"The sufficiency of Grace" a continuation of "The sufficiency of Christ" family debate.

[elvisman]

please show me right now how the pope is the infallible authority of God’s Word.

I agree with Dancelittleewok - t****his belongs on another thread.
If you want to start one - I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you there.

 

[guanophore]

Sufficiency of Christ = 1,000 posts

Sufficiency of Grace = 1,000 posts

Sufficiency of Jesus Christ who is full of grace and truth = 1,000,000,000,000 (+) postings!

Hey, we have all eternity to worship God together as siblings in Christ. We non-Catholic siblings are giving you more reasons to praise and worship Him Alone!

This is why I seek you out!

At what point do you think Cornelius was regenerated (saved/born again)?

 

[guanophore]

Well if you don’t agree with that…then do you agree with this:

If the magesterium interprets a scripture, you believe and agree that that interpretation (given by the magisterium) is the one God intended for His children?

Having struggled all my life with various Church doctrines, I will say yes, but…

There was a time when I just did what Tweety does, and rejected the Church teaching. when I came to myself and realized I was being a hypocrite, I found myself in a position where I had to reconcile what I believed with what is taught. For the Catholic, when we have trouble accepting a teaching, we are called to submit to it in obedience, whether we understand it, or like it, or not. This is how God blesses us under His authority. I must accept that, if I do not agree, then the lack does not lie within His revealed Word alive in the Church, but in myself. I pray and ask Him to bring me into conformity with what He has infallibly revealed to the Church.

So, yes, I believe and agree that the interpretation revealed by God to the Church is the one He intends, but that has not spared me of struggling. Does that make sense?

Cr8ton, when do you think Cornelius was saved?

 

[guanophore]

Cornelius was saved when he heard the gospel. Please read the entire account from Acts 10 through 11.

Thank you 2nd! Ok, now we can have a starting point to talk about sufficient grace as it is revealed in this account.

I am thrilled!

Now, please forgive me in advance for saddling you with years of unresolved questions about the Doctrines of Grace.

Here is my first question:

Act 10:1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort,
Act 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.

According to the doctrine of total depravity, the unregenerated cannot please God. Since Cornelius had not yet heard the Gospel, how is it that he feared God, and, gave alms, and prayed?

Would you say that these were “works of the flesh” and not able to please God, because He was not yet in right relationship with God?

I think he was what the Jews call a “righteous Gentile” or a “God-fearer”, one who is outside the Covenant, but recognized God present in the Jewish faith.

 

[guanophore]

Well, if you don’t see that Cornelius was saved after hearing the gospel, then you have to conclude he was saved apart from the gospel, or through his own personal righteousness. The Cornelius account is extremely significant in the larger context of Gentiles being ingrafted into Christ.

Although I disagree with your conclusions, we are in agreement that he was saved after hearing the Gospel. Catholics do not believe that anyone is saved by their own personal righteousness. Was that what you saw in him prior to his hearing the Gospel? Were his prayers and alms emanating from his “personal righteousness”?

I also agree that this account is significant in the larger context, but for the purpose of this thread, I am mostly interested in the nature and effects of original sin. You asked for the Catholic understanding (several hundred posts ago) and I told you that it was based in what the Apostles taught about the nature and effects of original sin. Cornelius is a good case study on this topic.

 

[guanophore]

The first Centurion Account:

I beg you to leave this one out of this discussion. It is already complicated, without bringing in an unrelated story.

 

[guanophore]

You’ve posted the Scriptures but no exegesis. Whence was Cornelius saved?

Can we all just stipulate that Cornelius was saved after Peter preached the Gospel to him? I would like to move foward. Catholics would say he was saved when he was born again of water and the spirit, both of which happened after he heard the Gospel preached to him by Peter.

 

[guanophore]

please show me right now how the pope is the infallible authority of God’s Word.

Please, fellas, if you need to do this, could you please do it on another thread? It is not related to the topic, and I am working on having a doctrinal breakthrough here.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you 2nd! Ok, now we can have a starting point to talk about sufficient grace as it is revealed in this account.

I am thrilled!

Now, please forgive me in advance for saddling you with years of unresolved questions about the Doctrines of Grace.

Here is my first question:

Act 10:1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort,
Act 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.

According to the doctrine of total depravity, the unregenerated cannot please God. Since Cornelius had not yet heard the Gospel, how is it that he feared God, and, gave alms, and prayed?

Would you say that these were “works of the flesh” and not able to please God, because He was not yet in right relationship with God?

I think he was what the Jews call a “righteous Gentile” or a “God-fearer”, one who is outside the Covenant, but recognized God present in the Jewish faith.

And you forgot to mention verses 34 and 35:

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

 

[guanophore]

You are begging the question again but re-stating what you’ve said before, and not answering. Whence did Cornelius hear the Gospel?

I think the answer to this is clear in the passages from Acts posted by 2nd.

Cornelius is told by the angel to send for Peter, and listen to what Peter has to say. Peter comes and tells the household of Cornelius what was given to him. Cornelius responds in faith, and is born again. Do you disagree with this?

 

[guanophore]

I agree with Dancelittleewok - this belongs on another thread.
If you want to start one - I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you there.

Thanks, God bless you. Post the link and I will join you as well. I like debating with cr8ton

 

[Rocket_Man]

And you forgot to mention verses 34 and 35

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons
35 But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him

So did Brigham Young! So when was it when the Negro could receive the temple endowment? But I guess that’s for another thread too.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Can we all just stipulate that Cornelius was saved after Peter preached the Gospel to him? I would like to move foward. Catholics would say he was saved when he was born again of water and the spirit, both of which happened after he heard the Gospel preached to him by Peter.

Since we only know the beginning of Cornelius’s faith, would it be safe for you to say that he was saved in the end? How do you know that he didn’t fall from grace and turn to a life of mortal sin afterwards? How do you know if he worked out his salvation?

You don’t, so catholics can’t really say he was “saved”. They can only acknowledge the facts.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think the answer to this is clear in the passages from Acts posted by 2nd.

Cornelius is told by the angel to send for Peter, and listen to what Peter has to say. Peter comes and tells the household of Cornelius what was given to him. Cornelius responds in faith, and is born again. Do you disagree with this?

Guan,

Of course we agree on this. However, when you consider Acts 10 through 11, I see through my Reformed lenses… much of Reformed Theology which is not good for Catholic Theology. So, maybe you should tell us why the Cornelius account is important to you. Please go back through Acts 10 and 11 and take notice what I would bring up to you as a Calvinist.

 

[guanophore]

So did Brigham Young! So when was it when the Negro could receive the temple endowment? But I guess that’s for another thread too.

Yes, please, let’s do that on another thread.

Since we only know the beginning of Cornelius’s faith, would it be safe for you to say that he was saved in the end? How do you know that he didn’t fall from grace and turn to a life of mortal sin afterwards? How do you know if he worked out his salvation?

You don’t, so catholics can’t really say he was “saved”. They can only acknowledge the facts.

No, I did not ask the question from a Catholic perspective, but from a Reformed one. It is the Reformed doctrine I dont’ understand, not the Catholic. 2nd believes in OSAS, so for him, when Cornelius heard the gospel and his soul was regenerated, it was a permanent condition. Cornelius was adopted as a son, purchased by the blood of Jesus, transferred from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of light. From 2nd’s perspective, the fully and finally sufficient grace of God will sanctify and glorify him.

 

[guanophore]

Guan,

Of course we agree on this.

Ok, then we are off to a good start on this case study.

  However, when you consider Acts 10 through 11, I see through my Reformed lenses... much of Reformed Theology which is not good for Catholic Theology.

I am sorry, I do not understand this statement. Reformed Theology has no impact on catholic theology, good or bad. Catholic Theology was received by the Church 1500 years before Reformed theology was invented. There is no way for it to be “not good” for something over which it has no influence.

So, maybe you should tell us why the Cornelius account is important to you. Please go back through Acts 10 and 11 and take notice what I would bring up to you as a Calvinist.

No, thanks. I don’t have a good enough grasp over it. I will have to go by baby steps. Please help me with the questions I posted:

Now, please forgive me in advance for saddling you with years of unresolved questions about the Doctrines of Grace.

Here is my first question:

Act 10:1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort,
Act 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.

According to the doctrine of total depravity, the unregenerated cannot please God. Since Cornelius had not yet heard the Gospel, how is it that he feared God, and, gave alms, and prayed?

Would you say that these were “works of the flesh” and not able to please God, because He was not yet in right relationship with God?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Please help me with the questions I posted:
Here is my first question:

Act 10:1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort,
Act 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.

According to the doctrine of total depravity, the unregenerated cannot please God. Since Cornelius had not yet heard the Gospel, how is it that he feared God, and, gave alms, and prayed?

Would you say that these were “works of the flesh” and not able to please God, because He was not yet in right relationship with God?

LOL… did you get this from a Crush the Tulip Catholic Apologetics manual? Corenilus is no different than Abel, Abraham, Noah, Job, David, and of course the first Centurion who had greater faith than all of Israel. I will answer your question with a question. Let’s start from the begining of redemptive history. It makes no sense to skip all the way to Corneilus when we can start with Abel. Why did the Lord God have regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard?

Cain and Abel

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

BTW… you know I am going to state that Cornelius was a remnant chosen by grace before the foundation of the world. Check out the end of Acts 11 to 11:18.

When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” - Acts 11:18

Now skip ahead to Acts 13:48 because we know Cornelius was a Gentile!

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

:knight2::slapfight: :blackeye::flowers::hug1::harp:

 

[benedictus2]

I follow the tradition of sola Scriptura and God is quite capable of giving me understanding into my personal experience with Him.

However I appreciate the kind gesture of the CC.

How do you know it is God who is indeed guiding you? The devil masquerades as the angel of light.

Here is a quote from Peter Kreeft from his book Because God is Real:

"You are not safe from evil if you try to take refuge in spirit, in spirituality. The most evil and dangerous being is a pure spirit. He’s called the devil. "

 

[benedictus2]

God does not reveal things to to individuals that contradict what He has already in the Scriptures either.

But the revelation in Scripture (I mean here the NT) was first a revelation to the Church. So everything that is revealed in the Bible is a revelation to the Church first.

What God has ensured is that, the written word (Scripture) not contradict what He has revealed to the church, hence the reason heretical books were excluded from the canon. These books were deemed heretical because they contradicted what was revealed to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

LOL… did you get this from a Crush the Tulip Catholic Apologetics manual?

Is there one? Maybe I better order a copy. I have to say, I was kinda shocked to get that language on one of the threads here from a Catholic Apologist.

 Corenilus is no different than Abel, Abraham, Noah, Job, David, and of course the first Centurion who had greater faith than all of Israel.

I would say that his experiences were significantly different than those that came before him. The main difference being that he was outside of God’s chosen people, the Jews.

   I will answer your question with a question.  Let's start from the begining of redemptive history.  It makes no sense to skip all the way to Corneilus when we can start with Abel. Why did the Lord God have regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard?

We covered this ground, remember?

**Cain and Abel**

I am mystified why you are working so hard to avoid looking into the case of Cornelius.

 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?  And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for  you, but you must rule over it.”

this passage actually seems to be a better refutation of TULIP than most I can think of, but that is grist for another thread.

  BTW... you know I am going to state that Cornelius was a remnant chosen by grace before the foundation of the world. Check out the end of  Acts 11 to 11:18.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point.

Please help me with the questions I posted:

guanophore:

Here is my first question:

Act 10:1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort,
Act 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.

According to the doctrine of total depravity, the unregenerated cannot please God. Since Cornelius had not yet heard the Gospel, how is it that he feared God, and, gave alms, and prayed?

Would you say that these were “works of the flesh” and not able to please God, because He was not yet in right relationship with God?