'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[De_Maria]

Well, it certainly seems so for some…like Mary,

Our Lady never sinned to begin with and was given the gift of being conceived without original sin. So, no, she was not born again.

John the baptist,

He was cleansed of unrighteousness in the womb. This is Catholic Teaching. It is not mentioned in Scripture.

Enoch, Josuah. Bezaleel, Isaiah, Job.

Since Enoch is mentioned in Heb 11:

Hebrews 11:5By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

And all those in that chapter are described with the words:

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

I conclude that He was not born again. Nor any of the rest you mentioned, since they are all implied to be included with this group.

Their resume: full of grace, infilled with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit being in them, perfect, upright, transported not to paradise but heaven.

And, “did not receive the promise”.

You say can’t happen because Calvary hadnt happened. Yet Mary’s grace is explained as a forward payment of Calvary, so why not these other graces, faith being pleasing, not to mention justifying ?

Because Mary is the Mother of God.

Yet not sure one would base being born again upon indwelling or baptism of Holy Spirit . It is based upon our spirits that were once by default at enmity with God, not believing, not seeing, not repenting, in darkness (spiritual), being quickened, regenerated, reconnected to God’s spirit.

It seems strange that you wouldn’t base it upon God’s indwelling our body.

This is His work in us …to be born of the Spirit, to be born of God…the most notable feature of the new birth is to retain belief in God and His promises where we once did not, after hearing it/ them , being a gift from God, that He places in the inner man, even causing one to praise Him, in truth and spirit, God even inhabiting such praise.

That’s not what we’re debating. You’re describing the indwelling, which occurs at Baptism when we receive the promise. The gift of the Holy Spirit.

This is nothing new. Since the garden and the fall, we are either born being the seed, spiritual seed , of Eve and her received promises of an eventual Savior, or we are a seed of Satan, prince of the earth.

That sounds like double predestination. Nope. We are born with a fallen nature, but we are still made in the image of God.

( Even Jesus said to the pharisees or unbelievers that they had Satan as a father). What is born of the flesh is flesh. What is born of the Spirit is spirit. Believers, OT and new , are born in the spirit by the Spirit.

And those who are born again of water and Spirit, are born of the Spirit.

 

[ltwin]

To that I can only respond: with regard to salvation we find that the gift of God is not merely “cheap” - it is free!

Salvation is free, and we are saved to walk in freedom–not to be slaves to sin. Our salvation was also bought with a price, a precious price, no less the life of our Savior, who was beaten, tortured, and crucified to death. Yes, this salvation is free, but it is not cheap. It cost something precious. And when we treat it as worthless, when we play around with sin and act like it isn’t deadly–when we say, “I’ll do what I want to do today and ask forgiveness for it tomorrow” or when we brush off the conviction of the Holy Spirit–it is serious and dangerous and not something to minimize. The Apostle Paul warned in Hebrews 10:26-31,

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

When we do this, we cheapen the grace God gives us because we throw it back in his face as if it was worthless.

And what is the opposite of “easy believism” supposed to be - “hard” believism? Where does the Bible state that believing is supposed to be hard?

I think the point the phrase “easy believism” is attempting to convey is that some people only believe that Jesus exists and that God exists. Well, that is a start. But that is not faith. Faith is not an intellectual belief. The demons believe in Jesus too.

Since you and I have not interacted before, I do not want to begin our dialogue by accusing you of having a hypocritical attitude, but I have definitely seen that mindset even among so-called Protestants: “people out there (not me of course!) are unabashed sinners—they cannot be true Christians”.

I do not write this from a “holier than thou” attitude. I am well aware of my own faults, weakness and sin. I write this not only because I am familiar with the lives of other people but also out of my own experience and–I believe–a faithful interpretation of Scripture.

Supposed to? We have died to sin (Rom. 6:2; Gal 5:24).

Except for those in our churches who believe they don’t have to, and the ministers in some of our churches who encourage this belief by their careless teaching.

 

[ltwin]

Let me guess, you are one of those who distinguish between “genuine” and “false” faith as well? Tell you what: if Christ has saved us, then we are “truly saved”. Simple as that. Yes, we should grow in our faith and let ourselves be conformed in the likeness of Christ, yet never imagine that we are by ourselves no lesser sinners than the “Antinomians out there”.

If someone believes they can do whatever they want, ask forgiveness for it later (or not at all as some people are taught all sins are already forgiven past, present and future so we have no need to even confess our sins after conversion) and then continue this process on and on, well I’m sorry but they have a false understanding of the Gospel and they make a mockery out of the Christian life.

It’s not about me being “better than” anyone. It’s about the truth, and there are people in our churches who have been led astray and that should concern you as an Evangelical.

So do you think that you have an advantage over the so-called Antinomians because you think that you are “growing” and they are not?

I don’t think I have any “advantage” over anyone. I don’t hold myself out as holier than anyone. I am a sinner saved by grace.

I grieve for those who have been taught that God doesn’t care about sin after someone is “saved.” I grieve for those who have been taught that a non-Christian who sins goes to hell, but a Christian who has been “saved” can do the same exact things as a “sinner” but the “saved” person will go straight to Heaven with Jesus all because he was “saved” by saying a single prayer at some church service and all his sins past, present and future are washed away like magic.

No circumcision of the flesh, no dying to sin, no taking up the cross and following Jesus, no being transformed by the renewing of our minds–just getting “saved” and going on our merry way with our one way ticket to Heaven all expenses paid. That’s a form and fashion, that isn’t the power of the Gospel.

 

[TULIPed]

Agreed. There has to be fruit, no?

“5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

It is passed down in Tradition and even if I had never opened the Bible, I would know that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, because the Church told me so

And what if the church told you Jesus was not the ONLY begotten Son of God, and you never opened a Bible to verify this. Would you believe it because “the Church told you”? Or would you be “more noble-minded” like the Bereans and compare what the apostles, like Paul, said TO Scripture (Acts 17:10-11) to verify what they said is true?

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” (v.20).

The fact Peter explained what kind of “prophecy” he was talking about (Scripture) in v.20, and then in the VERY NEXT VERSE brings up “prophecy” again, it is extremely pertinent.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:

Men didn’t reveal the prophecies of God on their own.

but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

But God spoke to men and moved them to speak, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

…which they wrote down in SCRIPTURE (v.20). If you ignore v.20, you end up quote-mining & eisegeting v.21 out of context.

I didn’t. The verse you included did not speak the point I’m making.

It didn’t agree with your eisegesis & quote-mining of the verse out of it’s context.

Romans 10:14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

This has to do with evangelization to those who have never heard the gospel, not exegeting Scripture using Biblical hermeneutics.

Show me where St. Paul said that he was MADE righteous before circumcision. Please provide EXPLICIT evidence.

I will be happy to as soon as you address my critique of your comment that if baptism “replaced” circumcision, then that would mean since Abraham was righteous BEFORE his circumcision, wouldn’t your “belief” follow that people are made righteous BEFORE baptism?

Nope. We follow the Catholic Church.

Good for you. I follow the Bible, based on the Greek meaning of words in the NT, & compare it to what I have been taught, just like the more noble-minded Bereans did with the apostle Paul.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Without the Church, following the Bible alone, leads to errors, which is very evident today with so many different opinions of what is the meaning of Scripture. As said in another thread the Bible is a Catholic book. God inspired the Church into what writings belong in both the OT and NT. He also inspired the Church as to what the meaning of those writings are.

Why Is Sola Scriptura Unreasonable. Karlo Broussard

 

[De_Maria]

And what if the church told you Jesus was not the ONLY begotten Son of God, and you never opened a Bible to verify this.

And what if the Bible told you that Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God and you never went to Church to verify this?

Would you believe it because “the Church told you”? Or would you be “more noble-minded” like the Bereans and compare what the apostles, like Paul, said TO Scripture (Acts 17:10-11) to verify what they said is true?

You don’t even understand that episode in Scripture. The Bereans were noble minded because they believed the Church. It is the Church, represented by the Apostles who told them about Christ. The Thessalonians also had the Scriptures. They didn’t believe the Church.

The fact Peter explained what kind of “prophecy” he was talking about (Scripture) in v.20, and then in the VERY NEXT VERSE brings up “prophecy” again, it is extremely pertinent

He was talking about how the prophecy of Scripture came about. And it came about by the prophecy first being spoken and then written.

…which they wrote down in SCRIPTURE (v.20).

Which the first were inspired to SPEAK. Then the wrote it down in Scripture. Why do you want to ignore that they were inspired to speak?

It didn’t agree with your eisegesis & quote-mining of the verse out of it’s context.

On the contrary, the quotes I presented proved that you are wrong. You can’t get around it.

This has to do with evangelization to those who have never heard the gospel, not exegeting Scripture using Biblical hermeneutics.

This has to do with passing down the Word of God by speaking.

I will be happy to as soon as you address my critique of your comment …

Lol! No, you aren’t happy at all. You can’t.

Good for you.

Thank you.

I follow the Bible, based on the Greek meaning of words in the NT, & compare it to what I have been taught, just like the more noble-minded Bereans did with the apostle Paul.

Basically, you follow the Lexicons. You can’t speak Greek. You don’t know the grammar of the ancient Greek. You just make it up as you go along. You dismantle the word of God and follow your own preferences.

Hey, whatever happened to you telling us what Sola Scriptura means, from Scripture? Not there explicitly, is it? Not even implied.

 

[De_Maria]

Thank you, @ltwin, @TULIPed.

I don’t mean to gang up on Johan. But I find your words comforting and I know we are on the same team. We do have our differences, but with you, it is a matter of degree, not polar opposites.

Anyway, God bless you.

 

[TULIPed]

Fear not friend @De_Maria! Our friend @Johan is made of sterner stuff! I can’t wait to see his Teutonic repose

 

[De_Maria]

Lol! That sounds funny, but what does it mean? No wait, if you have to explain the joke…

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The Bereans were noble minded because they believed the Church.

The Bereans also lived in modern day Greece, where there were Greek speaking Hellenistic Jews converting and the Scriptures they would have been examining and reading would have been the Septuagint. They were also listening to Paul and Silas speak, who had received their approval from Peter, so yes, they were hearing and believing the Church.

 

[Wannano]

Aren’t we all on the same team? If not, who gets to decide who is not a member?

Are we still arguing who is the greatest?

 

[mcq72]

It seems strange that you wouldn’t base it upon God’s indwelling our body ( being born again).

He does not indwell to make born again, but He may make born again and indwell but doesnt always have to indwell apparently in OT.

Whats the difference anyways. You still dont believe they are born again in the OT instances when God says He indwells them, fills them with Holy Ghost, as I posted.

 

[De_Maria]

Aren’t we all on the same team?

You tell me.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

If not, who gets to decide who is not a member?

The Catholic Church is God’s chosen authority in this world:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Are we still arguing who is the greatest?

God is the greatest and He established His infallible Catholic Church and speaks through her to this day.

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

 

[De_Maria]

He does not indwell to make born again, but He may make born again and indwell but doesnt always have to indwell apparently in OT.

Says you. But we follow the Teachings of the infallible Catholic Church. A man must be born of water and the Spirit in order to be born again. This did not happen in the OT.

Whats the difference anyways.

There’s a vast difference. The OT justification did not remove all sins.

Acts 13:39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

You still dont believe they are born again in the OT instances when God says He indwells them, fills them with Holy Ghost, as I posted.

God doesn’t say He indwells anyone in the OT. Otherwise the OT would be no different than the NT.

 

[Johan]

Fear not friend @De_Maria! Our friend @Johan is made of sterner stuff! I can’t wait to see his Teutonic repose

Don’t you worry, it will come. But now I will have a couple of hopelessly busy days, so it will have to wait. Hopefully, the response will be worth the wait.

We do have our differences, but with you, it is a matter of degree, not polar opposites.

I am even tempted to call it different religions.

 

[De_Maria]

I am even tempted to call it different religions.

I agree. Have you ever encountered this verse? What do you make of it?

Hebrews 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Aren’t we all on the same team?

You tell me.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

If not, who gets to decide who is not a member?

The Catholic Church is God’s chosen authority in this world:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Are we still arguing who is the greatest?

God is the greatest and He established His infallible Catholic Church and speaks through her to this day.

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Forgive me DeMaria if I am wrong, but aren’t you the one who fairly recently had left the Catholic Church . If I had it right you were quite vocal here that the Orthodox Church was the true Church. Now you are back with a vengeance that I understand even goes against the Catechism of the Catholic Church in your treatment of those of us that know we are Christians but not Catholic.
I look forward to hearing from you and Johan because I wonder too and can’t quite figure out just what the Catholic Church really is for sure. Catholics looking back at the scarred history say that the CC was never unfaithful, only the people in it. If that is true back then, then it probably is true today. How do I know if you now are truly representing the CC as it really is or if you are actually misrepresenting the truth of what the CC really is? I hope you understand my question. I am quite confused.

 

[mcq72]

God doesn’t say He indwells anyone in the OT

I posted two verses from Old Testament that say otherwise. What part of “in” is out? What part of “filled” is out when it comes to His Spirit ?

 

[mcq72]

Otherwise the OT would be no different than the NT.( if OT saints were born again)

There is plenty of difference , even if He indwelt and filled some saints in OT, and made them all born again. I do not insist that born again, having a spirit quickened and made alive unto the things of God necessitates our current indwelling and baptism in Holy Ghost.

Furthermore, the bigger scope of His pouring out of His flesh to believers in all nations, to Gentiles remains a difference. Also now that Calvary price has been paid all who die in faith go to heaven not paradise…we are seated in heavenly places now. Plus sin is covered once for all, unlike OT where there was continual need for sacrifice for forgiveness.

So still plenty of differences even if regeneration were in OT.

The OT justification did not remove all sins.

For sure it did not remove all sins in the sense of future sins. That is there had to be continual, yearly sacrifice. But I would not say they were not forgiven with sacrifice or only partially forgiven, like what, 50 % forgiven? No, they were forgiven.

What also might be meant is that while one might be personally forgiven, some of the benefits would have to wait till what was foreshadowed came to be, Calvary. Going to heaven and not Paradise is one example. Being able to go into the holy of holies is another example.

And yes another difference as noted with the apostles, is an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as when Christ breathed on them after the resurection (not when they were water baptized earlier)…, the Spirit not only being with them but now in them. This being apart from being born again, which I think you posted occurred at their water baptism (not John’s but the Lord’s). You posted such baptism, also administered by apostles during the Lord’s ministry, was regenerational, being born of water and the Spirit, that they did not have to be rebaptized after Calvary, or after His glorification (Ascension). You seem to then be saying they were born again before before Calvary and the Ascension, before indwelling and baptism of Holy Ghost. To me that is quite like what I say of regeneration in OT saints. ( The NT did not begin untill after Calvary.)

…