Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49469 | ||
Classical, evangelical Protestants are united on several things. Gee, you make it seem like we are just one big "anti-Catholic club" or something! The Protestants of the Reformation were united in saying that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. They were also united in saying that while the church are God's people and have been given authority in interpreting Scripture, only Scripture is a binding authority on matters of faith and life. In all Protestant churches that believe the Bible is the word of God, all of these things are held in common. Likewise, while Catholic orders do agree on the key dogmas of Catholicism, the rules established by different orders do emphasize different things. Many of the orders, such as the Society of Jesus, were started as reforming orders within the church. The Franciscans faced a great deal of grief from other Catholics over their insistence upon "apostolic poverty." Many in the Order of St. Francis went to far as to accuse the rest of the orders to be lapsed Catholics who did not understand the Christian life at all. The fact is that, while all who take holy orders are part of Catholicism, there are substantial differences between different orders which, while not being central to Roman Catholicism, are important to them and often the cause of internal disagreements. You wrote: "And the argument about the ancient heretics using scripture to support their positions is valid." I never argued that cults and heretics do not use Scripture to support their claims. My point was that it is not a simple stalemate between opposing parties, simply because the early church used the WHOLE of Scripture to point out where their interpretations were false. For example, the Arians can point out passages where Jesus claims that the Father is "greater than" He is. But once we look at the whole of apostolic revelation in Scripture, it becomes quite clear that Jesus is not talking about His essence or stating that He is a created being. That is the path the Council of Nicea took in condemning him, rather than putting their heads together in a huddle and coming out to say, "This is true because the Church says so." You wrote: "The difference is that in the forum and in the Protestant world there is no other really binding authority if one Church, say Lutheran or Reformed, has no more authority than another in resolving these scriptural disputes as the Church Councils do." I accept many of the Church councils as binding. My church stands with you in believing the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. We look at Augustine and Aquinas and Anselm and read them as well, even though we do not view their teachings as binding, we recognize that they were used of God to properly interpret Scripture in a great number of instances. My denomination, like most rooted in the Reformation, recognizes RCC baptism as valid as well, even if it disagrees with Rome on what the sacrament "does." I have a very high view of the church. The confession to which I subscribe agrees with the historical position of Rome in stating that "out of which [the church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." We just differ on what our definition of the "church" is. Have you ever taken the opportunity to read what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about the Church? If you haven't, I think that taking a look at it might clear up some misconceptions of theauthority I do acknowledge the church in having. Chapter 25 of the WCF is a very short one, and I encourage you to look at it, if only for clarification of my position: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ And I know that if in almost half a milennium that we have not resolved the differences, that a meager series of posts is not going to accomplish much. But I do enjoy the exchange, and hope that you aren't put off by my strong wording. I am not insulted by yours! --Joe! |
||||||
2 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49481 | ||
Joe, Perusing the WCF upon your suggestion I found much classical solid pre- Reformation theology, but also, among other things, quickly came upon the following. From the WCF "III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]" I must admit that I cannot see the difference between the above paragraphs from the WCF and the concept of fate among the ancient pagan cultures. And it certainly sounds more like the "Bad News" than the Good News for most people. I think it is this form of "double predestination" that is the thing that drives some people from the Calvinist position, which otherwise has the best and most developed theology and among Protestants. Emmaus |
||||||
3 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49486 | ||
While some Reformed individuals hold to "double predestination" (often referred to as supralapsariansism), many hold that God's foreordaining to everlasting death is a passing over of the non-elect. In other words, since the "default position" from birth is being a child of God's wrath, He simply in His divine counsel chooses save some who are already under His righteous judgment and not others. Those in the latter group will continue to reject Christ, following their own natural inclinations until their last breath. And the message of Christ is good news for all who believe. The bad news preceded the Good News, that all are already under the judgment of God the Father. Simply put from the Calvinist viewpoint, the "bad news" of Romans 1-3 applies to all men, and the "good news" of Jesus Christ is a rescue from the bad news for the elect. It is different from the pagan idea of fate. Fatalism says that no matter what one does, his/her outcome is certain. In stories regarding fate we have people trying to escape from their predicament, to no avail. In Reformed theology, those who will be in hell have no desire to embrace Christ. It is not a situation of people running to Jesus Christ and being turned away. It is a case of everyone running from Christ unless God changes the heart and will. All who put their trust in Christ will be saved. However, only those whom the Father gives the Son will do so (John 6:37-44). --Joe! |
||||||
4 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Emmaus | 49488 | ||
Joe, "It is different from the pagan idea of fate. Fatalism says that no matter what one does, his/her outcome is certain" Joe From the WCF "III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]" I still don't see the difference, even when it is dressed up in Christian terminology. But I have followed your discussions with Tim and see no point in covering the same ground. Emmaus |
||||||
5 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49491 | ||
Let me try one more time, just for fun. Fate is something that cannot be avoided, no matter how much one tries to avoid it. In other words, human beings are free to try, but outside forces will always prevent them from succeeding. Predestination is something that is also fixed, but no one will ultimately try to avoid one's destiny. Human beings who are not predestinated unto eternal life will by their very nature NOT try to avoid it. Constrained by their natures, their will is conformed to the lifelong rejection of the true gospel of Christ. They will not fight their destiny. Every action they do will be in rejection of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. The destiny of all men is determined by God, but there is no thwarting of free rebellion on the part of a human being against one's predestination (since such free rebellion will not occur). So while there is some similarity between fate and biblical predestination in that our destinies are determined in eternity without our consent (which Augustine rightly pointed out would be in favor of rejection of Christ), in biblical terms we will all willingly embrace the path that leads to our destiny. --Joe! |
||||||
6 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49501 | ||
"Fate and Predestination": so, it is possible that a person could be fated (doomed) to be predestined for hell, and not be able to do a thing about it? If God has a person predestined for hell, then he's going to hell, no matter what? | ||||||
7 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49504 | ||
Welcome to the Forum! This is one topic that you will find no lack of posts on. I recommend that you go up to the quick search box at the right and type in words such as "elect," "election," and "predestination" to get an eyeful of both sides of this debate. Simply put, however, those not predestined for salvation will never want what it takes to be justified before a holy and just God. It is not just a question of inability; the non-elect DESIRES to refrain from true repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ's accomplished work on the Cross alone for salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
8 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49512 | ||
"...those not predestined for salvation will never want what it takes to be justified before a holy and just God..." (What someone on the forum said) Is there something directly in the Bible that states or agrees with this? Is this saying that God has made a list of those who will not/cannot come to him? Pardon the naivety but unless this is supported clearly somewhere in the Bible, then it is clearly just one of those utterances that seem to abound, concerning the plans and thinking of God. I'd certainly like to read this IN the Bible. |
||||||
9 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49553 | ||
You wrote: "Is this saying that God has made a list of those who will not/cannot come to him? Pardon the naivety but unless this is supported clearly somewhere in the Bible, then it is clearly just one of those utterances that seem to abound, concerning the plans and thinking of God. I'd certainly like to read this IN the Bible." For the concept of human nature being disinclined toward God, Romans 3:10-18. For passages which say where Jesus addresses who will/can come to Him or believe Him: John 6:37-40,44,65 John 10:25-30 Matthew 11:27 Luke 10:22 God's sovereign choice (without our consultation): Ephesians 1:4,11 Romans 8:28-30 Romans 9:18-24 Mathhew 13:10-16 There are many,many more, but that is a start. --Joe! |
||||||