The Essentials

[thepaulinator]

Could anyone provide for me an exaustive list of the salvific, essential doctrines that all of God's elect should/will believe? (Trinity, TULIP, etc.) More simply, what are the essentials?

[Skeuos Eleos]

We've had several threads attempting to do this and still haven't managed it! An exhaustive list would be even harder. There are the creeds of course, most of the better ones in the library here, but they often go beyond the "milk" of the essentials.

Then, of course, we could ask the question essential for what? Perhaps what you mean is what is the minimum that a new believer will believe?

BillTwisse posted this in another thread:


Some basic and genuine affirmation of the Trinity
Some basic and genuine affirmation of the Deity of Christ
Some basic and genuine affirmation of justification by grace through faith alone, in the person and work of Christ alone
Some basic and genuine affirmation of the authority of the Old and New Testaments of scripture
Some basic and genuine affirmation that God alone saves and he alone is glorified in the salvation process
Some basic and genuine affirmation that the Holy Spirit renews the mind unto both faith in the gospel and good works honoring that gospel
Some basic and genuine affirmation of the historical plan of salvation (i.e., a basic confession of God as creator and that Christ as Lord of all will ultimately come again and renew all things--to the glory and honor of God the Father).

from http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?p=23318 I think it is a good list but I would suggest a few additions around a basic and genuine belief that God is the maker of all things, that He is Almighty, i.e. that there is none more powerful than Him, and also a belief that God has saved them.

Other threads where this has been touched upon are:
What is the Minimum Gospel (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1497)
Does it matter (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1556)
What are the "Essentials" of Christianity? (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1469)

Martin

[thepaulinator]

So there is no list that contains all of the essentials? At least one that you are not absolutely certain about?

[Skeuos Eleos]

So there is no list that contains all of the essentials? At least one that you are not absolutely certain about?No. Not at least that I know of. There are the Creeds - Apostles', Athanasian and Nicene - but there are disputed aspects to each of them and they all omit something from the list I posted above. Perhaps we should come up with a 5Solas Creed? :)

Martin

[whs1]

Here is what God's word teaches are essentials of the faith of God's elect:

1. Creation (ex-nihilo) by God of the heaven and the earth in the beginning in 6 literal days ( of 24 hours each). [Genesis 1:1-2:1]

2. The inerrancy and inspiration and authourity of the Holy Scriptures (King James and Geneva Bibles) [2 Tim. 3:15-17 & 2 Peter 1:20-21]

3. The Trinity or Tri-une God existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. [Genesis 1:26 & Matthew 28:19]

4. The Deity and sinless real humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. [John 8:54-59 & Hebrews 4:15]

5. The birth of Jesus Christ our Lord by the virgin Mary, ultimately begotten (conceived) only by the Holy Ghost have come upon Mary, and the power of the Highest having overshadowed Mary, that that Holy thing which was born of the virgin Mary was called the Son of God. [Matthew 1:20-23]

6. Our Lord Jesus Christ's substitutionary, limited, vicarious death and sacrifice for the sins of His people (in that he gave his life a ransom for many) was effectual only for those whom God the Father chose in Jesus Christ to believe and obey Jesus Christ as Lord in his gospel. [Matthew 1:21, 1 Peter 2:24, Colossians 2:6; & Hebrews 5:9, & Romans 10:16]

7. Our Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection from among the dead in the body in which he was crucified, put to death, and buried in; and his personal and second coming of 'this same Jesus who ascended into heaven' in power and great glory. [Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, & Acts 1:1-11]

8. The total depravity (spiritual death) of man (spirit, soul, and body) through and since the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. [Romans 3:9-19]

9. Salvation, the effect of regeneration by the Holy Spirit and by the Word of God, not by works which we have done, but by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. [ Ephesians 2:8-9John 1:13, John 3:3]

10. The everlasting joy and happiness of the saved in heaven, and the everlasting punishment and torments of the unbelieving in everlasting Hell-fire in the lake of fire. [Matthew 25:46, Luke 16:19-31, Jude 7, & Revelation 21 all]

11. "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." [W.C.F.]
[Psalm 86:12, 1 Cor. 6:20, 1 Cor. 10:31; Psalm 115:1-3]

12. The real spiritual unity of all believers in Jesus Christ who are redeemed unto God by His precious blood which was shed for the remission of the sins of all His people and them only. [John 17]

13. The necessity of maintaining, according to the word of God, the purity of the church in doctrine and in the conversation of the lives of all professing believers in Jesus Christ. [1 Cor. 5:13; 2 Cor. 6:14-18]

14. The unconditional, eternal election by God the Father to Jesus Christ [Eph. 1:4] of all the beloved, faithful brethren who have faith and show it by their works in their lives to those without the church as well as those within...or else...Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, and 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

15. The irresistable grace (effectual call) of God through the word of God by the Holy Spirit in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to the called...His people...the few...'my sheep'...as our blessed Lord Jesus hath said. [John 6:37 & John 10:27-30]

16. The perseverance and preservation of the saints. [John 6:37 & John 10:27-30]

17. The absolute predestination, Fatherly Providence, and Sovereign control of ALL events great and small by God: so that, as John Calvin says: "But predestination I define to be, according to the Holy Scriptures, that free and unfettered counsel of God by which He rules all mankind, and men and things, and also all parts and particles of the world by His infinite wisdom and incomprehensible justice." [Ephesians 1:11 & Acts 4:27-28]

18. The gospel, which is, "the good news of salvation (including everything from regeneration to final glory) conditioned soley upon the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ." [Matthew 1:21, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 and many more Scriptures...] "Every regenerate person believes the gospel, and, it is impossible for a regenerate person to confess a false gospel." [Marc Carpenter]


I believe I have the 5 Sola's included in this...


Bill

[thepaulinator]

Here is what God's word teaches are essentials of the faith of God's elect:

Is the list provided free from the possibility of error? Or could there be something essential out there that is not included? Or could there be something that is not considered essential included therein?

[whs1]

Is the list provided free from the possibility of error? Or could there be something essential out there that is not included? Or could there be something that is not considered essential included therein?

__________________



You will have to show them to me.

Bill

[thepaulinator]

You will have to show them to me.

I did not post my questions because I thought the list was in error, necessarily. My one question is this:

Is the list you provided here free of error?

[bgamall]

Bill has a partial list. The foundation is the gospel. So those who are elect must flee from the doctrines that teach Old Covenant ethics and law conviction. You cannot keep the New Law if you don't know there is a New Law. Itis a law of faith. All else is bondage.

I would say that the elect will not be blessed by following the doctrine of eternal generation, nor the doctrine of sacralism, nor the doctrine of covenant theology nor the doctrine of dispensationalism.

Depending on the times and the doctrines that are false that the elect come up against may have some determination. Of course in this age every false doctrine under the sun is being vocalized because Satan is working overtime.

But to be satisfied with Bill's list is to invite major error as we have seen in the Protestant camp behavior.If you speak to people on why they are not Christians they are hardened by the false behavior of the sacralists and the murders in the name of Christ.

That is why I am angry with the Protestant position and why all here should be as well. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. Had people heeded this truth there would have been no Constantine, no Augustine, no Calvin, no Luther to drag the truth of Jesus through the dirt, so that the unbelievers can have a field day proclaiming that a lie is the truth.

[Robert R. Higby]

Paulinator states:

Is the list provided free from the possibility of error? Or could there be something essential out there that is not included? Or could there be something that is not considered essential included therein?

Of course Bill's list is not free from error! And of course there are essentials that he has left out! That is why we have to be careful of doctrinal statements that claim to encapsule the WHOLE truth of the revelation of scripture.

My 7-point list was not perfect either. I was trying to summarize in SOME fashion the very MINIMUM truths that would definitely be confessed by a genuine believer having the the least measure of faith.

[whs1]

Bill Twisse said:

"And of course there are essentials that he has left out!"


Which ones are those, Bill?

[thepaulinator]

Of course Bill's list is not free from error! And of course there are essentials that he has left out! That is why we have to be careful of doctrinal statements that claim to encapsule the WHOLE truth of the revelation of scripture.

Is you list free from error Bill?


My 7-point list was not perfect either. I was trying to summarize in SOME fashion the very MINIMUM truths that would definitely be confessed by a genuine believer having the the least measure of faith

No? Is it possible then that your faith may not include one of the essential ingredients? I mean, if you are not aware of all the essentials, isn't at least a possibility taht you do not possess one? (This does not imply that you do)

[whs1]

You have to show me one of the essentials that is not in the list that is essential then I will have to see from Scripture if it is really essential or prove from Scripture that it is.

[bgamall]

People who believe that the law convicts of sin in a saving way cannot be saved. The gospel does this conviction, as we see in Acts ch 2 where the Jews were cut to the heart by the gospel message. If a person has not been cut to the heart by the gospel he cannot be saved.

Without this the rest of the lists don't matter.

[thepaulinator]

You have to show me one of the essentials that is not in the list that is essential then I will have to see from Scripture if it is really essential or prove from Scripture that it is.

This isn't what I'm getting at.

My point is this:

If you believe certain things to be essential to salvation, it implies not believing one of the things to have a detrimental effect on your salvation.

You provided a list of things you think essential to salvation.

I asked if it is a list free from the possibility of error.

This was asked for the following reasons:

1) If it is free from the possibility of error, you claim it to be an infallible list of the essentials of Christian salvation.

a) How does a fallible man produce an infallible list?

b) Why is it that your list is infallible, and Bill Twisse's is not?

c) Is this not condemned by all who are not Catholic?

2) If it is NOT free from the possibility of error, does not the possibility of an essential being missing exist?

3) If this is so, is it not also possible, that since it is not included, you may not believe it, and therefore may not believe in everything essential to a Christian?

[bgamall]

James said those who offend the new law of liberty in one point are guilty of failing the entire New law of Christ. So, how about we start with what the apostles said and compare those teachings and commandments with the traditions that have been handed down to us by sacralist religion.

Anything less won't set anybody free. A list without these attributes cannot help us be free in Christ.

[thepaulinator]

James said those who offend the new law of liberty in one point are guilty of failing the entire New law of Christ. So, how about we start with what the apostles said and compare those teachings and commandments with the traditions that have been handed down to us by sacralist religion.

That would be great. However, I didn't start this thread with the intention of finding someone who knew the list. With any list we come up with, I have one simple question...

Will it be free from the possibility of error?

The following questions follow the answer...

1) If it is free from the possibility of error, you claim it to be an infallible list of the essentials of Christian salvation.

a) How does a fallible man produce an infallible list?

b) Why is it that your list is infallible, and Bill Twisse's is not?

c) Is this not condemned by all who are not Catholic?

2) If it is NOT free from the possibility of error, does not the possibility of an essential being missing exist?

3) If this is so, is it not also possible, that since it is not included, you may not believe it, and therefore may not believe in everything essential to a Christian?

[Skeuos Eleos]

2) If it is NOT free from the possibility of error, does not the possibility of an essential being missing exist?

3) If this is so, is it not also possible, that since it is not included, you may not believe it, and therefore may not believe in everything essential to a Christian?Yes, all men are fallible so all are capable of making a mistake but the mistake would be in the production of the list of "essentials" not in what is believed by someone with true saving faith.

In producing a list all we are trying to do is summarise the scriptures and in doing this we introduce the possibility of error. Far better then, as has been suggested, to study specific scriptures that are disputed as essential.

Martin

[Skeuos Eleos]

Another reason why I think this topic is proving difficult is that I think the "list" can vary from person to person. You see whether someone has true saving faith does not depend upon what is on their 'list' but on whether that faith has been imparted from above. Now, since faith comes by hearing, someone may hear a gospel presentation and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ following it and yet not have heard a presentation of the Trinity and hence have no knowledge of it. However, as soon as such a one hears of the Trinity they will believe it.

Martin

[thepaulinator]

Now, since faith comes by hearing, someone may hear a gospel presentation and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ following it and yet not have heard a presentation of the Trinity and hence have no knowledge of it. However, as soon as such a one hears of the Trinity they will believe it.

I agree. So anyone who upon seeing your list and disagrees with one thing, does not have "saving" faith?

If I say you must believe in supralapsarianism to have saving faith, and you disagree, how can you know which is right? You might say, go to the scriptures. I say, we already have, and we disagree...now what?

Unless you know the essentials a saved person WILL believe, or the essentials a saved person, upon hearing will believe, you can not know with aboslute certainty if you are "saved". Am I way off?

[tomas1]

I don’t have a list of essentials because salvation is not a mater of what you believe it’s a matter of who you know. I can have assurance because I know personally him who has the power and desire to save me. Saving faith is not faith in a list of facts. It’s faith in a risen Christ.

[thepaulinator]

I can have assurance because I know personally him who has the power and desire to save me. Saving faith is not faith in a list of facts. It’s faith in a risen Christ.

So a Mormon or a non-trinitarian can be essentially saved while rejecting the trinity, as long as he/she has faith in a ressurrected Christ?

[Skeuos Eleos]

I agree. So anyone who upon seeing your list and disagrees with one thing, does not have "saving" faith?That is what I believe scripture teaches but I think the very fact that there is no widely-accepted published list that most reformed Christians agree upon lends support to what I said earlier: i.e. that the list may vary according to the person.


If I say you must believe in supralapsarianism to have saving faith, and you disagree, how can you know which is right? You might say, go to the scriptures. I say, we already have, and we disagree...now what?Nothing. The scriptures are the final arbiter. Who was correct will be made clear in the fulness of time.


Unless you know the essentials a saved person WILL believe, or the essentials a saved person, upon hearing will believe, you can not know with aboslute certainty if you are "saved". Am I way off?Just a little bit off :) You can certainly know with great confidence and yes, at times, with absolute certainty that you are 'saved' but not because you have confidence in a list that you can mentally tick off but because like Paul you can say "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12) and can add a hearty 'Amen' to some key scriptures such as:
"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, ... shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38, 39)
"And we know that we are of God" (I John 5:19)
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Romans 8:16)

The following article is one of a series dealing with assurance that may be of interest:
http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/volume80/2004jan15.html#Editorial:

Martin

[Ivor Thomas]

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If you continue in my word, Then are you my disciples indeed ; And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free, The essentials are given upon being regenerate, The Holy Spirit indwells the new believer and teaches him/her all the essentials they need to know, Salvation is of The Lord,... Ivor Thomas....:cool:

[tomas1]

thepaulinator
So a Mormon or a non-trinitarian can be essentially saved while rejecting the trinity, as long as he/she has faith in a ressurrected Christ?

If some one told me they had met my wife and then said doesn’t she have lovely red hair? Or how does she get along with only one leg? I would say I don’t know who you met but it wasn’t my wife.

My son my brother-in-law and I might all have slightly different ideas about the essentials of who my wife is but we all know her when we see her.

A Mormon or a non-trinitarian doesn’t know my Jesus. He knows a cheap imitation christ.

[thepaulinator]

that the list may vary according to the person

Yes it may. Of course. But the variance does not mean the different lists are correct. IIs it possible for two lists to have conflicting essentials (e.g. list one containing explicit belief in the trinity, list two containing only belief in Christ, not necessarily his trinitarian relationship)


Nothing. The scriptures are the final arbiter. Who was correct will be made clear in the fulness of time.

So while the scriptures are infallible, they cannot tell everyone infallibly what is essential? This is, of course, not because of the lack of material sufficiency, but rather can be blamed on the fallability of the interpreter (in this case, us). If that is so, then there at least exists the POSSIBILITY that what you have interpreted from scripture is false. The same possibility remains for anything I interpret. If that is so, we can't know if anything we hold to be true is correct without any possibility of error, until the fulness of time. If that is true, it includes our thoughts on our eternal destiny.


Just a little bit off You can certainly know with great confidence and yes, at times, with absolute certainty that you are 'saved' but not because you have confidence in a list that you can mentally tick off but because like Paul you can say "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12) and can add a hearty 'Amen' to some key scriptures such as:
"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, ... shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38, 39)
"And we know that we are of God" (I John 5:19)
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Romans 8:16)

Again, that belief that you can certainly know with absolute certainty that you are "saved" is based on an interpretation of scripture that contains the possibility for error. You very well could be correct in your belief, but by the very definition of fallibility and "possibility for error", you could also be just as wrong. If that is the casem it is not absolute certainty. In other words, we begin with the infallible source (sacred scripture)containing a teaching, from that source the information goes to a fallible source (you and me) and an interpretation is formed with the possibility of error, from that interpretation, an infallible conclusion is drawn ("I am saved"). How does one go from a fallible idea to an infallible conclusion? If it is not an infallible conclusion, it contains the possibility of error, and absolute certainty becomes, "strong confidence".

I am sorry if this seems to be quite related to another thread I started "Are you Saved", I feared they would converge.

[thepaulinator]

The essentials are given upon being regenerate, The Holy Spirit indwells the new believer and teaches him/her all the essentials they need to know, Salvation is of The Lord,... Ivor Thomas....

How does one know they are regenerate, and is this knowledge free from the possibility of error?


If some one told me they had met my wife and then said doesn’t she have lovely red hair? Or how does she get along with only one leg? I would say I don’t know who you met but it wasn’t my wife.

My son my brother-in-law and I might all have slightly different ideas about the essentials of who my wife is but we all know her when we see her.

A Mormon or a non-trinitarian doesn’t know my Jesus. He knows a cheap imitation christ.

Be that as it may, your only essential was...

"Saving faith is not faith in a list of facts. It’s faith in a risen Christ."

You say saving faith is not in a list of facts, and then you go on to list one, that Christ is risen. If you say that a mormon or a non-trinitarian does not know the real Jesus, you already imply that someone who DOES believe in the real Jesus, believes in the trinity. So now, your list is two fold...

1. Belief in a risen Christ
2. Belief that this Christ is a member of the trinity of God.

So what else must that believer believe about Christ in order to be believing in the real Christ, and not a cheap imitation.

[tomas1]

I did not say that I had faith that Christ was risen. But I had faith in him. At first I did not even know what a trinity was.
The thief on the cross did not even know he would rise from the dead

[thepaulinator]

At first I did not even know what a trinity was. The thief on the cross did not even know he would rise from the dead

Neither did I, and neither did the theif, taht is correct. But like someone already said, the theif most certainly would have believed it had someone taught him the idea. And that is why I added it to your list. You said to believe IN Christ. I asked how does your belief in Christ differ from that of a mormon or a non-trinitarian. You said because the "real" Christ is a member of the trinity, so the others (e.g. mormons) believe in a cheap immitation. I don't want to believe in a cheap immitation. I want to believe in the truth, the Christ. So what are some things about him and what he taught that I must believe in order to believe in the Real Christ. So far, your list contains 2. Again:

1. Jesus Christ is resurrected
2. Jesus Christ is a member of the trinity

Now perhaps I believe Jesus had a wife named Mary Magdaline. Is that the real Christ, or not? (I understand it is false). My point is this: Once we begin adding to the list, once we begin believing in things, by the premise of "all men are fallible", there exists the possibility of believing in error, and if that is so, there also exists the possibility of believing in a cheap imitation. That being so, how can you ever know WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, your Christ is the real Christ?

[tomas1]

That being so, how can you ever know WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, your Christ is the real Christ?

How can you know that your wife is your real wife or your body is your real body? Give me a break either you can know that or you can’t know anything. If you can’t know anything then why bother trying to find anything out.
If you would like to we can go into the whole “I think therefore I am” discussion. But I’m sure you believe that you can know something.

I believe that “I know Jesus” more than I believe anything else. Even more than I believe that I exist.
That is the gift of assurance

[Robert R. Higby]

There have been a lot of diverse 'experiments' (?) into strange argumentation here. I will limit my comments to the issues discussed below. One point that I will make is this: paradox theology is bankrupt! If we base our views of truth on the notion that God's revelation in its very essence contains TRUE and CONFLICTING propositions, scripture means NOTHING. Tradition based on scripture (whatever it consists of) also means NOTHING at all! Byzantine paradox theology is bankrupt and will only lead us to damnation.

Paulinator asks:
So anyone who upon seeing your list and disagrees with one thing, does not have "saving" faith?

You asked this of bgamall. The point of it all is that there IS a minimum list. If one denies any point of it, that person in no way has saving faith. We can talk about what it should include and debate aspects of it. But without certain propositions, THERE IS NO CHRISTIANITY. The Pope confidently states that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God. I do not worship the moon-god Allah that the Muslim worships; a false and demonic god who grants acceptance with himself on the basis of internal character transformation. So I DO NOT worship the pagan moon-god of ancient Arabia that Mohammed and the Pope worship. Propositions of truth revealed in scripture MEAN SOMETHING. Who can accept it? Not many today.

If I say you must believe in supralapsarianism to have saving faith, and you disagree, how can you know which is right? You might say, go to the scriptures. I say, we already have, and we disagree...now what?

But who on this board has said that one must believe in supralapsarianism to have saving faith? Show me! There will always be diagreements on certain details--as Christians we have to work through those matters in time.

Unless you know the essentials a saved person WILL believe, or the essentials a saved person, upon hearing will believe, you can not know with aboslute certainty if you are "saved". Am I way off?

We do know the essentials. If anyone is not satisfied with a 'list' that any of us mortals create, just return to the revealed testimony of Paul, Peter, and John instead. They have stated these essentials again and again. The only reason men who love the gospel have to create a 'list' is because other men are not satisfied with the essentials already given by the apostles of Christ. Sort of like ancient Israel asking for a king when God had already given them the perfect government!

[HIS]

(Luke 13:3 KJV) "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

(Luke 13:5 KJV) "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

Would these two statements from Jesus not be considered essential to everyone reading this thread?

Perhaps these words from Jesus are non-essential to some, but I would think if the Lord took the time to say it twice as He did above, it would be of even greater importance for us to remember. Yet, I saw no reference to this from the start of this thread.

I have noticed several other Scriptures that have been omitted like the one above.

[thepaulinator]

How can you know that your wife is your real wife or your body is your real body? Give me a break either you can know that or you can’t know anything. If you can’t know anything then why bother trying to find anything out. If you would like to we can go into the whole “I think therefore I am” discussion. But I’m sure you believe that you can know something.

Of course I do. I'm not trying to defend the agnostic cause. I want to know why the Christ you believe in, is not the Christ others believe in. I ask this for two reasons. First, to show that what is believed is based on a fallible interpretation of infallible text, in which case, the outcome is fallible. Second, since I am Roman Catholic, there are most likely some here who would say I worship a cheap imitation Christ. I would like to know why.


If we base our views of truth on the notion that God's revelation in its very essence contains TRUE and CONFLICTING propositions, scripture means NOTHING. Tradition based on scripture (whatever it consists of) also means NOTHING at all! Byzantine paradox theology is bankrupt and will only lead us to damnation.

I apologize for my poor representation of my ideas, it was not meant to be paradoxial (sp?).


You asked this of bgamall. The point of it all is that there IS a minimum list. If one denies any point of it, that person in no way has saving faith. We can talk about what it should include and debate aspects of it. But without certain propositions, THERE IS NO CHRISTIANITY.

I don't deny the truth of certain things people believing and a "minimum list". That isn't my point. My point is that if you still don't know what is contained in this list, with absolute certainty, it doesn't follow to be absolutely certain you believe everything on that list.


The Pope confidently states that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God. I do not worship the moon-god Allah that the Muslim worships; a false and demonic god who grants acceptance with himself on the basis of internal character transformation. So I DO NOT worship the pagan moon-god of ancient Arabia that Mohammed and the Pope worship.

I'm not quite sure why this was included, if nothing else but to show me the error of the "Roman System". Could this be non sequitur or even ad hominem?


Propositions of truth revealed in scripture MEAN SOMETHING. Who can accept it? Not many today.

I agree. I have yet to deny it. I am trying to bring out the logical conclusions of these premises...

1) Men are fallible
2) There exists a list of essential Christian beliefs

those conclusions being

1) Any list created by these fallible men are also fallible
2) Because of 1), no list can be believed freely from the possibility of error, to be true
3) Because of 3), you can't know if you believe/will believe everything essential to a Christian

But who on this board has said that one must believe in supralapsarianism to have saving faith? Show me!

No one has, it was a hypothetical proposal. If "at glory" God should reveal this to be an essential, some people would have a rough eternity, but I don't think it is on the list =). Again, hypothetical.


There will always be diagreements on certain details--as Christians we have to work through those matters in time

Indeed I am trying.


We do know the essentials. If anyone is not satisfied with a 'list' that any of us mortals create, just return to the revealed testimony of Paul, Peter, and John instead. They have stated these essentials again and again.

I also enjoy Matthew Mark Luke and Jesus =). If we know, then I'd like to hear them.


The only reason men who love the gospel have to create a 'list' is because other men are not satisfied with the essentials already given by the apostles of Christ.

Or of course, because people disagree, and someone wants to end the argument.

[tomas1]

The point to all this and I do have one is that I know the person not a list of facts. Now if some one told me that I don’t know the Real Jesus the burden of proof is on them to show me why not. I am more than willing to listen
There is a logical possibility that I have been deceived (its also possible that monkeys might fly from my rear end). But the Holy Sprit and the Word of God give me confidence that I know the truth.

To return to your question my essentials list would start very small and grow to include any TRUTH that the Holy Spirit has made known (John 16:13-14). It all depends on how well the person “knows Him”. At first I knew very little about my wife but my love for her drove me to want to know everything about her.
I am still learning stuff about Jesus and sometimes I think I know something about Him only to find out later I was wrong (the same happens with my wife). But the fact remains I know Him. I know that with ABOUSOLUTE CERTAINTY

[Ivor Thomas]

Paulinator, you are saying bible essentials are infallible, so we can not take hold of them, This to me is man reaching to be god,.. Instead of God reaching to us,. The Holy Spirit indwells the regenerate person and makes His infallible word infallible to that person , and by faith given by Him ,we take hold of it ,infallible to ourselves, Its all of God and not of man you see,, you will know the truth and the truth shall make you free,....Ivor Thomas, ....:cool:

[whs1]

Paulinator has some very serious problems with his theory.


1. The Bible [King James and Geneva ] are without doubt the very infallible words of the living God.
2. God has given man this word.
3. If one is elect; that person has the Holy Spirit.
4. Jesus Christ said:

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

5. Therefore, one who is Christ's will be guided into all truth. [Truth is infallible]...
6. There is an infallible list of truth that exists.

[whs1]

No one has yet showed me that the list I posted has any essentials missing nor have they shown me that one that list is non-essential. There have been claims...:D

[Skeuos Eleos]

No one has yet showed me that the list I posted has any essentials missing nor have they shown me that one that list is non-essential. There have been claims...:DYou know very well that we debated at length the claim (in your item 18) that
"Every regenerate person believes the gospel, and, it is impossible for a regenerate person to confess a false gospel." This has not been proven from scripture but let's not re-introduce that debate here! :eek:

Martin

[Skeuos Eleos]

Ok, whs1 you asked for it! :D

1. Creation (ex-nihilo) by God of the heaven and the earth in the beginning in 6 literal days ( of 24 hours each). [Genesis 1:1-2:1]Nothing in the context confirms this. The use of the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning the nth day" causes me to lean towards believing them to be literal days but it by no means settles it and, even then, the creating work could have been between morning and evening, i.e. in less than 24 hours. Then also there's the statement in Gen. 2:4 that speaks of "the (i.e. single) day that the Lord God made earth and heaven". The point is that it is by no means a cast-iron case from scripture that the heavens and earth were made in EXACTLY 144 hours and, MORE IMPORTANTLY STILL, since this thread is about the essentials there is absolutely NOTHING in scripture that PROVES that believing in a literal 6 x 24-hour creation is ESSENTIAL - i.e. you cannot be regenerate if you don't believe it.

Martin

[bgamall]

This we know. The heavens and the earth were created in the beginning, and then God created the first day. How long it was between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3 is not revealed.

It does seem to be obvious that once light was created the days were regular days.

"I don’t have a list of essentials because salvation is not a mater of what you believe it’s a matter of who you know. I can have assurance because I know personally him who has the power and desire to save me. Saving faith is not faith in a list of facts. It’s faith in a risen Christ."

Yes and no to the above paragraph. A relationship with Christ, or should I say the Messiah revealed in the elect is essential. But then Peter says to add to faith, love, self control, knowledge. So there is a way.

We are running a race, and those who listen to the apostles once this relationship with Christ is established will win. Those who do not listen to the apostles will lose and prove that their relationship was bogus. I have tried to show how many were the ways that the Protestants failed to listen to the apostles. Rather than a list perhaps we need to see a pattern of faith versus a pattern of rebellion against the teachings of the apostles.

[Ivor Thomas]

JWs have their 7000 year for each createive day, others have God createing then leaveing it all for thousands of years to evolve to help Him out,. some would turn God into a wizz and say He created instantly or much quicker than is thought,This is why The Holy Spirit has had it written down their came to be evening and their came morning each following createtive day. This is truth from creation to now these periods of 24 hours have remained the same, God was very careful to have recorded evening and morning we can infallibly take His word,...Ivor Thomas,...:cool:

[thepaulinator]

Now if some one told me that I don’t know the Real Jesus the burden of proof is on them to show me why not.

I agree. I have yet to accuse you of such a thing.


There is a logical possibility that I have been deceived (its also possible that monkeys might fly from my rear end). But the Holy Sprit and the Word of God give me confidence that I know the truth.

Indeed I'm sure he does. However, the Holy Spirit and the word of God give other people who believe different things confidence that they know the truth too. I asked how do you come to find who is right. You said we can't know until the fullness of time. I say then you can't be absolutely certain you know the truth until death.


I am still learning stuff about Jesus and sometimes I think I know something about Him only to find out later I was wrong (the same happens with my wife). But the fact remains I know Him. I know that with ABOUSOLUTE CERTAINTY

So does the Mormon, so does the Baptist, so does the Pentacostal, so does the non-denominationalist, so does the Lutheran, so does the Methodist, so does the Roman Catholic. Which are cheap imitations, which are the real thing, and how do you know?

[thepaulinator]

Paulinator has some very serious problems with his theory.


1. The Bible [King James and Geneva ] are without doubt the very infallible words of the living God.
2. God has given man this word.
3. If one is elect; that person has the Holy Spirit.
4. Jesus Christ said:...
5. Therefore, one who is Christ's will be guided into all truth. [Truth is infallible]...
6. There is an infallible list of truth that exists.

1. The Bible in its original manuscripts are infallible, (not just one or two translation) (where is scripture does it say the KJV is infallible, if it doesn't say that, isn't that against sola scriptura)

2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Agree
5. Agree [Agree]
6. Agree

Now let's compare with my lists

Premises:
1) Men are fallible
2) There exists a list of essential Christian beliefs <- By this one I meant an infallible list

Conclusions:
1) Any list created by these fallible men are also fallible

2) Because of 1), no list can be believed freely from the possibility of error, to be true <- To qualify, no list created by man

3) Because of 3), you can't know if you believe/will believe everything essential to a Christian

Other things I said...

Bible Infallibility (Your 1,2):

"...First, to show that what is believed is based on a fallible interpretation of infallible text..." <- Meaning the Bible
-Me in previous post

Elect and their knowledge (3):

"But like someone already said, the theif most certainly would have believed it had someone taught him the idea. " <- the theif (on the cross) being elect
-Me in previous post

Jesus said...(4):

See comments on Bible infallibility

Guidance in truth (5):

See "Elect and their knowledge"

Infallible list (6):

See my list, Premise #2.

Now that that is done...

There is a difference between the elect "coming to know the truth", and someone creating a list of the truth. For example, like Thomas1 said (while I assume he believes himself to be elect, and he very well could be), he has before believed things incorrectly about Christ, only to find out later his error. That being said, had he been asked to create a list of truth that "the holy spirit and His word gave him confidence in", before coming to know his error, the list would have been flawed. Upon discovering his error, it would change his belief. Now I have two things to say about that...

1) Who/what changed your mind?

2) If you have believed things incorrectly about Christ then, why are you now free from believing incorrectly?

[Skeuos Eleos]

There is a difference between the elect "coming to know the truth", and someone creating a list of the truth. For example, like Thomas1 said (while I assume he believes himself to be elect, and he very well could be), he has before believed things incorrectly about Christ, only to find out later his error. That being said, had he been asked to create a list of truth that "the holy spirit and His word gave him confidence in", before coming to know his error, the list would have been flawed. Upon discovering his error, it would change his belief. Now I have two things to say about that...

1) Who/what changed your mind?

2) If you have believed things incorrectly about Christ then, why are you now free from believing incorrectly?What Tomas1 said is true of all believers since knowledge is gained over time so I'd like to jump in here:
1) The Holy Spirit will guide the Elect into all truth and remind us of what Jesus taught. As we study God's Word the Holy Spirit reveals where understanding is incorrect.
2) I would hope no-one hear would claim to have an absolutely correct understanding of all doctrines - that would be great pride - but, as has been said, assurance is not based upon a complete and error-free understanding.

Martin

[thepaulinator]

1) The Holy Spirit will guide the Elect into all truth and remind us of what Jesus taught. As we study God's Word the Holy Spirit reveals where understanding is incorrect

So over time, the Elect cannot err?


2) I would hope no-one hear would claim to have an absolutely correct understanding of all doctrines - that would be great pride - but, as has been said, assurance is not based upon a complete and error-free understanding.

So while the elect are guided into ALL truth, not all doctrines are known to be true?

[tomas1]

Indeed I'm sure he does. However, the Holy Spirit and the word of God give other people who believe different things confidence that they know the truth too.

If you believe in a false Christ its not the Holy Spirit that gives you confidence. We are told not to believe every spirit and how to tell when a spirit is trying to deceive us.

So does the Mormon, so does the Baptist, so does the Pentacostal, so does the non-denominationalist, so does the Lutheran, so does the Methodist, so does the Roman Catholic.

What you call yourself has even less to do with your salvation than what you know.

[HIS]

No one has yet showed me that the list I posted has any essentials missing nor have they shown me that one that list is non-essential. There have been claims...:D

(Luke 13:3 KJV) "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

whs1...You didn't include the need for repentance in your listing. Does this mean you don't accept Luke 13:3, 5 as essential?

[thepaulinator]

If you believe in a false Christ its not the Holy Spirit that gives you confidence

Please excuse me but, ya don't say? I do not deny that, I have yet to deny that, and saying it there isn't much said.


We are told not to believe every spirit and how to tell when a spirit is trying to deceive us.

I suppose I will be told that a person is deceived when a deceiving spirit deceives them =). However, surely the person disagreeing is aware of the testing of spirits, and feels the spirit testifying to him is the spirit of truth. At least one of you is in error, for the spirit of truth does not teach two differing things as truth. I am asking how you know for certain the spirit teaching you is the spirit of truth, and the other person is being deceived.

You say, "go to the scriptures", I say, "we already have, and we still disagree". You say, "test the spirit", I say, "both of us have, and we still believe we are in the truth on the matter", you say, "go to scripture" , I say, like I said, we already have. and so on...

I want to how you know that you will always be led in truth.

[tomas1]

Please excuse me but, ya don't say? I do not deny that, I have yet to deny that, and saying it there isn't much said.
this is what you said
Quote:
However, the Holy Spirit and the word of God give other people who believe different things confidence
sounds to me like you said the Holy spirit gave them confidence

You say, "go to the scriptures", I say, "we already have, and we still disagree". You say, "test the spirit", I say, "both of us have, and we still believe we are in the truth on the matter", you say, "go to scripture" , I say, like I said, we already have. and so on...

We are of God. He who knows God listens to us. He who is not of God doesn't listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

If we both “listen to the Apostles” and still have a different idea as to what it is telling us then John says its not an essential matter. However it’s been my experience that those who believe in a false Christ don’t listen to the apostles they have there own voices to listen to. Like the governing board for JWs or the first presidency for Mormons or dare I say the Pope

[whs1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by whs1
No one has yet showed me that the list I posted has any essentials missing nor have they shown me that one that list is non-essential. There have been claims...:D


(Luke 13:3 KJV) "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

whs1...You didn't include the need for repentance in your listing. Does this mean you don't accept Luke 13:3, 5 as essential?


6. Our Lord Jesus Christ's substitutionary, limited, vicarious death and sacrifice for the sins of His people (in that he gave his life a ransom for many) was effectual only for those whom God the Father chose in Jesus Christ to believe and obey Jesus Christ as Lord in his gospel. [Matthew 1:21, 1 Peter 2:24, Colossians 2:6; & Hebrews 5:9, & Romans 10:16]


"obey Jesus Christ as Lord in his gospel" does not involve repent???

Since when?;)

[bgamall]

"If we both “listen to the Apostles” and still have a different idea as to what it is telling us then John says its not an essential matter. However it’s been my experience that those who believe in a false Christ don’t listen to the apostles they have there own voices to listen to. Like the governing board for JWs or the first presidency for Mormons or dare I say the Pope"

That view is erroneous. Of course people who are elect will come to the same agreement on two essential doctrines, 1:the evils of law preaching and the wrong use of law in general and 2: the evil of teaching eternal generation of the Son. These must be added to predestination as being essential because those evils attack the faith at the root.

The wrong use of law includes using the OT as a moral guide instead of the apostles, and includes taking upon oneself to create or defend sacralism.

Most on this board really don't grasp these issues. And no one has defended my stand but me. However the 1646 London Confession people stood for what I am saying here. They have been ignored by this board as well.

[thepaulinator]

Please excuse me but, ya don't say? I do not deny that, I have yet to deny that, and saying it there isn't much said.
this is what you said
Quote:
However, the Holy Spirit and the word of God give other people who believe different things confidence
sounds to me like you said the Holy spirit gave them confidence

In saying that, I meant, "these other people think the holy spirit is guiding them". But that is not the point. The point is I want to know how you know yourself to be correct beyond the possibility for error, and the others to be in error.


If we both “listen to the Apostles” and still have a different idea as to what it is telling us then John says its not an essential matter

So as soon as you go to scripture, and still disagree, it isn't essential? Then your list will be very short indeed.


However it’s been my experience that those who believe in a false Christ don’t listen to the apostles they have there own voices to listen to. Like the governing board for JWs or the first presidency for Mormons or dare I say the Pope

Actually, I triple dog dare you to say it =). No one here wants to actually come out and say what they are actually saying, that being...

"I am elect, and I will always be led in the truth by the spirit of truth, free from the possibility of error"

Compare that with the following claim Roman Catholics make

"The Bishop of Rome is not necessarily elect, but the Holy Spirit will guide him in authoritative pronouncements about faith and morals only, free from the possibility of error"

[tomas1]

The point is I want to know how you know yourself to be correct beyond the possibility for error
I never once said I thought that

No one here wants to actually come out and say what they are actually saying, that being...

"I am elect, and I will always be led in the truth by the spirit of truth, free from the possibility of error"
Man thats a straw man if I ever saw one. You tell us what we mean then tell us how its wrong :o I allready pointed out how I have been in error at times

So as soon as you go to scripture, and still disagree, it isn't essential? Then your list will be very short indeed.

I believe I have already said I have no such list. I agree with you that all such lists are incomplete at best and possibly in error. However I have yet to meet any one who treated the Bible as the final authority who did not agree with Billtwisse’s list for example.

[thepaulinator]

I allready pointed out how I have been in error at times

Of course you have. Coming to find you were in error implies you have come to know the truth, or eventually, inevitably and infallibly WILL come to the truth, because, like you said...

"But the fact remains I know Him. I know that with ABOUSOLUTE CERTAINTY"
-You a few posts back

Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). To say you know Jesus with Absolute Certainty can be equivocated with saying, "I know [truth] with absolute certainty". So we have the following...

1) I know the truth (Jesus) with aboslute certainty

2) I have been in error about the truth (Jesus) at times

#2 would seem to show #1 to be incorrect.


Man thats a straw man if I ever saw one. You tell us what we mean then tell us how its wrong

:o

What then do you mean by, "I know Jesus with absolute certainty". Or, "I know Jesus, and I could be wrong about what I think about him now, but the Holy Spirit will show me my error if that be the case."

To me, statements like that seem to mean, as a member of the elect, I cannot come to believe something contradictory to the spirit of truth. Since I kept asking and no one would answer, I took what you (all of you) have told me, to the logical conclusion.


However I have yet to meet any one who treated the Bible as the final authority who did not agree with Billtwisse’s list for example.

Ok, let's look at it...

1. Some basic and genuine affirmation of the Trinity.
2. Some basic and genuine affirmation of the Deity of Christ.
3. Some basic and genuine affirmation of justification by grace through faith alone, in the person and work of Christ alone.
4. Some basic and genuine affirmation of the authority of the Old and New Testaments of scripture.
5. Some basic and genuine affirmation that God alone saves and he alone is glorified in the salvation process.
6. Some basic and genuine affirmation that the Holy Spirit renews the mind unto both faith in the gospel and good works honoring that gospel.
7. Some basic and genuine affirmation of the historical plan of salvation (i.e., a basic confession of God as creator and that Christ as Lord of all will ultimately come again and renew all things--to the glory and honor of God the Father).

1. Check
2. Check
3. No Check
4. Check
5. Check
6. Check
7. Check

I have a problem, because I disagree with #2. So in the eyes of this list, I am not essentially saved. I must be reprobate.

If someone agreed with al 7 of these, and yet, believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, would they still be essentially saved?

Possible Answer 1) If you agree with these 7, you will inevitably disagree with the Immaculate conception of Mary, which is an error. Therefore, it is not a possibility.

Which essentially says, "Erring is not a possibility".

Possible Answer 2) Yes that person is still essentially saved, as long as the 7 are believed.

Which fundamentally says, "this list is the infallible list of Christian essentials, anything more that is believed can be disagreed upon until the Lord reveals the fulness of truth at Glory". If the list were fallible, the possibility of having an extra essential encluded (#3 in my case for example), or an essential left out (immaculate conception, keep in mind, it is only for the sake of argument I use that belief).

[Jason777]

Paulinator,

Regarding the assurance of salvation, what are your thoughts on this verse? :

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (I John 5:13)

[tomas1]

First of all Pauinator I want to thank you for this discussion it has been rewarding to me. Also I would like to apologize for my sometimes harsh tone I mean no disrespect its just the way I talk.

Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). To say you know Jesus with Absolute Certainty can be equivocated with saying, "I know [truth] with absolute certainty". So we have the following...

I know this might sound corny or touchy feely but do you know him personally?
When the bible speaks of Jesus as truth it means so much more than absence of error. When I speak of knowing him I never said I knew him completely I will spend eternity getting to know him better but a finite human can never know completely an infinite God.

To me, statements like that seem to mean, as a member of the elect, I cannot come to believe something contradictory to the spirit of truth.

If you are interested we had a long discussion with Mark Carpenter and company on this very subject recently I’m not sure which thread it’s in but I think you would find that most of us here believe you can believe things that are contradictory with the gospel at least for a time. Clear thinking is not a requirement for salvation only Grace through Faith.

I have a problem, because I disagree with #2. So in the eyes of this list, I am not essentially saved. I must be reprobate.

I said that was among people who treat the Bible as the final authority. Do you believe that the Bible is the final authority? If so we need to have a talk. ;)


Which fundamentally says, "this list is the infallible list of Christian essentials, anything more that is believed can be disagreed upon until the Lord reveals the fulness of truth at Glory". If the list were fallible, the possibility of having an extra essential encluded (#3 in my case for example), or an essential left out (immaculate conception, keep in mind, it is only for the sake of argument I use that belief).

Could you explain to me why you keep going back to lists is it because you a trying to win an argument? I have repeatedly said that lists make no difference to God.

[tomas1]

Paulinator:

Since you seem to be stuck on getting a list of essentials. I thought I would do my best to oblige. My list is not a list of facts that you must believe or things you must do in order to be found worthy of salvation as I said before I don’t think there is such a list. My list is a list of characteristics that are essential in a Christ that is worthy of my love service and worship. This is only a partial list maybe some here can help me to fill it out a bit.

1. My Jesus loves me unconditionally. He loves me no matter what I do or think. He loves me simply because that’s the kind of person he is.
2. My Jesus loves me totally. He loved me enough to sacrifice everything he had and die for me before I even so much as gave him the time of day
3. My Jesus is Holy he does not wink at sin and won’t be satisfied with me until I am conformed to his own perfect likeness.
4. My Jesus is omnipotent only he has the power to save me. Only he can mold me into the kind of person that I was meant to be. Only He can take this cockroach of a sinner and mold me into someone of value.

Is this the Jesus you know?

[bgamall]

"4. My Jesus is omnipotent only he has the power to save me. Only he can mold me into the kind of person that I was meant to be. Only He can take this cockroach of a sinner and mold me into someone of value."

If you were convicted by His gospel and not the law this statement is true. If not it is not true. If you believe He is equal to the Father your statement is true. If you believe in eternal generation this statement is untrue because it is a different Christ.

[thepaulinator]

First of all Pauinator I want to thank you for this discussion it has been rewarding to me. Also I would like to apologize for my sometimes harsh tone I mean no disrespect its just the way I talk.

No apologies =). You are being just as civil as I am, and thank you as well for this discussion.


I know this might sound corny or touchy feely but do you know him personally?
When the bible speaks of Jesus as truth it means so much more than absence of error. When I speak of knowing him I never said I knew him completely I will spend eternity getting to know him better but a finite human can never know completely an infinite God.

Yes, I feel that I know him personally. But why ask that? If I don't "know" Him like you "know" Him, it is a "cheap imitation", like the Mormon who feels He knows Him. How do you decifer which is the cheap imitation, and which is not? You will most likley say the Bible, and that is where I am confused because we are both using the Bible (Granted, the Mormon uses more, but the non-trinitarian uses the same one, the Roman Catholic Uses the same one).


If you are interested we had a long discussion with Mark Carpenter and company on this very subject recently I’m not sure which thread it’s in but I think you would find that most of us here believe you can believe things that are contradictory with the gospel at least for a time. Clear thinking is not a requirement for salvation only Grace through Faith.

"At least for a time", could you explain slightly?


I said that was among people who treat the Bible as the final authority. Do you believe that the Bible is the final authority? If so we need to have a talk

No I don't, but in the eyes of those who do (apparently), I am reprobate. If you say that is not necessarily true, and I could possibly be elect, because it is in the eyes of men, you have hit my point on the nose.


Could you explain to me why you keep going back to lists is it because you a trying to win an argument? I have repeatedly said that lists make no difference to God.

You are right, God doesn't use a check list, and I am not putting that forth. I am simply using the lists as a means to show that fundamentally, there are certain things you must believe about Christ, else you believe in a "cheap immitation". These things are contained in the Bible, but they are found and interpreted by men. That being so, men can't know infallibly what one should believe about the person of Christ. If that is so, if you conclude someone is in contradiction to one of these things (fundamental things), and thus believing in a "cheap immitation", since your knowledge of those things is fallible, that assertion ALSO contains the POSSIBILITY of error. With that reasoning, telling a Mormon he believes in a cheap immitation, contains at least the possibility of being wrong (I'm not defending Mormons by the way, just using the example as an extreme to show my point). Further, telling yourself that you believe in the REAL Christ carries the same amount of fallibility, and if that is so, you don't know Christ, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.


Paulinator,

Regarding the assurance of salvation, what are your thoughts on this verse? :

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (I John 5:13)

First I would ask, does everyone who believes in the name of Christ (this includes Calvinists, Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Mormons etc.) and reads 1 John 5:13, now has absolute assurance? Is everyone who reads the verses pertaining to "eternal security" and believes them to be speaking to them personally a member of the elect? I would say no. If the elect reads them, yes. If the reprobate reads them, no. Which brings me back to the question,

"how do you know with absolute assurance that you are elect?"

You say, "the Bible tells me so!" or "the spirit has tesitified!".

I say, "those who are 'reprobate' say the same things!, believing themselves to be absolutely certainly elect!, but how are YOU free from this same error!?" You say, "Because I am elect". At which point, I don't know what to do, because you I hear this (maybe it's because I am reprobate that I can't hear the truth)

"how do you know with absolute assurance that you are elect?"

Final answer:

"Because I am elect"

Which doesn't really answer my question. I apologize for this crazy sounding thread, but I am earnestly seaking truth...

Maybe the question phrased this way will help:

"Do you know infallibly that you are elect?"

[thepaulinator]

1. My Jesus loves me unconditionally. He loves me no matter what I do or think. He loves me simply because that’s the kind of person he is.
2. My Jesus loves me totally. He loved me enough to sacrifice everything he had and die for me before I even so much as gave him the time of day
3. My Jesus is Holy he does not wink at sin and won’t be satisfied with me until I am conformed to his own perfect likeness.
4. My Jesus is omnipotent only he has the power to save me. Only he can mold me into the kind of person that I was meant to be. Only He can take this cockroach of a sinner and mold me into someone of value.

Is this the Jesus you know?

Yes. I asked three different friends of mine the same question. One was a devout Mormon, and he said yes. One was Southern Baptist, again, the answer was yes. Another was a Methodist, again, yes.

My point is the following:

I asked if a Mormon who believed in Christ knew Christ. You said no, because that "Christ" was a "cheap immitation". However, according to this list, it is the same Christ as you. So obviously, things that are not considered on that list, are setting Christians and Mormons apart, and if that be the case, something other than those things determine which Christ is the "real" one.

[tomas1]

Yes, I feel that I know him personally.
The Christ that you know can’t have the characteristics that I listed? Ether he can’t save someone he loves or his love is not unconditional.

[thepaulinator]

The Christ that you know can’t have the characteristics that I listed?

I didn't say the Christ I know can't have those things.


Ether he can’t save someone he loves or his love is not unconditional.

I believe this to be a false dichotomy (though I think it is supposed to read, "either He can't save someone he loves, or his love is unconditional, because if I choose from your options, I lose both ways)as well as being in contradiction with the Calvinistic view of predestination. Calvinism teaches that Jesus actively doesn't save the reprobate by merit of devine election, and only saves the elect. If this is how you view salvation, you are know at ends with the majority of this message board. However, the calvinist might say Jesus does not love the reprobate, at which point, you have just created a condition on which Jesus's love is dependent, that being, wether or not one is reprobate.

However, I believe God loves all of His creation, wether they end up in hell or heaven. An analogy...A parent does not punish his child because the parent hates the child or loves them less, the parent punishes the child because the parent despises what the child did/said. Applying your dichotomy to this situation...

Either a parent loves their child or they punish the child.

If you are a parent, you see how this is a false dichotomy. If not, ask your parents =). The analogy differes because it is temporal punishment verses eternal punishment, but I think it suits us.

[thepaulinator]

me:


(though I think it is supposed to read, "either He can't save someone he loves, or his love is unconditional, because if I choose from your options, I lose both ways)

I take this back, I read it wrong =).

and this:
"Either a parent loves their child or they punish the child."

Should read:
"Either a parent does not love their child or they punish the child."

[Robert R. Higby]

Well, I can't respond to EVERY point of the last few days. I have been dealing with a broken internet connection which works about 5% of the time! Anyway, I would say this:

The arguments of the Paulinist:
Much has been made of the fallibility of men in these arguments, i.e., we can't depend on any list that 'fallible men' come up with! But all historic churchmen (whether Papist, Protestant, or ?) base their argument on the need for 'infallible' (Papal) or 'patently correct' (Protestant) interpreters based on the notion that ALMOST all men are fallible in their confessions and assertions. But the Holy Spirit leads all believers into the truth. The only reason a believer is afraid to claim the truth is because of the teachings of historic churchmen, not Christ. The truth is there to be found in the Word. The Holy Spirit gives all believers a seed-knowledge of truth at conversion. Mature doctrine cannot be discovered without much prayer, study, and struggling--but it is there to be found nonetheless. The genius of the Reformation is this: it proposed that the plowman can know the truths of scripture as well as the educated theologian. That is a radical proposition that Protestants of today are still unwilling to promote!

The rest of you (whs1, bgamall, etc.)--I will get to you shortly on the issue of debating what the ACTUAL list of basic confession should be. It seems that the more basic argument is that some are challenging that such a list can even exist that we can have confidence in.

Paulinator, you are denying paradox theology--but promoting its very essence by stating that fallible men cannot state the truth in propositions. Byzantine theology states that almost almost all propositions are both true and false to some extent--therefore we can't really state that a proposition of man is also a proposition of God.

To respond to your most recent argument:

Calvinism teaches that Jesus actively doesn't save the reprobate by merit of devine election, and only saves the elect.

Very true. Any other teaching would propose that Jesus truly made atonement for Judas (suffered infinitely for his sins); the Judas who had just hung himself--yet Jesus is eternally mourning for Judas and required to send him to hell with 'tears and divine frustration'--due to the demands of the eternal law requiring him to defend his divine honor (Anselm, Aquinas). The same teaching would apply to every other member of reprobate humanity.

However, the calvinist might say Jesus does not love the reprobate, at which point, you have just created a condition on which Jesus's love is dependent, that being, wether or not one is reprobate.

This is the cart before the horse. His love precedes all and is not dependent on any quality in the creature.
Elect: For his glory, God determined to set his special love on a people--a people whom he would create fallen, appoint his Son as their saviour from sin, and redeem them to himself.
Non-elect: For his glory, God determined to manifest his wrath toward a people--a people whom he would create in eternal sin and send to eternal punishment.

However, I believe God loves all of His creation, wether they end up in hell or heaven. An analogy...A parent does not punish his child because the parent hates the child or loves them less, the parent punishes the child because the parent despises what the child did/said.

This contains a lot of paradox theology, since it proposes that God sends many that he loves to damnation (a true contradiction). Discipline is not punishment. God disciplines all whom he loves (the elect) but this is far from punishing them eternally! The relationship of the parent to the child is like that of God to the elect (whom he disciplines but purposes to bring to his glory in the end). In no way is it representative of God's relationship to the non-elect.

I do disagree with historic supralapsarians on the disposition of God's general goodness toward the non-elect, however. God is good to all his creation, simply because it is he who created them. So the reprobate shall know both God's general goodness and also his wrath in the execution of their punishment.

[HIS]

"obey Jesus Christ as Lord in his gospel" does not involve repent???

Since when?;)

In my opinion to obey Jesus Christ as Lord in His gospel DOES involve or include the actions of repentance. I'm just wondering why you and so many other Christians so often neglect to mention it when someone asked the question, "what must I or an individual do to be saved?"

Possible reasons:

The call to Repentance is considered too harsh to suggest someone say or advise a the sinner.

Some actually don't feel repentance is needed for "being counted" or "born again" or "saved".

It is unintentionally forgotten by those responding to the question of what a person needs to do to be saved.

It is result of the watered down modern message of "saved by grace through faith alone."

They don't understand how do define repentance.


Could be other reasons...

I'm happy that you agree that repentance is critical now that I have brought it up. I do the same when I forget some points I am also making in chat. There are many excellent points made in this forum to remind us of God's truths. There are a list of other basic "absolutes" you might also agree with (that I have not yet seen in this thread) if I post them.

[thepaulinator]

The genius of the Reformation is this: it proposed that the plowman can know the truths of scripture as well as the educated theologian

Yes, genius. Anyone can know the truth of the scriptures, the question is...will they? I think you can agree, that NOT everyone who reads the Bible comes to know the truth. Not every plowman will know the truth by reading the scriptures, even though he is capable. And then again, that phrase should even be qualified more...

"The genius of the Reformation is this: it proposed that the plowman [who happens to be a member of the elect] can know the truths of scripture as well as the educated theologian"

That is interesting, only the elect will know what the elect will know? Am I the only one who doesn't get anything from that logical flow? Only the ones who read the Bible and come to agree with your beliefs (foundational) seem to be correct. In other words, if the plowboy picks up scripture, reads it, and comes to believe as say, an arminian does, is probably reprobate, because the spirit didn't lead to calvinism. Basically, yes, a plowman can find the truth, but that doesn't mean he will (as the many differing beliefs testify to). If that is true, then where do you go to see which plowman has it right? Which plowboy got it right? Most here would lean towards Calvin I think, though they would never say that, they would just say, "the sciptures are perfectly clear, any plowboy would get it", and then I'm back to step 1, and wondering how they know tey are the elect plowboys, and the rest the reprobate ones =/.


Paulinator, you are denying paradox theology--but promoting its very essence by stating that fallible men cannot state the truth in propositions.

But that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that fallible men cannot state the truth in propositions, infallibly, free from the possibility of error, unless he is repeating an infallibly declared truth. An example.

OK
Declared infallible truth (I will use one agreed upon): Those who have done evil will be condemned

Fallible Man repeating: If you are a murderer, you will be condemned

TROUBLESOME
Proposed truth from scripture: I am elect
Fallible man repeating: I am elect

It is very obvious in scripture as well as outside it, that Christians have always believed murderers to be sinners

It is very obvious in scripture that the elect will infallibly be saved.

It is NOT very obvious in scripture, that Bill Twisse is elect. I could understand you having an infallible assurance of your election if there was a verse somewhere saying, "and Bill Twisse will surely be with Christ in heaven". HOwever, the conclusion that you are a member of the elect does not come from something being very very clear in scripture, but rather, from your interpretations of how an elect person will live. I see a difference.


Byzantine theology states that almost almost all propositions are both true and false to some extent--therefore we can't really state that a proposition of man is also a proposition of God.

If this is also a false way to see this, explain to be how a fallible man states a proposition of God, infallibly. That is what I have been asking for.


This is the cart before the horse. His love precedes all and is not dependent on any quality in the creature.
Elect: For his glory, God determined to set his special love on a people--a people whom he would create fallen, appoint his Son as their saviour from sin, and redeem them to himself.
Non-elect: For his glory, God determined to manifest his wrath toward a people--a people whom he would create in eternal sin and send to eternal punishment.

Is this saying he loves the reprobate or not?


In no way is it representative of God's relationship to the non-elect

What is God's relationship to the non-elect?

[tomas1]

Allow me to elaborate on what I posted earlier.
One way to describe God is as the greatest conceivable being. Now my Christ can do at least one the following things that yours cannot
1. Love at least 1 person unconditionally meaning regardless of any merit on that persons part
Or
2. Save completely all those he loves with this special unconditional love
Your Christ is by definition not the greatest conceivable being and therefore is not God and is not worthy of worship would you not agree.

However, I believe God loves all of His creation, wether they end up in hell or heaven.
I agree although I am in the minority here. However I think you would agree he does not love all creation unconditionally (again meaning regardless of any merit on their part) and totally. Otherwise you would have to support universalism.

[Robert R. Higby]

Paulinator:

I can see why you are upset with some of the conclusions here, based on your own presuppositions. However, I have to stand by my conviction and confession that stating the truth in propositions is possible for fallible men.

If this is also a false way to see this, explain to be how a fallible man states a proposition of God, infallibly. That is what I have been asking for.

Well, God speaks his truth through earthen vessels, that it might be proven that the glory of the gospel is not due to man's genius but that it comes from the Lord alone!

We confess that holy men of God stated the truth of God infallibly in the scriptures. In addition, men enlightened by the Spirit in any age can state the same truths infallibly. It is not that all words uttered by them are infallible or true, only that when they speak in harmony with the biblical revelation--their thoughts are God's thoughts, their words are God's words--the Holy Spirit speaking through them!

If I believed anything else, I would believe in the horrible notion that it is not possible for fallible men to truly proclaim the gospel.

Personally, I do not believe that all who are presently in the Roman Catholic communion are lost. My best friend of a few years ago (who died in a horrible tragic accident) was a Roman Catholic--and by all appearances was a gospel believer. None of us are worthy to enter the Lord's everlasting kingdom in our own goodness. We can only be accounted worthy to enter through the merits of Christ's life and death.

[bgamall]

Bill, you have been away I see. I want to know what specifically you opposed in Jon Zens theology. Remember, I only know his theology as of the early 80's. I saw him one time in the mid 90's but did not see if there was any major change. I would like to know what you learned from him that was unacceptable to you. Thanks, Gary

[whs1]

Paulinator: You sound very anxious to disprove what you "conclude" that certain persons believe about the Bible.

You have a problem with "infalliblity" coming from man. Right? Correct me if wrong.

But you [as I understand from another thread] are Roman Catholic. Right? Correct me if wrong.

As a Roman Catholic...you follow a man who has [Down through the ages] been endowed as the "Vicar Of Christ on EARTH"...the very quality of "INFALLIBILITY"...that you rail against. Right? Correct me if wrong. {There are quotes if necessary.}

You also seem to be against anyone claiming that they can KNOW FOR SURE that they are one of the elect, and that there are a class of persons that are the reprobate whose destiny cannot be changed no matter what they do.

Right? Correct me if wrong.


So, if you hate these [possibilities to you] why do you accept your "Church with it's infallible Pope and Councils that anathmatize everyone who disagrees with it calling people elect who continue to give an unquestioning allegiance to its every command...while pronouncing "REPROBATE" on those who dissent????

The council of trent does exactly that with it's anathemas, Right, Correct me if I am wrong.


Paulinator: Wherein do we differ so much???

You have your infallible man [Pope] who tells you what the fallible books says.
We [those who believe in an infallible Bible and are led into all truth by the infallible Spirit of truth] have an infallible book: Holy Scripture who tells us what an infallible God says it says.

Do you believe [God] is infallible?
Who is God?
If he is infallible, then what is the problem with believing that His word is infallible?

I need a Divine leader not a human one.

[bgamall]

Unfortunately, the basic doctrines of Protestantism are closer to Catholicism than are my positions. This is regarding eternal generation, law preaching, New Covenant theology, etc. Both the Protestants and the Catholics believed that the Old Covenant was a covenant of grace. This is total confusion and a denial of the Superiority of the New Covenant.

The real anathema applies to covenant theology and its modern bedfellow, dispensationalism.

[disciple]

So while the scriptures are infallible, they cannot tell everyone infallibly what is essential? This is, of course, not because of the lack of material sufficiency, but rather can be blamed on the fallability of the interpreter (in this case, us). If that is so, then there at least exists the POSSIBILITY that what you have interpreted from scripture is false. The same possibility remains for anything I interpret. If that is so, we can't know if anything we hold to be true is correct without any possibility of error, until the fulness of time. If that is true, it includes our thoughts on our eternal destiny...

Again, that belief that you can certainly know with absolute certainty that you are "saved" is based on an interpretation of scripture that contains the possibility for error. You very well could be correct in your belief, but by the very definition of fallibility and "possibility for error", you could also be just as wrong. If that is the casem it is not absolute certainty. In other words, we begin with the infallible source (sacred scripture) containing a teaching, from that source the information goes to a fallible source (you and me) and an interpretation is formed with the possibility of error, from that interpretation, an infallible conclusion is drawn ("I am saved"). How does one go from a fallible idea to an infallible conclusion? If it is not an infallible conclusion, it contains the possibility of error, and absolute certainty becomes, "strong confidence".but this is the way a skeptic reasons and not a follower of Christ. we who are indwelt by God's Spirit do not reason in such a way for we have the mind of Christ:

1 Co 1:4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord...18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Co 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

2 Tim 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. 8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. 12 For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

1 John 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world our faith. 5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

granted our hearts can deceive us, but the elect cannot be ultimately deceived. having an infallible church (read "hierarchy") to interpret and think for us does not remove the uncertainty from the equation. all you have done in that case is inserted a middle man (read "fallible human") that requires interpretation as well (and even those middle men do not agree oftentimes). why not just cut out the middle man or consult him only for reference? we have the very words of the apostles and are indwelt by God's Spirit (having the mind of Christ). this does not mean infallible interpretation on our part but it does mean that we are priests before God able to discern the things of God.

if no truth can be known to be true infallibly, then can anything at all be known for certain? can you know for certain that the church or pope is infallible? can you infallibly know this? if everything is so iffy, then what is the point of any propositional idea at all? it's like pilate's question, "what is truth?" but we are not of this ilk nor are we to doubt in this way. we have confidence because the One who has revealed Himself is faithful and worthy of such confidence.

[disciple]

Could anyone provide for me an exaustive list of the salvific, essential doctrines that all of God's elect should/will believe? (Trinity, TULIP, etc.) More simply, what are the essentials?can you provide a list? does the roman catholic church have a list? what do you believe is the minimum?

[thepaulinator]

You have a problem with "infalliblity" coming from man. Right? Correct me if wrong.

Ok
correction:
I have a problem with "infallibility" coming from "any" man (e.g. a plowboy)

But you [as I understand from another thread] are Roman Catholic. Right? Correct me if wrong.

Correct


As a Roman Catholic...you follow a man who has [Down through the ages] been endowed as the "Vicar Of Christ on EARTH"...the very quality of "INFALLIBILITY"...that you rail against. Right? Correct me if wrong. {There are quotes if necessary.}

Slight correction:
I have yet to rail against the "quality of infallibility". It is the "quality of infallibility" in fallible men that I am railing against. By the definition of the office in the Roman Catholic church, the Bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, is infallible. You claim eventual knowledge of truth because of your infallible knowledge of your election. The Roman Catholic believes the pope is infallible because he believes it is historically and biblically so (I am not trying to engage in a papl infallibility discussion, just pointing to my beliefs).


You also seem to be against anyone claiming that they can KNOW FOR SURE that they are one of the elect, and that there are a class of persons that are the reprobate whose destiny cannot be changed no matter what they do.

Right? Correct me if wrong.

correction:
I believe there is a class of persons that are reprobate who cannot change their destiny:
a) because they do not know their destiny in order to change it
b) if they could change themselves to the elect, it would go against their definition of reprobate


So, if you hate these [possibilities to you] why do you accept your "Church with it's infallible Pope and Councils that anathmatize everyone who disagrees with it calling people elect who continue to give an unquestioning allegiance to its every command...while pronouncing "REPROBATE" on those who dissent????

The council of trent does exactly that with it's anathemas, Right, Correct me if I am wrong.

correction:
anathema does not equal being pronounced reprobate


Paulinator: Wherein do we differ so much???

I think you have just hit the nail on the head. If you can claim to know something infallibly, why is it not ok for the pope or the roman catholic church to do so as well? That is the ultimate point of all of this. If you can claim to know your election, infallibly, as you see it in scripture, you are no longer fallible on matters of your election. If the pope and the church claim to teach truth about faith and morals as it sees it in history and scripture, infallibly, how is this as detestible as it is to you?

You have your infallible man [Pope] who tells you what the fallible books says.
We [those who believe in an infallible Bible and are led into all truth by the infallible Spirit of truth] have an infallible book: Holy Scripture who tells us what an infallible God says it says.

correction:
I believe the bible to be infallible


Do you believe [God] is infallible?
Who is God?
If he is infallible, then what is the problem with believing that His word is infallible?

Yes

God is "the being one". God is the creator of all. God is the alpha and the omega. God is truth

I don't have a problem with His infallible word. I never said I did. You believe God only speaks infallibly through the Bible. I believe, if God can speak infallibly through a group of texts, inanimate objects, surely he can speak that way through a group of men. Just as God only speaks infallibly though one book as a collection of those texts, and not all books, God only speaks infallibly through one group of men collected in one church, and not all men.


but this is the way a skeptic reasons and not a follower of Christ. we who are indwelt by God's Spirit do not reason in such a way for we have the mind of Christ

I do not doubt the power of Christ, I doubt my election, for not all who cry to the lord are saved. I don't doubt the effects of the merits of Christ to those who are actually elect, I doubt that I am in their number. Does this mean I believe myself to be reprobate? No, only a fool would say to himself, "I'm reprobate, I guess I should just not care anymore, when the truth is staring him in the face." Therefore, I take heed lest I fall, and never assume I never will. That does not mean I do not have a strong confidence, I just don't have absolute assurance.


granted our hearts can deceive us, but the elect cannot be ultimately deceived

I know =). By their definition, it is an impossibility.


having an infallible church (read "hierarchy") to interpret and think for us does not remove the uncertainty from the equation

I wasn't trying to remove the uncertainty.


why not just cut out the middle man or consult him only for reference?

I consult the church when I have questions, if after prayer and study I do not find the answers. If I cut the church out, and the scenerio again happens, I can't go back to the source of my interpretation, for I have been doing that all along unable to come to a conclusion of truth. I will eventually go to somone I respect as being wise and who understands scripture. Then, because he also might be in error, though I feel pointed in the right direction, am never absolutely certain I have come to the truth on the matter. You might say this is exctly what I'm doing with the church, and I agree. The only thing the church has on the wise man who seems to understand scripture, is experience and history, part of that history being claimed as the historical Church of Christ. If I didn't believe that to be so, then I wouldn't care what it thought as much as I currently do.


we have the very words of the apostles and are indwelt by God's Spirit (having the mind of Christ). this does not mean infallible interpretation on our part but it does mean that we are priests before God able to discern the things of God.

Yes we have their words, and as I show time and time again, I don't understand all of them very well. Peter warns me about the writings of Paul being difficult to understand, I need someone to teach them to me. God is obviously the best teacher, but I have a habit of not listening to Him as attentively as I ought, as well as not being able to hear Him directly. That being so, I trust the group of men that I believe to be historically selected for this very thing, to preach and teach the meaning of Christ and His Apostle's words. I think those men make up the Roman Catholic church. You believe these men are not necissarily in direct connection with one another and/or a single faith, and that is where we differ.


if no truth can be known to be true infallibly, then can anything at all be known for certain?

I never said no truth can be known infallibly. I say a truth that you interpret from scripture on your own should not be believed to be known infallibly, unless you are told it is so by an infallible source (you believe the holy spirit tells you this directly; I believe the holy spirit tells me directly, as well as confirms it to be true through the church, if the church disagrees, I conclude myself to be in error, and it was not the holy spirit, but a deceiving one).


can you know for certain that the church or pope is infallible? can you infallibly know this? if everything is so iffy, then what is the point of any propositional idea at all?

I can know these things as certain as history is certain. If historically, Christ did not exist, and the actual truth was Christ is a fable, then belief would be futile. However, Christ DID exist, and belief is not futile (though not even considering this possibility is truly a greater faith, I am honest in my belief, my faith is poor). If the Roman Catholic Church was not the historical church founded by Christ, listening to it would not be worth much. But if it is the historical church of Christ, Christ is always with it, and if that is so, I will listen.


can you provide a list? does the roman catholic church have a list? what do you believe is the minimum?

No I cannot. I don't think so. The absolute minimum, I think, would be baptism in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit(not necessarily only water, but baptism of desire/water/or blood e.g. martyrdom)

[disciple]

I do not doubt the power of Christ, I doubt my election, for not all who cry to the lord are saved. I don't doubt the effects of the merits of Christ to those who are actually elect, I doubt that I am in their number. Does this mean I believe myself to be reprobate? No, only a fool would say to himself, "I'm reprobate, I guess I should just not care anymore, when the truth is staring him in the face." Therefore, I take heed lest I fall, and never assume I never will. That does not mean I do not have a strong confidence, I just don't have absolute assurance.out of curiosity, why do you doubt? why do you think you may fall away? if you believe Christ now, what would ever make you fully fall away and why? i cannot judge your heart but God (and His word, Heb 4:12f) can and you can know what's there (though not infallibly). so i'm wondering what in your heart makes you so uncertain. the only reason i ask is not to teach you or get you to agree with me but to maybe be a help for you in being able to understand yourself.


I consult the church when I have questions, if after prayer and study I do not find the answers. If I cut the church out, and the scenerio again happens, I can't go back to the source of my interpretation, for I have been doing that all along unable to come to a conclusion of truth. I will eventually go to somone I respect as being wise and who understands scripture. Then, because he also might be in error, though I feel pointed in the right direction, am never absolutely certain I have come to the truth on the matter. You might say this is exctly what I'm doing with the church, and I agree. The only thing the church has on the wise man who seems to understand scripture, is experience and history, part of that history being claimed as the historical Church of Christ. If I didn't believe that to be so, then I wouldn't care what it thought as much as I currently do...

Yes we have their words, and as I show time and time again, I don't understand all of them very well. Peter warns me about the writings of Paul being difficult to understand, I need someone to teach them to me. God is obviously the best teacher, but I have a habit of not listening to Him as attentively as I ought, as well as not being able to hear Him directly. That being so, I trust the group of men that I believe to be historically selected for this very thing, to preach and teach the meaning of Christ and His Apostle's words. I think those men make up the Roman Catholic church. You believe these men are not necissarily in direct connection with one another and/or a single faith, and that is where we differ.so what happens if "the church" or the heirarchy disagrees? what happens if there is a contradiction? a simple example is the so-called babylonian captivity and the great schism (though there are many others). what do you do then? what if you consult several papal bulls, encyclicals, councils, fathers, etc. (i know you don't ascribe the same authority to them all) and you find that they have discrepancies? what happens then? what do you do?

and do you not also agree that these [papal bulls, encyclicals, councils, fathers, etc.] must be interpreted as well? or are they clearer than the Scripture? is only Scripture hard to understand and they are easy? can we infallibly interpret these?


I can know these things as certain as history is certain. If historically, Christ did not exist, and the actual truth was Christ is a fable, then belief would be futile. However, Christ DID exist, and belief is not futile (though not even considering this possibility is truly a greater faith, I am honest in my belief, my faith is poor). If the Roman Catholic Church was not the historical church founded by Christ, listening to it would not be worth much. But if it is the historical church of Christ, Christ is always with it, and if that is so, I will listen.i'm not sure what exactly you mean that history is certain. do you agree that history also needs to be interpreted? just read a book on history from a roman catholic, one from an Orthodox, one from a protestant, one from a mormon, etc. and you'll know what i'm talking about. even the idea that peter was the first pope and that the church was built upon him is something that needed to be interpreted and that must be argued from an interpretation of Scripture. i understand that the Roman Catholic argument is that this is an infallible interpretation of it based on early arguments to the primacy of the roman bishop (which was multiple bishops/elders early on) by the early church (beginning around the second century).


No I cannot. I don't think so. The absolute minimum, I think, would be baptism in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit(not necessarily only water, but baptism of desire/water/or blood e.g. martyrdom)what about the gospel (birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ)? why do you see only baptism as an essential? what leads you to make that assertion?

[Jason777]

I do not doubt the power of Christ, I doubt my election, for not all who cry to the lord are saved. I don't doubt the effects of the merits of Christ to those who are actually elect, I doubt that I am in their number. Does this mean I believe myself to be reprobate? No, only a fool would say to himself, "I'm reprobate, I guess I should just not care anymore, when the truth is staring him in the face." Therefore, I take heed lest I fall, and never assume I never will. That does not mean I do not have a strong confidence, I just don't have absolute assurance.



Why do you doubt your election? Are you saying that no one can have any kind of absolute assurance of salvation in this life? Trying to see what you're saying here....


Jason

[disciple]

Why do you doubt your election? Are you saying that no one can have any kind of absolute assurance of salvation in this life? Trying to see what you're saying here....i think i agree that we cannot know infallibly, but peter seems to think that we can be pretty certain:

2 Pe 1:8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

all of this has to do with your own assurance and certainty as to what God has done. this does not somehow make God more certain. it is not somehow a heaping up of our merits (even if they be works of grace) to impress and convince God that we are elect (or cause Him to elect us because of our merits). peter is unequivocal that this is for our own knowledge and certainty of such and not God's or neighbor's. when we are in sin, then we lose our certainty as we forget. it is not God who forgets or loses certainty, it is us. so when our life matches our profession, then we have a practical and subjective certainty that we are elect. if it doesn't, then we lose that certainty. that seems to be what peter is saying IMHO.

[Jason777]

Disciple,

Your explanation makes sense.

In Peter's admonition to "make certain about His calling and choosing you", it seems like he is saying, "if you're doing the things (or bearing the fruit) that a Christian is supposed to, then you can be sure that you are a Christian." Again, not that we are justified by works---but that works will come from a true and living faith, given by God.

[thepaulinator]

i think i agree that we cannot know infallibly, but peter seems to think that we can be pretty certain:

I agree


all of this has to do with your own assurance and certainty as to what God has done. this does not somehow make God more certain. it is not somehow a heaping up of our merits (even if they be works of grace) to impress and convince God that we are elect (or cause Him to elect us because of our merits). peter is unequivocal that this is for our own knowledge and certainty of such and not God's or neighbor's. when we are in sin, then we lose our certainty as we forget. it is not God who forgets or loses certainty, it is us. so when our life matches our profession, then we have a practical and subjective certainty that we are elect. if it doesn't, then we lose that certainty. that seems to be what peter is saying IMHO.

I agree


Why do you doubt your election? Are you saying that no one can have any kind of absolute assurance of salvation in this life? Trying to see what you're saying here....

I think I may have worded this wrong. It's not so much that I doubt I am elect in the sense that I think Im reprobate, I doubt the absolute certainty of it all. Like Peter says, "be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you." Kinda how the big fish in the river gets that way by never getting caught, the elect get that way by never falling away =).


out of curiosity, why do you doubt? why do you think you may fall away? if you believe Christ now, what would ever make you fully fall away and why? i cannot judge your heart but God (and His word, Heb 4:12f) can and you can know what's there (though not infallibly). so i'm wondering what in your heart makes you so uncertain. the only reason i ask is not to teach you or get you to agree with me but to maybe be a help for you in being able to understand yourself.

Because if it is possible for other people to fall away after believing Christ, which as you say just means they never truly belkieved in the first place, I too am able to do this, but this doesn't necessarily mean I will.


so what happens if "the church" or the heirarchy disagrees? what happens if there is a contradiction? a simple example is the so-called babylonian captivity and the great schism (though there are many others). what do you do then?

A contradiction within the heirarchy you mean? That's when the final say goes to the pope, as I believe.


what if you consult several papal bulls, encyclicals, councils, fathers, etc. (i know you don't ascribe the same authority to them all) and you find that they have discrepancies? what happens then? what do you do?

That depends on if I have studied such things, or if I'm just a guy off the street reading them. YOu get to the point soon.


and do you not also agree that these [papal bulls, encyclicals, councils, fathers, etc.] must be interpreted as well? or are they clearer than the Scripture? is only Scripture hard to understand and they are easy? can we infallibly interpret these?

Some things, maybe, other things are pretty blunt. But yes, just like some parts of scripture should not be left to the "fool" to interpret, some parts of Church teaching should not be left to the unaware (e.g. the church teaching on abortion, some try to say taht the church does not really believe abortion is explicitly wrong). So not all scripture is hard to understand, but some of it is, as Peter tells us about some of Paul's writings. In those cases, I don't trust my interpretation all that much, and I submit my interpretation to that of the church.


i'm not sure what exactly you mean that history is certain. do you agree that history also needs to be interpreted? just read a book on history from a roman catholic, one from an Orthodox, one from a protestant, one from a mormon, etc. and you'll know what i'm talking about. even the idea that peter was the first pope and that the church was built upon him is something that needed to be interpreted and that must be argued from an interpretation of Scripture. i understand that the Roman Catholic argument is that this is an infallible interpretation of it based on early arguments to the primacy of the roman bishop (which was multiple bishops/elders early on) by the early church (beginning around the second century).

Yes, exactly, history needs to be interpreted. Yes, people give different accounts about it. Some things about history are just obvious that they actually took place(e.g. WWII), and others are not so obvious. So that is where I am in my journey. So far, I find the Catholic church to be the most historic, but I try to read more about it all the time.


what about the gospel (birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ)? why do you see only baptism as an essential? what leads you to make that assertion?

Those things are important indeed. But for the theif on the cross, he didn't necessarily believe everything there was to believe about the life death burial and resurrection of Christ, explicitly. He was surely baptised, of desire, and therefore, was all He needed. He was lucky =).

[disciple]

Kinda how the big fish in the river gets that way by never getting caught, the elect get that way by never falling away =).i'm not sure if you're saying that you get to be elect by never falling away; if you are, that's not what it says. it is not that the elect become elect because they never fall away as this is only speaking of your own certainty of that fact.


Because if it is possible for other people to fall away after believing Christ, which as you say just means they never truly belkieved in the first place, I too am able to do this, but this doesn't necessarily mean I will.the principle is that you know a tree by its fruit (though not infallibly so). in general, if someone manifests no fruit or bad fruit, it is an indication that their profession is a false one. that is the subjective measure of our assurance. God's word and promise and the Spirit whom He has given us, is our objective measure of assurance.


A contradiction within the heirarchy you mean? That's when the final say goes to the pope, as I believe.but with the babylonian captivity and the great schism as an example, when there were three claimants to the papacy elected by the same college of cardinals, what do we do then? or if one pope disagrees with another? in that schema, is the pope the only one with the Spirit who can discern things infallibly? in that case, is the pope human or more than human? is his heart not deceptive as well? is he incapable of being deceived or deceiving himself?


Some things, maybe, other things are pretty blunt. But yes, just like some parts of scripture should not be left to the "fool" to interpret, some parts of Church teaching should not be left to the unaware (e.g. the church teaching on abortion, some try to say taht the church does not really believe abortion is explicitly wrong). So not all scripture is hard to understand, but some of it is, as Peter tells us about some of Paul's writings. In those cases, I don't trust my interpretation all that much, and I submit my interpretation to that of the church.and by church you mean pope? i can understand that you don't trust your interpretation all that much, but what if something the pope says clearly contradicts something that isn't hard to understand (i.e., it is blunt)? do you then bury your head in the sand and assume you are mistaken? don't you need to interpret the pope just like you need to interpret Scripture in this case? how do you know you've understood the pope correctly? what if the pope is hard to understand? if we are not allowed to judge the pope as the dictatus papae says, then how will we ever know? are we just supposed to impishly accept everything that comes from him just because of the claim to be peter's successor? if that is so, how do we figure out the babalyonian captivity and the great schism? which one was infallible?


Yes, exactly, history needs to be interpreted. Yes, people give different accounts about it. Some things about history are just obvious that they actually took place(e.g. WWII), and others are not so obvious. So that is where I am in my journey. So far, I find the Catholic church to be the most historic, but I try to read more about it all the time.how much do you know about the babylonian captivity and the great schism? what are your thoughts about that?


Those things are important indeed. But for the theif on the cross, he didn't necessarily believe everything there was to believe about the life death burial and resurrection of Christ, explicitly. He was surely baptised, of desire, and therefore, was all He needed. He was lucky =).are you saying that the thief on the cross was baptized? actually it seems that all He understood was that Christ was a King with an eternal kingdom and that He had the power to save him. perhaps from a human perspective, a simple faith is all that is required. works do not seem to be a factor in his justification as far as i can tell.

[thepaulinator]

i'm not sure if you're saying that you get to be elect by never falling away; if you are, that's not what it says. it is not that the elect become elect because they never fall away as this is only speaking of your own certainty of that fact.

I'm not at all. Poor analogy.


in general, if someone manifests no fruit or bad fruit, it is an indication that their profession is a false one. that is the subjective measure of our assurance. God's word and promise and the Spirit whom He has given us, is our objective measure of assurance.

How does one know his fruit is good fruit or that he bears any fruit at all?


but with the babylonian captivity and the great schism as an example, when there were three claimants to the papacy elected by the same college of cardinals, what do we do then?

As far as three claimants to the papacy, I do not think the same college elected three different popes. But I will read up on it. As far as I understand it, certain bishops in certain countries elected their own popes, while the legitamate Pope was of the three, but again, I will do some research. The great schism, when boiled down, was a quarrel between two sees, Constantinople, and Rome. So when the phrase, "prceeds from the father" became, "proceeds from the father and the son", all hades broke lose. The two phrases say the same thing, and both the east and west agree on whatis actually being said (the holy spirit proceeds from the father through the son), but since the times pit constantinople against Rome, anything could be used to protest Rome. What do we do then? Go with Rome. It should also be noted, that while those three "popes" were claiming the title, not one made an infallible pronouncement. So the official teaching of the church remained constant in those times, only the teachers were quarreling.


or if one pope disagrees with another? in that schema, is the pope the only one with the Spirit who can discern things infallibly? in that case, is the pope human or more than human? is his heart not deceptive as well? is he incapable of being deceived or deceiving himself?

No pope has infallibly declared something that contradicts something another pope has infallibly declared. HOwever, some popes have "taught" something another pope taught against. There is a difference, and that is how I understand the infallibility of the Pope. Any ex cathedra pronouncement won't and hasn't contradicted a previous one or future one, and that is how I understand it. The holy spirit only protects the pope from being in error infallibly for these pronouncements, not his every theology.


and by church you mean pope? i can understand that you don't trust your interpretation all that much, but what if something the pope says clearly contradicts something that isn't hard to understand (i.e., it is blunt)?

No, by church I mean church in union with the pope. That is the thing, nothing the pope says ex cathedra will contradict something blunt elsewhere, and that is what is meant by papal infallibility.


if that is so, how do we figure out the babalyonian captivity and the great schism? which one was infallible?

Was anything infallibly pronounced by one of the three different popes during that time? If so, what was it, and which current institution carries that same teaching?


how much do you know about the babylonian captivity and the great schism? what are your thoughts about that?

I am fairly familiar with the great schism, and not nearly as familiar with the babylonian captivity.


are you saying that the thief on the cross was baptized?

Yes, baptism by desire.


actually it seems that all He understood was that Christ was a King with an eternal kingdom and that He had the power to save him.

Yup.


perhaps from a human perspective, a simple faith is all that is required. works do not seem to be a factor in his justification as far as i can tell.

Not at all, works played no part in this man's salvation (unless you consider repentance a work). This man was in a unique situation, the end of his life. His last act on earth was faith. There was no room to bear any fruit, good or bad, so that is the absolute minimum. However, we find ourselves in a very different situation than the theif on the cross, we are not necissarily at the end of our lives, so we must push on towards the mark.

[disciple]

How does one know his fruit is good fruit or that he bears any fruit at all?that's why i said "in general." this is a subjective test. the promise of God and His Spirit are objective tests (though some might say His Spirit is subjective). the point is, the works are evidential not meritorious (fruit indicates life already present, it does not give and maintain the life).


The great schism, when boiled down, was a quarrel between two sees, Constantinople, and Rome.not the schism but the great schism...two different events. one was in 1054 the other was in 1374-1417. the same college of cardinals elected three popes (not at the same time).


No, by church I mean church in union with the pope. That is the thing, nothing the pope says ex cathedra will contradict something blunt elsewhere, and that is what is meant by papal infallibility.so what if he contradicts something that is blunt in Scripture? according to the dictatus papae we are not allowed to judge him.


Was anything infallibly pronounced by one of the three different popes during that time? If so, what was it, and which current institution carries that same teaching?i'm not sure. i don't believe so but i'll have to check.

[HIS]

In my opinion to obey Jesus Christ as Lord in His gospel DOES involve or include the actions of repentance. I'm just wondering why you and so many other Christians so often neglect to mention it when someone asked the question, "what must I or an individual do to be saved?"

Since no one seems to want to comment or discuss repentance as an "essential," perhaps I can offer another verse for all to consider as another absolute:

(Heb 12:14 KJV) "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:"


Needed or not needed?

[bgamall]

True repentance is essential. Initial repentance is the result of being cut to the heart by the gospel alone. Acts ch 2. So it is not a result of law guilt or anything else. So essential to faith is also this understanding that repentance is not the result of law, but only of the gospel and grace.

[disciple]

Since no one seems to want to comment or discuss repentance as an "essential," perhaps I can offer another verse for all to consider as another absolute:

(Heb 12:14 KJV) "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:"


Needed or not needed?i think the point of the thread was to discuss the essential doctrines of what you need to believe or confess to be a Christian. i believe what you are discussing is what one needs to do to be saved and grow. this is sort of a different subject.

[bgamall]

Disciple, it would be a different subject if true repentance were understood. But Acts ch 2 repentance is not what is taught in reformed circles. So, if someone teaches repentance as being a part of law that is an essential mistake.

[thepaulinator]

the point is, the works are evidential not meritorious (fruit indicates life already present, it does not give and maintain the life).

I think it would be more fruitful if I replied to this on a different thread...


not the schism but the great schism...two different events. one was in 1054 the other was in 1374-1417. the same college of cardinals elected three popes (not at the same time).

The great schism in 1054, as I understand it now, was not actually a schism. I think the only thing that took place in 1054 was the excommunication of the Patriarch of constantinople, who in turn anthemtized Cardinal Humbert, and not the Roman Church. The final and actual break did not come until the 15th century. Could you point me to the information saying the same college of all the cardinals elected the popes?


so what if he contradicts something that is blunt in Scripture? according to the dictatus papae we are not allowed to judge him.

Has an infallible statement of the Pope/eccumenical councils directly contradicted a blunt teaching in scripture (e.g. Jesus is the son of God, the ten commandments, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.)?


i'm not sure. i don't believe so but i'll have to check.

Fair enough.

[Robert R. Higby]

WORDS MEAN THINGS. The paradox teaching of Byzantine and much Papal theology would cause us to doubt that ANY confession of truth in words can be expressed with confidence. But the scriptures are based on the very notion of confidence which has great reward. The essential kerygma of the apostles can be understood by the common man who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit and loves the true gospel. Otherwise the apostolic testimony is a lie.

In order to call a person who is still in the RCC a brother, I would have to know that the individual confesses the 5solas. That is a minimum confession of faith that all who know Christ are completely joyous to embrace. The brother I mentioned who was still in the RCC organization was willing to confess these. He only had a hard time leaving what he perceived to be the 'dignity' of the RCC eucharist based on the 'real presence' of Christ. But that is an exceptional situation. I do not accept the Pope as a brother in any sense: he is an antichrist. He has stated that he worships the same God as the Muslims. That ends it for me.

[disciple]

I think it would be more fruitful if I replied to this on a different thread...do you mean, create a new one? i don't know that this requires much more discussion. as i said, the point of works is not to merit, maintain, and increase salvation/justification but as evidence and to live out what the elect are designed for (e.g., glorifying God and enjoying Him forever).


The great schism in 1054, as I understand it now, was not actually a schism. I think the only thing that took place in 1054 was the excommunication of the Patriarch of constantinople, who in turn anthemtized Cardinal Humbert, and not the Roman Church. The final and actual break did not come until the 15th century. Could you point me to the information saying the same college of all the cardinals elected the popes?again, i'm not talking about the schism of 1054. the great or western schism is a completely different event. it was a result of the politics of the babylonian captivity in avignon which was ended by the conciliarism (council of florence, etc.) of the fifteenth century. these are the events that i believe really made the reformation an inevitability. this is when people started calling the pope the antichrist (even though he'd been referred to as the vicar of Christ since the early middle ages; vicar is the latin translation of anti) because of the profligate, prideful, and power hungry popes during this time.


Has an infallible statement of the Pope/eccumenical councils directly contradicted a blunt teaching in scripture (e.g. Jesus is the son of God, the ten commandments, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.)?i haven't studied all the accepted authoritative ex cathedra delcarations of the the popes but i can name a few roman catholic teachings off of the top of my head that contradict God's word:

Roman Catholicism: Continual sacrifice of the Mass; Apostolic Testimony: Christ was sacrificed once (Heb 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 14, 18)
Roman Catholicism: We must add our merits and the merits of the saints to Christ's; Apostolic Testimony: Christ's merit and sacrifice is sufficient (2 Co 5:21; Gal 2:21, 3:21ff; 1 Pe 1:18ff, 3:18; Heb 2, 7-10)
Roman Catholicism: We are saved/justified by faith and works; Apostolic Testimony: We are not saved by works (John 3:16ff, 5:24, 20:31; Ro 4; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8ff; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5; 1 John 5:13)
Roman Catholicism: The pope, ordained priests, saints, and mary are additional mediators to Christ; Apostolic Testimony: Christ is the only mediator (Gal 3:20ff; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 2:14-18; 7:15-28, 8:6, 9:11-28, 10:1-22, 12:24)
Roman Catholicism: Only those ordained are priests and they offer Christ as a sacrifice; Apostolic Testimony: All believers are priests who offer ourselves, praise, etc. as sacrifices (Ro 12:1-3; 1 Pe 2:5-10; Heb 13:15-16)

[thepaulinator]

do you mean, create a new one?

No, I meant in the "What is Faith" thread.


this is when people started calling the pope the antichrist (even though he'd been referred to as the vicar of Christ since the early middle ages; vicar is the latin translation of anti) because of the profligate, prideful, and power hungry popes during this time.

Historically, the term vicar wasn't used as "anti". A vicar was the subordinate of someone else.


Roman Catholicism: Continual sacrifice of the Mass; Apostolic Testimony: Christ was sacrificed once (Heb 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 14, 18)

Roman Catholic Meaning of the sacrifice of the mass:

Please read this:
Sacrfice of the Mass (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ378.HTM)


Roman Catholicism: We must add our merits and the merits of the saints to Christ's; Apostolic Testimony: Christ's merit and sacrifice is sufficient (2 Co 5:21; Gal 2:21, 3:21ff; 1 Pe 1:18ff, 3:18; Heb 2, 7-10)

Roman Catholic Teaching:

"2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator." (Par 2007, CCC)

"2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit." (Par 2008 CCC)

"2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."[60] The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.[61] "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due.... Our merits are God's gifts."[62] " (Par 2009, CCC)

It teaches the merits of our good works are not of ourselves, they are a gift from God.

If that is the case, "adding our merits to Christ", means becoming a part of that merit, because all grace comes from it.


Roman Catholicism: We are saved/justified by faith and works; Apostolic Testimony: We are not saved by works (John 3:16ff, 5:24, 20:31; Ro 4; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8ff; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5; 1 John 5:13)

This is an ongoing discussion between us. If I believe scripture teaches that we are justified by works, and you believe it doesn't, then scripture isn't "blunt" about it. If that is so, it requires interpretation, thus, the Church offers its own, and you offer yours (which I think I understand you believe is scripture's own interpretation).


Roman Catholicism: The pope, ordained priests, saints, and mary are additional mediators to Christ; Apostolic Testimony: Christ is the only mediator (Gal 3:20ff; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 2:14-18; 7:15-28, 8:6, 9:11-28, 10:1-22, 12:24)

That is false if you mean they can somehow bypass Christ's mediatorship and go straight to the father. All of those mentioned above MUST go through the one mediator, Christ. Further, what they offer is prayer, not atonement.


Roman Catholicism: Only those ordained are priests and they offer Christ as a sacrifice; Apostolic Testimony: All believers are priests who offer ourselves, praise, etc. as sacrifices (Ro 12:1-3; 1 Pe 2:5-10; Heb 13:15-16)

Actual Teaching from Lumen Gentium (Vatican II):

"31. The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church. These faithful are by baptism made one body with Christ and are constituted among the People of God; they are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly functions of Christ; and they carry out for their own part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world." (Chap 4, Par 31)

"For besides intimately linking them to His life and His mission, He also gives them a sharing in His priestly function of offering spiritual worship for the glory of God and the salvation of men. For this reason the laity, dedicated to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvelously called and wonderfully prepared so that ever more abundant fruits of the Spirit may be produced in them. For all their works, prayers and apostolic endeavors, their ordinary married and family life, their daily occupations, their physical and mental relaxation, if carried out in the Spirit, and even the hardships of life, if patiently borne-all these become "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ".(199) Together with the offering of the Lord's body, they are most fittingly offered in the celebration of the Eucharist. Thus, as those everywhere who adore in holy activity, the laity consecrate the world itself to God." (Chap 4, par 34)

[disciple]

No, I meant in the "What is Faith" thread.fair enough.


Historically, the term vicar wasn't used as "anti". A vicar was the subordinate of someone else.ok.


Roman Catholic Meaning of the sacrifice of the mass:

Please read this:
Sacrfice of the Mass (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ378.HTM)The re-presentation, re-enactment, and effective application of the merits gained by Jesus by His one sacrifice at Calvary on the Cross

this contradicts the Scripture, period. Christ was offered once period. just because God is not bound by time, does not mean that Christ needs to be continually re-offered with a perpetual re-enactment of the crucifixion, etc. as if we are not bound by time as a reminder or re-application of its effects. the fact is, there is no Scripture to justify this creative interpretation of Christ's sacrifice.


It teaches the merits of our good works are not of ourselves, they are a gift from God.

If that is the case, "adding our merits to Christ", means becoming a part of that merit, because all grace comes from it.i think most religious people (even cultists) would affirm that everything we have, we have from God. but the NT denies all human efforts (merits however we believe they come) as a way of meriting God's good graces (even works done in righteousness, cf. Titus 3:5). in the sense of acceptance before God, faith and works and grace and works are antithetical as a basis or ground. it is the way of the cross not the way of the cross plus our ability to remain in God's good graces. no matter how you slice it, if our justification depends on our efforts or our abilities to get it, increase it, and keep (even if empowered by grace) then we are saying that what Christ did was not enough (e.g., He died not to save but only to help us save ourselves). it is either Christ's righteousness or ours, it cannot be a mixture of both (Ro 10:1-10).


This is an ongoing discussion between us. If I believe scripture teaches that we are justified by works, and you believe it doesn't, then scripture isn't "blunt" about it. If that is so, it requires interpretation, thus, the Church offers its own, and you offer yours (which I think I understand you believe is scripture's own interpretation).the only passage under question that i know of is james 2:14ff. Scripture is blunt, it is just not clear in the minds of some what james means by what he says. paul (and john) on the other hand, speak many times on the fact that salvation is not by human effort or merit. they are unambigious about this. and a good hermeneutical principle is to always interpret the obscure texts in light of the clear texts. there are many contextual markers in james 2 which demonstrate that he's not saying that a person is made acceptable before God by his efforts. this needs to be read into the passage in order to understand it this way.


That is false if you mean they can somehow bypass Christ's mediatorship and go straight to the father. All of those mentioned above MUST go through the one mediator, Christ. Further, what they offer is prayer, not atonement.i didn't give any interpretation. the fact of the matter is that having any mediator other than Christ to the Father is a contradiction of the fact that we have only one mediator. why add a multiplicity of other mediators when we can go directly to the Father in Christ through the Holy Spirit? the Scripture does not see any mediators for us other than Christ period. if you can point to a Scripture which says otherwise, then we can discuss it.

the fact of the matter is that all of these explanations are just creative ways of getting out of flat contradictions. either the Scripture is plain or it is convoluted to the point that we have no hope of just reading and understanding it. i believe that God has spoken plainly in His word and in His Son and all of this excess baggage added after the apostles is unneccesary and in fact harmful. you believe that it answers all of the questions and difficult texts and i do not. what it really comes down to is a matter of do you believe what the Scripture plainly says or do you not.

also what it comes down to is just a different set of presuppositions. you believe that "normal" people are too ignorant to read and understand God's word (and that only one individual actually can infallibly interpret it) while i believe that God spoke to us in His word in black and white so that there would be no mistake about what He said and that it would be plain when additions or alterations were made. the words of God are preserved in the Scriptures and not in a dynastic succession of one individual.

[thepaulinator]

this contradicts the Scripture, period. Christ was offered once period. just because God is not bound by time, does not mean that Christ needs to be continually re-offered with a perpetual re-enactment of the crucifixion, etc. as if we are not bound by time as a reminder or re-application of its effects. the fact is, there is no Scripture to justify this creative interpretation of Christ's sacrifice.

Either you did not read, or you just failed to see what was being said. I'm not going to discuss this with you if you are unwilling to try and understand. Saying that Christ's past sacrifice is always present before God, and is made present to us through the mass, is much different than saying Christ's is re-sacrificed again. Christ is not continually re-offered in the mass, but his one sacrifice is made present in the mass. But if you do not want to try and understand this, fine by me. Tell me it contradicts scripture all you want because what you think I'm saying does while what I am actually saying doesn't. Your last sentence would lead me to believe you did not even consider the scripture and exegesis provided by that site I suggested.


i think most religious people (even cultists) would affirm that everything we have, we have from God. but the NT denies all human efforts (merits however we believe they come)as a way of meriting God's good graces.

So do I. So does the church. Anything done purely on man's part does not and cannot merit grace, or anything for that matter (Canon 1, council of trent).


it is the way of the cross not the way of the cross plus our ability to remain in God's good graces. no matter how you slice it, if our justification depends on our efforts or our abilities to get it, increase it, and keep (even if empowered by grace) then we are saying that what Christ did was not enough (e.g., He died not to save but only to help us save ourselves).

Our ability to remain in God's good graces is God's grace, not our own powers. Our justification does not depend on our own efforts or abilities.
Catholic teaching: Man is given the grace of faith, and because God gives man that grace and man accepts it, God justifies man. You then say, if it relies on man to accept or reject, then it contains something the man does, and is therefore pelagian/semi-pelagian. You say that, ignoring the fact that the church teaches that man is UNABLE to accept ANY grace from God with his will, unless his will is moved to acceptance by God himself (Canon 3, Canon 4, Council of Trent). This:
(e.g., He died not to save but only to help us save ourselves), is explicitly anathematized in Canon 2 from the Council of Trent.


there are many contextual markers in james 2 which demonstrate that he's not saying that a person is made acceptable before God by his efforts.

AMEN! It wasn't Abraham's efforts that he nearly sacrificed his son Isaac. It was God moving Abraham to obedience. God brought Abraham to the mountain and altar with his son, and because God brought Abraham there, because God's work was accomplished in Abraham, God justified him. Just as God caused Abraham to beleive, and then justified Abraham because of His own gift.


why add a multiplicity of other mediators when we can go directly to the Father in Christ through the Holy Spirit?

The purpose of a mediator is to join together two extremes, God and man. The perfect mediator was Jesus. Anyone who is said to be a mediator (i.e the pope, saints, mary, etc.) does not and cannot mediate between God and man without the one perfect mediator, Christ. Anytime someone is said to be a mediator (the pope, saints, mary, etc.), it is not because they are mediating, but because Christ the one mediator is working in them. A missionary who converts pagans acted as a mediator, but only because Christ the mediator dwelled within them, and acted through them.


you believe that "normal" people are too ignorant to read and understand God's word (and that only one individual actually can infallibly interpret it) while i believe that God spoke to us in His word in black and white so that there would be no mistake about what He said and that it would be plain when additions or alterations were made.

I never said that at all. I said not ALL "normal" people can read God's word and understand it ALL, but there certainly remains the possibility that someone can, I do not put that passed God's power. But when people think so many different ways about certain things God says, one can only wonder, "how clear is this exactly"? God spoke so there would be no mistake, and if all of it was so perfectly clear, there would be none, but to say there is no error or mistakes made is just...well...silly. You might say it is not on the fault of lack of clarity in scripture, but on the sin of man. That might be true, it might not be true. But what good then is a perfectly clear text, when our own sins (which you will say, can we can never be fully rid of in this life) cloud our understanding of it? How well can an extremely far-sighted (sinful) person read perfectly clear pt. 8 text (scripture) if there is no such a thing as corrective lenses? Not everyone is extremely-farsighted, not everyone needs corrective lenses, but they are few. My corrective lense is a historical church. I believe yours is Hermeneutics.


the words of the apostles are preserved in a book...

Amen.


...and not in a dynastic succession of one individual.

I believe they are preserved in both.

[disciple]

Either you did not read, or you just failed to see what was being said. I'm not going to discuss this with you if you are unwilling to try and understand. Saying that Christ's past sacrifice is always present before God, and is made present to us through the mass, is much different than saying Christ's is re-sacrificed again. Christ is not continually re-offered in the mass, but his one sacrifice is made present in the mass. But if you do not want to try and understand this, fine by me. Tell me it contradicts scripture all you want because what you think I'm saying does while what I am actually saying doesn't. Your last sentence would lead me to believe you did not even consider the scripture and exegesis provided by that site I suggested.i read it. it's not a matter that i failed to read or understand it, it's just that i don't buy it. it's simply a flimsy argument.

the Scripture not only says that He wasn't re-sacrificed again but that He was offered (same thing as presented) only once. spin that how you want it with an argument of the eternality and infiniteness of God, in human terms the Scripture says that He was offerred only once. there is no Scriptural basis for a re-inactment of the crucifixion or a re-presentation (re-offering) of Christ. that one time was sufficient for the Father. no more offerings are required to propitiate God as He was quite pleased with the one.

Heb 7:27...because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself

Heb 9:12 ...He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption

Heb 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many...

Heb 10:10 ...the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all

Heb 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected...

Heb 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin


Our ability to remain in God's good graces is God's grace, not our own powers. Our justification does not depend on our own efforts or abilities.
Catholic teaching: Man is given the grace of faith, and because God gives man that grace and man accepts it, God justifies man. You then say, if it relies on man to accept or reject, then it contains something the man does, and is therefore pelagian/semi-pelagian. You say that, ignoring the fact that the church teaches that man is UNABLE to accept ANY grace from God with his will, unless his will is moved to acceptance by God himself (Canon 3, Canon 4, Council of Trent). This:
(e.g., He died not to save but only to help us save ourselves), is explicitly anathematized in Canon 2 from the Council of Trent.so what of those who fail to continue to accept it? and why do only some accept it? and doesn't the RCC teach that God moves all people's wills to acceptance by God Himself? or does He do this only for some? and of those who do (or don't), what is the reason? why do some accept while others do not?


The purpose of a mediator is to join together two extremes, God and man. The perfect mediator was Jesus. Anyone who is said to be a mediator (i.e the pope, saints, mary, etc.) does not and cannot mediate between God and man without the one perfect mediator, Christ. Anytime someone is said to be a mediator (the pope, saints, mary, etc.), it is not because they are mediating, but because Christ the one mediator is working in them. A missionary who converts pagans acted as a mediator, but only because Christ the mediator dwelled within them, and acted through them.so the RCC just adds some additional mediators between themselves and Christ (who is the one mediator for all of those other mediators)? sounds pretty convoluted to me. i'll opt to go directly to the Father through Christ.


I never said that at all. I said not ALL "normal" people can read God's word and understand it ALL, but there certainly remains the possibility that someone can, I do not put that passed God's power. But when people think so many different ways about certain things God says, one can only wonder, "how clear is this exactly"? God spoke so there would be no mistake, and if all of it was so perfectly clear, there would be none, but to say there is no error or mistakes made is just...well...silly. You might say it is not on the fault of lack of clarity in scripture, but on the sin of man. That might be true, it might not be true. But what good then is a perfectly clear text, when our own sins (which you will say, can we can never be fully rid of in this life) cloud our understanding of it? How well can an extremely far-sighted (sinful) person read perfectly clear pt. 8 text (scripture) if there is no such a thing as corrective lenses? Not everyone is extremely-farsighted, not everyone needs corrective lenses, but they are few. My corrective lense is a historical church. I believe yours is Hermeneutics.so the fix is to just put one individual in charge of it all? i guess that certainly streamlines things a bit but when that one individual is accountable to no one else and can be judged by no man, it makes the discovery of truth (in the case that he might have it wrong) a tenuous thing. and the corrective lens of a historical church only works if the historical church (which i am taking you to mean only the pope and those who are in communion with him) is correctly interpreting the Scripture. your assumption is that they always do. my assumption is that as Scripture says they are human as well and also have deceitful and sinful hearts that are prone to error. in my mind it can be a dangerous thing to bury our heads in the sand and entrust our souls to any human individual or institution simply because of one Scripture (Mt 16:18).


I believe they are preserved in both.so what if they appear to contradict or if we find changes, additions, etc.? which one takes precedence (in asking this, i understand that you believe this never happens)? what happens when a pope is evil as some of the renaissance popes were declared to be?

[GraceAmbassador]

Originally Posted by thepaulinator

Either you did not read, or you just failed to see what was being said. I'm not going to discuss this with you if you are unwilling to try and understand. Saying that Christ's past sacrifice is always present before God, and is made present to us through the mass, is much different than saying Christ's is re-sacrificed again. Christ is not continually re-offered in the mass, but his one sacrifice is made present in the mass. But if you do not want to try and understand this, fine by me. Tell me it contradicts scripture all you want because what you think I'm saying does while what I am actually saying doesn't. Your last sentence would lead me to believe you did not even consider the scripture and exegesis provided by that site I suggested.
Then why they need for transubstantiation? Why the need for the body of Christ to be literally present, as well as His blood?

Jeff, whatever you explain, or whatever explanation you receive from an individual priest, if that is what it is above, it is not RCC traditional teaching. All our arguments are based on what the RCC traditionally teaches and not the flimsy argument of individual priest in an attempt to "sneak out" of the traditional errors of the RCC.

I firmly believe your sincerity and your integrity. I have only words of praise for your conduct in this Forum as a Catholic. However, I have nothing but comtempt for priests who will deceive by using the kind of argument we read above when historically we knwo that the RCC does sacrifice Christ afresh every Sunday at Mass and that the elements really become Jesus' body and blood

Let's discuss RCC doctrine and not the appeasing arguments of some modern priests. I hope this is okay with you!

Milt

[thepaulinator]

Then why they need for transubstantiation? Why the need for the body of Christ to be literally present, as well as His blood?

Why need it not be?


Jeff, whatever you explain, or whatever explanation you receive from an individual priest, if that is what it is above, it is not RCC traditional teaching. All our arguments are based on what the RCC traditionally teaches and not the flimsy argument of individual priest in an attempt to "sneak out" of the traditional errors of the RCC

What I cited was from Catholic Apologist, Dave Armstrong. I have asked my priest the same thing, and he gave me a similar explanation. After reading your post, I decided to truthfully and humbly see if I was indeed being deceived. First, I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It agreed. Curious to see if it is a recent development, I looked in the older, Baltimore Catechism. Again, it was in agreement. I then consulted Catholic Encyclopedia, and found no disagreement. Where else should I go and read to find the "traditional" teaching that you are refuting?


I firmly believe your sincerity and your integrity. I have only words of praise for your conduct in this Forum as a Catholic. However, I have nothing but comtempt for priests who will deceive by using the kind of argument we read above when historically we knwo that the RCC does sacrifice Christ afresh every Sunday at Mass and that the elements really become Jesus' body and blood

First, thank you for your charitable demeanor. It will always be appreciated, as well as everyone else's for that matter.

But Milt, I do believe Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine, transubstantially. That said, I do not believe it means Christ is sacrificed again and again. I do not believe my priest tried to deceive me. I do not believe Dave Armstrong tried to deceive me. I do not think the Roman Catholic Church is trying to deceive me. I truly believe that is what the church teaches. If you think otherwise, tell me, so that I may consider it.


Let's discuss RCC doctrine and not the appeasing arguments of some modern priests. I hope this is okay with you!

I was under the impression I was discussing Roman Catholic Church doctrine, if I am at odds with it, please show me how and where rather than just say I am, so that I too can read it. Thank you again for the peaceful and fruitful exchanges.

[Robert R. Higby]

Christ is not continually re-offered in the mass.

I am quite certain, in spite of the denials, that the historic position of the RCC is that Christ is offered up anew in the mass. I have heard it preached myself at masses and read it in the great RCC theological works. So I will be looking for 'fresh evidence' in the future. I think Dave Armstrong is casting the RCC in a favorable light not warranted by the facts--as so many different sect apologists do on their websites.

The denomination of my upbringing (a heretical sect of Wesleyan descent) also denies officially that it has ever taught the present sufferings and atonement of Jesus. But for those who investigate, the historical writings clearly and strongly teach the very doctrines officially denied. More paradox theology.

It is true that Roman Catholic theology officially denies justification by works and our own independent merits. The theology of Trent (which only repeats historical dogma) is that of infused grace. Not a bold justification by works. Christ transfers grace and merit into us like milk is poured into a bottle. The more full the bottle becomes, the more merit is present. But assurance of salvation is by no means possible until the bottle is completely full. In contrast, the biblical doctrine of imputation states that the already full-bottle of Christ's righteousness stands in the place of our empty one. So immediate and perfect merit in Christ through faith is the New Testament doctrine of grace--verses the Papal dogma of gradually infused 'power' granting increasing amounts of grace.

[GraceAmbassador]

What I cited was from Catholic Apologist, Dave Armstrong. I have asked my priest the same thing, and he gave me a similar explanation. After reading your post, I decided to truthfully and humbly see if I was indeed being deceived. First, I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It agreed. Curious to see if it is a recent development, I looked in the older, Baltimore Catechism. Again, it was in agreement. I then consulted Catholic Encyclopedia, and found no disagreement. Where else should I go and read to find the "traditional" teaching that you are refuting?
Okay, Jeff! Then every single thing we know about the RCC doctrine and teaching about the Mass is incorrect and Dave Armstrong and the Priest you asked are correct about the historical purpose of the Mass. It is solely to bring the presence of Christ--His Death--because His sacrifice is always present before God.

Let's suppose this is correct.

First: Is it biblical? If possible, supply Book, Chapter and Verse.

Second: Is it not the same as to say that Christ is, at least still being sacrificed today

Third: Is there hope for salvation in the RCC apart from partaking of the Mass, which, according to the people you consulted, is only saying that the sacrifice of Christ, which is ever present in the presence of God--if I understood you.

Fourth: If the host becomes the body of Christ literally and the blood becomes His blood, has not Christ died and was sacrificed again? I don't understand that. Can you elaborate?

To me, the deception is not even the issue here. Deceivers are all over, including but not limited to, some of the reformed circles as well. The issue is: apart from tradition, how do you justify the Mass--eucharist--; and how can you place any real value in it, other than "folklore" if you remove the fact that it is "sacrificing Christ" over and over again. The other important issue is, where is the hope of salvation for a Roman Catholic apart from the Mass, if the Mass is only "if it is only saying that the sacrifice of Christ is ever present before God?"

Ultimately, if we understand Jewish typology in the O.T. of the Lamb's sacrifice and then compare it to the substance of Christ's sacrifice, The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,

which ended the need for a sacrifice;
which once offered and accepted by fire, nothing else was ever needed
which once accepted by God, God then would consider Himself satisfied

how and why it is needed again and again the "sacrifice to be ever present before God". To me it is hard to understand. Christ is now glorified in heaven. He is at the right hand (authority position) of the Father. He is not the "sacrificial Lamb to be" anymore. He is not with His head hanging in the cross down anymore, He is not, as Bach wrote "Oh! Sacred head now wounded", but he is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords... How all these that is said about the resurrected Christ in heaven can be consistent with the "sacrifice of Christ being ever present before God".

Please, I beg you to understand why it is so hard for some of us to understand these new arguments. (Forgive me for calling them "new" again). That's why it is suspicious that intelligent people, as priests, who know in general biblical languages, and even RCC theologians, who know better about Tradition and the Bible, come up with these new explanations about the RCC's rendering of the Mass.

It is and it has always been a "work" designed to provide a way of salvation to Catholics. It is a sine qua non condition for a Catholic to be a Catholic and to be considered by his church anything other than anathema.

I have learned to admire you for reflecting on these things. You are indeed not as Catholic as the ones that I grew up with and whose theology was rammed down my throat since elementary school, even when they knew I was not a Catholic. I told you before that some of those Catholics would despise you as a Catholic... They still believe that the Pope should rule the world and firmly adhere to the fact that the prophecy of Fatima are the determining fact for future world events, even if they happen to disagree with the Bible's account for the future of the world. Your are not like that! The other two we had in this Forum were, but not you.

Therefore, I will expect your answer knowing that you will reflect on it as you always do! If God wills, let's go from there!

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Paulinator:

After you read my post above, please, click on this link:

http://trinityfoundation.org/reviews/journal.asp?ID=177a.html

you can downloaded in PDF

Milt

[thepaulinator]

Truly I will consider it all, and read carefully the paper you suggested. However, I should be studying for finals. My father pays for my education here, so dishonoring him with poor performance in class is something I do not intend to do =). Thank everyone for being patient with me, I shall return to the forums in a week or so. God bless you all!

[disciple]

What I cited was from Catholic Apologist, Dave Armstrong. I have asked my priest the same thing, and he gave me a similar explanation. After reading your post, I decided to truthfully and humbly see if I was indeed being deceived. First, I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It agreed. Curious to see if it is a recent development, I looked in the older, Baltimore Catechism. Again, it was in agreement. I then consulted Catholic Encyclopedia, and found no disagreement. Where else should I go and read to find the "traditional" teaching that you are refuting?...That said, I do not believe it means Christ is sacrificed again and again.i don't mean to speak out of turn or respond in milt's stead, but i'm wondering if you might provide the quotes that convinced you that the RCC teaches that the mass isn't a re-sacrifice of Christ. because when i read the council of trent (http://www.internetpadre.com/trent.htm), i certainly understand that it is saying that it is a re-sacrifice:

The Twenty-second Session

Being the sixth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV, celebrated on the seventeenth day of September, MDLXII.

Doctrine on the sacrifice of the mass

Chapter II.

That the sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreeably to a tradition of the apostles.

Chapter IX.

Preliminary remark on the following canons.

And because that many errors are at this time disseminated and many things are taught and maintained by divers persons, in opposition to this ancient faith, which is based on the sacred Gospel, the traditions of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers; the sacred and holy Synod, after many and grave deliberations maturely had touching these matters, has resolved, with the unanimous consent of all the Fathers, to condemn, and to eliminate from holy Church, by means of the canons subjoined, whatsoever is opposed to this most pure faith and sacred doctrine.

On the sacrifice of the mass

Canon I. If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

Canon II. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

Canon III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

but the issue gets stickier because we are now talking about meaning and interpretation of the "middle men." now we are interpreting those who are interpreting Scripture for us. while it may seem blunt to you, to me it seems to plainly contradict what you are saying. but, here we are debating interpretations of those who are supposed to be clearly, plainly, and bluntly interpreting those things which are hard to understand and perhaps impossible for us to rightly interpret apart from the pope. where does this end?

[tomas1]

but the issue gets stickier because we are now talking about meaning and interpretation of the "middle men." now we are interpreting those who are interpreting Scripture for us. while it may seem blunt to you, to me it seems to plainly contradict what you are saying. but, here we are debating interpretations of those who are supposed to be clearly, plainly, and bluntly interpreting those things which are hard to understand and perhaps impossible for us to rightly interpret apart from the pope. where does this end?

Is it just me or do these apologists sound just like American politicians. (It depends on what the definition of “is” is )

[disciple]

jeff-
please let me know what you think of the following:

http://aomin.org/Porvaz.html
http://aomin.org/Hebrews10.html
http://aomin.org/Epitetaute.html
http://aomin.org/YouTell.html

thanks.

doug

[Robert R. Higby]

For me, that little phrase 'unbloody offering' from the Council of Trent is the key. If the expositors of that time had understood the mass to be simply an event of making the historical atonement present, the mass would not be called an 'unbloody' but a 'bloody' offering, since it would consist of the actual shedding of Christ's blood mysteriously made present.

Is this 'unbloody' notion the reason why the cup is denied to most of the participants in the mass? Just wondering. It is interesting to note also that the Lutherans and Episcopal always recite 'this is my body'--but virtually never say 'this is my blood' as a quotation of Christ in their liturgy; since if they had to quote the scriptures, it would be 'this is the new covenant in my blood.' If the meaning of the blood is covenantal, so is the meaning of the body. The bread and cup are both covenant signs of the assurance of finished salvation in Christ. They are given for corporate joyful celebration, not 'snippet and sip' individualistic fear and trembling.

The 'nonbloody sacrifice for propitiation' idea is teaching that Jesus suffers still. Just like the Wesleyan notions of continuing atonement--wherein every sin that we commit or experience is proposed to cause Jesus to suffer afresh.

[disciple]

This is an ongoing discussion between us. If I believe scripture teaches that we are justified by works, and you believe it doesn't, then scripture isn't "blunt" about it. If that is so, it requires interpretation, thus, the Church offers its own, and you offer yours (which I think I understand you believe is scripture's own interpretation).but just because this is an ongoing discussion between us (and with other protestants and catholics/orthodox throughout history) does not mean that Scripture is not "blunt" about it. just because people disagree about an interpretation does not mean that Scripture is unclear in this area. this is a conclusion you are making based upon your presuppositions that Christ promised an infallible visible church (actually meaning an infallible pope/magesterium) that would never err in any doctrine or practice. it is quite true that the historical church (defined as "the heirarchy") since the time of the late second century fathers has, in general, taught a salvation/justification by works (personal worth and righteousness), but does this fact mean that this interpretation is automatically correct (this would be a logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam or argumentum ad antiquitatem)? do we not still have the original Scriptures with which to compare their interpretations with? is there any possibility that elements of greek philosophy influenced the interpretation of these early fathers in this area (most/all of which came out of greek philosophy)? did Christ indeed promise a visible church heirarchy that would never be deceived or influenced by unbiblical ideas and philosophies? it seems that the main presuppositional difference between roman catholics and protestants is that protestants do not assume that Christ's promise in Mt 16:18 was an infallible church which had certain men (pope, magesterium, etc.) who would never be influenced or deceived by anything when determining teaching/interpreting Scripture. the one Scripture of Mt 16:18 has provided support for more doctrines than i could ever hope to squeeze out of a single passage! it is unbelievable to me (and what is interesting to me is that everyone must go back to the Scripture and the interpretation of it in order to develop their presuppositions, the difference is in the conclusions reached by reading them)!!

returning to the current discussion, you assume that since it seems that paul is saying one thing and james is saying another that this means that all of Scripture is unclear in this area (i.e., it is not blunt). when it comes down to it, james is the only passage in the canon that i know of that really instigates such a discussion (if you removed mt 16:18 and james 2:14-26 from the canon, i do not even think we would be having this discussion). you assume that there is interpretation required here while there is no intrepretation required in other areas. why? is there a possibility that paul is clear while james is not? is there a possibility that paul does not require much effort in interpretation while james requires more effort in this area? is there a possibility that james' writings need to be interpreted in light of paul's? is there a possibility that the early church fathers were wrong on their understanding of james? is there a possibility that paul's writings should take canonical priority over james if there seems to be a discrepancy? what did peter have in mind when he said that paul writes some stuff that is hard to understand? was he referring to paul's teaching of the gospel or the way of salvation/justification/acceptance before God? is there another way to read paul? is there another way to read james?

there are many questions here and many solutions that people have proposed. to me, the explanation of the roman catholic church that paul is only referring to works of law (as opposed to works of grace) and initial justification (as opposed to all preceding justifications or some supposed process of justification) just doesn't hold any water. there is nothing in the plain text of Scripture that supports this contention. to me paul seems unequivocal not only here but in many other areas on this subject of how to be "right" with God (e.g., be saved, justified, etc.). james speaks on this issue once (seemingly so) and it is assumed that we must give him the same weight that we give paul and that we must interpret paul in light of james and not the other way around. why? and thus the whole plethora of passages where paul (and other NT writers) seem to clearly teach the way of salvation and the only way to be right with God is now made ineffective and obfuscated by one single passage of Scripture. i truly think not.

and on another topic, when you said:


Some things, maybe, other things are pretty blunt. But yes, just like some parts of scripture should not be left to the "fool" to interpret, some parts of Church teaching should not be left to the unaware (e.g. the church teaching on abortion, some try to say taht the church does not really believe abortion is explicitly wrong). So not all scripture is hard to understand, but some of it is, as Peter tells us about some of Paul's writings. In those cases, I don't trust my interpretation all that much, and I submit my interpretation to that of the church.did you mean that papal bulls, encyclicals, and church councils do not usually require intrepretation? are we assume infallbility in their ability to communicate and our ability at understanding and properly interpreting them?

[Robert R. Higby]

I have started to review the 18 points more earnestly and am composing a reply offline. I will readily admit that my 7-point list is incomplete (as some have pointed out)--but neither do I accept that certain truths of scripture constituting the 'meat' are well understood and received by all believers at every point in their Christian walk. We have discussed all this before.

[thepaulinator]

Hello everyone, I hope this day has found you well. I apologize for my lack of input and participation in these discussions, as I truly enjoy them. The passed few weeks have been truly difficult ones, and I know I would be able to endure such hardship apart from the grace of God. As a result of such recent trials, I won't be posting on the boards for a while, for I feel I need to focus my time in other directions. I leave now wishing you well. Please know and accept that you will be in my prayers, all of you, all I ask is you return the favor =). Peace

[Skeuos Eleos]

Paulinator, I have appreciated your posts and earnest seeking after the truth and have missed you! I am sorry you are not able to be with us for a while and do hope that you are able to return in the not-too-distant future and resume the various discussions currently underway with yourself. Please be assured of my prayers for you.

Martin

[GraceAmbassador]

Paulinator:

You can always count on my respect and prayers for you, yours and whatever your endeavor is today.

Milt

[disciple]

Hello everyone, I hope this day has found you well. I apologize for my lack of input and participation in these discussions, as I truly enjoy them. The passed few weeks have been truly difficult ones, and I know I would be able to endure such hardship apart from the grace of God. As a result of such recent trials, I won't be posting on the boards for a while, for I feel I need to focus my time in other directions. I leave now wishing you well. Please know and accept that you will be in my prayers, all of you, all I ask is you return the favor =). Peacethanks for the update. i've personally been wondering what's been going on in your life. you said you had finals and then silence. i'm sorry you're going through tough times right now. i will pray for you. we'll look forward to having you back in the future.

[thepaulinator]

Hello everyone, I hope this finds you well. I would like to thank you all for your prayers. Things are beginning to look up now, and I will try and post replies to my outstanding discussions. However, the "desire" to debate seems to have been sucked out of me. I'd much rather just love you all and pray that one day we may be united in one faith, for we are already united in love and hope. I know it might seem like I'm backing out of my discussions, but please realize, I'm just tired of going back and forth, from rebuttal to rebuttal. So again, I will post some of my last replies within the next few days, and then I will just be a reading visitor, possibly throwing my two cents in here and there. I will never cease to pray with and for all of you. I love you, and God bless.

[disciple]

Hello everyone, I hope this finds you well. I would like to thank you all for your prayers. Things are beginning to look up now, and I will try and post replies to my outstanding discussions. However, the "desire" to debate seems to have been sucked out of me. I'd much rather just love you all and pray that one day we may be united in one faith, for we are already united in love and hope. I know it might seem like I'm backing out of my discussions, but please realize, I'm just tired of going back and forth, from rebuttal to rebuttal. So again, I will post some of my last replies within the next few days, and then I will just be a reading visitor, possibly throwing my two cents in here and there. I will never cease to pray with and for all of you. I love you, and God bless.thanks for the update. i completely understand where you are coming from and your desires to not debate. always remember you are welcome here and your interaction will be missed. thanks again.

[tomas1]

Paulinator,
I hope that nothing I said contributed to your decision. If it did I apologize. Please keep looking for the truth though. God promised to give truth to those who earnestly seek it and when you find it, it will set you free.
If you need to bounce something off someone feel free to contact me personally.

[thepaulinator]

Paulinator,
I hope that nothing I said contributed to your decision. If it did I apologize. Please keep looking for the truth though. God promised to give truth to those who earnestly seek it and when you find it, it will set you free.
If you need to bounce something off someone feel free to contact me personally.

Not at all. All of these decisions are based on happenings outside of this discussion forum. I will not ever stop searching for truth, I just may not engage people in a debate-type manner. I appreciate the offer to contact you personally, I may take you up on it someday.

As for my replies, I am currently working on them when I get the chance, but I am currently balancing two jobs (soon only one), and many other things. Don't let that decieve you into thinking they will be good/lengthy =), I just don't have much time these days for such things. Thanks for everything. Peace

[Brandan Kraft]

Not at all. All of these decisions are based on happenings outside of this discussion forum. I will not ever stop searching for truth, I just may not engage people in a debate-type manner. I appreciate the offer to contact you personally, I may take you up on it someday.

As for my replies, I am currently working on them when I get the chance, but I am currently balancing two jobs (soon only one), and many other things. Don't let that decieve you into thinking they will be good/lengthy =), I just don't have much time these days for such things. Thanks for everything. PeacePaulinator, you will always be welcome on this forum. You've displayed exemplorary maturity! Although we are enemies, I do hope and pray that the Gospel of Substitution and Imputation is revealed unto you and that you come to know the Christ of Glory.

Regards,
Brandan Kraft

[thepaulinator]

Hello everyone, long time no post. I apologize for the extended period of time between now and my last post. I have written probably like 5 or 6 different rebuttals and arguments to all of your questions. For some reasons, I just didn't like any of them. Not because of their lack of substance or argument, but I really didn't want to argue. I mean, it wouldn't be right of me to post my rebuttal, and then leave and never answer yours. So instead, I'll give a brief overview of my thoughts.

As far as the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, I will not argue, I will simply say a few things.

As Christians we are called to share in Christ's sufferings. Paul talks about this in numerous places in scripture. My favorite place is in Romans 5:3-5, that bit of scripture has helped me very much in the past few months. Though we do share in the sufferings of Christ, our suffering is quite small in comparison to those of Christ's, and any benefit we receive from them (our suffering), comes from the merits of Christ. We are the body of Christ, that being so, we are going to suffer. That suffering, since it is partaking in the suffering of Christ, is, in a way, propitiatory, not because of ourselves, but because it comes from the source of it all, the sacrifice of Christ. It is, in a sence, an emulation of the actual thing, and is therefore beneficial. So we do not receive the benefits that comes from suffering because we were able to bear it or what not, but because it is a partaking in the source of salvation, the cross.

In a similar way, the sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory, not of itself, but because of its source, the sacrifice of the cross. Our suffering for our glory comes from the cross, the sacrifice of the mass has the same source. This is also so because of a premise of the sacrifice of the mass. If in fact, the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, then it does not seem as far fetched. If one rejects that premise, then of course it's going to sound even more false. So in that sense, I totally understand why you see that as such blasphemy, where as it makes sense to me, because I believe it is the real body and blood of Christ. Basically, it is propitiatory because its source of meaning and merit comes from Christ's sacrifice, not itself, as is the case in every other aspect of Roman Catholic Theology, as far as I know.

I think another topic was the source of truth, and I think it was with doug...


did you mean that papal bulls, encyclicals, and church councils do not usually require intrepretation? are we assume infallbility in their ability to communicate and our ability at understanding and properly interpreting them?

No, sometimes they do in fact require interpretation, just like some parts of the bible. There is one difference here though, I can ask men to further explain what is said in bulls, encyclicals, and church councils. And not just any men, men that were chosen by Christ to do just that, teach and explain the faith. If this system of men and teachers did not actually exist, and the only thing taht was left to teach was the bible, I can't ask the bible to explain itself (I think you would disagree). When this has taken place in teh early centuries, when men went to the Bible and their own personal interpretation , error and heresy resulted. Pelagianism, Gnosticism, and the like. When men went away from the universal teaching of the church, error resulted. When man stays within the teachings of the universal church, what was taught then, is taught now, only now being more fully developed and defined. Examples would be the dual nature of Christ and the trinity. These things were definitely known and taught in ancient Christianity, but were never fully defined and explained until later centuries. There are many rebuttals to all of this, I know. This is more of me just trying to explain my reasoning behind my beliefs.

That is about all for now, if you would like more, just let me know, and I will post when I get the chance.

[GraceAmbassador]

Hi Paulinator, good to hear from you!

I will only address to one simple issue of your writings and perhaps be somewhat unreserved in my words and sound really blunt:

you say:


In a similar way, the sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory, not of itself, but because of its source, the sacrifice of the cross. Our suffering for our glory comes from the cross, the sacrifice of the mass has the same source. This is also so because of a premise of the sacrifice of the mass. If in fact, the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, then it does not seem as far fetched. If one rejects that premise, then of course it's going to sound even more false. So in that sense, I totally understand why you see that as such blasphemy, where as it makes sense to me, because I believe it is the real body and blood of Christ. Basically, it is propitiatory because its source of meaning and merit comes from Christ's sacrifice, not itself, as is the case in every other aspect of Roman Catholic Theology, as far as I know.
Did you notice the "cultic" or "ocultic" nature of this doctrine that is so dear to you?

What "real body and blood of Christ" do you believe it to be? Real human flesh? Real divine blood? Isn't that a "fresh sacrifice of Christ?" What is the purpose if not "salvation"?

Do you really mean that if one would believe that it is only flour and a fermented grape beverage this person would be wrong and not "having taken part of the sufferings of Christ?".

Do you mean that a missionary who is in the underground ekklesia, suffering persecution, villification, discrimination and even murder is not partaking on the sufferings of Christ if he would not believe transubstantiation? If he is already partaking of the suffering of Christ because of the cause of the Gospel (sufferings which your church is guilty of inflicting throughout history and even today in Latin America, specifically in one of our missions in the Northern part of Brazil), why would there be a need for his partaking of what you call "mass".?

Did you note that your explanation is based upon one's belief, or even one's opinion and traditional thinking rather than a strong biblical doctrine?

See, dear Paulinator, that's why it is so hard for some evangelicals to commune with any RCC in brotherly fellowship. We can't just receive beliefs that are "para-biblical", we can't accept a form of canibalism, we can't accept that Christ's glorified body, (I speak of the Glorified Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father), is today abased again and again every Sunday in the diggestive system of a human being. What is wrong with "once and for all", the key phrase of the Book of Hebrews?

Well, welcome back again. I will respect your thoughts and positioning but still urge you to challenge them for your soul's sake. You are a good person and an excellent thinker, but don't let your fear of confronting traditions take the best of your reasoning.

Milt

[thepaulinator]

Do you really mean that if one would believe that it is only flour and a fermented grape beverage this person would be wrong and not "having taken part of the sufferings of Christ?".

Of course not! I didn't imply that at all, and you know I would not mean such a thing. I simply said if one does not believe in such a thing, the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice at mass seems that much more unreasonable. Never did I anywhere in my post suggest that anyone who does not accept transubstantiation does nto partake in the sufferings of Christ. That is just not true at all.


Do you mean that a missionary who is in the underground ekklesia, suffering persecution, villification, discrimination and even murder is not partaking on the sufferings of Christ if he would not believe transubstantiation?

Sheesh. I never once implied that. The idea of Christian suffering was an analogy and simile. Come on Milt, I have never once said anything like that on these boards. I have done nothing but treat you all as brothers in Christ in mutual search for truth. I of all people would be the last to accuse anyone of "not pataking in the sufferings of Christ".


See, dear Paulinator, that's why it is so hard for some evangelicals to commune with any RCC in brotherly fellowship.

Sadly, Milt, I think it is for a different reason. It is because when you read what I wrote, you see it in a different manner than I wrote it. The roman catholic is no more innocent of such a thing though. That is why we don't commune well, becuase you hear what you hear, but it's not what I said, and vice versa.


What is wrong with "once and for all", the key phrase of the Book of Hebrews?

Nothing at all is wrong with it. But that phrase does not exclude the transcendence of space and time that the sacrfice entails which enables us all to participate and share in it. It didn't only work for those living then. It worked for all who have lived before then and all who would live after. I don't want to argue with you about something that was intended to unite people in love, please.


don't let your fear of confronting traditions take the best of your reasoning.

I have no fear of such things. I was not always Catholic. I was raised Catholic, then I was agnostic, atheist, gnostic (briefly), and protestant, and then found truth in the Catholic Church, after challenging it. I have done my share of challenging and confronting.

I'm sorry if that seems a bit rough, maybe it's a sore spot =). I know you think my motives here are about infultrating the non-catholic circles in hopes of converting them, but that is just not true. I love you all, and will continue reading these posts.

[GraceAmbassador]

Nothing at all is wrong with it. But that phrase does not exclude the transcendence of space and time that the sacrfice entails which enables us all to participate and share in it. It didn't only work for those living then. It worked for all who have lived before then and all who would live after. I don't want to argue with you about something that was intended to unite people in love, please.

Thanks! We participate and partake of Christ's sacrifice by faith. This is a fundamental difference. We actually receive the benefits of Christ's sacrifice by faith alone.


I'm sorry if that seems a bit rough, maybe it's a sore spot =). I know you think my motives here are about infultrating the non-catholic circles in hopes of converting them, but that is just not true. I love you all, and will continue reading these posts.
I see no problems in the way you responded. It is fine! I don't think you are infiltrating. My only concern is that you are so incredibly close to receiving the truth about Christ's sacrifice, but then, all of a sudden you come with a defense of the mass (as I read it at least) and I feel a little bit disappointed.

Thanks for the response!

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

Thanks! We participate and partake of Christ's sacrifice by faith. This is a fundamental difference. We actually receive the benefits of Christ's sacrifice by faith alone.May I add a clarification here Milt? I don't believe i receive salvation or beneifts of Christ's sacrificeby faith, but that faith is the means by which I receive KNOWLEDGE of the benefits of salvation. Faith is another blessing that is actually accomplished by Christ's work. To say that we receive justification or the benefits of salvation by faith is in my mind too easy to misunderstand as conditionalism. Faith is the gift of God given to His elect in time to see the justification which has already been imputed unto them. Faith is merely the gift God gives to His people in time to look back on the cross (and in eternity) and realize with firm assurance that it was for them. Faith is the means or instrument if you will given by God which the elect use to rest with blessed assurance in Christ's atoning and completely accomplished effectual sacrifice.

[thepaulinator]

I see no problems in the way you responded. It is fine! I don't think you are infiltrating. My only concern is that you are so incredibly close to receiving the truth about Christ's sacrifice, but then, all of a sudden you come with a defense of the mass (as I read it at least) and I feel a little bit disappointed.

I came with the "defense" because it was one of the open ended discussions when I left. I was trying to give more of an understanding from the Catholic view. You know a lot about Catholicism, but that doesn't mean you know and understand it all perfectly. In the same way, I know some about Calvinism, but do not understand it as you do. This is why I would rather dialogue than debate. this is why I would rather just love everyone and pray. Far more people have come to know Christ because someone loved them rather than someone convincing them truth about Him. The way I see it, for now at least, I need to be fighting against despair in this world (something I can do) rather than arguing about Christianity with Christians(something I don't do very well). I love you all and God bless.

[GraceAmbassador]

May I add a clarification here Milt? I don't believe i receive salvation or beneifts of Christ's sacrificeby faith, but that faith is the means by which I receive KNOWLEDGE of the benefits of salvation. Faith is another blessing that is actually accomplished by Christ's work. To say that we receive justification or the benefits of salvation by faith is in my mind too easy to misunderstand as conditionalism. Faith is the gift of God given to His elect in time to see the justification which has already been imputed unto them. Faith is merely the gift God gives to His people in time to look back on the cross (and in eternity) and realize with firm assurance that it was for them. Faith is the means or instrument if you will given by God which the elect use to rest with blessed assurance in Christ's atoning and completely accomplished effectual sacrifice.
Thanks Brandan!
Your clarification was very appropriate.

Milt

[Skeuos Eleos]

Paulinator, I understand your concern. There are many pressing needs to attend to and debating theological nuances may not be the most important thing in some cases. However, you will no doubt appreciate that most of those posting here do not think these are merely 'nuances' but are actually vitally important matters of life and death. I'm reminded here of Martha who was rebuked by Jesus for placing things that needed doing (even though they were important things) above learning from Him. The gospel is of paramount importance. Many will point to the things they have done as the reason why Jesus should admit them to paradise but his response cuts all ground for pointing at anything we have done. What good will it be to have done great things but ultimately forfeit one's soul? Understand therefore that though we may appear harsh in our opposition our motive is the glorification of Jesus and a passion for the salvation of His Elect. No-one here claims perfect understanding but it would not be right to relegate the difference between the true and a false gospel (which CANNOT save) to a matter for 'comfortable' disagreement and acceptance - as I've already said it is a matter of life and death - in this case, I believe, yours!

Soli Deo Gloria!
Martin

[Skeuos Eleos]

Far more people have come to know Christ because someone loved them rather than someone convincing them truth about Him. Naturally I would disagree with this. In fact, if all someone knows in 'knowing' Christ is that they have been told that He loves them then I would say that they don't really know Christ at all. To know Christ and His love is to know and feel ones utter wretchedness.

People come to know Christ in time because God predestined them to from eternity not because of anything anyone does. Knowing that Christ loves them is certainly something that they will come to see and understand in believing the gospel but it is not the reason that they will come to know Christ. You probably weren't meaning that but were simply contending that it is the main 'route' by which people come to know Christ but even then I'd have to disagree. I think the main route described in scripture is the preaching of the gospel.

Martin

[thepaulinator]

Paulinator, I understand your concern. There are many pressing needs to attend to and debating theological nuances may not be the most important thing in some cases. However, you will no doubt appreciate that most of those posting here do not think these are merely 'nuances' but are actually vitally important matters of life and death. I'm reminded here of Martha who was rebuked by Jesus for placing things that needed doing (even though they were important things) above learning from Him. The gospel is of paramount importance. Many will point to the things they have done as the reason why Jesus should admit them to paradise but his response cuts all ground for pointing at anything we have done. What good will it be to have done great things but ultimately forfeit one's soul? Understand therefore that though we may appear harsh in our opposition our motive is the glorification of Jesus and a passion for the salvation of His Elect. No-one here claims perfect understanding but it would not be right to relegate the difference between the true and a false gospel (which CANNOT save) to a matter for 'comfortable' disagreement and acceptance - as I've already said it is a matter of life and death - in this case, I believe, yours!

I agree, I in now way was implying that what is discussed here is not important, I was merely stating that I don't think that is what God is using me for at the present moment. People need help, and I believe I have been called to help them. If I believed I was called to stay here and continue dicussion, I would, and maybe I will be one day in the future, but God has directed my heart elsewhere.


Naturally I would disagree with this. In fact, if all someone knows in 'knowing' Christ is that they have been told that He loves them then I would say that they don't really know Christ at all. To know Christ and His love is to know and feel ones utter wretchedness.

I mean no offense in what I am about to say...but this is the sort of thing I am, more or less, tired of. This was a statement that was not thought out and written to carry any great meaning or importance, it was just a small insight to what I feel the spirit calling me to. However, since you disagreed with what you thought I was trying to say, you made an argument out of it. I mean no offense, because I am guilty of doing the same thing alot. But to explain further what was meant...love is the driving force of salvation, not faith. Why, because God is love. But since we are in the spirits of picking aparts one simple statements, how about your last one there. Yes, knowing your wretchedness is natural when you humble yourself before the almighty, but it doesn't stop there. Humility is not all about feeling wretched. Once you have come to that realization, that you are wretched before God, the most powerful being in the universe...you must also come to realize He loves us so much that He chooses to see us through grace, which comes from faith which comes from God, and in that is our hope. To know Christ and His love is to know and feel ones utter wretchedness...and then smile, because The one who is not wretched chooses to see you otherwise. This realization comes from faith, arouses love, and remains steadfast in hope. That, is knowing Christ, and love drives such a feeling, not reasoned argument and logical flow. That is what I meant, and that is how I will live my life...asking God to give me the strength to endure hardship, and the courage to love along the way. I love you all.

[whs1]

Paulinator said:
"Far more people have come to know Christ because someone loved them rather than someone convincing them truth about Him."

And what if the person doing the "loving" was lacking any truth? They had a type of "love" that those who do not know Christ may and do show? What good is "love" without truth? Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life...".

Lot of counterfeits who know how to "love" without truth.

[Eileen]

I wonder if paulinator was trying to say that if we love one another, if we love our brother, if we love in deed and not word only that perhaps the Lord will use that to those outside and they will indeed want to ask:

1 Peter 3:15:

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meakness and fear.

[thepaulinator]

Paulinator said:
"Far more people have come to know Christ because someone loved them rather than someone convincing them truth about Him."

And what if the person doing the "loving" was lacking any truth? They had a type of "love" that those who do not know Christ may and do show? What good is "love" without truth? Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life...".

Lot of counterfeits who know how to "love" without truth.

If it's love... it's truth. By the way, by your standards, that "person" is everyone, including you, since no one has the entirety of truth at their disposal, unless of course you are now the arbiter of all truth. I would venture to say that you don't believe yourself to be such a thing, and that being so, your "love" is no good (again by yoru own standards). But I would totally disagree, your love IS good, and not because it is your own, but because it comes from Christ.


I wonder if paulinator was trying to say that if we love one another, if we love our brother, if we love in deed and not word only that perhaps the Lord will use that to those outside and they will indeed want to ask:

Thank you Eileen. I love you all.

[Robert R. Higby]

It is certainly true that love of the brethren is a 'litmus test' of whether we are genuine believers. But the love approved of God must be ever and always grounded in the true gospel of Grace. With regard to assurance, justification is by faith alone. It is not our love that gives us the hope of heaven, though the lack of it would be grounds for questioning the genuineness of our faith.

Christian love is not the only love in the world. On this point we must be very careful to examine the real basis of assurance. Our faith must be tested and proven by the Word of God's revelation, not assumed to be correct simply because we have a loving attitude towards humanity.

[thepaulinator]

Christian love is not the only love in the world. On this point we must be very careful to examine the real basis of assurance.

No I think it is the only love in the world. If it is not Christian love, it is not love, it is something esle. We may give these feelings of virtues the name "love", but it is just a name, and not the actual thing. When I say love, i mean Christian love, and no other. That's how I am using it anyways. I love you all

[Ivor Thomas]

Paulinator, you say far more people come to know Christ, because of our love for them what kind of love is this that you mean.I say this because christian love is what we get from abiding in Christ.This kind of love you speak of leads to universalism of Gods love. please read John ch 15;. You confuse the issue of our love and the love of God by using it for salvation, salvation is not dependent on we loveing people.Paulinator GOD does not love everybody. Ivor Thomas.:cool:

[Eileen]

BT:

In the previous post you said in part" it is not our love that gives us the hope of heaven". Were you referencing the use of the word hope in 1 Peter 3:15 and if so does the use of the word hope in that verse speak specifically and only to the hope of heaven?

I always read it as the whole of everything we know of Christ, (not thinking it through further than that). In reading the chapter it is telling us not to be troubled if we suffer for righteouness' sake so in context is is talking about persecution only?

Just trying to get a bit more persepective on what you were saying.

[Robert R. Higby]

Eileen states:
In the previous post you said in part" it is not our love that gives us the hope of heaven". Were you referencing the use of the word hope in 1 Peter 3:15 and if so does the use of the word hope in that verse speak specifically and only to the hope of heaven?

I did not have that scripture in mind when I said it, however, it certainly applies to what I was trying to convey. The 'hope within us' that we are prepared to give an answer for applies certainly to the hope of heaven in the end, but not only to that. It applies in a minor way (in contrast to the overwhelming hope of everlasting glory) to the hope we experience now as a consequence of our faith: that the Lord will reward our service for Him with a harvest of souls rejoicing in the truth of the gospel.

I always read it as the whole of everything we know of Christ, (not thinking it through further than that). In reading the chapter it is telling us not to be troubled if we suffer for righteouness' sake so in context is is talking about persecution only?

Well, probably not, but it IS in the context of persecution. That is, persecution being the endurance of ridicule of those who affirm that our faith and hope is useless and a delusion. Yes, everything that we know of Christ is the issue. Not just elementary doctrine. Some of our trials (many in our age?) result from the condemnation of those who want to promote 'gospel language' (for their own profit) but refuse to accept the implications of the true gospel in ALL of doctrine and life.

[thepaulinator]

This kind of love you speak of leads to universalism of Gods love.

How rediculous it is to argue over love.


You confuse the issue of our love and the love of God by using it for salvation, salvation is not dependent on we loveing people

A) Naturally, I disagree, and you should too by your own theology. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3. If there is no fruit of faith, their is no faith,by your thoughts, and therefore no salvation. If a person does not love, he has not faith (by your theology of faith then justification and works). So by your theology, you are right, our salvation does not depend on us loving people, but if we don't, it is evidence that we are not saved...am I right?

B) You have missed my point entirely. I said nothing about wether or not our salvation is a result of our love for people. I said that if we ever DO love people, it is not of our own power, it is the love of God being shown through us. That being said, it is not our love doing any saving, it is God's, and we just happen to get to share in its works, "for we are God's fellow workers"(1 Cor 3:9). "There are different kinds of working, but the same God who works all of them in men."(1 cor 12:6). And did not Paul himself say "Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?" (1 cor 9:1)? He obviously did not mean by his own power and ability, but the power and ability that God was working through him. So yes, our love does not save, but the love that God uses in us and through us does, so I'm gonna focus on that.


Paulinator GOD does not love everybody.

That's fantastic. But he does love you...so start from there.

[Skeuos Eleos]

How rediculous it is to argue over love.I'd hardly call what I've seen so far 'arguing'. I hope you don't see us as being argumentative. I would describe it as a discussion. You might think we're pernickety but there is so much ambiguity in language we do have to be careful to define what we mean so that what we say is understood. Nevertheless I hope we can all do so cordially. But please understand, if being awkward over precisely defining meanings is what leads to somone's eyes being opened to understand the true gospel or even just to being built up in their faith because they have understood something more clearly then surely it is worth it?

For all I know what might appear to you to be only a subtle difference in understanding about love and its role could be be a factor in someone's being deceived. The 'loving' thing to do is expose it not ignore it. I cannot speak for others, although I would expect them to agree, my motives are not to attack and correct all who disagree with me but to glorify God and proclaim His truth as far as I am able.


You have missed my point entirely. I said nothing about wether or not our salvation is a result of our love for people. I said that if we ever DO love people, it is not of our own power, it is the love of God being shown through us. A wicked unregenerate person is capable of showing love but it is not the love of God.

That being said, it is not our love doing any saving, it is God's, and we just happen to get to share in its works, "for we are God's fellow workers"(1 Cor 3:9). "There are different kinds of working, but the same God who works all of them in men."(1 cor 12:6). And did not Paul himself say "Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?" (1 cor 9:1)? He obviously did not mean by his own power and ability, but the power and ability that God was working through him. So yes, our love does not save, but the love that God uses in us and through us does, so I'm gonna focus on thatThe "love that God uses in us and through us" does NOT save. It is Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross that saves when he atoned for the sins of His elect and imputed His righteousness to them. If you are talking about the means that God uses when He opens someone's heart to believe the truth and turns them from their idolatry to Him then again it is not His love but the gospel. The gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16). His motive can be said to be love but even then it is secondary to His purposes in glorifying Himself. You are right to say that 'love' is a fruit of the Spirit and the Christian should have this in increasing measure - especially for the Brethren - BUT to say you are going to "focus on it" is wrong. The focus of the Christian should be "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" 1 Cor 1:23; 1 Cor 2:2; Gal 6:14; Heb 12:2. To place 'love' above this is to miss the gospel entirely.


IVOR THOMAS: Paulinator GOD does not love everybody
That's fantastic. In what way is this 'fantastic'? You're pleased to hear it or you don't believe it and are incredulous that someone does? If the latter I would refer you to the Common Grace thread where I believe those who believe in a universal love of God for all mankind failed to prove such a love from scripture. To me, this is a vital aspect of the gospel. After all, tell everyone God loves them and wants to save them and who's not going to believe such a nice message but its not the truth. Again, this shows why a focus on love rather than on the cross of Jesus Christ is wrong.

Martin

[GraceAmbassador]

You might think we're pernickety... Well, brother, don't call ME obsessed with details, but the correct spelling is p e r s n i c k e t y at least according to Encarta...;)

Thou correctest my French, I correct Thine English...:D

Milt

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by thepaulinator
How rediculous it is to argue over love.

How ridiculous is it to "argue" over holiness? God is holy. So if someone has a wrong understanding of holiness and is preaching that if we sin at all we are not holy, therefore God is not working in us and we are not saved. Why waste are time defining terms and clarifying doctrine.

In the same way people do the same thing with love. Because we are commanded to love and God is love they use that (or at least their understanding of what love is) as the catchall for thier theology. So if any doctrine doesn't appeal to their affections "then it must not be true, because God is love and that isn't love!"

We are told through the apostle Paul that sound doctrine is our touchstone
(2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:15, 2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Tim 4:2-4, Titus 2:6-8).

This is something all of us know, but in my opinion I don't think most professing Christians really believe this, nor do they have any fear of mishandling the precious word of God. This is demonstrated I think by some of the people that teach the sunday schools, bible study groups and sadly a lot of men (and women!) that fill the pulpets and their teaching that is for their own profit, and comes from a poor understanding of the very thing we are told to cling to and hold true.

My point is this. Are we really wasting time making sure that the truth is preserved in our preaching, conversation, dialogue in the 5solas forum, etc...isn't that the point of it's (5solas) existance? Isn't that one of our purposes in being salt and light in this dark world?

So I guess my last question to you paulinator is--what is love anyway? I may have missed it, if so please refer me to that post, but in your opinion what is love?

[Skeuos Eleos]

Well, brother, don't call ME obsessed with details, but the correct spelling is p e r s n i c k e t y at least according to Encarta...;)My dear brother Milt I would not dream of saying that you are obsessed with details. After all, if that were true, then you would have also mentioned that:
1. Although the US spelling includes the "S", the correct UK English spelling does not;
2. Since the word actually originated in Scotland in the 19th century where it was spelt without the "S" it would appear to be yet another example of the North American inability to spell;
3. Since we are communicating in the English language then surely the correct way to spell words in the English language would be in accordance with how English people spell them. By the way, did I mention that I am English? :p

You can call me pedantic if you prefer - its a little easier to spell. :D


Thou correctest my French, I correct Thine English...:DIt would be a sad day indeed when the colonials should correct an Englishman's spelling! :D

Better luck next time. ;)

[GraceAmbassador]

2. Since the word actually originated in Scotland in the 19th century where it was spelt without the "S" it would appear to be yet another example of the North American inability to spell;
On this number 2 we are so much in agreement that it "dispells" any eventual disagreement about "spelling" in ANY language!:rolleyes:

Note that in America they say "idear" rather than "idea" and some "warsh clothes" when they do their laundry, when indeed they mean "wash". That not mentioning that many call their capital "Warshington"... But, perhaps my ear has an built-in accent... :cool:

Also, note that I said: "At least according to Encarta", which is probably the way the nerdy tech minded geeks would spell that word in 21st century language. It was not an indictment on the English, from England, language...

Thanks for wishing me better luck next time. I will be persnicketly and pernicketly watching for such an opportunity...:rolleyes:

Nice to have fun with you again, my English chap!

Milt

[thepaulinator]

A wicked unregenerate person is capable of showing love but it is not the love of God

What that person is showing is not love then, in my understanding. That is the world's immitation of love, the "love" that springs from darkness rather than light. Again, if I mention love, it is the love that is and comes from God.


If you are talking about the means that God uses when He opens someone's heart to believe the truth and turns them from their idolatry to Him then again it is not His love but the gospel.

Name a part of the gospel that has no relation to love.


The focus of the Christian should be "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" 1 Cor 1:23; 1 Cor 2:2; Gal 6:14; Heb 12:2. To place 'love' above this is to miss the gospel entirely.

"Jesus Christ and Him Crucified" is the single greatest act of love this world has ever seen. If one focuses on love, real love, he will find himself immediately focusing on this very thing, Jesus and the cross. The two are not at all mutually exclusive, they are one in the same. If you focus on Christ and the cross you are focusing on love and vice versa. When I say I'm going to focus on love, it doesn't mean I'm turing into a free loving, everybody is swell, let's just all be friends hippie at woodstock =). I mean i am going to focus on the cross and the man hanging on it. It means I'm going to focus on the love that portrays and the salvation it brings, and maybe, just maybe, that will make some kind of difference in this despairing world we face everyday.


In what way is this 'fantastic'? You're pleased to hear it or you don't believe it and are incredulous that someone does?

It means that for the time being, I see no point in arguing one way or the other.


After all, tell everyone God loves them and wants to save them and who's not going to believe such a nice message but its not the truth.

I agree it is nice to hear and not the right thing to tell people...because hey, God could hate them, and you wouldn't want to be the one spreading rumors about who God likes...so instead...we should just say, God could love you, I won't know unless you happen to agree with the 5 solas and some other quasi-universal known fundamentals about God and His gospel, but I do know He loves me...


Again, this shows why a focus on love rather than on the cross of Jesus Christ is wrong.

No, this shows why a focus on the cheap immitation of love that springs from this world rather than the true love of Christ that springs from heaven is wrong.


My point is this. Are we really wasting time making sure that the truth is preserved in our preaching, conversation, dialogue in the 5solas forum, etc...isn't that the point of it's (5solas) existance? Isn't that one of our purposes in being salt and light in this dark world?

No you are exactly right. That is the point of this message board. Which is why I was letting everyone know I was not going to post as much, I have lost the desire to actively engage in dialogues such as these about truth and doctrine. I do this because I came here trying to form some kind of unity, some kind of connection within Christianity (even though most here would say I lie outside of Christianity rather than inside it, e.g. Gill named me as an enemy of his). After nearly a year of dialogues and discussion, to myself at least, I have seen nothing but more division. I believe it to be my own fault, with poor discussion skills and lack of knowledge. That being so, I can not bring myself to further divide Christianity, one can only stay up so many nights thinking about it. So call it lack of consistancy, lack of humility, or an excess of hypocrisy that causes me to continue trying to have my point known (probably just evidence of my reprobation).


So I guess my last question to you paulinator is--what is love anyway? I may have missed it, if so please refer me to that post, but in your opinion what is love?

In the simplest of ways...God is love, true love. It has little to do with affections, one does not have to "feel" love to know its presence, and only sometimes do affections show true and real love.


We are told through the apostle Paul that sound doctrine is our touchstone

And we are told by the messiah Jesus that love is our job.
(Matt 5:44, Matt 22:37, Matt 22:39, Mark 12:31-31, Luke 6:27, Luke 7:47, Luke 10:27, John 13:34-35, John 15:12, John 15:17)

If it is true love you posess and share, sound doctrine is sure to follow.

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by thepaulinator
If it is true love you posess and share, sound doctrine is sure to follow.

Yes that is true. Then by your own admission if we aposse each other then one of us doesn't possess true love or we both don't. Now I'm sure you don't claim to have perfent knowledge of all things and niether do I. However, if indeed you are convinced you hold a biblical and I say that it is not biblical, I do not have sound doctrine and do not posses the true love we are speaking of. (Now I don't want to build a stawman in so wasting my time and yours but it seems to me that this is the logical conclusion of your statement above.)

But if I am convinced that I need to do is focus on what you say you are focusing on:


Originally Posted by thepaulinator
I mean i am going to focus on the cross and the man hanging on it. It means I'm going to focus on the love that portrays and the salvation it brings, and maybe, just maybe, that will make some kind of difference in this despairing world we face everyday.

Isn't it mine and your responsability to preach the whole truth about the love of Christ? Not just what man thinks will reel them in? Because if that's all its about then why don't I just say that because Jesus' love is so great, everyone gets to go to heaven! Well it certainly is worthy of the love of God to do such a great thing since He is love. There is in fact a huge multitude who hold to this and pretty dogmaticly too! Would you say they are wrong? I'm guessing you would. Why? Well I'm guessing because you know the bible is clear that thats not true. So what is your job?

Originally Posted by thepaulinator
And we are told by the messiah Jesus that love is our job.
(Matt 5:44, Matt 22:37, Matt 22:39, Mark 12:31-31, Luke 6:27, Luke 7:47, Luke 10:27, John 13:34-35, John 15:12, John 15:17)


To speak the truth in love...correct those who aposse the truth...preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patients and instruction.

Originally Posted by thepaulinator
Which is why I was letting everyone know I was not going to post as much, I have lost the desire to actively engage in dialogues such as these about truth and doctrine. I do this because I came here trying to form some kind of unity, some kind of connection within Christianity...
You know Paul, (can I call you Paul?) :p --I feel you on this one--it does get vexing to go back and forth with someone and never seem to get through. I came out of a "Purpose Driven" Southern Baptist mega church and I was--to say the least--a minority after I came to embrace the Doctrines of Grace as Biblical. I dialogued with some people who when I shared my views on Soteriology they thought I was trying to start some new cult! You should have seen some of their faces!! :p Anyway, I have so many friends that I am in major disagreement with on these issues, (their fathers are even Pastors who preach against these things) and I will admit I have to make sure I don't let that become a factor in letting that influence my conviction of truth. But there are times when they need to be corrected ( I hardly feel its my place sometimes)and I have to face the music--if you will--and get ready for confrontation, because itsa' comin'. But I wish more people would stand firm on what they believe the truth is--even if I disagree with them--that way the lines would be much clearer. The fact is, Relativism has deluded the minds of such a large multitude in the visible church that there is a fear of absolutes because you might be saying a "brother" or "sister" is wrong and so bring division in the Church. There are times when confrontation is healthy, without it how are we supposed to fellowship in the sufferings of our Lord?!

[Robert R. Higby]

In the 13th chapter of Corinthians, Paul states unequivocally that the greatest human virtue is love (even greater than faith and hope). Yet Paul also affirms continuously, in all of his epistles--that faith, not love, is the assurance of our justification before God. How can this be?

True agape love is not tangible and readily apparent (in contrast to other forms of 'love' promoted by the world); faith is. The world cannot duplicate or even imitate genuine faith in the gospel. The gospel is a specific message. The world can affirm parts of it ('gospel LANGUAGE') in an attempt to deceive souls with its FALSE and deceptive gospel. But it cannot come close to counterfeiting the real thing. Gospel faith is unique. So is the gospel love that springs from faith (which is even a greater VIRTUE according to Paul), however, true faith is our sole assurance of justification. The real nature of faith is so radical and other-worldly that the Christ-haters of this world have not a CLUE what it is. They can counterfeit the love that flows from the gospel and faith (by parroting a concern for all mankind and doing good deeds)--but they cannot imitate the faith in Christ which impeccably assures a soul of eternal life.

John the apostle is clear; we know we have eternal life strictly by faith in the gospel. We love the brethren (in that 'agape' which the world knows not)--only because God has first loved us in the atonement of Christ. We receive his salvific love in the atonement strictly by genuine faith, then and then only (afterward) we extend this love to our brethren who also possess the same faith.

[GraceAmbassador]

Which is why I was letting everyone know I was not going to post as much, I have lost the desire to actively engage in dialogues such as these about truth and doctrine. I do this because I came here trying to form some kind of unity, some kind of connection within Christianity...
Dear Jeff: (that's your name, not Paul;) )

Sometimes it gets frustrating to discuss issues that are not so dear to us. I am guilty of fustigating you with questions and propositions that probably are part of that frustration. But I am sure that if you were falling into a cliff and were unaware of it and bent on resisting any "kind" advice to avoid such a fall, I would be showing "love" to you by jumping on your neck and tackling you down and saving you from falling much more than if I would try to explain to you the "science involved into a sudden stoppage against the earth, provoked by the laws of gravity, which could greatly damage your bodily structure, thus making it not advisable to proceed towards the geographical accident of ancient ages that provoked that which we know now as the cliff", and in the process, mention how much of a nice guy you are, how good looking your face is and how well dressed you look on those scruffy pants".

That's what we believe the Bible calls love. Something that resolves the issues. Not any demonstration of understanding based upon nothing but a fleeting warm fuzzy feeling. (I am not mocking your love; I love your love demonstrated here so far).

As to the question of unity that you mentioned above. There is no possibility of unity under "love". Love is not the grounds for unity at least in terms of God's revealed will. LIGHT is. Without light, any type of unity based on love is pure human sentiment of comfort or the pursuit of a comfort zone, but it is not unity. We can't just join hands and sing "com by ya", and grin mindlessly pretenting everything is going to be all right. It has been tried by the "new-age" gurus and it did not work. We have to seek LIGHT.

Discussions bring LIGHT. It is a Portuguese saying. And it is true. It does not mean "argument" brings light. It is not as if the Power company disconnects your electricity at home for lack of payment and in order to have "light" at home, you decide to begin to "discuss", or argue with your wife. Discussions bring LIGHT because exchanging ideas in a healthy and wholesome ambient helps us see the issues better. If it would not be for discussions, the major issues of this terrestrial ball would not have been resolved. That's why we debate and discuss here.

Sometimes in the process of discussing or debating, we tend to do what I mentioned above on the "cliff" illustration. We tend to be firm and harsh momentarily just to remove the other fellow from the perils of falling. That's all. I am sad to hear that you are tired of that but I do understand it perfectly since I get tired of "fussing" sometimes about issues that a kind disagreement or even a bad agreement beats the gehenna of a "good fight". In my country we have another saying "a bad agreement is much better than a good fight". But in theology, even if we agree on disagreeing, we MUST, by orders of God Himself, make sure that what we hold as His truth, if biblically sound, is expressed openly and clearly. That's why I expressed myself the way I did about the mass and other aspects of the RCC faith that you hold dear.

Am I the owner of the truth? No! God forbid! But CAN I know God's revealed truth? Absolotely YES! We have books, people who suffered for His cause and others who left a legacy of teaching on these truths. That not even mentioning the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised, would guide us into all truth! So, to debate questioning the other as to whether they are the owner of the truth or not, if we talk about theology, is plainly throwing our fists into the face of God, in rebellion and MISTRUST that He is not capable of revealing to us what He holds as truth.

I would love you continue to debate here. You have trained me and made me a better debator with your tempered reasoning and ability to express your thoughts. Keep believing God as capable of revealing to you and to all ELECT His truths and in the end God will do what He decreed. That's immutable and out of our control. But I would love you continue to see your posts.

I hope I made some sense...

Milt

[thepaulinator]

I hope I made some sense...

Milt

You always do.


Isn't it mine and your responsability to preach the whole truth about the love of Christ? Not just what man thinks will reel them in?

Of course it is, and unless you know the vast majority of it, it proabbly isn't a good idea to do what it is most of you good people do here. I however, don't seem to know much about it at all, and should not. I agree with you 100 percent that we should not just preach just what reels people in. I actually can't stand that. However, at this point in my life, I don't think I am capable or even able to "reel" anyone in, which is why I am focusing on love.


Because if that's all its about then why don't I just say that because Jesus' love is so great, everyone gets to go to heaven!

'Cause it just aint true. But that doesn't mean I can't love those who hate God. Those who hate God are my enemies, and I am called to love my enemies. If My friends are those who love God, and I love them, and my enemies are those who do not love God, and I love them, that means I am called to love everyone, because you either love God or you don't.


To speak the truth in love...correct those who opose the truth...preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

I do not disagree with that at all. I just dont' think I am in any position to be correcting or rebuking anyone right now. Again, by loving everyone I do not mean becoming indifferent to opposing opinions, I mean avoiding the debates for now, and trying to love humanity in the way God does. I am a 21 year old, pre-med, biomedical engineering student, desperately trying to study for his MCAT for April, i need prayer and love, not debate =).


But I wish more people would stand firm on what they believe the truth is--even if I disagree with them--that way the lines would be much clearer. The fact is, Relativism has deluded the minds of such a large multitude in the visible church that there is a fear of absolutes because you might be saying a "brother" or "sister" is wrong and so bring division in the Church.

If you graze the other posts throughout this site, you will see that I do take a more or less firm stance on what I believe to be truth. I hate relativism and I hate division. If you have any ideas or insight son how to bring us back together as one faith, please let me know, I feel so alone in such a cause.


There are times when confrontation is healthy, without it how are we supposed to fellowship in the sufferings of our Lord?!

I know it is. And aside from not feeling capable of effectively and correctly confronting anyone on these issues anymore, I feel called to something else. I have noticed a huge decline and degredation of hope in this world, and I can't help but feel like I need to help do something about it. Unfortunately, posting rebuttals and sound reasoning on 5solas.org doesn't seem to be the best way of doing it when so many people suffer from the deception of despair =).


We receive his salvific love in the atonement strictly by genuine faith, then and then only (afterward) we extend this love to our brethren who also possess the same faith.

Yay, agreement.


Sometimes it gets frustrating to discuss issues that are not so dear to us. I am guilty of fustigating you with questions and propositions that probably are part of that frustration.

Truly, I wish it was your questions causing my frustrations, because that is something I know how to fix...keep searching for the answers. My frustration comes from elsewhere and has two parts. 1) This world is in bad shape as well as the people living in it and 2) I feel like I am called to do something about it, but am not currently capable of doing so, and not sure how to go about it. As a result, I am starting with the BASICS of Christianity, prayer and love, almost as if I were going back to the drawing board.


That's what we believe the Bible calls love. Something that resolves the issues. Not any demonstration of understanding based upon nothing but a fleeting warm fuzzy feeling. (I am not mocking your love; I love your love demonstrated here so far).

I know you are not mocking my love. I know that is what you mean by love. But the love you are explaining seems to only be expressed through reason and logical argument. You can save someone from falling off the cliff of death without a point by point argument of trinitarian theolgy. Sometimes reason can only take someone so far, it can only take you to the beach, but it takes something more to make you dive into the ocean. What causes you to dive is love, and the dive itself is faith. When I say I am planning to focus on love, that does not mean i plan on going around telling everyone "Jesus loves you, even when you murder and steal and blaspheme! What a deal that is huh?" Love changed the world, not reason, and it was love that made reason a tool for finding more love.


As to the question of unity that you mentioned above. There is no possibility of unity under "love". Love is not the grounds for unity at least in terms of God's revealed will. LIGHT is. Without light, any type of unity based on love is pure human sentiment of comfort or the pursuit of a comfort zone, but it is not unity. We can't just join hands and sing "com by ya", and grin mindlessly pretenting everything is going to be all right. It has been tried by the "new-age" gurus and it did not work. We have to seek LIGHT.

If you seek REAL love, you will find it is quite bright. When you seek the first thing that seems to resemble love, you will find it quite dull and dark.

[Mickey]

Jeff, I was thinking about the things we are discussing--this may be stating the obvious--but I think the main issue here is a difference in theology. As you well know a lot of the participants in these discussions are reformed. I think its safe to say that you are coming from the opposite side of the spectrum here. I can only speak for myself but, being reformed I do not believe that other people's salvation is dependent on my actions--loving or unloving. Now hear me carefully here. It matters not if I evangelize the whole world or just sit on my hands for the rest of my life--God has his elect and thats that. However, because His Spirit dwells in me I have the mind of Christ, so I obey from the desire of my heart to share the truth with all men. I have no desire to condemn people, the truth does that on its own. Christ alone is sovereign in the conviction of sin and righteousness and securing the salvation for His elect.

Now if you are looking for unity it will never happen on this side of paradise, because the unity you are speaking of requires the suppresion of truth. See I can't even commend you for a noble desire to unite because I believe that those that hold to you theological position are still walking in darkness. So your motivations all though they may appear to be good are wicked in the sight of God, because the root of this whole discussion is His glory and your system of theology robs him of that.


Originally Posted by ThePaulinator
I mean avoiding the debates for now, and trying to love humanity in the way God does.
If this were true (you loving humanity the way God does) we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Originally Posted by ThePaulinator
I am a 21 year old, pre-med, biomedical engineering student, desperately trying to study for his MCAT for April, i need prayer and love, not debate =).

I do understand the blessedness of fellowship of likeminded believers, and that is one reason I left the Southern Baptist church to attend a reformend church. However, I don't believe its love that you are looking for here. I think what you are looking for is what the world wants and that is permission to continue in error with unity as thier justification.



Originally Posted by ThePaulinator
I hate relativism and I hate division. If you have any ideas or insight son how to bring us back together as one faith, please let me know, I feel so alone in such a cause.

The return of Christ, but thats up to God when that time will be. As far as you feeling alone in this; I imagin thats how the reformers felt and many others in the history of the Church. Sometimes I feel that way because there aren't many reformed works out here on the coast of Virginia, but they (the reformers) loved the truth and so do I.


Originally Posted by ThePaulinator
Sometimes reason can only take someone so far, it can only take you to the beach, but it takes something more to make you dive into the ocean. What causes you to dive is love, and the dive itself is faith. When I say I am planning to focus on love, that does not mean i plan on going around telling everyone "Jesus loves you, even when you murder and steal and blaspheme! What a deal that is huh?" Love changed the world, not reason, and it was love that made reason a tool for finding more love.
Once again, if Christ is sovereign in salvation then niether love nor reason will cause someone to dive in or have faith as you say.


Originally Posted by ThePaulinator
I have noticed a huge decline and degredation of hope in this world, and I can't help but feel like I need to help do something about it. Unfortunately, posting rebuttals and sound reasoning on 5solas.org doesn't seem to be the best way of doing it when so many people suffer from the deception of despair =).

Some of your dispair is most likey a result of your view of God's soveriegnty. The result of your view is frustration with your power, because you cannot change anything. I'm sure you know this but I don't think you understand why God has decreed this decline and degredation. Until God grants you the understanding of this truth you will remain in this state of frustration. If you don't see it that way, then all that does is affirm my view all the more.

[Eileen]

We are called to love:

If we love Christ He has called us to keep His commandments
Love our neighbor
Love the brethren and the scriptures are endless in their exhortations to love.

I wonder several things,

Does anyone here think that we are capable of pure "agape" love in this life? Our every thought and our every deed is tainted by sin.

Isn't that in part what we strive for in this Christian life? We strive to keep His commandments, even though we know we can't and we know He kept them for us.

We strive to love our neighbor, although our nature is prone to hate God and to hate our neighbor.

We strive to love the brethren and that is in the fellowship of the saints, do we do that perfectly?

I guess what I am trying to ask is, should we give up striving because we fail or is that perhaps the only way we can love here, by our feeble actions done because we love the Lord Jesus Christ and for no other reason?

Such a big subject, God's love!

[Ivor Thomas]

We are made more than capable of agape love by having New Nature, we are to walk in the spirit not in the flesh. The Love of God and the bretheren and neighbour is written in ou hearts, moved on by the Spirit.The christians every thought is Not tainted by sin, ?Christ in us the hope of Glory not sin ruling and the devil in us. Jesus said blessed ARE the pure in heart thats now. not that they are going to be in Heaven.:cool: Ivor Thomas..

[Eileen]

Not I, but Christ who lives within me!

[GraceAmbassador]

Correct Ivor and Eileen, if I may!

During the disciples physical walk with Jesus, He taught them how to love. He even walked, received and called His enemy a "friend". Then Jesus taught them a new standard of love. By the law, they had learned to "love their neighgors as they loved themselves". The Law made "yourself" or "your love for yourself" the standard with which you should love your neighbor.

Jesus brought us a NEW commandment: He places now HIS LOVE as the standard with which we should love: "A new commandment I give to you: Love one another (restricted love) as I HAVE LOVED YOU". The standard of love is now Jesus love not love for "self".

When Paul crowned all revelations with the revelation of Grace, we can know now that we have a new nature, the mind of Christ, the Spirit abiding in us, using our bodies as temples, and actually "living in us" as pointed by Eileen echoing Galatians 2:20. This is glorious to know! Christ's living is now overpowering our human weaknesses and we can indeed follow His new commandment:

"Love one another (within the confines of His followers) as I HAVE LOVED YOU!"

Milt

[CarolK]

Hi Eileen,



I guess what I am trying to ask is, should we give up striving because we fail or is that perhaps the only way we can love here, by our feeble actions done because we love the Lord Jesus Christ and for no other reason?


I believe that yes, we should give up striving, because we will fail, or if we do succeed (according to our definition of success) we will glory in that success. The only way I find is to look to Christ, take our eyes off ourselves and what we should do or shouldnt do and just rest in him. When we begin to do this, the 'right things to do' just begin to happen. The love for others, and the following of the commandments of God begins to just happen in us, without us even noticing it, because it is what we want to do, --not some chore we are striving at doing.

I believe our goal is not to stop sinning or to do the right things, but to keep our eyes on Christ, to learn of him and glory in him, rest on his finished work on the cross. When we can do this, the other things just begin to fall into place.

You've heard of trickle-down economics, well I call this trickle-down gospel.

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. 2 Cor. 5:14

Blessings in Christ,
Carol

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Does anyone here think that we are capable of pure "agape" love in this life? Our every thought and our every deed is tainted by sin.We? No.

God? Yes!!


We strive to love the brethren and that is in the fellowship of the saints, do we do that perfectly?I can only speak from my personal frame of reference:

I will be forth coming in stating I have met people who, outside of Christ, I would want nothing to do with. They would serve no purpose in my meaningless existence other than to facilitate my need for "gain".

But, Glory to God. I love them because of Jesus. I love them because I now know the plight that brought them into my life. I now look at the facts and the severity of the situation and serve the Lord, my brother and friend, out of pure motives that He graciously imbued me with.

Sadly enough, I fail every time; and each time I come to a more robust understanding of two things:

God's Grace and my need for a saviour.

A very dear and greatly beloved brother once comforted me with the following words: "We tend to be more concerned with our performance when we should have our eyes on Christ".

Our performance isn't the issue. Never was, nor will it be. Our lives are hidden in Christ. I believe, it is for this reason, that on the day of visitation we will cast our crowns into the dust at His feet.

The perfection of our love for one another will be accomplished regardless of our sinful attempts to rely on ourselves and rob God if His glory. It's just a matter of time until He allows it to reach full maturity, slowly instructing us in His righteousness.

Glory to God!!

[Eileen]

I always delight in any "application" of truth to my heart. I hope that Paulinator is still reading this thread because I think he was asking for just what has been posted, a simple but true idea of love, not only God's love but our own and how that is worked out in us and in others.

And again we know that it is , Not I, but Christ who dwells within me.

[thepaulinator]

Does God hate those souls destined to/already in Hell?

[Brandan Kraft]

Does God hate those souls destined to/already in Hell?Of course... Just search the scriptures on "hate"... Rom. 9 is enough for me.

[disciple]

Of course... Just search the scriptures on "hate"... Rom. 9 is enough for me.but what is further needed is to understand what it means for God to hate. some will probably be surprised that the Scripture says that God hates because they understand the hate in a human sense. it is important to understand that God's hatred is not human hatred but a holy hatred untainted by any sin.

[thepaulinator]

it is important to understand that God's hatred is not human hatred but a holy hatred untainted by any sin.

Could this be elaborated?

[disciple]

Could this be elaborated?as an example, what is the first thing that comes to your mind if someone says, "i hate you." normally you think that this is mean and unjustified. you think that they mean to do you only harm. often we think that means they are bad people with evil motives.

for God, it is (must be) completely different for He is not like us. i don't know that Scripture ever compares God's hatred to ours. plus, this sort of language qualifies as anthropopathism. human language will never be able to perfectly express God...only the LOGOS could do that and this is why He sent His unique Son (cf. John 1:1-18).

God's hatred is a perfect hatred with no evil motives at all. it is rooted in His holiness and righteousness. it is totally pure and untained with sin. and it is hatred because the subject refuses to worship, serve, and obey Him, not being one of His elect. as Christ says elsewhere, you are either with Him or against Him, you cannot be somewhere in between. in regards to a person's status before God, there are only two options, you are either loved or hated, elect or reprobate, chosen or rejected, in or out, confessed or denied, saint or sinner, Christian or pagan, believer or unbeliever, accepted/justified or rejected, etc. there is no middle road or in betweener.

perhaps you could explain/elaborate on the hatred spoken of in Romans 9. i would like to hear how you understand it. thanks.

[thepaulinator]

I was just asking what you meant, I'm not going to rebut.

[disciple]

I was just asking what you meant, I'm not going to rebut.i don't necessarily want you to rebut...i'd just like to hear how you understand the hatred of God. what thoughts/feelings does it evoke to you?

[thepaulinator]

I do understand the blessedness of fellowship of likeminded believers, and that is one reason I left the Southern Baptist church to attend a reformend church. However, I don't believe its love that you are looking for here. I think what you are looking for is what the world wants and that is permission to continue in error with unity as thier justification.

No, I despise what the world wants and I despise error.


Once again, if Christ is sovereign in salvation then niether love nor reason will cause someone to dive in or have faith as you say.

I disagree completely, because it IS love that causes people to dive in, the love of God that comes to man by grace. It is this love I seek and focus on and reflect on. This is where faith comes from, God, and it is given because He loves us. Define "us" how you wish for right now, I'm not planning on speaking about that right now.


Some of your dispair is most likey a result of your view of God's soveriegnty. The result of your view is frustration with your power, because you cannot change anything. I'm sure you know this but I don't think you understand why God has decreed this decline and degredation. Until God grants you the understanding of this truth you will remain in this state of frustration. If you don't see it that way, then all that does is affirm my view all the more.

I know I cannot change anything unless God grants me the grace to do so, and even then, it is God doing the changing with me and through me.


i don't necessarily want you to rebut...i'd just like to hear how you understand the hatred of God. what thoughts/feelings does it evoke to you?

I think I pretty much agree with your understanding of God's hate...a "perfect, non-sinful" hate. But I would just call that God's basic love for all of his creation. God loves the animals he created, even though they are inapable of loving him back. So I would say God loves Esau about as much as God loves the cock-roaches he created for us (maybe even more=)), basically, only in the sense that He created him (i.e. Esau) does God love Esau, but in the sense of humanity, Esau is hated in the way you describe.

[Brandan Kraft]

Hi Paulinator - it's nice to see you're back! We missed you around here!

This "love" you are referring to is known in the reformed world as "common grace". I disagree with it and think you would like to see my rationale... Here is a discussion we had on it right here:

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1412

Brandan

[thepaulinator]

Thanks Brandan. While reading that thread, I discovered that Disciple puts it plainly...

"the implication is that just as God loves (in some sense) and is kind (in some sense) to those who are His enemies (i.e., unrighteous) so should we. the word XARIS is not used here but God causing the sun to rise and sending the rain is taken as an indication that He, in a certain sense (though definitely not salvific nor in an eternal sense here), loves/is kind to both friend and foe (though by no means that it is the same kind, manner, degree, etc. of love)."

-Disciple on 11-10-03, emphasis mine

What disciple says here is fairly close to what I believe.

[Robert R. Higby]

The honorable Paulinator states:

I would say God loves Esau about as much as God loves the cock-roaches he created for us (maybe even more=)), basically, only in the sense that He created him (i.e. Esau) does God love Esau, but in the sense of humanity, Esau is hated in the way you describe.

Strangely enough, I agree with the principle of what you are stating! God has a basic fondness and regard of all he has created, simply because he is the creator. All persons, animals, and inanimate things serve the amazing and transcendent purposes of the Lord God!

[thepaulinator]

I'm smiling =)