R
ryanoneil
Guest
How does your above statement fit with the article (Regeneration Precedes Faith By R. C. Sproul) you provided on the other study?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4327687#post4327687
- Status
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4327687#post4327687
M
Mickey
Guest
Fair enough. I will report it.
R
Reformed
Guest
I was hoping someone was going to catch that!
Within Reformed Theology, you will see a debate between those who believe that
- Regeneration comes before faith
- Regeneration occurs at the exact same time of hearing the gospel. I believe Charles Spurgeon was very staunch on that position.
Even within Reformed circles, there is an extreme passionate debate in regards to believers baptism and infant baptism. I can embrace both positions, since both positions reject infant baptismal regeneration. I do favor infant baptism but I currently attend a non-denominal church which really means baptist in conviction.
M
mercygate
Guest
Ya gotta love R. C. Sproul. He almost never misrepresents Catholic doctrine, even when he disagrees with it. He gives the BEST account of the dogma of Mary as Mother of God that I have ever heard. Man! I would sure love to have him in my RCIA class!
R
Reformed
Guest
Does that imply that you believe in the invisble church too… made up of Christians from Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox communites together with unchurched regenerate believers?
M
mercygate
Guest
I believe that the Church is both visible and invisible. The visible Church on earth is coterminous with the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Traditions. The *Catechism *puts it very well:
- In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.
- The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. That is her mystery, which only faith can accept.
R
Reformed
Guest
M
mercygate
Guest
Well, then, so’s the Catechism.You are too Protestant!!!
But somehow I don’t think you mean to agree with the position that the visible Church is coterminous with the Apostolic Churches comprising Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
R
Reformed
Guest
I think the main issue is agreeing on the invisible church and not the visible church definition. We seem to agree on the invisble church, I think. Do you know the position of RC Sproul in regards to the Roman Catholic Church? I believe his position is very mainstream in Reformed circles too. I tend to agree with his position too.
M
mercygate
Guest
For Catholics and other Apostolic Churches, the invisible Church consists also of the Church Expectant in Purgatory and the Church Triumphant in Heaven. Not quite what you have in mind, I expect.
And aside from the fact that an isolated person might have “faith,” without Baptism, without a congregation, and without the Lord’s supper, he would not be "in communion.
Since Sproul IS a Presbyterian, I don’t expect him to have orthodox ecclesiology. In his explanation of the canon of Scripture, he says that until the canon was set, we needed the Church but after the canon was determined, “the Church falls away and yields to the book” – or words to that effect. Now if that doesn’t make you scratch your head! And then, there’s his punch line: “For Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books, but for Catholics, the Bible is an IN-fallible collection of infallible books.” Go figure.
Sproul CAN actually be quite anti-Catholic --although he rarely lets that show in public. But DO check out his “Mother of God” essay. OUTSTANDING.
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
St. Paul said the Church was the Body of Christ, and bodies are never ONLY invisible. They have a very important physical component.
Love is Patient
R
Reformed
Guest
I think Jesus clearly taught about the visible and invisible church. How do you guys reconcile wheat and tares, and sheep and goats with the concept of invisible church? Jesus cleary taught that not all professers in Him will enter the kingdom God. Only those who do the will of the Father will be in Heaven according to divine revelation in the Scriptures.St. Paul said the Church was the Body of Christ, and bodies are never ONLY invisible. They have a very important physical component.
M
M0nkey
Guest
By exactly that (If I understand you correctly). There is no salvation outside of Christ and His Church.
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
Oh, we love that parable, actually. So, if you have wheat and tares in a field, you can still SEE the field. You can point to it, and say there, there is the field. There is the church. It’s not something nebulous. It’s visible. It’s a city on a hill, a lamp not hidden.
How do you believe in the visible church?
:Love is Patient:
(Oh, and I perused your monergism website. To me, the level of hatred demonstrated on that site only further reinforces what’s wrong about Calvinism.)
R
Reformed
Guest
Since RC Sproul came up, what do you think about his gospel in a nutshell explanation?
The Gospel
"There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the Gospel. But as important as that is, it is often given to massive distortions or over simplifications. People think they’re preaching the Gospel to you when they tell you, ‘you can have a purpose to your life’, or that ‘you can have meaning to your life’, or that ‘you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.’ All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the Gospel.
The Gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.
The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead – so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the Gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity."
— R.C. Sproul
ligonier.org/welcome_whatisthegospel.php
R
Reformed
Guest
There is no salvation outside of Christ. When we are united to Christ by faith, we become part of His body which is the church. RCIA classes, water baptism done by men, and membership to a religious institution does not mean you have been united to Christ by the Spirit.
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
For the most part, good. But I would point out that God is so amazing that he doesn’t “declare” us just–he makes us just, and of course, you and I both know the only place where the phrase “by faith alone” shows up in the Bible…
Love is Patient
P
Pax
Guest
So far it would appear, at least IMHO, that all of the scriptures quoted for the regenerative nature of baptism and those favoring infant baptism far outweigh the few scriptures that do not deny either, but merely speak to the component of faith.
Reformed…what say you?
Reformed…what say you?
G
guanophore
Guest
The two are not separated. We see the testimony throughout the book of Acts that all who heard the word and believed were baptized. Hearing the Word kindles faith within, and the grace of God draws a person into the rebirthing waters of baptism. How can you ignore the testimony of the early fathers on this point? Did you not read the postings by Mickey?
No, God acts on the basis of the parents, Godparents, and the faith of the Church. Catholics believe that baptism replaces circumcision as an entrance rite into the New Covenant. Just as the the parents brought their infants in faith to be circumcised (or dedicated if girls) so we bring our infants to Christ. Jesus Himself said “suffer the little children to come unto me, and hinder them not, for of such is the Kingdom”.
Absolutely. We invade their free will by feeding them the diet we think they should have, by bathing them when they don’t want to be washed, by immunizing them when they hate needles, by compelling them to engage in socialized behavior (use the toilet), by compulsing them to go to school, forcing them to sit in a safety seat in the car, and many other ways. Why would we fail to take action in the most important realm, the spiritual?
I find this arguement ridiculuous.
I do not understand this question. The Apostles taught that God wants all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the Truth. Beleivers have a spiritual obligation to lead their children to Christ.
Those infants not baptized are entrusted to the mercy of God. But, why take any risks? It is irresponsible to fail to wash away original sin.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is true, but God pours it out on everyone. Those who choose to receive it are elected.
The Apostles taught that it is both an outward sign, and an inward movement of the grace of God. We are in agreement that it is not efficacious without faith.
It is the faith of the parents that acts on behalf of the child, just as it was for children being circumcised.
This is true. It is incumbent upon believers to train up their children in the way they should go.
Since we believe that baptism washes away sin, they will have a straight ticket!
- Status