tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post102241432413618327..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: In Catholic theological anthropology, human nature is not selfish or sinful; human nature is goodJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71099090214469374172011-07-03T21:22:28.702-04:002011-07-03T21:22:28.702-04:00(Part 2 of 2)
You said:
"I am not prepared...(Part 2 of 2)<br /><br /><br /><br />You said:<br />"I am not prepared to admit that the indwelling of the Spirit was necessary for prelapsarian Adam to commune with God. That may be the case, but I would need to see an argument for it."<br /><br />This is directly related to the donum superadditum issue since the Indwelling is at the heart of it. For you to say "that may be the case" would require you to doubt Reformed theology, since it's wholly incompatible. I would give three arguments for why prelapsarian Adam had (to have) the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit:<br /><br />A) To deny it would entail something akin to Pantheism, where either God would have to be reduced to the level of human experience or man would have to be naturally deified beyond the level of creation. When Paul says "nobody can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" and that it is the Spirit in us that causes our hearts to cry Abba, Father, this shows it is beyond man's natural powers to do such. If you were to say this only applies to sinners, then you grant Adam natural powers which only the Holy Spirit naturally has.<br /><br />B) Paul says Christians are "temples of the Holy Spirit," meaning a function of humanity (since human nature never changed) is to have the Holy Spirit indwelling, and those that do not are by definition not Adopted. <br /><br />C) Christ had the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and thus if Adam did not then there is no true First-Adam Second-Adam Parallel. For example, it would result in a grossly lop-sided account of Adam needing perfect obedience attained by his own natural powers while Jesus was not limited to natural human powers. <br /><br />In response to my claim Adam needed Faith, you said:<br />"Not since the entrance of sin, but why couldn't Adam have believed such if original righteousness was natural?"<br /><br />Because such is a super-natural power. Only God is infinite, thus creation needs a bridge of sorts to be able to reach Him. One example I use is that of a telescope: our eyes cannot naturally see deep-space distances, but with the aid of a super-added gift like a telescope your eyes now can see far distant objects. Further, to admit such would entail affirming synergism (anathema to Protestant ears), for then Adam would be cooperating with grace from the moment he was called to obey.<br /><br /><br />In regards to Adam having Heb 11:1,6 type faith, I said that would be a problem for Protestantism, to which you said:<br />"Says who? I've not heard that."<br /><br />Such a thing would demolish the whole idea of "saving faith," since Adam would have saving faith himself - indeed, he would have needed Heb 11 Faith to even be able to obey God.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18038475644918653852011-07-03T21:22:11.194-04:002011-07-03T21:22:11.194-04:00Ryan, (Part 1 of 2)
For the sake of others readin...Ryan, (Part 1 of 2)<br /><br />For the sake of others reading, I think there should be clarification on how the term "good" is being used:<br /><br />1) Natural Good is that which relates to something's nature and is opposed to nothingness/degradation. <br /><br />2) Good Acts are those actions Persons Will to be done that are in accordance with God's laws. These are opposed to Evil acts, which are actions Persons Will to be done contrary to God's laws. <br /><br />To conflate #1 and #2 is a serious error. In Catholicism, Grace raises nature to make it capable of super-natural actions (#2) and super-natural qualities (#1).<br /><br />So when you said: <br />"I think good is that which is intended to and in fact does manifest God's glory, whereas evil or sin is that which isn't and doesn't."<br /><br />I would agree with this, but only applies to #2. <br /><br />You then said:<br />"Man's unregenerate nature is corrupt insofar as it tends toward evil. <br /><br />I could agree with this in so far as it applies to #1 - and in this case you're conceding the Catholic position that man's nature isn't evil - but things get sticky the way you're applying "regenerate" (see below). <br /><br />You said:<br />"...I'm not conceding man's nature is good, but neither am I asserting man is physically prone to evil as did Manicheans. [In fact, I believe the opposite: sin is a result of fallacious thinking.]"<br /><br />What you appear to be saying is that you don't believe man's *nature* is Good#2, which is correct, but it's incorrect in so far as it fails to take into consideration Good#1.<br /><br /><br />When I spoke of Concupiscience as sin proper, you responded:<br />"I didn't follow how you came to this conclusion."<br /><br />You don't appear to have affirmed this, but traditional Protestant sources do. For example, the Westminster Confession Ch 6:5-6 says: <br />"This <b>corruption of nature</b> , during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet <b> both itself</b> , and all the motions thereof, are <b> truly and properly sin</b>. <br /><br />Every sin, both <b> original and actual, being a transgression</b> of the righteous law of God"<br /><br />So "corruption of nature" is "turly and properly sin" just as Sinful Actions are - and this is repeated in the next quote where it says original sin is a transgression of God's law. This is Manicheanism and this is a conflating of #1 and #2.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-62203941998908933662011-07-03T16:19:07.852-04:002011-07-03T16:19:07.852-04:00Hi Cheesy,
You wrote, “If your statement were cor...Hi Cheesy,<br /><br />You wrote, “If your statement were correct, then Adam and Eve would not be able to "fall."”<br /><br />I'm sorry, I should have gone a little slower. Genesis 6:5 comes after the Fall of Adam and Eve which occurs in Genesis 3. God's pronouncement in Gen. 6:5 is about fallen humanity and does not have a thing to do with Adam and Eve.<br /><br />Once more, “The same for Jer 31:31-34. It speaks of the covenant God makes with the "new Israel" and of course all is true but there is our freely chosen reject of the covenant through sin, which can and does occur even after "being saved."<br /><br />So, there are two questions: 1. who is the “new Israel” and 2. what is the nature of the covenant God has made with them? The answer to the first can be found in Ephesians 1:4 or 1 Peter 1:11; God made His covenant with the elect He chose before time began. The answer to the second can be found in Christ's own words about the effect of the covenant: <br /><br /><i>I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”</i> (John 10:28-30)<br /><br />Please note how far Christ goes out of His way to explain that those His Father has given Him can not be taken away. That is, those predestined to salvation will receive it and nothing can thwart the Father's will.<br /><br />Please also note that when you say, “ all is true but there is our freely chosen reject of the covenant through sin” you are simply begging the question.<br /><br /><br />I would ask that you stop with the hateful comments.<br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61819948527016686242011-07-03T06:54:17.908-04:002011-07-03T06:54:17.908-04:00@Ryan I wanted to quickly address your question on...@Ryan I wanted to quickly address your question on angels: "Could you point me to some of your sources regarding the information you've posted on the nature of angels?"<br /><br />The Catechism of the Catholic Church<br />Saint Thomas Aquinas<br />and a great primer would be <i>The Angels and Their Mission</i> by Fr. Jean Cardinal Danielou, S.J. - check out my review at http://tiberriver.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/home.viewReview/review/1265Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03567994112449781806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65002155616041565212011-07-03T06:47:52.023-04:002011-07-03T06:47:52.023-04:00@Constantine:
1) An inheritance that can “never pe...@Constantine:<br /><b>1) An inheritance that can “never perish, spoil or fade” cannot be lost.</b> [Your logic is wrong. Just because the gift of grace and salvation can "never perish, spoil or fade" does not mean that you cannot reject it through sin. If your statement were correct, then Adam and Eve would not be able to "fall."<br /><br />The same for Jer 31:31-34. It speaks of the covenant God makes with the "new Israel" and of course all is true but there is our freely chosen reject of the covenant through sin, which can and does occur even after "being saved."]<br /><br /><b>2) The fact that Roman Catholics believe man was created in a fallen state, in contradiction to Genesis 1:31, is telling.</b> [That you believe Hodge is even more telling - as Hodge is not the Bible and was not even inspired. So what he is writing is bigoted opinion and you are falling right for it. Besides if this were the case then your next point is pure nonsense because you are trying to refute the opposite of what you say the Church teaches and the Faithful believe.]<br /><br /><b>3) Genesis 6:5; Every inclination…only evil…all the time…from God the Father.</b> [Not much different from today no? However, this does not speak to the fact that Man was created good, yet through Original Sin, became corrupted and as always been the case: no good work comes from man - if must always come through, be aided by and in cooperation with God. This is attributed to the fallen nature we now have thanks to Original Sin.<br /><br />See, you speak solely because you have a mouth.]<br /><br /><b>4) The interesting thing, of course is that the Gospel is primarily about glorifying God and not saving ourselves. We tend to lose that meaning when we focus on our selves.</b> [Well, I would say you are partially right, except that our salvation is why Jesus became incarnate, no?<br /><br /><br /><b>As to loss, Jesus knew nothing of this when He explained the plan of salvation in John 6:37-40 wherein you will find absolutely no human interaction.</b> [Of course, Jesus does not speak on loss from His part because He does not do the throwing - we do. We choose against Him through sin and thus exclude ourselves. He loves us enough to allow our free choice to speak for itself. Also, there is an inherent human interaction for one must "believe" in Him. He does not believe in Himself for us. He merited the grace necessary for us to even be able to think about it.<br /><br />Lastly, I love that you spoke of John 6 because in it Jesus speaks of the most precious gift He continues to give us - the Real Presence of Himself. If you recall He makes sure that everyone knows that He, "is the Bread of Life" and that we must, "eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man to have everlasting life and be risen on the last day."<br /><br />Praised be the Lord Who humbles Himself daily to make Himself present before us in Love!]Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03567994112449781806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47148664296711030042011-07-03T00:56:18.648-04:002011-07-03T00:56:18.648-04:00Nick,
I think good is that which is intended to a...Nick,<br /><br />I think good is that which is intended to and in fact does manifest God's glory, whereas evil or sin is that which isn't and doesn't. Man's unregenerate nature is corrupt insofar as it tends toward evil. Whether or not you want to view that statement in light of Augustine's belief in relative goods such that it would mean what the corrupt nature most highly desires is something good "in itself" but is a desire not teleologically related to God's glory, the fact is I'm not conceding man's nature is good, but neither am I asserting man is physically prone to evil as did Manicheans. [In fact, I believe the opposite: sin is a result of fallacious thinking.]<br /><br />What I am doing is distinguishing between what are the mutable and immutable predicates of human nature.<br /><br /><i>To say Concupiscience is sin-proper is thus impossible...</i><br /><br />I didn't follow how you came to this conclusion.<br /><br /><i>I would add that a essence-accidents distinction doesn't avoid the issue of Indwelling of the Holy Spirit required to be super-added, since such cannot belong to man's nature as creature be it essence or accident.</i><br /><br />I am not prepared to admit that the indwelling of the Spirit was necessary for prelapsarian Adam to commune with God. That may be the case, but I would need to see an argument for it. Moreover, this isn't directly related to whether or not there was a donum superadditum, so far as I can tell.<br /><br /><i>The same goes for gifts like Faith - they must be super-added and Adam must have originally had them. A creature cannot believe in super-natural truths (e.g. Trinity) by their own (created) natural powers.</i><br /><br />Not since the entrance of sin, but why couldn't Adam have believed such if original righteousness was natural?<br /><br /><i>But to say Adam had Heb11:1,6 type Faith is a problem for Protestant theology since it belongs solely to post-lapsarian man.</i><br /><br />Says who? I've not heard that.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73274779515232043172011-07-02T23:54:23.891-04:002011-07-02T23:54:23.891-04:00Mr. Cheeseburgers wrote,
Otherwise, what is the ...Mr. Cheeseburgers wrote,<br /><br /><i> Otherwise, what is the point of being obedient if nothing you do can cause you loss?</i><br /><br />The interesting thing, of course is that the Gospel is primarily about glorifying God and not saving ourselves. We tend to lose that meaning when we focus on our selves.<br />Therefore, the primary point of being obedient is to glorify God by living a life that is a worthy sacrifice to Him. <br /><br />As to loss, Jesus knew nothing of this when He explained the plan of salvation in John 6:37-40 wherein you will find absolutely no human interaction.<br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49219040457313105372011-07-02T23:46:46.980-04:002011-07-02T23:46:46.980-04:00Mr. Cheeseburgers wrote,
The Church does not tea...Mr. Cheeseburgers wrote,<br /><br /><i> The Church does not teach and never taught that man is inherently evil or that matter is evil.</i><br /><br />What God the Father wrote,<br /><br /><i><b> The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. Genesis 6:5</b></i><br /><br /><br />Every inclination…only evil…all the time…from God the Father. <br /><br />Hmmm. You may want to reevaluate your position Mr. Burgers.<br /><br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59037691520455456292011-07-02T23:36:39.122-04:002011-07-02T23:36:39.122-04:00Ryan,
Thanks for the Hodge quote. It was a great...Ryan,<br /><br />Thanks for the Hodge quote. It was a great refresher.<br /><br />The fact that Roman Catholics believe man was created in a fallen state, in contradiction to Genesis 1:31, is telling.<br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33935443905212859052011-07-02T23:32:44.657-04:002011-07-02T23:32:44.657-04:00Mr. Cheeseburgers wrote, “Scripture does not suppo...Mr. Cheeseburgers wrote, “Scripture does not support the "once saved, always saved" position. Never has.”<br /><br /><br />That this position is taken by Roman Catholics has always fascinated me for two reasons: the first is that it directly contradicts their first “pope” and secondly because it contradicts both Old and New Testaments.<br />Here is what Peter had to say:<br /><br /> <i>Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 <b>and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade.</b></i> 1 Peter 1:3-4<br /><br /><br />An inheritance that can “never perish, spoil or fade” cannot be lost.<br /><br /><br />Peter undoubtedly got the idea not only from Christ but also from the prophets. Jeremiah foretold that the children of the new covenant would have their wickedness forgiven and their sins forgiven as part of their creation into the new covenant. Of course, children who are forgiven in advance of their creation can never lose their salvation either. (Jeremiah 31:31-34. This passage is so critical to the entire Judeo-Christian heritage that it is repeated verbatim in Hebrews 8 and partially in Hebrews 10 for emphasis.)<br /><br />So the Scripture does speak of once saved, always saved. Always has.<br /><br />Meanwhile, back to your regularly scheduled topic.<br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25182276478414666912011-07-02T23:07:32.663-04:002011-07-02T23:07:32.663-04:00Ryan,
I would add that a essence-accidents disti...Ryan, <br /><br />I would add that a essence-accidents distinction doesn't avoid the issue of Indwelling of the Holy Spirit required to be super-added, since such cannot belong to man's nature as creature be it essence or accident.<br /><br />The same goes for gifts like Faith - they must be super-added and Adam must have originally had them. A creature cannot believe in super-natural truths (e.g. Trinity) by their own (created) natural powers. But to say Adam had Heb11:1,6 type Faith is a problem for Protestant theology since it belongs solely to post-lapsarian man.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65706133148357352192011-07-02T22:48:33.752-04:002011-07-02T22:48:33.752-04:00Ryan,
First your question: There is no dogmatic f...Ryan,<br /><br />First your question: There is no dogmatic formulation regarding a distinction between the language of "image" and "likeness," only respected opinions, but the distinction between nature and donum superadditum is dogma.<br /><br />In regards to your essence-accidents distinction - if man is only accidentally unrighteous, then I'd say you concede the Catholic point that man's nature (essence) is good and cannot be otherwise, thus refuting James' main assertion. The notion that sin is a substance or in any sense tangible has no merit, even if applied only to accidents, for the reasons already stated by Augustine. <br /><br />To say Concupiscience is sin-proper is thus impossible, leaving only the Catholic option which is that it's an imbalance among otherwise good 'urges'. This is why Concupiscience has less and less sway the more one's soul is mortified.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34445207918152237252011-07-01T10:36:12.060-04:002011-07-01T10:36:12.060-04:00If the transubstantiated host is the antidote for ...If the transubstantiated host is the antidote for sin, why aren't Catholics given a weeks worth of hosts to take 2 or 3 a day or in case of emergencies, take a couple right after a particular naughty thought?kayceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16514866350404068833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52000378099963991502011-06-30T21:22:21.383-04:002011-06-30T21:22:21.383-04:00Nick,
I think you too missed Hodge's distinct...Nick,<br /><br />I think you too missed Hodge's distinction between the essential and accidental elements of our nature. Our moral inclinations are accidental, our ability to reason is essential. Christ didn't need to be incarnated with our moral inclinations. Hodge's comments in my above post on concupiscence may suffice as a response to your first few paragraphs.<br /><br />Quick question: is a distinction between the image and likeness of God a dogmatic teaching in RC with the former referring to man's nature and the latter referring to a donum superadditum?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86618694932329594932011-06-30T21:05:25.828-04:002011-06-30T21:05:25.828-04:00Sorry about the delay, I haven't had internet ...Sorry about the delay, I haven't had internet access for a few days.<br /><br />@GodnChzburgers<br /><br />Protestants deny that Christ is ontologically the bread eaten, not that He is present. We reject the former for reasons other than Manichean presuppositions. This is off topic. Regarding concupiscence:<br /><br /><i>...according to the doctrine of the Protestant churches, original sin, or corruption of nature derived front Adam, is... (1.) That this corruption of nature affects the whole soul. (2.) That it consists in the loss or absence of original righteousness, and consequent entire moral depravity of our nature, including or manifesting itself in an aversion from all spiritual good, or from God, and an inclination to all evil. (3.) That it is truly and properly of the nature of sin, involving both guilt and pollution. (4.) That it retains its character as sin even in the regenerated. (5.) That it renders the soul spiritually dead, so that the natural, or unrenewed man, is entirely unable of himself to do anything good in the sight of God.<br /><br />This doctrine therefore stands opposed...<br /><br />4. To the doctrine which admits a hereditary depravity of nature, and makes it consist in an inclination to sin, but denies that it is itself sinful. Some of the orthodox theologians made a distinction between vitium and peccatum. The latter term they wished to confine to actual sin, while the former was usied to designate indwelling and hereditary sinfulness. There are serious objections to this distinction: first, that vitium, as thus understood, is really sin; it includes both guilt and pollution, and is so defined by Vitringa and others who make the distinction. Secondly, it is opposed to established theological usage. Depravity, or inherent hereditary corruption, has always been designated peccatum, and therefore to say that it is not peccatum, but merely vitium, produces confusion and leads to error. Thirdly, it is contrary to Scripture for the Bible undeniably designates indwelling or hereditary corruption, or vitium, as a`marti,a. This is acknowledged by Romanists who deny that such concupiscence after regeneration is of the nature of sin. </i><br /><br />To your question:<br /><br /><i>The question is, how can our human nature become corrupt if original righteousness was not a gift and is part and parcel of human nature? It cannot. You see, if we were to lose something that is part of our nature - then we would cease to exist.</i><br /><br />Not at all. Not only did you ignore Hodge's criticisms of the RC position, you ignored Hodge's distinction between the essential and accidental endowments to our nature. Our nature became wholly corrupt insofar as our moral inclinations now tend to sin while unregenerate, but our ability to reason, while damaged, was never lost.<br /><br /><i>Yet their spiritual nature makes them and the way these works with them vastly different than us here on earth.</i><br /><br />Could you point me to some of your sources regarding the information you've posted on the nature of angels?<br /><br /><i>If this is true, then how come Protestants still sin. How come you all still suffer from concupiscence same as me and every other Catholic, Christian, pagan, etc.?</i><br /><br />Our sin nature is not immediately mortified upon regeneration because regeneration is the bestowal of new nature, not an erasure of the old one.<br /><br /><i>What is inherent to human nature is free will - the ability to freely choose for or against God. We cannot lose what is intrinsically part of us.</i><br /><br />You haven't established free will is "intrinsically part of us," regardless of whether or not we were given a donum superadditum.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21142489740621863042011-06-29T21:18:30.979-04:002011-06-29T21:18:30.979-04:00For reasons unknown to me, the link provided by Bl...For reasons unknown to me, the link provided by Blogger is not functioning...for those who may be interested in the issue of Pelagianism/semi-Pelagiansim and the RCC, here is the correct link:<br /><br />http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-roman-catholic-church-teach-either_29.htmlDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34073758009715485802011-06-29T17:41:46.849-04:002011-06-29T17:41:46.849-04:00I am interested in hearing what James and Ryan hav...I am interested in hearing what James and Ryan have to say about the St Augustine quote I posted yesterday.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44612842277623973762011-06-29T16:33:24.866-04:002011-06-29T16:33:24.866-04:00Dude. Just answer the question. Do you continue to...Dude. Just answer the question. Do you continue to sin after being "saved?" Yes or no.<br /><br />Or better yet...If you die tonight are you certain that you will go to heaven (even though you remain filthy with sin - and we all know "nothing unclean shall enter in it..." Rev 21:27)?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03567994112449781806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59447836468336887462011-06-29T16:28:25.501-04:002011-06-29T16:28:25.501-04:00@ GodnChzburgers
Since you continue to justify th...@ GodnChzburgers<br /><br />Since you continue to justify the Sacramental Treadmill as it has been called, I'll provide a picture of it for you:<br /><br />http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7kiJg_zbgtw/TKLwFYxcwpI/AAAAAAAAAI4/GdfxJG_GvyU/s1600/RCC-Justification-Flow-Chart-150-DPI.jpg<br /><br />Peace.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-15458382425753876112011-06-29T15:26:31.296-04:002011-06-29T15:26:31.296-04:00Even "Dear Abby" got this:
"A chur...Even "Dear Abby" got this:<br /><br />"A church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03567994112449781806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-55723681613817894022011-06-29T15:25:43.073-04:002011-06-29T15:25:43.073-04:00@EA: Let me get this straight, you are no longer a...@EA: Let me get this straight, you are no longer a sinner right? You are a living saint correct? You can commit no sin that would separate you from God like murdering a child while in the womb, right? You know for a fact that you are in complete and total communion with God. There is no lust, no fornication, no anger, no malice, no judgement, etc. in your life, thoughts, motives - heart correct?<br /><br />The bible is real clear on the state of men so long as there is air in their lungs. (Rom 3:23)<br /><br />You see, the grace that God gives is sufficient. Yet it is our free will that destroys it from working within us. There is nothing temporary about God's grace. The only thing that is temporary is our own desire to keep His commandments, such as the one that says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." (John (RSV) 6:53-58)<br /><br />The Sacraments are a way for us to combat sin, which is the deliberate choosing of the self instead of God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03567994112449781806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34346065273066056902011-06-29T13:56:57.563-04:002011-06-29T13:56:57.563-04:00"Another key difference is that saints are ph...<i><b>"Another key difference is that saints are physically dead and incapable of sinning as they received their personal judgment. You and I on the other hand remain quite capable of sinning despite being born again in the spirit.<br /><br />We are made new creations through baptism but remain in a corrupt world with an attachment to sin. That is why no one can say they are saved... So you remain a sinner even after being saved or born again right?<br /><br />The...antidote are the sacraments especially the Eucharist."</b></i><br /><br />Let's take a look at what this equates to.<br /><br />No one, other than the saints in heaven are saved, since they can't sin anymore and have left this life in the "friendship of God".<br /><br />We're "saved through Baptism", but are left sinners. Since Baptism only remits the "stain of Original Sin", we need the other Sacraments to "keep saving us" as the sin nature is still left. What all this adds up to is a powerless and ineffectual salvation that requires the frequent reception of temporarily efficacious sacraments. Each reception of sacramental grace except (maybe!) the very last one in one's life is overridden by the tendency to sin. This sounds like a drug company that will only produce a treatment for the symptoms of a disease rather than a cure because the sick are needed to keep revenue up.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66775363837120311542011-06-28T23:30:14.259-04:002011-06-28T23:30:14.259-04:00On the saints, the Church has what I would call th...On the saints, the Church has what I would call the authority to "bind and loose." However, she remains dependent on the Holy Spirit to "guide [her] into all truth" so she conducts rigorous investigations into alleged miracles performed by God at the request (intercession) of a particular candidate or saint. Thus she is able to canonize a saint.<br /><br />Another key difference is that saints are physically dead and incapable of sinning as they received their personal judgment. You and I on the other hand remain quite capable of sinning despite being born again in the spirit.<br /><br />Thus touching on your other issue, that of rebirth. We are made new creations through baptism but remain in a corrupt world with an attachment to sin. That is why no one can say they are saved. Because as John says in 1 John 4 (I think) the truly saved are incapable of sin. So you remain a sinner even after being saved or born again right?<br /><br />The only answer is yes. And the antidote are the sacraments especially the Eucharist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03567994112449781806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80221730647695527542011-06-28T20:44:51.996-04:002011-06-28T20:44:51.996-04:00"So in reality, no one person can truly know ...<i>"So in reality, no one person can truly know that they are saved because only God knows the true state of your soul and your relationship with Him."</i><br /><br />Except that the RCC claims that those who are declared saints are in Heaven. So the RCC makes the precise claim that it DOES know...EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33718120895164787992011-06-28T20:40:27.953-04:002011-06-28T20:40:27.953-04:00"Scripture does not support the "once sa...<i>"Scripture does not support the "once saved, always saved" position. Never has."</i><br /><br />I don't want to "go down the rabbit hole" on OSAS, but I would like to make this point:<br /><br />The result of "being saved" is that you are a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), you are "born again" (Jn. 3). You are a new creature in Christ with a new life; His life. You have died to yourself and have risen in the new life of Christ. How does one leave that state? Are they born again backwards becoming an old creature? Do you resurrect the old man Adam in yourself? How exactly does that work?EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.com