non-Elect to hell. And we know that is not the case since God wishes the whole of humanity to be saved.

Those elect consist of those called to specific vocations to be Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, or Teachers(Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;)

I Believe Predestination contains some type of Spiritual truth but not an actual truth. Just as Genesis contains a spiritual truth, but if it was to be taken hyper literal, it would present it’s own problems.

Predestination is not absolute if God is omnipresent. He exists in the Past, Now, and in the Future.

The idea that God cannot undo a Presdination of a Person would indicate that God has limitations.

Another problem with Predestination being Literal is that it removes the “Free Will” of the individual. The person will have no choice but to “Accept Jesus Christ as his Personal Lord and Savior”

Another problem with the idea that Elect being the only ones going to heaven is that it was pointless of Jesus going down to those in Prison and preaching to them. The Elect would have just gone to Heaven once Jesus opened the Gates.

There is ample evidence in the Holy Scripture where God is changing his mind(repenting) of what he has done and/or promised.
 
Peter Da Rock:
No blessing there dude. Just a simple advisement for you to take under consideration. IMHO and ISTM that you may be in need of repentance.
No, Peter, it’s a blessing; you just don’t understand how that is, and I have no need to repent for doing what I’ve been commanded by my Lord to do. 🙂
Peter Da Rock:
I seeth no good fruit of thy tree.
I’m not the least bit surprised. For you, IMHO, bad fruit is any fruit that doesn’t agree with you and with HMC.
Peter Da Rock:
As other’s have pointed out, you exhibit an air of Pride and Sarcasm and when presented with truth, you evade answering like a vampire evades holy water.
Your charitable phrasing compels me to consider your truth more closely. :o
Peter Da Rock:
The Elect are a subset of those that will ultimately make it to heaven. The Elect are not the sole persons that will make it to Heaven because that would mean that God has predestined the non-Elect to hell. And we know that is not the case since God wishes the whole of humanity to be saved.
You must be referring to this verse:**1 Timothy 2:3-4

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of
the truth.**But Peter, I’ve watched you argue on another thread that ALL doesn’t really mean ALL. If you were consistent, Peter, you’d honestly have to contend that God really doesn’t want all men to be saved, if you were consistent. 😉
Peter Da Rock:
I Believe Predestination contains some type of Spiritual truth but not an actual truth. Just as Genesis contains a spiritual truth, but if it was to be taken hyper literal, it would present it’s own problems.

Predestination is not absolute if God is omnipresent. He exists in the Past, Now, and in the Future.

The idea that God cannot undo a Presdination of a Person would indicate that God has limitations.
I see.
Peter Da Rock:
Another problem with Predestination being Literal is that it removes the “Free Will” of the individual. The person will have no choice but to “Accept Jesus Christ as his Personal Lord and Savior”
I see.

Can you tell me where this notion of “free will” is articulated by God, or any of His emissaries in their record of His revelation?

If, as you insist, man has “free will,” then how can predestination leave the predestined with no choice but to accept Christ?

ISTM, that the whole idea of “free will” in the libertarian sense that you believe, is a contradiction. I mean, if man has a free will, in the way in which you believe he has, then why must God predestine to salvation those who will be saved; something must be terribly wrong with the “free will.” Have you thought about that?
Peter Da Rock:
There is ample evidence in the Holy Scripture where God is changing his mind(repenting) of what he has done and/or promised.
Such as?
 
Sandusky,

I read the link on Hebrews 6. There are so many problems with it that it would take a longer article of my own to refute it. At least the author admits that it is his own interpretation. I think the scriptures in Hebrews are very plain. Please note that the author of the article did not address my reasoning but merely presented his own. A refutation of my position requires that my arguments be properly addressed.

I see the biggest problem with the article as eisegesis. The author doesn’t even address the definition of apostasy which is one of the simple keys to the passage. The whole thing is fraught with problems.
Thanks, Pax.

I think I missed the post with your reasoning concerning Heb 6; can you reference a post number, and I’ll take a look?
 
Faith can fail (Lk 8); the question is whether or not the one whose faith failed was justified.
Well, since one cannot BE justified without faith in Christ (belief in the heart) and the confession that Christ is Lord, then it stands to reason they are justified.

Three fourths of the seeds sprouted, which means the gospel was recieved into the heart and met with saving faith, which produced the plant.
Scripture defines faith as a gift.
Indeed, all that we are, and all that we will ever be is from the Lord. However, this gift, as many others, is placed under our control. The individual decides in whom one will put his faith, and to be saved, one must place His faith in the Saviour. If one chooses to place his faith elsewhere, he misuses the gift, and it does not mix with the grace that is poured out unto salvation.
You need to prove that the Catholic’s favorite buzz words, fall, stumble, shipwreck, entanglement with the world, etc., mean a loss of salvation; I believe that all of you unconsciously jump to that conclusion because of your commitment to libertarian free will theology.
Please do not be misled into the notion that these words are “favorite Catholic buzz words”. Certainly they are common on threads such as this, because of the nature of the discussion. However, for the Catholic, the favorite words are those of the liturgy, and I can assure you that these are not found there! They may be included in a scripture reading as part of liturgy, but the prayers of faith are what is the favorite of Catholics.

You probably believe what you do about libertarian free will theology because you are a Westerner. Most Westerners have no experience with Eastern Theology, and the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Not having been exposed to Latin philosophy, European politics, and modernism, the faith of the Church has not been influenced by any of these Western Phenomenon. To prove your assertion, you would have to apply this to the Oriental Orthodox, Syrian, Coptic, and other Catholic Churches that teach what I have been promoting here about the Catholic faith.
Again, the works theology comes through (though you’ll continue to deny that yours is a works theology); your beliefs have nothing to do with what God has done, and everything to do with you must do.
I understand it seem that way to you. I think this is because of the separation that was born in the Reformation. However, Catholics do not distinguish the grace that justifies from the grace through which we work out our salvation with fear an trembling. There is no way to “work out salvation” apart from grace. Human beings cannot, of themselves, “merit” salvation. This is the Apostolic teaching.
You make my point here, guanophore—you presume that fall from grace, or stumble, as the passage states, means a loss of salvation.
Indeed, I do not, for I do not consider salvation as a one time event that has occurred in the past, as you do. I see salvation as a river, into which one enters at baptism, and in which one can either choose to stay until the end, or from which one may depart. But I do not consider that salvation has been yet attained in this life, so there fore, it cannot be “lost” in this life either. A person cannot “lose” what one has not yet inherited.
Yes it does, read the sower and the seed again.
I suppose you consider the seeds that sprouted do not represent what you have invented (“true belief”). Scripture makes no distinction of this kind with regard to faith.
Code:
As one reads Peter’s description of the false teachers, the word believer does not come to mind, but unregenerate, unjustified, reprobate, children of wrath (Eph 2:3). :)
I quite agree. However, he is writing to believers, and he is talking about persons of faith, who apostasized. Their fate is worse than if they had never known the truth. They have spruned the son of God afresh.
They are the ones of whom Paul says to the Corinthians, “such were some of you,” but you were washed by the blood of Christ; obviously, the false teachers Peter is describing were not washed.
Yes, There are some who were not washed, but the overall point that Paul is trying to make in that passage is that the Corinthians should not go back to living the lifestyle they did before they were washed.
Code:
You and yours may be a dogs in the vomit, and sows in the mire, but I’m not; neither is any other justified, regenerate believer; my old nature is dead, old things have passed away, and new things have come (2 Cor 5:17); I’m being transformed daily into the image of the Lord (2 Cor 3:18).
Well, praise God for your sanctification!
Code:
Those false teachers Peter was talking about, their old man was alive and kicking because they had never been regenerated by the Spirit, and justified by God; that's why they went back to what they truly were—***not justified!***
It certainly seems convenient to make such a supposition about them, but the Apostles teach us that a man can be justified, then throw away his birthright.
Once again, salvation is not about perfection, but mercy and grace. And the grace of God is sufficient to save one apart from anything else.
It is both, I would say, since nothing imperfect can enter heaven. 👍
Code:
Again, you prove my earlier point by your presumption that the verse above translates into, ***”he lost his salvation.”***
On the contrary, my presumption is that salvation has not yet been attained. So long as we are in this world, we are working out our salvation with fear and trembling. When arrogance and presumption take the place of awe and faith in God, one is no longer able to work out salvation. One has lost the way of truth.
 
“If” is a conditional.

You haven’t established that those under discussion have been justified by God, that they are the elect, that falling away in that context means a loss of salvation, that they are even saved for that matter.

Make your case.
It is impossible to be a partaker of grace, and to taste the goodness of the things to come without having been initiated. These terms do not apply to the non-initiated.

I have the same problem with your formulation as I do the article to which you linked. The problem is in the definition of what it means to “be saved”. The Apostolic Teaching is clear that this is a condition that has elements that have already occurred, are occurring, and that will occur. It is improper, then to speak of only one portion of that message, and treat it like the whole message.

A mature attitude, on the other hand, is to not consider that we have already “arrived”, but to press on to that which lies ahead. We wait for it with patience.
 
No, Peter, it’s a blessing; you just don’t understand how that is, and I have no need to repent for doing what I’ve been commanded by my Lord to do. 🙂
God has commanded you to be sarcastic and arrogant? Wow. :bigyikes: Never have I heard of such a thing! Well, I learn something new every day around here…
You must be referring to this verse:1 Timothy 2:3-4

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of
the truth.But Peter, I’ve watched you argue on another thread that ALL doesn’t really mean ALL. If you were consistent, Peter, you’d honestly have to contend that God really doesn’t want all men to be saved, if you were consistent. 😉
All means All whereever the Apostolic Teaching says that it does. Jesus committed “all” to the Apostles, not to the scriptures. Therefore, when the Apostles teach that God wants all men to be saved, this is how we understand the writtten portion of revelation.

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:30-31

Why command them all, if not all can be saved? BTW, this is one of those examples of grace that benefits the unjustified as well as the justified. His assurance is given to all, even those who do not have saving faith!
Can you tell me where this notion of “free will” is articulated by God, or any of His emissaries in their record of His revelation?
I am not sure I understand this question… :confused:

" Behold, I stand at the door and knock; **if any one hears **my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. 21 He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." Rev 3:20-21

Is it your contention that those who are not elected to salvation cannot hear?
 
Fine. The Catholic position is that the elect respond to God’s grace and will be saved. No question.

But I do have this question: are you a “TULIP” Calvinist or an Arminian?

Oh, and: Do you believe that God predestines some people to hell?

If you have not already done so, you might wish to review the following and tell us what you disagree with:

A Tiptoe Through TULIP
by James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

Thanks.
 
Bridging the “Faith Alone” Divide

Catholics and Protestants disagree mightily on the doctrine of justification. However, a closer look at the concepts involved reveals that the two sides are much closer in understanding than the fireworks suggest.

To begin, Catholics accept three theological virtues: faith, hope & charity.

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us…because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)

In common Catholic usage, faith is unconditional belief in God, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God.

The Catholic definition of faith (from the Greek, pistis) is derived from the sense found in Romans 14 and James 2; namely, that “faith” means intellectual acceptance of a body of theological beliefs known collectively as “the faith”.

This definition is supported by scripture in three ways: 1) the Romans 14 sense of pistis is the more common one in the New Testament; 2) the New Testament contains more than 40 references to “the faith”, so the connection between pistis and intellectual belief is very strong in this usage, and 3) this view of pistis has the advantage of maintaining the distinction between faith and the other two theological virtues and prevents blurring of their characteristics.

Viewing the definitions given above, one will note the similarities between the Catholic virtue of hope and the common Protestant definition of faith; that is, an unconditional trust in Jesus Christ and reliance on the Holy Spirit instead of on one’s own strength. At the same time, Protestants should have no problem accepting the idea that faith—as they define it—must also contain the intellectual assent to God that Catholics call faith since they should agree that a person with saving faith must believe whatever God says. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call faith (intellectual assent) and what Catholics call hope (trust in God).

Further, if a Protestant accepts the idea that saving faith is that which works in love (charity) as expressed in Galatians 5:6, then the Protestant and Catholic positions are equivalent. The reason is that a faith which works by charity produces acts of love. But a faith that produces acts of love is a faith that must include the virtue of charity since the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of love in the first place. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call charity.

Putting this all together, we see the following:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

From this formula, we can see that Catholics rightly reject the idea that one can be justified by intellectual belief only. So do Protestants. Misunderstandings occur when Catholics reject justification by “faith alone” according to their definition of faith while Protestants cling firmly to this doctrine according to their definition of faith.

Therefore, if Catholics and Protestants come to a mutual understanding of one another’s terminology and the definitions of these terms, they can also agree on what does and does not constitute the faith needed for justification. Justification by Faith Alone (or sola fide) does not need to be a bitterly divisive issue separating Catholics and Protestants.

*Adapted from “*Justification: By ‘Faith Alone’?” by James Akin.
 
Randy Carson:
But I do have this question: are you a “TULIP” Calvinist or an Arminian?
Calvin
Randy Carson:
Oh, and: Do you believe that God predestines some people to hell?
No, regarding salvation, God predestines to glorification only; I know that if He didn’t, no one would be saved; therefore, He doesn’t need to predestine to hell, but only withhold His mercy and grace from those He doesn’t intend to save (Rom 9:15), that is known as “preterition”—God gives the sinner over to his own sinful desire (Rom 1:24, 26, 28; Eph 4:17-19).
Randy Carson:
If you have not already done so, you might wish to review the following and tell us what you disagree with:
I’ll read it again, and read your other post tomorrow evening as well.
 
I’m not telling what you must believe De fide, Dr. Ott is.

Here is what Tan books, says about Dr. Ott’s book:Recognized as the greatest summary of Catholic dogma ever put between two covers. A one-volume encyclopedia of Catholic doctrines. Tells exactly what the Church teaches on any particular topic. Tells when the pronouncement was made and gives the sources from Scripture, Church Councils, Papal statements and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Essential for priests, seminarians, parents and teachers. Easily one of our most important books.
Ott is a Catholic theologian and a well known one but the links you supplied only tells of his viewpoint of Church doctrine. IOW it is his opinion, albeit an educated one but it is only a theological opinion. However, it must adhere to the teachings of the Church. So he may use the teachings of the Thomists and Augustinians however, as he does state, that it is up to man’s free will. In short all that is is Ott’s outlook on the matter and it is not required teaching. To see the Church doctrine on predestination go to #600 in the CCC and read through the WHOLE doctrine to #618. That is Church teaching.

Predestination by God has in fact been reversed by God before. In Genesis it is the Father’s predestination for mankind that Man shall not suffer or die. However, as we all know, the Sin of Adam changed all that and death entered our world. Therefore what was predestined was reversed by the will of God and the opposite came into being. This also caused another of God’s predestination which was the paschal sacrifice of His Son in atonement for our sins and for our salvation.

Now you keep quoting Paul and I’ll keep quoting Jesus. Like in Matt…It is not the Father’s will that any of these be lost…in reference to the lost sheep. Now that sounds like God wills that all be saved. Again, I’ll ask one of the questions you can’t answer without betraying your predestination belief…How can a benevolent, loving God create the entire human race only to choose a select few for salvation and condemn the rest?
 
No, regarding salvation, God predestines to glorification only; I know that if He didn’t, no one would be saved; therefore, He doesn’t need to predestine to hell, but only withhold His mercy and grace from those He doesn’t intend to save (Rom 9:15), that is known as “preterition”—God gives the sinner over to his own sinful desire (Rom 1:24, 26, 28; Eph 4:17-19).
Okay…we agree here. But you seemed to claim that Catholics are REQUIRED to believe that God predestines some people for hell, and this is not true.
 
I’m not telling what you must believe De fide, Dr. Ott is.

Here is what Tan books, says about Dr. Ott’s book:Recognized as the greatest summary of Catholic dogma ever put between two covers. A one-volume encyclopedia of Catholic doctrines. Tells exactly what the Church teaches on any particular topic. Tells when the pronouncement was made and gives the sources from Scripture, Church Councils, Papal statements and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Essential for priests, seminarians, parents and teachers. Easily one of our most important books.
Not to beat dead horse, but Dr. Ott is not the magisterium nor is he infallible. Further, Tan is in the business of promoting and selling the books it prints, so it seems that they have perhaps engaged in a little puffery when it comes to the “essential” nature of Dr. Ott’s work.
 
40.png
steppenwolf1218:
Now you keep quoting Paul and I’ll keep quoting Jesus. Like in Matt…It is not the Father’s will that any of these be lost…in reference to the lost sheep. Now that sounds like God wills that all be saved.
Which specific chapter and verse?
40.png
steppenwolf1218:
Again, I’ll ask one of the questions you can’t answer without betraying your predestination belief…How can a benevolent, loving God create the entire human race only to choose a select few for salvation and condemn the rest?
Has God revealed Himself as benevolent and loving only?
 
Okay…we agree here. But you seemed to claim that Catholics are REQUIRED to believe that God predestines some people for hell, and this is not true.
I’m merely quoting Ott from the link provided:God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection (De fide)—Ludwig Ott
 
Ott is a Catholic theologian and a well known one but the links you supplied only tells of his viewpoint of Church doctrine. IOW it is his opinion, albeit an educated one but it is only a theological opinion. However, it must adhere to the teachings of the Church.
Ott states that as a Catholic, you are required to believe the following De fide:God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness (De fide)

And that,

God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection (De fide).Which one of you Catholics am I to believe?
 
by Ludwig Ott

Introduction

The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).
 
CCC

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
 
CCC

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
The correlates closely to what I wrote.
I Believe Predestination contains some type of Spiritual truth but not an actual truth. Just as Genesis contains a spiritual truth, but if it was to be taken hyper literal, it would present it’s own problems.
Predestination is not absolute if God is omnipresent. He exists in the Past, Now, and in the Future.
The idea that God cannot undo a Presdination of a Person would indicate that God has limitations.
Another problem with Predestination being Literal is that it removes the “Free Will” of the individual. The person will have no choice but to “Accept Jesus Christ as his Personal Lord and Savior”
Another problem with the idea that Elect being the only ones going to heaven is that it was pointless of Jesus going down to those in Prison and preaching to them. The Elect would have just gone to Heaven once Jesus opened the Gates.
As does post 278 also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top