K
Kendy
Guest
Great points, Jim.
Of course, now I am just horribly confused
- Status
Of course, now I am just horribly confused
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Can we work out way out of God’s graces. Of course! Think of it this way. God loves us so much, that in the afterlife, He gives us want we want.
If we wish to be separated from God here on earth by sinning against Him, then in the afterlife, He’ll continue to let us be separated from Him.
If we wish to remain in Him in this life, and live up to His expectations, then we’ll spend eternity with Him in Heaven.
Pretty simple, eh?
Notworthy
If we wish to be separated from God here on earth by sinning against Him, then in the afterlife, He’ll continue to let us be separated from Him.
If we wish to remain in Him in this life, and live up to His expectations, then we’ll spend eternity with Him in Heaven.
Pretty simple, eh?
Notworthy
W
wpr
Guest
jpete79:
Jpete,
Redbandito said it! I agree 100%.
I do not live day to day in fear.
Peter M.J. Stravinskas Ph.D puts it this way. “Indeed the Catholic way is always catholic, which is to say, whenever possible, inclusive rather than exclusive. Hence the Catholic Tradition does not pit Scripture against Tradition (sola Scriptura) or grace against merit (sola gratia)-two other Reformation rallying cries. No, the Church of the Ages sees paradox where others might see contradiction in realities like the Virgin Mother or a God-man. Similary faith, by all means, but not in opposition to works, nor works in isolation from faith.”
I’d add to this that we do not have a Gospel that purports to select those Scriptures that by our own interpretation are compelled to support a preconcieved notion. How is that being faithful to God?
W
wpr
Guest
Jpete,
Again and again. None of what you quoted above tells you that your salvation is secured irrevocably by a one time act of “belief”. Nor is the obediance to the Lordship if Christ biblical either.
I know you don’t see this, but it is rather ironic that you purport the Catholic view of God as a “Judge” and your view as that of a “Father”. The irony is that if you start from square one in your view of salvation God indeed sits as a sort of Judge that imputes rightiousness (salvation) to you. Forensic justification is the realm of the Protestant Reformers and their decendants.
It is precisely the Catholic view, as Scripture and The Church teach us, that Salvation is achieved through the Grace of God as a Father. A Father looks at his Children with the eyes of grace. It does not follow that because to a Catholic we must live a life as Christ called us that we therefore think of God as a “Judge”.
This is a very deep and interwoven tail. If your inclined, you need to consider how predestination is woven into your tail.
By the way, in the passage from Paul, did you catch the “ordo salutas”? How does this fit your “faith alone” and OSAS belief? Where is sanctification mentioned? Surely it is required?
Your “Lordship” wording tells me you’ve been reading some reletively modern Evangelical theology. Do you care to explain the assent of faith and why it is held separate from obediance in the “Lordship of God”?
R
Redbandito
Guest
Well stated! I challenge both JPete and Kendy to address the Scriptures that have been put out there. Don’t talk about your view of justification. Just address the Scriptures. Mainly address the Parable of the Prodigal Son, who was once a son, squandered His inheritance, but only regained sonship status and inheritance upon repentance. Don’t tell me about the problems this view has. Just address the Scripture itself. If we can agree about the meaning of this Scripture, we can then look at the theological implications. However, reading your theological presuppositions back onto the text is not only poor exegesis, it also goes against the very rallying cry of Protestants against the Church (sola scriptura). I don’t want to hear your tradition. I want to hear your exegesis. Thanks again.
K
Kendy
Guest
I am sorry, but I am going to have to pass on your challenge. For the third time, your points about OSAS are valid. I am seriously considering them. I am not a biblical scholar. I intend to read up, ask my pastor, and pray about it. If I have anything to add after that I will post my arguments.
As for faith alone, or I would rather say, by grace through faith, I still believe that Romans chs: 6-8 make a pretty solid case that works in themselves have no salvific power, making works the evidence of faith. But since works are evidence of faith, you can’t go around saying you have faith unless you can put your works where your mouth is. But I think I might have said this earlier
Kendy
R
Redbandito
Guest
Depends on what works you speak of. Paul is talking about “works of the law” in Romans (see Romans 3). If we flip to chapter 4, we see exactly what that means. He talks about circumcision. Thus, the question now must be whether Paul means no works (even the one’s that come after our initial justification from the grace of God- Eph 2:10) have any power to “JUSTIFY” (James 2:24) or whether he is really speaking of works of the Mosaic law.I am sorry, but I am going to have to pass on your challenge. For the third time, your points about OSAS are valid. I am seriously considering them. I am not a biblical scholar. I intend to read up, ask my pastor, and pray about it. If I have anything to add after that I will post my arguments.
As for faith alone, or I would rather say, by grace through faith, I still believe that Romans chs: 6-8 make a pretty solid case that works in themselves have no salvific power, making works the evidence of faith. But since works are evidence of faith, you can’t go around saying you have faith unless you can put your works where your mouth is. But I think I might have said this earlier
Kendy
You don’t actually have to respond to this one on here. I just wanted to pose a little more food for thought. Good luck in your search. God bless!
K
Kendy
Guest
Well, I do believe he means “works of the law,” but I guess we would have to define that. Do you not include the ten commandments in works of the law? Do Christian works not include obeying the ten commandments?
Kendy
S
Sherlock
Guest
It depends on what kind of Protestant you talk to. Most of the Evangelicals I know do not, for example, think you have to observe the Lord’s Day.
K
Kendy
Guest
I realize I am going to mince with words, but it depends on what you mean by “have to.” I would say that in observing the Lord’s day you are not building up points for yourself in Heaven. Attending church 52 Sundays out of the year doesn’t mean that you have faith, which is the most important thing. However, if someone claimed to be a Christian but never went to church. I would seriously question his or commitment to Christ. I have said this to my roomate many times and it upsets him.
I realize that protestant churches differ in their practice of this, but my church will baptize anyone who says that he has accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior. However, to become a member of my church, you have to complete the Vineyard Basics course, accept the vineyard statement of faith, attend church regularly, participate in one weekly bible study, give offerings (if you are employed), and perform some kind of service regularly.
My pastor would never say that if you do these things you will go to Heaven because only God can judge the sincerity of your heart, but it’s very clear from our membership requirements that a christian does all these things.
Kendy
R
Redbandito
Guest
This is the moral law, which is still binding. When Paul talks about works of the law, he is referring more to the ceremonial law that was unique to Jewish culture and was being used to discriminate against the Gentiles. This seems to fit the context of Romans better than the Evangelical condemnation of all works. Especially considering that Paul just finished saying, “5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.” (Rom 2:5-11). This particular section addresses that Paul believes both that we will be “JUDGED” based on what we have “done”, AND that this whole argument stems from the Judaizers trying to hold the ceremonial law as binding to the Gentiles.
As for the 10 Commandments, they would not fall under the law that Paul is discussing here. Think about the direct contradiction that would be to Jesus’ own words, “If you love me, keep my commandments”. So, Paul is saying that Jesus’ commandments are not binding, while Jesus is saying they are? Doesn’t sound like the two fit together very well. In order to avoid Scripture contradicting itself, or just ignoring specific explicit verses in Scripture, we must seek to rectify it in a way that is true to the text. What did Paul really mean here? Was he saying all works? NO! Of course not! That would contradict Paul’s whole message. What he is saying is that we are not saved BECAUSE we keep the ceremonial law, we are saved because of God’s grace. You do not have to be Jewish to be saved. Nor, can we obligate God with any kind of works. However, once we are created anew, we must perservere in good works. Paul makes that abundantly clear throughout his epistles.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Oh, I think the word “commandment” pretty well sums it up. I don’t tell God, “well, it depends upon the meaning of the word ‘commandment’…”
I don’t know what you mean by “points”. Are you saying that when we die, our “good points” are weighed against our “bad points” and that is what determines where we spend eternity? I’m not trying to be confrontational, by the way: I’m just seeking clarification.
I agree with what you’re saying. However, if someone has been told that they don’t need to do anything other than “believe”, then they may be in a state of ignorance and thus I won’t condemn their committment to Christ—God alone can judge that situation.
I’m pleased that your church does have requirements. I’m afraid it’s human nature to take the path of least resistance and do the minimum. Requirements at least provide a “safety net” of observance even when feelings wax and wane.
Then you have a fairly Catholic idea of salvation.
K
Kendy
Guest
I agree with all of this stuff. Of course, the commandments are binding! I get a little confused about what exactly is the church’s position because I read stuff that I have no problem with and then at other times, I do. It depends on how it is stated, but for me these subtleties do matter.
At the risk of giving you guys more firepower against evangelicals, there is a little book by an evangelical, Ronald Snider, called “The Scandal of the evangelical conscience,” which talks about the problem of cheap grace. In it, he talks about many of the problems I think many catholics on this forum are concerned about, which is feel good religion and personal fire insurance conversions. In it, he points out how many evangelicals say, “I am saved” but don’t walk the talk; he was particularly alarmed by the high divorce rate among evangelicals. So, we are all right to be concerned about what may communicated as a “walk to the altar; now that you are cleansed, do as you like.” While I think this is not at the core of evangelical values, I cannot deny that this goes on. It’s not biblical.
On the other hand, I think you should be equally cautious that we don’t create a legalistic theology, where God sits with a ledger and counts your good deeds to determine if you have made the cut. This does not create anxiety for believers, but it can potential develop into arrogance as people start wearing their good works as badges of entitlement.
To avoid both of these pitfalls, I think we should embrace a view, which I believe is totally biblical, that says that we are saved by grace when we believe in Christ’s redemptive work and submit to his Lordship. Faith and works are inextricably connected and when we try to separate them we get ourselves into trouble. Works in themselves have no redemptive power. You cannot bring your good works to the Father without faith in the cross of Christ. That is boasting in your works. However, you cannot bring the cross of Christ to the Father without having obeyed the Son. As I have said before, Jesus will respond, “I never knew you.”
I attend services every Sunday. I once missed a Sunday morning because I was sick, but later on I went to another church, which offered evening worship. I don’t do this out of fear of going to Hell, or out of a sense of obligation (although I know I am obliged to do this), but rather because I love the Lord, and I am eager to worship Him.
Kendy
K
Kendy
Guest
Oh, I think the word “commandment” pretty well sums it up. I don’t tell God, "well, it depends upon the meaning of the word ‘commandment’…"
Well, words like “sexual relations,” “is,” and “commandments” often require clarification
I don’t know what you mean by “points”. Are you saying that when we die, our “good points” are weighed against our “bad points” and that is what determines where we spend eternity? I’m not trying to be confrontational, by the way: I’m just seeking clarification.
I am saying that protestants, myself included, get this vision when catholics talk about works. This may not be fair of your view, but neither is walk to the altar, now you’re done an accurate view of evangelical theology. I listen protestant radio often and most of the programs are designed to instruct believers on living a Christian life…ie. doing good works.
Then you have a fairly Catholic idea of salvation.
So, I have been told
Kendy
Well, words like “sexual relations,” “is,” and “commandments” often require clarification
I don’t know what you mean by “points”. Are you saying that when we die, our “good points” are weighed against our “bad points” and that is what determines where we spend eternity? I’m not trying to be confrontational, by the way: I’m just seeking clarification.
I am saying that protestants, myself included, get this vision when catholics talk about works. This may not be fair of your view, but neither is walk to the altar, now you’re done an accurate view of evangelical theology. I listen protestant radio often and most of the programs are designed to instruct believers on living a Christian life…ie. doing good works.
Then you have a fairly Catholic idea of salvation.
So, I have been told
Kendy
J
jpete79
Guest
Hey Red:
I want to thank you for having an open-mindedness to listen to what is being said. Even if you don’t agree with every nook and cranny of our beliefs (Sola Scriptura, etc) asking us to interpret according to Scripture is truly showing a great love for a brother to understand him better (or her if it is a sister).
Now, you want me to address the Prodigal Son which I will do for you. Straight from Scripture with nothing else.
Also, I’ll show you how I interpret to show you that I don’t read with any type of goggles but I use the text literally.
The first thing I do is see who is speaking and who is being spoken to and the circumstances of the speaker.
Christ himself is the speaker. The crowd he is with is sinners, tax collectors and the Pharisees (who are questioning why he is with sinners and tax-collectors). Now why would these people crowd around Christ to hear him talk? Because the sinners see his love and the Pharisees question his authority. I heard a great quote that says, “Christ makes the uncomfortable comfortable and the comfortable uncomfortable.” This is what this parable does.
Now what is a parable. It is a story to make someone understand a harder concept. Christ spoke in parables so the simplest minds could understand what he was saying.
OK, so now we see who’s talking, who’s being talked to and the circumstances behind it. Let’s go straight to the parable itself.
There was a man who had two sons. I don’t think there will be any disagreement with who the man was. The father is Abba, God.
Next we look at the two sons. First, we see one who asked for his share of the estate only to squander it later. This is representative of sinners of the world. Christ is talking to sinners who have walked away with the father’s inheritance and squandered it. This is the first group he is talking to. Just as God created us and gave us certain grace, we have walked away disobedient squandering everything he gave us.
Verse 17 is the key part of this because it shows the transformation of the younger son. He realizes that he has sinned against his father and heaven. He realizes that he is no longer worthy to be called his father’s child. Again this is pointed towards the sinners telling them that repentence is needed for the reunion between father and son, between God and us.
Next we see in verse 20 that his father was compassionate when he saw his son. He welcomed him back with open arms. This is how God welcomes us back. This is a great visual of God. If God were not a loving Father we would not be able to get a chance to repent before Him. This is where grace comes in before repentence. We couldn’t repent without God’s grace.
Now the son finally repents to his father. He shows that he is not worthy of his father just as we are not worthy of God. Just as the sinners Christ is speaking to are not worthy of God.
After this we see Christ tell of the father celebrating his reunion with his son. They have a feast, they drape him with robes, they kill the best calves for food; why? Because his son was lost and now is found.
Remember at this point, sinners and tax-collectors were still learning about Christ (the crowd he is talking to). This parable is talking about the original reunion between us and God. Our original inheritance which was squandered in the Garden of Eden. Christ is saying if we repent, God will welcome us back and celebrate us. We were dead to sin but we can be reborn through repentence because Christ knew he would be dying so that our inheritance can be regained.
Now we come to the older brother. He is bitter and angry and refused to go in to the banquet in celebration of his younger brother. The older brother is representative of the second group Christ was talking to which is the Pharisees. They don’t understand the concept of grace because to them life was about laws and obeying orders. Finally we see again why there is celebration for the lost son. Because he was dead and is now found.
The parable shows how sinners come to God and how people who tried living through only obedience are missing love. If you don’t agree that’s fine but there is nothing but Scripture in my interpretation.
I want to thank you for having an open-mindedness to listen to what is being said. Even if you don’t agree with every nook and cranny of our beliefs (Sola Scriptura, etc) asking us to interpret according to Scripture is truly showing a great love for a brother to understand him better (or her if it is a sister).
Now, you want me to address the Prodigal Son which I will do for you. Straight from Scripture with nothing else.
Also, I’ll show you how I interpret to show you that I don’t read with any type of goggles but I use the text literally.
The first thing I do is see who is speaking and who is being spoken to and the circumstances of the speaker.
Christ himself is the speaker. The crowd he is with is sinners, tax collectors and the Pharisees (who are questioning why he is with sinners and tax-collectors). Now why would these people crowd around Christ to hear him talk? Because the sinners see his love and the Pharisees question his authority. I heard a great quote that says, “Christ makes the uncomfortable comfortable and the comfortable uncomfortable.” This is what this parable does.
Now what is a parable. It is a story to make someone understand a harder concept. Christ spoke in parables so the simplest minds could understand what he was saying.
OK, so now we see who’s talking, who’s being talked to and the circumstances behind it. Let’s go straight to the parable itself.
There was a man who had two sons. I don’t think there will be any disagreement with who the man was. The father is Abba, God.
Next we look at the two sons. First, we see one who asked for his share of the estate only to squander it later. This is representative of sinners of the world. Christ is talking to sinners who have walked away with the father’s inheritance and squandered it. This is the first group he is talking to. Just as God created us and gave us certain grace, we have walked away disobedient squandering everything he gave us.
Verse 17 is the key part of this because it shows the transformation of the younger son. He realizes that he has sinned against his father and heaven. He realizes that he is no longer worthy to be called his father’s child. Again this is pointed towards the sinners telling them that repentence is needed for the reunion between father and son, between God and us.
Next we see in verse 20 that his father was compassionate when he saw his son. He welcomed him back with open arms. This is how God welcomes us back. This is a great visual of God. If God were not a loving Father we would not be able to get a chance to repent before Him. This is where grace comes in before repentence. We couldn’t repent without God’s grace.
Now the son finally repents to his father. He shows that he is not worthy of his father just as we are not worthy of God. Just as the sinners Christ is speaking to are not worthy of God.
After this we see Christ tell of the father celebrating his reunion with his son. They have a feast, they drape him with robes, they kill the best calves for food; why? Because his son was lost and now is found.
Remember at this point, sinners and tax-collectors were still learning about Christ (the crowd he is talking to). This parable is talking about the original reunion between us and God. Our original inheritance which was squandered in the Garden of Eden. Christ is saying if we repent, God will welcome us back and celebrate us. We were dead to sin but we can be reborn through repentence because Christ knew he would be dying so that our inheritance can be regained.
Now we come to the older brother. He is bitter and angry and refused to go in to the banquet in celebration of his younger brother. The older brother is representative of the second group Christ was talking to which is the Pharisees. They don’t understand the concept of grace because to them life was about laws and obeying orders. Finally we see again why there is celebration for the lost son. Because he was dead and is now found.
The parable shows how sinners come to God and how people who tried living through only obedience are missing love. If you don’t agree that’s fine but there is nothing but Scripture in my interpretation.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Great quote! So why are you comfortably assured of your salvation?
S
Sherlock
Guest
Wow! Now you’re really starting to sound like a Catholic…
I’m in agreement with most of what you say here. One (small) comment on your last sentence: as we mature in our faith, yes, we go to Mass because we WANT to: to receive our Lord in the Eucharist is a great gift that we avail ourselves of freely and with love, and we are thankful for the opportunity to worship our Loving Father. But, there are times, either because of spiritual immaturity or spiritual dryness, when the value of an obligation becomes clear, as even if we go out of duty when the “feelings” aren’t there, we go. This helps in the formation of virtuous habits. Though I am a pretty on-fire Catholic, I distinctly remember one time this past year when I went to Mass while on a weekend trip out of town (even though it was a bother because the church had moved the Mass to a local park as part of a celebration there), precisely because I knew I had the obligation and shouldn’t try to wiggle out of it. That is doing something because I SHOULD do it, but doing it did me good, and of course I ended up getting a great deal out of the Mass (you might say that God rewarded my grudging obedience to His commandments).
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Thank you jpete for explaining your view of the Prodigal son. I do have a serious question. (My question posted above was also serious, but in a fun-loving, playful kind of way.)
jpete79:
You say the first group represents the sinners of the world whose inheritance was squandered in the garden of Eden. Yet if the inheritance was squandered in Eden, why aren’t the pharisees included with those sinners whose original inheritance was squandered in Eden since everyone’s “inheritance” was lost in the Fall?
K
Kendy
Guest
I think I sound totally vineyardWow! Now you’re really starting to sound like a Catholic…
I’m in agreement with most of what you say here. One (small) comment on your last sentence: as we mature in our faith, yes, we go to Mass because we WANT to: to receive our Lord in the Eucharist is a great gift that we avail ourselves of freely and with love, and we are thankful for the opportunity to worship our Loving Father. But, there are times, either because of spiritual immaturity or spiritual dryness, when the value of an obligation becomes clear, as even if we go out of duty when the “feelings” aren’t there, we go. This helps in the formation of virtuous habits. Though I am a pretty on-fire Catholic, I distinctly remember one time this past year when I went to Mass while on a weekend trip out of town (even though it was a bother because the church had moved the Mass to a local park as part of a celebration there), precisely because I knew I had the obligation and shouldn’t try to wiggle out of it. That is doing something because I SHOULD do it, but doing it did me good, and of course I ended up getting a great deal out of the Mass (you might say that God rewarded my grudging obedience to His commandments).
.Ok, here’s another example, my mom likes to be called twice a week. She is noy going to stop being my mom if I don’t call her this week, but it will make her a little sad. Yes, sometimes, I am not in the mood but I call her because I love her not some dreaded fear that she will disown me. On the other hand, if I never called my mom, I would have a hard time trying to convince someone that I do love her.
So, it’s ok to go to Mass because you should. I just don’t think it’s ok to go to mass to earn your salvation.
Kendy
K
Kendy
Guest
Now, I always interpreted that story as jews (stayed at home) and gentiles (prodigal son).
But still I am not sure that it proves or disproves OSAS. When the prodigal son was out squandering his father wealth, he was still a son. He didn’t have to become a son again. But now, he was no longer a rebellious son. A rebellious son is still a son.
Kendy
- Status