Posted on 03/12/2011 6:27:13 AM PST by Gamecock
No, I don’t have the sin problem solved. and I didn’t mean to instigate that I did. I am not as good as you smart ones with the language! Get over yourself!
“Warning, this post has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with bigotry. All Catholic and Orthodox Catholic posters, as well as all Christians of good will, are advised to avoid such threads as they are here to generate hate, not the love of Christ.”
Yes, the Spirit gives life. When we believe. He does not give life so we can then believe.
One problem with systematic theology is that it takes this statement:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
and attempts to dissect it. Neither God nor the Gospel is a frog to dissect. God draws (which does not mean compel) and whoever comes will not be rejected.
But we do know some things explicitly. Life follows faith. “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
How and to what degree God reveals himself to each individual man is something we do not know. God doesn’t tell us. But we know that God’s wish is for all men to be saved, we know it will not happen, and we know that to those who hear the Gospel, salvation comes to those who repent and believe.
Gee, the thread was moving along, people disagreeing with each other in a respectful nature, discussing different ideas calmly, rationally.
Thanks for your totally predictable post.
Lurkers, are you taking note?
That's the same thing here. What does a canon doctor say this paragraph means? The understanding isn't always immediately clear from one statement.
Witness Peter saying of Paul: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)
I'm not trying to be rude, but a facile reading of one paragraph in the CCC won't be definitive.
The CCC is addressing salvation in its parts and in its whole - and I think what we have in this paragraph speaks to some of the things Paul said that have engendered vast quantities of thought and verbiage since he wrote them down. One example is this: "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3:11-12)
This Scripture also: "Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain." (Philippians 2:16)
And this: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)
The point to quoting these Scriptures here is that there are difficult questions that require study and guidance and don't yield to a facile reading. Please don't exegete them here to make a point, I have many commentaries available ranging from JN Darby to Henry to Gill to JFB to Barnes to etc etc.
And it becomes apparent that the CCC is addressing these issues as part of the total theology of our salvation.
And don't think I'm in agreement with the RC theology, I'm just pointing out where I think our real disagreement stands.
Gamecock might be hours ahead of me, here, so forgive if this is a repeat. You disdain "forensic justification" as a topic, yet you're schema here will require an explanation of "believe", "accepts", "repent", and, of course, "the gospel". Perhaps you believe these are so self-explanatory they require no theological discussion with regard to the details involved. If this is the case, you then must not notice the 2,309,876,345 misuses of these terms within cults, gangs, and other groups trying their best to win the affections of folks asking, "What do these mean?" Systematic theology attempts to do that within the confines of the Scriptural uses, disabusing folks of "personal interpretations" such as the Catholic Church has done.
Which book? The Book that Luther invented or the Vulgate?
As a convert, justification isn’t an area of contention between protestants and Catholics.
What protestants actually believe and what Catholics actually believe is the same damn thing.
The argument is simply between what protestants believe they believe and what protestants believe that Rome believes. From our standpoint it is a settled issue.
There are many areas of legitimate differences, but justification is not one of them.
"Wherever the knowledge of justification is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown" -- John Calvin's Reply to Sadoleto, Tracts I:41
Even Satan, and all the demons, believe in Jesus.
AMEN!
Indeed they do believe they are justified by grace..but they have to keep it with works and sacrament.. once justified it is their to lose, and the only way to keep it is the RC church
AMEN! Or else we would have reason to boast.
And we don't. Grace is free, unearned and accomplishes all God ordains.
No, systematic theology goes beyond the scripture. It assumes we need or deserve or can understand the explanation that God COULD have given, but did not.
Want to know what believe means? “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in”
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4100&t=NASB&sstr=0
Note it occurs 246 times in 218 verses in the Greek concordance of the NASB.
Repent? “to change one’s mind”
It occurs 35 times in 32 verses in the Greek concordance of the NASB:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3340&t=NASB&sstr=0
Those are word studies, not systematic theology. You can find the meaning by seeing it used in context and seeing how it was used in secular writings.
Systematic theology takes a question like “Why do some people hear the gospel explicitly, while God allows others only less explicit revelation?” and then tries to give an answer.
But that requires revelation, not logic. It requires us to know as much about the human heart and how God will judge every man as God knows Himself. Sola Scriptura suggests that where scripture is silent, we cannot be dogmatic. I don’t believe Mary was assumed into heaven...but I cannot be dogmatic about it if I believe Sola Scriptura is accurate.
The problem is that God gave us scripture for a purpose: “...to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” - 2 Tim 3
He gave scripture to transform us, so that we might be equipped for every good work. God’s revelation isn’t to satisfy our curiosity, but to change us - so that we may become like Jesus!
“Actually, it *Scripture) teaches we are born again, then we respond in faith. “
Then you will have no trouble citing the scripture that says that, and explain the contradiction with verses that say “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
BY BELIEVING you MAY HAVE LIFE. Not you have life that you may believe.
We are saved by grace through faith, not grace through election. The former is the Good News of salvation. The latter is heresy.
“Even Satan, and all the demons, believe in Jesus.”
They have no choice. And someday, every knee shall bow, because someday every man will have no choice. And then it will be too late.
Believing because you must doesn’t save anyone.
Ask a Roman Catholic what "repent" means. Your simplistic view will disintegrate.
I believe all of us of the Reformed persuasion recognize the purpose of the Scriptures. Your wrongheaded thinking that all the "word" topics, such as "predestination", "foreknowledge", "justification", "sanctification", "calling" can be easily understood and agreed upon by folks who read the Scriptures ignores the great number of misunderstandings. The text, while the final answer, occasionally needs to be collected and explained. That is why the Scripture acknowledges teachers as a gift to the Body of Christ. The question is, "Are they careful with the text?"
"It requires us to know as much about the human heart and how God will judge every man as God knows Himself. Sola Scriptura suggests that where scripture is silent, we cannot be dogmatic."
Really? Is this "truth" from a passage or did you deduce it from your systematic theology? With all due respect my FRiend, the fact that you are using your explanations to try to persuade us demonstrate exactly that of which we have been trying to persuade you. Systematic theology is a tool EVERYONE uses, including you. Use it wisely.
***Systematic theology takes a question like “Why do some people hear the gospel explicitly, while God allows others only less explicit revelation?” and then tries to give an answer.***
It is no such thing.
Word studies are like dumping a jigsaw puzzle out on the table and looking at each piece from every conceivable angle, memorizing it, then throwing back in the pile. Systematic theology seeks to assemble the entire puzzle using the pieces and rules provided.
The vast majority of Reformed folk will shout what is plainly taught, and be quiet when Scripture is quiet.
Now that doesn’t mean that there are some who misuse the Systematic theology, but you can find people misusing all manner of things. That is an indictment on them, not necessarily on the item being used.
Should have pinged you to #38, also.
Good info.
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.