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

[guanophore]

You are wrong on the what the Bible says about interpretation; it explicitly states in quite a few places that the Holy Spirit who resides in each believer will lead to all truth concerning the things of God.

Yes, but these passages are always written to those in unity with the Apsotles and their successors. It was a promise made to the Church. Once separation occurred, the promise no longer applied. that is why there are so many different leadings into so many different “truths”.

The church is the pillar and SUPPORT of that truth, but what is the church? The individual believers that have the Holy Spirit as their teacher and guide.

This is a deficient concept of Church. However, that is being dealth with on another thread.

The only reason you will see so many differences, major ones, minors ones will always exist among believers, but the major ones, which are many, are a result of people that make a profession, but the faith is not real because God did not prepare the heart.

It sure is easy to say that the “real” Christians believe the “right” way (my way) and the rest are in the flesh.

There is no objective standard.

Matthew 7 clearly teaches that many more professors than there are true believers. How can anyone know who is and who isn’t within themselves even? The Bible says the Holy Spirit will give testimony to ones spirit; this I have personally found to be true, which is as it should be since this is how God said believers will know.

I agree, but the HS does not lead individual believers in a different direction from the revelation He has already given to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Look at the bigger picture as mentioned to you in some other recent post. He probably heard all the stories the Jews told and believed them for whatever reason, but the bigger picture is that Jesus planned to use this person, along with Peter and his Jewish converts to make a point to the Jewish converts that God saves the gentiles in exactly the same way He does the Jews.

This seems like a cop out to me. Of course this is the case with “the bigger picture”. However, it is not the “bigger picture” I am wrestling with here, but the nature of "fallen’ Adam.

Calvin says that our hearts are ‘totally depraved" and that fallen man is unwilling and unable to reach for God. Since Cornelius was willing and reaching for God while he was still in "bondage’ to the first Adam, what does that say about his nature?

You cannot demonstrate that claim from God.

Actually, we can.

However, that is grist for another thread.

 God sent messengers to make disciples to all the world; how is that accomplished?  By the message or the messenger?  The message by the messenger.  If the message is the same coming from a Methodist preacher, a baptist preacher or a Lutheran preacher, then the message is going forth.

Indeed, even if the gospel preached is deficient, God is still glorified.

The parable of the soils, it doesn’t depend on the sower, it depends on the “seed”, the Word of God and the “soil” the heart prepared by God, which is the 4th soil only. Same principle. God did not restrict the gospel to your church only did He?

No. He committed the fullness of the Gospel to the Church, and every time people split, and make more splits, some is lost.

You could also say, that the separation we see in protestantism is due to it always being under attack by the evil one because it is holds true the message of the Gospel and it is they that are evangelizing the world.

I would certainly stipulate that the evil one attacks Truth whereever it is found,even in small amounts.

 

[guanophore]

Very simple… Did Cornelius please God while being in the flesh, causing God to save him?

No, I don’t believe so. What I need to understand is, how, if he was not regenerated, was he able to please God through his faith. Why did not his total depravity keep him at emnity with God. How did he please God by faith when he was in bondage to his sins?

Or was Cornelius under the wrath of God for his sins?

Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that he was. If he was, then how was he able to please God?

Did Cornelius need Jesus Christ for reconciliation with God?

If he was not on good terms with God already, why did the angel tell him he was?

Was Cornelius united to Adam or the 2nd Adam prior to hearing the gospel from Peter?

Well, this is the part I can’t figure out. If he is united to 1st Adam, then nothing he did should have been able to please God.

Stay within the Scriptures under the essential theme of Christ and Him crucified for sinners, and you will find your way Guan.

That is just it, 2nd, I have found my way just fine staying within scripture. What is not within scripture is the TULIP. That is what I am trying to find my way through.

Otherwise, you appear to give sinners hope from apart from faith in Christ. Therefore, that kind of thinking makes Jesus to have died in vain.

I know it does seem that way to you. Your God is in a very small box.

 You sure seem to believe the Muslims and Jews can be saved apart from hearing the gospel, receiving the gospel and being united to Christ by faith.

No, Adam. You have misunderstood the Teaching.

 If you go through Acts 10 through 11, you will see that Cornelius was God's chosen instrument to convey an important message to Apostle Peter and the rest of the church.  Cornelius was an elect of God, in which regeneraton comes before faith. Cornelius was a representation of the elect gentiles.

You have p(name removed by moderator)ointed my problem here, 2nd. When I read this passage, I read that Cornelius was pleasing to God BEFORE regeneration, and he demonstrated that faith in his actions of devotion - prayer and alms. I cannot reconcile this passage with the notion of Total Depravity.

You all seem to want to just gloss over this, and focus on “the big picture”. That is fine, because I think y’all can’t make it fit, either, so you just change the subject. It does not work for me. I have no arguement about Cornelius’ being God’s example to the Church about the Gentiles. My problem is with Calvin.

 

[guanophore]

Now you are getting into some real issues; what are the sacred traditions or teachings preserved by the church that are not written in Scripture and how do you know?

Grist for another thread. We know them because the Church has followed the Apsotolic instruction to preserve them. One of them is that the Sacred Scripture is not to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. Another is that Scripture is to be understood in the light of what the HS has already revealed up to the present time.

You can't answer that question, but I will tell you the answer.  The oral traditions, by mouth and the written, by letter, as Paul put it are the same message...isn't that a light bulb going off?

The two compliment one another. The light is going off that tells me you are hostile toward what has been preserved.

He stated the oral traditions already existed and he and the others were teaching the same gospel message by mouth and by letter; easy to drawl the conclusion they are one in the same.

Certainly there are no contradictions. However, scripture was never meant to serve as a complete compendium of the Christian life. Jesus founded a Church. 2nd already opened a thread on this topic, and sooner rather than later, the mods will shut this one for over limit.

There is no way to prove otherwise.

Definitely not to those who refuse the evidence.

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

  The Scripture is the whole of Gods revelation to man beside creation;

Interesting that the Bible does not say this about itself, and in fact, says the opposite.

are you telling me your church has extra revelation from God? If so, what is it?

It is not “extra”. The whole deposit of faith was given “once for all to the saints”. It was in the form of Sacred Scripture,a nd Sacred Tradition (the Apostolic Teaching not committed to writing).

  Another serious issue, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"  Hope you can reconcile that with your statement above.

I am sorry, Tim. Not only do I not see a discrepancy, I don’t see a relationship. I must be getting tired?

You demonstrate faith. What is that gospel in the Bible you refer to in your own understanding?

My understanding is that Adam’s “fall” did not unmake the image of God that was created in him. When he procreated in his own image, it was procreation according to what God gave him. God created man, and said it was “good”. Man does not have the power to “uncreate” what God made good.

 

[Tomb54]

Let me comment, God did not “create” evil, but He allowed evil to exist according to His purpose. Good thing He did, otherwise we would not know the difference between good and evil, love and hate, etc.; then we would be like the Cyborg, all like robots.

Ok based on Calvinism then next question has to be who made man then if Calvinist believe God does not make evil and Calvinist say man is all evil until saved by God then the conclusion based on your statement above is God did not make man so who did?

 

[zerinus]

Interesting comment since there are no new Apostles.…

Of course there are new Apostles!

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.

Did you know it is against board rules to “single-mindedly pursue an agenda”? You don’t want to discuss. You are not interested in genuine debate and discussion. You don’t attempt to reason with and refute arguments brought against you. You just turn a blind eye to them and continue to repeat like a broken record the same thing over and over. That defeats the purpose of the board which is to exchange ideas and discuss different points of view, and be prepared to admit if you are wrong, or at least acknowledge some merit in the opposing argument, as stated in Conduct Rule 6: “Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.” That is what you are doing. You are not willing to be persuaded, or at least acknowledge a better argument than your own. You simply turn a blind eye to it, and repeat like an automaton the Calvinist line forever. That defeats the purpose of the discussion board, and it is not in the spirit of free debate.

Very simple… Did Cornelius please God while being in the flesh, causing God to save him?

Of course he did. That is what the message of the angel to him conveyed.

Or was Cornelius under the wrath of God for his sins?

Cornelius was not under the wrath of God because the Atonement of Jesus Christ had already paid the penalty of his sins, Who was the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Cornelius was a virtuous man, by which he pleased God enough that God sent an angel to him to instruct him on what he needed to do to comply with all the requirements of the gospel in order to be saved—i.e. faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins.

Did Cornelius need Jesus Christ for reconciliation with God?

Yes; but that reconciliation had already taken place through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, because God had already approved of his actions:

Acts 10:

1 There was a certain man in Cæsarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

That is the reason why God approved of his actions and sent him an angel to instruct him.—And by the way, which “God” did he pray to, when he knew nothing about Jesus Christ and the Atonement?

Was Cornelius united to Adam or the 2nd Adam prior to hearing the gospel from Peter?

That is a meaningless and nonsensical question. There is no such thing as being “united with Adam” vs. being “united with 2nd Adam”. There is no scripture that conveys such an idea.

Cornelius like all humanity, had a great need of Jesus Christ to be reconciled to God. There is no hope apart from being united to Christ through faith.

Fine words, but empty talk and meaningless in the context in which you are applying them.

Stay within the Scriptures under the essential theme of Christ and Him crucified for sinners, and you will find your way Guan.

You are only interested in the scriptures that appear to support your beliefs, not the ones that disprove it. The scriptures that disprove Calvinism are 10 times greater than the ones which appear to support it. You have been shows hundreds of them, but you turn a blind eye to them, which proves that you don’t really want to know the truth.

 

[Tomb54]

It is a mystery how you come to such definitions. I don’t see how the situation you describe here differs at all from the man with the muddy eyes. He performed an act of obediencd to gain the unmerited favor of the healing of his blindness. I don’t see how that takes away from God’s glory at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Piper
the gospel is very simple; it is human wisdom and pride that perverts it in 30, 000 different ways.

guanophore;6025879
You make a good point. I agree that the gospel is simple, and that everyone’s individual interpretations, based upon human wisdom and pride, perverts it. This is the reason Jesus needed to appoint an infallible Teaching Authority.

from tomb 54 – Bible actually tells the believer to follow the church teachings so to know this church it must be visible and have leaders who can trace their lineage to the Apostles. It is why the EF made such a point about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Piper
Before you were damned if not part of the Catholic Church, now you are considered “Separated Brethren”; completely different doctrines. Ironically the former is from many councils and Bulls, the primary council was Trent; yet Trent was confirmed in whole by Vatican II council. Seems like a little contradiction there. But that is for you Catholics to iron out.

guanophore;6025879
Nothing has changed. There has never been any salvation outside the Church. This is the Apostolic Teaching that has been preserved. There is no contradiction in the church teaching. It may seem like one for those that do not understand it.

What salvation other religions have still has come from the church even if they do not want to admit it. Where did the bible come from (esp which books are in the NT)? You might want to explore this part in the future.

 

[guanophore]

Please start a goodness of man verses a depravity of man thread, because your obession with Cornelius is derailing this thread.  You miss the central purpose of Cornelius as being a representative of being an elect Gentile, in which was unheard of news for the Jewish Christian.

I find it curious that you characterize my question that you cannot answer as an “obsession”.

I guess you thought, if you kept avoiding and changing the subject, my question would go away. You may not remember this, but brought the question from the last thread, where you avoided there also.

Calvanism seems to abrogate the image of God in man. Sufficiency of Christ is important because he sees “fallen Adam”(whatever that means) to have lost the gift of God in creation. I think the case of Cornelius throws a wrench in this thinking. If Cornelius was united to the 1st Adam prior to his regeneration (and you say that everyone is), and being united with the 1st Adam means we are at emnity with God, how is it that C. was able to seek after God, and please God by faith?

It seems to me that this has implications for the nature of man.

 You miss the central purpose of Cornelius as being a representative of being an elect Gentile, in **which was unheard of news for the Jewish Christian**.

You are correct that I am missing the point of this sentence.

Scripture needs to be looked at as a whole, systematically through the lenses of the gospel. Otherwise, you will stray from the centrailty of Christ and Him crucified, rescuing sinners from their condemned condition. You make Cornelius to have zero need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Basically what you seem to be saying here is that, since this passage does not fit your “gospel” it should not be looked at for what it says about the nature of man. It should be looked at only through the Calvanistic lenses of God’s plan for the Gentiles. This aspect of the passage is adequately explained by Calvin. The implications of the passage about the nature of man is not.

1 Corinthians 15:9-10 (King James Version)

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Thanks for your efforts to help me, Rocket. This concept does not apply to my problem, though, as it describes a person after regeneration has occurred. I am trying to understand, according to Calvin, how a person united to the 1st Adam can please God.

 

[PRmerger]

Now you are getting into some real issues; what are the sacred traditions or teachings preserved by the church that are not written in Scripture and how do you know?

Well, there’s one teaching preserved by the Church that is not written in Scripture that you use every single day (that is, if you read your Bible every day)!

And that is the canon of Scripture. There are no verses in the Bible that tell us what books are inspired. That was determined entirely through Sacred Tradition. The Holy Spirit inspired the Magisterium, that is the Catholic bishops meeting in an ecumenical council, to preserve the writings of Scripture. It was Sacred Tradition that said that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired (which, I presume you agree with) and that the Gospel of Mark is.

So *each and every time *you read Scripture and quote it and assume that it is the inspired Word of God ***you are giving your tacit approval to Sacred Tradition. ***

Each and every time you read from the Gospel of Mark, and not from the Gospel of Thomas at your worship services you are giving your tacit approval to Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Before you were damned if not part of the Catholic Church, now you are considered “Separated Brethren”; completely different doctrines. Ironically the former is from many councils and Bulls, the primary council was Trent; yet Trent was confirmed in whole by Vatican II council. Seems like a little contradiction there. But that is for you Catholics to iron out.

The constant teaching of the CC, before, during and after Vatican II has been: outside the Church there is no Salvation.

If a non-Catholic was saved before Vatican II or after Vatican II the Church taught the same constant thing: outside the Church there is no Salvation.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I find it curious that you characterize my question that you cannot answer as an “obsession”.

Here’s some perspective on Cornelius for you brother Guan. Scripture interprets scripture. The best commentary of Scripture is Scripture, staying within major themes of the Bible such as Christ and Him crucified for sinners. Maybe the Westminster Confession of Faith can be of assistance for you in regards to Cornelius? Please let me know when you start the “Goodness of Man verses the Total Depravity” thread so we can discuss Cornelius in context of the real hidden topic. I have addressed Cornelius four times, and posted the entire Cornelius account from Acts 10 through 11 on two different occasions, but you still seem to miss the centrality of the Cornelius account which you do with other Scripture. That’s why we are here together on CA, to grow together as siblings in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Cornelius was God’s chosen instrument for God’s divine purpose, and Cornelius’ good. I can lead you to the Scriptures, but God the Holy Spirit has to illuminate spiritual truth to you and I both.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. - WCF Chapter 1 - Scriptures

** Please do not continue to derail the thread topic with Cornelius. Just start a new thread on the real topic behind your obsession with Cornelius. I will no longer attempt to discuss Cornelius on this thread. Just start the appropriate thread and we can discuss Cornelius and others like him found throughout the Scriptures on the new thread.

 

[ryanoneil]

Please study out the verses with foreknew. God didn’t base His election on something that he foreseen in us. If He did, then grace would no longer by grace. There is nothing in the fallen creatures which compelled Him to save us over those whom He passed over. If God was limited to save certain creatured based on what was in the creature, than man is limiting the sovereign work of God in redemption.

The balance of God’s grace and our freewill factor into God’s sovereignty.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The balance of God’s grace and our freewill factor into God’s sovereignty.

What we really need to do is start a thread on free will. I agree that our wills are free to choose what we ultimately desire the most. But what are the influences behind our desires to choose what we do? We have to consider Romans 8 and the influence of fallen man, and the Spirit of God dwelling in believers in discussing free will and outside influences. I do not believe the will is free from outside influences. Why do we both find Jesus Christ to be extremely desirable, and most of humanity do not?

 

[guanophore]

Here’s some perspective on Cornelius for you brother Guan. Scripture interprets scripture. The best commentary of Scripture is Scripture, staying within major themes of the Bible such as Christ and Him crucified for sinners.

I was taugth this in seminary, and did not find out until many years later that it is, in itself, another extrabiblical doctrine. I don’t have a problem with looking as scripture as a whole, and understanding what is written in the light of the whole. However, interpretation is a function of persons, not books, however holy. It is still the person reading who is doing the interpreting,.

Maybe the Westminster Confession of Faith can be of assistance for you in regards to Cornelius? Please let me know when you start the "Goodness of Man verses the Total Depravity" thread so we can discuss Cornelius in context of the real hidden topic.

I think this title would set up a false dichotomy. I know it is a favorite method of yours for starting threads, but personally, I don’t care for it.

I have addressed Cornelius four times, and posted the entire Cornelius account from Acts 10 through 11 on two different occasions, but you still seem to miss the centrality of the Cornelius account which you do with other Scripture.

No, I don’t miss that, 2nd. However, my question with regard to the case of Cornelius relates to the meaning of the “fallen” nature of Adam. Perhaps the details of the event are secondary to the larger whole, but that does not make them “untrue”. Scripture states that Cornelius prayed and gave alms, and that these actions were noticed by God. I want to know how it is possible for a person who is joined to the 1st Adam, and not the 2nd, to do anything pleasing to God. It seems that you have difficulty fitting this scripture in with your doctrine as well, since you keep trying to change the subject.

I don’t expect you to be an expert in Reformed doctrine, and it is ok if you don’t know.

 That's why we are here together on CA, to grow together as siblings in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.  Cornelius was God's chosen instrument for God's divine purpose, and Cornelius' good.

Right. And the story written about him in the Holy Scriputes contains some interesting details about the nature of mans’ relationship with God.

  I can lead you to the Scriptures, but God the Holy Spirit has to illuminate spiritual truth to you and I both.

Indeed. And he has not illumned me into Calvin’s TULIP, which is where I am having trouble here. How did Adam “lose” the image of God when he procreated?

** Please do not continue to derail the thread topic with Cornelius. Just start a new thread on the real topic behind your obsession with Cornelius. I will no longer attempt to discuss Cornelius on this thread. Just start the appropriate thread and we can discuss Cornelius and others like him found throughout the Scriptures on the new thread.

I know you really want to avoid this point, 2nd, but it is germaine to the topic. The nature of “fallen” man is intrinsic to the sufficiency of Christ, and of grace. If mankind were not “fallen”, he would not need grace. The question is, what does “fallen” mean? How can a “fallen” person please God?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I was taugth this in seminary…

What seminary did you attend? Do you have a link to that seminary? What’s your spiritual journey, through what denominations prior to becoming Catholic?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I know you really want to avoid this point, 2nd, but it is germaine to the topic. The nature of “fallen” man is intrinsic to the sufficiency of Christ, and of grace. If mankind were not “fallen”, he would not need grace. The question is, what does “fallen” mean? How can a “fallen” person please God?

I do not want to avoid this point. It deserves a thread by itself because it is such an essential issue. Please start it I and I will join you on it.

 

[guanophore]

  But what are the influences behind our desires to choose what we do? We have to consider Romans 8 and the** influence of fallen man**, and the Spirit of God dwelling in believers in discussing free will and outside influences.  I do not believe the will is free from outside influences.  Why do we both find Jesus Christ to be extremely desirable, and most of humanity do not?

I agree wtih you, which is why I keep asking you what the nature of “fallen man” is according to Calvin. I am having trouble fitting what Calvin teaches about total depravity with the case of Cornelius.

Cornelius ultimately chose to do what he most desired, which was to come to God. But he came to God before he was regenerated. How did he do that, if he was trapped in bondage to sin, and united to the 1st Adam?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I agree wtih you, which is why I keep asking you what the nature of “fallen man” is according to Calvin. I am having trouble fitting what Calvin teaches about total depravity with the case of Cornelius.

Cornelius ultimately chose to do what he most desired, which was to come to God. But he came to God before he was regenerated. How did he do that, if he was trapped in bondage to sin, and united to the 1st Adam?

I will discuss Cornelius with you on a new thread in regards to the goodness of man and the depravity of man. Hey, what seminary did you attend?

 

[izoid]

I will discuss Cornelius with you on a new thread in regards to the goodness of man and the depravity of man. Hey, what seminary did you attend?

I think you said that on the old thread…that became this thread…that is now going to become a different thread?

Were you in the movie Dodgeball?

 

[izoid]

Adam----Is God’s grace sufficient to save the non elect?