nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

500 years ago today

branie2

Martin Luther started the Reformation

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

uck51js9zml2yt

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

The human beings in charge of the Church are of a fallen nature. Remember Peter denying Christ three times, yet he was put in charge.

And yet it was James who changed the course of the church as it dealt with the Jewish question and stopped us needing surgeries in every church.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

You reflect on why you're a Catholic, and what it is to be a Catholic.

One of the characteristics of Catholicism that distinguishes it somewhat from the Protestant tradition is its emphasis on the collective approach to faith and to the gospel. A Catholic is less likely to ask "what do I believe?", but rather "what do we believe?", the point being that matters of faith (and indeed other important matters) are to be nutted out collectively, in communion with others, rather than individually. By contrast the Protestant tradition puts a greater weight on the unmediated relationship between the individual and Christ.

So if a Catholic finds he's in disagreement with the weight of Catholic belief on some important matter, yeah, that's a problem. But while the stereotypically "Protestant" instinct might be to leave the denomination and enter or form another (or to urge someone in this situation to do so) the more stereotypically "Catholic" instinct might be to see the situation as one that calls for engagement, dialogue, development, whatever, with a view to building a greater degree of shared faith.

... or just 'do your own thing' ... as is increasingly common amongst both Roman Catholics and Protestants.:)

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

You reflect on why you're a Catholic, and what it is to be a Catholic.

One of the characteristics of Catholicism that distinguishes it somewhat from the Protestant tradition is its emphasis on the collective approach to faith and to the gospel. A Catholic is less likely to ask "what do I believe?", but rather "what do we believe?", the point being that matters of faith (and indeed other important matters) are to be nutted out collectively, in communion with others, rather than individually. By contrast the Protestant tradition puts a greater weight on the unmediated relationship between the individual and Christ.

So if a Catholic finds he's in disagreement with the weight of Catholic belief on some important matter, yeah, that's a problem. But while the stereotypically "Protestant" instinct might be to leave the denomination and enter or form another (or to urge someone in this situation to do so) the more stereotypically "Catholic" instinct might be to see the situation as one that calls for engagement, dialogue, development, whatever, with a view to building a greater degree of shared faith.

I'm glad I'm neither stereotypical or Protestant:)

J C

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

The evil one cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Quite true ... but what has this to do with Roman Catholocism ... or indeed any other denomination?

Peregrinus

Khalil Polite Flag wrote: »

I'm glad I'm neither stereotypical or Protestant:)

Well, I'm glad you're not stereotypical.

If I said I was glad you're not Protestant, that might be taken the wrong way by people who are Protestant, so I'm not going there.

pauldla

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

So now, pauldla, you understand everything.

A tad presumptive, if I may say (and no doubt an amusing comment to some), but I do not wish to derail the conversation any further (though I note that I'm not the only one to query your use of 'destined').

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Only God the Father knows who will be with Him in His new Heavenly Kingdom. If He didn't know, He wouldn't be God. That is why predestination is a core belief.

As regards you, pauldla, Christ is offering you the chance to become a member of this predestined family, otherwise known as the Elect, if you are free of mortal sin. You have the freedom to accept or reject this magnificent gift.

Peregrinus

Surely, if it's predestiened, then any "choice" is illusory? There's only one possible outcome here; the predestined one. It's impossible that Pauldla could act in a way that would lead to any other outcome.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

No, it is not impossible. He has the freedom to accept or reject God's offer of a place in the kingdom. If he rejects God's offer, ie, does not work for the Kingdom, he cannot be admitted to the Kingdom.

Peregrinus

But if his entry to (or exclusion from) the kingdom is predestined, in what sense is he free to make a choice which would result in anything other than the predestined outcome?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I understand you now. You know yourself the cohorts that cannot be admitted. They are listed in the Gospels. They themselves know who they are. Yet, whilst there is still time, they know that they have the freedom to repent, and not be excluded. It is here that the choice lies. They make the decision to be for or against. To encourage them to make the correct decision, and to change their godless ways, God tells them that He will come suddenly, and catch them unawares.

Peregrinus

But the claim is not that (say) liars are predestined to be excluded from the kingdom; it's that Pauldla is predestined to be excluded. Which must mean, surely, that Pauldlal is predestined to be a liar (or a member of one of the other excluded "cohorts"). In which case, how can we say that Pauldla is free to choose not to be a liar (or whatever)?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

pauldla knows himself if he is excluded or not. If he is actively working for the Kingdom he is already a member of the Kingdom. If he is actively working against the Kingdom, he does not belong to it. There is no middle way.

The ones that will not belong are those actively working against. They never belonged. They hate God. They excluded themselves from the beginning. They are part of the third of the stars that fell from Heaven.

Peregrinus

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

pauldla knows himself if he is excluded or not. If he is actively working for the Kingdom he is already a member of the Kingdom. If he is actively working against the Kingdom, he does not belong to it. There is no middle way.

No, he doesn't known whether he is excluded or not. He might know that, as of know, he is e.g. a liar (sorry, Pauldla, it's hypothetical!) but he cannot know that he will continue to be so. At some point in the future he may respond to a call to repentance and conversion, no? The most he could know now is that he does not currently intend to do that, but he cannot know what his future intentions or actions will be. Even if he thinks he is certain that he will never change his lying ways, as events unfold he may find out that he is wrong. Harder cases than pauldla have repented in the past.

Of course, an omniscient God might know that pauldla will at a certain point repent, convert and give up his lying ways, and in that sense it could be foreknown (by God, if not by anyone else) that pauldla will be saved. But "foreknown" is not quite the same thing as "predestined", is it?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Peregrinus, he does know if he a member or not. If he is a liar, he knows that. He is therefore not a member of his Father's household. And he must do something about that.

If he is genuinely seeking God, God will help him. God is his father, and what father would let his son flounder when he is trying to find his way back home?

And when the son gets home, do you think he will do something as foolish again?

Remember the parable of the lost son. God did not come to him while he squandered his father's heritage. Yet when the son came to his senses, his father saw him a long way off, and speedily came and helped him home. The son had to take the first step. The son had to repent first, before he could become a member of his father's household.

Peregrinus

But how is the compatible with the notion that he is predestined either for inclusion or exclusion?

Asus X540L

J C wrote: »

You could also be 'Protesting catholics' !!:D

For Saved Christians, however, this is all moot.

We are simply Saved Christians ... with a heritage right back to Jesus Christ ... and totally independent of any religion.

The Protestant Reformation reformed the Roman Catholic Church across northern Europe in the sixteenth century ... southern Europeans had to wait until the reforms of Vatican 2, in the twentieth century, for similar reforms to their churches.

It was a terrible pity that the Protestant Reformation didn't happen everywhere, at the time ... and without the bloodshed.

ah, what if it's all nonsense, Ted?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote:

Peregrinus, he does know if he a member or not. If he is a liar, he knows that. He is therefore not a member of the Father's household. And he must do something about that.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote:

If he is genuinely seeking God, God will help him. God is his father, and what father would let his son flounder when he is trying to find his way back home?

Peregrinus wrote:

But how is the compatible with the notion that he is predestined either for inclusion or exclusion?

Peringus, originally there was no discord. God created the Heavens, and Earth was part of the Heavens. God sat and admired His handiwork. However, one angel disputed His his authority, and other angels supported him. This Lucifer and his followers were cast from Heaven by St. Michael after a mighty battle. The rebellious spirits were cast down to Earth.

These are the spirits that roam the Earth seeking whom they may devour. Christ will deal with them when He returns.
They have no free will, because they lost it when they rebelled. They know who they are. They will not serve.

If you do the will of God, that is, love God and love your neighbour, you are guaranteed entrance to the Kingdom. The fallen angels can't do this, and are therefore excluded.

Peregrinus

You're not suggesting that Pauldla is a fallen angel, are you?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Peregrinus wrote:

You're not suggesting that Pauldla is a fallen angel, are you?

Absolutely not.

Delirium

Asus X540L wrote: »

ah, what if it's all nonsense, Ted?

MOD NOTE

Reminder that you are posting in the Christianity forum.

So kindly refrain from that type of nonsense while posting in the forum.

Thanks for your attention.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

But how is the compatible with the notion that he is predestined either for inclusion or exclusion?

Good morning!

Like with many things it's much more complex than people make out. The Bible is clear that both humans are predestined to salvation (Ephesians chapter 1, much of Paul's letters, and John's gospel amongst other texts could be used to make a pretty strong case for predestination or divine choice). The Bible also holds this together with human responsibility. A look to Romans 9 - 11 which I've cited many times points to election in chapter 9, divine responsibility in chapter 10 and the truth that both come together in chapter 11 with Paul exclaiming the unsearchable nature of God towards the end.

Often Christians want tidy answers where things are beyond our understanding. But much of God's word feels unsatisfying for this reason. Part of growing as a Christian is based on acknowledging that there are many things that God knows and you don't and that this is a very good thing.

As for predestination being "Calvinist". I wouldn't say this. I would say it is Biblical. It predates Calvin by centuries. It might even predate Augustine who was its source in his later writings. (I wrote my philosophy dissertation on Augustine's earlier work On The Freedom of the Will). However the Bible is also clear that predestination must be held together with human responsibility from my reading of it.

This probably warrants a new thread.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Bible is clear that both humans are predestined to salvation (Ephesians chapter 1,

That passage doesn't say people are predestined for salvation. It says God chose certain things to be applied to certain people. People with the moniker "us in him". It is what is to be applied to these people which is predestined. Not that they be made "us in hims" in the first place. There is no scripture supporting the idea that people are predestined for salvation.

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote: »

That passage doesn't say people are predestined for salvation. It says God chose certain things to be applied to certain people. People with the moniker "us in him". It is what is to be applied to these people which is predestined. Not that they be made "us in hims" in the first place. There is no scripture supporting the idea that people are predestined for salvation.

I would agree with this. When we say that the Jews were God's "chosen people" that simply means that God chose to use a race of people - not that he said, "Ok, I'm going to choose Eli & Moshe & Adi ....."

Similarly, it seems reasonable that when Ephesians says "in Him we were chosen" it can mean that God's plan was that He predestined that the Church should be the instrument of His glory. This does not necessitate Him choosing in advance each individual that would be a part of that Church (or excluding others). He chose the church for a purpose, and we make a decision whether to accept or reject Christ, and thus whether we are part of that chosen group or not.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Ephesians 1 uses the specific language of choice.

Ephesians 1:1-6 wrote:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

In verse 5 it uses the word "predestined" in verse 4 it says that He chooses Christians "us" before the foundation of the world. Edit: it also happens as a matter of His will. Not ours primarily.

Looking to Romans chapter 8 we see this language again. It doesn't seem to permit foreknowledge on its own:

Romans 8:29-30 wrote:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Note foreknowledge is distinct to predestination.

In explaining the certain hope Christians have it also refers to us as the elect:

Romans 8:31-39 wrote:

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The certainty we have is because our salvation is sure in Christ. Without election or predestination that assurance simply wouldn't be there. It's how Paul builds his case.

I respectfully disagree with you. Predestination refers to those who are chosen. Yes things happen to those who are chosen but it doesn't nullify the truth that God chose me and all others who trust in Him before the foundation of the world. If it were not so clearly outlined in Scripture I'd agree it would be a Calvinist invention but it isn't. It's simply Christianity as it was originally preached by the Apostles and by Jesus.

I also acknowledge it is a second order issue.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

in verse 4 it says that He chooses Christians "us" before the foundation of the world.

4 For he chose Christians before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined Christians for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will

I've inserted the word to be used, since we agree us-in-him means Christians. We read this as him choosing what is to become of Christians. In verse 4 the subject of the choosing is the holy and blameless status. In verse 5 the subject of the predestination is adoption.

In neither case is there anything about choosing people to become Christians in the first place. In both cases he is describing what is chosen/predestined to happen to the category of people labelled Christians. They can be foreknown without needing to be predestined to become, Christians

There is no issue with God choosing/predestining what is to happen to Christians, whenever it is in time they become Christians.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

antiskeptic wrote: »

It does indeed. The question is what is God choosing to do.

We don't get there from the passage. God has done X, Y and Z to us even as He chose us. The action of what God does is distinguished from the act of choice. (verses 3 and 4)

Moreover - we also see God comparing this predestination as adoption. God chose His children to be a family. The family language is intentional there. (verse 5).

The assumption that this group is abstract rather than specific isn't present in the passage.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Verse 4 comes before verse 5 and so sets the context. Per my previous post, it isn't "us" he choses, it is "us in him". If he chose "us" for x,y,z, and we know x,y,z to be the badges of salvation, then I'd agree he predestined us to become saved people.

This is where I disagree. The passage clearly says that God chose us in Him in Christ and that He predestined us as sons. This adds to the specific nature of the choice highlighted in verse 4.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But he doesn't choose "us". He choses "us in him". We know that if you are in him you are a saved person. Inserting that a.k.a. into verse 4 you get "He chose the saved ...to be holy and blameless in his sight.

He does choose us. He chooses us in Christ (verse 4) and through Christ (verse 5). The means by which God chooses us namely through Christ doesn't nullify that God has chosen His people specifically. We see that through Christ is referring both to His death and His resurrection. These are the means by which His people are His.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Verse 5 carries on the theme: explaining to the us-in-hims a.k.a. the saved (for that is the audience set out by verse 4) what it is God has predestined to occur to them.

I disagree. What those who are chosen receive is distinguished by the word "even" in verse 4. There are two acts. We were chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world and these things happened to us even as we were chosen.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This section is explaining, to the saved, all the things that God has decided will become of the saved. It is expounding the the fullness of what it means to be saved. That's all (even if an astounding all)

Not only. The passage also explains by means by which His people were chosen. We have to account for the choice. Not just what happens. The language of choice refers to "us" His people. If God wanted to say that this stuff was chosen to happen to us I suspect we would have seen that language there.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The fatal flaw for the "predestined to be one of the saved" idea is "us in him". All who suppose it means what you hold it to mean do just as you've done: read "us-in-him" (the saved) as merely "us".

You've got more work to do to show that "us" is abstract rather than specific.

Romans 9 undermines this argument when it refers both to God's specific choice of Jacob over Esau in verse 13 and God's specific hardening of Pharaoh in verse 19. God specifically chooses us. This explains why not all of national Israel are a part of elect Israel which includes the grafted Gentiles who have believed in Christ (chapter 11)

antiskeptic wrote: »

It makes no odds that God choose what is to occur to the saved, before any of them were saved in time. He knows everyone who will be saved (without that being predestined) and can set out what he chooses to occur to them before the foundation of the world.

Again, this is where we disagree. I don't think the choice is in respect to what happens to us but in respect to us being His. The blessings are a consequence of "us" being chosen not the other way around.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps you would deal with this particular point before we move on (the same thing occurs whenever predestination is used, btw, but we can look at those later)?

We are discussing with one another. So hopefully my thinking on the passage is clear. In the same way that you reply to my points, I will reply to yours.

EDIT: it's worth pointing out that I hold both to predestination and human responsibility because both of these are Biblical. I wouldn't say that Christians should sit back and stop evangelism. We don't have the privilege of knowing who God's elect are. I also would probably say yes that I chose God but only as a result of Him choosing me. Both are sides of the same coin. They must be held together.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

J C

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Only God the Father knows who will be with Him in His new Heavenly Kingdom. If He didn't know, He wouldn't be God. That is why predestination is a core belief.

As regards you, pauldla, Christ is offering you the chance to become a member of this predestined family, otherwise known as the Elect, if you are free of mortal sin. You have the freedom to accept or reject this magnificent gift.

Everyone can accept or reject Jesus Christ ... whether they consider themselves free of sin or not ... indeed Jesus came to save sinners ... and not those who think themselves to be Saved by their own works or the works of men ... if they think that they don't need Jesus to Save them!!

1 Timothy 1:12-16 English Standard Version (ESV)

Christ Jesus Came to Save Sinners
12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. 16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

J C

Asus X540L wrote: »

ah, what if it's all nonsense, Ted?

That could be a happy state of affairs, for an unbeliever allright ... but what if it isn't alll nonesense?
... where will you be heading then?
The truth lies somewhere ... and God will reward the searcher after truth ... even if they have diffficulty reaching the truth.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

J C Jesus did indeed come to save sinners, but not in their sinful state. Only the sinner who repents is saved. An unrepentant sinner is not fit for the Kingdom.