Featured Love Alone Saves (Part 2)

steaver,

So now that we have clearly identified our central point of disagreement, let's attempt to proceed with this in mind. I will take some time away this evening and get back with you with a few thoughts for your consideration. Maybe you could do the same thing and we will be able to proceed from there.

Thanks again for the dialogue.

In Him,

Herbert

 

And the same goes for me.

It definitely stimulates the senses and is meant to lift our prayers up as it says in Revelation. It does not happen at every Mass, but it is mentioned in the Scriptures as a positive thing and I don't see why we would not be allowed to do the same thing.

 

Our prayers rise to God with or without incense.

 

steaver,

What qualifies as "taught by God"? Does the inclusion of such a practice in Scripture qualify as a direct teaching of God? Also, where do the Scriptures indicate that the passage I referred to is nothing more than a "symbolic" picture? And whether I qualify as a saint or not has not a thing to do directly with the subject at hand. I am happy to explore the possibility. But first things first...

In Him,

Herbert

 

steaver,

I believe that Christ is "IN ME." I have confidence in this. I do indeed have a personal knowledge of this. My personal knowledge, though, is corroborated by an external witness, which is the Church He founded.

In Him,

Herbert

 

@steaver

So at this point there are a couple things I'd hope you'd be willing to speak to...

1) What about what I originally said about the unreasonableness of looking to speeding cars to find out what the actual lawful speed is in an area?
2) What about what I said about the fact that you're judging others' doctrines according to a standard which fails its own test? (That is to say, it seems that you demand that Catholic doctrines are spelled out in Scripture despite the fact that Scripture itself doesn't spell out such a test by which you ought to judge- and dismiss- Catholic doctrines).

In Him,

Herbert

 

My remarks were made in Part 1... You said that you go directly to Catholics to find out what the Church really teaches, rather than the Church. In response to that I said:

[Isn't that a bit like saying, if you want to know what a country's laws are, you need to go out into the roughest part of town and observe the behavior of the citizens? Such an idea seems to me to be patently false. Do I watch speeding cars to determine what the speed limit is? Or do I look for the little white sign on the side of the road?

It doesn't matter if it is JW's. Mormons, SDA's, Catholics, Baptist, etc. If you want to know what their church is actually teaching then ask the followers what they believe.
Again, that's like saying "It doesn't matter if it's Dictionary.com or Merriam-Webster, if you want to know what the dictionary actually says, you've got to review the way a typical person on the street spells."]

I am still wondering what your thoughts are in response to these comments.

In Him,

Herbert

 

steaver,

It seems to me that you have a tendency to allow the conversation to wander all over the place. Sure your questions are valid. And I am happy to speak to them. But if we want to get anywhere with regard to the stated subject matter at hand, I think we should try to keep focused. That doesn't mean we're always talking about the idea that "Love alone" can save. But it does mean that we're looking more closely at the underlying bases for our respective positions.

As far as your questions above go, yes, even were I to be unfaithful to my wife, she'd still be my wife. And were the State of Michigan to issue a document which stated we were divorced, we'd still be, in God's eyes, married... until death do us part.

In Him,

Herbert

 

steaver,

The "Word of God" is not *just* the texts of Scripture. So "if someone says this or that is what God says," why, sure we are to look into God's Word to see if it is true or untrue. But if you're going to limit "God's Word" to the text of Scripture you have a number of logical problems to attend to first:

a) Since the Scriptures do not come with an inspired Table of Contents how are you to know which books are and which books aren't actually God-breathed, as a matter of faith (as opposed to as a matter of scholarship or history)?
b) Nowhere in the Scriptures is the Christian instructed to *only* accept doctrines which are clearly spelled out in the Scriptures. Therefore, to judge others' doctrines according to whether or not you find them clearly laid out in the Scriptures is to apply a test of others' doctrines which fails its own standard. It's a self-refuting position, a performative contradiction.
c) When one "submits" to a doctrine only when he "agrees" with the doctrine, he's actually submitting to his own (fallible) judgment, and not Scripture (though he tells himself otherwise). He's convinced himself that he's clinging to an objective, revealed standard. However, such is not the case. This is precisely why you're utterly Scripturally convinced that Calvinism is, as a system, flawed. Meanwhile "MennoSota," apparently, thinks otherwise. Both of you maintain your conviction... But you can't both be right. Yet you both appeal to Scripture. So what is it that lies at the heart of your disagreement? Not Scripture! Rather, it's your own respective (fallible) interpretive paradigms, which you've mistaken for the direct revelation of Scripture, that account for your persistent differences.

I'd be interested to hear your responses to these ideas.

In Him,

Herbert

 

I can only speak for myself and say it is scripture that guides me. I once held a similar view as steaver, but I kept reading the Bible and the Bible won out.
We cannot put God in a box. Job teaches us that trying to force a personal view on God does not work. He is too far above us. We also cannot be lazy and let others make up stories that we trust in. We must continue to read God's word and let His word continue to sanctify us.
Having a different opinion doesn't bother me. Making up philosophical arguments that have no basis in God's word bothers me.

 

steaver,

A couple more things:

You are not in a position to accurately frame or interpret religious practices of other Christians conclusively. You are not in a position to determine (or limit) the number of alternatives there are available here. For example, it is possible that the smoke of the incense, though it is in a sense distinct from the prayers being offered, is itself a prayer which appropriately accompanies the other prayers we offer to God. You certainly have impressions and ideas concerning what it is you see priests doing during a particular liturgy. But you're not in a position to dismiss or condemn their actions with any finality. You just have an opinion. You expressed that opinion earlier when you said the following to Adonia: "With all due respect Adonia, when I see the bishop waving around a smoking pot it really does nothing for me."

Again, you don't have to choose to adopt Biblical practices in your worship services. But that doesn't mean that you're in a position to criticize those Christians who do. For whether or not a Christian liturgical practice "does" anything for you isn't what determines its meaning, purpose, or legitimacy.

To explore this thought a bit, let's look at what the word "prayer" means. Among the definitions I found with a quick Google search are the following:

1. a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship (my emphasis)
2. a religious service, especially a regular one, at which people gather in order to pray together. (my emphasis)

• As far as definition one indicates, actions such as burning incense can be understood as expressions of prayer as can various sacrifices one might make in hopes of achieving a greater good in their light. In this qualified sense, the incense which is offered at Mass can be understood as being a prayerful expression, a "prayer in action," as I heard one other describe it.
• Concerning definition two, "a religious service" itself may be understood as a prayer. That would, it seems, suggest that the various activities, songs, rites, and practices which occur in such a service can themselves be understood as unique and varied expressions of prayer.

Also, consider Revelation 8:3:
"Another angel came in holding a censer of gold. He took his place at the altar of incense and was given large amounts of incense to deposit on the altar of gold in front of the throne, together with the prayers of all God's holy ones. From the angel's hand, the smoke of the incense went up before God, and with it the prayers of God's people."

Notice how the incense in this verse is deposited "together with the prayers of all God's holy ones"? It could be said that the incense is a material accompaniment, then, to the spiritual requests of the holy ones. It is a real, material "expression of thanks"... It is a prayer, of sorts, in a qualified sense.

I am going to attempt to speak a little bit to what we recently identified as our most central point of disagreement (as far as this conversation is concerned). You look to this verse as a validation of your belief that one cannot lose his salvation:

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

But to me, all of what you wrote above as well as the manner according to which you interpret John 3:18 seems to me to be based upon some faulty logic. It seems that you're grounding all of this upon a "non sequitur." In other words, the conclusion you've reached is not actually a consequence of the things you describe (or that verse). Christ may be in a person. A person may be forgiven and made new in Christ. We may experience life in Jesus. The Holy Spirit may come to indwell us. We may be "born of God." None of those things preclude the possibility of one losing his salvation through sin. Nothing about an experience of new life renders null any threats to that life which obtain according to the normal course of its being lived out. In the case of faith, what threatens our new life is not a physical threat, but a spiritual threat: sin. So as far as our spiritual well-being goes, in my opinion, Christ couldn't have been clearer than when He spoke to His own Disciples, saying: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

And again, when speaking directly to His followers, concerning the "kingdom of heaven," Christ had this to say: "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (my emphasis)

With this parable in mind let's consider a few things:

Q: Who was the audience present as Christ taught this parable?
A: His Disciples. People who were actually following Him. Christ isn't just offering this teaching to a bunch of unsaved people, some reprobate crowd. He's teaching His own followers about the Kingdom. So the lessons present in the teaching apply to us, his followers (and the rest of the world, of course).

Q: What, in spiritual terms, would we liken to being "released" and "forgiven" of a debt we couldn't repay?
A: Coming to Christ. Receiving the unmerited favor of God's love through Christ.

Q: And like the servant, what do we do to receive God's grace?
A: We repent. We fall at His feet and accept His mercy (And as Christians we believe upon Him, receive Baptism, live according to His commandments...).

So what is, among other things, an essential lesson of this parable?:

• Just as the servant was forgiven and freed of his debt in the parable, so it is that according to the kingdom of heaven, we may be spiritually forgiven and freed in Christ.
• And just as the servant betrayed his master by not extending forgiveness to his debtor in the parable, so is it possible that, according to the kingdom of heaven, we can turn against God in sin.

As I see it, if we attempt to make Scripture to fit the theological systems of interpretation (systems like Calvinism, for example) which we've adopted (or inherited) instead of the other way around, we we find our theological systems demanding of us that we twist, turn, and manipulate the Scriptures so that we don't draw from them their most obvious, and apparent meanings.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Herbert, it is disappointing to read your salvation by works message, which eliminates grace.
I also see you teaching that Christ is in you by virtue of your taking communion. Yet, the Bible teaches that we are in Christ. We are made alive by God. We are adopted by God by His providence. As adopted children, what might a child of the King do that will have the Father cast him out and disown him as a son? Does not the parable of the prodigal son teach us that the Father never disowns his wayward son?