On this you and I agree. What you quoted from me in post #73 just prior to this was meant to affirm this. The "dead regenerate sinner" who repents and "comes to faith" would (I submit) have already been given the gift of faith in order to act. A "dead man" who is not so dead as it were. Some may disagree with this, but one who is alive in Christ is hardly dead. Am I making sense?
[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]
You and I are agreeing.... on a point I've made often.... but no non-Protestant here in all the time I've been here, and none at CF in all the time I was there, agree. That point is either persistently protested or (more often) wisely ignored. Did you read post #59 (the last time I conveyed this)? I say WISELY because if they agreed (even in the non-dogmatic, "pious personal opinion" in which you and I mean it), then the whole Catholic dogma falls apart and there is a confession that Luther was right (and thus the RCC was wrong) in what is perhaps the biggest issue and event in Christiandom in 1000 years.
You see, my friend, Catholic Answers is SMART. Tim Staples is SMART. He gets it. Which is why I started this thread. WHY, I asked, did CA have this video about "Luther's persisting HERESY" (singular! heresy!), why, I asked, does he never identify that heresy (singular, heresy)? He knows Luther on this. Luther taught that God does the saving (in this sense of initial, narrow, establishing justification). So.... here he is.... here CA is.... THE premier Catholic apologetics ministry... praised all the way up, including by the Pope himself... with millions of Catholics tuning in to the radio stations, the website, the videos (shown in many RC parishes) saying, "Luther's heresy was he taught that Jesus is the Savior." Friend, you know many Catholics, I'm sure. What would 99% of them say? "WHAT! But that's right! Jesus is the Savior, Jesus DOES do the saving, no one saves themselves!!!!! The Catholic Church is wrong, Catholic Answers is wrong! Luther was right on this!" So, I'll let you theorize (you can do it as well as me), why does CA speak so often of "Luther's heresy" but never identifies it? I raised that question here.
But he shows his "hand." He himself in this short video gives you (and I) a huge clue: His basis for authority, for truth is a denomination (the RCC one), the one that has SEVEN Sacraments, the one that is in full unity with itself, the one with Apostolic Succession... the RCC cannot err (at least not in the uber important issues of official dogma.... especially not when there are official ex-officio Papal Declarations.... especially not when there are official, binding Councils - ALL the case here!!!!!). Understand? Get it?
There was much discussion of this last year, on the 500th Anniversary of all this (the biggest event in Christianity since 1054, in 1000 years). Maybe the Pope would issue an ex-officio declaration (or at least a personal opinion) that the RCC goofed 500 years ago (probably avoiding the word "erred") and affirming that Luther (ON THIS POINT) was actually right all along. There were Catholics (albeit liberal ones) who predicted he'd do that. I was 100% sure he would not (and ... of course.... I was right, lol) because that DESTROYS the whole enchilada, the whole house of cards falls. The whole basis of Catholic theology (and thus apologetics) is that ONE DENOMINATION is the infallible, authoritative "interpreter" of Scripture and Tradition - it's leadership EQUAL and inseparable from Scripture and Tradition, equal to the words of Jesus, indeed literally Jesus speaking. And in these matters the RCC cannot err any more than Jesus can and it CANNOT change truth since truth doesn't change. So, how does the RCC "apologize" for perhaps its biggest mistake in over 1000 years - one it continues, one it DOGMATICALLY codified in Papal ex-cathedra proclamations and in official, binding Church Councils, a matter of highest dogma, without pulling the rug out from everything? I'll tell you. By continuing to shout "HERESY" but never identifying it.... by constant evasion and dodging.... by constantly changing the subject to issues not in debate.... and meanwhile, very likely saying EXACTLY what Luther did. How long will this go on? As long as it works, as long as Catholics don't notice.
Friend, as you know, Luther was an official "Doctor of the Church" with the responsibility of pointing out errant teachings, techings in conflict with Catholic (big C) theology. It's a responsibility he accepted with humility. He heard Indugence sellers preaching Pelagianism, in forms clearly condemned at the Council at Orange and contrary to the theology he was taught and was being taught at the University of Wittenberg where he taught Scripture. He reported this.... FULLY EXPECTING to be thanked and for actions to be taken to correct this. But we all know what happened. For some time (not long enough!!!) Luther was very respectful, absolutely sure the issue was not being understood but that the Bishops and indeed even the HORRIBLE pope at the time, didn't believe what was being preached they just didn't understand (truth is: the level of theological traning even for bishops and the Pope was poor). But it became obvious the leadership felt a need to "side" with the indulgence sellers.... and things turned really nasty (on both sides). But don't forget how all that started - with men selling indulgences (raising money the RCC desperately needed) by preaching false doctrine, at the very core of Christianity. Luther died never understanding WHY the RCC reacted the way it did. Frankly, I don't know either. But it did. And does. And in a sense, I think its whole being is now "stuck" since it cannot change "truth." It seems, it can't even unofficially say, "We may have misunderstood the man and thus acted wrongly." It seems rare to even find a Catholic individual who will say that (at least not smart ones, who realize the whole house of cards rests on one denomination being inerrant, its words being Jesus' words).
I take comfort in KNOWING the Holy Spirit is not hindered by the confusion in the RCC and its need to continue to condemn Luther for saying that Jesus saves us. His Word does not return void... and it is read, it is sung, it is all over the liturgy. And His Sacraments are there (and valid, IMO). The Catholics in my family are all Christians - not BECAUSE of the RCC in this matter but in spite of it.
Meanwhile, the 500 year old tragedy continues (officially but not generally personally) and we see that VERY clearly in this video and in every thread at CH on this topic (and any remotely related to it). The RCC's protest of Luther - the foundational belief in a denomination - but WISE ones never identify the heresy because the whole house of cards would be in jeoprody. I get it. So does CA. So does Tim Staples. NO ONE can do a thing about this, but IMO is a problem of the RCC, not mine (or yours or any Catholic here). I'm trying to get past that denomination and it's whole "deck of cards" - and deal person to person. Can we stop the "Luther taught this HERESY!!!!! And the RCC can't be wrong about that!!! I just won't disagree with Luther because... well.... I don't disagree with Luther on this."
I know I've been rebuked here (I think mostly by you) for proclaiming the Gospel - HOPING for an "amen". But, friend, I will continue to do that as long as God enables. SOME Catholics WILL say 'amen' .... a few will even say "my church was wrong 500 years ago on this but I know Jesus.... and some are focused only on ONE thing, the thing CA and Tim Stables are focused on.... defending the unaccountable, infallible, authoritative lordship of one denomination.
Since you are still reading this (?)... I want to say a bit about the Eastern Orthodox Church, since (surprisingly an Orthodox brother here keeps interjecting loud protest of every mention of Jesus as the Savior)... I've discussed this at length with my Greek Orthodox friend and briefly with an Orthodox priest at another site. Both cause me to be very surprised by the things arsenios posts. I've been told this entire topic is "undeveloped" in the EOC - that there is no real doctrine AT ALL on this point of initial/narrow/establishment justification.... it goes no further than "God acts in baptism." BUT, both stressed to me, the East has never fully bought into "original sin" or "total depravity" (which the posts of arsenios confirms) - the "Fall" just is seem very differently... and as a result, the church's condemnation of Pelagianism has never fully been embraced in the East (both admitted to me that at least some aspects of Pelagius ARE still taught in the East, the condemnation ignored). So, in THAT sense, I'm not as surprised by the East as I am of the RCC. But on the other hand, the EOC is not stuck by what the RCC did 500 years ago (arsenio's comment "I have no card in this game") and by claims of a denomination being the infallible lord over all. But, this is not dogma in the East... not defined.... and as both my friend and the priest conveyed... they just say out of the discussion: this is a WESTERN issue, largely a result of the RCC's power obsession and Protestantism's strong embrace of original sin and rejection of Peligius. They just STAY OUT of the whole thing.... That has been my experience too - at CF and here and everywhere - until arsenios came along. I am surprised and confused by his plethora of "I agree" "I disagree" comments on the same thing.... his "I have nothing to say on this" while posting over and over and over on this.
Thank you.
- Josiah
.
