Regeneration/Born-Again

[Philthy]

Philthy:

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

Heres the thread that revealed this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85784

Its the romans 4:5 thread from the Apologetics forum about a month ago.

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

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?

Acts 2:36-40

---

****Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

Sandusky, you and Bene are not in agreement again.

From what posts do you draw this conclusion?

wpr:

Contrition is perfect faith in the saving power of the cross continuing in our lives!

Where in scripture is one told to “perform acts of contrition?”

wpr:

We can’t bury our faith in the ground and exume it at death and hold it before Christ as our ticket to salvation.

I agree.

wpr:

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…

What disagreement? Show me where this disagreement occurs. I do not disagree with Bene.

wpr:

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)

I have said Gen 15:6. What has Bene said?

wpr:

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.

I said James 2 is about “demonstration,” not sanctification. See my post #154.

wpr:

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

See my post # 356. The lesson of Hebrews 11 is not justification.

wpr:

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?

The H.S. is never clumsy in His word choice, but purposeful. Clumsy is your word.

wpr:

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

Indeed. So I am confused, and I am the one twisting scripture, is that correct?

wpr:

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 have never said that. The elect will be saved.

wpr:

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.

That is not what I said. I said that God’s acquittal is made null and void on the whim of the creature. Let me state it another way. Each time the creature commits “mortal” sin, he voids God’s declaration of righteousness.

wpr:

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

And what, specifically, is that sin “to death” that John is talking about in 1 Jn 5?

wpr:

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

You continue to claim that Bene and I disagree. Show me, specifically, where we disagree; list the posts; I cannot think of a disagreement that I have with Bene.

wpr:

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

What have I misunderstood?

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

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.

No. When the individual sins, he renders null and void God’s declaration of righteousness, and the sinner must then seek restoration of his righteousness by the sacrament of confession, right?

Philthy:

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

The wages of sin is death; all sin is deadly.

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Acts 2:36-40

Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

Peter does not say: Do penance, but REPENT. The bible translation you are using is not good.

 

[Fiat]

sandusky:

From what posts do you draw this conclusion?

Where in scripture is one told to “perform acts of contrition?”

I agree.

What disagreement? Show me where this disagreement occurs. I do not disagree with Bene.

I have said Gen 15:6. What has Bene said?

I said James 2 is about “demonstration,” not sanctification. See my post #154.

See my post # 356. The lesson of Hebrews 11 is not justification.

The H.S. is never clumsy in His word choice, but purposeful. Clumsy is your word.

Indeed. So I am confused, and I am the one twisting scripture, is that correct?

I have never said that. The elect will be saved.

That is not what I said. I said that God’s acquittal is made null and void on the whim of the creature. Let me state it another way. Each time the creature commits “mortal” sin, he voids God’s declaration of righteousness.

And what, specifically, is that sin “to death” that John is talking about in 1 Jn 5?

You continue to claim that Bene and I disagree. Show me, specifically, where we disagree; list the posts; I cannot think of a disagreement that I have with Bene.
What have I misunderstood?

Sandusky:
If you read the thread on Romans, which Philthy provided a link to in his post #379 on this thread, you will see that Bene insists that Abraham was not justified earlier than Gen. 15.

Fiat

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

Peter does not say: Do penance, but REPENT. The bible translation you are using is not good.

Douey-Rheims is a fine translation. But the word “repent” still holds the point.

 

[sandusky]

Fiat:

Sandusky:
If you read the thread on Romans, which Philthy provided a link to in his post #379 on this thread, you will see that Bene insists that Abraham was not justified earlier than Gen. 15.

Fiat

That is what scripture says, isn’t it?

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Douey-Rheims is a fine translation. But the word “repent” still holds the point.

What does “repent” mean? I do not know of a Greek word, “penance.” Can you shed some light on this?

 

[Fiat]

sandusky:

That is what scripture says, isn’t it?

Your question was whether you and Bene are in disagreement.
Fiat

 

[sandusky]

Fiat:

Your question was whether you and Bene are in disagreement.
Fiat

I have said that I am not in disagreement with Bene. I asked wpr to show me where it is that he thinks Bene and I have disagreed, that’s all.

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

What does “repent” mean? I do not know of a Greek word, “penance.” Can you shed some light on this?

Repent means to feel remorse; contrition to change one’s mind regarding past conduct.

Penance means an act of devotion performed voluntarily to show sorrow for a sin.

What is your dilemma?

 

[wpr]

sandusky:

No. When the individual sins, he renders null and void God’s declaration of righteousness, and the sinner must then seek restoration of his righteousness by the sacrament of confession, right?

The wages of sin is death; all sin is deadly.

Hello Sandusky,

I thought I had already explained that through venial sin we do not fall from grace. Why do you persist? Can you not move on and politely discuss that which you may still disagree or as I say misunderstand? Why do you not accept my witness even when I give you the quote from our Teaching? Am I a liar?

The wages of sin is death, but not all sin is deadly. How do I know this? I read 1 John 5:16~17. Have you lost your zeal for Scripture? It’s a play on words, so look for what I mean before attempting the easy reply.

I went to some lengths to explain the difference between venial and mortal sin so that you may make a better more informed opinion. I care not if you accept the teaching.

I find it ironic that you are comfortable asserting an unrepentant murderer who previously confessed to be your brother was never a beleiver in the first place, but express moral outrage at Catholic teaching of a fall from grace. Why should I not call you a hypocrite?

I made it clear that Catholicism teaches only God forgives sin. Yet you persist. I made it clear that one who has fallen from grace cannot be restored without first the grace of God. Yet you persist in asserting otherwise. Why?

I said one must show contrition. I did not discuss “acts of contrition” which are another subject. Yet you reply and act as if you refuted what I said. Why? You know contrition is required by faith. Repent and be Baptized! Shall we assume the Apostle meant repent, but it is not necesary to really mean it, and be baptized?

I asked you if contrition for sin committed after forensic imputation is required in your theology. I am honestly intrigued to know.

Bene says no. I want to know what you teach. He’s like Calvin in that he never giv s an inch. He even tossed the Lord’s prayer.

I want to see if you will give an inch. Do you toss the Lord’s prayer as well?

If contrition for sin is not required, is it at least recommended?

Do you recommend to your grandchildren that they be contrite in forgiving each other and before God, but that it is not really required of them? I really want to know.

You and Bene I have JUST found out do not disagree on imputation in Gn 15:6. Although I thought you were hedging on your full reply perhaps waiting to see what the respected Charlie had to say in his sermon in the 1800s. I take it the verdict is back? Charlie is wrong and imputation happened at Gn 15:6. Fine, Gn 15:6 it is. I’ll proceed on this knowlege.

As you can tell, I could not possibly evade you, I am a novice at apologetics. But I assure you I am no novice in processing thought and logic. I will never forget the questions I ask that do not elicit a direct reply.

I have been patient with you and charitable. I already have a profound respect for you due to your military service and your zeal. I’ll answer you honestly, I’ll expect the same.

That you disagree that one may fall from grace is obvious. A clear point of dissention. Yet you persist in this notion that Catholicism teaches that one who has fallen from grace can be restored by man (a Priest) this is false!

Sandusky, what are we to do? The Scripture clearly mentions that deadly sin exists. Do you just ignore this clear Scripture because you don’t find a clear definition? Does this not show the deficiency of “sola scriptura”.

Remember, I am a novice. You claim to be the guide to Scripture, yet you cannot tell me what John meant when he mentioned deadly sin in 1 John 5:16~17. So what is your advice to unanswered biblical questions that seem rather important?

 

[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 does not come into judgment, but passes from death to life (Jn 5:24), the words of Jesus, not the words of Sandusky.

This is/was your point of disagreement with Bene. However, I think, you later retracted it. You may clarify at anytime.

I replied with…

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpr
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.

Your reply to me was…

I have never said that. The elect will be saved.

Please do be crystal clear on whether the Lord’s prayer is in or out. Remember, Bene says out.

I beleive it is fair for me to take issue when the two guys who claim the bible is the sole source of the faith cannot agree on points that seem pretty important to me such as whether or not “the elect” need be contrite in sin after election or whether they, being elect, are still in need of faith.

Charlie still looms. Does he favor imputation at Gn 15:6?

I have no problem with you bringing up the question about what specific point I felt you disagreed on. I see I was not clear when I made the assertion.

 

[wpr]

From what posts do you draw this conclusion?

Where in scripture is one told to “perform acts of contrition?”

That was not my assertion. I defined what contrition to a Catholic means. I was making the point that if we are contrite, we are only such if we keep the cross in sight. We cannot be contrite without love of God and what Christ did for us.

Why did you leap to “acts of contrition”. Even if one does not think a Priestly confession necessary I would still think being contrite for sins committed post imputation would at least be recommended?

 

[bene7]

Kendy:

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

Originally Posted by 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?

Kendy, to “receive Him” is to “believe in” Him. They’re synonymous. To “believe in Him” is to receive by faith, personally accept, all that it is said He has done FOR YOU through the cross. I can’t tell you what it “looks like,” but I can tell you, according to Scripture, what it does:

JOH 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”

But let me ask you Kendy, when you read:

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).

What is that saying to you?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

wpr,

If you want to pray the Lord’s Prayer, go ahead; I don’t see a problem with that, and I think if you read what Bene said more carefully, you will see that he does not have a problem with that either.

The point that was made is that the believer is not instructed to go to God for forgiveness, as he has already been forgiven. If you can show me in the N.T. epistles an imperative to the believer to go to God and to ask for God’s forgiveness, I will stand corrected. I have had this discussion before, so I am certain that there is none.

In the Lord’s prayer, the imperative is, “Pray.” Christ then offers a model for prayer by reciting what should more correctly be called “the Apostles prayer.”

 

[Mickey]

Acts 26:20 "but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

 

[Fiat]

bene7:

Originally Posted by bene7

Kendy, to “receive Him” is to “believe in” Him. They’re synonymous. To “believe in Him” is to receive by faith, personally accept, all that it is said He has done FOR YOU through the cross. I can’t tell you what it “looks like,” but I can tell you, according to Scripture, what it does:

JOH 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”

But let me ask you Kendy, when you read:

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).

What is that saying to you?

Blessings,
Bene

Forgive me for jumping in, but to me the belief that is required is the same belief of the sinning woman in Luke. She brings in an alabaster bottle of ointment. She stands behind him and washes Our Lord’s feet; she wets Him with her tears; she wipes His feet with her hair; she kisses Him and annoints Him. It are these ACTIONS which Jesus observes and thereby forgives her sin. We don’t read of her making some verbal expression of faith; it is a PHYSICAL expression.

Sacred scripture gives us this model as to how we are to approach Our Lord, and it is this model I will follow, as opposed to cloaking myself in some sort of legal fiction of 16th century design.

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[Kendy]

bene7:

Originally Posted by bene7

Kendy, to “receive Him” is to “believe in” Him. They’re synonymous. To “believe in Him” is to receive by faith, personally accept, all that it is said He has done FOR YOU through the cross. I can’t tell you what it “looks like,” but I can tell you, according to Scripture, what it does:

JOH 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”

But let me ask you Kendy, when you read:

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).

What is that saying to you?

Blessings,
Bene