Question for our Protestant friends

[billt9]

I want to post in support of Lyle on this issue. Salvation is the free gift of God. If I have to choose it, it is no longer free. I believe that redemption is costly and nothing we do can affect it–not even making a decision. I also believe that God is sovereign and always gets His way. If He wants to redeem somebody, there is no way that person can choose against Him.

I just can’t imagine the creator of the universe sitting on His throne wringing His hands and saying, “I really wanted Lyle in heaven, but he chose against me. Now what do I do?” No way. God cannot be thwarted by man’s puny “free will”.

We can thwart his will if God allows us to, He allowed Adam and Eve, and he allows everyone of us to accept or reject his gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

I want to post in support of Lyle on this issue. Salvation is the free gift of God. If I have to choose it, it is no longer free. I believe that redemption is costly and nothing we do can affect it–not even making a decision. I also believe that God is sovereign and always gets His way. If He wants to redeem somebody, there is no way that person can choose against Him.

I just can’t imagine the creator of the universe sitting on His throne wringing His hands and saying, “I really wanted Lyle in heaven, but he chose against me. Now what do I do?” No way. God cannot be thwarted by man’s puny “free will”.

You are confusing “redemption” with “salvation”. All of mankind was redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice, even those who do not know him or have rejected him, but not all will be saved. When the young man asked Jesus "“Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”, Jesus responed with "“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” He had to do something.

Salvation requires a response to grace. We must say yes not only with our mouths but with our lives and that requires feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc…

 

[Anna_Scott]

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Jesus is speaking of spiritual matters, not physical matters. Therefor the meaning is not literal.
This contradicts Jesus statement that the Spirit is life and the flesh counts for nothing.
If it is not digested and absorbed then how does it nourish and refresh? Literal flesh and blood are digested and absorbed.

Claiming the flesh of Christ counts for nothing not only misrepresents the Real Presence; but also makes the Incarnation of Christ, and all that He accomplished through being fully God and fully man, pointless. Very dangerous line of reasoning.

Anna

 

[rursus]

My dear friends in Christ

Luke 2:11 …

Luke 19: 8-10 …

Luke 23:43 …

Do these passages form the FOUNDATION for Protestant beliefs that Christ has done all that is necessary for “any and ALL believers” and that their salvation is by these passages assured?

Of course not. However, is this a sola fide question? If so, sola fide (faith alone salvages) is just a pragmatic catchphrase trying to express that works is never enough for salvation, Gods saving power is always needed, but for God to be able to save, faith is needed. The pragmatics behind it is that the believer should not linger upon whether the work is pleasing God enough for salvation to be effective, but do the good works for its own sake and importance. The believer should also rest assured, that as long as the mind is directed towards God in belief, the salvation is granted, and there should not be any uncertainty of that. Taken out of context sola fide could be reinterpreted as “works doesn’t matter”. That is an incorrect interpretation. In theory a correct faith should lead to good works for the sake of the good works.

Edit: “pragmatics” means circa “practical problem solving” in a deeper philosophical sense.

 

[stevekehl]

Hi Steve,

Please respond to post number 50.

I’m looking for quotes from early church writers that support your biblical view of John 6. The bible has to be understood in light of the Tradition from which it came…what did the Church believe: The Church believed in the Real Presence…

There is only one path here…however, suggest another one if you’d like

Jesus taught the Real Presence to the apostles…the wine and bread becoming his real flesh and blood
The apostles then taught their successors (this includes John teaching St Ingatius)
Their successors taught their successors who taught their successors

This is Tradition. This Tradition is reflected it the Church writings in post 50. From this tradition came the bible including John putting his oral treaching into the written Gospel. Tradition and the sacred written Word of God are consistent.

You can believe Jesus was speaking symbolically but then you are following a man made tradition that started in the 16th century.

God Bless,

Pork

First, your quotes only serve to prove that not all early Christians accepted the idea of transubstantiation. If everyone accepted it there is no reason to write about it.
Second, as a monolithic church developed those that disagreed were suppressed their teachings and practices no longer preserved. In some cases this was good, in others who knows what traditions died under the larger church rule.

 

[Porknpie]

First, your quotes only serve to prove that not all early Christians accepted the idea of transubstantiation. If everyone accepted it there is no reason to write about it.
Second, as a monolithic church developed those that disagreed were suppressed their teachings and practices no longer preserved. In some cases this was good, in others who knows what traditions died under the larger church rule.

Steve,

So you believe and are inferring as the Mormons do that there was an apostasy … that the apostles could not hand down the teachings of Christ correctly and lost the true faith taught by Christ. And, you are then implying that Christ errored in saying that he’d send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all Truth, the Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. This Church in your view immediately errored and “suppressed” the Truth.

Why would the Church suppress the Truth?

In what year did it do so?

Where are the writings of those who disagreed with the Church on this subject?

In what early Church council was this debated?

Recommend reading Brandt Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.