if Pastor John Osteen was still alive , the father of Joel Osteen, he would spank his child for answering I don't know about the gospel.... when asked by Larry King.
You are absolutely right. If free will doesn't exist, then there is absolulety NO point in admonishing people for their sins or exhorting believers to persevere in righteousness. If man is truly unable to seek God's forgiveness and God does not grace all people with the opportunity to be forgiven, then I really don't see how this is an issue. If God intends it to happen, it'll happen no matter what. If He doesn't, it won't. And yet this man is chastising and exhorting...something doesn't add up.
1r1shCath0l1c, when has a reformed protestant said that people have no will or free agency, especially the born-again believer in Christ Jesus? Also, Romans 3:11b "THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD" because they are Dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph.2:1). Also, If an 'opportunity' for grace is 'owed' by God to all people then grace is not grace, its not a gift (Rom.3:24) but makes God a debtor to mankind.
When u were a child u knew that what ur father intended for u WOULD happen, often times through his chasting & exhorting. If he told u "take out the trash" & u refused then one way or another u knew that would change. With the Lord it is the same. God is absolute sovereign yet a person, dynamic and a Father to His children...it all adds up just fine, thank you.
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
Nobody can take away the salvation God gives me -- but I can choose to forfeit that salvation. God does not force Himself on anyone.
You are right about God being the principal agent of salvation and about salvific merit being His above all, but Reformed theology takes this to an extreme.
Please carefully read Rom.8:26-39 paying careful attention to the final 5 verses & then read Heb.12:4-9 & ask yourself if its within the power of the believer to 'forfeit' salvation??? Look at Eph.1:13-14 & Eph.4:30 noting the language of 'promise' 'pledge' & 'inheritance' and contrast that with 1Jhn2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."
@1r1shCath0l1c Look at John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Now is Jhn.3:36 speaking of real eternal life or a kind of self-contradicting 'sub-eternal' form of eternal life that can be lost? My eternal life began the day I believed through God's power in regeneration through the preaching of Christ's gospel.
@1r1shCath0l1c You said "...God being the principal agent of salvation and about salvific merit being His above all, but Reformed theology takes this to an extreme"
God is not the 'principal' agent but the ONLY agent of salvation. Salvific 'merit' is not his above all but His ALONE! Also, you will have to demonstrate how Reformed Theology goes beyond scripture and takes salvation 'to an extreme'.
I guess you don't normally classify Jesus and His apostles as 'church fathers', but they did teach God's absolute sovereign election in salvation thus exposing the papist 'gospel' as false.
If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on grace and justification, read the section of the Catechism on Grace and Justification. That should clear up a lot.
h t t p : / / w w w . v a t i c a n . v a / a r c h i v e / c c c _ c s s / a r c h i v e / c a t e c h i s m / p 3 s 1 c 3 a 2 . h t m (remove spaces)
If you choose not to read it, that's your business. But whenever you criticize Church teaching, just remember that you are choosing to remain ignorant.
@1r1shCath0l1c Oh, I've read it. Is there a particular section you want to debate? I can't hammer through the whole thing. You do understand that Protestants and Roman Catholics often use the same language but with very different dictionaries. For example, can you tell me who the 'Blessed man' of Romans 4:7-8 is? As long as you continue to use that catechism to confuse and mix justification with sanctification you can never answer my question biblically.
Well then I'll posit this question to you: On what grounds do you argue that the Protestant interpretation of the Scriptures is more accurate than that of the Catholic Church, which has been in existence for 2000 years whereas the epiphany of Martin Luther took place a full 1500 years after the time of Christ and the Apostles?
@1r1shCath0l1c On the simple grounds that you can not answer my simple question regarding Rom.4:7&8. Because the scriptures are at odds with your Roman 'church' and her 'doctrine' so you try to start about six other doctrinal brush fires hoping to change the direction of this debate instead of answering my question.
What is there to explain? These verses refer to those who have been incorporated into the Body of Christ by God's saving action, which precedes all good works and all human desire or capability. That's how the Church understands the Sacrament of Baptism. But this does not for a moment preclude free will.
And by the way, the Scriptures are only at odds with Church doctrine if you refuse to understand that ONLY the Church has the right and the authority to interpret Scripture.
The early Fathers -- like Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc. -- were much closer in terms of time, language, and culture to the writers of the Gospel than we, so I think they're understanding of Scripture can be safely said to trump the Reformed understanding.
@1r1shCath0l1c - Interesting, because there were false teachers even in Paul's, Peter's and John's day. I'm not saying that Polycarp or Irenaeus were false teachers, but your premise of trusting someone just because they lived a long time ago is flawed. The epistles are full of issues regarding false teachers. God's Word is our guide, not who teachers were or when they lived.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle.
because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble
With respect, sir, how do you know this? I'm not saying Hinduism is just as good as Christianity, by any means...but how do you know that people in India who haven't had the proper exposure to the Gospel are not seeking God and trying to know Him as best they can? God has made Himself available to all people through reason, nature, and conscience, and therefore all of the world's major religions are capable of saying something valid about God...
Because if people are not born again, they hate the One True God. If not for God's supernatural work of Regenerating your dead, hard heart, you would hate Him.
God allows all men a general Grace that enables them to seek Him. There is a natural law written on everyone's heart, so while imperfect it is possible for people who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the Gospel to love God as best they can.
The law written on our hearts isn't for us to love God or to seek Him, it's to convict us of our sin and tell us right from wrong. It's impossible for a person to love God without first experiencing Christ's love. If you were to go up to ANY unconverted person and explain to them the True God, they would hate Him. And if an unbeliever does claim to love God, it's simply a false god they have created in their own mind to suit their evil desires.
Both of those show that the Law written on our hearts is our conscience. To convict us of sin and bring us to Christ. And there are more if you'd like.
As for the comment thing, I'm honestly not sure. I don't remember deleting one and I don't have to approve comments. I'm sorry if I did delete it, I didn't mean to. I don't delete comments unless they're crude or inappropriate. Maybe you clicked off before it posted or something?
It was posted before...My assumption is that either it got deleted as a result of something wacky going on with Youtube, or perhaps someone else spammed it. No biggie. As for what you say about conscience, I agree completely. My initial point was simply to say that those who have never had Christ preached to them, through no fault of their own, have access through conscience and through nature and reason to God's Grace. Hang tight, I'm gonna need 1 more post here...
Let's agree on something: Christ ALONE saves people. However, I believe in accordance with the Faith that has been handed down to me that Christ can, if necessary and appropriate, express Himself in ways that we don't understand, and that people can come to a knowledge of Him (though perhaps imperfect) without having heard the Gospel preached. We must remember that God wills men to be saved, and so He won't be restricted by missionaries not getting to those in need of them.
By the way, thanks for this conversation--it's good to be able to discuss these things, especially in a civil and constructive fashion. You might be surprised by the number of people who don't like to talk about religion!
Hahaha, I hope you're being sarcastic about the "people not liking to talk about religion"remark...I witness to people regularly and yeah...it's pretty insane some of the remarks I get sometimes...lots of silly things. And yes it is nice to have a conversation, and I apologize if I come across as...angry or arrogant over the text, no tone in text.
Ok, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that peoples in far off countries and such can be saved without hearing the
Gospel because God could will them to be saved -which is kinda Calvinist ;-) lol, just saying- However, the question is, What is the way God has ordained to reach the Lost? I think the following scriptures show that the tool is preaching. Romans 10:14-17, 1 Corinthians 1:21, Ephesians 1:13. That is, biblical conversion is ALWAYS hearing the Gospel, then believing (except in the case of the Apostles as they were called by Christ Himself). So the Will of God is for men to hear the gospel
preached by the church empowered by the Holy Spirit, then He works in those men who hear it. And if God wants those men to be saved, He can raise up a missionary and send them there to preach. I mean, for the God who created the Universe Ex Nihilo, covering the expense for a missionary for a few years to a far off country is peanuts. Ya know? By the way, I'm a 5 point Calvinist Baptist, since I know you're Catholic figured you know some of where I stand.
"you're saying that peoples in far off countries and such can be saved without hearing the Gospel because God could will them to be saved"
Yes--I'm approaching this matter from the standpoint of Natural Theology, which is part of the Catholic Faith. As for the preaching of the Gospel, this is the ordinary means that God has chosen to bring salvation to people, and clarifies the responsibility of Christians in the context of God's master plan. However...
...this does not preclude God using EXTRA-ordinary means of saving those who respond as best they can to the light that they have but who, for historical or geographical reasons, did not have the chance to hear the Gospel.
As I am a Catholic and you are a Calvinist, we will disagree on certain points here. For instance, I believe that God wills all humankind to be saved; this desire on His part is the reason that salvation can be available to people in distant countries we've been talking about
Yeah, but what Scripture is there for God using any other means than preaching for anyone other than the apostles? Because honestly, it doesn't matter a whit what either one of us think or believe, Scripture is the ultimate authority since it is God's Word. So if you can give me scriptural evidence for this, then I may believe you.
Romans 2:13-14: "For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law."
Acts 14:16-17 (when Paul is in Lystra): "In past generations he allowed all Gentiles to go their own ways; yet, in bestowing his goodness, he did not leave himself without witness, for he gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, and filled you with nourishment and gladness for your hearts."
In the case of these people, who were outside of the Covenant tradition, God did not hold their past ignorance against them, and gave them the chance to know Him through natural phenomena.
"We must remember that God wills men to be saved, and so He won't be restricted by missionaries not getting to those in need of them."
he's not restricted by men's efforts. Instead, He himself moves men's efforst. If God has His elect in certain places, He will make absolutely sure that those people hear the gospel and use the gospel to bring them to faith and repentance.
No one can be saved without faith in Christ:
"Whoever does not believe in me..the wrath of God abides on him"
God does not pre-ordain who will be saved and who will not. He wills that everyone be saved. That doesn't mean everyone will in fact be saved, as people have free will--but the Lord in His infinite mercy would have all men come to Him. To declare otherwise is counter-Biblical and, as far as I'm concerned, a shameful insult to the character of God.
Irish, I understand what you are saying. I used to believe that way too. But you see, you say "but the Bible says such-and-such" and "The Bible teaches such-and-such". The problem is, what I believe can also be backed up with scripture. We both argue the same thing: that the Bible teaches our view on this subject.
My starting questions to you would be:
1) Where does the Bible teach free will? (A will is not the same as a 'free' will)
2) Where does it teach that God wills that all be saved?
You also say that my belief is a shameful insult to the character of God, but I argue the same thing: that your belief is a shameful insult to His character. My point is, simply asserting something is not sufficient in discussion. Since we are both Christians, we both answer to the highest authority: the Bible. We must prove what we believe from the Bible.
I know you're going to flip through your bible and find certain verses. In fact I've anticipated which ones you will use. I will respond
I will start be sharing what I believe. I believe men have the power of free choice. Men can always choose what they desire to choose. The problem is, since the fallen, the Bible teaches that all men are unregenerate and as such are hostile towards God, opposed to him, even hate him.
Therefore, when given the choice between the God they hate and giving up the sins they love, they will always consistently choose to reject God and continue in sins.
So the will is not "free" in the sense that is neutral between God and sin, good or evil. Instead it has a biased against God and holiness, and an inclination towards rebellion and sinfulness and evil.
Therefore the will is not "free" in the sense that is neutral between the two, able to choose one way or the other. Instead it will always choose according to its desires: to reject God and stay in sins. This is the condition of every person born after adam.
Therefore, what GOd must do is change our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. He must give us eyes to see and ears that hear and hearts that love him. Otherwise we would never love him. So when any man chooses to follow Christ and love Christ, it is not because they had an innate, natural ability or desire to do so, but because they have a God given desire to do so. Therefore God gets all the praise, credit, and glory when anyone turns to Him.
The practical proof that all Christians, deep down, believe this (that God must change the heart in order for any to come to him) is that we all pray for the lost to be saved. We are praying to God to save our lost friends and family.
I'm not going into the Scripture verses here, because I think I know how you intend to respond based on my exposure to Calvinist arguments elsewhere: by talking about the original Greek and Hebrew words and what they mean. But the early Church Fathers were much closer to the language and the ideology of the people through whom God wrote the New Testament, and so I think we should privilege their understanding of the language over ours. That being said...
While the ECFs can be very helpful, they do not the authority of scripture. You say the ECF beleived in "free will". Fair enough. But the real question is, what was their definition of "free will?"
Two people using the phrase "free will" might mean two different things. The controversy over man's will was not an issue in the era of the ECFs, so it is fair to say they did not deal with it in detail, for example, as much as Augustin, Luther, or Edwards. I agree with those 3 men.
Luther and Edwards in particular affirmed "free will" in a sense. That is, if by "free will" you mean certain things, but not other things. It's when "free will" starts meaning those "other things" that we begin to deny it.
For example, if by "free will" you mean "the power and ability to choose whatever you desire to choose",t hen of coruse, we all affirm free will.
However if you mean by "free will" that men are neutral between good and evil and not influenced one direction over another, then I would disagree with you and say that free will, the way you are defining it, does not exist.
The BIble is clear, I believe: Men are biased against holiness and inclined towards evil, and sin. Slaves of sin, Jesus said. Never seeking God, Paul said. Unable to do anything good or righteous. That is not a "free will", friend, but a will in bondage.
God's prevenient grace enables everyone, in spite of the stain of original sin, the possibility of responding to Him. Is God's Grace necessary in order for man to do anything of supernatural value? Of course--the Catholic Church affirms this, and condemned Pelegius for asserting that man's free will was sufficient. But the key is that EVERYONE has the ability to move toward holiness--otherwise, Biblical exhortations to abstain from sin would be totally meaningless.
For God's gracious outreach to those who haven't heard the revealed truth, a good Biblical example is the 3 magi who came to see the Infant Jesus. They were outside of God's Covenant tradition, and yet God led them to Christ using what was good and true in their religion (which involved attention to the stars).
As for regeneration, that is stressing the importance of infant baptism. It does not preclude, however, a certain common grace that God offers to all, preceding salvific grace.
Also, see Acts 14:16-17 (when Paul is in Lystra): "In past generations he allowed all Gentiles to go their own ways; yet, in bestowing his goodness, he did not leave himself without witness, for he gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, and filled you with nourishment and gladness for your hearts."
What could the significance of this passage be, if we conclude that there is NO grace at all available to those who haven't yet heard the Gospel?
Right, man is without excuse--therefore, by implication, it is possible for those who haven't had the Gospel preached to them to respond to it and be saved!
"You also say that my belief is a shameful insult to the character of God, but I argue the same thing: that your belief is a shameful insult to His character."
So they died to defend work righteousness? They would have fought against salvation by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone? Please explain instead of throw up stickmen...
That "foul gospel" of the Catholic Church is exactly the Gospel that Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, and yes, Augustine, fought and died to defend. And if they were alive today they would, I'm sure, exercise similar vigor against the false doctrines of Martin Luther and John Calvin.
Great Video!!
ChristianTULIP 2 years ago
if Pastor John Osteen was still alive , the father of Joel Osteen, he would spank his child for answering I don't know about the gospel.... when asked by Larry King.
aike75 2 years ago 4
The early church fathers fought for the principle of free-will today the "reformers" deny this and rob the gospel of this truth.
eIe12957 2 years ago
You are absolutely right. If free will doesn't exist, then there is absolulety NO point in admonishing people for their sins or exhorting believers to persevere in righteousness. If man is truly unable to seek God's forgiveness and God does not grace all people with the opportunity to be forgiven, then I really don't see how this is an issue. If God intends it to happen, it'll happen no matter what. If He doesn't, it won't. And yet this man is chastising and exhorting...something doesn't add up.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
1r1shCath0l1c, when has a reformed protestant said that people have no will or free agency, especially the born-again believer in Christ Jesus? Also, Romans 3:11b "THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD" because they are Dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph.2:1). Also, If an 'opportunity' for grace is 'owed' by God to all people then grace is not grace, its not a gift (Rom.3:24) but makes God a debtor to mankind.
4570sharps 2 years ago
When u were a child u knew that what ur father intended for u WOULD happen, often times through his chasting & exhorting. If he told u "take out the trash" & u refused then one way or another u knew that would change. With the Lord it is the same. God is absolute sovereign yet a person, dynamic and a Father to His children...it all adds up just fine, thank you.
4570sharps 2 years ago
In the following four verses why do 'they' not believe?
John10:26-29
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
4570sharps 2 years ago
Nobody can take away the salvation God gives me -- but I can choose to forfeit that salvation. God does not force Himself on anyone.
You are right about God being the principal agent of salvation and about salvific merit being His above all, but Reformed theology takes this to an extreme.
1r1shCath0l1c 1 year ago
Please carefully read Rom.8:26-39 paying careful attention to the final 5 verses & then read Heb.12:4-9 & ask yourself if its within the power of the believer to 'forfeit' salvation??? Look at Eph.1:13-14 & Eph.4:30 noting the language of 'promise' 'pledge' & 'inheritance' and contrast that with 1Jhn2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."
4570sharps 1 year ago
@1r1shCath0l1c Look at John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Now is Jhn.3:36 speaking of real eternal life or a kind of self-contradicting 'sub-eternal' form of eternal life that can be lost? My eternal life began the day I believed through God's power in regeneration through the preaching of Christ's gospel.
4570sharps 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1r1shCath0l1c You said "...God being the principal agent of salvation and about salvific merit being His above all, but Reformed theology takes this to an extreme"
God is not the 'principal' agent but the ONLY agent of salvation. Salvific 'merit' is not his above all but His ALONE! Also, you will have to demonstrate how Reformed Theology goes beyond scripture and takes salvation 'to an extreme'.
4570sharps 1 year ago
I guess you don't normally classify Jesus and His apostles as 'church fathers', but they did teach God's absolute sovereign election in salvation thus exposing the papist 'gospel' as false.
4570sharps 2 years ago
If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on grace and justification, read the section of the Catechism on Grace and Justification. That should clear up a lot.
h t t p : / / w w w . v a t i c a n . v a / a r c h i v e / c c c _ c s s / a r c h i v e / c a t e c h i s m / p 3 s 1 c 3 a 2 . h t m (remove spaces)
If you choose not to read it, that's your business. But whenever you criticize Church teaching, just remember that you are choosing to remain ignorant.
1r1shCath0l1c 1 year ago
@1r1shCath0l1c Oh, I've read it. Is there a particular section you want to debate? I can't hammer through the whole thing. You do understand that Protestants and Roman Catholics often use the same language but with very different dictionaries. For example, can you tell me who the 'Blessed man' of Romans 4:7-8 is? As long as you continue to use that catechism to confuse and mix justification with sanctification you can never answer my question biblically.
4570sharps 1 year ago
Well then I'll posit this question to you: On what grounds do you argue that the Protestant interpretation of the Scriptures is more accurate than that of the Catholic Church, which has been in existence for 2000 years whereas the epiphany of Martin Luther took place a full 1500 years after the time of Christ and the Apostles?
1r1shCath0l1c 1 year ago
@1r1shCath0l1c On the simple grounds that you can not answer my simple question regarding Rom.4:7&8. Because the scriptures are at odds with your Roman 'church' and her 'doctrine' so you try to start about six other doctrinal brush fires hoping to change the direction of this debate instead of answering my question.
4570sharps 1 year ago
What is there to explain? These verses refer to those who have been incorporated into the Body of Christ by God's saving action, which precedes all good works and all human desire or capability. That's how the Church understands the Sacrament of Baptism. But this does not for a moment preclude free will.
And by the way, the Scriptures are only at odds with Church doctrine if you refuse to understand that ONLY the Church has the right and the authority to interpret Scripture.
1r1shCath0l1c 1 year ago
The early Fathers -- like Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc. -- were much closer in terms of time, language, and culture to the writers of the Gospel than we, so I think they're understanding of Scripture can be safely said to trump the Reformed understanding.
1r1shCath0l1c 1 year ago
@1r1shCath0l1c - Interesting, because there were false teachers even in Paul's, Peter's and John's day. I'm not saying that Polycarp or Irenaeus were false teachers, but your premise of trusting someone just because they lived a long time ago is flawed. The epistles are full of issues regarding false teachers. God's Word is our guide, not who teachers were or when they lived.
really2k1 10 months ago
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle.
because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice
eIe12957 2 years ago
Yeah, because all that papist mumbo-jumbo has everything to do with what scripture says???
John10:26-29
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
4570sharps 2 years ago
Justin Martyr (AD 110-165)
Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble
eIe12957 2 years ago
"they [people in India] hate God"
With respect, sir, how do you know this? I'm not saying Hinduism is just as good as Christianity, by any means...but how do you know that people in India who haven't had the proper exposure to the Gospel are not seeking God and trying to know Him as best they can? God has made Himself available to all people through reason, nature, and conscience, and therefore all of the world's major religions are capable of saying something valid about God...
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
...even though the fullness of Truth is, of course, to be found only in God's revelation in His Gospel.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Because if people are not born again, they hate the One True God. If not for God's supernatural work of Regenerating your dead, hard heart, you would hate Him.
Fisherofmen92 2 years ago
God allows all men a general Grace that enables them to seek Him. There is a natural law written on everyone's heart, so while imperfect it is possible for people who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the Gospel to love God as best they can.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
The law written on our hearts isn't for us to love God or to seek Him, it's to convict us of our sin and tell us right from wrong. It's impossible for a person to love God without first experiencing Christ's love. If you were to go up to ANY unconverted person and explain to them the True God, they would hate Him. And if an unbeliever does claim to love God, it's simply a false god they have created in their own mind to suit their evil desires.
Fisherofmen92 2 years ago
I'd like to ask 2 questions, if you don't mind:
1) Show me where it says this in Scripture.
2) Why was one of my comments (my reply to YeeeHaw83) deleted?
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Romans 2:15, Galatians 3:23-25.
Both of those show that the Law written on our hearts is our conscience. To convict us of sin and bring us to Christ. And there are more if you'd like.
As for the comment thing, I'm honestly not sure. I don't remember deleting one and I don't have to approve comments. I'm sorry if I did delete it, I didn't mean to. I don't delete comments unless they're crude or inappropriate. Maybe you clicked off before it posted or something?
Fisherofmen92 2 years ago
It was posted before...My assumption is that either it got deleted as a result of something wacky going on with Youtube, or perhaps someone else spammed it. No biggie. As for what you say about conscience, I agree completely. My initial point was simply to say that those who have never had Christ preached to them, through no fault of their own, have access through conscience and through nature and reason to God's Grace. Hang tight, I'm gonna need 1 more post here...
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Let's agree on something: Christ ALONE saves people. However, I believe in accordance with the Faith that has been handed down to me that Christ can, if necessary and appropriate, express Himself in ways that we don't understand, and that people can come to a knowledge of Him (though perhaps imperfect) without having heard the Gospel preached. We must remember that God wills men to be saved, and so He won't be restricted by missionaries not getting to those in need of them.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
By the way, thanks for this conversation--it's good to be able to discuss these things, especially in a civil and constructive fashion. You might be surprised by the number of people who don't like to talk about religion!
God Bless, friend
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Hahaha, I hope you're being sarcastic about the "people not liking to talk about religion"remark...I witness to people regularly and yeah...it's pretty insane some of the remarks I get sometimes...lots of silly things. And yes it is nice to have a conversation, and I apologize if I come across as...angry or arrogant over the text, no tone in text.
Ok, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that peoples in far off countries and such can be saved without hearing the
Fisherofmen92 2 years ago
Gospel because God could will them to be saved -which is kinda Calvinist ;-) lol, just saying- However, the question is, What is the way God has ordained to reach the Lost? I think the following scriptures show that the tool is preaching. Romans 10:14-17, 1 Corinthians 1:21, Ephesians 1:13. That is, biblical conversion is ALWAYS hearing the Gospel, then believing (except in the case of the Apostles as they were called by Christ Himself). So the Will of God is for men to hear the gospel
Fisherofmen92 2 years ago
preached by the church empowered by the Holy Spirit, then He works in those men who hear it. And if God wants those men to be saved, He can raise up a missionary and send them there to preach. I mean, for the God who created the Universe Ex Nihilo, covering the expense for a missionary for a few years to a far off country is peanuts. Ya know? By the way, I'm a 5 point Calvinist Baptist, since I know you're Catholic figured you know some of where I stand.
Fisherofmen92 2 years ago
"you're saying that peoples in far off countries and such can be saved without hearing the Gospel because God could will them to be saved"
Yes--I'm approaching this matter from the standpoint of Natural Theology, which is part of the Catholic Faith. As for the preaching of the Gospel, this is the ordinary means that God has chosen to bring salvation to people, and clarifies the responsibility of Christians in the context of God's master plan. However...
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
...this does not preclude God using EXTRA-ordinary means of saving those who respond as best they can to the light that they have but who, for historical or geographical reasons, did not have the chance to hear the Gospel.
As I am a Catholic and you are a Calvinist, we will disagree on certain points here. For instance, I believe that God wills all humankind to be saved; this desire on His part is the reason that salvation can be available to people in distant countries we've been talking about
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Yeah, but what Scripture is there for God using any other means than preaching for anyone other than the apostles? Because honestly, it doesn't matter a whit what either one of us think or believe, Scripture is the ultimate authority since it is God's Word. So if you can give me scriptural evidence for this, then I may believe you.
Fisherofmen92 2 years ago
Romans 2:13-14: "For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law."
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Acts 14:16-17 (when Paul is in Lystra): "In past generations he allowed all Gentiles to go their own ways; yet, in bestowing his goodness, he did not leave himself without witness, for he gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, and filled you with nourishment and gladness for your hearts."
In the case of these people, who were outside of the Covenant tradition, God did not hold their past ignorance against them, and gave them the chance to know Him through natural phenomena.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
"We must remember that God wills men to be saved, and so He won't be restricted by missionaries not getting to those in need of them."
he's not restricted by men's efforts. Instead, He himself moves men's efforst. If God has His elect in certain places, He will make absolutely sure that those people hear the gospel and use the gospel to bring them to faith and repentance.
No one can be saved without faith in Christ:
"Whoever does not believe in me..the wrath of God abides on him"
skalapunk 2 years ago
God does not pre-ordain who will be saved and who will not. He wills that everyone be saved. That doesn't mean everyone will in fact be saved, as people have free will--but the Lord in His infinite mercy would have all men come to Him. To declare otherwise is counter-Biblical and, as far as I'm concerned, a shameful insult to the character of God.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Irish, I understand what you are saying. I used to believe that way too. But you see, you say "but the Bible says such-and-such" and "The Bible teaches such-and-such". The problem is, what I believe can also be backed up with scripture. We both argue the same thing: that the Bible teaches our view on this subject.
My starting questions to you would be:
1) Where does the Bible teach free will? (A will is not the same as a 'free' will)
2) Where does it teach that God wills that all be saved?
skalapunk 2 years ago
You also say that my belief is a shameful insult to the character of God, but I argue the same thing: that your belief is a shameful insult to His character. My point is, simply asserting something is not sufficient in discussion. Since we are both Christians, we both answer to the highest authority: the Bible. We must prove what we believe from the Bible.
I know you're going to flip through your bible and find certain verses. In fact I've anticipated which ones you will use. I will respond
skalapunk 2 years ago
I will start be sharing what I believe. I believe men have the power of free choice. Men can always choose what they desire to choose. The problem is, since the fallen, the Bible teaches that all men are unregenerate and as such are hostile towards God, opposed to him, even hate him.
Therefore, when given the choice between the God they hate and giving up the sins they love, they will always consistently choose to reject God and continue in sins.
skalapunk 2 years ago
So the will is not "free" in the sense that is neutral between God and sin, good or evil. Instead it has a biased against God and holiness, and an inclination towards rebellion and sinfulness and evil.
Therefore the will is not "free" in the sense that is neutral between the two, able to choose one way or the other. Instead it will always choose according to its desires: to reject God and stay in sins. This is the condition of every person born after adam.
skalapunk 2 years ago
Therefore, what GOd must do is change our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. He must give us eyes to see and ears that hear and hearts that love him. Otherwise we would never love him. So when any man chooses to follow Christ and love Christ, it is not because they had an innate, natural ability or desire to do so, but because they have a God given desire to do so. Therefore God gets all the praise, credit, and glory when anyone turns to Him.
skalapunk 2 years ago
The practical proof that all Christians, deep down, believe this (that God must change the heart in order for any to come to him) is that we all pray for the lost to be saved. We are praying to God to save our lost friends and family.
skalapunk 2 years ago
I'm not going into the Scripture verses here, because I think I know how you intend to respond based on my exposure to Calvinist arguments elsewhere: by talking about the original Greek and Hebrew words and what they mean. But the early Church Fathers were much closer to the language and the ideology of the people through whom God wrote the New Testament, and so I think we should privilege their understanding of the language over ours. That being said...
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
...you should know that the early Church Fathers universally believed in free will and in God's universal salvific will.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
While the ECFs can be very helpful, they do not the authority of scripture. You say the ECF beleived in "free will". Fair enough. But the real question is, what was their definition of "free will?"
Two people using the phrase "free will" might mean two different things. The controversy over man's will was not an issue in the era of the ECFs, so it is fair to say they did not deal with it in detail, for example, as much as Augustin, Luther, or Edwards. I agree with those 3 men.
skalapunk 2 years ago
Luther and Edwards in particular affirmed "free will" in a sense. That is, if by "free will" you mean certain things, but not other things. It's when "free will" starts meaning those "other things" that we begin to deny it.
For example, if by "free will" you mean "the power and ability to choose whatever you desire to choose",t hen of coruse, we all affirm free will.
skalapunk 2 years ago
However if you mean by "free will" that men are neutral between good and evil and not influenced one direction over another, then I would disagree with you and say that free will, the way you are defining it, does not exist.
The BIble is clear, I believe: Men are biased against holiness and inclined towards evil, and sin. Slaves of sin, Jesus said. Never seeking God, Paul said. Unable to do anything good or righteous. That is not a "free will", friend, but a will in bondage.
skalapunk 2 years ago 6
God's prevenient grace enables everyone, in spite of the stain of original sin, the possibility of responding to Him. Is God's Grace necessary in order for man to do anything of supernatural value? Of course--the Catholic Church affirms this, and condemned Pelegius for asserting that man's free will was sufficient. But the key is that EVERYONE has the ability to move toward holiness--otherwise, Biblical exhortations to abstain from sin would be totally meaningless.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Thanks for the honest response. However, I do not find Prev. Grace taught anywhere in the scriptures, so I cannot believe it.
The only "grace that comes before" I find is regeneration itself. And it is not given to all.
skalapunk 2 years ago 2
For God's gracious outreach to those who haven't heard the revealed truth, a good Biblical example is the 3 magi who came to see the Infant Jesus. They were outside of God's Covenant tradition, and yet God led them to Christ using what was good and true in their religion (which involved attention to the stars).
As for regeneration, that is stressing the importance of infant baptism. It does not preclude, however, a certain common grace that God offers to all, preceding salvific grace.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Also, see Acts 14:16-17 (when Paul is in Lystra): "In past generations he allowed all Gentiles to go their own ways; yet, in bestowing his goodness, he did not leave himself without witness, for he gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, and filled you with nourishment and gladness for your hearts."
What could the significance of this passage be, if we conclude that there is NO grace at all available to those who haven't yet heard the Gospel?
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
@1r1shCath0l1c Read Romans. God says Himself that man is without excuse. The gospel is all around them. There are none that has not heard.
hargisP2 2 years ago
Right, man is without excuse--therefore, by implication, it is possible for those who haven't had the Gospel preached to them to respond to it and be saved!
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
"You also say that my belief is a shameful insult to the character of God, but I argue the same thing: that your belief is a shameful insult to His character."
May I ask, in what way exactly?
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
So they died to defend work righteousness? They would have fought against salvation by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone? Please explain instead of throw up stickmen...
YeeeHaw83 2 years ago
That "foul gospel" of the Catholic Church is exactly the Gospel that Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, and yes, Augustine, fought and died to defend. And if they were alive today they would, I'm sure, exercise similar vigor against the false doctrines of Martin Luther and John Calvin.
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago