literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

http://www.sulekha.com/chpost.asp...ilosophy&show=0&cid=90307

Sitaram writes:

I distinctly remember that day, long ago, when I visited a Catholic
Church and suddenly, for the very first time, noticed that the
narrative of the consecration of the eucharist were somehow radically
different in one single word from consecrations that I distinctly
remember from years earlier, namely: "shed for you and for ALL"
vs. "shed for you and for MANY."

Suddenly I was conscious of hearing the assertion that this blood was
shed for ALL. Formerly, I remember hearing the assertion that
Christ's blood was shed for MANY.

What a vast theological chasm exists between two simple words! What
bridge of understanding might we possibly construct to span and cross
such a chasm, uniting both sides?

Below you will find the results of a google.com search on:

mass blood "for many" "for all"

For the sake of those readers who may feel impatient, confronted with
all this reading, and be wondering "what is the upshot of all this"
or "what is the bottom line, " then I shall first apologize that I
have no definitive answers to offer, but only a hope to point to some
interesting questions. But secondly, I shall observe that BOTH
readings are possibly correct, depending on your frame of reference
and point of view. Namely, the blood of the atonement was shed for
ALL in the sense that all are invited to accept what is offered with
an ongoing cooperative act of free will. The blood was shed for MANY
(but not ALL), in the sense that though all were invited, not all
chose to accept the invitation.

I will mention, just as an aside, that I was intrigued by recent news
items concerning the attempt of some Roman Catholic Bishops to bar
from communion those elected representatives who vote in favor of
abortion or same sex marriage. It seems to me that an elected
official is sworn or duty bound to vote as a reflection of the will
of the majority of the constituency which that office represents.
Therefore, there votes are not personal actions based on private
convictions.

The former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Everett Koop,
was considered to be a very conservative candidate who would most
certainly use his post as a bully pulpit to promote his own private
beliefs. Dr. Koop surprised the nation with rulings and judgements
which ran very much counter to his private convictions. Dr. Koop
felt obligated to exercise the power of his office to reflect the
will and interests of the majority which he represented, rather than
his own personal viewpoints.

But then, Galileo was excommunicated at the eve of the Renaissance,
and only pardoned posthumously in recent years, and many centuries
after his death.

The Marist Brother G. (below), who led the four year Bible study,
once mentioned that one priest he knew had explained that a priest
must never withhold communion from anyone who approachs simply on the
suspicion that they are involved in some mortal sin which might
excommunicate them. The reception of communion is something between
the God and the conscience of the communicant. Even Paul, in one of
the Epistles, mentions those who, though unfit and ill-prepared,
approach communion and "eat and drink to their condemnation." Paul
does not state that the communion is withheld, but rather that they
do receive communion, but it is to their own condemnation.

A recent documentary on religion in America in general, and the
Evangelicals in particular, noted that prior to the 20th century, the
predominant expression of Christianity in America was a heavily
Calvinist theology in which God the Father was the primary emphasis
and there was little or no mention of a personal relationship with
Jesus the Son, who was seen rather as someone of importance with a
role to play and a goal to accomplish. The more Evangelical notion
of a personal relationship with Christ, acceptiong Christ as one's
personal saviour, evolved only later, during the 19th and 20th
centuries in America.

I was privileged to participate in a 4 year Bible study of the Old
and New Testaments sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church. My study
group was conducted by a learned man of great faith who has been a
Marist Brother since his teenage years, has devoted himself to
teaching in Catholic schools, and who is now in his 60's.

Once, the question arose in class: If a Protestant asks a Roman
Catholic "are you saved," then what is the appropriate answer?

Brother G. wisely responded, "As Cathoics, we do not say that we are
saved, but rather that we are redeemed!"

And what is this subtle difference between salvation and redemption,
since both terms appear so frequently in scripture and spiritual
literature? They might seem to the casual reader to be synonymous,
but are they?

Imagine an hypothetical scenario in which ten men have been cast into
jail, and each is seated in his separate cell. One day, a
compassionate person of wealth visits the jail and pays the fine and
bail for all ten men. The jailor comes and unlocks the ten cell
doors and opens them wide. Some of the prisoners arise and walk out
the opened doors to their freedom. Other prisoners ignore the open
door and for vairous and sundry personal reasons choose to remain in
their prisons. All ten prisoners have been redeemed by that one
benefactor, but not all ten have elected to cooperate with that
redemption and take the necessary steps to complete the process of
their salvation.

When I was a novice in two different monasteries, in the 1970's, for
a brief while, I had the privilege of being in the presence of
Metropolitan Philaret on many occasions, and even dining with him,
and lodging in the same building with him.

If we examine the excerpt from his sermon (below, regarding
the "physics" of freefall and freewill) then we shall readily see the
concept of the necessity for one's continued and freewill cooperation
and active participation in the process of redemption and salvation.
This very Eastern Orthodox notion of salvation is that aspect of the
Orthodox personality and view which various Protestants criticize
as "semi-Pelagian."

To understand the implications of "limited atonement" (i.e. "shed for
FEW"), we must look all the way back to Moses in the wilderness, and
the plague of poisonous snakes (see below) and not that the plague
afflicts all and that all are invited to partake of the remedy, but
some choose not to partake, and are subsequently afflicted and perish.

It is interesting to note (though I have never encountered anyone
expressing this notion other than myself), that the act of acceptance
of Jesus into one's life as one's "personal saviour" is, in itself, a
form of "works." It is something you choose to "do" which earns
and merits for you your salvation.

I worked for two years with a protestant ministers wife (Martha).
When I met her pastor husband, I asked him whether he followed
Calvinist or Lutheran teaching or some other school or denomination.
He immediately answered, "Well, I should hope that I follow the
teachings of the Bible!" I immediately exclaimed, "But don't you
see how your answer is NO answer at all, since if you were to ask the
Pope of Rome, or the head of the Mormon Church of Latterday Saints,
or a Jehovah's Witness, or a Christian Scientist, that each will
vigorously proclaim that their beliefs reflect precisely what
Biblical scriptures state, and yet quite obviously all these people
are in radical disagreement with one another."

I once asked his wife, Martha, herself a graduate of a theological
course of studies, "Suppose a Roman Catholic attended your Church for
several months, and then expressed a desire to join. How would you
procede? Would you accept their Roman Catholic baptism, or would you
baptize them again." She explained, "Well, we would have to baptize
them, since Roman Catholics are not Christians, depending as they do
upon WORKS for salvation. But first, we would require that several
respected members of the community step forward and vouchsafe that
these candidates for baptism were moral people leading a good
life." I made no comment to Martha, but I was astounded by her
reasoning that these Catholics would have to DEMONSTRATE and prove in
a very legalistic way, by testimony of witnesses, that they were
ALREADY living a moral life. How is such a requirement any different
from salvation through WORKS. And where does it leave such parables
as the woman about to be stoned for adultery, whom Jesus spares and
sends away with the admonition "Go, and sin no more" or the Samaritan
woman at the well who tacitly admits that she is living with someone
outside of wedlock and has had many such laisons?

At the opposite end of the spectrum, on the extreme of salvation by
faith alone, we find the modern day televangelist Charles Stanley,
with his doctrine of "Eternal Security of Salvation" or (Once Saved
Always Saved.)

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1c.htm

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/stanley.htm

Stanley has put forth his view of this with these words:

"The very gospel itself comes under attack when the eternal security
of the believer is questioned."(3) "... the very foundations of
Christianity begin to crumble once we begin tampering with the
eternal security of the believer."

"Yet I reject the notion that eternal security is just a Baptist
doctrine. As you read, I believe it will become apparent that this
doctrine is first and foremost a biblical one."

"You see, it isn't just good news. It is good news about Jesus
Christ, Who paid our sin debt in full to a holy God Who required
death for sin and the shedding of His blood, satisfied that
requirement, and made it possible for you and me to be accepted in
the eyes of God and to be eternally secure in Him. That's why He
called it the grace of God."

The following is his definition of eternal security:

"... eternal security is that work of God in which He guarantees that
the gift of salvation once received is possessed forever and cannot
be lost."

Stanley's understanding of what a Christian is surfaces throughout
his teachings, but even this has naturally been affected by his
adherence to eternal security:

"... a Christian who at no point in his entire life bore any eternal
fruit. And yet his salvation is never jeopardized."

"... there are Christians who show no evidence of their Christianity
as well."

"Consequently, God does not require a constant attitude of faith in
order to be saved -- only an act of faith."(13)
"It [saving faith] is a singular moment in time wherein we take what
God has offered."

According to Stanley, it is possible for a Christian to bear no fruit
at all throughout his entire life, show absolutely "no evidence" of
his Christianity at all and not maintain a "constant attitude of
faith"!

Charles Stanley shockingly limits the penalty for the most extreme,
unholy and flagrantly disobedient lifestyle to just a loss of
rewards:

"... You can't sin and live like the devil down here and get by with
it even as a believer. The Bible says you will lose your reward but
you'll be saved so as by fire. You won't lose your salvation, but
there's a whole lot to lose, brother, by sinful living."

In the 1980's, John MacArthur, Jr.'s congregation had a lawsuit
brought against it related to this issue because of clergy counsel
rendered to Kenneth Nally, a suicidal young man who killed himself
afterwards. Testimony indicated the pastors taught the following:

"... that a 'saved' person would go to heaven despite committing
suicide; according to attorney Barker, such teaching could have been
interpreted as a 'green light' by Nally to kill himself."

In another even more convincing instance, Ron Rhodes and Paul Carden
counseled a suicidal woman on "The Bible Answer Man" radio broadcast
who told them, "If I knew I was going to Heaven, I would do it
[commit suicide]." (This personal testimony proves eternal security
is conducive to suicide.) Although Carden made somewhat of an attempt
to deter her, Rhodes shockingly, on the other hand, ultimately
assured her, "You are eternally secure. Anyone who has trusted in
Christ is eternally secure ...."

(Sitaram observes: we are reminded here of those Muslim suicide
terrorists who feel assured of their instant admission to an Islamic
paradise of sensual delights as martyrs for Allah.)

According to Stanley's gospel, which is based on eternal security,
one's spiritual condition at the very end of his life is totally
irrelevant to his eternal destiny!

http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn4.htm

As mentioned above, the "serpent of brass" (Numbers 21:9) which Moses
made and put on a pole was a picture of the very thing that had
bitten the people, namely the "fiery serpents" (v. 6). As such, it
speaks of SIN which bites all of us like a "serpent." How many people
in the world have been bitten by "SIN" [like the brazen serpent or
the fiery serpent]? The answer is 100% of the people in this world,
for "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God."(Romans
3:23)

ALL were invited to gaze upon the bronze serpent and be protected
from the plague, yet some chose not to cooperate and avail themselves
of this protection, and subsequently were bitten and died.

Looking to the brazen serpent on the pole brought PHYSICAL LIFE,
HEALING, AND DELIVERANCE to those Israelites who availed themselves
of this UNLIMITED PROVISION by God. How many people in the wilderness
were there who received this physical healing from death? The answer
is that 100% of those who did no more than LOOK on that serpent on
the pole, for the Scripture says. . . "And it shall come to pass,
that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, SHALL LIVE."
(Numbers 21:8b) So there was LIFE for a LOOK at this brazen serpent
on the pole.

http://www.prca.org/current/Free%20Offer/chapter1.htm

Pelagius had taught that the will is free in an absolute sense of the
word. Even after the fall, the will of man possessed the same power
for good (or evil) that the will of Adam possessed. That is, at any
point in the life of a man, when confronted with the choice of good
or evil, it was within man's capability to choose either the one or
the other. It is true that man's ability to choose the good is
somewhat weakened by sin; but sin is only a habit and in no way
affects the nature of man. While indeed a habit may become somewhat
ingrained in the man's way of life, the fact remains that the will is
not essentially affected and the power to choose for the good remains
intact and unimpaired.

Pelagius rejected the notion of "original sin." Pelagius argued that
IF it were possible for the act of one person (Adam) to defile all
subsequent generations of humanity with sin (even those totally
IGNORANT of Adam's history), whey then it should also be possible for
the atonement of Christ's crucifixion to SAVE all future generations
(EVEN those ignorant of Christ and the crucifixion.)

It was against this alleged "heresy" that Augustine carried out his
polemic. The result of his work was that Pelagianism was officially
condemned by the church as early as the Council of Carthage in 416
and the Council of Ephesus in 431, the latter held one year after
Augustine's death.

But this was by no means the end of the matter. Opposition arose to
Augustine's teachings in various parts of the church, especially in
Southern Gaul. Over against Pelagius Augustine had taught the
absolute inability of the human will of fallen and natural man to
choose for the good. Man fell in Adam, and the result of the fall for
the whole human race was that man lost completely any ability to do
the good not only, but also to will it. His salvation was dependent,
therefore, upon grace. While Pelagius had also spoken of grace, he
had insisted that grace was little more than a help, a measure of
divine assistance, and was by no means essential to salvation.
Augustine on the other hand, taught the absolute necessity of God's
work of grace in salvation. If the question was asked Augustine, as
it was, what was the determining factor in who received this gift of
grace and who did not, his answer was, sovereign predestination
according to which God sovereignly chooses his own elect from all
eternity.

These doctrines of the sovereignty of grace and predestination were
the subjects of controversy. And it was in opposition to these views
of Augustine that theological positions similar to those that are
connected with the free offer were proposed.

One of the opponents of Augustine was Cassian. Cassian did not agree
with the position of Pelagius that the will is free in an absolute
sense of the word, but he did insist on maintaining that the will is
free to a certain extent. Sin as it entered the human race through
the fall of Adam did not rob man of a free will, but sin did weaken
man's will so that it is difficult for man to choose for the good; he
is in need of divine assistance.

Just as Augustine's teaching of the inability of the human will to
choose for the good led him to the doctrine of sovereign
predestination via the truth of sovereign grace, so also did Cassian
proceed from the idea of a free will to the doctrine of a divine love
which wills the salvation of all. It ought to be clear how these two
ideas stand connected: if salvation is ultimately dependent upon the
choice of man's will and not upon the choice of God in sovereign
predestination, then it is obvious that God on his part loves all and
seeks the salvation of all. God's love, which is all-embracive,
extends to all men. Whether a man is ultimately saved depends upon
his own choice of the overtures of love.

These views of Cassian were followed by Prosper.

There has always been some question whether Prosper in fact taught
Semi-Pelagian views. This doubt arises from the fact that Prosper
engaged in extensive correspondence with Augustine over these
questions and was the chief means by which Augustine learned of the
teachings of various theologians in Gaul. It is not always easy to
tell from Prosper's correspondence whether he was expressing his own
opinions or merely informing Augustine of what others taught and
asking for more light on these matters.

However, it seems almost certain that he was not completely in
agreement with the views of Augustine and that, especially towards
the end of his life, he agreed substantially with the position which
Cassian had taken. In fact, it is quite possible that he was
responsible for advancing the views of Cassian in some respects. It
is almost certain that Prosper is the one who introduced into the
discussion the distinction in the will of God between one will which
was universal and conditional, and another will which was particular
and unconditional. Wanting in some sense to maintain the sovereignty
of God in the work of grace and predestination, and yet committed to
the idea of free will, he spoke of a will of God which was expressive
of God's desire to save everyone, a will which was therefore,
conditional; and a will which was particular and unconditional,
limited, therefore, only to the elect and realized in the work of
sovereign grace.

That Prosper was Semi-Pelagian in his views is substantiated by the
contention of many that he is the author of a pamphlet which appeared
at that time under the title: De Vocatione Omnium Gentium. This
pamphlet dealt particularly with the aspect of grace as it related to
the controversy. The author made a distinction between general grace
and particular grace. General grace stands connected with general
revelation in the sense that general revelation reveals this general
grace of God to all. In fact, however, this general grace that comes
through God's revelation in creation is also inwardly applied to the
heart of every man so that it becomes in man the origin of all
religion. Particular grace, on the other hand, is given only to some
and is necessary to salvation. The general grace, which all receive,
is expressive of God's will that all be saved.

Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the theology of the
free offer recognizes immediately how all these ideas are an integral
part of that concept. From the time that the idea of the free offer
appeared in Reformed and Presbyterian thinking, it was inevitably
discussed and developed in connection with the idea of a double will
in God. And as often as not, the free offer stands also inseparably
related to some notion of general grace. It is striking, therefore,
to note that these views were held by the opponents of Augustine and
repudiated by the great church father and valiant defender of the
truth of sovereign, unconditional grace rooted in eternal election.

One more opponent of Augustine occupies our attention. He was
Faustus, ordained bishop in 454. He too spoke of a general grace
which precedes special grace and the use of which is essential to
special grace. General grace, bestowed without distinction upon all
men, becomes the means whereby the free will of man is preserved
along with a certain religious and moral sense. Only when, by the use
of this general grace, a man, with his free will, chooses for the
good, is special grace given to him by which he is actually saved.
And so, for Faustus too, special grace was built upon general grace
and salvation was dependent upon the will of man.

Although Augustine had outlined his basic position in the Pelagian
controversy, the attacks of the so-called Semi-Pelagians forced him
to define more sharply and defend more carefully his views. It was
because of the attacks of the Semi-Pelagians that Augustine was
brought back once again to Scripture to study the Scriptural passages
involved and to re-evaluate his work in the light of the Word of God.

Augustine died in 430 and the battle was continued by his disciples.

It is of considerable significance that, already in Augustine's day,
the Semi-Pelagians quoted texts from Scripture which are still used
today in the defense of the free offer. This is not to say that their
arguments were always based on Scripture. In fact, many of the
objections they raised against Augustine's position were identical to
the objections which today are brought against the truth of'
sovereign grace and sovereign and eternal predestination. Augustine
often chides his opponents with being content with arguments from
human reason rather that basing their position on the Word of God.
But in so far as they did make use of Scripture, they appeal to such
texts as Romans 2:4 , I Timothy 2:4 , and II Peter 3:9 , all texts
which have been repeatedly appealed to by defenders of the free offer.

In his explanation of these passages Augustine insisted that they
must be interpreted as applying only to the elect. And in defending
this position on the basis of Scripture, he became increasingly
convinced of the Biblical soundness of his position and of the
wrongness of the position taken by his opponents. He reaffirmed and
re-emphasized the truths of sovereign grace in all the work of
salvation and of eternal and sovereign predestination.

His views, however, did not prevail in the church. Although several
condemned to some extent the views of the Semi-Pelagians, none stood
firmly for the doctrines of Augustine. As we suggested earlier, this
was perhaps due to the fact that the church had already committed
itself to some idea of free will in connection with its determination
to preserve the merit of good works.

Whatever the case may be, the fact is that in 529, the Council of
Orange spoke decisively on this question. While this Council
condemned certain aspects of the teachings of the Semi-Pelagians, and
while it also affirmed certain doctrines of Augustine, the fact is
that the Council refused to adopt a pure Augustinianism. While it
affirmed the doctrine of original sin and the unconditional necessity
of grace, it left room for the notion of sin as an illness rather
than as spiritual death and it was silent on such key doctrines as
the absolute inability of the will to choose for the good, and
sovereign and double predestination. It only saw fit to warn against
the notion of a predestination to evil, something which Augustine did
not teach. In effect, Semi-Pelagianism won the day.

http://www.innerlightproductions.com/thoughts/sept2699.htm

Excerpt from a sermon delivered by the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan,
Philaret, delivered on the feast day of St. John of the Ladder.

Remember, Christian soul, that this ascent on high is indispensable
for anyone who wishes to save his soul unto eternity.

When we throw a stone up, it ascends until the moment when the
propelling force ceases to be effectual. So long as this force acts,
the stone travels higher and higher in its ascent, overcoming the
force of the earth's gravity. But when this force is spent and ceases
to act, then, as you know, the stone does not remain suspended in the
air. Immediately, it begins to fall, and the further it falls the
greater the speed of its fall. This, solely according to the physical
laws of terrestrial gravity.

So it is also in the spiritual life. As a Christian gradually
ascends, the force of spiritual and ascetical labours lifts him on
high. Our Lord Jesus Christ said: "Strive to enter in through the
narrow gate." That is, the Christian ought to be an ascetic. Not only
the monastic, but every Christian. He must take pains for his soul
and his life. He must direct his life on the Christian path, and
purge his soul of all filth and impurity.

Now, if the Christian, who is ascending upon this ladder of spiritual
perfection by his struggles and ascetic labours, ceases from this
work and ascetic toil, his soul will not remain in its former
condition; but, like the stone, it will fall to the earth. More and
more quickly will it drop until, finally, if the man does not come to
his senses, it will cast him down into the very abyss of Hell.

It is necessary to remember this. People forget that the path of
Christianity is indeed an ascetical labour. Last Sunday, we heard how
the Lord said: "He that would come after Me, let him take up his
cross, deny himself, and follow Me." The Lord said this with the
greatest emphasis. Therefore, the Christian must be one who takes up
his cross, and his life, likewise, must be an ascetic labour of
bearing that cross. Whatever the outward circumstance of his life, be
he monk or layman, it is of no consequence. In either case, if he
does not force himself to mount upwards, then, of a certainty, he
will fall lower and lower.

http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm

There are two mains camps of theology within Christianity in America
today: Arminianism and Calvinism. Calvinism is a system of biblical
interpretation taught by John Calvin. Calvin lived in France in the
1500's at the time of Martin Luther who sparked the Reformation.

The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and
seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God's
word. It focuses on God's sovereignty, stating that God is able and
willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence,
to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that
within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His
sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died
only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where
he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible
for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.
Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined, but
not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see
who would pick him and then He chose them. Jesus died for all
peoples' sins who have ever lived and ever will live, not just the
Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be
saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation
(some arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).

If we look at the famous acronym for five point Calvinism
(T.U.L.I.P.) we see:
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

Total Depravity:

Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind,
and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are
not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that
reveal human character: Man's heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick
(Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for
God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor.
2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a
child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light
of the scriptures that declare man's true nature as being utterly
lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire
God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

Calvinism also maintains that because of our s fallen nature we are
born again not by our own will but God's will (John 1:12-13); God
grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John
6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:4 Cool

; and God
predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Unconditional Election:

God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual.
He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will
(Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the
individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick
Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom.
9:15, 21).
Limited Atonement:

Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient
for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of
the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as
Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for `many'; John 10:11, 15 which say
that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33);
John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him,
not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which
state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and
Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion where he would
bore the sins of many (not all).
Irresistible Grace:

When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God
offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external
call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be
resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and
minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration
whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses
used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says
that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who
has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one
working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is
declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people
to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man's
will, but by God's.

Perseverance of the Saints:

You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the
Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those
thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ.
Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus
said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is
described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have
passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to
never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6
where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of
Jesus' return.

=====

http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1978_September/On_the_Mass.htm

The Roman Catholic Church Teaches:

"In like manner, after He had supped, taking also this excellent
chalice into His holy and venerable hands, and giving thanks to Thee,
He blessed and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and drink ye
all of this,

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL
TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR
MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

As often as ye shall do these thing ye shall do them in remembrance
of Me."
Consecration formula,

"Tridentine Latin Mass of the Roman Rite.

"And taking the chalice he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying:
Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament,
which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."
(Matt 26:27-28.)

"And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And
they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the
new testament, which shall be shed for many."
(Mark 14:23-34)

"In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This
is the chalice, the new testament in my blood which shall be shed for
you."
(Luke 22:20)

Because in the aforementioned decree of the Armenians the form of the
words which the Holy Roman Church, strengthened by apostolic doctrine
and authority, had always been wont to use in the consecration of the
Body and Blood of the Lord is not explicit, we have decided to insert
it in the present decree. In the consecration of the Body this form
of words is used: 'For this is my Body'; and for the Blood: 'For this
is the chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the
mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the
remission of sins.' "

(Council of Florence, 15th century.)

"Defects may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting
to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of
consecration, which are the formative principle of this sacrament,
are as follows: For this is my Body. And: For this is the chalice of
my Blood of the new and everlasting testament; the mystery of faith,
which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.
If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration
of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the
consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the
meaning does not invalidate the consecration but the celebrant
commits a mortal sin." (Emphasis in the original.)
("De Defectibus Formae," Missale Romanum.)

"With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other
element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already
assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well
understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists
in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new
and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for
you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the
greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved
in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from
Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic
Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare
the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value,
we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of
all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it,
we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of
the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: For you, He meant
either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish
people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with
whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be
understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or
Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this
place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect
only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the
purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to
exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John:
I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou has
given me, because they are thine. " (Emphasis in the original.)

(Cathechism of the Council of Trent, XX, i; XXI.)

The Conciliar Church Speaks:

"In preparing new texts of these Ordinary chants of the Mass [the
Lord's Prayer, the Gloria, the Nicene Creed, the Sanctus, etc.], the
goal was to develop what has been called 'ecumenical' texts, or texts
agreed upon for common use by the major Christian churches throughout
the English-speaking world.

The new texts were prepared by a group called the International
Consultation Committee on English Texts. Participating were members
of the International Committee on English in the Liturgy
(representing Catholics in 20 English-speaking countries) ;
representatives from the Anglican Church in England, Ireland,
Scotland and Wales; of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.; the Inter-
Lutheran Worship Commission of North America; and representatives
from the Methodist, Congregationalist and Baptist churches.

One other ecumenical text approved in the new Order of the mass is an
optional greeting of the very beginning of the Mass, 'The Grace of
the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the
Holy Spirit be with you all.' It is familiar to Protestants . . . ."

(Rev. Vincent J. Giese, The New Order of the Mass: What It's All
About,
Washington, D. C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1970, pp. 24-
25.)
The Roman Catholic Church Teaches:

". . . it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is
easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man
[depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously
all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever
will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to
life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are
bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to
the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the
tradition of the truth."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, iv, 1. 2nd century.
========================

If we look up the verse cited from Matthew, in the Scofield Study
Bible:

"And taking the chalice he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying:
Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament,
which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."
(Matt 26:27-28.)
We find the following footnote in Scofield, regarding Remission or
Forgiveness:

The Greek word here translated "remission" (also in Acts 10:43; Heb.
9:22), is elsewhere rendered "forgiveness." It means, to send off or
away. And this, throughout Scripture, is the one fendamental meaing
of forgiveness - to separate the sin from the sinner. Distinction
must be made between divine and human forgiveness: (1) Human
forgiveness means the remission of a penalty deserved, whereas the
divine forgiveness, in type and fullment in both the Old and New
Testament, always follows the execution of the penalty. "The priest
shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it
shall be forgiven him" (Lev. 4:35). "This is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission [sending away,
forgiveness] of sins." "Without shedding of blood is no remission"
(Heb 9:22) The sin of the justified believer interrupts his
fellowship; it is forgiven upon confession, but always on the ground
of Christ's propitiating sacrifice (1 Jn.1:6-9). And (2) human
forgiveness rests upon and results from the divine forgiveness. In
many passages this is assumed rather than stated, but the principle
is declared in Mt. 18:32-33 and Eph. 4:32.

===========

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mass.html

Jesus Died for All, Not Many:
Schismatics Falling into Calvinist Heresy
Catholicism does not teach limited atonement, which says that Christ
only died for some.

It is ironic that those who attack the Mass of Pope Paul VI, as being
too Protestantfall into a Protestant, Calvinist heresy long ago
condemned by the Catholic Church.

It is Catholic teaching that Christ died for all men. Salvation
becomes a possibility for all. God sent his Son to die for all the
world. Christ has given sufficient grace for the salvation of all.
However, many do not respond to God's grace, and in fact many, due to
their rejection of it, separate themselves from salvation and end up
in hell. Whoever ends up in hell, end up there because of their own
fault. Thus, when in the liturgy, the priest says Christ shed his
blood for all, it is very much in tune with Catholic and Biblical
teaching
Catholic theology has always distinguished between the "objective
redemption" of all men by Christ, and the "subjective redemption"
whereby the grace merited by Christ on the Cross actually proves
fruitful only in the case of those who cooperate with His grace and
achieve salvation.
Ludwig Ott, in his Pre-Vatican II classic, 'Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma' writes:

"The universality of Christ's vicarious atonement is to be related to
the objective redemption only. Christ rendered sufficient atonement
for all men without exception. The subjective appropriation of the
fruits of redemption is, however, dependent on the fulfillment of
certain conditions, on faith (Mk. 16:16), and on the observation of
the commandments (Heb. 5:29), p. 197.

We can see that the teaching that Christ shed his blood for all is in
tune with Scripture. Scripture is a binding source of revelation for
Catholics. For example, 1 John 2:2 reveals that "He is the
propitiation for our sins: and not ours only, but also for the sins
of the whole world" What was his propitiation? A shedding of his
blood. Thus, according to unambiguous Scriptural teaching, his blood
was shed for the whole world, not merely the elect. The Church in no
way contradicts this Scriptural teaching.

Paul also writes 2 Cor. 5:15: "And he died for all, that those who
live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their
sake died and was raised."

He did not die only for some, or even many, but for all.

Paul says quite clearly about who God wants saved, and who he sent
his Son for, in 1 Tim. 2:4-6:
4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all,
the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

Jesus is a ransom for all. How was he a ransom for all? By shedding
his blood for all. Paul, like John is unambiguous that Jesus died for
all. He is even a Savior for all men, as Paul writes later, in the
exact same letter: 1 Tim. 4:10:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on
the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who
believe.

There are also other texts that show God wants all to be saved 2 Pet.
3:9, John 3:16, Acts 17:28. As Catholics we must believe that
Scripture is inerrant in all that it teaches. Scripture unambiguously
teaches that Christ shed his blood for all men. If Catholicism taught
otherwise, it would be a heretical sect. Sotor thus teaches
Catholicism is heretical when he says that Catholicism teaches that
Jesus did not shed his blood for all.
The Council of Trent De Fide (something that all Catholics who call
themselves Catholics MUST BELIEVE) declares that Christ died for all,
when it proclaims in Session 6 on justification, Chapter 2, to
Calvinists, Schismatics, and professed `traditionalists' alike:

THE DISPENSATION AND MYSTERY OF THE ADVENT OF CHRIST

Denzinger, 794 Whereby it came to pass that the heavenly Father, "the
Father of mercies and the God of all comfort" [2 Cor. 1:3], when
that "blessed fullness of time" was come [Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4] sent
to men Christ Jesus [can. 1], his Son, who had been announced and
promised [cf. Gen. 49:10, 18], both before the Law and at the time of
the Law to many holy Fathers, that He might both redeem the Jews, who
were under the Law, and the "gentiles, who did not follow after
justice, might attain to justice" [Rom. 9:30], and that all
men "might receive the adoption of sons" [Gal. 4:5]. "Him God has
proposed as a propitiator through faith in his BLOOD, for our sins"
[Rom. 3:25], and not for our sins only, but also for those of the
whole world [1 John 2:2]]

It is amazing that those people who say that they are following the
Tridentine Mass, which followed the Council of Trent, declare it a
heresy to teach what Trent unambiguously teaches!!! Ironic indeed. It
says that his blood is a propitiation for the sins of the whole
world. I.E. All. It even quotes 1 Jn 2:2, as shown earlier, which
also unambiguously teaches that Christ dies for all.
Pope CLEMENT VI, years before the Jansenists came around, wrote: 1342-
1352 Denzinger 550.[From the Bull of jubilee, "Unigenitus Dei
Filius," Jan. 25:

The only begotten Son of God . . . "made unto us from God, wisdom,
justice, sanctification and redemption" [1 Cor. 3], "neither by the
blood of goats or of calves, but by His own blood entered once into
the holies having obtained eternal redemption" [Heb. 9:12]. "For not
with corruptible things as gold or silver, but with the precious
blood of His very (Son) as of a lamb unspotted and unstained He has
redeemed us" [cf. 1 Pet. 1:18-19], who innocent, immolated on the
altar of the Cross is known to have poured out not a little drop of
blood, which however on account of union with the Word would have
been sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, but
copiously as a kind of flowing stream, so that "from the soles of His
feet even to the top of His Head no soundness was found in Him" [Is.
1:6].
Thus, Pope Clement VI, centuries before the Council of Trent wrote
that Christ poured out blood which was sufficient for the redemption
of the whole human race.

Bigelow · Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:23 am Post subject: Sin

It is impossible for me to believe any man died for the sins of the world. The law of cause and effect makes sense to me. Some how, some way we pay for our own sins
Gerald Massey wrote some great works called Ancient Egypt Light of the World. It is the Jesus story before Jesus was born. Horus of Egypt was born of a Virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. He was killed and raised up to sit in judgement of the world with his father. The healings he did were the same as Jesus.
In some cases passages are almost word for word. Early church fathers had to draw from myth to paint their picture of Jesus
In the end no matter what story you like, salvation depends on you.
Bigelow

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

Get your own free IRC Chat room