- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A biblical warning about our times
Posted on 2/10/22 at 9:20 pm to Revelator
Posted on 2/10/22 at 9:20 pm to Revelator
quote:
Really? No other means?
Like salvation by faith?
for those who have the faith proclaimed to them and have the chance to ask for baptism. Yes there is no other way to be saved according to the Catholic Church.
The interpretation of Jesus' words to Nicodemus are critical it seems to me. You suggest, I believe in error, that Jesus is speaking of normal birth by water and spiritual rebirth by the Holy Spirit. Instead Jesus is speaking of the same thing when he says water and spirit. The ritual rebirth of water that the spirit uses to save us and bring us into his kingdom.
1
Posted on 2/10/22 at 10:15 pm to Revelator
Every Christian generation has thought they were at the end times. I think there are probably more pressing things you have to worry about.
Posted on 2/10/22 at 11:20 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
Be honest with me Catholic. Isn’t it true that according to Catholic teachings, no one can ever have assurance of salvation or assume he is going to heaven?
Correct.
Bruh. No chance in hell I’m standing before Jesus on my judgement day and telling Him “you weren’t enough”.
Posted on 2/10/22 at 11:50 pm to Srobi14
It's part of the playbook. Keep people scared of something. God's wrath, end times, yadda, yada. All a desperate attempt to remain relevant.
One of these doomsday prophecy clowns will eventually be right and get to say, "See, I told you so". Until then, it's just loonies thinking the world is ending every few years trying to apply their interpretation of archaic middle eastern based theology to the modern planet.
One of these doomsday prophecy clowns will eventually be right and get to say, "See, I told you so". Until then, it's just loonies thinking the world is ending every few years trying to apply their interpretation of archaic middle eastern based theology to the modern planet.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 6:09 am to Srobi14
quote:
I think there are probably more pressing things you have to worry about.
Actually, there is no more pressing thing in life more important then where you will spend eternity.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 6:29 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
The interpretation of Jesus' words to Nicodemus are critical it seems to me. You suggest, I believe in error, that Jesus is speaking of normal birth by water and spiritual rebirth by the Holy Spirit. Instead Jesus is speaking of the same thing when he says water and spirit. The ritual rebirth of water that the spirit uses to save us and bring us into his kingdom.
The cleansing process with water had deep ceremonial significance to the Jew. It is both a ceremonial and symbolic gesture of an inward transformation.
Jesus said if we were ashamed of him, he would be ashamed of us. When we are baptized, we not only are showing the death of the old nature, and the start of the new, we are publicly showing we are not ashamed of Christ and our decision to follow him.
That’s one reason why infant baptism is pointless. In the scripture, salvation and belief always precedes baptism and not the other way around. An infant has no mental capacity to either believe or reject Christ, making the practice useless.
In any account, it’s what happens to a man’s heart in faith that saves him, and not some sprinkling or dunking.
Here is a passage from the Old Testament that Nicodemus surely understood, and possibly what Jesus was alluding to by his use of water.
For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezek. 36:24–27)
Now look at this passage;
Matthew 3:4
And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Look at the bold verses.
First it says the people who were about to get baptized, confessed their sins first.
Confession, faith then Baptism.
Secondly, the Pharisees were coming to be baptized, but John realized they had never repented and refused to baptize them. If it was as simple as volunteering to be baptized and be saved, he would have granted their request.
Again, he expected faith and repentance before baptism.
Lastly, he tells them, “ you think you deserve to be baptized just because you are children of Abraham and not because you have repented and have faith.
This is like people baptizing kids at birth simply because they belong to a church and not because they have made a conscious decision to follow Christ and turn from their sins.
Now read this;
Acts 8:26
And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 ¶ And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 ¶ And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 ¶ And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 ¶ And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 ¶ And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Notice that the Ethiopian wanted to be baptized and asked Philip, what prevents me from doing so. And Philip tells him, nothing, if you believe with all your heart.
So once again, the faith had to come first and then the baptism.
If baptism itself saved, Philip would not have pressed him about his faith first.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 7:11 am
Posted on 2/11/22 at 8:55 am to Champagne
quote:I'm always willing to learn, but learning isn't the issue: it's whether or not what is learned is tested according to the scriptures, like the Bereans did.
But you and I already had our discussions and we got nowhere because you aren't here to learn anything.
I learn new things all the time, but because I have a Biblical worldview, I try to see all things through the lens of God's Word, and that which contradicts it must be rejected.
quote:Here's a LINK to the Westminster Standards (Confession and Larger and Smaller Catechisms) with scripture references.
I read portions of this document, and I note that nowhere is it footnoted to identify its support from Scripture and other documents. Nowhere in this document is any analysis presented for any of the conclusions stated in the document. LINK
Whether or not the references are included is up to each website that publishes it.
quote:The OPC? No, but they are part of NAPARC, an association of Presbyterian and Reformed churches/denominations that share similar beliefs. My church is also a member of NAPARC.
Is this your church?
quote:There are other Confessions, but they don't differ much on theology. It's more about the wording and descriptions. There are some bigger differences in the London Baptist Confession of 1689, but that's largely due to a difference on baptism (baptism upon a profession of faith only vs. baptism for infants of believers in addition to new believers upon profession).
I note that there are many other versions of Protestant churches Confessions of Faith.
quote:I'd say that those statistics are likely inflated. I've commonly seen between 30,000 and 40,000 denominations listed on websites, but to my knowledge those numbers are based on self-identifying churches and those that have sister-churches in other countries that are likely counted multiple times. The true number is probably somewhere in the hundreds to lower thousands, which doesn't really make things better for your point about how fractured Protestantism is, but that the other numbers are likely very much overstated.
This is completely logical because there are in fact, tens of thousands of different Protestant sects
quote:While there can be some drastic differences between denominations, most of them are not that far off from one another in terms of doctrine and practice. There are a few main issues, like church polity (Congregationalism vs. Presbyterianism vs. Episcapalianism) or differences in baptism (creedo vs. pedo), and then there's the Calvinism vs. Arminianism thing, and then especially eschatology (Premil of different flavors vs. Amil vs. Postmil), but all-in-all, most Protestants still hold to the core tenants of the early creeds. What matters is who God is and what He has done through Jesus Christ, and almost all Protestants can come together on that.
all of them teaching a different "truth" they they all say comes directly from the Holy Spirit.
The differences arise from minor or secondary issues rather than primary ones. Catholicism isn't free from this, either. There has been a growing movement within Catholicism to adopt charismatic beliefs and practices, with some parishes even having the belief that there is a second baptism, one by the Spirit, that provides spiritual gifts that the early church experienced. This is what the Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations believe which separates them from other mainline churches. The difference between this in Catholicism and Protestantism is that they still consider themselves Roman Catholic rather than breaking away to form their own denomination to differentiate themselves from the rest of their Catholic brothers and sisters. The issue is about formal union rather than separation.
My denomination is separated from other Presbyterian denominations like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) based primarily on differences in beliefs about exclusive psalmody and acapella singing during worship. Otherwise, we are in agreement on pretty much everything else.
While there are differences that cause disunity within Protestantism, we still call each other "brother" and "sister", because we still hold to the key doctrines that make us "Christian".
Posted on 2/11/22 at 9:03 am to Champagne
quote:I could also provide in great detail with analysis and citations from scripture that you and the Catholic Catechism are absolutely wrong about everything you claim to be true theology. In fact, I've been trying to do that in a very limited sense in this thread. The problem is that I don't have years to assemble it all in some sort of rebuttal. There have been countless works and writings created that defend the scriptural truthfulness of the Confessions that came out of the Reformation if you're interested in doing some reading, yourself.
Foo, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in detail and in footnotes with analysis and citations from Scripture that you are absolutely wrong about everything you claim to be true WRT theology
quote:I'm trying to show my work, but I've got a lot to say within a character limit. I try to prove scripture references where most beneficial, but everything I've said regarding doctrine so far can be supported by scripture.
Simply saying it is so doesn't make it so! You've got to show your work.
The issue is that you not only will quote scripture, but you will add to it the extra-scriptural doctrines created out of tradition, and I simply don't accept those. We talk past each other because we have different standards of what is binding and authoritative on the Christian.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 9:18 am to FooManChoo
OK, Foo.
Go ahead and tell us all about your particular version of Protestantism in which you believe. The we will take a look at your "catechism" and discuss it.
Please do this in a separate thread devoted to your particular "catechism".
We will examine your theology in that thread - and we will contain the examination to that particular issue and we won't allow any side-tracking.
Let's close this thread and move the examination to the new thread, which you will start. You will demonstrate that all of your theological claims are proven by Scripture Alone and that all of your theological claims are PERFECTLY CLEAR from Scripture Alone.
Please proceed.
Go ahead and tell us all about your particular version of Protestantism in which you believe. The we will take a look at your "catechism" and discuss it.
Please do this in a separate thread devoted to your particular "catechism".
We will examine your theology in that thread - and we will contain the examination to that particular issue and we won't allow any side-tracking.
Let's close this thread and move the examination to the new thread, which you will start. You will demonstrate that all of your theological claims are proven by Scripture Alone and that all of your theological claims are PERFECTLY CLEAR from Scripture Alone.
Please proceed.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 9:22 am to Champagne
We are fortunate this thread has been tolerated. A thread solely based on two people debating theological positions almost certainly will not.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 9:50 am to Champagne
quote:I don't believe that at all. God's grace is a supernatural act and God promises such grace through the sign of baptism.
Of course both Foo and Rev MUST insist that Baptism is no more than a mere gesture that has absolutely no supernatural consequences.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Westminster Confession of Faith on baptism:
5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, (Luke 7:30, Exod. 4:24–26) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: (Rom. 4:11, Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (Acts 8:13, 23)
6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; (John 3:5, 8) yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. (Gal. 3:27, Tit. 3:5, Eph. 5:25–26, Acts 2:38, 41)
What we don't teach is that regeneration occurs during baptism.
quote:Faith alone for salvation is a doctrine taken from the scriptures, not something passed down from man to man or church to church that didn't originate in the scriptures. That's what Rome does: create doctrine with the justification that it's part of the Apostles' teachings that weren't recorded and then pass that down.
They MUST insist because they are absolutely chained to their False Tradition of FAITH ALONE. If Baptism Saves than Faith Alone is False. So, they are absolutely chained to the fake notion about Baptism having no supernatural consequence whatsoever.
Even so, baptism is not a requirement for salvation. If it were, it would be included everywhere the gospel is mentioned, because faith and baptism would be inseparable for salvation. Not only is that not the case (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9; etc.), but Paul specifically talks about not baptizing some Christians and being thankful for it as to not increase division in the church (1 Cor. 1). He went on to say that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel (how we are saved--by faith) in verse 17. Furthermore, many times we are told we are justified by faith, apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28-30; 4:5; 10:4; 11:6; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9).
Paul even compares our salvation to Abraham's, who was justified by faith, not by works (Rom. 4). I believe that baptism is the new covenant sign that replaces the old covenant sign of circumcision (Col. 2:11-15), and yet Abraham wasn't justified by his circumcision, but by his faith in God's promise.
quote:Faith alone is in both the old and new testaments, but clarified especially in the new. I've provided many proof texts so far, but there is more to say that I don't have the character space to include. Regardless, it's disingenuous to say it was "invented" 1,500 years after Christ when the doctrine is pulled directly from the Bible. What you're talking about is official doctrine of the church, and it's true that it wasn't official early on, but that's because it wasn't something debated early on. However, there are quotes from many church fathers that point to a faith alone support for justification. This doctrine didn't come out of thin air during the Reformation.
Tell them that NOWHERE in the Bible is their "Faith Alone" tradition proven. Faith Alone is a tradition invented by men over 1,500 years after Christ established his Church. Faith Alone is absent from any Christian theological writing or discourse until invented by men 1,500 years after Christ.
quote:Straw man argument. It wasn't considered "useless" just because it wasn't viewed as necessary for salvation. It is necessary as a way of obedience to Christ's command, but as the scriptures teach, we aren't saved by the law.
Tell them that this notion about the uselessness of Baptism was completely UNKNOWN in three thousand years of Jewish and Christian theology until it was invented by Martin Luther.
quote:Supposedly handed down. I disagree. I believe the scriptures are sufficient in themselves (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
It's all explained in the Catholic Catechism, which is extensively footnoted with citations to Scripture and the teachings of Jesus that He handed down to the Apostles.
Also, it's interesting how all of the doctrine that Rome teaches as being handed down by the Apostles didn't develop all at once, but came to be dogma over 2,000 years. If the more recent doctrines about Mary (which were completely foreign to the early fathers) were part of the treasure trove of teaching from the Apostles, why weren't those doctrines given to the early Christians and preserved for the first thousand years and then some? I believe it's because the Roman Catholic church doesn't merely hand down what was supposedly received from the Apostles, but creates their own doctrine and then imposes it on the faithful. It's precisely why the Reformers had sola scriptura as their rallying cry: because scripture doesn't change, and it is the only authority that should bind the conscience of the Christian, for it alone is the infallible and inerrant word of God.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 2/11/22 at 10:10 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Of course both Foo and Rev MUST insist that Baptism is no more than a mere gesture that has absolutely no supernatural consequences.
I’ve been baptized twice. Once as an infant in the Catholic Church, then a second time as an adult in the Baptist Church. I think I’m covered.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 10:13 am
Posted on 2/11/22 at 10:29 am to Revelator
Rev I want to first look at the way the Church baptizes. Quickly a run through of what happens at a normal baptism (not including emergency baptisms which is another discussion)
There are two primary ways a person in baptized in the Church. Either as a child or as an adult at the Easter Vigil. The rites are very similar.
We welcome the candidate and some prayers are prayed on behalf of the candidate.
The celebration of baptism begins with a blessing of water, a long prayer taken from the Easter Vigil.
After this there is a renunciation of sin and a profession of faith.
After they profess their faith and reject sin they are baptized by the trinitarian formula.
Some other prayers and gestures happen but the essential moment the baptism is what needs to be focused on.
The reason I laid this out is that we too profess our faith before we are baptized just like the Bible asks us to and what happens with baptisms from the bible.
So it seems that belief and a profession of faith is necessary, but not only that the ritual of baptism is necessary too.
Now to your passages.
I don’t disagree here, yes water was cleansing for the Jews. But I would argue that the symbolic cleaning was a shadow of what Jesus gave us in the New Testament. As in ritual Baptism. Catholics teach as St. Paul does, see Romans 6. Baptism is not only a outward sign of what happens to us interiorly, it literally takes on the reality it symbolizes. This is what the Church teaches as the sacraments.
I get what your saying but in no way does them confessing their sins first remove the necessity of baptism.
Here again it doesn’t do away with the necessity for baptism it just shows that he professed his faith first than was baptized.
I understand your argument but it doesn’t do away with the necessity of baptism according to Jesus. As I’ve argued Jesus commands baptism when he speaks to Nicodemus. I understand your interpretation but I believe it is in error. St. John speaks sacramentally in his works, and later context shows that Jesus and his disciples went on to baptize people. I’ve also shown that most ancient commentaries on this passage, argue that baptism is necessary for salvation.
I too would point out 1 Peter 3:20-21 where St. Peter says that ark prefigured baptism. As he said “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.” St. Peter seems to think Baptism saves us, just like Jesus taught in John 3:5.
Else where in Acts Baptism immediately follows repentance, and belief in Christ. I know how your argument goes that baptism doesn’t matter it’s only a symbol of what has already happened. But I would argue that Baptism is the completion of the act of faith given by the person. As St. Paul describes Baptism is a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. How is a mere profession of faith a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus?
This is why as I’ve said before the Church teaches Baptism is necessary for salvation. However, God is not bound by Baptism. So before you bring up the good thief or anyone in the Old Testament, God can save those apart from Baptism, but since the words of Jesus to Nicodemous we are bound to be baptized. Unless through no fault of our own we cannot be baptized, but that is a rare occurrence.
There are two primary ways a person in baptized in the Church. Either as a child or as an adult at the Easter Vigil. The rites are very similar.
We welcome the candidate and some prayers are prayed on behalf of the candidate.
The celebration of baptism begins with a blessing of water, a long prayer taken from the Easter Vigil.
After this there is a renunciation of sin and a profession of faith.
After they profess their faith and reject sin they are baptized by the trinitarian formula.
Some other prayers and gestures happen but the essential moment the baptism is what needs to be focused on.
The reason I laid this out is that we too profess our faith before we are baptized just like the Bible asks us to and what happens with baptisms from the bible.
So it seems that belief and a profession of faith is necessary, but not only that the ritual of baptism is necessary too.
Now to your passages.
quote:
The cleansing process with water had deep ceremonial significance to the Jew. It is both a ceremonial and symbolic gesture of an inward transformation.
Jesus said if we were ashamed of him, he would be ashamed of us. When we are baptized, we not only are showing the death of the old nature, and the start of the new, we are publicly showing we are not ashamed of Christ and our decision to follow him.
I don’t disagree here, yes water was cleansing for the Jews. But I would argue that the symbolic cleaning was a shadow of what Jesus gave us in the New Testament. As in ritual Baptism. Catholics teach as St. Paul does, see Romans 6. Baptism is not only a outward sign of what happens to us interiorly, it literally takes on the reality it symbolizes. This is what the Church teaches as the sacraments.
quote:
Matthew 3:4
I get what your saying but in no way does them confessing their sins first remove the necessity of baptism.
quote:
Acts 8:26-38
Here again it doesn’t do away with the necessity for baptism it just shows that he professed his faith first than was baptized.
I understand your argument but it doesn’t do away with the necessity of baptism according to Jesus. As I’ve argued Jesus commands baptism when he speaks to Nicodemus. I understand your interpretation but I believe it is in error. St. John speaks sacramentally in his works, and later context shows that Jesus and his disciples went on to baptize people. I’ve also shown that most ancient commentaries on this passage, argue that baptism is necessary for salvation.
I too would point out 1 Peter 3:20-21 where St. Peter says that ark prefigured baptism. As he said “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.” St. Peter seems to think Baptism saves us, just like Jesus taught in John 3:5.
Else where in Acts Baptism immediately follows repentance, and belief in Christ. I know how your argument goes that baptism doesn’t matter it’s only a symbol of what has already happened. But I would argue that Baptism is the completion of the act of faith given by the person. As St. Paul describes Baptism is a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. How is a mere profession of faith a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus?
This is why as I’ve said before the Church teaches Baptism is necessary for salvation. However, God is not bound by Baptism. So before you bring up the good thief or anyone in the Old Testament, God can save those apart from Baptism, but since the words of Jesus to Nicodemous we are bound to be baptized. Unless through no fault of our own we cannot be baptized, but that is a rare occurrence.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 10:48 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
I too would point out 1 Peter 3:20-21 where St. Peter says that ark prefigured baptism. As he said “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now
1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Peter was careful to point out that it isn’t the actual water washing of baptism that saves us, but the spiritual reality behind the immersion in water. What really saves us is the answer of a good conscience toward God, a conscience made good through the completed work of Jesus.
quote:
But I would argue that Baptism is the completion of the act of faith given by the person.
Then the baptism of a baby who can’t demonstrate faith is pointless. By baptizing babies your are demonstrating the Church believes baptism itself saves.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 10:58 am
Posted on 2/11/22 at 10:49 am to Srobi14
quote:
Every Christian generation has thought they were at the end times. I think there are probably more pressing things you have to worry about.
Most don't realize that this brand of Christianity that the OP is promoting is strictly American and strictly recent (~130 years old). Source: Fundamentalism and American Culture, Marsden.
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Noll.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 10:55 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
Most don't realize that this brand of Christianity that the OP is promoting is strictly American and strictly recent (~130 years old).
So the belief that Jesus would one day return and that there would be signs signifying the end times, is strictly an American belief only around for 130 years?!
Posted on 2/11/22 at 10:59 am to Revelator
quote:Making the Bible about your culture regarding a timeline for the return of Christ.
So the belief that Jesus would one day return and that there would be signs signifying the end times, is strictly an American belief only around for 130 years?!
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:05 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
Making the Bible about your culture regarding a timeline for the return of Christ
The passage I cited wasn’t about any one culture or nationality. It’s about the population of the earth.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:37 am to catholictigerfan
quote:The link is dead (404) so I can't read that one, but I found this link to the section on justification from Trent and read it. Let me know if that's not what you are referencing, but based on the quotes you provided, I think it is the same.
ok my summary of what the council of Trent says which I believe will explain what justification is in eyes of the Church. read it for yourself if you like LINK
quote:Mostly. The important difference is when it says "because faith is the beginning of human salvation", where I believe the Bible teaches that faith receives salvation fully and entirely in that moment, rather than merely beginning a process of salvation. I also disagree with the cooperation in salvation, as if we contribute something to it by our faith and reception of God's grace, but we've talked about that previously.
We seem to agree on all the above unless I'm mistaken.
quote:Correct. I follow the Reformed position that there is a distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is that legal declaration that God makes towards the justified that declares them righteous in His sight, as if they had not sinned, while sanctification is being set apart for holy use by God, as He did for the utensils in the tabernacle, whereby what was common was made holy. Sanctification is the process where sin is removed from us throughout our lives and we are conformed more and more to the image of Christ, who was perfect. We won't ever reach that state entirely in life, and it is only when we are glorified in Heaven that sin will be fully removed from us.
I guess for us, justification is a process a life long process, but for you it's a single moment in time. Am I correct on your position?
So yes, we see justification as a one-time declaration that is applied to us the moment we receive saving faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross, and then the rest of our lives we are being sanctified until we are finally glorified (all sin removed) upon our deaths.
quote:Again, the reason I use the word semi-pelagian is based on the concept of cooperation out of moral or spiritual freedom. Pelagians teach man is free from original sin that would hinder him from seeking God and choosing to believe in Christ, while semi-pelagians teach that man has been given some form of prevenient grace to make man capable of seeking God and choosing to believe in Christ while also not drawing him to do so in an effectual way.
quickly on this, as mentioned before with Trent, our initial justification is only through God's grace, our ongoing justification growing in faith in holiness is only through God's grace.
Pelagius taught that man, by himself, could be saved by choosing to believe in Christ's benefits due to the lack of original sin that would prevent him from doing otherwise. Semi-pelagians don't go as far as to reject original sin, but instead find a middle path by asserting that God grants a form of prevenient grace that nullifies the effects of original sin and grants man the ability to choose to believe in Christ's benefits without an irresistible quality to the call by the Spirit. The Reformed view is that original sin makes us wholly unable to choose to believe in Christ's benefits on our own, and that we aren't free to choose to believe it based on a partial work by the Spirit merely to remove the effects of original sin, but that we need a full rebirth by the Spirit that not only makes us able to receive the gift of faith, but gives us a desire for it and actually does receive it as a natural consequence of such a rebirth.
quote:The reason why I believe that all works done before we are justified are sinful is because Romans 14:23 says "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." It's clear that those who are not justified are not doing works ("good" or "bad") by faith in Christ, so therefore it would stand to reason that they are in sin by their unbelief, regardless of what they do. In addition, Heb. 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please [God], for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."
ok, I don't agree with every work we do good or evil before we are justified is sinful, but I would agree with what you said outside of that.
quote:What you've described as a concern is a common one, but it's an emotional problem, not an intellectual or moral one. It certainly isn't a theological problem.
If God's chooses us according to his purpose how does that make God all loving? What I mean by this how does an all loving God choose to save some and condemn others? Because of his purpose? Ok I see where that is in scripture and all but that's not a God I want to follow or believe in. A God who condemns me no matter what I do. I'm assuming you believe in double predestination, your posts seem to come off in that way.
The problem I have with your viewpoint is simple for me. God sounds evil when he condemns someone (created in his own image and likeness) to hell, not based on anything we have done or will not do. Even if it is for some great purpose to save a few, God to me is still evil if he condemns some to save others, just because his purpose wanted it that way.
What the concern boils down to is an assumption that man is basically good and either deserves Heaven or does not deserve Hell. Therefore, if God does not save everyone from Hell, He must be evil, because He is giving people who aren't saved something they don't deserve.
I disagree with this, as the Bible teaches that all have sinned and that sin deserves death. The logical conclusion is that ALL deserve death (Hell). So when God grants salvation to anyone, He is showing mercy. Mercy is not granting the unpleasant justice that is deserved. God owes no one salvation, so He is not evil by showing mercy to some and not to others. If a President or a King pardons a prisoner who has committed a crime, is he evil for not pardoning all prisoners? Not at all. If a pardon was owed to everyone, it wouldn't be mercy at all.
God is good precisely because He shows mercy towards some, because those who receive God's mercy do not deserve His mercy. While we were enemies of God, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:10). That's why God is good in spite of how it might make us feel (though it should make us feel thankful and want to praise and honor God even more for His mercy towards us).
quote:If God is passively waiting for what we will do (knowing ahead of time or not), then it is us who are choosing God, not God who is choosing us. And if that were true, then salvation isn't God freely showing mercy, but giving salvation based on what we do, and if it's something given based on something we do, then it is something we've merited, yet we are told that salvation is a free gift, not a reward or a wage earned.
I believe that God knows EVERYTHING, even how we will respond to God's grace. So God chooses who to save based on our free response to his will. It's complicated as you said, how can man have power over God's will? He doesn't God's plan is based on how we will respond to his will.
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." -Romans 9:16
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:39 am to Revelator
quote:
So the belief that Jesus would one day return and that there would be signs signifying the end times, is strictly an American belief only around for 130 years?!
Jesus returning is an OLD belief
Jesus returning in a pre-trib rapture to protect his precious beloved from suffering is not
That is relatively young and quite selfish/naive
Page 19 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News