Posted on 05/09/2013 2:17:35 PM PDT by NYer
“So, God is bound by HIMSELF and not man.”
And I agree with you, which is why I reject your theology.
“Remember, that Peter had just seen the vision when he was called to go to Cornelius and was not sure why.”
This simply isn’t true. Here is what Peter was saying before the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his family, demonstrating that he knew that the Gentiles also should be converted.
Act 10:28-36 And he (Peter) said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean... (34) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (36) The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
“Did Peter and the others receive the Holy Spirit twice? If not, what did they receive when Jesus breathed upon him? Because Jesus said receive the Holy Spirit.”
Unless you hold that the Holy Spirit comes and goes, and that there is no difference between New Testament infillings and Old Testament infillings, then you are in quite a theological conundrum.
“Why were they only changed men at Pentecost and not after receiving the Holy Spirit in the upper room 40 days before?”
They received the Holy Spirit in the upper room on Pentecost:
Act 2:1-4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. (2) And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. (3) And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
This is the same event that occurs to the Gentiles prior to water baptism in Acts 10.
“Jesus said, If you abide in me, I will abide in you. Or as some translate it, If you remain in me, I will remain in you. What happens if one decides to no longer abide/remain in Jesus?”
When God gives a command, it does not imply that we have the moral ability to perform it of ourselves. Christ commands us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, but yet none of us are perfect. Paul famously describes his own war with his flesh in Romans, doing that which he does not want to do, and not being able to do that which he would like to do. Is Paul in and out of abiding with Christ? He certainly is not perfect, as Christ commanded.
Christ, instead, teaches that salvation depends entirely on God. He declares, for example, that it is impossible to come to Him unless it is given to us by the Father:
Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
We are told that it is not the Christian who chooses Christ, but rather it is Christ who chooses us and ordains us for good (and abiding!) works:
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Yes, we are told to “work out our salvation,” but right afterwards we are told that it is God who works in us for to will and to do:
Php 2:12-13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Isa_26:12 LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.
Therefore, no man can claim to abide in Christ by His own obedience, power or merits, but must ascribe all of it to the power and glory of God alone.
In truth you are correct.
Did not Jesus say at the end of Mathew’s Gospel to go and baptized all people?
Remember Jesus commands that all be baptized at the end of the Gospel of Mathew. That is when the Holy Spirit comes when the person is baptized.
AMEN.
Fundamental logical error. Just because God has prescribed something as "necessary" for us, it does not follow that he is bound by that rule -- unless He wishes to be. He's the boss; he gets to call the shots.
Or, as St. Thomas Aquinas pithily put it, "God is not bound by the sacraments".
Wrong. Saying that sacraments objectively do something is not the same as asserting that that "something" can only be accomplished through the sacraments. God is perfectly capable of making other arrangements as he sees fit, and he does so where he chooses to. However, the ordinary means of conferring grace, which he instituted and gave to us, are the sacraments.
True enough, but you (speaking collectively of anyone) don't know it. Whatever your predestination is, your works of faith are included in it, and so are the sacraments you receive -- or the sacraments you flee.
the Catholic definition, which speaks of so many graces as if it were an inanimate object to be dispensed
Grace is uncreated so not properly an "object". Read the Fathers of the Church with this in mind, and you will understand them better. It takes practice and study.
“Fundamental logical error. Just because God has prescribed something as “necessary” for us, it does not follow that he is bound by that rule — unless He wishes to be. He’s the boss; he gets to call the shots.”
The “fundamental logical error” is the assumption that the examples of the Thief and Cornelius are exceptions to a Roman Catholic rule instead of the norm. After all, the “rule” that you are basing it on is never actually spelled out in the scripture at all. It’s simply Roman theology based on the assumption that water baptism has power to give the Holy Spirit taking it to such an extreme that “belief” is removed from the equation altogether and the focus placed on the work, instead of the Jewish view that rather saw Baptism as a sign of new birth and a declaration to follow the teachings of whomever you are being baptized “in the name” of. It also exists in contradiction to Christ’s and the Apostles’ teachings on salvation by the grace of God, which is every described as sovereign favor on an undeserving sinner, and a spiritual regeneration that is superior to the flesh.
“True enough, but you (speaking collectively of anyone) don’t know it. Whatever your predestination is, your works of faith are included in it, and so are the sacraments you receive — or the sacraments you flee.”
You are misunderstanding predestination. Predestination is defined not as God foreseeing your works and rewarding you in advance, but rather that God has chosen to give to you His favor despite the fact that you do not deserve it, even before you have done good or evil, and inspite of your evil even, according to His own good purpose and will to save you (Rom 9:10-16, 2 Ti 1:9, Eph 1:4).
There is only one type of grace that God offers in scripture, and it is this grace which, by definition, is given to you despite the fact that you do not deserve it. Speaking of grace as “uncreated so not properly an object” is like saying that an emotional or mental state is an uncreated object. You might as well believe in magic, or the dark side or the light sight of the force, speaking like this. Grace is God’s favor, and because that is exactly what it is, it cannot be dispensed like cokes from a machine for a $1.25.
*****This simply isn’t true. Here is what Peter was saying before the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his family, demonstrating that he knew that the Gentiles also should be converted.*****
Peter comes to the revelation that he cannot withhold baptism from Cornelius after the Holy Spirit comes upon him. The fact that Scripture records this reveals that Peter was in fact skeptical and still working out within himself what the vision he had said meant.
As the leader of the Church, the Holy Spirit revealed to him that Gentiles were included in the new covenant. When he is called to Cornelius he goes because he is told to do so without doubt. But, Peter is not sure why and has not yet fully understood the vision he was given.
He asks Cornelius why am I here, why have you sent for me?
Cornelius says that he and his household want to hear what Peter has to tell them of Jesus.
It is then that Peter understands the vision and when Peter knows this truth, the Holy Spirit comes upon those present and Peter then says, who am I to withhold baptism from those who have received the Holy Spirit just as I have.
Immediately after this, the whole household is baptized.
Your argument does not hold in light of the entire story.
*****Unless you hold that the Holy Spirit comes and goes, and that there is no difference between New Testament infillings and Old Testament infillings, then you are in quite a theological conundrum.*****
I never said the Holy Spirit comes and goes, those are your words. Answer my question regarding the difference between the day of the resurrection when Jesus breathes upon them and says receive the Holy Spirit and the event on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit comes upon them for the second time.
Also, answer why they were changed men at Pentecost but not when He breathed the Holy Spirit into them just after His resurrection.
****Is Paul in and out of abiding with Christ? He certainly is not perfect, as Christ commanded.****
Again you did not answer the question. Or perhaps you didn’t understand what I was asking. There is a difference between the Christian that sins, knows he sins and knows that forgiveness comes through God’s grace and one who does not believe he has sinned and does not believe in the need of God’s grace for salvation.
If one was a believer and the Holy Spirit came upon him and dwelt with him, what happens when/if that believer no longer believes?
****When God gives a command, it does not imply that we have the moral ability to perform it of ourselves.****
I did not say that we did. I said God commands and man obeys. When man does not obey that is sin and when man sins he needs the grace of forgiveness and prays that same grace will help him not to sin again.
In the issue of baptism, Jesus commanded it, therefore in obedience, the Church baptizes. We are bound by the command, but God is not. We cannot choose whether to baptize or not, but if God chooses to save one who has not been baptized, that is His alone, bound by no rule.
*****Christ, instead, teaches that salvation depends entirely on God. He declares, for example, that it is impossible to come to Him unless it is given to us by the Father:
We are told that it is not the Christian who chooses Christ, but rather it is Christ who chooses us and ordains us for good (and abiding!) works:*****
Agreed.
*****Therefore, no man can claim to abide in Christ by His own obedience, power or merits, but must ascribe all of it to the power and glory of God alone.*****
Not exactly. We do choose to abide in Him, though He calls us first, we can choose not to obey and not to love. The fruit we bear is His fruit, but we may choose not to do the work for which God made us. We can choose to reject God’s grace, even after we have accepted it.
The parable of the vine tells us what happens to the one who does not bear fruit. Jesus tells us that He is the vine and we are the branches and if we do not bear fruit, we are cast off to whither. That means we were once part of the vine and live only by bearing fruit.
Jesus also tells us, John 6:56
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
True, without God one can do nothing to bear fruit for the kingdom, but we most certainly can choose whether we abide in Him through obedience or disobedience.
God longs for us to be perfect, knows that we cannot be without Him, yet asks that we try out of love, albeit an imperfect love.
The scripture does not say that God chooses without foreknowledge of your works.
...For all are not Israelites that are of Israel: [7] Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called: [8] That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God; but they, that are the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed. [9] For this is the word of promise: According to this time will I come; and Sara shall have a son. [10] And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once, of Isaac our father.[11] For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) [12] Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.
[16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (Romans 9)
As you see the context is that not all of genetic Israel is elected, nor are the Gentiles unelected. It indeed explains that predestination works before any works have been accomplished, but it does not say that these works do not count in the divine decision. Besides, the passage is focused on on what predestination is but on what true Israel is.
[6] For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. [7] For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety. [8] Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God, [9] Who hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of the world. (2 Timothy 1)
That grace that the sacrament of consecration is in St. Timothy is indeed not of any works of his, but rather of works of Christ Eternal. However, the same passage also calls Timothy to "labor with the gospel" so Timothy's works are certainly a part of his calling; he in fact is called because of his work as a bishop.
As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity. (Ephesians 1:4)
That passage speaks of election being by grace alone, which is a Catholic teaching, as is of course every other passage in the Holy Bible. It also sets the goal for the elect right there: "unspotted in charity". I don't see how this advances your idea that the Ephesians were elected (those, that is, that were, -- some we presume were not) whether they "have done good or evil, and inspite of [their] evil even".
As a general proposition, God is sovereign and certainly has the power to save people for no rhyme or reason; however, we as Christians have faith in God giving us His commandments so that we take guidance from them and reach salvation according to them and not in some unpredictable fashion; we are inclined to take His word and His love for us seriously.
“It is then that Peter understands the vision and when Peter knows this truth, the Holy Spirit comes upon those present and Peter then says, who am I to withhold baptism from those who have received the Holy Spirit just as I have.
Immediately after this, the whole household is baptized.
Your argument does not hold in light of the entire story.”
I’m not sure if you’re aware of your own argument. Your argument is that the Holy Spirit coming upon Cornelius and his family was necessary for Peter to “figure out” why he was there. Yet, you admit that Peter already “figured out” why he was there, per the scriptures I posted, which occurred before the Holy Spirit baptism/infilling.
“Also, answer why they were changed men at Pentecost but not when He breathed the Holy Spirit into them just after His resurrection.”
Originally, I thought you were referencing their performance of Miracles during the Gospels, casting out devils, etc. I see now where your real error is.
In John 20:22, Christ breaths on the disciples and says “receive ye the Holy Ghost.” Though Thomas was not amongst them, and no signs or spiritual wonders followed the statement.
According to Barnes’ commentary: “His breathing on them was a certain sign or pledge that they would be endowed with the influences of the Holy Spirit. Compare Act_1:4; John 2.”
This is the correct view, that this is a sign or a promise of what would come later, since 4 chapters earlier Jesus declares that the Comforter will not come until He has ascended:
Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Christ must “go away” first before the Holy Spirit will be sent. We read roughly the same in chapter 7:
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
In Acts it confirms that the Holy Spirit would come when Christ is fully ascended to the Father, standing on His right hand:
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
More confirmation:
Act 1:6-8 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (8) But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
This was before Christ ascended to heaven, and after Christ breathed on them. The reference is to Pentecost.
When the Holy Spirit does come, He comes with signs and wonders which are the same signs and wonders received by Cornelius, and to which Peter testifies that they received the Spirit “the same as we.”
Therefore, your argument that Cornelius did not receive the Holy Spirit fully until water baptism could fix it is false.
“If one was a believer and the Holy Spirit came upon him and dwelt with him, what happens when/if that believer no longer believes?”
Those who fall away are never regarded as ever having been one of the Elect, as all true believers are incapable of falling away. For example:
Mat 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Here Christ tells those who even produced “many wonderful works,” and even prophecy in the name of Christ and cast out devils, that He “never knew” them. Not that He knew them until they fell away, but that they were completely unknown to Him all along. (Though, technically, they may enjoy the benefits of the Holy Spirit to some extent, as the “rain” falls on the just and the unjust. However, the Elect, who are the true believers, cannot experience this, as will be seen). In contrast, Christ tells us that He knows all that are His:
Joh_10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
All those that are His did not come to Him by their own will, but were chosen by Christ directly:
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
None of those who belong to Christ can be lost or fail to come:
Joh 10:27-30 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. (30) I and my Father are one.
This is confirmed again when John, speaking of Apostates, declares that they were never of us:
1Jn_2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Jesus also declares that it is impossible for the Elect to be lost even during the most powerful delusions:
Mar_13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Therefore, the power to “abide in Christ” must remain with God who gives to the elect “both to will and to do.”
“In the issue of baptism, Jesus commanded it, therefore in obedience, the Church baptizes. We are bound by the command, but God is not. We cannot choose whether to baptize or not, but if God chooses to save one who has not been baptized, that is His alone, bound by no rule.”
What you should take away from the doctrine of grace and predestination isn’t that we are bound to works for our salvation, except on those few occasions where it is not, but rather that on every occasion we are not bound to works but by the will of God.
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Salvation is “not of works,” and cannot lead to any ability for a man to “boast.” Again:
Rom_3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom_4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
To attempt to cooperate with God for the purpose of salvation, to maintain your “meritorious” deeds is the same as working, but Paul tells us that the reward for such deeds is not salvation, but always debt. The Law is simply not capable of bringing salvation, as through it is only the knowledge of sin.
This is not to say that God does not work in us to do good works or to keep a faith that abides in Him, or that doing good and obeying the moral law is important for the Christian life (after all, a living faith shows its faith by its works), but salvation cannot be attributed in any way to the working of the law, but only to God who has mercy on us who simply are incapable of keeping the law.
So, how does this apply to water baptism? Since we know that salvation is entirely the work of God, then we cannot conclude that water baptism is capable of conveying the Holy Spirit to an infant (He is totally sovereign), nor can we regard that there is any necessity of “abiding” for that infant, even in the event that He was one of the elect, since it is by faith that righteousness is imputed upon us in the first place, and not our inability to follow the law (as seen with Paul).
“The scripture does not say that God chooses without foreknowledge of your works.”
The better phrase to use is “chooses without care of our works.” Since, one chapter previously, Paul declares that the elect are both foreknown and predestinated.
Rom 8:29-30 (29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
“As you see the context is that not all of genetic Israel is elected, nor are the Gentiles unelected. It indeed explains that predestination works before any works have been accomplished, but it does not say that these works do not count in the divine decision. Besides, the passage is focused on on what predestination is but on what true Israel is.”
If you’re speaking of “election” and “unelection,” you are automatically speaking of predestination as defined by Paul, which, as you confess by your own verbiage, is not limited to a remnant of the Jews, but is the same way God chooses to save all His people. You also confess that this election is done without regard to works, at least initially, which you denied with the first sentence I quoted. But then you say, that predestination is yet dependent on works, and allege that Romans does not teach that it is entirely dependent on God. But this is a contradiction, since that which God decrees cannot be resisted.
You say that the language of “working” and laboring” proves that we must maintain our election (which is everywhere defined as taking place before the world began without regard to our works). Yes, we are told to “work out our salvation,” but we are also told that our good works are wrought by God.
Php 2:12-13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Isa_26:12 LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.
This is true in Romans 8 as well, where the whole golden line of salvation is placed before us:
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Notice it does not say that those whom God called, justified themselves in cooperation with God, and glorified themselves as the reward of God. It is God who calls, justifies, and glorifies, not according to the man “who works, but of Him that calleth.”
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Paul teaches all throughout Romans that salvation is of the LORD, entirely and completely, and reasserts this every where else it comes up in His epistles.
Now for the last minor quote:
“...but on what true Israel is.”
Following those passages is a lengthy discourse on God’s justice in hardening Pharaoh and having mercy on whom He will. The topic is on God’s sovereign choice in predestination, as Pharaoh being hardened has nothing whatever to do with Israel being true or not. And since you opened up with the words “election” and “unelection,” you also know this, but in a confused way.
“However, the same passage also calls Timothy to “labor with the gospel” so Timothy’s works are certainly a part of his calling; he in fact is called because of his work as a bishop.”
Other parts of this argument were dealt with in the previous paragraphs of mine, but I will respond that Timothy is not just speaking of himself, but for all believers who are elected, not according to their works, but by the will and purpose of God given to us before the foundation of the world.
“That passage speaks of election being by grace alone, which is a Catholic teaching, as is of course every other passage in the Holy Bible. It also sets the goal for the elect right there: “unspotted in charity”. I don’t see how this advances your idea that the Ephesians were elected (those, that is, that were, — some we presume were not) whether they “have done good or evil, and inspite of [their] evil even”.”
You are not unspotted in charity (neither am I), so if you hope to be saved by this, you will be in trouble. It says “that we should be Holy.” In other words, for the purpose of making us Holy, not that we make ourselves holy or must be holy to receive unmerited grace.
“As a general proposition, God is sovereign and certainly has the power to save people for no rhyme or reason;”
That’s part of your misunderstanding. The point isn’t that God can choose randomly, but that God is always sovereign in salvation. Since baptism is applied to infants by man on the basis of its alleged saving power and ability to transfer the Holy Spirit, it is basically claiming that man can make the choice on behalf of God. But we know this fails, since not every Catholic child is “called, justified, and glorified,” at least if we understand this on a strictly scriptural basis.
******I’m not sure if you’re aware of your own argument. Your argument is that the Holy Spirit coming upon Cornelius and his family was necessary for Peter to “figure out” why he was there. Yet, you admit that Peter already “figured out” why he was there, per the scriptures I posted, which occurred before the Holy Spirit baptism/infilling.******
Rereading my own posts, I am well aware of my own argument and stand by it. My only mistake was including Peter with those who were with him who were astonished that the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentile, Cornelius.
I argued that Cornelius was a lesson for Peter as well as for us and thus, the Spirit coming upon him was not the norm. Why? Because Cornelius was not the norm. He was Gentile. I stand by what I said. The sequence of events supports it completely.
Cornelius is visited by the angel. Peter receives the vision but is unsure what the vision means. Cornelius does as the angel tells him and sends for Simon, also called Peter. In the meantime, Peter also receives a message to go when Cornelius sends for him, but he doesn’t know why. That is why he is told not to doubt, just to go.
When Peter arrives, he asks Cornelius the purpose of sending for him. Cornelius explains his interest in hearing about Jesus. Peter realizes that Cornelius knows about Jesus and believes in Him and that God means to include the Gentiles in the new covenant.
Upon his understanding the Holy Spirit confirms that Peter has correctly understood the vision and comes upon Cornelius and his household. Peter declares that baptism, and thus acceptance, is not to be withheld from the Gentiles and Cornelius and his household are baptized.
So, the norm is baptism, but there is an exception to the norm which only God can allow. My argument is that Peter had to understand before he would baptize. He would not have baptized them without first understanding God’s plan of including the Gentiles.
This does not negate Jesus’ command to baptize as we are still bound by that command. WE ARE, but God is not as He is accountable to no one but Himself.
*****According to Barnes’ commentary: “His breathing on them was a certain sign or pledge that they would be endowed with the influences of the Holy Spirit. Compare Act_1:4; John 2.”*****
Well Barnes is the one in error, for Scripture does not say in any way that the breathing on the Apostles was a promise of a future event.
The coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost supports the Catholic understanding that one receives the Holy Spirit once, but the gifts and understanding come over and over.
We are strengthened over and over in our faith by the Holy Spirit coming over us.
For example, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived, but she was with the Apostles at Pentecost.
****Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)****
Jesus was glorified upon His resurrection. His words are “Receive the Holy Spirit” Pretty Clear words.
*****This was before Christ ascended to heaven, and after Christ breathed on them. The reference is to Pentecost.*****
Here is where the error lies. The Holy Spirit comes upon them and it is then that He influences them to preach and perform miracles and great signs and wonders. This could only happen after Jesus leaves them, because until then, they are being led by Jesus.
Jesus’ mission was fulfilled and now it was the time for the Holy Spirit to take over. But, there is not promise of receiving the Holy Spirit some time in the future, rather only the promise that the Holy Spirit would come to them in a way that leads them to truth and gives them power to bear great fruit.
*****Therefore, your argument that Cornelius did not receive the Holy Spirit fully until water baptism could fix it is false.******
That was never my argument.
****Those who fall away are never regarded as ever having been one of the Elect, as all true believers are incapable of falling away. For example:*****
Really? Yet Jesus says these branches which are cast off were part of the vine.
Jesus says, IF you abide in me, I will abide in you.
Read the parable of the seed and the soil.
I don’t have time right now to pull up all the verses in the NT where we are told to endure, to persist, to keep the faith.
I will try to do so another time, but suffice it to say for now, the Word of God does not support that a believer could not fall away.
*****To attempt to cooperate with God for the purpose of salvation, to maintain your “meritorious” deeds is the same as working, but Paul tells us that the reward for such deeds is not salvation, but always debt. The Law is simply not capable of bringing salvation, as through it is only the knowledge of sin.*****
One does not cooperate with God for the purpose of salvation, that is a gift freely given, but one must cooperate with God in order to remain in Him and have eternal life.
Paul says it quite well when he speaks of himself and the desire he has to not have run the race in vain, to have preached Jesus to others and not finished the race and claimed his crown.
God does not force salvation upon us, even when we are saved.
******Mar_13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.*****
IF it were possible. Meaning even the elect will be subject to these false ones, and if it were possible, meaning if the possibility exists, even the elect may fall prey to them.
This passage does not say it is not possible.
“I argued that Cornelius was a lesson for Peter “
The lesson was not for Peter, since Peter learned the lesson before the Holy Spirit fell. Since Peter did not need convincing, there was no impediment for water baptism, followed by the usual signs and wonders. The people witnessing it would have been just as struck, and no one would be able to question what the point of water baptism is since it’s allegedly to cause what they had just witnessed.
“Here is where the error lies.”
You did not address all the scriptures I quoted. Here’s another:
Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
This was right before Christ ascended to heaven, and therefore is after Christ breathed on them to “receive the Holy Ghost.”
You also ignore the other points which show that the signs and wonders that the Apostles received on Pentecost were indistinguishable from that which occurred to Cornelius. If Peter says it is the “same as us,” you cannot tell me what part of the Holy Spirit they still lacked that water baptism needed to complete.
“Really?”
Yes, really, unless you have a problem with the scriptures I quoted. They’re quite clear and already deal with your objections.
“One does not cooperate with God for the purpose of salvation, that is a gift freely given, but one must cooperate with God in order to remain in Him and have eternal life.”
You sounded scriptural for a moment, but then you contradict yourself. If we do not cooperate with God for the purpose of salvation, why are we cooperating with God “in order to remain in Him and have eternal life”? Salvation is to eternal life what eternal life is to salvation.
“God does not force salvation upon us, even when we are saved.”
There’s something strangely contradictory about the things you say here. But, that salvation is entirely by God, literally “forced” on us, is already demonstrated by the other scriptures I posted.
I’ll add that the reason why this is is because man, by his own nature, is simply incapable of seeking God or serving Him:
Rom 3:10-20 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (13) Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (14) Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: (15) Their feet are swift to shed blood: (16) Destruction and misery are in their ways: (17) And the way of peace have they not known: (18) There is no fear of God before their eyes. (19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
This is another reason why we cannot attribute anything truly good in our lives as coming from ourselves, since there is nothing good in us that we do not receive from the Father.
“IF it were possible. Meaning even the elect will be subject to these false ones, and if it were possible, meaning if the possibility exists, even the elect may fall prey to them.”
If it were possible means that it isn’t possible. Jesus is telling us that the delusions would be so powerful that it could even deceive the elect... IF that were possible. It says nothing about the elect being subject to them at all.
Yes. Of course.
You also confess that this election is done without regard to works, at least initially
No I don't. How does that follow?
Yes, we are told to “work out our salvation,” but we are also told that our good works are wrought by God.
True that, but it does not follow that we must not make our own chioices for good -- choose our good works. This is why all these encouragements to good works are in the gospels.
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
That is an incomplete quote without verse 10 that again urges good works, and again notes that God will work within you as you work them. It is also universally misunderstood by Protestant to say that salvation is by faith alone when it says what the Catholic teaching is, that salvation is by grace alone.
Pharaoh being hardened has nothing whatever to do with Israel being true or not
God hardened the heart of the enemies of the Catholic Church all the time. This is how Protestantism happened. This does not mean that God decided to slaughter the Jews or made you leave the one true Church of Christ.
Timothy is not just speaking of himself
Timothy is not speaking at all, but rather reading the letter written by St. Paul. However, indeed, while not all of us are bishops like Timothy, many of us Catholics are elected and therefore have the responsibility to "labor with the gospel".
if you hope to be saved by this, you will be in trouble. It says “that we should be Holy.” In other words, for the purpose of making us Holy, not that we make ourselves holy or must be holy to receive unmerited grace.
I know that God will make me holy if I ask Him to make me holy. That is the only way to salvation, for God "will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4)
Since baptism is applied to infants by man on the basis of its alleged saving power and ability to transfer the Holy Spirit, it is basically claiming that man can make the choice on behalf of God. But we know this fails, since not every Catholic child is “called, justified, and glorified,” at least if we understand this on a strictly scriptural basis.
The parents (typically) of the infant ask God prayerfully to call and justify the infant. I have no reason to think that God, who can save anyone and wants to save all, would decline the request,-- in due course the child will die a good death and be glorified with Christ and His saints in heaven. What this child does with himself when he grows up is up to him, -- he has free will. He may lose the benefit of his Baptism. Most of Protestants did, and many Catholics. What you need to do, therefore, is come back to the Catholic Church, reach your own salvation and be a witness to others. It is a matter of life and death.
“True that, but it does not follow that we must not make our own chioices for good — choose our good works. This is why all these encouragements to good works are in the gospels.”
It certainly does follow, since if our works our wrought by God, they are not our own works. How can we go to heaven based on our own merits when it is God who is making us work? There’s another problem as well. While we are told to “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” we are not capable of being perfect. If we cannot be perfect, and if even God does not work in us that complete perfection, how then do we abide in the commandment of Jesus Christ? It is impossible to do so by our own working. Salvation, then (unless we are all to be damned), must be by grace without the working of the law as the scripture testify, and our true righteousness is not our own, but the righteousness that is imputed by faith (a living faith, which naturally produces fruit, which God works), which itself is the gift of God.
“That is an incomplete quote without verse 10 that again urges good works,”
We’ve already established where good works come from, and nowhere does Paul teach that salvation is determined by works.
Rom 3:23-28 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (25) 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; (26) To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
“God hardened the heart of the enemies of the Catholic Church all the time. This is how Protestantism happened. This does not mean that God decided to slaughter the Jews or made you leave the one true Church of Christ.”
The reformation was based largely from Augustine’s works, which are simply an honest teaching of what the scripture says about the true nature of salvation, which the Catholic Church denies. How then am I hardened when Rome asserts that salvation must be through Rome, through a mechanical salvation of ritual and works?
I’ll add that the great commandments in scripture are only two: Believe on Jesus Christ, Love your neighbor as yourself. James calls this the “Royal law,” for by it all the commandments are fulfilled. Why, then, does Rome redefine “works” as obedience to the Pope? Which, by the way, has no unanimous agreement amongst the Early church, or even later.
“Timothy is not speaking at all, but rather reading the letter written by St. Paul. “
Oops, a brain fart.
“many of us Catholics are elected”
You seem to be suggesting there is a partial election of those who are justified. Is this true? Do you believe that there is a partial election, but that there are others who are capable of coming to God who are not elected?
“I know that God will make me holy if I ask Him to make me holy.”
Ask him. Let’s see it done. You’ll be even greater than Paul the Apostle, or any man on Earth that ever lived:
Rom 7:14-25 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (15) For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. (16) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. (17) Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (18) For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. (19) For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. (22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: (23) But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (25) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
“The parents (typically) of the infant ask God prayerfully to call and justify the infant. I have no reason to think that God, who can save anyone and wants to save all, would decline the request,— in due course the child will die a good death and be glorified with Christ and His saints in heaven. What this child does with himself when he grows up is up to him, — he has free will. He may lose the benefit of his Baptism.”
If the Holy Spirit dwelling within the Child does not regenerate him nor provide him any benefit, it is more likely that the Spirit isn’t there at all. Everywhere that Baptism is commanded in the scriptures, it is conjoined with either belief or repentance. Baptism, itself, implies belief, since to be Baptized in the name of someone is to agree to their teachings as a Lawgiver, at least in the Jewish sense. John’s Baptism itself for the “remission of sins” was followed by an actual confession of sins and a commitment to conversion. The Child can do none of this, since baptism in and of itself has no supernatural or magical power to provide any benefit, as if the hand of God can be moved by the command of a priest. Rather, it is God who moves, and when He does move, the power of it is self-evident, because it involves a conversion in the heart that, though invisible, is visible through a changed life that is always present.
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.