Tackling Predestination

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bengoshi said:
Col. 1:24 I am filling up (Gk. antanaplēroō) what is lacking (Gk. hysterēma) in Christ’s afflictions does not imply that there is a deficiency in Christ’s atoning death and suffering on the cross, which would contradict the central message of this letter and all the rest of Scripture as well (cf. Heb. 9:12, 24–26; 10:14). Christ’s sufferings are in fact sufficient, and nothing of one’s own can be added to secure salvation. What was “lacking” in Christ’s afflictions was the future suffering of all who (like Paul) will experience great affliction for the sake of the gospel, as Paul described, e.g., in 2 Cor. 1:8–10. (Cf. Phil. 2:30, where Paul tells the Philippians that Epaphroditus risked his life “to complete [Gk. anaplēroō] what was lacking [Gk. hysterēma] in your service to me”.)
Click to expand...
Bengoshi,
You can demonstrate from scripture that Jesus suffering and death allowed all men to be reconciled and saved. However, you can not demonstrate from scripture that man has no role in his own salvation, because this simply is not the truth. Men are called to follow Jesus. if they don’t, they will be condemned…
 
twb1621 said:
My brother, it is not how I put it but what Christ teaches us and what He expects of us from those teachings. Now that you understand the Catholic Faith’s reference to Faith and works, that still leaves the unanswered questions I presented to you. I am sure there are other issues you have held (as others) incorrectly and you should, in devotion to Christ, wish to clear those up as well, The questions you have yet to answer once answered correctly will lead you to ALL TRUTH in Christ. This is of course the reason there is such a growing number of scholars and preachers and pastors, ministers, bishops and teachers of various faiths returning “Home” to the Bride of Christ, His one true Body. It is an expression to the fact that the more one learns, the more one sees the Truth and Fullness of the Catholic Faith.

So I would again ask that you please respond with your understanding or even a question if that is the case as to these points I raised with you as it is most applicable to the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but it’s way back through the thread. Could you please indulge me by either rferring me to the thread number or restating your questions hereafter?

Thank you. 🙂
 
Bengoshi said:
Col. 1:24 I am filling up (Gk. antanaplēroō) what is lacking (Gk. hysterēma) in Christ’s afflictions does not imply that there is a deficiency in Christ’s atoning death and suffering on the cross, which would contradict the central message of this letter and all the rest of Scripture as well (cf. Heb. 9:12, 24–26; 10:14). Christ’s sufferings are in fact sufficient, and nothing of one’s own can be added to secure salvation. What was “lacking” in Christ’s afflictions was the future suffering of all who (like Paul) will experience great affliction for the sake of the gospel, as Paul described, e.g., in 2 Cor. 1:8–10. (Cf. Phil. 2:30, where Paul tells the Philippians that Epaphroditus risked his life “to complete [Gk. anaplēroō] what was lacking [Gk. hysterēma] in your service to me”.)
Click to expand...
But you just went round the bush and came back where you started.

Putting the word “lacking” in quotes does not extricate you from having to explain exactly what Paul meant to rebut Pitcharan.

Yes, Christ’s death is sufficient but in what way is it sufficient? This is the part that you have a fuzzy understanding about. That is why all you can do is enclose in quotes the word “lacking”. If what was “lacking” was “the future suffering of all who will experience great affliction for the sake of the gospel”, then you are saying that without this “suffering” then Christ’s suffering is not sufficient and therefore no redemption.

And trying to get the original Greek to come to your aid is pointless because it does not shed any light to help with your explanation either.
 
Bengoshi said:
I’m sorry but it’s way back through the thread. Could you please indulge me by either rferring me to the thread number or restating your questions hereafter?

Thank you. 🙂
Click to expand...
Going back to the post you very limitedly responded to here, you did not answer the majority of scriptural references I asked of you, but at this point will again refer to even just a couple;

1 Corinthians CH1; 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
  1. Consider deeply and truthfully, can you credibly justify the principles of Sola Scriptura and the thousands of individual interpretations including yours and the many independent churches SC has led to against scripture itself? Can you credibly claim you speak the same thing, that you are a part of no schismatic movement and that you are perfect in the same mind and same judgment as the teachings of the Church Jesus founded established with the apostles and continued through the apostolic Fathers and their successors have attested to for 2000 years?
These are some of the proclamations Jesus made in His covenant between Him and the Church He founded with His Blood:

The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

The Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. (future revelation).

I point out once again, To suggest that Jesus, in any way did not keep the covenant He made with His Church is to accuse Jesus of failing to keep His Word and there is truly no way around that.
  1. Can you credibly question the commitment and ability of our Lord to oversee His Church, to so love her in her devotion and purge her of her corruption as and when He determines appropriate to Him? Does man know better than God and isn’t the existence of so many “Christian” faiths a testament to just that?
 
Bengoshi said:
I’m sorry but it’s way back through the thread. Could you please indulge me by either rferring me to the thread number or restating your questions hereafter?

Thank you. 🙂
Click to expand...
I also ask you to respond to Posts #723, 759, 760
 
paul_c said:
And you will only become a saint when you enter heaven. Prior to that, you can’t be sure…
Click to expand...
How about the instances when the Apostle Paul in his letters referred to the members of the Church as “saints”? They were still alive weren’t they? All believers are saints.
 
Bengoshi said:
Col. 1:24 I am filling up (Gk. antanaplēroō) what is lacking (Gk. hysterēma) in Christ’s afflictions does not imply that there is a deficiency in Christ’s atoning death and suffering on the cross, which would contradict the central message of this letter and all the rest of Scripture as well (cf. Heb. 9:12, 24–26; 10:14). Christ’s sufferings are in fact sufficient, and nothing of one’s own can be added to secure salvation. What was “lacking” in Christ’s afflictions was the future suffering of all who (like Paul) will experience great affliction for the sake of the gospel, as Paul described, e.g., in 2 Cor. 1:8–10. (Cf. Phil. 2:30, where Paul tells the Philippians that Epaphroditus risked his life “to complete [Gk. anaplēroō] what was lacking [Gk. hysterēma] in your service to me”.)
Click to expand...
I forgot to cite my source! 😃 This came from the ESV Study Bible commentaries.
 
Bengoshi said:
How about the instances when the Apostle Paul in his letters referred to the members of the Church as “saints”? They were still alive weren’t they? All believers are saints.
Click to expand...
Give me an example of where he calls all members of the church Saints or all believers Saints…
 
Bengoshi said:
How about the instances when the Apostle Paul in his letters referred to the members of the Church as “saints”? They were still alive weren’t they? All believers are saints.
Click to expand...
Of course Saints are alive. They are much more alive than we are. We still sin so death still hovers around. 😃
 
paul_c said:
Give me an example of where he calls all members of the church Saints or all believers Saints…
Click to expand...
Greetings, Paul!

Just to springboard your discussion, without trying to enter into it myself, the two of you can start here:

“The new covenant, new and eternal, comes strictly ‘in Christ’s blood’ (cf. 1 Cor 11:25). By virtue of this sacrifice, the ‘new Counselor’ (Parakletos) (cf. Jn 14:16) – ‘the Holy Spirit’ – is given to those who are ‘sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints’ (1 Cor 1:2). ‘To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints’ (Rom 1:7), St. Paul addressed his letter to the Christians of Rome. He expressed himself similarly to the Corinthians: ‘To the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia’ (2 Cor 1:1); to the Philippians: ‘To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi’ (Phil 1:1); to the Colossians: ‘To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colossae’ (Col 1:2); and to those of Ephesus: ‘To the saints who are at Ephesus’ (Eph 1:1).

“We find the same mode of expression in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Peter…came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda’ (Acts 9:32; cf. 9:41; also 9:13 ‘to your saints at Jerusalem’).

“All these cases refer to Christians, or to the faithful, that is, to the brethren who have received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the direct builder of that holiness upon which, through participation in the holiness of God himself, the whole Christian life is built: ‘You were sanctified…in the Spirit of our God’ (1 Cor 6:11; cf. 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2)” (John Paul II, General Audience, August 16, 1989).

In Christ,
Pete
 
benedictus2 said:
Of course Saints are alive. They are much more alive than we are. We still sin so death still hovers around. 😃
Click to expand...
Hi benedictus

We have a {spirit body soul} What is the difference between SPIRIT and SOUL.

1 Corinthians 5:5 says:
Hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so his {’‘SPIRIT’’} may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Then i read else where in the bible about {’‘SOUL’’} being saved {Hebrews 10:39}
 
shaky said:
Hi benedictus

We have a {spirit body soul} What is the difference between SPIRIT and SOUL.

1 Corinthians 5:5 says:
Hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so his {’‘SPIRIT’’} may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Then i read else where in the bible about {’‘SOUL’’} being saved {Hebrews 10:39}
Click to expand...
I am not quite sure that there is a difference between Spirit and Soul although there are Biblical passages that seem to make a distinction.

One of the distinctions given is that Soul is the Spirit that currently animates the Body. By this definition then, Soul becomes Spirit after death when it separates from the Body. I don’t however agree with this definition.

The Cathechism goes:

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.[236] The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.[237] “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.[238]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top