Posted on 03/12/2011 6:27:13 AM PST by Gamecock
"...In contrast, the sufficient conditions for coming to faith that are presented in John’s Gospel have, quite frankly, proven intractable for Arminians. This may not be something that most Arminians would like to admit, of course, but it seems to me to be a fair estimation of the current situation in Arminian theology. This is not to say that there have been no attempts by Arminians to deal with the relevant statements by Jesus in John’s Gospel. However, the attempts of which I am aware, despite their many other important contributions to the subject, seem to me to reach unsatisfying conclusions when it comes to dealing with the sufficiency conditions placed by Jesus on who will come to faith in him."
It is interesting to me that even though the author admits that the many verses of John's Gospel cannot be satisfactorily argued by Arminians, they still reach the conclusion that Calvinists have to be wrong.Great catch, Harley.
Ultimately Armminianism always falls on its own dull sword of contradiction.
For instance, if God is omniscient and salvation is based on God "looking down the tunnel of time" and "seeing" who would accept or reject Him, and yet he creates and gives birth to those people who reject Him ANYWAY, Arminians still end up with God knowingly and purposefully creating men He KNOWS will end up in hell and which clearly contradicts their contention that God "wants all men to be saved."
Arminianism is a very inconsistent system for understanding theology.
"Those men who at this day obscure, and seek, as far as they can, to extinguish the doctrine of election, are enemies to the human race; for they strive their utmost to subvert every assurance of salvation" - John Calvin, Zech.-Mal.84,85
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
**I just don’t think God is limited by my thoughts...**
nope. Not at all.
But our proper understanding of God is limited by God.
2027 - No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
If you disagree with the RCC catechism, perhaps you should tell someone who can change it to more closely reflect the truth of Scripture. Because as we all know, NO ONE "CAN MERIT ALL THE GRACES NEEDED TO ATTAIN ETERNAL LIFE" but Jesus Christ who freely and mercifully imputes to His sheep His own righteousness, obedience and good works which are credited to their account as if they were their own.
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" -- Romans 3: 24-26"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." -- 2 Corin. 5:21
Or, in the case of Rome, Scipture is not enough, gota have tradition. Even when it obviously contradicts said Scripture.
And that idea isn't just held along denominational lines either.
Specifically as to RC theology, I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak with any certainty or authority. I have to follow along with the CCC and then ask questions of RC canon doctors to get clarification.
My best understanding about working to “keep” salvation is that that isn't exactly correct. Salvation is not “chancy”. What RC theology, along with some Protestant as well, is addressing is the body of Bible passages that speak to these things such as apostasy, shipwrecked faith, castaway, and other “dire” warnings in Scripture, especially the New Testament.
I as a conservative, Calvinistic tending, Christian have to admit that there is a tension in Scriptures that doesn't let us take salvation for granted.
And I think that is what is being addressed, but it is a matter of subtle distinctions and that there are lots of misunderstandings about RC theology. I know from my own experience that there is an anti-RC bias that just exists and myths are passed on to succeeding generations without ever being examined.
The part about the only way to be and stay saved being by the ministry of the Church is absolutely correct and that's where I part ways with them. However, in the CCC there is a hint that salvation exists outside those channels, but it's slim.
The difference is that Catholics do not believe they are saved by faith.. they believe hey are saved by the sacraments..in the 1st case baptism as an infant.. and from then on it is theirs to lose..
I totally disagree with RC doctrine about how they receive grace.
I believe we have one mediator with God: Jesus Christ the righteous.
So the disagreement is not whether they are saved by faith, it is about how they receive grace.
That being said I also believe that it is by grace that we are saved through faith in Christ Jesus, despite some very wrong ideas.
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.