Why so many theologies?

[Bubba]

Oops... Catholics are not Arminians... There are heretical components in Arminianism as in Calvinism with regards to free will, grace, and predestination.

Francisdesales,
I would “broad stroke†that anyone who adds the will of man to the equation of salvation is an Arminian.

Wrongly. I have provided enough snippets of Vatican 2 to show that salvation is not universal. It is universally OFFERED, but NOT universally ACCEPTED. Clearly, the Bible tells us that some reject Christ's offer...

As I read the quotes you included, I found it easy for my RCC friends to assume Universal salvation for all eventually. After all if God desires all to be saved all will be saved or He is impotent to mans freewill.

Peace, Bubba, but I remain unconvinced on "salvation freely given for all". Salvation is ALWAYS conditional, based upon the faith of the recipient.

I happen to be reading the Apocalypse of John, and there is no indication of such an idea that all will be saved. Rather than focusing on Matthew 5-7 and "loving your enemies, et. al", you should consider the WHOLE Gospel. You are erecting a "canon within a canon". The Scriptures show a much broader picture of God, part of which IS a picture of a passionate God dealing punishment and vengeance upon those who reject Him and persecute His People. Yes, God loves all, even allowing the evil to repent (as "Jesus" tells the Church at Thyatira regarding "Jezabel"), but in the end, what is the fate of those who do NOT? Only those who persevere, over and over, are told they will receive the rewards of eternal life (in seven different ways).

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Rev 2:20-29
Such is love. Love is passionate and cannot stand such treatment of the beloved.

As to Purgatory, that thread has been locked.

I would enjoy discussing why I believe Universal salvation is a valid position (and respond to Rev.2ff), but our PM’S did not get too far. I truly struggle with why the administration is so adamantly opposed to those of my persuasion, especially after going back and reading the posts of individuals made, back when it was possible to discuss UR. Do you wonder why they locked the “Purgatory†thread after I posted and invited you to respond if you were inclined?
Peace through Jesus, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

I would “broad stroke†that anyone who adds the will of man to the equation of salvation is an Arminian.

That is because you see only two sides of the story, Calvinism or Arminiansim - and BOTH are incorrect... They are the oppositie extremes, and it is the middle position, the Cathoilc position, which is correct. Naturally, a Protestant would not consider the Catholic position, so to you, there are only two positions, and we would be categorized improperly into one of your two extremes.

However, like most subjects in theology, rarely is the extreme view the correct one.

As I read the quotes you included, I found it easy for my RCC friends to assume Universal salvation for all eventually. After all if God desires all to be saved all will be saved or He is impotent to mans freewill.

Again, you are presenting a false dilemna. "Either A is correct or B is correct", presenting me with a false dilemna and not realizing that "C" is correct...

You take away God's freedom to give man free will, and that will not do. Basically, you are presenting some "ubber god" that commands God to act in the way you dictate.

I would enjoy discussing why I believe Universal salvation is a valid position (and respond to Rev.2ff), but our PM’S did not get too far. I truly struggle with why the administration is so adamantly opposed to those of my persuasion, especially after going back and reading the posts of individuals made, back when it was possible to discuss UR. Do you wonder why they locked the “Purgatory†thread after I posted and invited you to respond if you were inclined?

While I may be more inclined to understand some of your points of view, I cannot agree with the idea of no hell, since it is a dogmatically declared truth of faith, presented for belief by God's Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. IF I believe Christ was God, I also believe there is a hell...

God has revealed to mankind that those who reject God will be eternally punished - how, we don't really know. It is safe to say that you are concentrating on only one aspect of our Savior, the part shown in Matt 5-7, without taking into account the fullness of the Gospel. NO book or epistle includes the totality of the Gospel - otherwise, we could have a "canon within a canon" and could eliminate other books as extraneous. The Church realizes (even if they do not fully understand) that ALL books of the Bible are important and NONE are "more important" for man, nor do we eliminate views that Scriptures hold. Thus, if the Scriptures show JESUS CHRIST as passionate and veangeful in the NT, (Revelation) then so it is, and we MUST reconcile BOTH views without eliminating the other. You are eliminating part of scriptures because you are trying to rationalize God and place Him within a box that you understand.

I do not need to quote how much God's ways are above our ways, or how inscrutable are His judgments? Accept what the Word of God says - all of it.

Oh, I am editing my first post to include an answer to your question. I beileve the administrators of this board have found by experience that Purgatory is too difficult a subject for some people here to handle without becoming very upset.

Regards

 

[Pogo]

Bubba -

You posted...

I would “broad stroke†that anyone who adds the will of man to the equation of salvation is an Arminian.

I'm curious, as to your choice of the word 'Arminian' in the above statement.

I'm thinking that the word 'idolater' would be a better fit.

Wouldn't you agree?

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Bubba]

That is because you see only two sides of the story, Calvinism or Arminiansim - and BOTH are incorrect... They are the oppositie extremes, and it is the middle position, the Cathoilc position, which is correct. Naturally, a Protestant would not consider the Catholic position, so to you, there are only two positions, and we would be categorized improperly into one of your two extremes.

However, like most subjects in theology, rarely is the extreme view the correct one.

Francisdesales,
You forget that I once was a RC, I have a fair understanding of the RCC belief in justification. Basically, Jesus only appeased God’s anger against man. By dying on the cross Christ offers a means for forgiveness and this means is man’s work cooperating with grace of God. Grace is not a monergistic activity giving full salvation and eternal life as a gift. Grace is seen as a supernatural infusing of grace into the soul of man through the sacraments of the RCC enabling him to do works of righteousness. In RCC, justification is a on going need for man to deal with sin to assure his salvation, where as I believe justification is Christ’s imputed righteousness in my stead and thus a declaration of righteousness for all time. I believe a man who has received the gift of faith, will go on to produce fruits, because of the Spirit of God who lives in him.
Thus I still hold to the opinion that a RC depends on the equation of man plus Jesus equals salvation, which in a “nut shell†is Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism.

Again, you are presenting a false dilemna. "Either A is correct or B is correct", presenting me with a false dilemna and not realizing that "C" is correct...

You take away God's freedom to give man free will, and that will not do. Basically, you are presenting some "ubber god" that commands God to act in the way you dictate.

No, I am saying logically that a God who desires to save all people and has the power to do just that will if He is indeed a God of all love. After all, he tells us to love our enemies, should He not also? I do not have the power to make my children believe in Jesus, but I am trusting that God will bring them all to faith. I know that I will never stop loving my children and no matter what they did in their lifetime, I would never be OK with eternal punishment. I would be OK with the idea of Hell that is remedial and I believe this in fact is God’s thought also. Especially considering one of the pillar verses for eternal punishment (Mt. 25:46) used the Greek word “Kolasis†which means pruning or correction and eternal is the word “aion†for age during.

While I may be more inclined to understand some of your points of view, I cannot agree with the idea of no hell, since it is a dogmatically declared truth of faith, presented for belief by God's Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. IF I believe Christ was God, I also believe there is a hell...

I never said I did not believe in Hell, I do, I just do not believe it to be eternal.

Take care, Bubba

 

[Bubba]

Bubba -

You posted...

I would “broad stroke†that anyone who adds the will of man to the equation of salvation is an Arminian.

I'm curious, as to your choice of the word 'Arminian' in the above statement.

I'm thinking that the word 'idolater' would be a better fit.

Wouldn't you agree?

In Christ,

Pogo

Pogo,
Though I understand your sentiments, yet I do believe the devout Catholic is trying to be a obedient child of God to the best of their knowledge. I would ask that you pray for God's revelation, this is the only way we are moved to believe in any spiritual truth that interferes with bias and presupposition we have and do adhere to. I do not agree with their stand on "justification" , but we are all "factories of idolotry" given the right moment and situation, so I extend grace to my brothers in the RCC.
Grace, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

You forget that I once was a RC, I have a fair understanding of the RCC belief in justification.

LOL! If I had a dollar for every Protestant who said "I was once RC and understand "x"... Then, they proceed to blunder the whole affair.

I have come across numerous such claims, and frankly, have not found ONE yet who actually KNEW Catholic theology as taught by the Church. Sure, they parody and parrot what preacher Bob tells them, and their 2nd grade theological education goes right along with it.

Yes, 2nd grade. My wife teaches 2nd grade, part of which includes teaching the sacraments of Reconcilliation and Holy Communion, and I teach religion to adults. I have found that the second graders are usually more up to speed with what the Church teaches... I experience this here and in my life outside of these threads...

Now, let's see what you claim to know...

Basically, Jesus only appeased God’s anger against man.

Wrong. While this is a small part of the total equation, this legalistic viewpoint of Anselm's theory of atonement is only a small part of the story. If you care to read the Church Fathers, you will find an overriding theme that has nothing to do with "appeasing the anger of God". God became man so that men could become godlike. This is called "divinization" or "theosis" in the Eastern Orthdox Church. We participate in the divine nature. Justification enables us to take part in the Passion of Christ - and thus, we become members of the Body, free from the slavery of sin. This is only a small part of what you leave out on "why did God become man" and die on the cross.

By dying on the cross Christ offers a means for forgiveness and this means is man’s work cooperating with grace of God. Grace is not a monergistic activity giving full salvation and eternal life as a gift.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "salvation". If we mean salvation as the remission of sins, as in Acts 2, then sure, justification provides for full salvation and the HOPE of eternal life as a gift. If you mean salvation to heaven, then you are incorrect in your interpretations, because Jesus died for ALL men and all men are not saved.

Grace is seen as a supernatural infusing of grace into the soul of man through the sacraments of the RCC enabling him to do works of righteousness. In RCC, justification is a on going need for man to deal with sin to assure his salvation,

We believe justification and sanctification are synonymous. Sanctification is ongoing, and we are seen as just in God's eyes while being sanctified.

where as I believe justification is Christ’s imputed righteousness in my stead and thus a declaration of righteousness for all time.

That is a partial truth, but justification is MORE than that. We are not merely "imputed" righteousness, we BECOME righteous. What God calls "righteous" is RIGHTEOUS. There is no pretending for God.

I believe a man who has received the gift of faith, will go on to produce fruits, because of the Spirit of God who lives in him.

If he produces fruits, it is because of the Spirit. However, it doesn't follow that one who has faith produces fruits, as Paul and James makes abundantly clear...

Thus I still hold to the opinion that a RC depends on the equation of man plus Jesus equals salvation, which in a “nut shell†is Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism.

And here, you fail in Catholicism 101. There is no "man plus Jesus = salvation".

You think Catholics think it is 1,000,000,000,000,000 (God) + 1 (man) = 1,000,000,000,000,001

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that we ADD to God's work. ALL is from God, both in the supernatural and the natural.
We merely are giving back God's gift. We view salvation as so...
1,000,000,000,000,000 x 1 = 1,000,000,000,000,000

However, WITHOUT man, the formula becomes : 1,000,000,000,000,000 x 0 = 0. No salvation.

God does not save man without man. St. Augustine.

As to Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism, both are heresies, and I don't think you know what they mean if you accuse Catholics of either.

Either you didn't know your Catholic faith very well, or you are bearing false witness... It is too bad you left the Church before fully exploring what she teaches - maybe you wouldn't have left.

I am saying logically that a God who desires to save all people and has the power to do just that will if He is indeed a God of all love.

Wrong assumption. A God of love does not HAVE to save everyone, especially if He chooses to allow man to have free will in the first place.

After all, he tells us to love our enemies, should He not also? I do not have the power to make my children believe in Jesus, but I am trusting that God will bring them all to faith. I know that I will never stop loving my children and no matter what they did in their lifetime, I would never be OK with eternal punishment.

You are confusing the 21st century idea of sappy love found on TV with love in the Bible. Love is choosing between one and the other. There is no relativism in true love. Those who love stand up for principles. Those who love like you claim "I'm OK, you're OK, we are one big happy family". No truths. No principles to stand upon. Love requires passion. It requires sacrificing all for the sake of the other. And those who love at the depths of their hearts will appear to be going too far by outsiders, when the lover protects the beloved. When the beloved is wounded and hurt, the lover reacts PASSIONATELY to defend and punish...

Have you not read the Old Testament? It is ALSO sacred Scriptures. God is a passionate God who protects His people. While He loves all mankind, no doubt regretting when man sins, God's divine justice and love executes its passion and love by striking the enemy. Over and over we see examples of this in the OT. God NEVER changes, so says the Scriptures. The Apocalypse also makes this clear, if you decide to throw the OT in the garbage can because it doesn't suit your definition of 'love'. Scriptures finds God loves those who persecute Him, as on the cross. But God ALSO told us something about Judas - it would have been better had he never been born... There is divine justice in those words, and in the words of John's view of God, the dualism that exists in love.

Since loving our enemies is not the last and only word about God, we should take into consideration what the entire Bible tells us about God. To eliminate the passionate God is to relegate God to the drippy and sappy "love" of society that has no purpose, no drive, no ambition, no principles - all is relative, and no one is wrong...

Sorry, I believe you are being effected by the culture of our society, rather than the Spirit of God.

I would be OK with the idea of Hell that is remedial and I believe this in fact is God’s thought also. Especially considering one of the pillar verses for eternal punishment (Mt. 25:46) used the Greek word “Kolasis†which means pruning or correction and eternal is the word “aion†for age during.

I am not going to argue this. I will present the case and leave it at that. We have already discussed this enough...

The Fourth Lateran Council infallibly declared de fide: Those rejected will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil. Origenism has been rejected by the Church.

Again, Scriptures tell us that there is "eternal reproach" (Dn 12:2; Wis 4:19) an eternal fire (Judith 16:21; Mt 18:8; 25:41) an everlasting punishment ( Mt 25:46) and an "eternal punishment in destruction (2 Thes 1:9). The unquenchable fire (Mt 3:12; Mk 9:43) or hell, where the worm never dies and the fire is inextinquishable (Mk 9:45). In addition, the Apocalypse speaks of the smoke of the torments of the damned that shall ascend up for ever and ever (19:3, cf 20:10)

Clearly, the Church has good reason to believe that God's Word tells us of an eternal punishment to compliment eternal rewards...

Note the everlasting punishment in Mt 25 is contrasted with the everlasting life in the following verse - so if you think hell is temporary, then so is heaven...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

You forget that I once was a RC, I have a fair understanding of the RCC belief in justification.

LOL! If I had a dollar for every Protestant who said "I was once RC and understand "x"... Then, they proceed to blunder the whole affair.

I have come across numerous such claims, and frankly, have not found ONE yet who actually KNEW Catholic theology as taught by the Church. Sure, they parody and parrot what preacher Bob tells them, and their 2nd grade theological education goes right along with it.

Yes, 2nd grade. My wife teaches 2nd grade, part of which includes teaching the sacraments of Reconcilliation and Holy Communion, and I teach religion to adults. I have found that the second graders are usually more up to speed with what the Church teaches... I experience this here and in my life outside of these threads...

Now, let's see what you claim to know...

Basically, Jesus only appeased God’s anger against man.

Wrong. While this is a small part of the total equation, this legalistic viewpoint of Anselm's theory of atonement is only a small part of the story. If you care to read the Church Fathers, you will find an overriding theme that has nothing to do with "appeasing the anger of God". God became man so that men could become godlike. This is called "divinization" or "theosis" in the Eastern Orthdox Church. We participate in the divine nature. Justification enables us to take part in the Passion of Christ - and thus, we become members of the Body, free from the slavery of sin. This is only a small part of what you leave out on "why did God become man" and die on the cross.

By dying on the cross Christ offers a means for forgiveness and this means is man’s work cooperating with grace of God. Grace is not a monergistic activity giving full salvation and eternal life as a gift.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "salvation". If we mean salvation as the remission of sins, as in Acts 2, then sure, justification provides for full salvation and the HOPE of eternal life as a gift. If you mean salvation to heaven, then you are incorrect in your interpretations, because Jesus died for ALL men and all men are not saved.

Grace is seen as a supernatural infusing of grace into the soul of man through the sacraments of the RCC enabling him to do works of righteousness. In RCC, justification is a on going need for man to deal with sin to assure his salvation,

We believe justification and sanctification are synonymous. Sanctification is ongoing, and we are seen as just in God's eyes while being sanctified.

where as I believe justification is Christ’s imputed righteousness in my stead and thus a declaration of righteousness for all time.

That is a partial truth, but justification is MORE than that. We are not merely "imputed" righteousness, we BECOME righteous. What God calls "righteous" is RIGHTEOUS. There is no pretending for God.

I believe a man who has received the gift of faith, will go on to produce fruits, because of the Spirit of God who lives in him.

If he produces fruits, it is because of the Spirit. However, it doesn't follow that one who has faith produces fruits, as Paul and James makes abundantly clear...

Thus I still hold to the opinion that a RC depends on the equation of man plus Jesus equals salvation, which in a “nut shell†is Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism.

And here, you fail in Catholicism 101. There is no "man plus Jesus = salvation".

You think Catholics think it is 1,000,000,000,000,000 (God) + 1 (man) = 1,000,000,000,000,001

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that we ADD to God's work. ALL is from God, both in the supernatural and the natural.
We merely are giving back God's gift. We view salvation as so...
1,000,000,000,000,000 x 1 = 1,000,000,000,000,000

However, WITHOUT man, the formula becomes : 1,000,000,000,000,000 x 0 = 0. No salvation.

God does not save man without man. St. Augustine.

As to Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism, both are heresies, and I don't think you know what they mean if you accuse Catholics of either.

Either you didn't know your Catholic faith very well, or you are bearing false witness... It is too bad you left the Church before fully exploring what she teaches - maybe you wouldn't have left.

I am saying logically that a God who desires to save all people and has the power to do just that will if He is indeed a God of all love.

Wrong assumption. A God of love does not HAVE to save everyone, especially if He chooses to allow man to have free will in the first place.

After all, he tells us to love our enemies, should He not also? I do not have the power to make my children believe in Jesus, but I am trusting that God will bring them all to faith. I know that I will never stop loving my children and no matter what they did in their lifetime, I would never be OK with eternal punishment.

You are confusing the 21st century idea of sappy love found on TV with love in the Bible. Love is choosing between one and the other. There is no relativism in true love. Those who love stand up for principles. Those who love like you claim "I'm OK, you're OK, we are one big happy family". No truths. No principles to stand upon. Love requires passion. It requires sacrificing all for the sake of the other. And those who love at the depths of their hearts will appear to be going too far by outsiders, when the lover protects the beloved. When the beloved is wounded and hurt, the lover reacts PASSIONATELY to defend and punish...

Have you not read the Old Testament? It is ALSO sacred Scriptures. God is a passionate God who protects His people. While He loves all mankind, no doubt regretting when man sins, God's divine justice and love executes its passion and love by striking the enemy. Over and over we see examples of this in the OT. God NEVER changes, so says the Scriptures. The Apocalypse also makes this clear, if you decide to throw the OT in the garbage can because it doesn't suit your definition of 'love'. Scriptures finds God loves those who persecute Him, as on the cross. But God ALSO told us something about Judas - it would have been better had he never been born... There is divine justice in those words, and in the words of John's view of God, the dualism that exists in love.

Since loving our enemies is not the last and only word about God, we should take into consideration what the entire Bible tells us about God. To eliminate the passionate God is to relegate God to the drippy and sappy "love" of society that has no purpose, no drive, no ambition, no principles - all is relative, and no one is wrong...

Sorry, I believe you are being effected by the culture of our society, rather than the Spirit of God.

I would be OK with the idea of Hell that is remedial and I believe this in fact is God’s thought also. Especially considering one of the pillar verses for eternal punishment (Mt. 25:46) used the Greek word “Kolasis†which means pruning or correction and eternal is the word “aion†for age during.

I am not going to argue this. I will present the case and leave it at that. We have already discussed this enough...

The Fourth Lateran Council infallibly declared de fide: Those rejected will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil. Origenism has been rejected by the Church.

Again, Scriptures tell us that there is "eternal reproach" (Dn 12:2; Wis 4:19) an eternal fire (Judith 16:21; Mt 18:8; 25:41) an everlasting punishment ( Mt 25:46) and an "eternal punishment in destruction (2 Thes 1:9). The unquenchable fire (Mt 3:12; Mk 9:43) or hell, where the worm never dies and the fire is inextinquishable (Mk 9:45). In addition, the Apocalypse speaks of the smoke of the torments of the damned that shall ascend up for ever and ever (19:3, cf 20:10)

Clearly, the Church has good reason to believe that God's Word tells us of an eternal punishment to compliment eternal rewards...

Note the everlasting punishment in Mt 25 is contrasted with the everlasting life in the following verse - so if you think hell is temporary, then so is heaven...

Regards

 

[Veritas]

You are confusing the 21st century idea of sappy love found on TV with love in the Bible. Love is choosing between one and the other. There is no relativism in true love. Those who love stand up for principles. Those who love like you claim "I'm OK, you're OK, we are one big happy family". No truths. No principles to stand upon. Love requires passion. It requires sacrificing all for the sake of the other. And those who love at the depths of their hearts will appear to be going too far by outsiders, when the lover protects the beloved. When the beloved is wounded and hurt, the lover reacts PASSIONATELY to defend and punish...

Have you not read the Old Testament? It is ALSO sacred Scriptures. God is a passionate God who protects His people. While He loves all mankind, no doubt regretting when man sins, God's divine justice and love executes its passion and love by striking the enemy. Over and over we see examples of this in the OT. God NEVER changes, so says the Scriptures. The Apocalypse also makes this clear, if you decide to throw the OT in the garbage can because it doesn't suit your definition of 'love'. Scriptures finds God loves those who persecute Him, as on the cross. But God ALSO told us something about Judas - it would have been better had he never been born... There is divine justice in those words, and in the words of John's view of God, the dualism that exists in love.

Since loving our enemies is not the last and only word about God, we should take into consideration what the entire Bible tells us about God. To eliminate the passionate God is to relegate God to the drippy and sappy "love" of society that has no purpose, no drive, no ambition, no principles - all is relative, and no one is wrong...

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Thank you for fleshing out true love :smt023

 

[Bubba]

Francisdesales,
Careful with your assumptions of what I know or do not know about the RCC, how long I had been a RC, and if you think I should return, “pride does come before the Fallâ€Â, (just for the record I never totally stopped going to the RCC, I enjoy the ambiance). The bottom line is that there is no RC who knows their theology who would say that salvation is a monergistic activity in the heart of man, which makes him choose Christ. However clever you want to stand behind the veil of RCC dogma, in my estimation, it is the same category of the Arminian and Semi-Pelagian and yes I do know a bit about both positions and the men behind the dogma. Before you argue; is salvation monergistic? Yes, you need a man to have salvation (“1,000,000,000 x 1â€Â), but what is the condition of that man prior to saving and what part does he really play being Spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-5)? If your answer is no to monergism, let go of the pretence and join your peers of the Protestant persuasion.
In regards to Universalism and eternal Hell, I invite you to look at any good Hebrew and Greek literal translation on all of the supposed passages of Hell in English and the English words like “eternal and everlastingâ€Â. You will quickly find out that in the N.T. there is no word in the Greek that speaks of a place of eternal punishment (ie. Hell). You will find Valley of Gehenna, Hadies and Tatartus none of which speak of eternal punishment. You will also have a difficult time finding any Greek word used in the passages you quoted that translate eternal or everlasting, prove me wrong. Mt 25:46, is dealing with this realm and at least part of the realm to come, prior to all things being made “all in all†(1 Cor. 15:28). In the O.T., which I do read each and every day, you will also not find a word that talks of a place of eternal punishment, you will find the word Sheol, which means grave, pit or place of both the righteous and unrighteous dead.
I may be censored for writing what I wrote, if you are really a student of the truth look up the literal translation you so quickly use as ammunition. I hope you do.
Peace, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Thank you for fleshing out true love :smt023

Thanks. Like I said earlier, I have been studying the Apocalypse of John, and am learning some things that had been hidden before for me. I am also realizing that no single book in the bible gives us the whole story of who God is... Thus, I reject the idea that God is impassionate and would love those who hurt His beloved in the name of not hurting the enemy's feelings...

Love REQUIRES passionate reactions. All one has to do is consider Christ's reaction in the Temple when His Father's house was being overrun with money changers... The "love" of today would just ignore the moneychangers, shrug their shoulders, and say "oh well, I love them and it's a free country..." and move on.

Zeal is part of being in love.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,
Careful with your assumptions of what I know or do not know about the RCC, how long I had been a RC, and if you think I should return, “pride does come before the Fallâ€Â, (just for the record I never totally stopped going to the RCC, I enjoy the ambiance).

What assumptions? :-?

I critiqued YOUR written arguments presented in public and explained how they were wrong with what the Church teaches. If you have evidence that I am misrepresenting the Catholic faith and you are correct, please provide evidence from the Catechism where I mis-state and you are correct.

As to continuing to go to Mass, well, I hope that you continue - and realize it is more than "ambiance" that is going on behind the symbols and signs and rituals. I hope you realize you are participating in Divine Liturgy, heaven coming down to earth.

Oh, but you know all that, right?

The bottom line is that there is no RC who knows their theology who would say that salvation is a monergistic activity in the heart of man, which makes him choose Christ.

I wouldn't use the term "monergistic" because it is not a term used in Scriptures OR the Church Fathers. It is a recent invention of the Reformation. Scriptures note synergism, not monergism.
Thus, you present a non-sequitar. Of course a Catholic wouldn't say that salvation is a "monergistic" activity. The Bible says otherwise.

God knocks on the door and man answers the door. I don't have a verse that says God kicks down the door and drags man off... Men's wills are moved by God - but in the end, man is given a choice to reject God's promptings. The real world makes that pitifully clear.

However clever you want to stand behind the veil of RCC dogma, in my estimation, it is the same category of the Arminian and Semi-Pelagian and yes I do know a bit about both positions and the men behind the dogma.

Words have meaning. Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are words that have meanings. Look them up - define them, and I will point out to you were Catholicism differs. You know "a bit". But if you knew Catholicism like you claim, you'd be able to notice that Catholicism is not Semi-Pelagianism or Arminianism. The Church has rejected both defintions, and I will point out where we differ - rather than what pastor Bob told you... It's really easy to accept what someone else says about another's faith. But it takes a bit of work to find out what they REALLY believe. You willing to read the Catechism or are you willing to accept the strawman you have built?

Before you argue; is salvation monergistic? Yes, you need a man to have salvation (“1,000,000,000 x 1â€Â), but what is the condition of that man prior to saving and what part does he really play being Spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-5)?

Oh boy, not this again. This is getting tiring proving this interpretation wrong over and over again...

Being spiritually dead does NOT mean one is unable to react. You are confusing physically dead with spiritually dead. Being "dead" spiritually means one does not have a relationship with God. It doesn't mean one is NOT ABLE to turn to God - the Scriptures CLEARLY show man being TOLD to repent, a worthless command if man CANNOT repent...

Jesus Himself speaks of being spiritually dead in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Read it carefully and reflect on whether the son was "dead" in the sense that he could NOT return home to re-establish his relationship - whether the father went out and got him and brought him home because he was "dead"... I have more examples of 'being dead', and in no case do they refer to an inability to react.

Christ is LIFE ITSELF. Thus, being spiritually DEAD means being WITHOUT LIFE. Simple. Unfortunately, you are moved by the anthropological gaff of Luther who claims men are totally corrupt, something you will be hard pressed to find among any Church Father the first 1000 years of Christianity.

If your answer is no to monergism, let go of the pretence and join your peers of the Protestant persuasion.

Sorry, Pelagianism and Arimianism is ALSO incorrect, especially in the realm of predestination. Catholics believe in predestination! But again, you knew that, so I am preaching to someone who already "knows what the RCC teaches"... :o

In regards to Universalism and eternal Hell, I invite you to look at any good Hebrew and Greek literal translation on all of the supposed passages of Hell in English and the English words like “eternal and everlastingâ€Â.

Is heaven temporary, also?

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Francisdesales,
I at no point was trying to say I know all the particulars of the RCC, or wanting to go “tit for tat†in respect to the RCC view of justification being identical with the Arminian/ Semi-Pelagian position, their not. Words do matter and we used them to express our understanding of any given Scripture, like “Trinity and Transubstantiation, etcâ€Â. Synergism would best support the RCC and Arminian/ Semi-Pelagian view in my understanding of the doctrine of justification. That is all I was trying to allude by expressing what I remember the RCC adheres to in their view of salvation. As I said in the beginning, I am “broad stroking†this relationship that I believe synergistic systems have in common. Being a Universalist I understand what being unfairly represented feels like, so relax.
Grace, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

I at no point was trying to say I know all the particulars of the RCC, or wanting to go “tit for tat†in respect to the RCC view of justification being identical with the Arminian/ Semi-Pelagian position, their not.

Ah, glad you are now admitting that, as I have made that clear from the beginning. To call Catholics "Arminian/Semi-Pelagian" is to have only a superficial understanding of the definitions and the beliefs of the Catholic Church...

Words do matter and we used them to express our understanding of any given Scripture, like “Trinity and Transubstantiation, etcâ€Â. Synergism would best support the RCC and Arminian/ Semi-Pelagian view in my understanding of the doctrine of justification.

Again, it depends on what you mean by justification. I presume you mean our initial justification? The Council of Trent is clear that man cannot come to God in the first place without God's graces. However, the effectiveness of God's graces are not totally independent of man's response. The parable of the sower and the seed is a fine example of this.

That is all I was trying to allude by expressing what I remember the RCC adheres to in their view of salvation. As I said in the beginning, I am “broad stroking†this relationship that I believe synergistic systems have in common. Being a Universalist I understand what being unfairly represented feels like, so relax.

This is like you saying I am a Muslim because I honor the Virgin Mary... One should be careful in labeling someone based upon one small section of theology. I'll relax when you have stopped labeling me incorrectly.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

This is like you saying I am a Muslim because I honor the Virgin Mary... One should be careful in labeling someone based upon one small section of theology. I'll relax when you have stopped labeling me incorrectly.

Francisdesales,
I am not labeling you, I am pointing out a fact, your belief system of justification is synergistc just like am Arminian, that is what is in common, not every particular point. Since this seems to much for you to at least acknowledge, I will let it go.
Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

This is like you saying I am a Muslim because I honor the Virgin Mary... One should be careful in labeling someone based upon one small section of theology. I'll relax when you have stopped labeling me incorrectly.

Francisdesales,
I am not labeling you, I am pointing out a fact, your belief system of justification is synergistc just like am Arminian, that is what is in common, not every particular point. Since this seems to much for you to at least acknowledge, I will let it go.
Bubba

Your initial posts say something different. Here is what you wrote...

I have a couple who attend a Bible study at my house who are also Roman Catholic (as I was once, thus Arminian then),

Thus, your opinion is that Roman Catholics are Arminian. That is incorrect.

Arminians share SOME aspects of synergistic beliefs with Catholics, but we are not Arminian. Words have meaning. I believe in God, but does that make me Muslim? I believe that man is predestined, does that make me Calvinist? Of course not. And technically speaking, even at the grace/free will level, we are not quite sharing Arminian beliefs. Thus, I do not appreciate being called an "Arminian". I am Catholic. Our idea of synergy DOES differ from Arminianism. And thus, as I said before, you offer a false dilemna, dividing the world into "Calvinist and Arminians". There ARE other positions on the subject...

Clearly, you need to be careful in what you write, especially when you claim to have been Catholic but cannot differentiate Catholic teachings from Protestant ones. Catholics are no more Arminian then Calvinist. A person aware of Catholic teachings knows this. Sure, we share common beliefs, but that doesn't make us whatever label you attach to us.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Francisdesales,
I am very simple when it comes to the different theologies out in Christendom and I have said many times, I “broad stroke†them in two categories in respect to what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Those two categories are “monergistic†and “synergisticâ€Â. If my simplicity is too hard for you to accept, so be it, but for me Christ alone saves, not man cooperating, not the Church, not the sacraments, not penance.
Grace, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,
I am very simple when it comes to the different theologies out in Christendom and I have said many times, I “broad stroke†them in two categories in respect to what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Those two categories are “monergistic†and “synergisticâ€Â. If my simplicity is too hard for you to accept, so be it, but for me Christ alone saves, not man cooperating, not the Church, not the sacraments, not penance.
Grace, Bubba

Another fine non-sequitar and further proof of the implication that former Catholics didn't know their faith...

Christ alone saves. Men do not save themselves without Christ. The Church and the sacraments are Christ in action - you should have known that much. Penance is indeed a working of the Holy Spirit moving man to accept the salvation freely offered. No one can be saved without repenting, but this is not a work of man alone,so he can take no credit as if it was his work alone. Repentance is merely using the gift of the giver.

We don't teach that ANYTHING saves without Christ. If you can present a sentence from the Catechism that says otherwise, do tell. Otherwise, you are presenting either your ignorance or false witness.

If that is too difficult to accept, so be it. But don't make claims you can't back up. There is no need in making yourself out to be an expert in Catholicism when you are not.

I apologize if I seem harsh, but former Catholics who make these claims of their "theological knowledge" sadden me because, for the most part, they left a Church that they didn't even know what it taught... Perhaps a bit of effort would have prevented such a splitting apart of the Body.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Another fine non-sequitar and further proof of the implication that former Catholics didn't know their faith...

I am not sure why you feel the need to say this, I have not even tried to present the particulars of the RCC dogmas, only that which I remembered about salvation which makes me believe it is a synergistic system

Christ alone saves. Men do not save themselves without Christ. The Church and the sacraments are Christ in action - you should have known that much.

I did know this, that is why I included these as well as "penance" in my last note, with emphasis on Christ alone saves.

We don't teach that ANYTHING saves without Christ. If you can present a sentence from the Catechism that says otherwise, do tell.

This statement is not the issue, I believe the issue is that I believe in the imputation of Christ, where one's salvation is a done deal (Col.1:13-14). Surely you have come across Calvinist and Luther types who also believe as I?

If that is too difficult to accept, so be it. But don't make claims you can't back up. There is no need in making yourself out to be an expert in Catholicism when you are not

Francisdesales this last statement truly does have me puzzled, where have I tried to say anything about RCC dogma, other then what I feel is a synergistic position by your Church in regards to salvation (which includes The Church, Sacraments and Penance as the conduit of saving grace)? Even when you quoted from the Vatican 2, I only responded generally in regards to a couple who goes to my Bible study who are Universalist, when have I tried to say that I was an expert in Catholicism? If I come across that way, I sincerely apologize. For me, realizing Jesus completed everything at the cross for my soul is the most paramount belief one should adhere to, understanding that though sanctification and glorification are all dove-tailed in this mighty act, it is the Spirit of God who brings it all into completion. The fact we are expected to grow and bring forth fruit from this new creation is a given, I just prefer to remember that the flesh by itself profits nothing.
Grace, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Bubba,

How about we put that behind us and move on...

Please be careful what you say about Catholics and what they believe.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Francisdesales,
As you probably already know, Thomas Aquinas spent a great part of his life demonstrating in his writings how man has no direct contact with immaterial reality, yet shortly before his death (you can read it in many biographies and references of him) Thomas had a direct experience with God that he wrote no more. A friend urged him later to complete his great work, “The Suma Theologicaâ€Â, he answered, “I can do no more, such things have been revealed to me that all I have written seems as straw and I now await the end of my lifeâ€Â. Recently I had an experience with God in the form of a dream that pretty much shook the 40 plus years I have studied the Bible and as of late the simplicity of the cross and God’s love for me is all that really matters, though I have fought so hard to be doctrinally pure. What of Francisdesales, is it possible that you to may someday consider it all straw?
Probably my last post, God bless you and yours,
George (Bubba)