Much to my changrine, you don't understand me at all.
Quote
"I do thing you have described perfectly the difference between true believers and all others; even those who claim to be so. The difference is that true believers bow before and accept as infallibly true, the self revelation of God which He has graciously provided and preserves in His inspired written Word while all others rely upon and rest in their imagination."
How convienient that you get to define "true believers" in such manner as to explicitly exclude me. None of what you said here is Biblical, in regards to biblical requisites to salvation, it is purely Protestant advocacy.
Quote
"I realize that since you do not consider the Bible to be an absolute authority, it is not likely that you will bother..."
I don't believe the Bible to be the exclusive embodiment of ALL Christian truth, or the sole rule of faith. I do consider the Bible as an absolute authority and out of all the holy writings governing the Christian faith, the Catholic Church esteems the Old and New Testaments far higher than all the rest combined. In fact, all other Christian writings serve only to affirm the validity of the holy scriptures.
Quote
"I end here with a couple of marvelous quotes from two men who have been taken hold of by the sovereign God whom you would not have rule over you:"
Well, let's get to the heart of the matter. You inflict injury upon me when you infer (as you have done twice in this post) that I'm not saved. This is not a mark of humility on your part because YOU DO NOT KNOW! If you were humble, you would have remembered that man looks to the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart. If you had soberly remembered this, you might have refrained from the judgement you just rendered.
You also seemed to say that our imagination of God should strictly adhere to the text of scriptures concerning God's attributes, but a purely abstract conceptualization of God for any length of time is not possible. The human equation asserts itself, as has become evident here. For I have percieved in this forum, (if I may offer some kind criticism) an image of God as One who will judge based on man's command of correct doctrine, and perfect knowledge of that which saves him.
Salvation is a heart issue, and biblical knowledge of Jesus in an intimate knowledge, not a scholastic one. I believe all CAtholic teachings and interpretations of scripture, but I know Jesus in such a personal way as cannot be described by words. It is because my relationship to Jesus is so close and enduring that it hurts when those whom I consider brethren in Christ, in smug confidence, conclude that I'm not saved.
I choose my words carefully, and I have never said that any of you will go to hell because you aren't baptized into the one holy Catholic Church, or because you partake in a "false Eucharist." Much to my credit, I don't even believe privately that this would exclude you from the Christian faith. Discussion of doctrinal differences is fine, but when you start to deny my salvation, you assault my dear relationship to Christ, and it becomes personal.
I hope in the future you will exercise more godly consideration in your choice of words.
This matter reminds me of a broadcast I heard on The Bible Answer Man (I rarely go there now) a few years ago he had Dr. Michael Horton as his guest. Hank asked Dr. Horton if he believed Arminians were Christians. After about 10 seconds, he responded something to the effect of I think if is safe to say and is the stance taken by the ACE (Alliance of Confessional Evangelicals) that while many Arminians may indeed be genuine Christians. If they knowing believe in their heart of hearts the Arminian gospel, then unfortunately we do not believe they are saved. After he said that, Hank hesitated and changed the subject. Anyone care to guess why? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />
Anyway the reason why I bring that up is because I think if Hank had used the words Roman Catholics instead of Arminians, I believe Dr. Horton would have said similar things and I would have agreed with him.
Perhaps Hank changed the subject to avoid beating the daylights out of Dr. Horton on national television <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />
I cannot believe that so many of you don't understand what a sin of pride is committed when we begin to speculate on the salvation of other Christians. My firm assertion that only God knows the heart falls on deaf ears. YOur doctrinal differences are minor, though you may argue that it is much larger than it appears. I can only attribute this to the Reformation's artistic ability to make a mountain out of a mole hill. And your interprotestantal differences in doctrine are no excuse to call each other "anethema."
I hope if this ever happens to me in person, I will be blessed with the same restraint as the Bible Answer man. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />
catholicsoldier protests: And your interprotestantal differences in doctrine are no excuse to call each other "anethema."
How easily you forget history, both past and present, where the Roman State Church in it's infamous "Council of Trent" pronounced "Anathema" on anyone and every one who disagreed with its man-made, heretical views. I suppose the apostle Paul would also have to fall under your charge for his pronouncement of anathema upon all who preached another gospel other than Sola Fide? (Gal 1:7, 9; 4:30; 1Cor 5:5ff; Titus 1:20; 3:10; et al) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> While it is agreed that no finite being can know the eternal destiny of another, what is true is that all those who believe upon and follow the Lord Christ, are charged with the duty and responsibility of being "fruit inspectors". Furthermore, the Church is obligated to discipline and if necessary excommunicate anyone who is errant in either doctrine or in life.
The "mole hills", by your estimation which exist between Protestants, are not all so. In fact, the majority of Protestants hold to a doctrine of soteriology which is much closer to Rome than many realize. And thus, those who hold to such things by their confession, "anathematize" themselves. For the "mole hill" in your estimation, if which are wanting to foist upon us here, is a standard of truth by which the Church either stands or falls.
Quote
I hope if this ever happens to me in person, I will be blessed with the same restraint as the Bible Answer man.
I would hope the same for you too, for your own sake. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Despite what you may think Dr. Horton was being very gracious in his response and in no way was judging anyone’s salvation. If you will read my post again you will see that he was talking about the doctrines of Arminianism itself. He was basically saying that since Arminianism is a false gospel, then if an Arminian is truly saved, it is despite it, not because of it.
By the way, the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism are not minor as you think. To show you just how different they really are, let me relate something that hopefully shows you what I mean. I was once talking to someone I know about limited atonement. After I had finished she gave me a horrified look and in a loud and angry voice said: "That is not my God!!!" Although I still talk with this person a lot, and get along great with her, she does not want to even talk about the issue anymore. Since then, I have had a few more emotional responses by other people.
Why would she react that way? She recognized the huge contrast between what she believes on the subject and what I believed. I have to admit that one of the aspects of the doctrines of grace that I struggled with before I embraced TULIP was limited atonement. I spend many a sleepless night on the issue and must confess that in that process (not intentionally), caused a lot of stress in my family. At the time, I didn’t really want to believe it because of its ramifications, it was indeed a huge contrast from what I had been taught up until that point. I finally embraced these precious doctrines because I knew in my heart they are biblical. It was quite a while after that that I finally began seeing that I had previously been looking at the issue through the wrong perspective. I had been looking at it through my own eyes, not the eyes of my sovereign God. Seeing the matter through this new perspective, I began to see how much sense the doctrines of grace really made. I will say that because of my experiences with this issue, I have grown to have a little patience with people that have not embraced these doctrines. I don’t know the condition of people’s heart, they may be in a similar position that I at one time was. Saved and teachable, but not at that time understanding doctrine.
Perhaps I was hasty and sent the wrong message. Yes, the differences are important. Arminianism is an antigospel and I must agree with you on that. TULIP is very biblical, and Romans 8:29,30 would affirm its veracity to me independant of any other evidence.
But here, sir, enters the inevitable problem with the statement that anyone who believes in their heart the Arminian doctrine is not saved. In our effort to protect the sacred doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works, (note I do not agree with Protestant interpretations of this) we have created here a justification based on works as we have made prerequisite a perfect or at least adequate intellectual knowledge of that which saves us.
A circular paradox to be sure. If you require one to suffice in understanding that they are not saved by works, then indeed, you are implying just that; that they are saved by this work.
Actually according to James we are saved by our works, but they are virtually indistinguishable from our faith so closely are they entertwined. This is where protestants need to take a closer look at James's discourse, for you have missed the point. Faith receives the upper hand in this debate because you cannot have faith without works, but you can have works without faith.
But back to the point at hand, sir, I hope you can see the error here. Not only do we all lack perfect knowledge of that which saves us, I assert that we don't have even an adequate knowledge of it, and I'm glad that this isn't a mark against us. In heaven I believe we'll be embarrased at just how much we thought we knew, but in fact how short sighted we really were.
I believe perfect knowledge of that which saves us will be ours when we gaze tearfully for the first time at the scars on the body of our Savior and not before.
In the Sacred Heart of Christ and the Immaculate Heart of Mary
In our effort to protect the sacred doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works, (note I do not agree with Protestant interpretations of this)...
Quote
Actually according to James we are saved by our works,...
Precisely. You believe in a synergistic soteriology. Reformed folks are monergists. World of difference, and therefore, you cannot be a calvinist, the doctrines of which are monergist.
Quote
Not only do we all lack perfect knowledge of that which saves us, I assert that we don't have even an adequate knowledge of it,...
I assert that we do have adequate knowledge in this area and that scripture is abundantly clear on both Gods sovereignty and mans inability. The two positions are not the same, we can simultaneously have adequate knowledge and yet never have perfect knowledge on any given subject.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)