D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
Spurgeon is still taking your premise as a given so it’s still unproven.
- Status
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
I know my friend, it’s all speculation.
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
You’re running out of posts. Care to make to your final arguments? If you have any more evangelization, just let it out all hang out and we’ll chat.
F
fhansen
Guest
Here again, letting Augustine speak for himself in “On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants”, giving us his thoughts on salvation-that we’re saved and at the same time being saved -as a process, not yet complete until sin is eliminated.
Chapter 10 [VIII.]— Perfection, When to Be Realized.
Our full adoption, then, as children, is to happen at the redemption of our body. It is therefore the first-fruits of the Spirit which we now possess, whence we are already really become the children of God; for the rest, indeed, as it is by hope that we are saved and renewed, so are we the children of God. But inasmuch as we are not yet actually saved, we are also not yet fully renewed, nor yet also fully sons of God, but children of the world. We are therefore advancing in renewal and holiness of life—and it is by this that we are children of God, and by this also we cannot commit sin—until at last the whole of that by which we are kept as yet children of this world is changed into this—for it is owing to this that we are as yet able to sin. Hence it comes to pass that whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; 1 John 3:9 and as well, if we were to say that we have no sin, we should deceive ourselves, and the truth would not be in us. 1 John 1:8 There shall be then an end put to that within us which keeps us children of the flesh and of the world; while that other shall be perfected which makes us the children of God, and renews us by His Spirit. Accordingly the same John says, Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it does not yet appear what we shall be. 1 John 3:2 Now what means this variety in the expressions, we are, and we shall be, but this — we are in hope, we shall be in reality? For he goes on to say, We know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 1 John 3:2 We have therefore even now begun to be like Him, having the first-fruits of the Spirit; but yet we are still unlike Him, by reason of the remainders of the old nature. In as far, then, as we are like Him, in so far are we, by the regenerating Spirit, sons of God; but in as far as we are unlike Him, in so far are we the children of the flesh and of the world. On the one side, we cannot commit sin; but, on the other, if we say that we have no sin, we only deceive ourselves—until we pass entirely into the adoption, and the sinner be no more, and you look for his place and find it not.
Z
zerinus
Guest
On the basis of their repentance through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Holy Spirit sanctifie. We not only need to be justified, but also sanctified. To be sanctified means to be made holy. That is why the early Christians were called “saints”. A saint is someone who is sanctified, or made holy. Thus Catholics are right when they say that a man must not only “justified” (i.e. declared to be righteous), but also made righteous. That is what sanctification does:
1 Corinthians 1:
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours
1 Corinthians 6:
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Thessalonians 4:
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour
1 Thessalonians 5:
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 2:
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.
Hebrews 10:
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Hebrews 13:
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Jude 1:
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called
That is entirely your own invention, or the Calvinist invention. There is no scripture to back that up at all. On the contrary, the scriptures teach that one can be both justified and sanctified, and afterwards through the exercise of his freewill transgress and lose his justification and sanctification:
Hebrews 10:
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
2 Peter 2:
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
You do err greatly, my Calvinist friend, “not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29).
Z
zerinus
Guest
You have answered all the questions that have not been asked, not the ones that have been asked. You only answer questions that you would like people to ask, not the ones that they do ask, so that you can preach to them Calvinism.
Z
zerinus
Guest
So from “forensic” justification we have moved on to “positional” justification? What the *** is that supposed to mean?
Z
zerinus
Guest
You have no other choice, do you!
Z
zerinus
Guest
The answer to that in Mormonism is no. Not sure about the Catholic Church.Can someone be converted to Christ, born from above through faith alone apart from the sacrament of water baptism according to the Catholic Catechism?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Well said!
I
izoid
Guest
I think this discussion has been “interesting”. I am not sure that we have made much headway but it has filled time.
The reality is, Catholics and Protestants have a very different understanding of justification and the sufficiency of Christ. THe very term sufficiency needs to be defined and a clear understanding of the doctrine should be outlined and presented in order to get a clear picture of the protestant position. Adam is very correct in his assertion that this is one of the major differences between protestants and Catholics.
In my opinion, the Reformed Protestant has only a partial trust in Christ’s sufficiency. You see, in their theology, Christ only died for the elect. His death was not sufficient to save ALL MEN but only the elect. It does not matter who those elect are or where they live, Christ is sufficient.
To be fair, Adam will likely argue that Christ’s death was sufficient to save all men but only efficacious for the elect. In other words, Christ could have saved all men but His sacrifice is only efficacious for those who accept Him, the elect. This is where limited atonement comes in.
You see, Calvin has a very sophisticated systematic theology, one where each doctrine leads into the next. That is why it is difficult to speak of one doctrine without discussing the others, they inevitably lead to each other. The 5 points, or TULIP, are only a part of what he taught but they are the key doctrinal issues that separate Calvinism from the rest of Christian thought. I find it impossible to discus one point without an understanding of the others.
I find the idea of sufficiency of Christ to be misleading and divisive when not defined properly. As we have seen throughout this thread, we agree with it when it is presented one way and we disagree when presented in a different light. It is my belief that whenever we have a thread like this we must always begin with a strong definition of terms and an outline of the doctrine that is being discussed. It is helpful to have these discussions as we certainly need to understand our differences before we can heal them.
The reality is, Catholics and Protestants have a very different understanding of justification and the sufficiency of Christ. THe very term sufficiency needs to be defined and a clear understanding of the doctrine should be outlined and presented in order to get a clear picture of the protestant position. Adam is very correct in his assertion that this is one of the major differences between protestants and Catholics.
In my opinion, the Reformed Protestant has only a partial trust in Christ’s sufficiency. You see, in their theology, Christ only died for the elect. His death was not sufficient to save ALL MEN but only the elect. It does not matter who those elect are or where they live, Christ is sufficient.
To be fair, Adam will likely argue that Christ’s death was sufficient to save all men but only efficacious for the elect. In other words, Christ could have saved all men but His sacrifice is only efficacious for those who accept Him, the elect. This is where limited atonement comes in.
You see, Calvin has a very sophisticated systematic theology, one where each doctrine leads into the next. That is why it is difficult to speak of one doctrine without discussing the others, they inevitably lead to each other. The 5 points, or TULIP, are only a part of what he taught but they are the key doctrinal issues that separate Calvinism from the rest of Christian thought. I find it impossible to discus one point without an understanding of the others.
I find the idea of sufficiency of Christ to be misleading and divisive when not defined properly. As we have seen throughout this thread, we agree with it when it is presented one way and we disagree when presented in a different light. It is my belief that whenever we have a thread like this we must always begin with a strong definition of terms and an outline of the doctrine that is being discussed. It is helpful to have these discussions as we certainly need to understand our differences before we can heal them.
P
PRmerger
Guest
OhmyGOSH, Adam!! You really are going to be joining us soon at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb! Now you’re agreeing that it *was *the Catholic Church that came first, that was established by Christ, given to his apostles, and given to those who sat at the apostles’ feet, and given to those who sat at those who sat at the apostles’ feet, and given…
You truly acknowledge that it was the CC (or Orthodox) that was around in the first centuries? :dancing:
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Don’t worry, Jesus Christ is full of grace and truth. After we reach the 1,000 post maximum on “The sufficiency of Christ” thread, we will go for round 2 with the new “The sufficiency of grace” thread. As Christian siblings, our favorite topics should be Jesus Christ, and the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Heck, we will be praising God for His amazing grace found in Christ for all eternity. We might as well start now as siblings in Christ. I personally believe our participation on Catholic Answers should be in a form of worship. In addition, apologetics should be done in a form of worship too since knowledge without worship has a tendency to puff up our flesh that remains in all of us. How do we rid the idols of our hearts? By growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, thus growing in affection and love for our Triune God.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Thank you for sharing that! I love Augustine! That is very similar to what Reformed Christians proclaim and believe. Augustine played a big part in the theology of the Protestant Reformers like Calvin and Luther. Adoption is both present and a future event, just like salvation. We are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. There is a past, present, and future aspect of our salvation. Sometimes, I see Catholic theology missing the truth of the past tense of have been saved; therefore, it’s easy for Protestants to think that Christ does not appear to be sufficient for Catholics in that regards. Romans 8 is the truth of salvation. But since Catholic Theology has a different view on the doctrine of election, it has troubles with the following verses (IMO).
Future Glory
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
God’s Everlasting Love
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? - Paul
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Very good post brother. Since we will eventually reach the 1,000 post limit soon, let’s expand our topic which can include TULIP topics on a new follow up thread. However, it should be noted that many Protestants adhere to the sufficiency of Christ, adoption through Propitiation, forensic justification, imputation, and penal substitution without being a Calvinist Christian. The follow up thread will be called “sufficiency of grace”, okay? That’s a good name since the 5 points of Calvinism is also called the “Doctrines of Grace”.
I hope we can go through the topic of the sufficiency of grace with the ultimate motive of growing in our love and affection for God, with our primary purpose in life of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever as siblings in Christ. I hope you understand that for me, it’s an in-house debate between historic orthodox Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans, etc). I will not be responding to those who reject orthodoxy as defined by the historic creeds, but those who believe contrary to orthodoxy can discuss things with those who choose to. I do this so those who believe that we are apostate would repent of a different gospel they preach, and turn to our Triune God for reconciliation.
I
izoid
Guest
Hey Adam, since you consider yourself an Augustinian Catholic…um, um, I mean protestant
, why don’t you just fully embrace the Catholic faith. It will save you much time in purgatory.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Another unanswered question for you, Adam:
My response/question.
**Please show us where the “Magisterium will only give the title of separated Christian brethrens to historic Christians only.” **
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
My view of the universal church makes your view of the Catholic Church as the new kid on the block (2,000 year old claim). I believe in remnant theology in which redemptive history began in Genesis 3. I believe the first members of this redemptive church could be Adam and Eve. However, we can know for certain that Abel was a member of the church of the remnant chosen by grace (Genesis 4 and Hebrews 12). Actually, my church began before the foundations of the world. Please continue to participate on this thread dear sister in Christ!
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
If I became Catholic instead of remaining catholic, we wouldn’t have so much fun on Catholic Answers. If I converted to the Catholic Faith, I would spend my time on the Protestant Forum sites.Hey Adam, since you consider yourself an Augustinian Catholic…um, um, I mean protestant
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
I don’t remember the actual sequence of those posts. However my intent is to separate Protestants and Orthodox from Mormonism since Zee is quite the presence on the threads that I post. I think Zee is stalking me.
But that’s okay, who knows… God may grant Zee repentance, enabling him to come to the knowledge of the truth through his stalking?Do you believe the Magisterium is giving the designated separated brethren title and privilege to Mormons and other groups that I excluded?
- Status