Split: Debate: Catholic Vs Non-Catholic Soteriology

[Mickey]

Be that as it may, James clearly says that one is tempted neither by God, nor by Satan.

Poppycock! More sandusky twisted theology.

Look at the passage again; James says *each one is tempted, *WHEN [the time of the temptation] *he is carried away and enticed *BY his own lust.

*His *[the sinner’s] own lust is the instrument of the temptation.

Yes. Look at the verse again sandusky. Lust is a passion. Where do the passions come from? Certainly not God! Certainly not ourselves–because we are made in the image of God. The passions come from the evil one. Satan puts a thought into our minds–say lust–and we have the free will to either act on it or not. Frankly, I am very surprised that you cannot see this.

You can insult the saints with your “Flip Wilson” comments–but you cannot change the truths they expressed.

Acts 5:1-3

But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property,
and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, "Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?

 

[sandusky]

Also you did not address my post above #132 with regard to my romans verses, which clearly show how one can be cut off or loose their salvation.
Jan

The chapter is not about individual salvation Jan, but about the salvation of Jew and Gentile in God’s plan. Paul is explaining the reason that Israel has been “cut off.” They have been “cut off” to bring in the Gentiles, thereby making Israel jealous as they see the Gentiles receiving God’s blessings, and they receiving God’s severity.

In their grafting in, the Gentiles have become “boastful.” Boasting is the opposite of faith.

Paul is scolding them for being boastful, and warning them, that IF they do not stop boasting, and continue in faith, they too will receive the severity of God, and run the risk of being “cut off.”

The church will apostatize at some point, if it has not already, and God will judge the apostate church (cf Rev 2:15, 16; 3:16) just as surely as He judged apostate Israel.

Within apostate Israel, and the apostate church, God always keeps for Himself a “remnant,” those who have not “bowed the knee to Baal” (11:3-5).

 

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

So God’s grace, love and faith are required for entry into heaven/saved? More than just faith is required to be saved? Am I understanding your position correctly?

I am not sure that you are understanding it correctly, that is the difficulty of “yes, or no only” response that required.

There is an order in all of this; God is a God of order, not chaos. The prerequisite for salvation is that one must be “UNGODLY,” because that is who God justifies—the UNGODLY (Rom 4:5; 56).

Once God has saved/justified/regenerated (all of those are separate things, but each one is synonymous, on its own for “Salvation”) the ungodly, the ungodly then have the ability to believe, of their own volition, and to love as well.

The ungodly do not love God, but those who enter heaven do, but only because He first loved them (1 Jn 4:19).

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Yes. Look at the verse again sandusky. Lust is a passion. Where do the passions come from? Certainly not God! Certainly not ourselves–because we are made in the image of God. The passions come from the evil one. Satan puts a thought into our minds–say lust–and we have the free will to either act on it or not.

Mickey, you are playing the blame game; the unregenerate are evil (Mt. 7:11; Rom 3:10ff), and the image of God in them, though not destroyed is certainly distorted; that is why, once regenerated, the believer embarks on the path of being transformed, and conformed to the image of Christ (2 Cor 3:18; Rom 8:29); nevertheless, there still resides within the believer, the principles of evil, and sin (Rom 7:21, 23), that results in a war between the believer’s spirit and his flesh (Gal 5:17), and the believers spirit and principalities (2 Cor 10:1ff).

The one who believes, has the assurance from John that the one who is in him, the Holy Spirit, is greater than the one who is in the world, Satan (1 Jn 4:4).

The world is Satan’s domain; but the believer has been transferred from Satan’s domain into God’s kingdom (Col 1:13), therefore, Satan cannot enter the believer; that is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

Mickey:

Acts 5:1-3

But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property,
and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, "Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?

There is no doubt that Satan exerts his power on the church (Acts 20:28-30), and on individuals, but Peter’s statements above are a generalization, and not a treatise, or an explanation of the mechanics of temptation; James does that, and James says the temptation is not an external object, but an internal moral issue, the genesis of which is generated within the believer.

Satan, or anyone else, can place an object in front of you, but the thoughts about that object, good, or bad, are yours, and no one else’s.

For example, you can walk into a store, and up to the counter, and see on that counter a $100 bill, and the only thought is that it is a $100 bill. And while you wait patiently for the clerk, and look around at the different displays, you can look at the $100 bill many times, and still the only recognition of it is as a $100 bill.

At some point you become aware that the store seems to be empty, and you are concerned with that. “Where are all of the people; where are the store clerks,” you think as you continue looking around for several more minutes, and seeing the $100 bill on the counter many more times and recognizing it as only a $100 bill each time you see it.

While you continue looking around the store, you notice that there are also security cameras behind the counter, and still, you wonder, “where is the clerk?” And you have looked at the $100 bill a number of times now.

But, one time, your gaze lingers on the bill, And then you go back to looking around the store, and now, as your gaze comes back around to the counter, it fixes on the $100 bill, and you think, “there is no one in the store.”

But there are security cameras, and you go back to waiting for the clerk and continue looking around, but, now, each time you see the $100 bill, your gaze lingers longer, and there is no one in the store, and you begin considering what that $100 bill can buy for you; but there are security cameras; but no one is in the store, and the bill is just sitting there; and you look around again, and there is no one in the store, but there are security cameras, and you pick up the bill and walk out, having carried it away by your lust.

The object is not the temptation, but, as James says, “*each one is tempted *WHEN HE *is carried away by *HIS OWN LUST.”

Contrary to what you say, the passions do not come from the evil one, and Satan does not put thoughts into your mind; he doesn’t have to; you already have your own.

 

[Mickey]

James does that, and James says the temptation is not an external object, but an internal moral issue, the genesis of which is generated within the believer.

The individual is tempted by the evil one and has the free will to cooperate with evil–or not.
1 Cor 7:5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

Satan, or anyone else, can place an object in front of you, but the thoughts about that object, good, or bad, are yours, and no one else’s.

That is what I am saying. It is called free will–the temptation originates from the evil one. But he can’t make you act on it. Be watchful.

and you begin considering what that $100 bill can buy for you;

Here is the temptation from the evil one.

but there are security cameras; but no one is in the store, and the bill is just sitting there; and you look around again, and there is no one in the store, but there are security cameras, and you pick up the bill and walk out, having carried it away by your lust.

You have acted on the temptation.

The object is not the temptation, but, as James says, “*each one is tempted *WHEN HE *is carried away by *HIS OWN LUST.”

Exactly!!! Satan is the master of temptation! Don’t fool yourself sandusky. Satan would love for you to believe that he has nothing to do with it.

Contrary to what you say, the passions do not come from the evil one,

They most certainly do.

and Satan does not put thoughts into your mind;

He most certainly does.

he doesn’t have to; you already have your own.

The evil one has blinded you.

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

The following articles in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia may be of some help to sandusky and others who would like to make a more expanded study of how the (Western) Catholic Church understands sin and temptation: temptation, sin, original sin, concupiscence, passions.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

The individual is tempted by the evil one and has the free will to cooperate with evil–or not.

1 Cor 7:5
Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

Your opening statement is your opinion; James says temptation comes WHEN [next comes the time of temptation] one is carried away by his own lusts, not before; it is not the object that is the temptation, but your own lusts. James does not say that temptation comes when you see an object, but when, you fill in what James says _____________________________________

Now fill in what your answer, and compare it to James" _______________________________

Once again, Mickey, Satan directs his power against the church, and against individuals. Even Paul here does not blame Satan, but your lack of self-control.

Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23); walk in the Spirit, and you will not carry out the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5:17). That is a promise.

I read the link to temptation from Michael’s post above; I understand now why you believe what you do.

Mickey:

Exactly!!! Satan is the master of temptation! Don’t fool yourself sandusky. Satan would love for you to believe that he has nothing to do with it.

I say again Mickey, perhaps this time you will hear it; Satan directs his power at the church, and Satan does not have to put evil thoughts in your heart, you already have them.

All he needs do is put even innocent things in front of you, but temptation comes from inside of you, when you form the thoughts and are carried away by them.

I am not deceived, but understand Satan’s abilities and his limitations, and I take precautions against him within myself.

In Rom 6:13, Paul does not admonish the believer to not present himself as instrument of unrighteousness to Satan, but as an instrument of unrighteousness to SIN; that principle of sin which still resides in him (Rom 7:23).

 

[Mickey]

Once again, Mickey, Satan directs his power against the church, and against individuals.

Bingo! You got it!

Even Paul here does not blame Satan, but your lack of self-control..

Your lack of self-control against the temptation of Satan.

Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23); walk in the Spirit, and you will not carry out the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5:17). That is a promise.

Absolutely! The wiles of the Devil are powerless against the power of Christ. Pray unceasingly my friend.

I say again Mickey, perhaps this time you will hear it; Satan directs his power at the church, and Satan does not have to put evil thoughts in your heart, you already have them…

And I’ll say it again sandusky: These evil thoughts that are already in our heart–where do they come from? Do you have ears to hear?

All he needs do is put even innocent things in front of you, but temptation comes from inside of you, when you form the thoughts and are carried away by them.

All thoughts producing anger or desire in a way contrary to nature are caused by demons. (St Evagrios the Solitary)

I am not deceived, but understand Satan’s abilities and his limitations, and I take precautions against him within myself.

The man who lives devoutly does not allow evil to slip into his soul; and, no evil being present, his soul is safe from danger and harm. Such a man is dominated neither by demon nor by fate, for God delivers him from all evil and he lives unharmed. (St Antony the Great)

In Rom 6:13, Paul does not admonish the believer to not present himself as instrument of unrighteousness to Satan, but as an instrument of unrighteousness to SIN; that principle of sin which still resides in him (Rom 7:23).

Be watchful, my friend.
“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, `I will return to my house from which I came.’
And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order.
Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.” **(Luke 11:24-26)
**

**
**

 

[JPrejean]

In short, you think that James is saying that works are the cause of justification.

That’s just not true. Trent is quite explicit on the causes of justification:

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Works are the instruments by which justification takes place; they are not “causes” in the sense of “reasons for” or “sources of” in the sense that is meant by final, efficient, meritorious, or formal causation. You have a deterministic understanding of causation that treats God as simply another mechanistic cause among many. You’ll have to study some philosophy before you can understand Catholic dogma, much less characterize it.

 

[sandusky]

JPrejean:

Works are the instruments by which justification takes place; they are not “causes” in the sense of “reasons for” or “sources of” in the sense that is meant by final, efficient, meritorious, or formal causation. You have a deterministic understanding of causation that treats God as simply another mechanistic cause among many. You’ll have to study some philosophy before you can understand Catholic dogma, much less characterize it.

You can clothe works in whatever philosophical system you desire, and describe it with whatever words you will, be it final, efficient, meritorious, or formal; if that initial justification can be lost and then recovered through a channel established for that recovery, and, if can it be said that works not only preserve, and increase, but are the cause of justification, then the basis for that justification is finally the performance of the individual.

That may not be philosophical, but it is observable.

Thankfully the Lord has revealed to babes that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 

[JPrejean]

You can clothe works in whatever philosophical system you desire, and describe it with whatever words you will, be it final, efficient, meritorious, or formal

Your statement was just plain wrong based on Catholic theology, and it is your obligation as someone stating a position not to leave your audience to puzzle over what your point is, particularly when what you said seems blatantly erroneous. If you are incapable of explaining yourself clearly or even showing yourself capable of understanding what you are criticizing, then you should be silent.

if that initial justification can be lost and then recovered through a channel established for that recovery, and, if can it be said that works not only preserve, and increase, but are the cause of justification, then the basis for that justification is finally the performance of the individual.

You’re not making any sense. Your argument is that Catholic theology is OK for INITIAL justification, but not later. In Catholic theology, initial justification comes by way of baptism (by Sacrament, martyrdom, or desire), which is clearly a “work” in the sense of human activity but merely an instrumental cause with respect to God (viz., not a work demanding a response from God or “causing” His action, but rather the instrument of God’s action). It makes no sense at all for that to be permissible but for good works as an instrumental cause later to be a problem. You could just as easily say that the basis for the justification is initially the performance of the individual, at least in the case of adults who must consent to baptism either by act or desire.

Thankfully the Lord has revealed to babes that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I think that even babes would understand the difference between being an instrument of someone’s action and being a cause of someone’s action. For example, I’ve never heard of a pen making a person write before, although a really small child might use that as an excuse! Of course, a babe might not understand what an “instrumental cause” is, and he might be confused by this use of the term “cause,” but conceptually, it’s pretty easy: God uses instruments to accomplish His work.

My point is that if you are going to elevate the discussion beyond that level and ask questions that require a more detailed conceptual analysis, then you need to understand the concepts involved. Even a child can understand that when he flips the switch, the light comes on. On the other hand, there are plenty of adults who don’t understand the electrical response of the filament. If we are going to talk about the niceties of whether St. Paul is speaking about instrumental causes when he contrasts faith with works (something that strikes me as patently absurd and self-contradictory), then you’ve got to grasp the conceptual difference at a sufficient level to be able to talk about it meaningfully.

 

[apophasis]

Sandusky:

The object is not the temptation, but, as James says, “each one is tempted WHEN HE is carried away by HIS OWN LUST.

Contrary to what you say, the passions do not come from the evil one, and Satan does not put thoughts into your mind; he doesn’t have to; you already have your own.

This is true and tragically illustrated way back in the Garden when Eve, though deceived by the Devil (1 Tim. 1:14), through her own “lust of the flesh,” lust of the eyes," and “boastful pride of life” (1 Jn. 2:16), which tempted her, she fell into transgression and sinned.

That is, she “transgressed” the commandment not to eat of the tree. Both Adam and Eve became “sinners” by transgressing a definite commandment, whereas we (their posterity) are all “born” sinners in Adam, requiring the need to be “born again” through faith in Christ, the “second man,” the “Last Adam. Not achieved through water baptism.”(1) “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food:” (lust of the flesh)

(2) “…and that it was a delight to the eyes”: (lust of the eyes)

(3) “…and that the tree was desirable to make one wise”: (boastful pride of life)

“…she took from its fruit and ate” (Gen. 3:6)Though Eve was deceived by the serpent from without, it was her own inward passions (lust) that tempted her and caused her to sin.

Nothing has changed since the fall in the Garden. All sin is personal, the product of being carried away and enticed by one’s own lust.“Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” (Ja. 1:13-15).For the true believer, ALL his sins are forever forgiven by God through the cross of Christ (Col. 2:13-14). Having been born again through personal faith in Christ (not baptism) and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he is exhorted to now “walk by the Spirit” who indwells him and he “will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16).

This, of course, cannot be said of the unbeliever who is dead (spiritually), still being “in Adam.”

 

[whosebob]

Having been born again through personal faith in Christ (not baptism) and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he is exhorted to now “walk by the Spirit” who indwells him and he “will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16).

JMJ + OBT​

(1) You are creating a false dilemma – to receive Christian baptism is an act of faith which consummates the initial act of repentance and faith in Christ made possible by God’s grace; it is not “faith vs. baptism;” moreover, it is according to God’s own design that He instituted baptism of “water and the spirit” as the instrument by which men and are to receive sanctifying grace, become justified, and begin new lives as God’s adopted sons and daughters in Christ. The following is from ScriptureCatholic.com:

Born Again in Water Baptism

John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

Acts 10:47 - Peter says “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people…?” The Bible always links water and baptism.

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.

Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.

Heb. 10:22 – the author is also writing about water baptism in this verse. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Our bodies are washed with pure water in water baptism.

2 Kings 5:14 - Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh was restored like that of a child. This foreshadows the regenerative function of baptism, by water and the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them.

Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.

Consider this teaching from the Apostle St. Peter:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (1 Pet. 3:21-22 [RSV])

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

(2) You stated:

Having been born again through personal faith in Christ (not baptism) and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he is exhorted to now “walk by the Spirit” who indwells him and he “will not carry out the desire of the flesh (Gal. 5:16).”

Please clarify. Are you stating that believer will not carry out the desires of the flesh inasmuch as he walks by the Spirit, but if he does carry out those desires it is an indication that he didn’t walk by the Spirit but not an indication that he isn’t saved? Or are you stating that the believer will always (necessarily) walk by the Spirit and therefore will not ever carry out the desires of the flesh, such that if he did carry them out it implies he was not saved to begin with?

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[apophasis]

JPrejean:

You’re not making any sense. Your argument is that Catholic theology is OK for INITIAL justification, but not later. In Catholic theology, initial justification comes by way of baptism (by Sacrament, martyrdom, or desire), which is clearly a “work” in the sense of human activity…

Absolutely! No faith required. And this is why the whole RC doctrine of “initial” justification falls flat on its face being in blatant contradiction to God’s revealed, written Word - written to, but ignored by, the church of Rome:Rom 3:23-14 “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified (how?) as a gift by His grace (how? sacrament? martyrdom? desire? NO!) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;”

Rom 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his (baptism? martyrdom? desire? NO!) faith is credited (reckoned) as righteousness,…”

Rom 4:16 "For this reason {it is} by faith, in order that {it may be} in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Rom 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified (how?) by faith, we have peace with God through (baptism? martyrdom? desire? NO!) our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand;There is no divine justification when there is no personal faith involved. .

According to God’s Word, either one is fully justified by God through faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ (the cross), or he is not justified at all.

 

[JPrejean]

Absolutely! No faith required.

Baptism is the sacrament of faith.

as a gift by His grace (how? sacrament? martyrdom? desire? NO!)

What makes you think those aren’t gifts?

*Rom 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his (baptism? martyrdom? desire? NO!) faith is credited (reckoned) as righteousness,…”

Rom 4:16 "For this reason {it is} by faith, in order that {it may be} in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Rom 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified (how?) by faith, we have peace with God through (baptism? martyrdom? desire? NO!) our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand;*

That would be the basis on which baptism is credited as righteousness, not work (debt), but grace. As I pointed out, baptism is the sacrament of faith.

By the way, if you’d break out the rest of your Bible, you’d find the following passage:
“Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Mac. 2:52)
Not very convenient for the notion that “reckoned” means no act of faith is involved.

*There is no divine justification when there is no personal faith involved.

According to God’s Word, either one is fully justified by God through faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ (the cross), or he is not justified at all.*

Good; we agree. Since it has turned out that we agree about everything apart from your mistake about baptism not being an act of faith and belief, I expect that you will convert to Catholicism with all due haste.

 

[sandusky]

JPrejean:

Your statement was just plain wrong based on Catholic theology, and it is your obligation as someone stating a position not to leave your audience to puzzle over what your point is, particularly when what you said seems blatantly erroneous. If you are incapable of explaining yourself clearly or even showing yourself capable of understanding what you are criticizing, then you should be silent.

You don’t understand, but you know that it’s wrong and blatantly erroneous?

JPrejean:

If we are going to talk about the niceties of whether St. Paul is speaking about instrumental causes when he contrasts faith with works (something that strikes me as patently absurd and self-contradictory), then you’ve got to grasp the conceptual difference at a sufficient level to be able to talk about it meaningfully.

I don’t need to understand philosophies explaining instrumental causes to understand Paul’s explanation about faith and works.

All I need to understand is—

Romans 11:6

…if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Grace by any other name—final cause, efficient cause, meritorious cause, formal cause, instrumental cause—is no longer grace.

Jesus illustrates that well:

Luke 18:10-14

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’

The Pharisee verbally GIVES TO GOD ALL of the credit for his righteous behavior. IOW, he SAYS that God is the instrumental cause of his meritorious works; sound familiar?

Lk 18:13

“But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’

This poor guy can’t even look toward heaven; he offers NO THANKS, and NO GOOD DEEDS, but can only cry for MERCY!

Jesus says of the tax collector (the Jews loathed tax collectors):

Lk 18:14

“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

What? But the Pharisee gave thanks; the tax collector didn’t; the Pharisee listed his good works; the tax collector knew he had none; the Pharisee gave to God all of the credit for his good works; but Jesus said the Pharisee EXALTED HIMSELF.

Christ did away with the O.T. theology of external works (sacrificial vs. sacramental) as a channel to God, and from God, because they cannot save; they were never intended to.

You obviously don’t understand that, but hey, you understand the philosophy of instrumental causes, and you now know what that understanding is worth before God.

JPrejean:

My point is that if you are going to elevate the discussion beyond that level and ask questions that require a more detailed conceptual analysis, then you need to understand the concepts involved.

No thanks; I have read the Sixth of Trent documents and have no desire to discuss the philosophical underpinnings that you claim support them (Col 2:8).

 

[apophasis]

quote=whosebob You are creating a false dilemma – to receive Christian baptism is an act of faith which consummates the initial act of repentance and faith in Christ made possible by God’s grace; it is not “faith vs. baptism;” moreover, it is according to God’s own design that He instituted baptism of “water and the spirit” as the instrument by which men and are to receive sanctifying grace, become justified, and begin new lives as God’s adopted sons and daughters in Christ. The following is from ScriptureCatholic.com:
[/quote]

No I’m not! (1) An infant cannot express personal faith in Christ. (2) Ritual (water) baptism might follow true, personal faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ on the believer’s behalf, but ritual (water) baptism does not, nor cannot, guarantee an inward presence of true faith in the one being poured upon or dunked.

For many, their faith is in the ritual itself (the sacrament, or the church that bestows it), not Christ. If you think it’s the sacrament that saves, justifies and regenerates, then it’s true of you as well.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

In context I do not believe Jesus was referring to ritual (water) baptism. But even if He was, He wasn’t referring to the ritual itself, but the repentance that John’s baptism represented. Hence, only a repentant (not penitent) believer can be born from above. But the ritual possesses no such power.

Please clarify. Are you stating that believer will not carry out the desires of the flesh inasmuch as he walks by the Spirit, but if he does carry out those desires it is an indication that he didn’t walk by the Spirit but not an indication that he isn’t saved? Or are you stating that the believer will always (necessarily) walk by the Spirit and therefore will not ever carry out the desires of the flesh, such that if he did carry them out it implies he was not saved to begin with?

Paul is addressing true believers when he exhorts them to “walk by the Spirit.” The fact that he exhorts them to do so implies that they have the ability not to. But salvation is not based on, nor maintained by, a believer’s ability to consistently walk by the Spirit. His salvation is guaranteed, eternally, through the obedience and faithfulness of Another (Phil. 2:8)

You ask this question because you do not accept the wholly substitutionary aspect of the cross of Christ. And for this reason, also, you put undue emphasis (personal faith) in ritual baptism.

 

[whosebob]

The fact that he exhorts them to do so implies that they have the ability not to. But salvation is not based on, nor maintained by, a believer’s ability to consistently walk by the Spirit. His salvation is guaranteed, eternally, through the obedience and faithfulness of Another (Phil. 2:8) … you do not accept the wholly substitutionary aspect of the cross of Christ. And for this reason, also, you put undue emphasis (personal faith) in ritual baptism.

JMJ + OBT​

May Our Lord bless you, apophasis, and may the prayers of the Blessed Virgin obtain for you the graces to grow in your faith in God and to be ever more perfectly conformed to His holy will.

Thank you for replying so quickly; I can’t take time at the moment to respond directly to your concerns with regard to the Sacrament of Baptism (maybe JPrejean or someone else will) and your other statements, but I wanted to let you know that I just recently posted a personal reflection on the dialogue in this thread in another thread in this forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1526050#post1526050

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Pax]

This is true and tragically illustrated way back in the Garden when Eve, though deceived by the Devil (1 Tim. 1:14), through her own “lust of the flesh,” lust of the eyes," and “boastful pride of life” (1 Jn. 2:16), which tempted her, she fell into transgression and sinned.

That is, she “transgressed” the commandment not to eat of the tree. Both Adam and Eve became “sinners” by transgressing a definite commandment, whereas we (their posterity) are all “born” sinners in Adam, requiring the need to be “born again” through faith in Christ, the “second man,” the “Last Adam. Not achieved through water baptism.”(1) “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food:” (lust of the flesh)

(2) “…and that it was a delight to the eyes”: (lust of the eyes)

(3) “…and that the tree was desirable to make one wise”: (boastful pride of life)

“…she took from its fruit and ate” (Gen. 3:6)Though Eve was deceived by the serpent from without, it was her own inward passions (lust) that tempted her and caused her to sin.

Nothing has changed since the fall in the Garden. All sin is personal, the product of being carried away and enticed by one’s own lust.“Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” (Ja. 1:13-15).For the true believer, ALL his sins are forever forgiven by God through the cross of Christ (Col. 2:13-14). Having been born again through personal faith in Christ (not baptism) and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he is exhorted to now “walk by the Spirit” who indwells him and he “will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16).

This, of course, cannot be said of the unbeliever who is dead (spiritually), still being “in Adam.”

Are you and/or Sandusky suggesting that Adam and Eve would have fallen had Satan never been present?