Pep - your disrespectful judgments and justifications are showing when you posted this:

"I think this thread is the PERFECT place for you to dish whatever you think the Catholic Church has coming!

sincerely ~~~> [color:"red"]go for it FH[/color]"

I nowhere said anything about anything that I "think the Catholic Church has coming." You seem to put words in my mouth from your own anger and seeming "fogfilter."

You answer like a WS and it is confusing. All that I ever did was to say, in effect, "okay, if that is the 'teaching' that an individual wants to embrace for themselves, wouldn't it be prudent to examine the arguments for and against that 'teaching' with the Scripture (that both claim as being authoritative) as the "referee" and "measure."

When Athanasius listed all the things that he wanted me to answer, ostensibly to determine in his mind if I was Christian at least on the fundamental beliefs of what being a Christian means, I answered him. When he told me that he believed he is saved by faith alone and not by any works he did or may yet do and asked if I thought that made him a Christian, I answered him truthfully "yes." "Being a Christian" is not dependent upon which "group" you choose to associate with. All the group does, as a group, is determine if what is being taught is "of God or of men."


Pep, Athanasius is a "young in the faith, and perhaps zealous, recent believer. I don't know the details of his struggle that he alluded to, but in one respect it is irrelevant. God brings us to GOD, not to a "Church." But we still live in a fallen world and in a fallen body, not having yet received our glorified bodies. Therefore, it seems logical, since God instructs to love God "with all of our heart and our mind," that we EXAMINE what we believe, what is said to us, what is offered as "biblically correct," to determine for ourselves that it IS biblically correct. After all, our heart should be for GOD, not for the church or for any person, first and foremost.

Disagree with that position of mine if you will. But if you do disagree, then at least give the reasons why you disagree. That is the basis of DISCUSSION and evaluation, and NOT of "blind faith."

The official position of the Roman Catholic CHURCH is that no one can BE a Christian if they are not a part of the Roman Catholic Church. They (the RCC leadership) restrict God's ability to save whomever He wishes whenever and whereever they may be. In the rare cases where they grant someone has become a Christian, they require that the person become a Roman Catholic in insure their salvation through submission to the Church (not submission to God) as the primary method of maintaining their faith (they believe that you CAN lose the salvation that you were sealed by the Holy Spirit with when you became saved).

What you argue for is for someone, similar to a BS, allowing a WS to continue in their path without thinking through the full ramifications of their choices and actions, and how they may well impact them, and others, in the future.

I believe you take that position because you have a sort of "foglike" set of blinders on with respect to the thread in question, the one on Confession, that Athanasius began.

One more time, simply for the purpose of clarification, if you want a thread that is restricted to just Catholics and Catholic thought, then by all means start one. But that is NOT what Athanasius started and for the Catholics on that thread to demand that it be ONLY about Catholic thought and doctrine and Catholic opinion IS a "threadjacking" of the thread as it was set forth. One last time, THIS is what Athanasious SET as the parameters of his thread and it was NOT, by his stated intention, to be a thread restricted to or only about Roman Catholic doctine and opinion:

“This is part of a series of threads that are more speculative than practical. They involve discussing some Christian and/or Catholic doctrines and the effect on marriage of believing those doctrines. I, a bachelor, seek to gain insight from the married.”

Pep, I will be celebrating my 32nd wedding anniversary in a few months. I don't know for certain, but I thought that perhaps being married as long as Athanasius has been alive might have given me a little of the 'insight' that he said he might be looking for. Couple that with the fact that I have actually gone through a horrendous affair (6 years) and a Recovery of 4 years, emerging on the other side of it with a Recovered Marriage and with both of us walking closer with the Lord, and that too might have given me a little 'insight' of the sort that he was looking for. Suffice it to say that learning what God has to say about a LOT of things (i.e., marriage, roles of husbands and wives, forgiveness of sin, justification in God's sight, Free Will, reconciliation, etc.) was a BENEFIT of the whole adultery mess in that God used it for HIS purpose according to Romans 8:27-37.


"I see this as a boundary issue ... I want a safe place to discuss MY CATHOLIC MARRIAGE NEEDS without having to defend the church at the same time."

And, Pepperband, you are entitled to have just such a thread if that is what you want. Make it simple on all of us and just clearly and definitively state, "For Roman Catholics Only," and I'm sure that everyone who is not a Roman Catholic would respect your wish. I know I would have, as I have respected the wishes of others, regardless of their belief, who wanted to restrict their thread to, or from, any particular thoughts and ideas.

well said FH.

you are correct

please accept my apology

I was angry, you are correct

Pep

Accepted without reservation Pep.

It is my hope that you will continue as you always have, "fighting the fight" for those who have been ravaged by adultery.

God bless.

God Bless you too

MEDC, do you see how you're applying the Sola Scriptura principle? You're asking me for my private interpretation of the Holy Scripture. So there are two levels in this debate: a disagreement about principles and a disagreement about content.

As to content, I genuinely do not think that, even read according to Sola Scriptura, the Bible teaches Salvation by Faith Alone.


The problem you raise here is very valid. This first principle can lead easily to just trusting whatever some cleric claims the Church says. Or even whatever some cleric does.

But don't worry about me. I'm not prone to clericalism. I'm actually very suspicious of clerics.

OK FH,
i've listened to enough of this debate to actually come of of my normal lurking mode and say to you, YOU CANNOT LEAVE THIS FORUM. YOU CANOT SOMEHOW PICK UP YOUR FOOTBALL AND GO HOME BECAUSE SOMEON HURT FEELINGS.
You are a great Christian, AND you would walk away because...... Hmmmmmmmm,,,, is that what Christ did?
you have been jerked out of your comfort zone, and have decided you don't want to post here anymore?
From a man of the cloth, does this sound like a copout from you or what?
Did Christ back down in the face of His enemies? Did not Peter denie his Christ 3 times in the face of His trials?
If you leave now, in the face of trial, I will never again have any respect for you in all the yaears that I have been reading these forums.

You have a prospective that augments these forums, in spite of yourself. It has nothing really to do with you, but rather, what god may wish to impart to his people.
Urrrrrr..... did you ever stop to consider this?
And thus you have decided to go away.
Let me ask you point blank,,,Is that what Christ did? Was He not dispareged by the Pharisses and the Sanhedrid(sp?).
You must understand, I am a RC. But I know in my heart of hearts that Christ wants you and I to worship oneday, under the same altar..
It is the ultimate sacrilige under God that you and I can be Christian brothers, but do not offer our gifts from the same table. It offends our God beyond our understanding. WHEN WILL WE BECOME ONE?????

All Blessings from a no nothing,
Jerry

shinethrough (Jerry) - I truly appreciate your words, but I'm not "running away."

For me to leave really doesn't have much to do with "hurt feelings." I am well aware of Christ's warning to anyone who would attempt to stand for Him about how they might be received.

Rather, I have been here for almost 5 years now. This latest incident is merely one in a long line and I have seriously considered Pepperband's questions and have concluded that she may well be right. Standing for God IS "offensive" to many and the perception that anyone has will determine how they may receive discussion about things which they may hold an "opposing" opinion about.

I am sensitive to fellow believers, however, and really don't want to put a "stumbling block" rather than a "helping hand" in discussions about the "deeper" issues of the faith.

Devout Roman Catholics have a markedly differing outlook on many of those issues and the other thread merely resulted in emotional reactions taking over rather than reasoned thought. MarriedForever, for example, made the claim that he had "refuted" my previous statements(this goes back to October) when he had, in reality, done nothing of the sort. He had presented opposing opinions which in his mind amounted to a "refutation," but that is not the same thing as "refuting" or "proving the opposite" if you will.

He stated official Roman Catholic position as "fact," because to him it is fact. Athanasius has been doing the same thing. None of that is "surprising" because they both fervently believe the RCC position on things. My only point is that "sincerity of belief" does not automatically equate to being right for me or for them. Scripture is the "final authority," regardless of the opinions of men and it is to Scripture that we should turn when areas of "difficulty" arise to see what God has said about it.

Let's take just one brief point as an example.

I believe, along with many who are of the "Protestant" persuasion, that the Scripture clearly teaches that we are saved eternally by the power of Jesus Christ when we have a true saving faith. That sort of faith is not something that we, as fallen humans, can "muster" on our own. Free Will, and arguments for it as it relates to "choosing God," appeal to "human reason." But we have to consider what the Scripture says in totality simply because it IS God's Word.

Therefore, in our fallen state we are incapable of "choosing God." God must first choose us and change our nature so that our Free Will is drawn to Him and can choose to surrender to Him. The RCC position is that man is capable of choosing God independent of God first choosing him/her. This "debate" about this issue is one that has gone on for centuries and will likely continue until Christ returns. But the bottom line is that it is the indwelling Holy Spirit who guides and illumines our understanding as we study in order to bring us into a closer relationship with God. We can understand the things that God has revealed to us and some things God has retained for Himself and we will not fully understand them until we are with Him. The doctrine of election, clearly taught in the Scripture as being true, "confounds the human mind" because we have a hard time understanding it because it doesn't seem "fair" to our human reason. That may be the case, but we cannot ignore it either because it is taught as truth and it is taught as being "God's will," not Man's will.

Our "position," if you will on this issue is not, imho, "vital" to whether or not we are saved. It does bear on our "maturing in the faith" as the writer of Hebrews put it; "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. (this also speaks to Athanasius' issue of "private interpretation") Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity..." (Heb.5:14-6:1a)

God is not bound by what we do or don't do, what we understand or don't understand. God wills as God wills. A careful examination of the issue presents arguments for and against a "biblical truth," and then we have to choose (exercise our Free Will) what makes sense according to God's Word. Sometimes that choice seems "against human reason," but that's okay. God's truth does not have to "jibe" with human reason. One "easy" example of that is the issue of marriage. God clearly reveals that the "two are no longer two, but one flesh." WE humans can't really understand this mystery or how it happens, and we can choose to "reject" the stated truth because we "know" that there are still two of us, a husband and a wife. But if we are to be true to God and not "Man's reasoning ability," then we, as believers, have to accept what God has said as being TRUTH whether we understand it fully or not.

The same holds true for the issue of Salvation and Justification. We must look at the whole of Scripture, not just the "parts that support our opinion," if there are other "parts" that speak to a position that would be contrary to our opinion.

There is a position taken by the RCC that someone can lose their salvation through the commission of what are referred to as "Mortal Sins." ONLY by going through the rites established by the RCC and one "regain" their salvation and justification before God. That, in essence, is the equivalent of "do it my way, or God can't do 'His thing'."

The "opposing position is that a truly born again believer CANNOT lose his/her salvation because it is maintained NOT by the person, but is maintained by Jesus Christ("No one can snatch them out of my hand"). When Christ tells people in the future, "Away from me you evildoers, I never knew you," it means that Christ NEVER knew them. They were never saved to begin with. It is not "Away from me, I knew you once upon a time, but I don't know you any longer."

That is at the heart of what the writer of Hebrews meant when he wrote "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to disgrace." (Hebrews 6:4-6, emphasis added)

What the writer is talking about is a very simple "what if" scenario. Given that no one can snatch a believer out of the hand of Christ, our bridegroom, the writer postulates the hypothetical condition "what if it were possible?" The writer then concludes that it would be impossible for them to regain the salvation they would have lost because it would then be tantamount to Christ having to die a SECOND, or THIRD, or ad finitum potential number of times for their sins instead of ONE time, ONCE FOR ALL.

This is NOT a situation where the writer is saying that a believer CAN lose his salvation. It is a situation where the writer in effect says, "Okay, let's assume it WAS possible for a believer to lose his salvation. IF that happened then what would be the possibility that that person could again 'become' saved?"

No, the "logical" conclusion is that Jesus had it right all alone. "I NEVER knew you," meaning that they were never saved to begin with.

IF a believer falls into sin, such as adultery, it does NOT mean that they "lose" their salvation as a result, but it does mean that if they are truly saved they WILL repent. If they remain unrepentant it is prima facia testimony that they NEVER WERE saved despite any of their claims to be a "Christian," in the same way that someone who denies Christ is the Son of God CAN "claim" that they are a Christian, but they really are not.

This is the basis of the objection that those who Jesus tells "Away from me you evildoers" use to try to justify themselves based upon THEIR OWN merits. It does not matter how "good" they or their works were when it comes to Justification before God. This is also the RCC position of Faith plus Works equals Jusfication.




Yes, Jerry, I always considered this. It is NOT our job to "save" anyone or convert anyone. That is God's "job."
It is our responsibilty to stand ready to give an answer as to why we believe what we believe, to "plant seeds" if you will that the Gardner (God) can bring to maturity according to HIS will, not our will.

That is what has kept me posting for so long. But there also comes a time when it is time to move on to "another field" and I think that time has come. If I am wrong in that assessment, I have no doubt that God will do something to show me that I am wrong and that He still has "things for me to do." But I won't stay stay based in "pride" or any such thing that "benefits" me. If it serves God, then fine, but if not, then there is no "point" in remaining.



Since you ask, yes, that is exactly what Jesus did. He "went away" until it was His time. He also went away after answering the questions of the Pharisees.

The apostles, most notably Paul, left many places. Jesus instructed some of them to "shake the dust off their feet" as they left some places.

It isn't an issue of being "disparaged." It is "where best to spend my time" to honor God. Not always an easy answer to that question either.




Jerry, I understand what you are saying and I want to be very sensitive in my answer, as incomplete as it might be.
"WHEN WILL WE BECOME ONE????? " We ARE all "one in Christ" as believers. We will "become" one when sin and evil are banished in the new heaven and the new earth.

In the meantime, we each need to examine ourselves and the beliefs we hold to make sure that we truly are in Christ and not following some "other gospel."

God bless.

P.S. There are no "no nothings" in Christ. Just a bunch of learners who are differing points in their learning, but we all KNOW Christ....and that is enough to begin the learning and maturing.

FH, in what will truly be my last post ever to you, this, in a nutshell, is exactly why I find your posts offensive. I said before that my beliefs my well be fairly close to yours. I am not offended by your message - I am offended by your presentation of that message. I have thought for a long time that you go out of your way to provoke people. I have also seen how you go out of your way to intentionally divert many threads into an argument of religion.

Most people try not to offend others too much, you, OTOH, do it with a vengeance. You count the number of people you have offended as notches on your halo. You have convinced yourself that you are proving your love for Christ by making others hate you. Okay there is a time and a place for that, no doubt. But you actually look to create the opportunities. You don't defend your religion - you make a full frontal assault and force others to defend theirs.

There are many here on this board who are not against your beliefs - they are simply against you because of your demeanor. I only feel compelled to post this not as an attack on you but hopefully as an encouragement to look within yourself and see if there might be a different way of accomplishing your goal. I would encourage you to stay here. I would also encourage you to try to be more open-minded. I'm not asking you to allow that maybe you are wrong in your beliefs. I am asking that you allow others to believe what they do and, if you feel that it is truly wrong (as you and I are in the same opinion of a poster I mentioned a while back), look for positive ways to try to convince them.

There's more than one way to skin a cat and they are a lot easier to skin if you don't scare them all away before you start cutting.

rude.

pot...kettle...pot...kettle...

Hi Pep,

There's something I want to say to you in private. Could you contact me at:
mb.athanasius@yahoo.com ?
Thanks

grindnfool posted on my other thread:

I certainly agree that no matter how "good" we are, it can never be good enough. We ALL need the Redemption which Jesus won for us on the Cross.

I'm not sure why the Crucifixion was necessary for our Redemption. The following is just a theory.

I think it was because the sin of Adam was a rebelllion of the will against God. God values our liberty so He doesn't want to stun us into obedience but persuade us to love Him. The only way for Him to redeem the rebellious human will was to become a man and so unite a human will to his Divine Will, the one perfectly obedient to the other unto the redeeming death on the Cross.

Being "good" enough on our own would be a doctrine of Salvation by Works Alone. Sometimes called Pelagianism.

Dear all,

I will be off-line for the next ten days as very dear friends are coming to visit me from another continent.

All responses to questions, justification of opinions, and Athanasian exegeses of the Holy Scripture will have to wait until then.

Hiroo – perhaps you should consider just this attitude as it pertains to what everyone has said on this thread and on the “Confession” thread. There just might be more truth in there than you think. It is also a reason why I have refrained from posting to you for a very long time. It’s not an answer, it avoidance of the fundamental issues.
But, since you put it into these terms, I will respond to your previous post even though I’ve tried to not respond to any of your posts since you requested that I not respond to you a long time ago. You want to attack the “messenger” again while claiming that we might actually believe the same things. An interesting viewpoint, but not at all unexpected.

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. But be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.” (Matt.10:16-23a)

“A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!

So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in he11.” (Matt. 10:24-28, spelling changed to avoid auto editing by the system)

“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And anyone who gives a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose is reward.” (Matt. 10:32-42)

Hiroo – perhaps you have been among the sands of Saudi Arabia too long. Perhaps not. But you seem to have big blinders on with respect to the thread about Confession, the Christian, and/or Roman Catholic “way,” to say nothing about THIS thread that the same author put up….BOTH specifically to discuss religion as part of the discussion or as the primary topic of the discussion.

Maybe Jesus’ words from Matthew that were quoted above will speak more directly to you than I ever could.


This is utter nonsense. I talk about faith when someone wants to talk about faith and I leave threads where they don’t want “God as part of the picture.” I did NOT “divert” Athanasius’ thread on Confession, doctrines, and marriage to “religion.” HE set the discussion and HE wanted to include such discussion. That I made the “egregious” error of BELIEVING him and the parameters he set forth IS my fault. I did not understand that when he said “Christian” he MEANT ONLY Roman Catholic doctrine, and others were quick to jump on the “Catholics only” bandwagon.

I have to say at this point, though I have refrained from doing so previously, that I tend to think this “outrage” of yours and others wanting to turn it into a “Catholics only” thread and not what Athanasius defined in his opening post is but another example of what MEDC has been saying all along. They “blindly follow the teaching of the Church” and will not even consider that they might be in error, in part or in whole, because they are more comfortable with following the teachings of the Church than the teachings of Jesus. If “teachings” are “in conflict,” then it is the DUTY of the individual believer, imho as the Bible has instructed us, to “consider all the facts and arguments” so that they can determine what IS “of God and what is of Men.” And Athanasius himself refuses to “take responsibility” for the very parameters he laid out, letting you and others carry his water for him, much like Saul stood by at the stoning of Stephan.

Just who is being sincere in standing for Jesus and who is “failing” to follow John’s admonition to ALL who claim the name of Jesus Christ? “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1John 4:1)


Hiroo – HERE is what God has said about the issue of Confession and salvation as it applies to the “Confession thread” of Athanasius:

“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.” (1John 3: 4-6, emphasis added) Believers who fall into sin WILL repent and stop sinning. Unbelievers will not.

THIS is why Jesus made it clear that He WILL tell many who “think” they are saved through their own works, “Away from me you evildoers, I never knew you.” We are NOT saved by any works, no matter how “good” they might seem to human thought. We are saved and justified SOLELY through what Jesus did for us so that “no one can boast.” The ones Jesus is telling to “go away” are boasting in the things that “they had done” and NONE of them (their works) merit justification before God. The RCC teaching of “Mortal Sin” causing a saved person to LOSE their salvation is false simply because Jesus said it was false. Can it “bind” someone to “another gospel?” Yes, it can through manipulation and coercion and intimidation. THE authority is NOT the RCC or any church for that matter. THE authority is the Scripture, for all Christians regardless of what human church they might find themselves attending. The RCC threat of excommunication is a prime example…you cannot be saved unless you are a Roman Catholic, and if you should LEAVE the RCC, then you are NOT saved.

[color:"red"] “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ “But he (Jesus) will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me all you evildoers!” [/color] (Luke 13:26-27)

[color:"red"] Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I (Jesus) will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” [/color] (Matthew 7:22-23, emphasis added)




You are entitled to your opinion whether I agree with you or not.



You engage in disrespectful judgments and project your own feelings as to how you might perceive things onto me. That does not lend your opinion “truth.”



I get it Hiroo…. One “religion” is as “good as any other.” That’s not what the followers of Islam believe and it’s not what Jesus believes. What is it that YOU believe? You don’t need to answer me, you need to direct your answer to Jesus.




That may well be true, but not in this instance. The “Catholics” came out in force against my beliefs, not me personally. Any animosity directed toward me personally was only because I happened to be the “messenger” and the “available target.” That’s nothing more than the old “go after the speaker, not the message” sort of “refutation.”



IF that “different way” you allude to is to “deny Christ” as the ONLY way to gain salvation, then I don’t really think that would work. If discussing “opposing” opinions about the teachings of Christ and the Scripture is a “different way,” I have been all for that all along. If NOT participating in threads when asked to not participate is a “different way,” then I have done that also as you yourself should be able to personally attest.



Hiroo, I think I understand what you are trying to say. But consider this if you will. NO change ever begins with there first being a “conflict.” Athanasius himself stated that he came to a belief in Christ from a belief in Atheism as a result of a personal struggle and conflict that he had. If what anyone believes about anything is NOT “called into question” by an “opposing” opinion or viewpoint, there will never be a time for the “other person” to perhaps consider the arguments and come to the conclusion that what they believed may actually be incorrect and then commit to a CHANGE. Try “not confronting” or finding other “positive ways to try to convince them” without ever mentioning that what they might be doing or thinking could be wrong. Even “Plan A” and “Plan B” is directed at letting the WS know that their belief in the “rightness” of their affair is wrong. To NOT add the “element” of “confrontation,” of “you may be wrong in your thinking” results in “cakewalking” and being a “doormat,” not in actually helping the situation.




No doubt. And it depends primarily upon each given situation. In THIS situation, the RULES were set to INCLUDE Christian and/or Catholic doctrine, and as soon as I tried to “play by the rules” the swords came out. So you tell me, Hiroo, isn’t that much like the Islamist position regarding speaking anything other than the Koran and Islamist belief?

Athansius, if you truly don't know why Christ's death was "necessary," then you really don't understand Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Antinomianisn, etc. either. You also may not understand why you, me, and all people NEED to be saved by what Jesus Christ for us, why He did it, and why we need to accpet Him as our Lord and Savior.

I would then encourage you to truly study them.

In the meantime, allow me to attempt an answer to your confusion about why Christ had to die.

He had to die because it was the will of God as the ONLY way to reestablish a relationship with His creation that satisfied God's justice that is demanded by sin of any kind. "The wages of sin IS death." Period. No appeal. Nothing that anyone but God could do anything about. It would take the "perfect man, sinless and holy," to pay the price on our behalf. ONLY God "fits that bill."

God said "don't eat from that tree" and God said "I myself will work salvation for you." God said, in effect, "you, my Son, are not 'worthy' of death, but you will die to accomplish our purpose of saving those who are already eternally lost in their own sin." "I must 'forsake you' for the ones we both love, or they will be lost forever, while your pain will be but temporary."

Can you imagine the PAIN and the LOVE? "THIS is love, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

And we cheapen it with requiring works to maintain or "regain" our salvation or "attain" our salavation as if Christ's sacrifice "once for all" was not enough. God save us from heresy.

Christ sweat drops of blood for us in His pain, and shed His blood for us in obedience and love. We do "works" out of love and gratitude for what Christ has already done for us, not because it "merits" us anything other than the obedience of a servant to his master and the service due Him who first served us.




Yes. And so is Semi-Pelagianism, the stance of the RCC.

Athanasius - your "reminder" is not necessary. I already gave you my word on posting on your other thread.

Sadly, however, you seem to have missed the entire purpose of your other thread with your "conclusion."

"Confession" by an unbeliever is ineffectual.

Conviction of sin in the life of a believer is what the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers DOES, because that is the promise of God to all believers. It is, in essence, the "you can run but you can't hide" from God promise. That conviction of sin is what leads to Confession of that sin and repentance. That is because God has promised to seek out those who have strayed and bring them safely back to the "fold" by HIS power and leading, not by our "efforts." It requires only conviction, repentance, and humble submission to God in obedience to God to be restored to full fellowship, but not to "Regain" a "sonship" with God.

As believers we are Adopted by God into His family and we remain, as adoptees, His children forever based upon God's promise to JESUS, not to us. God does not "unadopt us" anymore than someone can "unadopt" a child they have chosen and actually adopted.

Confession of sin for a believer is VERY effective and not very effective, if at all, for an unbeliever. The effects of the "Fog" that you confuse with "confession" are the normal effects of sin. But true confession does not precede conviction.

Again, and particulary with respect your next "planned thread topic," I have to wonder with Pepperband just what your purpose is in these discussions.

Dear ForeverHers,

Pelagius was formally condemned as a heretic at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 430.

You are not a very credible source for Roman Catholic theology.

I'm not sure but I believe that the RCC permits a certain theological tension between Semi-Pelagianism and Moderate, Middle-Period Augustinianism.

You Calvinists insist that Extreme Late-Period Augustinianism is the Biblical Revelation. If this is true, the history of Christianity, unfortunately, reveals that God was so careless with his Revelation to reveal the Truth to the Apostles, allow it to be forgotten until Augustine reached his Extreme, Late-Period position, then allowed it to vanish again until the monk Gottschalk revived it in the 9th century, then allowed it to vanish a third time until Luther (a bit) and Calvin (mostly) brought the True Light back to Earth.

Thus my counter-accusation that you are preaching "another Gospel".

But how did Augustine and Pelagius sneak into this thread? I thought we were following Sola Scriptura? Who cares what those fifth-century Roman Catholics thought?

In reality Protestants do not really follow their explicit first principle of Sola Scriptura. They interpret the Holy Scripture according to their unacknowledged Tradition which goes from Calvin to Luther to Late-Augustine. They use whatever of general Catholic Tradition was not challenged in the 16th century and only invoke Sola Scriptura while attacking Catholic theological positions with which they disagree.

I certainly believe that the Crucifixion WAS necessary. That's the Biblical-founded dogma. I'm just not sure why. That explanation is theology.

I offered one possible explanation of the necessity. You offered another. Mine is a psychological explanation based on God's Love. Yours is a juridical explanation based on God's Justice. I have a preference for explanations that highlight God's Love.

I'm not concerned about this particular theological difference because I agree with Augustine and Aquinas that all absolute predicates attributed to God describe his Essence ... and so are identical with his Essence and each other.

His Justice and His Love are the same. I don't understand how that works, in many cases. I like to try to understand the Justice in terms of Love. In fact that's the intellectual purpose of my other threads.

No problem with this approach, Athanasius. But I would simply suggest that we all need to be careful to understand all of God's attributes and how they interact with each other. Essentially, God places the same "level" of importance on all of His attributes because He is God. We tend to sometimes emphasis one attribute "over" another sometimes, such as when we say that "God is love" and attempt to portray God just from that one attribute. But that can get us into trouble because God will not allow one attribute to "deny" another attribute, such as in the case of Justice and Love. The justice demanded by God for sin is death. The love of God fulfills that requirement in the death of Jesus, affording us the Love of God through the forgiveness of our sins because of what Jesus did on our behalf that were, and are, incapable of doing.


As for the other issues you mentioned, if you truly want to explore those "original" thoughts we can do that. The "objective" of such a discussion would be to see what was the "original position of the church catholic," not the later Roman Catholic version or the Martin Luther version, depending on how one wants to "label" them.

So if you want to toss those ideas around some, let me give you a starting point....

"The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?

Monergistic regeneration means that regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a "one-working." Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the action of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some sort of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually God's assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy.

The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the mortal bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration's fruit, not it's cause." (Willing to Believe, p.23, by R.C. Sproul)

If you don't want to delve into these areas, that's fine too.