Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic – Conversion Story of David B. Currie

*****That’s exactly the foundation of my argument. This statement helps my cause, not yours, since you propose that the same word always meant what Rome currently believes.*****

I’m afraid not. The word used which is translated as remembrance is a word that had a sacrificial basis when used in the OT, as in memorial offering or memorial portion. The Apostles would have recognized what the Lord meant, as they were Jews and were familiar with the meaning of Passover.

This is not a simple recalling of a memory, rather it is a placing of oneself within the events which are being remembered.

****Not on salvation, and not on the sacraments. The RCC today rejects Augustine’s views on grace and predestination, which actually are the origins of the reformation in the first place.*****

I think the “reformers” would like to think that but it is not the case. Augustine’s views on predestination were not the same as Calvin’s. Predestination in Augustine’s view was that the grace with which we are saved and the call to us to life in Christ were predestined from the beginning.

The elect are those who are moved by God’s grace to belief and for those who do believe, God has predestined for them all the grace they need to cooperate with God in their salvation.

Augustine did not teach God has chosen some and rejected others for no reason other than He can. Scripture tells us that God has written His law on the hearts of ALL men and that God desires that All be saved. And ALL need God’s grace to be made new and given new life.

There is no dogmatic Catholic declaration on predestination and the elect and those who will not be saved. That is God’s domain as is judgement.

Therefore, Augustine was not bound by a firm Catholic belief and did not contradict Catholic doctrine in his views. We are free to believe what Augustine taught or to reject it.

Augustine also believed that one could lose their salvation by outright rejection of it and of God. That is certainly in line with Catholic teaching on salvation. As the Doctor of Grace, I question why you think Augustine’s teachings on grace are rejected by the Catholic Church.

****(That is, that God Himself is the author of our faith, and chose us and ordained us before the foundation of the world, not because He foresaw that we would be good, but so that we would be good.)****

I don’t see where Catholicism rejects or contradicts this.

*****You’re assuming that the Primacy of Rome has always existed, which it hasn’t. Even RCC scholars admit it is not a 2,000 year old institution, but rather one that went through development.*****

One that went through development......I never intimated anything else and it is the Primacy of Peter, not of Rome which was where he was martyred.

What seems to be a fact unable to be grasped is that no one here, especially me has claimed that the Church just appeared in Rome and said, “We are the authority” in all things Christian. It was developed over the course of years as the Church grew and looked to the Bishop of Rome for guidance in the face of heresy.

Another fact is that not everything thought, word, deed or writing of a Catholic theologian, author, bishop or even pope is considered infallible.

It is only after the Church has spoken with authority through the pope, ex cathedra, from the seat of authority that something is considered infallible and is binding on the faithful.

Another fact is that Augustine practiced obedience to the Bishop of Rome as a Catholic bishop, an office and practice that was well established by the time he lived.

**** Since it is for “remembrance,” it cannot be for salvation.*****

The Passover celebration was part of Jewish Law, it was commanded and therefore is part of their salvation.
The Lord saved His people and delivered them from their slavery in Egypt. His people today are still saved by that “passing over” of the Spirit which saved their firstborn from death and delivered them out of Egypt.

The point is that all these centuries later, it is the same salvation and the Jews of today participate in that salvation through the Passover celebration.

In the same way, we Catholics are saved by the sacrifice of the cross in the same way those who were there were saved. When we celebrate the Eucharist, we are participating in the very same sacrifice that is once for all.

“I’m afraid not. The word used which is translated as remembrance is a word that had a sacrificial basis when used in the OT”

That’s impossible, since the Old Testament was originally Hebrew, not Greek. Furthermore, the Greek word in the LXX does not translate to “memorial sacrifice.” Nor is there a special connection between the word used in the NT as the one in the OT in connection with sacrifice. In fact, various versions of “remembrance” are all used in connection with sacrifices, with no one word taking up the use “memorial sacrifice” all at once, save perhaps here: Leviticus 2:2 uses mnemosynon for the sacrifice placed right on the altar, not anamnesis.

Lev_2:2 And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD:

The same word is used in 2:9 and 2:16, just as an example from this one chapter.

“Augustine did not teach God has chosen some and rejected others for no reason other than He can.”

He didn’t disparage God the way you do with it, but He did not believe in universal grace, nor in the things you wrote. He believed in sovereign grace, as taught in the scripture. Here’s an example:

“We know that God’s grace is not given to all men. To those to whom it is given it is given neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of the will, but by free grace. To those to whom it is not given we know that it is because of God’s righteous judgment that it is not given.” Augustine - On Rebuke and Grace

Nor did he believe that grace is given to those whom God foresees will be good. That is Semipelagianism which Augustine directly condemned:

“But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe.” (Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Chapt. 38)

“There is no dogmatic Catholic declaration on predestination and the elect and those who will not be saved.”

Not true, Trent very clearly teaches synergism. The Catholic church has taken a stand, and it is on the side of man’s alleged ability to achieve salvation.

“Augustine also believed that one could lose their salvation by outright rejection of it and of God. “

Augustine, unlike myself, believed that a man cannot be one hundred percent certain that he is a member of the elect. Therefore, a man can reject Christ, and from this rejection it is clear that he did not receive the gift of “perseverance.” However, he regarded perseverance itself to be a gift of God, and therefore no member of the elect can ever be lost. He simply cannot know he is a member of the elect until after death. Augustine, like Calvin, also believed one can receive grace to a certain extent (the rain falls on the just and the unjust), and yet not receive the gift of perseverance which belongs to the elect. Nor does Augustine define perseverance by continual works meriting heaven, as the Catholic would assume, but by faith, which gives imputed righteousness. Whatever the case, salvation from start to finish still remains with God, and therefore this is not synergism, nor does Calvin or any of the reformers significantly depart on this one point.

I would encourage you, whatever your end conclusion, to embrace these teachings in some way, or even a somewhat synergistic view, if the end result is that you have faith in Christ alone for His imputed righteousness, and do not regard yourself in anyway as earning salvation by your own merits. In this you will be blessed, moreso than any vain seeking out after merits to gain points for heaven.

Even the Arminian Christian, when praying, with the heart confesses Christ as the sole agent of his salvation, even if their mind is yet confused on these matters.

“What seems to be a fact unable to be grasped is that no one here, especially me has claimed that the Church just appeared in Rome and said, “We are the authority” in all things Christian. It was developed over the course of years as the Church grew and looked to the Bishop of Rome for guidance in the face of heresy.”

A development of Papal power does not square with the claim that the Roman Bishop, as a “successor” of Peter, has always been the head of the Body of Christ. If there was no Papal figure in charge from day one, then there is no RCC.

“Another fact is that not everything thought, word, deed or writing of a Catholic theologian, author, bishop or even pope is considered infallible.”

We can expect “Popes” and Bishops to accurately represent the teachings of their church. No one becomes the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Universal Pastor of the entire church, and not actually know it.

“Another fact is that Augustine practiced obedience to the Bishop of Rome as a Catholic bishop, an office and practice that was well established by the time he lived.”

Augustine would not have recognized the Western church as an authority over the Church in Africa, nor would he have regarded any particular Bishop out there in the world as universal.

*****He didn’t disparage God the way you do with it, but He did not believe in universal grace, nor in the things you wrote. He believed in sovereign grace, as taught in the scripture.*****

I do not disparage God, merely saying that we do not know who the elect are nor how they are chosen. IOW we do not know who or why God gives His grace to whom He gives it.

Grace is sovereign and that is what the Church teaches. Augustine rightly conveys the belief that grace is what moves us to believe, works in us to do the good that God planned for us and helps us persevere in faith.

But, he also did not believe that we are called against our will and held there without some knowing that we are cooperating with God’s desire for our salvation.

Scripture clearly says that God desires that all men be saved, but is also clear that all men will not be saved.

The Church makes no claim as to who and why.....that is God’s providence.

*****Nor did he believe that grace is given to those whom God foresees will be good.*******

Of course not, Jesus says none are good or capable of desiring God. God desires us and calls us and moves our hearts to respond to Him by grace through the Spirit.

The question for the Church and for Augustine is/was who and why. Both believe in the free will of man and know that plays a part or else Augustine would not believe that man can reject God and therefore lose his salvation.

Synergism as in man’s will must be subject to God’s in the work of his salvation. Scriptures tells us all the time the things we must choose and do to remain in Christ.

And, again, Augustine was never given to be infallible and the Church can and may have rejected some of his theology without declaring him a heretic. That wouldn’t be the first time.

****Nor does Augustine define perseverance by continual works meriting heaven, as the Catholic would assume, but by faith, which gives imputed righteousness.*****

Neither does the Church, which says that works are an outward sign of a true and alive inward faith and of a person allowing the Holy Spirit to work in their life. It is not the works that merits heaven, but the faith that gains heaven through the merits of Jesus.

****I would encourage you, whatever your end conclusion, to embrace these teachings in some way, or even a somewhat synergistic view, if the end result is that you have faith in Christ alone for His imputed righteousness, and do not regard yourself in anyway as earning salvation by your own merits. In this you will be blessed, moreso than any vain seeking out after merits to gain points for heaven.*****

I appreciate the kind words of encouragement and do indeed know that I am not worthy of God’s grace and am blessed to be counted among His children.

******A development of Papal power does not square with the claim that the Roman Bishop, as a “successor” of Peter, has always been the head of the Body of Christ.******

The “claim” as you call is, is that Peter was the head of the church as chosen and ordained by Jesus. The lists given very early in the church history denotes those who succeeded him as Bishop of Rome as his successors, not just to the see of Rome, but also as the visible head of the church on earth.

*****We can expect “Popes” and Bishops to accurately represent the teachings of their church. No one becomes the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Universal Pastor of the entire church, and not actually know it.*****

It is not always a question of knowing the teachings, but knowing how those teachings apply in the face of a constantly changing society challenging the teachings.

That is why we must depend and trust the Holy Spirit to protect the pope and therefore us, from making errors when speaking on matters that are binding.

******Augustine would not have recognized the Western church as an authority over the Church in Africa, nor would he have regarded any particular Bishop out there in the world as universal.*******

You are wrong here, Augustine recognized the See of Rome as the Chair of St. Peter and the voice of the universal church. But, too, bishops are the head of their sees but are expected to remain in union with the pope and the universal church.

“But, he also did not believe that we are called against our will and held there”

Augustine clearly believed what the scripture teaches (I’ve quoted him well enough to prove that), which is that we are not called “against our will.” We are given a new heart from God, and it is this new nature by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit that comes to Christ willingly. But he cannot choose to will differently, just as the damned cannot choose not to sin, and how we still struggle with our flesh despite “serving the law of God with our minds.” The will before salvation is the slave of sin, but the will after being freed is happily enslaved to Christ.

But it is God who calls, draws, justifies and glorifies, and there is no “cooperating to remain good enough for God.” Because it is God who “works in us both to will and to do,” and who “wrought all our works in us.” If grace is truly sufficient, then grace cannot fail to secure its recipient. Therefore salvation is by the grace of God, and not of ourselves, not of works “lest any should boast,” because it is God who works all in all with us from the beginning.

Furthermore, the synergistic system essentially declares that not only can grace fail to save the elect, but that half the time this grace isn’t even given to people at all. So then there are those doomed because they receive no grace, but were vessels of wrath, and then there are those who receive grace, who God predestinated to be vessels of mercy, but fail to make perfect the grace that was given to them. The scripture teaches no such thing:

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Joh 10:26-30 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (27) 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 peace to the believer, but terror to the children of the devil, who do not come, but are happy to live and to die in their sin, to their everlasting shame.

“The lists given very early in the church history denotes those who succeeded him as Bishop of Rome as his successors”

And when, exactly, were these lists written? Do they all agree? Was both Peter and Paul connected with Rome? Is there evidence that Peter was ever in Rome to begin with? How did the Early Father’s interpret the Apostles receiving the keys of Heaven? And when the Primacy of Peter came into vogue, say about the 4th century, did they define the Primacy of Peter, his authority, as coming upon the seat of the Bishop of Rome?

Certainly, that is NOT the position of Gregory as I have quoted, nor of many others. It is the RCC that looks at every quote which mentions Peter, and assumes it refers to the Bishop of Rome, even though Rome itself is called “Babylon” by the scriptures and by many of the early Fathers.

The whole system of control and obedience that came into view in the middle ages simply has no precedent in the Bible, nor was it one that the ancients took very seriously in the first few centuries. If they had a problem with one Bishop, they simply sought vindication from another... but even THAT system itself has no basis in the scripture, which instead defines unity not by obedience or membership in a visible structure, but spiritual unity through faith in the body of Christ DESPITE the hatred it will cause with the world.

I would encourage you to take a closer look to the quotes I provided from Gregory, and also the teachings of the early Fathers... but, more importantly, to take a closer look at the scriptures to test the RCC’s theology.

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.