The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[guanophore]

you do not understand that the ability to choose only to sin is a choice!

You are right. How, if one can only go one way, is there a choice?

because Cain can choose, and what did Cain choose? Cain choose to ignore God, and chose sin instead.

But the scripture records that God appears to offer him an alternative to sin. Is it a trick?

If it is not possible to “do well” and be accepted, why pretend that choice exists?

It is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit to use OT verses in the NT in a context of His choosing. Clearly His point through the apostle is exactly what it says—there is none who seeks after God.

Yet, the person who is writing is one who seeks after God… The passage refers to unbelievers, whether they are Jew or Gentile.

It’s grace!

Well, I agree, but it says that He chose Him because of his heart.

NO!—set before unregenerate man is the same choice set before Adam, Abel, and Cain. Unregenerate men choose sin according to the desires of their post-fall nature, in much the same way as a starving lion when presented with a bale of hay will reject the hay even though it would keep him alive should he eat it.

He rejects it because of his nature—he’s a carnivore—post-fall man is by nature a sinner!

Then how is it that Abel chose the good, if he was not able?

Incapable? NO!!!John 6:44

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.The Greek speaks to one’s ability to come to Christ—unregenerate man does not have the ability within himself to do so.

That’s why the Father must draw (literally in the Greek, “DRAG HIM”) to Christ.

Yes. This is consistent with Catholic soteriology.

All men are born unregenerate. ***Unregenerate men want nothing to do with Christ—***that is the clear teaching of Scripture.

No. We have dealt with this on other threads, and this is a misinterpretation of scripture.

The “un-ability” to choose rightly is not because God has not endowed man with sufficient reasoning abilities—He has.

It seems that He would not put a choice before man to choose the good if he was unable to do so.

God, through Christ, has also brought light to “every man” (Jn 1:9), and He has also made it ***evident to every man that He is God!***Romans 1:18-20

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.It is impossible to suppress a thing unless you first possess the thing (cf v18). All unregenerate men know that God exists, because He’s made it evident through His creation that, indeed, He does exist (cf Ps 19:1-6).

Therefore, man’s “inability” is a ”moral problem,” and not a ”lack of knowledge problem.” As v20 above states, God declares a man’s knowledge of Him, as understood through His creation, to be the sufficient cause of a man’s damnation of himself should he reject God.”

Well according to what you have stated, man does not experience “damnation of himself”, since he is unable to choose the good, and can only be saved by God rejenerating him, which is up to God, and not himself. Therefore, he really has no choice over himself, it is only if God decides to regenerate him, otherwise, he dies in his sins.

When the elect, fall, stumble and sin, they indeed fall from grace.

However, they do not fall, stumble and sin away saving grace. Saving grace is dubbed saving grace because IT SAVES.

I agree. Then why does it not make sense to you that a person who is severed from that grace can still be saved.

There is nothing “amiss” in what I say.

Well, we read it differently.

When God calls all men to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel for the obtaining of eternal life, He means that they should do as He commands.

Glad we finally found our way back to the topic.

Also glad we are in agreement on this point.

Men reject the grace of the Gospel call to their own shame.

And the responsibility of that rejection is not assigned to the fault of God.

However, that some respond in faith to the Gospel call is assigned to God’s Glory, as repentance, faith, perseverance, and all that is included in salvation is from God.

I agree that it is not the “fault” of God. My point is that some reject the purpose of God for themselves. How can they do that?

If they can only be saved because He has predestined them to glory, then His purpose for the unsaved is that they are vessels of dishonor. That means their rejection of Him is according to His purpose for them.

 

[guanophore]

Theology by allegory.

That’s very Catholic of you.

When Scripture speaks to predestination with respect to salvation, it speaks to it in one way only—to Glory!

No one has yet provided even one verse that describes predestination to grace only.

I would not presume. But I am still waiting for you to explain how “God desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth” squares with the teaching you are giving that He only selects certain ones to be saved. How is it that He thwarts His own desire?

 

[guanophore]

However, that is not a statement of Calvinism, but an inaccurate contrivance of your making on how you perceive Calvinism; therefore, since your thesis is contrived, I have concluded that your argument is also contrived, and have stopped reading it at this point.

Try again, if you must.

Do you think that there are elect persons that don’t know they are justified? I would agree, but only before they are justified would they not know. After that, they would have to have the witness of the Spirit.

The passage that mike uses is directed at believers, who would know they are justified…

 

[sandusky]

It was nice talking with you, incase there is no Part 3

While your at it, you might include a third servant. How can verse 47 and 48 be talking about the same person?

OK, providing Jesus is talking about multiple people, I’ll assume you don’t believe the evil and wicked servant was justified.

Either way, God chose him as his servant. Why is he called a servant of God?

OK, I’m a bit tired this evening, we’ll add a third.

Why is he called a servant of God? Because it’s the parable the Lord constructed.

Christ is teaching parabolically, not pedagogically.

The issue of justification is not an issue in the parable, but knowing God’s will and doing it, or suffering many lashes; even the one who does not know God’s will will be punished, although with fewer lashes.

**May the eyes of (your) hearts be enlightened, that you may know what is the hope **that belongs to his call, what are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, (Eph 1:18)

It says hope (not the certainty)

Biblical hope is confidence, not hope so. Go back to my very first post on this thread; if memory serves me correctly, I believe I gave an explanation/definition of Biblical hope.

ryanoneil:

Though this next one doesn’t contain the word “predestination” I have to assume that God forknew and willed that these people were reconciled at the time Paul was speaking.

And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him, provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister. (Col 1:21-23)

the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones,to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory. (Col 1:26-27)

This doesn’t follow the same chain of redemption in (Rom 8:29)

And it say hope not certainty. Predestination to grace and hopefully glory.

Biblical hope is confident hope because it is not in oneself, but in God (Php 1:6).

 

[guanophore]

To my knowledge no one actually knows who composed the creed. So how would you know what those unknown men meant by “communion of the saints?”

Because those that wrote it held fast to the same traditions that we have today. This is what has been taught from the beginning. Anyway, we do know some of them, as they are listed in Heb. 12. You did not answer my question. What do YOU think it means?

And this “disrespect” I attribute to Him is what?

That he treated His mother like an unbeliever.

When was this?

at the wedding feast in Cana.

It’s not an absurd assertion at all. So you believe in the eternal estate some will have mothers and fathers while others won’t?

No. Jesus says they are like angels in heaven. She is not our physical mother, any more than God is, but our spiritual. My point is that the relationship is not physical only, nor is it confined to physical existence. If it were, how could we have God as our Father?

Or, if you’re going to draw a parallel, just mothers (I notice Catholicism doesn’t exalt Joseph to a royal position alongside Jesus).

He is very highly honored. However, the doctrine about Mary comes from the doctrine of Christ. He is the King, and she is the Queen mother.

Remember, not all have/had believing parents. Tough luck for them, right?

No, Jesus said that the Kingdom of heaven is among us now. We have already entered into eternal life. Mark 10:30-31
30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age — houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions — and in the age to come eternal life.

The family is for now in this age. Eternal life is for the age to come. He gave His mother to us for this life.

That idea is read into the text, it is impossible to get it out of it. No name was needed, the text makes it quite clear Jesus was speaking to a specific individual, “a disciple” (most believe it to be John, as do I). You’re presenting a doctrine based on a personal spiritualization of the text. Hence, nothing more than a personal opinion. She is not called the mother of the church anywhere in the Epistles. You’d at least think John would mention it, right?

This is John’s way of “mentioning” it. He wrote it into his gospel this way on purpose. Don’t you think that John understood what Jesus meant to do? All the Apostles shared all things in common, including the gift of His mother. Why is that so difficult?

No, this doctrine is based on the Apostolic Teaching, and is present in all the communities founded by Apostles, including those in the East who have no love of Rome.

And NONE of the prophecies that describe that kindom mention a “queen mother” who will reign in that age.Yet you provide nothing to support your assertion.Really, quanophore, how does this passage prove Mary’s present reign in heaven?

She reigns now. I confess that I do not know what His plans are for her in the future.

I am not trying to “prove” Mary’s present reign in heaven. I am just stating that she has been with Jesus as the faithful handmaid of the Lord since day one. she is present as we worship Him now, just as when the Magi came.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

You are right. How, if one can only go one way, is there a choice?

Paul says that unregenerate man, those in the flesh, cannot please God (Rom 8:7); clearly, unregenerate men make choices, and none of them are pleasing to God.

guanophore:

But the scripture records that God appears to offer him an alternative to sin. Is it a trick?

God was not offering him an alternative; this all revolves around Abel’s sacrifice being accepted by God, and Cain’s not being accepted by God.

It would seem that God had given an explanation of sacrifices that He required; Abel listened, Cain did not, and was angry that God had not accepted His sacrifice (vv4-7).

guanophore:

If it is not possible to “do well” and be accepted, why pretend that choice exists?

Some unbelievers may do many great things in their lives, more great things than some true believers; nevertheless, the unbeliever will be condemned on the basis of unbelief. Doing well revolves around grace and faith; without those two things, nothing is good and well before God.

guanophore:

Yet, the person who is writing is one who seeks after God…

Yea, funny how those regenerated by the Holy Spirit do that: seek after God.

guanophore:

The passage refers to unbelievers, whether they are Jew or Gentile.

That’s right. Unbelievers are unregenerate, and the unregenerate do not seek for God. In order for them to do so, they must first be foreknown by Him, predestined, by Him, called by Him, justified by Him, glorified by Him in eternity past; only then will seek Him.

guanophore:

Then how is it that Abel chose the good, if he was not able?

Because Abel believed God, and through faith offered the better sacrifice (Heb 11:4). IOW, God had saved Him.

guanophore:

No. We have dealt with this on other threads, and this is a misinterpretation of scripture.

That’s easy to say. It’s not a misinterpretation that all men are born unregenerate, all men are by nature, children of wrath” (Eph 2:3).

If you’re trying, in a sideways manner to refer to Mary, that’s Catholic theology that she was born sinless.

guanophore:

It seems that He would not put a choice before man to choose the good if he was unable to do so.

”By the works of law will no flesh be justified in His sight; because through the law comes to the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20).

Knowledge of sin comes through the law because men are unable keep the law.

So God did put a choice before men that they couldn’t keep; didn’t he?

guanophore:

Well according to what you have stated, man does not experience “damnation of himself”, since he is unable to choose the good, and can only be saved by God rejenerating him, which is up to God, and not himself. Therefore, he really has no choice over himself, it is only if God decides to regenerate him, otherwise, he dies in his sins.

That’s your misunderstanding of what I said, and more importantly, your misunderstanding of the Spirit through the Apostle. I would suggest you read what the Spirit said through Paul more carefully, and after that re-read what I’ve said.

Remember these passages, guanophore?:**Acts 2:22-23

22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—

23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Acts 4:27-28

27 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.**God predestined it, and godless men carried out His purpose, and all men are responsible for the sins they commit in carrying out God’s purposes.

guanophore:

If they can only be saved because He has predestined them to glory, then His purpose for the unsaved is that they are vessels of dishonor. That means their rejection of Him is according to His purpose for them.

Yes.

If God predestined no one to salvation, then no one would be saved; that’s why He predestines.

God is under no obligation to save anyone, because everyone is guilty of high crimes against Him, and therefore, guilty of eternal damnation.

With respect to the rights of God, and non-rights of human beings, Daniel says:**Daniel 4:35

“All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’**God can do what He wants, when He wants to do it, and to whom He wants to do it, and no one has the right to question His actions.

 

[moondweller]

The law could not save, only the indwelling of the Spirit can. That is the essence of Catholic understanding of Justification, which is precisely what St Paul says.

The indwelling of the Spirit doesn’t save anyone. It’s the SAVED who are indwelt by the Spirit.

 

[sandusky]

It says they may. It doesn’t say they will, or that they must.

Let me add as well, that the WCF is also speaking of the right to joy in the hope of God’s promises because they are God’s promises.

Nevertheless, not everyone will.

Remember the weaker and stronger brothers with different amounts of knowledge?

 

[sandusky]

I have to say Sandusky, that all your talk regarding predestination is confusing. Perhaps you could begin by explaining what, exactly, it means to be “predestined”. The way you seem to present it is that everyone who is to be saved and glorified has no other possible fate from their human existence. Is that correct? Yor N please. Here is an exchange we had back in may on the Re: Faith alone thread (post 556)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3746621#post3746621

Your position was that John 6:39-44 refers to all the saved as being among the elect:

So it is clear in your mind: those that are to be saved will be “protected” by God and this protection irrevocably results in salvation and, ultimately, glorification. But this brings confusion regarding the existence of free will in man and the justice of God’s judgement (ignoring for the moment all the Scripture which appears to contradict your position). If the only difference between the predestined and the reprobate is God’s “protection” being given to the elect and withheld from the reprobate, how is that just and how is that compatible with free will. On this latter point you responded with…
Here - to me - it seems you indicate that Man’s will allows him to independently make decisions which have actual, eternal consequences. This, according to your statement, is a function of the “desires of their heart” which exerts influence on their will. But how can anyone reconcile this stance with your stance above with God “protecting” the elect. If God unilaterally “protects” the desires of their hearts which direct their wills, then how can we not view them as robots? I could only conclude that in order for your “protection” stance and your “man has free will stance” tosimultaneously exist that somehow the desires of the heart are not unilaterally directed by God. So I asked you point blank:
And you responded with…

You didnt even bother to explain why. It seems that this thread is right back at this same point again. Why dont you answer what appears to be a very simple question. Either you believe that God directs the desires of men’s hearts (ie "It’s ALL God), or you believe He doesnt, or perhaps you believe that He only does so for the elect. You should welcome this opportunity to reconcile a relatively straight forward question and share the truth - if not for myself (whom you may have deemed reprobate), then perhaps for the lurkers.

Sorry Phil, however, there’s so much embedded in your questions that I don’t have the time to sit and deal with them at the computer, as one thing leads to other things, leads to other things, and so on.

My offer still stands.

 

[Philthy]

Sorry Phil, however, there’s so much embedded in your questions that I don’t have the time to sit and deal with them at the computer, as one thing leads to other things, leads to other things, and so on.
My offer still stands.

Thank you again for the offer and especially for simply being honest here. I did not mean to embed too many things into my questions - the very concept of being “predestined” to something is even less intuitive than Einsteins theory of relativity IMHO, and raises many questions. Perhaps there is much embedded in your answers as well?
Either way I think I have some answers to my questions. I would say that the fact that you participate on the forums is an indication that you believe hearts can be moved or not moved based upon something you do. That doesnt mean, of course, that hearts would be moved apart from grace, but that grace and humanity unite mysteriously just as they did in Christ.Otherwise your participation would simply bear witness that you dont actually trust God to accomplish his will without you in the manner some might interpret your comments. I dont believe that for a second.
Thank you again for sharing what you have and for your prayers…

 

[Philthy]

I submit that everything God foreknows and predestines, comes to pass without fail as He decrees it.

I dont say his to be a sarcastic - I mean it genuinely:
It is impossible for God to “know” something that does not “come to pass”. I assume that to “foreknow” something simply means to know it before it occurs. Dont we all agree that God is omniscient? That would mean that God foreknows everything, right? Again, Im not trying to be a smart a**, but perhaps you might wish to reword this statement as follows:

I submit that God knows everything that will come to pass, and all of it that he predestines will come to pass without fail.

Without making this distinction it would be useless to separate foreknowing and predestining , unless what you meant to say was:

I submit that all that comes to pass is both foreknown and predestined by God.

The reason why such a distinction becomes important is that it is unclear in your original satement whether that which is foreknown and that which is predetermined is a subset of all that actually occurs or is the entire set.

 

[guanophore]

Paul says that unregenerate man, those in the flesh, cannot please God (Rom 8:7); clearly, unregenerate men make choices, and none of them are pleasing to God.

Yes,it is consistent with Apostolic Teaching that those who live by the flesh, and not the spirit, cannot please God. However, the Apostles were clear that the regenerate could also make the choice to live by teh flesh, and not spirit.

This is also why we have the doctrine of prevenient grace. It is only grace that can kindle the human heart toward God, and only grace that can enable them to follow Him. However, we know that, although this grace is present to receive the seeds of the Kingdom, and 3/4 of the seeds do sprout and grow, only 1/4 of those “persist” and bear fruit. Jesus is clear that seeds have sprouted in those who are choked by weeds, and who try up under persecution. These seeds cannot start without grace, and they cannot die out unless they are separated from the grace by which they live.

God was not offering him an alternative; this all revolves around Abel’s sacrifice being accepted by God, and Cain’s not being accepted by God.

You will have to help me understand the scripture, then, becuase it seems to me that it is a choice:

Gen 4:7
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

Why does He say “if you do well” when it is not possible to do well?

Why does He say “you must master (sin)” if this is not in the realm of possibility?

Why does God imply and expect something of the person that is impossible?

It would seem that God had given an explanation of sacrifices that He required; Abel listened, Cain did not, and was angry that God had not accepted His sacrifice (vv4-7).

I agree, but that still does not answer my questions.

Some unbelievers may do many great things in their lives, more great things than some true believers; nevertheless, the unbeliever will be condemned on the basis of unbelief. Doing well revolves around grace and faith; without those two things, nothing is good and well before God.

I agree, but this is one of the puzzles I have about the topic of this thread. when Catholic say that “doing well” revolves around grace and faith, you consistently reflect this back to us as “works based faith”.

Yea, funny how those regenerated by the Holy Spirit do that: seek after God.

And there are some that are not regenerated that seek after Him too:

Acts 17:22-28

22 Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, "Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26 From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him — though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,
‘For we too are his offspring.’

Paul acknowledges that there is within man an innate desire to seek and to find His Maker.

That’s right. Unbelievers are unregenerate, and the unregenerate do not seek for God. In order for them to do so, they must first be foreknown by Him, predestined, by Him, called by Him, justified by Him, glorified by Him in eternity past; only then will seek Him.

This is a modern man-made forumulation emanating from a different gospel than that which was delivered by the Apostles. I give on scriptural witness against it above. Another was given up the thread, (by yourself?) in that God is evident in His creation, so that people are without excuse. How can people recognize Him as God, and be expected to worship HIm as God through the witness of creation if this is not possible?

That’s right. Unbelievers are unregenerate, and the unregenerate do not seek for God. In order for them to do so, they must first be foreknown by Him, predestined, by Him, called by Him, justified by Him, glorified by Him in eternity past; only then will seek Him.

It is clear in a number of scriptures that the unregenerate do seek for God, those at the Areopagus included. However, I agree that this is not possible apart from Grace. This is where we recognize that not all those who are called are glorified.

Because Abel believed God, and through faith offered the better sacrifice (Heb 11:4). IOW, God had saved Him.

I agree, yet God appears to offer the same possibility to Abel. According to your theology, this is just a “tease” from God, since God did not regenerate Abel, and therefore, Abel is in a state where it is impossible to please God. He cannot “do well”.
Neither can he master sin.

 

[guanophore]

That’s easy to say. It’s not a misinterpretation that all men are born unregenerate, all men are by nature, children of wrath” (Eph 2:3).

This is Apostolic Teaching. What is NOT Apostolic is that God is lying or teasing when it is said that He desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

If you’re trying, in a sideways manner to refer to Mary, that’s Catholic theology that she was born sinless.

No, it was not. You asserted that man brings damnation upon himself, by refusing to choose the good. You did this in the context of pointing out that God is evident in His creation, and that every human being has an intuitive knowledge of God, yet most refuse to worship Him as God. I responded by saying that it is impossible to bring damnation upon onself if one is incapable of choosing otherwise.

”By the works of law will no flesh be justified in His sight; because through the law comes to the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20).

Knowledge of sin comes through the law because men are unable keep the law.

So God did put a choice before men that they couldn’t keep; didn’t he?

Yes. You (I think accurately) made the point above that disobedience to God is not a matter of knowledge, but a moral problem of rebellion. Knowledge of what is right does not enable us to choose what is right. We are in agreement that God had revealed to both Cain and Abel His preferences. Abel chose to please God, and Abel chose to please himself. It was not a matter of knowledge.

Yet, you are still asserting that God is putting a choice before Cain that he could not keep, because in the unregenerate state, he cannot please God. So, how is it Cain’s fault?

That’s your misunderstanding of what I said, and more importantly, your misunderstanding of the Spirit through the Apostle. I would suggest you read what the Spirit said through Paul more carefully, and after that re-read what I’ve said.

This is very possible. In my mind, I cannot make the peices of Calvanistic thinking fit together with what has been revealed through the Apostles. :hypno:

,

God predestined it, and godless men carried out His purpose, and all men are responsible for the sins they commit in carrying out God’s purposes.

Well, I agree. But I agree because I believe that God poured His grace out on all these people, and most of them rejected it, resulting in unbelief by choice.

What I am having trouble understanding is your assertion that none of these people were able to choose the good, because they were unregenerate, and they were unregenerate because God decided “from the foundation of the world” to use them as vessels of wrath. I don’t understand how that leaves them with any choice at all. THey are predestined to damnation.

Yes.

If God predestined no one to salvation, then no one would be saved; that’s why He predestines.

God is under no obligation to save anyone, because everyone is guilty of high crimes against Him, and therefore, guilty of eternal damnation.

I agree, but to say that they have a choice to be delivered from that damnation when they really don’t is disingenuous, in my opinion.

God can do what He wants, when He wants to do it, and to whom He wants to do it, and no one has the right to question His actions.

I agree. The problem I am having (and so far you continue to avoid it) in this passage and others is that the statement appears to reflect that God’s purpose for them was to be saved, and they rejected HIs purpose for themselves.

If He made them for vessels of wrath, then they fulfilled His purpose.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:
Thank you again for the offer and especially for simply being honest here. I did not mean to embed too many things into my questions - the very concept of being “predestined” to something is even less intuitive than Einsteins theory of relativity IMHO, and raises many questions. Perhaps there is much embedded in your answers as well?
Either way I think I have some answers to my questions. I would say that the fact that you participate on the forums is an indication that you believe hearts can be moved or not moved based upon something you do. That doesnt mean, of course, that hearts would be moved apart from grace, but that grace and humanity unite mysteriously just as they did in Christ.Otherwise your participation would simply bear witness that you dont actually trust God to accomplish his will without you in the manner some might interpret your comments. I dont believe that for a second.
Thank you again for sharing what you have and for your prayers…If you’re interested, Phil here’s a link to The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner. You can read it online for free. It’s considered a classic.

 

[guanophore]

If you’re interested, Phil here’s a link to The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner. You can read it online for free. It’s considered a classic.

Oh, Loraine Boettner is a classic alright! And well known around here.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

You will have to help me understand the scripture, then, becuase it seems to me that it is a choice:

Yes, the choice of doing well, or not.

guanophore:

I agree, but this is one of the puzzles I have about the topic of this thread. when Catholic say that “doing well” revolves around grace and faith, you consistently reflect this back to us as “works based faith”.

That’s not true; without grace, man cannot have faith, and without faith it’s impossible to please God. You must understand.

What I have said concerning the Catholic position on grace and faith is that the Church puts works under the umbrella of grace, teaching that the merit for works is derived from grace, and therefore works are not really works but grace.

(I know—that’s very Catholic! )

guanophore:

And there are some that are not regenerated that seek after Him too:

I suppose the Holy Spirit forgot about those—He’s very old you know, in fact, He’s eternal.

(Either that, or you really don’t understand anything either about Scripture, or about what I’m saying, and probably a bit of both).

guanophore:

This is a modern man-made forumulation emanating from a different gospel than that which was delivered by the Apostles. I give on scriptural witness against it above. Another was given up the thread, (by yourself?) in that God is evident in His creation, so that people are without excuse. How can people recognize Him as God, and be expected to worship HIm as God through the witness of creation if this is not possible?

I’ll see your assertion with one of my own, “none of what you say in your post is true,” and call you.

guanophore:

It is clear in a number of scriptures that the unregenerate do seek for God, those at the Areopagus included. However, I agree that this is not possible apart from Grace. This is where we recognize that not all those who are called are glorified.

That’s right guanophore, because to do so apart from grace is Pelagian.

Therefore, if any seeks God, the seeking is initiated by God, thus the Holy Spirit’s statement in Rom 3, “there is none that seek after God.” On his own, man does not seek God; you either believe the Scripture on that point, or you reject it, and the errors creep in.

guanophore:

I agree, yet God appears to offer the same possibility to Abel. According to your theology, this is just a “tease” from God, since God did not regenerate Abel, and therefore, Abel is in a state where it is impossible to please God. He cannot “do well”.
Neither can he master sin.

As I said in my first answer to this question, God had saved Abel.

By your own understanding in your post immediately preceding this one, you acknowledge that no one can seek God apart from grace, and you’ve stated as well that without grace good works are impossible—it’s amazing how inconsistent you appear in your thinking from one sentence to the next.

guanophore:

No, it was not. You asserted that man brings damnation upon himself, by refusing to choose the good. You did this in the context of pointing out that God is evident in His creation, and that every human being has an intuitive knowledge of God, yet most refuse to worship Him as God. I responded by saying that it is impossible to bring damnation upon onself if one is incapable of choosing otherwise.

You’re insisting that God doesn’t damn guilty people, but innocent people.

I agree, God does not send innocent people to hell.

That begs the question: are there any innocent people?

Here’s a question, what is the essential ingredient necessary for man to choose to do good?

Does God have the right to withhold that essential ingredient from whomever He chooses to withhold it?

 

[sandusky]

From the CCC:1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: EFFORT at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."I’m not caricaturing anything, CD.

And we don’t believe the same thing—I believe the means for obtaining the forgiveness of sins is faith, and not those efforts listed in the CCC above.

I reaffirm what’s said in this post.

 

[Pax]

I reaffirm what’s said in this post.

You might try appreciating and understanding all that the CCC says about justification.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

Because those that wrote it held fast to the same traditions that we have today. This is what has been taught from the beginning. Anyway, we do know some of them, as they are listed in Heb. 12.

(1) As stated before, no one actually knows who composed the creed. (2) If it was taught “from the beginning” then we would find that teaching reflected in the N.T. Epistles. We don’t.

You did not answer my question. What do YOU think it means?

Communion of the saints? I did answer your question. I restricted its definition to the realities of life on earth. Communion amongst the saints right here on earth.

That he treated His mother like an unbeliever.

What does “like an unbeliever” mean? You’re implying that Jesus treated unbelievers disrespectfully. Read the Gospel accounts, that is hardly the case.

The point I’m making, guanophore, is that Mary needed to eventually come to believe the message of the cross just as all who seek salvation must. Her response to Gabriel in Lk. 1:38 does not, cannot, suggest she fully understood and believed that the Son she would miraculously bear would be a substitutionary sin sacrifice for her sins and the world, die and rise from the dead three days later. These facts would be played out in the future and she too would have to believe the salvation message attached to those events. As would the disciples He chose.

In faith she obediently accepted what the angel announced to her. But notice that the Announcement was not in propositional form. The birth of the Messiah, the Savior, and salvation for the world did not rest on her shoulders; which makes the newest proposed Catholic Marian dogma of “Co-Redemtrix” (co-redeemer) blasphemous.

at the wedding feast in Cana.

His public ministry did not begin at the wedding feast. Luke places it at His baptism by John when the Spirit descended upon HimLuke 3:21-23 “Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.” When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age…”

Luke 4:13-21 "When the devil had finished every temptation, he left Him until an opportune time. And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district. And He {began} teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all. And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, “THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.” And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."As you can see, Jesus Himself announced the beginning of His public ministry by quoting the prophet who foretold of it. It did not involve Mary.

No. Jesus says they are like angels in heaven. She is not our physical mother, any more than God is, but our spiritual.

Based on a forced interpretation of Jn. 19:26-27, IMO.

My point is that the relationship is not physical only, nor is it confined to physical existence.

But the Scriptures never refer to Mary as anyone’s mother but her own physical children.

He is very highly honored. However, the doctrine about Mary comes from the doctrine of Christ. He is the King, and she is the Queen mother.

But the doctrine of Mary as “Queen of heaven” does not come from the Scriptures. Not even Christ is now reigning in heaven as “King” over the kingdom He was born to rule, whom the Lord God would give to Him (see Lk. 1:32-33). As I pointed out in my previous post, the Davidic kingdom is earthly. God the Son did not need to be incarnated to rule heaven. Heaven was always His, as is all creation.

This is John’s way of “mentioning” it. He wrote it into his gospel this way on purpose. Don’t you think that John understood what Jesus meant to do? All the Apostles shared all things in common, including the gift of His mother. Why is that so difficult?

It is difficult because that whole doctrinal concept is forced into that one passage. When reading the passage in its normal, literal sense, all it’s saying is that John was now to care for Mary the way he would care for his own mother. Jesus did not say to John, “Behold, your mother and Mine.”

No, this doctrine is based on the Apostolic Teaching, and is present in all the communities founded by Apostles, including those in the East who have no love of Rome.

The Marian doctrines formed AFTER the Apostolic age.

She reigns now.

In the minds (imagination) of some men, but not according to Divine revelation.

I am not trying to “prove” Mary’s present reign in heaven.

Sure you are. But the reality is, such knowledge is something that must be Divinely revealed. But it’s not! If not even Jesus is presently reigning as King on His father David’s throne (Lk. 1:32-33), but is presently sharing His heavenly Father’s throne, functioning there as the believer’s High Priest and Advocate before the Father, how could Mary be reigning as Queen in/of heaven? If that was the case, she would have authority even over the Man Christ Jesus. The doctrine is inherently difficult.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

This is Apostolic Teaching. What is NOT Apostolic is that God is lying or teasing when it is said that He desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

I believe that God desires all men to be saved, however, I don’t believe that God purposes all men to be saved, and I also believe that you’ll be able to make neither heads nor tails of that.

guanophore:

No, it was not. You asserted that man brings damnation upon himself, by refusing to choose the good.

This is what you’re taught by your church as well. So, I’m having difficulty understanding your problem.
gaunophore:

You did this in the context of pointing out that God is evident in His creation, and that every human being has an intuitive knowledge of God, yet most refuse to worship Him as God.

Correct.

guanophore:

I responded by saying that it is impossible to bring damnation upon onself if one is incapable of choosing otherwise.

I don’t think you really mean that it’s “impossible;” I think you mean something else, so I’m asking you to explain why you think it’s “impossible” for what you say to be so?

guanophore:

Yet, you are still asserting that God is putting a choice before Cain that he could not keep, because in the unregenerate state, he cannot please God. So, how is it Cain’s fault?

God gave the Jews the 10 commandments not because He knew they could keep them, but because He knew they couldn’t keep them, so how is it the Jews fault?

What they learned through their inability to keep the commandments is that they are sinners (Rom 3:20).

So I submit that with respect to this idea you have concerning man not being at fault because he can’t do what God demands is wrong thinking.

guanophore:

This is very possible. In my mind, I cannot make the peices of Calvanistic thinking fit together with what has been revealed through the Apostles. :hypno:

Nor I the doctrines of the Mass, transubstantiation, purgatory, the Marian Doctrines, the Papacy, the priesthood, and praying to dead people.

guanophore:

Well, I agree. But I agree because I believe that God poured His grace out on all these people, and most of them rejected it, resulting in unbelief by choice.

Unbelief, without grace, is a choice, guanophore.

The fault you seem to be focusing on, but not articulating is one of fairness, or unfairness; is that correct?

I’m certain you’ve heard it said that if what you want from God is fairness, then you’re going to hell.

guanophore:

What I am having trouble understanding is your assertion that none of these people were able to choose the good, because they were unregenerate, and they were unregenerate because God decided “from the foundation of the world” to use them as vessels of wrath. I don’t understand how that leaves them with any choice at all. THey are predestined to damnation.

I’ll let Paul answer you, as the Holy Spirit knew from eternity past that you would be raising this issue with me today:**Romans 9:18-21

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

(That’s the question you’re asking, guanophore; following is the answer)

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?**
gaunophore:

I agree, but to say that they have a choice to be delivered from that damnation when they really don’t is disingenuous, in my opinion.

Who are you who answers back to God, guanophore?

guanophore:

If He made them for vessels of wrath, then they fulfilled His purpose.

Read again Paul’s answer to your anticipated question in Rom 9:18ff above, guanophore.