Arminians and Calvinists - or Christians?

[francisdesales]

I wanted to address this separately. Are you saying that one does not need faith in God to do good works?

To be salvific, one must have faith in God. HOWEVER, the level of knowledge required of this God, I cannot say. I am presuming that God will measure each person's access to knowledge of God and the faith that person presented and the motives internally that drove that person to love. At the end of the day, such interior movements are the work of the Spirit of God, even if people are in the dark on Who God is more specifically.

At the least, men do have access to the existence of One God who created the universe. How they direct their actions in worship of That One true God, that is for God to judge.

Does this mean evangelization is not needed? No, of course not, because the Gospel is MUCH more than this knowledge...

As for me, I believe I am unable to do any good of my own - for there is no good in my flesh - and hence I depend entirely upon God ie I "believe in Him" to work out the good that He commands of me and which I find myself unable to do apart from His Sovereign Grace.

God's Spirit blows where HE wills, not where I think it should blow or you. When we see someone, even a pagan, love selflessly, we must ascertain that we are seeing God's Spirit at work. I have NEVER said that ANYONE can do good WITHOUT God. MY point is that God's presence is not ONLY relegated to the regenerate, for God loves us even WHEN WE ARE IN SIN. God acts in each person to the degree of His will, but in any case, it is enough for Him to decide whether the response in these cases are enough to satisfy God (rather than the religious theories of men).

Ironically, by limiting God's work to only the regenerate LIMITS the sovereignty of GOD.

Are you saying that God works such good works in the unregenerate and lets them glory in their flesh over these works wrought by Him, which He then anyway deems as good? I thought God's ways deprived the flesh of any glory.

That is NOT the purpose of God's work in anyone, to include you or I. The motive is the same - God calls EACH and EVERYONE of us. Some react as we have, others ignore God. Some are in the process of seeking God in a haphazard way.

EVERY good deed by God or by man can be abused. God's motives are to draw all to Himself, that man can live life to the fullest. Some men will not, but that doesn't mean that God calls men SO THAT they glory in their own flesh!

When you give a gift to your child, and they toss it in the garbage, is that your fault?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Joe I think you are a rare Catholic and I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not sure how to take that comment, so I'll let you explain yourself...

Regards

 

[childeye]

I'm not sure how to take that comment, so I'll let you explain yourself...

Regards

There are several reasons I could speak of. You talk profoundly about the Love of God moving people not just believers and will draw no lines about God's judgment other than to presume which we all must do. You are here talking as a Catholic about something that is labeled Arminians and Calvinists-or Christians. Why Catholic is not in here I do not know. Frankly, I don't think the Pope taught you what you are saying.

 

[childeye]

Larry,

I would humbly suggest that you consider digging deeper into the meaning of "no one can love unless they are Christian" and tell me whether the God you envision is condemning ALL non-Christians to hell (since they can do NO good whatsoever), even if they never had the chance to hear the Gospel...

Because at the end of the day, this is what this line of thinking suggests.

I see you take this whole issue as "no one can love unless they are Christian". I honestly don't think that was implied as you took it. So it remains that I am yet assuming you and ivdavid are at a disconnect for whatever reason. I do not think it is my place to get involved. I simply wanted to say I thought you said some good things without implying ivdavid had not. Ahhh, semantics and the devil. These theological discussions can be frustrating at times as you are well aware.

tell me whether the God you envision is condemning ALL non-Christians to hell (since they can do NO good whatsoever), even if they never had the chance to hear the Gospel...

I don't believe God condemns anyone but rather we condemn ourselves with our own mouths. Indeed God's Truth works to stop us. If we would let go of blaming others for being made flesh, so also we could give a good accounting of ourselves who have also at times been weak in the flesh. As Jesus said, remove the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from your brothers. And this is How I think God judges, even according to the measure we use. So this is where we left off with our last conversation with you asking me why God judges us if we are not responsible for our actions. If I remember correctly, I said that is exactly what Paul said a man speaking as a man would say. You said I wanted it both ways but of course there is a difference between a paradox and hypocrisy.

 

[ivdavid]

I see you take this whole issue as "no one can love unless they are Christian". I honestly don't think that was implied as you took it. So it remains that I am yet assuming you and ivdavid are at a disconnect for whatever reason......Ahhh, semantics and the devil.

You've observed correctly. I never said that the unregenerate cannot love per se but that they cannot love as they ought to - as they are commanded to by God. I cannot and will not deny Luke 6:32 among many similar verses.

And I suppose the disconnect here stems from a very different theological belief. When I distinguish between a believer and an unbeliever w.r.t. their doing good and not, I hold both these to be the same in terms of their inherent goodness(or absence of it) - no difference whatsoever in the flesh - and that any difference arises because of the difference of God's working in one and not working in the other. I think Francisdesales believes God works just the same in every single person, so the difference must be of the persons themselves.

I guess I'll have to spend more time now denying what people think I've implied than to simply state the truth I want to bear witness to. I'll get to that shortly, yes.

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

In order to get things straight, let me first list out all the statements that I'd make myself -

In my mind, a good work is something that includes BOTH the external and the internal disposition.

Clearly, Paul and Jesus understand human experience, as both of them state that pagans can love.

God IS love.

We all have the Law written in our hearts, says Paul... We all know right from wrong and we know the "Golden Rule". What we know is the basis for which God will judge us.

Again, there are numerous examples of such "Law" within a variety of pagan communities that mimic, whether they know it or not, the Law given by God to man.

Fortunately for us, God is a forgiving God. Anyone who turns to God after sin, even after 77 times 7, they will be forgiven...

IF a pagan can do no good works, then it follows that ALL of their works are of the "flesh" and "evil".

Regeneration is NOT about merely 'being saved'... It is being reformed into the image of Christ, participating in the divine nature, being divinized even here, a much deeper and more sublime idea than getting a "get out of hell free" card, a "status"...

Christianity is a lived life, not a "status" or a "legal imputation".

But it is not necessary to know the dictates of the Law as given by Moses to know that killing another human being is wrong.

I'd agree that the explicit reading of the written Law is not necessary for people to know what's right and what's wrong - and that people will be judged based on the "law" that they acknowledge by nature within themselves.


Now on to clarifications -

People can fulfill the dictates of the law without knowing the Law explicitly.

I'd agree to the part that an explicit knowledge of the written Law is not necessary.
And who are these people? I think you hold them to include both the regenerate and the unregenerate - am I right?
And what do you mean by fulfilling the dictates of the law - are you referring to individual commandments at a time? To fulfill the law, you need to have love for God and love for your neighbor as yourself. How can an unbeliever theoretically fulfill these? He does not have the love of God shed abroad in his heart without which no one can love another as himself. Again please note, I didn't say the unregenerate cannot love another - just that they can't love another as themselves - as they are commanded to by God.

Which begs the question that I have presented from the start - good works can come from not knowing the "written Law".

Good works can come from not knowing the "written Law", I agree. But that doesn't state what's necessary for Good works - Good works can come only from a regenerated nature, all other works being dead works in sin and transgression. And please do distinguish between a good work w.r.t. the effects of the work - AND a good work w.r.t. the intents of the doer.

If you asked me whether a certain man giving alms to the poor is a good work - I'd say the act of giving alms per se is a good work(and this is not what I'm discussing here) but that the work need not necessarily be a good work done by that doer - if his intent behind this act is not according to the will of God, the doer has committed sin and not a good work.

One can actually be given eternal life without KNOWING that written Law and following the Law given by God in the heart. Now, I think you know what a pagan is, so it follows that pagans can thus perform acts of Love as a result of this Law in their hearts AND be rewarded with eternal life.

I know what a "pagan" is but I thought you were mistaking it for a "gentile". Let's get that straight here. In the context we're discussing in, according to me, a pagan is one who doesn't worship the One True God and a gentile is one who is not a jew according to the flesh. I said it's quite obvious for a non-jew(gentile) to become a believer in the One True God(non-pagan) - something Paul and even Peter struggled initially to establish.

Paul states that even the gentiles could fulfill the law of God, because the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts too - not just in the jews' according to the flesh. But where does Paul state that even pagans can fulfill the law of God?

Are you of the belief that one can theoretically not believe in Christ at all and yet follow the law of God in their hearts unto being granted eternal life? A simple yes/no to this would do - for I simply want to know your position on this, I'm not interested in discussing this further here in this thread - perhaps somewhere else.

You need to re-read Romans chapter 2, if you actually think that...

Alright, done that. Rom 2:11 seems to be the theme of the entire chapter. Rom 2:28-29 concludes that there is no difference in the flesh - what have I inferred wrongly?

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

Isn't any intent other than to please God, an evil intent?

No. This is why I got involved here. The attempt to make this a "black or white" issue. Things are not "evil" OR "good". There is gray area in human actions. Ignorance is part of the formula, and I would expect that God judges differently in the case of ignorance vs outright rejection.

But what is man ignorant of? He has God's laws written in his conscience and everybody innately know the "Golden Rule". Besides, this post-modernistic relativism is not what we should buy into - we have an absolute law that specifies that this is good and that that is evil - in "black and white". We must grow in the knowledge of this absolute will of God - not define it according to our ignorance.

Or are you saying that if a man commits a sin without realizing it's a sin at that point in time, he will not be judged as guilty for it?

Isn't any intent that is not for God, against God?

No, of course not!

I look at Matt 12:30 and Luk 9:50 - and I don't see any neutral no-man's land in between.

What do you mean "of the flesh"?

A self-generated fleshly desire/counsel to satisfy the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eye or pride of life - corrupted and deceived by sin in the flesh - with no regard to the glory of God.

I fail to see how God finds acts of Love abhorent. IF God is Love, how could He find acts from His very Being abhorent? Think about this...

So is God charity and every other good attribute you can think of. This doesn't mean that anyone performing an act of charity is moved to do so by God. We do find God abhorring the hypocrisy of those performing acts of charity in Matt 6:2. You simply can't generalize the way you've done here.

Are you telling me that a believer loves his neighbor in exactly the same way an unbeliever loves his?

No

What do you think the differences are - and is there anything given in Scriptures to determine if these differences are commanded against by God?

And in every act of loving others, if you transgress the first commandment of loving God, this is still a transgression of the law.

Fortunately for us, God is a forgiving God. Anyone who turns to God after sin, even after 77 times 7, they will be forgiven...

What you've stated here is the very substance of every Christian's hope. But read what you've written - this is the very thing I'm stating. As you have said, such transgressions of the law is sinning - and this is what every unbeliever, by definition, is guilty of committing continually - they do not love God. This is why I state that the flesh is capable of only sinning continually.

When we see someone, even a pagan, love selflessly, we must ascertain that we are seeing God's Spirit at work.

Yes, you're right. But we can't look into the hearts of men to know if the pagan acted selflessly or not - so I'll simply stick to Scripture to tell me about the nature of man.

Ironically, by limiting God's work to only the regenerate LIMITS the sovereignty of GOD.

If God has Himself chosen to work so, out of His own sovereign choice, there is no irony. Would you call 1Cor 1:27-28 God's sovereign choice or some limitation imposed on Him?

Some men will not, but that doesn't mean that God calls men SO THAT they glory in their own flesh!

This does not address my question - I'm asking if God will work good in man to ultimately let that man glory in his flesh for having done that good work without God deeming such a response of man to be sinful? What else can such a man attribute the "good" work to, when he doesn't believe in God?

This is what the flesh does - it can never obey God's commandments and be pleasing to Him. I'm sure you've read that in Romans.

That is NOT what Romans says... Says the opposite, if you read Chapter 2 and consider the CONTEXT of Chapter 3.

I see nothing different there. Perhaps you'll have to point to specific Scripture for my benefit. As for what I stated, I'd refer you to Romans 8:7-8.

And note, this is all that I'm saying. My entire agenda is to show man cannot rely on the flesh - that the flesh is corrupted and sinful - and that we have to rely entirely on what God alone does by His Spirit.

 

[francisdesales]

There are several reasons I could speak of. You talk profoundly about the Love of God moving people not just believers and will draw no lines about God's judgment other than to presume which we all must do. You are here talking as a Catholic about something that is labeled Arminians and Calvinists-or Christians. Why Catholic is not in here I do not know. Frankly, I don't think the Pope taught you what you are saying.

Larry,

Pope Benedict does indeed teach what I have written about, since he is one of the caretakers of the faith once given to the Apostles. This is part of Sacred Tradition, taught from the beginning - even Justin the Martyr speaks of this in the second century. As to the Pope, specifically, you may look at the Catechism (he was in charge of the Congregation of the Faith at the time of its construction). He is largely responsible for Dominus Iesus, On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

He also wrote on this topic in both of his books titled "Jesus of Nazareth". Have you actually READ anything this Pope has written???

Is this an instance of anti-Catholicism coming out (in that the Catholic Church could not possibly teach anything profound about God's love, and thus, I must "go outside" to find this teaching) or are you just ignorant of what the Pope teaches?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

You've observed correctly. I never said that the unregenerate cannot love per se but that they cannot love as they ought to - as they are commanded to by God. I cannot and will not deny Luke 6:32 among many similar verses.

Was it not your contention that the unregenerate cannot love? Either one is "good" or "evil"? That everything done by an unregenerate is an abomination to God? For example:

And besides, loving another without such love being primarily derived from the love of God is sin, right? Any transgression of any of the commandments of God in any act of man amounts to sin - this is an absolute and not in the least fuzzy.

Now, you appear to be backtracking. Frankly, that's a good thing. Theology is not so black and white, cut and dry. The entire point of entering this conversation was to point out that Jesus disagrees with the mindset above. Thank you for citing Luke's version, Matthew says the same thing...

There is a vast difference between "everything the unregenerate does is sin, an abomination to God" and "the unregenerate does not love as they ought to". In the later sentence, you admit to something that you deny in the first sentence!

I think Francisdesales believes God works just the same in every single person, so the difference must be of the persons themselves.

No, God does not work "the same" in every person. But it also is faulty to state that our response to God is not part of the equation - or part of the difference.

One cannot escape the fact that the Gospel is preached to "all" men - and some REJECT God, while others do not. At some level, there is some synergy occuring that cannot be strictly or mathematically defined.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

Was it not your contention that the unregenerate cannot love?

My contention has always been that the flesh cannot but sin.

Either one is "good" or "evil"? That everything done by an unregenerate is an abomination to God?

Yes. That's exactly what I believe. Either a work is "good" or "evil". All the works of the flesh are an abomination to God.

And besides, loving another without such love being primarily derived from the love of God is sin, right?

Now, you appear to be backtracking.

I still am saying this. If one loves another (which obviously I acknowledge happens), without such love being derived from the love of God - then it still is a transgression of God's law and hence sinful.

There is a vast difference between "everything the unregenerate does is sin, an abomination to God" and "the unregenerate does not love as they ought to". In the later sentence, you admit to something that you deny in the first sentence!

They're the same to me - no difference at all. If anybody does not do what they "ought to do" as commanded by God, that is "sin" and hence an abomination to God. How else are you seeing this?

 

[francisdesales]

I'd agree to the part that an explicit knowledge of the written Law is not necessary.

And who are these people? I think you hold them to include both the regenerate and the unregenerate - am I right?

We all are unregenerate at one point, are we not?

The Church does admit that people who have not been formally baptized COULD be considered regenerate - as seen by their actions. Such WOULD HAVE submitted to Baptism had they been aware of it. But perhaps they were born too soon, or geographically in the wrong place (say, Incas of the 14th century). We do not claim to know WHERE the Spirit blows. We take God's Sovereignty seriously. And Scriptures, along with Sacred Tradition, realize that God can and does vivify people who have not been formally baptized in water and the Spirit.

And what do you mean by fulfilling the dictates of the law - are you referring to individual commandments at a time?

Love fulfills the Law. Paul, Romans 13...

The Law is MEANT to bring out an internal disposition. Not adherence to the letter. The Minor Prophets speak of this over and over again. God does not only desire sacrifices, but a pure heart. Inner dispositions of Love, moved by God's Spirit (Phil 2:12-13).

To fulfill the law, you need to have love for God and love for your neighbor as yourself. How can an unbeliever theoretically fulfill these?

With God, all things are possible...

When you say "unbeliever", are you refering to a formal non-Christian who has not been baptized, or someone who has willfully rejected the Christian God? I favor the second meaning. I think you need to realize that there are "good" people out in the world who have not heard the formal Gospel, but live it, guided by the Spirit of God writing a "Law" on their hearts. Is a loving Indian in the Amazon jungle an "unbeliever" in God's mind? Is not all who love of God? Are their acts of love an abominination to God???

Such are considered "spiritually circumcised", according to Paul... Though they might be unaware of God as I know Him, they do follow the Law in their hearts. The term "unbeliever" is meant to refer to someone who rejects, not someone who is ignorant.

He does not have the love of God shed abroad in his heart without which no one can love another as himself.

That's your faulty assumption... If a person loves, God's Love has indeed entered in some way.

Again please note, I didn't say the unregenerate cannot love another - just that they can't love another as themselves - as they are commanded to by God.

You stated that "their good works", their love, is an abomination. So unless we love "a certain way" or a "certain degree", they are an abomination??? What you state above is not in line with what you stated earlier.

God IS love. Not just "God loves". His very BEING is Love - this is the message of Christ in teaching us about the Blessed Trinity in sublime manner. Those who love are of God. God moves the man to love - an expression of His calling to the man. Remember, even in sin, God loves us, calls us and desires ALL men to be saved. An unregenerate man's feable response to God's love is NOT an abomination to Him. NO parent would makes such a statement about their child - considering their pitiful attempts to love as an abomination.

But you say that the pagan's good works are an abomination, that they are sin, ALL their actions, to include love???

Good works can come from not knowing the "written Law", I agree. But that doesn't state what's necessary for Good works - Good works can come only from a regenerated nature, all other works being dead works in sin and transgression. And please do distinguish between a good work w.r.t. the effects of the work - AND a good work w.r.t. the intents of the doer.

It seems that you are going back and forth with your point of view here... You state ALL their works are dead works of sin, and then you state that they can love, but not as they ought... :

Who does always love as they ought???

I am not prepared to state that "all other works being dead works in sin and transgression" to the point of literally stating that EVERYTHING an unregenerate does is an abomination. I have already detailed that God can instill within such an occasional act of love. The unregenerate is indeed enslaved to sin, but it doesn't follow that EVERY act of an enslaved person is ALWAYS sin. It means that their principle work is sinful. Their guiding principle is their own flesh. This is why they need to be regenerated, to be freed. But even the enslaved do not always suffer in every moment in the entrall of sin. From time to time, God's love pokes through their wall of selfishness. God calls to them. Perhaps they see that something is missing in their lives, some purpose. Or they sense that they desire to be loved, unconditionally. Such longings of the human heart are placed their by God so as to SEEK HIM OUT, for only in His heart can I find rest (paraphrasing St. Augustine).

If you asked me whether a certain man giving alms to the poor is a good work - I'd say the act of giving alms per se is a good work(and this is not what I'm discussing here) but that the work need not necessarily be a good work done by that doer - if his intent behind this act is not according to the will of God, the doer has committed sin and not a good work.

An act may be neutral. Each of our acts are not completely pure in motive, are they. It is for God to judge whether that good work was entirely according to His will. I can tell you that it does NOT depend on FIRST being "regenerate" before God even "smiles" upon such a good act.

God is love, and desires the free response to His calling. What God finds pleasing among the CURRENTLY unregenerate (perhaps they will later officially be called such) is not entirely known to you or me. We do know that God is pleased with those who seek Him out - and this would include the unregenerate. Thus, every act of the unregenerate cannot be considered "an abomination". Giving alms, in of itself, is not pleasing to God, if done for ulterior motive, such as the Pharisees. But does God consider such giving an abomination by someone who does not know of Jesus of Nazareth through no fault of their own???

I know what a "pagan" is but I thought you were mistaking it for a "gentile". Let's get that straight here. In the context we're discussing in, according to me, a pagan is one who doesn't worship the One True God and a gentile is one who is not a jew according to the flesh. I said it's quite obvious for a non-jew(gentile) to become a believer in the One True God(non-pagan) - something Paul and even Peter struggled initially to establish.

The term "pagan" is interchangeable with "gentile" for our purposes. We are not speaking of national Jews. We are speaking of the "spiritually circumcised", who as Paul notes, can be pagans/gentiles.

Paul states that even the gentiles could fulfill the law of God, because the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts too - not just in the jews' according to the flesh. But where does Paul state that even pagans can fulfill the law of God?

I don't see your distinction between pagans and gentiles as applicable here. A gentile, prior to conversion, is a pagan. It is clear from the context of Romans 2 that Paul is refering to people who were not Jewish and had a law written in their hearts.

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law Romans 2:13-14

I fail to see your contrived distinction in this verse. Pagans/Gentiles do not have the law, yet can do what is required. This is not speaking of Gentile Christians, since they DO have access to the written Law.

Are you of the belief that one can theoretically not believe in Christ at all

There is a distinction between rejecting or refusing to believe Christ and being ignorant of Jesus as the Christ. If you insist on refusing to see that, you are condemning unjustly billions of people to hell just because they were born before Christ or were born in the wrong hemisphere before the Spaniards came with their missionaries...

and yet follow the law of God in their hearts unto being granted eternal life? A simple yes/no to this would do - for I simply want to know your position on this, I'm not interested in discussing this further here in this thread - perhaps somewhere else.

Yes. So says Romans 2:7

Alright, done that. Rom 2:11 seems to be the theme of the entire chapter. Rom 2:28-29 concludes that there is no difference in the flesh - what have I inferred wrongly?

Continued...

OK, the point of "no favoritism" (Romans 2:11) is fair enough of an interpretation as the theme. Doesn't this strike a cord within you on the problems with your own theology? If God plays no favorites, wouldn't He reach out to pagans, allowing His Spirit to blow where He wills, and write a Law in the hearts of such men, enabling them, if they choose, to obey this Law? He DOES love us even while we are in sin, correct? That God would have some provisions available for men who have not heard the literal Gospel? That:

...They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:15-16


Regards

 

[francisdesales]

My contention has always been that the flesh cannot but sin.

That was not my argument. I never said anything about "the flesh", nor did I get involved in this over "the flesh". It was whether the unregenerate can do nothing but sin, the pagan, the unbeliever.

Yes. That's exactly what I believe. Either a work is "good" or "evil". All the works of the flesh are an abomination to God.

I disagree with you, for there are actions that are morally neutral. To state that EVERYTHING an unbeliever does is evil is false, as I have already argued.

I still am saying this. If one loves another (which obviously I acknowledge happens), without such love being derived from the love of God - then it still is a transgression of God's law and hence sinful.

Do you admit that God can work within the unregenerate to love?

They're the same to me - no difference at all. If anybody does not do what they "ought to do" as commanded by God, that is "sin" and hence an abomination to God. How else are you seeing this?

I am seeing that you are overlooking that God does not hate those who seek Him out... Nor does God require perfection before He considers an act NOT a sin.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Men do not always choose to rebel and not have faith, even Jesus Himself states that the pagans are able to love each other, perhaps imperfectly and feebly, but I think this is too much an effort to make this a 'black and white' issue.

This doesn't mean that one is regenerated during those few times that this may happen. The Spirit can work within someone without regenerating them. But to state that the unregenerated can NEVER choose anything but sin is a false presumption. Human experience tells us otherwise.

Regards

Sorry for getting back so late. I read some of where this goes after you wrote this reply. One of my concerns is that you are not grasping all that Calvinists say. We would agree that man is not as sinful as he could be. I do not see anyone disagreeing with you that men still love their wives, mothers still love their children, etc. Every time a person meets another person, he does not try to kill them. All that is a give in. The question is can we consider a man loving his wife something that glorifies God?

In my opinion, the question we are talking about really gets back to original sin. When Adam chose to rebel in Eden, he received a knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge was apart from the righteousness of God. Adam set up his own standard of good and evil and then partook of the fruit. Adam gain this knowledge of good and evil from the perspective of rebellion and sin. Adam's standard of good was established apart from the righteousness of God. So then, yes, we still love our wives, and mothers still love their children, but even then, or love is tainted with some selfishness. We do not do it with perfect purity as in God's standard of righteousness. We do it under our own standard and our own knowledge of good and evil and God receives no glory in that.

In any case, this is a dog trail on the real discussion of the thread. What I was talking about in the post you first responded to was the source of faith. I was stating that the source of faith cannot be the unregenerate man. I was not saying that unregenerate men cannot love their wives, I was saying that unregenerate men cannot have faith. Faith is necessary to please God (Heb 11:6), but men in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:8). In your theology, are you saying that man can please God apart from the prevenient work of Grace? I have some doubts you are saying that, but I will let you speak for yourself.

 

[mondar]

I am seeing that you are overlooking that God does not hate those who seek Him out... Nor does God require perfection before He considers an act NOT a sin.

Certainly God does not hate those who seek him out, but then no one seeks him out.

(ASV) Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

 

[childeye]

=francisdesales;578013]Larry,

He also wrote on this topic in both of his books titled "Jesus of Nazareth". Have you actually READ anything this Pope has written???

Is this an instance of anti-Catholicism coming out (in that the Catholic Church could not possibly teach anything profound about God's love, and thus, I must "go outside" to find this teaching) or are you just ignorant of what the Pope teaches?

Thanks Joe for the info. You ask an interesting question since it is framed in an either or format. As Jello, I would say I am both for Catholicism and against depending upon which Catholic church I recognize and which one I don't, for there was division from the start. Suffice it to say, any one can say some thing profound, but as we know, saying it is not the same as doing it.

I recognize the humble church described in the book of Acts where everything was common as doing it. Where that church disappeared to, I cannot say. It is a far cry from the church I see in Rome, as I do not picture Peter sitting in a seat covered in gold and also pleading for the widows and orphans. Yet I know many Catholic charities that indeed are busy with the Lord's work. They are doers not just sayers and I recognize them. They would have no one prostrate themselves before them for they are too busy prostrating themselves before others less than them. Just as I see on the cross.

I am ignorant also of what the Pope teaches to some respects depending on which Pope you are talking about, and neither do they always agree. I have done extensive research on Roman Catholic doctrine and know more about it and hardly anything about what they call reformed theology.

Fundamental and foundational doctrine has been argued back and forth and some worthy positions silenced for the sake of what I assume are political reasons. Death and murder has been the history over such divisions of doctrine which actually was division over who will rule. I have a simple theology upon which I ascertain Truth and I believe it is not my own nor anyone elses, for it is built upon understanding the Love that is witnessed at the cross and is as sure as Jesus is the Christ. I've had many talks with many Catholics and you have been one of few who speak a pretty good theology given as much as I am able to discern a simple Truth. When I say the Pope did not teach you, that is to say the Truth is Spirit and knowledge of person not impersonal facts.

So here's a question for you. Am I not a Catholic or am I? Let's see if you can dodge the semantics inherent in any complicated doctrine. Then again, you need not answer. I know you are probably too busy for such games. Sincerely, Jello.

 

[ivdavid]

Love fulfills the Law. Paul, Romans 13...

I'm trying to rightly divide truth here. I am saying that mere "love" as you are referring to it, does not fulfill the law - now don't make me out to be a villain who is denying certain parts of Scripture(that one may proof-text).

Please understand exactly how I'm qualifying this. As mondar stated somewhere, man's love, when of the flesh, is selfish and not of God - very similar to the case where man's charitable disposition, when of the flesh, is selfish and not of God (Matt 6:2). See this parallelism here between the Matt 6:2 acts of charity and the acts of love that we're discussing now. Would you say the charitable disposition of those in Matt 6:2 was of God? I'd say no and I expect you'd agree too. Similarly, when there is a disposition to love, it need not necessarily be of God. Stick to the parallelism and perhaps you'd understand what I'm trying to say.

Rom 13:9 is the crux of the fulfillment of the law - but I cannot take this verse alone in isolation. When I say that love fulfills the law(v.8,v.10), I am actually saying that love for our neighbor as ourselves, fulfills the law(v.9). Would you say that loving another less than yourself would fulfill the law? I think not - please affirm this. The flesh cannot discern spiritual truth, nor can it obey God's law. It is at enmity with God and hence one in the flesh will never be able to love another as himself. I'd have more to discuss on this if you'd addressed post#47 - which either you've missed or kept for later discussion.

Like I said, this love for neighbor as ourselves cannot be taken in isolation. Such love is possible only if the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. It goes without saying that one can keep the second commandment only if he is able to keep the first commandment, since the second derives itself from the first. One cannot love another as himself without having any love for God. Would you agree or disagree? And one cannot have love for God unless he is regenerated. Where is the disconnect exactly?

When you say "unbeliever", are you refering to a formal non-Christian who has not been baptized...

What baptism are you talking about? If it's the external act of being immersed in water, I have no such reference to it here. If it's the symbolic reference to the act of spiritual regeneration by the Spirit, then yes, I'd refer to all those who have not been regenerated by the Spirit to be unbelievers.

I think you need to realize that there are "good" people out in the world who have not heard the formal Gospel, but live it, guided by the Spirit of God writing a "Law" on their hearts.

If by "formal Gospel" you are referring to the evangelizing done by human preachers and if you are stating that there are people living the Gospel without such human evangelizing, I have no qualms about that - for it's a given then that they have been regenerated and are believers in the One True God, perhaps not known by the name of Jesus/Jehovah.

They may call God by another reference-name, but their beliefs in the nature of this God and in His promises ought to be the same as that of the Christian. For instance, I cannot consider an Indian in the Amazon jungle who worships a god having the nature and traits of some god as in the Hindu faith, to be regenerated - I'd say he still worships a false god. And by default, all flesh has a corrupted image of God. Therefore, the true image of God must be preached - though not necessarily by humans alone. All the regenerated will call upon the one true God - but for these to call, they must believe in this God - and for them to believe, they must have heard of Him - and for them to hear of Him, He must be preached - by humans or angels or God Himself, but His true image must be preached to such an Indian as to everybody. Would you agree?

Continued in my next post...

 

[ivdavid]

Is not all who love of God? Are their acts of love an abominination to God???

Go back to that parallelism - Are all acts of charity, of God? Similarly, if an act of love is not of God but of the flesh, it is an abomination to Him.

If a person loves, God's Love has indeed entered in some way.

If a person has a charitable disposition as in Matt 6:2, would you say that God's kindness has entered in some way?

You stated that "their good works", their love, is an abomination.

I am stating that if their love is not of God, it is not a good work at all and hence is sinful in God's sight. How much clearer can I get? And not all acts of love are of God - the flesh is quite capable of performing acts of love for another. Why do the sinners love those that love them - because their flesh finds satisfaction in such mutual relationships. But we are to love unconditionally - as we ourselves are loved - and this is possible only when God regenerates us with a new heart to love this way, by His Spirit gifted to us.

Those who love are of God.

Again, those who love others as themselves are those who love God too and these are undoubtedly of God.

I have already detailed that God can instill within such an occasional act of love.

Like I said, I'd like to have read your responses to post#47. I don't know what you can consider an act of love without knowing the inner disposition of man - and this I'm quite confident, none can see in another. That leaves us with what God describes of the human nature - and there I find that the flesh cannot but transgress the law of God. Whatever act of love you might refer to, if done in the flesh, is still a transgression of the law.

The term "pagan" is interchangeable with "gentile" for our purposes. We are not speaking of national Jews. We are speaking of the "spiritually circumcised", who as Paul notes, can be pagans/gentiles.

I don't believe pagans can be interchanged with gentiles for any purposes. If one is "spiritually circumcised", he will have to be a worshiper of the one true God, reference-names apart. But pagan, by definition, is one who does not believe in the one true God. A pagan can always be spiritually circumcised, at which point he ceases to be a pagan ie he ceases to worship all false gods. But one who is spiritually circumcised can never be a pagan ie one who does not believe in the One True God as Christians do, again reference-names apart.

An act may be neutral.

Any act that involves moral choice is either good or sinful. Where is the neutral middle-ground?

Each of our acts are not completely pure in motive, are they.

When the motive is of God, by the Spirit, how can they not be pure? I'd say each of our acts worked by God in us are pure - and each of our acts worked by ourselves in the flesh are sinful.

Giving alms, in of itself, is not pleasing to God, if done for ulterior motive, such as the Pharisees. But does God consider such giving an abomination by someone who does not know of Jesus of Nazareth through no fault of their own???

I'm confused about what you're asking here. Are you asking whether God considers "such" giving, ie "giving with ulterior motives" as sinful - obviously yes. The only motive that cannot be sinful is a motive derived out of the root love for God - and this, by definition, is not possible in the unregenerate.

Again, to set things in perspective, my agenda is simply 1Cor 1:29.

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry for getting back so late. I read some of where this goes after you wrote this reply. One of my concerns is that you are not grasping all that Calvinists say. We would agree that man is not as sinful as he could be.

That seems to be the common refrain from Calvinists. They are misunderstood. It is no wonder, since I find they contradict themselves. Take your last sentence. I am not following this new line of thought - and it is a new line of thought for Calvinists. I was under the impression that men are entirely and totally evil - without God. Thus, the "T" in "Tulip". Now, they are "not as sinful as they could be"? Is there something more than "totally depraved", Mondar?

Please accept this question in a brotherly context. Forgive me if I am yet again perplexed...

I do not see anyone disagreeing with you that men still love their wives, mothers still love their children, etc. Every time a person meets another person, he does not try to kill them. All that is a give in. The question is can we consider a man loving his wife something that glorifies God?

No, that is not the "question", my friend. You are trying to change the question to one more easily answered by "your" theology.

The question was, "...is every act of an unregenerate an act of evil, abhorent to God?" I see this as an attempt to back-track against what is taught regarding total depravity and "works of the flesh" which are universally acts of sin (according to some).

As I mentioned before, Jesus and Paul both state otherwise. They disagree that EVERY act of the unregenerate (pre or un Baptised) is abhorent to God. Jesus notes that even the pagans can love. Now, IF God is love, where does this "pagan love" come from - and how could it be abhorent to God? Because it is not perfect love???

In my opinion, the question we are talking about really gets back to original sin. When Adam chose to rebel in Eden, he received a knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge was apart from the righteousness of God.

I am not sure that God's righteousness is akin or comparible to the knowledge of sin. The righteousness of God is not something that WE owe God, it is something that IS God's by nature. The knowledge of sin and acting upon it is ultimately dependent upon men. The righteousness of God is only something we recognize, not something we contribute to or decide upon.

I think we are going afield, so I will refrain from responding to the rest of your discussion on Adam. In addition, the above disagreement would have to be addressed first, since it is part of the argument that leads to your conclusion.

What I was talking about in the post you first responded to was the source of faith.

It is God. Have you ever heard me say differently? Any other Catholic? An Armenian? Catholics agree with Calvinists on some points of this subject, and Arminians on others. I think all three "groups" agree on the source of faith. If this was the crux of the discussion, I would have not bothered to intervene.

I was stating that the source of faith cannot be the unregenerate man. I was not saying that unregenerate men cannot love their wives, I was saying that unregenerate men cannot have faith.

Again, there seems to be no reason to even mention that here - thus, I cannot help but wonder if that is what you "really" meant. It seems clear to me, based on this thread, that some believe that the unregenerate act, each and every one of them, is sin, an abomination to God. I am not sure where the "unregenerate cannot have faith" comes from, that could be equally argued that there is some modicum of faith injected into the unregenerate - otherwise, there would be no "seeking of God" prior to being regenerate. But that is not our issue here.

Faith is necessary to please God (Heb 11:6), but men in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:8).

Your definition of "in the flesh" seems to mean "any unregenerate man", vs. Paul's idea of a man who follows his own selfish mind as the principle of guiding his actions. Paul HIMSELF notes that some CHRISTIANS act as if they were "in the flesh". Thus, to Paul, "in the flesh" has more to do with the guiding principle in our lives (ourself or God's Holy Spirit). The seeking of God is NOT an "act of the flesh", Mondar. Nor is a pagan man who loves his wife and children an "act of the flesh".

If you admit as much, then there is indeed room to consider that the unregenerate's acts are not ALL "of the flesh", nor all of their acts "abhorent to God"...

At some point, before we are regenerated, God acts within us to draw us to Him. There is some act of faith, a response to God - and this certainly cannot be considered "abhorent" to God, since that is the PURPOSE of God stirring within us the desire to seek Him out.

In your theology, are you saying that man can please God apart from the prevenient work of Grace? I have some doubts you are saying that, but I will let you speak for yourself.

I presume you intended to say "in Catholic theology". The basis of my thoughts on such matters come from Catholicism - and I aim to present the faith once given. If my explanations deviate, then I am wrong.

Can man be pleased by God apart from Grace? No.

But this avoids the question "Does God act in the unregenerate"? To Calvinism, the answer would appear to be "NO", since only the elect are called and only the elect (or soon-to-be regenerated) can please God. I think this is a short-sightedness of Calvinism, which doesn't address the idea that the unregenerate man CAN love - by the grace of God - which does not necessarily lead to conversion and regeneration. God doesn't bother with those He "predetermines" to be reprobate (or not elected, forgive me if we don't go down that road right now, I take it you know what I mean) Thus, the rest of humanity is utterly abhorent to God, a strange idea indeed, if we consider that Christ DIED for ALL of humanity.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Certainly God does not hate those who seek him out, but then no one seeks him out.

(ASV) Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

Mondar,

You know better to play that game. You DO realize the context of Paul's quotes from the Psalms, don't you?

After reading the source, it is clear that Paul means "The wicked do not seek after God", for clearly, in some of the SAME Psalms, we have the righteous seeking God!

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Thanks Joe for the info. You ask an interesting question since it is framed in an either or format. As Jello, I would say I am both for Catholicism and against depending upon which Catholic church I recognize and which one I don't, for there was division from the start. Suffice it to say, any one can say some thing profound, but as we know, saying it is not the same as doing it.

LOL! Jello.

I think there is some confusion among "reformers" between the Church that is to come at the end, perfected by God and presented to the Bridegroom, and the Church in its present form - striving towards perfection, but not yet there. Whether you view this on the personal level (you and I are striving towards perfection) or the institutional level, the recognition that some forms do not best represent the principle formed by the Apostles and Christ, the point is the same.

The true reformer realizes this, building up the Body through reform, rather than cutting itself off from the Body to attempt to perfect the Church by their own will and ability. True reform happens within the Church.

I recognize the humble church described in the book of Acts where everything was common as doing it. Where that church disappeared to, I cannot say.

Ah, another person who does not believe that Jesus is God. Isn't that your stance - you do not believe His promise to ensure that the Church would remain for all time, visible to all? The Church remains because of the Spirit of God. Disbelief of that is disbelief of the promise. Is that not true?

What I am seeing here is the overlooking of MAJOR problems within the Church of Acts. Too many people have an idealized and utopian view of that first Church, but clearly, there was dissent, schism, back-biting, and many other issues common among humans. A mere 20 years after the resurrection, the Church was in DIRE need of a Council to decide a major issue - and this issue was not entirely resolved among all believers of Jesus Christ. Paul continues to address the Judaizers years later. John, Peter and Jude deal with their own heretics and false teachers. Revelation points out some serious issues in several local churches in the Catholic community. Yours is quite a selective reading of Acts and the rest of the NT, if you think the Church was "perfect" and then "blew away" and can no longer be found shortly afterwards. It begs the question - "at what point did the Spirit of God LEAVE the Church"?

It is a far cry from the church I see in Rome, as I do not picture Peter sitting in a seat covered in gold and also pleading for the widows and orphans.

Can you point to me ANY instance where Jesus condemned the work conducted by the Jews for building the VERY extravagant Temple??? Did Jesus tell the Pharisees to tear down the Temple and give the proceeds to the poor??? There is an obvious connection between the worship in the Temple and the worship at the Tabernacles of Catholic altars. Yet another human misunderstanding of a more sublime and complex issue.

Yet I know many Catholic charities that indeed are busy with the Lord's work. They are doers not just sayers and I recognize them.

Are you saying that the Pope is not a "doer"? WOW!!! :biglol

I am ignorant also of what the Pope teaches to some respects depending on which Pope you are talking about, and neither do they always agree. I have done extensive research on Roman Catholic doctrine and know more about it and hardly anything about what they call reformed theology.

Yes, I have heard this claim from virtually every former Catholic. "I studied the doctrine and found it un-Scriptural". Sorry if I am not buying that, because invariably, when we discuss a Catholic topic, they do NOT understand the Catholic position! One must wonder how "extensive" that research actually was, or what the motive of such "research" was...

In other words, research to find fault and justify one's current position or research done with an open mind to discover what is taught and why... Seems like many former Catholics are "experts" on the faults of the Church but can hardily explain the most fundamental elements of church, the sacraments, the papacy, Eucharist, veneration of saints, or the role of Mary in the Church...

Case in point - Despite all of this "extensive research", you didn't know such a basic teaching of Catholicism, such a thing as "baptism by desire", stated over and over since Vatican 2 in numerous documents, notated in the Catechism, and mentioned by the current Pope (since you stated that I "couldn't have learned this from the Pope, that must mean the current Pope)? Hmm. What ELSE will we find out that you didn't know?

Larry, it seems to me that you have the "usual" disconnect of former Catholics who hate what they misunderstand. I am saddened by your rush to judge the source of what I am teaching, when you admit that you don't really know what the Pope actually teaches.

Wouldn't it had been more prudent and brotherly to just state "Joe, that is profound", rather than add in that "you certainly couldn't have learned that in the Catholic Church" nonsense...

Regards