For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I understand your need to have answers to all questions and have theory and logic for everything.

I have a need to make sure that our defense of God does not turn others away from God.

Your theology, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be capable of speaking with clarity on behalf of a huge portion of humanity.

Consequently, when I see someone making some of the claims you’re making, it seems fairly clear to me that you haven’t really thought about how those outside the Church might react to your statements.

For that matter, I’m not really sure if you care.

simbagizmo:

I used to be the same way. But through the Spirit, I have come to peace that I do not have to know all the answers. I have put my Faith in Jesus Christ for my salvation, study his Word, and work within the revelation he gives me.

And yet, perhaps, you still don’t seem to be capable of understanding that Christ is working through you and enabling you to believe by the Holy Spirit.

So, it seems to me, that perhaps this thread may have been a waste of time after all.

simbagizmo:

For me to go beyond that and begin preaching “theory”, which is correctly put for this topic, would be teaching my thoughts and not God’s Word. I do not need to know all the answers. You may consider this “bad theology”, I consider it Faith.

I don’t think it’s bad theology. I just think it’s a theology which is afraid to trust God more completely in regards to these issues. It’s not bad for starters. It’s just incomplete in my opinion.

simbagizmo:

So, now that we established I cannot answer this question without pure conjecture…

No. I’ve laid down some solid nuggets of Christian theology for you to chew on further. There’s absolutely no conjecture in Scripture that God judges people according to how they would have acted if the proper conditions had been met. And Jesus agrees with me on this one-- it is a fact that God judges in us proportion that which he has revealed and enabled us to believe.

simbagizmo:

can you please answer your very question about salvation of babies and those of no mental capacity?

I have answered it simbagizmo. Apparently you’re not listening.

 

[simbagizmo]

I have a need to make sure that our defense of God does not turn others away from God.

And I have a need to understand and teach the truth of God as God has revealed it. I try to preach the Gospel in Love, but I do not preach outside what God has revealed. This again is back where we started, the default state of man.

I believe the default state of man is no fellowship with God, condemned. Man has to accept Jesus in his life for salvation. To change that default state. I said Man has to do this. Once Man makes this choice, the Holy Spirit comes in him, baptizes Him, and help the Man in his Faith.

From your argument, the default state of man is fellowship with God, saved. The only thing man can do is reject God for condemnation. If a man trusts God, it is not the man’s trust but God’s trust in God, because man does not have the ability to trust God only to reject God.

In my belief, people are already turned away from God so I am not afraid of turning them away. Talking to a non-believer cannot turn them away any more.

In your belief, I do see your fear. If their natural course is communion with God, talking to them about this could easily upset the natural progression, and lead them to reject God.

Your theology, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be capable of speaking with clarity on behalf of a huge portion of humanity.

As I stated in my last post. The Catholic Church does not teach with certainty what happens the same portion. They try to answer it with Infant baptism, that that will guarentee salvation in case of death. This teaching is not based on Scripture, but man’s need to answer that question. Then the question comes up, to what happens to babies that die before they can get baptized? The Catholic Church has no certain answer to this, except the same answer I gave you. They do not know. It is up to the mercy of God. This is the Catholic teaching. So by saying my theology is not capable, which I agreed with you on, the Catholic theology, after 2000 years as is so often put, is also not capable either. There is a reason for this, God has not revealed that to us.

Consequently, when I see someone making some of the claims you’re making, it seems fairly clear to me that you haven’t really thought about how those outside the Church might react to your statements.

For that matter, I’m not really sure if you care.

Believe me I do care how people react. This is God’s command to love. One must care is one loves. I also love God and follow his command to teach His Gospel. Not filling in perceived holes with man’s traditions. This is what I care about most of all. And I am not so proud to say, I do not know. I would much rather say I do not know to questions and put them in touch with those who may, then just make this stuff up out of my own reasoning.

And yet, perhaps, you still don’t seem to be capable of understanding that Christ is working through you and enabling you to believe by the Holy Spirit.

I do understand that the Holy Spirit helps me in my Faith. But Scripture teach that one must make a decision to follow Christ before the Holy Spirit comes. Even the Catholic Church teaches that “man must submit his intellect and will go God’s”. And it says “man” must do this, not man must let God do this in him.

“With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer”. From the Catechism also. It says “man gives his assent”. Not man lets God give God’s assent.

So, it seems to me, that perhaps this thread may have been a waste of time after all. :

Not so much for me. This is actually a new view of Catholicism I have not heard before.

I don’t think it’s bad theology. I just think it’s a theology which is afraid to trust God more completely in regards to these issues. It’s not bad for starters. It’s just incomplete in my opinion.

Any theology that is not based on Scripture would be bad theology. If you believe my belief is not based on Scripture, you should call it bad. You will not hurt my feeling or pride. I would not take this as a rejection of my thoughts.

No. I’ve laid down some solid nuggets of Christian theology for you to chew on further.

There’s absolutely no conjecture in Scripture that God judges people according to how they would have acted if the proper conditions had been met.

I do not believe you are correct here. Can you share Scripture that states this? This would be a solid nugget for me to chew on further.

I have answered it simbagizmo. Apparently you’re not listening.

I do listen, but if you know for certainty from Scripture what happens to babies when they die, I would really like to know. I think the Catholic leadership would also like to know, because they are not sure either.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

And I have a need to understand and teach the truth of God as God has revealed it.

Correction: You have a need to understand and teach the truth of God as you believe God has revealed it. And, in this regard, your perspective is no different from mine.

Obviously we disagree. But neither one of us can say that the other is not speaking what they believe. All that we can do is point out where we are potentially contradicting our own words in order to enable each other to see where there might be gaps in our thinking.

simbagizmo:

I try to preach he Gospel in Love, but I do not preach outside what God has revealed. This again is back where we started, the default state of man.

Yes. And if humanity were completely cut off from God’s Spirit, he would be not be just be spiritually dead. He would be physically dead too.

Death is, after all, the end result of sin-- is it not?

As far as I can tell, the only physical results of original sin are:

a) death

and

b) concupiscence

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.

To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different.

The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end.

simbagizmo:

I believe the default state of man is no fellowship with God, condemned.

I believe the default state of man is a damaged fellowship with God, in serious danger of condemnation. But God’s grace is still acting upon them even in their damaged state. He has to be, otherwise no one who does not believe would ever come to believe in the first place.

simbagizmo:

Man has to accept Jesus in his life for salvation. To change that default state.

There’s no doubt that Jesus has to work in their lives to bring them to salvation. There is no salvation without Christ. And, in regards to potetnial salvation, it is clear that without the Lord’s grace we would most certainly be damned.

simbagizmo:

I said Man has to do this. Once Man makes this choice, the Holy Spirit comes in him, baptizes Him, and help the Man in his Faith.

Then, notwithstanding your concession that this is a free gift from God, you are actually claiming that man saves himself.

You are claiming that man has to do something in order to be saved regardless of whether this thing being done is in response to God’s grace or not.

You are claiming that man has to do something in order to be saved.

simbagizmo:

From your argument, the default state of man is fellowship with God, saved.

No. From my argument, the default state of man is a damaged fellowship with God, very much in danger of damnation. I’ve also maintained that we would most certainly be damned to hell if not for God’s grace.

simbagizmo:

The only thing man can do is reject God for condemnation.

Exactly.

Man can reject God entirely without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, man can reject God all by himself without God’s help in doing so. In other words, man does not require the Holy Spirit to be at work in him in order to reject God’s grace. More to the point, God doesn’t cause people to not believe in him. Man causes himself to not believe in God by rebelling against the Holy Spirit.

simbagizmo:

If a man trusts God, it is not the man’s trust but God’s trust in God, because man does not have the ability to trust God only to reject God.

Without the Holy Spirit, man does not have the ability to trust God. If man trusts God, then this is a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work in them.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In my belief, people are already turned away from God so I am not afraid of turning them away.

Can man believe in God without knowing they believe in God?

What if, after your discussion with them, they decide that all morality is nothing more than a sham perpetuated by religious people trying to impose their will on others?

For example, there are atheists who are against abortion.

What if, after their discussion with you, they decide that abortion is alright?

simbagizmo:

Talking to a non-believer cannot turn them away any more.

There are many atheists who are against murder.

What if, after their discussion with you, they decide that murder is alright?

There are many atheists who are against stealing.

What if, after their discussion with you, they decide that stealing is alright?

There are many atheists who are against lying.

What if, after their discussion with you, they decide that lying is alright?

If any of these things were to happen, would any of these potential examples be considered an authentic example of a non-believer turning away from God more than they formerly did?

Would you consider them worse off and further from God than they were before you spoke to them?

simbagizmo:

In your belief, I do see your fear.

What fear do I have?

simbagizmo:

If their natural course is communion with God, talking to them about this could easily upset the natural progression, and lead them to reject God.

You are presuming quite a bit when you make this statement.

I’ve been very consistent from the beginning that man is in a damaged relationship with God, suffering a deep spiritual wound that needs Christ’s salvation in order to be healed.

When on earth did I say that man was in a natural progression towards God after the fall of humanity?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

As I stated in my last post. The Catholic Church does not teach with certainty what happens the same portion.

That’s because the Catholic Church has never made any definitive statement on who is in hell. But that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church doesn’t state anything definitive regarding the potential salvation of those outside the visible Church.

I’ve already stated many things from the Catholic faith regarding the potential salvation of those outside the visible church, such as:

a) who do not know Christ for reasons entirely outside their ability to control (invincible ignorance),

b) those who are not baptised and yet die either desiring baptism or dying for the Lord even though they are not baptized (baptism of desire and baptism of blood),

c) the state of the mind of the person in question (infants and the mentally infirm), and

d) the Jews themselves prior to the revelation of Christ as Savior-- and, of course, also those patriarchs who believed in God prior to the Mosaic and Abramic covenants, such as Adam and Enoch for example.

This represents a significant body of writings within Catholicism which most assuredly speaks of the potential for salvation in a very postive light.

And this is exactly where you’re not grasping Catholic theology in this regard. The Catholic Church is not afraid of claming the potential for salvation exists.

It doesn’t mean that they are necessarilly saved. But it doesn’t mean they are necessarilly damned either. It only means exactly what the Catholic states it means:

Since Christ is not restricted to the Church’s ability to forgive, the potential is there for salvation. Although the Catholic Church is restricted in what she can do to bring others into God’s family, God himself is not restricted by the visible institution he has establshed in order to bring salvation to the word.

Many other churches outside Catholicism, however, seem to be afraid to make any definitive statements on this matter.

They seem to be incapable of even suggesting that this potential exists.

More to the point, most often I hear this glaring silence on the matter, a silence that almost seems to either indicate that:

a) they’d never even thought of it even though they should have…

…or else…

b) …it’s simply not a concern of theirs even though it should be.

More often than not, their theology is often paralyzed by these kinds of questions due to the fear that claming God can save others without recourse to the institution God has provided may somehow make God out to be a liar. And, ultimately, it appears to be an assumption on their part in favor of the negative consequences (ie., they’re damned).

But, in my belief, the Scriptures do not indicate this default damnation to the level you’re claming they do. God saves whoever he saves. And his saving grace is in no way dependent upon our actions, except in light of the fact that our actions are a visible sign that God is at work in us-- the evidence of the manifestation of his saving grace by the Holy Spirit

In other words, God saves us. We don’t save ourselves.

simbagizmo:

They try to answer it with Infant baptism, that that will guarentee salvation in case of death.

Why should I?

Just like the rest of us, you don’t even have a guarentee that you are saved when you perish. You have an assurance that God will save you upon death.

And there’s a big difference between these two statements.

simbagizmo:

This teaching is not based on Scripture, but man’s need to answer that question.

How do you know your own theology isn’t likewise not supported by Scripture, but based man’s need to answer these questions?

What guarantee do you have that your interpretation of the Scriptures is the correct one?

 

[simbagizmo]

---

Without the Holy Spirit, man does not have the ability to trust God. If man trusts God, then this is a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work in them.

Your belief though is that it is not man that trust God, but the Holy Spirit in man that trust God. Because under your definition of man saving himself, if a man was to trust God, this would be man doing something to save himself. And this is against your interpretation of Scripture.

Man can reject God entirely without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, man can reject God all by himself without God’s help in doing so. In other words, man does not require the Holy Spirit to be at work in him in order to reject God’s grace. More to the point, God doesn’t cause people to not believe in him. Man causes himself to not believe in God by rebelling against the Holy Spirit.

Under your interpretation then, would a more accurate translation of

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

be the following because it is not man that believes, but the Spirit. Man must do nothing and cannot believe.

He that does nothing is not condemned, but he that rejects is condemned, because he rejected the name of the only begotten Son of God

Here another

Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

would a more accurate translation of this be the following because man cannot do these things because that would be work to earn salvation, therefore Jesus is really saying for man to not stop the Holy Spirit from doing these things.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, no man can come after me, he must do nothing, and let the Spirit in you deny you, let the Spirit in you take up His cross, and let the Spirit in you follow me.

I hope this does not sound silly and I am not trying to be silly here, but just applying your interpretation into the the Scriptures. Because if your interpretation is true, these would be more accurate translations. Also everywhere Jesus says “your Faith” would more accurately be translated as “my Faith in you”, such as

Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour

would better be translated as

Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is my Faith in you: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour

But putting your interpretation into Scriptures really does change the entire message as you can tell.

Also, let’s take a look at John 3:18 for a moment.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Two things strike me with your interpretation and this passage.

1. Man can only reject Jesus, he does not accept Jesus because that would be earning salvation.

If man cannot believe on Jesus, Jesus would have just said the following, because by default you are saying the Spirit would automatically save man and he can do nothing.

John 3:18 (…)
he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

But it doesn’t. God stated the first part of this “He that believeth on him is not condemned”. God states that man does have to make a decision to believe. And he does state that “man” must believe and not “man let the Holy Spirit beleive”.

1. Man by default is not condemned but in serious danger of condemnation.

Lets look at the second part of this verse, “he that believeth not is condemned already”. Condemned already. This is the default state of man, Condemned already, not is danger of being condemned.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

As I stated before, I was once Catholic for many years, so I do have some understanding for the Catholic thought.

Just as a simple recap, I suspect you haven’t read anything by Karl Rahner. He was a German Jesuit who made a profound contribution to Catholic theology in the twentieth century.

His role as a theological expert at the Second Vatican Council, his 1651 publications (4744 counting reprints and translations), his involvement in international theological debate, his impact on students who attended his classes, and his positive reception by many Protestant thinkers, all contributed to his influence on theology today.

If you’re claming to be familiar with Catholic theology and you haven’t read anything by him, I would suggest that his writings would help you to better understand what Catholic theology actually teaches.

Of course, you may certainly disagree with his writings. But, after having read his work, I’m sure that you’ll no longer have any doubts as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

 

[simbagizmo]

Correction: You have a need to understand and teach the truth of God as you believe God has revealed it. And, in this regard, your perspective is no different from mine.

This is true, but this is also true to everyone and all denominations.

Yes. And if humanity were completely cut off from God’s Spirit, he would be not be just be spiritually dead. He would be physically dead too.

You have mentioned this before and used Job 34 as your basis for this I believe. But this is not what the Job passage is saying. Job states that if God removed spirit and breath from man he would return to dust. Not just spirit.

Job 34:14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

And Paul does state in Romans that our spirit is dead in our transgressions.

Death is, after all, the end result of sin-- is it not?

Yes it does, but there are two deaths, physical and spiritual. My believe, based on Scripture, we are spiritually dead until we are born again, born spiritually. Where God resurrects our spirit from the dead. When Paul states the wages of sin is death, he is not talking about physical death, but the second death, eternal separation from God.

Then, notwithstanding your concession that this is a free gift from God, you are actually claiming that man saves himself.

You are claiming that man has to do something in order to be saved regardless of whether this thing being done is in response to God’s grace or not.

You are claiming that man has to do something in order to be saved.

I am not claiming anything, this is God’s command, to believe

Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Joh 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Now let’s come back to your post…

---

Your belief though is that it is not man that trust God, but the Holy Spirit in man that trust God.

No. God the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity proceeds from Jesus, indwells man and enables man to believe in God. This is what God created man to do.

Man really is believing in God. This is a real action that man is doing. But the Holy Spirit is the one who works in man to do this.

The dynamics of the Spirit’s motion are really well noted here– and I think one would be hard pressed to disagree with these theodynamics.

simbagizmo:

Because under your definition of man saving himself, if a man was to trust God, this would be man doing something to save himself. And this is against your interpretation of Scripture.

No. Claiming that man can believe in God without the Holy Spirit working in them to do so it what I’m standing against. But I do really believe that man is believing something by the Holy Spirit.

I’m not talking about a puppet on the strings of the Holy Spirit. Man really does have the choice to rebel against the Holy Spirit if he should choose to.

In other words, man really is doing an action which is creditted to him as righteousness (or meritted so to speak). More to the point, however, man really is building up a merit towards God’s reward. But this merit is not in effect to earn salvation. The merit is in regard to the reward that God gives to the man upon his entry into heaven.

simbagizmo:

Under your interpretation then, would a more accurate translation of [snip] be the following because it is not man that believes, but the Spirit. Man must do nothing and cannot believe.

Here another [snip] would a more accurate translation of this be the following because man cannot do these things because that would be work to earn salvation, therefore Jesus is really saying for man to not stop the Holy Spirit from doing these things.

I hope this does not sound silly and I am not trying to be silly here, but just applying your interpretation into the the Scriptures.

Actually, it doesn’t sound like a silly question at all. I’m glad you’re staying to ask more to be honest.

First of all, as I said before in regards to the Catechsim, the faith in question is often expressed phenomenologically from the perspective of man’s response to God-- because that’s generally the only way we perceive the world. The mystical idea of the body of Christ is not easilly captured in this phenomenological perspective.

This same thing is applied within the Scriptures too.

I explained this before here…

Consequently, I think the reference within the Scriptures which talks about ‘their faith’, ‘their works’, and ‘their actions’ etc. are also partially refering more to the reward that results than the salvation which was freely offered and penetrated their spirit, which was open to God.

simbagizmo:

Because if your interpretation is true, these would be more accurate translations. Also everywhere Jesus says “your Faith” would more accurately be translated as “my Faith in you”, such as [snip] would better be translated as [snip] …

But putting your interpretation into Scriptures really does change the entire message as you can tell.

Yes, And so does Paul’s message which talks about the gifts of the Spirit.

In all these cases God is manifesting something within them by the same Spirit, working through them in a way that they are quite frankly incapable of doing by their own human power or intellect.

Why should the gift of faith be any different from the theodynamics of the other eight gifts listed?

simbagizmo:

Also, let’s take a look at John 3:18 for a moment.

But, as I said before, there are also passages which state that salvation does not come from one’s ability to choose God-- God chooses them from the beginning.

There are also passages which state that one’s faith is a gift that comes from the Holy Spirit too-- so it is also infered that those who chose to believe are being moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.

When you said before “Scripture also states people come to Faith without the gift of the Holy Spirit.” I explained that this claim only works if you’re claming that everytime the Scriptures mention “faith”, they have to also mention faith being “the work of the Holy Spirit”.

Ultimately, the same exact thing applies to all the claims you’ve made where the ‘possession’ of something needs to be stated in a way that is explicitly precise.

The Scriptures do not work this way. And you know this.

 

[simbagizmo]

When on earth did I say that man was in a natural progression towards God after the fall of humanity?

You stated that one can only reject Christ. One cannot choose Christ. For man to be saved, he has to do nothing and allow the Holy Spirit to work in him. Anything else would be earning salvation which cannot happen.

So, if man does absolutely nothing, the Holy Spirit will save him. I assume you think the Holy Spirit wants to save him. So this would be the natural progression. Meaning what would happen if nothing interfered.

The only thing that can happen to disrupt this is if the man did something. And the only thing he can do is reject salvation.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You stated that one can only reject Christ. One cannot choose Christ. For man to be saved, he has to do nothing and allow the Holy Spirit to work in him. Anything else would be earning salvation which cannot happen.

So, if man does absolutely nothing, the Holy Spirit will save him. I assume you think the Holy Spirit wants to save him. So this would be the natural progression. Meaning what would happen if nothing interfered.

The only thing that can happen to disrupt this is if the man did something. And the only thing he can do is reject salvation.

But it’s not a natural progression. It’s supernatural progression.

Without the Holy Spirit, there is no progression toward salvation.

 

[simbagizmo]

No. God the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity proceeds from Jesus, indwells man and enables man to believe in God. This is what God created man to do.

Man really is believing in God. This is a real action that man is doing. But the Holy Spirit is the one who works in man to do this.

Well, I think we have beat this up pretty good, and not really making any progress. I am going to sign off this, but I do thank you for your thoughts.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

simbagizmo:

I am not claiming anything, this is God’s command, to believe.

Right. And you are claiming to have done something. There’s really no getting around this part regardless of how it worded. It is being plainly infered that you have to do something in order to be saved.

And yet the Scriptures make it clear that we can do nothing to earn our salvation. It’s a free gift from God.

So even when you point out all these passages…

simbagizmo:

Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Joh 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

…they can all be understood as God manifesting this gift of faith within them by the Holy Spirit, exactly as the Scriptures portray the gift of faith by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this.

Well, I think we have beat this up pretty good, and not really making any progress. I am going to sign off this, but I do thank you for your thoughts.

You’re welcome. And I thank you too for taking the time to respond as much as you have.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Not so much for me. This is actually a new view of Catholicism I have not heard before.

This really got me thinking a bit more over the holidays. To be fair, I don’t think this should have been a new concept to you.

For example, in The Handbook for Today’s Catholic, we comes across the section Grace: God’s Life Within You…

Grace – God’s life within you – transforms the whole meaning and direction of your life [1772, 1810]. In grace, St. Paul declared: “For to me life is Christ, and death is gain” (Philippians 1:21) [1010, 1968]. Ultimately, grace – God’s free gift of himself to you – is life eternal, a life that has already begun. Already, while you are still an earthly pilgrim, grace is “Christ in you, the hope for glory” (Colossians 1:27) [772].

In short, grace is the Spirit of God who is “poured out into our hearts” as Romans 5:5 says. Grace, in this sense, is the presense of God’s living, dynamic Spirit, enabling us us to live with a new, abundant inner life that makes us “share in the divine nature” as 2 peter 1:4 notes.

There’s quite a bit more on this subject. However, I can’t reproduce the entire section here-- even though this concept is explained excellently here.

If you’re interested in purchasing this book, you can find it here too. It’s very simple and briefly explains things in a way that is much easier to understand than the full volume of the Catechism does. In other words, if you’re seriously looking to understand the Catholic faith which you left, this book is a good primer prior to reading the Catechism-- and it will greatly assist you as the Holy Spirit brings you home again.

Merry Christmas by the way.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Link

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

No. We must do nothing. In fact, God demands that we do nothing of our own free-will – because our own free-will leads to sin and death. It is only when we do nothing that the motion of the Spirit can move us to believe that God then indwells us and believes on our behalf by the Holy Spirit.

Pug:

This bothers me on some level. It is true that, unmoved by grace, our will cannot get us to salvation. But moved by grace, it is wrong to say that our will is some inanimate thing that truly does nothing at all. It could reject the grace, but it does not do so. Trent rejects calling whatever it is that we do prior to justification to be truly nothing or fully passive. However, it is not a meritorious cause of our justification. Just because it doesn’t merit does not mean that it wasn’t done.

I can see what you mean with this. But please note that I’m not saying that we can get to heaven without doing the works that the Lord has foreordained us to do.

I’m saying that if we do the works that the Lord has foreordained us to do, it is because the Lord is doing these works through us by the Holy Spirit.

We can do nothing of our own human effort to earn salvation. In fact, we must do nothing of our own human effort if we are to be saved. Anything we do of our own human effort will result in sin.

If, however, we do some kind of salvific action, it is not because we’ve done this through our own human effort. If we do some kind of salvific action, it is because the Holy Spirit has done this salvific action through us.

Look toward Mary and you’ll see what I mean…

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.

And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.

He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.

He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Mary wasn’t great because of the things she did. Mary was great because of the things she did not do– she was totally docile to the Holy Spirit so that the Lord could do his perfect work through her.

Mary did nothing of her own human effort-- and that means she had no sin whatsoever.

Whatever Mary did, however, God did through her as she was moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.

What did Mary do to earn her salvation?

Nothing.

She did absolutely nothing to earn her salvation.

The Lord earned her salvation through her divine son, which is manifested in the very actions which God did through her-- just like he does with all of us.

Unlike Mary, we have not been totally docile to the Holy Spirit. In fact, we have done many things of our own human effort. Therefore, unlike Mary, we have sinned.

However, having said that, just like Mary, we are totally human too-- therefore whatever good things we do the Lord has done through us by the Holy Spirit too. Mary is completely unique in this sense-- the only strictly human being who has never sinned.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mary wasn’t great because of the things she did. Mary was great because of the things she did not do– she was totally docile to the Holy Spirit so that the Lord could do his perfect work through her.

Mary did nothing of her own human effort-- and that means she had no sin whatsoever.

Whatever Mary did, however, God did through her as she was moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.

What did Mary do to earn her salvation?

Nothing.

She did absolutely nothing to earn her salvation.

The Lord earned her salvation through her divine son, which is manifested in the very actions which God did through her-- just like he does with all of us.

For a more precise articulation of what I mean, carefully read Peter Kreeft’s online article:

How Does the Weakness of the Cross Make Us Strong?

Although I would encourage you to read the entire article, in particular, I am stressing this part here…

I now venture into deeper, more perilous areas of our problem.

Our weakness becomes our strength when God enters into our weakness. Like a doctor anesthetizing a patient so that he ceases to be an agent and becomes a patient, becomes passive, so that he does not hop about on the operating table, God weakens us so that he can perform operations on us that would otherwise be impossible.

This is especially true of death. Death is radical surgery, and we must be radically anesthetized for it. God wants to penetrate into our heart, our innermost being. Our heart must stop beating for that operation to take place.

The same principle works in lesser ways before death, in little deaths. God has to knock us out first in order to rescue us from drowning, for we flail about foolishly. He has to slap our hands empty of our toys to fill them with his joys.

So far, so good. That principle is fairly well known. But when we turn to the mystics and read their strange language about “becoming nothing,” the consummation of weakness, we shake our heads in incomprehension and suspicion. Yet the mystics’ sense of “nothingness” before God is nothing but the same principle taken to its logical conclusion. If God’s strength fills us when we are weak, and God’s greatness fills us when we are little, then God’s all fills us when we are nothing.

But we must distinguish two kinds of “nothing.” Oriental mystics seem to say that the soul is “nothing” because it is not real. They see through the “illusion” of individuality. They seem to say we are not really creatures at all, but God. For all is God if you are a pantheist. That is simply false, for God has created us distinct from himself.

Instead of this, the “nothingness” of the Christian mystic is the nothingness of no self-will and no self-consciousness. “Thy will, not mine, be done” is the fundamental formula for all sanctity, not just that of the mystics. There is nothing particularly mystical about it. But when, ravished by God in a foretaste of heaven’s beatific vision, the graced mystic also loses all consciousness of himself, he seems to himself to be nothing, because he is no longer looking at himself, only at God. But, of course, he is still there, for there must be a self to exercise the act of self-forgetfulness. Who’s forgetting? Not God, surely, for omniscience does not forget.

The Christian mystic experiences a bliss in this total weakness to the point of nothingness, for it is total trust, total relaxing in God’s arms, being grasped by Abba, Daddy. All worry and self-concern melt away. This is total humility. As pride is the first sin, the demonic sin, so humility is the first virtue.

In short, we Catholics are not saying that our good works earn our salvation. We Catholics are saying that our good works are a sign that God lives in us-- that if we do any good work, it’s because we have not resisted the holy Spirit (ie., we have done nothing of our own human effort) and the Lord is able to work through us in order to bring about his will.

As C.S. Lewis said, there will be two kinds of people in the end: Those that will say to God ‘Thy will be done’ and those to whom **God will say **‘Thy will be done.’

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Just a brief follow-up

You have mentioned this before and used Job 34 as your basis for this I believe. But this is not what the Job passage is saying. Job states that if God removed spirit and breath from man he would return to dust. Not just spirit.

Then why did God have to breathe into Adam even though Adam was not dust?

In fact, Adam’s body was already formed from the dust if I recall correctly…

First the Scriptures says…

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground

Then the Scriptures say…

• the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground…

And then, after the man was already formed, God’s Spirit acted upon Adam as God…

…breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

You said that Job stated that if God removed his spirit and breath from man he would return to dust. Not just spirit

So, if this is true, is it the Spirit of God that formed Adam from the dust of the earth?

If so, then why is God’s Spirit and his breath often used interchangeably, often impying the same thing?

For example, why did Jesus say the following, which draws a parrallel to the creation account?
John 20:22:

And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

Weren’t the apostles already fully formed and not just merely dust when God breathed on them so that they might receive his Spirit?

God’s breath and his Spirit often seems to be the same thing as far as I can tell. In fact, in this passage found in John 20:22, God’s breath seems to be linked with the third person of the Holy Trinity-- the Holy Spirit himself.

I think one might be splitting hairs too much if they claim God would have to remove both his spirit and breath from man before he would return to dust.

In both cases, people had already been formed by God before the motion of the Spirit quickened them to live according to God’s will.

 

[Pug]

I’m not saying that we can get to heaven without doing the works that the Lord has foreordained us to do.

I’m saying that if we do the works that the Lord has foreordained us to do, it is because the Lord is doing these works through us by the Holy Spirit.

I understand you to be saying that God doesn’t just dole out grace that one time, at our rebirth, but he also sends out little helps that that we cooperate with along the way, and this together makes meritorious deeds.

I’m ignoring that word, “foreordained”, since I think it didn’t matter right now…

We can do nothing of our own human effort to earn salvation.

I agree with this. Of ourselves, we have and can do nothing that would through justice oblige God to give us heaven.

If, however, we do some kind of salvific action, it is not because we’ve done this through our own human effort. If we do some kind of salvific action, it is because the Holy Spirit has done this salvific action through us.

I agree that for us to do an action that is a “salvific action”, our acting must proceed from and within Christ, in grace. It is first from God, but he has connected it with us. Just, I wouldn’t use your wording. Truly, not to be offensive, but truly somehow it makes me think of a puppet on strings, or like being possessed and not ourselves. Like we are so much under grace that we no longer act, but are only acted upon, albeit I assume willingly.

In fact, we must do nothing of our own human effort if we are to be saved. Anything we do of our own human effort will result in sin.

These two statements I do not understand. First, let’s be clear on what “our own human effort” means. Since we would wink out of existence without being upheld by God, there is some basic presence of God in all our actions, perhaps even in the use of our will. So those are just there, whatever they are, and are not under consideration. Also, that the man finds himself in a particular situation that requires a choice is happening under the guidance of providence, so I don’t think that is what is being counted either. You mean that the man is acting without having internal sanctifying grace perhaps? You mean that the man is selecting a choice that wasn’t in the direction in which an actual grace is leading him? Or perhaps you mean the man in is a situation where there is no actual grace functioning to push in any particular direction? I think you mean some variation of my last two, but I can’t pin it down.

What are the possible categories of action for you? Are there just two, sins and salvific actions?

In short, we Catholics are not saying that our good works earn our salvation.

Eh, I am Catholic, just in case that isn’t clear. Also, many Catholics will loosely say that, once we are in Christ, then our good works have merit, and in fact can merit increases in graces leading to our eternal reward. These are not off base, IMO.

About the Kreeft article, the part you mention seems to be talking about the state of contemplation and perhaps about how you must deal with your self-will for that. I am hardly a proficient in prayer life, so I cannot truly comment about it. Contemplation and prayer are not the same topic as sin and merit, however. I agree with his point that the “thy will be done” thing in our life will make us happier (I think not from your snip, but from the whole article).

Happy New Year, btw!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Eh, I am Catholic, just in case that isn’t clear.

I know. That’s why I said “we” instead of just “you” or “me”.

We are together in Christ in our Catholic faith.

Pug:

Also, many Catholics will loosely say that, once we are in Christ, then our good works have merit, and in fact can merit increases in graces leading to our eternal reward. These are not off base, IMO.

They’re not off base as far as I can tell either. It’s just that I think we need to be careful not to say that what has been meritted to us actually earns anything salvific.

It’s God who works through us. And to the extent that we do nothing of our own human merit, we are rewarded as the Lord works through us. This doesn’t mean that we are doing nothing-- because we really are doing something. It’s just that if we do a salvific work, we need to acknowledge that Christ is at work in us and doing it through us.

Discussing the merits that are rewarded to us should be distinguished from the salvation which comes freely in Christ.

Anyway, I see what you mean by the puppet on the strings. But that’s not really what I’m saying. I’m not taking about automations-- because we certainly do have free-will.

I’ll discuss this more tonight when I have a chance.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I understand you to be saying that God doesn’t just dole out grace that one time, at our rebirth, but he also sends out little helps that that we cooperate with along the way, and this together makes meritorious deeds.

Yes. That’s right.

I’m not talking once saved and always saved, because clearly we do not know if we are saved. Certainly, we believe we are saved, but only God knows for sure-- and this is why we put our trust is in him. We certainly do place our assurance in God.

Now, just to be clear, I am not talking about irresistible grace, because all people can freely reject this gift. Likewise, neither am I talking about any kind of double-predestination either, because God has called all people to be saved-- and the people who are not saved have damned themselves from his free offer of salvation totally of their own accord.

As Karl Rahner noted, we are constantly living out our lives relation to God’s grace. And God’s grace, the life he offered which leads to the forgiveness of our sins which he freely offered through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross – is the means by which he pours out his Spirit, past, present and future.

This grace is most properly focussed within Catholicism as the Eucharist, the very body and blood of our Lord we partake in during Mass. There is no other sacrament higher than this to be honest. And yet the other sacraments also to some extant partake in the life of Christ to lesser degrees as well. For example, though baptism we are buried with Christ and therefore participates in the grace of Christ-- and we are also, for that matter, circumcized by virtue of his own circumcision, which likewise leads to the circumcision of our spirits which likewise comes through Christ’s death and resurrection.

More to the point, God’s grace is poured out on all people whether people are aware of this grace being poured out upon them or not. The gift of faith, however, enables them to discern what is truly an act of God within them and what is not an act of God within them, a divine perception similar to the distinguishing of divers spirits.

In the case of the gift of faith, however, God’s perception allows people to see what they formerely thought to be ‘happy accidents’ as having a deeper meaning. In this sense, the gift of faith supernaturally enables those things which were formerly considered actual graces (God’s interventions) in the life of an unbeliever to be transformed into habitual graces (a permanent disposition to keep God’s will) in the life of the believer.

As the links I point out note, there are certainly other graces too. But I’ll talk about this later.

Or, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in regards to the question of God’s grace…

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

And again…

2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” "benefit."53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.54