"Works" Salvation?

[I_Leatherman]

So you don’t know what kind of life you are getting, whether this kind, or that kind, but you do know that you are getting LIFE, and that must be a good thing? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

I have not partaken in the Catholic Eucharist for almost 40 years.

You said that not me.
Here He says you “shall live for ever”, that is the LIFE He is talking about.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever;
There is no ‘kind’ in His statement.
It is a binary statement, eat you live, eat not you ‘live not’.

What ‘kind of existance’ will you have in a ‘live not’ state.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It’s the “what” that is being GIVEN that we might be disagreeing about.

To me, He’s given you the OFFER of salvation.

To you (as far as I can see), He’s given you actual salvation.

Tell me where I’m mistaken…?

Yes, upon personal belief in Christ (His Person and work on your behalf) He actually saves you. Paul writes in the Ephesian letter:“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).

(From: Second Council of Orange, De gratia, conclusion):
"According to the passages of Sacred Scripture and the explanations of the Holy Fathers [specified], we, with God’s help must believe and preach the following.

The free will of man was made so weak and unsteady through the sin of the first man that, after the Fall, no one could love God as was required, or believe in God, or perform good works for God unless the grace of divine mercy anticipated him …]. Even after the coming of Christ this grace of faith is not found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is conferred through the generosity of Christ, according to what has already been said and according to what the Apostle Paul teaches: ‘It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake’ (Phil 1:29). And also: 'he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6). And again: ‘By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God’ (Eph 2:8). And the Apostle says of himself: ‘As one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy’ (1 Cor 7:25; cf. 1 Tim 1:13) …]. And Scripture says further: ‘What have you that you did not receive?’ (1 Cor 4:7). And again: ‘Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights’ (Jas 1:17). And again: ‘No one can receive anything except what is given from heaven’ (Jn 3:27)" (Second Council of Orange, De gratia, conclusion).

(The Second Vatican Council provides the same teaching):
"By faith man freely commits his entire self to God …]; before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior help of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth’ (De gratia, ;an. 7; Dei Filius (Dei Verbum, 5).

(( Text from the Navarre Bible: Captivity letters: Partial notes for Eph8-9 ))

God’s gift is the GRACE to choose (or not choose) to have faith. The result of faith is salvation. But at all points in time we CHOOSE either to be faithful or to be unfaithful.

If we choose to have faith, then we will do good works out of necessity (as “good works” are nothing more than the natural result OF faith), and will be be saved, NOT BECAUSE of those works, but because of the faith that inspired them.

But if we choose, AT ANY POINT IN TIME, to not have faith, which results naturally in “evil works” (as not to do a good is to do an evil), then we have chosen to not be saved.

To NOT have faith is to be damned. If you HAD faith, then you abandoned faith, you no longer HAVE faith, and salvation is only for those WITH faith.

If you ain’t got it (faith), you can’t get it (salvation).

In Rom. 11:29 he writes:
"…for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable"Really, Keikiolu, you can’t get any clearer than that. Salvation is offered by God, but in a propositional message concerning His Son. It’s Him you must accept or reject since you can offer nothing of your own.

Salvation is OFFERED, but must be CHOSEN,… and chosen CONTINUALLY.

The GIFT OF THE OFFER of salvation via faith (the God given grace to be able to accept or reject) is the THING that God irrevocably GIVES. NOT salvation itself.

Rom25-36 is about God’s never ending promise to continue to make the offer of salvation.

Regardless of how many times we choose NOT to accept His offer, He will offer it until “the end”.

…and the end of “us” is our death.

(( Guess what happens if we die “in the bad”, as it were…? ))

My only question (at present) to you is: Can you LOSE your salvation?

…continued next post…

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from post…

1 John 5:9-13 "If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son

*“The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar.”*Notice the tense of “believes”…? While one BELIEVES, one has the testimony in himself.

While one doesn’t believe, one is “not in good shape”.

*"And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."*WHILE one believes (has faith), THEN God has given them (they HAVE, present tense) eternal life.

While one doesn’t believe, then one DOES NOT HAVE (present tense) eternal life.

If you fall out of belief, that leaves you presently (in the present) NOT having eternal life.

Is God true or is He a liar? The “offer” is to come by faith to the Son. You can “offer” nothing of your own.

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."God, of course, is not a liar.

WHILE you believe (have faith) you have eternal life.

And, WHILE you believe you WILL do good works, which is NOT you offering anything of your own, but simply doing the natural consequence of believing.

Therefore,… you cannot “do works” to get eternal life because only those works that are the result of faith (belief) have any meaning to God.

See,… we really don’t disagree on much, unless you think that you can’t LOSE your salvation by being an unfaithful non-believer…?

So,… how much do we agree,… in your opinion…?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Four times makes it so? An interesting hermeneutic, and using it to appeal to 2 Cor 2:10 to support your position, causes me no wonder.

No, the fact that Christ said it makes it so. The fact he said it for times makes it obviously important to Him and thus to us.

Also, the command of Christ to the apostles at the Last Supper was do this in remembrance of me, it was not transubstantiate this bread, and this wine; again, your free-form hermeneutic misleads you.

Your “flesh” profits you nothing here. Truly.

With respect to transubstantiation, it is irrational, and it is based upon a man’s philosophy, ie., word-wisdom.

God is not a God of confusion, neither is He a God of irrationality, and neither does He want His people to be fooled by man’s word-wisdom.

For the first 1500 years of Christianity, there was no confusion. You have your own spiritual fathers, Luther, Calvin and others to thank for the confusion created by deviation from the truth.

Transubstantiation is a word we use to explain what is in essence a mystery. The fact that YOU don’t get it says more about you, I think.

Therefore, whenever God, in history, performed a miracle, God’s miracle was observable; that is how God’s people knew that God had done it.

Like the incarnation itself? Yep, no question there. Everyone who looked at Jesus could plainly see that He was God. It was easily observable. That’s why he suffered no opposition…the Pharisees, the Romans, Pontius Pilate…everybody knew he was fully God and fully man.

Transubstantiation is not observable, and therefore, it must be taken on faith; but faith in God is based on reason, not unobservable word-wisdom.

It is based upon Word-wisdom…Jesus Himself is the Word whose wisdom it is based upon. As for taking it upon faith…AMEN!

"Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:28-29)

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for. (Hebrews 11:1-2)

But before we run too far down this rabbit trail, perhaps you’ll explain why (in light of everything contained in the OT & NT: Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine, eating the Lamb of the Passover in Exodus, John 6, the Last Supper narratives, 1 Co 10 & 11 and the Lamb in Revelation as well as the consistent teachings of the ECF’s and the 2,000-year-old witness of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) we should accept Sandusky’s faulty understanding of the plain words of Jesus Christ, “This is my body, this is my blood?”

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Then he can give you the gift of Damnation, if he see’s fit.

Quote:
Apophasis:
That “gift” was already given to us by Adam (read Rom. 5:12-21).
Quote:
Keikiolu: Very clever…!
I wasn’t trying to be clever at all - I was being Biblical. Did you read Rom. 5:12-21?? Christ, the “last Adam” comes bearing a gift totally different from that which we received by transgression through Adam: (1) Abundance of grace (2) righteousness (3) justification
(4) life.

The point of Rom5:12-21 is that Adam’s sin gave us death, but Jesus’ obedience (non-sin) gave us even more (a superabundance) of life (grace of eternity in a state of righteousness) through the “justification” of having chosen (finally, at one’s “end”) Jesus.

Remember: “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29).

Once again,… the GIFT is the GRACE to CHOOSE (contrary to our “tendency” toward sin descended from Adam’s sin) to accept Jesus.

Once we CHOOSE to NOT ACCEPT Jesus, by turning away the grace that God has sent to strengthen us, which was the only thing that even allowed us to have the choice to choose Jesus in the first place, then we are lost.

The Gift of CHOICE is irrevocable. The Gift of Salvation is contingent on true faith.

But,… if you CONTINUALLY have faith, you don’t have to worry about it…!

Here’s hoping you have continual and everlasting faith…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul on the Eucharist:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24)

Paul received his understanding about the Eucharist directly from Jesus himself. He was not present at Capernaum when Jesus gave the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6, and He was not present in the Upper Room sharing the Passover meal with Jesus and the Twelve when the Eucharist was instituted. He was not influenced regarding this issue by the other Apostles.

Instead, Jesus Himself taught Paul the doctrine of the Eucharist completely independently of all of the above.

Either Jesus communicated poorly AGAIN just as he had done in Capernaum when everyone misunderstood Him to be speaking literally about eating His flesh and drinking His blood :nope:

OR

He stayed precisely on message because He meant what He said the first time! :yup:

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…
Also, the command of Christ to the apostles at the Last Supper was do this in remembrance of me, it was not transubstantiate this bread, and this wine; again, your free-form hermeneutic misleads you.

The verb of Jesus’ command was “do”. What does this refer to?

It referes to eating His Body, and drinking His Blood.

That IS a command to consume Him, and the only way to do that is if He is “Transubstantiated”.

With respect to transubstantiation, it is irrational, and it is based upon a man’s philosophy, ie., word-wisdom.

Resurrection is also (humanly) irrational.

So if you accept only “rational” events, then you deny resurrection…?

What other heresies are you promoting?

God is not a God of confusion, neither is He a God of irrationality, and neither does He want His people to be fooled by man’s word-wisdom.

What you percieve as irrational and confusing is so percieved by you because you don’t understand why they aren’t rational or explainable (though quite often “mysterious”).

If you insist on a “scientistic” (which is the extension of the scientific method into realms where it is invalid) explanation of God’s doings, then you are just another Pharisee.

Therefore, whenever God, in history, performed a miracle, God’s miracle was observable; that is how God’s people knew that God had done it.

How many times had Jesus told people whom He’d healed to NOT TELL ANYONE what He’d done?

If you think that God ONLY does miracles to “show off”, then, once again, you limit God,…

How many heresies are we dealing with with you…?

Transubstantiation is not observable, and therefore, it must be taken on faith; but faith in God is based on reason, not unobservable word-wisdom.

I do wish you’d define “word-wisdom”.

Our REASON for accepting the transubstantiation is that it is the only acceptable solution to the “puzzle” that Jesus created for us.

If Jesus has commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, and that that is impossible unless you “have a piece of bloody Jesus”, then Jesus has given a command that we cannot fulfill.

To claim that is to claim that Jesus “set us up” for failure…!

Your solution to this “puzzle” is to interpret Jesus as having given a command to “do this symbolic act”.

Catholics solution is to interpret this command as meaning that our faith can transform (transubstantiate) the species into the actual presence of Jesus.

We believe. You don’t.

Who has faith?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[sandusky]

Keikiolu:

That IS a command to consume Him, and the only way to do that is if He is “Transubstantiated”.

Resurrection is also (humanly) irrational…then you deny resurrection…?

What other heresies are you promoting?

The resurrection is an observable fact attested to by the apostles, and witnessed by hundreds of others; therefore, it is very reasonable for me to believe that it occurred.

The two are not in the same category; there is no basis for comparison between the two.

Keikiolu:

Our REASON for accepting the transubstantiation is that it is the only acceptable solution to the “puzzle” that Jesus created for us.

That assumes that the Last Supper is a “puzzle;” it is not a puzzle to me; taken literally, as stated, it is a remembrance of Christ’s death on my behalf.

Keikiolu:

If Jesus has commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, and that that is impossible unless you “have a piece of bloody Jesus”, then Jesus has given a command that we cannot fulfill.

That assumes that Jesus command was to be taken literally; one can only understand that from an a-contextual position.

Keikiolu:

If you insist on a “scientistic” (which is the extension of the scientific method into realms where it is invalid) explanation of God’s doings, then you are just another Pharisee.

That assumes that I am asking for a sign; no sign is necessary if one interprets the passage literally in its context.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

That IS a command to consume Him, and the only way to do that is if He is “Transubstantiated”.

Resurrection is also (humanly) irrational…then you deny resurrection…?

What other heresies are you promoting?

​

The resurrection is an observable fact attested to by the apostles, and witnessed by hundreds of others; therefore, it is very reasonable for me to believe that it occurred.

The two are not in the same category; there is no basis for comparison between the two.

I didn’t see it (the resurrection)…!!

Why should I believe? Under your rules, it’s irrational for me to believe in the resurrection, as I have no “rational” means of believing it.

You will say, “…but if you believe in the Bible, then you MUST believe the resurrection is rational!”

But there are those who say that believing the Bible is irrational…!

Which should I believe,… your “rationality”, their “rationality”, or my “rationality”…?

I choose the Church’s rationality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

Our REASON for accepting the transubstantiation is that it is the only acceptable solution to the “puzzle” that Jesus created for us.
That assumes that the Last Supper is a “puzzle;” it is not a puzzle to me; taken literally, as stated, it is a remembrance of Christ’s death on my behalf.

You take LITERALLY one thing in the Bible, but NOT LITERALLY another thing in the Bible…!?

What does that sound like…?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
If Jesus has commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, and that that is impossible unless you “have a piece of bloody Jesus”, then Jesus has given a command that we cannot fulfill.

That assumes that Jesus command was to be taken literally; one can only understand that from an a-contextual position.

I love your “flexy-literallity”…!!

As I see it, YOU are being a-contextual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
If you insist on a “scientistic” (which is the extension of the scientific method into realms where it is invalid) explanation of God’s doings, then you are just another Pharisee.

That assumes that I am asking for a sign; no sign is necessary if one interprets the passage literally in its context.

What “sign” do you think I think you’re asking for?

ARE you insisting that God “follow your rules of scientific provability” (observability)…?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[sandusky]

Keikiolu:

I didn’t see it (the resurrection)…!!

Why should I believe? Under your rules, it’s irrational for me to believe in the resurrection, as I have no “rational” means of believing it.

Keikiolu, do you believe that the Revolutionary War occurred?

If so, what is the basis for your belief in that?

 

[kaycee]

Of course.

1 Pet 2:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,22: who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. Why is this? Because:

Rom 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
And I know I have to walk as he walked:

4: He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5: but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6: he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. Because those who do

31: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32: Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33: and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.34: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36: I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'37: Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?38: And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39: And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40: And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ and those who don’t:

41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;42: for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,43: I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44: Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'45: Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'46: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

So, RCC salvation is Baptism for initial Grace, then grace maintenance in the shape of sacraments, good works, penance for forgiveness of sins post baptism. Essentially pulling yourself up by your bootstraps with the aid of infused grace, until your soul is eventually worthy of heaven, correct?

OSAS, the doctrine of the damned, they just don’t know it because they don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus.

One is forced to ask why you contradict God so much. His word is quite plain. Why do you teach that you are saved without following Jesuus commandments and walking as he walked? Would you like to see what Jesus had to say on the subject in the gospel of John?

Did i miss another subject change?

 

[sandusky]

Randy Carson:

For the first 1500 years of Christianity, there was no confusion. You have your own spiritual fathers, Luther, Calvin and others to thank for the confusion created by deviation from the truth.

I see; it’s all Calvin and Luther’s fault, because transubstantiation was accepted unanimously from the starting gate, by everyone, without discussion, and ultimately it awaited only its articulation by Aquinas’, and its approval by the General Council of Lateran.

Transubstantiation is a word we use to explain what is in essence a mystery. The fact that YOU don’t get it says more about you, I think.

Yes, it is a mystery, and it says more about me.
Randy Carson:

Like the incarnation itself? Yep, no question there. Everyone who looked at Jesus could plainly see that He was God. It was easily observable. That’s why he suffered no opposition…the Pharisees, the Romans, Pontius Pilate…everybody knew he was fully God and fully man.

Yes, some didn’t know, but others did.

And on what basis did they know?Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, **a man attested to you by God with OBSERVABLE]miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—On what basis did they know, Randy?
Randy Carson:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

On what basis, Randy? On the testimony of what others have seen, perhaps?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see; it’s all Calvin and Luther’s fault, because transubstantiation was accepted unanimously from the starting gate, by everyone, without discussion, and ultimately it awaited only its articulation by Aquinas’, and its approval by the General Council of Lateran.

Pretty much. The reality that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ at the consecration WAS held from the earliest times. The theological term “transubstantiation” came later…as did the term “trinity”.

Yes, it is a mystery, and it says more about me.

Bingo.

Yes, some didn’t know, but others did.

And on what basis did they know?Acts 2:22

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, ***a man attested to you by God with ***OBSERVABLE]miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—On what basis did they know, Randy?

On what basis, Randy? On the testimony of what others have seen, perhaps?

On the testimony of others, for sure.

Tell me, was creation a miracle of God? Was anyone there to observe it?

 

[Truthstalker]

What happened to

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen

and

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed

If it is not observable it is not believable? :tsktsk:

If you are going to defend your position, mount a credible defense. I don’t think you’ve thought this one out.

So, RCC salvation is Baptism for initial Grace, then grace maintenance in the shape of sacraments, good works, penance for forgiveness of sins post baptism. Essentially pulling yourself up by your bootstraps with the aid of infused grace, until your soul is eventually worthy of heaven, correct?

I guess when you see a dog wagging its tail, you assume the tail is moving to dog.

God came down to meet man so he could raise man to meet God by the power of His grace. You seem convinced that the power in Catholicism is human. Again, good works are performed by God’s grace acting in man. Man can cooperate.
God rewards man, but it is totally a gift.

I am about ready to decide your misunderstanding is totally deliberate.

 

[sandusky]

Randy Carson:

Tell me, was creation a miracle of God? Was anyone there to observe it?

Truly.Psalm 19:1-4
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Hebrews 11:3
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.On the testimony (cf Isa 8:20).

 

[guanophore]

the command of Christ to the apostles at the Last Supper was do this in remembrance of me, it was not transubstantiate this bread, and this wine; again, your free-form hermeneutic misleads you.

You are right, it is Christ who changes the bread and wine into His body and blood. What He told the disciples to do was to take bread, bless it, break it, and share it among themselves, and that they should do this in memory of Him. I am not even sure they understood what He intended to do with that Bread and Wine.

With respect to transubstantiation, it is irrational, and it is based upon a man’s philosophy, ie., word-wisdom.

Let’s look at a little “word wisdom” shall we? Let’s begin with the creation story. The earth was formless and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep.

Gen 1:3
3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Word wisdom?

Gen 1:6
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

More “word wisdom”?

Gen 1:9-10
9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

God said…and it was so.

Gen 1:11
And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so.

Sure seems like this word is awfully creative!

Gen 1:14-16
4 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

Now…more “word wisdom”

Isa 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Given this, why should we not think that when Jesus said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” that it was so? why is this so hard to accept?

God is not a God of confusion, neither is He a God of irrationality, and neither does He want His people to be fooled by man’s word-wisdom.

Therefore, whenever God, in history, performed a miracle, God’s miracle was observable; that is how God’s people knew that God had done it.

Transubstantiation is not observable, and therefore, it must be taken on faith; but faith in God is based on reason, not unobservable word-wisdom.

 

[kaycee]

I guess when you see a dog wagging its tail, you assume the tail is moving to dog.

God came down to meet man so he could raise man to meet God by the power of His grace. You seem convinced that the power in Catholicism is human. Again, good works are performed by God’s grace acting in man. Man can cooperate.
God rewards man, but it is totally a gift.

I am about ready to decide your misunderstanding is totally deliberate.

Seems like a semantic issue here. just trying to wrap my mind around a gift being a reward for cooperation.

“Man can cooperate. God rewards man, but it is totally a gift.”

**Man is responsible to cooperate, correct?

God rewards man, for cooperation, correct?

But, it is a total gift??

Is man punished for not cooperating with grace?

Is man held responsible for not cooperting with grace?**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Truly.Hebrews 11:33 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

What is seen (bread and wine) is not made out of things that are visible (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ).

“By faith we understand.” “Your flesh profits you nothing”

Truly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Seems like a semantic issue here. just trying to wrap my mind around a gift being a reward for cooperation.

Man is responsible to cooperate, correct?
God rewards man, for cooperation, correct?
But, it is a total gift??

Is man punished for not cooperating with grace?
Is man held responsible for not cooperting with grace?

God doesn’t have to reward…that would be an obligation, and Paul has already dealt with that in his discussion of the Law.

However, God chooses to reward.

I might choose to reward my kids for bringing home good report cards - even though they are RESPONSIBLE for their good grades which are EXPECTED.

 

[kaycee]

God doesn’t have to reward…that would be an obligation, and Paul has already dealt with that in his discussion of the Law.

However, God chooses to reward.

I might choose to reward my kids for bringing home good report cards - even though they are RESPONSIBLE for their good grades which are EXPECTED.

I am sure you are aware that a REWARD is NOT a gift.