Reading Scripture together as Christians

[guanophore]

I want to make sure that you understand that Calvinism shouldn’t drive my understanding of the Scriptures.

I know you would like to believe that. However you were “driven” to it, you now look at scripture from a Calvanistic viewpoint.

But, I do wear a pair of Calvinistic glasses without looking at commentaries in our discussions.

Thank you for your honesty in this matter.

I have no loyalty to Calvinism but find it to be the most faithful to the Scriptures at this point of my pilgrimage. I did pick another Catholic to choose the next book, but he never returned after his first post. I don’t think he knew what he was getting himself into. Some Catholics really do not want to read Scripture with Protestants… maybe we will contiminate their thinking?

I suppose it might, if a person is weak in their faith. You wonm’t find many Catholics like that here, though. Personally I am more put off by the not so secret anti-Catholic agenda that underlies the so called “study”.

It will be a great blessing. When you debate the Mormon Christians, will you use Scripture or Sacred Tradition? You will have fun debating authority and apostolic succession with them.

Personally I don’t find it a blessing, or fun. Perhaps I am just not called to that particular ministry.

I am overcome with sadness, often, about the depth of the darkness.

29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, 30 engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

We know salvation is a process… pressing ahead… and not fully obtain… we haven’t been rescused from this body of death in fullness… because we struggle with indwelling sin, right?

We would say that the struggle is with the sin nature, not sin itself. To be temped is not, of itself, a sin. It is the tendency toward sin, what the Latins call concupiscence, and Protestants usually call “the sin nature” against which we struggle in our selves.

To understand Protestant comments, you have to understand our mindset

I think this is very true. I think it equally applies to understanding “Roman” Catholicism. What I am asking of you is that you set your preconceived notions on the back burner, and use this opportunity to try to understand our mindset as we are trying to understand yours.

I understand the mindset of Roman Catholics with justification being final upon your copperation with the grace of God at the end of your pilgrimage. The Roman Catholic in he aparent fear is more worried about entering Heaven, in his transformaton process.

It may seem this way to you, but this is a very narrow understanding of the Catholic perception.

Catholics believe we are justified by grace, through faith. This occurs at baptism, when we are sealed by the HS, and adopted as children of the father. We believe that saving faith is faith that works, and that it is our spiritual worship to bear works that befit repentance. If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we will shed all sins.

I agree that there are CAtholics that don’t understand the faith, and do live in fear, but this is not Catholic teaching.
Reformed;4299942:

We finally come full circle to our division and the Protestant Reformation.

No. Actually, rebellion against corruption had more to do with it.

You have been taught to believe a lie about justification being the heart of our division. It is not. The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. Those words, as well as those in Rom 3 & 4 were written by a Catholic. They represent Catholic doctrine, which has not changed.

You believe this because you don’t understand what Catholicism teaches.

You must have come here for a reason. Perhaps it was your plan to convert us “Romans” into Reformed believers? If you find that you cannot do that, then what?

What will happen if you really come to realize that Catholics are justified by grace, through faith?

 

[cfrancis]

Here’s the problem. If you cannot supply me with the deposit of faith that was once for all delivered to the Saints, then we have an on-going source of revelation. I am aiming at a moving target.

You’re missing the point. We - Catholics and you - believe the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in Scripture. Yet the words we use - Three Divine Persons in Divine Being - are not found in Scripture; in fact, there is no doctrinal statement - a “laying out” - of the Trninty. The development of what is contained in Scripture is part of Tradition.
No one (at least I think no one) believes the embodiment of the doctrine of the Trinity was new public revelation through two councils and almost 400 years.

Sacred Tradition and the claim of apostolic succession will always put the Magestrium’s authority over and above everything else. The Faith for a Catholic is believing what the Catholic Church tells them to believe because of this authority claim.

I suppose, at the basest level, this is true, just as it’s true your faith is based upon what you tell yourself as your own authority to interpret Scripture. You believe you have infallibly interpretted Scripture; Catholics believe the Church has done so. You believe the Holy Spirit is working through you when you interpret Scripture; we believe the Holy Spirit is working through the Church (and can work through us, too.)
Yet I still believe you are being intellectual dishonest on this point, and I base that perception on your evading the issue of the canon of Scripture.
On the one hand, you claim you accept thatTradition; on the other, you claim all Tradition you would accept must be checked against Scripture.
Yet you have not produced any Scripture to support your belief in the canon.

It nullifies the light of the Scriptures (IMO). You can actually watch this played out in the testimonies of Protestant converts like Scott Hahn. The source of final authority will always drive what someone believes. Do you agree with my conclusion?

No, I do not agree the Catholic position nullifies Scripture; I wholehearetedly believe the Church adores the Word - all of the Word - and is based firmly on Scripture.

Jude 1:3

Judgment on False Teachers
3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
This verse probably doesn’t mean much to a Roman Catholic Christian. All you can defend is apparent apostolic succession.

You’ve used this verse before, I just can’t let it pass again.
According to your logic, by this verse, the epistle of Jude itself is not part of the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” as the letter, as of its writing, hadn’t been delivered to the saints, and probably didn’t circulate through all the church for years afterward.
Further, the consensus of NT dating has the Gospel of John, John’s Epistles, and Revelation being written after Jude.
Further, Jude doesn’t mention the mode of delivery, but we know it wasn’t all written, or all oral.
Bottom line, yes, a faith was once for all delivered, but the belief of a closed canon is not supported by Scripture, but by Tradition.

 

[sandusky]

If salvation is absolutely assured in his mind why would Paul hope? Because his hope is assured IF he perseveres to the end.

through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us.(Rom 2:2-5)

To claim that Paul doubted his salvation is, in my mind, equivalent to doubting that Jesus is the Christ.

Your church canonized Paul, for heaven’s sake. They have no doubt concerning his salvation, why should he have had doubt? Because of some a-contextual, apologetic arguments?

 

[cfrancis]

To claim that Paul doubted his salvation is, in my mind, equivalent to doubting that Jesus is the Christ.

Your church canonized Paul, for heaven’s sake. They have no doubt concerning his salvation, why should he have had doubt? Because of some a-contextual, apologetic arguments?

You’ve summed up the Protestant approach very well I’l lhave to remember those words!

 

[sandusky]

You’ve summed up the Protestant approach very well I’l lhave to remember those words!

Twisting my words, as guanophore would observe, "that’s very Catholic of you!

 

[cfrancis]

Twisting my words, as guanophore would observe, "that’s very Catholic of you!

How is what I did “twisting”? I used the exact same words, only applied to the Protestant position. I even cited you by quoting your statement and the source, so it’s not even plagarizing.

 

[cfrancis]

Romans 2:2-5 is another favorite out of context verse used as a staple by Roman Catholics, just like Phil 2:12 without 13, and James 2. Romans 2:2-5 goes with Romans chapter 1, the rest of Romans 2, 3, 4, and 5. , and 6, 7, 8, and 9… and even 10. The chapters are not inspired…it’s one letter in thought. Have you considered the commands of Paul in rightly dividing the Word of Truth and the warnings of the Apostle Peter in twisting the words of Paul?

Actually, what we’ve seen from you is the posting of entire chapters of Scripture without any comment, and then, when you begin to explain your own theology - rather, Calvin’s theology - you piecemeal Scripture.
The Catholics, on the other hand, use the entirety of Scripture - NT and OT.
It appears when you read Paul and “rightly dividing” Scripture, you interpretted him to mean “cut-and-paste” Scripture to meet your agenda.

 

[sandusky]

How is what I did “twisting”? I used the exact same words, only applied to the Protestant position. I even cited you by quoting your statement and the source, so it’s not even plagarizing.

Attempting to deny what you’ve done, IMO, also very Catholic.

 

[mikeledes]

I think you need a good private discussion with your Roman Catholic brother Michael. He is quite the Catholic Calvinist. If you believe salvation is 100% God, do you now embrace monergism as compared to synergism? You cannot have it both ways. BTW…you sound like my Arminian protestant brothers.

I prefer to consider myself Augustinian. Catholics believe in free will, but not in absolute free will. In other words, we don’t believe predestination to glory is God merely electing those whom He foresaw would chose Him. That means that when it comes to salvation, man has the absolute final say. And if man has aboslute free will, then what role does Divine providence play? We believe that God has providential control over the choices of man and yet those choices remain truly free.

Secondly, we believe that man in his natural state is unable to properly repent, believe, or love God. God must first enighten man’s minds and wills through grace in order to enable man to chose Him (i.e. antecedent or prevenient grace). So free will for us does not mean that man has the natural ability to chose God.

While we believe this grace is infallibly efficacious in God’s elect (those predestined to glory), we also believe that God moves man’s will and infallibly obtains the desired outcome and yet man’s will remains truly free.

Calvinists believe that sanctification is an essential aspect of salvation, thus rejecting the notion of a "carnal Christian, as the following Calvinist article indicates:

reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Sanctification.htm

And this article states the following:

This passage teaches that those who are justified are progressively made holy (subjectively) in order to be prepared to come into God’s presence. John Brown writes: “Without sincere, habitual devotedness to God through Christ Jesus, we can never attain the heavenly happiness; and that for two reasons: (1) Such is the unalterable determination of God; and (2) this unalterable determination of God is not an arbitrary arrangement, but corresponds with the nature of things. A person not sanctified, not devoted to God, is entirely unfit for celestial enjoyments.” (4) Without holiness no one will come into God’s presence.

“Carnal” Christianity argues that imputed righteousness and holiness is all that is needed for salvation. That being made ontologically holy is not necessary. Calvinists disagree and I completely agree with Calvinists that no one who isn’t made ontologically holy by God can enter into His presence because the Bible clearly states that only the “pure of heart” will see God and nothing impure will enter the heavenly Jerusalem. The impure and unholy cannot stand in the presence of an All Holy God.

Another Calvinist article states the following:

So the old theological shorthand that “we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved” applies here. Sanctification isn’t included in the “we have been saved” part of salvation, but it is synonymous with the “we are being saved” part. And without sanctification, there is no “we will be saved.” For as Heb. 12:14 teaches, "Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord."

How do I “Pursue . . . the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord”?

**Unlike regeneration, there is much Spirit-filled human effort involved in sanctification. On the one hand, “it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). “On the other hand,” we’re commanded in 1 Tim. 4:7, “discipline yourself for the purposes of godliness.” God uses means of grace to sanctify us, chief of which are the personal and corporate spiritual disciplines. In the personal realm, these include intake of God’s Word, prayer, private worship, fasting, silence and solitude, etc. These are balanced by disciplines we practice with the church: public worship, hearing God’s Word preached, observance of the ordinances, corporate prayer, fellowship, etc. **

spiritualdisciplines.org/prrole.html

So sanctification is clearly progressive in Calvinism and clearly involves cooperation with the Holy Spirit. In other words, its synergistic. In Calvinism, sanctification is as essential for entering God’s holy presence as justification, and yet Calvinist believe that this aspect of salvation is synergistic.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[cfrancis]

Attempting to deny what you’ve done, IMO, also very Catholic.

I’m sure you feel better now; that’s nice.
Such does not change the Protestant position: “a-contextual, apologetic arguments” to cite you, Sandusky.

 

[Reformed]

I prefer to consider myself Augustinian. Catholics believe in free will, but not in absolute free will. In other words, we don’t believe predestination to glory is God merely electing those whom He foresaw would chose Him. That means that when it comes to salvation, man has the absolute final say. And if man has aboslute free will, then what role does Divine providence play? We believe that God has providential control over the choices of man and yet those choices remain truly free.

Secondly, we believe that man in his natural state is unable to properly repent, believe, or love God. God must first enighten man’s minds and wills through grace in order to enable man to chose Him (i.e. antecedent or prevenient grace). So free will for us does not mean that man has the natural ability to chose God.

While we believe this grace is infallibly efficacious in God’s elect (those predestined to glory), we also believe that God moves man’s will and infallibly obtains the desired outcome and yet man’s will remains truly free.

Calvinists believe that sanctification is an essential aspect of salvation, thus rejecting the notion of a "carnal Christian, as the following Calvinist article indicates:

reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Sanctification.htm

And this article states the following:

This passage teaches that those who are justified are progressively made holy (subjectively) in order to be prepared to come into God’s presence. John Brown writes: “Without sincere, habitual devotedness to God through Christ Jesus, we can never attain the heavenly happiness; and that for two reasons: (1) Such is the unalterable determination of God; and (2) this unalterable determination of God is not an arbitrary arrangement, but corresponds with the nature of things. A person not sanctified, not devoted to God, is entirely unfit for celestial enjoyments.” (4) Without holiness no one will come into God’s presence.

“Carnal” Christianity argues that imputed righteousness and holiness is all that is needed for salvation. That being made ontologically holy is not necessary. Calvinists disagree and I completely agree with Calvinists that no one who isn’t made ontologically holy by God can enter into His presence because the Bible clearly states that only the “pure of heart” will see God and nothing impure will enter the heavenly Jerusalem. The impure and unholy cannot stand in the presence of an All Holy God.

Another Calvinist article states the following:

So the old theological shorthand that “we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved” applies here. Sanctification isn’t included in the “we have been saved” part of salvation, but it is synonymous with the “we are being saved” part. And without sanctification, there is no “we will be saved.” For as Heb. 12:14 teaches, "Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord."

How do I “Pursue . . . the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord”?

Unlike regeneration, there is much Spirit-filled human effort involved in sanctification. On the one hand, “it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). “On the other hand,” we’re commanded in 1 Tim. 4:7, “discipline yourself for the purposes of godliness.” God uses means of grace to sanctify us, chief of which are the personal and corporate spiritual disciplines. In the personal realm, these include intake of God’s Word, prayer, private worship, fasting, silence and solitude, etc. These are balanced by disciplines we practice with the church: public worship, hearing God’s Word preached, observance of the ordinances, corporate prayer, fellowship, etc.

spiritualdisciplines.org/prrole.html

So sanctification is clearly progressive in Calvinism and clearly involves cooperation with the Holy Spirit. In other words, its synergistic. In Calvinism, sanctification is as essential for entering God’s holy presence as justification, and yet Calvinist believe that this aspect of salvation is synergistic.

God Bless,
Michael

I think Michael and I are brothers in Christ. I wonder if he would say the same thing about me? Happy Halloween! Calvinists do not believe that sanctification is synergistic. Check out monergism.com.

http://www.nedramadeit.com/images/halloween04/halloween_dogs.jpg

Trick or treat?
Protestants should be celebrating on October 31.

 

[cfrancis]

I think Michael and I are brothers in Christ. I wonder if he would say the same thing about me? Happy Halloween! Calvinists do not believe that sanctification is synergistic. Check out monergism.com.

No thanks! I’ll stick with Scripture!

 

[Reformed]

No thanks! I’ll stick with Scripture!

I was just correcting Michael that Calvinists believe that all of salvation including sanctification is monergistic. Therefore, I referred him the the monergism site.

 

[sandusky]

I’m sure you feel better now; that’s nice.
Such does not change the Protestant position: “a-contextual, apologetic arguments” to cite you, Sandusky.

You glommed onto that one phrase, while ignoring the fact that when I supplied context to ryanoneil’s verses, it was shown that the verses were not saying what he claimed they were saying.

In addition, you church has canonized Paul. Clearly they’re sure of his salvation, why is that he should not have been? Is it because the church says that one can lose salvation, and therefore, can’t be sure? Not even if one is an apostle?

 

[mikeledes]

I think Michael and I are brothers in Christ. I wonder if he would say the same thing about me? Happy Halloween! Calvinists do not believe that sanctification is synergistic. Check out monergism.com.

http://www.nedramadeit.com/images/halloween04/halloween_dogs.jpg

Trick or treat?
Protestants should be celebrating on October 31.

Why wouldn’t I?

But they believe that man cooperates with the Holy Spirit in sanctification, right? Another Calvinist article states:

Sanctification is both a privilege and a duty. In the one view it is the work of God, and in the other it is the work of man, assisted by supernatural grace. As a privilege, it is graciously promised in the gospel. - Ezek. xxxvi. 27. As a duty, it is required by the law; hence we are called to “make” to ourselves a “new heart,” and to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” - Ezek. xviii. 31; 2 Cor. vii. 1.

reformed.org/documents/shaw/index.html?mainframe=/documents/shaw/shaw_13.html

BTW, that’s a nice picture.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Reformed]

Why wouldn’t I?

But they believe that man cooperates with the Holy Spirit in sanctification, right? Another Calvinist article states:

Sanctification is both a privilege and a duty. In the one view it is the work of God, and in the other it is the work of man, assisted by supernatural grace. As a privilege, it is graciously promised in the gospel. - Ezek. xxxvi. 27. As a duty, it is required by the law; hence we are called to “make” to ourselves a “new heart,” and to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” - Ezek. xviii. 31; 2 Cor. vii. 1.

reformed.org/documents/shaw/index.html?mainframe=/documents/shaw/shaw_13.html

BTW, that’s a nice picture.

God bless,
Michael

Okay… I’m not going to argue with you because my Sacred Tradition is monergism.com. BTW…where’s that famous quote by Augustine? I think I understand why you think Calvinists believe in synergism on sanctifiction. Because you have your semi-pelagius dark sunglasses on.

 

[cfrancis]

You glommed onto that one phrase, while ignoring the fact that when I supplied context to ryanoneil’s verses, it was shown that the verses were not saying what he claimed they were saying.

In addition, you church has canonized Paul. Clearly they’re sure of his salvation, why is that he should not have been? Is it because the church says that one can lose salvation, and therefore, can’t be sure? Not even if one is an apostle?

Judas was an Apostle…does he get your “you’re an Apostle so you are assured of heaven” pass?

 

[sandusky]

Judas was an Apostle…does he get your “you’re an Apostle so you are assured of heaven” pass?

Quibbling—Also very Catholic!

 

[cfrancis]

Quibbling—Also very Catholic!

Evading…not an unexpected response from you. You could actually address the issue!

In addition, you church has canonized Paul. Clearly they’re sure of his salvation, why is that he should not have been? Is it because the church says that one can lose salvation, and therefore, can’t be sure? Not even if one is an apostle?

Judas was an Apostle…does he get your “you’re an Apostle so you are assured of heaven” pass?

You brought it up…

 

[mikeledes]

Okay… I’m not going to argue with you because my Sacred Tradition is monergism.com. BTW…where’s that famous quote by Augustine? I think I understand why you think Calvinists believe in synergism on sanctifiction. Because you have your semi-pelagius dark sunglasses on.

I never said your Sacred Tradition is monergism.com? What quote are you referring to? And I don’t believe Calvinism have a synergistic understanding of sanctification because I have “semi-pelagius"dark glasses on.” The fact is that articles from monergism.com and other Calvinist websites made the following statements:

Sanctification is both a privilege and a duty. In the one view it is the work of God, and in the other it is the work of man, assisted by supernatural grace. As a privilege, it is graciously promised in the gospel. - Ezek. xxxvi. 27. As a duty, it is required by the law; hence we are called to “make” to ourselves a “new heart,” and to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” - Ezek. xviii. 31; 2 Cor. vii. 1.

**Unlike regeneration, there is much Spirit-filled human effort involved in sanctification. On the one hand, “it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). “On the other hand,” we’re commanded in 1 Tim. 4:7, “discipline yourself for the purposes of godliness.” God uses means of grace to sanctify us, chief of which are the personal and corporate spiritual disciplines. In the personal realm, these include intake of God’s Word, prayer, private worship, fasting, silence and solitude, etc. These are balanced by disciplines we practice with the church: public worship, hearing God’s Word preached, observance of the ordinances, corporate prayer, fellowship, etc. **

And another Calvinist article teaching the distinction between justification and sanctification states the following:

(**d) In sanctification our own works are of vast importance and God bids us fight, and watch, and pray, and strive, and take pains, and labour **

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sanct_just_ryle.html

It seems to me that Calvinists believe regeneration and justification is monergistic, but sanctification involves cooperation with the Holy Spirit (work of God and work of man).

God Bless,
Michael