Regeneration/Born-Again

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

I have yet to see attribution of that statement by Luther to Luther; it seems to be “legend.”

It’s a paraphrase not a quote. It is based upon what Luther said here:

I said before that our righteousness is dung, in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. (Luther’s Works, Vol 34, p. 184)

Luther was fond of hyperbole. I’d say instead that our unrighteousness is dung, and when righteous we are not simply dung that is adorn, but instead, once made righteous by God, we are a new creation that is far from dung.

Catholic convert and former Presbyterian minister, Dr. Scott Hahn, expressed the Catholic view like this…

I believe that we are saved by Christ through grace alone, by a living faith working in love. I believe that’s the biblical view and I’ve also discovered, much to my shock, that it’s the Roman Catholic view, restated in every official statement in the Catholic Church with regard to the doctrines of grace, justification and salvation. Two thousand years of faithful teaching. From Christ alone, through grace alone, by faith and works done in love, only and always by the Holy Spirit. Not works done by sheer human energy to kind of force God into a bargain or contract, but the works of God in us, by the Holy Spirit, through the Holy Spirit…

“The master idea of the Catholic faith in general and the doctrine of justification of the Catholic Church in particular is the family of God. We receive in justification, not a legal acquittal only, but nothing less than the full gift of divine sonship, living, active and powerful, simultaneous with when we are first justified.” … justification from a Catholic perspective is divine sonship. It’s standing in God’s family. It’s nothing we earn, it’s nothing we work our way into.

How many people ever bought their way into a family? It can’t be done and it hasn’t been taught in the Catholic tradition. Justification, then, understood in the Catholic way, involves both the imputation of legal righteousness as the Protestants believe, but also the infusion of Christ’s life and grace as the divine son so that in Christ we become at justification living, breathing sons of God, not just legally but actually. That’s what the grace of the Father does for His children. In other words we hold with the Protestants that justification involves a legal decree, a divine word , that we are just, but unlike the Protestants and contrary to their position, we believe that that word of justification goes forth in power. In other words, God does what he declares. In the very act of declaring us just he makes us just because His Word is omnipotent, it’s all-powerful. Isaiah 55:11: “So shall my Word go forth from my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose.”… whatever God declares, He does by declaring it to be, because the Word of God is the living and active Christ himself. When we’re declared just, God does what he declares. He fathers children in Christ, the eternal Son…

according to the Roman Catholic Church, each and every deed I do that is pleasing to God is nothing other than the work of Christ active in me through the power of the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine said as a result, “When God rewards my labors, He’s merely crowning the works of His hands in my life.” As Paul says, “We are not competent of ourselves; our competence is from God who has made us competent.” It isn’t me but the Holy Spirit in me enabling me to cooperate and operate. So we are justified and made holy by God’s grace alone. The Catholic Church says, 'It’s grace from beginning to end; there’s no strict merit whatsoever. If there’s any merit it’s the merit of a child who grows up and receives from the parents the life of the family, and works and learns and does fidelity in the household. So it’s like a father who gives and fills his children with all that he has and is. …

Paul condemns those who make salvation a wage or salary. Let me say that again. We are not teaching that salvation is in any sense an earned wage or salary. Rather, it’s a reward by way of inheritance. What child ever bought his way into the family? Entrance into the family, membership in the family, is pure gift. Or what parent ever told a child, "You will inherit and rule in the family no matter what you do? Salvation is a reward only in the sense that an inheritance is. From start to finish it’s pure gift.

[Justification Debate between Scott Hahn and Dr. Robert Knudson of Westminster Seminary
http://www.mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/justify.htm”]http://www.mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/justify.htm

]

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

It’s a paraphrase not a quote. It is based upon what Luther said here:

I said before that our righteousness is dung, in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. (Luther’s Works, Vol 34, p. 184)

itsjustdave1988:

Luther was fond of hyperbole.

Baloney. Some paraphrase; there is no mention of a snow-covered anything in what you offer, and if you understand it as hyberbole, why do you make such a big deal of it?

itsjustdave1988:

Catholic convert and former Presbyterian minister, Dr. Scott Hahn, expressed the Catholic view like this…

I believe that we are saved by Christ through grace alone, by a living faith working in love. I believe that’s the biblical view and I’ve also discovered, much to my shock, that it’s the Roman Catholic view, restated in every official statement in the Catholic Church with regard to the doctrines of grace, justification and salvation. Two thousand years of faithful teaching. From Christ alone, through grace alone, by faith and works done in love, only and always by the Holy Spirit. Not works done by sheer human energy to kind of force God into a bargain or contract, but the works of God in us, by the Holy Spirit, through the Holy Spirit…

“The master idea of the Catholic faith in general and the doctrine of justification of the Catholic Church in particular is the family of God. We receive in justification, not a legal acquittal only, but nothing less than the full gift of divine sonship, living, active and powerful, simultaneous with when we are first justified.” … justification from a Catholic perspective is divine sonship. It’s standing in God’s family. It’s nothing we earn, it’s nothing we work our way into.

How many people ever bought their way into a family? It can’t be done and it hasn’t been taught in the Catholic tradition. Justification, then, understood in the Catholic way, involves both the imputation of legal righteousness as the Protestants believe, but also the infusion of Christ’s life and grace as the divine son so that in Christ we become at justification living, breathing sons of God, not just legally but actually. That’s what the grace of the Father does for His children. In other words we hold with the Protestants that justification involves a legal decree, a divine word , that we are just, but unlike the Protestants and contrary to their position, we believe that that word of justification goes forth in power. In other words, God does what he declares. In the very act of declaring us just he makes us just because His Word is omnipotent, it’s all-powerful. Isaiah 55:11: “So shall my Word go forth from my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose.”… whatever God declares, He does by declaring it to be, because the Word of God is the living and active Christ himself. When we’re declared just, God does what he declares. He fathers children in Christ, the eternal Son…

according to the Roman Catholic Church, each and every deed I do that is pleasing to God is nothing other than the work of Christ active in me through the power of the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine said as a result, “When God rewards my labors, He’s merely crowning the works of His hands in my life.” As Paul says, “We are not competent of ourselves; our competence is from God who has made us competent.” It isn’t me but the Holy Spirit in me enabling me to cooperate and operate. So we are justified and made holy by God’s grace alone. The Catholic Church says, 'It’s grace from beginning to end; there’s no strict merit whatsoever. If there’s any merit it’s the merit of a child who grows up and receives from the parents the life of the family, and works and learns and does fidelity in the household. So it’s like a father who gives and fills his children with all that he has and is. …

Paul condemns those who make salvation a wage or salary. Let me say that again. We are not teaching that salvation is in any sense an earned wage or salary. Rather, it’s a reward by way of inheritance. What child ever bought his way into the family? Entrance into the family, membership in the family, is pure gift. Or what parent ever told a child, "You will inherit and rule in the family no matter what you do? Salvation is a reward only in the sense that an inheritance is. From start to finish it’s pure gift.

A legal acquittal, indeed; one that can be overturned at the whim of the creature, and a father that tosses a child out at the point of infraction, and then makes him go to another sinner for the absolution of his guilt.

Not very comforting, Dave, not very comforting.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

Baloney. Some paraphrase; there is no mention of a snow-covered anything in what you offer, …

Hmmmm…in the military, we call this “quibbling.” “Adorn dung” is sooooo different, right? Even Lutheran scholars teach that the words “snow-covered dung” captures the sentiment Luther frequently proclaimed, based upon their understanding of Luthers Works.

Take two demerits for quibbling. :tsktsk:

and if you understand it as hyberbole, why do you make such a big deal of it?

Because according to Lutherans, it is the sentiment Luther frequently proclaimed and as such, the teaching is heretical , hyperbole or not. Another example of Luther’s heretical “hyperbole” is when he said Jesus committed adultery.

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus **even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died. **

(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

Whether Luther was drunk or being hyperbolic or not, what is taught by it is a damnable heresy.

As to whether or not you are comforted by Catholic doctrine? That’s not really the point is it? Hell is not a very comforting doctrine either, but it’s true.

My point is, your view of Catholicism is wrong, just as surely as Spurgeon and Calvin got Augustine’s teachings wrong. Augustine taught the Catholic doctrine of grace and predestination, including that not all truly regenerated Christians will persevere to the end, and consequently are not among the truly elect. That’s the “old standard” that Paul and Augustine handed on. I hear from numerous Calvinists, when trying to respond to charges that their doctrines are novel or “peculiar,” that they are simply teaching what Augustine taught. Either they are purposefully deceptive or just plain ignorant. Either way, they lose credibility. I like Spurgeon’s writings even more so than many Catholic author’s writings, but I’m going to presume that in good faith, he was just plain ignorant of Augustine’s teachings, and consequently, I hold that Calvnism started with Calvin.

As for me and my family, we shall serve the Lord. When I see a crossroad like Calvinism in the history of Christianity, I look for the ancient path, because it is there that I will find rest for my soul. (cf. Jer 6:16)

 

[wpr]

A legal acquittal, indeed; one that can be overturned at the whim of the creature, and a father that tosses a child out at the point of infraction, and then makes him go to another sinner for the absolution of his guilt.

Not very comforting, Dave, not very comforting.

Hello Sandusky,

I beleive you misunderstand the Sacrament of Reconciliation and it’s relationship to the state of grace. A sinner is not tossed out on a whim. Plus, the sinner convicts himself.

1. A person that is under a state of grace does not lose the status by commiting venial sin.

*CCC1863 "…However venial sin does not break the covenent with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequantly eternal happiness”. *

1. Mortal sin does come with the consequance of loss of grace. But you must understand the teaching before you convict it.

*CCC1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It’s results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from God’s Kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act itself is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God. *

It is also helpfull to note…

CCC1856 "Mortal sin by attacking the vital principle within us-that is, charity, necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of the heart which is normally accomplished in the setting of the sacrement of reconciliation.

And also a basic understanding of a Christian of what constitutes mortal sin…

CCC1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of it’s opposition to God’s law. It implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a person al choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rarther increase, the voluntary character of sin.

And what may diminish such acts that may in another situation be considered mortal…

CCC1860 “…The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.”

Plus, if you understood the Sacrement of reconciliation, the Preist is not doing the forgiving. Only God forgives sins. CCC1466 The confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant."

Finally, without trying to antagonize you. I’d like to know how your belief in “the predestined elect” somehow makes you think you are not guilty of judgement? If a beleiver in your theology confesses to reject Christ even though he once confessed to be of the elect of God (as you do). You convict him as “one who never beleived” and he was thus “never one of the elect.” Do you think your off the hook because you put his condemnation in the hands of God?

While the Catholic Church puts the sinner in the hands of God to be judged by his mercy and does not condemn him. Your theology codemns him as “not of the elect of God.” Am I wrong? If so, how?

 

[bene7]

To “itsjustdave1988”:

You quoted Scott Hahn:

I believe that we are (1) saved by Christ (2) through grace alone, (3) by a living faith working in love. (4) I believe that’s the biblical view and I’ve also discovered, much to my shock, (5) that it’s the Roman Catholic view

What Scott Hahn claims to believe truly is the Catholic view of salvation, but it surely is NOT the Biblical view, and clearly not Pauline as revealed in his Epistles.

TITUS 3:4-7 “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

EPH. 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Just by examining only two Biblical verses on salvation one can vividly see the differences between Scott Hahn’s distorted view and that which is clearly taught by Paul in the Bible.

**1. ** We are not “saved by Christ,” we’re actually saved by God through the Savior’s redemptive work on the cross for us, which He sent Him into this world to do.

2. We are not saved “through grace” (i.e., the Catholic idea of “graces”), but “by grace” (unmerited favor).

**3. ** We are not saved “by a living faith working in love” but “by grace through faith,” totally apart from all works, and according to Paul, even apart from "deeds which we have done in righteousness, and strictly according to His mercy.

4. Scott Hahn says what he believes is the Biblical view of salvation but, in fact, when one examines his teachings against those of Paul’s found in the Bible, it is not.

5. What he states is consistent with the Roman Catholic view. The reason Scott Hahn could so easily convert to Catholicism is because he never truly understood what the Scriptures actually revealed on salvation and justification.

Hahn states:

Paul condemns those who make salvation a wage or salary. Let me say that again. We are not teaching that salvation is in any sense an earned wage or salary. Rather, it’s a reward by way of inheritance.

Can one state a more blatant contradiction? Salvation is a “reward” by way of “inheritance?” Since when is an inheritance ever considered a “reward?” An inheritance is something received, gift-wise, after a death has occurred.

Christ not only died “for” our sins, but He also died “to sin, once for all” (Rom. 6:11), and subsequently raised to new life three days later. The true believer is now said to be “created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17), a “new creation” (Gal. 6:15), having inherited Christ’s NEW life, being now “in Him,” i.e., the resurrected Christ; even seated with Him in the heavenly (Eph. 2:6; see also Col. 3:1-4)

The true believer is said to be no longer in Adam, but in Christ, the “Last Adam,” the “*second man,” * his new Federal Head (see Rom. 5:12-21 cf. 1 Cor. 15:45, 47). Inheriting in Him, through His death, a whole new life, a whole new identity being created “in Christ.” A new life and identity that is as eternal as He is, being “in” Him and becoming the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Cor. 1:30).

This is what Paul means, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus…”.

Obviously these Biblical truths concerning the believer are not based on the Catholic doctrine of “infused righteousness,” but the reality of a whole new creation. The anti-biblical notion of “infused” righteousness diametrically opposes Christ’s own words and the principle He presents that one cannot put new wine into old wineskins, but new wine must be put into new wineskins (Matt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:37-38). Hence, the need for a whole new creation in Christ Jesus.

Entrance into the family, membership in the family, is pure gift. Or what parent ever told a child, "You will inherit and rule in the family no matter what you do? Salvation is a reward only in the sense that an inheritance is. From start to finish it’s pure gift.

WHAT??? His final statement is chocked full of contradictions.

Blessings
Bene

 

[bene7]

wpr:

I beleive you misunderstand the Sacrament of Reconciliation and it’s relationship to the state of grace. A sinner is not tossed out on a whim. Plus, the sinner convicts himself.

But the core problem is that the “sacrament” itself is anti-Biblical. No where in the N.T. is it taught that anyone (believer or unbeliever) is reconciled to God through the action of confessing sin (“mortal” or “venial,” makes no difference).

2COR. 5:19 “…namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

The work of reconciliation took place 2000 years ago, and that through sacrifice, not confession. One enters into that divinely accomplished reconciliation when he puts his faith in Christ after hearing the “word” of reconciliation. That those who trust in Christ ARE forever reconciled to God through His work on the cross.

Speaking to believers Paul states:

ROM 5:10 “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (i.e., in context, “spared” from the wrath of God).

COL 1:22 “yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach…”

Reconciliation is not a divine act of absolving one of committed sins, but “changing” the relationship of man to God, from that of being a once enemy of God to a friend of God - through the death of His Son. Reconciliation is the work (completed) of Christ, and His alone. When a sinner (an enemy of God) puts his faith in Christ, he is completely and perfectly reconciled to God, his relationship completely changed with God, through the death of His Son.

I know, I know, this is not Catholic teaching, but it’s according to God’s Word.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bene7:

What Scott Hahn claims to believe truly is the Catholic view of salvation, but it surely is NOT the Biblical view, and clearly not Pauline as revealed in his Epistles.

I understand that is your opinion. However, I disagree. Instead, I agree with Spurgeon when he states that “***Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God.” ***

The Catholic view is what Augustine taught. Calvinism started no earlier than Calvin. One would have to be a fool to think the Holy Spirit was dormant for over 1500 years until Calvin picked up and read the Bible. The “old standard” that Spurgeon refers to, the one Paul, Chrysostom, Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas taught, is that standard that the Catholic Church continues to teach, your novel interpretations notwithstanding.

 

[sandusky]

Dave,

You quote Luther:

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.

(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

On an earlier post, you said to me:

Oh, so now your moving on to other polemics, seeing that you FAILED in your original claim? Do you really think that kind of dodging will help your credibility…jumping to other issues is a sign of defeat.

Does that admonition apply to you as well?

itsjustdave1988:

Hmmmm…in the military, we call this “quibbling.” “Adorn dung” is sooooo different, right? Even Lutheran scholars teach that the words “snow-covered dung” captures the sentiment Luther frequently proclaimed, based upon their understanding of Luthers Works.

I don’t care what Lutheran scholars teach with respect to that. You cannot attribute the quote to Luther. Just state what Luther said, and not some legend that you would like for him to have said.

itsjustdave1988:

Yet, what the Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine taught, Calvin, Spurgeon, …

Dave, which of those you list above is infallible?

And, does your church follow all of Augustine’s teachings?

 

[wpr]

Reconciliation is not a divine act of absolving one of committed sins

If you were speaking of initial justification I would not disagree.

, but "*changing*" the relationship of man to God, from that  of being a once enemy of God to a friend of God - through *the death of His Son*. Reconciliation is the work (completed) of Christ, and His alone.  When a sinner (an enemy of God) puts his faith in Christ, he is completely and perfectly reconciled to God, his relationship completely *changed* with God, through the death of His Son.

Are you telling me that in your theology you do not have to ask God to forgive your sins committed after the moment of imputation? You do not even directly have to God for forgiveness? (not in the Lutheran Church MO Synod) Contrition for sin is not required?

If so, this makes no sense to me in light of Scripture. The CCC makes reference to Scripture throughout the explanation. I’ll prepare a reply, but it will take a bit more time than I have at present.

My other question…
If you are inclined, I also asked Sandusky how he explains what I see as a condemnation when one confessing to be among the predestined elect is said to “never have truely beleived” and is thus “not truely of the elect”?

How is this possible to reconcile without condemning the person for either a henious sin or rejection of the Gospel?

Why is your judgement morally better than the Catholic fall from grace? (I know you think it more biblical)

Example: Can an unrepentant adulterer be of the elect? If not, does it not require true repentance for the adulterer to truely become “one of the elect” even if he thought he was prior to committing the henious sin?

If so, why do you have to say the person previously “never truely beleived”. It seems to me this is the way you protect irrevocable forensic imputation. It has no effect what-so-ever on the need for true contrition. Does it?

So you say they never were justified and Catholics say they may have been, but lost it. In either case, repentance and the grace of God are required to justify.

 

[bene7]

wpr:

If you were speaking of initial justification I would not disagree.

Reconciliation has nothing to do with justification. In respect to the Lord’s work on behalf of the believer, forgiveness of sins is a subtraction, while justification is an addition.

Are you telling me that in your theology you do not have to ask God to forgive your sins committed after the moment of imputation? You do not even directly have to God for forgiveness?

We’re never required to “ask” for forgiveness of sins, what is required is to “believe” what God has accomplished for the forgiveness of our sins through the Person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross." Have you read the words of your first Pope? “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him RECEIVES forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43). And the Apostle Paul? “*Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,” * (Acts 13:38). And the Lord Himself? “…to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Acts 26:18). Or what Paul told the Colossians regarding the Person and work of Christ? *"…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" * (Col. 1:14). Or…

COL 2:13 “And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”

How is it you refuse to believe God’s word but believe man’s?

You do not even directly have to God for forgiveness?

I’m required to go to the cross by faith.

If so, this makes no sense to me in light of Scripture.

It should in light of the Scriptures I provided for you. What do you think the cross is about?

If you are inclined, I also asked Sandusky how he explains what I see as a condemnation when one confessing to be among the predestined elect is said to “never have truly beleived” and is thus “not truly of the elect”?

Not sure what you’re asking, but no one is ever saved by believing he’s one of the elect. That’s not the Gospel.

How is this possible to reconcile without condemning the person for either a henious sin or rejection of the Gospel?

From where did you get the idea that if one “rejects” the Gospel he could be “reconciled” to God? Wpr, your questions are based on a faulty understanding of Biblical “reconciliation.” Catholicism is still dealing, sacramentally, with sins Christ dealt with 2000 years ago and has since proclaimed to the world divine forgiveness of them through faith in Him. You could call that unbelief.

So you say they never were justified and Catholics say they may have been, but lost it.

A true believer cannot lose his salvation not because he’s one of God “elect,” but because the cross is vacant and the tomb is empty. No one can change history, no one can undo what Christ has done for those who are His. You have yet to understand the cross, my friend. Or actually *believe * in what Christ accomplished there.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

itsjustdave1988:

I understand that is your opinion. However, I disagree. Instead, I agree with Spurgeon when he states that “***Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God.” ***

Hummm, I had no idea your church had elevated the literary teachings of Spurgeon and Augustine to being infallible.

The Catholic view is what Augustine taught.

Not in totality. Thomas Aquinas became more of the leading authority.

Calvinism started no earlier than Calvin. One would have to be a fool to think the Holy Spirit was dormant for over 1500 years until Calvin picked up and read the Bible.

You’ll get no argument from me, I’m not a Calvinist, I’m a Biblicist. And the Scriptures have been around since they were first penned by their human authors, and their Divine Author for all eternity.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

I beleive you misunderstand the Sacrament of Reconciliation and it’s relationship to the state of grace. A sinner is not tossed out on a whim. Plus, the sinner convicts himself.

I did not say that a sinner is tossed out on a whim.

I said that on the whim of the creature, God’s acquittal of guilt is overturned.

Though sin is serious, it is the whim of the creature (Jas 11:13ff). Because of the condition of man, even regenerate man, your theology renders God’s acquittal null and void immediately. There is no one who does not sin. In your theology, God’s acquittal stands or falls on the whim of the creature.

Your distinction between venial and mortal sin makes no sense. All sin leads to death; that is the problem, but the sin issue has been dealt with by Christ’s death on the cross, and the reconciliation as well, is come in Christ.

wpr:

And also a basic understanding of a Christian of what constitutes mortal sin…

CCC1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of it’s opposition to God’s law. It implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a person al choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rarther increase, the voluntary character of sin.

That is a Catholic view; I would not lump all of Christendom under your view. Where do we find a treatment of mortal sin in the scripture?

wpr:

Plus, if you understood the Sacrement of reconciliation, the Preist is not doing the forgiving. Only God forgives sins. CCC1466 The confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant."

Looking at Hebrews 10:1-11, we see that the sacrifices offered by the O.T. Aaronic priesthood were ineffective for the forgiveness of sins, and for the cleansing of the guilt of the believer, if that priesthood, instituted by God, could not forgive the sins of men, what makes you think that your priesthood, for which there is no N.T. scriptural instruction defining its form, can forgive the sins of men?

wpr:

Finally, without trying to antagonize you. I’d like to know how your belief in “the predestined elect” somehow makes you think you are not guilty of judgement? If a beleiver in your theology confesses to reject Christ even though he once confessed to be of the elect of God (as you do). You convict him as “one who never beleived” and he was thus “never one of the elect.” Do you think your off the hook because you put his condemnation in the hands of God?

While the Catholic Church puts the sinner in the hands of God to be judged by his mercy and does not condemn him. Your theology codemns him as “not of the elect of God.” Am I wrong? If so, how?

I do not make the judgment, scripture has made the judgment (1 Jn 2:19). That is not my judgment, but an observation I make in light of scripture, which says that the believer can rightly appraise all things in light of scripture (1 Cor 2:15).

Election and salvation are separate. The believer must still appropriate Christ’s saving work on the cross through faith, and once that is done, the believer does not come into judgment, but passes from death to life (Jn 5:24), the words of Jesus, not the words of Sandusky.

Again, if one confesses Christ, and then rejects him, according to John, that one was never “one of us.” That is John’s theology as well as mine.

 

[Fiat]

bene7:

Reconciliation has nothing to do with justification. In respect to the Lord’s work on behalf of the believer, forgiveness of sins is a subtraction, while justification is an addition.We’re never required to “ask” for forgiveness of sins, what is required is to “believe” what God has accomplished for the forgiveness of our sins through the Person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross." Have you read the words of your first Pope? “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him RECEIVES forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43). And the Apostle Paul? “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,” (Acts 13:38). And the Lord Himself? "…to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me" (Acts 26:18). Or what Paul told the Colossians regarding the Person and work of Christ? "…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:14). Or…

How is it you refuse to believe God’s word but believe man’s?I’m required to go to the cross by faith.It should in light of the Scriptures I provided for you. What do you think the cross is about?Not sure what you’re asking, but no one is ever saved by believing he’s one of the elect. That’s not the Gospel.From where did you get the idea that if one “rejects” the Gospel he could be “reconciled” to God? Wpr, your questions are based on a faulty understanding of Biblical “reconciliation.” Catholicism is still dealing, sacramentally, with sins Christ dealt with 2000 years ago and has since proclaimed to the world divine forgiveness of them through faith in Him. You could call that unbelief.A true believer cannot lose his salvation not because he’s one of God “elect,” but because the cross is vacant and the tomb is empty. No one can change history, no one can undo what Christ has done for those who are His. You have yet to understand the cross, my friend. Or actually *believe *in what Christ accomplished there.

Blessings,
Bene

Are you serious with this? I happen to recall Jesus Christ instructing us how to pray. He quite clearly indicates in that prayer that we ask the Father to forgive our trespasses.

Your conclusions about belief aren’t very clearly, particularly in light of the Abrahamic discussions.

Fiat

 

[wpr]

Election and salvation are separate. The believer must still appropriate Christ’s saving work on the cross through faith, and once that is done, the believer passes from judgment to life (Jn 5:24), the words of Jesus, not the words of Sandusky.

Sandusky, you and Bene are not in agreement again. Bene tells me if I am of the elect, I do not even have to repent for sins committed after forensic imputation has occurred. He says they are taken care of already by Christ and therefore, I need not be contrite even directly to God lest I assume to diminish the power of the cross.

Catholicism teaches we cannot come under grace (be born again by water and the Spirit) but by the cross and we are forgiven by Christ in light of the cross even for sins committed after we are born again. We do have to, of our free will, repent and show contrition. Contrition is perfect faith in the saving power of the cross continuing in our lives!

We can’t bury our faith in the ground and exume it at death and hold it before Christ as our ticket to salvation. A Christian has to live by faith, like Abraham. My sarcasm aside, I think you may agree.

The problem still looms. How am I to know when imputation has occurred? This seems a difficult thing to determine in light of Scripture by your own disagreement…

1. You and Bene cannot agree when Abraham was imputed. Gn 12 or Gn 15:6. This is a rather large issue. No? (Remember, Charlie agrees with you according to Dave)

You both claim to be correct. But assume to convince me by going back and reasserting forensic imputation rather than reconciling the issue.

Let’s examine the argument. According to you, Paul teaches forensic imputation and uses Abraham Gn 15:6 as his proof. Yet, we see this is not so clear when we look at James 2 and Hebrews 11. The difficulty is that forensic imputation assumes an instance when rightiousness is irrevocably imputed and, does not happen until one’s faith is of a sufficient nature (yet to be defined by either of you) . I know this because Bene tells me Abraham did not have sufficient faith in Gn 12.

Then , if we assume imputation, you reconcile James 2 by asserting that James means “sanctification” (or something other than justification) even though he uses the same Greek word as Paul and the context of James is salvation.

How one resolves Hebrews has never been shown. Other than Sandusky’s inclination that Charlie may have been correct.

1. James 2 is still the elephant in the room. Forensic imputation is not proved. Your logic requires that Paul and James have opposing understandings of the meaning of the greek words they use.

Thus, when Bene told me of the careful use of words by the HS in Gn 15:6, I asked him why the HS was subtle in Gn 15, yet so clumsy in word choice in James 2 and Hebrews 11 in this light?

Now, as a Catholic, I am not confused and I do not need to twist James, Hebrews, and Genesis to fit my theology.

(Shall I show you again the specific issues in James? I asked this question way up the thread and have never received a reply).

On another note…
Do I understand that Sandusky believes one can be of the elect and not assent to faith and thus lose election? This seems contrary to Bene’s assertion.

I am not trying to annoy you guys. I just pay attention.

Gentlemen, You’ve made some good points that, in honesty, have lead me to a greater understanding of Catholicism (maybe the opposite of your intention though).

 

[bene7]

Fiat:

Are you serious with this? I happen to recall Jesus Christ instructing us how to pray. He quite clearly indicates in that prayer that we ask the Father to forgive our trespasses.

Dead serious!!! It was His disciples who asked Him to teach them how to pray. They were Jews under the Law and He spoke and instructed them as such. Peter being one of them. But then AFTER the cross Peter seems to understand something that you do not: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him RECEIVES forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). Can you show in either of Peter’s Epistles, or in the Book Acts where he instructs his audience to ask God to forgive their sins?

Your conclusions about belief aren’t very clearly, particularly in light of the Abrahamic discussions.

Not very clear or just not in accordance with your religious system?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Kendy]

bene7:

Dead serious!!! It was His disciples who asked Him to teach them how to pray. They were Jews under the Law and He spoke and instructed them as such. Peter being one of them. But then AFTER the cross Peter seems to understand something that you do not: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him RECEIVES forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). Can you show in either of Peter’s Epistles, or in the Book Acts where he instructs his audience to ask God to forgive their sins?

Blessings,
Bene

It might be helpful to define “receive.” It may seem obvious, but still what does it mean to “receive Him” and what would “not receiving him” look like?

Kendy

 

[wpr]

I did not say that a sinner is tossed out on a whim.

I said that on the whim of the creature, God’s acquittal of guilt is overturned.

Though sin is serious, it is the whim of the creature (Jas 11:13ff). Because of the condition of man, even regenerate man, your theology renders God’s acquittal null and void immediately

. There is no one who does not sin. In your theology, God’s acquittal stands or falls on the whim of the creature.

No no no! That opposite was my point! We do not fall from grace and regain it each time we go to confession. We are not “rendering God’s aquittal null and void” not in the least bit. We are, however, taking very seriously the call to holiness and the call to repent even after we are born again. (1 John 1:8~10) We never ever lose sight of the cross!

Your distinction between venial and mortal sin makes no sense. All sin leads to death; that is the problem, but the sin issue has been dealt with by Christ’s death on the cross, and the reconciliation as well, is come in Christ.

That is a Catholic view; I would not lump all of Christendom under your view. Where do we find a treatment of mortal sin in the scripture?

Yes, the forgiveness of sins was dealt with on the cross and the reconciliation also is from the cross. But, contrition in our call to be holy is not. This does diminish the cross, but rather glorifies it in that we continue to look to Christ.

As for your question . 1 John 5:16~17 (Mortal = “of death”) The whole letter is also helpful to our understanding.

Looking at Hebrews 10:1-11, we see that the sacrifices offered by the O.T. Aaronic priesthood were ineffective for the forgiveness of sins, and for the cleansing of the guilt of the believer, if that priesthood, instituted by God, could not forgive the sins of men, what makes you think that your priesthood, for which there is no N.T. scriptural instruction defining its form, can forgive the sins of
men?

Christ is the sacrifice, I’d rather say He was very effective, perfect in fact. Christ instituted the Priesthood. The Priest does not forgive the sin; God does. And…the cross is inseparable from contrition. The Priest is acting on the authority given him by Christ Mt 16:19, Mt 18:18, 28:16~20.

(I know you don’t interpret these Scriptures the same as we do, but that is rather the point of our discussion, no?)

I do not make the judgment, scripture has made the judgment (1 Jn 2:19). That is not my judgment, but an observation I make in light of scripture, which says that the believer can rightly appraise all things in light of scripture (1 Cor 2:15).

That you and Bene cannot agree does not give you pause to Bible alone theology?

Election and salvation are separate. The believer must still appropriate Christ’s saving work on the cross through faith, and once that is done, the believer does not come into judgment, but passes from death to life (Jn 5:24), the words of Jesus, not the words of Sandusky.

I beleive we have a nother clear in tance of dissent between you and Bene. Am I wrong?

Again, if one confesses Christ, and then rejects him, according to John, that one was never “one of us.” That is John’s theology as well as mine.

I do not beleive you hav e the correct understandi ng of John’s theology. But, that’s the point of our disccussion.

 

[wpr]

bene7:

Dead serious!!! It was His disciples who asked Him to teach them how to pray. They were Jews under the Law and He spoke and instructed them as such. Peter being one of them. But then AFTER the cross Peter seems to understand something that you do not: “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him RECEIVES forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43). Can you show in either of Peter’s Epistles, or in the Book Acts where he instructs his audience to ask God to forgive their sins?Not very clear or just not in accordance with your religious system?

Blessings,
Bene

Bene, I’m stunned. None of the Apostles ever thought to specifically instruct the faithfull to NOT pray as the Lord had taught them?

Why on God’s green earth would any of the Gospel authors under the HS in spiration even write the “Lord’s Prayer” if we were not to pray as such?

Sandusky…shall we say the Lord’s prayer or not in your view?

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

I did not say that a sinner is tossed out on a whim.

I said that on the whim of the creature, God’s acquittal of guilt is overturned.

Though sin is serious, it is the whim of the creature (Jas 11:13ff). Because of the condition of man, even regenerate man, your theology renders God’s acquittal null and void immediately. There is no one who does not sin. In your theology, God’s acquittal stands or falls on the whim of the creature.

I presume you mean that whim to be the individuals decision to go to confession. This, of course, is false. God’s mercy is not bound BY the sacrament of reconciliation. He may forgive entirely apart from reconciliation. God is bound to forgive when we repent, however, because of Christ’s work on our behalf.

sandusky:

Your distinction between venial and mortal sin makes no sense. All sin leads to death; that is the problem, but the sin issue has been dealt with by Christ’s death on the cross, and the reconciliation as well, is come in Christ.

All wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Fiat:

Are you serious with this? I happen to recall Jesus Christ instructing us how to pray. He quite clearly indicates in that prayer that we ask the Father to forgive our trespasses.

Your conclusions about belief aren’t very clearly, particularly in light of the Abrahamic discussions.

Fiat

Save your breath. Bene doesn’t believe those verses apply to this age - the age of Grace. Neither does, “If you don’t forgive others their sins, neither will your father in heaven forgive you yours.” I had attempted to unite the concept of “forgiving others” with the total meaning of what it means to “beleive” or “have faith in” Jesus. He simply sees those verses as not having any application to us, those verses are for the millenium…

Phil