Refuting Reformed Theology on "2 Corinthians 5:21"

[po18guy]

There may be something to the argument that “in the spiritual world, sins have a physical presence”. What if when we get to the Judgment, we can actually see other people stained with their sins?

It would be interesting to know what turned him from “Reformed” — in my experience it is common for Reformers to say, “I used to believe as you do, until I _____” (matured, was led by the Spirit, grew in understanding, whatever). It is a superior position that invests “saving-face” (reputation) making admission of errors difficult. Not meaning to offend anyone, that is my experience…

Are you Calvinist now or earlier in your life? You make excellent scriptural points, but te faith was not founded on scripture and scriptureh is not the sum total of revelation, as it self-states. All of this must also be taken within the seamless garment of the totality of the scriptures, as well as the unwritten Apostolic Tradition which was handed on. If sins have disappeared via the cross, then there is no penalty to pay, no price attached and we are free to sin at will - Luther’s firm belief (and later practice) - except that Luther excused himself by denying free will. Nice trick! I truly hope it worked.

Reading James 5:16 we are called to confess our sins to one another, and hand-in-hand with Paul’s forgiving of unspecified sins in the person of Christ. If sins were already forgiven, the price already paid, then Paul’s actions and James’ words are nonsensical. NOTE: most modern bibles have altered 2 Cor 2:10 to read: “in the presence of Christ” which muddies the water. I ask, how can forgiveness, which comes from Christ, be offered outside of His presence?

As to Dr. Anders’ conversion, it more or less parallels Scott Hahn’s. It took years of discernment, disillusionment, eventual shunning by friends and associates - a high price to pay for an honest seeking of the truth.

 

[jcrichton]

he knew what he was to go through; that was his turmoil in gethsemane, his human side asking to “take this cup from me” — and even sweating blood. (i just saw you said the same thing below!)

…all that makes me all the more grateful for him sacrificing himself!

Aramaic – jesus spoke in aramaic, the apostles wrote in greek. Here is an instance where they recorded his actual aramaic words.

why did jesus do that? Why did he choose to suffer?

There’s only one answer. “greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

that’s why he went through all that; because he loved us, and it was the only way to rescue us from perishing.

Hi!

Yes! This is why the totality of Revelation is necessary… things that seemingly were said or happened detached from the Messiah’s ultimate Destination converged on the Cross!

…He Comes to us while we were still weak (sinners) bringing the Good News of Salvation (Redemption in His Blood and Glorification in His Resurrection); it is the Inheritance that that Christ Came to offer that made God’s Sacrifice Permissible to Him… but man refuses to understand and accept this Gift… I suspect that Christ’s turmoil in Gethsemane had some root in this Knowledge: ‘even if One were to come out of the grave… they would not Believe!’

…the softer side of Him (human) could very well have been questioning the Father (internally): ‘Abba, why… they won’t even care… why are they so stubborn and determined to reject our Gift of Life?’

…note too that as the Suffering Servant… it was the Roman guard that determined that He could not make it all the way without assistance… Jesus never recoiled from His Passion… He never cried out for mercy… He never exclaimed “enough!”

…being a child of the times Jesus knew exactly what Roman crucifixion was about… when faced with the possibility of getting some relief… of dampening some of His pain… He opted to take it all in… to receive upon Himself humanity’s full measure of pain and torture… all so that we may gain Salvation.

…no greater Love, in deed!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi!

…because man is prone to commit errors and to commit himself to error Christ Founded the Church…

Has the Church ever been in error? You don’t have to answer that, because it’s not really the issue. We’ve discussed “Sola Scriptura” – and I understand that can be abused by personal prejudice. How about, "First Scripture"? Several points occur to me:

1. Can spiritual absolutes be gleaned from Scripture, that are solid and not open to personal interpretation?
2. If there can be some absolutes established from Scripture, how do we determine what is “solid” and what is open to biased interpretation?
3. If there ever is a situation where a Church principle is found in conflict with something an Apostle said, shouldn’t what the Apostle said take precedence?

I know that when you said “Christ founded the Church”, you meant Catholicism. For the sake of argument, consider that a Calvinist defines “church” for himself as a Calvinistic body. So THAT “church” claims 1Cor2:14 “proves monergism”. But Paul overturns that understanding in verse 12; what would be the respectful way to confront the Calvinist brother with the discrepancy between “they-cannot-believe-until-God-gives-things”, and what Paul plainly said in verse 12?

I would think (personal opinion) if I came barrelling into his world using verse 12 as a “battering ram”, I would hurt a brother and end any discussion. So I try to repeat Paul’s words (we have to receive the Spirit in order to THEN receive the things) – and encourage my Calvinist brother to try to explain how “receive-the-Spirit” does not really mean “become saved”, and/or how that does not clearly precede “being taught the things” (verse 13), so that therefore in verse 14 “things” cannot include “saving-faith” (or knowledge). In order to understand/get the things of verse 14 (actually the “things” of verses 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14), one has to receive the Spirit, which means he has to believe in Jesus and be saved; is there any other possibility?

So the Calvinist brother answers the problem for himself, I have not “forced him to believe anything”, respect and kindness and love have been served.

Do you think that would be an honorable and godly approach?

…please understand that when I reference such topic I am neither seeking to claim importance nor to convert others to the Faith… my efforts are to center my Belief so as not to lead others into error.

It’s not really a question of “converting anyone to Catholicism”, or “Protestantism”, or “Calvinism”, or anything else; but rather to get each of us to reconsider the reasons for things we have taken for granted. If we agree that there are certain absolutes directed to us from Scripture, then that becomes the standard against which our doctrines must conform.

Yesterday I cited a couple of absolutes — Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father but by Me”. Peter said, “There is no other name under Heaven by which men must be saved.” Those are absolutes, and are not open to interpretation.

So perhaps the value of discussions like these, is to develop a system of determining what the Apostles were really intending to say, so that we can prove whether or not “beliefs” are what God inspired, and not just personal preferences.

And that is my whole motivation in speaking in discussions like “Calvinism”. If a verse really intended Calvinistic meaning, then what about This verse that says ____, and THAT verse that says ____, and the OTHER verse that says ____? How do we make all their words reconcile? And the CALVINIST is left to either try to fit them together, or to ignore them and continue what others see as conflicting the THIS-THAT-and-THE-OTHER citations.

Calvinism (as with other theologies) fail because they base their theology on what is being interpreted from certain passages of Scriptures…

Exactly that. Four founding passages (Eph1:4-5, Eph1:11, Rom8:29-35, and Rom9:11-23). And about fifty-five secondary passages (like 1Cor2:14, Acts13:48, Jn6:44, John10:28, 1Jn5:1, Jeremiah13:23, Prov16:4 & 9, Jer17:9, Ezk36:26-27, and so on.)

they fail to understand that one passage cannot void other passages… Ezekiel 18 is in stark contrast to the above claim since Yahweh God explicitly Calls on Israel to change her heart, to Repent and Convert back to Him… ‘why should you die, oh Israel… repent and Live!’ (paraphrased)

Excellent IN THAT passage “make for YOURSELVES a new heart and spirit” – absolutely opposes the idea that “God sovereignly and monergistically makes hearts new and THEN a person turns and believes”.

But Calvinists know about all these verses, and have explanations for every one. So it is with infinite patience that we have to sit down and detail what POSSIBLE meanings any one verse could have, and try to get him to admit which one the writer really meant to convey. “Here are the possible meanings; which one is legitimate, or do you have an additional meaning?”

 

[Gadgeteer]

This would seem very genuine… but there’s a glitch… even when man claims to allow the Holy Spirit to guide him… personal conviction (rooted on upbringing and the various influences from both secular and religious sources) can cause a flawed understanding…

That’s exactly right. So we have to be careful when we establish “Scriptural absolutes”. John14:6 and Acts4:14 are examples of “absolutes that are clear and non-negotiable”.

I interact with all 59 verses of Calvinism the same way; context, connections, all to give valid exegesis so that any reader (including Calvinists) have to make a choice; can the conflicts be resolved credibly, or is he holding a doctrine which actually stamps “NOT REALLY” again and again over what they wrote?

Calvin, must have been quite learned… but he still allowed personal influences to cloud his understanding of Scriptures… worst, still, he actively sought to teach his error to others who (even though warned by Scriptures) gleefully supped it up.

There was an excellent book, now out of print – “Counterfeits At Your Door”. He said that no one who counterfeits money uses fluorescent pink ink, nor prints on sandpaper, nor places a picture of Mickey Mouse. The errant money looks very much like the real; the best defense against getting fooled, is to handle real money often enough to get a feel for the genuine. John admonishes us to “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits” — we test them, against what the Apostles have left us. Holding “further revelations” is fine; and those too have to accommodate what the Apostles taught.

Exactly!

I will be Called for accountability only on my job function: sentinel: Give the Warning!

Personal conviction is personal conviction… and only the Holy Spirit can Convict man!

Yes. And each of us (you, me, everyone reading) is fallible and can THINK we’re being led by the Spirit, when sometimes we’re not.

…yeah, hollowood is a great machinery for dispensing faux-spiritualism ('don’t judge me" or “believe” or “trust”); everything revolves around man and his own abilities and determination–anything devoid of God!

And his desire for SIN.

I fully concur with you that God does not call us to imitate the ostrich or the three monkeys; how can a Believer be a good sentinel if he/she is not able to judge:

…we must distinguish that which is pleasing to God from that which is not pleasing to God…

I really believe the best way to do that is “handle the genuine until we excel at detecting deception”. satan gave Eve a counterfeit, “Oh surely you will not really die”; and Eve accepted it. She should not have done that.

BTW, did you hear about Adam talking with his children?
“Dad, why aren’t we still in the Garden of Eden???”
Adam shrugged and said, "Yeah, well, you know, your MOTHER ate us out of house and home!"

 

[Gadgeteer]

Part II

…yes, Jesus did everything… but we still must “abide” in Him… St. Paul references it as:

14 Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.

In the book I wrote, I list “101 Verses That Stand Against OSAS”; that is one of them!

…which goes back to giving up the old man (flesh) and putting on the new man (spirit).

That’s something we have to do constantly. Eph4:15-24. Not “perfecting our own righteousness”, but abiding in Him so that HIS righteousness becomes more and more ours.

Yes, Salvation is Free. Yes, Salvation is Complete. Yes, Salvation will never be revoked.

From God’s side, absolutely – “The gifts and calling of God are IRREVOCABLE” (without repentance by God; Rom11:29).

But from OUR side, it is arrogant to think we can NOT disbelieve and get ourselves cut off! Rom11:18-23!!!

NO, man cannot remain in his unrighteousness and through some “clause” claim retain eternal Salvation.

How can anyone recognize that we CAN SIN, but can NOT REALLY fall?

There must be quite a market in Christiandom for those “NOT REALLY” stamps!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Are you Calvinist now or earlier in your life?

Hi, Po18guy! I’ve never bought into Calvinism; it wasn’t really pushed as I was growing up. I confess I did study the topic with Scriptural context, to see if there were solid answers against “Predestination” – and I did find solid answers. For instance, 2Cor4:3-4, satan has blinded men’s hearts against salvation; but the answer is in 2Cor3:16, a man turns to God FIRST (believes!), and then the veil blinding his heart is removed. One hundred percent “spiritually-dead-men can believe”, completely opposite to Calvinism.

You make excellent scriptural points, but the faith was not founded on scripture and scripture is not the sum total of revelation, as it self-states.

I accept that. Please see the posts I just made – can we glean certain spiritual absolutes from Scripture? I gave two examples of how that must be true; John14:6 and Acts4:12. So in discussions it is up to us to demonstrate some things in Scripture that can be accepted as “established”, and then we exploit 1Jn4:1 “test every spirit”, using Scripture as the standard. Yes I acknowledge this can be abused, as JR explained against “Sola Scriptura”; but to accept EVERY interpretation as suspect (“Sola Scriptura”), would be just as extreme as to accept no verse as “absolute” — wouldn’t it?

All of this must also be taken within the seamless garment of the totality of the scriptures, as well as the unwritten Apostolic Tradition which was handed on.

I have no problem with this. For myself, I would examine each “Apostolic Tradition” for alignment with what the Apostles wrote and wanted us to learn.

If sins have disappeared via the cross, then there is no penalty to pay, no price attached and we are free to sin at will - Luther’s firm belief (and later practice)

This is excellent evidence that Scripture was NOT applied; we can read passages like 1Cor6:9-11, Eph5:5-6, Gal5:19-21, Rom6:1, and others which prove “we cannot walk in sin”.

Do you know that the second two views of OSAS (“Eternal Security”, and “Reformed/Sovereign-Predestination”), often use words like “backslidden-but-SAVED”? Uhm, excuse me, if one is “backslidden” he is walking in sin, and neither Jesus nor the Spirit will indwell his sin!

• except that Luther excused himself by denying free will. Nice trick! I truly hope it worked.

No; we have to have free will, or “love”, cannot be “love”.

“Love does not demand its own way!” 1Cor13:5

Reading James 5:16 we are called to confess our sins to one another, and hand-in-hand with Paul’s forgiving of unspecified sins in the person of Christ. If sins were already forgiven, the price already paid, then Paul’s actions and James’ words are nonsensical. NOTE: most modern bibles have altered 2 Cor 2:10 to read: “in the presence of Christ” which muddies the water. I ask, how can forgiveness, which comes from Christ, be offered outside of His presence?

That’s right. It is my understanding that “confessing-to-each-other”, considers the other an agent of Jesus, that the confession really is to Him. Do I have that right?

Implied in “confess-our-sins”, is repentance; a true turning away from sin. Scripture does not say that sins condemn us, nor does sinlessness save us; PRACTICING sin (which is absolutely inseparable from DISBELIEVING JESUS and ceasing to abide in Him), does condemn us! Sins (or repentance) therefore are the evidence of where we are (or are not!) in Christ!

As to Dr. Anders’ conversion, it more or less parallels Scott Hahn’s. It took years of discernment, disillusionment, eventual shunning by friends and associates - a high price to pay for an honest seeking of the truth.

Thanks for the link! I hope to get people (especially Calvinists) to read the Scripture; critically, and honestly. You’ve been watching my posts – how 1Cor2:12 ruins the Calvinistic understanding of verse 14. How 2Cor3;16 ruins their view of 2Cor4:3-4.

The “Secondaries” are much easier to overturn in Calvinists’ esteem, than are the Primaries. Above I posted responses to one of the Primaries, Rom9:11-23. Is there any Calvinist reading who can honestly say “your exegesis is invalid, because _____”?

 

[jcrichton]

Has the Church ever been in error? You don’t have to answer that, because it’s not really the issue. We’ve discussed “Sola Scriptura” – and I understand that can be abused by personal prejudice. How about, "First Scripture"? Several points occur to me:

1. Can spiritual absolutes be gleaned from Scripture, that are solid and not open to personal interpretation?
2. If there can be some absolutes established from Scripture, how do we determine what is “solid” and what is open to biased interpretation?
3. If there ever is a situation where a Church principle is found in conflict with something an Apostle said, shouldn’t what the Apostle said take precedence?

Hi!

…your question is clearly an open ended issue… or do you mean to ask, has the Church Taught a Gospel different from that of the Apostles?

…we can see heresies forming right from Scriptures and they are fought through the Epistles and Oral Teaching–the fountain of Faith is not limited to that which was Written, as Scriptures themselves attest.

We also find, right in Scriptures, that there were errors that would have needed correction… but what actually counts is that the Apostles maintained One Faith, One Gospel, One Lord, One Spirit…

…we do not find written testimonies about the rejection of St. Paul’s Teachings… but we find St. Peter admonishing the Believers (and those who were rejecting St. Paul) and giving Authority to his Writings (2 St. Peter 3:14-18) Clearly when this issue arose St. Peter could simply have left St. Paul to his own devise (such prolific writer could well have answered for himself, don’t you think?) Peter could have turned back to that time when Paul made a big to do about his issue with the Brothers from Jerusalem (‘hah, he made me lose face so now, let him hang there for a bit…’); rather, the Goal Being Christ, St. Peter stepped up as an Apologist of the Faith! The Body must remain united!

I know that when you said “Christ founded the Church”, you meant Catholicism. For the sake of argument, consider that a Calvinist

defines “church” for himself as a Calvinistic body. So THAT “church” claims 1Cor2:14 “proves monergism”. But Paul overturns that understanding in verse 12; what would be the respectful way to confront the Calvinist brother with the discrepancy between “they-cannot-believe-until-God-gives-things”, and what Paul plainly said in verse 12?

I would think (personal opinion) if I came barrelling into his world using verse 12 as a “battering ram”, I would hurt a brother and end any discussion. So I try to repeat Paul’s words (we have to receive the Spirit in order to THEN receive the things) – and encourage my Calvinist brother to try to explain how “receive-the-Spirit” does not really mean “become saved”, and/or how that does not clearly precede “being taught the things” (verse 13), so that therefore in verse 14 “things” cannot include “saving-faith” (or knowledge). In order to understand/get the things of verse 14 (actually the “things” of verses 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14), one has to receive the Spirit, which means he has to believe in Jesus and be saved; is there any other possibility?

So the Calvinist brother answers the problem for himself, I have not “forced him to believe anything”, respect and kindness and love have been served.

Do you think that would be an honorable and godly approach?
I do not deny you this. The problem remains in how willing is man to put aside his ego and to accept correction? What you may deem clearly defined by absolute in Scriptures others may only accept as your personal concept. Put 200 such minds in an echo system and they might starve to death before giving up their convictions about being “right.”

…so we must unfold some of that Revelation to include the Holy Spirit’s Function… it is He Who will ultimately Convict man of sin and of Christ’s Righteousness and Teachings.

It’s not really a question of “converting anyone to Catholicism”, or “Protestantism”, or “Calvinism”, or anything else; but rather to get each

of us to reconsider the reasons for things we have taken for granted. If we agree that there are certain absolutes directed to us from Scripture, then that becomes the standard against which our doctrines must conform.

So perhaps the value of discussions like these, is to develop a system of determining what the Apostles were really intending to say, so that we can prove whether or not “beliefs” are what God inspired, and not just personal preferences.
…but that’s just it… how can one determine what the Apostles intended to say when there will be variation in how Scriptures are interpreted? Luther went as far as stating that he knew that St. Paul really meant, and added “alone” to Scriptures.

But Calvinists know

about all these verses, and have explanations for every one. So it is with infinite patience that we have to sit down and detail what POSSIBLE meanings any one verse could have, and try to get him to admit which one the writer really meant to convey. “Here are the possible meanings; which one is legitimate, or do you have an additional meaning?”
…exactly my point! The periscope determines what “Scriptures mean.” Calvinists will insist on their approach… they hold a line… they have created armor and assault weapons… (this is the same for all groups) …and they are running with the full authority they’ve given themselves…

…so it is one side vs. the other/s; all having full revelation; all citing the Holy Spirit; all claiming authenticity from one spectrum or another…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

…using Scripture as the standard. Yes I acknowledge this can be abused, as JR explained against “Sola Scriptura”; but to accept EVERY interpretation as suspect (“Sola Scriptura”), would be just as extreme as to accept no verse as “absolute” — wouldn’t it?

Scripture has only recently been designated as the “standard” - which has lead to confusion and division. That is not the intent or purpose of scripture. Acts 15: scripture demanded circumcision. Are we all circumcised, or did the Church override all existing scripture? Every court must have a judge - the Church.

.I have no problem with this. For myself, I would examine each “Apostolic Tradition” for alignment with what the Apostles wrote and wanted us to learn.

It is the same thing! No difference, except that the Apostles believed much more than is written. The oral tradition is proved in the scripture themselves! Read the prologue to Luke. Theophilus learned nothing from Luke’s Gospel - it was written only in confirmation. Jannes and Jambres who rebelled against Moses. Find them anywhere in the OT! Not there. The oral tradition perfectly preserved their history.

This is excellent evidence that Scripture was NOT applied; we can read passages like 1Cor6:9-11, Eph5:5-6, Gal5:19-21, Rom6:1, and others which prove “we cannot walk in sin”.

There is sin which leads to death and sin which does not.

. No; we have to have free will, or “love”, cannot be “love”.

Free will: Sirach 15.

. That’s right. It is my understanding that “confessing-to-each-other”, considers the other an agent of Jesus, that the confession really is to Him. Do I have that right?

Only the twelve and Paul - and those upon who they laid hands (i.e. Timothy and Titus), have Christ’s full authority over sin.

Scripture does not say that sins condemn us, nor does sinlessness save us;

“There is sin which leads to death” - John

I hope to get people (especially Calvinists) to read the Scripture; critically, and honestly.

They believe 100% that they already do. This has failed me time after time. I implore the Holy Spirit, Who alone accomplishes conversion.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi!

Yes! This is why the totality of Revelation is necessary… things that seemingly were said or happened detached from the Messiah’s ultimate Destination converged on the Cross!

What do you think of when you say, “the totality of Revelation”?

…He Comes to us while we were still weak (sinners) bringing the Good News of Salvation (Redemption in His Blood and Glorification in His Resurrection); it is the Inheritance that Christ Came to offer that made God’s Sacrifice Permissible to Him… but man refuses to understand and accept this Gift… I suspect that Christ’s turmoil in Gethsemane had some root in this Knowledge: ‘even if One were to come out of the grave… they would not Believe!’

True love does experience sorrow, if unrequited. Does God grieve over every soul that perishes? One hundred percent.

In Luke12:50 and Mark10:38, Jesus has “a baptism to be baptized with” and a “cup to drink”; and asks if we are willing to be baptized with His baptism and to drink His cup. That baptism/cup, is into His death and resurrection; to live, we must first die. Die to sin and self, become alive and begotten from above united with Jesus. Ironic that He’s asking us to give up our destruction and perishing, instead to be filled with His joy – and so many refuse. He’s so much more than just a ticket out of Hell.

…the softer side of Him (human) could very well have been questioning the Father (internally): ‘Abba, why… they won’t even care… why are they so stubborn and determined to reject our Gift of Life?’

That’s possible.

…note too that as the Suffering Servant… it was the Roman guard that determined that He could not make it all the way without assistance… Jesus never recoiled from His Passion… He never cried out for mercy… He never exclaimed “enough!”

It was a courage born out of LOVE. It wounds my heart and spirit when people refuse Him; His great suffering reflected how very much He loved each of us.
:bighanky:

…being a child of the times Jesus knew exactly what Roman crucifixion was about… when faced with the possibility of getting some relief… of dampening some of His pain… He opted to take it all in… to receive upon Himself humanity’s full measure of pain and torture… all so that we may gain Salvation.

He had to have full wits until the end; as He cried out, “It is finished (the debt is paid)”.

…no greater Love, in deed!

Why can’t the world see that? Why would they love sin instead? Their selfish and wicked desires will give way to the full anguish of “every knee bowing and every tongue confessing”, when they KNOW what they have chosen, and know with terrible shock that they chose so very wrongly.

So each of us prays that we will be sufficient to share His Gospel – that He will change us into whatever He needs to reach their hearts through us.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi!

…your question is clearly an open ended issue… or do you mean to ask, has the Church Taught a Gospel different from that of the Apostles?

Hi again. I confess it pleases me greatly when I read Catholic posts here affirming “salvation is a gift of grace, and is not by works”. Please read my reply to “po18guy” in a few minutes, as I want to comment on some things from the testimony that he linked.

I have had Catholic friends who have said, “salvation is by faith works and the sacraments”. How many works or sacraments did the Thief on the cross have? Is his case different, as some claim (pre-covenant, Jesus had not yet died!)?

…we can see heresies forming right from Scriptures and they are fought through the Epistles and Oral Teaching–the fountain of Faith is not limited to that which was Written, as Scriptures themselves attest.

What Scriptures are you noting? I will agree in principle to what you said, and repeat when I said: “even if what the Apostles wrote is not final revelation, all that they did write is true and believable”. Do we (myself and everyone here) have agreement on that?

We also find, right in Scriptures, that there were errors that would have needed correction… but what actually counts is that the Apostles maintained One Faith, One Gospel, One Lord, One Spirit…

What “errors in Scripture” do you mean?

…we do not find written testimonies about the rejection of St. Paul’s Teachings… but we find St. Peter admonishing the Believers (and those who were rejecting St. Paul) and giving Authority to his Writings (2 St. Peter 3:14-18) Clearly when this issue arose St. Peter could simply have left St. Paul to his own devise (such prolific writer could well have answered for himself, don’t you think?) Peter could have turned back to that time when Paul made a big to do about his issue with the Brothers from Jerusalem (‘hah, he made me lose face so now, let him hang there for a bit…’); rather, the Goal Being Christ, St. Peter stepped up as an Apologist of the Faith! The Body must remain united!

That passage is strongly “OSNAS”. I don’t find any conflicts between what Peter wrote, and what Paul wrote. Although – in the section I wrote on “Universalism”, two verses by Peter are very confusing; no one really knows what he meant. But the rest I find in clear harmony.

I do not deny you this. The problem remains in how willing is man to put aside his ego and to accept correction? What you may deem clearly defined by absolute in Scriptures others may only accept as your personal concept.

That’s why it’s critical to fully cite the verses and the context. You remember what a local Calvinist minister did when I tried to hold him to 1Cor2:12? He not only refused to answer the verse, he dismissed me and closed the dialog saying: “I need to spend time with THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED in what Scripture SAYS!” I still wonder how he was able to sleep after that; I was fully embracing ALL of the context, he was REFUSING the context, and he accused ME of “dismissing Scripture”?

Put 200 such minds in an echo system and they might starve to death before giving up their convictions about being “right.”

Yes. And that I perceive is the utility of trying to list possible meanings. Against the 1Cor2:14 (forgive me for harping on this verse, it’s just a very clear example of the problem) — the claim is that "God must open understanding (dispatch the THINGS) before and in order for one to exert saving-belief.

There bold and plain in Paul’s words, we have to receive the Spirit BEFORE getting the things! In what Universe does anyone receive the Holy Spirit, without being fully repentant and believing and saved?

But so entrenched can some doctrines be, that they will respond just like the local Calvinist minister! Denial is not just a river in Egypt!

 

[Gadgeteer]

…so we must unfold some of that Revelation to include the Holy Spirit’s Function… it is He Who will ultimately Convict man of sin and of Christ’s Righteousness and Teachings.

That is true. And yet, it is possible to “harden one’s sensitivity to the real Spirit”. Have you ever interacted with Mormons? They have something called, “burning of the bosom” — where, it is thought, one can pray to God for direction. Then, “how do you FEEL? God won’t guide you WRONG, will He? How you feel is your answer no matter if it conflicts with something Paul, Peter, John, or any of the others wrote!”

Sigh.

…but that’s just it… how can one determine what the Apostles intended to say when there will be variation in how Scriptures are interpreted?

Find places where they are clear. “No one comes to the Father but by Me”, “no other name …by which to be saved”. These are clear, and inarguable.

That passage in 1Cor2:12-14 is clear; if there is an argument or dispute, what is it?

The consideration of 2Cor4:3-4, in context with 2Cor3:16 is clear; what would the dispute be?

The consideration of Jeremiah13:23 in context with verse 27 is clear; if the RT understanding still persists, how does it? What’s the reason?

Jcrichton, it is my experience that when you try to pin down people who had these verses as “Predestinary”, with the cited context, they simply refuse to listen! So there really does not seem to be a “variation in how they are interpretated”, if there was ANY variant, they would say so!

What about Acts13:48? Have you ever talked with a Calvinist about Acts13:48? It’s pretty big in their doctrine!

Luther went as far as stating that he knew that St. Paul really meant, and added “alone” to Scriptures.

Here is something you and I (and literally everyone here) will agree on – true faith that saves, is NEVER alone! That mirrors Jesus in Matt7:16-18, it mirrors James in most of his second chapter, it reflects all the rest!

…exactly my point! The periscope determines what “Scriptures mean.” Calvinists will insist on their approach… they hold a line… they have created armor and assault weapons… (this is the same for all groups) …and they are running with the full authority they’ve given themselves…

And when confronted by the actual written text, they cannot answer! I’ve given probably a fifth here, of what is in my book about countering “all fifty-five Secondaries and all four Primaries”. Does anyone feel, after seeing the cited verses, that there really can BE “second interpretations”? If so, what are they? How does a NOT-YET-SAVED person, receive the Holy Spirit? How does God violate His perfect and sinless nature to ordain and instill sin in His unelect? How can anyone “make for themselves a new heart and spirit”, if Monergism is true?

…so it is one side vs. the other/s; all having full revelation; all citing the Holy Spirit; all claiming authenticity from one spectrum or another…

Unless a discussion partner (we are not opponents!!!) actually answers the verses and explains how they do NOT absolutely oppose things like “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”, the claim of “correct exegesis” or “leading by the Holy Spirit” or “Scriptural authenticity” just doesn’t fly.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Scripture has only recently been designated as the “standard” - which has lead to confusion and division. That is not the intent or purpose of scripture. Acts 15: scripture demanded circumcision. Are we all circumcised, or did the Church override all existing scripture? Every court must have a judge - the Church.

There is a principle "circumcised in spirit."

And even in the Protestant world there is an “authority of the Church”. Most Protestants recognize authority for instances like Matt18:15-17 (order of events, confront an offending brother, then confront with a couple of witnesses, then confront him before the church if he still does not repent). Sadly though, some have won lawsuits for “defamation” over someone just following this Scripture!

What do you think about the points I made in John14:6, and Acts4:12? These are absolute, which simply are closed to alternate interpretations; they are direct and clear. There are verses that are not as clear, and there are ones which are clear. I’ve cited 1Cor2:12-14, 2Cor4:3-4 with 2Cor3:16, Jeremiah13:23 with verse 27, and others; do you think Calvinists have any answer which accommodates their “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”?

It is the same thing! No difference, except that the Apostles believed much more than is written. The oral tradition is proved in the scripture themselves! Read the prologue to Luke. Theophilus learned nothing from Luke’s Gospel - it was written only in confirmation. Jannes and Jambres who rebelled against Moses. Find them anywhere in the OT! Not there. The oral tradition perfectly preserved their history.

I’m not thinking of anything specific. Rather, if we agree that “all the Apostles wrote is valid and believable”, whatever follows (traditions, practices, etcetera) must not conflict with their words.

There is sin which leads to death and sin which does not.

I’ve always wondered what John meant in 1:5:16-17. My perception is that a “sin leading to death” persists without repentance. What do you think about “the unforgivable sin”, blasphemy against the Spirit, in Matt12:31? To me, again, seems implied “if they don’t repent”. The truth of forgiveness in Jesus’ gospel, is that on salvation we are “new creations, the old has passed away” (2Cor5:17). So we are different persons; a new man is not the same person as the old man, we cannot be held accountable for what he did.

Free will: Sirach 15.

How would you answer a Calvinist about “Compatibilism”? Calvinists claim to embrace “free will”, but they mean something very different than what you and I mean…

Only the twelve and Paul - and those upon who they laid hands (i.e. Timothy and Titus), have Christ’s full authority over sin.

How does forgiveness work in a modern confessional?

They believe 100% that they already do. This has failed me time after time. I implore the Holy Spirit, Who alone accomplishes conversion.

Yes – of course it’s the Spirit who actually accomplishes conversion. Yet, “persuasion” is absolutely Scriptural; it’s in John20:31, it’s Paul before King Agrippa in Acts20:26-28, and “bad persuasion” is what is happening in the “do-not-be-deceived” verses.

RE “sin to death” — what sins does God tolerate? John writes (1:3:5) “in Him there is no sin”. First chapter, “He forgives our sins and cleanses us from ALL unrighteousness”. That’s why I perceive the “sin-to-death” reflects unrepentance. Catholics agree that “righteousness” is not just a whitewash over sins; we truly become righteous, as we grow close to Him and His righteousness becomes ours.

We can be deceived away from Jesus by men, by bad-angels, and by sin. James tells us in chapter 1 that God tempts no one — each is tempted when enticed and carried away by our own lusts. Lust conceived births sin, and sin brings death — do not be deceived beloved brethren.

Does sin always bring “thanatos physical death with implication of Hell”? Without repentance, how can the answer be anything other than “yes”?

 

[Gadgeteer]

As to Dr. Anders’ conversion, it more or less parallels Scott Hahn’s. It took years of discernment, disillusionment, eventual shunning by friends and associates - a high price to pay for an honest seeking of the truth.

Can you help me understand a few things? I read the linked story; he said,
A. David Anders:

My first difficulty arose when I began to grasp what Augustine really taught about salvation. Briefly put, Augustine rejected “faith alone.” It is true that he had a high regard for faith and grace, but he saw these mainly as the source of our good works. Augustine taught that we literally “merit” eternal life when our lives are transformed by grace. This is quite different from the Protestant point of view.

In the world of Catholicism, how many perceive that we “merit salvation”? I read that there are NONE righteous, all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. Rom3. And that Rom8 says what we were too weak in our flesh to do, God did – sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

I’m just not understanding anything about the use of “merit” here. I’m corrupt, I don’t deserve anything; even after He has regenerated me and made me righteous, I still don’t deserve anything; all of the cleansing has been all of Him and nothing of me. Hardly grounds for me to claim “merit”.
A. David Anders:

No matter where I looked, on whatever continent, in whatever century, the Fathers agreed: salvation comes through the transformation of the moral life and not by faith alone. They also taught that this transformation begins and is nourished in the sacraments, and not through some individual conversion experience.

“Salvation comes through transformation of the moral life”? I’m not understanding this either. “This transformation begins and is nourished in the sacraments”?

Take waterbaptism — in Acts8:15-16, they had been waterbaptized but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Can one be “saved”, without receiving the Spirit?

Conversely, in Acts10:45-47, Cornelius’ people were certainly saved (had the Holy Spirit, fully believing [see Acts11:15-17]), but were not yet waterbaptized.

Is it invalid to associate “salvation” with “receiving the Spirit”, and therefore one can be saved before waterbaptism (Acts10) or after (Acts8)?
A. David Anders:

I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic.

There are so many doctrines, because there are so many imperfect people. It’s not just Protestants; there are splits in Catholicism, and really all other doctrines.

“Now we see in a mirror dimly; we know in part, we prophesy in part. When the perfect comes we will know fully, even as we are fully known.”

And that brings us back to the earlier discussion. Can we establish some “absolutes” in what the Apostles wrote, solid ideas that withstand interpretive alterations? I gave some examples of “solid absolutes”; John14:6 is one, Acts4:12 is another. This is the approach that has to work with Calvinists—they may enter a discussion to change us, but if confronted with clear Scriptures and solid contextual connections, the only choice they have is to either accept what the Apostles wrote, or dishonestly shrug and turn on their heels refusing to answer the verses. I’m really serious about verses such as 1Cor2:14! EVERY Calvinistic textbook asserts the “monergistic” understanding, which falls merely by reading verse 12. What’s their defense? And I’m always open to suggestions about how to improve my approach; there must be balance between respecting others’ views, and with conviction citing clear verses.

I began studying Calvinism because at the beginning it by definition charges God with “causality in sin”. I listened to their arguments, and took notes on their verses. I looked them up, and read the surrounding context. I’ve read Calvin, Arminius, and major writers like Spurgeon, Sproul, Pink, Piper, Gill and others. And the more I read, and the more I studied Scripture, the more overturned Calvinism became.

Now it’s all a matter of “how to encourage them onto the same discovery-study-journey as I took”!

 

[po18guy]

In the world of Catholicism, how many perceive that we “merit salvation”? I read that there are NONE righteous, all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. Rom3. And that Rom8 says what we were too weak in our flesh to do, God did – sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Weak in the flesh, but not absolutely impotent or without free will. IIRC, “None righteous” is a quoting of the OT, to make his point.

I’m just not understanding anything about the use of “merit” here. I’m corrupt, I don’t deserve anything; even after He has regenerated me and made me righteous, I still don’t deserve anything; all of the cleansing has been all of Him and nothing of me. Hardly grounds for me to claim “merit”.

“Well done, good and faithful servant.” This at least implies merit - but only for willfully cooperating with God’s grace. He gives the gifts (Mt. 25:14-20) but expects us to take physical action with those gifts.

“Salvation comes through transformation of the moral life”? I’m not understanding this either. “This transformation begins and is nourished in the sacraments”?

Transformation of the moral life means bearing fruits of repentance, as the Baptist taught. Behavior is as important as faith, despite what Luther believed. That’s why he hated James. Grace flows through the Sacraments - thus strengthening us in our struggle - our fighting the good fight. After all, fighting a fight is not strictly evangelizing, it is our personal struggle against sin, and to conform our wills to that of God, no?

Take waterbaptism — in Acts8:15-16, they had been water baptized but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Can one be “saved”, without receiving the Spirit?

Water regenerates. The Spirit gives life. They are not equal or separable, but complementary. You can water a seed, but until a spirit gives it life, it is just wet - perhaps a poor analogy.

Conversely, in Acts10:45-47, Cornelius’ people were certainly saved (had the Holy Spirit, fully believing [see Acts11:15-17]), but were not yet waterbaptized.

Yet another special revelation given to Peter alone (ref. Mt. 16:18, 1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6, 2 Peter 3:10-13) to convince him that Gentiles were also party to the new Covenant.

Is it invalid to associate “salvation” with “receiving the Spirit”, and therefore one can be saved before waterbaptism (Acts10) or after (Acts8)?

There are normative ways and exceptional. Dismas on the cross is the exception, while water and Spirit is the norm. (John 3:3-5)

There are so many doctrines, because there are so many imperfect people. It’s not just Protestants; there are splits in Catholicism, and really all other doctrines.

See Paul on factions (1 Cor. 11:19). The exception proves the rule.

Can we establish some “absolutes” in what the Apostles wrote, solid ideas that withstand interpretive alterations?

Sadly, no. Each and every verse has been twisted - scripture is not perspicacious, as must be claimed by SS. Every law needs a judge to decide, as there is not a single word that has but one definition. Absolutes are in the eye of the beholder. Nothing written is absolute, as long as free will exists to disagree with it, or re-interpret it. The influence of nuance.

Absolutes are tossed out in the concept of sola scriptura. It is permission for licentious interpretation, as evidenced by innumerable denominations. Maybe pick up a copy of the Handbook of Denominations in the United States by Mead/Hill/Atwood. Although they only count something on the order of 220+ “denominations”, look at the absolute diversity (root: diverge) of interpreting the exact same 27 books! No, scripture will not convert them, as the license granted by sola scriptura appeals more to the ego than to reason and intellect. It ensures that they feel absolutely correct in their thinking, and they have a 500 year tradition to fall back on - never mind the obvious 1,500 year gap.

As to conversions, we must simply demonstrate by our faith lives and charity. As a tool, a mechanism, the three Ps are not nearly as satisfying, but ultimately more efficacious: Perseverance in Prayer and Patience. We do not convert. We are a tool used by the Holy Spirit in the process of that conversion. We may not live to see their conversion.

 

[jcrichton]

What do you think of when you say, “the totality of Revelation”?

Hi!

Please note that when I inject such terms I’m being what some would call/see an obstinate apologist… yet, that is in deed what Scriptures Call us to Be.

Understand also that I am not seeking to confront you about your faith base… but, as I am Catholic, when you use your terms/vocabulary it leads to the conclusion (though you may not see it) as “sola” theology (i.e.: ‘one needs only…’) so for the sake of those who might read through and whose understanding of their Catholic Faith has not matured enough I must, as tenderly as possible, touch on the issue of Faith from the Catholic perspective…

…the totality of Revelation is simply the Apostolic Tradition, which includes the Oral Teaching passed down through Apostolic Succession, from Jesus to His Disciples (12 + 1) to the Bishops (from the Inception of the Church till the Parousia).

This is evident in Scriptures and in the early Church Writings (extra-Biblical Writings of those who directly succeeded the Apostles and their Successors).

One simple example is the understanding of Who the Holy Spirit is. Many would argue against Him… may have sustained that it is an injection of the Church (present) into a none existing past… but though we hardly find evidence of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament… and though even the New Testament does not expand significantly on it… we have both direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit) acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit being Revealed to God’s Chosen (Israel’s Remnant) within God’s people (Israel).

We’ve all read the passages where Jesus makes it Known (Reveals) that it is through the Holy Spirit that man can Gain Salvation–that by rejection of the Holy Spirit, no one will be able to enter into a Relationship (Fellowship) with God.

Yet, seldom do we find Scriptures that demand such understanding and Fellowship…

Oral Tradition (Oral Teaching comes in)… when the Virgin and Joseph are met with the News of the Incarnation, it is Told (Revealed) to them that it is by the Power of the Holy Spirit that Mary will/has Conceived! Did you notice their reaction? Mary was taken aback with the news of conceiving a child (‘how can this be?’)… boy that was hard news… yet, as simple as she was she knew it would take coupling with a man to have such thing happen… when Gabriel counters with: ‘by the Power of the Holy Spirit,’ does Mary requires an explanation about this “Holy Spirit?”

The same happens with Joseph (though, understandably, it is a dream)… as he rushes over to Mary… does he challenge the Revelation of the “Holy Spirit?”

Finally we have Zachary and Elizabeth… they are caught up in this Revelation of the Messiah and they do not question neither the mention of the “Holy Spirit” nor the Power of the Holy Spirit as the Word Incarnate is Revealed.

This is an example of Revelation that is not fully made through the Written Word but that it is very much part of Revelation… jump ahead and consider the Canon of the Bible, and the various Doctrinal Teachings that developed against error (heresy) which attempted to erode the Church from her infancy… yes, the terms may not have been there, but we can find it right in the Sacred Writings:

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

(2 Thessalonians 2:14)
Further, we have Jesus, our Lord Himself, attesting to the Fullness of Revelation:

12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. 14 He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

(St. John 16:12-15)
…yes, many just chuck it up to: ‘hey, but nothing necessary for salvation was left out!’

Consider that not once do we find in Scriptures that the Apostles stated such thing (‘just a whole bunch of superfluous info that we really don’t need, any how…’) and that not once do we find in Scriptures: ‘here is the fullness of Revelation.’

So if Christ projects an unfolding of Revelation, and the Holy Spirit Comes to make such Revelation, how can man dictate that only what is Written in Scriptures is God’s Full Revelation?

Further, where is there in Scriptures the clause/statement that the Holy Spirit will be silent after the death of the last Apostle and will resurface about 1500 years later?

That’s what the Fullness of Revelation means (Oral and Written Traditions = the Word of God).

It was a courage born out of LOVE. It wounds my heart and spirit when people refuse Him; His great suffering reflected how very much He loved each of us.
:bighanky:

He had to have full wits until the end; as He cried out, “It is finished (the debt is paid)”.

…the point I was attempting to make is that Jesus had a reason for Calling to the Father that far exceeds simply reciting Scriptures… that His torment/turmoil was not simply dread of the Passion and Crucifixion but the loss of those potential-children of God who would refuse to Believe even when One Comes Back from the grave.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi again. I confess it pleases me greatly when I read Catholic posts here affirming “salvation is a gift of grace, and is not by works”. Please read my reply to “po18guy” …I want to comment on some things from the testimony that he linked.

…Catholic friends who have said, “salvation is by faith works and the sacraments”. How many works or sacraments did the Thief on the cross have? Is his case different, as some claim (pre-covenant, Jesus had not yet died!)?

Hi!

…when I engage a thread I read through all the posts (unless there’s huge deviance from edifying exchange, which includes circular arguments).

…what you cited is contrasting vocabulary/understanding… the criminal was about to die, the Church had not been operational in full, expediency was of the essence: he Confesses himself and humanity as sinners; he proclaims Jesus as Just; he holds Jesus as his Lord; he rejects his sinful life; he supplicates for Mercy; he connects Jesus as the Lord Giver of Mercy… what we have is Baptism of Intent, Confession, Contrition, Hope, acknowledgment of God’s Mercy and Power, and submission to God’s Mercy and Christ’s Lordship. Was there time for a full immersion into the Faith?

What is really important is not what took place between Jesus and the criminal… but what transpired afterwards… did Jesus hold up the criminal as the model for the Believers or the He Command a Function for the Church?

What Scriptures are you noting? I will agree in principle to what you said,

…we have several: including the denial of Christ as man/as God, the rejection of the Incarnation of the Word, the twisting of the Word, the denying of the existence of Satan, the mocking of Christ’s Return (Parousia), the rejection of the Body and Blood and the abuse of the Sacrament, the denying of Christ’s Resurrection, the splintering of the Body of Christ, the presumption of “better” or “more pious” than, the rejection of the Church…

While these were not termed “heretic teachings/beliefs,” that’s exactly what they were–teachings/beliefs contrary to the Christian Faith.

and repeat when I said: "even if what the Apostles wrote is not

final revelation, all that they did write is true and believable". Do we (myself and everyone here) have agreement on that?
I think that all Catholics, with the exception of poorly instructed ones, hold that Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God (infallible Teaching).

What “errors in Scripture” do you mean?

The two most important are found in: Galatians 2:11-21 and Acts 15:36-41. I am simply noting that issues did arise in the early Church but error was not taught as Doctrine nor was dissention allowed to fester…

That passage is strongly “OSNAS”. I don’t find any conflicts between what Peter wrote, and what Paul wrote. Although – in the section I wrote on “Universalism”, two verses by Peter are very confusing; no one really knows what he meant. But the rest I find in clear harmony.

…I was alluding to Galatians 2–had Cephas allowed ego to take power he could have ignored the problem that was arising… his silence could have caused division in the Body; instead, St. Peter allowed the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit to Silence the anti-Paul movement that was developing.

The Body of Christ is Divine, the members of the Body are susceptible to error.

That’s why it’s critical to fully cite the verses and the context. You remember what a local Calvinist minister did when I tried to hold him to 1Cor2:12? He not only refused to answer the verse, he dismissed me and closed the dialog saying: "I need to spend time with THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED in what Scripture SAYS!"

I still wonder how he was able to sleep after that; I was fully embracing ALL of the context, he was REFUSING the context, and he accused ME of “dismissing Scripture”?

Yes. And that I perceive is the utility of trying to list possible meanings. Against the 1Cor2:14 (forgive me for harping on this verse, it’s just a very clear example of the problem) — the claim is that "God must open understanding (dispatch the THINGS) before and in order for one to exert saving-belief.

There bold and plain in Paul’s words, we have to receive the Spirit BEFORE getting the things! In what Universe does anyone receive the Holy Spirit, without being fully repentant and believing and saved?

But so entrenched can some doctrines be, that they will respond just like the local Calvinist minister! Denial is not just a river in Egypt!
Exactly what I’ve attempted to point out.

Now, notice how Scriptures handle issues of error and contentions… they do not point to deep Scriptural observation/study but to the Church:

Acts 15:1-35:

2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

30 They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch; and gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle. 31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. 32 But Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, with many words comforted the brethren, and confirmed them.

…interestingly enough, not a call to Scriptures as the Authority but to the Church–(tangent: and Scriptures attest that past John the Baptist there are Christian prophets).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That is true. And yet, it is possible to “harden one’s sensitivity to the real Spirit”. Have you ever interacted with Mormons? They have something called, “burning of the bosom” — where, it is thought, one can pray to God for direction. Then, “how do you FEEL? God won’t guide you WRONG, will He? How you feel is your answer no matter if it conflicts with something Paul, Peter, John, or any of the others wrote!”

Hi!

I’ve not advanced much in the interaction with other religious groups (past their initial attempts at proselytizing); seems I’m not quite open to Christ’s “teachings”… but I have been engaged enough with the “feeling” theologies…

…as for the Holy Spirit, St. Paul warns to not extinguish the Holy Spirit (1 Th 5:19), that is, to not void (claim unsound or reject) His Inspiration and Guidance.

Find places where they are clear. “No one comes to the Father but by Me”, “no other name …by which to be saved”. These are clear, and inarguable.

That passage in 1Cor2:12-14 is clear; if there is an argument or dispute, what is it?

The consideration of 2Cor4:3-4, in context with

2Cor3:16 is clear; what would the dispute be?

The consideration of Jeremiah13:23 in context with verse 27 is clear; if the RT understanding still persists, how does it? What’s the reason?

Jcrichton, it is my experience that when you try to pin down people who had these verses as “Predestinary”, with the cited context, they simply refuse to listen! So there really does not seem to be a “variation in how they are interpretated”, if there was ANY variant, they would say so!
Again, I fully understand what you are saying… and I believe that your efforts are quite important in the Walk that we are Called to make. But, it’s been my experience that even when Scriptures are cited, most automatically default to their sect/denominational held understanding… ever dance the John 1:1 dance with Jehovah Witnesses? They refuse to engage past “Logos” and they hinder the Holy Spirit’s attempts to move them past their faith-base self-imposed limitations… ‘what?, how?, what?..’

I suspect Calvinists are not far from this steadfast holding to their faith-base understanding of God.

What about Acts13:48? Have you ever talked with a Calvinist about Acts13:48? It’s pretty big in their doctrine!

I think I have one of those invisible signs that pop only when necessary: “One Way Only”–much of my engagements don’t go past: ‘what church?’ “I’m Catholic!”

Here is something you and I (and literally everyone here) will agree on – true faith that saves, is NEVER alone!

That mirrors Jesus in Matt7:16-18, it mirrors James in most of his second chapter, it reflects all the rest!
I fully concur. That is why Faith, Believe, and Salvation are so charged… they seem simple enough on their own… but they are intertwined with each other and each one bringing a full set of degrees and demands.

And when confronted by the actual written text, they cannot answer

! I’ve given probably a fifth here, of what is in my book about countering “all fifty-five Secondaries and all four Primaries”. Does anyone feel, after seeing the cited verses, that there really can BE “second interpretations”? If so, what are they? How does a NOT-YET-SAVED person, receive the Holy Spirit? How does God violate His perfect and sinless nature to ordain and instill sin in His unelect? How can anyone “make for themselves a new heart and spirit”, if Monergism is true?
…this is part of “extinguishing” the Holy Spirit–one can ascribe to God evil while not realizing that that’s exactly what their belief/act is doing.

Unless a discussion partner (we are not opponents!!!) actually answers the verses and explains how they do NOT absolutely oppose things like “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”, the claim of “correct exegesis” or “leading by the Holy Spirit” or “Scriptural authenticity” just doesn’t fly.

Sadly, it is man’s propensity to be possessive and defensive… not so quick at accepting responsibility or owning up to being “wrong.”

…so as soon as he is challenged with a different view (understanding) the antagonistic platform takes shape… it is as simple as vocabulary… I’ve witness people arguing for hours on the same side of an issue… due to their different interpretation of words…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PluniaZ]

Read what the great doctor of the church Saint John Chrysostom (who was native in the same language as 1 Corinthians 5:21) has to say about the passage:

Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on thee. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dieth for sinners; and not dieth only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dieth] only, but thereby freely bestoweth upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that “we might become the righteousness of God in Him;”) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? ‘For the righteous,’ saith he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not “made” [Him] a sinner, but “sin;” not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but “that had not even known sin; that we” also “might become,” he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, “righteousness,” and, “the righteousness of God.” For this is [the righteousness] “of God” when we are justified not by works, (in which case it Were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is “the righteousness of God.”

That almost sounds Reformed right? Almost as if the righteousness of Jesus has been imputed to us, so let us not fear, right? Wrong. Chrysostom immediately continues:

Reflecting then on these things, let us fear these words more than hell; let us reverence the things [they express] more than the kingdom, and let us not deem it grievous to be punished, but to sin. For were He not to punish us, we ought to take vengeance on ourselves, who have been so ungrateful towards our Benefactor. Now he that hath an object of affection, hath often even slain himself, when unsuccessful in his love; and though successful, if he hath been guilty of a fault towards her, counts it not fit that he should even live; and shall not we, when we outrage One so loving and gentle, cast ourselves into the fire of hell?

clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/den.htm#n

Chyrsostom then directly refutes Reformed theology over a thousand years before Luther and Calvin were born:

For lest they should think that this of itself is “reconciliation,” believing on Him that calleth; he adds these words, requiting that earnestness which respects the life. For, for one who hath been freed from sins and made a friend to wallow in the former things, is to return again unto enmity, and to” receive the grace in vain,” in respect of the life. For from “the grace” we reap no benefit towards salvation, if we live impurely; nay, we are even harmed, having this greater aggravation even of our sins, in that after such knowledge and such a gift we have gone back to our former vices.

clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/deo.htm#o

There is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness in Chrysostom’s theology. There is judgment for our works, even after coming to faith in Jesus.

 

[po18guy]

There is judgment for our works, even after coming to faith in Jesus.

Dr. David Anders points out that every single verse which relates to our judgment speaks of our being judged for our works or deeds. Not a peep about our faith. Completely consistent with James’ writing that he showed his faith by his works (James 2:17-18).

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi!

…when I engage a thread I read through all the posts (unless there’s huge deviance from edifying exchange, which includes circular arguments).

…what you cited is contrasting vocabulary/understanding… the criminal was about to die, the Church had not been operational in full, expediency was of the essence: he Confesses himself and humanity as sinners; he proclaims Jesus as Just; he holds Jesus as his Lord; he rejects his sinful life; he supplicates for Mercy; he connects Jesus as the Lord Giver of Mercy… what we have is Baptism of Intent, Confession, Contrition, Hope, acknowledgment of God’s Mercy and Power, and submission to God’s Mercy and Christ’s Lordship. Was there time for a full immersion into the Faith?

“Baptism of intent” – this reminds me of when I conversed with a Seventh Day Adventist girl. They focus on things like “don’t eat meat”, and “you must observe the Sabbath on Saturday”. I asked about vocations like medical – are we to tell patients that they’re out of luck because we cannot take care of them on the Sabbath? She agreed that God would accept a person honoring Him on a different day. The key was “honoring God on a Sabbath”, her admission of circumstances requiring that honoring to be on a different day would be accepted, meant that we agreed “God accepts intent”. And there was no further reason to argue.

I left her with Col2:16 and following. “What does it say?” I said, “No, you have to read it for yourself.” It seems to have been written for those who focus on “submitting to things festivals, new moons, or a sabbath day – submitting themselves to decrees like ‘do not taste, do not touch’ – things which have appearance of spirituality, but are of no use against fleshly indulgence.”

What is really important is not what took place between Jesus and the criminal… but what transpired afterwards… did Jesus hold up the criminal as the model for the Believers or the He Command a Function for the Church?

What about the women around Corrie Tenboom? In a nazi prison, it was impossible for anyone to be waterbaptized; would God consider them any lest baptized? Absolutely not. Corrie led them all to Jesus, and they really were His.

…we can see heresies forming right from Scriptures and they are fought through the Epistles and Oral Teaching–the fountain of Faith is not limited to that which was Written, as Scriptures themselves attest.

What Scriptures are you noting?

…we have several: including the denial of Christ as man/as God, the rejection of the Incarnation of the Word, the twisting of the Word, the denying of the existence of Satan, the mocking of Christ’s Return (Parousia), the rejection of the Body and Blood and the abuse of the Sacrament, the denying of Christ’s Resurrection, the splintering of the Body of Christ, the presumption of “better” or “more pious” than, the rejection of the Church…

“Mocking of Christ’s return” – that reminds me of the Pre-Trib Rapture view. Where Jesus sneaks back secretly, to rescue His followers from tribulation (against Jn16:33). Wait – how many “Second Comings” does Jesus do? The angels in Acts1 said “He will return in exactly the same way He came” — it was public, and not secret. And it’s going to be noisy. Wouldn’t saying that Jesus is coming an additional time, not quite His “Second Coming” (maybe His 1-[sup]9[/sup]/[/sub]10[/sub] coming), secretly" — kinda’ mocking what Scripture says? :-/

While these were not termed “heretic teachings/beliefs,” that’s exactly what they were–teachings/beliefs contrary to the Christian Faith.

There are points of disagreement, as happens whenever any people get together. But points like “salvation by sovereign decree” or “personal responsibility” can be established through the Apostles’ writings. I’ve debated a lot with Calvinists; when I present context as I’ve been doing on this board, most often they just stop responding.