I guess that is the point I don’t get…if you are “assured” where does the working in fear and trembling fit in? I have confidence–but I think to claim assurance imposes upon God something He must do for me.
I will deal with the elect thing first. The elect are the people chosen by God. This chosen people are the people who Christ died for. Christ died for the sins of the elect.
I thought Christ died to ransom the sins of all mankind–not just the ones he knew would choose to follow Him–doesn’t that contradict free-will?..and back to the Sola Scriptura idea…where does the concept of “the elect” come from in the Bible?
Alright I don’t like the idea of ransom the sins. Who did God owe payment for our sins to?
You are joking right 39 books of the Bible are about God’s chosen people, the Jews. The jews who reject Jesus are cut off from the olive tree. And the Gentiles who accept him are grafted onto it.
Well…that is generally a Protestant term anyway…but it’s not that He owes payment…it’s that he pays without having to and without recompense…Anyway…onward…
They are free–and one way we are free is when we choose heaven (by doing as God tells us) or choose hell (by rejecting His teachings). It’s just like you can inherit a million bucks, but if you never go and pick it up, or you deny that you were the one named in the will–you ain’t got jack.
I can accept “predestination” insofar as (is that one word?) God is omnicient and he sees all time, including the whole life of every individual, in the eternal moment in which He is. In a “way” beyond our ability to comprehend, He knows who is saved and who isn’t–but it is not something we can know or be assured of. He gave us free will–what is love without the assent of love? It’s slavery–and though we should wish to be God’s slave, He gives us the dignity of our own will so that we can CHOOSE to love him genuinely.
I’m sure you are aware God’s OT methodology ain’t necessarily so after Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Didn’t you mention that earlier?
Hey–but that’s how we were created…God didn’t do a redo…
But what happens when the student goes on to test his knowledge? He soon forgets and needs to re-read his notes. The teacher will not always be there. Eventually the student will need a refresher course. Likewise, the Teacher Himself (and his assistants - the apostles)is no longer present. We need to continually consult the writings they left to make sure we are “getting it”.
They couldn’t. That is why they need a reference to refresh them. Only the Apostles were gifted to be able to recall everything that was neccessary to be put down as a reference. The telephone game is a perfect example. If the kid in the first seat of the first row in class had started with a written message instead of an oral one, it would not have ended up a completely differnt message!
You are defending Sola Scriptura here. Jesus could have saved the authors a lot of writer’s cramp by not inspiring them with His Spirit later on to write those things down! By the RCCs claims, the Apostles and their teachings are completely unnecessary b/c everything was PERFECTLY and INFALLIBLY orally passed down for hundreds of years!
Yet the traditions of the RCC are not identifiable in Scripture.The RCCs traditions are certainly not the traditions of the Apostles
Excellent point! And the Pope and Magesterium of the RCC claim to be Divinely inspired too, do they not? And so does the Word of God. Which will you believe?
Again, an excellent point. WHO is saying this? An Apostle, not a 21st century magesterium. We can hold fast to the traditions that were taught by oral statement and letter WHEN they come to us from the Apostles or Jesus Himself (the Bible)
That sounds like a personal interpretation if you ask me. There is no evidence in the Bible to suggest that this is the meaning of that passage. Where is the logical train of thought that leads to that conclusion? Do I need to believe it b/c men taught so?
Yet, notice that this citation does NOT claim that the “helps” are infallible! They do not make so bold a claim! Fallible, sinful, human beings cannot understand inerrantly everything contained w/in the Bible. The essentials of the Christian life are CLEARLY spelled out in the Bible. The more complex issues require Wisdom, which is a gift.
I urge you to do the same. I will use your own words, with a slight adjustment:
I do sincerely hope that Catholics will read the Word of God with an open heart. As a Catholic, I could never read the Bible. Everytime I did so I could find not one ounce of the RCC contained within those pages. So, I believed, as I had been taught, that I cannot rightly discern the meaning of those scriptures myself. I needed the HS through the RCC to interpret it. If this was so, then why does the RCC make the Bible available to it’s members? To torment them? When I read it with an open heart, the Scriptures are not as complex and abstract as the RCC would have me believe. The only thing complex and abstract about it is how the RCC used them to try to support it’s doctrines. Do I understand ALL of the Bible? Certainly NOT! But then again, neither does the RCC. Why can’t it step off it’s high horse and admit that it, like the rest of us infallible, sinful beings, it does not have all the answers, just it’s own personal interpretation. Thank goodness the essentials of Christianity are taught correctly by the RCC (which, as I said, I believe are CLEARLY layed out). It’s just a shame it would have you believe that you have to jump through hoops to get to Christ. And it’s a greater shame that it’s members need fear to read the Bible on their own, with open hearts, lest they find contained w/in it’s pages, the truth that was freely given to us all.
That was poorly put. I believe that the essentials of Christianity are there, but there is so much more added to it that is non-essential, and completely unscriptural.
God still has a choosen people the followers of Christ. and the Olive tree Catholics referred to, when I said that the Jews who reject Christ were outside of Salvation,. is representative of that. God no longer is only associated to the Jews but to all who accept him. All the people who accept Christ are among the elect.
I don’t know how it works but God’s foreknowledge doesn’t deject from our free will.
However, our will was corrupted by the fall. This is a Catholic idea I think that Augustine said talked about it. We will choose to do evil on our own. God gives help and counters it.
God does things to bring himself glory. Like I said I don’t know how it works, but I do know that it works. How can one love without God? If God is love, then how can we love? We need help to love him.
No, the truth is - you are ignorant of history - you can say it isn’t true all day long!
I’m not ignorant of history. You are ignorant of what I said.
That is not incorrect. It is exactly the same as what you said. And it is truth.
That is a very ignorant statement.
I don’t know much about this topic, but I find your explanation confusing in light of Paul’s words in Romans after the discussion of broken olive branches…
I would not say it’s "FORE"knowledge–but rather "ALL"knowing. The prefix “fore” indicates time or position (before), and since God is the creator of time and all things, and not subject to His creation but rather master of all, the term seems to logically not apply to God.
God gave us the ability–but allows us to be masters of our own will. Of course, all goodness comes from the grace of God–but I choose to accept the grace or not. He provides and I either feast or starve based on my own decisions.
God wants all manking to choose Him and love Him.
Firstly, because you are Catholic you may want to take a look at this website itsjustdave said to look at it. cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm
geez… was just talkin’…
…I will look at the site…I sort of like to reason out ideas that I think seem correct and then check my reasoning against Catholic teaching, rather than the other way around. If I’m off, then I work to understand where I went wrong and attempt to perfect my reasoning in that manner…at any rate…I’m not real fond of how you worded that last line–I’m not an automoton that must be programmed by the great Controller housed at the Vatican…Actually, I was trying to understand your point of view in light of what I believe to be true. I was looking to understand your reasoning. But if you’d rather…I’ll assume I am dismissed from class.
After reading the article at that link…I see why you worded it that way Akin sorta does it the same way…I’m not real fond of how you worded that last line–I’m not an automoton that must be programmed by the great Controller housed at the Vatican…
.
