From this point Dr. White plainly made his intentions known. He was going to prepare us as a group to enter the Grand Ball room ready for anything Shabir Ally could possibly muster against the Christian faith. This is what Dr. White did on a grand scale. We literally knew every argument Shabir could possibly throw out. By the end of the week, the Theology of the Cross was exegetically taught from several of the main passages that deal with the topic. Passages such as John 17 and Jesus' High Priestly prayer, Isaiah 53 and the Suffering Servant, Hebrews 2, 7, 9 & 10 among others.
Jesus' intercession and sacrifice were demonstrated to be tied together. So often the people of God divorce these two teachings of Scripture, but Scripture (as sound exegesis shows) will not allow for a hypothetical atonement. Jesus is a perfect Savior in both His intercession and sacrifice.
Several times during the debate, Shabir asserted without any argumentation that it is illogical that an innocent man should die for another man. The Cross of Christ is truly foolishness to those that are perishing. It is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile. The Jesus of Scripture is a Rock of offense.
After the debate, I had the opportunity to meet Shabir Ally. Shabir's debating tactics were shallow at best. He truly had nothing to work with in this debate. He seemed very tired as well. Perhaps he had jet lag. Whatever the case was, he definitely was brave to enter a room full of Christians and take the position he did. For that, I am thankful. Perhaps he will do more debates in the future.I ask that you pray for Shabir. There truly is as Paul says, "a veil lies over their heart". I don't know what more Dr. White could have said to persuade Shabir to see the inconsistency in his position. This truly is a spiritual matter. One of which only the Spirit of God may change.
Perhaps another debate between these two scholars will be able to take place in God's Providence.
35 comments:
"Several times during the debate, Shabir asserted without any argumentation that it is illogical that an innocent man should die for another man."
Well, it IS illogical. But that's part of the beauty of the message of salvation: that God himself, who is without sin or blame should love us so much that he gave himself in the form of his own and only begotten son to cleanse us, that once sanctified, we too could be blameless in his sight and enter into in eternal fellowship with him. The God of Christendom is great not just because of his power over all and to do all, but also for his power to be all that we need in order that we should beinstruments by which he carries out his will.
No Sir, it is not illogical. If it were, it would be impossible for God to save anyone. But then again, in a post-modern age, irrational thinking is to be expected.
You might argue that with God all things are possible. Is God able to lie? That would be a contradiction.
Could I become God? Should be possible, right?
God saves man in a fashion in which is necessary and surprising. It is unexpected that not only the sinner by means of faith alone has his sins forgiven but has the righteousness of Christ imputed to his account.
God Bless
"No Sir, it is not illogical. If it were, it would be impossible for God to save anyone."
Ironically, I don't follow your logic. God may save whomever he wishes however he wishes. As it happens he clearly states that he does not do this by our faith alone, but that this faith must be acted upon and it is our responsibility to so act. Not by Faith Alone is man saved (James 2). To deny this is to deny the word of God. If that worries you, don't argue with me. Argue with him.
In the meanwhile (to be on the safe side) it might be wise for any who are simply banking on a confession of faith without repentance and the ammending of their lives to gain them unfettered access to the fullness of heaven to reconsider. Remember the ten virgins. Five entered because they acted wisely. The other five were shut out. "I don't know you," says the Lord.
Thanks for the prayer of blessing, Howard. Likewise for you, God bless.
"We are his instruments, created for good works in Christ." Sounds like a plan, and a good one. :-)
Other Anonymous,
"In the meanwhile (to be on the safe side) it might be wise for any who are simply banking on a confession of faith without repentance and the ammending of their lives to gain them unfettered access to the fullness of heaven to reconsider."
Please try to understand I do not adhere to the "Once Saved Always Saved" shallow easy believism. I am a Reformed Baptist in theology. I am well aware of the judgment of works that demonstrates the faith of a believer. I will provide a link with Sam Waldron's sermon on that very passage this evening.
However I do believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. This may seem the doctrine above, it is not. As a Protestant, who has fully embraced the Reformation, I am in full agreement with those who say "they that say they have faith and not works are in error and heresy", or are at least extremely inconsistent. The Reformers were very clear that faith without works is a dead faith that is not able to save.
On the other hand, you as a Roman Catholic have no peace with God. For you deny the distinction between Justification and Sanctification. You deny the aspect of faith that passively recieves the forgiveness of sins and receives the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith ALONE.
Therefore, you do not possess the peace with God as Romans 5:1 says you must possess. You are not the Blessed Man of Romans 4. You are in fact lost if you hold to the false Gospel of Rome, which is really no gospel at all.
I may sound brash, but it is you who are attempting to bring people to Rome's false Gospel via this comment section. I simply will not let that go unchallenged. Paul did not allow it in Galatians 1, neither will I.
BTW: I am glad someone sees the Reformation as still worth arguing about, even if you do misunderstand Sola Fide. :-)
Glad to see you back and engaged in spirited conversation (pun intended), Howard.
I was a little worried there for a while.
"On the other hand, you as a Roman Catholic have no peace with God. For you deny the distinction between Justification and Sanctification. You deny the aspect of faith that passively recieves the forgiveness of sins and receives the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith ALONE."
Hummmmmmm.... I'll have to disagree on this one. Rightly or wrongly, I view Justification (the act of utter grace that covers us in Christ's righteousness) as by living faith expressed in obedience and Sanctification, the process by which we are made fit for heaven as by living faith expressed in repentance. If my perception is off, and these are not the correct mechanics of salvation, this hardly disqualifies me from God's promise to save those who turn rely upon Jesus' intercession, turn to him and repent. One does not need to be correct on the mechanics of being saved to be saved any more than one has to understand electrical physics to turn on a lamp and get light. If God says, "Do thus and so to be saved," and I do "thus and so," believing him, I can expect he's good to his word. Remember the good thief's theology was not likely modern reformed baptist, but Jesus personally promised him salvation.
"One does not need to be correct on the mechanics of being saved to be saved any more than one has to understand electrical physics to turn on a lamp and get light."
I wholeheartedly agree. The man on the cross had no idea he was a Reformed Baptist. ;-)
He did however trust in Christ as he came to the end of himself. No sacraments. No acts of love. No means to gain the merits of Christ other than faith.
This does interest me about Rome's response. Rome often says something to the effect that if a man desires baptism, that still counts as if he were baptised. So in a sense, Rome acts like faith alone is sufficient. In reality though, it is only faith in the sacraments which gain the merits of Christ as Rome meets them out that is meant. This is not the faith of the repentant man on the cross.
Also, obviously it is true that there are many RCs who do not understand Rome's Gospel just as there are many RBs who sit in church Sunday after Sunday numb to the proclamation. So while the RC may actually be saved, this is irrelevant to my argument.
The Gospel is knowable. To reduce it to something nobody really understands is quite different from understanding and being correct on every mechanic.
For instance, you said, "the process by which we are made fit for heaven as by living faith expressed in repentance."
This blatantly not the Gospel. This is Rome's Infusion of righteousness Gospel. It is exactly what enslaves men to a treasury of merit system.
What I have often discovered is that many former Prots become RCs and read into Rome's theology a quasi-substitutionary atonement meshed into Romes Sacramental system. Perhaps you are of that sort? Syncretism isn't going to work, if so.
So I ask you point blank. Are you the Blessed Man of Romans 4? Can you honestly say you have peace with God because of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ? If you are a former Protestant, you might say yes. I have heard lifelong RCs say otherwise.
Romans 4 is clear. You must understand that there are different facets of saving faith. Paul is peaking of the faith by which a man is justified or declared righteous. If you are looking seriously at Rome's Gospel, you must understand Trent emphatically denied this, forever separating herself from the Gospel.
God Bless
ps
"I was a little worried there for a while."
Thanks
"This does interest me about Rome's response. Rome often says something to the effect that if a man desires baptism, that still counts as if he were baptised. So in a sense, Rome acts like faith alone is sufficient."
You touched on an interesting Catholic concept. We consider an "act" as any work of belief. We say that someone who does some evil without knowing they do evil has not committed a personal act of sin. One who does some good without knowing they do good has not committed a personal act of virtue. Yet someone who plots to do evil, knowing it is evil, even if he does not actually carry out the evil, commits an ACT of sin. This is why Jesus says that anyone who looks upon another man's wife with desire has already committed adultery with her.
Similarly, the one who wants to repent and be baptised unto Christ (even if he does not know how to voice it or even know what it means) does indeed commit an ACT of repentance in belief. So we see the good thief promised salvation by Jesus himself.
A prayer we invoke during the rite of reconciliation is called "The ACT of contrition." I'd expect you would regard it as a placing of one's belief and desire into words, but to us, the mere desire to be contrite and seek God's forgiveness as per the prayer is an action. Maybe one reason why we do not agree about "faith alone" is that we Catholics don't look at faith as something that can be alone in any practical sense. Faith simply does not have substance without action as we view action, any more than ideas: meaning fully-formed concepts, have substance without thoughts and thoughts have substance without minds to think them.
Minds are not thoughts: the actions of thinking, and thoughts are not ideas, but without them, ideas have no substance and exist only as abstractions. Similarly, the believer is not an act: a movement of belief, and an act is not faith, but without them, faith has no substance and exists only as an abstraction.
Such faith is dead and cannot save.
Catholic authors (such as Aquinas) often cite all movements of the heart toward belief as action. This isn't a 16th-century understanding of works vs. faith, but an older view of the nature of being; where action, faith and belief are integrated parts of every person's essence.
"Romans 4 is clear."
Apparently it's not as clear as you think, or I'd agree with your interpretation and its implications.
It looks to me like your definition of "saved" comes down to "interprets Romans 4 like Howard."
"Apparently it's not as clear as you think, or I'd agree with your interpretation and its implications."
Whether you think it is clear or not is irrelevant. This is the heart of the Gospel and how a man is justified or declared righteous before God. It is by means of faith alone. Paul could not be any clearer. The fact that you refer to other texts which speak of faith working in love is not ignored by the Reformers. I have stated as much.
You deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. therefore you must by definition be against the clear passage of Paul. You do not possess peace with God. You are not the Blessed Man of Romans 4.
I think if you had a better understanding of original sin and the deadness of man in sin, you would see God and God alone is making a new creation by fiat. This new creation is in Christ. God raises dead sinners to spiritual life not by their cooperation but by effectually calling them.
This is grace alone. God by his sovereign power and freedom chooses to raise dead sinners by His grace. If there were any cooperation on the part of the sinner to raise himself to spiritual life, then it would not be grace alone.
For a good sermon on this list to Chris Gorman's message "Grace to us, Glory to God"
http://www.cvccsd.org/modules/
debaser/genre.php?genreid=1
Well, we obviously have very different takes on this. In fact, I actually do not think Paul is unclear. I think he is quite clear to me and that you see his words through more of a mist, but this is not the fault of Scripture.
Whether you think James is clear or not is irrelevant. He speaks to the heart of the Gospel and how a man is sanctified or finally declared righteous before God. It is not by means of faith alone. James could not be any clearer.
You refer to other texts which speak of faith alone, but this is not something that appears in scripture anywhere. The Bible has stated this outright.
You deny the requirement laid out by Jesus himself to "pick up your cross and follow me." Therefore you must by definition be against the clear message of Christ. You do not possess peace with God. You are not the Blessed Man of Romans 4, for you do not follow Christ in true faith as scripture defines faith, but merely claim your own salvation by fiat. Yet the demons believe and tremble.
I think if you had a better understanding of original sin, the deadness of man in sin, the power of "that same spirit that raised Christ from the dead" dwelling in such otherwise dead men and the true nature of its effect on our lives you would see God is making a new creation by requiring the cooperation of the very creatures he is transforming. This new creation is in Christ.
For just as the prodigal son was dead, but chose to return to his father's open arms who then gave his "dead" son all the rights and life of a living heir that the son nevertheless did not merit, God raises dead sinners to spiritual life as they obey his calling to them, which he himself warns us against not heeding, but to choose life.
This is grace as part of God's plan of salvation. God by his sovereign power and freedom chooses to call sinners to accept His free grace. If there were no cooperation on the part of the sinner to heed God's call to repent, then it would not be grace but compulsion, both for the saved and the unsaved.
For a good sermon on this study Christ's answer the rich young ruler's question, "What must I do to be saved?" For another, refer to Christ's explanation of why he must wash the feet of his disciples.
You sir are betting your soul on your personal interpretation of a single verse--and that interpretation goes against 2000 years of Christian teaching and the explicit word of God. Of the two of us, I know which woud be in the greater danger if doctrine alone could place us there. I hope and pray you will heed the call in fullness, for election is neither by mere fiat nor does God roll dice. Many are called. Few are chosen.
Sir, again you are confusing Paul's categories of Justification and sanctification. Both are necessary. But Justification is an alien righteousness. You do not possess this complete alien righteousness that is fully imputed to a person through the means of faith alone. If you adhere to Rome you must confuse Law and Gospel. You must embrace the infusion of righteousness. You must in essence cooperate with God's grace till you become internally fully righteous.
This is a blatant confusion of the meaning of Grace. God's grace is fully sufficient to save a dead sinner and raise him to spiritual life. Man does not cooperate with God Grace. Instead man is by the divine creative power created brand new in Christ.
Keep in mind Paul's doctrine of original sin. We did not choose to be in sin. We were born dead in Adam. We sinned in the Garden with Adam.
Therefore when Christ achieved His perfect righteous life, we did by faith. When Christ died on the cross, we died on the cross by faith alone and union with Him. When Christ rose from the dead, we were raised with Him by faith alone.
You argue that I must also repent and take up my cross. Agreed! As my Lutheran Pastor friend will tell you, now command all dead sinners everywhere to do so and see how many dead people raise themselves up. They don't. This is Law. Those who do such things do so because the Gospel sets men free to do so. "Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
In the end, your view is much more akin to the Mormon's view of man. Eventually you must be internally righteous before you are justified.
You also seem to think I am against works in the salvation of sinners and how that plays out in the judgment. Please read the Reformed confessions. They all militate against your caricature based upon a faulty understanding of Paul's theology.
Ultimately you must take Rome's interpretation over and against Scripture. The Blessed Man is fully justified (declared righteous). Are you? The Blessed Man possesses peace with God. Do you? The Blessed Man possesses the full alien righteousness of Christ now. Do you?
Sir, you attempt to bring a charge against the elect. As Paul says, "Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?" You and Paul are at odds.
I am well aware of James and fully embrace the text. I am well aware of Matt 25 and fully embrace the text.
Please, please, keep in mind. I am a Reformed Baptist, not your typical "said faith" alone guy.
God Bless
Please read carefully. This answers your objections fully
LBCF 1690
On Justification:
1. Those whom God Effectually calleth, he also freely (a) justifieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by (b) pardoning their sins, and by accounting, and accepting their Persons as (c) Righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith it self, the act of beleiving, or any other (d) evangelical obedience to them, as their Righteousness; but by imputing Christs active obedience unto the whole Law, and passive obedience in his death, for their whole and sole Righteousnnss, they (e) receiving, and resting on him, and his Righteousness, by Faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
2. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ, and his Righteousness, is the (f) alone instrument of Justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving Graces, and is no dead faith, (g) but worketh by love.
Of Repentance:
1. Such of the Elect as are converted at riper years, having (a) sometimes lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their Effectual Calling giveth them Repentance unto Life.
a Tit. 3.2,3,4,5.
2. Whereas there is none that doth good, and sinneth (b) not; and the best of men may through the power, and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins, and provocations; God hath in the Covenant of Grace, mercifully provided that Beleivers so sinning, and falling, (c) be renewed through Repentance unto Salvation.
3. This saving Repentance is an (d) evangelical Grace, whereby a person being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by Faith in Christ, humble himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self abhorrency; (e) praying for pardon, and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour by supplies of the Spirit, to (f) walk before God unto all well pleasing in all things.
Of Good Works:
2. These good works, done in obedience to Gods commandments, are the fruits, and evidences (c) of a true, and lively faith; and by them Believers manifest their (d) thankfullness, strengthen their (e) assurance, edifie their (f) brethren, adorn the profession of the Gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries and glorifie (g) God whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus (h) thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end (i) eternal life.
God Bless
Sorry my friend, but it reads like "false gospel" to me. When both damnation and salvation is reduced to God's whim rather than his creation of all for good works in christ as His workmanship, then the creator and font of all life and holiness is reduced to a cosmic sadast who creates billions of people for no purpose other than to torment them in hell forever. That isn't "good news" for many, many billions of people, over the past, present and whatever future is left us.
I believe that you still can be saved having this distorted and sickening view of God, but it won't be because you hold these beliefs, but in spite of them.
Given the LBCF of 1690 vs the Christian confession over the ages, I take the latter.
Given your "take" on Romans 4 vs St. James' own take on James 2, I choose James.
Given the opportunity to fall down before the God who created all men in his image as thinking beings with the will to choose life, or pretend that by "in his image" we mean "sockpuppets of God," that free will does not exist and that we should cringe before the wrathful God and thank him for the damnation of every child who dies in infancy for God's glory while sparing us by mere fiat, I choose the former.
Given the choice between the true Church founded by Jesus himself and the many quasi-churches founded by hundreds or thousands of other Howards out there. I choose the former.
Ultimately you take your own interpretation over and against Scripture and the very Church Jesus promised would resist the very gates of Hell. Alas for you, but all is not lost.
God bless you too, Howard.
"Sorry my friend, but it reads like "false gospel" to me. When both damnation and salvation is reduced to God's whim rather than his creation of all for good works in christ as His workmanship, then the creator and font of all life and holiness is reduced to a cosmic sadast who creates billions of people for no purpose other than to torment them in hell forever. That isn't "good news" for many, many billions of people, over the past, present and whatever future is left us."
If you wish to characterize God's Will and purposes as mere "whim", then I leave that to you. Romans 9 ring a bell? Ephesians 1 ring a bell? John 6 or or John 8 or John 10 ring a bell?
Reading your response makes me wonder if you truly understand the nature of your sin and the doctrine of original sin. I'll side with Augustine on that issue. I'll even side with the Councilof Orange over your view.
What about the lost people who never baptized their babies. You as a RC would not assert that babies are saved outside of at least the intention of baptism by the parents?
Your language may pull the emotional strings, but your position solves nothing. You have a God who makes billions of people knowing they would freely choose hell. Yet He does it anyway with no purpose?
The fact that Scripture teaches God ordains all things and has a purpose for all things seems to bother people. In your attempt to create a God that has absolutely nothing to do with evil only ends up creating a god who can truly do nothing.
I am thankful that I serve a God who is able to raise the dead. I am thankful He chose to raise my dead soul to life in Christ. That I fully possess his righteousness by faith alone, that by his atoning sacrifice, God's wrath has been satisfied and my sins expiated, I am thankful.
God Bless
"What about the lost people who never baptized their babies. You as a RC would not assert that babies are saved outside of at least the intention of baptism by the parents?"
We believe such souls neither enter into heaven nor are they subject to eternal torment. However, you are right to point out that this is a weak area of Catholic theology (I would say "Christian theology.). The question has been debated among Christians since the early days of Christendom and hit a peak in the early middle ages. The non-dogmatic doctrine of Limbo came out of that debate; however, it is still going on some 17 centuries later. What our doctrine does tell us is that God is true to his word, that his salvation is only by Christ and if any come to the father, it shall be throigh Jesus, whether they know it or not. In all we trust that God is good and just and that he himself upholds his own admonitions against cruelty. The false image of a wrath-motivated God who creates victims for the sole purpose of parboiling them eternally for his own glory is not that of the same God the Father who presents himself in total as a father indeed, especially in light of the new covenant.
"that his salvation is only by Christ and if any come to the father, it shall be throigh Jesus, whether they know it or not."
This is just amazing. But when your doctrine starts with Sola Ecclesia, then to say whether you know it or not is to be expected by modern RCs. I just do not buy into inclusivism. It assumes a will of man that denies the doctrine of original sin.
"In all we trust that God is good and just and that he himself upholds his own admonitions against cruelty. The false image of a wrath-motivated God who creates victims for the sole purpose of parboiling them eternally for his own glory is not that of the same God the Father who presents himself in total as a father indeed, especially in light of the new covenant. "
This still is not an answer. You simply hold a position that God creates men knowing they would sin and yet does absolutely nothing but offer them a way out. Most of whom never got the offer! Talk about a weak god who has no ability to save anyone. Then to throw the fact that millions of women have been raped and murdered for no purpose at all. Millions of men performing all kinds of wicked deeds apart from God being able to do anything. Even Christ at His crucifixion was just lucky that evil men were wicked enough to kill Him.
Are you offended that God raised Pharaoh up for the purpose of destroying him, that His Name and Power would be displayed throughout the whole earth? You are offended at Paul's words, not mine.
Sir, the New Covenant is a perfect Covenant by which Christ perfectly satisfies the wrath of God and expiates sin and reconciles men unto God. This is an action solely done by God. It is a Covenant God makes in Christ with Christ.
"Are you offended that God raised Pharaoh up for the purpose of destroying him"
No. But then Scripture does not say he was raised up to be damned for all eternity. his body and his earthly station were brought to nothing, and God hardened his hear against the Hebrews, but nowhere does Scripture say that GOD hardned Pharaoh's hear agains God himself. We imagine Pharao's soul did not find good rest, but nothing in scripture assures us that he was damned, let alone specifically born to be damned to hell. The mighty was brought low to the glory of God. So too is the pride of all to be brought low for God's glory--a lesson that you and I ought to heed today.
"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."
Jesus is the mediator between God and Jesus? This is strange teaching my friend.
"You simply hold a position that God creates men knowing they would sin and yet does absolutely nothing but offer them a way out."
I don't follow you. sorry.
"that his salvation is only by Christ and if any come to the father, it shall be through Jesus, whether they know it or not."
------
"This is just amazing. But when your doctrine starts with Sola Ecclesia, then to say whether you know it or not is to be expected by modern RCs."
-----
1)
Is it possible for someone to be saved by God, but not know it? Do you believe that infants or the mentally retarded can be saved? I do, as do most Christians, past and present. That this is so ought not amaze you unless you've been hiding under a rock.
2)
The only doctrine of "sola ecclesia" I know if is a seldom cited "Reformed" doctrine. Catholics do not believe "sola ecclesia." We're slow to take up solas in general unless Jesus Himself pronounced them.
and don't get me started on "sola scriptura." :-)
Ahhh, that understanding just doesn't fit with Paul's apologetic for the prior 8 chapters. Paul was answering the why Jews, who were the "chosen" according to the flesh, were not believing in the Gospel! In other words, they were rejecting the Gospel because of their sin yet were supposed to be the ones who believed God.
Somehow Paul is just meaning "The mighty was brought low to the glory of God." How does this help Paul's argument which is about the positive electing grace of God!
Paul says, "Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--"
Yet this is somehow just an earthly issue, and not an eternal one? The context is clear. Paul is explaining why some believe in Jesus verses those who do not. Is this merely an earthly humbling discussion?
If we take the typical arminian explanation, we must overthrow Paul's entire thesis stated, "Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."
Just prior Paul argued that Jesus saves perfectly His elect and that no charge may ever be brought against them since He died for them perfectly as their perfect substitute. So again, the argument is simple in Romans 9. If God is able to save all of the elect perfectly, why are there Jews that do not believe? Have the promises failed? Your interpretation must be consistent. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
RCs simply can not do exegesis because they be definition have an overriding and overarching authority...Rome.
Hey, I just noticed we are posting at the same time. COOL!
""You simply hold a position that God creates men knowing they would sin and yet does absolutely nothing but offer them a way out."
I don't follow you. sorry."
Well, you are accusing the Calvinist position of God as problematic because of the problem of evil. You struggle with men being created for a purpose. Yet, as I pointed out, your solution makes things worse, not better.
Your view is man centered. The Scripture is God-centered. He is the Potter. He is not making pots that choose their own destiny "autonomously".
God Bless
"Your language may pull the emotional strings, but your position solves nothing. You have a God who makes billions of people knowing they would freely choose hell. Yet He does it anyway with no purpose?"
AHHH! Now I get it. sorry I didn't follow you before.
The short answer:
No, I believe he created them with the purpose of giving them the opportunity to join him in eternal fellowship of their own free will. God, who is present in all space and time at all times has perfect foreknowledge of all because he has perfect vision of all time and is not subject to it. To say God created someone knowing they would choose hell is factually true but misleading, as if his creating them caused their choice. God observes all from his ever-present "now" which is one reason his sacrifice is not bound by time as were the temple sacrifices, but could be made once and for all.
Yikes. and this was the short answer. :-)
Or to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, observing a man doing something does not MAKE him do it.
"1)
Is it possible for someone to be saved by God, but not know it? Do you believe that infants or the mentally retarded can be saved? I do, as do most Christians, past and present. That this is so ought not amaze you unless you've been hiding under a rock."
That is like arguing for abortion because of rape and incest. We don't build case law or doctrine from the non-normative. Scripture is quite clear. Those whom God has given to the Son, come to Him.
"2)
The only doctrine of "sola ecclesia" I know if is a seldom cited "Reformed" doctrine. Catholics do not believe "sola ecclesia." We're slow to take up solas in general unless Jesus Himself pronounced them."
To many topics. I was simply arguing that we must not allow external authorities to override the text. Paul's argument is clear, if we allow God to speak.
:-)
God Bless
Two questions for you. my friend:
1) Does God take joy in the death of the wicked?
2) Why?
God bless you. I've got an amazingly busy next eight days or so, so if I'm not responding in a while, don't take it personally. I appreciate the conversation and do truly pray for the best for us all.
"To many topics. I was simply arguing that we must not allow external authorities to override the text. Paul's argument is clear, if we allow God to speak."
Ah! OK, gotcha. As it happens I don't think I'm allowing only non-scriptual sources to override your interpretation of St. Paul, but also that St. James and other scripture do so as well.
OK, now i really must get moving. :-)
"To say God created someone knowing they would choose hell is factually true but misleading, as if his creating them caused their choice. God observes all from his ever-present "now" which is one reason his sacrifice is not bound by time as were the temple sacrifices, but could be made once and for all."
This is still not an answer. He still creates people knowing in advance they were not going to choose Him. What kind of loving arminian God chooses to create billions knowing they would go to hell?
"1) Does God take joy in the death of the wicked?
Nope. On the one hand, God hates the wicked. "Psa 26:5 I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked."
God also laughs at the wicked.
"Psa 37:13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming."
Obviously this must be tempered with the fact that God doesn't take some sadistic pleasure in the death of the wicked from such passages as those in Ezekiel. God's wrath is nothing like the pagan gods. God is a God of Law, and we are lawbreakers.
So to do the typical evangelistic thing of running up to a complete stranger and saying, "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" simply is not Biblical.
Peter's sermon is a great sermon to emulate.
2) Why?
Hope this starts an answer.
"so if I'm not responding in a while, don't take it personally"
I appreciate that.
God Bless
"Ah! OK, gotcha. As it happens I don't think I'm allowing only non-scriptual sources to override your interpretation of St. Paul, but also that St. James and other scripture do so as well."
Then demonstrate from the "immediate" text where I am wrong. It is an improper hermeneutic to assume an interpretation of one text and pitting it against another. Both texts must be exegeted (such as the James text). It is a proper hermeneutic to interpret unclear texts in light of clear texts.
For instance, you are assuming James 2 is speaking about justification in the same way Paul is. This would be making Scripture contradict itself. You say James is clear. Protestants say Romans 4 is equally clear (I would argue clearer). When James is actually exegeted, it becomes very clear to Protestants that Justification is not used in the same fashion.
I am sorry to disagree with you here. I have not found Roman Catholics able to do exegesis.
I more than demonstrated Paul's argument in Romans 9. You simply give me a philosophical argument. Don't feel bad though. My pastor did the same thing. Arminian Baptists have as much difficulty exegeting Romans 9 as Roman Catholics do. Which is why I have argued many times that most in my church would not be able to withstand a sharp RC apologist (suc as yourself).
God Bless
"Jesus is the mediator between God and Jesus? This is strange teaching my friend."
Cut me some slack here. Obviously what is meant is that God establishes the New Covenant in Christ. It is in Christ that men are reconciled. Obviously Jesus is a perfect Mediator between God and men. You make the terms synonymous. Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant.
God Bless
Post a Comment