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

[benedictus2]

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

If Cornelius was saved when he heard the Gospel, why was it necessary for Peter to baptize Him?

1 Peter 3:21 “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now”

 

[benedictus2]

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

2nd Adam operates like that. He dumps verses but does not explain. Perhaps because he is unable to explain.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m willing to wrestle with scriptures and keep an open mind with others interpretations (as long as it doesn’t contradict other scripture) to find the true meaning and intent that God had for us. I can’t see how you are so assured that the interpretations of the scriptures dealing with the authorization of the Catholic church being the true church are valid.

Show then why it is not valid.

Your interpretation of the Word of God relies upon men, that meaning that it is based on your believing and accepting the Catholics interpretations of the scriptures.

Your interpretation of scripture relies upon yourself. So are you saying you are not man but divine?

If you realized one of those scriptures which I’m referring to were mis-interpreted and not pointing to the Catholic Church as the “only visible church” then your whole understanding of the Bible would be shaken into confusion.

Which one?

After all, if the CC has the absolute fullness of truth then you don’t need to wrestle with scriptures that have already been interpreted by the magisterium.

Well it so happens that down the centuries, the Catholic Church has wrestled with Scripture that is why our understanding is much fuller than yours. We are relying on the “wrestling with scripture” of hundres of Fathers and Doctors and Saints of the Church. You have only your single piddly brain to rely on. Don’t you think that is the height of conceit, to thin that by yourself you can completely understand the Bible?

 

[benedictus2]

Calvinists believe that people come to faith because they are regenerated already. They believe and are baptized in water as a result of already being born again.

If this is the case, then perhaps 2nd can answer why if we are already regenerated / born again, why bother with baptism? What is the point of baptism then?

If I understand it correctly, they believe that before that, a man is “totally depraved”, meaning that they are at emnity with God, and unable to please Him, and unable to come to Him in faith.

Cornelius is an interesting case study in the light of these things.

Not just Cornelius but all the OT people. How then are the OT people saved since they have not heard the gospel? Perhaps they are all in hell

 

[izoid]

2nd Adam operates like that. He dumps verses but does not explain. Perhaps because he is unable to explain.

Conservative protestants have a very high view of Scripture. They believe that when preached, God’s Word will not return empty. I am convinced that they honestly think that by simply throwing as much Scripture as possible towards unbelievers that some will be saved by it. Since they believe that Catholics do not read the Bible they saturate us with it, believing that it will not return empty.

 

[izoid]

If this is the case, then perhaps 2nd can answer why if we are already regenerated / born again, why bother with baptism? What is the point of baptism then?

Not just Cornelius but all the OT people. How then are the OT people saved since they have not heard the gospel? Perhaps they are all in hell

Baptism is merely a symbolic act. It represents our position in Christ. The senior pastor at the church I worked at was never baptized. He saw no need for it for himself. When we were planning a baptism service I was told that children were not allowed to be baptized during morning services as, “they don’t have a compelling testimony”. Conservative protestants do not see baptism as a sacrament, it is simply a symbolic act which holds minor importance in some denominations.

They were saved through their faith in Christ who was to come. The NT people are saved by their faith in Christ who has come.

 

[guanophore]

2nd Adam operates like that. He dumps verses but does not explain. Perhaps because he is unable to explain.

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.

 

[guanophore]

If this is the case, then perhaps 2nd can answer why if we are already regenerated / born again, why bother with baptism? What is the point of baptism then?

2nd has embraced the Calvanist position that the sacraments are devoid of any power. He believes a person gets baptized as an outward expression of an inward reality.

Not just Cornelius but all the OT people. How then are the OT people saved since they have not heard the gospel? Perhaps they are all in hell

They are all eternally elected by grace.

 

[guanophore]

I am convinced that they honestly think that by simply throwing as much Scripture as possible towards unbelievers that some will be saved by it.  Since they believe that Catholics do not read the Bible they saturate us with it, believing that it will not return empty.

This is not the case with 2nd. He believes that people are only saved by the grace of God, through the blood of Christ, shed for them on the cross. He believes that they discover they are elected when they hear the gospel, and believe it, and become born again through faith. It is not the scripture that saves, but Christ himself. He judt started another thread on how Catholics love the Church too much, where he reinterated this point.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

I am not so sure about that because he evades questions when pressed for an explanation. If he does know or has some sort of explanation it should be a simple matter of composing a post instead of evading the question.

 

[benedictus2]

Conservative protestants have a very high view of Scripture. They believe that when preached, God’s Word will not return empty. I am convinced that they honestly think that by simply throwing as much Scripture as possible towards unbelievers that some will be saved by it. Since they believe that Catholics do not read the Bible they saturate us with it, believing that it will not return empty.

That is well and good if they are just trying to preach to someone. But in cases where they are asked for an exegesis, then they have to give an exegesis. We are not asking what the gospel is but what certain passages mean for them or how they grasp certain points in passage.

Cornelius is a case in point.

 

[guanophore]

I am not so sure about that because he evades questions when pressed for an explanation. If he does know or has some sort of explanation it should be a simple matter of composing a post instead of evading the question.

Both things are true. He has been quite open that he believes Calvanism is the most systematic and accurate representation of biblical theology. However, he also has been clear about his belief that “we all know in part”, including Calvin. He does not claim to know all the answers, or that Calvanism does. I honestly don’t know why he does not want to examine the case of Cornelius in the light of Reformed theology. I am sure I am not the first person to have questions about the passage, based upon the Reformed understanding of Total Depravity.

 

[benedictus2]

2nd has embraced the Calvanist position that the sacraments are devoid of any power. He believes a person gets baptized as an outward expression of an inward reality.

So they are into meaningless ritual? The question again arises: why get baptized. So therefore there is no need for baptism in their case.

They are all eternally elected by grace.

Do they actually have a coherent theology of how that happens? How can one be eternally elected by grace if salvation requires faith in Christ if some OT people did not know Christ or even have a concept of the messiah.

 

[guanophore]

That is well and good if they are just trying to preach to someone. But in cases where they are asked for an exegesis, then they have to give an exegesis. We are not asking what the gospel is but what certain passages mean for them or how they grasp certain points in passage.

Cornelius is a case in point.

It seems clear that 2nd has been taught to interpret this passage along with that of the other centurion in the light of the remnant chosen by grace. I am not at all sure he has looked at the passage in the light of the apparent contradictions it demonstrates with regard to Calvin’s Total Depravity.

 

[benedictus2]

They were saved through their faith in Christ who was to come. The NT people are saved by their faith in Christ who has come.

I may be wrong about this but I don’t know how they can rationalize it this way since the Messiah as a concept is not evident in the earlier books of the Bible. We Christians know read Christological meanings into Genesis but I don’t think the Jews did at the time.

 

[benedictus2]

It seems clear that 2nd has been taught to interpret this passage along with that of the other centurion in the light of the remnant chosen by grace. I am not at all sure he has looked at the passage in the light of the apparent contradictions it demonstrates with regard to Calvin’s Total Depravity.

This is probably where the prevarication stems from. Several posts above he counted the number of posts remaining. Probably hoping to be saved by the moderators bell.

 

[guanophore]

So they are into meaningless ritual? The question again arises: why get baptized. So therefore there is no need for baptism in their case.

No, not meaningless. They are called “ordinances” and are necessary because Jesus commanded them. Most of the Reformed Protestants believe they are to be baptized as an outward sign and testimony that they have been saved by faith. The baptism of the HS (regeneration) has already happened, and that is the one that is needed for salvation. I think a reformed person would question the sincerity of a person’s conversion if they refused baptism.

Do they actually have a coherent theology of how that happens? How can one be eternally elected by grace if salvation requires faith in Christ if some OT people did not know Christ or even have a concept of the messiah.

This is what I was trying to figure out when I was asking questions about “why evangelize”. and the salvation of Muslims or others that have never heard the gospel As far as I can tell, they believe a person must hear the gospel and accept Christ in order to be saved.

 

[izoid]

This is not the case with 2nd. He believes that people are only saved by the grace of God, through the blood of Christ, shed for them on the cross. He believes that they discover they are elected when they hear the gospel, and believe it, and become born again through faith. It is not the scripture that saves, but Christ himself. He judt started another thread on how Catholics love the Church too much, where he reinterated this point.

Absolutely, I di not mean to insinuate that he believes the Scriptures save. I believe he feels that the Scriptures lead one, the elected one, to God.

 

[guanophore]

Absolutely, I di not mean to insinuate that he believes the Scriptures save. I believe he feels that the Scriptures lead one, the elected one, to God.

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.

 

[benedictus2]

No, not meaningless. They are called “ordinances” and are necessary because Jesus commanded them.

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.

Most of the Reformed Protestants believe they are to be baptized as an outward sign and testimony that they have been saved by faith. The baptism of the HS (regeneration) has already happened, and that is the one that is needed for salvation. I think a reformed person would question the sincerity of a person’s conversion if they refused baptism.

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

This is what I was trying to figure out when I was asking questions about “why evangelize”. and the salvation of Muslims or others that have never heard the gospel As far as I can tell, they believe a person must hear the gospel and accept Christ in order to be saved.

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.

I can just imaging 2nd writing in big bold letters:

“Atheism is a good option” -Benedictus2