Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[Lincoln7]

IggyAntiochus,

Well I’m sure Luther can be a blessing for me on where I look for assurance.

However, the difficulties one can have surrounding these things wont make me conclude they are not accurate reflections of what scripture states.

Peace

Lincs.

 

[TertiumQuid]

So, therefore, these understandings of the Scriptures will then produce and endless and unquenchable desire to prove that one is among the elect.

Speaking as a Calvinist,. each day I wake up and find myself in love with my wife. I don’t have an endless and unquenchable desire to prove that she loves me.

No analogy is perfect.

I have a simple faith in the promises of God, even on those days when I might not “feel” saved, I still take God at his word (Romans 5).

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Speaking as a Calvinist,. each day I wake up and find myself in love with my wife. I don’t have an endless and unquenchable desire to prove that she loves me.

No analogy is perfect.

True, but that is because her statements and actions to you that she loves you are satisfactory. No one has come along and introduced the idea that her statements of affection towards you might not apply to you unless you can somehow subjectively demonstrate that you truly love her in return.

If someone did, you might be tempted to write a book called The Marital Affections.

I have a simple faith in the promises of God, even on those days when I might not “feel” saved, I still take God at his word (Romans 5).

And I am sure that that is enough for you, and it should be, for every Christian for assurance. Unfortunately, the intuitive leaps of logic offered by Calvinism have introduced the idea that those promises aren’t for everyone, with no objective criteria for how they apply to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Speaking as a Calvinist,. each day I wake up and find myself in love with my wife. I don’t have an endless and unquenchable desire to prove that she loves me.

No analogy is perfect.

I have a simple faith in the promises of God, even on those days when I might not “feel” saved, I still take God at his word (Romans 5).

Except for the fact that there are those who we call the “faux believers”–those who think they’re saved but actually aren’t.

That puts a real obstacle in the assurance of salvation camp.

 

[Lincoln7]

Except for the fact that there are those who we call the “faux believers”–those who think they’re saved but actually aren’t.

That puts a real obstacle in the assurance of salvation camp.

It’s already been stated that assurance isn’t always going to be there… However the Christians assurance comes from looking at the finished work of Christ.
Of course there are those who will fall into this false assurance camp; “not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord…” But if your premise is that because some can give themselves a false assurance, there can be therefore no genuine assurance based upon looking to Jesus Christ alone and the testimony of the spirit within to true Christains, born again, I can’t, with respect, accept that.

Peace

Lincs

 

[TertiumQuid]

True, but that is because her statements and actions to you that she loves you are satisfactory.

As are the promises of God and work of Christ.

No one has come along and introduced the idea that her statements of affection towards you might not apply to you unless you can somehow subjectively demonstrate that you truly love her in return. If someone did, you might be tempted to write a book called The Marital Affections.

I’m not entirely sure what you are saying, but if by “subjectively demonstrate” I must need prove my love for my wife, I think you’re on to something in that I have a natural affection for her, and there’s a natural tendency to listen to her and love her. By analogy, I have an affection for the promises of Scripture and the work of Christ. Is it a perfect affection? No. I don’t expect it to be so this side of eternity. Regardless, this natural affection isn’t meritorious. It’s simply a natural response to the goodness of God.

And I am sure that that is enough for you, and it should be, for every Christian for assurance.

I’m not sure what your particular standard in evaluating the claims of Reformed theology are, but for reference, I ascribe to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession of Faith. Those confessions will make reference to what is meant by faith, works, and perseverance.

Unfortunately, the intuitive leaps of logic offered by Calvinism have introduced the idea that those promises aren’t for everyone, with no objective criteria for how they apply to you.

There is indeed an objective criteria, the Scriptures themselves. As to how the promises are “for me”: I take God at his word.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s already been stated that assurance isn’t always going to be there…

I understand your position, Lincs. My question, then, is of what import does this have in the life of a Christian?

You mentioned that this is a pastoral and not a theological issue; thus, am I correct in assuming that your answer to the question of a fellow parishioner of “Am I saved?” would be, “Not sure. Go talk about it with the pastor.”

Is this a correct assessment of your position?

 

[PRmerger]

There is indeed an objective criteria, the Scriptures themselves. As to how the promises are “for me”: I take God at his word.

The Scriptures cannot be objective criteria, Tertium.

Firstly, this is a non-biblical position, for the Scriptures do not claim to be so.

Secondly, the Scriptures proclaim that they are difficult to understand, and thus, cannot be objective criteria.

Thirdly, if it were true that they are “objective”, by definition, then, each and every Christian who comes to the Scriptures would come to the same interpretations.

The existence of tens of thousands of different denominations, each claiming to have Scripture as their guide, speaks to the fallacy of the objectivity of Scripture.

 

[Lincoln7]

I understand your position, Lincs. My question, then, is of what import does this have in the life of a Christian?

You mentioned that this is a pastoral and not a theological issue; thus, am I correct in assuming that your answer to the question of a fellow parishioner of “Am I saved?” would be, “Not sure. Go talk about it with the pastor.”

Is this a correct assessment of your position?

It’s import in my life? Well it helps me to look externally to Christ and his work on my behalf as complete, finished and saving. It is finished, it helps the Christian to avoid any forms of plagiarism or a works based system of salvation… Just some of my musings.

I will probably recant my pastoral comment, looking back I would have answered differently. My answer to the question would more likely be “saved from what?” Then proceeding to explain to them their utter need for Jesus Christ, and his perfect finished work on their behalf.

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Plaigarism??

Meant: Pelagianism

My spell check does not like Pelagianism it seems…

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s import in my life? Well it helps me to look externally to Christ and his work on my behalf as complete, finished and saving. It is finished, it helps the Christian to avoid any forms of plagiarism or a works based system of salvation… Just some of my musings.

I will probably recant my pastoral comment, looking back I would have answered differently. My answer to the question would more likely be “saved from what?” Then proceeding to explain to them their utter need for Jesus Christ, and his perfect finished work on their behalf.

Lincs

Ah, I see.

Then I’m not sure what your argument is, then, with the Catholic position? Do you think that something that we proclaim speaks to something other than an “utter need for Jesus Christ and his perfect, finished work on our behalf”?

 

[PRmerger]

Plaigarism??

Meant: Pelagianism

My spell check does not like Pelagianism it seems…

Lincs.

Heh. I think we have to catechize this very secular microsoft Spell-Check into including theological concepts.

Funny. As I typed “microsoft” the spell check does not recognize it. Ironic, no?

 

[Lincoln7]

Ah, I see.

Then I’m not sure what your argument is, then, with the Catholic position? Do you think that something that we proclaim speaks to something other than an “utter need for Jesus Christ and his perfect, finished work on our behalf”?

I don’t want to find disagreement for the sake of it, but for example I look to Jesus’ finished work for me, his paying of my debt, his rising to life and rising me with him and that’s my summit of assurance… To quote Teritum Quid I take God at his word. I know I have peace with God through Jesus Christ. A lasting one.

If we can broadly agree here, then I won’t look for argument. But I’d say given Rome’s view on Eucharistic sacrifice as being propitiatory, being needed to forgive my sins, the there will be a difference. Christ having paid all my sins, means God won’t count them to me. Peace with God. If your theology states you can lose your right standing before God tonight even through sin, and have to go through a system to get back in again, I find it hard to see where the peace is…

All with respect, genuine thoughts.

Peace

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Heh. I think we have to catechize this very secular microsoft Spell-Check into including theological concepts.

Funny. As I typed “microsoft” the spell check does not recognize it. Ironic, no?

I’m on IOS 5! Its not that it doesn’t recognise, but replaces words automatically it thinks are more likely, I suppose in most cases plagiarism is used more than Pelagianism…

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t want to find disagreement for the sake of it, but for example I look to Jesus’ finished work for me, his paying of my debt, his rising to life and rising me with him and that’s my summit of assurance… To quote Teritum Quid I take God at his word. I know I have peace with God through Jesus Christ. A lasting one.

And this is all very Catholic!

But I’d say given Rome’s view on Eucharistic sacrifice as being propitiatory, being needed to forgive my sins, the there will be a difference. Christ having paid all my sins, means God won’t count them to me.

Then how do you reconcile Paul’s warning about being cut off from the branch, after one has been “grafted in”?
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 11:17-24[/BIBLEDRB]

I ask you, Lincs, why Paul tells believers to have “fear”, and why he states that God can re-graft saved Christians?

If your theology states you can lose your right standing before God tonight even through sin, and have to go through a system to get back in again, I find it hard to see where the peace is…

All with respect, genuine thoughts.

Peace

Lincs.

Not sure what you mean by “go through a system”?

 

[cloudman]

Well, he *does *have lots of titles in Catholic circles. In fact, in my particular circle he has an entire church and 480-student body school that does him honor–we attend St. Paul parish and my children attend St. Paul Catholic School. There’s a city in Minnesota named for him with millions (?) of citizens. AND, the Vatican offered an ENTIRE YEAR in his honor!

But I suspect that this is not really your issue–you are really objecting to the** other **titles of Mary, now that we have put to rest your original objection to the Catholic belief that Mary is co-redeemer and mediatrix of all graces ((only in that she is actually winning souls to the Lord. From a Catholic perspective, Mary is simply an instrument in the hand of God, right?)

So what other titles of Mary do you object to?

Jeremiah 44 makes me quite uncomfortable with referring to Mary as Queen of Heaven. There is just a lot surrounding the CC’s teaching on Mary that makes me quite uncomfortable. The Pope’s recent comments with respect to Mary making the land of Cuba beautiful really makes me uncomfortable as well. There are just so many attributes that I would consider to be divine that are ascribed to Mary. Creator is one of those attributes, and Mary has the ability to make the land of Cuba beautiful???

I know that the CC’s teaching is that Mary is not to be worshiped, but then I find the CC asking people to view Mary in ways that strike me as worshipful. I pray to Christ. I depend on Christ for my salvation. I go to Christ when I need rest and comfort. In Christ I have all I need for salvation.

Then I see Catholicism teach that we should pray to Mary…that we should depend on Mary for our salvation…that we should live in Mary…that we should find rest and peace in Mary…that we should ask Mary to keep us from evil…that we should have a personal relationship with Mary…

I get uncomfortable with Mariology because I fail to see how Mary simply being an instrument of God actually translates into practice. The CC may teach in theory that Mary is simply an instrument of God, but then there seems to be discrepancy between theory and practice.

 

[PRmerger]

Jeremiah 44 makes me quite uncomfortable with referring to Mary as Queen of Heaven. There is just a lot surrounding the CC’s teaching on Mary that makes me quite uncomfortable.

Here’s a great article that might help you:
“Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?” found here:
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea2.asp

 

[PRmerger]

Jeremiah 44 makes me quite uncomfortable with referring to Mary as Queen of Heaven. There is just a lot surrounding the CC’s teaching on Mary that makes me quite uncomfortable.

Incidentally, cloudman, you do know that the Great Apostle Paul tells us that we ourselves are kings (and queens!). (You are already filled, you have already become rich, **you have become kings **without us–1 Cor 4:8)

So why do we get to be queens, but Jesus’ own mother cannot be?

The Pope’s recent comments with respect to Mary making the land of Cuba beautiful really makes me uncomfortable as well. There are just so many attributes that I would consider to be divine that are ascribed to Mary. Creator is one of those attributes, and Mary has the ability to make the land of Cuba beautiful???

I don’t see how that’s any worse that Paul saying that HE saves us.

It’s all understood in light of the power and authority of God, yes?

I know that the CC’s teaching is that Mary is not to be worshiped, but then I find the CC asking people to view Mary in ways that strike me as worshipful. I pray to Christ. I depend on Christ for my salvation. I go to Christ when I need rest and comfort. In Christ I have all I need for salvation.

When you ask for my prayers, are you worshipping me, cloudman?

When we ask for Mary’s prayers, we are not worshipping her any more than you do when you put your prayers into the Prayer Chain at your church.

Then I see Catholicism teach that we should pray to Mary…that we should depend on Mary for our salvation…that we should live in Mary…that we should find rest and peace in Mary…that we should ask Mary to keep us from evil…that we should have a personal relationship with Mary…

No worse than Paul saying HE saves, right?

I get uncomfortable with Mariology because I fail to see how Mary simply being an instrument of God actually translates into practice. The CC may teach in theory that Mary is simply an instrument of God, but then there seems to be discrepancy between theory and practice.

Then you ought to speak to those Catholics whose practice is worshipful (as it appears to you*), rather than objecting to the teaching by the Church.

*NB: One cannot assume that a Catholic is worshipping Mary; rather one ought to ask him, “It appears as if you are worshipping this statue of Mary. Are you?”

For kneeling down before an object does not necessarily mean that one is worshipping it, right?

 

[batman1973]

I must say, I enjoyed reading the back and forth between Gary and Lincs. That was a real learning experience! (earlier in this thread) While I agree more with Lincs posts than Gary’s, I learned much more than expected. Thanks to you both.

 

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,

Then how do you reconcile Paul’s warning about being cut off from the branch, after one has been “grafted in”?

The passage in context here clearly is referring to the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the church. The ‘Natural Branches’ Paul speaks of clearly refers to the nation of Israel, with Gentiles being compared to the ‘wild olive’, Paul is warning these Gentiles not to boast in their place as in the Church, and to take care not to fall into unbelief otherwise they too will be cut off. He speaks of Jews by birth who do not continue in unbelief against the Messiah as being able to be grafted into Gods people.
Paul has already established in Chapter 8:30 that Justification of the a believer will lead inevitably to their final glorification.
“Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.” - provided they continue in his kindness… Which can only be done by Grace, the saints will persevere as it is Gods pleasure to bring them to himself, as is shown in 8:30, 1 Corinthians 1:8: “who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” or Romans 5:9: “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” The passage thus in context of Romans and Paul’s theology, speaks of Jewish and Gentile relations, of both as part of Gods kingdom on earth, neither can boast, the elect will persevere, their sins dealt with on the cross, the glorification assured.

I ask you, Lincs, why Paul tells believers to have “fear”, and why he states that God can re-graft saved Christians?

It is right to fear God, nothing in this is opposed to my theology. I have already addressed Paul’s comments on grafting above.

Not sure what you mean by “go through a system”?

As in Confession, pennance, Eucharist… Rather than the Protestant perspective: one offering of Jesus for all sins, no more propitiatory sacrifice. In the Eucharist instead, a feeding upon Christ, Him offering Himself to us, not us offering Him to the Father.

Regards

Lincs