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

[humble_maid]

Interesting comment since there are no new Apostles. I’m glad we can approach the throne of grace directly and with confidence because of our mediator and Great High Priest, Christ Jesus.

Jesus the Great High Priest

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. - Apostolic Tradition

Please give me your source?

Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ. Apostolicity of doctrine requires that the deposit of faith committed to the Apostles shall remain unchanged.
•That Apostolic succession is found in the Catholic Church.
•That none of the separate Churches have any valid claim to it.
•That St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate;
•That Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church.

St. Irenæus (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) says: “Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession”.

The Catholic Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. Here is a link that lists all popes from St. Peter till today; St. Linus (2 Timothy 4:21) and St. Clement (Philippians 4:3),are mentioned in the bible: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

“Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard from me in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13). “And the things which thou hast heard from me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee” (Titus 1:5). Just as the Apostles transmitted their mission by lawfully appointing others to the work of the ministry, so their successors were to ordain priests to perpetuate the same mission given by Jesus Christ, i.e. an Apostolic mission must always be maintained in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

monergism.org:

God regenerates, and we, in the exercise of the new gracious ability given, repent. God disarms the opposition of the human heart, subduing the hostility of the carnal mind, and with irresistible power (John 6:37), draws His chosen ones to Christ. The gospel confesses “We love him because He first loved us.” Whereas before we had no desire for God, God’s regenerating grace gives us desire, willingness and delight in His person and commands. Faith and works are the evidence of new birth, not the cause of it.

I am having the same difficulty. I cannot reconcile this teaching with the Scriptural evidence. The reason I wanted to explore the case of Cornelius is because it seems like it doesn’t fit. If the human heart is turned against God, and does not seek HIm, what was Cornelius doing before he was born again? Earlier in the thread, all of my Reformed brethren agreed that he was born again when he heard the Gospel from Peter. so how is it that he sought God prior to that? How does Calvin explain this passage?

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Scripture never describes baptism as and “outward identification”. This is a modern American Evangelical conception, not even shared by the Reformers. It Reforms even the Reformation doctrine!

this come primarily from Romans 6, near the beginning, read and you will see. It is an identification with His death , burial and resurrection.

In fact, there is quite a bit of language in the NT that is conditional (if you do this, then I will do that). The presence of conditions does not mean it is any less grace. If it was 'all of God", then why would there be any conditional statements at all?

Do a word search on “gift” in the NT; that should help.

Jesus could have said a word, or laid His hands upon the blind man. Why use mud?
The responsibility for receiving and maintaining the gifts does not make them any less gifts. Please explain where my plantation analogy is wrong.

Probably used mud to make some point to His disciples or perhaps to show He is personal; I really do not know, but the thought occurred to me that perhaps this has something to do with things done in Jesus day perhaps. I’m not sure your analogy is wrong; if they were offered the gift and refused to take it, then they made that choice. Honestly, the free-will paradox is one of the most difficult things to understand for me. I know they are both true, but exactly how God works that out I cannot fully comprehend and probably won’t, but I do know He says He desires all men to be saved.

I agree, but why did Jesus command the man to go wash in the pool? If he had refused, do you think he would still be healed? Why would a person refuse to obey the conditions, if one believed in faith a good result? You did not explain how it is any less "grace’ if the man had to participate by his own choice.

If He had refused, then He would he would not have been healed, but again you must look at the whole picture of this man. God used him as a testimony and rebuke to the pharisees. He also used it as an example to His disciples. Whenever you see these things or events that seem a little extraordinary, then it is a clue to really examine the bigger picture.

When was Cornelius’ “veil” removed?

If grace is irresistable, how come some people resist? Why did Stephen chide the Pharisees for resisting God’s grace? If they had no choice, why criticize them? They are only fulfilling their God appointed task to be vessels of wrath.

Irresistible when the veil of blindness is removed, we are getting back to that free-will paradox. the pharasses had plenty of opportunity, just just refused to believe and once you have been exposed to Christ and continue to not believe, there comes that time when God will not show Himself anymore.

I will accept your definition of Legalism. This is not consistent with anything the Catholic Church Teaches, but I will acknowledge that it is possible. Not sure where?

The fact that there are things accompanying grace does not mean they “add” to grace. Jesus chose to work through mud and water to heal the blind man, but that does not mean these elements “added” to grace. They were the physical elements God chose through which to work His grace.

There is a single source of grace; that is God and not any object.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Right. My difficulty is with those who do “live” things before they are regenerated. Cornelius’ case does not seem to reconcile with the doctrine of total depravity. If Cornelius was “dead intransgressions” before he was born again, how is it that his faith and his actions were pleasing to God?

Perhaps it is because you want to take part in salvation? I don’t know what to tell you except God prepared the heart, not man.

I don’t have any differences with you on the fourth seed (perseverance of the saints). My difficulty is with the middle two, that sprouted, then did not persist.

Mar 4:13 And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?
Mar 4:14 The sower sows the word.
Mar 4:15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.
Mar 4:16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy.
Mar 4:17 And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.
Mar 4:18 And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word,
Mar 4:19 but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

The word is “sown in them”, then snatches away, in the one case, in th eother, jtey hear, and “receive with joy”. How can one do that except by grace? And if they receive the implated word with joy, how can it be said they are not saved by it? How do they endure for a while? Are not those who are unregenerate at enmity with God? In order for them to be “choked out”, they have to have grown first.

Something new and exciting to a human, then fades away because something new and exciting takes its place…simple human attribute. Like going on food binges, sometimes I have to have chocolate once a day, then i get bored and something new catches my fancy, same human principle, that is why we know it is not from God.

As I do myself. Finals going on! I appreciate your help. Although I still do not have clarity, it seems as though I am making incremental progress. I appreciate your patience.

May God bless you to do well on those finals; I remember those days hopefully never to be repeated…

 

[2nd_Adam]

I was not sure what was all covered since this thread is pretty big. I did read allot but sure I missed allot too. I am still kinda wondering did Adam2 state why God can only create evil when he is suppose to be good? I know this was Calvin views that man is evil and thus must go toward evil by his will but he also admits God made all things thus if this is true as Calvin states then God makes evil things. Just doesn’t make sense to me, just as it doesn’t make sense God would make men that He elects to go the Hell but not sure if it was covered before as I did not come across it.

That’s a slanderous evil act to slander Calvin and me, that we believe that 'God can only create evil whe he is suppose to be good". You need a timeout… and a visit to the doghouse. Your not making the Catholic Faith look very attractive to outsiders.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Then why do you come on these boards and try to straighten us Catholics out. Are you not bound by your same standards?

Tweety publicly professes teachings that are against the Church that she professes to belong to. When we challenge her on those beliefs there is nothing unloving against it. In fact, it is the Biblical thing to do, isn’t it?

Why chasten me? Only God can straighten a Catholic or Protestant out. Enough on Tweety; I got the picture.

 

[humble_maid]

I would like to add 1 John 3 also.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Commits not sin… That is, as long as he keeps in himself this seed of grace, and this divine generation, by which he is born of God. But then he may fall from this happy state, by the abuse of his free will, as appears from Romans 11:20-22; 1 Corinthians 9:27 and 10:12; Philippians 2:12; Apocalypse 3:11. (CHALLONER)

ROM 11: 18-23
18 Boast not against the branches. But if you boast, you bear not the root: but the root you. 19 You will say then: The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. 20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But you stand by faith. Be not highminded, but fear. 21 For if God has not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps also he spare not you. 22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards you, the goodness of God, if you abide in goodness. Otherwise you also shall be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

 

[Rocket_Man]

I am having the same difficulty. I cannot reconcile this teaching with the Scriptural evidence. The reason I wanted to explore the case of Cornelius is because it seems like it doesn’t fit. If the human heart is turned against God, and does not seek HIm, what was Cornelius doing before he was born again? Earlier in the thread, all of my Reformed brethren agreed that he was born again when he heard the Gospel from Peter. so how is it that he sought God prior to that? How does Calvin explain this passage?

We know that Cornelius was aware of the doctrine of the Jews and had some light of the true God. He had faith in the Messiah to come, though not knowledge concerning the mystery in the person of Jesus Christ. Just like all the children of faith that died before him, those that renounced their own righteousness and instead by faith believed in a better promise, were those that were accepted by Him.

Hebrews 11:13
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”

 

[2nd_Adam]

I still don’t understand the Cornelius argument. Corneilus is similar to Abel, Noah, Job, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, David, the first Centurion, etc… Before Cornelius we had this account with Jesus:

The Faith of a Centurion

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

If you want to crush the T in Tulip, let’s see the history of mankind, starting with the 3rd human being born; thereafter, let’s discuss the world wide flood.

 

[guanophore]

Interesting comment since there are no new Apostles. I’m glad we can approach the throne of grace directly and with confidence because of our mediator and Great High Priest, Christ Jesus.

I am glad too.

Without the Apostolic Succession, this would not be the case.

Please read Romans chapter 6. Our wills are either in bondage of our fallen sinful nature, or we are slaves of righteousness. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is one of the best Reformed pastor/theologians. He is speaking about a will that has been renewed through regeneration.

You never answered my question, 2nd. What is the difference between being made in the image and likeness of God, and being made in the image of “fallen” Adam?

I think we are in agreement about the bondage of the will. The issue is, what is the nature and extent of the bondage? Calvin seems to assert that there is nothing in man (no image of God functioning) whereby he desires and seeks for God.

This is why I have so much trouble reconciling the case of Cornelius. Why does the Scripture state that Cornelius sought after God, if his heart was a slave to darkness?

I posted my Cornelius responses three different times. What’s the obession with Cornelius?

Yes, you did, and none of them answered the question. I would not call it an “obession”, 2nd, just an honest attempt to reconcile your gospel with the Sacred Scriptures. I guess maybe you have the same problem with this passage I am having, which maybe is why you are avoiding it?

 

[humble_maid]

It is a free GIFT and God desires all men to be saved, but you must take the Gift, are you going to take it?

What part are we missing? Has it ever occurred to you that anyone who preaches the true gospel is preaching what the apostles and writers preached? This succession thing makes little sense as your religion applies it. It reminds me of when Paul got on some for saying I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, I am of Peter and warned and chastened about such things. By definition, anyone who preaches the same gospel as in the Bible has succeeded the original authors message, which is God’s message to man. You seem like a pretty smart and informed person concerning the Bible, but at the same time you don’t seem to be sure of exactly what to believe; I’m probably wrong on that, but just seems that way.

The succession is very important; it is the determining factor of the true church which is in accordance with the original teachings of the apostles given to them by Christ Himself.

Please refer to post #1255.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

As far as the mind of Christ comment, you really have no idea what my “mind” is. Considering your support of a heretical Catholic you really are mislead my friend. YOu would do well to adhere to your same advice.

Regarding faith alone. I would like to look at these verses from the book of James:

James 2:21-24
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

You tell me that “faith alone” is what saves man but here in James, v. 24, we are told that it is not faith alone. If we are to understand this correctly, what should we do? I think it is very important to understand what it is that James is saying. He certainly is not contradicting other scripture by saying that the works of man lead us to being justified but he is not saying that faith alone justifies. I know how the Catholic Church and the apostles understood this, how do you?

First; I apolgize about the mind of Christ comment; it was suppose to be in the form of a question; I addressed that with Guanaphore when he brought it up, so you may want to read more on that, but I do apologize.

If you believe that James is saying that it is not by faith alone, then you will have to reconcile with the following and how will you do that? Eph 2

and

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: - Ro. 4

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

The area highlighted above is the key to reconciling the two. James is only saying that a true faith, will be outwardly shown by the “good works” that God prepared beforehand and that your mere profession and “lack of any fruit” shows your faith is not real. “Good Works” are not to prove to God concerning one’s faith; they are to show to the world the glory of God working through the life of the believer, that is why there is no such thing as a fruitless Christian. Lot of “little fruits” out there.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I am glad too.

Without the Apostolic Succession, this would not be the case.

You never answered my question, 2nd. What is the difference between being made in the image and likeness of God, and being made in the image of “fallen” Adam?

I think we are in agreement about the bondage of the will. The issue is, what is the nature and extent of the bondage? Calvin seems to assert that there is nothing in man (no image of God functioning) whereby he desires and seeks for God.

This is why I have so much trouble reconciling the case of Cornelius. Why does the Scripture state that Cornelius sought after God, if his heart was a slave to darkness?

Yes, you did, and none of them answered the question. I would not call it an “obession”, 2nd, just an honest attempt to reconcile your gospel with the Sacred Scriptures. I guess maybe you have the same problem with this passage I am having, which maybe is why you are avoiding it?

If your issue of Cornelius is about Total Depravity, and man’s inability, then please start a thread on the goodness of man. However, I really think you are going down the Pelagius road with a Corenelius obessison. I posted the Acts 10 through 11 account with Cornelius which refutes quite a bit of Catholic theology. If you still want to discuss Cornelius, let’s discuss Acts 10 through 11 in the proper context.

 

[Tomb54]

That’s a slanderous evil act to slander Calvin and me, that we believe that 'God can only create evil whe he is suppose to be good". You need a timeout… and a visit to the doghouse. Your not making the Catholic Faith look very attractive to outsiders.

http://www.watertownct.org/images/doghouse.jpg

Not trying to slander anyone, but I am trying to understand how Calvinism can explain these beliefs of theirs. So if God created man which you and Calvin said He is the creator of all things. And then you say man is nothing but evil from the very beginning since the fall and only God can make him good. You are then saying based on the above statements the conclusion must be that God made man evil. Please explain this as I do not see anyway out of the conclusion if the above statement are what you believe.

 

[po18guy]

We do the same thing, we confess our sins and repent. However, we go directly to God in our confession, since all sin is againts God. Then we return in faith in the truth of the gospel. Since most Protestant Churches do not have the sacrament of reconcillation, are you saying that God does not hear our confession of our sins; therefore, He does not forgive us?

First, it is most likely that your faith community has at most two Sacraments: Baptism and Matrimony. Reconciliation is a separate Sacrament - one of seven instituted by Christ. Christ spike the words of absolution to sinners. He made sure that they heard those words. He gave the Apostles power over sin. If you do not hear those words of absolution, haven’t you changed the very practice established by Christ? If your faith community does not have successors to the Apostles haven’t you changed the very DNA of Christ’s Church? Scripture also commands you to confess your sins to one another. Do you? Have you ever heard the words of absolution? Please think about this, as your practice does not sound biblical at all.

 

[guanophore]

What part are we missing?

The Sacred Traditions that were preserved by the Church according to the Apostolic instruction.

Has it ever occurred to you that anyone who preaches the true gospel is preaching what the apostles and writers preached?

Sure!

And those who only have part of the Gospel preach the part they have.

This succession thing makes little sense as your religion applies it.

Should we take that to another thread?

It reminds me of when Paul got on some for saying I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, I am of Peter and warned and chastened about such things. By definition, anyone who preaches the same gospel as in the Bible has succeeded the original authors message, which is God’s message to man.

It is not about cliques. It is about being connected to the Body in the manner Jesus set things up. He never intended for the Scripture to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

The problem is that none of our separated brethren “preaches the same gospel as int he Bible”. however, if they did, you would be right.

You seem like a pretty smart and informed person concerning the Bible, but at the same time you don't seem to be sure of exactly what to believe; I'm probably wrong on that, but just seems that way.

I have chosen to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t claim to understand it all, but my faith is seeking understanding.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

As far as rituals and legalism, I agree to a point. No one is saved through them but many people find the rituals very helpful in knowing Christ better. After all, it was God who established many rituals for those who loved Him to follow. God understands that man has a tendency to wander and that certain, God given, rituals help man to focus on Him more fully.

Legalism is mans attempts to be made right before God apart from His graces. THis is not glorifying to God. I must say that I have found far more legalism in my protestant experiences than I have in the Catholic Church. I thank you for reminding me of the freedom that I have found in God’s true Church.

Traditions and rituals that are in accord with Scripture are very beneficial; I agree. The problem is when the ritual and tradition are outside the bounds of Scripture. Scripture is always to be the litmus test to which everything else is measured.

I would define legalism in the religious perspective as trying to achieve or merit a grace from God by performing a ritual or adhering to a tradition that by doing such adds God’s grace to oneself in the mind of the ritualist or legalist. IOW, a person that performs some act of obedience according to their religion will gain unmerited favor with God because they performed such an act. It takes away the gift or unmerited favor of God and takes away from His glory and puts it on the man, even if in a small part.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Is not the moment he believed a works? Is believing a personal decision and not forced by God? (a act of making a choice). If choosing to believe is a personal decision to have faith in God and accept His Grace (Freely Given) then you have a hole you need to explain in your belief of predeterminism.

Choice is not a work is it?

 

[guanophore]

Those the read the bible read the same gospels the Apostle taught but in their interpretation is where they get into trouble or do you say there are 30,000 true interpretation of the gospel preached by the original authors? You did state if they preach the same gospel can you tell me who today can tell us which of the 30,000 preached is the right one?

Please share your Catholic hope which is different than my hope as a Protestant Christian. What’s the difference?

Indeed you are an artful dodger and master of obfuscation. Your response has nothing to do with the question. You do not have an adequate answer to the question, so you change the subject.

The state of separation among protestantism proves the fallacy of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Those the read the bible read the same gospels the Apostle taught but in their interpretation is where they get into trouble or do you say there are 30,000 true interpretation of the gospel preached by the original authors? You did state if they preach the same gospel can you tell me who today can tell us which of the 30,000 preached is the right one?

If you know the genuine article; it is not a problem. It is a problem when one does not. Here is the correct one so you know the genuine, then you can separate from the others.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Romans 5:8 “when we were in our sin Christ Jesus came to die for us.”

Romans 3:23
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”

Romans 6:23
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

2Corinthians 5:21 says, “He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we may be made the righteousness of God through Him.”

Romans 10:9-10
“that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

Romans 10:13
“for Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Recognize you are a sinner in need of the Savior, Repent of your sins and call upon Jesus to save you and ask Him for a heart of obedience and to be Lord and Savior of your life. the gospel is very simple; it is human wisdom and pride that perverts it in 30, 000 different ways.