I
"The sufficiency of Grace" a continuation of "The sufficiency of Christ" family debate.
- Status
T
tweetymom
Guest
Cause you are the most fun:tiphat:
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
LOL… we do rejoice in the Lord together as Catholic and Protestant siblings in Christ!
:knight1::hug1::harp:
I
izoid
Guest
Adam----Are you going to explain your answer to my question.
Is grace sufficient for the non elect? You said yes and no. Please explain, after all, this is a very important topic.
When you say yes, what is it sufficient for?
When you say no, how is it not sufficient?
Is grace sufficient for the non elect? You said yes and no. Please explain, after all, this is a very important topic.
When you say yes, what is it sufficient for?
When you say no, how is it not sufficient?
H
humble_maid
Guest
God’s Blessings,
The message is just as important as the messanger who sends it. If the message is the same then why are there so many divisions within christianity? How can a message originally given by Jesus Himself become so disected resulting in factions and sects (what we call heresies).
I have pointed out the reason that apostolic succession is the vital key in determining the truth about the message; the message itself contains greater meaning that when taken as a whole and understood from where it came from using sacred tradition then can we get the whole picture. Please refer to post #1255 and read it carefully. I will be more than happy to engage in a dialogue regarding this issue.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
The person and work of Christ is sufficient to merit salvation for all fallen creatures of God (fallen mankind, fallen angels, fallen aliens, fallen dogs and cats, etc). However, the person and work of Christ is designed for God’s elect, therefore, it is sufficient for those whom God intended it to be for.
If you think about it, you will end up with that same conclusion because you are not a Universalist.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Just to add more fuel to the fire of this dialogue, here’s something more from an atheist who posted on another thread a response about Jimmy Akin’s article on TULIP:
P
PRmerger
Guest
And just an interesting excerpt from the article on TULIP by Jimmy Akin:
Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love.[There is nothing wrong with serving out of godly fear. The Bible often uses fear of divine chastisement as a motivator. Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents’ discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards].
What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine,[That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example, Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term “radical corruption,” although this is not much better. Author Lorraine Boettner uses the much better term “total inability.”] he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.[In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” (Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God’s grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God].
Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.[Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10].
Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love.[There is nothing wrong with serving out of godly fear. The Bible often uses fear of divine chastisement as a motivator. Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents’ discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards].
What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine,[That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example, Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term “radical corruption,” although this is not much better. Author Lorraine Boettner uses the much better term “total inability.”] he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.[In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” (Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God’s grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God].
Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.[Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10].
I
izoid
Guest
So, it is sufficient for the non elect but God withholds it from them?
H
humble_maid
Guest
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 in the following scriptures.
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.
1 COR 9:27
27 But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. Here St. Paul who is consecrated to Jesus by now, is telling us that he too can lose this grace which makes him heir to God which offers salvation.
Phil 2:12
12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. St.Paul speaks to those who are already in Christ; if His grace is bestowed upon them why should, as Paul stated, fear and work out their salvation?
Rev 3:11
3 Have in mind therefore in what manner you have received and heard: and observe and do penance: If then you shall not watch, I will come to you as a thief: and you shall not know at what hour I will come to you. What the Lord gives the Lord can taketh away.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Of course not. God’s sufficient grace is sufficient for all who find Christ to be desirable. The non-elect run from the light because they find darkness to be more desirable than Christ. Here’s the Scripture proof of that statement. We all freely come to whatever we find to be the most desirable.
For God So Loved the World
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” - John 3
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
Jesus has two natures: divinity and humanity. Jesus is called the New Adam and we both know Adam is human and he was the representative for all humanity. Clearly, when God emptied Himself he came to save all mankind, not the animals or angels,as He intended. (Angels aren’t a species; God creates each angel–there’s no procreation; plus angels don’t live in time like we do, and thus their choices have already been set. Animals are incapable of sin and would need no Savior.)
The contention here isn’t Jesus is sufficient only when He saves all creation. But rather did He come to save all mankind (Catholic position) or elect (Reformed).
I
izoid
Guest
H
humble_maid
Guest
I am glad you feel this way. By the way you never answered my post.LOL… we do rejoice in the Lord together as Catholic and Protestant siblings in Christ!
God Bless
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Why do you find Christ to be desirable and most find darkness to be more desirable? Why is your will more inclined to the light than the darkness?
T
Timothy_Piper
Guest
How can you cut off that which God purposed? You can’t. If anyone has salvation; the it was purposed by God (Romans 8 & many others), which means you cannot lose it. But you don’t want to get to comfortable and be self-deceived and be like a tare.
G
guanophore
Guest
2nd Adam has insisted that all of men were evil continually, and that was why God sent the flood. This interpretation of the evidence seems to be somewhat lacking. Some men have not been completely depraved, or if they were depraved, were somehow preserved by Grace in spite of being depraved. All of this seems to hinge upon the nature of “fallen” Adam. How was the image of Adam different than the image of God. How did Adam manage to “unmake” himself in 'God’s image? How does one who can only do evil continually please God?
T
Timothy_Piper
Guest
There you go into that human perspective. When were the Scriptures determined? By Whom? So which came first the Word or your traditions and rituals? John 1 In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
You really need to recognize when the Word is from the viewpoint of God or from the human in the “time” box perspective.
The church is the "pillar and “support” of the truth; therefore in or to be a pillar and to support the truth, the truth had to have already existed, which is consistent with the “Living Word”.
Likewise, the written word and the oral teaching are one in the same. look at the last section of 2 Peter 3, I believe beginning in verse 18 where Peter gives a warning and a command, the warning is remaining ignorant to Scripture and the command is to grow in the knowledge of the Lord, which the topic in the dialogue is Scripture. This is why no one can come up with traditions that do not pass the litmus test of Scripture, which many religions do; or try to, but fortunately the truth remains the same. Tradition or teaching do not define what is taught, what is taught (God’s Word) defines the Tradtion, but men love to define God in his own image and some might call that religion.
You are correct, you do not understand and as I told you before you must look at the whole scene, the man went to the pool to was his eyes by faith, but that is the smaller picture, the much larger is the testimony and rebuke of the Pharasees, which this man that Jesus healed gave testimony and glory to God, which is the whole purpose of the Christian on this foreign land we are on.
He did and told us exactly who He is, which is the Holy Spirit.
Correction; there has never been any salvation by anyone who did not receive the free gift of salvation based on faith in Christ; far different gospel than the one you just described above.
G
guanophore
Guest
Not a bit. I am having less and less use for TULIP as the posts go by.You created this thread so that you could answer the question. Now you want us to create another one?
Are you afraid of the implications of how this question must be answered?
In case you missed it, I understand that creating false dichotomies seems to be an enjoyable approach to discussion for you, but I don’t care for it myself.
T
Timothy_Piper
Guest
There is nothing I can say here the promise of the spirit is to all who believe and the spirit has specific duties and one is leading to the truth of the things pertaining to God. By your standard, then once the apostles died, then no one has access to the truth, therefore you must invent to succession principle,which 1800 or so years later results with a pope that has ex-cathedra power. Never mind that the Bible mentions nothing of a pope nor of a priesthood nor of holy orders nor of repeated bloodless sacrifice of Christ nor a confessional booth et al.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”.
This is a deficient concept of Church. However, that is being dealth with on another thread.
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.
I agree, but the HS does not lead individual believers in a different direction from the revelation He has already given to the Church.
I’ll go with the Holy spirit of promise; you stay with the Catholic Church and we will both be happy.
You are a very interesting person; at times you are very Calvin and times like now you are very Catholic.
- Status