7 Step Reason to be Catholic II; Revitalizing Faith in the Wake of Scandal and Dissent

Coming Home Network ^ | Jerome D. Gilmartin

[SoothingDave]

In post 42 I said:

You will respond that all enelected men are entirely dead and that nothing that they do is pleasing to God.

I see you finally got around to it.

Your problem is with Jesus, Peter and Paul... not Calvin.

Again, the vanity of the Protestant, elevating his PIOS to be divine.

No, Steve, my problem is witht he Calvinist approach to these things. Not with Scripture. Let's look at your Scripture:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. -- Romans 3:10-12

Well, reading that, I guess we are all screwed. There must be something more that is behind the Gospel message, no? It's not just "no one is righteous, not one, nobody, full stop, none."

This passage you quote begs for an "except...."

SD

[drstevej]

***This passage you quote begs for an "except...."***

Thank God we have SD to finish what the inspired Scriptures forgot or got wrong!

***No, Steve, my problem is witht he Calvinist approach to these things. Not with Scripture.***

You have mentioned Calvin. I have merely quoted three Scriptures (John 14:6; Acts 4:12 and Romans 3:10-12).

Calvin is a red herring in this discussion. Mere diversion.

***Again, the vanity of the Protestant, elevating his PIOS to be divine***

Baloney. I simply typed the biblical text and you start squirming because it won't fit your tradition or the actions of JPII kissing the Koran.

[Wrigley]

No other. The point is that because of historical or other circumstances beyond an individual's culpability, an individual may be "saved" and live a life completely in the Spirit of God without the intellectual knowledge of the name "Jesus."

Wow. So there is more than one path. The roman catholic church teaches that?

[SoothingDave]

**This passage you quote begs for an "except...."***

Thank God we have SD to finish what the inspired Scriptures forgot or got wrong!

So there is no "except?" There is none good, no one that is righteous and we all die and go to hell?

Is that the Bible message? Or is there something to add to the verse you excerpt?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Wow. So there is more than one path. The roman catholic church teaches that?

how do you get that from what I said? There is one Way, one Path. My question, which maybe you'll answer, is is it possible that God could save someone, elect him, fill him with His Spirit and lead him in a Spirit-filled life even if the person has never heard the name "Jesus"?

I'm not saying it happens all the time, on the contrary. But is it possible God could do this?

Or, as I re-worded it, is salvation acheived because God chose us, or because we know His Name?

SD

[drstevej]

***Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart***

This according to Romans 3:10-12 is a NULL SET. That is precisely the point, SD.

I gotta run. I'll tag wrigley to continue the dialogue. Watch out. He's one of those Calvinists who regularly reads his Bible.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

My question, which maybe you'll answer, is is it possible that God could save someone, elect him, fill him with His Spirit and lead him in a Spirit-filled life even if the person has never heard the name "Jesus"?

Billy Graham would agree with ya. :)

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

This according to Romans 3:10-12 is a NULL SET. That is precisely the point, SD.

Sorry, that is only your Calvinistic interpretation. Just because there is none "good," none "righteous," does not imply that there are none who seek after God with a sincere heart.

Your Calvinism tells you so, but it isn't.

If I behave in a "good" or a "righteous" manner, striving to follow God with a sincere heart, even 99% of the time, I am still a sinner. I am still, in God's eyes, "not good" and "not righteous."

This is what Romans is telling us. In God's view, none of us is good. Not that we can't ever strive to be good, but that we can not be perfectly good all of the time. This is impossible.

Being Calvinist, you take this idea that God find none of us "good" and marry it to your incorrect ideas of all of us being spiritually "dead" to reach your conclusion.

It is for this reason, that I already identified, that I insist to you that it is Calvinism with which I have a problem, and not the Scripture.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Billy Graham would agree with ya. :)

But Big Mack wouldn't?

SD

[SoothingDave]

I should also note that you are making the assumption that a person who is truly ignorant of Jesus is by definition a reprobate.

If he were elect, God would make him truly desire to follow God with a sincere heart. Now, if he happened to be stuck on a backwards Pacific island with no missionaries and no contact with civilzation, he could very well remain ignorant of Jesus.

SD

[ultima ratio]

The evidence would be the record of witnesses. That is precisely what the Gospels claim to be. None of the original manuscripts are extant, but there have been catalogued over 4000 manuscripts or manuscript fragments. No single work in antiquity is supported by as much manuscript evidence. So we begin here. The Gospels as we have them are essentially the same texts that were in existence in the early Church.

But even while the Gospels were being used as early as the second century, there began to appear false Gospels, some of which are extant today. Their existence sheds light on the authenticity of the four Gospels. Their presence made it imperative for Christians to find a basis for distinguishing the true from the false. It very quickly emerged in the second century that four names--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John-- were the men whose writings were considered authentic by early Christians. This is verified by a fragment uncovered in 1740 and by the Ante-Nicene writers, including Origen, one of the most learned of the men of that period (the second and third centuries.) Scores of other writers and manuscripts from around that time support these four writers as having authored the only authentic Gospels.

So the next question is whether these writers were trustworthy witnesses. If you apply the same criterion to the Gospels which would be applied to any other profane document, we can draw certain affirmative conclusions. We derive this by studying and analyzing the ancient writings of those who were qualified to know, the Ante-Nicene writers. For example, one manuscript fragment says this: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered." Another says of Luke that he "related in his own Gospel the accurate account of the things of which he had himself firmly learned the truth from his profitable association with Paul and his conversation with the other Apostles."

But are they truthful? What if, as some critics maintain, the Gospels are a fraud, written to deceive and to permit the proponents of a new religion to live comfortably without working? The fact is there is absolutely nothing in any ancient text or in the Gospels themselves to indicate this. All the weight of the evidence is to the contrary--far from living comfortably, Christ's followers were persecuted, alienated, executed. Most were hard workers--and worked at their occupations even while they evangelized.

One of the most compelling arguments, in fact, for the authenticity and veracity of the Gospels is to read them without bias. No one who reads the narrative of the man born blind, for instance, can deny that it has an authentic ring. If it were fiction it would mean that psychological realism had been invented by the Gospel writers long before the nineteenth century. Yet nowhere in the ancient world was fictional realism ever practiced. There can only be one explanation for the realism--the Gospels are truthful narrations which simply report what happened.

[Ex-Wretch]

"is it possible that God could save someone, elect him, fill him with His Spirit and lead him in a Spirit-filled life even if the person has never heard the name "Jesus"?

God is holy and HE desires to get all the glory, honor and praise due HIM. He will surely make Himself known personally to that sincere seeker. Just as He did to Saul of Tarsus, he will identify Himself.

I'm not saying it happens all the time, on the contrary. But is it possible God could do this?

This is like saying, "if with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, then is it possible for God to sin?

[drstevej]

***I should also note that you are making the assumption that a person who is truly ignorant of Jesus is by definition a reprobate.***

No. Allow me to speak for me.

A person who DIES truly ignorant of Jesus is by definition a reprobate and will JUSTLY suffer the penalty of his sin and sins.

[SoothingDave]

God is holy and HE desires to get all the glory, honor and praise due HIM. He will surely make Himself known personally to that sincere seeker. Just as He did to Saul of Tarsus, he will identify Himself.

Interesting theory. So everyone gets knocked off his horse.

You make God sound somewhat vain. I don't think that was your intent. God will get His glory, He doesn't covet it.

I'm not saying it happens all the time, on the contrary. But is it possible God could do this?

This is like saying, "if with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, then is it possible for God to sin?

I'm afraid I don't follow. You think that God, by His nature, has to make Himself known by name as you describe above? Again, an interesting theory, but I don't agree.

Remember when God came as the still small voice, and not in the fire and earthquake, etc.? Sometimes God knocks you off your horse, other times He is more subtle.

SD

[SoothingDave]

***I should also note that you are making the assumption that a person who is truly ignorant of Jesus is by definition a reprobate.***

No. Allow me to speak for me.

You just said that those who sincerely look after God in ignorance were a NULL SET? Remember?

Aren't those ignorant of God reprobates, then? I mean, this whole thing started with the idea of salvation being possible for the invincibly ignorant. Your argument then is that the invincibly ignorant are not saved. Which means they are reprobates. Where have I misstated what you have said?

SD

[Pahuanui]

All the weight of the evidence is to the contrary--far from living comfortably, Christ's followers were persecuted, alienated, executed. Most were hard workers--and worked at their occupations even while they evangelized.

Indeed. The extraordinary parallels between Buddhism and Christianity continue, it would seem.

One of the most compelling arguments, in fact, for the authenticity and veracity of the Gospels is to read them without bias.As is the case with any other sacred text.

No one who reads the narrative of the man born blind, for instance, can deny that it has an authentic ring.

That would depend entirely on what the subject is.

If it were fiction it would mean that psychological realism had been invented by the Gospel writers long before the nineteenth century. Yet nowhere in the ancient world was fictional realism ever practiced.

I'm sorry, but that is clearly overlaying an ancient text with a modern concept that at the time of their writing didn't exist. One could say the exact same thing about numerous other ancient stories of the either the fantastic or semi-fantastic.

There can only be one explanation for the realism--the Gospels are truthful narrations which simply report what happened.

False dilemma: not only could there be other explanations as to the nature of the texts in question, but one must first accept the contention that they actually do exhibit some higher degree of realism, and that that degree of realism is somehow unique (or even there at all).

[drstevej]

***Your argument then is that the invincibly ignorant are not saved. Which means they are reprobates.***

First, I don't use the term invincibly ignorant. That's your term. Second, none seek after God apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit convinces of sin, righteousness and judgment. The Holy Spirit regenerates. But the Holy Spirit regenerates those who embrace Jesus as savior.

John 1:12 "But as many as received him [JESUS], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name [JESUS]."

No "except..." here either, SD.

[Wrigley]

Silly.

When all that happens the person would know Jesus. Of course he would know His name.

[Wrigley]

I should also note that you are making the assumption that a person who is truly ignorant of Jesus is by definition a reprobate.

A correct assumption.

[SoothingDave]

First, I don't use the term invincibly ignorant. That's your term.

Well, we could just never talk to each other, if learning each other's terms is too difficult.

Second, none seek after God apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit convinces of sin, righteousness and judgment. The Holy Spirit regenerates. But the Holy Spirit regenerates those who embrace Jesus as savior.

So the Holy Spirit can fail? Is that what you are saying? God can fail? God can send the HS to work on a spiritually dead person without regenerating him? How does that work?

The HS can work on a person, but only if he "embraces" Jesus as Savior? I thought God was sovereign and grace was irresistable?

Now we find that even God sending out the HS to work on a person, that regeneration itself is dependent on the action of the "dead" person deciding to embrace Jesus.

Interesting day.

SD