Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PREDESTINATION; LIVE BY GRACE; NOT BY WORKS (WEEK 8)
St. Louis Center for Christian Study ^ | Greg Johnson

Posted on 11/13/2006 11:01:10 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg

If salvation is all of grace -- if God is God and he has chosen us for salvation even though we did nothing to deserve it -- then we ought to live by the grace we have received. Of course, some of you will look at that and say to yourselves, “Yeah, I really need to do better at living by grace. I’ve really been a failure there. I hope God will forgive me again.” If that’s you, you still don’t get it. Go back and re-read the last seventeen pages and (if you’re a believer) remember that you’re one of the elect!

Our hearts so quickly try to relate to God on a works-basis! It’s our pride, really. I’m convinced that that’s the problem with free-will Arminianism. People naturally process it like this: God requires one work from me, to believe. Once I believe, I’ve done my work and deserve heaven. Of course, in more hard-line Arminian circles, it goes a step further. Unless I’m holy enough, I’ll still go to hell, and maybe I’ve even committed the unpardonable sin and will be damned even if I’m sinlessly perfect from here on out. Legalism. Legalism. Legalism. Such a religion is barely recognizable as Christianity.

But Calvinists can fall into legalism just as easily. You see, I understand predestination. I’m a superior Christian. I’ve got all my theological “t”s crossed and my Reformed “i”s dotted. I sure am close to God. Pride is the Presbyterian’s favorite form of legalism, so watch out! But if God really is for us, and if we had nothing to do with that decision -- if even our faith was given to us by the Father -- then there’s no room for boasting. God’s sovereign choice of us leaves us free from pride. It leaves us aware of our brokenness and humble before God, but all the while confident that his eternal purpose will stand, that we will glory in God forever as objects of his saving mercy. As God’s eternal blessing really begins to sink from our heads into our hearts, we see a new freedom that we never would have imagined when we first encountered the raw, holy, sovereign power of God. Among the newfound freedoms:

1. Freedom from shame, guilt & Insecurity

Read Romans 8:28-39. Nothing can separate you from God’s love -- nothing in the past, nothing in the future. No one can stand against you. No one can accuse you. Even bad things (“all things”) are working right now to your benefit, to make you more like Jesus. God didn’t choose you because of your faith, and Jesus is not ashamed of you—even at your worst (Hebrews 2:11). He’s proud to have you in the family, proud to call you brother or sister -- even knowing what he knows. He’s displaying the glory of his mercy, remember. God’s law is no longer your enemy, but a friend. You can have confidence before God.

2. Freedom from destructive Perfectionism

If God really is for you, then you can quit trying to look good. If you’re trying to be good enough for God, he’s not buying it -- he didn’t choose you because of your great faithfulness. If you’re trying to be good enough for other people, don’t bother. God wants to display his mercy -- that means we have to be broken. God’s glory is not displayed by trying to look like you have it all together. Faith is not a work, and even if it were it still wouldn’t earn you any brownie points. Let God be God. If you won’t show your weakness, then others won’t see God’s power displayed in it.

3. Freedom from legalistic man-made rules

Some of the biggest practical opponents to living by grace are those legalistic little rules that we live by. We love to judge other with them -- they make us look good, and help us feel better about ourselves. (Pride again.) Dress this way, not that way. Wear this much makeup, not that much. Work. Don’t work. Home school is God’s way. Public school is God’s way. Christian school is God’s way. Drink. Don’t drink. Smoke. Don’t smoke. Dance. Don’t dance. This is God’s worship style. If we’re all about God’s glory, there’s no room for any of this. Do whatever you do for God’s glory without comparisons. God has freed you from judging others. You don’t understand God’ sovereign grace until you realize you are a beggar who’s been blessed without cause. You had nothing to do with it -- you’re just a receiver.

4. Freedom from Penance

Even repentance can be a sham if we’re trying to approach God with some vestige of self-reliance. Biblical repentance is a freedom we can enjoy daily, while penance is its counterfeit.

Repentance/Penance

Comes with empty hands/Tries to bargain with God

Acknowledges real sin as against God/Makes excuses for sin

Grieves over displeasing God/Grieves over getting caught

Asks for help to do better/Promises to do better

Is willing to publicly confess, if needed/Is too proud to publicly confess

Relies on God's promises to us/Relies on own promises to God

Turns outward, away from self, to God/Turns inward on self

Produces freedom, joy, and confidence/Produces guilty feelings, anxiety

God has obligated himself to receive any repentant sinner who comes to him. Without this realization, true repentance is impossible. Until we realize that God is for us, we cannot truly be for God.


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: christianity; grace; predestination; reformed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820821-837 last
To: adiaireton8; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg
FK: "We have been told that good Catholics may indeed disagree on this or that issue, if it has not already been decided for you. You appear to argue against that notion."

Where?

Many of your recent posts tell me this. For example, from your post 809 to Harley:

Uninformed Catholics will say anything. What matters is what the Church officially teaches, not what some rogue self-styled theologians think. And if you want to know the official Church teaching, you have to look at official documents. Don't just believe whatever you hear, and then repeat it. Demand that it be substantiated in official Church documents.

I take from this a very negative attitude toward Catholics who offer opinions on material not already judged by the Church. You use words like "uniformed" and "rogue" and "self-styled". You appear to indicate that the only views of any value are those handed to you by the Church. Your earlier posts match this attitude. Therefore, I took your view to be that the good Catholic will stick to what has been handed down, and not delve into individual opinion on anything else, lest he be "uninformed", etc. or worse.

821 posted on 12/01/2006 3:38:04 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
Among Catholics there is room for freedom of opinion on various issues, of course.

[re: recent posts:] I am fine with accepting that, but it does appear to be a change.

But you seem to want to use the expression of some of those opinions (the ones with which you disagree) as a way of bashing the Catholic Church.

No, no, no. :) In my 801, I specifically said "IF that guy was right ...". I also said it didn't match what we Reformers had been told by other Catholics. I was criticizing the inconsistency, GIVEN THAT, among the top attacks we Reformers enjoy from our Catholic friends is that there are a million different denominations of Protestantism, and therefore there is no cohesiveness. We believe those attacks to be very erroneous and unfair. It should therefore be no surprise that we take notice when it appears there is disunity among Catholics.

822 posted on 12/01/2006 4:04:04 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
I take from this a very negative attitude toward Catholics who offer opinions on material not already judged by the Church.

Not true.

You appear to indicate that the only views of any value are those handed to you by the Church.

Not true.

Therefore, I took your view to be that the good Catholic will stick to what has been handed down, and not delve into individual opinion on anything else, lest he be "uninformed", etc. or worse.

On matters concerning which the Sacred Magisterium has spoken authoritatively, a good Catholic will stick to what the Sacred Magisterium has determined. That does not mean that on other matters there is no room for individual opinion.

-A8

823 posted on 12/01/2006 5:28:03 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
but it does appear to be a change.

It is not a change.

It should therefore be no surprise that we take notice when it appears there is disunity among Catholics.

The difference is that you're not in full communion with all Protestants, while Catholics who disagree with each other are in full communion with one another. In other words, Protestantism is not one Church.

-A8

824 posted on 12/01/2006 5:31:15 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Forest Keeper; HarleyD; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings
If you read the link in post #815, you will see the author is discussing Catholic doctrine. The piece is titled, "Bible & Catechism."

The author is clearly explaining his view that the episode with Jonah and the whale is a "story," not an actual event. This is further shown by the very next paragraph which states...

"There are a number of different forms used to write various books of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. They are The Parable, The Allegory, The Beast Fable, The Short Story and the Historical Novel, The Problem Story and The Speech as a Literary Device....If you are like me and do not have the background to determine which literary form was used to write some part of the Bible you are reading, contact a scripture expert for your diocese and ask him. Once your question is answered you can quickly determine if what you are reading is a literal truth such as Jesus miraculously feeding the 5,000 or a story or Parable told to teach us a truth."

As you can easily read, the author puts "literal truth" in opposition to "a story or Parable."

Even without the help of a "scripture expert," any reader can understand that the author is excluding the Biblical telling of Jonah and the whale from "literal truth."

825 posted on 12/01/2006 9:16:22 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Forest Keeper; HarleyD; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan
Additionally, it seems really fascinating that the author and apparently Catholic catechism has gone to the trouble of dissecting Scripture into "The Parable, The Allegory, The Beast Fable, The Short Story and the Historical Novel, The Problem Story and The Speech as a Literary Device..."

Almost as if they wanted to make reading the Bible seem difficult and confusing. Almost as if they wanted to make sure people didn't tackle the Bible on their own, but instead used a "Scripture expert" to instruct them, rather than the Holy Spirit who promises to lead us in truth.

"For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" -- 1 Thessalonians 1:5

826 posted on 12/01/2006 9:49:29 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
As you can easily read, the author puts "literal truth" in opposition to "a story or Parable."

First, your assumption is that if one takes an account as a "story or a narrative", then necessarily it must not have actually happened . But that conclusion does not follow. Second, that paragraph does not say that the Jonah account is a mere story or mere metaphor.

-A8

827 posted on 12/01/2006 10:52:26 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; 1000 silverlings; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; AlbionGirl
that paragraph does not say that the Jonah account is a mere story or mere metaphor

I'm beginning to think you just take the opposite side in a discussion for fun and don't bother to read the material under discussion. In the link from which the paragraph is drawn...

In the introduction to the Book of Jonah, the censor tells us that this 'story' is a sublime lesson telling us that, "Jonah stands for a narrow and vindictive mentality, all too common of the Jews of that period."

This identification of "story" is given after the author delineates the many rhetorical ploys in Scripture as declared by the Magisterium.

This is getting humorous, A8. I would bet most Catholics readily agree that Jonah and the whale is allegory.

For me, I can accept both.

But your insistence that some part of the catechism says what it does not say and does not say what it says is very interesting.

Perhaps you need a "scripture expert."

828 posted on 12/01/2006 5:06:50 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I'm beginning to think you just take the opposite side in a discussion for fun and don't bother to read the material under discussion.

That's an ad hominem.

This identification of "story" is given after the author delineates the many rhetorical ploys in Scripture as declared by the Magisterium.

I agree, but that does not mean that the story of Jonah did not actually occur.

I would bet most Catholics readily agree that Jonah and the whale is allegory.

What "most Catholics" think is irrelevant. Perhaps you forget that the Catholic Church is not a democracy.

For me, I can accept both.

Me too.

But your insistence that some part of the catechism says what it does not say and does not say what it says is very interesting.

I have never insisted that the Catechism says something that it does not say, or denied that it says something it does in fact say.

Perhaps you need a "scripture expert."

That's just an ad hominem.

-A8

829 posted on 12/01/2006 5:18:59 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
The second part was much harder for me and I went around and around about it. My conclusion was that to the extent that scriptures are comprehensible by man, Paul knew more about what he wrote than anyone since. He was an inspired author,

Paul is not the Author.

and if Paul's own writings were above his head then who could have understood them? If no one, then the purpose of the Bible would be thwarted as the revealed word of God.

Paul told us that scripture is inspired. Is there evidence of this? I believe that there is. There are things in the Bible that men could not have put there. It is Paul’s letters that take us into the sanctuary. Could he have known that his fourteen letters would be the Leviticus of the New Testament?

Of course Paul was writing over his head and I think he knew it. He referred to himself as “less than the least of all saints.” I am not being sarcastic here, but I suggest that this is what happens to us when we stand in awe before our creator.

I have found that the more I study the Bible, the bigger it gets. Please don’t take me wrong; I think that Paul had a great understanding. Have you considered how your arguments would apply to Old Testament scripture writers?

830 posted on 12/02/2006 1:03:32 AM PST by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
(I just told A8 this on another post, but we just got our power back after the ice storms yesterday morning, so that's where I've been for the last 30 hours or so. Temp. got down to 46 in the house this morning. Pretty cold. :)

The story of Jonah is a story. Every story is a story. But that does not mean that the story of Jonah is a mere metaphor, or that the story did not actually take place.

I agree, but clearly the Catholic author of the quote we are referring to does not agree. He put the word "story" in quotes twice. The context was clear that his intent was that the word not be taken literally. As further proof, he explained the metaphor and what the 'story' of Jonah actually stood for. Again, I don't think your real argument is with us.

831 posted on 12/02/2006 2:31:39 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
The difference is that you're not in full communion with all Protestants, while Catholics who disagree with each other are in full communion with one another. In other words, Protestantism is not one Church.

Apostolics are also not in communion. Besides, no one has ever said that there is "one Church of Protestantism". However, among Protestants who are also true believers, all of us belong to the "one true Church of God", the same as you. Some Catholics belong to this Church, and some do not. It is the same with Protestants.

832 posted on 12/02/2006 3:00:17 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; adiaireton8; HarleyD; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan
Additionally, it seems really fascinating that the author and apparently Catholic catechism has gone to the trouble of dissecting Scripture into "The Parable, The Allegory, The Beast Fable, The Short Story and the Historical Novel, The Problem Story and The Speech as a Literary Device..."

Excellent point Dr. E. Who could discern such a thing. Oh wait, I know I know. :) OTOH, the Bible seems to say something completely different:

John 20:31 : But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Rom 15:4 : For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

1 John 5:13 : I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

It appears there is a curious lack of reference to having all these writings first filtered through an all powerful hierarchy.

833 posted on 12/02/2006 9:03:47 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
Paul is not the Author.

??? Paul was not the ultimate author, but the words did move through his brain and hands. I don't think he was "zombified" while writing and had no idea what he wrote after he performed the task. He was a scribe for God, but not a blind one.

Paul told us that scripture is inspired. Is there evidence of this? I believe that there is.

I fully agree.

Could he have known that his fourteen letters would be the Leviticus of the New Testament?

I don't know if Paul had specific knowledge of the makeup of what would become our Bible, but it does seem clear that Paul understood, in all humility, that he had been uniquely touched by God for His ministry. He was personally mentored by Christ.

I have found that the more I study the Bible, the bigger it gets. Please don’t take me wrong; I think that Paul had a great understanding. Have you considered how your arguments would apply to Old Testament scripture writers?

I agree that none of us will have a full understanding of the Bible during life, and I think Paul would have agreed about himself. However, what it sounds like you are suggesting is that there are incomprehensible truths in the Bible that will never be known by anyone. I don't know what purpose that would serve. As far as the OT writers, I think they had a belief in the Christ to come. That Christ later amplified their writings doesn't take anything away from them in their understanding at the time. Put it this way, if Paul came back now and read the whole Bible, and then in referring to other scriptures, which of his writings do you think he would have slapped his forehead over and said "so THAT's what I meant" :)

OTOH, you could be right, I admit I am not certain about this.

834 posted on 12/02/2006 11:05:23 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
but it does seem clear that Paul understood, in all humility, that he had been uniquely touched by God for His ministry. He was personally mentored by Christ.

I don’t believe that Paul is unique in that. We are all personally uniquely mentored by Christ.

what it sounds like you are suggesting is that there are incomprehensible truths in the Bible that will never be known by anyone.

I don’t think that “incomprehensible is the right word here. We have not yet found all of the gold that God put in this Earth. So it is that scripture has not yet yielded up all of her treasure. It is not that we cannot understand it, but rather that God has given such a bounty that we cannot contain it.

As far as the OT writers, I think they had a belief in the Christ to come.

I agree. When it comes to the Old Testament characters, I will switch side on this issue. I think men like Abraham could have had comparable understanding to Paul, even without access to the scriptures. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” I also think we have access to the same level of understanding today.

I see two competing features here. Sin like leaven will continue to spread until the whole is leavened. As the darkness increases, God is adding light so that the contrast remains the same. First God gave types, then scriptures, now he is adding knowledge. As men get older, their eyes don’t see as well. So it is with mankind.

OTOH, you could be right, I admit I am not certain about this.

835 posted on 12/03/2006 12:04:10 AM PST by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
I don’t believe that Paul is unique in that. We are all personally uniquely mentored by Christ.

I certainly agree that we are all individually mentored by Christ. I was thinking of the passage in Galatians:

Gal. 1:11-12, 15-18a : 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any human source, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. ... 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem ....

I've just always taken this to mean that Paul's "hearing" of the word was different from the rest of us. It seems like he really was locked in a closet alone with God.

We have not yet found all of the gold that God put in this Earth. So it is that scripture has not yet yielded up all of her treasure. It is not that we cannot understand it, but rather that God has given such a bounty that we cannot contain it.

That sounds reasonable to me. I do not think any one person (among us humans during life) probably ever has or probably ever will completely "get it" when it comes to all scripture.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” I also think we have access to the same level of understanding today.

Good quote. I can't argue with "access" because you and I will know and have the exact understanding of any issue that God wants us to have, up to and including the level of an OT writer or an Apostle. However, and not that you suggested it, I would struggle with the idea of me potentially having a "better" understanding than a writer on "his subject", even if based on other scripture that I have and he didn't. Anyway, I think you cut to the chase. We will know what God wants us to know, regardless.

836 posted on 12/03/2006 6:38:40 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

VErdugo — what you do think of this?


837 posted on 03/29/2011 6:25:54 AM PDT by Cronos (Palin: 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820821-837 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson