"Separated Bretheren"

[Rogare]

Let’s look at the other side of this contention. If God doesn’t love the people in Hell, the “reprobate”, then He didn’t love them when they were alive. How could He, since He created them solely to torture them throughout all eternity?

One again, he did not create them simply to torture them for all eternity. While on earth the reprobate are sinful people (as we all are) they truly enjoy their sin and live a life of rebellion against God. Why does God create them? Once again, Paul makes this abundantly clear:

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory

I’m not quite sure why this verse gets ignored. The vessels of wrath serve a purpose: to make the riches of his glory known.

They were not worse sinners than the elect; their lives are often holier than the elect. What makes the difference?..it follows that God’s choice is totally arbitrary. …(had to shorten for character limit!)

Whoever said the choice was arbitrary?

In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Ephesians 1:5)

God predestined the elect for salvation in accordance with his pleasure and will. It’s not an arbitrary choice; it pleases God and is part of His will. I don’t know why he overlooked some and not others. However, it certainly isn’t arbitrary, but according to God’s will.

The Calvinist God is a cruel, unloving, arbitrary caricature of the God who loved the world and desires all men to be saved, as 1 Tim. 2:4 says. As for the contention that “all men” means “a representative sample of all kinds of men,” …(character length again!)

I’m glad you brought up kings and authorities. You see, the authorities were persecuting Christians so it was necessary for Paul to instruct Timothy to pray even for them rather than hating or rebelling against them. This is exactly why this verse refers to allkinds of men: not just the commoners, but kings and authorities as well! Do you honestly think Paul is telling Timothy to go find an Ephesian phonebook and begin going down the list and praying for each individual? Of course not- yours is the outlandish interpretation.

If you keep reading you come to verse 5 which says that Christ is the mediator between God and man, who gave himself a ransom for all men. So does Christ mediate for every single individual? If so, His mediation fails (what a blasphemous thought) each time an individuals “free will” rejects the offer of salvation. If, however, you believe this I would encourage you to check out Hebrews 7-10. Christ’s atonement, mediation, and intercession cannot be separated.

1 John 2:2 confirms this by saying that Christ is the “expiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world.” Such would not be the case if Christ died only for the elect. Paul echoes this in 1 Tim. 4:10: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.” Note the distinction; God is the savior “especially” but not “only” of those who believe.

Once again, appropriate exegesis would go a long way. I ask that you quit ripping one verse out of context to support your viewpoint. Who is John writing to? A Jewish audience. Essentially, John is telling them: Christ didn’t just die for us Jews, but for the Gentiles as well. The whole world is used to indicate the scope of Christ’s atonement. World indicates all types of people. For example:

And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.

Christ redeemed people from all over the world, not just Jews.

All this points out the great service Rogare has done for us, in providing such a clear example of why scripture alone cannot, and was never intended to, be the only source of revealed truth. How is Scripture alone to decide between all these verses, which seem to say opposite things? Scripture cannot arbitrate, because it is the subject of contention. If the meaning of Scripture is the issue, appealing to its meaning cannot resolve the dispute. Throughout history teachers have taken opposite sides on this issue, which can only be decided by an authority outside the Bible. What better than the Church Christ founded, which Paul calls the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Not the Bible, but the Church, its divinely appointed and guided expositor.

And we’re back to attacking sola scriptura.

 

[Tomster]

It is quite unnecessary to lecture me on the tenets of Calvinism. I assure you I am more than competent in handling the doctrines of grace.

Show me one place in Scripture that demonstrates man actually has free will. I posted several verses in the hell thread about man’s free will. You’ve no more debunked predestination than Robert Sungenis has debunked heliocentrism.

Incorrect. Paul specifically addresses this “to the saints” in verse 1. A saint would be a Christian, and thus one of the elect.

We can start a new thread on perseverance of the saints if you wish.

God’s express will is for all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4). If God is truly sovereign over every last infentisimal detail in His creation then He will orient creation towards accomplishing His will—the salvation of all men. That is so painstakingly obvious that my mind is simply boggled by Calvinist remarks that assert that God wills the damnation of certain people, such as

I would recommend to you James White’s The Potter’s Freedom. His exegesis of this and other “problem” verses is fantastic. In short: Paul references all kinds of people, not every single individual on Earth. If you want more, I’ll be glad to share further exegesis with you; this conclusion is not without warrant.

Also, why do you picture God as such a weak being? If he truly wanted every last individual to be saved, they would be. I would suggest you give God His glory and sovereignty back and quit picturing him as this weak God who sits in Heaven hoping and hoping and hoping that someone would just accept His son. Jesus did not just make man savable on the cross, He actually accomplished salvation for the elect (Acts 20:28).

John 3:16 says “whosoever” will come. It does not address who is contained in that whosoever. I suggest you read the context around John 3:16 instead of making weak, evangelical conclusions.

The will of God is a will to holiness. That saving will is shown by the gift of sufficient grace to all, along with the gift of freedom. God’s will is absolute, using no means, but directly willing all events in the one infinitude of power which is essential holiness. Nothing can resist that will. Man’s being and destiny are willed as one in God’s timeless volition, and what we call predestination and reprobation are but aspects to our minds of that total productivity of creation in regard to responsible creatures. God created man’s being as possessed with certain powers and the ability to act freely. God’s concurrence with man’s deliberate acts does not diminish their freedom but maintains it. Man’s purpose is the fulfillment of the Divine purpose in the manifestation of Divine power and sanctity. "We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Corinthians 13:8), and all human acts inevitably fulfill that purpose. Thus “in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on the earth, and under the earth: and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:10-11)

 

[Tomster]

One again, he did not create them simply to torture them for all eternity. While on earth the reprobate are sinful people (as we all are) they truly enjoy their sin and live a life of rebellion against God. Why does God create them? Once again, Paul makes this abundantly clear:

I’m not quite sure why this verse gets ignored. The vessels of wrath serve a purpose: to make the riches of his glory known.

Whoever said the choice was arbitrary?

God predestined the elect for salvation in accordance with his pleasure and will. It’s not an arbitrary choice; it pleases God and is part of His will. I don’t know why he overlooked some and not others. However, it certainly isn’t arbitrary, but according to God’s will.

I’m glad you brought up kings and authorities. You see, the authorities were persecuting Christians so it was necessary for Paul to instruct Timothy to pray even for them rather than hating or rebelling against them. This is exactly why this verse refers to allkinds of men: not just the commoners, but kings and authorities as well! Do you honestly think Paul is telling Timothy to go find an Ephesian phonebook and begin going down the list and praying for each individual? Of course not- yours is the outlandish interpretation.

If you keep reading you come to verse 5 which says that Christ is the mediator between God and man, who gave himself a ransom for all men. So does Christ mediate for every single individual? If so, His mediation fails (what a blasphemous thought) each time an individuals “free will” rejects the offer of salvation. If, however, you believe this I would encourage you to check out Hebrews 7-10. Christ’s atonement, mediation, and intercession cannot be separated.

Once again, appropriate exegesis would go a long way. I ask that you quit ripping one verse out of context to support your viewpoint. Who is John writing to? A Jewish audience. Essentially, John is telling them: Christ didn’t just die for us Jews, but for the Gentiles as well. The whole world is used to indicate the scope of Christ’s atonement. World indicates all types of people. For example:

Christ redeemed people from all over the world, not just Jews.

And we’re back to attacking sola scriptura.

“And we’re back to attacking sola scriptura?” - Rogare

Why not?

 

[SGWessells]

Rogare wrote: “Based on the words of Christ, not a single person on Earth will come to Christ (or His Church, if you prefer) unless God draws him in. It’s that simple.”

However, this does not show or imply that if someone does not come to Christ, it is because God has not drawn him, rather than, for example, he preferred darkness to light because his deeds were evil (Jn. 3:19). Nor does it say that God is not drawing everyone to Himself, but only some. If God has predestined some of the Jews for damnation, for example, as Paul implies in Romans 9, why does Paul pray for them that they may be saved (Rom. 10:1) and work to that end (Rom. 11:14)? Doesn’t he know that they are vessels of wrath made for destruction? Or maybe God, foreseeing from the beginning their free choice to reject the grace He would offer them by faith (as God foresees before the foundation of the world all that will happen afterward) decrees that they, by their freely chosen rejection, include themselves in His eternal decree that those who do such things will perish. Surely that is as reasonable an interpretation, given the whole of Scripture, as the Calvinist one, and accords more with God’s loving nature.

 

[Tomster]

Protestantism is very diverse, and obviously many Catholics - understandably - don’t understand its many different dimensions.

Let me pose this question in line with this thread. What about Protestants (or Catholics, of which there are many) who are well aware of the teachings of Catholicism, who know her teachings rather thoroughly, who have actually read a number of the Church Fathers, who even may have (or do) subscribe to various Catholic publications, etc. Yet, they refuse to accept Catholicism because they sincerely disagree with some of its teachings.

For example, I know many well-schooled Protestants (among them Pastors) as well as a number of Catholics who would like a united church, who admire much about Catholicism, but who simply cannot intellectually assent to certain specifically Catholic doctrines (as well as various Catholic practices). 

 These are not sola scriptura Protestants because they have trouble accepting various Biblical accounts also. They often have read the Bible in some detail, even studied it, and have concluded that it contains considerable wisdom but also different accounts that they reject and even find repulsive. Consider the story of Noah. Would a kind and merciful God drown all those people (among them many children and babies in the womb)? Or, they come across verses like Ex. 22:18 and 20 and reject them outright. They don't believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter everyone in Jericho or demanded that Saul seek out the kill every living Amalekite. And what do you do with a narrative like II Kings 2:23-25 when two she-bears tear 42 children apart because they mocked Elisha's bald head? Sacred scripture? "The word of God? Really? So many other atrocity stories that defy that hallowed description, See Nu 21:2; Dt 2:34, 3:6. 7:2, 13:15, 20:17; Jos. 2:10, 6:17, 21, 8:25, 10:1, 28, 35, 37. 39-40; 11:11-12, 20-21; Jdg. 1:17. Or, many verses in Lev. 20, Deut.22-23; etc,

These 'heretical' Protestants (and Catholics) love and seek to serve Christ, but they may have trouble with some things in the New Testament, too. In the epistles, for example, they dismiss the advice given to slaves to obey their masters or to women that they should keep silent in the churches, etc. 

 In other words, these 'liberal' Protestants (many millions of them in mainline denominations) are devoted to Christ as they conceive him and live dedicated lives, but they sincerely do not believe many doctrines embraced by both evangelical Protestantism as well as traditional Catholicism. Most would doubt the virgin birth, for example. and could not honestly accept many of the other cornerstones dogmae of Catholicism, such as transubstantiation, praying to Mary, guardian angels, veneration of saints, absolution of sin through confession to a priest, original sin, and the whole concept of 'one true church'. 

These Protestants (and many Catholics, too) usually are ecumenical in the sense that they respect other faiths, even such distinctly different ones as Buddhism and Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. They certainly worship God, may respect the Pope (they loved John XXIII) and they honor people like Mother Theresa and Fr. Damien, people of any religion who consecrate heir lives in a selfless fashion to help others. 

 They regard Christianity primarily as a call to follow the Sermon on the Mount, and they suspect most dogma. (Reminds me of the recent comic strip. Why don't cats attend church? They don't like dogma!) These Protestants (and Catholics) don't like to be restricted by dogma. They want to think freely when it comes to spiritual matters, usually of the opinion that the universe is simply too mammoth and magnificent and mysterious for any church or person to know the full truth. "Now we know in part...." I Corinthians 13 is more important to them than any ancient creed, creeds written before a decent telescope and any microscope. when many actually thought that Jesus sat literally on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. 

 Okay. Do these qualify as 'separated brethren'? Or, are they condemned to the fires of hell? Personally, I think they're as likely to get to heaven as anyone else. Why? Re-read Matt. 25:31-46. I'm inclined to believe that many of these free-thinking doubters do more to serve God through serving others than many who are 'doctrinally pure'. Tragically, religion too often has claimed to preach love, humility and peace while actually inciting bigotry, arrogance, and hostility.

 I'm content to let the Lord do whatever judging may need doing, at the time and place of his choosing. Meanwhile, God bless everybody, of every creed, color, culture and country.

Ah, you have just given us examples of rationalists or secularists, that is, one who accepts no authority outside of himself in the matter of religious belief, referring all to the unaided human reason.

 

[Rogare]

Rogare wrote: “Based on the words of Christ, not a single person on Earth will come to Christ (or His Church, if you prefer) unless God draws him in. It’s that simple.”

However, this does not show or imply that if someone does not come to Christ, it is because God has not drawn him, rather than, for example, he preferred darkness to light because his deeds were evil (Jn. 3:19). Nor does it say that God is not drawing everyone to Himself, but only some. If God has predestined some of the Jews for damnation, for example, as Paul implies in Romans 9, why does Paul pray for them that they may be saved (Rom. 10:1) and work to that end (Rom. 11:14)? Doesn’t he know that they are vessels of wrath made for destruction? Or maybe God, foreseeing from the beginning their free choice to reject the grace He would offer them by faith (as God foresees before the foundation of the world all that will happen afterward) decrees that they, by their freely chosen rejection, include themselves in His eternal decree that those who do such things will perish. Surely that is as reasonable an interpretation, given the whole of Scripture, as the Calvinist one, and accords more with God’s loving nature.

Paul prays for the Jews because he doesn’t know who the elect are.

 

[Tomster]

Amen and Amen!

It is interesting that you would give your amen to that Rev.

Freedom of thought is the profession of many agnostic, or even skeptical, thinkers who claim to use their intelligence in the solution of all problems without reference to any authority, law, dogma, or even a priori principle. As we know it today, the school originated in England at the end of the 17th century, when there was a sect of “Freethinkers.” This soon acquired a philosophic color, and Hume and Bolingbroke professed it and, as free-thinkers, attacked Christianity.

Voltaire took it up and popularized the teaching in France. Although it is worldwide, France has perhaps been its most fertile seed-ground, and there its promoters have been among the most dogmatic of persecutersd of religion. Complete freedom of thought is obviously a chimera. Where there is certainty there must be determination of intellect. No one can be free of the laws of logic or free of truth. No one who hopes to attain truth can be free of authority: life is not long enough for one thing. What he can do, and should do, is to investigate and establish the basis of the authority to which he gives credence. In fact, nobody does reject all authority; most free-thinkers are content to reject the authority of God and of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, which safeguards God’s revelation.

Submitted to group of free-thinkers, Rev, your spin on the Gospel would be mere opinion lacking all authoritative meaning. You know, kind of like an either take it or leave it or leave it proposition.

 

[Tomster]

While I disagree with you, at least you are devout enough to be honest. Why don’t you let the rest of the Catholic Church know that we Protestants are in fact heretics rather than separated brethren. How one could be a heretic and a brethren at the same time is beyond my ability to grasp

Separated brethren is a gentler way of putting it. Besides, we believe that any Protestant who has been properly baptised is to be considered a brother. A separated brother? Yes! But a brother nonetheless.

Originally heresy meant a doctrine or doctrinal attitude contrary to the common doctrine of faith. It gave, thus, the concept of an elite, adjusting doctrine to its own will. In the New Testament the word is used several times; St. Peter, the first Pope, aptly determines the sense of heresy, saying that through it the path of truth is desecrated, men are perverted and the Lord denied (2 Peter 2:1). Rationalism, secularism, agnosticism and eventually atheism is the usual slippery slope that Protestantism ends up in.

The Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of truth, has declared that Protestantism is a heresy some 500 years ago. Any Catholic who knows his faith is already aware of this fact.

 

[SGWessells]

One again, he did not create them simply to torture them for all eternity. While on earth the reprobate are sinful people (as we all are) they truly enjoy their sin and live a life of rebellion against God. Why does God create them? Once again, Paul makes this abundantly clear:

I’m not quite sure why this verse gets ignored. The vessels of wrath serve a purpose: to make the riches of his glory known.

By torturing them through all eternity. How else do the damned manifest his glory? The problem is that, according to Calvinism, the only reason they are there is because God did not give them the irresistible grace he gave to the saved. God did not have to create them, or anyone. Nobody made Him do it. But in creating them, Calvinists say, God knew in advance that they could do nothing to save themselves, and God knew that He would not save them, although they were not worse sinners than the ones he did save. He could have saved them, the same way he saved the redeemed, through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross – which, as I said, manifested his justice and hatred of sin more than anything else could do. Since the choice of who would scream in unendurable fire forever was entirely God’s, who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever will could come and taste of the water of life freely, then the responsibility for their suffering is his also. Granted, he did not make them sin, just as a father did not make his children jump into a river; but by not saving them when he could, with no discernible reason not to, he is responsible for their being there, just as the father who pulls one of his children from the water but lets the other drown whom he could as easily have saved, is responsible for that child being drowned. And what court in the world would accept as an excuse the father saying, “I let my child drown to manifest my power and glory and love to the one I saved”? But if the father had jumped into the river and tried to save the child, but the child fought him and swam away, then the fault lies solely with the child, and no one would have a reason to question the father’s love (which would not glorify him).

Whoever said the choice was arbitrary?

What else could it be, when nothing in the lost differs from the saved, and no choice, action or omission in either has any effect on the result? Some “mysterious plan” to which we are not privy? Some reason God could explain to us but did not? I suppose we can assume there must be such reasons, but that is speculation on our part, and carries no authority. God hasn’t told us of any such reason, so for all we know – if Calvin is right – God chose arbitrarily.
But if there were such a reason, what would it be? Look at an individual case; say Joe Tittle is saved while Jim Jot is not. God can say that poor Jim was left to be damned to manifest His glory to Joe Tittle, but what’s Joe to think? Glory to God for choosing me? But he could say that if Jim Jot were standing next to him praising God’s mercy as well, since both have sinned and fallen short if the glory of God. No, the way God is glorified is that he chose one but not the other, although he could have chosen both. But if God is glorified because in his mercy he saved Joe Tittle, why wouldn’t he be glorified twice as much by saving Jim Jot as well, and saying “not a jot nor a tittle shall be lost?” There’s no reason to burn poor Jim, since the sacrifice of Christ has already shown to the world how much God hates sin and how great a sacrifice was needed to atone for it. If God hated Jim so much that nothing would glorify him but Jim’s eternal agony, why create him in the first place?

 

[SGWessells]

God predestined the elect for salvation in accordance with his pleasure and will. It’s not an arbitrary choice; it pleases God and is part of His will. I don’t know why he overlooked some and not others. However, it certainly isn’t arbitrary, but according to God’s will.

God’s will that what? Some will have bliss and others woe forever, although “they were not yet born and had done nothing bad or good” (Rom. 9:11)? That does not manifest justice, but makes a mockery of it. What of the sheep and goats in Mat. 25? As they approach the Throne of Christ the just judge, he does not go eeny miny moe; he separates them according to what they did, either good or bad. What’s the difference between the judgment at the end of time and the judgment at the beginning?
God answers that in the key to this chapter, which the Calvinists ignore by making it too general. The verse says, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”. What call is that? Verse 12 answers, "she was told, “the elder shall serve the younger.” Does that mean that the firstborn of every family shall be the servant of the second? If so, my older brother hasn’t got the message . It means Esau shall serve Jacob, because God had chosen Jacob as the channel of his covenant blessings (This is a consistent Biblical pattern, BTW; God consistently chooses younger sons like David over their elders). IOW, the whole chapter is about the relation of Jews – the elders – to Gentiles – the younger. Verse 27 quotes Isaiah pointing out another consistent pattern: "Though the number of the Sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved.’ (Compare Elijah in the cave). Is this because God chose to give his irresistible grace only to some and not to others? No, verses 30 and 31 tell us why: the Gentiles attained righteousness by faith, while the Israel pursued it by works of the law which they could not obey, lacking the indwelling Spirit of Christ to whom all believers have access. Did God force his faith upon believers? Did God force you to believe, Rogare? Did you suddenly find yourself believing in Christ and ask yourself, “Wow – how did that happen”? Did you fight it and fight it until suddenly you fell at his feet? Was there no point at which you freely chose to say, “my Lord and my God,” after which the world turned rightside up and all became clear? As for me, God chose, according to His sovereign will, to give me the ability and the opportunity to say yes or no, as he gave Joshua, who said “choose this day whom you will believe.” An odd thing to say to people who had no choice.

 

[SGWessells]

Rogare says that Paul prays for the Jews because he doesn’t know who the elect are (Rom. 10:1). But that doesn’t solve the problem. That justifies his preaching to them, but not his praying, because he is praying for their conversion. But Rogare says their conversion, or lack thereof, had already been irrevocably decided by God before the foundation of the world. Why then pray for their conversion, unless Paul was convinced, contrary to Calvin, that “he might save some”?

 

[Rogare]

God’s will that what? Some will have bliss and others woe forever, although “they were not yet born and had done nothing bad or good” (Rom. 9:11)? That does not manifest justice, but makes a mockery of it. What of the sheep and goats in Mat. 25? As they approach the Throne of Christ the just judge, he does not go eeny miny moe; he separates them according to what they did, either good or bad. What’s the difference between the judgment at the end of time and the judgment at the beginning?

Please tell me how that makes a mockery of justice. This statement demonstrates how little you understand reformed soteriology. There’s no difference in the judgment either. As I’ve pointed out earlier, regeneration leads to good works (Eph. 2:10). Only the elect (the sheep) will demonstrate these good works. Once again, it would be of great service to yourself and your community to do more research before bringing up these easily-answered and long-understood objections.

God answers that in the key to this chapter, which the Calvinists ignore by making it too general. The verse says, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”. What call is that? Verse 12 answers, "she was told, “the elder shall serve the younger.” Does that mean that the firstborn of every family shall be the servant of the second? If so, my older brother hasn’t got the message . It means Esau shall serve Jacob, because God had chosen Jacob as the channel of his covenant blessings (This is a consistent Biblical pattern, BTW; God consistently chooses younger sons like David over their elders). IOW, the whole chapter is about the relation of Jews – the elders – to Gentiles – the younger. Verse 27 quotes Isaiah pointing out another consistent pattern: "Though the number of the Sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved.’ (Compare Elijah in the cave). Is this because God chose to give his irresistible grace only to some and not to others? No, verses 30 and 31 tell us why: the Gentiles attained righteousness by faith, while the Israel pursued it by works of the law which they could not obey, lacking the indwelling Spirit of Christ to whom all believers have access.

To you also I recommend John Piper’s The God Who Justifies. It is a tremendously deep exegesis of Romans 9 that answers all of your objections. Your exegesis of Romans 9 is quite poor.

Did God force his faith upon believers?

Ask Saul of Tarsus.

Did God force you to believe, Rogare? Did you suddenly find yourself believing in Christ and ask yourself, “Wow – how did that happen”? Did you fight it and fight it until suddenly you fell at his feet? Was there no point at which you freely chose to say, “my Lord and my God,” after which the world turned rightside up and all became clear? As for me, God chose, according to His sovereign will, to give me the ability and the opportunity to say yes or no, as he gave Joshua, who said “choose this day whom you will believe.” An odd thing to say to people who had no choice.

God never forced me to believe, yet He did allow me to believe. I was a heathen until the age of 21. I had heard the gospel and attended Church, but that’s about it. I didn’t “get it” until sitting in an Immunology lecture. The professor made a statement that just hit me right over the head; I left class that day a new man. He didn’t force belief on me, rather he regenerated me and opened my heart just as He did Lydias.

Your understanding of Calvinism is quite shallow. Rather than engaging in a fruitless debate, I would recommend you research more literature on the subject.

 

[Rogare]

Rogare says that Paul prays for the Jews because he doesn’t know who the elect are (Rom. 10:1). But that doesn’t solve the problem. That justifies his preaching to them, but not his praying, because he is praying for their conversion. But Rogare says their conversion, or lack thereof, had already been irrevocably decided by God before the foundation of the world. Why then pray for their conversion, unless Paul was convinced, contrary to Calvin, that “he might save some”?

Is this really your answer? According to Matthew 6:8, God already knows what we need before we ask Him. His mind is already made up. What’s the point in praying then? The point is that God ordains not only the ends, but the means to those ends as well. Paul prays for the conversion of Jews the same reason that you pray for help, guidance, etc. God already knows what’s coming, but he wants us to pray in reliance on Him.

 

[RevPhil]

There are many groups out there who call themselves Franciscan, because they have an admiration for St. Francis or they follow some of his spiritual principles. We accept those principles, because we share them in common. But they are not members of the Franciscan family. To be members of the same family, we must first have the same father. Our father made no provisions for sons or daughters outside of the Roman Church.

Finally, please do not play games with me. You may confuse these lay people, but I’m a little sharper. You’re throwing out rules and regulations and citations regarding the Secular Franciscan Order. But you’re signature says “Franciscan Friar”. The Secular Franciscan Order does not have friars. If you’re a friar, their rule does not apply to you. The rule that applies to you is either the Rule of the Friars Minor or the Rule of the Brothers of Penance, not the SFO Rule. If you’re a Secular Franciscan, then take off Franciscan Friar from you signature and we can discuss what the Secular Franciscan Rule says about being Roman Catholic in order to be a professed member. He mentions the Roman Church in their rule as well.

It is dishonest to say that a non-Catholic group is a member of the Franciscan family. We may have wonderful gatherings, but we’re not the same family. We’re part of the same Christian family, not the same Franciscan family. Other non-Catholic groups who claim to be Franciscan admit that they do not have Franciscan Succession and that they are not part of the Franciscan Order or Franciscan family. Go back and look at the Anglican Society of St. Francis. They are the largest non-Catholic Franciscan organization.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother JR,

I am sorry you feel the way you do. The rest of us consider you our brother, but you don’t seem to want us. Nevertheless, we will continue to pray for you, and pray that one day there will be a full restoration of the “catholic” (universal) church, the entire body of Christ. In the meantime, we will continue to go out and do our work for the outcasts, the downtrodden, and those on the margins. We will continue to work for world peace, justice, and integrity of Creation (all the goals of JPIC), and we will maintain our relationship with our other Franciscan Brothers (even if you refuse to join in).

You are partially correct in some of your statements, but as you said, go back and look at the Episcopal and Anglican orders. There’s a lot more to them than you want to let on. God came for all people, not just the proud. Thei reason that I used the term “friar”, is even though we are Third Order, many of the OEF members live in small friaries that may contain people from multiple orders. Those that live in friaries usually call themselves “friars”. If you don’t like that, then just call me “brother”.

Personally, I read my rule every day, and I spend time reflecting every day looking at myself and searching to see if I’ve let pride creep in. This is so that I can confess my foolish pride to God and beg forgiveness, because it is the prideful man that will be condemned. I’m sure you pray the Psalter every day. How many times is pride (and its punishment) mentioned in the Psalms?

Any way, I will be glad to pick up the discussion when I return. Right now I am preparing to leave the friary here on Monday to venture up to Michigan for this years Convocation and Chapter of the OEF. This year we are the guests of our Capuchin Brothers. Brothers and Sisters of our Order from all over the world will be there, along with the appointed representatives from the TSSF and SFO and OFR that attend our gatherings each year to discuss our work, both together and separately, and to give reports from their communities. We all work together as brothers and sisters for common goals, including praising God and working together for His kingdom.

Until I return, may you have blessed days, and peace and all goodness,

Rev. Phil

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR,

I am sorry you feel the way you do. The rest of us consider you our brother, but you don’t seem to want us. Nevertheless, we will continue to pray for you, and pray that one day there will be a full restoration of the “catholic” (universal) church, the entire body of Christ. In the meantime, we will continue to go out and do our work for the outcasts, the downtrodden, and those on the margins. We will continue to work for world peace, justice, and integrity of Creation (all the goals of JPIC), and we will maintain our relationship with our other Franciscan Brothers (even if you refuse to join in).

Your current post is much more honest than previous ones. However, I must clarify several points for the benefit of all who do not understand the Franciscan way of life.

First, Francis founded three orders: an order of friars, an order of nuns and a secular order.

Second, he explicitly requires that his sons and daughters be Roman Catholics and accept the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Francis clearly understood that there are other Churches that are not Catholic. The Orthodox already existed during his lifetime. He also understood that there were other Christians who were ecclesial communities and were united to the Catholic Church though our one Baptism, but were physically outside of the Catholic Church for different reasons. He encourage his sons and daughters to love them as well as Roman Catholics. It is not that we do not love those who are not Roman Catholic.

Third, it is true that there are many societies, fraternities, confraternities and organizations outside of the Catholic Church that are drawn to the spirit of St. Francis.

Fourth, it is also true that we, the Catholic Franciscans, do a lot of work alongside Protestants who belong to different Protestant Franciscan institutes. We build upon what we have in common.

Fifth, it is also true that while we build on what we have in common, the Catholic Franciscans do not recognize the succession of non-Catholic Franciscans. The succession was broken when they broke with Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession is essential to Franciscan life, because we vow obedience to the pope. It is a requirement in the three rules that Francis wrote. Without Apostolic Succession, you can’t have a pope. Without a pope, you can’t have the vow of obedience. Without the vow of obedience, you’re in an irregular state.

Sixth, the term friar is reserved for mendicants. Even religious of other orders and congregations are not allowed to use that term. It was specifically coined to refer to religious who live the conventual life, in a mendicant brotherhood, erected by the Pontiff. Only the Pontiff has the authority to erect an order of friars. To date, every order of friars is made up of men who are in solemn vows, not simple vows or promises, who live the rule of one of the Law Givers: Augustine, Francis or Albert, and who are perpetually celibate. There have been many men and women who have adopted a way of life where they vow to follow the evangelical counsels. They come together as a community for a specific purpose, which can be apostolic, contemplative or a combination. If they are communities of validly ordained priests they are Clerks Regular, meaning clerics who live according to a rule. If they are laymen, they are called brotherhoods, such as the Christian Brothers, Xaverian Brothers. If they have both priests and laymen, they are called congregations. None of them are allowed to call themselves friar. The last order of friars approved was the Discalced Carmelite Reform in the 1560s, when the first province of Discalced Carmelites was erected as an autonomous order.

I have no antagonism toward Protestant brothers and sisters who are inspired by our Holy Father Francis. However, we must keep it honest. Our Holy Father was very clear about the required obedience to the pope and submission to the Roman Church. A Protestant may say that Francis was mistaken. That’s a common position taken in defense of the Reformation. The problem with that is that if Francis was mistaken, then following his rule is problematic, because one would have to pick and choose those parts of the rule that one believes are truly Christian and dismiss the parts that one believes are heretical. One cannot say that Francis didn’t really mean that the Franciscans should vow obedience to the pope and he didn’t really mean that they should provide proof that they accept the sacraments as the Catholic Church teaches them. In Francis’ mind, the Catholic Church was the Roman Catholic Church. Even though he understood and accepted that there were Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, he wanted his order to be under the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. Today, even Eastern Catholics who join the Franciscan order, submit to the Canons and customs of the Latin Church, because the Franciscan Order is a Latin Catholic Order.

We have many brothers and sisters who admire and love Francis and with whom we work fraternally. Our hope is that one day, they will come home to the Catholic Church, the Church that our Seraphic Father loved and obeyed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cat_Herder]

It is quite unnecessary to lecture me on the tenets of Calvinism. I assure you I am more than competent in handling the doctrines of grace.

I don’t doubt your confidence but I’m not sure you understand the basics of Christianity. If you did you wouldn’t have said the following.

why do you picture God as such a weak being? If he truly wanted every last individual to be saved, they would be. I would suggest you give God His glory and sovereignty back and quit picturing him as this weak God who sits in Heaven hoping and hoping and hoping

Well, He didn’t exactly just sit in heaven.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=9712

GOD IS WEAK. GOD IS VERY WEAK. GOD IS SO WEAK THAT HE DIED.
Saying that God is incapable of weakness is denying the divinity of Christ, who humbled Himself onto weakness and even onto death.

And your other mistake is to equate weakness with failure. What appears to be God’s weakness is actually His MERCY, which is His most powerful aspect, and far greater than any other power in existence.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 1:18-25[/BIBLEDRB]

If you knew the power of His Divine Mercy you would be blown away. The power of His Mercy has been duly noted throughout the Bible (add 1 to each Psalm chapter if you use your own Bible to check these).
[bibledrb]Ps. 39:11[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Isa. 45:21[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Isa. 51:5-8[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Isa. 56:1[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 John 4:16[/bibledrb]
And we could go on. Protestants in general just don’t understand the Divine Mercy, but that’s understandable since His Mercy is the deepest mystery. In this depraved age, Jesus is sending out apostles to show His Mercy to the world so hopefully some day you will come to understand His Mercy more.

Show me one place in Scripture that demonstrates man actually has free will.

Besides Hebrews 10:26? Let’s see…

Incorrect. Paul specifically addresses this “to the saints” in verse 1. A saint would be a Christian, and thus one of the elect.

Actually the whole Epistle to the Romans is addressed to those “who are called to be saints.” (Rom. 1:7) As a Calvinist you hold that call to be an irrevocable election. But look what else Paul said to those “saints.”
[bibledrb]Rom 2:2-8[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Rom 11:22[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Rom 8:16-17[/bibledrb]
Doesn’t sound like unconditional election to me. All Scripture is inspired and meant to be useful for instruction (2 Tim 3:16), so clearly that was meant to be instructive to them. If they unconditionally elected to heaven, why are they going to be judged according to their works?

Once again, if you will actually attempt to exegete these verses in their proper context, this simply isn’t an issue. God only wills the salvation of the elect (Romans 9).

As I have already explained, the mere presence of the word “elect” in a verse does not mean that the “elect” are a separate group from anyone, anymore than Paul’s use of the words “celestial” and “terrestrial” in 1 Cor 15:41 mean that these are two (or three) separate groups or kingdoms of heaven as the Mormons say.

God is immutable.

Correct (Malachi 3:6)

Therefore, how can He go from loving everyone while they are on Earth and then hate those that are in hell after they get there?

He loves the ones in hell too. He loved them too much to take away their free will so as to keep them from choosing damnation. The worst thing you can do to someone is to take away their humanity, and the way that you do that is by taking away their free will. Ask anyone who suffered through Soviet oppression how it felt to lose their free will (we have lots of Polish priests here in the U.S. Catholic Church who can tell you all about that).

Do you think God will be sitting in Heaven, with all of us worshiping Him for eternity, and be heartbroken and sad over the ones he “loves” in hell?

God is perfect by definition and so He is not, and never will be, lacking in anything. But in His Humanity I am sure that He does feel pain when anyone passes (as He did for Lazarus).

Why would Christ die for those He know will end up in hell? Or is He also no longer omniscient either?

He died to give everyone a shot at cleansing themselves in His Blood. When people refuse to do it, He weeps.

You’ve made some incredibly bold statements with zero exegesis. Therefore, it is impossible to take you seriously.

I have better things to do than fling verses and so do you. You’re smart enough to google and to read the Quick Answers I link to so you know I’m not making anything up.

I would recommend to you James White’s The Potter’s Freedom. His exegesis…

Merriam-Webster Collegiate:

exegesis, n.: EXPOSITION, EXPLANATION; especially: an explanation or critical interpretation of a text

… of this and other “problem” verses is fantastic. In short: Paul references all kinds of people, not every single individual on Earth.

Before one can be good at exegesis of Greek texts into English explanations, it is presupposed that he must first be competent in the English language.

John 3:16 says “whosoever” will come. It does not address who is contained in that whosoever. I suggest you read the context around John 3:16 instead of making weak, evangelical conclusions.

Merriam-Webster Collegiate:

whosoever, pronoun: WHOEVER
whatever person : no matter who —used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive <sells to whoever has the MONEY, to buy> < Whoever wants to come along is welcome to join us.>

The presupposition fails.

 

[Tomster]

As a Calvinist, I am a firm believer in election, so let’s take a look at your question based on that.

Scripture teaches that in eternity past, God chose those who would inherit salvation:

Obviously, this choice is made before birth and does not depend on the individual, but on God:

Now, I trust that God is completely sovereign over every last infinitesimal detail in His creation. Thus, He (sadly) knows which babies will be aborted or born with mental deficiencies as well as who will die before they can understand the gospel message. So it isn’t like God is taken by surprise by an abortion or malady.

Since I don’t hold God to be incompetent, there’s a couple of logical conclusions that can be drawn. (Since the Scriptures are silent on this issue, we can’t be certain) Either a) all of the aforementioned individuals are elect b) there are members of the elect and the non-elect in this group just as there are in the world. Whichever it is, I trust that God will ensure the salvation of all His elect.

Some time ago you asked for Scriptural references concerning free will. I think it is time for you to dust off your Bible and start reading.

The existence of free will in man:
Gen: 4:7
Deut: 11: 26-28
Deut: 30: 15,19
Jos: 24: 15
Ecclus: 15: 14-18
Ecclus: 31: 8-10
Ezech: 33:11

Free will can, and often does, resist God’s grace:
Prov: 1: 24-26
Is: 4:4
Is: 64:4
Jer: 7: 13,15
Ezech: 18:24
Matt: 23:37
Acts: 7: 51
Heb: 12: 14-15

According to your spiritual forefathers, Original Sin has utterly annihilated free will. Man is the plaything of God or Satan, of grace or sinful desire, and is incapable of freely choosing right or wrong. Luther held that every act of man is sinful, but that he can be saved by “faith,” which he understood to mean a trust that God, for the sake of Christ, will not charge us with our sins. The sins themselves, he contended, always remain in the soul. Calvin, your hero, adopted this teaching, but his more logical mind led him on to the crowning absurdity that the very saving act of faith is itself a sin.

Some observations:

(1) Catholics regard as self-condemned any system that rests on a denial of human liberty.

(2) If every act of man were sinful, then every commandment of God, e.g., to honor and love Him, to be just, truthful, etc. would be a commandment to commit sin.

(3) The doctrine that faith alone saves us, purports to be based on the words of St. Paul: - “For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law.” Luther falsified this text by deliberately inserting the word “alone” after “faith.” By the same process, he might have proved that hope and not faith, is the one and only essential for salvation; for the Apostle says elsewhere: - “We are saved by hope.” Futhermore he completely ignored or misinterpreted St. Paul’s teaching on charity (See 1 Corinthians 13:2).

The true Church, the Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of truth, upheld human dignity by defining that man’s will is free; that he has not been utterly corrupted by Original Sin; and that even without Grace or Baptism he is capable of morally good acts.

 

[Roy5]

As one who comes from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage. I reject the concept of election, of predestination. However, there is much in scripture to suggest that it can be justified by quoting the Bible. As I recall, even the hairs on our heads are numbered (Matt. 10:30,:Luke 12:7). Unfortunately, the number on my head are far fewer than I would prefer!

Moreover, if God is omniscient and knows already everything that will happen in the future, how can there be free will? (e. g., Matt. 10:29)

The Bible is full of verses that can be cited to prove all sorts of things. That's one reason I am not a Biblical literalist, Catholic or Protestant. What would I do with such verses as Ex. 22:18 and 20? And there are dozens more that stand opposed to what I believe to be the central themes of Christianity, which certainly include love, mercy, and forgiveness. That's also a reason why I think we need to respect the opinions of others, even when we disagree with them.

 How does that old saying go: "Even the devil can quote scripture"? Certain demonic forces - yes, within and/or using the church - have cited the Bible over the centuries to inflict all manner of evil on Jews, 'heretics' and others. There is enough shameful in church history so that none of us are justified in being arrogant when discussing it.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, and people of everfy creed, color, culture and country. May the church lead us in the direction of peace and not infantile bickering. Too often Christians have claimed to be peaching peace, humility and love while, instead, they have promoted hostility, arrogance and bigotry.

 

[Tomster]

As one who comes from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage. I reject the concept of election, of predestination. However, there is much in scripture to suggest that it can be justified by quoting the Bible. As I recall, even the hairs on our heads are numbered (Matt. 10:30,:Luke 12:7). Unfortunately, the number on my head are far fewer than I would prefer!

Moreover, if God is omniscient and knows already everything that will happen in the future, how can there be free will? (e. g., Matt. 10:29)

The Bible is full of verses that can be cited to prove all sorts of things. That's one reason I am not a Biblical literalist, Catholic or Protestant. What would I do with such verses as Ex. 22:18 and 20? And there are dozens more that stand opposed to what I believe to be the central themes of Christianity, which certainly include love, mercy, and forgiveness. That's also a reason why I think we need to respect the opinions of others, even when we disagree with them.

 How does that old saying go: "Even the devil can quote scripture"? Certain demonic forces - yes, within and/or using the church - have cited the Bible over the centuries to inflict all manner of evil on Jews, 'heretics' and others. There is enough shameful in church history so that none of us are justified in being arrogant when discussing it.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, and people of everfy creed, color, culture and country. May the church lead us in the direction of peace and not infantile bickering. Too often Christians have claimed to be peaching peace, humility and love while, instead, they have promoted hostility, arrogance and bigotry.

You ask how can there be free will? You might want to ask yourself why do we put convicted killers and rapists in prisons. Were their actions free will choices or didn’t they have a choice in the matter?

The freedom of the will is one of the highest prerogatives of men and angels, a gift that distinguishes us fundamentally from the brute creation, and gives us a real likeness to God Himself.

Human free will consists in the absence of constraint, in that man is so master of himself that no one can force his will into action against his own inclination or resistance, and no one but himself can determine the direction in which he exercises his will. He has the freedom of choice, firstly between action or inaction, or willing and not willing, and secondly between willing one particular object or another. There are certain limits to this freedom, as there are to all created perfections. In so far, however, as it is a postive perfection, it is evident that it must be found in an eminent degree or mode, and without its human limitations, in God. The source of freedom must himself be supremely free. And since God is the First Cause of all things, which he created from nothing, it would only be laboring the obvious to spend time in proving that there was no constraint from without himself forcing him to create the world. What has no existence can exercise no pressure. Mere nothingness cannot constrain. This is common ground to all who believe in God the Creator.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I am fully aware of what the Church teaches regarding the papacy (its existence, infallibility, primacy, etc.), apostolic succession, the Eucharist (transubstantiation, propitiatory sacrifice), Mary (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption), confession, baptismal regeneration, indulgences, purgatory, infused righteousness, works, prayer to saints, etc. I reject each of these teachings as I’m sure any Protestant would (at least all that I know). Now, honestly, would this qualify me as a heretic?

You must not be Lutheran