The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[Philthy]

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.

Thanks - I’ll take a look.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, the choice of doing well, or not.

That is how it seems to me, but the Reformed view is that unregenerate people are unable to choose the good, therefore, they are slaves to sin, and cannot please God. That being the case, why pretend to offer them a choice they cannot make?

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

It seems that the Apostolic understanding of faith is different from that of the " new and improved" Reformed gospel. The Apostles teach that faith is a characteristic of human beings, given to us at creation, over which we have control. Everyone has faith, and everyone exercises their faith daily. Some people place theirs in other persons, places, and things.

I agree that without faith it is impossible to please Him, but I would specify that to mean faith IN Him.

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.

How is this related? My point is that it is possible for man to seek God prior to regeneration. Anyway, I did not say that the fact that good works are based in grace makes them any less “works”. It is still stuff that we do.

I am not sure what that means"works are not really works", because it seems to me they are. As far as I can see, the difference is that works that God created beforehand that we should walk in them are works of grace, otherwise they are works of ego/flesh, or works of the devil, or works of the Law, and are not contributory to salvation.
sandusky;4128784:

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).

You are right that I do not understand how the Refomed approach interprets these scriptures. It seems to me that when it says they “rejected God’s purpose for themselves” then there must be some clever way to dispense with this. Clever ways were devised to dispense with pretty much everything Jesus had to say about salvation as not relevant, so I am curious to expand my horizons in this area.

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

I understand that you don’t agree with the Apostolic teaching that has been handed down to us. What I am trying to understand is how you dispense with these scriptures, that seem quite clear. Paul specifically states “what you worship as unknown”, indicating that they were aware of a higher power that was unknown to themselves, deserving of worship. This is consistent with the other scriptures that reference God disclosing himself through His creation.

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

Although this is true, it is unrelated to the fact that God made man to seek HIm, and man does so even prior to regeneration.

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.

We just read it differently, is all. I agree that all seeking is initiated by God, but the passage “none seek after God” is specifically directed to unbelievers “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God”. Of course, if one does not believe something exists, they are not going to seek! However, those at the Aeropagus intuitively realized that there was a God, and when Paul said “it is He I proclaim to you” they wanted to hear more.

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

You did. What you did not do is explain why Cain appears to be presented with a choice that is not geniune.

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.

It only seems inconsistent to you because you have a different understanding of grace. The Apostles did not teach this all or nothing approach you have to grace. Both of these things are true. No one can seek God apart from Grace. No one can do good works without grace. Help me understand where there is inconsistency?

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

I am not. All are under the penalty of death due to the sin of Adam. What I am saying is that God appears to offer Abel a choice that does not, in fact, exist.

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

Everyone is condemned already, because they do not believe.

That begs the question: are there any innocent people?

It does not beg any such question. What I am begging is an understanding about how people can reject God’s purpose for themselves. If God created them for perdition, then is it not HIs purpose to comply? If He does not really desire all to be saved, why does his inspired and inerrant word state otherwise?

 

[guanophore]

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

I may be ready to move on to that if I can get all the previous stuff straighted out. Right now, I want to know why God appeared to offer a choice to Able that does not, in reality, exist.

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

Absolutely. But why then pretend He is not witholding it? Why masquerade that He wants all to be saved? Why offer choices that dont’ really exist?

 

[guanophore]

I reaffirm what’s said in this post.

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 think the difficulty is in the mental construct. For Catholics, it is not faith, and not… All these things are actions of faith, and are made efficacious by grace.

Of course the means of forgiveness of sins is faith. These are the actions of faith. ****

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Thanks to all who participated.

This thread is now over 1,000 posts and is closed.
MF***