Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Actually, everyone who is elect would say that, not just Calvinistic-Protestants. The difference comes out when the story is later retold by the Christian who was rescued. The reprobate would continue to paddle off thinking there is a better boat somewhere else.
I agree, good point. :)
That's good with me! I love learning about our relative agreements. :)
I needed to refresh my memory with some reading before responding to your question with specifics. My survey on the history of Protestantism took place many years ago.
The majority of Methodists believe in free will, including the many churches derived from Methodism, such as Pentecostals and Assemblies of God. The same is true of those churches derived from the Brethern and Anabaptists movements in Europe. This includes churches as diverse as Mennonite, Amish, Church of the Brethern, and Quaker.
The situation is more complex among Baptists, but many do believe in free will, including General Baptists and Free Will Baptists. As for those churches founded on the theology of Luther and Calvin like Lutherans and Presbyterians, some members do believe in free will. And whatever the beliefs of the early churchmen of the Church of England, today many Anglicans--perhaps a majority--believe in free will (mainly I think from the influence of Methodism on the one hand and the Oxford Movement on the other.)
In Protestant theology, a belief in free will is called Arminian, named after Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch Reformed churchman who rejected much of Calvin's theology, including predestination. In Arminianism, grace is a gift that can be accepted or rejected. It can also be lost without a renewal of the will.
You might find it interesting to note that John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and an Anglican priest who never left the Church of England, took much inspiration from the theology of the Orthodox Church.
The majority of Protestants today subscribe to a belief in free will.
FK said "I have been told by Catholics that tradition is one of the three legs of authority in the Church. Now I'm confused."
Catholics don't go by "oral" tradition in regards to doctrine. We go by Apostolic Tradition and the Scriptures. Oral tradition is something that is not written down. At all. Something passed down from generation to generation. The Masoretic vowel placement would be an example of an oral tradition. Homer's Iliad as sung by bards was an oral tradition. That Moses passed through the Red Sea was an oral tradition for many years.
Here's how it works for Christians...First, ALL teachings were given orally, by Christ first, then by the Apostles to the various communities. In time, some of them wrote letters for exhortation, or as explanation of a teaching. Many of the letters were replies to the communities who were having problems, such as the Corinthians. Thus, we have the oral and written teachings of the Apostles. By the first few generations, though, men were already commenting on the "oral" teachings of the Apostles. Infant Baptism - not explicitly found in Scriptures, but implied and NOT excluded. yet, the Fathers call it an "ancient" tradition back to the Apostles. Thus, we have WRITTEN record of an oral apostolic explanation regarding Baptism.
With that said, however, I believe we DO have "oral" traditions, if we look to the Liturgy, the Mass. Our public worship of God is a lived Tradition that is passed down between generations - and not documented in the Scriptures. But such traditions are the lived faith of the Church.
FK, I still believe that you have a chronological issue with Apostolic Tradition. There wasn't the need to filter the Apostles' teachings through the Scripture at the time. There wasn't a confusion - people knew that oral and written teachings from the Apostles were equally valid. It is only during the Reformation that we really see people suddenly questioning the orally given teachings. However, it is important to realize that the Church DID write down the Apostles teachings that didn't make the Scriputres explicitly - they just are not considered inspired works because they were not actually written by Apostles.
However, once we identify something as coming from Apostles, the Church Fathers clearly have given the teaching an infallible authority, equal to Scriptures. Once a teaching is identified as Apostolic, it is by nature infallible and from God, as everything they taught was specially guided by God.
I believe the scripture was preserved by God. Nothing circular about that.
I think we need to tackle this problem. You know it is God's book based on internal evidence? So if I wrote "Thus says the Lord your God, I have a new commandment for my people. You shall follow the Book of Mormon with all of your heart - it is my message to the people of America", what would you say? How would you know that this is not from God? As you said, "what does timing have to do with God's plan"?
Regards brothers
I would agree that after what I call salvation, I need to actively follow Christ. I believe that the heart IS changed at the point of salvation, and so it is a lock that following Christ will happen in a general sense. (Of course, there will be times of "slippage" :) Because of this guarantee we characterize salvation as occurring at one moment in time (with future included events). Do you see this as incompatible with the Protestant view?
Of course not! But God created man in His image and likeness so that he may be in perfect communion with God. By God's Design, man's nature is in perfect harmony with God's nature. By man's fall (from grace), it is no longer so.
Man is, therefore "fully" man when he is in perfect communion with God (his original created state). All other conditions affecting our nature lessen our humanity and are unnatural. As we lose the likeness of God through sin, we become less human.
Our Lord Jesus Christ personifies the seamless and perfect existence between the Divine and human. "Become, therefore, perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." As we achieve perfection (theosis), we partake ever more in God's perfection and reflect His image and likeness.
This is why Jesus Christ is a perfect God and a perfect Man in one Person, in perfect harmony, yet each fully distinct, and consequently two separate by harmonized wills.
That's why our Lord was able to resist evil and temptations of satan, even though His human nature was subject to such temptations.
Here is the porblem you predestinationists don't seem to comprehend: the "slippage" is really God's will in your theology, so why resist it? Not only that, how can you when God compels you?
Thank you. Very informative. Perhaps the mistaken idea on my part comes from the fact that those who deny free will are the loudest (on the FR at least). That impression is perhaps only reinforced by the very low number of Protestants who come out on the side of the Orthodox or Catholic when it comes to discussions on free will.
Outwardly liturgical tradition is, however, not considered sacred, save for the Eucharistic celebration. The oldest Divine Liturgy was practiced in Jerusalem under St. James. The East used St. Basil's Divine Liturgy thereafter. Last litrugical change (in the East) was made by St. John Chrysostomos (5th century). All three liturgies are celebrated to this day in the Orthodox Church, the last one being the "weekly" Divine Liturgy and the other two, under specific circumstances, as the liturgies of specific feasts.
So, while the content of the litugry is sacred and based on the Scripture (Gospels), the outwards expression of it, along with vestments and so on is not unchangeable.
But you points are well made regarding the meaning of the Apostolic Tradition and its validity equal to Scripture. In addition to the liturgical tradition and the Bible, the third elementnin the Holy Tradition of the Church are the Ecumenical Councils.
It is important to stress that the Chrch Tradition can never be contrary to the Scripture. But simply because somehting is not in the Scriputre does not of itself invalidate it as long as the Apostles talked about it or allowed it, as documented by extra-biblical sources.
I agree with that, but if it is the true gospel, then won't it be reflected in scripture whether the person has read it or not directly?
As you have said before, the Gospel message, the core, is not difficult. We argue about verses of Scripture, but these are theological details that probably don't bother most people.
Yes, absolutely.
But really, does a person need to read the entire Bible to understand the Gospel message - love?
No, but a person does need to understand what is at the core of the Bible to know God well enough to accept Him. Acceptance is only meaningful if we understand at least the basics of what Christianity is.
I believe the Church found it necessary to issue a warning to beware of reading the Bible APART from the Church. It still does this today - but encourages us to read the Bible.
OK, fair enough.
The Magesterium are the Bishops who interpret the Bible and the 2000 year history of HOW the Church previously interpreted the Bible (Tradition). They make the teachings of Christ pertinent to OUR problems today, such as stem-cell research.
Maybe I have been misinterpreting what "tradition" is all along. I pinged you to a post a little while before this one on this topic. I have been thinking that tradition is extra-Biblical, not automatically wrong, but not in the Bible.
FK: I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
Then Jesus didn't intend for His Church to last beyond the Apostles...
I don't see why that's so. Why can't the Church, theoretically, flourish under either of our views? What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
Proof texting is not the way of determining a teaching of Christ. I believe that theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next.
Do you mean chronologically, or in importance? If the latter, then the interpretations of men, even God aided, supersede the inerrant word of God? This would reject ANY sense of "plain meaning" scripture.
If I use Protestant theology, how can a totally depraved human KNOW that the Spirit of God is "speaking" to that person? The Catholic theology of "wounded man" doesn't help, in this matter. We just DO NOT KNOW! We are told to TEST the Spirit. But test it against WHAT? Our own opinions? Other interpretations that we came up with before? No, we are to test it against the teachings given to us by the Church. I find it difficult, myself, to determine what is God's will in my specific life.
We can know because the Spirit is resident, indwelling. Therefore, we are no longer "totally depraved". Of course, we make mistakes in receiving the message of the Spirit, but He keeps working in us for life. That's why I'm always open to learning better teachings. The Spirit will bring me along on His time schedule, not mine.
Our test would be against the Bible first, as the Spirit leads us.
Say Calvinism vs. Arminianism. The idea of man and free will. We BOTH know that there is Scripture that point to BOTH points of view. These two groups will NEVER agree because they only see their own proof texts and they disregard the other's. Without a Church to say "man has free will in a secondary sense. Man does cooperate with God and is expected to bend himself, with God's help, to God", how is a third person supposed to KNOW?
Well, first of all I would say that Catholics can disregard proof texts with the best of them! :)
The third person is led by the Spirit, just as I am. I would agree that the third person wouldn't have a prayer of coming up with the RCC view by just reading the Bible himself. :) I believe the Spirit has led me to make the advancement from the Arminian view to the Calvinist one. It was on His timetable, not mine. Perhaps there was other maturing I had to do first before I was ready to accept it. (I can't know for sure.)
You seem to have a difficult time understanding my point - that we do not KNOW that the Spirit is speaking a specific doctrine into our heads!
Maybe I am having difficulty. :) We can know by the faith God gave us, and His promises to us in scripture. If I hear any doctrine from the satanic church I immediately reject it. If I hear any doctrine that admits openly practicing homosexuals as Bishops, like from the "Protestant" Episcopalians I also immediately reject that. The Spirit has led me to understand that teaching does not point to God, so I reject it. I'm not perfect, and I don't claim to have everything right. So, I have the rest of my life for the Spirit to continue to teach and lead me.
FK: "...Bible contains everything we need to know from God."
If you add "...when properly interpreted", then it makes more sense.
I can agree to that.
All I need to say is "Eucharist".
I'm really starting to get the idea that there is something about the Eucharist's importance to Catholics that I don't understand. If it is, why is it different from the importance of other sacraments?
God bless
What??? :) Is that your final answer? :)
2302 is the final answer as regards the timing of salvation. From then on, I was simply clarifying it.
"I'm really starting to get the idea that there is something about the Eucharist's importance to Catholics that I don't understand. If it is, why is it different from the importance of other sacraments?"
The Eucharist is the center of The Church on earth for communities of The Church. Try to read the Eucharistic theology of +Ignatius of Antioch (all of it is available on line) and you will come to understand why The Church, whether Latin Rite or Orthodox view the Eucharist as having a central position in theosis.
Thanks for the comparison to the terrorists. That's real nice. I would agree with you that my side sees God as stronger than us, and He really is a "take charge" kind of God. I would disagree with you that Jesus did not show these exact traits. Jesus said He WAS GOD! He taught with ultimate authority. Jesus was always the boss and always in charge. Do you deny this? Jesus was a salesman?
So, now you are saying that man accepts God on his own accord? I wish you would make up your mind.
Of course, we make mistakes in receiving the message of the Spirit, but He keeps working in us for life
Oy! What happened to predestination!? Do you or don't you do as God wills (your own theology says you do)?
I think it has been clearly stated here that once saved you cannot sin because you are on God's tractor beam, and He doesn't make mistakes. Your theological cousins on the predestination side of the divide say that Judas was simply doing God's will. Then so must satan! If God allows it, it is good.
So, if you make a "mistake" (which is an oxymoron in your theology) how do you know it's not God's will? It has to be God's will, right?! God wants you to make a "mistake." Simple. Then it's not a mistake.
Otherwise you are thwarting God's power, to paraphrase you own words. I think you are beginning to trip over your own home-made theology.
Muslims are heretics, not terrorists. Some Muslims are terrorists. I was not comparing Protestants to terorists, please! And I was corrected, and educated as to which Protestants deny free will (thanks stripes1776!). It turns out, you are actually in minority.
Jesus said He WAS GOD!
Where does He say that? He never said "I am God." The reason why the first four councils were held by the Church was the ambiguity with which some Christians received His divnity, and because it is not stated so simply.
That is what the Apostolic Church teaches correctly. So, if you meet a woman, date her, fall in love with her and wish to marry her, but she rejects you and opts [for someone] who will be her ruin — what is then your move, to force yourself on her because you love her?! If you really love her, you let her go. If she comes back, she is yours; if she doesn't she never was.
But, you don't have authority over her so you have no right to force yourself on her. God does have that authority. God NEVER let's His elect go. He loves them too much. It's a funny contrast to something the father of my best friend in high school once said to me. "If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back in three days, hunt it down and kill it!" :)
What you believe is that God created some to go to hell and others to go to heaven (why even call them "saved"?!?). There is no love in any of that.
Sure there is. God loves His elect so He lets no one, not even himself, snatch him out of His hand. This is a difference we have. You would say that God loves and respects us so much that He would let any of us walk straight off a cliff while He sits in a lawn chair three feet away. We would say that God loves His elect so much that He would never allow that to happen.
Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. Man doesn't accept anything on his own accord. God instills faith into men. He does that through the preaching of His word. And He has given us the honorable task of spreading the word. But God's word will go where He so directs.
Of course, we make mistakes in receiving the message of the Spirit...What happened to predestination!?
Not a thing. EVERYTHING works together for good to those who are called according to His purpose. When we make mistakes we learn and grow from those mistakes. When David murdered Uriah, as severe as that act had on the rest of David's life, he learned and grew from that experience. And, since God dictates the time of all of our deaths, David's murder of Uriah was ordained of God although it was still punished as sin. GASP!
Likewise, we as Christians make mistakes but God isn't surprised by any of it. He uses it to teach us and to help us to grow.
I think it has been clearly stated here that once saved you cannot sin because you are on God's tractor beam, and He doesn't make mistakes.
I don't know of any Calvinist on this board who would make such a claim and it's certainly not in the Westminster Confessions. John states that we no longer "practice sin". We become "slave to righteousness" but that doesn't mean we don't sin from time to time.
So, we must then conclude that He really didn't care for the very people He created in the Garden of Eden. In other words, God made rejects.
But, you don't have authority over her
So God has authorty to force us to love Him? The authority to change our minds and our hearts? That's love, right?
We don't have the authority to force a woman because it is morally wrong. Morality is from God. God is perfectly moral. If you think it is perfectly moral for God to make us love Him, then how morally wrong, or unauthorized, would we be to imitate God and apply the the same approach, being that we are made in His image and likeness?
You would say that God loves and respects us so much that He would let any of us walk straight off a cliff..."
God is doing everything short of forcing us to save us. But people reject God out of their own pride and will.
and
This is what FK said: "but a person does need to ... know God well enough to accept Him."
If you carefully read what he said, you will understand that, while the knowledge may come from God, the decision is made by us. Freudian slip? Maybe.
In other words, once God has revealed himself enough to us, we accept God, not the other way around (obviously, He has already accepted us by revealing Himself spiritually). But the decision to accept must be based on our own free will, or else it is not our acceptance. Forced acceptance, tricked acceptance, etc. is not acceptance.
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.