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

[izoid]

Yes, but also preaching. It does not seem like he believes an elected person can be saved unless they hear the Word, and are converted. I think he said that, according to the sovereignty, all the elect will hear the word of God somehow in their lives and be converted. Therefore, if someone does not hear the Gospel, it means they were never elected. I am sure he will correct me if I misunderstood this.

Yes indeed.

Romans 10:14

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

2 Tim 4

2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,

4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, but also preaching. It does not seem like he believes an elected person can be saved unless they hear the Word, and are converted. I think he said that, according to the sovereignty, all the elect will hear the word of God somehow in their lives and be converted. Therefore, if someone does not hear the Gospel, it means they were never elected. I am sure he will correct me if I misunderstood this.

Hmmm, hell will certainly be an over crowded place.

 

[guanophore]

This is what is rather laughable about this. They actually believe that Jesus commanded them to do something that does not effect anythng. So Jesus is the source of a pointless ritual.

I dont’ think that the sacraments not having salvific grace equates to them being “pointless rituals” Jesus commanded these things for reasons other than the impartation of grace, is all.

And the one who refuses baptism would have reasonable grounds since it really does not amount to anything, if this is the case.

In the light of Jesus’ teaching on those who love Him following His commandments, if they did not do so, then it calls into question if they really belong to Him, or not. This is what I was taught in the Baptist Church I attended.

And this is exactly what I have been saying in this forum for a long time. Calvinistic theology paints a psychopathic god. Someone who brings people into the world for the sole purpose of torturing them in hell for ever.  If this is what the Bible is really about, atheism is a good option. :)

God only allows them to suffer the inherint consequence. We are all born into death by default.

 

[zerinus]

Why did the Lord God have regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard?

Do you want a scriptural answer or do you want something different? The scriptural answer is that He was righteous and Cain wasn’t:

Matthew 23:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Luke 11:

50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

1 John 3:

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

So much for sola scriptura! LOL!

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t think it is that. I think he honestly believes that the way he understands thd Scripture is the way the HS wants them to be understood, that they are self explanatory, and if we will just read them, the HS will make what 2nd sees in them evident to us as well.

Perhaps. But I believe that after being on the CAFs he’s getting a little uneasy and hesitant about his particular theology–hence the obfuscations and non-answers to pointed questions.

Seeds of reason have been placed and there’s no Calvinistic explanation.

However, if the seeds of reason do not incite true intellectual and spiritual debate within his spirit, then he has closed his mind.

 

[zerinus]

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.

That is right; when you have no other answer to give, try the diversion tactic. It might work, you never know.

 

[guanophore]

Do you want a scriptural answer or do you want something different? The scriptural answer is that He was righteous and Cain wasn’t:

Matthew 23:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Luke 11:

50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

1 John 3:

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

So much for sola scriptura! LOL!

I am curious to learn from 2nd how it was that Abel was able to be “righteous”. He has implied that this was not “personal righteousness”. How did Abel know and do the will of God, and Cain did not? How come God told Cain he could master evil if he chose to do so?

 

[Philthy]

lacking as in…not there

I was too impatient with my last post - forgive me - Im glad you are still here!
I was attempting to point out the inconsistency you had created. You started out by saying that the criterion was to avoid things that “contradict scripture”. You then proceeded to criticize the Catholic Church for holding to articles of faith where “the scriptural evidence is lacking.” Those two ideas are inconsistent - which is it you actually employ: rejecting things that are “contradictory” to Scripture or rejecting things that only have sufficient evidence from Scripture?

So are you saying it is okay for the CC to add or take away any books of the Bible except for Revelations?

Not at all. I was simply pointing out the errors you had made. First in misquoting the actual verse, and second in applying the verse in a manner which contradicted (ie your standard!) what is contained in Scripture. Basically the verse says don’t add to this book (ie the book of Revelation). You somehow extrapolated that the verse mentioned “the Bible” and that since Revelation is the last book in the Bible that we therefore cant add anything further. Perhaps you are unaware that prior to the Catholic Church declaring Revelation as Sacred Scripture, it was rejected by many as uninspired. The concept of “not adding” to Revelation - even when applied mistakenly - would not have been workable in the Church for several hundred years after the death of Christ as there was no universal agreement that Revelation was the last book of the Bible until then.

I never said I had it all figured out, I come here to discuss our differences in light of Scripture, and I expect to learn as well.

I applaud you for this and again ask for forgiveness. I’ve been around a bit and sometimes I project past dealings into my new aquaintences…
I agree.

You kind of just supported a view of mine that says God will lead you if you lean on His understanding and NOT on mans understanding a.k.a. Tradition!

Interesting - the verse actually speaks to not leaning on YOUR OWN understanding. It does not actually address HOW God will reveal His understanding to you, does it? If Im not mistaken, Sola Scriptura adherents turn to Sacred Scripture as the source of Divine Truth revealed through their personal reading of it: ie their “own understanding” of what Scripture says. What this verse actually does it point out how easy it is for 2 people seeking the Truth to come up with different and often contradictory understandings of what Divine Truth is by “scripture alone”. This is not unique to Catholics and Protestants, the reason their are so many Protestant denominations is primarily due to disagreement over what the truth of Scripture is.
Going back to paragraph one where you reaffirm your belief in rejecting doctrine where the Scriptural evidence is “lacking”, who, exactly, in your opinion gets to decide that the Scriptural evidence is insufficient? I think if you give this some thought you will realize that ultimately you rely on someone to make that decision - either yourself or a trusted theologian. How is that different from Catholics who turn to the Magisterium of the Church? It isnt, really. Catholics just admit that they do so and they have good, biblical reasons for who they put their trust in.

Blessings!

 

[benedictus2]

I dont’ think that the sacraments not having salvific grace equates to them being “pointless rituals” Jesus commanded these things for reasons other than the impartation of grace, is all.

So they don’t know why Jesus commanded them to do something?

In the light of Jesus’ teaching on those who love Him following His commandments, if they did not do so, then it calls into question if they really belong to Him, or not. This is what I was taught in the Baptist Church I attended.

It seems to me they did not get Jesus Christ at all if they had no idea why after already being born again Jesus would tell them to do a ritual which now is unnecessary since they have already been born again.

God only allows them to suffer the inherint consequence. We are all born into death by default.

I hope 2nd will comment on my understanding here and show where this may be in error.

1. we are all born to death by default,
2. God is the author of all life
3. god has chosen some, even prior to conception, to share eternal life with him
4. Which follows that since he is the only author of life, therefore all the others were purposely brought into life knowing that eternal death surely awaits them
5. Ergo, god brought millions into this world just so they can suffer eternal death. Perhaps twirling his moustache as he watches them writhe in pain .

The only way this could even come out slightly acceptable is if we say that not being born/“nothingness” is worse than suffering eternal damnation.

 

[Cr8ton]

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. - Holy Bible

The Light of the Gospel

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Apostolic Teaching by the Chief Sinner of mankind

This is HUGE! Paul says specifically we do not proclaim ourselves (the Church!), but Jesus Christ as Lord with ourselves as the servants for Jesus’ sake.

 

[tweetymom]

Like when he insinuates that I am a liar, that I never REALLY attended a Calivinistic church? Or that I am not really a Catholic, that I am just pretending? Much more Christ like, huh.

Maybe what goes around comes around. And do like I do consider it a blessing.

 

[guanophore]

So they don’t know why Jesus commanded them to do something?

Well, they THINK they do. Does that count?

Anyway, from a Calvanist point of view. it is irrelevant about the “why”. Earlier in the thread, I asked why God would command everyone to repent and believe, yet not enable most of them to do so. The answer I got was a quote about “shall the clay say to the potter, why have you made me thus?”. So, it seems that, one just does what God commands, and if one wishes to understand the “why” then one is being a rebellious lump of clay.

And they say Catholics suffer from believing without question!

It seems to me they did not get Jesus Christ at all if they had no idea why after already being born again Jesus would tell them to do a ritual which now is unnecessary since they have already been born again.

They don’t believe it has anything to do with being born again. It is a matter of obedience. I have heard it characterized as “submit to baptism”, as if it is a test of obedience and sincerity of faith. If one is not willing to proclaim one’s faith publicly, they are not a “true Christian”.

1. we are all born to death by default,
2. God is the author of all life
3. god has chosen some, even prior to conception, to share eternal life with him
4. Which follows that since he is the only author of life, therefore all the others were purposely brought into life knowing that eternal death surely awaits them
5. Ergo, god brought millions into this world just so they can suffer eternal death. Perhaps twirling his moustache as he watches them writhe in pain .

You do seem to be assigning malicious motives to God. God gave man the power to procreate. It is man who brings them into this world, then parents who fail to raise them in such a manner that they love and serve God.

The only way this could even come out slightly acceptable is if we say that not being born/“nothingness” is worse than suffering eternal damnation.

Jesus even said that it would have been better for some never to have been born.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

We’ve exceed the 1000 post so I expect Adam will start a continuation with this one.

 

[guanophore]

This is HUGE! Paul says specifically we do not proclaim ourselves (the Church!), but Jesus Christ as Lord with ourselves as the servants for Jesus’ sake.

You are right about who we proclaim, Cr8ton, the difference lies in how we understand Church. the Apostles taught that the Church is the Bride of Christ, that He is her Head, and that she is inseparable from Him. The Church, as His Body, is the fullness of “all in all”. The Church has two divine elements, the Head, who is Christ, and the Soul, which is the HS. Without these divine elements, the Church does not exist. The Church also contains all those saints who have go on before us to their heavenly reward.

The modern deficient view of the Church as “the body of believers on earth” does not have scriptural support, and explains why so many have such a low view of the Church.

Eph 5:26 "…Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

For Catholics, the Church is sanctified, cleansed (by Christ), splendid, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. She is holy, as He is holy, and therefore can only lead to Him.

The shortcomings are found, not in the Holy Bride, but in the fallible men who are joined to her. It is they who are in need of Reform, not the Church. this is demonstrated in the letters of Revelation, where Jesus warns the individuals in the Churches about the consequences of sin.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe what goes around comes around. And do like I do consider it a blessing.

I think if you have a chance to read over the very fine posts that have been made about this in the birth control thread, Tweety, you will easily see why Catholics do not consider it a blessing for someone to purport to espouse the faith when they do not.

 

[guanophore]

We’ve exceed the 1000 post so I expect Adam will start a continuation with this one.

I doubt it. I don’t think he really wants to talk about Cornelius. I think it is a complicated case study. Perhaps he is intuitively aware of the inherint problems it presents to Calvanism?

 

[tweetymom]

I think if you have a chance to read over the very fine posts that have been made about this in the birth control thread, Tweety, you will easily see why Catholics do not consider it a blessing for someone to purport to espouse the faith when they do not.

Once again I thank you.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I doubt it. I don’t think he really wants to talk about Cornelius. I think it is a complicated case study. Perhaps he is intuitively aware of the inherint problems it presents to Calvanism?

I think he will start part 3 and forget about the Cornelius part. We had other pressing questions about free will in part 1 but he still continued, without acknowledging we had even asked these.

 

[izoid]

Maybe what goes around comes around. And do like I do consider it a blessing.

Well…that is a Christ like attitude. What double standards he must have.

 

[tweetymom]

Well…that is a Christ like attitude. What double standards he must have.

Whatever you mean by that?