A very common objection from Roman Catholics against the Protestant doctrine of imputation is that God declares someone to be innocent who is not, in fact, innocent. This is legal nonsense, to them. They believe that God would never declare a person to be righteous who is not, in fact, righteous. So, the Protestant idea that an alien righteousness, that of Christ, is reckoned to the sinner, is nonsense to them. It would be God declaring something to be true which is actually false. So, how do Protestants respond to this? There are a variety of responses, but the best one, it seems to me, resides in the metaphor of marriage union. We will also add a few things afterwards that will help us understand.
In most marriages, property entails joint ownership. Now, if a woman comes into the marriage with a debt (like a college debt), the husband assumes that debt. It becomes their debt (it can also be described as his debt), even though the husband did not incur that debt. Similarly, whatever money the husband brought into the marriage doesn’t belong just to him anymore, it also belongs to her, even though she did not earn it. So, by virtue of the marriage union between husband and wife, the debts and the assets are transferred.
In a very similar way, when the believer becomes united to Christ by faith, a new legal situation results with transfers happening. I think a lot of the problems that Roman Catholics have over the Protestant doctrine is that sometimes Protestants formulate the alien righteousness imputation idea as though there were no other accompanying-but-distinct salvific benefits happening at all.
Now, let us be clear here. The Protestant doctrine should never be formulated in such a way that union with Christ, for instance, has an internal change happening in the believer that thereby becomes the basis for the imputation. Christ’s righteousness is the basis for the transfer, not anything that happens in the believer. It happens by the instrumentation of faith.
What the marriage union does accomplish in justification has to do with the legality of the transfer. The new legal status we have as being part of the bride of Christ (our being married to Christ) means that anything Christ transfers to us happens legally whether we deserve it or not.
There is, of course, another concomitant salvific benefit that has equal power to explain how it is that justification is not a legal fiction. This benefit works on a different level, but it is still quite effective in combating the “legal fiction” charge, and it is just as biblical. When the believer comes to faith in Christ, he is adopted as God’s child. Adoption also confers a new legal status, this time with more reference to the Father through Jesus (whereas the marriage happens between Christ and the church, adoption is more the Father’s action, though it certainly has reference to the Son and the Spirit of adoption). When God declares us His heirs, then there is no reason whatsoever that God can not transfer anything to us that originally belonged to His Son. It would be no more difficult than imagining a father changing his will.
One last distinction can help us here. There is a difference between being a sinner as opposed to what our legal status before the law is. With regard to being a sinner, we are always sinners until God takes away our sin nature in death. However, with regard to our legal status before the law, God’s declarative action makes us legally innocent, even though that declaration does not change our nature. So when Luther says simul justus et peccator (simultaneously just and a sinner), we are to understand that we are still sinners (though we have been changed in regeneration such that being a sinner is not all there is to say) in our being, and yet we are actually just in the view of the law. Our legal status has similarities to a criminal who is acquitted of a crime that he did in fact commit. He is in his being guilty, and yet in the eyes of the law, he is not guilty.
While Roman Catholics will certainly not agree with these formulations, nevertheless, I believe that the above does put to rest the rather old canard that Protestants believe in a legal fiction in the doctrine of imputation. Marriage and adoption create new legal situations where transfers are not only easily accomplished, but are in fact rather normal.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Pete said,
August 18, 2014 at 2:17 pm
The problem, at least in many states, is that what you say about separate property of the spouses is simply not true. For instance, the debt of the wife prior to marriage remains the debt of that spouse; however, the community estate can be made to pay that debt but not the separate property of the husband. so if the husband has a fat bank account that he brings into the marriage, that does not become property of the community estate. It must be transmuted. If it is not transmuted, it remains his separate property and cannot be accessed by creditor to pay the debt of the wife.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 18, 2014 at 2:48 pm
For over 15 years, I’ve been deeply interested in this and have been writing about it. While marriage and adoption are good pictures, there is a more explicit answer, and it is the spiritual union of Christ in the believer. But to really explain that answer will require some review of history (if you have the patience). It’s not history as usually taught, so you might find it useful.
Over the course of the last several centuries, the importance of reality in Christian theology has been eclipsed by the importance of position. Imputation and justification have come to be seen as mere exercises within God’s mind—a divine choice to put people in the categories of guilty or righteous—without regard to what people are in reality. The importance of reality has been all but lost, and this decline has resulted from abandoning the idea of a real union of the moral nature of all men within Adam when he sinned. To regain the reality, the Church must retrace her steps, and revisit the doctrine of the union in Adam. A return to reality must begin with a return to the Biblical realism that was implicitly contained in all the creeds and confessions of the early Reformed Church, and which flowed from Augustine, and ultimately from Scripture.
The early Reformed Church was under the sway of “a realistic mode of thinking” (as G. P. Fisher calls it) when it came to Adamic unity and depravity. Total depravity itself comes from the idea that souls are propagated in such a way as to have shared responsible existence with and in their progenitors. To be spiritually propagated out of Adam is also to have acted in Adam—and this is exactly the original idea of being “in Adam.” The idea of soul propagation was first taught by Tertullian, and then came down through Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan to Augustine. Although Augustine was hesitant to commit himself to any philosophical explanation of traducianism, he gave many excellent arguments for it and none against it. More often than not, in Augustine, this comes out most often as the moral nature of all men deciding to sin in Adam and then being propagated to all men with the guilt inhering.
However, between Augustine and Luther came Rosceline’s nominalism, which philosophically undercut any possibility that the union with Adam had any real substance to it. Nominalism is the denial of any union of species within substantial reality, relegating all such unions to mere perception of union in the mind. In theology, this is the denial of any union of immaterial nature of mankind in Adam, and the relegation to a mere union in God’s chosen perception. In the broad picture, it is the diminishment of substantial reality—a paradigm from which God’s judgments and justice have no standard other than His own sovereign will. Realists say that God does something because it is right, while nominalists say that what God does is right merely because He does it. Thus, the realists look for a substantial union of the immaterial nature of men in order to ground within reality the justice of passing the penal consequences of Adam’s sin onto His posterity. Nominalism, on the other hand, results in an empty representationism, “constituted” by decree or covenant alone, since God’s justice needs no grounds within substantial reality—all that His justice needs is His own will. Realism says that you cannot be guilty unless you commit a crime, while nominalism says you are guilty if God says you are guilty, and no commission of crime is needed.
The effect of nominalism on theology was so gradual that the name itself was left behind and all but forgotten. Yet, the changes it wrought in theology over the centuries were deep and broad. The first change was to reinforce the idea of creationism as opposed to traducianism. Racial union was not something substantial within Adam himself, according to nominalism, but was, rather, something only within the all-observing Mind of God. The moral union with Adam was entirely a matter of how God chose to view us in the situation. Therefore, there was no objectively existing entity of human nature that sinned in Adam and was immaterially propagated to mankind. Rather, all that exists are individuals, and the soul is created out of nothing in every case. Nominalism’s influence in the Church ensured that special creation of the soul would be the prevalent view (as it is to this day).
Although Calvin disliked traducianism, and was not an explicit realist, he and most who followed him were not ready to abandon that “realistic mode of thinking” that was the essence of Augustine’s doctrine. So they inconsistently held onto the idea that all men shared a responsible existence in Adam, by virtue of the [moral] “nature” of all men existing in and propagated from Adam. This they held even while maintaining that the soul is specially created out of nothing in every case. As Fisher explains it, “the great majority of the theologians [prior to the eighteenth century] who adopted the theory of a covenant coupled with it the Augustinian principle. That is to say, they maintained the Augustino-federal or semi-federal doctrine…”
Eventually, in Turretin for example, there is an attempted reconciliation in the idea that special creation of the soul is according to the natural laws which God set up at creation, such that God creates the child’s soul with the nature of the parents as part of what is considered natural propagation. By glossing over the supernatural nature of a creation out of nothing, and emphasizing terms that tend to imply propagation from the substance of the parents (such as communication of depravity, etc.), they effectively taught that depravity is propagated just as humanity is propagated. While this might explain (albeit poorly) inherited depravity, it does nothing to explain the kind of union in Adam that involves a sharing of the responsibility for his sin (the shared existence of the moral nature or soul). Therefore, the realistic mode of thinking (the Augustinian principle) was eventually dropped in favor of the nominalistic federal representation. What began with the idea of men being held justly responsible for a sin that we all owned by our shared action in Adam became the idea that men are sovereignly held responsible for a sin that is as alien to us as is the righteousness of Christ. As Robert Landis pointed out, while the early Reformed Church taught that Adam’s sin was imputed to us because it is ours, the later (current) federal view teaches that Adam’s sin is ours because it is imputed to us.
The answer is to apply the old realistic mode of thinking regarding Adamic union to our union with Christ. The union of believers with Christ is spiritual, and not merely legal or “federal.” This union happens within substantial reality, and does not exist only within the mind of God. Rom. 6:3, “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” and, 1 Cor. 6:17, “But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.” It is not speaking of water baptism, but baptism into the Spirit, which happens at the point of saving faith. To be spiritually baptized into Christ is to be joined to Him so that the new believer and Christ are one spirit, and the result of this is that the new believer is joined to (or, baptized into) His death. As the spirit is the core of a man, it is the core of a man’s identity. When the Holy Spirit indwells the man, He creates a new man by joining the spirit of the man to the Spirit of Christ. They are not joined to the extent that either is lost in the other, but they are joined to the extent that the man’s new identity is in Christ and his old identity is no longer valid in the eyes of justice. In fact, the believer is so identified with Christ that he is considered to have been crucified with Him. Gal. 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
There’s more to say, but I’ll need a second comment…
Ken Hamrick said,
August 18, 2014 at 2:58 pm
There are certain truths about God, reality and justice that have been abandoned and need to be recovered. God is not disconnected from substantial reality: truth corresponds to reality, and God does not lie but is always a God of truth. If a man is to be condemned and sent to hell within substantial reality, and not merely seen within the mind of God as if he were in hell, then the crime for which he is sent there ought to be one that he has committed in reality and not merely one of which he is only seen within the mind of God as if he had committed.
Identification or representation that is merely of the mind, such as federal representation (in its usual, putative form that is found today, and not the implicitly realistic form found in the early Reformed Church), cannot be accurately called “real.” Reality exists even in the absence of any thoughts regarding it; whereas, federal representation is claimed to exist even in the absence of any reality regarding it. Realistic union is the most Biblical way to address and acknowledge the rightful place of reality in theology, because it acknowledges the reality of mankind’s inbeing in Adam when he sinned, as well as the reality of the believer’s inbeing in Christ.
The meaning of the word, justification, is clearly forensic (legal). But the deeper question remains: is that forensic verdict an accurate and true assessment of the believer when united to Christ, or is it a nominal and putative designation of a recategorization within God’s mind alone? The answer is found in our union with Christ. Are we joined to Christ in reality or in God’s mind alone? We are joined to Christ in reality to the extent that we gain His identity in the eyes of justice. In that sense, the “infused“ identity does make us subjectively righteous (when the subject is the whole man, consisting of both the man and Christ in union), but only insofar as we are joined to Christ and it is His righteousness – already accomplished in His human life – that is the only righteousness in view. However, when we are joined to Christ, we are not joined to the extent that either is lost in the other. The union is sufficient to make us one with Christ in the eyes of justice, but the righteousness that is now ours remains the righteousness that He lived and not any righteousness that we live out or accomplish – in that sense it is still an alien righteousness. This infused identity is the substance and reality which our prior justification had in view. Turretin[1] (T16, Q1, §§VII):
Although justification occurs “only in a trial,” we do not stand alone in that trial. Christ stands in us. Failure to apprehend this fact of reality is what caused N. T. Wright to claim, “Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.”[2] The Holy Spirit can indeed move across the courtroom (and into the defendant) and carry the identity of Christ (and title to His righteousness) with Him. But the fact that must not be overlooked is that all of this does not happen only in some courtroom far removed from us, but rather, the believer is judged as he is in reality — right where he stands — as the piercing gaze of heaven’s Judge sees the Spirit of His Son inside him. Christ is the Intercessor within, standing in us on earth and reaching to heaven’s court.
Turretin continues (T16, Q1, §VIII): “Finally, unless this word is taken in a forensic sense, it would be confounded with sanctification. But that these are distinct, both the nature of the thing and the voice of Scripture frequently prove.” It is true that justification is distinct from sanctification. But, again, the forensic sense is not necessarily the putative, nominal sense. It is true that the righteousness that we gain by faith is Christ’s alone, and does not make the sinner righteous in himself when viewed apart from Christ; however, it is also true that we are so joined to Christ as to never be apart from Him. Scripture tells us that we are so joined to Him as to be “one spirit with Him.”
Turretin says (T16, Q2, §XV),
Turretin qualifies the phrase, “to be found in Christ,” with, “to wit, in the judgment of God.” This misses the force of the apostle’s meaning, by replacing the substance of a spiritual union with nothing more substantial than “the judgment of God.” We are in Christ because Christ really is in us. God’s judgment in finding us “in Christ” is an accurate and true judgment of our state within substantial reality. It is not a mere decision to put us into the category of “in Christ.” Thus, the righteousness of Christ is accounted to us because it really is in us, since Christ is in us. This righteousness is apprehended by faith insofar as it is faith that brings the indwelling Holy Spirit and union with Christ.
Turretin continues (T16, Q3, §XXIII):
Unless the Surety and the debtor are so united as to become one man in the eyes of justice, it remains but a mere gracious acceptation that the payment of the Surety is accepted in the place of the debtor. Justice has no place for such gracious acceptation. Turretin (T16, Q7, §VIII), in denying that faith is considered our righteousness “by a gracious acceptation,” makes a comment here that is germane: “For in the court of divine justice (which demands an adequate and absolutely perfect payment), there cannot be room for a gracious acceptation which is an imaginary payment.” Just as there cannot be room in the court of divine justice for an imaginary payment, neither can there be room for an imaginary union on which to ground the efficiency and particularity of this payment. In order for the exacted payment to be applied to a particular sinner, there must be a real union between the two.
Turretin (T16, Q3, §XX):
Justification of the ungodly cannot be made by infusion, but it is made by an indwelling spiritual union. It is not the renewed morality of sanctification that justifies, but the renewed identity (the “new man”) that is formed from Christ and the believer. While the saved man has nothing of his own (apart from Christ) to offer as a meritorious righteousness, he has everything of Christ’s to offer as a meritorious righteousness, since the union entitles him to all of Christ’s human experiences and accomplishments.
Although justification is prior to union with Christ, it cannot be adequately understood apart from union with Christ. Rather, justification is grounded on the absolute certainty of the divinely promised salvific union with Christ for those of faith. Justification is legal (forensic), and thus it is seemingly putative. However, it is grounded in a union that is real and substantial, even when that union is in the future. Justification provides the initial legal judgment of our salvation, but the union with Christ provides the substance and reality of our salvation—the ground and basis for our justification.
For any who read through all that, thanks for bearing with me. For those who did not, please accept my apology for the length.
Ken Hamrick
_______________
[1] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1992)
[2] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p. 98
Kevin Failoni said,
August 18, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Paul could never intended with dikaiou = the process of getting better.
Bryan Cross said,
August 18, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Hello Lane,
Last summer Doug Wilson made a similar case for extra nos imputation, from the marriage analogy, and I explained what was wrong with it in comment #429 of the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread at CTC. The only thing I would add, given what you write above, is that the same applies to adoption. Because for God there cannot be a legal realm that contradicts reality (akin to double truth theory), adoption cannot be merely stipulative; we become sons of God by becoming partakers of the divine nature. A merely stipulated adoption would also therefore be a “legal fiction.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Kevin Failoni said,
August 18, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Bryan Cross, There isn’t a legal realm that contradicts reality. Christ fulfilled the Law and when we receive Him by faith alone we are adopted ( which happens at the beginning of a relationship) justified, sanctified glorified. Its all forensic for Paul. Its a legal “reality”. We get situated form the courtroom to the living room. Thats why Paul didn’t want to be found in his own righteousness, but the one that comes from God in Christ. No condemnation or justification or adoption isn’t a statement about ontology, its a verdict a declaration based on a reality of someone who did for us what we could not do for ourselves, namely Jesus who lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. Christ did not come to help us achieve His favor with His help but lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. Bryan if you just take of your Roman glasses it should become clear. God Bless.
greenbaggins said,
August 18, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Bryan, you are forgetting that if Christ’s righteousness really is transferred, then we are judged ON THAT BASIS, which is a real basis. That is a real righteousness, not just a legal righteousness. God sees us IN CHRIST. So He judges us as united to Christ, which is a real union, not just a legal union. So when God looks at us, He is not merely making a judicial statement (though He certainly is doing that). He is making that judicial decision based on a real, earned righteousness, that of Christ. He omnisciently sees every last bit of Christ’s righteousness and judges us on that basis. So, your objection about God’s omniscience therefore falls to the ground.
greenbaggins said,
August 18, 2014 at 6:45 pm
Pete, you are nitpicking. I am not talking about arrangements where there is a pre-nuptual agreement. I am talking about normal people’s marriages, where the property is truly joint-owned. That is the basis for the analogy.
Bryan Cross said,
August 18, 2014 at 7:11 pm
Lane,
I haven’t forgotten that. The question is not my memory, but the truth of the position. If it were real righteousness really transferred, and not merely a legal fiction, there wouldn’t be room for further sanctification, because in Reformed theology perfect law-keeping is God’s only standard of righteousness. Christ’s righteousness is real, of course, but the transfer (in extra nos imputation) is only legal in this present life so long as the recipient remains actually unrighteous by not perfectly keeping the law.
What “real union” means, in Reformed theology, is the combination of legal union and “vital union,” i.e. friendship. Reformed theology denies ontic union. (See the Clark section of “Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark,” and footnote 14 there referencing the chapter in Horton.) But friendship is not the sort of union that makes the righteousness of the one, the righteousness of the other. And neither does legal union, for the reasons I explained at the link in comment #5 above. So appealing to “real union,” while denying ontological participation, leaves the “legal fiction” question right where it would be if the union were only legal.
No, because the Reformed position requires that God does not peek behind the cross, as depicted in Horton’s cartoon:
Otherwise, there would be no need to undergo the completion of sanctification at the moment of death. One could just stay simul iustus et peccator eternally in heaven, since one is already (allegedly) perfectly righteous in one’s present simul iustus et peccator condition. God would continue to ‘see’ the person as perfectly righteous (i.e. remain blind to the person’s actual unrighteousness). But we know that not to be the case. Hence, because God has only one standard of righteousness, and because the embodied believer is presently not yet actually righteous as he will be in heaven, it follows that his present extra nos imputed ‘righteousness’ is only a legal fiction.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 18, 2014 at 7:13 pm
The Horton cartoon I have in mind can be viewed in comment #109 here.
Adrian Keister said,
August 18, 2014 at 9:27 pm
Hey, bro. This is really great! The marriage analogy is so tight, I am finding it quite helpful.
theoldadam said,
August 18, 2014 at 9:49 pm
God declares us holy and righteous.
In our Baptism (Romans 6) (Gal. 3) (1st Peter)…etc.
Catholics love religion (‘what we ‘do’ to make ourselves better in the eyes of God…even with God’s help).
God hates that sort of thing. He did say (on the Cross) “It is finished.” Did he not?
Oh…except for Catholics and Baptists and Mormons and anyone else who has a zeal for God, but is not enlightened.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 18, 2014 at 11:18 pm
If it were real righteousness really transferred, and not merely a legal fiction, there wouldn’t be room for further sanctification, because in Reformed theology perfect law-keeping is God’s only standard of righteousness.
Bryan,
Just focusing on your last phrase above, from the Reformed perspective righteousness is defined by the law in Scriptures. Thus perfect righteousness is equated with perfect law keeping. But if we grant this contention, and we further grant the contention that we are unified with Christ as Scriptures say we are (i.e. Eph 2:6), it does not follow that we will be perfectly sanctified, because perfect righteousness in terms of Christ’s saving work in our lives does not necessarily translate into perfect sanctification. To affirm that it does blends justification and sanctification together as if they were one, and while sanctification may be subsumed within justification in the Roman Catholic system, it is not in the Reformed one. If you want to start with a Roman Catholic assumption then yes, the Reformed system won’t make sense.
The whole point of our union with Christ, in terms of its effect on our status before God, is that although we sin we are righteous because we are united with Christ who is our righteousness. At this point we can say, as per Philippians 3, that we possess a righteousness that is not our own, but one that is a gift of God by faith. But the fact that we have been declared righteous by a faith which is not our own does not mean that this righteousness is “fiction,” but rather that the basis of this faith is our union with Christ and is not based on our own merits. Again, think of this discussion within the context of justification. If you want to blend in sanctification into the mix then you are adding an assumption we reject.
What “real union” means, in Reformed theology, is the combination of legal union and “vital union,” i.e. friendship.
I cannot say I’m interested in trying to exegete Scott Clark, and unless he shows up here I’m not sure it’s worthwhile doing so. What does it mean to be vital but not ontic? I don’t know, maybe you do. And how do you get “friendship” out of “vital” but not “ontic”. What does “friendship” mean? Maybe it’s not all that helpful to cite Clark unless we can in no uncertain terms understand his terminology.
Otherwise, there would be no need to undergo the completion of sanctification at the moment of death.
Now you are blending in glorification and making even more of a tangle. Do really want to talk about glorification?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 18, 2014 at 11:21 pm
Were my comments too long to reply to? Would anyone care to address the parallel between Adam & Christ?— or the shared identity of immaterial union?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 18, 2014 at 11:21 pm
Were my comments too long to reply to? Would anyone care to address the parallel between Adam & Christ?— or the shared identity of immaterial union?
Kevin Failoni said,
August 18, 2014 at 11:24 pm
Old Adam your dead on. Roman Catholicism is church worship and man worship. Without inherent righteousness and merit the system would fall. Its a a system of preoccupation with inner mechanics.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 19, 2014 at 12:48 am
Imputation and justification have come to be seen as mere exercises within God’s mind—a divine choice to put people in the categories of guilty or righteous—without regard to what people are in reality. The importance of reality has been all but lost, and this decline has resulted from abandoning the idea of a real union of the moral nature of all men within Adam when he sinned.
Ken,
Thanks for your very thorough and intriguing post. I would love to dig into the nominalist/realist discussion within the context of the development of a Reformed mindset in general, but I don’t have time right now. However I would like to say something about the comment above. The Catholic understanding of the Reformed approach to God’s interaction with His people sometimes approaches what you write above. I have had quite a few discussions with RC’s on just this issue. It is perceived that in our doctrines of salvation we are positing things that only exist in the mind God and do not find expression in the life of the individual believer. We are accused of promoting legal fiction. But it’s not the case – we believe that the legal realities are mirrors of the ontological ones. When God draws us to Himself He really transforms us and we are more conformed to His image.
The reality of the changed legal status of the new believer is reflected in the changed life of this new Christian. Regeneration and justification cannot be separated in any temporal manner because legal standing cannot be separated from a transformed life. “Righteousness” is not just a word that has no reflection in the life of the individual. If we are realists in our understanding of God’s interaction with us then we believe that God can transform us entirely, or at least to the extent that it is possible within our creatureliness. We really participate in the divine nature when our hearts and minds and wills are changed by the power of His Spirit. And I would add that one of the issues that we have with Roman Catholic sacramentology is that oftentimes a reality is proclaimed when no reality exists. People go through the ritual but there is no reality that follows. How many Catholic funerals happen every day where it is claimed that the sins of the individual were washed away and that they are in Heaven solely because they were baptized, confirmed, etc? Is not this a sort of nominalism – words and rites with no evident spiritual reality to follow?
The Reformed contention which separates it from the Roman Catholic understanding is that works which follow from justification don’t affect justification. Because of this refusal to make works a cause we are told that our system is legal fiction. But in reality we are just trying to assure that grace remains grace and God’s free gift remains free. The manifestation of this gift in our lives should evidence the fact that there is no nominalism at play here – true faith has arms and legs and won’t stay sitting still.
Cheers….
theoldadam said,
August 19, 2014 at 12:53 am
“…true faith has arms and legs and won’t stay sitting still.”
Well…when we are at our best. But we are all mixed bags…no?
Romans 7 is evidence of that in Paul’s life…and the mirror we look into each day is evidence enough in our own lives.
But we (also as St. Paul said) do not put any stock into what we see…but rather, “we walk by faith, not by sight.”
Ken Hamrick said,
August 19, 2014 at 1:35 am
Andrew, it seems that all you’re saying is that the reality of justification is seen in sanctification. But on what reality can one man be justly joined to another man’s morality? It can only be if the two are made one in reality. Thanks for replying.
Bob S said,
August 19, 2014 at 1:51 am
Oh boy. We have an objection from someone who insists that possession of the apostolic bones – not apostolic doctrine _ is the ticket to being the true church, if not that possession of the bones is the true apostolic doctrine of salvation.
So remind me again, where were we in the discussion?
Oh, that’s right. God can’t impute Christ’s righteousness to sinners by faith because it wouldn’t be reasonable, if not that it doesn’t fit in with Bryan’s philosophical paradigm.
Well, so what?
The real question is, is it taught in Scripture?
To that Bryan really has nothing to say other than throwing us a a red herring, for all practical purposes, in even another article that he has written if we are not befuddled enough by his comments here already.
Which pretty much amount to “it’s not fair”, if not a handwaving assertion to the effect, that Imputation/JBFA is “unreasonable”.
In this he is ignorant, for as the Scripture plainly says, God not only quickeneth the dead, he calleth those things which be not, as though they were Rom 4:17 the specious objections by the creature of legal fiction notwithstanding. Who is he to reply to or question God?
But there is nothing new under the sun.
This is not the first time that one has thought God to be such a one as himself Ps. 50:21, if not shown up over here to lecture us on the deficiencies of the reformed faith.
As to whether the apostolic bones are rotten, never mind real to begin with, protestants ought to know better than question the self appointed lay representative of an infallible church. It wouldn’t be ecumenical/charitable, so we must supinely suffer his patronization via his paradigmatic assertions.
KH, there’s a lot to digest for a combox comment; you wouldn’t want someone to go off halfcocked and say the paradigm espoused therein is as cockeyed as CtC now would you?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 19, 2014 at 4:02 am
CtC??
Ken Hamrick said,
August 19, 2014 at 7:24 am
Brother Lane,
You stated:
The problem with most nominalistic [federal] analogies is that they work with financial but not criminal debt. No husband is criminally liable for the wife’s crimes. Only financial debts are transferable. You also stated:
I disagree. Union with Christ does indeed happen within the believer, and is an internal change—from the absence of Christ to His presence, and from alienation to union with Him. This union occurs as a fact of substantial reality and it happens within the believer—and it is the only solid ground of our justification. Faith is only instrumental for the purpose of bringing this vital, salvific union. You also stated:
If a father has one son in jail and one free, a change in his will cannot reverse the guilt or innocence of either son. But, If God puts the Spirit of His Son into my heart, making me “one spirit with Him,” then I by grace become a true son just as if I were His only Son (who is in me).
Ken Hamrick said,
August 19, 2014 at 8:02 am
Samuel J. Baird, pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Woodbury, NJ, from 1849-1865, and author of The First Adam and the Second: The Elohim Revealed in the Creation and Redemption of Man, (Philadelphia: Parry & McMillan, 1860), saw that “a real inbeing” in Christ was the ground of imputed righteousness, just as “a real inbeing” in Adam was the ground of imputed sin. He also understood why the idea of a shared identity through spiritual union with Christ is so consistently ignored. He states, in A Rejoinder to The Princeton Review, upon The Elohim Revealed, (Phila.: Joseph M. Wilson, 1860), p. 34:
He also states, (Ibid., pp. 32-33):
Although I’m a Baptist, I love reading 19th century Presby’s—especially those who were not in favor of the Princeton nominalism led by Hodge. Shedd, Dabney, Landis, Baird, etc.
theoldadam said,
August 19, 2014 at 9:06 am
Either Christ does it ALL…or we are ALL in big trouble.
It’s ALL…or nothing.
If we start down that road of having to look at ourselves for proof that we are truly of the elect, then we will have NO assurance.
That’s why we fight so hard for the external Word of Promise…alone. In preaching, and in sacraments (pure gospel from outside of ourselves).
roberty bob said,
August 19, 2014 at 9:26 am
in response to #23 . . .
Your view, and that of Joseph Wilson (whom you are quoting) echo the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:1-4, where we see those who are in Christ Jesus actually doing [or meeting] the righteous requirements of the law because they have within them Christ’s own Spirit [of life!].
Kevin Failoni said,
August 19, 2014 at 10:33 am
Catholics wil have us believe their doctrine really doesn’t say what it says. Bryan Cross yesterday that Catholics are no different than Protestants in that its all of God’s grace. ” converted to your own justification” as a reward to their merits and good works” The RC calling the Mass “the work of the people” Satan will make good look eveil and evil look good. My rule read Roman doctrine believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. When their apologists tell us the RC is all of grace, its really the opposite..
Kevin Failoni said,
August 19, 2014 at 10:43 am
Right before the Reformation for at least a half century all Catholics were excommunicated by one Pope or another. And the result of Trent canon 9 says it all ” if anyone says that a man is justified by faith alone” ….let him be anathema. Line in the sand.
roberty bob said,
August 19, 2014 at 10:57 am
in response to the old adam in #24 . . .
What do you say to the Apostle Peter, who exhorts us to take specific actions [adding to our faith goodness, etc. 2 Peter 1] so that we can be assured of our calling and election? How could you not conclude that you have a duty to build up [or build out] your faith, and that by actually doing so become assured of your election? Yes, we do look at how our own faith is performing for evidence [proof!] of our election. A few days ago I lopped off some branches from one of my trees because they had no leaves [no evidence of life].
So, where do you find proof for your election? Peter says that you need to make your calling and election sure, and he tells you what you are supposed to be doing about it.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 19, 2014 at 11:03 am
Roberty Bob, I was quoting Dr. Samuel J. Baird—Joseph Wilson was the publisher. You can find him here: https://archive.org/details/firstadamandsec00bairgoog. His view differs with mine on more than a few things.
You are right that what good works we do, we do them because of Christ who is in us; but our righteousness comes not from the works but from our gaining of a proprietary title to the righteousness of Christ who is in us. The Law requires that we live a perfectly righteous life from cradle to grave, and Christ did live exactly that. We died to our old identity and gained one in Christ, and now we have gained His human experience to our credit, just as if we had lived His life from manger to grave. As sinners, the Law also requires that we endure the complete wrath of God against sin, and Christ endured just that on the cross. Now that we have Christ inside us, no failure on my part can ever again incur God’s wrath, since the critical gaze of Justice is ever met in me by the Christ of the cross—the full wrath endured already—just as if it had been me who was taken outside the gate in Jerusalem and hung on a tree 2000 years ago. His blood does not cleanse us only at conversion, but ever cleanses us as we go along—and this is exactly how it cleanses (through the life and death of Christ credited to me as if they were my human experiences, because the Man who experienced them lives in me and is forever joined to me in spiritual union)!
Kevin Failoni said,
August 19, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Roberty bob, I agree we are to test ourselves to make sure we have true faith. Proof of our election comes from the assurance of scripture and our obedience.
ajmccallum said,
August 19, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Ken (re: 19),
Andrew, it seems that all you’re saying is that the reality of justification is seen in sanctification. But on what reality can one man be justly joined to another man’s morality? It can only be if the two are made one in reality.
I’m agreeing with with you here and I tried (maybe unsuccessfully) to make that clear. When we become one with Christ we share in His nature as much as it is possible for us to as creatures Hear what John Calvin has to say in his commentary of I Pet 1:9:
For we must consider from whence it is that God raises us up to such a height of honor. We know how abject is the condition of our nature; that God, then, should make himself ours, so that all his things should in a manner become our things, the greatness of his grace cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds. Therefore this consideration alone ought to be abundantly sufficient to make us to renounce the world and to carry us aloft to heaven. Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.
So with Calvin I would say that God “deifies” us, as much as our humanity will allow for. And as Calvin states, the purpose here is to make us conformable to God. How could anyone say this is any less than true union with Christ?
Our Catholic friends hear so much about forensic aspects of justification that they often come away from these discussions thinking that, from the Reformed standpoint, the whole purpose of union with Christ is to gain a certain legal status, end of story. They get this idea in their heads and sometimes it proves impossible to disabuse them of it. In these apologetic interactions we do of course emphasize the forensic aspect of our union with Christ to counter the Roman Catholic error of making righteousness coming from union with Christ part of the basis for justification. If the RC synergism of faith and works (done in charity) to obtain justification is correct then we cannot say with Paul that “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God…” If justification and sanctification are mushed together and we are always working and working towards our justification, then justification is continually ongoing and we never know how much we have to work to obtain peace with God. In such a system grace becomes just a word with no underlying reality.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 19, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Ken,
One other thing – CtC is short for Called to Communion, a Roman Catholic apologetics site particularly focused on engaging Reformed Protestants.
Cheers….
Ken Hamrick said,
August 19, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Andrew,
I’m glad to have your agreement.
It is because of Christ’s human nature that we are able to be joined to Him. It is His humanity that allows the mutual identity—that allows His experiences to be credited to us. This union is unhindered by any misfitting of different natures. Christ took on the nature of a man specifically to be able to identify in union with men and thus to save them. Otherwise, there could be no identifying union, since His divinity alone and our sinful humanity alone could never be united (darkness has not union with light). The fitting together of the human and divine natures was taken care of by Christ’s incarnation. Through the divine nature of the Holy Spirit, the Person of Christ is put in us, and to that Person inseparably belongs both His humanity and His divinity. To be joined to Christ in us is to be joined to all that He is, both His human and His divine natures.
I agree that the Reformed emphasis on the putative forensic aspect of justification comes out of a resistance to the Catholic works-justification; but the realism-to-nominalism trajectory has eroded the union-with-Christ aspect. Often, union with Christ is seen mainly as a chosen perception in God’s mind and the actual indwelling is relegated to a lesser importance. As Baird criticized Hodge (and those like him):
And do we not see the results of such a trajectory when the best explanation we can come up with in the face of Catholic arguments is to appeal to the analogies of marriage and adoption?
Kevin Failoni said,
August 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm
Ken, Christ came to incorporate us into His body by the Spirit not the flesh. I’m sure you would agree with that. We become all that He became to us, not what He is. The word partakers of divine nature is koininia. The scripture clearly says that Gos dwells in unapproachable light and that our God is a consuming fire. Getting outside God’s limits of the distinction between creator and creation got Aaron’s sons toasted. So when we are told that god became man that man might become God, it means we will become truly human in all holiness and righteousness. Again we will become what He became to us ” like Him” not what He is .
Ken Hamrick said,
August 19, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Kevin, yes, by the Spirit. But the human nature is both human flesh and human spirit. And no, we do not become what He is. He, however, did become what we are—didn’t He?
Kevin Failoni said,
August 19, 2014 at 5:41 pm
Ken, absolutely!
Andrew McCallum said,
August 19, 2014 at 9:18 pm
I agree that the Reformed emphasis on the putative forensic aspect of justification comes out of a resistance to the Catholic works-justification; but the realism-to-nominalism trajectory has eroded the union-with-Christ aspect. Often, union with Christ is seen mainly as a chosen perception in God’s mind and the actual indwelling is relegated to a lesser importance.
Ken,
You are probably right. The doctrine of the union with Christ does not get explored in many Reformed communions. I think part of this is a reaction against mysticism and partially a historical reaction against the realism in the Medieval Church, and maybe also a reaction against a different sort of realism in the Early Church.
But I think that the Medieval Church was badly in need of the corrective that nominalism brought, particularly in ecclesiology but also in soteriology. The Medieval mind tended to think of salvation in such a corporate sense that the place of the individual’s personal salvation got pushed into the background. But Christ came to save individuals. What do you think that the the typical Medieval theologian would have said to Jesus had Jesus suddenly come to earth and said “Hey you, Mr Medieval, YOU must be born again!?” It would have melted his mind! And even today there is this same ideological gap that often exists between Catholic and Protestant. We try to get the Catholics to think about individual manifestations of theological realities while they try to get us to focus on theological ideals and forms.
I listened to a Christian radio station a few days ago where some nice Christian people were telling me that we need to reach out and minister to people who were not interested in formal churches, but worshiped God on their own. Well what can you say to this? Individual worship is one of the idols of the age that has captured so many sincere Christians. In the West the Church is living in a theologically and culturally hyper-nominalistic age.
And do we not see the results of such a trajectory when the best explanation we can come up with in the face of Catholic arguments is to appeal to the analogies of marriage and adoption?
I think that these are good metaphors since they come from Scripture. Maybe if you substituted “only” for “best” in your sentence above I would like the sentence better.
theoldadam said,
August 19, 2014 at 9:28 pm
Roberty bob,
(In response to #28)
Let’s cut to the chase if we are going to be law keepers (be justified in some way by ‘what we do’)…Jesus said “be perfect…”
What do you do with that, my friend?
As soon as we face the fact that we have nothing that God wants or needs…then we can start to realize the greatness of God’s grace.
How do I know that my election is sure?
“I am Baptized.”
There it is. The external Promise…DONE TO ME…by God.
And by His grace alone…I believe it.
This gift of God, keeps us off the religious, spirituality/ascendency project.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 19, 2014 at 10:15 pm
Andrew,
The “realistic mode of thinking” that became Augustinian (or natural) headship was gradually abandoned only as the truth was corrupted. It was brought back at the Reformation, and then gradually abandoned again, and—as I see it—as the truth was corrupted again. But since the Reformers did not fully abandon the nominalism of Catholicism from the start, then the erosion began from the beginning. Al least Augustine consistently held his realistic principle, since he often defended the prospect of propagation of the soul; while most of the Reformers were implicit realists but were explicit creationists. But according to Landis, most of them were simply agnostic toward the question and were happy to leave it to mystery while accepting the Scriptural revelation that Adam’s sin was ours in a real, substantial way that put our ownership of it logically prior to its imputation.
The idea of corporate salvation was a corruption of realism, and was inconsistent with what Augustine taught—especially in the later form, in which the union within the incarnate Christ between humanity and divinity was claimed to be the saving union. We do need a union with God to save us; but it is the union of Christ and the believer that happens within the individual believer.
Nominalism may have served well to mark us off from Catholicism, but it will never win many Catholics. It is a denial of the significance of reality to the justice of God, which is inherently contradictory, since the very idea of justice is wrapped up in truth, and truth must correspond to reality to be truth. Instead, answer Cathoics with the truth that Christ is in the believer in a union so close and so real as to identify the believer with the personal identity of Christ—and give the believer a just right to the ownership of all of Christ’s human deeds, both righteous life and atoning death. All their arguments against legal fiction will fall away at that.
De Maria said,
August 19, 2014 at 11:47 pm
Green Baggins said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what you claim happened with Abraham when Scripture says?
Genesis 15:6
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Because, if Abraham was declared innocent when God declared him righteous, why is is that Abraham did not receive the promise?
Hebrews 11:39King James Version (KJV)
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Nor was he made perfect:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
So, if the righteousness of Christ was “imputed” to him in Gen 15:6, why didn’t he go to heaven when he died? Why did he not receive the promise when he died?
De Maria said,
August 19, 2014 at 11:50 pm
The problem we have is that none of this stuff is in Scripture.
De Maria said,
August 19, 2014 at 11:53 pm
Therein lies the fiction. Protestants make much ado about being born again in Christ. They make much ado about being regenerated.
But apparently they don’t believe in either.
Those who are born again in Christ are washed of their sins and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Scripture says they are “new creatures”. But if you don’t believe that you are changed inside, how can you believe you are born again or regenerated?
theoldadam said,
August 20, 2014 at 12:38 am
Because He says that we are “a new creation”.
That’s why.
We “walk by faith, not by sight.”
It helps to keep us from becoming little self-righteous jerks…or despairing because we can’t “see” or “feel” the changes that others tell us that we must be “seeing” or “feeling”.
Or we turn into phonies who just play the game and do our best to not be found out to be the real sinners that we are.
We look solely to God’s promises and NOT to the futile exercise of looking for anything in ourselves that we deem worthy of God’s acceptance.
We are completely acceptable in Jesus.
That, DM, is what is called, “the gospel”. Just in case you have never heard it before.
I say that because in my 40 years in the Catholic Church, I never heard it (the pure gospel for sinners).
All that I ever heard from the priests and nuns and from my longtime Catholic relatives, was a bunch of semi-Pelagian tripe. Mush the same brand of cooperative salvation that you are trying to peddle.
Personally…I’m not buying.
theoldadam said,
August 20, 2014 at 12:40 am
It was supposed to read ‘much’…not “mush”.
But ‘mush’ works just fine when talking about the errant semi-Pelagian teachings of the Catholic Church.
theoldadam said,
August 20, 2014 at 12:45 am
This is a terrific class on what caused the Reformation:
I’d urge DM to listen to it, but I know from dealing with him previously that he would just cover his ears and start to make indecipherable noises from his mouth (like the children do) when they don’t want to hear something that is disagreeable to them.
Hans said,
August 20, 2014 at 3:17 am
Gentlemen:
Why do we Reformed types get all bent out of shape hearing the “legal fiction” epithet? Is it really all that much of an insult?
Isn’t grace itself “unmerited” favor? Isn’t the forgiveness of sins a granting of clemency in spite of guilt? Doesn’t Scripture speak of God “casting sin behind his back” (so that he might not see it)? And “removing sin so far from us, as far as the east is from the west” (so that he might not identify us with it)? And “remembering our sins no more” (so that he might in good conscience absolve us of them). Obviously, these are all metaphors to help us understand how an omniscient, holy God might nevertheless have mercy on us. But Horton’s lampooned cartoon is also a metaphor, and no more (and no less) a legal fiction than the biblical metaphors mentioned here.
But once we get beyond the moment of regeneration-faith-repentence-justification…once we get beyond the blink of an eye that guarantees the whole process will be based on Jesus’ righteousness rather than ours…our own sanctification, our own nascent, inherent righteousness necessarily begins to grow. As John Murray puts it, our righteousness is not only declared but constituted. What no earthly judge can do in declaring the innocence of a guilty defendant, God can do. His declaration of our innocence also MAKES us innocent. He establishes and guarantees it. He sponsors us…kind of like the immigration service has trusted sponsors guarantee the good conduct of asylum seekers and refugees.
John Murray:
“In God’s justification of sinners there is no deviation from the rule that what is declared to be is presupposed to be. God’s judgment is according to truth here as elsewhere. The peculiarity of God’s action consists in this that he causes to be the righteous state or relation which is declared to be. We must remember that justification is always forensic or judicial. Therefore what God does in this case is that he constitutes the new and righteous judicial relation as well as declares this new relation to be. He constitutes the ungodly righteous, and consequently can declare them to be righteous. In the justification of sinners there is a constitutive act as well as a declarative. Or, if we will, we may say that the declarative act of God in the justification of the ungodly is constitutive. In this consists its incomparable character.”
I also wanted to comment briefly on Bryan Cross’s contention that the Reformed concept of Union with Christ was covenantal, legal, and vital. The way I have usually seen it described is as covenantal, legal, and mystical. The mystical component transcends analogies, but it is defined as quite real if not downright ontic. Analogies of branches in vines, the physical intimacy within marriage (becoming one flesh), and the connection of a mother to her unborn child are bandied about. Reymond states that the union is as real as if a lengthy, lengthy umbilical cord attached the believer here on earth with the body of Christ in heaven. What Calvinists are studious to avoid is any rupture of the Creator-creature distinction. We indeed participate in Christ’s divinity, and at least in some spiritual sense ontologically, but we do not participate in his essence. We do not become one with Christ as Hindus become one with the Oversoul. We hold onto our identities despite union. Branches may be lopped off of vines without destroying the vine. Though one in flesh, a married couple are two individuals. Babies are detached from their mothers after birth without killing the mother…
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2014 at 7:19 am
De Maria, apparently you don’t know very much about Reformed theology if you claim that we don’t believe in regeneration or an inward change. Just because we don’t believe that this change happens *in justification* doesn’t mean that we don’t believe it happens at all. You would do well to read a standard Reformed systematic theology or two like Berkhof, Bavinck, Turretin, Hodge, or Calvin’s Institutes, before you go making a fool out of yourself. I read Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals, and the Catholic Catechism, an quite a few other Catholic works to make sure that I don’t misrepresent what official Catholic teaching is. You would do well to further your knowledge of what Reformed theology actually is.
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2014 at 7:35 am
Bryan (#9), you say,
BOQ If it were real righteousness really transferred, and not merely a legal fiction, there wouldn’t be room for further sanctification, because in Reformed theology perfect law-keeping is God’s only standard of righteousness. Christ’s righteousness is real, of course, but the transfer (in extra nos imputation) is only legal in this present life so long as the recipient remains actually unrighteous by not perfectly keeping the law. EOQ
You don’t have Reformed theology correct here. Reformed theology believes in two forms of righteousness: one a justification righteousness (perfect, complete, alien, imputed) and a sanctification type righteousness (imperfect, incomplete in this life, inherent, and infused). While perfection is required, God is gracious with our weaknesses. Because of the imputed righteousness, God is willing to allow our imperfections in this life so that we can know how much we really do depend on Him all the time for grace. Your conclusion is bizarre, in my opinion. You are assuming that Reformed theology only believes in one kind of righteousness. As I have said, this is completely incorrect.
You say,
BOQ So appealing to “real union,” while denying ontological participation, leaves the “legal fiction” question right where it would be if the union were only legal. EOQ
Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “ontological participation.” If you mean that we become part of God, I would have to deny that such ever happens, even in glory. If you mean that we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, I would say that happens at regeneration. We have the same kind of relationship to Christ that a wife has with her husband. There is an ontological change that happens at regeneration, and there is a union with Christ such that we can say that Christ dwells in us and we dwell in Him. That has ontological ramifications. It is probably not everything that Eastern Orthodoxy would want to say about it, but I hardly think it is necessary to go as far as they do in order to have a real union with Christ that makes imputation not a legal fiction.
You say,
BOQ No, because the Reformed position requires that God does not peek behind the cross, as depicted in Horton’s cartoon:
Otherwise, there would be no need to undergo the completion of sanctification at the moment of death. One could just stay simul iustus et peccator eternally in heaven, since one is already (allegedly) perfectly righteous in one’s present simul iustus et peccator condition. God would continue to ‘see’ the person as perfectly righteous (i.e. remain blind to the person’s actual unrighteousness). But we know that not to be the case. Hence, because God has only one standard of righteousness, and because the embodied believer is presently not yet actually righteous as he will be in heaven, it follows that his present extra nos imputed ‘righteousness’ is only a legal fiction. EOQ
There are remnants of the “old man” in the believer his life long. These need to be removed utterly before the soul can be presented to God in heaven. This complete removal happens at death. As I have said, there is more than one kind of righteousness in Reformed theology. This is because there is more than one result of sin. Sin makes us guilty before the law, and it makes us corrupt inside. Justification takes care of the first problem, and sanctification culminating in the final eradication of sin in the life of the believer (which happens at death) takes care of the second problem. The hymn “Rock of Ages” expresses this perfectly when it says, “Let the water and the blood, From Thy wounded side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Save from wrath and make me pure.”
Ken Hamrick said,
August 20, 2014 at 8:46 am
Hans,
The problem isn’t the insulting nature, but the reasonableness of the criticism. I agree with you, that, “Obviously, these are all metaphors to help us understand how an omniscient, holy God might nevertheless have mercy on us.” But shouldn’t such a reasonable criticism present us with the possibility that our understanding falls short somehow? Clearly, the Reformed view is far better than the Catholic, but we still strive for a better understanding, and engaging in such debate can sometimes help in that.
You said:
It is true that once we have been justified, our own righteousness begins to grow. However, that was not what Murray was referring to in the cited text. There will always be a difference between the imperfect righteousness of our sanctification and the perfect righteousness of Christ. But according to Murray’s meaning here, there is no difference between what God declares and what He constitutes—and the two are simultaneous. However, as much as Murray tries to establish a difference between God constituting us and declaring us righteous, he fails to do so, because neither the declaration nor the constitution that Murray intends happen anywhere other than in the mind of God, and neither consists in anything more than His will to so view us. Murray states, a little further in that chapter on justification (Redemption: Accomplished and Applied):
But this amounts to nothing more than to say that God must first choose to see us with the righteousness of Christ before He declares us to have that righteousness.
You also mentioned Reymond, “Reymond states that the union is as real as if a lengthy, lengthy umbilical cord attached the believer here on earth with the body of Christ in heaven.” The nominalistic paradigm is so pervasive that even when acknowledging the fact of Christ’s Spirit within the believer, the reality is minimized—as shown by Reymond’s unfortunate but revealing illustration here. Reymond (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith):
Christ’s intercession in heaven does not leave the believer with only a spiritual “umbilical cord” of His presence. Christ is able to stand in us on earth and reach to the court of heaven! His intercession there is firmly grounded in the reality of Christ in us here. If there were no Christ in us, there could never be a Christ who intercedes for us. The legalities in the court of heaven would be thrown out on objection of the accuser if there were no Christ in us.
Our union with Christ can be described as perichoretic (as James Gifford describes it in Perichoretic Salvation): the union is close enough to make Christ and the believer to become one in identity in the eyes of justice, but not close enough that the believer becomes Christ or Christ becomes the believer. Neither is lost in the other, but the union is close enough to make the two one nonetheless. That is why we are seated in Christ in heavenly places. It is why I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet, not I but Christ lives in me…
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2014 at 9:28 am
Bryan wrote: “If it were real righteousness really transferred, and not merely a legal fiction, there wouldn’t be room for further sanctification, because in Reformed theology perfect law-keeping is God’s only standard of righteousness.”
There are a number of problems with Bryan’s claim. On its face, it’s wrong for at least two reasons (a) the declaration of present righteousness is not dependent on future holiness (Adam was created upright but fell) and (b) no matter how much righteousness one transferred, the past remains an unchanged reality (Adam really did fall). Additional righteousness doesn’t somehow wipe out past misdeeds.
But there is a deeper problem with Bryan’s position.
The “legal fiction” (I don’t know why my brother greenbaggins thinks it’s such a dirty word) is treating Christ’s righteousness as my righteousness – it’s the imputation of his passive and active obedience to me.
It really is mine, in a sense, because of my union with Christ. But I was not personally free from sin from the time I was formed in the womb, nor did I receive the punishment my sins deserve. Instead, those things are attributed to me by virtue of my union with Christ – which union is illustrated for us in the Lord’s Supper.
The judgment of righteousness is based on real righteousness, not some fictitious righteousness. We are judged as righteous because Christ really was righteous.
The (hopefully unintended) blasphemy of Bryan’s position comes out in the flip side of the great exchange. If he makes Christ actually and infusedly sinfully rather than just imputedly sinful – yikes!
Recall that Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Christ took the attribution of our sins and died in our place, but to say that Christ became actually sinful is too horrible a blasphemy to be countenanced.
-TurretinFan
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2014 at 9:30 am
Your conclusion is bizarre, in my opinion….
Lane – Maybe Bryan’s conclusion is not so bizarre if you keep in mind that in RC theology sanctification is subsumed within justification. Bryan is starting with a Roman Catholic assumption.
I’m not sure what you mean by “ontological participation.”
As I pointed out to Bryan in my response to him (#13), he has a number of undefined terms in his response to you. I don’t know if Bryan expects you and others to dig through his references to try to figure out what he means, but I think you are right to start by asking him to define this term. Let’s see if he is willing to do that without citing another long reference that you have to read through to figure out his meaning….
Kevin Failoni said,
August 20, 2014 at 11:09 am
Andrew, Roman Catholics set aside redemption and choose and ontological model of salvation borrowed from the Philosophers. IOW when Paul said that Jesus specifically came into the world to save sinners of which he is present tense foremost, what he really meant God came to offer us an ontological process, a treadmill virtue climb out of nature, thru the acts of the church that elevates them out of their nature. They replace faith, and the atonement with a sacramental system of climbing out of nature thru their cooperation. The church replace the natural body of Christ and the Spirit and becomes then secondary cause the sovereign distributor of the ontological climb out of nature into divinity. Redemption is only secondary. They like the Philosophers got the little heads lost in their little globe and confuse heaven and earth. So Roman Catholic salvation is a elevator to perfection by finishing Christ’s incarnation. When the Scripture says the Word became flesh, they take that to mean them. They take from Christ what only is his, namely the incarnation and the atonement. Their sacrifices help to atone their sins. Sacramental efficacy in the place of the atonement. Frankly, they won’t let Him off the cross to be Lord and Savior. He is an eternal victim in Rome, never risen, never Lord and Savior. We sing the amen and witness to a salvation already atoned for and purchased. K
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2014 at 11:58 am
Lane,
I did not claim that Reformed theology holds that there is only one “form” of righteousness, or one “kind” of righteousness. Nor does anything I said entail that. Rather, what I said is that in Reformed theology God has only one “standard” of righteousness. And what I said follows from that. If the merely extra nos “form” of righteousness equally satisfied God’s one standard, we wouldn’t need sanctification, even in heaven. But we do need sanctification in heaven. Hence, the merely extra nos kind falls short of that one standard. Hence the merely extra nos kind is a legal “fiction,” because it is not some smaller percentage (e.g. 50%, 70%, etc.) of that one standard. Or are you willing to say that justified but unsanctified sinners could as such enter into heaven?
And that’s precisely where the hand-waving begins. Dwelling inside something does not ipso facto entail ontological transfers of anything intrinsic to the occupant or to the occupied dwelling.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2014 at 12:08 pm
They replace faith, and the atonement with a sacramental system of climbing out of nature thru their cooperation.
Kevin – Yes!
The church replace the natural body of Christ and the Spirit and becomes then secondary cause the sovereign distributor of the ontological climb out of nature into divinity. Redemption is only secondary
This dovetails with the conversation that Ken and I were having concerning realism/nominalism. In the context of the blend of Medieval sorteriological systems from which the Reformation developed it’s distinctive soteriology, redemption of the individual was what is secondary from my perspective. Hence my comment to Ken that the typical late Medieval theologian just could not have gotten his mind around Jesus telling him that he personally and individually needed to be born again. The salvation of the individual was absorbed into the greater concern of Christ’s redemption of His Church. And today you still get Catholics who look at passages like John 3 and tell us that it’s all about the sacraments – the believer gets born again into the Church via the sacraments and he is justified through sacramental works and charitable works (done in love of course) as he labors in a synergistic manner with God’s grace to maintain justification. You described this process well in your post.
This reminds me that I owe a response back to Ken. Hopefully at lunch….Cheers….
roberty bob said,
August 20, 2014 at 12:08 pm
There is a reason why the imputation doctrine strikes many as a legal fiction; when you credit real righteousness — the righteous deeds and good character — of one person to other persons who are guilty of having done unrighteous deeds and are of immoral character, someone may start waving their red flag here in order to say that giving credit where credit is NOT due is false and deceitful. Crediting goodness [or merits!] to a someone who is not a doer of good does not suddenly change the fact that he is guilty of having committed particular sins or crimes. To say to one who is known to have committed particular sins or crimes, “You are not guilty!” is to falsify what is established fact. That is a fiction.
To forgive the guilty sinner or criminal, however, is quite another matter. Forgiveness is not falsification. In forgiveness, the person or persons sinned against choose to not hold the sin against the sinner; a pardon is granted so that the sinner does not suffer the punishment or pay the penalty that is deserving due to the sin or crime. There is no fiction going on here. The sinner isn’t credited with having done something he didn’t do, or of having qualities of character that are foreign to his nature.
Forgiveness is clearly taught in the Scriptures, and appears to be the way God deals with sin in truth, not in fiction.
As to the sinner’s or criminal’s guilt, the Prophet Isaiah speaks of the Servant whose life would be made a guilt offering (53:10) for the many sinners. After the suffering endured through this offering, the Lord’s servant would see the light of life and be satisfied, and then go on to justify many.
…….
I’ll continue this soon . . .
Ron said,
August 20, 2014 at 12:12 pm
That is rather simplistic, Bryan. Paul exhorted in 1 Corinthians 4 to imitate him and Job is held up as a paragon of patience and endurance in James 5. These texts are consistent with Reformed thought.
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Bryan wrote: “If the merely extra nos “form” of righteousness equally satisfied God’s one standard, we wouldn’t need sanctification, even in heaven.”
One of Bryan’s errors here is to assume that we need sanctification/glorification for the purpose of having a right judicial standing with God. Bryan would need to establish that premise rather than just assume it.
Bryan wrote: “Dwelling inside something does not ipso facto entail ontological transfers of anything intrinsic to the occupant or to the occupied dwelling.”
That’s an insufficient rebuttal. First, even if “dwelling inside something” does not in itself entail the consequences, it can still explain the consequences. Explanations don’t have to be in the form of entailment. Second, Bryan seems to be stuck on transfer – but the effect of union is not a loss to Christ, but only a gain to us. He does not become less righteous the more people he makes righteous. We are declared righteous on the basis of our union with him – but not because of the infusion of righteousness from Christ.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Crediting goodness [or merits!] to a someone who is not a doer of good does not suddenly change the fact that he is guilty of having committed particular sins or crimes. To say to one who is known to have committed particular sins or crimes, “You are not guilty!” is to falsify what is established fact.
RB – So did you not read Lane’s post or any of the following dialogue that addresses this point? I guess not. Seems as though we are just not getting through…..
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2014 at 1:04 pm
The idea of corporate salvation was a corruption of realism, and was inconsistent with what Augustine taught—especially in the later form, in which the union within the incarnate Christ between humanity and divinity was claimed to be the saving union. We do need a union with God to save us; but it is the union of Christ and the believer that happens within the individual believer.
Hello again Ken,
Re #39, I don’t agree that corporate salvation is a corruption of realism although I may be misunderstanding you. And I don’t think that there is any reason we should not talk about corporate salvation. It’s proper to say that God saved Israel as a people, and not just that God redeemed individual Jews. Likewise today God redeems His Church and also redeems individual Christians. But at different points during the history of the Church the blinder of realism or the blinder of nominalism so colored the thinking of the people of God that they overly focused on either corporate or individual salvation. As you point out, in the Church today we are on the nominalistic side of things. From my perspective there is a balance between the two.
Nominalism may have served well to mark us off from Catholicism, but it will never win many Catholics. It is a denial of the significance of reality to the justice of God,….
I agree with this in principle, but I wanted to point out that there is an equal and opposite problem with realism. The problem of the One and the Many, as the ancients used to refer to the essential philosophical problem here, manifests itself in so many ways that affect our theology. And we need to be careful about driving too close to the ditch on either side of the theological highway.
Cheers….
Ron said,
August 20, 2014 at 1:04 pm
So some sharp shooter doesn’t pick at TF’s remark regarding justification on the basis of union with Christ, we must maintain, as I believe TF does, that union is distinct from imputation yet they are inseparable and also simultaneous.The Reformed do not embrace N.T. Wright’s formulation that would make imputation superfluous to union.
Reed Here said,
August 20, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Roberty-Bob, no. 55: the reformed position is not a bald declaration of “not-guilty”. Do you really not understand the position or are you just refusing to acknowledge it?
The position is a declaration of “not-guilty” of an acknowledged guilty party – on the basis of an innocent party assuming the guilt!!!! There is no fiction in that. It is all fact.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2014 at 1:08 pm
One of Bryan’s errors here is to assume that we need sanctification/glorification for the purpose of having a right judicial standing with God. Bryan would need to establish that premise rather than just assume it.
TF – Several people have pointed this out to Bryan now, and I think if we could get him to analyze this one assumption it would be some progress. It would be nice to at least get him to concede that it is an assumption, and one that is central to Roman Catholic soteriology.
roberty bob said,
August 20, 2014 at 1:18 pm
. . . picking up from my #55 . . .
So, the word of the prophet (Isaiah 53) was fulfilled in the dying and rising of our Lord Jesus Christ. In laying down his life as a guilt offering, he suffered the punishment and paid what all we sinners owed. In his atonement, Christ made satisfaction for sins. Thus the grounds were established for the forgiveness of our sins; and not only ours, but for the sins of the world. Any repentant sinner of contrite heart will find God to be the same gracious forgiver of sins that we have found Him to be . . . through our Lord Jesus Christ.
When we forgiven sinners confess our sins [as we do both privately and corporately], we still acknowledge the truth of our guilt; we OWN UP to the wrong we have done and to the right that has gone undone. It strikes me that in corporate [congregational] prayers of confession that we are quick to plead guilty [and not credit unto ourselves the perfect law-keeping deeds of Jesus] and ask forgiveness in the knowledge that our God is merciful, compassionate, and understands our human frailty.
In Christ we have redemption, even the forgiveness of our sins. Does this mean, then, that we are also credited with the perfect law-keeping achievements [merit!] of Jesus? Is it necessary for us to have such a deposit of righteousness put into our accounts in order to be stand with the justified before the Supreme Court of All Creation? I don’t believe so. And I don’t see this kind of transaction ever occurring.
What I do see occurring is the believer’s incorporation into Christ. Baptism is the union sacrament. All who are baptized are baptized into Christ. The transfer I see is that of being brought over from Adam [being in Adam / in the dominion of death] to Christ [being in Christ / in the dominion of life]. By virtue of this new incorporation, we benefit mightily from our membership in Christ. As Hans points out in #46, we are not only declared to be righteous, but constituted so.
Hans in #46 then goes on to point out that this righteousness comes to fruition [inherently!] in the actual works and deeds of the faithful. I think that this is really the key truth of what is going on. As the Apostle Paul explains [Romans 8:1-4]: There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus [Why not?] for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me from from the law of sin and death. [How, then, does this happen?] For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW MIGHT BE FULLY MET IN US, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit [of life].
This is quite a different thing than having all of the merits of Christ credited to our account. We have been forgiven of our debt. Now we have Christ’s Spirit [who is LIFE unto us] enabling us to meet [or do] the righteous requirements of the law. In this we submit to God’s law, and God is pleased [Romans 8:7,8]. This is how our account is filled us. There is no fiction in this. And at the Last Day our actual works, the deeds done in our bodies during our lifetime, will be judged. I am not aware that we can cover ourselves by saying that we have all the merits of Christ credited unto us.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 20, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Andrew, Michael Taylor and I exchanged posts on Jason’s site about it starting with baptism ex opere operato. Tim Kauffman has an article this week on his site ( Out of His mouth) that totally exposes Bran Cross and CCC complete misinterpretation of the fathers on baptism. It is the first article he actually show that the fathers said exactly the opposite as CCC’s interpretation, which is just another opportunity to apply my rule, read Roman doctrine and believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. There is no way a Priest can usurp the Spirit and the sovereignty of God to save who he wills. The Spirit blows where and how He wants. Simply in Roman Catholicism the church usurps the sovereignty of God and becomes the determiner in who gets salvation and how much they get at each sacramental visit. JC Ryle rightly said beware of a church that makes salvation all about sacraments since there are only 4 verses in all the Epistles on the Lord’s supper. Paul said that faith not only was the entry point into our holistic salvation, but it was from faith to faith, the entirety of it. The righteous shall live by faith. Luther said they cannot rob from faith and give to love( sacraments ex o o) what God intended only for faith. ! John 4 says by faith we overcome the world, and God says in Hebrews without it it is impossible to please Him.
Mark said,
August 20, 2014 at 1:48 pm
The analogy to the married couple and discussion is interesting. Minor quibble (as Pete points out in comment #1), the legal statements about debts and assets before and after marriage is actually incorrect in most U.S. states. This is true both for purposes of the legal requirements to pay debts, and the division of property after marriage. There is an important legal distinction depending on what assets/debts the husband held before marriage.
The thought/analogy is helpful, but the legal part of it isn’t quite accurate.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Roberty bob said ” is it necessary to have a certain righteouness placed in our account” Evidently Paul thought so. He was the law righteous stud of righteous stud having said he was blameless as to the law, yet he DIDNOT want to be found in this righteouness but he wanted to be found in Him becoming the righteouness of God. This is the filthy rags of Isaiah 64. Jesus said to the Catholics of His day that unless their righteouness exceeded that of the scibes and pharisees, they were doomed. Hedidnt say if it exceeded that of the Prostutes. Paul put all his righteouness in one column and all Christ’s in the other. 1 Cor 1:30 says He became to us righteouness, sanctification, redemption. Its all forensic for Paul. Its time for Rome to let Him off the cross as an eternal victim and let Him be Lord and Savior. He is Risen!
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Mark, as I pointed out to Pete, this quibble is irrelevant. The legal situation is true at some point somewhere in history. It doesn’t really matter where or when.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 20, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Lane, how about #22 (or 2-3)?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Bryan 53,
You stated: “Dwelling inside something does not ipso facto entail ontological transfers of anything intrinsic to the occupant or to the occupied dwelling.”
Scripture does not portray the indwelling Holy Spirit—Christ within us—as merely a visitor but as united with us in identity. The true identity of a man is who he is in the inner man, and not the body he dwells in. When we are saved, Christ comes to dwell with that inner man in such a close union that we are said to be “one spirit with Him.” Not only is He said to be in us, but we now are said to be in Him. Not only is He where we are, but we are said to be credited with being where He is (“seated in heavenly places”). Because He is in us now, we are credited with all that He accomplished long ago (“crucified with Christ,” etc.). Rom. 6:3, “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” and, 1 Cor. 6:17, “But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.” It is not speaking of water baptism, but baptism into the Spirit, which happens at the point of saving faith. To be spiritually baptized into Christ is to be joined to Him so that the new believer and Christ are one spirit, and the result of this is that the new believer is joined to (or, baptized into) His death. In fact, the believer is so identified with Christ that he is considered to have been crucified with Him. Gal. 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” To be immersed into the Spirit of Christ is to be plunged into that flood of sufficiency that all His human experiences provide.
roberty bob said,
August 20, 2014 at 2:52 pm
in reference to Kevin, #66 . . .
I totally agree with the Apostle Paul’s assessment of his own striving for righteousness [a failing grade!], and of his desire to be found in Christ, who is for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption. I do not deny the need to be found in Christ, who is our righteousness.
The question for me is HOW Christ is righteousness for us. In what relationship or in what form does this righteousness come to us? In what does it consist?
I see it coming to us by virtue of being incorporated — having Christ as our representative and covenant head — of having his atoning sacrifice avail for my sins — of being forgiven and adopted into the family of God.
What I do not see — even in 1 Corinthians 1:30 or Philippians 3:9 — is explicit reference to the merits of Christ’s perfect law-keeping being transferred to my account. I agree that he, in keeping the law, did what I as I sinner could not do. But, now, being IN CHRIST, the law of the Spirit of life enables me to do the righteous requirements of the law.
When I DO those things which are enabled by Christ’s Spirit of Life, I am not doing deeds of filthy unrighteousness; I am doing those things that are pleasing to God [Romans 8:1-8]. Right?
Kevin Failoni said,
August 20, 2014 at 3:36 pm
roberty bob, He is righteousness by imputation. Paul uses dikaiow not dikaiadzo which he totally had available to Him. Its declarative. Even Catholic apologists are admitting this. Paul could never mean by dikaiou = the process of being better, or doing better. Think about this robbery bob, Paul says in Ephesians 2:8 ” not that of yourselves” not of works” That eliminates Rome’s gospel. They only thing they can do is read installments into that verse and unfortunately the verb for saved doesn’t allow it. I mean its not like its ambiguous roberty bob. Paul only says it 100 times. If your drowning and I go out and save you, when we get back to shore are you going to tell people how well you you cooperated with me. You said “in what doe this righteousness consist ” 1 corinthians 1:30 tells us its Christ’s, not a works righteousness that is born in us out of love in merits and demerits. By His doing we are in Who became to us all those things. Its all forensic for Paul. Our righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is His righteousness. The scripture says we become one spirit with Him. And we are offered a person, not a derivative that comes off that person. We are truly righteous in Christ and that brings with it the papers of justification, adoption which undergirds our sanctification. We get situated from the courtroom to the living room because we are in him by the Spirit and he is in us. Your problem though is if there is no imputation then Paul can’t talk about justification as aorist past tense in Romans 5:1 and 8:1 which brings no condemnation and brings present shalom. And also if our sins weren’t forgiven past, present and future, then He didn’t do His job and I can’t have peace. Also Paul can’t tell me that I am reconciled and justified by faith and His blood past tense. Jesus isn’t up there going ok Dad Joe just finished the mass give him a little more grace and justice. He is continually applying His perfect sacrifice Heb>10:14 as we confess and pray. We have an advocate with the Father. His sacrifice perfected us and now its being applied. There is no sacramental system in scripture NT being delved out by OT recapitulated OT Aaronic Priests. He is from the order of Melchizadek, perfect permanent. The writer of Hebrews called the need for a physical altar, sacrifice and Priesthood shrinking back in one’s faith. Hid altar and sacrifice and priesthood are in heaven, and we go there freely to offer up spiritual sacrifices , confessions and prayers.
theoldadam said,
August 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Our doing …or not doing …is neither here nor there.
We put our trust in His Promises…for us…to us.
That’s it.
Anything else is a co-op and one might as well be a Catholic…or a Jew for that matter.
Bob S said,
August 20, 2014 at 3:47 pm
Rather, what I said is that in Reformed theology God has only one “standard” of righteousness. And what I said follows from that. If the merely extra nos “form” of righteousness equally satisfied God’s one standard, we wouldn’t need sanctification, even in heaven. But we do need sanctification in heaven. Hence, the merely extra nos kind falls short of that one standard
God has one standard of righteousness and it is fulfilled in Christ.
But we are not in heaven now and God is gracious to accept us in Christ here on earth in the mean time.
nd that despite the quibbles, complaints and prevarications of the creature that this is a “legal fiction”, which is to insinuate that either God or reformed theology/JBFA is a lie, if not both in the drive to substitute a god made out of bread that can be eaten.
IOW that’s what the handwaving is all about from our interlocutor.
True, it takes some time to pierce the veil of the Roman semaphore code, but it is not an insurmountable goal, and there has been plenty of time to observe CtC in action due to the wonders of the internet.
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2014 at 3:48 pm
Ken (re: #69)
I agree with everything you said in that comment (presently #69). But all of that implies an ontological union that is not what Horton calls “fusion,” i.e. that does not imply the loss of the Creator-creature distinction. A merely legal (or covenantal) union does not achieve this. Likewise, positions/locations (i.e. “inside”) don’t achieve this either, as I pointed out at the end of #53. So what is needed to account for the nature of the textual evidence for the sort of unity (of Christ and the believer) described by Scripture is something ontological. And because of its nominalism, Reformed theology does not have that metaphysical resource as an option, and thus it works with the following [in my opinion false] dilemma: either fusion or mere covenant/vital union. Again, as I mentioned in comment #9 above, see chapter 18 of Horton’s The Christian Faith. What is missing is the ontological category of participation, as I explained in the penultimate paragraph of comment #182 of CTC’s transubstantiation post. But that takes us into a very different paradigm.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Kevin Failoni said,
August 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm
robert bob, Even Augustine said that yes our works are pleasing to God if done by faith and not trying to be justified by them, but even our best works are stained with sin. If our works are perfectly good, why did we need Christ. He did for us what we could not do for ourselves, namely lived the law in our place and fulfill all righteousness. Its gift. In fact 5:17 calls it “the free gift of righteousness” How can that be the free gift of our righteousness in any way. It can’t. Romans 6:23 calls it the free gift of eternal life (watch) thru Jesus christ our Lord. Incidentally the first part of the verse says for the wages of sin is death. There is no distinction between mortal or venial. You will go to hell as a policeman or a prostitute if your not trusting in Christ alone for your salvation. Christ did not come to help us achieve His favor with His help, he saved us. He aint on the cross anymore, He is risen, thats the good news. We should live with the peace and assuredness of our salvation each day knowing He saved us not on the basis of righteousness but by His mercy. Hallelujah!
Bob S said,
August 20, 2014 at 3:55 pm
Either that or the “legal fiction” objection is to impugn God’s ability on account of Christ’s perfect work to declare sinners righteous by faith.
Again, who are you O man to repliest against God? Rom. 9:20
IOW they greatly err who think God is such a one as they are themselves and bound by human ability.
But Roman hubris knows no such bounds, if it can repeat Christ’s perfect atonement in the resacrifice of the mass.
theoldadam said,
August 20, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Nice work, Kevin.
But it is too simple. You need to start throwing in big words to get people mixed up so that they might to believe there is something special required outside of the Cross…for real sinners.
“We are saved by grace through faith, not of works lest anyone should boast.”
How does this happen? Christ gives it to us…in His Word of promise …and in Baptism and Holy Communion. They are all pure gospel. Pure gift.
If you’re into co-op religion, than that is not good news. But if you come to the point where you realize the depth of your own sin and that there is nothing that you can do about it…then it is very good news. Very good news indeed.
Bob S said,
August 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm
and thus it works with the following [in my opinion false] dilemma: either fusion or mere covenant/vital union.
We’re making headway. Bryan admits something is his fallible opinion and not an infallible divine truth.
As to how he would know one way or another is a different matter, but perhaps the lest said the better.
Because then private judgement might come into play and we know what kind of a bugaboo that is for Romanists, who necessarily resort to it all the while they deny it.
Nevertheless we are to sit pretty with Bryan’s PJ on legal fictions and ontic nominalism instead of resting on divinely infallible truths only available in Rome to Romanists. Why the coy remarks then? Can not Bryan give us the real goods and stop playing footsie? Or are we really talking about gnosticism and one hast to join before they can be initiated into the higher knowledge?
Hmmm. Did Utah emulate the papists here, or is it the other way around?
Yet another question I’ll have to ask the men in black and white when they next knock on the door.
Until bon jovie to my conflicted friend and his pj.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Bryan Cross you truncate the Reformed view. We are incorporated into Christ body by the Spirit of Christ not by the flesh. It is a person that is offered, not a derivative thing off that person. Our entire salvation is mediated by the Spirit . The onus is on you to prove the philosophical ontological categories that the Roman religion has adopted form Aquinas connecting a Christian faith ethic to pagan self autonomy. . Good luck! They aren’t there. We have union of Christ throughout our entire Christian existence, even in glory, thru the SPIRIT and faith alone in Christ alone. We don’t need the metaphysical option. Since it isn’t biblical. You guys read the book of John like a metaphysics essay. The Apostles knew nothing of these pagan categories. He simply left us with the Spirit for true koininia and all the benefits of Christ. In fact the scripture says we have ALL things pertaining to life and Godliness. We don’t need what Rome offers falsely thru your human institution of secondary causes. God has control of the conscience, not the church, and the church cannot substitute itself for the natural body of Christ and the Spirit and become their regent. He blows where and how HE wills. He said He was going to make a place for us, and that He would not drink of the fruit of the Vine until he returned, or He wouldn’t eat with us until He returned. The scripture says we now look in a mirror dimly and then we will see face to face. Rome smashes the incarnation, ascension, parousia and collapses the head into the body. So the Roman church becomes the kingdom on earth bringing Christ down at the ringing of the bell, putting Him on the church’s lap and becoming His regent. False system.
greenbaggins said,
August 20, 2014 at 4:35 pm
Ken, almost every analogy breaks down if you press it too far, including the one I used. If one enters into the spirit of the analogy, then one can see how it works, rather than trying to burst its boundaries. Union with Christ is undoubtedly the umbrella benefit of salvation: everything fits inside it. As Calvin said, Christ and all His benefits are of no value whatsoever to us until we are united to Him.
Mark said,
August 20, 2014 at 5:17 pm
Maybe because I’m an attorney who does a lot of work in property law that the quibble sticks with me. Plus, I’m not entirely sure it is true that “the legal situation [exactly as you described it] is true at some point somewhere in history.”
In any case, I think the fact that it is usually not the case at most points and most places in history means that the analogy may serve as more of a distraction than helpful. But, I may only think that because I’m an attorney that works in this attorney and, you know, attorneys are often pretty obnoxious about such things. :)
Carry on…
Ken Hamrick said,
August 20, 2014 at 7:46 pm
Andrew,
I don’t see realism and nominalism in this way. Mostly, I’m concerned with Biblical realism—that Biblical principle of shared identity based on immaterial union, to which philosophical realism (with all its excesses) came to be applied. Biblical realism is the recognition of a shared personal identity, effected by immaterial (spiritual) union or singularity of immaterial origin, which is sufficient in itself to account for the headships of Adam and Christ. More broadly, Biblical realism is a paradigm from which God’s judgments and justice are dependent upon substantial reality — a reality which He may sovereignly change but cannot justly ignore. It was from this paradigm that the principle of realistic union, and specifically traducianism, was arrived at. Nominalism is the denial of any union of immaterial substance of mankind in Adam, and the relegation to a mere union in God’s chosen perception. In the broad picture, it is the diminishment of the importance of substantial reality—a paradigm from which God’s judgments and justice have no standard other than His own will.
Although explicit theological realists have most commonly employed the terms and constructs of Plato’s realism in expounding principles of Biblical realism, such use of Plato is neither necessary nor beneficial. The difference between Platonic realism and Biblical realism is as great as the difference between a “universal” and a spirit. The strongest objections to theological realism are actually objections to Platonic realism inappropriately applied to theology. When divested of Platonic constructs, Biblical realism yields an understanding of justification, rebirth and atonement that is vastly superior to what representationism offers, and solves many longstanding theological problems.
Biblical realism is not a blinder but an illuminator. And the main difference between realism and nominalism is not that the former emphasizes the corporate while the latter emphasized individuals; but rather, realism emphasizes a corporate spiritual union of shared indentity between the individual and the head, while nominalism denies any such identifying spiritual union (and therefore grounds the justice in God’s sovereign will alone and not in the supposed reality of a real, substantial union). So, I don’t follow your meaning when you go that route. There can be no balance between a denial of the significance of reality to God’s justice and an acknowledgement of the significance of reality.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 20, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Lane,
If the analogy does not address the objection of the opposing argument, then you cannot effectively offer it as if it did.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 20, 2014 at 8:04 pm
Bryan #74,
Reformed theology used to have a category of participation, but not as you intend. It was a participation in the defining action of the head with whom they were immaterially united. Adam’s sin was imputed to us because it was ours, and not the other way around. It was ours because the moral nature of every man was in Adam and chose to sin when he did. That’s participation in the defining action of the head. Since the same immaterial nature in me was in Adam, then the ownership was passed down with the nature. What is needed is to view Christ’s headship in the same way but in the other direction. The shared nature of all men was propagated out of Adam, with the one becoming the many. But the children of God are propagated not by dispersion—from the union in one to become the many—rather, children of God are propagated by bringing the many (one at a time) into union with the One, Christ. Therefore, we as believers gain a retroactive participation in Christ’s defining acts by being united with the indwelling Person of Christ NOW. Nonetheless, our saving participation in Christ is a participation in what He has long ago accomplished—and that’s all that’s needed to save us.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 20, 2014 at 8:14 pm
Reed #61,
You stated:
Where’s the substance, Reed? You’re not usually one to substitute mere assertions. The charge of fiction is valid in the sense that condemnation and righteousness cannot be justly transferred. Denying the validity of that is useless. Instead, substantively address how God can indeed be just with such a transfer.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 20, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Turretinfan #50,
You said, “The judgment of righteousness is based on real righteousness, not some fictitious righteousness. We are judged as righteous because Christ really was righteous.” We need more than the reality of Christ’s righteousness. We need to have something in reality on which to ground the transfer. The two (believer and Christ) need to become one in reality.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Kevin (re: 79),
I would add to your post that what you say about our union with Christ IS ontological. We are told in Scriptures that we are in Christ, and because we are in Christ we are transformed in mind and body and spirit. Such statements in Scripture are ontological in nature. But the ontological union we have in Christ is that which 1) is grounded in Scripture, 2) becomes the basis for our being more completely made into His image, and 3) ultimately makes us completely conformable to God as we are glorified in Him. This is the metaphysics of our union with Christ.
But as you allude to, Bryan presents us with this nebulous ontological union and goodness knows what it is based upon. He certainly is not defining it for us. How ironic then that he tells Lane (see #53) that Protestants are “hand-waving” when Lane speaks of our union with Christ!
Cheers….
Ron said,
August 20, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Ken,
The Reformed claim is that God’s justice is satisfied virtue of the penalty for sin having been justly paid, which explains why God can remain just while being the justifier of sinners. Sinners can be constituted not guilty and even right with the law, even declared such, due to the realities of penal substitution and imputation. Much more is contemplated under these ideas, like enmity removed (expiation) and wrath spent (propitiation).
When you say things like “x cannot be justly transferred,” you’re simply announcing your personal view of justice that is informed by, well, mere opinion and not God’s revelation.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 20, 2014 at 9:33 pm
Andrew, I meant to mention that. Thats a good point. We have an ontological/vital union with Christ thru His Spirit. Thanks. Thats their schtick you know that we have the imputed righteousness of Christ but we don’t have union. When we believe we posses the Spirit of Christ. We have a person that is offered, not a derivative thing off off that person. We enjoy union, relationship, and all of god’s blessings thru the Spirit. We are in christ and He is in us. The notion that the imputed righteousness of Christ that comes from outside and justifies us doesn’t get implanted in us for righteous living is absurd. J It juste brings the adoption papers and the justification which undergirds all of salvation. Paul interestingly calls the rag tag Corinthians ” those who have been sanctified” Now how could he say that about them. Its all forensic for Paul. How can the person in Hebrews 10″14 be perfected while in the process of sanctification. Yet thats what the verse says He perfected those who are being sanctified. Imputation.
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2014 at 10:15 pm
Ken:
I wrote: “The judgment of righteousness is based on real righteousness, not some fictitious righteousness. We are judged as righteous because Christ really was righteous.”
You responded: “We need more than the reality of Christ’s righteousness. We need to have something in reality on which to ground the transfer. The two (believer and Christ) need to become one in reality.”
a) In fact, the believer and Christ do become one in reality, as per Jesus’ prayer in John 17, and as illustrated in the Supper. That oneness is real, even if it is not easily explained.
b) All that is necessary to ground the imputation (not sure why you insist on “transfer”) is the impetration of Christ (and one might argue the acceptance of that impetration). Since Christ, as high priest, pleads his merits on our behalf, we are justified. Likewise, Christ as lamb is condemned for our sins, and dies on our behalf.
c) There is certainly a lot more to salvation than just justification – but focusing on justification, the judicial declaration of innocence/righteousness, it’s sufficient that the righteousness is real to free God from the accusation of calling evil good. How/why exactly the righteousness is imputed from Christ to the believer may be an important topic, but is one that goes beyond the question at hand – unless it’s proposed that imputation is not what occurs, or unless it’s proposed that the imputation could not occur.
De Maria said,
August 20, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Sooo? New creation means new only on the outside. But not new and cleansed of all sin on the inside?
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
You’ll have to show me from Scripture. Here’s what I see:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
That’s between you and God.
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
De Maria said,
August 20, 2014 at 10:49 pm
Sooo? Being “born again” doesn’t mean being justified?
There are a lot of flavors of Protestantism out there. Does this guy count at all?
Because, if he does, he seems to be contradicting you.
De Maria said,
August 20, 2014 at 10:56 pm
Good point. Show me from Scripture.
I didn’t see anything from Scripture in that spiel. Maybe the next.
I hope you at least try to produce some, sometime.
Ron said,
August 20, 2014 at 10:56 pm
The Webster quote is perfectly Reformed and evangelical. Not to recognize this confirms Lane’s suspicion.
De Maria said,
August 20, 2014 at 11:01 pm
And contradicts Lane’s retort.
Ron said,
August 20, 2014 at 11:19 pm
Ignorant and arrogant is no way to go through life. At the very least, learn your topic.
Ron said,
August 20, 2014 at 11:34 pm
I would humbly suggest that this RC be required to show how Lane and Webster are at odds before being allowed to post on other matters.
theoldadam said,
August 21, 2014 at 12:01 am
“Sooo? New creation means new only on the outside. But not new and cleansed of all sin on the inside?”
Who said that?
Don’t you know how to read?
De Maria said,
August 21, 2014 at 12:10 am
Lane said:
You should know.
I know it quite well, as you are learning.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 21, 2014 at 12:51 am
Mostly, I’m concerned with Biblical realism—that Biblical principle of shared identity based on immaterial union, to which philosophical realism (with all its excesses) came to be applied.
So now that you give me this definition I understand where you are coming from and I agree. I hope you understand that when you speak of just “realism,” as you have throughout this discussion, that people will take you to be speaking of classical realism, as I did. Classical realism had very distinct effects on the Church, both ancient and Medieval. So I was answering you as one who was speaking to classical realism and nominalism.
realism emphasizes a corporate spiritual union of shared identity between the individual and the head, while nominalism denies any such identifying spiritual union (and therefore grounds the justice in God’s sovereign will alone and not in the supposed reality of a real, substantial union).
The statement above is just what we are getting at. We Reformed affirm that God’s judgment of the righteous as innocent is only made over those who really are righteous.
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 12:54 am
Pasting Webster’s quote after Lane’s does not tell us why their statements are not compatible. Please argue your point and don’t just assert it.
Tim Harris said,
August 21, 2014 at 7:43 am
I think what dM is highlighting is Lane: “we don’t believe [regeneration] happens in justification” vs. Webster: “no justification apart from regeneration.” He sees a contradiction between “non in” and “not apart from.”
However, if this is confusing, it is only because of the telegraphic form, and perhaps using the same words with different force. The concepts could be stated in different words that would relieve and clarify the tension; and have been, throughout this thread. Which, as has been pointed out, dM himself could do if he was a little more thoroughly grounded. DM, I might suggest a study of G I Williamson’s commentary on the Westminster Confession. It is relatively short but very clear.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 7:56 am
Ron #88,
You stated:
The same objections to justification apply to atonement. One man cannot die in the place of another (unless the two men can somehow be made one within substantial reality). Face it, Ron. The real “concrete” union of Christ within the believer is not some adjunct or afterthought but is the very foundation of all of salvation. Without this “concrete” reality within the believer, all these other things that you call realities are not real at all.
What is reality, Ron? If you ask me to give you the money I borrowed from you, and I reply that I’ve already paid you in my mind, would you be satisfied with that? Why is it that when a man lusts after his neighbor’s wife, he’s guilty of committing adultery with her in his heart but she’s not made guilty by that sin? The fact is that while thinkers may incur guilt for thinking what they should not, no Thinker can make anyone else guilty merely by thinking—or righteous, for that matter. Reality exists regardless of any thoughts (or lack thereof) regarding it. And yes, I’m saying that this applies to God as well. If it did not, Christ would not have needed to die. God could have just chosen to view Him as if He had died. Or, God simply could choose to impute Christ’s righteousness to those who believe without any need for the cross. But the fact is that instead of merely viewing reality in His mind as if it matches what His justice requires, God actually does what is necessary to change reality to suit His justice. Rather than merely viewing believers AS IF we had the righteousness of Christ, God actually puts Christ Himself within the believer, joining the two into one new man who has full title to all of Christ’s human experiences (including His death and resurrection).
It is no mere opinion of mine that the guilty cannot be justly called righteous. It is a matter of truth and justice that is both Biblical and universally understood by those made in God’s image (in whom the law is written on their consciences by nature).
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 8:40 am
Andrew,
You stated:
I’m glad to have your agreement. I’m sorry for the confusion. But while the excesses may be cut away from the true principles doctrinally, it is difficult to separate the two historically—at least until we come to extremes. There has been a broad spectrum from the realist view to the nominalist. As Fisher points out, many of the Reformers were not realists, but were under the sway of a realistic mode of thinking only as it pertained to original sin. And most of the realists held to both Platonic and Biblical realism. Nominalism is antithetical to both, so the struggle between the Nominalism and realism applies to both Platonic and Biblical realism. However, since I see Biblical realism as that which the Church needs to return to, then that is my focus and the system behind all my arguments.
You said, “The statement above is just what we are getting at. We Reformed affirm that God’s judgment of the righteous as innocent is only made over those who really are righteous.” It all depends on how you define “really are.” Realists (of both kinds) would demand that they really are righteous within substantial (“concrete”) reality—otherwise, they really aren’t. But as said before, this does would only require that Christ really is within them, joined to them in identity and spirit.
What every man needs to gain heaven under the law is two human experiences:
1) we need to have lived in perfect righteousness from cradle to grave; and,
2) (because we have sinned) we need to have endured the complete wrath of God against sin.
Christ experienced both of these, and He did so by walking in our shoes, so to speak, and doing all that we should have done or need to do. He didn’t need to be baptized, but He did so with us in mind as He said, “It is fitting for US to fulfill all righteousness.” When He was accused and at trial, He spoke not a word in His defense, even though He was innocent, because He was in our shoes and we are guilty. Acting in our place, He could not rightly plead innocent. Nor could He rightly plead guilty, being innocent. So He spoke not a word… And the crime was every sinner’s crime: the blasphemy of making oneself out to be God.
When God sends the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, He brings with Him all His past experiences as a man, including the two listed above that actually save us from wrath and make us perfectly righteous. Our old identity dies and we rise to new life in Christ as we are forever immersed in His Spirit. As for the eyes of Justice, any view of our sinful failures is blinded by the brightness of what was accomplished on the cross by the One who is in us as a part of us. Justice never has a chance for any further claim upon us, since it is continually met with the fact that we are “crucified with Christ.” It is as much a fact of reality that I (the new man in Christ) have already paid the penalty for sin as it is a fact that Christ is in me and joined with me in an identifying spiritual union. I can no more be condemned than Christ Himself can be. There is no other way that one man can pay the penalty for another or act righteously for another.
Do you still agree?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 8:54 am
Anyone interested in seeing how such a view of reality illuminates atonement can find it here.
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 8:56 am
Ken,
Your post is rather iconic for this thread. Long on opinions but nothing more.
Nobody denies that union with Christ is a necessary condition for salvation, but who informs you that imputation is superfluous? All I’m hearing is what you think sounds reasonable to your unaided, autonomous reason.
That something is necessary doesn’t make it sufficient. You’ve yet to show why imputation cannot take place in the orbit of union and how union can meet that which imputation contemplates. You’re not arguing. You’re simply pontificating about justice.
Your analogies are too far afield to take seriously and the conclusions of your attempt at a reductio exceed your premises. In any case, imputation does not imply that God could have thought us righteous apart from the work of Christ. If you think it does, then please put forth a formal proof to that end rather than just sharing your opinion.The Reformed position maintains a full orbed salvation, which encompasses redemption accomplished and its application. Moreover, from the Reformed perspective imputation can be distinguished but not separated from union, therefore, to suggest that imputation from a Reformed perspective need not entail ontological considerations is simply unfounded and unjustified. Start proving some things.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 9:19 am
Ron,
I’m not saying that imputation is superfluous, but that to impute is to reckon things as they really are or will be. I’ve already given you an argument from reason as to why substantial reality is necessary to truth and justice. That was not pontification. I also asked you for your definition of reality. I think your dismissals are too quick and convenient.
It’s not a question of whether God “could have thought us righteous apart from the work of Christ,” but whether that work of Christ could affect our standing apart from a real union with Him within substantial reality (within us). I say that God may sovereignly ignore the exigencies of substantial reality when it comes to these matters, but He cannot justly do so. Truth must correspond to reality—if you disagree, then argue your case—and justice is always a matter of truth.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 9:22 am
Ron, you might find from me some of what you’re looking for by way of argument in post #3.
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 9:27 am
Not at all, Ken. It’s just a longer version of the same question begging, false dichotomies and display of unaided reasoning.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 9:33 am
Ok, Ron. Aid me, then. Show me how an argument should be made—like your argument, for example. If mine is just question begging, then how would you propose to raise your own claims above that level? Maybe if you set a good example for me to follow, I might be able to present something acceptable in form even if you disagree with it. What do you say?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 9:35 am
It seems to me that I did substantively engage Turretin on a few points, after all. It was a summary, as I did not want to over burden the readers here with anything longer.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 9:45 am
…Unless, of course, all your bluster is merely frustration over encountering a paradigm that doesn’t fit your categories and patterns of thinking. If that’s the case, then let’s take it one point at a time: name one question that I have begged, and I will substantively answer it.
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 10:23 am
“I’ve already given you an argument from reason”
An argument from unaided reason doesn’t get far with me, but in any case you were to have done more than that. A persuasive argument should entail showing why imputation must entail fiction and not reality. After all, that’s your claim. I’m just asking you to defend it. So, let me walk you through the process. What in your unaided reason prohibits God from reckoning sinners in Christ as righteous on the basis of Christ’s person and work through the mediation of the Savior’s effectual prayer? Moreover, why would such a divine accounting imply the conclusion of your reductio, that one could be constituted righteous outside of union with Christ and even apart from the actual occurrence of the historical work of the cross?
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 11:04 am
“However, it [justification] is grounded in a union that is real and substantial, even when that union is in the future.”
Why would imputation be any less real and substantial? I find it fictitious that one could be constituted perfectly righteous without it.
Attending a conference out west. Signing off now.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 21, 2014 at 11:51 am
Paul is not ambiguous in Romans 5: 12-19 that sin reigned from Adam to Moses and it was not and imitation of Adam or no law existed. It has to be imputation. So they one offense death reigned, so thru the obedience of one the free gift of righteousness came to the many. He says it 7 times in this section. The word make there is best translated appoint.
Reed Here said,
August 21, 2014 at 12:05 pm
Ken, no. 85: I was challenging RB’s criticism of the reformed position. He misrepresented it, and then criticized it on the basis of that misrepresentation. That just lacks integrity.
Your comment basically hijacks my challenge and turns it into a charge of mere assertion on my part. Since I was not arguing for the position, but merely against its mischaracterization, that is an incorrect charge. Rather I was assuming agreed knowledge of the position, a charitable assumption based on how RB has been arguing.*
Still, I will bear with the hijacking, at least for one response I hope helps. You offer this assumption without validation:
BOQ The charge of fiction is valid in the sense that condemnation and righteousness cannot be justly transferred. Denying the validity of that is useless. EOQ
I actually do deny the validity of that assertion and don’t agree that it is useless to do so.
(2Co 5:18-21 ESV) 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Sounds to me like God is arguing for the validity of a transfer, righteousness for condemnation.
* If you or RB are that unfamiliar with the reformed position then does not integrity compel y’all to become more informed lest you be guilty of bearing false witness? I can assure you that there are many here who will graciously and kindly take time to help direct and guide you in becoming more informed what you are critiquing.
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Since I was not arguing for the position, but merely against its mischaracterization, that is an incorrect charge
Reed,
I almost posted something very similar.
Please take a look at this and help me to understand whether I am understanding Ken. I’d appreciate TF and Lane’s thoughts too.Break is over…
You allow for one to be reckoned as righteous prior to the consummation, which is to say on the basis of what the future holds. Does this comply with your standard of reality at it relates to justice? No, it doesn’t, at least without denying your own strictures as I understand them. After all, on your terms one cannot be constituted and declared according to a non-reality; yet that is what this loophole of yours would seem to allow for, that God can justify sinners prior to the *reality* of their justification. (Now that would be a fiction.) To say that the present justification is somehow “grounded” in the future reality of the person being justified is to play both sides. Your loophole lacks the required corresponding real-time reality of what the declaration “not guilty”contemplates. Your truth does not correspond to your reality.
Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, so on that basis I can understand God counting men as righteous based upon the future sacrifice of Christ (yet even they were awaiting the cross, even in the grave). However, Scripture, as opposed to unaided reason, does not depict us as existentially united to Christ in this eternal way. Rather, Scripture informs that the elect are only identified in Christ before creation while not yet baptized into His death. Consequently, Christ’s treasury of merit is not limited by time. God could charge against it so to speak by way of reckoning and imputation through the real-time reality of faith in the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, given that your view of justification entails ontology only, there is nothing to charge against since the reality of existential union has not yet occurred. Whereas Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, we are not the existentially united before the foundation of the world. Rather, we are truly children of wrath, just like the rest.
Hey, I love union with Christ and when I began to see its beauty I couldn’t think of anything else…
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 12:54 pm
Let me clarify this: “However, given that your view of justification entails ontology only, there is nothing to charge against since the reality of existential union has not yet occurred. Whereas Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, we are not the existentially united before the foundation of the world.”
The reality for OT saints of existential union with the Second Adam raised from the dead had not yet occurred. Accordingly, on your terms the reality of not being raised with Christ would not correspond to the verdict. And for everyone at all times, the reality of consummation has not yet occurred – yet you seem to require consummation given your reference to an initial legal judgment.
Just curious Ken, is this understanding of yours found in any confessional document?
Andrew McCallum said,
August 21, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Do you still agree?
Ken (Re: 104),
Yes. To me what you so eloquently state is just the historic Reformed position on union with Christ, and it emphasizes and illustrates how right Lane is in the contentions that he makes in his original post above. The Roman Catholic critique about “legal fiction” has no basis in reality (no pun intended).
Concerning philosophic nominalism in the late Medieval era and early Reformation eras, from my perspective this philosophical school played an important part in correcting the philosophic realism that was such a dominant ideological force at this point in time. On issues of ecclesiology, soteriology, and other matters it was the universal concepts which shaped their thinking, and individual instantiations of these concepts were often forgotten. So for instance, for the Medievals “church” was all about the universal Church as it had existed for all of the history of God’s people, and individual congregations and individuals within the congregation often received little thought (this is why I talked about the typical Medieval theologian having difficulty grappling with the concept of an individual Christian getting born again). My contention is that philosophic nominalism laid the philosophical groundwork that helped Reformation ideas to take root. The promises of God to His people were to individuals, to congregations, and to the Church universal equally. So to the question of universals that is sometimes abbreviated by speaking of the problem of the One and the Many, I would say that both the One and the Many must be held as equally valid. Universals are important but so are individual instantiations of these universals.
I would just briefly add that based on what I say above, it is not correct to label Reformed Protestants as nominalists. If we were nominalists we would deny the reality or at least the relevance of universal concepts. Philosophically speaking we are neither nominalists nor realists.
Today the modern American church has swung completely to the other side. The radical nominalism in American Evangelicalism allows dismissing the universal Church as having any relevance, and in some cases goes beyond this to reject the local church as having any necessary relevance, favoring instead a Christianity governed solely by the individual.
Cheers….
Brandon Addison said,
August 21, 2014 at 6:13 pm
Andrew #119,
You said,
Yes. This is very important.
I’ve stated this elsewhere but when I asked Richard Muller a question at WSCAL about whether or not the Reformed tradition was Nominalist he looked inquisitively at me and stated that such things were ever only really discussed in Jesuit apologetic circles in the 19th century. There is no denying that nominalism, “laid the philosophical groundwork that helped Reformation ideas to take root.” as you so aptly put it, but to equate them is historical, theological, and philosophically misguided.
Bryan makes a similar error in #74 (he doesn’t claim that Reformed theologian is inherently nominalist, but based on other things he’s written I believe it’s lurking)
There are a number of problems with this statement, as others have pointed out (i.e. it’s loaded with RC assumptions and ambiguous language), but in conjunction with Andrew’s comment, it’s important that people understand that equating the Reformed tradition with Nominalism and then falsifying Nominalism is wrongheaded on multiple levels. It’s very important to distinguish between philosophical influences upon Protestantism and the philosophical foundation of Protestantism.
De Maria said,
August 21, 2014 at 7:24 pm
1. I asked a question.
2. Read the exchanged messages. Then you’ll understand the context within which I asked the question.
Do you make it a habit to jump into discussions without knowing what is being discussed as you did in message #94?
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2014 at 7:25 pm
Brandon,
The notion that if the alleged property z of a position was only really discussed by x group of persons in y century, then it does not have that property, performatively presupposes nominalism. It looks at how often the position was *labeled* z, rather than whether the position has property z.
What would need to be shown is that my claim *is* an error. Asserting that it is an error doesn’t *show* that it is an error. (Anything can be asserted.)
Any claim can be said to have a “number of problems.” The question is whether the claim is true. And my claim is true. Reformed theology is nominalist; that’s precisely how there can be such a thing (in Reformed theology) as God (i.e. Truth Himself) declaring something righteous (i.e. putting the ‘righteous’ label on it) while within itself it is (and remains everlastingly) unrighteous.
One common feature of nominalism is attempting to refute by means of applying labels (e.g. “wrongheaded”), rather than by *showing* a claim to be false.
For the reason explained just above, insofar as simul iustus et peccator is at the heart of Protestantism, nominalism is at the heart of Protestantism. If some Protestants are inconsistent (e.g. by acknowledging essences in other areas), that doesn’t show that Protestantism is not nominalist; it simply shows that the nominalism of their Protestantism is not consistent with their realism in these other areas.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
De Maria said,
August 21, 2014 at 7:29 pm
Thanks for the irenic tone of your message. And thanks for your suggestion. However, I prefer to compare everything to Scripture. I am a devout Catholic and I find all Catholic Doctrine in Scripture.
And I don’t find any Protestant doctrine which is in disagreement with Catholic Doctrine, in Scripture. In fact, many times, Protestant doctrine blatantly disagrees with Scripture.
That is what I do. If a Protestant tells me that something he says is in Scripture, I want to see it there.
Does that sound fair?
theoldadam said,
August 21, 2014 at 8:04 pm
You must be reading a different Book than we are. I don’t seem to be able to find Purgatory or Indulgences or co-operative salvation in mine.
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 8:04 pm
You reject Tim’s suggestion because you say all you need is Scripture. What escapes you is Tim’s suggestion was intended to aid you in understanding Reformed theology so that you might find that William Webster, D.A. Carson and Lane are not at odds with each other. So, let’s pretend no longer that you want to interact intelligently with Reformed theology.
Tim Harris said,
August 21, 2014 at 8:13 pm
Well sure, but it’s also a bit naive. We are not talking about differences that can be resolved piece-meal. It is a systematic conflict, and that can only be resolved at the system level.
Plus, in one sense, I’m glad to see you thumpin’ your Bible as good as any proof-texting fundy, but is that really an honest summary of the method propounded by your communion (e.g. rejection of sola scriptura). So you are claiming to do something that you can’t really do — unless you bring the “system” back in, in which case it wasn’t really settled with a simple proof text after all.
Ron said,
August 21, 2014 at 8:43 pm
Yes, Tim, but we should not lose sight of the context of your offer, What is below I sent from my iPhone but it’s “awaiting moderation.” Here it is again from a PC.
You reject Tim’s suggestion because you say all you need is Scripture. What escapes you is Tim’s suggestion was intended to aid you in understanding Reformed theology so that you might find that William Webster, D.A. Carson and Lane are not at odds with each other. So, let’s pretend no longer that you want to interact intelligently with Reformed theology.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 10:53 pm
Reed, #116,
You stated:
RB’s #55 comment was opposed to your view, but why assume that any misrepresentation is intentional? Often in theological debates, the most disputed point is whether something is in fact a misrepresentation or is an accurate representation inconsistently denied.
Let’s look at your #61, which was your first comment in this discussion:
There is no reason not to conclude that in your second paragraph, you offer a refutation of RB’s objection that the Reformed position (in your words) is “a bald declaration of ‘not-guilty.'” And what do you offer that is supposed to refute the objection? Nothing other than to offer that the guilty party acknowledges his guilt and the declaration proceeds on the basis of an innocent party assuming the guilt. But you offered no substance to show how these two things mitigate the “baldness” of the declaration. You just assert them as if they did. When I asked you, “Where’s the substance” in that? You state:
So then, am I to understand you as claiming that any substance lacking in your answer was assumed by you to be already known by RB and so unnecessary to include in your response? —and, therefore, the most effective part of your argument was already known by RB? And how could I know that you made such an assumption? I attempted to prod you for substance (since that’s what substantive discussions are made of), and you say I’ve “hijacked” your challenge. Then you offer a footnote:
“Guilty of bearing false witness?” That accusation is not used by those who argue substantively and fairly, but is used by those who resort to personal attacks. I can always use more knowledge; but don’t assume too much.
Then, you offer this:
“IN CHRIST God was reconciling the world to Himself…” and, “…so that IN HIM we might become the righteousness of God.” I see no declaration based merely “on the basis of an innocent party assuming the guilt.” Rather I see the declaration based on the fact that we are placed IN HIM. Either the placing of the believer IN HIM is simply a declared state and a part of the declaration of righteousness, or it is an act and state within substantial reality. That, Reed, was the substance that I had hoped to bring out. So your cited text does NOT support your denial. A transfer of morality based on a mere declaration is not one grounded on just reasons within substantial reality.
As for Reformed theology, it varies to a degree among Reformed folks. It certainly has varied regarding Adamic imputation, from what William Shedd called elder Calvinism to what he called later Calvinism:
Just as later Calvinists had no problem with an imputation of Adam’s sin to a posterity that had no real union in him other than what was “baldly” declared by God, they have no problem (many of them) basing the justifying imputation on a union with Christ that is primarily “federal” and just as putative as the Adamic union. But since views do vary, then I will say that to the extent that the justifying imputation is seen as grounded on a real union with Christ, then the Biblical view of reality is maintained.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 11:04 pm
Kevin, #115,
you said:
Sin and death did not reign because all men imitated Adam, but it reigned because all men had a responsible, corporate participation in Adam’s sin. As Augustine taught, the moral nature of all men was in Adam originally, chose to sin in Adam, and has been propagated to all men in the depraved condition that resulted. As the early Reformed church taught, Adam’s sin was imputed to us because it was ours.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 21, 2014 at 11:24 pm
Ken, Men are sinners by hereditary right. I don’t think I said men sinned because they imitated Adam.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 11:33 pm
Andrew, #119,
Your post is informative. I had not traced out those aspects of realism and nominalism. But I must still disagree with this:
Even Shedd sees the nominalism, as he said in my quote of him in #127:
Charles Hodge said (Princeton Essays):
And to Hodge, there was nothing immaterial to the natural relation between parent and child. Of course, this is on the Adam side of it, and not justification. But it speaks to the kind of nominalistic lens that has developed and does affect how union with Christ is viewed—as well as how justice and reality and God’s relation to both are viewed. Millard Erickson explains the difference between the views of God’s righteousness. He contrasts the [Platonic] realists and the nominalists, and concludes that “the biblical position falls between [the two]” [Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), p. 287]:
This “Biblical position,” with the added qualification that God’s nature as a moral standard is immutable from eternity past so that God currently makes no “new” moral decision, is the position of Biblical realism. And while representationists (those who hold to a nominalistic federal representation) might not explicitly hold that God’s standards of righteousness are arbitrarily defined by whatever actions He sovereignly chooses to do, such a nominalist view is logically involved in an arbitrarily designated representation that results in men being condemned for the sin of another man (with whom they have no connection other than the physical). This frequently comes out in discussions between realists and representationists. The realist will object that condemning any man for a sin that some other man committed goes against justice and righteousness; and the representationist will reply, “Who are you, O man, to tell God what is right?” In other words, if God does something, it is for us to assume that it is right and not to question it. However, since what exactly it is that God does in this case remains in dispute, then the question is begged. This begging of the question amounts to the representationists claiming exemption from being challenged about anything that they propose God does, since anything that they propose that God does must automatically be assumed to be righteous merely because it is He who does it.
God deals with men according to reality, rather than merely shuffling categories in His mind in spite of a contradicting reality. The difference is that the former is required for real justice, while the latter displays not justice but sovereignty clothed in the mere name of justice.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 21, 2014 at 11:35 pm
Kevin, I was agreeing with you that men do not imitate Adam, but then offering a better explanation for the imputation. What do you mean by “hereditary right?”
Andrew McCallum said,
August 22, 2014 at 12:30 am
Ken,
You disagree with my position and then adduce Hodge and Shedd, but your comment was in response to what I had to say about the theologians from the early Reformation era and that period which lead up to it. You have not given me enough context from Hodge and Shedd to make any judgement, but you could be right and perhaps some of these folks tended towards a union which was only contractual. But this is not the theology of the Reformation, right?
On Erickson, sounds like he got things right – good quote!
God deals with men according to reality, rather than merely shuffling categories in His mind in spite of a contradicting reality. The difference is that the former is required for real justice, while the latter displays not justice but sovereignty clothed in the mere name of justice.
I think you state things well here. I wish that some of our Catholic friends who see historic Protestantism as nominalistic could read and comprehend the things you say here and in #104. If they could really get their minds around the fact that the Reformers believed that God could declare men righteous because they really were righteous they might start to rethink their position. Some of the RC’s don’t seem to care about what we think or what the Reformers thought, but there are some well meaning Catholics who really try to understand us. Unfortunately they are far too few.
Cheers…..
Bob S said,
August 22, 2014 at 1:25 am
93 I didn’t see anything from Scripture in that spiel.
Then Rom. 4:17 isn’t Scripture. It reads:
IOW what Christ said to the Pharisees is applicable:
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
122 For the reason explained just above, insofar as simul iustus et peccator is at the heart of Protestantism, nominalism is at the heart of Protestantism.
But mistaking possession of the apostolic bones for apostolic doctrine is not the heart of romanism, if not a so called apostolic
superstitionsuccession – Avignon anyone? – is apostolic doctrine?But then again, in light of Rom. 4:17 maybe nominalism is at the heart of at least the Book of Romans. Ya think?
IOW mebbe somebody needs to revise their philosophical paradigm so that it isn’t so blatantly in contradiction to Scripture. If we are to take every thought captive, that includes both realism and nominalism. Which is not to say that philosophy is not a handmaid and help to theology, but only that if idolatry, superstition and self righteousness are at the heart of Romanism, chances are we’re not going to get much help from that quarter by way of a constructive critique on the basis of Scripture.
Neither do we believe in luck.
Bob S said,
August 22, 2014 at 1:41 am
122 The notion that if the alleged property z of a position was only really discussed by x group of persons in y century, then it does not have that property, performatively presupposes nominalism. It looks at how often the position was *labeled* z, rather than whether the position has property z. . . .
What would need to be shown is that my claim *is* an error. Asserting that it is an error doesn’t *show* that it is an error. (Anything can be asserted.) . . .
Any claim can be said to have a “number of problems.” The question is whether the claim is true. And my claim is true.
Mark the last. “My claim is true”. Yet the sophistry continues:
Reformed theology is nominalist; that’s precisely how there can be such a thing (in Reformed theology) as God (i.e. Truth Himself) declaring something righteous (i.e. putting the ‘righteous’ label on it) while within itself it is (and remains everlastingly) unrighteous.
Rather before Mr. Cross can claim that his claim is true, he needs to make good on his claim that Reformed theology teaches that the justified sinner “remains everlastingly unrighteous”.
Until then the discussion – or what passes for it – remains on everlasting hold. As in why bother talking to somebody who can only assert that his claim is not an error when he can’t show that it is not in error?
But I do remember starting out the day with “Show and Tell” in first grade with Sister Mary Steven at St. Peter’s Grade School. What I don’t remember is seeing any apostolic bones though. Plenty of puppies and kittens, but no bones.
Oh well.
theoldadam said,
August 22, 2014 at 6:25 am
Very good, Bob.
These Catholics refuse to believe God’s Word. “Hath God really said?” is right out of the mouth of the snake..was it not?
So then, what’s left? ‘You’d better get busy climbing our ladder’…that’s what’s left.
johnshelley said,
August 22, 2014 at 8:50 am
A light conversation between the two opposing perspectives will reveal similar terminology and phrases that sound as if we might agree on more than one thinks. The centrality of the problem lies mostly in the way in which the term justification is understood in scripture. Is it a one time act? Or is it a process? Is it a declaration of a new state of being? Or is it a word that is used interchangeably with sanctification. The problem is complicated by a seemingly logical conclusion that flows from the idea of a person being justified in the Protestant sense. The conclusion begs the question: “You can do whatever you want, right?” This, I think, is an area where the argument possibly goes awry. A red herring.1 Though it is a distraction, I think it might be worth analyzing. Before I do, I want to clarify what appears to be the Catholic position first and then respond.
The Catholic understanding of salvation blends Justification and Sanctification into one. As a result there is confusion (in the mind of the Protestant) over the issue of works. I have provided a few quotes below from two Catholic authoritative bodies: councils and catechism.
“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9).” (CARM)
“If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”2 (Canon 14). (CARM)
“Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy,” (CCC, par. 2020). (CARM)
“Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as ‘the second plank (of salvation) after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace,” (CCC, par. 1446). (CARM)
To understand this doctrine [Indulgences] and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 3 (CCC 1472)
Simplified, justification, according to Catholicism functions as a doorway where one may enter it only by the saving grace of Jesus Christ and walk upon the path beyond the door by the grace of Jesus. Justification, therefore, is not a declaration, but a state of being in grace, rather than a metaphysical change of identity–though the righteousness of Christ is attributed to man–it is more so in the form of a title than any actual inward change. Being in sate of grace is temporary and dependent entirely on one’s behavior, actions, and works. In this way, justification is the door way and the path of becoming sinless. One walks the path by grace through the sacraments (since they are the means of grace). As a result, the Christian’s obedience, love to God, good works, and general benevolence to virtue has a two-fold motivation. The first is to love and know God and the second is to secure one’s salvation, since it is evidently forever in question–there is never certainty. My personal conviction is the latter becomes the central focus for living well, because fear motivates one to keep his soul safe. Since such a fear exists, capitalizing on it would be very tempting. Johann Tetzel’s chime, “as soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” becomes the hallmark card for Catholicism’s desire to use fear against people. It worked well–St. Peter’s Basilica is beautiful. Again, we have another possible red herring. Just because the doctrine of indulgences was abused in history does not mean its not true. Agreed. However, the doctrine of indulgences creates a setting like a playwright’s stage where the actors perform–not because they love the play or acting but because if they don’t the souls of their loved ones are in danger. What kind of person are you if you have it in your power to help your loved ones with a small purchase of an indulgence, but choose to not do so?
The entire focus shifts from obeying God because one wants to love and glorify him to what can I do to take care of my soul or the soul of a loved one. The audacity of such a doctrine removes Christian piety and in its stead places a system of control where you plug in the necessary factors into an equation and get the results you want. It is the difference between in inward focus and and outward focus. The protestant view of justification, I think, is more biblical in the sense that it fits within the greater gospel narrative of scripture. The protestant view follows below:
Justification is:
“Justification is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins. It is a legal action in that God declares the sinner righteous — as though he has satisfied the Law of God. This justification is based entirely on the sacrifice of Christ by His shed blood: “…having now been justified by His blood…” (Rom. 5:9).1 Justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7) that comes through faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1).2 Christians receive Jesus (John 1:12) and put their faith-filled trust in what Jesus did on the cross (Isaiah 53:12; 1 Pet. 2:24) and in so doing are justified by God. The Bible states that justification is not by works (Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9) because our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6). Therefore, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.” (CARM)
“Built into justification is the idea of imputation. “To impute means “to set something to one’s account.” In the Bible imputation is used as a legal term in several different ways. For example, when Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, he told Philemon that if Onesimus had incurred any debts they were to be put on Paul’s account (Philemon 17,18). When a groom says to a bride “with all my worldly good I thee endow”, he is talking about imputation, placing to the bride’s account all of his property. The Greek verb for imputation is logidzomai. It is used more than 40 times in the New Testament, ten times in Romans 4 alone, the imputation chapter. In the KVJ of Romans 4 it’s translated “counted” in 4:3,5, “reckoned” in 4:4,10, and “imputed” in 4:6,8,11,22,23,24.”4
Christian Liberty:
“The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love, and a willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.” (Chapter XX, Westminster Confession)
When, Christ’s righteousness is counted to us by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) we take on a new identity within a legal status (imputed righteousness) between us and God. The tearing down of the wall of hostility provides an opportunity for man to participate in worship, obedience, sanctification for the first time without worry or fear that his salvation is at stake. Because of the liberty that is gained because of Christ’s works and death, not mine, I am declared righteous in the sight of God. Here, in the Protestant view, justification is separate from sanctification. My participation in relational communion, obedience, worship, submission, and community of the church is the sanctification of my heart and mind (soul). Though my legal status before God is already declared, I am still in need to reflect the holiness of Christ in the way I live. I am a new creation and I sin. As the holy spirit whispers to my heart and guides my mind, I am being transformed and empowered to repent, submit, change, and mature. All of this, again, takes place without any fear that my salvation is in jeopardy.
So in answer to the red herring that challenges this profound freedom with the declaration that the Protestant has total freedom to do as he pleases, “you can do what you want,” I say, yes, this is true, however, if one has truly submitted his life to the Lord with a sincere desire to be in fellowship with the Father, justification will not prompt disobedience but gratitude, humility, and most of all love for God.
__________________________
1 I say it is a distraction because if one rejects the Protestant view of Justification on the account that they don’t appreciate the effects or consequences of being justified it is like rejecting the existence of God because his existence does not appear to be meaningful.
2 Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse
3 Council of Trent
4 http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/imputation.html
CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry – http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/roman-catholic-view-justification
Ken Hamrick said,
August 22, 2014 at 8:54 am
Andrew,
Right, the theology of the Reformation was not nominal as regarding Adam. The old Augustinian headship was brought back. A form of realistic thinking ruled the day, but which was much more developed on the Adam side than the Christ side of that parallel. In that, I submit that further progress is possible. As Samuel Baird attests, the importance of the “mystical union” with Christ to justification is sustained in both Scripture and the “standards:”
So, here’s a 19th century Presby who finds that justification “is by virtue of their actual union” with Christ—that identification with Christ is grounded on our “inbeing” in Him and being “actually ingrafted into Christ by his Spirit.” Yes, he may not have been the usual Presby of that day, but his differences stemmed from his Augustinian approach to anthropology. And the main dispute with the fellow he’s arguing with regards whether or not there was a real inbeing in Adam, by which God’s covenant with Adam was a covenant with all the descendants yet present within him (immaterially and seminally).
When the Reformed church moved off this foundation of Augustine, and abandoned the idea that a just condemning imputation demands a real participation in the crime, they left behind the importance of substantial reality to justice—and with it, much of the ability to see the substance in God’s federal or covenantal methods. That’s why leaving it behind took some time, as they first transitioned into what G.P. Fisher called the Augustino-Federal theory, accepting a covenantal theology while still maintaining the reality of an immaterial participation in Adam’s sin. The Federal or Covenant headship is like like the shell of an egg. The substance within the shell is the immaterial union with the head. Without this spiritual substance, Federal headship is only a shell of truth. It works as far as it goes, but it offers no depth as to why it works—for that we must look to union with the head. But even that has been nominalized, so we must distinguish between a federal union and a real immaterial union.
Therefore, it’s only natural that our immaterial union with Christ should lose its prominence while the federal imputation is emphasized. And the fault lies with the Realists as well. The excessively philosophical and naturalistic terms that are characteristic of most realists have served to obscure this parallel relationship of union to identity. Viewing the union in Adam as a union of species and a union of nature has hindered the recognition of the parallel of spiritual unions, and provided a reason for objections by the nominalists. John Murray makes such an objection:
There is indeed a realistic union between Christ and the justified. It is a union of spirit. The parallel has an inverse quality: the spirit of Adam is propagated to all, while the spirits of the many are collected back into one head, Christ. We are generated out of Adam and regenerated into Christ. The “modus operandi” is that of a shared personal identity. We are joined to Adam’s sin because we were joined to Adam at the time of his sin; but we are joined to Christ’s death because we are joined to Christ now.
Anyway, my objections in this area are not to Reformed theology, but to what it became as it moved away from Augustinian realism and toward a contractualized federalism. By moving back from that, a deeper understanding of the mystical union within us can be found by parallel. Christ is not merely interceding at the right hand of God in heaven, but rather, He is the Intercessor WITHIN, standing in us on earth and reaching to the court of heaven! That is all I’m really trying to get people to see. I don’t know if I’ve addressed your questions or not. Maybe I should just stick to working on my book and leave you people alone here. I’ve participated in some excellent and irenic discussions here on Genesis and creation, so I thought I’d wade into this.
Be blessed! I need to take a few days off to watch my 70-yr-old Mom graduate college…
Kevin Failoni said,
August 22, 2014 at 9:48 am
Ke, all humanity is user a death sentence because of what Adam did.
Reed Here said,
August 22, 2014 at 9:59 am
Ken H: as I feared you might, simply more hijacking.
Plain and simple to you and RB, he asserted a position that IS NOT the reformed position. I did not assume it was intentional, as is CLEAR in my question to him, and my offer to you of backgrounding.
If you want to act with integrity and actually debate what we believe, I’m good with that. If not, then you are at best a time waster. And yes, consider how bearing false witness might indeed apply.
No need to respond further to me. Others with more time can interact.
Brandon Addison said,
August 22, 2014 at 10:50 am
Hey Ken,
I’d recommend “Imputation and Impartation” by William B. Evans. It traces some of the tension in Reformed theology, and based on what you’ve written I think it shows that the debates within the Reformed community are a bit broader than you’ve characterized them. There was a real dispute on whether or not Warfield, Hodge, et. al., were actually departing from the Reformed tradition on justification or not. Evans shows that Hodge was even willing to say that Calvin was wrong on union and justification–a rather startling admission that showed there was at least divergence from Calvin.
As my prof’s at WSCAL helpfully pointed out, disagreeing with Calvin is not tantamount to disagreeing with the Reformed tradition–the tradition is much bigger than Calvin–yet I still think Evan’s point packs some pretty serious punch. There were different trajectories in Reformed theology regarding union, justification, sanctification, and even things like mediate and immediate imputation of Adam’s sin. All of these “controversies” help to contextualize some of the issues you’ve raised in your posts and may help broaden the discussion a bit.
Thanks for your comments, I’ve enjoyed reading them!
Ken Hamrick said,
August 22, 2014 at 11:02 am
Brandon,
Thank you for the recommendation. I will gladly read it. And thank you for reading enough of my comments here to get something out of them. Anyone wanting to can email me, ken_hamrickhotmail.com
Brandon Addison said,
August 22, 2014 at 11:08 am
Bryan,
Feel free to respond to my last comment, but I’m not getting sucked into this everlasting vortex.
You said,
I’m really not sure what you’re talking about, though it seems you’ve again twisted an argument in a way that makes for the application of some fallacy. If you’re fine rescuitating a Jesuit apologetic that an expert in the field says no one believes anymore because it is poor scholarship, be my guest. To be honest, Muller didn’t really care about the Roman Catholic apologetic—it didn’t even get brought up—he was just flabbergasted that people would still talk that way about the Reformation because he told me it had been thoroughly discredited. He wasn’t concerned about the apologetic consequences, he just wanted to history to be accurate in its own right.
You continue,
If I took this same tactic Bryan, no dialogue would even be possible. You asserting that my claim is an error doesn’t show it’s an error. And we get on this merry-go-round again trading assertions about what is an assertion, who is in error, and who is being unhelpful by hand-waving. This is most unhelpful and unless you drop this tactic you will continue to stifle dialogue and cause people to get exceedingly frustrated with you.
You go on to say,
As many have pointed out to you, you are misconstruing the Reformed teaching as if the Reformed do not have a robust doctrine of union with Christ. None of the benefits of Christ come to us outside of him. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness only comes as we are united to him, but imputation and infusion of grace are the “duplex gratia,” yet your characterization severs the fact that everyone (even those who are on the “other side” of the union debate, like J.V. Fesko) acknowledges: none of the benefits of Christ come to us outside of our union with him. There are *some* Lutheran formulations that place the ordo salutis in a justification union order, but even most Luther scholars acknowledge that he retained a robust notion of union with Christ placing justification as a benefit of that union.
No one anywhere claims that we are everlastingly unrighteous, but they do assert that the righteousness that we possess is not our own (Phil 3:9). At the same time the Reformed vigorously affirm that, “Behold, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.” Outside of Christ we are wretched, or as Paul describes, “by nature children of wrath.” In this way, we could never—even in Heaven—expect to approach God outside of Christ because we have attained a certain level of righteousness ourselves.
The basis for our standing before God is therefore not my righteousness, but Christ’s. This is our alien righteousness and imputation.
You’ve not anywhere successfully argued that your claim is true—you’ve simply asserted it. Unfortunately your debating tactics prohibit us from actually addressing the disagreement, because you will invariably double down on your insistence that nothing I’ve said touches anything you’ve said. If that’s the approach you want to take, don’t expect anyone to be eager to have a conversation with you.
You continue by saying,
One common feature of sophistry is that is uses formal logic or verbosity to subtly distort an argument and deceive rather than showing the distinctions are “one common feature of nominalism.”
Finally,
No, this is why the distinction I mentioned is so very important to keep in mind. This is similar to Protestants critiquing Aristotle’s notions of substance and accidents to falsify the teaching of transubstantiation. The Catholic is very quick to remind us that while transubstantiation is explained in Aristotelian terminology, it would be uncharitable to equate transubstantiation with Aristotelianism. Christians appropriated the philosophical categories of their time to be sure, but people believed in transubstantiation without the Aristotelian categories. If Aristotelian categories are falsified (as many believe they have been) it does not falsify transubstantiation because Aristotelian metaphysics was a tool to explain a spiritual reality. But that’s why there are theologians that believe Aristotelian explanations of transubstantiation are wrong, but still affirm transubstantiation.
Joshua Lim posted over at CtC on this issue and in my private conversations with him he admitted that he was attempting to falsify Nominalism to show that Protestantism was false, but as I explained to him, that is a deeply problematic approach. First of all, you have to deal with the fact that the earliest Reformed theologians were not all nominalists. That’s a huge problem for this approach. Second, you’d have to show that the “nominalism” of the Reformed belief of justification derives from philosophy, but considering that people like Luther rarely had glowing things to say about philosophy, that is equally problematic. Third, while nominalism was important, the most important catalyst for the Reformation was Humanism. “Ad Fontes” was more foundational than nominalism, and the notion of “ad fontes” is what motivated the Reformers to re-examine Scripture. At the end of the day, the Reformers argued for the notion of imputation because it was the teaching of Scripture. This is why in order to refute the tectonic foundation of Protestantism you need to focus on exegesis, because for the Reformed, their commitment is not to philosophy, it is to Scripture.
To assert that because Protestants affirm imputation that they are nominalists is as accurate to say that because transubstantiation is codified in Aristotelian terms that Catholics are thorough-going Aristotelians or that the “Aristotelianism of their Catholicism is not consistent.” This is poor reasoning. You need to actually falsify the position from Scripture because this is where the actual issues reside. If you wanted to talk about Jesus in John 6 while I kept insisting that Aristotelian metaphysics was false, you’d probably throw your hands up in exasperation. That’s where I’m at, so I’m going to spend my energy in more fruitful endeavors.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Brandon,
In general, if you’re not sure what your interlocutor is talking about, the good-faith way of responding, in accordance with the principle of charity, is to ask for clarification, rather than accuse him of “twisting some argument.”
As one goes through the grad school process, one usually comes to see more and more the weakness and unreliability of the argument from [mere human] authority, because one comes to see the frequent mistakes, biases, assumptions, etc. by academics. However, the argument from mere human authority is the only argument available to persons who because of lack of training cannot evaluate the questions for themselves, and therefore must trust and appeal to some mere human authorities (usually chosen for their agreement with themselves). All that to say, the appeal to mere human authority is, as St. Thomas explains, the weakest of arguments.
That’s because you’re ignoring the rules of rational dialogue. Refutations always have the burden of proof. So if you claim that something your interlocutor said is an error, then you have the burden of proof to show that it is an error. Merely asserting that it is an error is not sufficient, and your interlocutor is right to point that out. Responding instead by claiming that your interlocutor’s pointing this out is a mere assertion shuts down the possibility of rational dialogue. That sort of response does lead to an infinite regress, which would indeed be frustrating and exasperating because dialogue would be futile. But those futile paths can be avoided if we simply follow the rules of rational dialogue.
If you think I have not provided adequate substantiation for a claim that I have made, then the proper response is either to point out that I have not substantiated my claim, or to request substantiation. But as soon as you claim that my claim is in error, then you take on the burden of proof of showing that it is in error.
On the contrary, I have never made any claim about whether the Reformed doctrine of union with Christ is robust or not, or how robust it is. I have claimed rather that in Reformed theology this union is not ontological, but instead legal/covenantal and vital.
I agree. I have not claimed that anyone claims this. Rather, I have argued that it follows from a Reformed conception of what righteousness is, and how we receive it.
If the particular claim you have in mind is that we remain everlastingly unsanctified, then my argument for it can be found at the link in #122 above. I don’t claim that my argument is “successful,” only that it is sound. (I don’t hold the pragmatist philosophy of truth or argumentation.)
Sophistry rarely uses formal logic. Sophistry despises logic.
All this is compatible with the truth of what I said.
Even if every single early Reformed theologian was not a nominalist, this would not entail that the simul iustus et peccator position is not nominalist. The nominalism of the position is in the very position itself, for the reason I’ve explained in the links I’ve listed in the comment linked in comment #5 above.
Nominalism is a philosophy. The nominalism of the Reformed doctrine of imputation does not have to derive from a *philosopher* to be a philosophy, or to be nominalist.
Persons who hate and despise philosophy are the most vulnerable to holding and using bad philosophy. Even the notion that philosophy is bad is a philosophical position. As Aristotle said in a famous dilemma, “You say one must philosophise, then you must philosophise. You say one must not philosophise. Then (to prove your contention), you must philosophise. In any case, you must philosophise.” The mistake would be assuming that some persons have escaped philosophising, or escaped bad philosophy, by hating or eschewing philosophy.
I agree. But that does not make the simul iustus et peccator position non-nominalist.
As interpreted in a way that is open to a nominalist conception of imputation. Only a person with an openness to a nominalist conception of imputation would be able to interpret it that way. Those who believed a nominalist conception of imputation to be impossible (on account of the falsity of nominalism) would not and do not interpret it that way.
This claim presupposes that no philosophy or philosophical assumptions are brought to the interpretive process. And believing such a claim is precisely what makes such interpreters vulnerable to and unaware of the role such philosophies and philosophical assumptions are playing in their interpretation of Scripture.
I have never made that assertion (i.e. that Protestants are nominalists). What I am claiming is that the simul iustus et peccator position is nominalist.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Brandon Addison said,
August 22, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Bryan,
I just want to point out one final thing. You said,
This is nothing more than a bare assertion that needs to be argued from the text itself, which is my point. No one is denying that philosophy impacts one’s exegesis, but you are allowing philosophy to determine the limits of the text. Why? Because the text couldn’t possibly say that. Why? Because if the text said that it would violate reason.
But why does that mean the text can’t say that? What if the text is wrong, or what if your reasoning is wrong? The problem here is that you are presupposing what the text can and cannot say because of your philosophy.The Reformation wanted to point out this is the tail wagging the dog. It’s not that philosophy does not play a role in exegesis, it does, but it is a question of priority. You come from a completely different starting point and this is one of the essential things we are Protesting.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Brandon,
Show me your exegesis that does not already start with the law of non-contradiction, and you’ll have a good point. Show me your exegesis that does not already start with the belief that your senses are reliable, and that God cannot lie. But as soon as you are picking and choosing which philosophical truths you will and won’t bring to exegesis, you are already doing exactly what you claim I’m doing; you just don’t know it.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew McCallum said,
August 22, 2014 at 7:04 pm
Anyway, my objections in this area are not to Reformed theology, but to what it became as it moved away from Augustinian realism and toward a contractualized federalism.
Ken,
I know you won’t be answering back cuz of your Mom (wow, graduating at 70 yrs old, congratulation to the dear lady!) but I wonder how much there has been this shift in Reformed theology that you speak of. Maybe it’s something significant, but I just don’t know of it. In terms of what I know of Reformed theology, there is no question that at the heart of justification is God’s redeeming a people to Himself. This means that the reality of our being in Christ and transformed by Christ cannot be separated from us being called righteous. In Reformed theology we are declared righteous because we really are righteous.
In terms of our sanctification, this in not just theory but is tangibly reflected in the way Reformed churches operate. We don’t recognize the claim of someone who says they have been redeemed if there is no evidence that they have been united to Christ. How different from the Catholic congregations where folks can be “united to Christ” by virtue of their baptism into the RCC, but yet in complete rebellion to the clear commands of Christ. Declaring someone to be united in Christ when they are in utter rebellion to Christ – now THAT is fiction.
De Maria said,
August 22, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Let me help you:
Purgatory:
Hebrews 11:39-40King James Version (KJV)
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Where did all these good Jews go to be made perfect from the time they died to the time of Christ, if not Purgatory?
Indulgences:
Matthew 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Treasure in heaven is indulgences.
co-operative salvation
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Now, show me justification by faith alone and Sola Scriptura in Scripture.
theoldadam said,
August 22, 2014 at 11:08 pm
DM,
I’m not even going to bother.
For you, “the clay is baked.”
You wouldn’t believe it if Jesus put His arm around you and told you Himself that you need to add nothing to His Cross. And that a worker receives his due, while a person of faith receives righteousness as a gift.
You’ll never believe it.
So…you had better get busy. You are wasting so much of your valuable time (that you could be helping the poor and hungry) at your keyboard that you probably don’t have a shot in hell at making it to Heaven. Maybe after 80 trillion years in Purgatory…maybe.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 12:13 am
Old Adam, DM is Roman Catholic. He reads everything with RC glasses. Only God can remove the veil. He cited on Jason’s” store up treasures in heaven” as evidence for Purgatory and indulgences. Rc’s can’t receive the free gift of grace because they can’t resist the need to smuggles their own character into God’s work of grace. We shouldn’t confuse orthodoxy with conversion. A true believer trusts Christ alone and has the peace and assurance scripture offers. They have neither. ?
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 12:20 am
Thanks, Kevin.
God can certainly save him if He wants (horrible theology aside). I certainly hope He does. I don’t have all my theological ducks lined up exactly perfect, either, but good enough to have some real assurance and real freedom from all of that RC crap they heap on people.
I do thank the good Lord that He brought me out of that stuff some 17 years ago. I get nosebleeds when I climb too high on ladders.
Reed Here said,
August 23, 2014 at 8:17 am
Is it a fiction when the new couple are declared to be one flesh at their wedding?
Tim Harris said,
August 23, 2014 at 9:13 am
It’s amazing to me that the same person could think Mt 6:20 teaches a “treasure in heaven” that can be “applied” to other sinners to cancel the temporal punishment due to THEIR sins, under the control of the church, none of which makes any sense in the context; yet scream bloody murder when Luther inserts “only” in Rom. 3:28, though the word is very reasonable and epexegetical to the context.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 9:28 am
Old Adam, I didn’t realize you came out of that. Praise God he chose you. I have lost all my Catholic friends lovingly sharing the gospel with them. Mathew 11:12
Ron said,
August 23, 2014 at 9:46 am
Tim,
It’s even more amazing to me when a Roman Catholic undermines the need for an external, infallible interpreter of Scripture by making appeals to Scripture as if Scripture could interpret itself.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 10:43 am
Yes, Kevin, sometimes the desire to be a member of ‘the club’ is stronger than the desire to know the Truth.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 10:59 am
Old Adam, I see so much of that on Jason’s site. The want to put on the cool basketball uniforms without looking at what they are made of. God sent Luther to unpile all that had been heaped on the cross and the Reformers dismantled ecclesiastical machinery that had developed in the church that was mostly human in origin.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:27 am
Exactly.
If you attempt to divert them from admiring their “cool basketball uniforms” (love that!) long enough, they will do away with you, in one form or another. Even though I was always respectful, Jason banned me from his site. I would not play the ‘counting how many angels could fit on the head of a pin’ game…and my uniform wasn’t nearly so cool as theirs…so I had to go. That’s ok. Probably more than ok…because they weren’t hearing it anyway and one wonders how much time should be wasted on them. Jesus had the right idea on that score.
William Scott said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:59 am
Bryan said: “What I am claiming is that the simul iustus et peccator position is nominalist.”
Christ says to His disciples, many of whom were infused with righteousness, “If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?” (Matt 7:11).
Therefore, these justified individuals were declared “evil” by the Great Judge of Heaven and Earth. If Bryan’s assertion is true then I gladly embrace “nominalism” on this point. God Bless, W.A.Scott
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:09 pm
William,
The Church Fathers were well aware of this verse, and not a single one took it as support for the extra nos imputation position. They either treated the word ‘evil’ as used here as a term of comparison with God (cf. Mk. 10:18), or treated the ‘you’ as referring to the human race in its fallen condition, not to the regenerate per se.
It is easy to co-opt a verse in support of a false philosophy so long as one remains unaware of alternative interpretations. This is one of the consequences of the “solo scriptura” approach of biblicism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Some Church Fathers, long before the Reformation:
Those Catholics had it right!
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:22 pm
theoldadam,
All those patristic citations are in keeping with present Catholic doctrine.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Old Adam, take heart. Ive been banned three times. Ive been called a SOB, idiot, Igor, stupid, Oaf, and names I can’t even mention, all because I stand agains the false gospel of Salvation on the installment plan. But they don hate us, they hate the gospel of Christ. roman Catholicism isn’t another denomination, it is another Religion.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Yes, Kevin. They are of another spirit.
WAScott said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Thanks for the reply Bryan. The position I’m asserting is the normative position of the Church historically–I.e. every person justified or unjustified is “evil” (I.e. a sinner, wicked, etc) in view of the sinless/righteous perfection (immaculate agape) of our God. As Bernard of Clairvaux says (see post 30 of the Is Imputation Taught in Romans 4 thread), if strictly judged the righteousness of the believer is “filthy rags” and “mere unrighteousness.” While righteousness is infused into the believer in greater and greater measure in this life we still stand condemned/evil before the Awesome Holiness of God (Psalm 143:2). Is there any time in life when we no longer need the covering of Christ’s Righteous Blood for our Salvation? This will likely be my last post on this thread for the moment so have a good weekend.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:40 pm
William, great point! Also Paul said it is a trustworthy statement that Christ came into the world to save sinners( so much for an ontological virtue climb into divinity replacing redemption), of who I AM foremost. Romans 7 Paul thought He was in a constant battle with the flesh. 7:6 says we have been released for the law. But Rome would have us to believe thatChrist wasn’t the “end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe” but the beginning of the law to all…… Jesus is a kinder Moses with a softer law, as if loving God with all of your heart soul and mind want huge.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:42 pm
Bryan,
The Council of Trent refutes your statement.
Plus…Catholics have different definitions for words that we all use.
We know that ‘grace’ is unmerited favor. The RCC erroneously believes and teaches that ‘grace’ is some sort of cosmic help to do what is already in us. That’s the fact of the matter.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Bryan said ” it is easy t co-opt a verse in support of a false theology” Bryan, you mean when the writer of Hebrews 10′:18 says there are no more sacrifices remaining for sin” it really means animal sacrifices” that kind of co opting. Or all the verses that say there is one sacrifice at the consummation of the ages that perfected those being sanctified meaning keeping Him continually on the cross and an altar as an eternal victim and not elating Him be risen Lord and Savior. That kind of cooping. Or when Paul says there is one mediator between man and God it really means many including yourself. Would that be what your talking about?
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Bryan,
If you had to guess, how long do you think that you will have to spend in Purgatory to clean yourself up?
Jesus did ALL the cleaning up for me. That’s why I will go straight to Heaven with all those who trust in God’s Word of Promise for the ungodly.
I think you are a pretty decent Joe, Bryan. If it were up to me (if I were Pope) I’d spring you in under 10 million years. I do realize, however, that you can redeem some coupons for pilgrimages made to lessen that sentence even further.
Does this not sound ridiculous to you? It should.
Could you imagine someone trying to explain how all this works to Jesus, who said on the Cross, “It is finished.”?
WAScott said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:02 pm
P.s. The reformers agree with Bernard that our faith and good works are filthy rags if strictly judged on their own merit. However, they explicitly teach that our faith and good works are pleasing to God and are imputed for righteousness (ps 106:31) and rewarded with eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46) through the infinite merits of Christ poured out on us in His Blood.
WAScott said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:07 pm
P.p.s. there was quite a gap between my post and the p.s.–sorry for the confusion.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:18 pm
“However, they explicitly teach that our faith and good works are pleasing to God and are imputed for righteousness..”
I wish you good luck!
Hope you’ve done enough of them…and with the right motive…
(and how can you know?)
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:21 pm
William,
What you are conflating is the distinction between righteousness by infusion, and righteousness by comparison. In comparison to God, nothing is good. But that does not mean that creation is in itself evil. (That would be a heresy.) Likewise, the Church has always believed that by comparison, God alone is good. The Church has also always believed that all creation is good, and not evil. But the Church has never believed that the regenerate are internally unrighteous, except by comparison, i.e. in the same way that even the angels and perfected saints in heaven are (by comparison with God) unrighteous.
St. Bernard’s statement (which is from one of his sermons on the Feast of All Saints, a feast incompatible with Reformed theology for reasons D.G. Hart can explain to you), is fully compatible with Catholic theology. St. Bernard is speaking of righteousness by comparison, not denying righteousness by infusion. St. Bernard in no place endorsed extra nos imputation, nor said anything entailing it.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:22 pm
theoldadam,
Each of those patristic statements is fully compatible with Trent.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Wrong, Bryan.
Those statements of the Church Fathers speak of “faith alone”…”no works”.
The Council of Trent reads “that is anyone believe that we are saved by faith alone, let them be anathema.”
If you can’t see the difference there…then it is hopeless talking to you.
You really are in love with that ‘cool basketball uniform’, aren’t you?
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:33 pm
Doesn’t it ever hit you Catholics that you are arguing for ‘the self’…and that we are arguing for the sufficiency of Christ?
You know…”I must decrease, He must increase” sort of stuff…
I guess not.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:44 pm
theoldadam,
The “faith alone” condemned by Trent is the singular virtue of faith not informed by the virtue of agape. The faith alone affirmed by the Church Fathers is not the singular virtue of faith, but faith apart from works. Hence there is no contradiction between them. This is how Pope Benedict XVI could affirm “faith alone” (see here) without contradicting Trent.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:50 pm
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
There’s another one.
Luther was right. “Our wills are bound in sin.”
This Catholic co-op stuff is a lie straight from the pit of hell.
Good luck, Bryan.
I sincerely don’t know how you can possibly have a prayer of making it based on your works in addition to Christ. You sit for endless hours at your keyboard while people out in the world need you to help them.
I just don’t know what it is that you will appeal to on that Day. I do wish you a lot of luck, though.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 2:52 pm
“Peace of Christ”? Are you kidding me? What does a co-op view from a bunch of slackers who are good at pouting the finger at others, know about the “Peace of Christ”?
It’s a joke.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:10 pm
Do a little reading (everyone) on the Medici Popes. Particularly the Medici Pope at the time of Luther, Leo X.
Talk about a murdering, tyrant, pedophile, thieving spendthrift.
And he (Leo X) was right…and Luther was wrong.
Give me a break.
In the peace of my own participation with Christ.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:16 pm
theoldadam,
Regarding Canon IX of Trent 6, that is referring to the cooperation required to come to baptism, through which sacrament one receives the virtue of faith. The patristic passages you cited affirming “faith alone” are not denying that such cooperation is required in coming to baptism (for those who have reached the age of reason). None of the Church Fathers endorsed the idea of baptizing sinners who have attained the age of reason and who show no willingness to repent. Rather, they are in these statements affirming that the justification that takes place in rebirth is not merited by works, or by some combination of faith and meritorious works. And Trent nowhere denies that.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Mark said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Wow. I am honestly pretty shocked at the lack of charity shown toward Bryan and the catholic commentators. I generally agree much more with the reformed commenters than the catholic ones on the substance. But, I have to confess I am impressed with Bryan’s continued charity and patience in the face of snarky uncharitable comments.
As one commenter mention, if this is the type of “loving” witness if the gospel shown to his catholic friends, I’m not surprised such “loving” sharing of the gospel left him with no remaining catholic friends. If I were catholic and talked to like that, I wouldn’t remained friends.
There is type of sharing the gospel that is done charitably and with the intent of pointing toward the love and truth of Christ. There is another type that is uncharitable, critical, snarky, and done more to boost one’s pride and make oneself feel good about mucu better “we” are than “them.” This isn’t true of every comment toward Catholics on this thread, but it certainly applies to some.
If scripture is correct that by your fruits you shall know them, I’m not sure that those who claim to be “real Christians” following the gospel are very well known at this point.
WAScott said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:24 pm
Hello Bryan quick last reply. Matthew 7:11 is clearly not speaking simply if differing degrees if dignity, but of moral status–I.e. even those morally evil know how to give good gifts. This judgment from Christ of morally “evil” in Matt 7:11 cannot be applied to angels and the glorified saints, although they share our nothingness in comparison to God.
I have no problem with the “Gospel” as the reformers call it of the abundant infusion of righteousness into the believer. If this was sufficient however for a status of “innocent”/”righteous”/”not guilty”in view of God’s Law of Love then continued forgiveness/covering with Christ’s righteous Blood would be at least theoretically unnecessary.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:25 pm
Sure.
I could quote where the Catholic Church teaches anything …’this is black’…’now the same thing is white’…and you would say “this does not contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church”.
You can have your little semi-Pelagian, no assurance, religious ascendency project. And I’ll stick with Christ and His finished work on the Cross…alone.
And if by the grace of God we meet in Heaven, we’ll shake hands and I’ll buy you a beer.
But I can’t discuss this stuff with any longer because I feel as though I am talking to the wall.
Have a wonderful life, Bryan.
WAScott said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Sorry, that should be 2 “of” rather than 2 “if” in the second sentence.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Mark,
Come on. Get real. This guy is stonewalling the gospel at every turn. We don’t float around six inches off the ground and have that phony pious front that they teach the Catholic priests to have…or that many Baptists carry around. We are real people. Real saints of God who just so happen to be real sinners too.
It’s awfully tough to be gracious to someone who is advancing a view that l;lessens the work of Christ…while advancing the work of ‘the self’.
St. Paul (not comparing myself to him in any way, shape, or form…told these types that “they cut themselves off from the grace of Christ”…and he also said that if they believe in adding something top Christ, such as circumcision, they he hoped that “they would slip with the knife.”
How’s that for a “real Christian” being gracious?
Mark said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Theoldadam,
I’m just telling you how you (and others) appear from the outside by someone who agrees with your substantive position.
As holy scripture says, if I have truth but no love, I am clanging gong. If you don’t care whether you turn people away from the gospel by your obnoxious attitude (and, to be blunt, you and others are turning me away and based on my theology, you’d consider me a real Christian), carry on.
If your purpose is not to actually bring people to truth of the free unmerited gift of salvation through faith in Christ, but to just pat yourself on the back about how great your theology is and those Catholics have corrupted the gospel, carry on.
From what I have seen of Bryan’s comments, he probably has a thick skin and couldn’t care less about uncharitable obnoxious (and , honestly, not that clever) insults. But, other Catholics and non Christians do. If you think you’re being a good Christian because your “loving” sharing of the gospel leaves with no more catholic friends. Carry on. Sounds like we don’t see eye to eye at all.
Mark said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Also, whenever someone says, “I’m not comparing myself to x, but…” , they invariably are comparing themselves to x.
It’s sort if like when my teenage daughter says, “no offense, dad, but…” I know whatever she is about to say next will be offensive.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 3:55 pm
Mark,
I’m just trying to get across to you the seriousness of the denial of the pure gospel.
St. Paul, Luther, and many others, thought that calling a spade a spade to be the more loving thing than to let these wolves in sheep’s clothing take a lot of people to hell by advocating something of the self, in addition to Christ Jesus.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 4:00 pm
William,
Like I said in #160, treating the ‘you’ in the passage as referring to man in his fallen condition is one way it was taken by the Church Fathers. But none of the Fathers took it to mean that the regenerate were (while regenerate) morally evil.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 4:00 pm
Know what we know about Pope Leo X…was it right for Luther to fight against him and his disgusting distortion of the Christian faith?
Luther and others had the guts to risk their own lives in standing up to the murderous Popes of the time.
And we should walk on eggshells with people who advocate these devilish doctrines? Hardly.
That said, the average Catholic is ignorant to these facts and I don’t believe God will punish them for that. But for those leaders who lead all those poor sheep astray, the punishment will be very harsh.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 8:16 pm
Bryan said ” the church has always said that creation is good” Your schoolmen didnt. Lombard and the boys tried to locate their polution in God’s creation with the need for pre fall sanctifying grace. So sin was God’s fault and not their own oral failure.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Someone tell Bryan according to Paul faith doesnt have virtue attached to it that merits the acceptance of God, “not that of yourself” not of works”all the gep physics degrees and all the seminary trainingg cant overcome these words by Paul. He eliminates love in justification. Why? Because love reaches out to neighbor and is always secong in natural order. Only faith can receive Christ and bring Him to the heart, thats why it justifies. Luther sais Rome takes from faith and gives to love what exclusively belongs to faith.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 8:34 pm
Mark, I wont go into the lack of charity shown to me by Bryan on Ctc. I been called every name you can think of on Jason’s site. And the one time I confronted Bryan on something on his site, instead of appologizingg, he deleted my comment.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 8:40 pm
Bryan said ” Rome says justification in rebirth isnt merited. ” Why didnt you tell him you merit your continuance in grace, and final justification is based in some way on the live lived. Grace is the means of exchange on the church’s merit system. Grace is a reward , not a gift in Rome.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Kevin,
Where, exactly, do you think I showed a lack of charity to you?
As for your deleted comment at CTC, it contained ad hominems, which are not allowed at CTC per the comment guidelines.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Kevin Failoni said,
August 23, 2014 at 10:33 pm
Bryan, Im not talking about the recenent comment. But when I was on Ctc a year ago you confronted me on my behavior on ths blog. Each time I apologized. Then the one time I confronted you on being rude to me on the blog, insread of allowing the comment, you screened it and didnt allow it because you didnt want to allow me the same curtisy that you took to confront mr publicly. You also never apologized, I have this against you. God bless
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 10:39 pm
It cracks me up how someone constantly engaged in working to lower the work of Christ for sinners…and to raise the work of those same sinners, can say, “In the peace of Christ”.
More appropriate would be, “In the bonds of the Roman Church”.
Mark said,
August 23, 2014 at 10:47 pm
The old Adam,
I find it genuinely puzzling that you equate “being charitable” with not standing up for the truth. If you think that not being able to make sarcastic, snide comments means you have to sacrifice the ability to defend the gospel and stand, then we might have a slight difference of perspective.
I am all in favor of strongly defending the gospel, but I don’t see how being obnoxious is an essential element of it.
Kevin, I have read a fair amount of the discussion on ctc, and I have to say that the dialogue (Bryan’s and other Catholics as well as the Protestants) has been generally very charitable and constructive. There have been exceptions, but I’ve noticed it to be quite charitable and constructive, even while strongly expressing disagreement,
I haven’t seen all of Bryan’s comments on there, so I can’t say there haven’t been charitable ones. But, my overall impression of Bryan and the rest of ctc is more charitable than most places. This is contrast to a lot (most?) of these “Christian” discussion websites, where most people seem less interested in charitably defending truth and the gospel and more interest in banging their chest, making snide remakes, and proving how much “smarter” and “in line with the gospel” “i am” than “those people are.” It basically becomes not an exercise in sharing the gospel and pursuing truth through constructive dialogue but just an exercise in pride.
Anyway, I have said my piece (pun intended), and I don’t have anything else constructive to add. Just my two cents from the outside perspective of someone who generally agrees with the substance of the theology here.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:02 pm
Mark,
I’ll tone it down…for your sake.
But you must understand how frustrating it is when people reject the freedom of the gospel for the bondage of religion (‘religion’ being what ‘we do’ to ascend to God, or become more acceptable in the eyes of God).
One last anecdote about those who would not be as ‘nice’ as some others might like;
When Jesus sent the disciples out to proclaim the gospel, he told them that if the message was not accepted then to “shake there dust from their sandals and leave them.”
That, in the Middle East, then and now, is a huge insult.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:07 pm
Kevin,
The only time I interacted with you a year ago on CTC was on the “Rome, Geneva” thread, in which I was assisting in the comment moderation, and you were new to commenting on CTC. I am unaware that any of my comments there were uncharitable toward you, but if they were, I’m sorry.
I think I see now why there is a misunderstanding. If a moderator calls you out for violating the site guidelines, you don’t get a free ‘jab’ at the moderator in return on the site. It is nothing personal; we just don’t allow personal attacks on the site. (Imagine if an NFL player claimed the right to foul a referee whenever the ref called him for an infraction.) But if you every want to throw a jab at me, you are free to do so through email (or here, I suppose). You have my email address. May you have a blessed Lord’s Day.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:08 pm
One more before I go watch the A’s beat my Angels…
When Peter tried to keep Jesus from going to the Cross, Jesus said to him, “Get behind me Satan”.
That is what the Living God thinks of those who would elevate earthly goals (human effort towards righteousness) over the Cross for real sinners.
That’s it for tonight.
Mark said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:10 pm
The old Adam,
It’s not for my sake, it’s for the sake of the gospel. “I became all things to all people, so that some may come to believe.”
It’s for Catholics or Protestants considering Catholicism who, whether they should or not, are affected by the charity of the one delivering the gospel. As you say, we are all sinners and imperfect messengers. But, we are his messengers, called to spread the gospel with the world and “be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”
I appreciate you taking my comments to heart, because your comments are thoughtful and incisive. I understand you are defensive of the gospel and get upset when you feel people are twisting it (I feel that way too). But, your comments would be more effective for the kingdom without the sarcastic snarky stuff. For example, do you think anyone is going to read your mocking comments about Bryan saying “the peace of Christ” and say, “you know what, I am convinced that the catholic presentation of the gospel is false.” I think we both know the answer to that.
God bless.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:11 pm
Beware of the devil…”for the devil can come all dressed up as an angel of light.”
“Let him be accursed who presents another gospel.”
– St. Paul
(if those verses are offensive to anyone…take it up with Paul)
Mark said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:19 pm
The Old Adam,
When I was younger, I had a godly pastor give me advice. I would get into discussions about theology and the gospel. People told me I was being offensive. I pointed those same verses to say, “Paul offended people. If people are offended. Take it up with him.”
The pastor said, sometimes, when people are offended, they are offended by the gospel. A lot of time, it’s not the gospel that is offensive to them, but you are being offensive. Don’t blame the gospel for your offensiveness.”
It is important to prayerful consider , if people are offended, is it the gospel they are offended by, or is it you they are offended by (and you are living in denial). A lot of times people are offensive, and blame the gospel for it.
theoldadam said,
August 23, 2014 at 11:40 pm
I can see what the pastor meant, Mark.
I’m not saying, however, that since it was ok for Paul, it is ok for me. Not at all. I’m trying to show how important it is to wake these people up! Maybe a little shock value. Pull their pants down.
This stuff is a matter of life and death…and they are happily and smugly (in many cases) floating peacefully towards the falls up ahead.
Sometimes they just need a good knock in the head, when all else fails.
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:00 am
Its not that you won’t, its that you can’t.
And you won’t believe when Scripture says:
Galatians 6:6-8King James Version (KJV)
6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
I have one Judge, and it isn’t you. With the Apostle, I say:
1 Corinthians 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:05 am
On the contrary, Jason, we have both.
Here is what Scripture says about assurance:
Hebrews 6:10-12King James Version (KJV)
10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:07 am
Mark, I agree everyone should be charitable. But It goes both ways,,
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:08 am
Bryan, Iforgive you. God bless
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:12 am
It makes sense in the Catholic understanding:
“Word made flesh, by Word He maketh Very bread his flesh to be; Man in wine Christ’s Blood partaketh, And if his senses fail to see, Faith alone the true heart waketh, To behold the mystery.” St. Thomas Aquinas.
It is by faith alone that we believe that water of Baptism washes us of sins. It is by faith alone that we believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, it is by faith alone that we believe that man and wife become one flesh in holy matrimony, etc. etc.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:12 am
Old Adam, DeMaria always quotes the warning passages, he is Catholic. You wont be seing Romans 8:1, 5:1, 8: 28_30
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:16 am
On the contrary, I interpret Scripture according to the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:16 am
Old Adam, ask DeMari where to find a sacramental system of salvation where one merits increase in justice and grace in scripture, where we can find sacramental efficacy in the place of the atonenment in scripture. See where he takes you.
theoldadam said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:17 am
Thanks, all, for an invigorating and thoroughly frustrating discussion.
But I think we are at the point where we are chasing our tails.
So, as they say on ‘The Shark Tank’,…”I’m out.”
See you in church!
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:18 am
I quote them all Kevin. You cast out the ones which don’t agree with your false ideas.
theoldadam said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:20 am
Kevin,
I’ll leave those questions for DM, to you.
I really am going to ‘bug out’, as they (who?) say.
Keep up the good work, my friend.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:20 am
DeMaria, you use your falible judgment informed by the holy spirit and place your faith in a church. We do the same and place our faith in the Word. But a church cant save you, only b the Word.
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 12:26 am
Here’s what the Word says:
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
The Word also says:
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
and again:
Hebrews 13:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Don said,
August 24, 2014 at 2:19 am
De Maria 219,
These verses are a non sequitur response to Kevin Failoni, except perhaps to someone who already believes that it is the church that delivers salvation (and does not care much about the context of those verses). Which is to say, quoting these verses to Protestants is not going to do anything to prove the point you’re apparently trying to make.
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 8:10 am
No they’re not.
Scripture tells us that it is God who adds to the Church, those who would be saved.
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Scripture also tells us to obey the Church or we will be condemned:
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Scripture also tells us to obey the priests and Bishops (i.e. Rulers) in the Church:
Hebrews 13:17
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
It is Scripture which tells us to have faith in the Church and in our leaders in the Church, so I don’t understand why you would not want to do so.
Some Catholics plant, others water, God makes the growth. If there are some out there who understand what I’m saying, God be praised.
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 8:21 am
Don, its not as though the Church is separate from Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
The Church represents Christ:
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Anyone who rejects the Church, rejects Christ:
Luke 10:16
16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Because Christ sent the Church to Teach His all which He commanded:
Matthew 28:19-20
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 10:03 am
DeMaria, and here is what 1 John 2:27 says ” As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is TRUE and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” The church can’t substitute itself for the Spirit and the natural body of Christ. It is God who owns the conscience, not the church. It is the Spirit who brings Christ to the heart and all of god’s blessings, not the church. The church can lead us to faith, but its the Spirit who blows where and how He wills. Your men and their human institution have usurped the place of the Trinity. The Pope didn’t die on a cross, and he didn’t give his life for his people. Christ didn’t die on the cross to have the Pope come in and steal the glory. A mere sinner like you and me taking the name Holy Father, Vicar, head of the church. These Popes die, and how could the church live if its head were dead. Christ is the head of His church and the church forever lives in Him.
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Does that say that I shouldn’t have faith in the Church? Where?
First, that is a description of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Look back at verse 20:
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
That is the anointing of the Sacrament of Confirmation:
III. THE EFFECTS OF CONFIRMATION
1302 It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.
1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:
– it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!”;117
– it unites us more firmly to Christ;
– it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
– it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;118
– it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:119
Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God’s presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts.120
It doesn’t. But it is through the Church that God speaks by the power of the Holy Spirit:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Scripture says that the Church is the body of Christ.
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
Are you denying this?
But it is the Church which God established in order to Teach what Jesus commanded to the world.
Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
But it is the Church through the Church that God gives you the Holy Spirit in Baptism.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Bingo!
And the Spirit wills to blow through the Church, because, as you admitted, the Church brings us to faith.
On the contrary, they are the men whom God placed on this earth to teach us the Word of God:
Hebrews 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
No, he didn’t. But he speaks in the name of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:20).
Yes, he did. You don’t have to die to give your life for those you love.
Luke 9:23 [Full Chapter]
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
The Pope gives Christ all the glory. But the Pope obeys Christ and in obedience to Christ, rules the Church:
John 21:15-17
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jesus Christ appointed him, Vicar. (John 21:15-17; Matt 16:18-19).
And God appoints another.
Jesus Christ will never die. The Pope is the Vicar, the visible head who speaks in the name of Christ and for Christ. Again, Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Absolutely! And the Church also teaches us the Wisdom of God:
Ephesians 3:10
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
That is why we have faith in the Church, because we have faith in Christ.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 4:27 pm
Old Adam, I want you to look at DeMaria’s response to me about 1 John 2:27 and think about what the problem with rome isn’t traditionalism, but invention and novelty. He says that verse speaks of Confirmation the sacrament. In the movie Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory there is a hit song, its called pure imagination. This is what happens in Rome. They make it up as they go. Remember my rule, read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 5:08 pm
DeMaria, said ” this I why we have faith in the church, because I have faith in Christ.” Two questions 1 Is Christ the church? 2 What if a church has an apostate gospel, can that church save them? Would you know a false gospel if you saw it? Could Paul be talking about any other church in Galatians 1:9 than Rome. Paul opposes works and faith in justification, Rome affirms works in justification, can you explain this?
roberty bob said,
August 24, 2014 at 5:33 pm
in reference to #226 . . .
“Could Paul be talking about any other church in Galatians 1:9 than Rome?”
At the time Paul wrote to the Galatians, he had the Judaizers in mind. The Judaizers were mainly headquartered in Jerusalem, and they were demanding that Gentiles submit to Jewish rites [circumcision, etc.] as a prerequisite to church membership.
Protestants typically believe that the Church of Rome promoted, and continues to promote, the same kind of error as that of the Judaizers.
Also, DeMaria has already explained the place of works in justification. He included biblical references from Paul and James.
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 5:36 pm
The Church is the body of Christ:
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
And the two are so closely linked, that when Saul persecuted the Church:
1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Jesus said:
Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
The True Church can’t teach an apostate gospel because God guaranteed that the Church would never fall:
Matthew 16:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
And Scripture predicts that the True Church will preach the Gospel even in Eternity:
Ephesians 3:10
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Scripture describes the True Church as one with a Pope:
John 21:15-17King James Version (KJV)
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
With a hierarchy of Bishops:
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Which Baptizes and Teaches the Doctrines of Christ:
Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
God saves those whom He adds to the Catholic Church:
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
One sign is that it contradicts Scripture. Take Sola Scriptura for instance. Scripture says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Thus, Sola Scriptura, contradicts Scriptuire.
Take also Sola Fide:
Scripture says:
James 2:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Thus Sola Fide contradicts Scripture.
These are foundational features of the Protestant gospel. Thus, the Protestant gospel is proved false.
St. Paul is predicting the coming of the Protestants. Protestantism preaches another gospel which is not found in Scripture.
I can identify your error. St. Paul says:
Romans 2:13King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Therefore, Paul does not oppose works in justification. You have misunderstood what St. Paul is saying because you are relying upon the non-biblical traditions of men taught by the Protestants.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 7:52 pm
roberty rob, Paul is clear in Galatians 3:10 cursed is anyone who does not abide in all things of the law. The Holy Spirit adds the word all thru Paul here. This section is a reference to Deuteronomy which is the moral law. Incidentally every time Paul spas of the law he is talking about all of it, even love of neighbor. He says those who receive circumcision were guilty of the whole law. Its a whole. In Romans he says that thru the law comes the knowledge of sin. The knowledge of sin doesn’t come thru circumcision or dietary laws. The NPP is wrong. Galatians isn’t really about the law as much as it is how works and hearing by faith are opposed in justification. He wrote the book to combat those who were trying to undermine jbfa. His epistles aren’t ambiguous, works and faith are opposed for Paul in justification. Romans 11:6. Romans 4:16 says that if a Roman Catholic wants to be justified by grace it will have to be by faith.
Ron said,
August 24, 2014 at 8:44 pm
How is the papacy deduced from the passage? If you can deduce it from any passage(s) of Scripture I’ll confess my sins to a priest on Saturday and attend mass this coming Sunday.
roberty bob said,
August 24, 2014 at 8:59 pm
in reference to #229 . . .
OK. You quote Galatians 3:10. I agree with the Apostle Paul that those who strive to be right with God apart from faith had better make sure that they abide by the law in its entirety. The problem is that the law [by itself] lacks the power to deliver the obedience God requires; it takes faith, for without faith it is impossible to please God. How, then, do people with faith please God? They obey his commandments. They obey even as they trust God’s promise. Yes, it’s Paul in Galatians who says that the law is not opposed to the promises. It is also Paul in Galatians who urges us not to become weary in doing good.
Oh, and in Galatians 2:14 Paul is quite specific about the activity of the Judaizers — and even Peter got caught up in the fervor — who were insisting that Gentile converts abide by Jewish customs.
Don said,
August 24, 2014 at 10:36 pm
De Maria 221,
Also, if you use a modern translation, you’ll find that “the church” does not appear in the text of Acts 2:47 (as made explicit by a footnote in the New King James Version).
I’m pretty sure that no translation has “priests” in Hebrews 13:17 so that verse doesn’t particularly help your cause.
“It is Scripture which tells us to have faith in the Church”
As they say on Wikipedia, [citation needed].
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 10:47 pm
Jesus appointed St. Peter as Shepherd over His flock.
Matt 16:18-19 This is where Jesus names Simon, “Rock” or “Peter” and gives him the keys to the kingdom.
First, let’s look at some other Scriptures about Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
And also:
1 Corinthians 10:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Now consider, God is our Rock and Jesus is the Rock, correct?
Why would Jesus (i.e. God) turn to Simon and say, “You are rock”? Because He wanted all to know that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will. There is a precedent for this in Scripture:
Exodus 7:1
King James Version (KJV)
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Exodus 18:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Exodus 19:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.
God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. God covered Moses with the Cloud, Jesus gave Simon His own name:
John 21:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. And in order to bring this point home, Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.
Matthew 16:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This is to signify the type of authority which Jesus has given to Simon. He has the authority to bind and loose in God’s name (Matt 16:18-19).
Kevin Failoni said,
August 24, 2014 at 10:56 pm
roberty rob, read Galatians 3:1-6. He compares working with hearing by faith. You asked how do people with God please God. You strive for God’s approval and we live out an approval we already possess. God didn’t come to help you save yourself, he saved us. He didn’t come to make salvation possible, he saved us. He didn’t come to put us in the state of reconciliation ,He reconciled us Romans 5:9. God didn’t come to help us achieve His favor with His help. He lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. He dint come to make salvation possible, He redeemed for himself a people, and Hebrews 9:27 says the next time He comes it won’t be in regards to sin but to gather His people. You are caught in an awful religion. Never knowing your saved, the threa of a Mortal sin throwing you out. God offers men peace thru the gospel because the job is finished and Paul simply says the righteous shall live by faith. You do your level best and God gives you grace, God gives us grace and we do our best. That is the difference between Roman catholicism and Christianity.
roberty bob said,
August 24, 2014 at 10:58 pm
“If you can deduce it . . . “, saidst Ron.
DeMaria didst deduce!
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 11:04 pm
From the Biblegateway
Acts 2:47New King James Version (NKJV)
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[a] daily those who were being saved.
Footnotes:
Acts 2:47 NU-Text omits to the church.
Those which don’t use it simply change the interpretation of ekklesia to assembly or gathering. But ekklesia means Church.
It is the Bishops and priests who are the rulers of the Church from the time of the Apostles.
When Scripture tells us in Matt 18:17 to “hear the Church” and in Eph 3:10 that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God, that is sufficient for me to have faith in the Church.
But, since you’re asking for citations, how about the citations needed for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, absolute assurance of salvation and covered with the righteousness of Christ.
roberty bob said,
August 24, 2014 at 11:05 pm
to #234 Kevin . . .
Trust in the Lord and do good!
Now, where in the Bible did I read that?
Tim Harris said,
August 24, 2014 at 11:13 pm
De Maria — you reason exactly like Harold Camping used to. A very smart guy, but… mama mia!
I guess, if we are forced to “own” Camping as a Protestant, then we would have to concede that there is some crazy logic and exegesis on both sides of the aisle!
I don’t, however.
roberty bob said,
August 24, 2014 at 11:44 pm
in reference to #238 . . . “crazy logic” . . .
DeMaria’s reasoning comes through years of seasoning. Listen and learn because you’re being schooled!
De Maria said,
August 24, 2014 at 11:53 pm
Mine is not crazy logic Tim. My logic is based upon these facts which you can look up in Scripture or in history.
1. Jesus Christ did not write the New Testament.
2. Jesus Christ established a Church.
3. Jesus Christ commanded that Church to teach all which He commanded. We call that Sacred Tradition.
4. The Church wrote the New Testament based upon that Sacred Tradition which Jesus Christ commanded the Church to Teach.
This all fits Catholic Teaching and you can read it in the Bible.
Do you see the logic yet?
If Jesus Christ established the Church and commanded that Church to teach me His Word, why would I disregard that Church?
If the Church wrote the New Testament, why would I go to any other source to learn what the New Testament says?
If the New Testament is based upon that which Jesus Christ commanded the Church to teach, why should I reinvent the wheel, so to speak, and read the Bible without guidance from the Church?
Not only that, but if I know what is contained in Sacred Tradition, I know what is contained in the New Testament.
No sir, the ones with crazy logic are the Protestants, who look to Scripture alone and eschew the guidance of the Church. Yeah, one of their loudest complaints is, “you checked your brain in at the door of the Catholic Church.” Well, guess what, that is what Scripture tells us to do. Scripture doesn’t tell us to invent our own religion.
Hebrews 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
But I welcome you showing me from Scripture, where my logic is not sound. I guarantee that I can show you the reasons for my faith, from Scripture, from the Church Fathers and from history.
But I know you guys don’t accept anything but Scripture. So I stick to the King James, since that is what Protestants want to hear mostly. But let me know what you prefer. Every Bible that I’ve ever read, supports Catholic Doctrine.
Isaiah 55:11King James Version (KJV)
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Don said,
August 25, 2014 at 2:18 am
De Maria 236,
This is nonsense. What I’m trying to tell you is there is no “ekklesia” in Acts 2:47. As far as I can briefly tell, “to the church” was added to English translations after Wycliffe and before Geneva. And then removed as the translations improved. It is not a legitimate prooftext for Catholicism.
Odd how one of these roles isn’t mentioned in the NT as a church-leadership position. Again, I realize this isn’t a big deal to you with your acceptance of Roman Tradition; but if you’re going to try to Protestants, then saying “because the RC church says so” will be entirely ineffective.
Try the prooftexts that come with the Westminster Confession of Faith. The relevance of some are more, uh, obvious than others, but it’s probably a good place for you to start.
Ron said,
August 25, 2014 at 8:26 am
De Maria,
Your argument you just gave for the papacy was this:
1. Jesus appointed St. Peter as Shepherd over His flock.
2. God is our Rock and Jesus is the Rock
3. [Jesus] wanted all to know that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will. There is a precedent for this in Scripture
4. God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. God covered Moses with the Cloud, Jesus gave Simon His own name:
5. Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. And in order to bring this point home, Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.
6. This is to signify the type of authority which Jesus has given to Simon. He has the authority to bind and loose in God’s name (Matt 16:18-19).
Your argument is not for the papacy. Your argument is at best an argument for Peter’s primacy during the apostolic age. An argument for the papacy would need to conclude with the principle of a perpetual line of popes that would point to what the Roman communion alleges today. Yet we don’t even have two data points from which to infer this trajectory so it’s going to be difficult to draw that straight line to Rome. Yet even your Peter-primacy-proof was inadequate. First, your analogy of Moses fails you since Moses did not have a unique position equivalent to that of the popes. Accordingly, to find papal equivalence from Moses is to reduce the office of pope to one who penned Scripture and was a leader of God’s people. The referenced authority Jesus gave Peter, which was derivative and not original, was extended to the church just two chapters later. Moreover, there is no indication that Peter as the ecclesiastical overseer over the censure of 1 Corinthians 5 and the restoration that may be inferred from 2 Corinthians 2. Consequently, you have some work to do if you’re going to try to establish the popes from Scripture. If that were even possible I would think that someone would have done so in the last five hundred years at least.
My earlier post about confessing my sins to God through the mediation of a priest and attending mass was not in jest. A point was being made. Protestants are to obey God’s word. So, if it can be shown from Scripture that the Roman communion has been invested with the office of the papacy, then Protestants would have to submit to God’s word on the matter. All you’ve shown is that Peter was a significant apostolic figure.
Ron said,
August 25, 2014 at 8:31 am
De Maria, this post eliminates a couple of typos that you would have been able to work through but probably not after reading the sentences a few times.
De Maria,
Your argument you just gave for the papacy was this:
1. Jesus appointed St. Peter as Shepherd over His flock.
2. God is our Rock and Jesus is the Rock
3. [Jesus] wanted all to know that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will. There is a precedent for this in Scripture
4. God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. God covered Moses with the Cloud, Jesus gave Simon His own name:
5. Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. And in order to bring this point home, Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.
6. This is to signify the type of authority which Jesus has given to Simon. He has the authority to bind and loose in God’s name (Matt 16:18-19).
Your argument is not for the papacy. Your argument is at best an argument for Peter’s primacy during the apostolic age. An argument for the papacy would need to conclude with the principle of a perpetual line of popes that would point to what the Roman communion alleges today. Yet we don’t even have two data points from which to infer this trajectory so it’s going to be difficult to draw that straight line to Rome. Yet even your Peter-primacy-proof was inadequate. First, your analogy of Moses fails you since Moses did not have a unique position equivalent to that of the popes. Accordingly, to find papal equivalence from Moses is to reduce the office of pope to one who penned Scripture and was a leader of God’s people. The referenced authority Jesus gave Peter, which was derivative and not original, was extended to the church just two chapters later. Moreover, there is no indication that Peter was the ecclesiastical overseer of the censure recorded in 1 Corinthians 5 and the restoration that may be inferred from 2 Corinthians 2. Consequently, you have some work to do if you’re going to try to establish the popes from Scripture. If that were even possible I would think that someone would have done so in the last five hundred years at least.
My earlier post about confessing my sins to God through the mediation of a priest and attending mass was not in jest. A point was being made. Protestants are to obey God’s word. So, if it can be shown from Scripture that the Roman communion has been invested with the office of the papacy, then Protestants would have to submit to God’s word on the matter. All you’ve shown is that Peter was a significant apostolic figure.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 8:52 am
If you don’t like that verse, I think I’ve posted enough other verses about the importance of the Church to prove the point.
Let me see, here is what the book of Hebrews says. Do you accept the book of Hebrews? Because Luther doubted its authenticity.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you.
Do you recognize there, the Sacrament of Confession?
In Confession, we obey the priest and submit to them because they are keeping watch over our souls and will make an account to God.
Therefore, the word “leader” means “priest” in the book of Hebrews.
Show me from Scripture.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 9:16 am
That is certainly step 1. But Christ handed him the keys to the Kingdom, symbolizing the establishment of an office.
That principle has stood for 2000 years.
YOU don’t have two data points. Jesus gave the keys to Peter. And Peter went to Rome.
Not perfectly equivalent. But it foreshadows the Chair of Peter:
Exodus 18:13-16King James Version (KJV)
13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. 14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? 15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Notice how Moses sat in a particular seat to inquire of God. This is what the Popes do, as well. They speak to us in the person of Christ.
Matthew 23:2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
According to Jesus, this seat was transferred to the Pharisees. It is not recorded in Scripture, but Jesus said that the Moses’ seat continued throughout the Old Testament.
Not completely.
Matthew 18:18
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
No mention of keys. The keys were given to St. Peter. In order for anyone else to use the keys to bind and loose, speaking metaphorically,
they need to work with Peter.
And that is the Catholic Doctrine. The Church, with Peter (i.e. the Pope) can bind and loose. The Church without Peter, can’t.
There is no need that St. Peter be involved in local decisions.
The work was done by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The fact that the Reformers disobeyed the Church and the Word of God is not proof of anything but their disobedience.
The office of Peter was established by Jesus Christ. We believe He intended it to be a perpetual office. The Church has honored this office for 2000 years. It was the Reformers who 15 centuries later, decided to change the order which Jesus established.
You have the choice to follow the order established by Jesus. Or the order or lack thereof, established by the Reformers.
Mark said,
August 25, 2014 at 9:33 am
theoldadam,
How often has “the old knock in the head” been effective? This isn’t rhetorical, but an honest question. If the answer is, “Not very often,” then perhaps the cliched definition of insanity is appropriate “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
I certainly can understand the temptation to get protective (defensive?) and snap out with snarky comments (goodness knows I do it too). But, even if your concern is solely rescuing people from the Gospel (even ignoring being charitable for charity’s sake), my experience has been, that method is not effective anyway. Maybe your experience has been different and lots of people have had scales fallen from their eyelids after hearing your version of an “old knock in the head” through sarcastic snotty comments.
Ron said,
August 25, 2014 at 9:51 am
DM,
Allowing for the grand claim that the office of pope was established by Peter, that you “believe He intended it to be a perpetual office” does not establish that it is a perpetual office let alone that the office pertains to the Roman communion. Your argument is a fallacious one from silence and, therefore, unsound. That you would bet your soul on what is not plainly set forth in Scripture is terrifying.
1. There is no OT precedent of infallibility. (from Scripture, which RC’s don’t dispute)
2. The burden of proof is upon Rome to prove infallibility in the NT church. (from 1 and def. of fallacious argument from silence)
3. Rome has yet to put forth a proof for NT infallibility, only assertions. (observation)
4. Any shifting of onus to a demand that one must prove infallibility wrong is nothing more than a fallacious argument from silence and, therefore, to be considered invalid. (from 2 and 3)
5. Invalid arguments are always unsound. (def. of valid and sound arguments)
Can Rome produce an infallible tradition not found in Scripture that has its origins with the apostles? Of course not, which leads to the question – If Scripture does not inform the Roman Catholic magisterium about what Scripture has to say, then who or what does? To deny that the popes affirm the analogy of Scripture for the magisterium is to reduce Scripture to brute particulars that have no discernible coherence, which would mean that the magisterium with respect to interpreting Scripture must be making things up as they go along and that any appeal to Scripture is disingenuous at best. Therefore, it’s not so much that Rome denies the intelligibility and lucidity of Scripture. Rather, the implication is that Rome would have us believe that Scripture is only intelligible and clear to the magisterium! That they might on occasion deny this does not undermine that the inference should be drawn. Consequently, individual Roman Catholics should not, as they do, appeal to Scripture to justify the Roman Catholic communion and the church’s need for the popes. Rather, Roman Catholics should be consistent and honest by simply pointing to the authority of the popes to defend the claims of the popes, and once they do that then yes, we will be at an impasse. That, however, would be an admission of being a blind follower of something other than Scripture, which is an embarrassment for Roman Catholics yet a necessary implication of their view of the church and Scripture. All you’ve said on this front is that the church has given you “guidelines” to interpret Scripture, but again “guidelines” undermine your appeals to particular verses and any interpretation.
In sum, as soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of something in the face of Scripture. Roman Catholics pay lip service to the authority of Scripture, for given an apparent discrepancy between Scripture and tradition Scripture always loses. For instance, Scripture teaches that all miracles appeal to the mind through the senses. Now then, imagine that Jesus looked as though he were sinking in water yet claimed to be walking on it. Or imagine that the Israelites drowned in the Red Sea but that tradition said they crossed over on dry ground and only looked as though they drowned. Should we believe such testimony in the face of contrary truth? So it is with the hocus-pocus of the mass. We are told we must believe, lest we risk hell(!), that the bread and wine has changed into the body and blood of the Lord; yet the elements continue to manifest the physical properties of bread and wine. Not only is there no biblical precedence to accept such obviously false claims, in principle we are warned and commanded not to do so! Yet such blind, irrational faith is required for one to be a good Roman Catholic. Yes, the demands are high, maybe because the stakes are so high. The skepticism created by Romanism begets doctrinal infidelity. No, demands it!
Finally, Scripture has always taught that Scripture itself is to judge the teachers of God’s word. After all, if we were to allow the teachers to judge the Scriptures then the rejection of Christ by the religious leaders of his day would have been justified. There would be no Christianity! So it is with Rome. By placing herself above the Scriptures she too has fallen away – no less than the Jews.
Peter was blessed because flesh and blood had not revealed Christ to him but rather the Father in Heaven did. Imagine though if Peter’s loyalty was to the magisterium of his day? Most Roman Catholics I know have never heard from God in this way but have merely heard some things about him, which is why they would sooner trust a communion that claims truth rather than the Christ who is the truth. By and large, Roman Catholics have no relationship with God through Christ. They know nothing of the forgiveness of sins, adoption as sons, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the hope of glory. Indeed, Roman Catholicism forbids such presumption and in doing so would deny access to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit. It might just go without asking…What fellowship can be found within Rome?
Jesus was clear when he said: his sheep hear his voice; they follow him; he gives them eternal life; and nobody will pluck them from his or his Father’s hand. That is why I also know that when Rome denies doctrines like perseverance of the saints that it is not Christ who is in error but Rome.
Don said,
August 25, 2014 at 10:40 am
De Maria 244,
I like the verse, I don’t like your use of an obsolete translation of it.
Nope.
I just pointed you to a useful source. It’s not my intention here to defend any and every Protestant doctrine that you bring up. It’s to let you know that your Scripture references are often not effective, either because your audience is not going to immediately adopt your Catholic interpretation of them (e.g., taking every mention of the church as a reference to the Roman Catholic congregation), or because you are using a mistranslation.
roberty bob said,
August 25, 2014 at 11:43 am
to #248 Don . . .
“I like the verse [Acts 2:47], I don’t like your use of an obsolete translation of it.”
So, are you denying that the Lord’s act of adding those who believed the gospel “to their number” is not the same act as adding them “to the Church?” Tell that to your godly protestant forebears who treasured their obsolete translations. Of what non-obsolete translations does God approve? Surely thou knowest.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 25, 2014 at 12:54 pm
roberrty rob, we do deny that they were added to the Roman Catholic church,with the home office in Rome. They certainly were added to Christ’s church, the group of all saved believers. Rome has no claim to be that church since it is the apostacy that Paul speaks of in Thesalonians. The Pope is the man of perdition that puts himself up as God in the Temple. God no longer dwells in buildings, scripture says our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
roberty bob said,
August 25, 2014 at 1:15 pm
in reply to #250 . . .
“Rome has no claim to be that [Christ’s] church.”
The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the Church of Rome. Could you pin point the time where this Church of Rome was expelled out of the Church of Jesus Christ? In the 100s? In the 200s? In the 300s? When? Under the shepherding of what bishop? I’m curious.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm
By Jesus Christ:
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
I’m giving my reasons for what I believe, from Scripture. I didn’t say you had to believe my line of reasoning.
However, your denials do not constitute an argument. They do not prove that Jesus did not establish a perpetual office.
And the evidence from Scripture weighs heavily in support of a perpetual office. For instance, we see that the equivalent of the Papacy, the Seat of Moses, was a perpetual office until Jesus fulfilled the OT:
Exodus 18:13-16King James Version (KJV)
13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
Matthew 23:2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
We also see that Peter saying:
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
So that, all the offices of the Apostles were perpetual.
But most importantly, we know that Jesus Christ intended the Church to stand forever, thus He said, “it will never fall (Matt 16:18).” And if the Church will never fall, then it is perpetual. And if the Church is perpetual, then the office which Jesus established to rule the Church, must also be perpetual.
There are other Churches which claim the office of Pope. They are all ancient religions and none of them are Protestant.
However, I believe that the Catholic Church is the one described in Scripture for the following reasons:
First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:
Matthew 16:17-19 (King James Version)
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.
Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.
Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.
So, even using just a few verses we can eliminate the Protestants. None of their denominations even come close to being in Scripture. But we can continue to find Catholic indicators throughout the Bible:
The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13; James 2:24; Gal 6:8).
And we find that the Protestant doctrinal pillars all contradict Scripture. For instance:
Sola Scriptura contradicts 2 Thess 2:152 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Sola Fide contradicts James 2:24
James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
OSAS contradicts Heb 6:4-6
Hebrews 6:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Salvation by grace alone contradicts:
Philippians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
and also:
Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Every Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Catholic Church also contradicts the Word of God in the Bible. So, I certainly won’t look for the True Church within their walls.
On the contrary, my argument is solidly based upon the Word of God.
We have better promises.
The Church has proved it for 2000 years. But for some, no proof is ever enough.
They have proved it to me and to billions of others.
I haven’t made that argument, so it is a red herring.
My arguments are solidly based upon the Word of God.
Why would she want to? That’s not the Teaching. The Teaching is that all Catholic Tradition is found in Scripture, explicitly or implied.
Can Protestants produce a doctrine which contradicts Catholic Teaching, in Scripture? I haven’t seen even one. But, you’re welcome to show me.
The order of the Gospel is such that Jesus established a Church. Then Jesus sent that Church into the world to teach what He commanded.
That which He commanded, we call Sacred Tradition. It is based upon this Sacred Tradition that the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament.
Notice that the Scriptures do not command us to seek to learn the Teaching of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, strictly from the Bible. But in fact, commands us to learn from our leaders in the Church:
Hebrews 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
The Catholic Church does not deny Scripture. But the Catholic Church also does not deny Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that both are the Word of God.
What does the Scripture say?
2 Peter 3:16
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8:29-31King James Version (KJV)
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readiest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Scripture recognizes that it is better to have a guide to teach us the Scriptures. What better guide than the one which Scripture says will teach the Wisdom of God even in eternity?
Ephesians 3:10
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
You’re just upset because Scripture tells you to obey the Church. And you’re even more upset because we can use anything to prove the Authority of the Catholic Church; Scripture, Tradition, writings of the early Church Fathers, history, anything.
These guidelines can be found in the Scriptures.
We see in Acts 8:29-31 above quoted, that Scripture suggests we use guides to understanding the Scriptiure.
We see Scripture saying that we are taught the Word of God by our leaders in the Church:
Hebrews 13:7King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
We also see that Scripture tells us to hold Sacred Tradition along with Scripture:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. That we understand the Scriptures in the context of Sacred Tradition. This is logical because Jesus Christ did not write the New Testament. But the Church wrote the New Testament based upon the Sacred Tradition of Jesus Christ.
That doesn’t even make sense. Just because I read Scripture does not mean that I set aside any Catholic Teaching.
Scripture does not tell us to separate Scripture from the Church nor to put Scripture in opposition to the Church. Scripture tells us that the Word of God is taught us by the Church.
There are no discrepancies between Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There are many discrepancies between Scripture and Protestant traditions of men though.
We believe the Scripture which says:
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
And the one which says:
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Please provide chapter and verse.
Here’s what I find:
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
The Catholic Church is the servant of the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition.
Scripture can not judge anyone. That is why Jesus wisely said, “bring him to the Church” (Matt 18:17). You can see this principle in action if you study about Arius and Athanasius. Two bishops of the Church who brought their case to the Church. And the Church judged one of them a heretic.
Jesus was the Magisterium of his day. That is where the word Magisterium comes from, “Teacher, Master”.
The Church is the “Teacher and Master” because she teaches with the authority of Christ:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
That is your judgement of Catholics. All I can say, with the Apostle is:
Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
and again:
1 Corinthians 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Here is what the Scripture says:
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
and again:
2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Which goes to show what I said before, every doctrine which you hold in contradiction of the Catholic Church, also contradicts Scripture. There is no such thing as once saved always saved in Scripture. That doctrine contradicts the Word of God.
TurretinFan said,
August 25, 2014 at 1:25 pm
“The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the Church of Rome. Could you pin point the time where this Church of Rome was expelled out of the Church of Jesus Christ? In the 100s? In the 200s? In the 300s? When? Under the shepherding of what bishop? I’m curious.”
Actually, Paul wrote to “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” That included a plurality of churches, not one single church. We see that in the concluding chapter, where he offers salutations to a variety of church groups (Romans 16:5, 10, 11, 14, and 15)
Also notable in those salutations is the absence of any greeting of Peter (because Peter wasn’t in Rome) or of any of the supposed successors of Peter.
-TurretinFan
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 1:27 pm
But not to Scripture.
I understand why you won’t attempt to defend your beliefs, which contradict Catholic Teaching from Scripture. I’ve looked them up in Scripture myself and I can’t find them either.
Thanks for the discussion.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Where does Scripture say that the St. Peter could not have been in Rome? Or that any of Peter’s successors could not be in Rome?
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Those are mere assertions without evidence. And certainly without any indication in the Word of God. Here is what Scripture says about the Church.
First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:
Matthew 16:17-19 (King James Version)
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.
Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.
Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.
So, even using just a few verses we can eliminate the Protestants. None of their denominations even come close to being in Scripture. But we can continue to find Catholic indicators throughout the Bible:
The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13; James 2:24; Gal 6:8).
And we find that the Protestant doctrinal pillars all contradict Scripture. For instance:
Sola Scriptura contradicts 2 Thess 2:152 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Sola Fide contradicts James 2:24
James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
OSAS contradicts Heb 6:4-6
Hebrews 6:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Salvation by grace alone contradicts:
Philippians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
and also:
Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Therefore, the Church described in Scripture looks just like the Catholic Church and nothing like the Protestant myriad of disassociated, self reliant groups.
Ron said,
August 25, 2014 at 1:48 pm
I’m giving my reasons for what I believe, from Scripture. I didn’t say you had to believe my line of reasoning.
Ah, so you aren’t so much deducing this from Scripture but rather you have a sense that it could very well be true. In other words, Scripture doesn’t demand this interpretation of you (otherwise I’d think that you’d put forth a rigorous proof). It’s just a teaching that seems good to you. And you learned this teaching where? Ah yes, the popes.
However, your denials do not constitute an argument. They do not prove that Jesus did not establish a perpetual office.
There’s that argument from silence again. You just can’t rid yourself of it. :) Well, given that there’s no OT precedent for such a magisterium, it would seem reasonable that we need something a bit more robust to establish such a claim especially given the track record of the religious leaders for the first 4000 years of redemptive history.
And the evidence from Scripture weighs heavily in support of a perpetual office.
Evidence? Again, there is no OT precedence for this sort of thing and you aren’t able to deduce the teaching from Scripture. Your communion tells you it’s so and then you proof text things that seem good to you so that you might corroborate the claim. At the very least, that’s very poor procedure. AT the end of the day your confidence in this life and the life to come is in the claims of the popes. I know there is no peace there. God’s word informs me of that, so in a sense I’ve been reading your mail. Same goes for Bryan cross. When he signs “In Christ’s peace” I am quite confident he knows no such thing.
Ron said,
August 25, 2014 at 1:52 pm
Where does Scripture say that the St. Peter could not have been in Rome?
Where does Scripture say he’s not sitting on my couch? Or that my Uncle Joe doesn’t have a chip of one of Peter’s bones?
DM, do you know what a fallacious argument from silence looks like? You’re basing your eternal destiny on teachings that are only supported by fallacy upon fallacy.
Don’t be afraid of listening to your Bible.
roberty bob said,
August 25, 2014 at 2:11 pm
in reply to #253, turretin fan . . .
“he [the Apostle Paul] offers salutations to a variety of church groups”
That would be the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals.
You guys are losing your grip.
Ron said,
August 25, 2014 at 2:16 pm
I wriote: Any shifting of onus to a demand that one must prove infallibility wrong is nothing more than a fallacious argument from silence and, therefore, to be considered invalid. (from 2 and 3)
You responded: I haven’t made that argument, so it is a red herring.
DM,
That is indeed your platform. The magisterium seems good to you just like Peter’s visit to Rome but you can’t *deduce* these things from Scripture. Then you make the test that one prove something false from the same corpus of silence that you appeal to. But your final appeal is not to what Scrioture *demands* but to what you hope it might allow for. To satisfy you I’d have to appeal to your good opinion.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 2:49 pm
I am deducing it from Scripture and Sacred Tradition as instructed by the Magisterium. That is the model which Scripture presents. Let me show you:
Acts 17 King James Version (KJV)
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
St. Paul and co. visited Thessalonica and entered a synagogue.
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
There, St. Paul, a member of the Church and a member of the Magisterium began to reason with the Jews out of the Scriptures.
Now, we know that these are the Old Testament Scriptures, because the Jews do not, to this day, accept the New Testament. And we know that the Jews accept the Old Testament, so when they reject St. Paul as they will next, it is not because of the Old Testament.
However, at this point, we see two legs of the Catholic model of understanding the Word of God, Magisterium and Scripture.
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Now we see the third, we see St. Paul beginning to introduce the Sacred Tradition of Jesus Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
and some of them believed the Sacred Tradition which was being taught by the Church, i.e. St. Paul and Silas.
5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
But others did not believe the Sacred Tradition and they ran the Church off.
Now, we continue and find St. Paul and Silas in Berea. And what did they do? The very same thing. They presented the Traditions of Jesus Christ and how they could be proven in the Old Testament Scriptures:
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Apparently, all the Bereans accepted the Word of God taught by the Church and found the proof of them in the Scriptures. And this is confirmed by St. Paul when he says elsewhere:
1 Thessalonians 2:13King James Version (KJV)
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
There is no Scripture alone taught here. But the Catholic model of Sacred Tradition and Scripture as taught by the Magisterium.
Yes, it does. And I have set forth a rigorous proof. Something sorely lacking in any of your unsupported denials and assertions.
And Scripture says:
Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
So, Scripture tells me to learn from the leaders of the Church. The Pope certainly fits that description.
From you. I have produced tons of evidence, from the Scriptures.
I’ve already produced the proof. The Old Testament magisterium was not infallible, however. But that is because it was established by the mediation of Moses and the levitical priesthood. Fallible people. Whereas now we have the mediation of the Son of God, an infallible Person.
I’ve already produced the evidence and deduced it for you. All you do is offer denials as counter arguments.
Confirming it by the Scripture.
Hebrews 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Who made you my judge? And who made you a reader of hearts? Are you God? No.
But God is my Judge and it is in Him that I put my hope and trust:
1 Thessalonians 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. 8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 2:55 pm
I’m not making the claim that St. Peter is on your couch. Nor that Uncle Joe has one of St. Peter’s bones. But Protestants are making the claim that St. Peter was never in Rome. Where is the evidence to support that claim?
Not in Scripture.
Like what you are making. You and the Protestants claim that St. Peter is not in Rome because Scripture does not say that he was in Rome. That is a fallacious argument from silence.
I think I’ve proven my case. And from the Scriptures. You have yet to provide any evidence at all for the doctrines you hold in contradiction to Catholic Teaching.
I’m not. But it seems as though you are.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 3:01 pm
When did I challenge you to prove infallibility wrong? Provide the quote from me.
What I have been doing is providing the evidence for the truth of infallibility of the Pope and the Church, from Scripture.
You weren’t discussing Peter’s whereabouts with me. You were discussing that with someone else. I don’t remember with whom.
My only input to that argument is that Protestants can’t use Scripture as evidence that St. Peter was not in Rome, since Scripture does not forbid his presence there.
As for St. Peter’s presence in Rome. I believe it because the Church tells me so. The very same Church which Scripture describes as the Pilar of Truth (1 Cor 3:15). So, I have no reason not to believe the Church since it comes so highly recommended in the Word of God.
I think I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is you appealing to fallacious arguments from silence.
Don said,
August 25, 2014 at 3:20 pm
Roberty Bob 249,
Whether or not that’s the same, the text only says one thing.
Beyond that, I’m not really certain what you’re ranting about. Please don’t interpret that as a request for clarification.
Don said,
August 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm
De Maria,
In 236 you said,
Despite this sounding like a bunch of issues being thrown on the wall to see what sticks, I replied in 241:
Let me emphasize that I referred you to the prooftexts, not to the WCF itself. You said in 244,
To which I replied in 248
With you responding in 254,
Which makes me wonder which of the few thousand prooftexts you think is not from Scripture. Well, really it makes me certain that you did not look at a copy of the WCF, and it makes me suspect that you possibly don’t know what a “prooftext” is.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 3:52 pm
So what? You, personally, still have not produced any Scripture to support your assertions and denials. If you think that the WCF provides proof texts, provide them so we can examine their validity.
Don said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:03 pm
De Maria 266,
The prooftexts were added within a few years of it being written. Which is to say, they’ve been around a while. This is not a novelty.
If you don’t want to google “Westminster Confession of Faith” yourself, then you could try
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
or
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith/
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Yes, the actual text of the King James and the New King James says:
Acts 2:47New King James Version (NKJV)
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[a] daily those who were being saved.
The footnote says something different.
Another Protestant website says:
Acts 2:47
“Church” (or “assembly/congregation”) has been omitted or altered to “number” or similar by the DR, RV, Ne, NIV, RSV, GN, LB, AMP, NASV, NEB, NWT, JB. The NKJV marg. indicates that “to the church” is omitted from the Nestle-United Bible Societies Text.
Omission of the word “church” is objectionable on the grounds that it eliminates the cross references to Acts 5:14, 11:24 and thus obscures the fact that the “Body of Christ” (Colossians 1:18, 24) began in Acts 2. “Ekklesia” is found in Berry’s Greek text, underlying its presence in the Majority Text…..
He is objecting to you setting aside Scripture whenever it is inconvenient to your beliefs and doctrines.
Ok.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm
I’ve read them and find them unconvincing. If you want to convince me of their validity in support of your doctrines, provide your arguments.
Otherwise, I guess you and I are done. Thanks for the discussion.
Ron said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm
Dear DM,
I think I’ve given you enough to make you more culpable before God and to aid you in salvation. I pray that the latter will be the result.
TurretinFan said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Considering that the Vulgate (which Trent said is authentic) doesn’t have the Latin word for church at Acts 2:47, this is a very puzzling objection from De Maria. Apparently the KJV is even more authentic than the Vulgate! :D
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:27 pm
I pray the same for you.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Don said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:28 pm
De Maria,
In 266 you were unaware that the WCF had prooftexts. In 269 you say you’ve read them. OK then.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:40 pm
I am using a Protestant Bible to prove Catholic Doctrine to Protestants.
Whenever I, in the past, used Catholic Bibles to prove Catholic Doctrine, Protestants would object that the Catholic Bible was not valid because it contained Catholic presuppositions.
Now, when I use Protestant Bible to pre-empt that objection, they object that the Protestant Bible isn’t valid.
Now, instead of the Bible, they want to substitute the WCF.
Besides, I’ve provided several verses which are not contested which say that we should obey and submit to the Church and which describe the Church as Pillar of Truth and teacher of the Wisdom of God.
That should be enough to prove that we can have faith in the Church.
But, instead of engaging the discussion, you would rather derail the conversation and focus on a dispute within the Protestant community. Because most Protestants, with whom I’ve discussed this topic, accept the word “church” in that verse. This is the only time that any Protestant has denied it.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Here’s what I said in #266:
Where did I deny that the WCF had proof texts?
I simply denied that the purported proof texts support what Protestants claim they support. So I challenged you to provide them in order that we could examine their validity to support what Protestants claim they support.
Don said,
August 25, 2014 at 5:20 pm
De Maria,
Where you challenged me to “provide them” in #266. As if they aren’t there? You are still calling them “purported” even here!
I’m not trying to play “gotcha.” I am, again, trying to point out that many of your own prooftexts are irrelevant, or incorrect, or are not going to be read by a Protestant as they would be read by a Catholic. For example, again, just because there are some verses that say the church is important and does important things, no Protestant is going to make the logical step, which apparently seems obvious to you, to put “faith in the Church.” Let alone the Roman Catholic denomination. (In fact, a phrase like “faith in the Church,” which I do not believe appears in Scripture, tends to feed into Protestant stereotypes that Catholic doctrine replaces worship of God with worship of the church, the Pope, Mary, etc.) Repeatedly quoting the same semi-relevant Scriptures is not an effective arguing technique.
OK, so I’ll bite: what does your favorite Catholic translation say? But if your previous interactions have been with KJV-Onlyists, then yeah, that would be a different matter.
TurretinFan said,
August 25, 2014 at 5:21 pm
De Maria:
I’m sorry to hear that you have only now run into Protestants who were able to point out the errors of your arguments on a textual level.
But even in translations that say “added to the church,” the text doesn’t mean that the people were saved by being added to the church. They were added to church because they were saved. Your understanding of the text is wrong.
This may be the first time you’ve met people who can point these things out to you, but now that they are being pointed out, reconsider your errors!
-TurretinFan
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 7:00 pm
That’s right. Just because someone listed some Scripture verses and called them “proof texts” doesn’t mean that they proved what they claimed.
And I believe that many of them are going to be accepted by some.
Should I stop providing them simply because you’re of the opposite opinion?
So you say. But several Protestants have written to me in the past and said, “I hadn’t seen that before.”
Many more Catholics have thanked me for providing them the information that they can use to make a stronger defense of the Catholic Faith.
That is your opinion. But others don’t share that opinion.
And repeatedly making the same unsupported assertions do not making an effective arguing technique either.
It says that the Church will never fail:
Matthew 16:18Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
It says we must listen to the Church:
Matthew 18:17
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
It says the Church is the pillar of truth:
1 Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
And that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God:
Ephesians 3:10
10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,
It does not say that we should not have faith in the Church and in fact counsels us to follow the faith of our leaders in the Church who have taught us the Word of God:
Hebrews 13:7
7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,
I have interacted with many, many sorts of Protestants in the last twenty years.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 7:08 pm
No one has pointed out any errors in my arguments. You have pointed out that there are disagreements amongst Protestants in how Acts 2:47 is interpreted.
Did I say they were? Read what I said. I said that God added to the Church, those who should be saved.
So you now agree they were added to the Church? Good.
We can proceed then. They were saved by baptism:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
As you can see by the context, those who were baptized were added to the Church.
No one has pointed out any errors in my understanding. All you have pointed out is that Protestants can’t agree on how to interpret Acts 2:47.
roberty bob said,
August 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm
in reference to #279 DeMaria . . .
The Acts 2:47 text is simply one case in point where they cannot agree on the interpretation; they contradict themselves at every turn.
When we catch them at it and call them out, they have no answer, but they don’t need to have an answer because they always know the right answer even when they give no answer at all. Just ask them!
Thank you, DeMaria, for your clear argumentation with the fitting biblical quotations. May we all listen like the Bereans of old.
Tim Harris said,
August 25, 2014 at 8:40 pm
In St Paul we hear the very voice of God. In the Shepherd, in Clement, in all the subsequent doctors, we do not — however helpful some may be.
The Fathers agree with us. None of them pointed to themselves as the reason to believe a doctrine. They all pointed to Scripture.
The idea that the NT is “the church” speaking is a real novelty. I’d be interested to know when that thesis was first broached.
Tim Harris said,
August 25, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Roberty @239 — the point is, if dM applied his hermeneutic to Shakespeare, he would fail English 201. If he then said, “this is infallibly true because Uncle Papa told me so,” he’d be sent to the Dean’s office.
Either language conveys meaning according to publicly-accessible canons of interpretation, or it does not. If it does not, then no Tradition is going to help you either! (for you would then have no way to know what the Tradition meant either)
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 10:00 pm
They pointed to the Church as well:
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Cyprian
The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).
St. Augustine wrote:
Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental.
Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;-If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel (Ch 5 §6).
The New Testament is the Word of God. But the New Testament was not written by God, but by holy men of the Church who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, first to preach and then to write down that which they preached.
2 Pet 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Note that the Holy Spirit inspired men, first, to speak. These men are, of course, men of the Church. These men were later inspired by the same Spirit, to write down what they preached.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Who taught you that the Scripture was infallible?
The Church taught me about the inerrancy of Scripture.
Which canons are you holding up against the teaching of Scripture? Scripture says I am to learn the Word of God from my rulers in the Church:
Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
That makes no sense. Why wouldn’t I or anyone know what Sacred Tradition is teaching?
Besides, why would I disobey Scriptures clear teaching that I should hold Sacred Tradition?
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 10:14 pm
Amen! And thank you, roberty bob for your timely and pointed additions.
Thanks also to Green Baggins for permitting these discussions.
And thanks be to God for the grace to expound upon the reasons for the hope we have in Christ:
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
roberty bob said,
August 25, 2014 at 10:16 pm
in response to #282 Tim Harris . . .
DeMaria’s hermeneutic is biblically faithful and rational. You can see the connections between the Catholic doctrine he is defending and the biblical texts which support it. He answers your questions by showing you the texts which speak to your questions. Listen and learn.
I don’t know what you mean by publicly-accessible canons of interpretation. You seem to be saying that DeMaria’s method of interpreting scripture is inaccessible to the public. Well, I am of the public, and I find DeMaria easily accessible. He shows us when he is opening a door, and when he is closing one; I can go in and out and not get my face or fingers slammed in the door!
It’s called integrity.
TurretinFan said,
August 25, 2014 at 10:48 pm
“Who taught you that the Scripture was infallible?”
God, in Scripture.
“DeMaria’s hermeneutic is biblically faithful and rational.”
Considering that De Maria quotes the “Protestant Bible” without regard to whether or not it is accurate to the actual Word of God, that hardly seems to be an accurate characterization.
“I don’t know what you mean by publicly-accessible canons of interpretation.”
He means that Scripture can speak for itself. You don’t need a gnostic or quasi-gnostic magisterium to tell you its secret meaning.
“Scripture says I am to learn the Word of God from my rulers in the Church:”
It’s one thing to learn from them – another thing to treat them as infallible. One does not imply the other. One is also to reverence one’s parents, but one need not make them infallible authorities, either.
The system of Roman Catholicism can’t be supported by valid arguments, which is why we see these constant leaps.
-TurretinFan
Don said,
August 25, 2014 at 11:38 pm
roberty bob 280,
This is not an issue of interpretation. This is a matter of translation. You seem astounded that a modern translation would be different, let alone more accurate, than one that’s over four hundred years old. But if I may share from someone’s favorite translation (Douay Rheims 1899 American):
Note the lack of the word “church” in this Catholic translation.
De Maria said,
August 25, 2014 at 11:55 pm
That is still a red herring, since Scripture gives you plenty of reason to have faith in the Church.
Why Imputation Is Not a Legal Fiction said,
August 26, 2014 at 12:05 am
[…] the Presbyterian Church in America and is pastor of Lebanon Presbyterian Church in Winnsboro, S.C. This article appeared on his blog and is used with […]
De Maria said,
August 26, 2014 at 12:13 am
On the contrary, it is you whose arguments are not valid.
You have omitted a very important step. God inspired the Church to write the New Testament and canonize the Old. God did not hand you a copy of Scripture.
It is the Bible which is accepted by most Protestants. And it is a quarrel which Protestants have between each other.
The fact is, that Protestants complain no matter which version of the Bible I use.
And yet, I’m the one quoting Scripture. And you are simply posting your unsupported opinions.
For instance, Scripture tells us to obey our rulers in the Church:
Heb 13:17
New Living Translation
Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.
English Standard Version
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
New American Standard Bible
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
King James Bible
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Obviously, in order to do so, we must have faith in the Church as well as Scripture. But you deny and reject the Scripture.
Scripture says the Church is infallible:
Eph 3:10
New International Version
His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
New Living Translation
God’s purpose in all this was to use the church to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
English Standard Version
so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
New American Standard Bible
so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.
King James Bible
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
The Wisdom of God is infallible. Therefore, the Teacher of the Wisdom of God must also be infallible.
Scripture explicitly teaches the infallibility of the Church:
1 Tim 3:15
New International Version
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
New Living Translation
so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
English Standard Version
if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
New American Standard Bible
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
King James Bible
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Don said,
August 26, 2014 at 1:09 am
De Maria 289,
You brought this verse up. You are accusing yourself of raising a red herring.
You might pause and consider the substance of the complaints.
De Maria said,
August 26, 2014 at 1:36 am
I produced many verses which show that Scripture tells us to have faith in the Church. But you attempted to focus on this inter-Protestant issue in order to deflect attention from that fact.
I have. And I have explained them to you.
Don said,
August 26, 2014 at 2:36 am
If you keep calling this an “inter-Protestant issue,” is it because you think Catholics don’t care about having an accurate translation of the Bible?
De Maria said,
August 26, 2014 at 9:19 am
For personal use, I prefer Catholic translations above all others. I believe they are the most accurate.
I use the KJV and other Protestant versions to talk to Protestants because they object to Catholic translations. I believe the KJV is one of the worst translations of the Bible ever attempted. But this is what most Protestants prefer. I believe the NIV and the Living Bible are interpreted based upon Protestant presuppositions. That is why they substitute “teach” for “tradition”. And the NIV adds “alone” to faith in several places.
But the fact remains, that although Protestants have attempted to write Catholic Doctrine out of the Bible, they have not succeeded in any of their versions of the Bible. The reason being that the New Testament was written based upon the Sacred Tradition of Jesus Christ. Sacred Tradition is the foundation of the New Testament.
roberty bob said,
August 26, 2014 at 9:41 am
in response to #288 Don . . .
With regard to the Acts 2:47 text, you say that this is not an issue of interpretation, but a matter of translation.
Well, I got raked over by one of the commenters for saying that “added to their number” means “added to the church.” My opponent claimed that since there was no ekklesia found in the original text, I was in error to say that God added 3000 to the church. For me, this was an issue of interpretation because I, like any Bible reader, had to ask, “added to WHOSE number?” And the only sensible answer is the number of those who had been joining the CHURCH. Go ahead with your translating, my friend, and translate the church right out of Acts 2:47. You are still left with the question, “added to their number” is a reference to WHAT?
And you try to make US look like fools!
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2014 at 9:44 am
Bryan wrote: “The “faith alone” condemned by Trent is the singular virtue of faith not informed by the virtue of agape. The faith alone affirmed by the Church Fathers is not the singular virtue of faith, but faith apart from works.”
I don’t think that’s a fair or accurate summary of the more than half dozen negative references to “faith alone” in Trent. A major emphasis of Trent was on the need for the sacraments for salvation as distinct from needing only faith.
While it is quite reasonable to suppose that the fallible fathers of Trent tilted at windmills and attacked straw men instead of addressing the Reformed, Lutheran, and other Protestant doctrines, there is evidence that they meant to condemn the idea that faith alone is the instrumental means of justification.
The strongest positive evidence is Trent’s declaration that baptism is the instrumental means of justification in that it infuses people with faith, hope and charity.
Trent does say, “For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body.” And Trent goes on to explain that this entails works, namely obedience to the law – even to the point of saying that the baptized is placed back in the position of Adam under the covenant of works:
“For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.”
Here are the negative references to “faith alone”:
Decree on Justification
Chapter IX
“neither is this to be asserted ,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ.”
Chapter XI
“Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself up with faith alone, fancying that by faith alone he is made an heir, and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ, that so he may be also glorified with him. ”
Canons on Justification
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.
Canons on the Sacraments in General
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.
Canons on Baptism
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema.
Canons on the Eucharist
CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.
Decree on the Sacrament of Penance, Chapter VI
“the penitent ought not so to confide in his own personal faith, as to think that,–even though there be no contrition on his part, or no intention on the part of the priest of acting seriously and absolving truly,–he is nevertheless truly and in God’s sight absolved, on account of his faith alone. ”
– TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
August 26, 2014 at 10:09 am
We are talking about two completely different systems. Rome= pay as you go. Biblical Christianity= all sins past present future forgiven by faith alone in Christ alone.
Don said,
August 26, 2014 at 10:13 am
De Maria 295,
Nah, it’s good for what it was, when it was. Still probably the most lyrical. But for a serious study of what the text says, in words people actually use, it’s simply outdated.
You need to get out more.
Don said,
August 26, 2014 at 10:38 am
Roberty Bob 296,
OK, I think I see where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure if you’re appreciating the difference between “interpretation” and “translation.”
A word-by-word translation of Acts 2:47b says something like “And the Lord added the [ones] being saved from day to day together.” If someone produces a translation that says something like “added to the church” then that translation is accurate because it is adding words that are not there.
Interpretation is a distinct issue. A natural question is, “Added to what?” Plausible answers to that question, by attempting to correctly interpret the text, include: “the church,” “the community,” and “their number.” Actually, in this case I don’t see how those three answers aren’t essentially synonyms. So if someone says, “It doesn’t mean ‘added to the church’ because the word ‘church’ is not in the text,” I would consider that a problematic and frankly rather poor interpretation. But if someone says, “It must mean ‘added to the church’ because the word ‘church’ IS in the text,” that is using a demonstrably incorrect translation.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing when I’m asking you to not use outdated translations and to understand your audience.
roberty bob said,
August 26, 2014 at 11:59 am
So . . . #300 . . .
What Bible translation warms the ears of the Green Baggins audience?
roberty bob said,
August 26, 2014 at 12:21 pm
Also . . . #300 . . .
When I first used the term “added to the church” [Acts 2:47] I did not give any reason for my choice of that term. I did not even say that I translated the original Greek text and got “church” out of it. I simply put out the commonly understood meaning of “added to their number.”
If you were to preach this text to your congregation, you would most assuredly give it the same meaning by way of interpretation. I take that back. You would be telling your congregation that there are three ways to interpret this passage with God adding to the number of the church being one possibility!
I know whereof I speak.
Don said,
August 26, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Roberty Bob 302,
There’s no evidence from this in your previous paragraph.
De Maria said,
August 26, 2014 at 1:11 pm
In reference to #297:
You are right. But it is in the Sacraments, specifically Baptism, that we are justified by faith apart from works. Luther’s confusion continues in the Reformed community to this day.
Luther confused Justification by faith apart from works with faith alone.
When St. Paul said, “justified by faith apart from works”, Luther interpreted that as faith “alone”: But that s not what St. Paul meant. St. Paul was teaching the justification which occurs in the Sacraments.
Let me explain:
St. Paul taught the Catholic Teaching that only those who do the works of the Law are justified:
Romans 2:13
King James Version (KJV)
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
In Catholic Teaching, we are justified by faith and works. That is the foundation and root of all justification. Faith is expressed and perfected in works.
However, the Church also teaches that we are justified in the Sacraments where we are washed in sanctifying grace. Especially Baptism. Sacraments are God’s mighty works. We don’t do anything except submit to His works in the proper dispostion, which is that of faith.
This is the Justification by faith apart from works to which St. Paul referred.
The process is evident in every semester of RCIA. By faith, we seek the Lord and study to show ourselves approved. Only those who undergo this process are then JUSTIFIED in Baptism.
De Maria said,
August 26, 2014 at 1:15 pm
I wouldn’t characterize it as pay as you go. But certainly the Word of God requires us to do good:
Romans 2:7King James Version (KJV)
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Show me from Scripture.
1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
roberty bob said,
August 26, 2014 at 2:04 pm
“all sins past present future forgiven . . . ” — A Protestant
“Rome = pay as you go.” — A Protestant
Q. Does A Protestant have to confess today’s sins and make amends for them if he has already been forgiven of them yesterday? If not, he is in denial of the teaching from 1 John 1:8-10 [as DeMaria shows] If so, then he is does in fact engage in the “pay as you go” of which he accuses Rome.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 26, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Ron, #113, 114, 117, 118,
You stated:
It’s not that imputation itself must be fiction; but rather, it must look to a ground in reality—whether eventual or current—upon which it may consist in truth. Imputation happens only within the mind and not within substantial reality. Even a man may impute guilt or righteousness to another man merely by accounting him so. When a jury finds a defendant guilty, they have imputed guilt to him. It is agreed that that God in reality accounts to us Christ’s righteousness. What seems to be in dispute is whether or not God can look to something other than His own thoughts on which to ground that accounting.
Don’t you also differentiate between the reality of what God thinks and the reality of what God does within the substantial world? Do not even you agree that God’s justice would not have been satisfied if God merely accounted to Jesus suffering and death just as if He had died on the cross but without any actual suffering and death happening within substantial reality? There was a need for Him to actually come and die and not merely to be seen in the mind of God as if He had done so. God is a God of justice and truth. Justice requires truth, and truth must correspond to reality.
I had said:
To which you replied:
That’s an excellent question. My goal is not to develop a system that has no loose ends, but my goal is to understand Scripture as it is. Prior to Christ’s death, believers were justified by faith as we are, but grounded on what Christ would do in the future. Therefore, while they were justified on God’s good credit, so to speak, justice was not yet satisfied in their case. That is why they did not go to heaven when they died, but instead went to sheol, separated by a great gulf from the place of torment. They did not suffer as unbelievers, but they were still, in a sense, captive to justice, waiting until that day when the Messiah would pay for sin, unite with them spiritually and bring them to heaven.
Communicating across differing paradigms is difficult. I apologize for my lack of clarity. But I did not mean that the “concrete” reality must be actualized prior to imputation; but only that there must be a concrete reality to which the imputation answers, even if in the future. To ground His declaration of “now righteous,” the God who sees the future may indeed look to the future—but it is not true that He need not look to anything other than His own thoughts or decisions. Imputing is like writing a check: at some point, the funds must actually be deposited into the bank—not by “fixing the books” within God’s mind but by putting Christ within the believer in a union so close that the two become one new man in reality.
You stated:
Christ was NOT the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. That comes from Rev. 13:8, “and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain” (ESV). Were this the only textual evidence, then it could be worded wither way; however, Rev. 17:8 decisively resolves the question: “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come” (ESV).
You are correct in that we are indeed children of wrath just like the rest until we are saved by faith. God has promised to justify (by imputing Christ’s righteousness to) those who believe. And this promise is possible only because He has also promised to spiritually join believers to the risen Christ who has paid the penalty and fulfilled the law. You stated:
Our spiritual union with Christ occurs when we are joined to Christ by the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. Yes, God accounted the OT saints as righteous even without this real union with the risen Christ. But then, He went about to accomplish within reality what actually needed to be done in order to fulfill that accounting as true. But it is not as if all things were the same in the OT as in the New. As He says in Rom 3:25b-26, “…This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” In the case of the OT saints, “in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” He “passed over” their sins while He waited to accomplish Christ on the cross. He passed over their sins until such a time as the victorious Christ could be united with them through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Prior to the cross, He was the Justifier but it had not yet been shown that He was just. After the cross, He was shown to be both just and justifier.
You asked, “Just curious Ken, is this understanding of yours found in any confessional document?” Not explicitly, except as union in Christ is affirmed to be reason why we are partakers of His inheritance, etc. Like the issue of how Adam’s sin can make us all sinners, the issue of how Christ’s righteousness can make believers holy is a question of how one understands the confession. Just as different men can come to different understandings of how Adam’s sin affected us (one seeing a real, substantial union as the ground of justice and the other seeing only a “federal union” as sufficient), so also can different men come to a different understanding of what is meant when confessions speak of union with Christ (one seeing a real inbeing and spiritual ingrafting, while the other seeing a “federal union” as sufficient ground).
Kevin Failoni said,
August 26, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Roberty rob, Of course we confess our sins, but they are already payed for. If you get in a plane accident tomorrow morning and you slept with your neighbors wife right before going to the airport and didn’t get a chance to confess your sin, you going to hell?
Kevin Failoni said,
August 26, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Roberty rob, Jesus isn’t up there saying, yo dad, Bob just did the mass cut him a little more grace and justice. He is up there applying a sacrifice that perfected us by FAITH. The righteous shall live by faith. The spirit convicts us of our sin and we confess and repent, but His righteousness makes up for any of our lack, because we are justified by His righteousness. Our righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is His. Romans 8:1 there is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ. Another way to say this, there is now justification for those in Christ. It is finished and He obtained eternal redemption, He reconciled us by His blood 5:9 His incarnation is not still continuing thru the acts of the church, and you are not qualified to mediate your sins or sacrifice yourself for your sins. You can’t take form Him what is His. We are called to believe. Romans 10:9-10 is a death sentence for Rome. It says by confessing and believing the results are righteousness and salvation.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 26, 2014 at 4:05 pm
Kevin, #139,
You said, “all humanity is user a death sentence because of what Adam did.”
OK, how do you find any justice in that? I’m not Adam and neither are you. Unearned salvation is grace, but unearned condemnation is injustice.
De Maria said,
August 26, 2014 at 6:07 pm
You tell me:
1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
De Maria said,
August 26, 2014 at 6:37 pm
Yes, Kevin, that is exactly what he is doing. Here is what the Apostle says:
1 Cor 10:
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
God was not pleased with all of the Israelites.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
Those who sinned in the desert, died in the desert as a punishment for their sins.
11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
This was so that we would learn a lesson to leave sin behind.
12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
If you claim you are saved, watch out, lest sin tempt you and you be condemned.
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
But God will not tempt you beyond what you can bear.
14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
Especially if you flee from idolatry.
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
Listen, all you who are wise in the Spiritual Doctrines.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Therefore, if you are wise, do not abstain from the grace given you in the Body and Blood of Christ, which is communion with our Lord.
Yeah. The Eucharist.
when they receive the Sacraments.
In the Sacraments.
Yes, it is.
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
If we live according to His grace:
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
If they do the works of the Law:
Romans 2:13King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For those who obey His word:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
IN the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
Hebrews 10:25-31King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Rom 10:9-10 points us to Baptism. It is in Baptism that we are justified when we confess our faith in Jesus Christ:
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Tim Harris said,
August 26, 2014 at 7:05 pm
No I like that dM is using the AV. Right gentlemanly. And AV is the best, Don’s cavil notwithstanding. And I wish the bickering over whether “ekklesia” is in the greek text etc. would cease. Rabbit trails. I agree that being saved is highly correlated with and inseparable from joining the church. We don’t need to argue over every nit.
The point about language is that language is by and large successful, so we know that there is not this huge interpretive difficulty requiring the invocation of “tradition.” And much of dM’s exegesis has exactly as much plausibility as Pico della Mirandola’s kabbalistic exegesis of Genesis 1. That is, zero plausibility. I’m particularly stuck on the idea that “Lay up treasures in heaven” means works of supererogation that can be applied by the pope to other people to reduce their temporal punishment for their sin.
Sorry fellows, that’s just laughable. That is about as far from contextual exegesis as it is possible to go.
So yes, you are quoting a lot of Scripture, just like Pico did. It is all to a tendentious and distorted purpose.
Think about it — it wasn’t until centuries after Christ that the system of purgatory, the treasury of merits, indulgence etc. came into being. When the “lay up treasure in heaven” was FIRST exegeted in that manner, it was not guided by Sacred Tradition. No, the Sacred Tradition on that theme was just being launched. I believe the canon law even specifies how long a belief has to hang around before it can be venerated as Tradition. So to be persuasive to us, you would have to show how the texts were interpreted in the first generation, before all the accretions.
Don said,
August 26, 2014 at 7:35 pm
Tim Harris 313,
Me too!
roberty bob said,
August 26, 2014 at 11:24 pm
in response to #308 . . .
At last the truth comes out [no one on the Green Baggins gang is calling you out on this comment, Kevin] !
Do you really believe someone can commit adultery with his neighbor’s wife, with no hell to pay? I think that you are making a mockery of God’s forgiveness. It’s not that adulterers cannot be forgiven; the repentant ones are. It’s that forgiven men and women go forth, as Christ said, to sin no more. We are not to tempt God [push God’s buttons] as if to say, “You’ve forgiven me so you can’t touch me now when I set my heart upon sinning.”
I had a feeling it would eventually come down to this.
De Maria said,
August 27, 2014 at 12:11 am
The nomenclature perhaps. But the principles were in existence before Christ.
Although Protestants do not accept the Deuterocanonicals as inspired, I’m not aware that any dispute the fact that they were written before Christ and by the Jews. One of those books says:
2 Macc 12:39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
Note that they exercised what we call the Doctrine of Indulgences by submitting offerings and prayers for the purification of the sins of the souls in what we call Purgatory. Note also that he used the term “grace laid up for them”. That is the definition of the treasury of merit.
So, although the terminology to explain these principles took much longer to develop. They existed long before Jesus Christ was born.
You’re making up a lot of claims against the Catholic Church with nothing to back them up. Please provide the canon law which you believe exists and any other document which you claim came into existence centuries after the birth of Christ. Otherwise, you have nothing to stand upon, since the New Testament is itself the first exposition of the Sacred Traditions of Jesus Christ which He deposited in the Catholic Church.
Tim Harris said,
August 27, 2014 at 9:34 am
I was thinking of
Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.
However, the point is a bigger one. I am saying that your exegesis, dM, of “treasures in heaven” is impossible to suppose being expounded by the apostles when they preached on the sermon on the mount. The whole tone, tenor, spirit, not to mention linguistics is against it. Therefore, there had to be a “first” time this kind of exegesis was done, hundreds of years later. And at the moment, it was launching a tradition, not basing on it.
Whereas your argument SEEMS to be, that any tradition that eventually came to light, MUST HAVE been present from the time of the apostles, even if there is no positive evidence for it. But this is just a baseless article of faith — though I don’t like to use the word “faith” in such contexts, because then we are using it in the mock sense suggested by Mark Twain, “believing something you know to be false.”
De Maria said,
August 27, 2014 at 11:39 am
This is speaking of local customs. Not of Sacred Tradition. Canon Law is not the equivalent of Sacred Tradition. Nor does it carry the same force. Canon Law can not and does not contradict Sacred Tradition.
You’re mistaken. That is precisely one of the topics of the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 6:19-21King James Version (KJV)
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
It is Jesus Christ who launched the Tradition. The Apostles preached on the basis of the Traditions established by Jesus Christ and later wrote it down in the New Testament.
The evidence is there, you simply don’t recognize it because your tradition and you do hold one, does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ established Sacred Tradition when He taught His Doctrines.
It is you, however, who believes something which is false. It is as though you believe that Jesus was exegeting Scripture when He preached the Sermon on the Mount. And as though you believe that Jesus passed out copies of the New Testament to the Apostles and they in turn exegetes these passages according to the novelties of the Protestants.
The fact is that Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His Doctrines to the world. And He gave that Church the authority to make disciples and baptize them in His name.
The Church, in turn, wrote down the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 27, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Ken, the sentence has been passed on to the lump (all) including guilt from Adam. We have all sinned in Adam. There is no injustice. When Christ died on the cross the sentence was lifted. Colossians says all the legal decrees against us were concealed having been nailed to the cross. Who can bring a charge against God’s elect, it is God who justifies.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 27, 2014 at 12:42 pm
that should read cancelled,
De Maria said,
August 27, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Kevin,
So, why do people still die? And why is it that the Apostles still warned that some could still go to hell?
Because we need to do our part. We need to choose to live righteously:
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?….19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
and again:
Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 27, 2014 at 2:29 pm
DeMaria I have never denied that scripture calls us to obey God’s commandments. But you know that none of us do that perfectly, which is what is required of the law. Even gentiles are under God’s judgment. Look no further than Sodom and Gomorra. You fail to recognize that He was born under the Law to redeem those under the law. Romans 7:6 says we have been released form the law. We aren’t under law, we are under grace. You refuse to look at the legal ramifications of that. For instance Colossians says all the LEGAL decrees against us are cancelled and nailed to the cross. Romans 8:1 says we have justification and not condemnation. Again legal language, not a statement about the condition of our affairs inside of us at the end our our life. 5:1 justified. Romans 8 again, who can bring a CHARGE against God’s elect, it is God who justifies. Legal language again. We die DeMaria as the consequence for our sin. We all are sinners in Adam by hereditary right. We are all sinners in Adam because we sin. But the cross is penal substitution, its justification, it is a sentence lifted. He lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteous. He did it. He only asks us to receive Him. John 1:12 ” to as many as receive Him He has given the right to be called sons of God. Why do you attend a church that piles so much on the cross to be saved. John says receive Him and live. Works can only be our reasonable service of worship, and never the grounds upon which we are justified. ” as reward to THEIR merits and good works.” converted to THEIR own justification” to the one who WORKS well to the end” These statements from Trent aren’t in sync with the Gospel and never will be. they can only be statements from a false church. K
De Maria said,
August 27, 2014 at 2:57 pm
That’s not true.
Let me explain.
Since they are Ten Commandments, they are Ten Requirements.
Scripture says that breaking one commandment, we break them all. This is true. But Scripture recognizes, from the beginning of time, that God knew we could not meet His requirements without His grace.
Therefore, even in the Old Testament, people who sinned could confess their sins and be forgiven. This continues to this day in the New Testament with confession being elevated to a Sacrament.
Correct. Grace which we receive in the Sacraments.
Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
That is still correct. But that doesn’t make us lawless:
Romans 8 King James Version (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
If we walk by the Spirit:
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
You set those aside and focus only on those which agree with your ideas. But setting aside one commandment, you set them all aside. For Scripture is clear:
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Yeah and Amen! You have no understanding of the Word of God and are paying lip service to the lessons of Scripture in order to give yourself liberty for occasions to the flesh. It isn’t just here that you’ve revealed that you believe you can continue sinning with impunity. I’ve been on another forum where you were also bragging about it.
Repent and turn away from your sins! That is what God wants. Whether you are Catholic or Protestant. Understand this, if you don’t keep the Commandments in good faith, you have condemned yourself:
Revelation 22:13-15King James Version (KJV)
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 27, 2014 at 4:16 pm
Kevin, #319,
This speaks to the necessity of substantial reality to imputation, whether of justification on the Christ side of the parallel or original sin on the Adam side. Do you see the need to be “in Adam” in a sense that is more real than merely being in Adam in the mind of God?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 28, 2014 at 12:36 am
Andrew, #147,
You stated:
On the Adam side of the parallel, there is no question that nominalism rules the day. Somewhere in the 18th and 19th centuries, our union with Adam was moved from within Adam himself to within the mind of God. The distinction is revealed in the question of when that union ends. The Augustinian union in Adam was one from which we were propagated out—united with Adam when he sinned, but no longer still in him—whereas the federal union remains until salvation.
Moving away from the idea of a real inbeing within the man Adam and instead thinking that a constructed union within the mind of God is sufficient cannot but have consequences in how our union with Christ is understood. Is real inbeing necessary between Christ and the believer, or is a constructed union within God’s mind sufficient? You said you wonder how much of a shift there has been. Here’s Louis Berkhof on the mystical union, Systematic Theology, pp. 447-448:
Sanctification cannot be brought in to fill the reality gap, since we are not merely called righteous, but perfectly righteous. Only the reality of the ingrafted presence of the Perfect One within us fills that gap.
Anyway, thanks for a good discussion!
Kevin Failoni said,
August 28, 2014 at 9:50 am
Ken, would love to hear your take on Adam. Was the sentence and guilt passed on by hereditary right ? Give me your take on Romans 5:12-19. Thanks Kevin
Ken Hamrick said,
August 28, 2014 at 11:48 am
Kevin, #326,
Since it has direct bearing on justification (by parallel), then I will answer…
Like Augustine (and Shedd, Strong, Culver, Erickson, and others), I hold that all men had a responsible participation in Adam’s sin, due to the moral nature of all men having been in Adam and propagated from him. The moral nature is necessarily spiritual, which distinguishes men as made in the image of a God who is Spirit. Animals have neither spirit nor moral nature. What marks off this Realist view (insisting on a real participation) from the nominalistic “Representationists” is that we see men as propagated in their entirety—both body and soul—from the substance of the parent, and without the supernatural intervention of creation ex nihilo. Representationists, such as John Murray, may go far toward seeming agreement in form but not in substance, affirming a community of nature in Adam and that the nature of all men sinned in Adam, was depraved in Adam, and has been propagated to all men in this condition. However, the Representationists include in the idea of propagation a divine creation ex nihilo of the spiritual nature. Therefore, to them, any community of nature or unity in the first sin is only due to God choosing to see such a union and create the spiritual nature of the children in a condition that accords with this solidarity with the first parents that He has already chosen to see them in. Only the Realist view sees a continuity of spiritual being, such that spiritual being (in all except Adam) is first corporate in one’s progenitor(s) and after that, individual. Continuity of being by propagation is the sticking point. Either the spiritual being of a man is propagated from out of the spiritual substance of the parent, or it is created out of nothing in every case. If the latter, then there is no just ground within substantial reality on which to pass the consequences of Adam’s sin onto us. It is only the former view that gives any substantial, real meaning to the idea that “all men sinned in Adam.”
In Rom. 5:12-19, throughout, it contrasts the one sin of the one man, Adam, with the one act of obedience of the one man, Christ. To see the phrase, “because all sinned,” to refer to anything other than a solidarity of all in the one sin of the one man would contradict this contrast. Representationists and Realists agree that this refers to all men sinning in Adam’s sin. We just disagree on the nature of that solidarity, and thus, how the parallel here works. Murray’s objection to the Realist does not hold (from The Imputation of Adam’s Sin):
There is indeed a realistic union between Christ and the justified. As in Adam, this realistic union is a union of spirit. But the parallel has an inverse quality: the spirit of Adam is propagated to all, while the spirits of the many are collected back into one head, Christ. While the child’s spirit comes from his father, the spirit of the child, once conceived, is separate from the father. This is opposite in the case of the believer and Christ, since the believer becomes “one spirit” with Christ. Though the propagation of a child of Adam involves the disuniting of the child and father, the propagation of a child of God is the bringing of the believer into union with God. We are generated out of Adam and regenerated into Christ.
For this reason, the propagation of Christ’s seed is both parallel to and the opposite of the propagation of Adam’s seed. While Adam’s spirit is dispersed to many descendants, the spirits of believers are collected back into one Head, Christ. In the case of Adam, we have the results of his sin being dispersed to the many; while in the case of Christ, we have the many being justified through union into the One. Rom. 5:16, “And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation” [to the many], “but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification” [through the one].
The “modus operandi” is that of a shared personal identity. While mankind was still within Adam, mankind shared the personal identity of Adam, and shared the ownership of his defining action (his sin). When a man is joined to the Spirit of Christ, he shares the personal identity of Christ such that he gains an ownership in His defining action (His obedience and death). We are joined to Adam’s sin because we were joined to Adam at the time of his sin; but we are joined to Christ’s death because we are joined to Christ now. Since Adam’s “seed” are propagated by dispersion, it was necessary that we be united in Adam during his defining action. But Christ’s “seed” are propagated by annexation, rather than dispersion, and so we need not be united in Christ during his defining action. Unlike the case of Adam, when the Spirit of Christ is propagated to a believer, the Person of Christ is also propagated. Therefore, it is sufficient for our ownership in His defining action that the Christ within us now is the same Christ who died on the cross.
Kevin Failoni said,
August 28, 2014 at 7:27 pm
Ken, thanks that allot to digest. I have to think about this. I might lean more towards Murray’s view. I was always taught we inherited original sin from Adam. Ambrioasiter said the death sentence and the guilt is passed on. Therefore the Christ death was release of that sentence and guilt. Feel free to chime in. Keep it simple, my brilliance is only on a certain level. Ha!
Ken Hamrick said,
August 28, 2014 at 7:37 pm
Kevin,
Guilt is not something that can be passed to someone else. You’re either guilty or you’re not. Christ releases the believer from the penalty only because Christ suffered the penalty and is not joined to the believer to such an extent that the believer gains that accomplishment as his own—the two made one. It takes less brilliance to see that we sinned in Adam in the way that Levi paid tithes in Abraham than to think that guilt can be passed to those not involved in the crime.
Ken Hamrick said,
August 28, 2014 at 7:38 pm
Correction: “…and is not joined to the believer…” should read “…and is now joined to the believer…”
Kevin Failoni said,
August 28, 2014 at 11:36 pm
Ken, Colossians says all the legal decrees against us are cancelled having been nailed to the cross. Would you agree with that? And secondly are we not guilty before God having been the recipient of the sentence of death by our sin?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 29, 2014 at 6:35 am
Kevin,
Certainly, the work of Christ that was necessary to cancel the record of debt against us was finished on the cross for all time. Yet, what He did then does not cancel my debt now until I come to Him in faith and am joined to Him by the Holy Spirit. It is when we are joined as one that I gain credit for what He did back then—just as if I had been the one to do it. That it why it is written, “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live…” To be united with Christ is to be united with Him in His death. It is through His past experience of suffering and death that my fleshly self-life can be put to death and nailed to the cross—and by that union, my sins are atoned for and the record of my debt has been nailed to the cross.
There are children who die in the womb before they have done anything good or evil (see Rom. 9:11). The universal death sentence resulted from sin, but it was the sin of mankind while still in the man, Adam, and not due to the sin of every individual. Does that answer your second question?
Kevin Failoni said,
August 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Thanks Ken, where do you go to church?
Ken Hamrick said,
August 29, 2014 at 4:17 pm
I’m a Southern Baptist. The closes thing to a confessions for the SBC is the Baptist Faith & Message
Week in Review – Aug 29, 2014 | Magnify Christ said,
August 29, 2014 at 6:05 pm
[…] Sandy Grant gave us some advice on how to handle urgent, international prayer requests. Finally, Lane Keister answered a common objection to imputation, showing why it is not a legal […]
Kevin Failoni said,
August 29, 2014 at 7:38 pm
Ken, I attend a bible church, and was saved in a church in LA that John MacArthur is the Pastor of. I’ve become more Reformed over the years. love my Southern Baptist brethren. God Bless.
Trent Whalin said,
August 31, 2014 at 4:39 pm
I haven’t read all the comments nor am I going to but, I find it amazing they we reformed have to say we believe in union with Christ. The FV and NPP always trot it out and think we really believe in some sort of transfer or crediting outside this union.
Ken Hamrick said,
September 1, 2014 at 10:42 am
Of course, Reformed do believe in both the imputational transfer and union with Christ. The question, I think, comes down to how much reality is needed for the legality.
Andrew McCallum said,
September 1, 2014 at 11:13 am
Ken,
As I see it, the first thing that needs to happen in this dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, as Lane framed it above, is for the Catholics to accept Lane’s central contention. Many Catholics want to continue to beat up on the straw man of a Reformed Protestant position where there is a legal transfer with no union and no substantive change. This to me is the real fiction and it is a fiction which exists in the minds of the Roman Catholic bent on telling us Reformed what we believe.
But for the RC’s who are actually interested in interacting on the topic and will accept our contention that we believe that the legal relationship only has meaning within the context of a substantive union with Christ, the dialogue then shifts to the nature of the reality that underlies the legality. Maybe this relates to what you are speaking of in your last sentence above?
Kevin Failoni said,
September 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm
Hi all. If I may suggest another site to you. Tim Kauffman’s “out of his mouth” whitehorse blog” Tim has never attended Seminary and yet I consider Him one of the foremost theologians in current Reformed thinking. He is a former Roman Catholic, and brilliant on Biblical theology, and Church history. As far as I’m concerned he is making one of the most definitive arguments against the Roman Religion as he prepares current Protestants to defend the gospel. The Roman church has substituted itself for the Gospel. This is what is so attractive to Confessional Reformed like Jason Stellman”s move to Rome. A high ecclesiology in place of the Gospel. Faith in a church instead of the Word, and faith in sacramental efficacy as opposed to faith in the Word. Sacraments ex opere operato which came late in the church replace the Gospel. I invite you all to read all his articles. K
Kevin Failoni said,
September 1, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Trent, I whole heartily agree. But its there only argument. They cannot understand that we are incorporated into Christ by the Spirit, and truly Christ lives in us and we are in him. They deny this union because they deny the righteousness that comes to us form outside of us. We believe that God regenerates us thru the Spirit thru the word rom.5:17, 1 pet.1:23, James1:18. But they are regenerated thru baptism by faith in the Roman Catholic church by magic baptism ex opere operato. So their faith is in a church and the churches system of sacramental efficacy ex opere operato which was piled on later on in the church. They still have Christ on the cross as the incarnation is being finished thru the acts of the church. But faith in church and sacraments with a savior who hasn’t risen can’t save them. Only faith in the Word alone can save. The sovereign winds of God’s purpose in his elect, and the spirit blowing where and how He wills can never be usurped by Priestscraft and sorcery. God ha jurisdiction on the soul, not the church. The church can lead us to faith but it is the Spirit who brings fiducia to the heart. Truly Luther was right the Pope and his religion has not permuted men to be saved. We are to share the gospel and call people out of her ( Revelations) ” come out of her my people.” God will save his elect.
Ken Hamrick said,
September 5, 2014 at 7:54 pm
Andrew, #339,
You have stated the issue well. However, they don’t need to be two separate questions. (Take a look at #307 & 325). As one who holds that the alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer, I came here to argue for the necessity of something within substantial reality on which to justly ground such an imputation—in contradiction to the federal idea that divine imputation needs no such ground. Many here have insisted to me that I am wrong about Reformed theology—that Calvinism does indeed affirm a real union with Christ within the believer. I have no reason to doubt that they do; but most do not apprehend the importance of that substantial union to imputation—that it is the vital ground without which such an imputation would indeed be a legal fiction unworthy of a God who is both just and true.
It has been said, “We believe in a full-orbed doctrine of salvation that includes union with Christ,” as if the question of imputation was not held apart from a real, substantial union with Christ, but was only being looked at with a narrow focus on the legality—such that a real union with Christ was left out of the narrow discussion but not out of the doctrine in its larger connections. But this is not borne out in the way that the Reformed defend justification. It is appropriate, when the Catholics object that the legality does not take place, to emphasize and argue that a legal imputation does take place. However, when the RC’s object that legality without ground in reality is fiction, then the Reformed should counter by pointing to the union within substantial reality—within the believer himself—between Christ and the believer, whereby the two become one new man in Christ. But instead, when addressing the objection of legal fiction, the Reformed most often simply reaffirm the “reality” of the legality (as in the opening article by Lane, wherein he answers the charge by pointing to adoption and the legality of marriage).
So the two questions you mention ought to be one and the same. We are righteous because Christ is IN US, and He is righteous. Bryan may claim that the mere presence of Christ in the believer does not change the identity of the man, but would he argue that the presence of Bryan in his own body does not establish his identity? The identity of a man has mostly to do with WHO is within, as the body is merely a tent. All that the Bible says about our union with Christ speaks volumes about a shared identity in Christ that is our very salvation.
De Maria said,
September 5, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Ken Hamrick #342 said,
Are you talking about justification?
If you are talking about justification, then, is Abraham’s justification the same as New Testament justification? Was Abraham righteous because Christ was in him?
Or is this a new sort of justification in the New Testament?
This is not intended as a trick question. We believe we are justified in Baptism because of our faith in Jesus Christ. We believe there was a difference in Abraham’s justification and in ours. He was not born again in Christ, he was not regenerated and therefore did not receive the promise of the Holy Spirit until Pentecost.
I just wanted to compare how you answer those questions to what I believe and to Scripture.
Ken Hamrick said,
September 6, 2014 at 3:51 am
De Maria,
Yes, I mean justification. As I said in #307, Prior to Christ’s death, believers were justified by faith as we are, but grounded on what Christ would do in the future. Therefore, while they were justified on God’s good credit, so to speak, justice was not yet satisfied in their case. That is why they did not go to heaven when they died, but instead went to sheol, separated by a great gulf from the place of torment. They did not suffer as unbelievers, but they were still, in a sense, captive to justice, waiting until that day when the Messiah would pay for sin, unite with them spiritually and bring them to heaven. See 307 for a fuller answer.
I agree that Abraham was not born again or united with Christ by the Holy Spirit at the time that he was justified; but he, with all the Old Testament saints, was born again and united with Christ long after they died and remained in sheol waiting for the victorious Christ to “prepare a place for” them. The immersion (“baptism”) that justifies is not in water but into the Spirit of Christ.
Kevin Failoni said,
September 6, 2014 at 11:59 am
Ken, when you say substantial union do you mean mixture of essence, our righteousness with His essential righteousness. Calvin denied this. Christ came to incorporate us into His body thru the Spirit, not the flesh. Christ the person is offered, not something derivative off that person. Christ lives in us thru His Spirit. This is union with the Christ. All his victory spoils and his humanity are communicated thru the Spirit. There is no mixture of essential righteousness. IOW our righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is His righteousness, that we receive from outside of us and becomes ours thru union with Christ by receiving the Spirit of christ.
Ken Hamrick said,
September 6, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Kevin,
By “substantial union,” I mean only that the union happens within substantial reality and not merely a union within the mind of God—the substance of the Spirit of Christ is actually present within believer. Christ the Person is joined to us; but since both His humanity and His divinity belong inseparably to His Person, then to be joined to Christ is to be joined to both. Christ’s righteousness, when we are considered apart from Him, is “outside of us.” But we are so joined to Him as to never again be considered apart from Him; and since He Himself is INSIDE us, then so is His righteousness—when the two (Christ and the believer) are considered one in Him. (See #3 for more detail).
ajmccallum said,
September 6, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Ken (re: 242),
when the RC’s object that legality without ground in reality is fiction, then the Reformed should counter by pointing to the union within substantial reality—within the believer himself—between Christ and the believer, whereby the two become one new man in Christ.
That’s well stated. So as I see it Lane’s original contention at the beginning of this thread is sustained, and the RC’s who want to continue to believe Reformed are positing a “legal fiction” are shown to be in error.
You contrast your statement above with the “federal idea” and I’m not sure what you mean by that. I don’t see anything in Reformed understanding of the covenants which would obviate what you say above.
ajmccallum said,
September 6, 2014 at 7:34 pm
when you say substantial union do you mean mixture of essence, our righteousness with His essential righteousness. Calvin denied this.
Kevin,
If you mean by “mixture of essence,” that we take on uniquely divine attributes then I would agree with you that there is no blending with His divinity.
Calvin says this in his commentary on I Peter 1:9:
For we must consider from whence it is that God raises us up to such a height of honor. We know how abject is the condition of our nature; that God, then, should make himself ours, so that all his things should in a manner become our things, the greatness of his grace cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds. Therefore this consideration alone ought to be abundantly sufficient to make us to renounce the world and to carry us aloft to heaven. Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.
So in our union with Christ He “deifies” us, as much as it is possible to do so while still retaining our status as human creatures. There is obviously some mystery involved here because we cannot divide Christ into human and divine as if Christ was schizophrenic, but then we cannot deny that we are and always will be distinctly human, even in our glorified state.
Ken Hamrick said,
September 6, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Andrew,
Lane’s intent is sustained, for sure, but he could have went much farther in his argument. As for federalism, it may be held in either of two ways. A covenant may be seen as supplying its own sufficient moral ground, or it may be seen as dependent upon a greater moral framework (of what some theologians call “natural law”) that is grounded in substantial reality.
Look at the covenant with Adam. Federalism is most often held in such a way that Adam’s progeny fell into sin, corruption and death based on nothing more solid than the fact that God chose to include them in His covenant with Adam. This idea is a covenant supplying its own sufficient moral ground—it is seen as just merely because it is according to the terms of the covenant.
But Federalism was originally held in the Reformed church in a different, more Augustinian way. Rather than the covenant being superimposed upon man as already created, the covenant was in mind when God designed Adam, and so He created him with a moral nature that would be propagated to all men. In effect, this allowed God to include all men in the covenant not only by including them in its terms but also by including their very natures within Adam. The fact that the moral nature of every man was in Adam originally and then propagated from him gives men a responsible moral presence within Adam. Thus, a moral covenant with Adam was a moral covenant with all those still within him and yet to be propagated from him. That part of us that chooses to sin was not created brand new for us, but is a hand-me-down from Adam and chose to sin in him.
Even without any covenant, Adam’s sin would have been just as wrong and just as worthy of death (physical and spiritual). Since sin naturally enslaves and corrupts, then Adam’s sin would have corrupted his nature and enslaved him whether or not there was a covenant. And since the nature of all men was embodied in the single man, Adam, when he sinned, then that nature would be propagated to all men in its morally corrupted, spiritually dead condition—even without any covenant. Because of this, all men justly “inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin.” So you see, while the covenant model serves as a good way to explain the reality, the reality itself does not depend on the covenant.
Moving to the Christ side of the parallel, the same question appears. Does the justifying imputation, based on the new covenant, supply its own sufficient moral ground? Or, is it grounded in reality on that which would naturally be just? Federalism is commonly held in such a way that our union with Christ within the believer is relegated to having importance mainly to sanctification, with justification depending only on how God chooses to see things.
Ken Hamrick said,
September 6, 2014 at 7:54 pm
Andrew, #348
We are as united to Christ’s humanity as to His divinity. Without union with His humanity, we could not be saved. Our need is for a human righteousness, worked out in a human life, and Christ supplies this by first living it out and then joining us to that human past as He joins to us in the Spirit.
De Maria said,
September 6, 2014 at 10:31 pm
Kevin Failoni said,
September 7, 2014 at 8:49 am
AJ, that would be my argument to. We don’t become divine , but more truly human. All that He intended for Adam i holiness and righteousness. We don’t become what He is, but all He became to us. K
Ken Hamrick said,
September 7, 2014 at 8:57 am
De Maria,
No, I don’t believe in purgatory. Sheol comes from Scripture. See the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The righteous did not suffer there but the unbelieving sinners did.
I see no difference, but I’m not familiar with all the details of RC doctrine.
That’s not quite right. The Holy Spirit is not limited to accompanying water. The Holy Spirit accompanies faith and immediately fills the converted sinner who believes. If you have water but no faith, you will not be saved. If you have faith, but must die prior to any water, you will still be saved. Water is only the symbolic sign of that which God has done in our souls. The meaning of water in “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit…” is a symbolic reference to the Spirit given for emphasis. See Tit. 3:5 & Eph. 5:26.
De Maria said,
September 7, 2014 at 6:09 pm
Ken,
Thanks for the opportunity to compare what we believe.
You said:
I would say that the “perfectly” righteous did not suffer there. But the imperfect believing sinner did. The reason being that the Rich Man was a Jew and therefore a believer. Note that he called Abraham, “Father”. Therefore, it is possible that he was expiating his sin in suffering.
Ok.
We don’t believe the Holy Spirit is limited to accompanying water either. However, we believe that we receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism. Therefore, in Baptism (and the rest of the Sacraments), we are like Abraham, we believe and God credits it to us as rightreousness.
True. But this is not the washing of regeneration. In the Old Testament, many were filled with the Holy Spirit. But they were not saved until Jesus Christ gave the Holy Spirit.
1 Samuel 11:6 And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly.
2 Chronicles 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest,
So, receiving the Holy Spirit and being washed by the Holy Spirit are not the same thing.
In the New Testament, if you believe Christ’s promise that you will receive the Holy Spirit when you are baptized with water, the water poured on you signifies the truth which God is producing in your soul. Washing away your sins as you call upon His name.
True. That goes for all the Sacraments. Anyone going through the motions, essentially condemns himself. As St. Paul says about the Eucharist:
1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
We agree on this point also. It is Catholic Teaching and is called a Baptism of Desire.
I would say it is an “efficacious symbol or sign” of that which God is doing in our souls. We believe God works through the water the same way that He worked through the water of the Jordan to heal Namaan. Water is no obstacle to God. And we believe He promised to wash away our sins by the water of Baptism.
We believe it is an appropriate symbol, because the Holy Spirit is also called Living Water:
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. Therefore, h2o is a very apt symbol for the Holy Spirit which Christ gives us if we approach the Sacraments with faith.
Jason Loh said,
September 14, 2014 at 1:10 am
To be more accurate, Luther was an Okhamist and by way of Okham’s reception, an Arustotelian in his understanding of justification. The simul (iustus et peccator) is not static. It is an on-going series of movements of “negation” and “affirmation,” of “beginning” and “end.” The difference is that the movements are not Zeno’s paradox — of moving “step-by-step.” IOW, the Christian is not active but purely passive. S/he does not move but is moved. The Christian does not move to the “goal” (telos) but the goal moves to her/ him.
The movements therefore are simultaneous (and then only in that light can be understood as also sequential) — and thus these are purely eschatological acts of the triune God in the destruction of the old Adam and Eve and the re-creation of the new Adam and Eve. The movements “short-circuit” any process of sanctification and purgatory but complete and perfect in and of themselves.
The simul therefore is not a legal category but “metaphysical” (not ontological to be sure but eschatological). The sinner is killed by the law (judged according to the law) but justified, i.e. raised up anew apart from the law.
Kevin Failoni said,
September 15, 2014 at 1:57 am
Jason, Luther believed in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and you don’t.
De Maria said,
September 24, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Let’s look at that verse in context. How about we start with v.6
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
It occurred to me that this verse advises us not to judge who is going to heaven. Why?
Because when we judge one another, even when we judge ourselves, we bring Christ down from heaven. Not in a good way. But in a bad way. We remove Him from His throne. That is why the Catholic Church counsels against presumption of salvation.
Trent VI
CHAPTER XIIRASH PRESUMPTION OF PREDESTINATION IS TO BE AVOIDEDNo one, moreover, so long as he lives this mortal life, ought in regard to the sacred mystery of divine predestination, so far presume as to state with absolute certainty that he is among the number of the predestined,[74] as if it were true that the one justified either cannot sin any more, or, if he does sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance.
For except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen to Himself.
We are not our own judge. Scripture says elsewhere:
1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Let’s continue. The next verse says:
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Remember, he says, don’t say who shall ascend to heaven, NOR who shall descend to the deep. In other words, don’t judge who shall be saved nor who shall be condemned. Why?
Because this is putting yourself in God’s place. It is God who brought Christ up from the dead. Not you. But in judging whether someone is condemned, you put yourself in God’s place.
Let’s go on. The next verse is:
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Now, he says, “if you believe in the Lord, you will be saved.” Not, “if you believe in the Lord, you are saved.” As he says elsewhere, we can live in confidence, putting our hope in the Lord. But we don’t put our hope in our works or in our faith. It is God who judges us.
Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
Hebrews 10:35-36 KJV
It is only AFTER we have done the will of God that we will be recompensed. It is only then, that we receive the promise of eternal salvation.
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
To believe unto righteousness means that we do righteous deeds because of our faith in Jesus Christ:
Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
The irony of the whole thing is that Protestants continually use this verse to proclaim themselves saved . Yet, understood in context, this verse teaches us the opposite. This verse counsels us to restrain our boastfulness and to live in a confident hope of salvation.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria said,
September 24, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Sorry, that actually says, “after ye have done the will of God, ye MIGHT receive the promise. (Gal 5:6).
There is no absolute assurance of salvation by faith alone.
Justified on the Reality of Christ in Us | SBC Open Forum said,
October 8, 2014 at 10:37 am
[…] Keister, in a recent article, entitled, “Why Imputation is Not a Legal Fiction,”[5] […]
Kevin Failoni said,
October 12, 2014 at 12:17 pm
DeMaria said ” theris no absolute assurance of salvation by faith alone” You are correct for the Roman Catholic because God is helping you achieve His favor with His help. But for true believers we posses the righteouness that come by faith alone which justifies us now. Christ is the end of the law for righteouness to all who believe, not the beginning of the law. Romans 5:1, 8:1, 1 John 5:13, Romans 4:5, 5:9, 5:17-19, 2 cor. 5:21. Gives us all the assurance we need. You, however would be correct for yourself not to have that assurance.
De Maria said,
October 12, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Correct. Scripture says:
Hebrews 6:4-6King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Thanks. Very true.
Except that none of those verses talk about absolute assurance of salvation. For instance, let me just take the first.
That is a reference to the hope of salvation. Hope of salvation is a Catholic Doctrine.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 12, 2014 at 6:43 pm
DeMaria, said ” except those verses dont talk about assurance” They do for believers. We have no problem drawing peace and assurance from Romans 8:1, 5:1, 1 John 5:13, 8:38-39. Can I suggest a site called ” Out of His mouth” Whitehorse blog. Tim Kauffman is the foremost Reformed theologian of our day refuting the lie of Rome. He is a former Catholic and understands their arguments better than they do.
De Maria said,
October 13, 2014 at 7:57 am
If you’re going to quote me, please quote me accurately. I said:
Except that none of those verses talk about absolute assurance of salvation.
Again, the one I examined, speaks of hope. Not of absolute assurance.
Nor do Catholics. But we are also aware that other verses in Scripture warn us to persevere in good works or we can lose our salvation:
1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
If Tim K understood Catholic Doctrine, he would still be a Catholic today.
Vincent said,
October 13, 2014 at 1:08 pm
DeMaria do we not receive God’s favor in baptism? Are we not in God’s favor when we are in a state of grace?
De Maria said,
October 13, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Yes, but Scripture says that even those who receive God’s favor, can fall away:
Hebrews 6:4-6King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
2 Peter 2:20-22King James Version (KJV)
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 13, 2014 at 4:22 pm
DeMaria said ” but we are also aware of other verses that tell us we can lose our salvation if we dont persevere in good works” well then you continue to lose your salvation because no one continually perseveres in good works. Can I suggest the most mature Christian, Paul in Romans 7. Is it any wonder that he considered himself to be chief sinner as a believer, present tense. And is it any wonder he didnt want to be found in his righteousnes but that of Christ. You are the Jew in Romans 9:32-10:4 trying to attain heaven by your works. Paul prays for your salvation 10:1.
De Maria said,
October 13, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Kevin,
This is what St. Paul says:
Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
That is faith and works Kevin.
roberty bob said,
October 13, 2014 at 8:26 pm
“Prove to me that this faith you speak of is real though not accompanied by deeds, and by my deeds I will prove to you my faith.”
Do you agree with this quote, Kevin?
Do you know where I found this quote?
The New Testament, James chapter 2 [NEB]
Kevin Failoni said,
October 13, 2014 at 10:39 pm
DeMaria, congratulations we know from those passages that a man reaps what he sows. You want be to site you Ephesians 2:8 that says we are saved by grace through faith, nothing coming frm ourselves or our works, and then have you tell me this really means Roman sacraments ex opere operato. Your Roman glasses are permanent.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 13, 2014 at 10:48 pm
Roberty Rob I do believe that our faith is justified by its works. But since Ephesians 2:8 among many other by Paul tell me Im saved by grace through faith with nothing coming from ourselves or our works. No works. Romans 10:9-10, Romans 4:5 clealy says God justifies wicked men who dont work but believe in Christ, by crediting faith as righteousness.
De Maria said,
October 13, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Therefore, a man is saved according to his works.
Revelation 22:12-15King James Version (KJV)
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Sounds as though we’ve had that discussion before. You learned it well.
I pray to God everyday that this be true and I thank Him profusely.
De Maria said,
October 13, 2014 at 10:55 pm
ROFL!
Kevin, only you would try to pass off this blatant self contradiction as a coherent response to RB’s question.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 12:08 am
DeMaria, one man’s contradiction is another man’s gospel. Paul clearly says in Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess and believe you are righteoss and saved. Ephesians 2:8 says not that of yourselves, not of works. Any man such as yourself who is told not of works, not that of yourself and then trumpets your works in justification would worry me. Works can only be the result of saving faith, and reasonable service of worship. DeMaria one question, would you consider yourself as Paul did in 1Timothy 1 as chief sinner present tense?
Ron said,
October 14, 2014 at 12:13 am
DM,
You might not agree with the theology but I would hope you would grasp the theological position you oppose and then maybe deal with its merits.
That God rewards according to works does not imply that salvation is by works, does it? Can’t God so work in those He saves by grace through faith to the end that they might will and do of His good pleasure? In turn, doesn’t God have the right to crown His own graces? Would it be utterly passing strange for the saints to cast their crowns before the author and finisher of their faith?
In any case, I’m quite sure that there will be none so proud or boastful in Heaven. It’s terrifying how much you desire to be judged by your works.
May God show you mercy.
De Maria said,
October 14, 2014 at 5:40 am
But your contradiction is against the Word of God.
Which is a clear reference to the Sacrament where we confess our faith in Christ, believe His promises we are infused the righteousness of Christ and saved to eternal life.
Eph 2:9-10 because you are created to do the works which were established by God that we should walk in them.
Any man such as yourself, who is told that God saves only those who obey His Son (Heb 5:9) and that only those who do the will of the Father will be saved (Matt 7:21), and that he should not judge himself saved but await the judgment of Jesus Christ and then goes around claiming to be saved by faith alone ( 1 Cor 4:5) would worry me.
Thank you. That is why faith alone is dead (James 2:17) and we are justified by faith and works (James 2:24).
Which is another form of spiritual work.
Yes, Kevin. The Church teaches “Mea Culpa”. Never forget that. We are all sinners and by our sins, Jesus was crucified.
CCC#2806 By the three first petitions, we are strengthened in faith, filled with hope, and set aflame by charity. Being creatures and still sinners, we have to petition for us, for that “us” bound by the world and history, which we offer to the boundless love of God. For through the name of his Christ and the reign of his Holy Spirit, our Father accomplishes his plan of salvation, for us and for the whole world.
De Maria said,
October 14, 2014 at 5:56 am
There is no merit in contradicting Scripture.
You be the judge:
Galatians 6:7-8King James Version (KJV)
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
And again:
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Yes, but that confirms faith and works. Not faith alone.
Why do you think that works are so important to us for salvation? Did you not know that all good comes from God. And therefore, if we do something good it is because God is working in and through us? Have you not read in Scripture:
Philippians 2:12-13King James Version (KJV)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
That is Catholic Teaching and proof of faith and works. It contradicts the idea of faith alone. Have you not realized that when St. Paul says “faith” he implies “works”? Read Heb 11:
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
By faith the people of God WORK and do the will of God.
None whatsoever. What is utterly strange is for the saints to set Jesus aside and begin to exalt themselves saved by their own standard and measure of faith:
Matthew 7:21King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Why? I trust Jesus Christ. Don’t you?
Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name,….
And you.
De Maria said,
October 14, 2014 at 5:59 am
Ron,
You said,
Do you literally trust your own judgement more than God’s?
De Maria said,
October 14, 2014 at 6:08 am
Jim said:
That always struck me as a very Catholic sounding motto. It turns out that it was first used by Catholics. According to Wikipedia:
De Maria said,
October 14, 2014 at 10:50 am
Hi Jim,
I’m glad you liked it.
Yeah I know. Its like they are saying, “I don’t understand, therefore it must be wrong.”
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 11:09 am
Jim, yes you are correct I use that term ex opere operato because it means by th De working of the works. There is no greater violation of the gospel and corruption of faith than this abuse of sacraments. Grace and merit is increased by the preparation and the doing of the sacrament. It puts sacramental efficay up in the place of the atonement, it corrupts jbfa, and it makes salvation by works in some sense. It is an antithesis to ” the righteous shall live by faith” and it violates a sacrament which is simply a sign and seal of God’s grace. Churches dont connect us to God by joining them.Jesus comes to us in the gospel in the power of the Spirit, and no church owns Him and distributes Him. The Spirit blows how and where HE pleases.
De Maria said,
October 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm
On the contrary, Kev, it is in the Sacraments that we receive the righteousness of God by our faith apart from works.
No Kev. It is in presenting ourselves before the Sacraments, that God sees our faith and declares us righteous.
Not so. It is the epitome of living by faith. It is only those who have faith in the Word of God who will believe that God can accomplish the promises He has made to those who receive the Sacraments.
??? more of that self contradiction Kev. It is ex opera operate which explains the efficacy of the sign and the reality of the seal.
Wrong Kevin. It is to the Catholic Church that Christ gave the authority to make disciples for Him.
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
The Scripture is clear.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm
DeMaria said ” on the contrary Kev, it is in the sacraments that we receive the righteouness of God by faith apart from our works.” Wow, mark it down DeMaria acknowledges the righteousness of God comes by faith apart from works. Thanks for finally admitting the Biblical Reformed gospel. It took you a long time. Incidentally, you must not understand Roman doctrine. Ex opere operato is ” by the working of the works” so your statement apart from works doesnt work. The Mass is called the work of the people” again your statemeent apart from works doesnt fit. DOING the sacraments are necessary for a Catholic to be justified. But this violates Paul ” to the one who does not work” but believes. Rome justifies doers who have to become inhently perfect, and God justifies wicked by faith, crediting Christ’s righteouness to our account. And Paul calls us righhteous ” for the RIGHTEOUS shall live by faith.
Vincent said,
October 14, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Kevin you are aware that in RC theology God justifies the sinner instantly in the sacrament of baptism without any works and that God imparts to man the righteousness of God without any preceding merits?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 3:47 pm
Vincent and your point is? Thats slight of hand because of continued instalments of justification in Rome’s system. God doesnt delve out justice and grace piecemeal. RC savation is on the instalment plan. You do your level best and God gives you grace. Thats law my friend. The tail wagging the dog. Remember this Vincent justification is always aorist past participle, and never, ever could Paul meant by dikaiow the state of affairs inside a believer at the end of his life. Romans 1:17 says the gospel is the power of salvation to all who believe. Roman 9:32 -10:4 says RC’s system is false.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Jim, yes I can flesh this out. The full payment for our sins was accomplished in one time perfect sacrifice. Hebrews says He obtained eternal salvation and sat down. Romans 5 says we “have been” reconcilled”, have been justified by faith and his blood. Hebrews 10:14 says His one sacrifice at the consumation of the ages perfected us. There remains NO more sacrifice for sins. The efficacy is in the atonement and not contained in sacraments released by secondary causes. Chrst di not come to make us saveable, He reemed a people for Himself. Churches cant substite themselves for Christ becoming an extension of His incarnation and atonement thru the acts of the church. The Word became flesh and prpopitiated sins, you didnt. You cant take from Him what uniquely belongs to Him, a finished work. He remembers our sins no more. And He applies this perfect sacrifice continually on our behalf.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Jim, and incidentally , Jesus came to incorporate into His body thru the Spirit, not the flesh. Christ comes to us in the gospel thru the power of the Spirit. No church owns Him, churches dont connect us to God by joining them.
Vincent said,
October 14, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Kevin can you elaborate on the term “installment plan?” From what I am aware we grow in justification through the sacraments and grace is mediated through the sacraments for salvation. Is that what you mean by installment plan? You talk about continual installments of justification, justification takes place twice according to Rome once in baptism and the a rejustification in the sacrament in penance.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 6:18 pm
Vincent, yes I can elaborate. Can I suggesst a book that is awesome. Redemption accomplishe and applied by Murray. In The Roman church grace is the means of exchange on the churches merit system. You merit increases of grace and justice thru sacraments. For example Rome calls the Mass ” the work of the people” By the very fact that you do the sacrament of the mass earns you a merit and the right to increase in grace and justice. You do this for your life and will be finally justified based on your works partly at judgment. But scripture distinguishes between justification and sanctification, and justification is always past tense apart from works, Romans 4:5, 3:26, 5:9, 5:1, 11:6, Ephesians 2:8. By faith alone in Christ alone we are justified before God. Rome confuses justification and sanctification. Works and hearing by faith are opposed for Paul in justification. Works are simply the result of our faith and sacraments are signs and seals of God’s free grace. Grace is unmeriteted favor Romans 6:23, 4:16. If God gave grace as a result of an action or ability, it wouldnt be a gift, but a reward. Grace is a gift. But not in Rome. A Catholic is justified by faith as it is activated by his love, being, doing. But Romans 4:5 says that we are justilfied by faith, apart from works, by beliving in Christ. Its permanent, not initial and then additional instalments based on doing sacraments. Hope that helps.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Vincent, also Jerome when he translated the vulgate mistranslated justification to make righteous instead of the correct meaning to declare righteous. He also mistranslated the word repentance to penance. So instead of repenting and beliving, he said do penance. But we are declared righteous before God simply by believing Romans 10:9-10. God imputes to us the perfect righteouness of Christ, and our status is changed, we dont become inherently righteous. God treats us as if we have never sinned. He remembers our sin no more.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 6:35 pm
Jim, yes I believe Jesus is applying His perfect sacrifice on our behalf when we confess. But this sacrifice was perfect and covered all our sins , past, present, future. God does not dispense grace like a commodity by doing a sacrament. We are already justified by faith.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 14, 2014 at 8:48 pm
Jim, manichean no. I want Jesus flesh and His blood. This comes by coming and believing thru the Spirit we receive all of His victory spoils. But the church is not the substitute for the natural body of Christ, nor can it usurp the Spirit’s job of delivering fiducia to heart. The church is the recepient of grace not the provider. Rome collapses the head into the body in an overr realized ecclesiolgy and eschatology. Churches arent extensions of the incarnation and atonement thru their acts.
De Maria said,
October 15, 2014 at 8:29 am
Through the Sacraments. The righteousness of God being St. Paul’s euphemism for the grace of God.
No Kev. I’m showing you where the Luther misunderstood St. Paul and developed a false gospel of justification by faith alone.
You see, when we present ourselves to God in the Sacraments, we come in an attitude of faith believing what He promised. God sees our faith and credits it to us as righteousness. At this point, He washes us of our sins and joins us to the Body of Christ.
Kev, I’ve only known you a couple of months. I’ve been teaching this stuff to Protestants for years.
The reason you think so is because YOU don’t understand Catholic Doctrine.
No, Kev. It is literally translated as “from the work worked” but it means the Sacrament (the work of God) is effective (accomplished what God promised).
Yes, it does Kev. Apparently, you don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of the Catholic Faith. The statement “apart from works” means “apart from our works of mercy towards our fellow man”. But we are never separated from the love of God. Therefore, we can never be “apart from His works”.
That is correct. It is the Liturgy. Our job, on this earth, is to worship the Lord.
Understood correctly, it works perfectly.
Correct.
No, it explains his words.
God justifies doers:
Romans 2:13King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
In and by the Sacraments.
Living by faith, means working by faith. It means keeping the Ten Commandments and living a righteous life. Have you not read what St. Paul said about fornicators and adulterers:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Vincent said,
October 15, 2014 at 2:44 pm
DeMaria are we not justified in the sacrament of baptism before doing a single work? How does that sit with your idea that God justifies the doer? Also can you explain your idea of merit to me and how it works? Are our works equal to the reward of eternal life?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 15, 2014 at 4:53 pm
Vincent compare what Jim just told you ” someone who has merited by works a higher capacity” its convoluted. Catholics smuggle their chracter into God’s work of grace. It is a false gospel. God only justifies wicked men who do not work but believe in Christ alone, by crediting the perfect righteouness to their account. Romans 4:5, 3:26, 10:9-10.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 15, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Vincent, Demaria and Jim are snake charmers. They say they dont merit increase. Please follow the following statement from Trent official Catholic doctrine. ” To the one who works well to the end, salvation is to be offered, not onlyvas a gift, but as a REWARD to their merits and good works,” Catholic carechism 2001 defenition on merit ” recompense owed” Dont buy their snake oil. Catholics are not Christians. Paul said noone will be justified by observing the law, not by any works, even grace enabled works, Romans 11:6. Study it hard Vincent. Paul calls in Romans 6:23 ” the free gift of eternal life” ill pray for you. Dont buy the snake oil.
roberty bob said,
October 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm
OK Kevin . . .
We know that you believe in faith without works. I’m concerned about your faith; does your faith do anything? You keep on telling us that you do not work. If your faith is without works, then what is it doing?
From James 2:14 . . . “My Brothers, what use is it for a man to say he has faith when he does nothing to show for it?” [New English Bible]
Kevin Failoni said,
October 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm
Roberty Rob ya my faith works! Does not James say that true saving faith is justified by its works.But those works have no meritorious cause in my justification before God Romans 11:6. They are simply my resonable service of worship.my sanctification like the rest ofvsalvation is a work of God. I’m just living out the miracle. My righteouness isnt derived from His, it is His righteouness.
De Maria said,
October 15, 2014 at 11:22 pm
Hello Vincent,
I’m sorry that I hadn’t noticed your messages before. Thanks for the questions.
Yes. God’s favor is grace. Therefore, we receive it in Baptism. But not for the first time. Faith itself is also a grace. It is the prevenient grace which we receive without any merit on our part. And we first receive faith when we turn to God, in conversion.
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
CCC#2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
CCC#1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.
Yes. God’s favor, is grace. In Catholic Doctrine, there are two types major categories of grace. Natural grace, which is received by all mankind. And Sanctifying grace which is received in the Sacraments.
Sanctifying grace was not given to mankind until Jesus Christ established the Sacraments. Yet, in the Old Testament, we see that Noah and others received God’s favor.
Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Sooo, what is the difference. Adoption.
In the Old Testament, the Jews were not the born again children of God. So, Noah and company found grace in God as a friend of God. Where we are empowered to approach God cryng, “Abba! Father!”
No.
Its not my idea. Scripture says so:
Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
And this Teaching is best illustrated thus.
Have you heard it said that justification is forensic? Forensic means legally judged.
So, lets say you have two sets of people.
One set is do gooders.
One set is evil doers.
Which set is righteous in the eyes of God? Who is legally judged to be righteous?
The do gooders, right?
THAT illustrates justification in the Old Testament.
But in the New Testament, there is more. Once God judges them righteous, He pours into their hearts His grace, which St. Paul refers to as His righteousness. When He does this, the man is born again, renewed and regenerated by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
And that illustrates the justification of the New Testament. That is why justification in the New Testament permits us to walk amongst the Saints.
That explains the Communion of Saints. Read Heb 12:12-24
I’ll try.
No. Neither is our faith.
TRENT VI
CHAPTER VIII
HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD
But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously,
because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46]
So, how do we merit eternal life?
So, does that mean they earned justification? No.
Let’s say that a father says to his son, “if you get an “A” in math, I’ll buy you a car.”
Is the car equal to the value of the “A”? Not in real terms. But It is to the father. He has obligated himself to give this gift on these terms. He promised.
But this is a gift. It is a free will gift which the father decided to give the son in order to give him incentive to get the “A”. No one twisted the father’s arm in order to force him to give this gift. He made the promise of his own free will.
So it is with works of righteousness and God. God has obligated Himself to give eternal life to those who do the works of righteousness which He wills be done.
We can’t earn it because like the “A” doesn’t equal the car, our works don’t equal eternal life.
But we can merit it because as the father promised to give his son the car if he got an “A”, God has promised that He will give us the gift of eternal life if we keep His Commandments.
I hope that helps.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Kevin Failoni said,
October 16, 2014 at 10:04 am
Vincent, notice DeMaria said God promised to give the car when you get an A. This is law. You do and God gives you grace. That is the Roman false gospel. Notice in biblical Christianity God’ grace is a free gift Romans 6:23, 5:17. If God gave grace as a response to an action or ability it wouldnt be a gift but a reward. But scripture says it is a gift, you didnt earn it and we dont deserve it. We simply believe the promise and we receive the righteouness of Christ and God sees us as just. The Roman sacramental system of earning salvation is the antithesis of the gospel.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 16, 2014 at 10:12 am
Jim, ok I acknowledge that you agree with what I said, Catholics merit increase of grace and justice. Theirvfinal justification depends on their merit and good works. Trent ” who truly merit eternal life”. Catholics attain their salvation by truly meriting eternal life. Thats not the gospel, it aint close. Paul prays for your salvation in Romans 10:1.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 16, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Jim, very clearly and easy to understand. Rome corrupted God’s sacraments by making them convey merit and not grace. The Reformers had a field day with this and returned them to the gift of God they were.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 16, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Jim, Let me say it better. Rome’s sacraments offer merit instead of grace. This is a corruption of the highest order to jbfa.
De Maria said,
October 16, 2014 at 7:20 pm
That is why Scripture says:
Romans 2:13 ….doers of the law shall be justified.
It is in the book of Romans, yes. And it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Notice that He says:
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
So, again, only those who do the will of the Father will enter heaven.
The Catholic Church is the most biblical of all. Your religion, as I have proven over and over, continually contradicts the Bible.
Only the prevenient grace of conversion is given freely. But after conversion, God grants His favor only to those who respond in faith:
Hebrews 11:6 [Full Chapter]
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
It is both a gift and a reward.
Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Note how, in that verse, St. Paul juxtaposes the wages of sin unto death, with righteousness unto eternal life.
In other words, wages of sin equal death. Wages of righteousness equal eternal life.
He said this before, many times but really clearly in Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
And here:
Romans 6:
22 But now being made free from sin,
We are made free from sin in Baptism.
and become servants to God,
And we promise to obey God.
ye have your fruit unto holiness,
Obedience to God ends in holiness, because we keep the Commandments.
and the end everlasting life.
And if we do so to the end, God gives us eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death;
Again, the wages of sin is death.
but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
But God gives eternal life to all those who obey Jesus Christ.
Again, he said this before:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Eternal life is a gift, to those who keep God’s commandments.
1. God is our Judge.
2. He determines who deserves what.
3. No, we don’t earn it, but He permits us to merit it. It is He who has established the standard. That is why Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
No, you don’t. You reject the gift because you don’t believe the promise. And you have no faith in Jesus Christ, otherwise you would await His Judgement. But since you have no faith in Him, you impose your own judgement. Therefore, since you prefer the praise of man to the praise of God, you will receive what you deserve.
Matthew 6:1-2King James Version (KJV)
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
It is your system of self exaltation which is the anti-thesis of the Gospel:
Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:….every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 16, 2014 at 7:30 pm
DeMaria, churches arent extensions of the incarnation. Rome cannot usurp from Him what is His uniquely His finished work. You cannot rent His humanity from His divinity. Christ came to incorporate us into His body thru the Spirit not the flesh. Again churches don’t connect us to God by joining them. Christ meets us in the gospel thru the power of His Spirit thru faith alone. No church owns God. Rome destroyed the sacraments by offering merit in them instead of grace. Christianity has been corrupted thru history by the conflation and misunderstanding of Law and gospel. The conflation of Law and gospel corrupts faith at its core and always has.
De Maria said,
October 16, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Its a very simple question, I wonder why they won’t answer.
According to Scripture, bad works keep us out of heaven:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10King James Version (KJV)
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
That is why we must come before the Lord and be judged by what we have done in the body:
2 Corinthians 5:9-11King James Version (KJV)
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Those who have done bad will, of course, see the terror of the Lord. As it says in Rom 2:
Romans 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Indignation, wrath, tribulation and anguish are the equivalent of the terror of the Lord.
One more thing to think about, though. Doing bad works (i.e. committing sins) will keep you out of heaven. But it isn’t enough to avoid evil. One must also do good. As the Scripture says:
Matthew 25:31-46King James Version (KJV)
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Notice how the wicked did nothing either good for Christ’s children. Nor did they do anything evil. They didn’t kick them, they didn’t hit them, they didn’t spit on them. But they simply ignored them and did nothing good for them.
So, it is not enough to avoid sin. One must do positive good for his fellow man in order to enter heaven.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 16, 2014 at 7:36 pm
DeMaria, Romans 6:23 doesn’t say only the prevenient grace of conversion is given freely. Here is what the verse says ” For the wages of sin is death, but the FREE gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. All of salvation is a gift DeMaria. Quit reading these verses with your Roman glasses. When Rome excommunicated the Reformers they excommunicated themselves from the true catholic church.
Eric W said,
October 16, 2014 at 8:55 pm
Jim, you asked Vincent and Kevin:
If our good works contribute nothing to our getting into heaven, do our bad works have anything to do with keeping us out?
Response:
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
(Rom. 8:28)
If “getting into heaven” is part of “all things to work together for good”, then good works do contribute. This promise is for lovers of God (good work doers). Good works work together for good. If bad works every fall under “all things”, then they will not keep them out.
Vincent said,
October 16, 2014 at 10:11 pm
Kevin i think the main difference is that for Rome grace is an infused quality and not free favor. Jim and DeMaria what is the difference between condign merit and strict merit? Does God demand perfect obedience from us? How much commandment keeping is necessary to go to heaven Jim and DeMaia?
De Maria said,
October 16, 2014 at 10:13 pm
That depends upon which version you use. The King James says:
Romans 6:23King James Version (KJV)
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So does the NIV
Romans 6:23New International Version (NIV)
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.
And the fact is that the Greek only uses the word, “charisma”. A charisma is not necessarily free of requirements.
Yes. Salvation is a gift given to those who obey Christ.
Hebrews 5:9
New International Version
and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
On the contrary, the Reformers and their followers have removed themselves from the grace of God which God only provides through the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
De Maria said,
October 16, 2014 at 10:20 pm
It is both. As I have explained. God does not give His favor to those who embrace unrighteousness.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
God grants His favor to those who embrace righteousness:
Romans 6:12-14King James Version (KJV)
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Condign means with the dignity of Christ.
I’ve never heard of “strict” merit. You’ll have to use it in a sentence or produce the Catholic Teaching where you read it.
Yes. But He forgives and lets us start over if we repent of our sins.
You tell me how much faith is necessary and I’ll tell you how much commandment keeping is necessary.
Do you have any Scripture which supports your belief that grace is absolutely free of any requirements? Produce them. Let’s see where your beliefs are supported in Scripture. I guarantee, if they disagree with Catholic Teaching, they disagree with Scripture.
De Maria said,
October 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm
A lot of “ifs” there. Where does Scripture say anything remotely close to your conjecture?
Here is what Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10King James Version (KJV)
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Those works described above fall under the category of bad. They are all sins. And Scripture is clear that they keep you out of heaven.
De Maria said,
October 16, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Is the Church the Body of Christ? Yes or no?
It is the Reformers who usurp from Christ His right of Judgement when they judge themselves saved by faith alone.
Scripture tells us that Christ finished His work in order to give us an example to follow:
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
That is Catholic Doctrine.
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
But the Catholic Church Teaches the Wisdom of God:
Ephesians 3:10King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
God offers grace through the Sacraments, to those who believe His promises and obey His Son.
By the misunderstanding of the Reformers.
Scripture is clear, those who don’t keep the law, have no faith in God:
Romans 8:1-9King James Version (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Ron said,
October 16, 2014 at 11:18 pm
DM,
Since you’ve been posting here I’ve yet to see you put forth a series of premises from which any of your conclusions are derived. Assertions aren’t very interesting – like this one: DM never argues anything.
Of course bad reasoning could be what’s behind your papal allegiance, but I suspect that it’s your self-righteousness, which comports very nicely with your Romanism, that clouds your thinking.
It’s either long suffering or bad moderation that allows you to continue to post. Over the past couple of years I’ve come to believe it’s the former. Having said that, don’t confuse tolerance with a right standing.
Eric W said,
October 17, 2014 at 6:09 am
De Maria, you asked:
A lot of “ifs” there. Where does Scripture say anything remotely close to your conjecture?
Response:
Two “ifs” is a lot of “ifs” ? I gave one “if” for each part of Jim’s question. Are you asking this about both “ifs” or only the part on bad works ? I understand your question is focusing on the bad works. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I have good reason to think that Roman 7:19 is part of “all things” working together for Paul’s good. Paul was a lover of God and received the promise of God causes..etc. Yet, he practiced (I will not delimit practiced) the very evil.
Rom. 7:19
For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
———————————
You wrote:
Those works described above fall under the category of bad. They are all sins. And Scripture is clear that they keep you out of heaven.
Response:
The lover of God should KNOW the promise of God for themselves. The works (or kinds of sinners) described in 1Cor. 6 keep them out of heaven and they are not to KNOW the promise for themselves. They should KNOW there is no entry. This can’t be doubted.
Before you declare victory, ask yourself some questions. Did the lover of God always love ? I say no, and see no reason for you to disagree. Was God causing..etc. before the promise was revealed ? Or even before God caused them to love ? How can “all things” not include the period before God caused them to be lovers ? A lover of God was a child or wrath (Eph.2:3), even as the rest. (1Cor.6)
Please don’t make the mistake of thinking I said everything there is related to this topic. More can said.
Ron said,
October 17, 2014 at 7:34 am
Jim,
DM’s quoting of Scripture neither supports arguments nor comprises them. For instance, quoting Scripture that proves good works are a necessary *condition* for salvation does not imply that one can be saved *by* good works. This sort of argument by false disjunction is pervasive in DM’s posts.
As for DM’s Romanism I’m not engaging in anything so silly as name calling. Most whom I deal with that would call themselves Roman Catholics are not Romanists. DM is one.
Ron said,
October 17, 2014 at 7:49 am
Perfect example, Jim. From this thread no less.
Does faith as a necessary condition for salvation imply the Roman Catholic doctrine of “faith plus works”? No, for the latter is a doctrine of merit, which exceeds the scope of works as a condition.
DM argues: Scripture teaches works, therefore, Scripture teaches Rome’s doctrine of merit. Supportive argument: Rome and Scripture teaches merit.
Don’t you find such “arguments” tedious?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:08 am
DeMaria said ” is the church the body of Christ” yes, but it isnt the the extension of his incarnation and atonement thru the acts of the church. Rome cant substitute itself for the natural body of Christ by collapsing the head into the body. ” scripture tells us Christ finished His work to leave us an example” DeMaria, Scripture tells us that Christ finished His work and obtained eternal redemption, justified us by His blood, and accomplished all the Father gave Him to do. He saved us and fulfilled all righteouness by living the law in our place, He didnt come to make us saveable if we do sacraments to merit increase of grace and justice. He redeemed a people for himself. Catholicism is salvation on the instalment plan which will be soundly rejected. Catholicism is most of all idolatry. And I believe those in thatvsystem will perish in their sin.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:14 am
Jim, I must tell you, you are a hypocrite of the highest order. You are acting as the word police with Ron, You have called me curse words that I cant mention here. And you told me to go hang myself and you would supply the rope. And you are worriied about Ron saying Romanist. Hilarious.
Eric W said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:39 am
Jim wrote to Ron:
By the way, we prefer the term “Catholic”. The “Roman” was added on by the Anglicans to promote their branch theory but historically, since the time of Ignatius anyway, we have been called the “Catholic” Church.
Response:
Jim is not a very good Romanist. Is he a knowledgeable Roman Catholic ?
Pius XII
. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
Vincent said,
October 17, 2014 at 10:29 am
DeMaria your idea of Christ dying in order to set us an example is identical to the salvation doctrine of Peligian. It agrees with his understanding of the atonement too. Jim would you agree with the following from Aquinas:
These words could be misunderstood to mean that the suffering of Christ was not sufficient for redemption and that the suffering of the saints must be added to complete it. This, however, would be heretical. Christ and the Church are one mystical person, and while the merits of Christ, the head, are infinite, the saints acquire merit in a limited degree. What is “lacking,” then, pertains to the affliction of the entire Church, to which Paul adds his own amount (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Colossians, 1, 6.)
Ron said,
October 17, 2014 at 10:34 am
Jim,
I didn’t call you a hypocrite.
When I employ the term Romanist it pertains to one whose ultimate axiom is the final authority and infallibility of the Roman Catholic magisterium.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 11:01 am
Vincent, excellent. Out of the mouth of the Angelic doctor himself. Vincent if that doesn’t show you how the medieval Roman gospel in their church today is a violation of that of the early Catholic church. Listen to the words of the Bishop of Rome Clement ( 30-100) ” and we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our wisdom or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by faith thru which, from the beginning, Almighty God, justified all men, to whom be glory forever and ever.” The question for you Vincent is how can you stay in a communion that teaches the following, Council of Trent ” as a reward to their merit and good works” ” who truly merit eternal life” ” converted to their own justification” Here is what Paul said ” to the one who does not work but believes” ” not that of yourselves” not of works” ” If it is by grace it is no longer by works or grace is no longer grace” You should leave that communion immediately. Catholics smuggle their character into God’s work of grace. Don’t believe the snake charmers. Put your faith in the Word, not a church, only the Word can save you. God Bless you Vincent. You seem like an intelligent guy.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 11:13 am
Vincent, the only thing I would direct you on the statement on Aquinas is the correct understanding of Paul when he says he shares in the sufferings of Christ by the filling up…. He is not saying he is propitiating or participating in His atonement. What was lacking was the preaching of the gospel. Tim Kauffman addresses this on his site ” Out of His mouth” whitehorse blog. Check it out. In Jonah it says ” Salvation is from the Lord” There is no merit in justification as you can see in the satement from Clement. Not even grace enabled works are the condition of final justification, but only the righteousness that comes from God thru faith, which is the imputed righteousness of Christ’s passive and active obedience credited to our account. There is a true transfer of righteousness to us in union with Christ thru faith. God sees us as just, because he sees His son. Grace isn’t an infused quality like a bathtub full of water. But it is unmerited favor we find in the word and Sacrament thru faith.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Vincent, one thing you might consider. Calvin and the Reformers had rightly identified in Rome that the sacraments had become rewards for the strong instead of what God intended them to be mercies for the weak.
Ron said,
October 17, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Kevin called me the hypocrite. I thought I was clear on that.
Hi Kevin,
I only corrected it because you addressed me in 443.
It seems GB has two sets of posting rules. One for “us” and one for “them”.
I disagree. :)
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Ron, no problem. Jim has successfully manipulated every blog owner to throw me off their blog. Thats how Rome works. Just like in England during the reign of Bloody Mary. 800 protestant pastors fled England and 300 were martyred, all bibles removed from churches. All for the sake of the Pope and his religion. In the end many Reformed have that complex of being intellectually accepted by Rome. You know how it goes.
Mark said,
October 17, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Kevin,
Yes. Because Catholic blog owners not allowing you to comment on them (whether justly or unjustly) is “just like” 300 pastors being killed for their faith.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Mark, on the long war on the truth, the most relentless and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism. The history has been to silence and kill their enemy. Don’t think for one minute that if these same Catholic blog owners living in England at the time wouldnt be wheeling the Sword. Just my take.
Mark said,
October 17, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Kevin,
Protestants have very frequently been guilty of atrocities against Catholics as well. So, we can’t really get up on our high horse at all. To deny that is just to be ignorant of history.
As for claiming that blog owners who prevent you from posting would be “wheeling the Sword” and killing you if they were in a different time and place, do you really think that will convince anyone of the truth of the Gospel? I understand your frustration. But, seriously, you are even turning me off to it, and I am basically with you theologically.
As I have said before, if you care more about “scoring points,” “winning verbal jousts,” and “extreme hyperbole” than actually winning hearts and minds for the Gospel, then carry on.
Mark said,
October 17, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Catholic friends of mine often tell me that they are turned off by their reformed friends who are “mean-spirited” and “extremely harsh.” I usually pooh pooh those complaints as just being adverse to the true Gospel. I don’t know anymore. Maybe there is something to it.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Mark, I don t think I know you, but you just blamed me for everything but world hunger.If your looking for a reason to swim the Tiber, feel free to ride my back brother. Do I know you? I have been totally respectful on this blog. You say Catholic friends say they are turned off by mean spiritted……. Mark, what makes you think Im mean spirrited, I have never met you. Dont be naive, who wants to be called out on their idols. Catholics want us to hold hands and sing kumbaya and call it unity. We are to love Catholics, but dont forget they have a false gospel and worship the mother of Jesus. Brother you just did to me what you say Catholic frends say Reformed do to them. Mark, dont let me stop you from going to Rome. Everybody is welcome there, muslims with good intentions etc. Only Protestants are scismatics. You do realize Mark if you are Reformed, your confession calls Rome antichrist.
Ron said,
October 17, 2014 at 4:22 pm
#453 was (obviously?) for Jim, not Kevin.
Good weekend boys. Hopefully nobody will be burned at the stake.
Reed Here said,
October 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm
Kevin, I’m not going to track down the connections here. I will remind you of the rules of the blog, “attack the position, NOT the person.”
There is NEVER a call for bringing a personal argument from another blog into the conversation here. If you think Jim has said something wrong here, point it out. That includes if you think he is lying, being hypocritical, etc.. Do not, however, use a circumstance from another blog to attack his character here.
Jim, I’m not going to track down all the remarks you mentioned. Please consider Kevin admonished. No, there are not two sets of rules here. It is a tad offensive for you to even say that. But given what seems to be some provocation you felt, I can bear with it. Please, however, in the future, email one of the moderators directly. That will get out attention faster. We too have other lives, always more important that this blog. ;-)
(My email address is reed here, a gmail dot com address. remove the spaces and replace with appropriate email punctuation).
For the record, we’re not afraid of telling our Roman Catholic friends that we are sincere in our convictions. The papal system IS an anti-Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is apostate. All God’s children must flee her.
We understand and respect that our RC friends believe exactly the opposite.
reed
moderator
Reed Here said,
October 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm
Ron, I may buy some gasoline. Its cheap. (Just a joke. Chill.)
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Reed, I accept that. But I was defending myself against Mark’s accusations to me. Have you also told him that. K
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 6:19 pm
Reed, please accept my apology. I will abide by the rules.
Reed Here said,
October 17, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Kevin, I was not talking about your interaction with Mark. I was only addressing your interaction with Jim.
Yes, Mark should not jump in. But you have responded to him, at length. There’s no need at this point for me to navigate further between you. If you wish to take Mark up on his comments, I can help you do so via email.
Mark, no need to make further opinions on Kevin’s personal comments to Jim. He understands and accepts my request that he not do so here. If you wish to discuss this with him further, I can help you do so via email.
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 7:15 pm
You don’t like my posts. You’ve said that before. Duly noted.
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 7:24 pm
Soooo, you believe that the very man who warned us that sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God was actually practicing those sins himself?
1 Corinthians 6:8-10King James Version (KJV)
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Ok, great. I’ll let the readers decide whether your position is even Christian.
As for me, I believe he warned us against those sins because he himself was not doing them. Otherwise, he wouldn’t also say:
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
This appears to be a contradiction to that which you said above. Here you admit that those who commit sin will not be admitted into heaven. Obviously, St. Paul, would not be committing that which he warned others not to do.
And this indicates that you know you have contradicted yourself.
I have spoken to you before and I noted that you have a great deal to say. But rarely do you say anything about the topic at hand. Suffice to say that you have admitted that your arguments above were false. There is really nothing else for me to add.
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 7:34 pm
How about this one:
James 2:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
James 2:24New International Version (NIV)
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
James 2:24American Standard Version (ASV)
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 7:44 pm
No Vincent. Its neither my idea nor is it Pelagian. Its straight from Scripture and requires no interpretation:
1 Peter 2:21
King James Version
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
American Standard Version
For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps:
This is St. Thomas’ exegesis of Colossians. Not 1 Peter.
Here is what St. Thomas actually said about 1 Pet 2:21:
I answer that, Among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ’s Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man’s salvation. In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Rom. 5:8): “God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us.” Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man’s salvation. Hence it is written (1 Pet. 2:21):
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 8:02 pm
THAT actually took me back to a message you had addressed to me. Apparently you don’t realize that I replied to that message. Here it is again so you don’t have to look for it.
I also followed up with a question:
Scripture repeats the condition for works, repeatedly. Does this imply faith alone or works?
Romans 2:7-13King James Version (KJV)
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
That makes sense to me.
Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
And also:
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
The Catholic Church says:
679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He “acquired” this right by his cross. The Father has given “all judgment to the Son”. Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.
The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament, so I would say that the Catholic Church teaches merit in Scripture as well.
I have provided evidence of what the Church teaches.
I provided evidence of what is said in Scripture which supports Catholic Teaching.
Why don’t you provide the Scripture which you claim supports your argument? It would seem you find my arguments tedious because you can’t respond to them.
roberty bob said,
October 17, 2014 at 8:46 pm
in reply to DeMaria at #472 . . .
You are right, DeMaria. When you bring forth Romans 2:6-13 and 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Hebrews 11:4-8 [just to name a few Scripture texts], all you hear from your opponents is silence. The Romans passage, in particular, is one that they will not touch with a ten-foot pole. Why? It is clearly at odds with their by-faith-alone theology, so they do not know what to do with it. They think that if they ignore it, that it will somehow go away.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm
roberty rob, and how will you deal with the verse that is unequivocal that a wicked man is justified permanently apart from all works by God crediting faith as righteousness. The only thing you guys do is read more installments into those verses that aren’t there.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:12 pm
DeMaria, do you think if you just print more material you win the argument. K
Eric W said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:18 pm
roberty bob wrote to De Maria:
The Romans passage, in particular, is one that they will not touch with a ten-foot pole. Why? It is clearly at odds with their by-faith-alone theology, so they do not know what to do with it. They think that if they ignore it, that it will somehow go away.
Response:
I wrote the following in a different context, but it shows the willingness to see good works contribute:
If “getting into heaven” is part of “all things to work together for good”, then good works do contribute. This promise is for lovers of God (good work doers). Good works work together for good.
By-faith-alone theology can accommodate this very easily.
roberty bob said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:26 pm
Kevin at #474 . . . I don’t know how to deal with the verse you have in mind as I’m not sure which verse you have in mind. I only know that you have no answer for Romans 2:6-13. As for DeMaria printing more material, from where I sit I can see that he is only printing the Scripture passages which clash with your beliefs. You are not answering him, so it looks like he wins by default — not that winning matters to DeMaria.
Eric W said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:26 pm
Kevin, you wrote:
DeMaria, do you think if you just print more material you win the argument. K
Warning ! This question will be construed as breaking the rules. Stick closer to the content of the arguments. Remember to hate the sinner, as such, on account of their sins. That hate can’t express itself here. Be content to express it before the LORD only.
Psalm 139
19 If only you, God, would slay the wicked!
Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty!
20 They speak of you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord,
and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.
23 Search me, God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:27 pm
Provide the chapter and verse.
How do you read it?
Romans 2:7-13
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:28 pm
No. I simply address every point and support my rebuttal with Scripture.
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:30 pm
If good works contribute to “getting into heaven”, then it isn’t by faith alone.
Eric W said,
October 17, 2014 at 9:55 pm
De Maria wrote:
If good works contribute to “getting into heaven”, then it isn’t by faith alone.
Response:
De Maria is using faith alone from the Book of James only. MY comment was By-faith-alone theology. This theology includes the Book of James, but is not limited to it.
Now I can agree with De Maria’s argument in the way he intended.
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 10:06 pm
Ok.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 10:15 pm
DeMaria, Romans 2 is talking about the gentiles who are believers ( having the law written on their heart) doing the things of the law, and the Jews who have the law but dont believe, and Paul says the gentiles are better at keeping the law. When he says the doers of the law will be justified not the hearers he is talking about the believing gentiles who obey the law, and the unbelieving Jews who dont do it. What he does not say is the doers of the law are justified by doing the law. Because in the next chapter he says no one will be justified by doing the law. And then 3:20 he says now apart from the law. Rome misreads Romans 2 to say we are justified by doing the law, and thats not what it says.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 17, 2014 at 10:18 pm
Roberty rob Im sorry Romans 4:5.
roberty bob said,
October 17, 2014 at 10:22 pm
to #476 and 482 . . . Eric . . .
I did not know that there was such a thing as a by-faith-alone theology that requires a person to do good works in order to get into heaven. If there is such a theology, I do not find it in James. James takes pains to show that faith without works is dead.
Either you are not making sense or I am confused.
De Maria said,
October 17, 2014 at 10:32 pm
I disagree. St. Paul says that those who do the Law will be made righteous by God.
Romans 2:13
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Now, here’s how I understand Rom 3:20
Romans 3:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
We don’t wash our sins away by our own works. It doesn’t matter how many times you keep Commandment #1 which requires faith in God, or Commandment #2 or 3-10.
You can’t save yourself. But God can. And God won’t save anyone who does not keep His Commandments. And He does this by the Sacraments. This is what he means in the next verses. He says:
21 But now the righteousness of God
This is euphemism for God’s grace.
without the law is manifested,
the grace of God is manifested in the Sacraments.
being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
When God said that He would make a new Covenant and put into us a new heart, thus regenerating us:
Ezekiel 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
The faith of Jesus Christ is the Religion which He established, the Catholic Church.
And all those who believe present themselves for the Sacraments to receive their new heart and be renewed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
roberty bob said,
October 17, 2014 at 11:13 pm
in reply to @485 . . . Kevin . . .
“However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, this faith is credited as righteousness.” — Romans 4:5
In the larger context, Abraham was such a man who had not put God in obligation by virtue of some work that he had done. When God revealed Himself to Abraham and made a promise to bless him and make him a blessing, the Lord did not owe this blessing to Abraham as though he had somehow earned it by working for it; in fact, Abraham had not even been employed by God until then to do any kind of contractual work for wages. So, the blessing which God promised Abraham could only be received as a gift in good faith. We find, then, that Abraham, with no work to his credit — with God under no obligation to give him a thing — nevertheless trusted God to make good on his promise. Abraham had faith in God. This faith is credited as righteousness, so that Abraham is held in regard by God as a righteous man. Even as God justified the believing Abraham, so God justifies others who have no work to their credit; yes, God justifies the wicked who, on account of their sins, are in debt to God and under obligation to pay it in full. David learned of this firsthand when he sinned grievously against God and afterward found God to be forgiving [4:6-8].
. . . must go now — company at the door — but you may run with this . . . I can go much farther . . . .
Eric W said,
October 18, 2014 at 7:02 am
roberty bob (re # 486),
You wrote:
Either you are not making sense or I am confused.
Response:
The end of justification and sanctification is eternal life. Good works are prepared in advance for us to do. We link them to sanctification and mortification. No one goes to heaven without doing the works prepared in advance. God determines the limits of sins and righteous deeds.
Rom.8:13
…for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
It comes down to a justification by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.
I recommend this audio:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=622101153535
Vincent said,
October 18, 2014 at 7:50 am
Jim what is the relationship between our works and the reward of heaven? Are they equal? Does God owe us heaven, can we demand it from him? Are you aware of the difference between strict merit and condign merit?
Vincent said,
October 18, 2014 at 8:04 am
With respects to that Aquinas quote it came from the Ignatius Study Bible. Jim would you agree with that quote Aquinas quote on Corinthians?
Vincent said,
October 18, 2014 at 8:09 am
Kevin do you agree or disagree with Aquinas exposition of Colossians? You seem to disagree with his understanding of Paul filling things up.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Vincent, here is what is very important to keep in mind. The antithesis in justification for Paul is between doing and hearing by faith. FAith and works are opposed are in opposition for Paul in justification before God. Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the END of the law for righteouness to all who believe. But for Rome Christ is the beginning of the law. If you look at 10:1 Paul prays for there salvation and in the previous verses he says they have a zeal fo God but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about the righteouness of God they established their own. IOW they try to attain it by works and God repdiated this. Romans 4:16 says if aRomanist wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. Vincent, 11:6, 4:5, 3:26, Gal2:16, Eph. 2:8 arent ambiguous. All doing is exempt from being meritorious in salvation. Look again at the statement from Clenent I provided you. So my conclusion on Aquinas is his gospel was semi pelagian. And yes we are to imitate Christ in our sanctification, but being requisite for justification no. Rome cant smuggle their character into God’s work of grace. 4:16. God bless you 5 solas.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Jim said ” salvation is corporate” but here is what Paul says of whose words we adopt. ” it is a trustworthy statement , deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I AM chief.” Sems like Paul thought it was individual. When the Philippians jailer asked Paul how to be saved, he didnt say pour som ed incarn-sacramentl water over him, he said believe in Jesus. That guy wasnt thinking about his corporate badge.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Jim, Paul said this ” The God who made the world and all the things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in Temples made with hands” We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Thats why when Ignatius was to big for his britches telling the Philadelphians they couldnt be saved apart friom the Bishop of the church, the responded and pushed back against him as being outside t b e word of God. Here was a Bishop who studied under John going outsuide of the word, and the Phldlphns said no because they knew the word. We were already seeing signs of the apostasy the broke lose in 387 with the rise of the Roman false religion. But God’s church always separated itself from that system, and Tim Kauffman documents this well in his book Graven Bread.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Jim, thats right the jailer was baptized with his household they all believed. The Spirit regenerated him thru the Word, his sins were washed away, past, present, future, and he was saved. All a work of God. .,
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 5:04 pm
Jim, that shouldvread they were baptised after he believed.
De Maria said,
October 18, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Kevin,
He was regenerated when his sins were washed away. That is what it means to be regenerated and renewed by the washing of the Holy Spirit.
roberty bob said,
October 18, 2014 at 9:24 pm
I have observed that most Protestants and Baptists love the Word but not the Water. The holy rites or sacraments are symbolic of something that happens in another time or another place; so, the sacrament does not effect or accomplish anything. Thus regeneration is a power-of-the-Word event — disconnected to the Water. They find it hard to believe that even the Apostle Paul, by his own testimony, recalls how Ananias said to him, “What are you waiting for? Be baptized and wash your sins away!” When they see Paul’s reference in Titus to the bath of regeneration, they do all in their exegetical power to disassociate it with baptism.
As I’ve said before, I wonder why such Protestants and Baptists even bother with a wedding service when they marry. The spoken vows, the exchange of rings, and the kiss accomplish nothing. The real wedding took place when the man and the woman felt themselves to be in love with each other — whenever and wherever that might’ve been.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 9:35 pm
DeMaria, no he was regenerated by the Word thru the Spirit. That is the washing of Regeneration. Please see Tim Kauffman’s series on how Ctc gets the Fathers wrong.
De Maria said,
October 18, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 9:41 pm
Roberty rob, no we like the water right after the Word, since we are regenrerated by the washing of the Word thru the Spirit. Jesus said the Spirit blows how and where He chooses. God’s soveriegn winds dont follow water. Water c follows God’soveriegn winds. Catholics get everything backwards, just like justification, the tail wagging the dog.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 9:51 pm
Roberty rob, first off all Paul said he wasntvsentvto baptize. Next he said he was sent to preach the gospel. Nextvhe says faith comes thru hearing the word of god. Next Titus 3:5csays we arent saved by righteius deeds.Thecwashing of regeneration is talking oabout the washing of the Word thru the Spirit. No magic water.
roberty bob said,
October 18, 2014 at 10:01 pm
Hi Kevin,
Jesus said that no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born from water and spirit.
What water would that be?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 18, 2014 at 11:16 pm
Hi Roberty rob, hope your having a good weekend. Can I suggest pulling up John MacArthur ” born from water and Spirit. This isnt talking about baptism. Why? 1. Nicodemus would have no idea what he was saying because baptism had not occured yet. 2 Born of water and Spirit parralels being born again. 3. Jesus didnt baptize anyone, so it couldnt mean that. 4 This is a reference to Ezekiel and old testament references of the inner spiritual renewal, the inner washing
oF the Spirit. In Ezekiel God says I will sprinkle water on them, give them a new heart etc. Nicodemus would have understood this. OT water and Spirit meant inner renewal, inner washing by the Spirit, not baptism in this context.7
roberty bob said,
October 19, 2014 at 12:47 am
Hi Kevin at #515 . . .
In the same 3rd chapter of the Gospel According to John, in which Nicodemus meets with our Lord, we do have the account of Jesus actually baptizing people. Look at verse 26, “They came to John and said to him, Rabbi, the man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan — the one you testified about — well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”
So, since Jesus was baptizing a lot of people, it could mean that he spoke to Nicodemus of the need for baptism. Think of it. One day he speaks to Israel’s teacher of the necessity of being born anew by water and Spirit, and the day after that we see Jesus actually baptizing people in real water.
Sometimes water really is water of the wet variety in which real people are really baptized.
If by water-and-Spirit Jesus was speaking of inner washing and inner renewal, why didn’t he simply tell Nicodemus that he had to be born of the Spirit? Why would Jesus have to add water to Spirit?
Going back to Jesus’ baptizing in John 3, it is remarkable that John the Baptizer rejoices to see Jesus as the Bridegroom who takes all who come to him for baptism as his Bride. Ponder verses 27-30.
Perhaps Nicodemus knew what Ezekiel was talking about, but he surely didn’t have a clue about what Jesus was saying. Jesus didn’t say to him, “You have a valid excuse because you can’t be expected to know of things that haven’t yet come into being — like baptism and being born anew.” Instead Jesus is astonished that Israel’s teacher doesn’t understand the means of entry into the life of the coming Kingdom of God.
You say that being born of water and Spirit parallels being born again. I would say that being born of water and Spirit is not parallel to being born again, but is the actual means by which a person is born anew unto ever-lasting life in the kingdom of God.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 19, 2014 at 9:53 am
Jim, when the Spirit regenerates us to believe we become a member of the body of Christ. We meet Jesus in the gospel thru the Spirit and atr temples of the Holy Spirit. God doesnt dwell in buildings anymore but in the hearts of his people. Visible churches dont connect us to God by joining them. No visible church owns God. Going to church doesnt make one a Christian just like going to Mcdonalds doesnt make you a hamburger.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 19, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Jim, did Paul tell the Philippians jailer to joinn a church, did he tell the tax collector who went home righteous that he had to join the RC, the thief on the cross go thru one year of doing RCIA and put on his scapular before he went to paradise. The Ethiopian Eunic who got saved on the road whe fallible Philip explained the scripture to him, how about the woman at the well? God saves people, churches dont. We are incorporated into the body of Christ thru the Spirit, not the flesh. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit 1 John 2:27.
roberty bob said,
October 19, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Hi Kevin. Here is what I know . . .
1) you were baptized without water
2) you have never joined the church
3) you don’t go to church
4) you are the church
5) you have the word
6) you have the spirit
7) you are right
……….
Perfect!
Kevin Failoni said,
October 19, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Roberty rob, 1 I was regenerated by the Word thru the Spirit to repenatnce and faith which brought me into union with Christ my justification thru the Spirit indwelling me. I am in Christ and Christ is in me. Along with this union came al the legal benefits, justification, adoption, heir, sealed in the Spirit, sanctification, perseverance and glorification. All a work of God and all forensic for Paul. I was baptised as a sign and seal of grace I received from God. I’m trusting in the Word alone for my salvation. You trust the church. But the church cant save you, only the Word. Im not perfect, but He is. He lived the law in my place and fulfilled all righteousness, He did for me what I could not do. For you He is helping you achieve His favor with His help. You have to be inherently righteous to enter, I will enter on His righteouness, and not my own. Phil. 3:9.
De Maria said,
October 19, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Lol! That’s funny. But I don’t get my Christian Doctrine from comedy.
Here is what Scripture says:
Hebrews 10:25-31King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Sassy comebacks are no match for the Word of God. See you in Church.
Vincent said,
October 19, 2014 at 5:23 pm
Jim and Maria I remember I once talked to you guys about purgatory and Robert Bellermine on greenbaggins. On what post on greenbaggins was that again? I would like to access that discussion again.
De Maria said,
October 19, 2014 at 7:11 pm
I don’t remember Vincent. I actually thought I had met you on this discussion.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 19, 2014 at 7:35 pm
Jim, you are a Catholic still atoning for your sins. My sins are atoned for. The scripture says I HAVE BEEN reconciled to God, HAVE BEEN justified by his blood, have been justified by faith. 1Cor:1:30 He BECAME to me righteouness, sanctification, redemption. You starting to get the idea. Erasmus discovered that Jerome’ sloppy translation from greek to Latin had repentance (a change of heart and mind) falsely translated do penace, The Roman church adopted sacramental salvation and left the gospel behind. He simply told the jailer believe and you will be saved. The true church has always separated itself from that system.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 19, 2014 at 7:55 pm
Jim, thats right, all my sins are payed for, pasrt , present, future. You still have Him on the cross and the altar and you are atoning for your sins. But Jim, but how can a savior who hasnt risen save you. He is an eternal victim in Rome dying over and over. But for believers He is Risen! And the church sings the amen, and we witness to what He ACOMPLISHED. Halelugha! For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only beggoten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Not giving His son, but gave. Oh if only the Romish schoolmen saw the simplicity of the gospel 2 Cor 11:3. Not many noble, not many mighty, not many wise according to the flesh.
De Maria said,
October 19, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Thanks for posting these things, Kevin. Obviously, you are fully convicted of these beliefs. That’s good. Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
So, I will post my beliefs in contrast to yours. Let’s see which is in conformity with Scripture.
You said:
In imitation of Jesus, we atone for the sins of the Church:
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
Yes, that includes our own.
NOT if you reject your baptism:
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Not if you reject His Church:
Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Not if you reject the Eucharist:
1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
You have no faith in Christ if you don’t believe in the Sacraments that He established in His blood.
Only if you were washed and regenerated in Baptism and if you receive him in the Holy Eucharist.
I hope that you are starting to get it.
The mean the same thing. Penance is sorrow for one’s sins which leads to repentance:
2 Corinthians 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
The Reformers rejected Sacramental Salvation and trampled on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
He told the jailer to believe and then baptized him in order that he be saved.
If that were true, St. Paul wouldn’t warn his followers that those who sin will not be admitted into heaven:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10King James Version (KJV)
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
That is what we were instructed to do:
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Is that foolishness to you?
True:
1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
because we follow Christ:
Galatians 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Our Saviour has risen. Jesus Christ died in order that He would rise again. Have you not understood?
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
No. He only died once. But He offers His sacrifice eternally:
Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Yes, He is!
But in celebrating His Resurrection, we don’t deny His Crucifixion.
Yes, the Church does. But I thought you didn’t go to Church?
We do.
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
But you don’t go to Church.
You worship the simplicity of your beliefs. We worship Jesus Christ:
Matthew 7:21-27King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Thanks for posting, Kevin. It is so easy to contrast your beliefs to the Scriptures.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 19, 2014 at 9:56 pm
DeMaria, I commend you also for being honest and straightforward about what you believe and the facr that you know we have different gospels. Sometimes my stomach gets sick with the what I call Reform inferiority complex to Rome. You said” in imitation of Jesus we atone for the sins of the church.” As I said you havent been fully reconciled to God. You missed chapter 5 of Romans verses 8 and following which tells us we have been justified, have been reconciled. Rome has a tense problem. 1 Corinthians 6:9 ” such WERE some of you.” You said ” our savior has risen” If He was raised for you justification, why do you still break His body. Did you miss Hebrews 10: 14, 18. 1 Cor. 15 says if Christ wasnt raised you faith is useless and you are still in your sins. Catholics are still in their sins. Who told you I dont go to church. I attend aa Bible church in Phoenix and take the Lord’s supper each week with the body of Christ.
De Maria said,
October 19, 2014 at 11:01 pm
Thank you.
Amen!
1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Yes, I trust that I have, because I have been reconciled through the Church. As the Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
You say this because you don’t understand the Scripture:
Romans 5 King James Version (KJV)
1 Therefore being justified by faith,
Notice that he doesn’t say, “by faith alone”.
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Because through the Faith of Jesus Christ, which is His Church, we are reconciled to God.
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace
Notice that by faith, we have access to His grace. This is a reference to the Sacraments, wherein, we approach the fountain of God’s grace believing the promises of God. And He sees our faith and counts it to us as righteousness.
wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
And it is this Faith, the Catholic Religion, in which we live and are glad because God has given us hope of salvation.
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
Not only do we glory in the Sacraments of salvation but we also glory in the suffering which we endure for the expiation of the sins of the Church.
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Because these sufferings purify our sinful tendencies and give us the experience of God’s presence which fills us with even more hope.
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
And our hope in God will be rewarded, because God has already given us the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 6:9 ” such WERE some of you.” You said ” our savior has risen” If He was raised for you justification, why do you still break His body.
His body was broken long ago, for our salvation. We always keep that in remembrance, as He commanded:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
We believe in His Resurrection. And we believe in submitting to His Church. As the Scripture says:
Hebrews 13:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic Church, can see there the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where are sins are forgiven. And, you reject this Sacrament, therefore it is you who is still in your sins.
You must be a hamburger then.
That is a misnomer. Nothing which those Bible Church’s teach, which contradicts Catholic Teaching, is in the Bible.
That makes sense. That is why you argue so adamantly against going to Church and against the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Because you regularly do things in which you don’t believe. Right.
Ok, well, if you say so. Let me ask, why do you attend church if you don’t believe it is important to attend church? And how do you partake of the body of Christ? Do you kill Christ and then eat His body? Isn’t that what you accuse us of doing?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 12:58 am
DeMaria, I said going to church doesn’t make one a Christian just like going to Macdonalds doesn’t make you a hamburger. So, no going to MacDonalds didn’t make me a hamburger. You went on to say ” nothing that those bible churches teach, which contradicts Catholic teaching, is in the bible.” Oh trust me its in there, but you got to take off your Roman glasses to see it. But you can’t because the natural man know not the things of God. We teach we are justified freely by His grace thru faith alone in Christ alone. I don’t argue adamantly against going to church, I argue that going to church doesn’t save you. Quit the hyperbole. lol You said ” you argue against the real presence in the Eucharist” Yes I argue against worshiping bread. My savior is in Heaven and He is spiritually in the the supper. Cosmic Jesus everywhere is Jesus of Nazareth nowhere. You believe the lie that sacramental efficacy is in the place of the atonement, which is finished! You are an extension of His atonement they the acts of the church by misunderstanding the word. You can’t rent His humanity from his Deity. You ask ” how do you partake in the body of Christ” I was incorporated into the body of Christ thru the Spirit, not the flesh. I think attending church is very important to be fed the word of god, fellowship with the other parts of the body. We all need each other. Yes I think your Mass is a complete denial of faith, reduces the perfect sufficient one time sacrifice to imperfect and useless, and offers merit for the strong instead of grace for the weak. DeMaria the sacrifice for our sins was the cross and not the bread of the supper. That we do in remembrance of the one time sacrifice that perfected us, as a blaket across history covering all sins. It is finished! Churches aren’t extensions of incarnations, and they can’t usurp from Him what is uniquely His finished work.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 8:50 am
Jim, said ” not everybody will enter the pearly gates” those who belong to Christ will, because the scripture says He loses none. In fact lets take a peak into who makes it thru the pearly gates, lets see if we see sacramental salvation ex opere operato. Romans 10:9 ” ” if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heeart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart a man believes RESULTING in righteousness, and with the mout he confesses RESULTING in salvation. ” Paul gives it all to us in those verses and the results. And what is strangely missing? A new testament judaistic Priesthood and sacraficial system. Nowhere to be found. Paul simply says confess and believe= righteousness and salvation. Please unpile all those things from the cross so your people can see salvation.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 9:55 am
Jim, said ” The OT ceremonies were a type and shadow of better things to come, right? Ya, and Hebrews tells us they when the perfect came they passed away. Hebrews 8 says the old way has become obsolete. It also tells us there is no need for those Priests making sacrifices everyday. ” The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart.” ” There are no more sacrifices for sin verse 18. Now, how clear can it be. your Priesthood is false. Its a replay of Judaism which the writer of hebrews tells us is a lack of faith to return there, and the perfect High Priest has come who makes intercession for us. Hebrews 9 tells us He put sin away. DeMaria continues to say Calvinists system says we continue to commit mortal sin all the time. Here is what Jesus said, if you even lust in your mind after a woman you have committed adultery. So according to DeMaria and Catholic theology you guys are going in and out of salvation constantly. Tests show the average man lusts every 15 seconds. So every time you lust in your mind Jim, and at your age thats saying something lol, you better get t0 the Priest in a hurry. But we believe our sins have been forgiven and our status can’t change before God. The reason Jesus set the standard so high is in accordance of when He told us with man its impossible, but with God all things are possible. I fail badly at loving neighbor and God consistently. But my salvation isn’t according to doing my part, although I obey God’s commands, but its based on what He did for me.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 10:01 am
Jim, thats right, the Priest doesn’t have to chase my car accident with a bottle of oil, Jesus paid for ALL my sins. 2 Cor. 5:21 He became sin, and I became the righteousness of god in Him. The great exchange. He got the life I lived and I got the life He lived. Psub. Praise the Lord for the great things He has done. My salvation ain’t on the layaway plan. He gave me eternal life FREE. K
Mark said,
October 20, 2014 at 11:28 am
Kevin,
I think you misunderstand. I have no desire or implication to swim the Tiber. For many of the reasons you mention, I believe it to present a false Gospel.
My point is that even if people SHOULD not be affected by rude behavior, people ARE so affected. I know there are people who read these blogs and comments (even if they don’t comment themselves). And, if they see reformed apologists act rude and obnoxious to Catholic commentators, for some portion of them, it will have some impact on whether they choose to swim the Tiber. I am opposed to any activity that has the effect of causing more people to abandon the true Gospel. That’s my concern.
If you don’t think such obnoxious comments are having that effect, then so be it. I have said my piece and have nothing more to add.
TurretinFan said,
October 20, 2014 at 12:07 pm
Jim:
The OT shadows are fulfilled in the reality of Christ on the cross. The continuing oblations and incense of Micah’s prophecy are to be understood spiritually as the prayers and worship of believers by faith.
Just as those shadows pointed the OT believers forward to Christ, the symbols of baptism and the Lord’s supper point believers back to Christ. Christ is at the center, but his work is finished. He has sat down. Now he intercedes for those for whom his offering has already been concluded.
– TurretinFan
Eric W said,
October 20, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Jim wrote to Kevin:
The Bible says we are saved by the death of Christ not by His life lived.
You have no scripture. Only systematic theology.
Response:
Rom.5:9,10
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Vincent said,
October 20, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Kevin may I just offer a minor clarification on your behalf. The Catholics do believe that man is fully reconciled and justified at the sacrament of penance before doing any work of satisfaction. You make it seem that man is still not reconciled and at peace until he completes those acts of penance. Does acts already presuppose that man has been forgiven and reconciled. I am not Roman Catholic by the way. I have serious issues with the way roman doctrine is commonly understood by the masses. You have to keep in mind that the reformers (at least the Anglican ones) where condemning the popular religion as it was understood by the masses rather than the teachings of the scholastic doctors.
TurretinFan said,
October 20, 2014 at 12:29 pm
Jim:
Yes Malachi, not Micah. Sorry for the typo. And yes – Christ is the shewbread, the Passover, and the Manna – and specifically in his self-sacrifice on the Cross.
-TurretinFan
Eric W said,
October 20, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Jim,
I’m contrasting your words with scripture. Your words fall short.
You wrote:
….not by His life lived.
Paul wrote:
…shall we be saved through his life!
I can anticipate some worthless distinct between “his life” and “his life lived”. Save yourself the trouble. Think about “his life of obedience” or “his life lived in obedience” Also, think about “Jesus was resurrected” or “I AM the resurrection.”
Eric W said,
October 20, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Jim, you wrote:
The Bible says we are saved by the death of Christ not by His life lived.
Now you say He was raised for our justification. Does that mean we are saved by His life lived or not ? You appear to contradict scripture.
Eric W said,
October 20, 2014 at 3:02 pm
Jim,
Romans 5:9,10 shows Christ, with His obedient death/life and Divine power, as the meritorious cause of our salvation. Now, are we saved by His life lived or not ?
Vincent said,
October 20, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Jim I thought Trent taught that Christ’s passive obedience (Calvary) was the meritorious cause of salvation? You said so yourself.
Eric W said,
October 20, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Jim, you asked:
Do you think Christ’s active obedience is imputed to us?
Response:
I like R L Dabney on this…
Christ’s Active Obedience Imputed.
Second, those who admit this definition of justification, will, of course, admit that the righteousness by which the sinner is justified must include a full obedience to the preceptive, as well as the penal part of the law. And as that righteousness, (to anticipate a point of future discussion) is Christ’s, hence, the merit of His obedience to the precepts, as well as of His atoning sufferings, must be imputed to us for justification. [It is common for theologians to say: “both His active and passive obedience” are imputed. The phrase is clumsy. In truth Christ’s sufferings contained an active obedience; and it is this which made them a righteousness: for mere pain, irrespective of the motive of voluntary endurance, is not meritorious. And Christ’s obedience to precepts was accompanied with endurance.]
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Jim, how on was RLDabney!
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Mark, I agree with you everything shoul be said in love, and yet Jesus said in Mathew 10 He came to bring the Sword. Mathew 11:12″ from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” Taking a beachead sometime how we can.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Jim, In Isaiah 53 it says He was numbered among the transgressors. You guys minimize what He did. K
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Vincent said ” Kevin remember Catholics are reconciled and justified at the sacrament of penance without satisfactions. So what. Romans 5 says we are justified past tense and permantly by faith and by His blood, andwe are reconciled Aorist past tense. Auricular confession is an abomination to the gospel, with no evidence in the early church. Vincent, listen my friend ” The righteous shall live by faith” we trust Christ alone for our salvation. And when we sin we confess and He applies His perfect sacrifice for us. But He isnt up there saying hey dad Joe Catholic just earned a merit, cut him some more grace and justice. Hebrews 10:14, 18. I like you Vincent. Your smart.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 5:18 pm
Reed, thanks for your fair moderating. Just so you know Jim has gotten me thrown of 3 blogs. He’ in his 70’s and he is sly. He knows the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Thanks for not buying his act. I have tried to be respectful with my comments. Im not perfect, but will continue to try hard to be loving.
De Maria said,
October 20, 2014 at 7:50 pm
But, do you agree that going to Church is important? Here is what Scripture says:
To me, that says that God is offended when Christians don’t assemble for worship. How do you read it?
You’ll have to take off your Reform glasses to see that those so-called “bible churches” contradict the Bible.
A statement which is nowhere to be found in Scripture. But the Catholic Church teaches that “doers of the law are justified” (Rom 2:13).
And I argue that God wants you to go to Church. And refusing to go to Church, you tread underfoot the Son of God and reject the Blood of the Covenant which He poured out on the Cross (Heb 10:29).
Yet Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
So, Scripture says that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ in the appearance of bread.
Jesus is God. Did you not know that God is omnipresent?
No. That is the lie you tell. Jesus Christ atoned for our sins, once for all, upon the Cross. And we can turn to Him and be saved if we believe His promises and receive the grace of the atonement, in the Sacraments:
2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
It is you who misunderstands the Word:
2 Corinthians 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.
That is Catholic Doctrine. That is why we worship the Eucharist. Because His humanity can not be separated from His Deity. Therefore, His Flesh can’t be separated from His Deity.
But you don’t think its important for worship? And you don’t believe that God is offended if you don’t assemble in His name? Heb 10:25-31.
And yet we see the Mass described in Scripture
Acts 2:42
King James Version
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
and Christ commanding us to do this in remembrance of Him.
1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
It is Protestants who do despite with the Blood of the Covenent which was poured out for them when they deny the Mass.
Merit is for those who obey Christ whether they be weak or strong:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Christ said they are one and the same:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
I can’t make heads or tails of what you said there.
But you said, “It is finished”. And we believe that Christ finished His work upon the Cross. Now it is our turn to do our work, which is He working through us.
And speaking of usurping. Protestants usurp Christ’s right of Judgement every time they judge themselves saved by their faith alone.
Eric W said,
October 20, 2014 at 8:35 pm
Jim, you wrote:
Eric and Vincent, Protestantism does not just say Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification. Oh no! It goes much further and says He is the FORMAL cause of our justification.
NO WAY!
Response:
John Owen
The second principal controversy is about the formal cause of justification, as it is expressed and stated by those of the Roman church; and under these terms some Protestant divines have consented to debate the matter in difference. I shall not interpose into a strife of words; — so the Romanists will call that which we inquire after. Some of ours say the righteousness of Christ imputed, some, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is the formal cause of our justification; some, that there is no formal cause of justification, but this is that which supplies the place and use of a formal cause, which is the righteousness of Christ. In none of these things will I concern myself, though I judge what was mentioned in the last place to be most proper and significant.
—————————
You asked:
Why should we strive for righteousness by our obedience and law keeping if Christ’s law keeping is imputed to us?
Response:
One reason is to be found without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1Thess.5:23)
Vincent said,
October 20, 2014 at 9:11 pm
Jim you obviously are more sounder in faith than DeMaria seems to be. DeMaria keeps saying that God justifies the doers of the law, whilst you told me that we are justified before we do any works at baptism. So one of you is accurate whilst the other isn’t. I think this is what Charles Hodge meant when he said there are Romanist divines that interpret their own teachings in an orthodox sense whilst others don’t. Anyways I found this understanding of the atonement from Robert Sugenis. It seems to conflict with RC teaching on the atonement:
What did Christ’s suffering and death actually accomplish that allowed the Father to provide the human race with salvation? Did Christ take within himself the sin and guilt of mankind and suffer the specific punishment for that sin and guilt, as Protestants contend? The answer is no…Christ did not take upon himself the entire punishment required of man for sin. Rather, Scripture teaches only that Christ became a ‘propitiation,’ a ‘sin offering,’ or a ‘sacrifice’ for sins…Essentially, this means that Christ, because he was guiltless, sin-free and in favor with God, could offer himself up as a means of persuading God to relent of his angry wrath against the sins of mankind. Sin destroys God’s creation. God, who is a passionate and sensitive being, is angry against man for harming the creation. Anger against sin shows the personal side of God, for sin is a personal offense against him. We must not picture God as an unemotional courtroom judge who is personally unharmed by the sin of the offender brought before him. God is personally offended by sin and thus he needs to be personally appeased in order to offer a personal forgiveness. In keeping with his divine principles, his personal nature, and the magnitude of the sins of man, the only thing that God would allow to appease him was the suffering and death of the sinless representative of mankind, namely, Christ (Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), pp. 107-108).
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 9:29 pm
Jim, you wanted proof of active obedience. Romans 5:19 ” through one man’s obedience many will be constituted righteous.” Can it be any clearer. We are righteous because of anothers obedience. Welcome to imputation. Its a word that makes many of us joyous and thankful.
De Maria said,
October 20, 2014 at 10:10 pm
Before an adult is baptized in the Catholic Church, he must undergo the Rite of Christian Initiation for adults (RCIA). It is in this process that one studies to show himself approved:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
It is in RCIA that one learns how to keep the Commandments in order to live virtuous and do the will of God.
If a man goes through the process but refuses to obey God’s will, the Church will forbid him receiving Baptism.
As the Scripture teaches:
John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
And again,
Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
And the Catechism says:
1248 The catechumenate, or formation of catechumens, aims at bringing their conversion and faith to maturity, in response to the divine initiative and in union with an ecclesial community. The catechumenate is to be “a formation in the whole Christian life . . . during which the disciples will be joined to Christ their teacher. The catechumens should be properly initiated into the mystery of salvation and the practice of the evangelical virtues, and they should be introduced into the life of faith, liturgy, and charity of the People of God by successive sacred rites.”47
Infant baptism is a separate case.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 10:19 pm
Vincent, DeMaria’s example of RCIA should be all one needs to know about the utter apostasy of the Roman church. A person must go at minimum 1 year and do dozens of things to qualify to be baptized and justified. Now, just think of that Vincent. Romans 3:26 tells us that He is just and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus, yet the Roman church could give a certificate at the end of RCIA for being justified by the Law so many things are required. Now they will try sight of hand and say that the participant does these things by actual grace. But compare Romans 10:8-9 with this process. Vincent, this is important to ponder on. In Rome justification is a recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, but for Paul it was a declaration about someone who was utterly and intrinsically unqualified.
De Maria said,
October 20, 2014 at 10:22 pm
That is easily observable in everyday life. Because, we find that certain sins carry with them their own punishment. But many people, Christian or not, Baptized or not, succumb to these sins and receive the punishment which God permitted to be instilled in these sins in order to persuade men to live righteous lives.
Take, for example, drug addiction. All sorts of people fall prey to drug addiction, Christian or not. And when they abuse the drug, they are punished by the effects of the drug.
Therefore, Christ did not take away all punishment for sins.
Essentially, Christ purchased us with His blood:
1 Corinthians 6:20King James Version (KJV)
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
And now, we are commanded to obey Him if we want to be saved:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
But He gave us the example of how to be saved:
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Christ suffered for us so that we would suffer with Him. Christ died for us so that we would die with Him. Christ rose for us, so that we would rise with Him.
Again, the Word of God says:
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 20, 2014 at 10:55 pm
DeMaria, you confuse consequenses for sin with punishment for sin. The bible says that punishment involves fear. Believers dont fear, we have been freed from all sin, punishment and guilt. Hebrews 9 says He put sin away. Romans 5:1says we have peace with God, and 8:1says we can never be condemned. God’s wrath and our sins were nailed to the cross, and Cloossians 2 says the legal decrees were nailed to the cross and cancelled. No temporal punishment remains. Frankly the Roman religion is a hard sell without the safety net of Purgatory. Interesting how you guys have no problem with imputation whe it comes from the Treasury of merit. Hmmmmm!
De Maria said,
October 20, 2014 at 11:18 pm
In some cases, they are the same thing, Kevin.
On the contrary, the Apostle teaches all Christians who sin to hold a healthy fear of God.
2 Corinthians 5:10-12King James Version (KJV)
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
That is right. Something in which you don’t believe as you so boastfully have announced many times.
It says that those who have been justified by faith have peace with God.
If we walk according to the Spirit.
I have no idea what you mean by that. But Scripture says that those who belong to Christ have crucified their flesh along with the sins of the flesh.
Galatians 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
This is an obvious reference to the work which Christians must still do.
Of the Old Testament. Leaving the Ten Commandments and the Law of Christ.
We can look around and see that temporal punishment remains. Just look in a jail. Do you think that people have power over each other if God doesn’t give it to them?
May I remind you what Scripture says:
Romans 13:3-5King James Version (KJV)
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Again, you seem to be stringing together unrelated thoughts. But Purgatory is described in 1 Cor 3:10-15:
1 Corinthians 3:10-15King James Version (KJV)
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
And the Treasury of Merit in Matt 6:20
Matthew 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
And imputation simply means “judgement” or “accounting”. If God imputes us righteousness, that means He judges that we are living in accordance with His commands.
De Maria said,
October 21, 2014 at 6:47 am
Well said.
De Maria said,
October 21, 2014 at 6:54 am
Correct. Because, I called that “prevenient grace of conversion” in message #424 dated October 16, 2014 at 7:20 pm. So, we’re simply using different jargon.
In other words, conversion = initial justification.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 9:55 am
Jim said, ” The good thief was forgiven and yet had to die for his crimes anyway.” You Catholics are a scream! The guy dying for His crimes was next to him. Thats why he went immediately into heaven. Purgatory hadn’t been invented yet. And thats the point there was a bible, a gospel, and imputed righteousness before the Roman Catholics came up with salvation by love on the installment plan. Luther said they rob from faith and give to love what God only intended for faith. It says without faith it is impossible to please Him. not love. The thief went immediately to heaven just like the tax collector went home righteous because when you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart YOU ARE SAVED. And your system is ecclesiastical machinery developed in the church that was human in origin and content. And God sent the Reformers to save the Apostles and the early church from this human machinery. Let me be frank on the subject of imputation. If you think accumulated love will get you to heaven thru doing sacraments ex ooooopere ooopearto instead of simple trust in the Lord, you don’t know the gospel.
TurretinFan said,
October 21, 2014 at 9:58 am
Jim:
Regarding ##555, 556, and 557:
“The Objective Redemption is complete. Nothing is added to it. The Mass is a relative sacrifice, totally dependent on Calvary.”
a) Nothing is added to it? That’s not what Roman Catholic dogma teaches. On the contrary, there are many things added to Christ’s work in Roman Catholic dogma.
b) But I suppose you mean that the sacrifices of the masses don’t add to it. There are a number of reasons why that claim is made, but it should be readily apparent that they are not Calvary, but something additional to it.
“You Protestant gentlemen have the problem of how to reconcile what Christ did once for all on Calvary with His very clear words at the Supper in which He said he was instituting a sacrifice.”
We met that challenge hundreds of years ago (as others had before the Reformation) by pointing out that at the Supper he pointed forward to Calvary, rather than making the supper itself a sacrifice.
“Your fight isn’t with me but with Christ.”
I’m Christ’s disciple, which is why I cannot follow the bishop of Rome – you follow the bishop of Rome, when you ought rather to follow Christ.
“How is the bread imagery fulfilled on the cross?”
If you mean, how do I know, the answer is from Hebrews 9, the first half of the chapter or so.
If you mean, in what way does the cross fulfil it, on the cross, Christ is presented to the Father as an acceptable gift, offering, and sacrifice. The shewbread was one of those things that was placed before the Lord as an offering. It was baked in the fire, and analogously Jesus underwent intense sufferings on the Cross.
“Jesus did say in Jn 6:52 that the bread He was going to give was His flesh He was going to give for the life of the world.”
And Christ did that on the cross.
“The Flesh Jesus gave was the flesh that hung on a cross. So the bread Jesus talked about was His crucified ( and glorified ) Flesh.
But that is not an Old Testament type.”
It is the fulfillment of the OT types. Jesus himself explained:
John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
“Christ is still the High Priest. And every priest must have something to offer. What is that? Well, Christ is also a Victim ( Rev. 5 the slain Lamb ).”
Christ is both Priest and Victim, yes. But he no longer needs something to offer. His work of offering is complete. Now he, as mediator, entreats the Father on the basis of that finished work on behalf of the justified elect.
“Christ “sat down” does not mean Christ is a rest. Remember, in the Bible, judges sit. Besides, Stephan saw Christ standing in his vision.”
It does mean that he has rested from the work of sacrifice.
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
He’s not altogether at rest – to be sure – he’s sitting on a throne, from which he will come in judgment to judge the nations. And, as I noted above, he continually makes intercession for those whom his blood purchased.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
October 21, 2014 at 10:01 am
Jim:
Please don’t get into the personal attacks on Luther and Calvin. It’s logically fallacious to argue that way, it’s annoying to people like me, and it’s only going to make you odious. You don’t want that – I don’t want that – let’s try to focus on what God said, rather than on the failings (real or imagined) of His adopted sons.
-TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 11:02 am
TurretinFan, beautifully said to Jim, really week said brother!
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 11:02 am
TurretinFan, that should read really well said!
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 11:22 am
DeMaria, you continue to always quote the warning passages and fear and punishment. And like I tell Catholics this fear is warranted for you because you are the people Paul is praying for in Romans 10:1. There is no assurance of of salvation for you because your salvation depends on you and not the imputed righteousness of Christ. Here is what John said in 1 John 4:18 ” There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. Reformed Christians don’t fear because we have been perfected by love, Hebrews 10:14. Romans 8 tells us nothing can separate us from the love of God. Peter says we posses an inheritance that is RESERVED in heaven for us, and it can NEVER fade away. We are sealed in the Spirit, adopted, and seated with Christ in heavenly place. Here is what the writer of Hebrews said ‘ so Christ also, having been offered once to bear sins of many, will appear a second time, for salvation WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SIN, to those who eagerly await Him. John was a beautiful dude DeMaria. He summed it up in John 5:24 for we who trust in Christ alone for our salvation, he said we have passed out of judgment, out of death into life. There is no passing back thru the door for believers. But you are completely justified to fear punishment. That feeling is from God. And if i were you I would look hard at what that is. Because or God gives us peace and assurance of salvation to those who are trusting in another’s righteousness . God bless.
greenbaggins said,
October 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm
De Maria, people tend to say things about Calvin like what you said only if they haven’t read any Calvin whatsoever. Have you read his Institutes, for instance? Or is your impression of him based entirely on tertiary sources, which are based on bad secondary sources, as I suspect?
TurretinFan said,
October 21, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Jim (regarding ##613 and 614):
Regarding “personal” attacks. The attacks are attacks on the person of Calvin and Luther – on their character. Do you understand? That’s why they are “personal attacks.” You may take criticism of Rome’s heresies personally, but that’s a completely different sense of “personal.”
Regarding my comments at #607, I merely stated the truth – I didn’t assume something I was trying to prove. And no – I didn’t say his sacrifice was only for the justified elect. I said his impetration – his intercession – is on behalf of the justified elect. His sacrifice was for all the elect – both those who are now justified and for those who will be justified. To use John’s way of saying the same thing, he is the propitiation for our sins (the already justified) and not ours only but also the whole world (those from every tribe, nation, and tongue who will believe and be justified by faith apart from works).
-TurretinFan
Vincent said,
October 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Turretin can you give me some examples of your assertion here:
a) Nothing is added to it? That’s not what Roman Catholic dogma teaches. On the contrary, there are many things added to Christ’s work in Roman Catholic dogma.
I think you have in mind purgatory and treasury of merit right? I cant think what else can be seen as additional to Christ’s work in Roman Catholic dogma. Have you read Bonaventure and Aquinas’s works on the treasury by any chance? They go to pains to show that the merits’s of the saints and satisfaction of the saints are depended on and a participation in Christ’s infinite work. Of course the work of these two great doctors is sometimes lost on the roman catholic masses who really believe they are adding to Christ’s work. Anyways interested in hearing your feedback.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm
Vincent, I dont pertain to answer for TurretinFan but I’ll give you a list of things piled on the cross. Baptism ex opere oerato, penance, salvation only thru the sacraments of the church ex opere operato, ( unless your a Trinity hating Muslim, then you get a free pass), Mary, one’s own works justifying in some way, indulgences ( selling Christ’s merits, 13.99 special gets you 100 years burned of of your temporal punishment burned off). pilgrimages, Rites, Sacramentals, imputed righteousness from the special saints,) but of course imputed righteousness from Christ won’t do because He wasn’t capable of being our complete substitute), accumulated love for a final test, etc. I could go on. That poor Philippians jailer, all along he just thought he had to believe.
Vincent said,
October 21, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Kevin I don’t think indulgences are being sold anymore and I don’t think 100 years means literal 100 years.
Turretinfan
I am interested in hearing your input and answer to my question.
TurretinFan said,
October 21, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Vincent:
According to the council of Trent 6th Session (On Justification), Chapter 7: “the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.”
This teaching that co-operation is a part of the basis for justification is also confirmed with anathemas:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
That was the issue of Roman Catholic dogma that was foremost in my mind. The open status of the title “Co-Redemptrix” for Mary was probably in the back of my mind, while the treasury of merit, acts of contrition, and sufferings of Purgatory were rattling around in there somewhere as well, I’m sure. The main issue, however, is the Roman dogma that denies justification by faith alone, as expressed by Trent.
-TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Vincent, a few years ago in St Peters square there were 2 huge arches, indulgences arches. Thecchurch has been selling salvation, Christ’s merits forever. Think about for one moment Vincent a church selling what Christ died for and offered freely from His grace? How long would it take you to walk out of thar church? Read Spurgeon ” Geese in their hoods” and his account of how the Rman church got rich on the back of the poor in Italy. Litteraly impovershing the people like animals. Selling salvation should be the banner over the Basilica. The greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the world. It has bewitched the gullible world. Luther said the Pope and his religion will not permit men to be saved. The Reformation is no less in order today. 1 billion Catholics chasing the death wafer. Pray for them. We must love them with the truth. And it starts here with the rigorous defense of imputation. We should thank God for men like Lane, TurretinFan, Tim Kauffman, Dr Hart, etc. Some of the young men who understand what is at stake. Men’ souls.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Vincent, I was being tongue and cheekwith the 100 years for 13.99. My point was they sell masses and indulgences, and then they created Purgatory and took the selling into Purgatory forvdead saints. How clever is that. Double the dough! Is it any wonder that its the wealthiest institution in the world, and that its Pope wears a hat with diamonds worth thousands, and their Robes are worth hundreds of thousands. Peter and Paul said gold and silver we have none. Jesus washed feet, and His stand in gets his golden shoes kissed. Spurgeon said ” Of all the dreams that have ever deluded men, and of all the blasphemies that have ever been uttered in all maner of mischief, is that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the church on earth. These Popes die, and how could the church live if it’s head were dead. Christ is the head of his church, and the church forever lives in Him. Amen.
TurretinFan said,
October 21, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Regarding 1 John 2:2, for what it is worth, Augustine agrees with me that John is referring to the church throughout the whole world. See the second and third quotations posted here:
http://voxpatristica.blogspot.com/search/label/1%20John
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
October 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Jim:
Regarding #627, actually it means that your co-operation is added to Christ’s work. That’s the problem.
-TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Jim said ” As for adding to God’s work, my cooperation does not.” Wow! Could you be one of the elect. I hope so. God bless
De Maria said,
October 21, 2014 at 6:51 pm
No, Kevin. The Good Thief, St. Dismas, continued to suffer and expiate his sins even after Jesus said he would go to heaven. In fact, St. Dismas met every requirement which the Catholic Church teaches needs to be met before entering heaven:
He suffered in the flesh. Scripture says:
1 Peter 4:1
1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Crucifixion is considered one of the most painful ways to die that man has ever invented. And, as you can see, suffering in the flesh does away with sin. Christ must have known that the Good Thief had expiated his sins by the suffering that he endured on that cross.
He suffered with Jesus. Scripture says:
Romans 8:17King James Version (KJV)
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Who can deny that St. Dismas suffered with Christ? There he was suffering on the cross right next to Him. The only one any closer was Mary, His mother, who was spiritually suffering on the Cross with Jesus.
He admonished the sinner.
Do you remember that he reproved and rebuked the other criminal in defense of Jesus Christ? Scripture again says:
1 Thessalonians 5:14 [Full Chapter]
Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
This is a spiritual good work of mercy in accordance with the Teaching of the Church:
CCC#2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God:
He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none and he who has food must do likewise. But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
He made a confession of faith.
He openly confessed his faith in Jesus Christ, asking Him for salvation.
Matthew 10:32King James Version (KJV)
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
He converted the sinner.
His words have, through the centuries, converted many to faith in Christ. I count myself amongst them whom his words and example helped to convert. Do you know what happens to those who convert others to Christ?
James 5:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
He has saved his soul from death and his sins are forgiven.
He received a special revelation.
Jesus is God. And His word is effective. So, EVEN IF St. Dismas had not performed the works which he performed from his cross. He would still go to heaven because the Catholic Church recognizes God’s total authority. It is God, in the person of Jesus Christ, who told him that he would be saved. Therefore, St. Dismas would have been saved had he done nothing else.
The Council of Trent says:
CHAPTER XII
RASH PRESUMPTION OF PREDESTINATION IS TO BE AVOIDED
No one, moreover, so long as he lives this mortal life, ought in regard to the sacred mystery of divine predestination, so far presume as to state with absolute certainty that he is among the number of the predestined,[74] as if it were true that the one justified either cannot sin any more, or, if he does sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance.
For except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen to Himself.
When Jesus said to St. Dismas, “today, you shall be with me in paradise”. That is recognized as a special revelation directly from God.
Did the Good Thief produce good works?
By all means!
Those who ask the question have a poor understanding of the nature of good works. Certainly, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are good and meritorious works of mercy which provide the creature comforts a person needs to survive. But spiritual good works are also good and meritorious in the eyes of God.
Hanging upon that cross beside Jesus, it is as though the Good Thief was standing before Jesus Christ at the Judgement. Jesus Christ judged the Good Thief according to his works which he had done in the body and knowing that he believed, He counted it to him as righteousness. Just as he does for all who, with the proper disposition of humility and faith, approach the Judgement Seat of Jesus Christ at the Sacraments.
Thats why he went immediately into heaven.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria said,
October 21, 2014 at 7:14 pm
You’re wrong there too, Kevin. The Catholic Church didn’t invent Purgatory. Purgatory, if it could be said to be an invention, was invented by God. And it existed long before the Catholic Church was established upon this earth by Jesus Christ. Where do you think the Patriarchs went until Jesus Christ was raised from the dead?
They went to a place outside of time which some call “hades” and which is called the “place of the dead”. This is the same place which the Catholic Church calls Purgatory.
No, Kevin. At that point, all there was, was the Old Testament.
But not written, because the Church had not yet recorded the witness of Jesus Christ upon parchment.
Imputed righteousness doesn’t mean what you think it means. And, although Jesus Christ had taught the Church about the Sacraments. The Church had not yet been born because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.
God is Love, Kevin. That is why Love is greater than faith. Have you not read in Scripture?
KJV 1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
LV 1 Corinthians 13:13 There are three things that remain—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.
Because love is greater than faith. If you don’t have faith, you don’t have love. But if you have love, you not only have faith, but hope as well.
Have you not read that faith without love is a loud gong and cymbal?
1 Corinthians 13 Living Bible (TLB)
1 If I had the gift of being able to speak in other languages without learning them and could speak in every language there is in all of heaven and earth, but didn’t love others, I would only be making noise. 2 If I had the gift of prophecy and knew all about what is going to happen in the future, knew everything about everything, but didn’t love others, what good would it do? Even if I had the gift of faith so that I could speak to a mountain and make it move, I would still be worth nothing at all without love.
Without love, your faith is worthless.
To “confess with your mouth and believe in your heart” is a reference to Baptism, Kevin. That’s what we do when we are Baptized, right before they pour the water upon us.
I agree that it can be described as ecclesiastical machinery. But it is machinery that was instituted by Jesus Christ. That is why that ecclesiastical machinery is still running to this day, after 2000 years.
You’ve got your history messed up. The Reformers came around 1500 years after the Apostles and the early Church.
Did you just now begin to be frank? I’ve been frank with you from the beginning.
Simple trust in the Lord is expressed by submitting to the Sacraments with faith, believing that God will do what He promised and wash away our sins. And God, seeing our faith, counts is to us as righteousness and pours into our hearts, the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 7:28 pm
DeMaria, said to my statement that it was Christ who died for the Thief’s sins this ” No, Kevin. What a surprise, a Catholic who thinks the cross want the the sacrifice for our sins, but the bread of the supper. This is a violation of the fact that God’s wrath and our sins were nailed to the cross which provide the way into paradise that day for the thief. But DeMaria gives the glory to the thief for expiating his sins and therefore earning heaven. The thief said he was suffering justly and was under condemnation. He placed his faith in Christ and was justified in a moment. ” ” Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom” Immediately following Jesus said he was in. ” Today you shall be with me in paradise.” To say he attended the RC sacraments and expiated his sin corrupts John 3:16, John 1:12, Romans 10:9-10. He simply believed and the next moment Jesus said in. He didn’t say in until he confessed faith. Then the next sentence Jesus said in. No works! This is consistent with Roman 10:9. I stand by my statement the thief suffered the consequences of his sins, but the God/ man next to him died for his sins. And this is instructive. Catholics think accumulated love justifies them. But faith justifies apart from love. Love can only be second in natural order and stretch out to brother. Only faith can receive Christ and bring our justification to our heart. And when the thief believed he was justified immediately. As Paul says in Ephesians 2, we are save by grace thru faith, it is ” not that of yourselves” ” not of works” sorry DeMaria love will have to take its rightful place. Today a girl Catholic on another site said the one who will persevere will be the one who accumulates love for the final test.. Meriting continuance in grace thru love, works righteousness of merits and demerits will be soundly rejected.
Vincent said,
October 21, 2014 at 8:11 pm
DeMaria are you saying that God allowed the thief in heaven only because he had faith without any works? Also how can the thief be expiating his sins, is not only Jesus meant to do that? Was he expiating the temporal punishment? It seems we have become little Christs.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 9:03 pm
DeMaria, if Christ told the theif today you will be with me in paradise, why didnt he go to Purgatory? Because its an invention Roman invention, like the assumption of Mary, transubstantiation, scapulars, Priestcraft and sacramentalism. You said love is more important than faith. Love is always second in natural order. It cant do what faith does, namely justify, because love can only stretch out to neighbor. Only faith can receive Christ and bring Him to theheart. And thats why it justifies. It receives and rests in Christ. You said ” to confess with your mouth and believe with your heart refers to baptism in Romans 10:9. It cant for 2 reasons. 1. Paul said he wasnt sent to baptize.2. Confessing and believing doesnt mean baptize. Baptize means immerse. You make category mistakes like this. Saying Ephesians 2:8 means sacraments.
De Maria said,
October 21, 2014 at 9:52 pm
Really? Please read my explanation again. Start with the part that says:
“St. Dismas met every requirement which the Catholic Church teaches needs to be met before entering heaven:”
No. We expiate our sins when we suffer in the flesh. Jesus taught us how to do that:
1 Peter 4:1
King James Version
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Yes.
Are you serious? Has Protestant theology sunk so low that you don’t know that we are born again in the image of the Son of God?
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 10:51 pm
DeMaria said to Vincent ” we expiate our sins when we suffer in the flesh ” And you cite 1 Peter 4:1. What are you talking about? You just give verses meaning that have nothing to do with them. We share in the sufferings of Christ, but nowhere does that verse say its propitious. Why do Catholics reduce the sufficiency of his sacrifice. Its clear in Hebrews that He obtained redemptiom, sanctified and perfected us by His one time sacrifice, and put sin away. Hebrews 1, 10, 9. Vincent makes a good point, you are little Christ’s, The word became flesh, you didnt. You didntvdie on a cross, and arent qualified to pay for sins, no part.
De Maria said,
October 21, 2014 at 11:13 pm
Correct.
1 Peter 4:1King James Version (KJV)
4 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Hm? I’m not really sure what to do with that one.
You do know that sin resides in the flesh, correct?
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
But when we suffer, we cease from sin, because our flesh is purified of sin. That is the meaning of “expiate”.
ex·pi·ate
ˈekspēˌāt/Submit
verb
atone for (guilt or sin).
“their sins must be expiated by sacrifice”
synonyms: atone for, make amends for, make up for, do penance for, pay for, redress, redeem, offset, make good
“the desire to expiate his sins”
I think you’re confusing propitiation and expiation. This verse is propitious:
Colossians 1:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
Yes, we also believe that we suffer for the sins of all Christians. Yes, that means you. Catholics are members of the Catholic Church and, as such, members of the Body of Christ, with all that entails. I don’t think it ever occurs to Protestants that the Body of Christ suffers for the sins of the world, the same way that Jesus Christ did. Perhaps you missed it in Scripture:
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
You probably thought it was just a cute saying. But being a Christian means much more than Protestants ever think about.
Whereas, 1 Pet 4:1 is about expiation.
Oh, no, it is Protestants who reduce the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Protestants deny and reject almost the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ and give themselves the authority to judge your own salvation. It is Protestants who deny the power of God.
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 11:15 pm
Lane and Reed, thank you for allowing me to post here. Youbhave been quite fair. I’m retiring from blogging for awhile. God’ s many blessings to you and all whom I have interacted. K
De Maria said,
October 21, 2014 at 11:35 pm
God bless you too, Kevin.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 21, 2014 at 11:56 pm
DeMaria, thank you. I have enjoyed our discussions. If you and Vincent are interested RC Sproul has written a short but powerful article ” What do Expiation and Propitiation mean?” No mater your position a must read. See Ya K
Reed Here said,
October 22, 2014 at 8:38 am
Jim, I’d recommend you read John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
I’ve read a number of comments where you challenge us “fellows” with a deficiency in belief that is not even remotely accurate. To be sure, it appears that often you are picking up on an inference, a location where there is a substantive difference between your belief and ours. Yet you tend to jump to the assumption of absence rather than difference.
As you say you are interested in understanding then reading a book like this one will go a long way toward removing inferences of absence and explaining inferences if difference. A suggestion made in good will here. This book won’t convert you. It will help you understand how we read the Bible on these things.
P.S., did your spell checker fail you earlier? Fowl is a bird, foul is something odious. Thanks for the laugh.
Tim Harris said,
October 23, 2014 at 10:17 am
#654 will not phase anyone that has actually read a page of Luther. A man with a purer heart, I have not discovered since the apostolic times. Read the Address to the German Nobility Jim and see if you can still remain a servant of that money-laundering outfit known as Rome. No pious and intelligent German could have in good faith. The only reason I can see why they did remain, in the south (with valiant attempts to the contrary even there, as in Augsburg), was the force of the Empire (or more positively the desire to maintain solidarity qua empire with the inherited church).
Jason Loh said,
October 23, 2014 at 11:15 am
Hello Jim,
What you have to understand is that Christ committed adultery for WHOM? Christ became an adulterer, yea, THE adulterer but HOW? On the CROSS … otherwise you are just misrepresenting Luther and the Reformation precisely in the same way that you accuse Protestants of caricaturing Romanism.
As I’ve shared before over at CCC, unlike the Roman atonement, the cross for Luther was not about Our Saviour being sinless (pure, perfect and holy love) in the face of demonic and human opposition.
It was the *** OPPOSITE *** — namely that the goal of the incarnation was to become the greatest sinner of all and sin in all its depth and horror one and the same time … the sinner is all sin …
The law requires segregation between the holy and unholy … precisely the logic of the Roman cross …but for Luther, God became ungodly in exchange of the ungodly becoming sons and daughters of God …. the joyous exchange …
Thus so, Jesus Christ – in order to save sinners – had to go deeper in flesh than original sin itself … otherwise He is no Saviour but an Exemplar to be imitated. Imitation of the passion of Christ will then have to precede His saving work. That is the inevitable logic of the Roman cross. This is the inner logic of sacramental life of the Roman Christian. Whether it is mental assent as the radix of faith or contrition as the condition of penitence, imitation must precede reception.
Luther came to realize that THAT was just not the Pauline gospel. JFBA means that the external sign of absolution of the priest is identical with the internal reality of forgiveness of sins itself.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 23, 2014 at 11:40 am
Jason Loh said ” imitation must preceed reception” IOW sanctification preceeds justification. The tail wagging the dog. Do this and you shall live= law, live and you shall do this =gospel. So Luther was Roman Catholic and the Reformation never was a rejection of the Roman Catholic gospel. You say do your level best and God gives you grace. And then you say thats what Luther really taught. Hmm.
roberty bob said,
October 23, 2014 at 12:56 pm
in reply to #660 . . .
” . . . the goal of the incarnation was [for Jesus Christ our Lord] to become the greatest sinner of all and [to] sin in all of its horror one and at the same time.” — Jason Loh
OK. So, Jesus was put on trial and condemned by Israel’s high court for blasphemy [claiming to be the Son of God and Israel’s rightful king], but in his resurrection he was vindicated; he was publically shown by God to be a righteous man. It is one thing to say, as the Bible does, that Jesus was “made sin”; but to claim that Jesus became the greatest sinner of all, and that there is evidence of him actually committing the full catalog of horrific sins — WHOA!
Is Green Baggins going to let this one slide by?
Reed Here said,
October 23, 2014 at 7:45 pm
Kevin, if your comment is not in some manner connected to the subject of the post, please refrain. If you think it is, then make the argument. Otherwise, this thread is not about the nature of the Lord’s Supper.
Thnx.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 23, 2014 at 9:42 pm
Reed, ok bro, sorry. Thanks K
TurretinFan said,
October 23, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Jim:
Regarding #650:
You wrote:
That’s an argument from an analogy, but without a salient analogy. In your system, you’ll be standing before God the Judge asking him to accept you as righteous because you are righteous – because you’ve done good works and haven’t done mortal sins (let’s not even get started on “venial” sins). You’ll say you were infused with righteousness from Christ and you made good use of it. See how that’s not relying exclusively on Christ’s righteousness?
You are mistaken about the Reformed position. As the Scriptures teach, the Redemption is accomplished and applied at different times. For us who came after the crucifixion, our Redemption was accomplished on the cross but we are justified only upon trusting in Christ.
That’s different from the RC system in which Redemption is applied only upon Baptism. That’s a key difference between the two systems. In Reformed and Biblical Christianity, the alone instrument of justification is faith – faith appropriates the work of Christ. By contrast, in Tridentine Roman Catholicism the instrument of justification is Baptism – Baptism allegedly infuses the recipient with faith, hope and charity, thereby making them righteous before God.
See the difference? See the problem?
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
October 23, 2014 at 10:30 pm
Jim:
Regarding #634:
You wrote: “I would rather not start a tug of war over whether Augustine was a Catholic or a Calvinist ( I say he was Catholic ).”
Both descriptions would be anachronistic. He was a Christian in the 4th century, long before either the Roman Catholic Church or Calvin were around. He used the term “Catholic” of himself, but did not accept the distinctive dogmas of Roman Catholicism. He also wasn’t a Presbyterian, or Baptist, or anything else that exists now. He was a man of his times not ours.
But if he *was* a Roman Catholic, than his agreement with me about 1 John 2:2 is just that more significant. One would expect Calvinists to agree with me – but Roman Catholics? that’s more surprising and unexpected.
You wrote:
Your position is understood. It’s not the teaching of Scripture, which defines Christ’s purpose not as trying to make everyone savable but to actually save his people from their sins.
I would love if you could direct me to the “official” teaching that the sacrifice of Christ was intended to be for all mankind exhaustively.The closest I’ve ever seen was Clement XI’s condemnation of Jansenism in the 19th century (1870’s or so). But most RCs today don’t view Clement XI’s list as an ex cathedra infallible teaching – so I guess it depends what you mean. See here:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/search/label/Jansenism
You’re free and clear from an accusation we didn’t make. But if you follow RC dogma, you’re still trying to add to Christ’s work as explained in my post #671.
-TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
October 23, 2014 at 11:12 pm
TurretinFan said” but if you follow RC dogma, you are still trying to add to Christ’s work” how many ways can one interpret ” not that of yourselves” “not of works” if its by works it is no longer by grace. Paul must have missed the memo on “to the one who works well to the end” ” as a reward to their merits and good works” who trully merit eternal life” “converted to their own justification” “say that nothing else is required to obtain the grace of justification” let him who has eyes see, and ears hear.
Eric W said,
October 24, 2014 at 7:18 am
Jim wrote to TurretinFan:
Come on over. I guarantee, you will be welcomed and I also promise, you will never, ever, hear your Calvinist Communion service mocked or called a blasphemy as we Catholics don’t hold to such absurd poppycock.
Response:
Who needs mockery or blasphemy when you deny us the “fullness” and “proper reality”. You want us to mock and blaspheme our communion as not good enough. This is nothing but psywar tactics.
Vatican II:
and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness
Kevin Failoni said,
October 24, 2014 at 9:22 am
Jim, said” and we know faith formed in love appropriates Christ. We were predestined long before any special juju sauce would have been injected. It is a person that is offered, Christ, not a derivative off that person, a soul substance. And scripture never says we are justified by love in any way. He is just annd justifier of those who have faith in Jesus. I personally belive that scripture teaches that Satan makes good look evil and vice versa. And since my confession teaches me Rome is antichrist, I submit one should read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite, and arrive at biblical truth. Example. Bible says no works in justification, Rome says works. Bible says one mediator, Rome says many, Bible says Lord’s supper is a remembrance, Rome says He is still on the cross, Bible says God gave us eternal life, Rome says Purgahell. Bible says nothing separates us from the love of God, Rome says penance second plank. Bible says Mary is mother of Jesus, Rome says gateway to heaven. Bible says you can know you have eternal life, Rome says wait and see. Bible says Christ is the end of the Law for righteouness, Rome says He is the beginnibg of the law, Bible says Christ is the head of His church, Rome says its the sinner in the big hat. Etc. My point is read Trent’s view of justification and believe the opposite and thats what scripture teaches. Justification in Rome is by works and is in instalments, so that means biblical justification is by faith alone in Christ alone and its permanent. Take it to the bank.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Reed Here said,
October 24, 2014 at 12:01 pm
James, you are rude beyond rude. I know what you were saying. I know why you made the inference to my mom’s reputation. You’ve yet here me respond to the specific offense of your comment. I’ve only responded to the offense of using that to challenge something that HAS NOT HAPPENED TO YOU HERE.
You don’t seem to get the nature of this conversation. Every single belief you offered is blasphemous to our ears, an offense and mockery of the great glory of God, carrying the stench of the aroma of the Father of Lies who is the source of your blasphemous words.
And I know you think the same thing of my position.
So … do you want to talk reasonably, or take unnecessary offense and simply be rude? You admit you are thinned skinned. Well if you know your weakness, why ignore it and risk offending God?
You are a guest in this house, and you accuse us of allowing others to throw mud at you. Meanwhile you throw worse.
So, I’ll repeat what I asked days ago. Clearly you have no respect for the blog rules here. Clearly you believe behaving in a manner that even pagans would call rude is not sinful. Well, we disagree.
I’ll ask again, PLEASE STOP. (I’ll now go a delete your new comments where you ignored my request, once again).
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm
That is correct. Jesus said:
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
What? Please provide the Scripture.
Are you referring to the fact that Jesus Christ commanded us to offer His Blood of the Covenant?
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Actually, it does, if you read the Word with understanding.
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
But faith alone is worth nothing:
1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
That is true.
You’ve said that before. And I thought you were just using hyperbole. But, you’ve said it so often, that I now believe you are sincere about that. Therefore, I’m going to extract that and see who else follows that advice.
I want to make one observations first. That little point, confirms what I suspected long ago. Protestants don’t follow Scripture. They follow the teachings of men.
Because, if you followed Scripture, you would compare the teachings of your confession to Scripture. And the Teachings of the Catholic Church to Scripture.
That’s what Kevin says. Here’s what the Bible says:
James 2:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Gal 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
1 Corinthians 2:2 [Full Chapter]
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15King James Version (KJV)
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Revelation 12:17King James Version (KJV)
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
The Catholic Church wrote that Scripture. So it is the Catholic Church which teaches that Christ is the end of the Law.
The Bible says that Christ appointed a Shepherd for His flock:
John 21:17 [Full Chapter]
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
On the contrary, Kevin. It is obvious that one can read what you teach and believe the opposite and that is what the Scripture teaches. And there it is in black and white. Scripture contradicts everything which you teach.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Jim said, “These quotes from the Bible should make crystal clear…” and likewise dM throws down Scripture faster than John Wesley ever did.
But all of this is for naught — just a cat playing with its mouse — unless the Bible is perspicuous. So, do you and dM now allow that Scripture is perspicuous — and thus can be appealed to according to grammar and context, without any trump card of “sacred tradition” lurking in the background?
Cuz if you reserve the trump card of sacred tradition or the Magisterium in case you are defeated by grammatico-historical exegesis, then you are not ingenuous in your quoting Scripture. It is just a game of win-win, where if you win in exegesis, fine, but if not, you will run back to papa in any case. In which case, what’s the point of having a discussion?
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Lol! And more accurately!
Does the Bible say it is “perspicuous”? I’d like to see that verse.
Here’s what the Scripture says to me. Tell me how you read it:
To me, that says that Scripture contains some things “hard to be understood”. That is precisely the opposite of “perspicuous”. The online dictionary gives this definition:
per·spic·u·ous
pərˈspikyo͞oəs/
adjectiveformal
(of an account or representation) clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid.
“it provides simpler and more perspicuous explanations than its rivals”
(of a person) able to give an account or express an idea clearly.
So, why would I say that Scripture is perfectly clear when Scripture itself admits that it is not so?
That is simply your opinion. But again, Scripture commands that we keep Tradition:
2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Scripture commands that we listen to the Church:
Matthew 18:17King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Scripture commands that we obey those in the Church who have rule over us:
Hebrews 13:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
To whom should I listen, to you or to Scripture?
1. You have yet to exegete anything, so you have no ground to stand upon.
2. What if we do run back to Papa, do you have truth on your side or not?
3. We are not afraid of you running back to your Protestant forefathers. They were also in error.
Let me see the Scripture which you claim backs up your beliefs. Let’s compare and see whose beliefs truly stand upon the Word of God.
Reed Here said,
October 24, 2014 at 1:40 pm
De Maria, re-read Tim’s conclusion.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Are you saying that he doesn’t want to have a discussion?
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 1:47 pm
Hello Reed and Tim,
The point in having a religious discussion is to discover who has Scripture on their side. At least, that is my point. One of the biggest charges that Protestants make against Catholics, is that they claim that Catholic Doctrine is unbiblical and Protestant doctrine is from Scripture. (For proof of this charge, see message #680 Kevin Failoni,
October 24, 2014 at 9:22 am).
But when I read Scripture, I find just the opposite. I find that Protestant doctrine contradicts Scripture whenever it contradicts Catholic Teaching.
So, that’s the point of having a discussion. Can you produce proof from Scripture to support your beliefs which contradict Catholic Teaching?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 24, 2014 at 2:12 pm
DeMaria, I said to you ” we were predestined before any special juju……” And you said provide the scripture” Absolutely. ” Ephesians 1:5 ” He predestined us to adoption as sons, thru Jesus Christ, by the kind intention of His will.” Romans 9 follows ” not because of works, but the one who calls” So much for Ratzinger and faith formed in love justifying. You can’t have juju injections before God’s predestination. Thats why in Jonah it says ” salvation is from the Lord” You can’t smuggle your character into God’s work of grace” That will be soundly rejected when on judgment day you say, Hi lord here are my cool works and I didn’t do no big ones in the last hour, can I please come in. Remember DeMaria, when your in that Pugh thinking you are free from the really big one’s, Jesus says if you even lust in your mind after a woman you have committed adultery. Better run to the Biblical, Reformed gospel fast. Like yesterday.
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 2:36 pm
dM, the point of perspicuity is not that all passages are easy to understand, but that the form of Scripture is linguistic and can be understood on linguistic terms, just like any other speech. I.e. there are no secret codewords that are clarified by Papa (e.g. “fire” means “Purgatory”) etc. If Scripture were not perspicuous in this sense, then it would not be possible to “prove from Scripture” that Scripture were perspicuous. The “proof” could be set aside as “difficult” requiring “authoritative interpretation” as could ANY OTHER PROOF whatsoever that would be brought forth. This is why I hypothesize that your giving the appearance of Scripture proof-texting is actually disingenuous in view of your professed principles.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm
What is the reference to “juju sauce”? Is that what you call “the Blood of Christ”?
Let’s read that in context:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Notice that we have been chosen in love. A virtue which you disdain.
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Predestination is a Catholic Doctrine:
CCC#600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
We are acceptable because we are united to Christ.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood
And we are united to Christ through His blood which we receive in the Holy Eucharist.
Is that what you disdainfully call “juju sauce”?
, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
It is because He died on the Cross and was resurrected that we now gain the forgiveness of sins in Baptism
So, it sounds to me, as though when God predestined us, He also predestined the Blood through which we would be cleansed of our sins.
I’m not really sure to what you refer in Rom 9, but it says, “15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
And God tells us elsewhere upon whom He has mercy:
Exodus 20:6King James Version (KJV)
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
So, if you read Rom 9 in the context of Scripture, you will get the correct answer. But if you read it in context of the Reformers, you will get error.
I don’t even know what that is. “juju”? Is that a slur upon Christ? What are you talking about?
That is Catholic Doctrine.
Let’s compare that to Scripture. You will come in saying, “No, I didn’t do any good deeds for my neighbor. But I believe in you. You are my Lord!”
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:
As for me, I know that I will be judged by my Lord. I hope in Him:
Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
God has provided for me the Sacrament of Reconciliation where I can confess my sins:
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
But you need to remember, that God will judge you upon what you have done in the body:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
And since you have, in the past, claimed that even unrepentant adulterers are saved, I remind you what St. Paul said:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10King James Version (KJV)
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Hm? Can’t you see that you are doing that which you accuse me of doing?
1. I posted the dictionary definition of “perspicuity”. It means “easy to understand”.
2. So, where are you getting the definition of “perspicuity” that it means ” that the form of Scripture is linguistic and can be understood on linguistic terms,”?
3. Sounds as though you’re running to your Papa for this definition. Because its not in Scripture. And its not in the dictionary. So, you’re either making it up or you’re getting it from someone else.
4. It is Scripture which recommends that we be guided to understanding the written Word:
Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readiest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
5. So, it sounds to me as though you are contradicting the Scripture Teaching that one can’t understand Scripture “unless some man should guide me”.
1. According to you, perspicuous does not mean “easy to understand”.
2. Therefore, you are admitting that we are correct. We do not believe that Scripture is always easy to understand.
3. And, I have proved it from Scripture.
1. So what? Are you afraid of the “authoritative interpretation”? If you claim that the Catholic Church does not adhere to Scripture, it shouldn’t matter. Just as it doesn’t matter to me whether you bring up Luther or any of the Reformers. They are all in error when they contradict the Catholic Church.
2 Since you have admitted that Scripture contains passages which are difficult, what do you do with them? To whom do you run for answers? Bring them on. But they better bring Scripture.
3. Scripture is a pillar of the Catholic Church. We test everything based upon Tradition and Scripture because they underpin each other. Together, they are the Word of God.
Why? I believe that Scripture is the Word of God. And I can prove what I believe from Scripture.
I also believe that Sacred Tradition is the Word of God. And I can prove what I believe from Sacred Tradition as well.
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Well I think you can prove perspicuity from Scripture but only if you already hold that the word of God is perspicuous. Otherwise, how could you? Therefore this is a transcendentally self-verifying notion. Or, if you prefer, you could model it as meta-logic, to be settled before going to the texts.
I have stipulated what I mean by perspicuity. Interpret what I say accordingly.
You can’t prove Sacred Tradition from Scripture without the special “cheat sheet” provided by your sources. That’s why all your quotations are nothing but a hat trick meant to deceive rather than illumine.
Let’s try it this way. Do you think you have a pretty clear understanding of “Sacred Tradition”? It is “perspicuous” to you? You cling to clear notions such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc. etc.?
Now, what if Papa and his gang “defined and declared” that the “true meaning” of the Trinity were a quadrinity of divine Persons? Would you then modify your beliefs accordingly, or declare Papa to be a heretic that should be removed?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 24, 2014 at 3:58 pm
DeMaria said “it means easy to understand” Do you realize that the Ethiopian eunich had Phillip explain the scripture to Him. He wasnt infalible. You should really trust the Spirit working with the word and thru the wordd. 1 John 2:27 isnt good for Rome. It tells me I have no need for a teacher, that the Spirit teaches us all things and its true. Doesnt mean we dont listen to our teachers but in the end it aint the men with the words, but the Spirit with the word. You put your trust in a church, we put it in the Word, but a church cant save you, only the Word. Spurgeon said when a man comes to you dressed in some funny garb saing he is a Priest, the poorest child of God should say of God should say stand off, I am a Priest. I do not know what you are since the only mention of vestments in scripture are with the temple of baal. Call yourself a Priest sir, I dare say a man would be ashamed to take the name. When I consider all the crimes and villanies performed under a special Priesthood, I would rather a man look at me in the street and call me the devil than call me a Priest. For of all the evil the devil has done, he is hard pressesd to match those done by a false Priesthood, But we are sometime called laity, but God calls us Priests, God’s cleras. You submit to the man in the funny hat as head but he cant save you. Only submitting to the Word cas head can save you. God bless.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 4:02 pm
But Scripture says that it isn’t perspicuous if you use the accepted definition of the word in the English dictionary.
You have yet to show that Scripture teaches your definition of perspicuous.
Easily, if it were true. But it isn’t. That is why you can’t. Besides:
1. I asked you to provide the support for your definition of perspicuous from Scripture. You haven’t.
2. I provided my support from an English dictionary. Can you produce your definition of perspicuous from an English dictionary? Or do you just want me to take your word for it?
3. I proved that Scripture says it it not always easy to understand (2 Pet 3:16) and that Scripture recommends a guide to understanding the Word of God (Acts 8:30-31). That is the Catholic Teaching.
Right now, I’m only interested in you providing proof of your definition of
perspicuity from Scripture. Where does Scripture say that, “perspicuity is not that all passages are easy to understand, but that the form of Scripture is linguistic and can be understood on linguistic terms, just like any other speech.”
Why is your interpretation better than Webster’s?
Definition of PERSPICUOUS
: plain to the understanding especially because of clarity and precision of presentation
I am doing so. I have understood that you simply make up the definitions of words to fit your doctrines, regardless of whether they are in Scripture. Otherwise, you would have provided the definition from Scripture.
Right now, we are talking about perspicuity. Concentrate on that.
Let’s try it this way, answer the question at hand. Where did you get your definition of “perspicuous”?
That wouldn’t happen. It is obvious that you are doing your best to change the subject because you have shot argument in the foot by introducing a non-biblical, different and subjective definition of a word which is clearly defined in English.
Now, if you don’t believe that perspicuous means easy to understand as it is defined in the English dictionary, then you have admitted that you agree with Catholic Teaching that the Bible is not always easy to understand.
And since you have gone elsewhere to obtain your definition of “perspicuity”, you have proven that you have a Papa to whom you run to understand Scripture.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Correct. Perspecuity, in the dictionary, means “easy to understand”.
St. Philip was a member of the Magisterium and taught the Ethiopian infallibly.
However, that is not the question at hand. Scripture says that the Ethiopian, a royal official and an obviously intelligent person, needed guidance in order to understand Scripture.
I do. And the Spirit tells me that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God:
Ephesians 3:10King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
As for the rest, you’re simply changing the subject. If you claim to be supporting Tim in his argument, produce the verse which says that Scripture is perspicuous. Or produce Tim’s definition of perspicuous from Scripture.
You too.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 4:28 pm
dM you are a rhetorical bully because you think you can both debate and set all the rules of the debate, you get to rule who is out of order, etc. You are a legend in your own mind.
I’ve experienced this before with you. It took a dozen back-and-forth’s, evading, ducking, weaving, until you finally answered the simple question as to the extent of plenary indulgences.
How to prove what “perspicuity” means is not at all the nub of what I am arguing. If you want to substitute a different word, do so.
(And no, Webster is irrelevant. It is not a theological wordbook if it says only what you say it does. WCF 1.7 says “All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded…” etc. This is the theological context I am speaking of.)
The issue is whether you are arguing your case by these citations in which everyone has equal access IN PRINCIPLE at the linguistic level to the language as a fellow Hebrew/Greek/English speaker; or whether there is a secret “decoding key” that you have access to and get to whip out of your pocket to “prove” your exegesis.
It would be like this. Someone becomes expert in Middle and Early Modern English, and writes an essay arguing that some passage in Shakespeare means X. Then you come back and say, “no, it can’t mean X, because Coleridge said it means Y.”
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 4:56 pm
It is you who brought up perspicuity. When I used the accepted definition, you changed it. So, it is up to you to prove that your definition of perspicuity is an acceptable definition.
Aha! Your Papa is identified! Thank you!
So, essentially, you are brow beating us for precisely the same thing which you do.
This is the Papa which you accept. So, now, you have set aside Scripture in order to provide authoritative interpretation.
As you just did.
Again, as you just did, by whipping up the definition by your Papa, the WCF.
So, now you have proven that YOU need the Scripture interpreted for you by the WCF. Because you whipped up a secret decoding key from your pocket.
Now, will you provide the Scripture which provides your interpretation of “perspicuous”? Or will you admit, as I have already shown, that it is not there?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 24, 2014 at 5:24 pm
DeMaria, said ” St Phillip was a member of the Roman Magisterium and Ephesians 2:8 means Roman Sacraments. Next thing your going to tell me is you can wear a brown scapular on the right sunday and skip Purgatory and go right to heaven! The theme song in Willy Wonka was Pure Imagination. Ill sing you the first verse. ” come with me and you’^ll se a land of pure imagination”
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 5:29 pm
Of the Catholic Magisterium. Magisterium means “Teacher”. And when St. Philip was teaching the Egyptian Eunuch, he was fulfilling that function.
The Catholic Sacraments.
You sound frustrated, Kevin. That’s what happens when you try to support false teachings with Scripture. Your beliefs are not there. Your beliefs contradict the Word of God.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 24, 2014 at 5:39 pm
DeMaria here is my definition of Perspicuity. Are you going to avoid it again. 1 John 2 :27 ” As for you, the anointing you received from HIM abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but HIS ANOINTING teaches you about ALL things, and it is TRUE and is not a lie, and just as it it has taught you, you abide in Him. I dont need the sinner in the big hat to teach me scripture, I have the Holy Spirit by and with the Word, both infalible. Hi ho silver.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Where?
Avoid what?
Kevin, that says nothing about perspicuity. That is speaking of anointing. And that anointing is the anointing one receives in the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Lol. That is funny. But, no, you don’t. You reject all the Sacraments, remember? Therefore, you don’t have the anointing which is received in the Sacraments of Jesus Christ.
And, again, this says nothing about perspicuity.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 24, 2014 at 5:51 pm
DeMaria said ” you sound frustrated Kevin” You beliefs are not there. You beliefs contradict the word of God” opinions are like shoes, everybody has a pair. I should realize you see scripture thru Rome’s glasses. Have a good weekend.
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 5:51 pm
Not at all dM. That is simply ad hominem evasion. I am merely trying to make you understand the meaning of the word as I am using it. If you thought Protestants meant by “perspicuous” that every verse is immediately clear even to a simpleton, you simply were misinformed. That is not what we mean by the word/concept. There is no papa there. It is a matter of removing ambiguity from speech.
If your thesis is, “then y’all should have used a different word,” fine, have at it with someone that cares. I don’t.
Now getting back to the nub of my point: you cited recently 2 Peter 3:15-17 to prove the non-perspicuity of Scripture, ands 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to prove we should keep traditions. Three questions:
1. Is 2 Peter 3:15-17 perspicuous?
2. Is 2 Thes. 2:15 perspicuous?
3. Is Sacred Tradition perspicuous?
You can use my, your, or Webster’s definition as it suits you — just specify which.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 5:54 pm
You too.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 24, 2014 at 6:11 pm
DeMaria, Iparticipate in the sacraments of my church. But I dont put up sacramental efficacy up in the place of the atonement, a piece of bread up in the place of my savior, nor am I confused that God’s soveriegn winds of salvation blow where He wants, and not at the behest of secondary causes. The church is not the same as Jesus Christ in the world. He meets us in the gospel thru the power of His Spirit where and how He chooses. Jesus never said the church is another incarnation. Paul used the bkdy of Christ as a metaphor. The church doesnt replace what Jesus does in a saving revealing way. It may imitate Christ, it may continue His mission, it may obey Him, but caution to say the church is another incarnation. Each of us incarnates the gospel as humans. We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. God no longer dwells in buildings, but in the heart of His people. This is why your church is a human institution, becoming more human everyday.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 6:34 pm
On the contrary, Tim. You’re the one who began with the “Papa and gang” cracks. So, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
Tim, you can’t just go around changing the meaning of words simply because you want to justify your doctrines.
Well, I goes you can, but that doesn’t lead to truth.
1. Protestants don’t all agree with each other.
2. I know what you and some of the Protestants mean by perspicuous.
3. But I wanted to show that you have an interpretive authority as well.
1. But you had to resort to the WCF, so there is a papa there for you.
2. That doesn’t resolve your position that there is no need for an interpreter since the Scripture gives obvious support for the idea of a Teacher of the Word of God, both in Acts 8:30-31 and in Heb 13:7 which says:
Hebrews 13:7King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
My thesis is that Scripture says that one can misunderstand the
Word of God, therefore one should use a guide to learn what it means (Acts 8:30-31), and that the Church is the Teacher of the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10) and that we should learn the Word of God from the Church (Heb 13:7).
No, I didn’t. That is your twist to what I said.
I used it to prove precisely what 2 Peter 3:15-17 says.
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are SOME THINGS hard to be understood,
That is the Catholic Teaching and that is why guidance in reading Scripture is recommended. Which also is confirmed by Acts 8:30-31.
I never said that all of Scripture was hard to understand.
Those questions are besides the point. Unless you are denying what 2 Pet 3:15-17 is saying. Are you?
Because it plainly says that some things in Scripture are hard to understand.
Yes.
Webster’s.
But again, you have admitted that some things in Scripture are hard to understand, thereby proving the Catholic Doctrine correct.
And you have also reached out to the WCF for an interpretive key, thus confirming that you also need assistance to interpret Scripture.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 6:46 pm
I’m surprised your bible church has sacraments at all!?
Nor do I, Kevin. I believe Scripture. And Scripture shows me that God is the cause of justification. And that He implemented the Church and the Sacraments in order that we might by saved by grace, through faith.
Scirpture says the Church is the Body of Christ. Do you deny it?
He has told us how He chooses:
John 14:21
King James Version
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Nor does the Church. That is your misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church teaches.
When Saul persecuted the Church, jesus said, “why do you persecute ME?”
No “may” to it. The Church represents Christ in this world. That is what Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
You’re the only one using that terminology, so you need to have caution.
True. And He is given to us in Baptism.
On the contrary, it is a human institution established by Jesus Christ with the authority to Teach what He commands and make disciples of the world. Anyone who rejects the Catholic Church, rejects Christ who sent her into the world.
Matt 28:19-20
Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 6:50 pm
dM, let’s put this Papa WCF to bed. Consider these two assertions:
1. By “perspicuous” I mean blah blah blah
2. The Bible is perspicuous.
My citation of WCF was to help you get (1), it is NOT what I would go to to prove (2).
So it is not functioning as Papa here. It is supplying words to help you understand a definition. Whether (2) is true as defined is a different question.
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 6:57 pm
Now, dM, since you say Sacred Tradition is perspicuous, even in the strong, “Webster” sense of the word, then I ask again: are the Catholic faithful to hold the papacy’s feet to the fire in view of the perspicuous Sacred Tradition? So if a pope departed from it, you would ignore that ruling as an article of faith, continue to believe the perspicuous Tradition, and perhaps advocate that the pope recant or be removed? Or perhaps, secretly hope that the Bonano family would rise up and pull a Godfather-3 ?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 24, 2014 at 6:57 pm
DeMaria said ” and He is given to us in baptism” No He is given to us thru the Spirit by the washing of the Word. Abraham was justified before any sacrament. ” Faith come thru hearing, and hearing the word of God. The spirit blows where and how He wants, not at the behest of a secondary cause. Baptism is a sign and seal of grace. The sign isn’t the signified. When I say that the church can’t be a continuing incarnation, i am referring to Rome finishing His incarnation and atonemnt thru the acts of the church. You can’t rent His humanity from His divinity. You can’t take from His what is uniquely His finished work.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 7:09 pm
So you want to deny that the WCF is your Papa. Yet, you are using it as an authority for the meaning of “perspicuous.
Yes, it is. Because you didn’t turn to Scripture to support your definition of “perspicuous”.
No. It is supplying authority for the definition which you provided for the word “perspicuous”.
Nevertheless, Tim, the whole question of what “perspicuity” is now besides the point.
1. Neither Jim nor I used the term. You did.
2. Jim and I both agree that there are some things in Scripture which are hard to understand. We don’t call that perspicuity.
3. This agrees with Scripture, itself.
4. And you also agree. But you call that “perspicuity in agreement with the WCF.
Tell me if this is wrong or right.
You define perspicuity of Scripture to mean that “some things in Scripture are hard to understand.”
If that is true, then you agree with Catholic Teaching. Soooo, what’s the problem? It seems that we simply disagree in the use of the word “perspicuity”. Right or wrong?
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Yea, Baptism:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
But he was not born again in the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
It is in Baptism that we wash away our sins calling on the name of the Lord.
We don’t rent it. He gave it to us:
1 Corinthians 11:24-28King James Version (KJV)
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm
1. You’ll have to be more precise. Hold their feet to the fire? For what?
2. Are you now changing topic?
3. The Pope won’t depart from it. He is protected by the Holy Spirit.
Anyway, in my last message, I asked,
Tell me if this is wrong or right.
You define perspicuity of Scripture to mean that “some things in Scripture are hard to understand.”
If that is true, then you agree with Catholic Teaching. Soooo, what’s the problem? It seems that we simply disagree in the use of the word “perspicuity”. Right or wrong?
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 7:42 pm
>>No. It is supplying authority for the definition which you provided for the word “perspicuous”.
This is just ridiculous. It was to show that my definition is not idiosyncratic; that Webster missed a major linguistic tradition if your citation is all they said.
Definitions are not magisterial. They can be stipulated or precised for the sake of discussion. It makes no difference to me what word you want me to use for the concept, as long as you understand the concept.
Understanding a concept is not the same as showing it is true.
The idea that we should “get our definitions from Scripture” comes from Harold Camping. I’m surprised to see you go there.
Too often, dM, you twist and twist on an irrelevant non-issue.I suspect many people just give up from exhaustion and wander off. Then, do you put another notch in your belt?
>>Jim and I both agree that there are some things in Scripture which are hard to understand. We don’t call that perspicuity.
While Protestants have been saying, for hundreds of years, and documented in places like the WCF, that though Scripture is perspicuous, some things therein are hard to understand. So it is either ignorant or disingenuous to keep insisting that the thing asserted by us is the sentence you attribute to Webster.
Stuff is needed to understand even the simplest Scripture — for example, basic facility with a language. We can thank our mothers for that. But all those necessary things are ministerial, not magisterial. Therefore,
>> You define perspicuity of Scripture to mean that “some things in Scripture are hard to understand.”
No, I define perspicuity linguistically. Moreover, that definition is consistent with some things being hard to understand.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 8:04 pm
So, you agree with the Catholic Church that some things in Scripture are hard to understand? Is that correct?
Tim Harris said,
October 24, 2014 at 8:13 pm
Certainly.
De Maria said,
October 24, 2014 at 8:15 pm
Awesome. Thanks for the discussion Tim.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 25, 2014 at 12:06 am
DeMaria, perspicuous=clear. I was a drug taking jazz musician, adulterer in Los Angeles, having an affair with woman married to San Francisco police officer. I got invited to church one morning. John MacArthur was preaching on Mathew 7, narrow is the gate into heaven, few find it. You cant imagine how perspicuous scripture was tgat day. At the end of the sermon God called me to faith and repentance. All the work of the Spirit thru the word. It was real clear.
De Maria said,
October 25, 2014 at 12:16 am
Two things.
1. You weren’t reading Scripture that day.
2. Someone was interpreting it for you.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 25, 2014 at 7:41 am
DeMaria said ” two things, you werent reading scripture that day and someone was interpreting it.” Ya the Spirit was interpreting it. I heard scripture that day.Romans 10:17 and understood the gospel. I went home and couldnt put the bible down. It was more active than a two edged sword cutting to me heart and marrow. The guy in the big hat and his infalible magisterium was no where around. I was praying and worshiping God. And his word was perspicuos. 1 John 2:27. I was baptized the next month and participated in the Lord’s supper. All a workk of God. Monergism.
Eric W said,
October 25, 2014 at 7:51 am
Kevin, you wrote:
The guy in the big hat and his infalible magisterium was no where around.
Response:
Shh…if that guy finds out, then he will try to claim some immediate power over you even when he wasn’t there.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 25, 2014 at 8:47 am
EW, exactly!
Kevin Failoni said,
October 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm
DeMaria, its every important to remember that the church doesn’t replace Jesus in the world. He meets us in some elements in the church, but He meets us outside the church also. The church isn’t the same as Jesus in the world. We are incarnational in the sense that His Spirit dwells in us. But we have to be careful with the notion that the church is a continuation of His incarnation and His atonement. His uniquely finished work that obtained eternal salvation is what the church sings the amen about and witnesses to His finished work in the gospel. Rome adopted a faulty system influenced by the pagan philosophers whereby His atonement is being finished in the acts of the church ( their sacraments ex opere operato). The Reformers objected strenuously to the the destruction of a sacrament whereby instead of offering grace for the weak, Rome offered merit for the strong. Rome’s sacraments became works to earn increases of salvation thereby undermining justification by faith alone. They returned us to the gospel of the bible and the early church that witnessed to a past event that saved people ( good news) versus a continual virtue process that doesn’t. Rome has ignored Paul’s words that if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace isn’t grace. DeMaria grace isn’t grace in your system. It is the means of exchange on the church’s merit system. Remember DeMaria, if its by works in nay way Paul say it is no longer grace. Romans 11:6. There is no sacerdotal system of meriting one’s place in the kingdom, no NT Priesthood. Yet we have a plethora of versus that tell us when we believe we are saved. John 1:12, 3:16, 5:24, Romans 4:5, 5:1, 8:1, 4:16, 11:6, Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:26, 10:9-10. And DeMaria, as much as you one to tell me all those versus mean sacraments, there isn’t a mention one time of sacraments. The great theologian J.C Ryle said; be careful when someone wants to make to much out of sacraments. There are only 4 versus in all of the Epistles on the Lord’s supper. But Faith is the riding theme. You accuse me of misinterpreting scripture, but it is you that reads sacraments into every verse when there is no mention of them. K
TurretinFan said,
October 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm
DM asked: “So, you agree with the Catholic Church that some things in Scripture are hard to understand? Is that correct?”
All us Reformed folks agree that some things in Scripture are hard to understand. As mentioned earlier:
The things that are necessary for salvation are clearly explained – but there are many other things in Scripture, including some that are hard to understand.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
October 25, 2014 at 4:29 pm
You (de Maria) further asked: “If that is true, then you agree with Catholic Teaching. Soooo, what’s the problem? It seems that we simply disagree in the use of the word “perspicuity”. Right or wrong?”
Where we disagree is *apparently* over the flip side – that there are some things that are *not* hard to understand, and that God has chosen to communicate what is necessary for salvation in the *not* hard to understand portions.
Remember, “some things hard to understand” implies that there are things easy to understand – things one can understand without needing the Roman Catholic Church to tell you the meaning.
And you, DM, seem to acknowledge that not everything is hard to understand, for you wrote: “I never said that all of Scripture was hard to understand.”
You also wrote, recall:
Two responses:
1) Your proposal does assume that we are able to read, understand, and evaluate the Scriptures to ascertain their meaning. That’s good – it means we can have a discussion. Yet it means that we do not need your church as an authoritative interpreter to tell us what the text means – we can discover the meaning ourselves from the text itself.
2) Your proposal has one side weakness – while we should provide Scriptures to support our positions, you likewise need to provide Scriptures to support your positions. If the Scriptures are silent on a subject, you cannot expect us to accept your position as correct. Imagine if we insisted that there is an eighth sacrament – would you just accept it because you couldn’t find a Scripture that contradicted it? So, Rome needs to demonstrate her dogmas from Scripture, not just rely on silence of Scripture.
It would be enough for you to reject our doctrines if they were not taught by Scripture. It is enough for us to reject your doctrines because they are not taught by Scripture.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
October 25, 2014 at 5:08 pm
Jim:
Regarding the charge that you worship bread, the charge is only correct if you adore the host as though it is God. If you do that, you are worshiping bread, because there has been no physical or essential change of the bread. Even though in Christian communion the bread does become the body of Christ, it does so by consecration and representation not transubstantiation. Christ is physically in heaven – he is physically absent from us, not physically present with us. When you worship the host, you are (unintentionally, I am sure) engaging in 1st commandment idolatry in the sense of worshiping a created thing as though it were the Creator.
Your church teaches people to treat the host as though it were actually Christ physically and spiritually – the entire Christ: body, blood, soul, and divinity. I hope you don’t follow what your church teaches – but if you do, you’re unintentionally engaging in idolatry.
De Maria wrote:
Notice carefully that Scripture says “cup” – but Rome says the contents of the cup, not the cup itself. They figure out that “cup” is a figure of speech that refers to the contents. They should also figure out that “x is y” can be used as a figure of speech to express that “x represents y” or something similar to that.
And they really don’t have an excuse for not knowing this. Remember that in the chapter, just a few verses before, Paul uses a very similar metaphor. Paul (inspired by the Holy Ghost) says:
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Paul does not say “that Rock represented Christ” but that’s what he means. Rome does not fall into the error of supposing that the Rock in the wilderness was a transubstantiation of Christ.
Rome only makes that kind of error with respect to verse 16, because she is trying to read the medieval error of transubstantiation back into Scripture. Scripture uses metaphor and uses it in a way that can be easily understood – both at verse 4 and and verse 16.
-TurretinFan
Regarding “Over on Jason Stellman’s they just, hours ago, open a discussion on this very topic. Come on over. I guarantee, you will be welcomed”
I doubt very much that I would be welcomed by Mr. Stellman, but I appreciate your gracious invitation.
TurretinFan said,
October 25, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Jim wrote:
I do appreciate you pointing that out and it is earlier than the example I gave, and better and more clear than the example I gave. But whether the bull “Cum Occasione” an infallible document … still basically the same issue.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
October 25, 2014 at 5:30 pm
Jim:
Since I see you’ve exited the conversation, I don’t think that there is much benefit to me posting further explanations regarding the “crystal clear” (I am glad you realize Scripture can be crystal clear) Scripture to which you posted citations.
-Turre
TurretinFan said,
October 25, 2014 at 5:35 pm
Jim, you wrote:
a) I think I explained it by referring to Trent – Tridentine and later Roman Catholicism is distinguishable from Augustine in lots of ways. Even if he held to all of those things you claim, his failure to worship using images would make him pretty clearly not a Roman Catholic. Likewise would his failure to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. (among numerous things we could identify)
b) And I don’t even grant you the points you identify above. He never taught, for example, that the bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction over the whole church. Moreover, he affirmed the physical absence of Christ and acknowledged the use of metaphorical language rather than adopting a position like transubstantiation (a doctrine that didn’t get invented until centuries after his death). I could go on, but again I’m not sure what point that would serve, given your exit from the conversation.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
October 25, 2014 at 5:57 pm
Jim:
Nevertheless, despite your exit from the conversation, there are a few points I’d like to clarify, since I hope you are still reading along.
I had written:
You responded:
a) No, the act of faith does not add to the Cross, because the act of faith is not the grounds of justification, just the instrument.
b) We are declared to be righteous (i.e. justified) on the grounds of Christ’s righteousness. So, you could say that Christ’s righteousness is both the meritorious and formal cause.
I had written:
You responded:
I’m saying that Redemption is applied upon Faith, not upon Baptism. Thus, for example, Cornelius was justified by faith before his baptism – just as Abraham was justified before his circumcision. The Baptism of Cornelius pictured the application of the redemption that had already been applied to Cornelius.
I had written:
You responded:
You’re still missing the point – in Roman dogma Baptism appropriate the work of Christ, but that’s wrong – faith appropriates it. The faith that appropriates the work of Christ will be accompanied by fruit of the Spirit, which provides evidence of the faith.
I had written:
You responded:
a) Last things first, I need to tack on the adjective to make it clear that this is a dogma defined by Trent. It would be shocking if that was the first time anyone had thought of the idea, but there is a reason that Trent felt the need to define that dogma.
b) I didn’t say Baptism adds to the cross. I said Rome claims that Baptism is the instrument of justification. By contrast, the Scriptures teach that men are justified by faith, meaning that faith is the instrument of baptism.
c) Moreover, I said Rome claims that faith, hope, and charity in the man are the grounds of the man’s justification. That adds to the cross, less clearly at initial justification and more clearly for subsequent justification (since subsequent to baptism the state is not just infusion, but also the man’s own co-operation).
I hope that clarifies things.
-TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
October 25, 2014 at 6:00 pm
TurretinFan said to Jim ” but if you do follow what your church teaches ( transubstantiation) you are unintentionally engaging in idolatry.” I would argue that if they follow what theirvchurch teaches they intentionally engage in idolatry.
De Maria said,
October 25, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Let’s hope so.
God created us without our cooperation, but He will not save us without it. Augustine
De Maria said,
October 25, 2014 at 7:43 pm
kevin, you excel at straw man arguments. Scripture doesn’t say that the Church replaces Christ. It says that the Church REPRESENTS Christ:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
That is Catholic Teaching.
Scripture says it is:
Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
His atonement is finished. It is your turn to do your part:
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
The Reformers objected to the authority of God in this world. The Catholic Church is the haven of the weak and poor against the powerful in the world.
Vincent said,
October 25, 2014 at 7:53 pm
I think it is time that this conversation comes to a close. It has been going on for days. But before I go I think DeMaria needs to read this section from the cathecism of Trent which says the following about the atonement:
The first and highest degree of satisfaction is that by which whatever we owe to God on account of our sins is paid abundantly, even though He should deal with us according to the strictest rigour of His justice. This degree of satisfaction appeases God and renders Him propitious to us; and it is a satisfaction for which we are indebted to Christ our Lord alone, who paid the price of our sins on the cross, and offered to God a superabundant satisfaction. No created being could have been of such worth as to deliver us from so heavy a debt. He is the propitiation for our sins, says St. John, and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world. This satisfaction, therefore, is full and superabundant, perfectly adequate to the debt of all sins committed in this world. It gives to man’s actions great worth before God, and without it they would be deserving of no esteem whatever. This David seems to have had in view when, having asked himself, what shall I render to the Lord, for all the things that he hath rendered to me? and finding nothing besides this satisfaction, which he expressed by the word chalice, a worthy return for so many and such great favours, he replied: I will take the chalice of salvation, and I will call upon the name of the Lord.
De Maria said,
October 25, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Hi, I’m not Jim, but since I’m responding to some of this message, I thought I’d respond to all of it.
We believe Christ. He said:
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
He said that He would leave His flesh in the form of bread.
Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
He said the bread is His Body.
That’s not what Jesus said. Jesus said He would leave bread which was His flesh. That is transubstantiation.
Have you ever heard of “omnipresence”? What does that mean? And whose attribute is it?
But if the Creator says that the bread is His Flesh, why don’t you believe Him?
Correct.
I do. With all my heart and soul.
What does this say?
! Cor 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
As I read it says. Flee the idolatry of the pagans. But the Eucharist is not idolatry. Because the Cup of Blessing is the Blood of Christ. And the bread we bread is the Body of Christ.
How do you read it?
That is correct. Here’s another use of the word, cup:
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
I’m not really sure what you mean there. However, the Church is the institution which wrote the New Testament. This is how she knows that the “cup” means the contents of the cup. We know that the cup contains the Blood of Christ because Christ told His disciples and the disciples wrote the New Testament.
Protestants don’t celebrate the Lord’s Supper with empty cups, so, I don’t know to what you refer.
As far as I know, the Catholic Church has not defined this verse infallibly. However, I have guidance from the Church which tells me that I can read this verse literally. Therefore, I do not err in saying that, yes, the Rock was Christ:
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1. Note that this was no ordinary Rock. This Rock followed them.
2. Note also that Scripture frequently refers to God as their Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
3. Note also that the Rock which is Christ gave water in the Old Testament and still gives water in the New.
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
You say this because you neglect the fact that the New Testament is written based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ.
Unless you know the Teachings of Jesus Christ, you are flailing about trying to understand what the New Testament is saying. But the Catholic Church understands the underpinnings, the Traditions upon which the New Testament was based. These Traditions tell us that the bread is transubstantiated into Christ’s flesh. It is not a metaphor.
De Maria
I doubt very much that I would be welcomed by Mr. Stellman, but I appreciate your gracious invitation.
Do the two of you have previous history? If not, I don’t think he’d mind at all.
De Maria said,
October 25, 2014 at 8:51 pm
Hi Tim, I enjoyed our discussion. I’m glad it ended amicably. I was mulling over it and thought it might have ended prematurely. I’d like to ask one more question.
I said,
and you answered:
Bearing that in mind, do you see any wisdom in a function of Teacher of the Word of God, (i.e. Magisterium)?
As you know, we believe this is one of the functions which the Church serves and we lean upon Matt 28:19-20 and Eph 3:10 as well as other verses.
Of course, we could just leave well enough alone.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 25, 2014 at 9:13 pm
DeMaria, thanks for the discussion. Unless you are willing to understand that the day the Lord was crucified God’s wrath and our sins were nailed to the cross. Thee cup which signified God’s wrath in scripture did not pass. The storm cloud moved over, which always signified God’s punishment for wickedness , andChrist became sin so that we would become the righteouness of God in Him. God forsook His son . He. Became our substitute, a ransom for many. He was pierced thru for our transgressions and numbered with the transgessors. He paid the price in full, propitiation for our sins. His sacrifice that day condemned sin in the flesh and fulfilled the righteous reqirements of the law in us, not by us. The verb is passive. He paid in full the price for sin. It is finished and all we can do is live by faith. “The righteous shall live by faith”
De Maria said,
October 25, 2014 at 9:44 pm
I agree with all of that. I’m surprised that you do as well. Or is there another reason why you are quoting it to me?
De Maria said,
October 25, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Thank you as well, Kevin. I hope God will one day see that Christ suffered and died upon the Cross to give you and example that you should follow in His steps. As the Scripture says:
Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
And again:
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 25, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Vincent, are you justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Are you trusting in Christ alone for your salvation? Or do you hold to the Roman Catholic view that you are initially justified by faith and your works play into your final justification? Did Christ’s sacrifice pay for all of your sin, guilt and punishment?
De Maria said,
October 25, 2014 at 11:46 pm
Kevin,
that should say,
I hope that God will grant that one day you may see that Christ suffered and died upon the Cross to give you an example that you should follow in His steps. As the Scripture says:
Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
And again:
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Sorry for the typo
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 12:12 am
DeMaria, Christ’s death on the cross didnt just return us to the garden to leave us on our own. Hebrews 9 says He put sin away. Romans 5 says He reconciled us to God and justified us by His blood. He was raised for our justification, the first fruits with the rest of the crop to follow. He accomplished our redemption and sat down . He saved us. He who began a good work in us will perfect us until the day of Christ. You dont have to merit your continuance in grace. John 1:16 says from His fulness we have been given grace upon grace. He is able to save to the uttermost those for whom He died. DeMaria the rich young ruler tried to take his works resume to the gate, and Jesus told him repent and believe. He walked away. Then jesus said with man its impossible, but with God all things are possible. The corruption of faith and heresy has always been the conflation of faith and works. For Paul works and hearing by faith is opposed in justification. I pray you will see this. Your soul depends on it. K
Tim Harris said,
October 26, 2014 at 1:51 am
dM (#739) I would even up the ante and say that some passages are (now) impossible to know the meaning — for example, where the meaning of the Hebrew word has been lost. And in those cases, a magisterium would not help at all.
Wise exegetes from the past should be consulted. In this sense I am as free — perhaps freer than you — to consult the Fathers and even the popes to find help in interpretation. But never should one say, “now we know what this verse means, because Innocent the somethingth said so.” Here’s an analogy:
I have on my shelves the magnificent Feynman lectures on Physics. They are worth repeated perusal. But at no time would I ever say, “I know the earth is round because Feynman said so.” That would just be a confession that the coin had not dropped. It would mean I neither understood nor assented to it in the sense of subjective knowledge. I would just be parroting Feynman’s conclusion, qua authority, which is not Physics. The fact that he is smarter and broader than I in his understanding doesn’t change that basic structure of knowing.
The idea that Sacred Tradition is perspicuous, settled, and beyond debate is ludicrous in view of history. The bishops tried to wrest some control back from Pope in the 1415 Council of Constance. That one turned out deplorable also in the treacherous murder of Huss, but the conciliar principle was right vis-a-vis papal supremacy. Then, in 1983 JP2 defined by his new Canon Law every last tiniest ambiguity of conciliar power into the papal lap, and there was a huge outcry from the French and German bishops. But I guess if that Canon Law lasts a little longer, it will soon be infallible tradition — so the possibility of a true independent council will soon be permanently impossible, at least if Rome is to be included in it. Meanwhile, were the French and Germans merely rebellious in having harbored a different view of the matter? This is why I teach that any tradition-based epistemology is in the final analysis power-religion. Whoever wins the power struggle defines the truth. How far from our Savior’s teaching this is.
Vincent said,
October 26, 2014 at 6:32 am
I quoted it DeMaria to show how it refutes your idea that Christ only partially atoned for sins instead of fully paying the debt and guilt.
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 7:40 am
Keeping in mind that magisterium means “teacher”, what does this verse say to you?
Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
To me that says that Jesus Christ established a “Magisterium” because He commanded the Church to “teach all nations”.
But what does it say to you?
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 7:57 am
We believe that Jesus paid the full debt. Nothing about guilt. But that Tridentine quote also says:
The first and highest degree of satisfaction is that by which whatever we owe to God on account of our sins is paid abundantly, even though He should deal with us according to the strictest rigour of His justice.
Reading that in Catholic context, that says that God punishes us for our sins, even though Christ already paid for them to the highest degree of satisfaction. How do you read it?
Also, did you go on to read the next two paragraphs?
There is another kind of satisfaction, which is called canonical, and is performed within a certain fixed period of time. Hence, according to the most ancient practice of the Church, when penitents are absolved from their sins, some penance is imposed, the performance of which is commonly called satisfaction.
By the same name is called any sort of punishment endured for sin, although not imposed by the priest, but spontaneously undertaken and performed by ourselves.
Did you include those in the context of what you read in the paragraph you presented? I don’t think so, because if you had, you would see that Trent says that we participate in our atonement.
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 8:01 am
That is true Kevin. We have moved higher in the spiritual plane than that which Adam and Eve walked before the fall.
That is why we now communicate with the Saints who have gone before us. Those who have faith in Jesus Christ and believe the promises of Baptism, now walk on Mt. Sion with the spirits of just men made perfect, in other words, with the Saints:
Hebrews 12:18-24King James Version (KJV)
18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 10:56 am
DeMaria. ” keeping in mind that magisterium means teacher what does this verse mean to you” 1john 2:27 ” As for you, the anointing you have receieved from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but as His anointing teaches you in all things, and is TRUE” You r going to trust the guy in the big hat, im going to trust the Spirit in me. But the guy in the big hat cant save you.
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 11:01 am
This anointing which empowers us to teach the word of God is called the Sacrament of Confirmation:
CCC#1320 The essential rite of Confirmation is anointing the forehead of the baptized with sacred chrism (in the East other sense-organs as well), together with the laying on of the minister’s hand and the words: “Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti” (Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.) in the Roman rite, or: Signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti [the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit] in the Byzantine rite.
CCC#1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:
– it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!”;117
– it unites us more firmly to Christ;
– it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
– it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;118
– it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:119
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 11:16 am
DeMaria, said to Vincent ” we believe that Jesus paid the full debt” You dont believe Christ paid the whole price including debt, punishment, fulfillinf the law in our place and removing the wrath of God. You are expiating your sins. Christ sacrifice cant get you to heaven because He is still on the cross an eternal victim.” In Rome instead of Jesus being the mediator that took away the wrath of God, He is the one angry with you, and Mary becomes the mediatrix who goes to soften Him up and take awy His wrath. Think about that. Taking the compassionate savior who took away our sin and who is able to sympathize with us in everything , and making Him angry in need of appeasement, inserting the mediatrix of all graces. You have Jesus in a wafer locked in a little box, and you have Mary seated above heaven and earth. My savior is risen! Savior, King, who Acommplished my redemption and who pleads His perfect sacrifice for me continually. I dont have to merit my continuance in grace, I stand in it thru faith alone in Christ alone. And I am called righteous. ” The righteous shall live by faith”
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 11:23 am
Kevin,
God the Father loves His Son. He did not pour His wrath out upon Him. This is what the Scripture says:
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jesus Christ voluntarily laid down His life in order to raise it up again:
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
And we do the same. The entire point of this life is the imitation of Christ:
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 11:58 am
DeMaria, Christ said He laid down His life for His sheep. He laid it down, nobody took it from Him. Thru the Spirit He offered Himself up a ransom for sins. Ransom means He bought us out of slavery. He was born under the Law to redeem this under the law by fulfilling the RROTL in us, not by us who walk by the Spirit. It pleased the Father to crush Him. He was bruised for our iniquities, and pierced thru for our transgressions. He was numbered with the transgressors. He was the payment, propitiation for our sins. He reconciled us to the father and justified us by His blood. Romans 1:4 says He was raised and declared Son of God with power. He did nothing for you, because you are still in your sins. You still have Him o the altar and the cross. He is no mrs use to you that and OT sacrifice was. It is temporary and has no power to save. The real savior said He accomplished ALL that the Father gave Him to do, He obtained eternal salvation, put sin away, perfected us, sanctified us, and someday will come to get us, those trusting in Him alone. You will be left in your sins. His one time sacrifice wasn’t enough to save you, because if it were you wouldn’t need to expiate your own sins and you wouldn’t need to return to the death wafer for increases in justification. Communion would be a spiritual confirmation of your faith which SAVED you Eph 2:8, and a remembrance of the cross, a blanket across History that put sin away, accomplished salvation, and is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near. According to 1 Corinthians you faith is useless and you are still in your sins because you won’t let Him off the cross. K
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Kevin,
Jesus Christ died in order that we might turn to Him and live. If we do not turn to Him and obey His Word, we condemn ourselves:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Scripture also says that those who do not assemble together tread underfoot the Body of Christ which was given for us:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
It is when we eat the Bread of the Son of Man and drink His Cup, that we proclaim His death until He comes again:
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 3:20 pm
DeMaria said ” if we dont turn to Him aNd obey His words, we condemn orselves” This is a popular concept with you, unfortunately it isnt biblical. Romans 8:1 says there is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ. So even when the Christian does not obey His words we cannot condemn ourselves. In fact the scripture says when we are faithless He remains faithful. We persevere because He perseveres. We see the man in 1 Corinthians 5 who was shacking up with fathers wife, turned over to Satan for sifting, but he was saved. Our salvation isnt dependent on our works, but the righteousness of Christ which comes thru faith. Who can bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Christians cant be condemned and 1 John 5:13 tells us we can know with certainty we have eternal life.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 3:37 pm
DeMaria, I agree as often as we eat and drink the Lord’s supper we proclaim His death until He comes. We do this in remembrance of Him, but not to eat Him physically in order to merit increases of salvation. My Lord isnt a wafer, or a wafer God. He isnt locked in tabernacle, in a wafer being adored. He is high above heaven and earth, at His altar in heaven, Priest forever, King. He is never going to come back down to get on the cross again as the Priest becomes His regent. Stop rebreaking His body, and worship Him in the acceptable way, in Spirit and truth, by faith. This is acceptable and pleasing to God. And find a church that obeys His commands to participate in both elements of the Supper..
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 6:34 pm
If we walk according to the Spirit:
Romans 8 King James Version (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
You say that the Corinthian who shacked up with his father’s wife was one of the elect. Ok. St. Paul says about such a one:
1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
So, he is saying that they are not admitted to the Lord’s Table. Because he is speaking in context of the Christian Passover:
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
These, St. Paul says, must be purged so that they will be punished by Satan and their sinfulness destroyed:
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
And so they did, to the Christian brother who had already been justified by faith.
So, this member of the elect was not Once Saved Always Saved. He fell away from the Faith. Until he should repent and come back.
THAT is the Catholic understanding of justification. And ongoing process which can be perfected by one’s contrition to sin. Or, which one can make a shipwreck and lose.
In this case, the fellow returned to the Church. But the question is, did he suffer for his sins? Or was the atonement of Christ sufficient to pay for this sin also?
2 Cor 2:6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.
So, then, he suffered in the flesh and thus, his sin in the flesh was destroyed. Just as St. Peter said elsewhere:
1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
So, again, this is completely in line with Catholic Teaching. And your theology contradicts the Written Word of God.
So, there you go.
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 6:45 pm
That sounds like the Pharisaical response. They couldn’t believe that a man could be God. Therefore, they condemned Jesus.
And you refuse to believe that Jesus is the living bread which came down from heaven and that the bread which He left is His Flesh of the life of the world:
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
But we believe our Lord when He said:
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 9:33 pm
DeMaria said ” and you refuse to believe that Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven and that bread whichHe left is His flesh of the life of the world.” This a faulty view of the Trinity. We are incorporated into the body of Christ thru the SPIRIT, not the flesh. He literally tells us the things which I speak are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing. We are temples of the Holy Spirit, so we are incarnational in that respect. It is clear in John 6 that eating His body and drinking His blood is coming and believing. John 6 isnt about the Lord’s supper. Wrong place, wrong time, almost 3 years before. Augustine said you are NOT to eat this body that you see, nor drink the blood poured from His side. And yet you make a mockery of the supper. Jesus body is in heaven, He left us the Spirit to deliver all His victory spoils. Why do you quote John 6:54 and forget to quote John 6:63, it is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words I speak to you are Spirit and life. Hmm pretty important dont you think.
Vincent said,
October 26, 2014 at 9:37 pm
DeMaria did Christ paid the penalty for both our eternal and temporal debt? Or did he only atone for eternal? You mentioned that Trent teaches we participate in our own atonement.
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 9:51 pm
I didn’t say anything about the Trinity. Jesus said He was the living Bread from heaven. Didn’t you know?
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 9:55 pm
I see you still haven’t got the hang of dialogue. I said:
See those little things that look like this, “?”. They’re called question marks. Do you have answers for those questions?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 11:25 pm
DeMaria, I know that Jesus is the living bread from heaven. But Augustine knew he could only have Christ’s flesh as He is to be worshipped, in Spirit and truth. We all desire the flesh of Jesus and we worship it as He is in heaven and was on this earth. Augustine said in his explanation of John 6, you are NOT to eat this body that you see, and NOT to drink the blood that is poured out on the cross. Eating His flesh and drinking His blood is coming and believing. For Ignatius it was the same. Eating His flesh was believing and drinking His blood was loving. God is clear in Isaiah 44 that if your worship created thing, it does not matter if you think its Christ, pudding, or bread, you are deceived. No matter what the intent of your heart. Study it. Read Tim Kauffman’s ” in vain glory do they worship me” Either bowing to the bread is true worship or its blatant idolatry, and the scripture is perspicuous. Its idolatry.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 26, 2014 at 11:27 pm
Vincent, Aquinas was wrong. Buy a book ” Pierced through for our transgressions” and never put it down. K
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 11:40 pm
If Scripture is perspicuous, why do you recommend another book?
De Maria said,
October 26, 2014 at 11:42 pm
But you just denied it and called it and I quote, “…a faulty view of the Trinity….”
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 12:54 am
DeMaria, because each Christian has a right to interpret scripture, go to college, and read books.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 1:05 am
DeMaria, i call it a faulty view of the Trinity because replace the natural body of christ with church and the Eucharist. Christ left us the Spirit. Again He incorporated us into His BODY through the Spirit and not the flesh. Augustine realized he could worship the flesh of Christ through the Spirit. ” Understand SPIRITUALLY what I have said” you are not to eat of this body which you see and you are not to drink of the blood which poureth from His side. Hocus Pocus was an 11th century invention. It is a faulty view of the Trinity and an unacceptable way to worship Christ. When Augustine misread the Psalm that he thought taught to worship His footstool, he was greatly troubled because he knew he couldn’t worship his footstool. The translation says to worship at His footstool. Yet Roman Apologists misinterpret this as they do much of everything else. We all want the flesh of Christ, but we must have it through coming and believing, through the Spirit and the Word. Christ isn’t in the bread but He is in the one taking the bread through the Spirit. Incidentally DeMaria after you and your friends eat the Roman wafer God. do you genuflect to each other?
Reed Here said,
October 27, 2014 at 8:31 am
Kevin, maybe ask that last question a little less provocatively? Good question. Just a bit less poking. ;-)
Also, at some point here, tie this back into the main thread. It’s ok to go on loops, not tangents. Thx.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 9:07 am
True, but if they need to read books in order to interpret Scrlpture, that is prima facie evidence against the perspicuity of Scripture.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 9:23 am
Where do you get the “replace” part?
Does Scripture say that the Church is the Body of Christ? or not?
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Does Scripture say that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ? or not?
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
This is true.
This is what Augustine said:
We do have it when we believe. What do you think it means “to believe”? Do you think it means to pretend that it is true?
We believe, we have faith in Christ’s words, even though we don’t see the mystery with the eyes of flesh. Have you not read in Scripture:
2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight
Yes. Before and after. But you say this sarcastically, as though you don’t. Have you not read in Scripture:
Matt 25:40 ….Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
And again:
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
ljdibiase said,
October 27, 2014 at 9:25 am
That term — perspicuity of scripture — I do not think it means what you think it means.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 9:53 am
Reed, will do.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 10:05 am
DeMaria, think about what your saying. God cannot communicate His word to people without the help of Rome. Rome has a history of keeping the scriptures from people. That ended with the coming Protestants. We believed the scriptures that faith comes thru hearing the word of God. He can use you, me, or Baal’s ass. God meets us in the gospel, but He also meets us where and at His choosing. Churches don’t connect us to God by joining them. The Spirit blows where and how He desires and brings fiducia to the heart, not the church. The church is the recipient of God’s grace, not the provider. God has control of the soul, not the church. The church is not the sacrament of salvation, Jesus is the sacrament of salvation.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 10:17 am
DeMaria, We are the body of Christ, We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. In that sense we are incarnational. But the visible church is not. God does not dwell in buildings anymore, but in the heart of His people of every tongue, nation. Read how when Augustine was sent by the Pope to Britain, he found a church there thriving with a Bishop and a bible college. He tried to bring it under the rule of RC and the Bishop told him to take a hike. Paul took the gospel from ocean to ocean, and history shows God had spread his church all over, the British Isles. All the excommunicated Roman Bishops that stood against the Popes saying that Bishops couldn’t be married against scripture. Jovananius and all of them exiled to the Islands.. The true church has always sought to separate themselves from that awful system. God has always marked his church out. God dwells in the heart of His people. I don’t have any desire to be in union with a visible head in Rome who I believe is Antichrist, and thats perspicuous.
TurretinFan said,
October 27, 2014 at 10:36 am
“Read how when Augustine was sent by the Pope to Britain, he found a church there thriving with a Bishop and a bible college. He tried to bring it under the rule of RC and the Bishop told him to take a hike.”
Do you mean Augustine of Canterbury? That’s not the same Augustine as the one we usually talk about – and I don’t think that the description given is very precise. For example, the bishop of Rome who sent him wasn’t a “pope” (i.e. someone claiming universal jurisdiction over the church of God) just a regional patriarch. I’m also not sure calling what was there a “bible college” is necessarily totally accurate. But there were Christians in Great Britain before Augustine of Canterbury, obviously. The heretic Pelagius is one of the people who went out from among them, for example.
Tim Harris said,
October 27, 2014 at 10:51 am
dM, do the Reformed seem like the type of people that don’t resort to books — a lot of them — to aid in understanding Scripture? Books, Jerry. They read books. And I have explained in rather painful detail that perspicuity does not imply what you say it does. Yet in #767, you ask again, “If Scripture is perspicuous, why do you recommend another book?” This is just obtuse, and deaf.
Moderator, it really seems like there is no real discussion happening here. Everyone has made his point — several times over. It has long since moved from the realm of signal to that of noise. I move it be terminated, contrary to my normal preference. I have often chided my friend Ron for desiring heavy moderation, but this is really becoming quite tedious.
TurretinFan said,
October 27, 2014 at 11:07 am
DM:
The way in which Christ is bread to us, the way in which we feed on him, is not corporal and carnal but spiritual. As it is written:
The way in which feed on Christ is not by mouth, but by faith.
That’s why when he says the verse you wrest from its context, Jesus says:
How do we eat the bread that came down from heaven? We do so by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
And yet again, Jesus says:
Jesus doesn’t live by the Father through a physical consumption but spiritually. Moreover, the way we eat Jesus’ flesh is ***not*** like the way that the fathers ate manna.
Notice as well that he says his flesh is true meat and his blood is true drink (not that food is really his body and blood). If one distorted this verse in the same way Rome distorts the words of institution, one would fall into the error of supposing that Jesus only appeared to be human, but was actually food. But that’s absurd – just as absurd as Rome’s claims of transubstantiation.
But if all that was not clear enough, Jesus explained:
It is the words that give life through belief. Do you see? It’s not the physical, but the spiritual that Jesus is pointing to.
Peter, the first among the twelve, understood this, for he spoke on behalf of them all, as it is written:
So turn from the error of interpreting Jesus’ carnally and instead understand him spiritually, that he was speaking of believing on him.
-TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am
TurretinFan, yes the Romish monk Augustine of Canterbery, sent by Gregory the Great. The Celtic Bishops reject Him soundly. My point is the true church has always sought to separate itself from the Roman religion. It was known for its apostolicity before the rise of Roman Catholicism in the 4th century, and known for its Protestanism after the Reformation. The apostasy was on time as Paul predicted was already at work in the church. The Papacy is the fufillment of this. Every Reformed confession knew this. And yet today the so called Reformed have forgotten their confessions that Rome is antichrist, and they have a need to be unified under visible head. Roman Catholic religion isnt the true church, and never was.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 11:15 am
TurretinFan, excellent post to DeMaria.
TurretinFan said,
October 27, 2014 at 11:18 am
Kevin:
Just keep in mind that Gregory the Great (while had his issues) could not be considered a Roman Catholic. He explicitly rejected the idea that Maccabees is inspired Scripture, he explicitly rejected the idea of a “universal bishop,” and he implicitly denied the immaculate conception by affirming that all mere humans have sinned. I’m not saying he was without errors in his doctrine.
Indeed, Gregory the Great even affirmed the perspicuity and formal sufficiency of Scripture:
So, while he maintained a number of wrong views, he was quite far from being a Roman Catholic.
-TurretinFan
Vincent said,
October 27, 2014 at 11:49 am
Turretinfan I think Gregory affirmed the material sufficiency of scripture not the formal. He believed that all doctrine most be proven by scripture. But yet he thought scripture must be interpret through tradition and that scripture is part of tradition. He also did not view scripture and tradition as two things that needed to be pitted against each other. Have you read the works of Anglican Bishop Haverland on tradition? Would you consider Aquinas a Roman Catholic? He believed in doctrines like purgatory, indulgences and the whole idea of the distinction between temporal and eternal punishment
TurretinFan said,
October 27, 2014 at 11:58 am
Vincent:
As to Gregory – notice that he says that the word of God nurses the simple-minded. That’s more than just material sufficiency.
As to Aquinas – he’s a lot closer. He holds most of the errors we associate with Roman Catholicism. Still, he explicitly denied the immaculate conception of Mary (he claimed she was conceived with original sin but purified in the womb). So, he wouldn’t be fully Roman Catholic. He also had a higher view of Scripture than Roman Catholics today do – going so far as to say that only canonical scriptures are the rule of faith.
I think it was Benedict XVI that acknowledged that Aquinas is Roman Catholicism as John Calvin is to Presbyterianism.
-TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 12:10 pm
TurretinFan, I believe you documented well some important things about Gregory the great. You or I could not determine whether he was Roman Catholic. For instance what was his position on justification, or worshiping the Eucharist. I made no judgment on him, except to say we see a clear change in 387 or so with the rise of the Roman Catholic religion and its heretical doctrines. Tim Kauffman has the heart beat on this better than anyone I have read, IMHO. My point Turretinfan is God’s true church were rejecting the Roman religion and its claims. I believe it is the apostasy that Paul said was already at work and it arrived on time with the claim to the head of the three dioceese. Kauffman is unfolding it in an amazing way, although one can disagree. There are just to many changes we see at that time.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Vincent, I consider Aquinas a Roman Catholic. He worshiped the elements of the supper and attached a Christian faith ethic to pagan philosophy.
TurretinFan said,
October 27, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Kevin:
If you want to see the depths of apostasy and depravity into which Rome sank, read about Pope Julius II at the beginning of the 16th century. It’s easy to see why popes like Julius II necessitated the Reformation.
-TurretinFan
Vincent said,
October 27, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Did you know that Trent never officially dogmatized the two source theory? So material sufficiency is something that is allowed within Rome’s ranks.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 12:32 pm
TurretinFan, thx brother, your a nice man and very knowledgable cat. I will look that up.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 12:59 pm
It seems to me that the Protestant doctrine of “perspicuity of Scripture” is irrelevant because it is not true for all.
Simply speaking, “perspicuity” is a relative term. It depends upon so many variables. Intelligence, reading ability, comprehension, prejudices, etc. etc.
The Protestant doctrine itself admits that there are some things in Scripture which are not perspicuous. Therefore, the doctrine is irrelevant.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm
DeMaria, ” it seems the Protestant defenition of perspecuity is irrelevant becuasu its not true at all. Is that an infallible declaration from DeMaria’s chair. Lol Catholics cant even agree on which papal statements are infallible and you expect us to let you define perspicuity for us. The word means clear. God has always been clear with his words.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 1:11 pm
Hi TF,
Good point, TF. We go one step further. We feed upon Christ by mouth because of our faith in His word:
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
We do so by eating the bread which is His Flesh.
THERE! We believe those words.
The difference is that the eating of manna did not give eternal life. So, we don’t eat the Bread of Life to nourish our bodies, but to nourish our souls to eternal life.
Yes, that His flesh and blood are true food and drink for eternal life.
That doesn’t follow. In John 6, Jesus had not yet left the bread which was His flesh.
Jesus words are absolutely perspicuous. The bread which He gave is His flesh to eternal life. That is clear as a bell.
Yes. If you believe what He said, you will do as He says and eat His flesh, drink His blood to eternal life.
Exactly! When we eat the physical flesh and drink the physical blood, Christ imparts to us His Spirit to eternal life.
I am understanding spiritually. It is the Catholic Church which teaches spiritual understanding of the Word of God.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 2:18 pm
DeMaria, great tap dance on TurretinFan’s rejection of Rome’s transubstantiation. He doesn’t agree with you. He said its not physical, and you said Exactly! “When we eat the physical flesh.” Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, and you are in denial. You have yet to interact with Augustine’s quote of John 6 that we are to understand spiritually what was said. We are NOT to eat of this body that you see, or NOT to drink of the blood which poured forth from His side. IOW you partake of the Roman religion idolatry by worshiping the Eucharist. You worship Christ in an unacceptable way. Augustine didn’t believe in Transubstantiation, as well as Pope Gelasius, or Chrysostom, who both believed the bread remained. So the question is why does DeMaria reject the practice of the early church for a 12th century heresy? It is not the Catholic church that teaches spiritual understanding of the Word of God. Do you believe Christ will return as a Roman Wafer? You said to TurretinFan ” The bread which He gives is His flesh” It isn’t clear to you because you forgot that He said He was speaking spiritually. The flesh which He gave is our bread ( coming, believing), not the bread which He gave is His flesh.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Here’s my entire answer:
Exactly! When we eat the physical flesh and drink the physical blood, Christ imparts to us His Spirit to eternal life.
In other words, Jesus Christ wants us to share in His Body in order that we might receive His Spirit.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 3:30 pm
First, this is speaking of the sufficiency of the Word of God. Which, in Catholicism, is passed down by Word and Tradition.
Second, in the same book, with reference to the Deuterocanon, specifically of the book of Maccabees. He says, ““De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, tamen ad aedificationem ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus”, which is interpreted by Green Baggins to mean:
“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.””
Note the following.
1. He doesn’t use the terminology, “apocryphal”. That is the Protestant word for those books.
2. He does not say that these books are not inspired nor that they are not constitute the Word of God.
3. He simply says that they are not part of the “canon”, which in Catholic context, means that they are not part of the first canon. Deutero means “second”. These books have always been considered part of the “second canon”.
4. For further proof, we see that he refers to another book from the deuterocanon, which Protestants call “apocrypha”, as Scripture:
“Pride is of course the root of all evil, of which it is said, as Scripture bears witness: Pride is the beginning of all sin. (Sirach 10:26) Moreover; proliferating from this poisonous root as its first offspring are seven capital sins: vainglory, envy, anger malancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust. For because he grieved that we were held in bondage by these seven derivatives of pride, on that account our Redeemer, full of the spirit of sevenfold grace, joined spiritual battle for our liberation. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, p. 85.”
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Vincent is correct. In Catholic context, the Word of God includes Sacred Tradition.
However, you’ve neglected one very important detail. Pope St. Gregory
was a Pope. With everything that entails. He followed every Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, unless the so-called “perspicuity of Scripture” leads to completely different understanding of Scripture from every point of view, Protestants should also have an office of Pope.
But they do not because they don’t see it in Scripture. Therefore, Scripture is not perspicuous on this point.
That is a misunderstanding on what it means to be a Catholic in good standing. In the time of St. Aquinas, it was perfectly fine not to accept the Teaching of the Immaculate Conception. The Holy Spirit was still guiding the Church into the fullness of the Truth on that Doctrine.
But, after the Church declared it infallibly, St. Thomas Aquinas would have fallen in line with the Catholic Church.
Let’s see if that is true:
THE RULE OF FAITH per St. Thomas Aquinas
Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. (ST 2-2, q. 5, a. 3c)
That is why he is called the Angelic Doctor.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 4:29 pm
DeMaria said ” Protestants ought to have an office of Pope.” We do have a head. He isnt a mere sinner like you and I who is under some delusion of infallibilty. He is the true head of His church and the truse church forever lives in Him thru His Spirit. These Popes die, and how could the church live if its head were dead. We submit to Christ as head, you submit to the Roman Pope.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 4:40 pm
But if Scripture were truly perspicuous, everyone would come to the same conclusion when they read it and Protestants would have a Pope.
Actually, there could be no Protestants, because if Scripture were perspicuous, there would be no disagreements upon what it means.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 4:44 pm
If Scripture were clear, as you say, then there would be no disagreements upon what it says.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 5:11 pm
Some do, yes.
— a lot of them —
I’m glad that you added that. I agree. A lot of them. But not all.
I know that some do. But I have met so many, to whom I’ll say, “so and so says this or that”, and their response is, “I don’t care about their unbiblical opinions!”
In our discussion. But I’m having another discussion with someone else. And this person doesn’t seem to hold the same understanding of perspicuity as you. Here is what he said:
Since Kevin holds a different understanding of perspicuity than do you, the question which I addressed to him makes perfect sense.
Eric W said,
October 27, 2014 at 5:17 pm
De Maria, you wrote to Kevin:
If Scripture were clear, as you say, then there would be no disagreements upon what it says.
Response:
You shouldn’t press this against Kevin when Leo XIII wrote this:
That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Eric,
“such” passages does not mean “all” passages. Therefore, it remains true that some parts of Scripture are hard to be understood (2 Pet 3:16).
Eric W said,
October 27, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Hi Kevin,
Do you agree with the WCF ?
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 6:11 pm
Hi Eric W, yes I do.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Hi Eric W. ,
Have you ever compared those words to Scripture?
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
The WCF says that the unlearned will sufficiently understand them.
2 Pet 3:16 says that the unlearned will not understand and interpret them to their own destruction.
Which do you believe? Or do you disagree with my interpretation of either one?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 8:40 pm
DeMaria, in which some things….. 2 Peter 3:16
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 9:10 pm
Which Scripture says the unlearned will twist to their own destruction. Presumably to eternal damnation.
But the WCF says the unlearned will study and understand. Presumably, unto eternal salvation.
Which do you believe? The WCF or Scripture?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 27, 2014 at 10:17 pm
Demaria, that scripture doesnt mean what you think it means. It says difficult, not impossible. In Peter’s day , as today, there was a proliferation of foolish and hurtful perverting of apostolic teachingabout the future. The false teachers were distorting Paul’s writings. The NT Apostles were aware they were writing and spoke the word of God. Peter realized that the NT writers brought the divine truth that completed the bible, to their own destruction. Since Christians now know that there will be false teachers who will appear , twisting and distorting doctrine, they should be all the more on their guard. Any time a believer listens to a false teacher he runs the risk of being led astray. Look at yourself. Thats why personal study and reliance on the Spirit are important. We have been given a Spirit of truth and wisdom along with the word of God. The last guy I would ever trust to explain scripturre to me is some funny looking dude in a 10 thousand dollar hat claiming to be God.
De Maria said,
October 27, 2014 at 10:24 pm
I didn’t say impossible either. I quoted the verse and it says, “hard to be understood”.
That’s not the subject of this verse. This verse is talking about some things in Scripture which are hard to be understood which are so important to salvation that the unlearned can misunderstand to their own destruction.
The WCF claims that there is no Scripture which is so hard to understand that the unlearned can’t overcome and understand it.
This is seems a contradiction of Bible Teaching.
Don said,
October 27, 2014 at 11:38 pm
Notice in 808 De Maria says
whereas the actual text says that they _may_ understand. Presumably those unlearned who may understand are not also unstable, and thus not the subject of 2 Peter 3:16.
I would like to think there is not a deliberate misinterpretation of rather basic Protestant doctrines going on here, but based on the evidence in these comments I’m not optimistic.
I would also like to hope that somebody does not see “due use of ordinary means” and cry “Magisterium!” but again…
Reed Here said,
October 27, 2014 at 11:52 pm
Ok , now back to the main point of the thread. Or maybe Tim is right, and this conversation is done (for now).
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 12:29 am
I assume that means I am not allowed to respond to Don’s message. Is that right?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 12:43 am
DeMaria, that verse is talking about false teachers that distort the scripture, untaught and unstable who distort the scriptures. He is talking about unbelieving false teachers that distort Paul’s words. This does not contradict the WCF statement. You bet the unlearned can understand the Scripture. Colossians 2;2 ” and attaining to all wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE.” How do you stay in that false religion. Wisdom and knowledge comes from Christ, the word, not the church. High Ho Silver.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 12:58 am
No Kevin, the verse is talking about some who are unlearned and some who are unstable. And how they can twist the Scripture to their own, personal, personal destruction.
Here is what one Protestant scholar says about it:
Note how he separates them into two groups. One unlearned and one unstable. Not one group, as Don did of unlearned who are also unstable.
But perhaps this is one of those un-perspicuous verses.
So, tell me Kevin, is perspicuity a relative term? Is Scripture 90% perspicuous? 80% or 10%?
Don said,
October 28, 2014 at 1:45 am
De Maria 815,
OK, so this Methodist guy “separates” unlearned and unstable. He’s writing a commentary. He’s explaining one word at a time. How is that a surprise? Nowhere does he divide the unlearned and unstable into separate groups.
Note also that the last full sentence in the quote you provide (“Whereas, the humble…”) is a statement *for* the perspicuity of Scripture.
TurretinFan said,
October 28, 2014 at 2:14 am
De Maria:
You previously acknowledged that we aren’t arguing that all of Scripture is clear. Yet you continue to object to the idea that all of Scripture is clear. I don’t understand why you would do that.
Regarding Gregory: “First, this is speaking of the sufficiency of the Word of God. Which, in Catholicism, is passed down by Word and Tradition.”
Roman Catholicism does make that kind of claim about tradition. Gregory is not making such a claim. Be careful to avoid reading your views back onto him – that’s an error of anachronism.
The distinction between books for edification and books that are the rule of faith is important.
Yes, he doesn’t use terms that were used later. He uses the terms of his own day. He doesn’t use the Roman Catholic terminology “deutero-canonical” either. But why would he use either of those terms? He wasn’t from the 17th century.
That’s what it means to say that they are merely edifying and not canonical, as he did.
a) It’s not reasonable for you to impose a late medieval context on Gregory I.
b) The term “second canon” – depending on the author – may mean that the book is not inspired Scripture.
Accepting Sirach as Scripture is a mistake, of course, but it doesn’t mean that he accepted Maccabees as Scripture.
Finally regarding your comments on the Supper: “Exactly! When we eat the physical flesh and drink the physical blood, Christ imparts to us His Spirit to eternal life.”
The truth is that you do not eat his physical flesh and drink his physical blood. You can’t – it’s seated at the right hand of the Father. And – in fact – if you do not have saving faith in him you do not even feed on him spiritually, but instead eat and drink damnation, not discerning the Lord’s body.
I really hope you will seek your justification outside of yourself and outside of your obedience and works. That’s the only way you can be saved.
-TurretinFan
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 2:36 am
DeMaria, I disagree with this interpretation. Notice ” who distort the scripture” The next verse is a warning to Christians about these men who are false teachers and unprincipled men. This was the issue in the church with Paul and Peter knew it. Some things that Paul taught were difficult to understand, and on top of that the false teachers were distorting the truth. Hence the warning. I think clarity goes to John 2:27, which you won’t address. I don’t blame you because it kills your case, and the case of the Roman church. The perspicuity of scripture is from the Spirit working with and by the word. Again 1 John 2:27 is devastating to your case. Think about what your telling us. God cannot work outside the church interpreting scripture for us. The Holy Spirit is our teacher. Yes we listen to our church, but what if our church is apostate, are we not chided by scripture to discern false teaching. If so, that means scripture can be understood. Yes WCF says there are some difficult things. I tend to believe because we possess the Spirit of wisdom who bears witness with our Spirit that we are children of God, we can understand God’s word. That doesn’t mean we don’t need our teachers, or that everybody understands at the same level. But in the end John tells us in 2:27 we have NO NEED for a teacher. Now DeMaria, stop and pause. No need for a teacher and we have His anointing and it is true, and doesn’t lie. Don’t come back and tell me that verse is about sacraments. K
Vincent said,
October 28, 2014 at 6:06 am
Turretinfan are you aware that Trent considered a formula that doctrine was derived “partly” from Scripture and “partly” from Tradition and rejected it? Therefore its assertions that doctrine is derived from both, that they both must be equally respected, and that our certainty of dogmas is not from Scripture alone, are all compatible with the position that all dogma is found in Scripture.
Jason Loh said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:08 am
Vincent,
Are you an Anglo-Catholic — belonging to one of Continuum jurisdictions?
The assertion that doctrine is derived from scripture and tradition is compatible with the position that all dogma is found in scripture works only if tradition is the proclamation and confession of scripture.
Otherwise, the idea that the papacy is found wholly in scripture and tradition doesn’t work with the position that all dogma is found in scripture.
As you aware, the Roman position of the relationship between scripture and tradition is different from EO.
Otherwise, the magisterium infallibly interprets scripture and is the living voice of tradition is not compatible with the position that all dogma is found in scripture.
Tradition in the Pauline tradition is paradosis — the passing on of the apostolic tradition of the proclamation of the gospel ministry. Tradition in the Tridentine sense requires a juridical or legal authority that is the highest authority in the church.
Maybe many in the Continuum hankers after reunion with Rome. But we who are the descendants of 16th century Protestant the Reformation consider the Reformation as the triumph of the evangelical authority (gospel) over legal authority (law). The Reformation was NEVER a tragedy but a BLESSED necessity …
Jason Loh said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:19 am
Leaving aside the issue of whether Aquinas was a Romanist or not, as Turretinfan has pointed out, Aquinas did not hold to the IC.
Can Anglo-Catholics claim to be authentic heirs of the Catholic tradition? The answer is not really … How many Anglo-Catholics hold dear to the predestinarian lineage of the Augustinian Succession? How many ould bother about the later Augustine’s double predestination, denial of the universal salvific will of God (rightly or wrongly), limited atonement? How many would bother with Fulgentius of Ruspe, Prosper of Aquitaine, Caesarius of Arles, Hilary of Poitiers, the Scythian monks (East), Isidore of Seville, Gottschalk of Orbais, Servetus Lupus of Ferrières, Ratramnus of Corbie, Prudentius of Troyes, Florus of Lyons, Peter Lombard, Thomas Bradwardine, Gregory of Rimini? What about the predestination of Aquinas?
How many Anglos would even bother with the late Garrigou Lagrange’s Predestination?
Reed Here said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:21 am
DeMarie, no. 813, no that is just a reminder for y’all to move forward on what at present looks like a rabbit trail, and loop it back to the main point of this thread. Of course you can respond.
Tim’s comment about things getting tedious is a friendly caution. I’m doing nothing more than agreeing and urging y’all to get back on focus. Thanks.
Jason Loh said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:33 am
Leaving aside the martyr for the catholic faith, John Hooper of whom I am no fan at all, Cranmer, Ridley, Bradford and the English Reformers were predestinarians. Hooker and Field were predestinarians and so was Andrewes. Predestination is not a Puritan innovation.
The Caroline divines with the exception of one or two such Jeremy Taylors were (single) predestinarans. Are Anglo-Catholics aware that Laud defended Calvin …. on the perseverance of the saints, no less … against Bellarmine, no less! Andrewes when pressed on the issue affirmed that only the elect persevere til lthe very end … the Caroline divines were no Arminians … King James 1 sent a delegation to the Synod of Dordt! They were moderates alright compared to some of the Reformed such as not least Franciscus Gomarus …
The final draft of the Canons had some input from the British delegation. The Canons enjoyed the approval of James although like the Lambeth Articles of 1595 drafted Whitgift and with the feedback of Hooker and which epitomised the predestinarian consensus of the previous Elizabethan Church were never “canonised.”
Some of the practices of the Anglo-Catholics — coming after Tractarians such as represented by Pearcy Dearmer’s ritual manual and notes were newly-fangled practice or contemporary fads such as the wearing of the dog collars, the personal address of “father” rather than a formal designation for bishops and confessors, the wearing of biretta, etc.
Jason Loh said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:38 am
What about sola fide in which the Lutheran reformers, English reformers and Reformed and Presbyterian tradition can marshal patristic and medieval sources affirming faith alone?
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:40 am
Thanks Reed.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:57 am
Presumably. And that is an acceptable understanding of this verse, is it not? At least one Protestant commentator agrees with that interpretation. And I’m assuming he is considered both, learned and stable.
No, Don. I’m accepting the Protestant understanding. I just want to carry it to its logical conclusion. My argument could be summarized in this question:
How clear must it be in order for it to be considered “perspicuous”?
Well, I do see the Magisterium as the ordinary means which was instituted by Jesus Christ and taught in Scripture. Does this verse not confirm the institution of the Magisterium or Teacher of the Word of God?
Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Does this one not declare that the ordinary means of understanding the Word of God is by the Teaching of the Church?
Hebrews 13:7King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
And does this one not declare that the Church is the ordinary means of Teachng the Wisdom of God, which I presume includes the Scriptures:
Ephesians 3:10King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Can you blame me for believing that Jesus Christ intended for the Word of God to be taught by the Church? It seems black and white in Scripture.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 9:03 am
That begs the question, do you mean that the Scriptures are only perspicuous to those who are learned enough and stable enough to understand them? In which case, that contradicts the WCF, doesn’t it?
Vincent said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:13 am
Jason Loh the RCC accepts the doctrine of the material sufficiency of scripture, or at least allows it as a tolerable opinion.
As for us now agreeing with the RCC on Scripture and Tradition, the work Holy Writ or Holy Church by RC scholar Tavard shows that the truth is more complicated. The strongest opinion at the time of the Reformation within the RCC was that Revelation was only partly in Scripture, the rest in extra-Scriptural tradition, so that not all doctrine needed Scriptural support. But the Council of Trent did not (quite) go this far, and can be interpreted as consistent either with this “partly … partly” view or the classical Anglican (and mainstream patristic) view, which says that all Revelation is in Scripture and that Tradition has an interpretative function, but is not the radical source for dogma. Notably, it is the latter which Newman supported even after his move to Rome and which has now become dominant, it would seem.
ljdibiase said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:43 am
DM, you are seriously confused about the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. It’s really not that difficult. Do you believe that all Roman Catholics can understand the pope sufficiently to remain good Roman Catholics? Is the pope, or the church, clear enough in its pronouncements? Or do we need an infallible interpreter to interpret the infallible interpreter? All we are saying about Scripture is that it is clear enough in itself. That doesn’t mean it isn’t sometimes difficult to understand, or that people may disagree over what it says. It just means that it’s not written in a secret code that only the church of Rome can understand.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:55 am
We’re in the third round here TF. Tim and I agreed that Scripture is not completely clear, having some things which are hard to be understood.
Enter Kevin #792 with the argument that “you expect us to let you define perspicuity for us. The word means clear. God has always been clear with his words.” Second round.
Then he changed his argument and several Protestants entered the fray and we are in the middle of that which I believe is the Third round.
Ah, well, we have a difference of opinion there. Since St. Gregory is a Pope, Bishop of Rome and Priest who considers himself authoritative to teach the Church, who presided over the Mass and served the Eucharistic banquet. So, it is not I who reads anything into the text, but you. Because St. Pope Gregory was thoroughly Catholic.
But the Latin Vulgate was already in place. And the terminology, “apocrypha” had already been used for those books by St. Jerome himself, until he was persuaded to include them in the Vulgate.
That’s what you claim it means. But his use of the word Scripture to describe other deuterocanonical books belies your claim.
You’re mistaken. The question of the deuterocanon was handled one century before Pope St. Gregory the Great was born, by St. Jerome and Pope Damasus.
Depending upon whether the author is Catholic or Protestant.
It goes to show that he accepted all the deuterocanon as Scripture.
I believe all is possible with God. I believe that Jesus Christ is God. I believe that Jesus Christ is therefore “omnipresent”. I believe that Jesus Christ has given us the bread which is His flesh to eat in the Holy Eucharist.
TF, that is the Catholic Doctrine. It is we who await the Justification of God. We don’t judge our faith and our works. He does. And He doesn’t justify anyone, not even in the Scriptures, if they don’t first begin to obey His Son.
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Don said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:58 am
De Maria 829,
Thank you for using “begs the question” correctly. It’s like a breath of fresh air.
No. Nobody is saying that Scripture must be understood by everyone, particularly by those who rebel against God.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 11:04 am
You’ll have to explain that claim in more detail.
The Pope is not a book. He can explain his comments.
If they are not, one can ask questions and get answers.
Yes. The same infallible interpreter can interpret that which was previously interpreted.
Nor does the Church teach such a thing. But the Church and the Scriptures teach that the Scriptures should not be interpreted apart from the Traditions of the Church (2 Thess 2:15), because they are not intended for personal interpretation (2 Pet 1:10) and that it is the Church which is the Teacher of the Word of God (Eph 3:10).
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 11:15 am
TurretinFan, DeMaria said to you “It is we who await the justification of God” See TurretinFan Paul said ” therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God. DeMaria is the pied piper of my belief that when we read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite, and arrive at biblical truth. He trumpets no assurance for the believer and justification based on obedience. But we know Paul taught the exact opposite.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 12:10 pm
DeMaria said to TurretinFan ” But the Latin Vulgate was already in place.” Pope Sixtus in 1590 declared the final edition of the Vulgate having corrected many greek and Hebrew errors. Bellarmine was ashamed of it, it had so many errors. So bad, that a few years later the next Pope changed it. Has there been a worse translation in history than the vulgate. Its a scream. Jerome was haunted in dreams about how poorly he did with the translation. He was a hack by his own standards.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 12:14 pm
DeMaria, I am going to ask you for the last time. You said ‘ the scriptures aren’t intended for personal interpretation” Explain 1 John 2:27? I’m waiting. And don’t say sacraments.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Well, yes, those who approach the Sacraments with faith will be given the grace of Jesus Christ and will be at peace with God.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 3:33 pm
None of that is to the point. The point is that the Latin Vulgate was completed by St. Jerome in the 4th century and included the deuterocanonicals, which St. Jerome had once considered apocryphal books. But was persuaded by the Pope to include them and obediently, he did.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 3:41 pm
I am so glad. I’m getting kind of tired of answering that question.
Sacraments.
Just kidding. Here’s the previous answer:
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 3:51 pm
But, are the Scripture only perspicuous to those who are learned enough and stable enough to understand them?
That is a very good point! One with which I agree wholeheartedly.
As I drove to and from my physical, I was thinking about how many times Jesus says:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
And I realized that Scripture teaches that there are entire groups of people to whom the Scriptures are unknowable because, “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14).
But you seem to be telling me that the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture takes these people into account. But then, it would seem we are talking about more people who can’t understand the Scriptures than those who can, I mean there are as many Muslims as there are Christians and add to that the Hindus and other pagans and then the atheists, its almost as though the doctrine should be called, “the relative Perspicuity of Scripture.”
Don said,
October 28, 2014 at 4:36 pm
De Maria 841,
You are confusing whether someone can understand Scripture, vs. whether someone is willing to. The need for the Holy Spirit to give understanding is covered in WCF 1.VI. What the doctrine of perspicuity teaches is not that every passage in Scripture is crystal clear, but that all the basics–everything essential for salvation–is clear enough, without needing a theology degree, official explanation from the Pope, etc.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Don, tell me if I have understood you correctly on these three points:
1. Perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in Scripture is clear enough to understand.
2. Nor does it mean that everyone will understand Scripture.
3. At the same time, the Perspicuity of Scripture denies the necessity of a Magisterium to teach anyone the meaning of Scripture.
Don said,
October 28, 2014 at 5:37 pm
De Maria 843,
Please define Magisterium just so we’re on the same page there. (As opposed to a magisterium?)
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 5:49 pm
DeMaria, 1 John 2:27 means the sacrament of confirmation. You didn’t go there on that verse. Confirmation wasn’t even a sacrament when that was written. Is that an infallible interpretation from the guy in the big hat and his boys?
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 6:04 pm
An infallible teacher of the Word of God
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 6:06 pm
It is an interpretation in line with the Tradition of the Catholic Church:
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 6:55 pm
DeMaria, I asked you if Rome has an official position on 1 John 2:27 or were you playing personal pope and that was your interpretation? Just so I understand you correctly, whe the Apostle John wrote that verse, it was about the sacrament of confirmation that came hundreds of years later. And that is the official view of Rome? Because if it doesnt mean that, and it doesnt, the need for and infallible interpretr of the once and for all delivered faith is bogus.
Eric W said,
October 28, 2014 at 7:33 pm
De Maria, you wrote to Don:
How clear must it be in order for it to be considered “perspicuous”?
Response:
I hope you don’t mind if I pass over the questions you asked me. This question seems to be the most important. We might be able to measure a proposition’s clearness by its functionality. We can ask two questions: (a) Does it function as a definition (Heb.11:1) ? Or, (b) Is it axiomatic like first principles used to deduce other propositions ? These are preliminary, so don’t view them as exhaustive.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:17 pm
It is completely in line with Catholic Teaching. And the first confirmation on record is the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles at the Pentecost.
Then they began to confirm their own flock.
1315 “Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:14-17).
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 8:49 pm
DeMaria, I’ll try one more time. Rome’s official position on 1 John :2:27 is the sacrament of confirmation?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 9:17 pm
TDeMaria, I just read the Catechism on the sacrament of confirmation. That is the most abominable thing I have ever read. Its like the Pentacostal baptism of the Holy Spirit, a second baptism. It is an increase in grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is Tighter bond or union with the church. Nothing about no need for a teacher, the subject of 1 John 2:27.In facr it is a deeper dependency on the church to merit increase. DeMaria, you want to take another shot at 1 John 2:27. He aint talking about Roman confirmation, he is talking about all we need is the Holy Spirit to teach us. Yes we have teachers but perspicuity belongs to God, christ in us, the work of His Spirit.
De Maria said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:13 pm
Kevin, I thought you said message #837 was the last time you would ask that question. You’ve asked the same thing 5 times since. My answer won’t change.
Jason Loh said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:30 pm
Vincent,
You did not interact with my response.
The Tridentine view is not compatible with the confessional Protestant position including classical Anglicanism. Classical Anglicanism and Anglo-Catholicism are not compatible with each other.
Don’t you understand that the interpretive function of tradition in the Tridentine tradition is wholly different from the Protestant one? Or is it because you’re viewing things through the romanticised lenses of Anglo-Catholicism — which is more in common with Coleridge and so on.
The authentic catholic understanding of tradition is that of the proclamation of law and gospel as the highest interpretive authority in the church. It is scripture that interprets the church; not the other way round — by the judgment of the law and the justification of the gospel.
This is why for the church fathers such Irenaeus, baptism as the proclamation of the gospel infallibly transmits and definitively delivers the canon of faith in the church, and is therefore one of forms of apostolic succession.
Infallibility therefore does not reside in the magisterium as the living voice of tradition in the proclamation of the word in its oral and sacramental forms as the living voice of tradition …
Jason Loh said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:35 pm
Vincent,
The difference between scripture and tradition, therefore, is not the difference between two forms of material sources …
Not two parts of the same whole …
Not two wholes …
But the difference between the form and the matter, to employ scholastic terminology …
Scripture provides the matter of divine revelation — tradition is the form in which the same matter of divine revelation is preached and proclaimed.
This is why scripture and tradition can never be separable, even conceptually … just as the person of Our Saviour is the work, and the work is the person …
Jason Loh said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:36 pm
One whole but two dimensions …
Don said,
October 28, 2014 at 10:43 pm
De Maria 846,
You mean the Holy Spirit? Why not just say Holy Spirit?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 28, 2014 at 11:10 pm
Don, the Roman church collapses the head into the body. Basicallt the church substitutes itself for the natural body of Christ and the Spirit. Instead of being the recepient of free grace, the church becomes Christ’s regent and the provider of grace based on the acts of the church. Catholics put their trust in the Pope, the church as their head. But churches dont connect us to God by joining them. We meet Christ in the gospel thru the power of the Spirit by His choosing. No church owns God. The church isnt the same Jesus in the world. Jesus meets us in the elements of the church, but He meets us outside the church. Be careful when churches claim to be extensions of incarnation and atonement, of His finished work. His uniquely finished atonement. We are only incarnational because we are temples of the Spirit, and we are incorporated into His body thru the Spirit. Again Jason and DeMaria believe that the church is the substitute for the historical body of Christ and the Spirit, and they are expiating their sins thru their acts, The Eucharist ise work of the people as they finish His atonement and expiate their sins. False church false gospel.
De Maria said,
October 29, 2014 at 12:22 am
Because Scripture says that the Holy Spirit inspires:
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
But that the Church teaches (Magisterium) the Wisdom of God:
Ephesians 3:10King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
There is a difference between inspiration and teaching.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 29, 2014 at 12:31 am
DeMaria, Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. Not a visible infallible institution. God doesn’t dwell in buildings, but in the heart of His People. Our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
Don said,
October 29, 2014 at 12:46 am
De Maria 859,
The church teaches? No kidding.
The church teaches infallibly? Please provide evidence.
nb Eph, 3:10 says the church teaches God’s wisdom to, specifically, the principalities and powers in heavenly places, who are rather beyond the ken of the doctrine of perspicuity. You may notice, from the context of the preceding verses, that what is being taught here is the mystery that Gentiles are coheirs of Christ. God’s wisdom, his grace, is displayed (taught) by the inclusion of Gentiles in the church. The church is the conduit of this teaching. In these verses the church is not actively doing the teaching.
TurretinFan said,
October 29, 2014 at 1:14 am
DM:
You wrote:
a) You’re reading later human tradition back onto him. That’s not right to do. It’s anachronism – treating him like a 16th century pope instead of a turn of the 7th century bishop of Rome. He wasn’t a pope, he was a bishop of Rome.
That begs the question as to whether the Scriptures teach the papacy. It’s wrong to assume that the Scriptures teach such a thing. On the contrary, the Scriptures oppose such an error by teaching – among other things – that Christ’s church has just one head, Christ.
Remarkably, none of the Protestants think we need a pope. There’s almost nothing on which Protestants are more united than on the rejection of the papacy. If unity of opinion is evidence of perspicuity, then the absence of the papacy is one of the most perspicuous things in Scripture.
I had written:
You replied:
I wasn’t addressing the question of his submission to the bishop of Rome of his day. That’s the question you’re addressing.
Instead, I’m pointing out that his views aren’t the Roman Catholic views. You can speculate about what he would have done had he lived to see the later errors of Rome, but it’s just speculation.
Why not look to where Aquinas actually says what the rule of faith is, rather than the formal object of faith?
Not exactly …
-TurretinFan
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 3:38 am
Jason Loh is the EO view of tradition in agreement with the Protestant view of tradition and scripture? I am still trying to wrap my head around what you wrote. So you are saying that Rome believes tradition is what is used to interpret scripture? I have to admit that your understanding of tradition is at odds with that of Aquinas and the scholastic doctors. Or isn’t it? You do admit that Rome does not completely affrm the two-source theory.
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 3:40 am
I don’t think the fathers or scholastics interpreted the scriptures through the lens of law and gospel. That is a Lutheran concept.
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 7:35 am
Vincent,
I DISAGREE and REJECT Rome’s understanding of tradition and its relationship with scripture. You’re the one who wants to affirm that which is simply at odds with classical Anglicanism.
The fathers interpreted scripture through the distinction law and gospel. The distinction may not have been made as clear — nonetheless the distinction is implicit.
The doctrine of recapitulation by Irenaeus simply means that it is not we who imitate Our Saviour but Our Saviour Who imitate us by recapitulating, taking up all things in, with and under Him, by repeating the experience of humanity as the 2nd Adam, by embodying the signal events of salvation history …
Now recapitulation is gospel — God becoming human for you. The human as St Maximus has said is the microcosm of the universe. For us to imitate Our Saviour for salvation would be law.
This is just one example.
Aquinas as the old scholastic affirmed the predestination of Augustinianism. I haven’t even come to the so-called later medieval scholastics … Do Anglo-Catholics bother to affirm predestination? Predestination by its very nature is at the heart and centre of doctrines of grace of the Church.
To affirm predestination is to make the distinction between law and gospel, is it not?
Predestination means that the elect is predestined unto glory not because of foreseen faith (ante praevisa fidei or merita) which is the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism grounded in the controversy over the initium fidei, is it not? Predestination therefore simply means that one is saved apart from the law, is it not?
Are you not familiar with the EO view on tradition? The EO view is much closer to Protestantism’s … if at all, you should be appealing to the EO rather Tridentine …(!) The boundaries between scripture and tradition is much more fluid in EO — following the patristics .,..
One whole but two dimension …
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 7:39 am
To put it simply, to try to fit the Tridentine understanding of tradition with classical Anglicanism or Protestantism is simply risible and nonsensical …that’s the whole point …
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 7:40 am
The church fathers affirmed faith alone. How is that compatible with Trent??
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 7:54 am
When the church fathers spoke of divinisation, were they referring it in relation to law or gospel?
Are the energies of the Trinity law or grounded in the divine love? Can divine love be reducible to law? If so, where is the divine freedom in perichoresis? Where is the divine freedom with the Father as sole source of divinity? As the principal source and font of divinity?
Is your name handle based on St Vincent of Lerins? You seemed to think that everything taught by the church fathers is held in Anglo-Catholicism … What about the epiclesis? Does it pass the Vincentian canon test? You may not hold to it but the EO does … Frere seems to think it eminently desirable to insert in it the 1928 BCP …
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 8:34 am
But the EO dont hold to law and gospel distinction, nor do they hold to predestination. They actually agree with the Anglo-catholic church on these issues. Aquinas and Augustine both held to old law/new law distinction. Augustine held to law and grace. Trent from my knowledge held to justification by faith formed by the virtue of love. Are you Lutheran by the way, or reformed?
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 8:43 am
Do you believe Rome teaches law instead of gospel? They do affirm that justification is given freely in baptism without any merits preceding and that the reward of eternal life is based on God’s promise instead of a strict contractual obligation. Nor did the fathers hold to the idea that Christ’s active obedience is imputed to us. They did believe his satisfaction (passive obedience) is applied to us however. Have you read Augustine’s treatise on law and grace by any chance? Or how about Chrystosm or Aquinas? I disagree that to believe in predestination is to believe in the law/gospel distinction, because of that was the case then all the Thomists in Rome’s camp who hold to predestination would believe in the law/gospel distinction which is nonsensical. Or maybe you would suggest that they are just being inconsistent.
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 8:45 am
Which Anglo-Catholic jurisdiction do you belong to, Vincent?
No, the EO don’t hold to predestination but they do hold to the law-gospel distinction, implicitly. Divinisation is a case in point. Luther simply amplified and clarified and sharpened the salient characteristics and implications of the patristic theology whilst abandoning those which reek of Hellenistic philosophical influence.
It’s funny that now you appeal to EO in support of Anglo-Catholicism.
And Augustine and Aquinas did not hold to the old law and new law distinction … they held to the distinction between LETTER and SPIRIT — which is simply the flip-side of the distinction between law and gospel. The old/ new law distinction is a Tridentine innovation of entrenching certain viewpoints. That the sacraments are considered new law is peculiarly Tridentine which is tied to a juridical authority of the Church. The EO has no such conception of the sacraments since you would recall that their attitude is much broader than the 7 sacraments … the distinction between sacrament and sacramental is much more fluid …
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 8:53 am
Let’s get one thing clear … Rome preaches gospel as law. The sacraments on the other hand contains the gospel promise … there is therefore a disjunction between preaching (law) and the sacramental and liturgical witness of the Church (gospel) …
I reject active obedience as unpatristic but it does not mean by default Anglo-Catholicism is catholic. Anglo-Catholicism is playing church — not the real McCoy …
To believe in predestination is simply to affirm that one elected apart from the law … Aquinas held to reprobation too … so, the cause of final justification is efficacious and infallible …
The infallibility and efficacy of election is inevitably bound up with infallibility and efficacy of the proclamation of the gospel in word and sacraments and NOT the infallibility of the magisterium …
That the Thomists and Dominicans remain in the Church means as you say that they are inconsistent …
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 8:58 am
“As you aware, the Roman position of the relationship between scripture and tradition is different from EO.”
Can you elaborate on the above for me. I am not too familiar with the EO view of tradition other than that it includes the consensus of the fathers and the 7 ecumenical councils. They would say scripture is part of tradition and that scripture must be interpreted through the liturgical and sacramental view of the church. But you can correct me if I am wrong.
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:02 am
Before Trent played the innovator, there were some Spanish and Italian proto-evangelicals who sympathised with the Reformers such as Gaspar Contarini …
You even had post-Tridentine theologians who held views similar to Luther and Calvin such Michael Baius and not least Cornelius Jansen …
These views on justification and bondage of the will presuppose and implies the law-gospel distinction …
If love of concupiscence is overpowering and overbearing, then imitation of the law cannot save but must by preceded by the efficacious love of God (amor Dei) … this is the law-gospel distinction …, however inconsistent framed …
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:02 am
“The old/ new law distinction is a Tridentine innovation of entrenching certain viewpoints. That the sacraments are considered new law is peculiarly Tridentine which is tied to a juridical authority of the Church.”
What evidence do you have of the above? That’s not what most historians I have read have said.
De Maria said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:05 am
I believe Scripture, Don. 1 Tim 3:15 also says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. That means that the Church always upholds the Truth. Or how do you read that one?
I read that as hyperbole. St. Paul is saying that the Church will always teach the Wisdom of God, even in infinity.
21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Two sides of the same coin. If we don’t have perspicuity, then we need an infallible Teacher.
Isn’t St. Paul a member of the Church? Doesn’t he represent the Church?
21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:13 am
Do Arminians teach law/gospel or not? How does Rome teach gospel as law? What is the formal cause of justification for the fathers and patristics/?
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:18 am
For the EO, scripture and tradition are not two parts of a whole or even two wholes but two dimensions of one whole … which is similar although not identical with the Pauline understanding of paradosis …
Scripture is considered as part of the wider tradition — it is subsumed as part of the tradition and comes into expression in the liturgical and sacramental life of the church … the reading and kissing of the gospels during the divine service is an example …
The ecumenical councils are not separate although distinct from scripture — these are revered and received by the entire church not because of the juridical authority of the magisterium as the infallible interpreter but because of the witness of the bishops and faith of the laity.
The continuity between scripture and tradition is not that of development of doctrine … that would be like assigning different albeit complementary roles to rationalism and empiricism. But the EO’s view is more akin to Kant’s combining both rationalism and empiricism with respect to the same act of acquiring knowledge …. For Trent, scripture provides the material of divine revelation and tradition is the infallible interpreter …
Not so for EO following the patristic tradition: scripture is tradition and tradition is scripture … the canon of scripture does refer to the number of books … in that sense the canon of scripture is not closed … but it is identical to the canon of faith which is the rule of orthodoxy as embodied in the living confession of the church in the divine liturgy …
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:19 am
The canon of scripture does NOT refer to the number of books …
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:23 am
Arminians like Rome like EO confuses law and gospel much more so than the incipient and implicit theology of the patristics … that is, these go further than the patristics … than the biblical theology of Irenaeus …
The worst culprit of all is of course … Rome … the legalism of Rome … this is why the Reformers saw Rome as the contemporary Pharisaism … yet the legalism is “balanced” with pastoral laxity and casuistry on the one hand (think of the Jesuits) and pastoral rigourism (think the Jansenists) …
In the end, the Jesuits won …
De Maria said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:24 am
The Bishop of Rome is the Pope. There was a Pope before St. Gregory the Great and a Pope after him, so I believe it is you doing the anachronism.
That leads to the conclusion that the Scripture is not perspicuous on that point. Otherwise, it would be abundantly clear, one way or the other.
And that Christ appointed a Shepherd over His flock. John 21:17
So, the head of the Church appointed a Shepherd over His Church.
But then, you neglect Catholics, who are unanimous in their belief that we do need a Pope. Which then shows one faction for and one faction against, both using Scripture as evidence of their belief.
1. His views are completely Catholic.
2. The speculation is based upon abundant and clear evidence.
I think your claim has been disproved. I need add nothing more.
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:25 am
The talk of formal, material, final, efficient cause of justification is scholastic talk …
You would be aware that the patristics do not hold to penal substitution, Anselmian theory of atonement and so on …
The ransom theory is not about justice of God but the defeat of the tyranny and oppression of Satan, sin and death …
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:28 am
The ransom theory is about enslavement to Satan (held hostage); the bondage of the will is simply the flip-side of the ransom theory of atonement …
This is the law-gospel distinction …
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:28 am
Are you EO by any chance or Lutheran?
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:33 am
You have yet to give me a source on how Trent was the first to come up with old law/new law. Why did they make that up? What presuptions where the Tridentine fathers holding?
Kevin Failoni said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:35 am
Jason said ” recapitulation is gospel” This is a dangerous statement. The gospel is a past event to which the church sings the amen, and to which the true church is a witness. It is not a recapitulation of Christ’s finished atonement, nor is it the church as an extension of His incarnation. Justin Martyr said the flour of the Eucharist is the flour that witness to the leper that was HEALED. Hebrews is clear in 10:14 that one sacrifice perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And 10:18 say there remains no more sacrifices fro sin. Jesus isn’t up there saying dad Jason just finished the mass, cut him some more grace and justice. This is salvation by works. ” and if by works it is no longer by grace. We stand in His grace, and we HAVE BEEN reconciled and justified by his blood and faith. Justin Martyr is clear that the only sacrifice a Christian can offer is praise and thanksgiving, and we cannot expiate our sins. We are the Temple of the holy Spirit. But Jesus does not show up in His youth in the church each day to offer up another sacrifice which you have to appropriate to burn off our temporal punishment. It is finished. He said He accomplished all God gave Him to do, and sat down at the right hand of the Father.
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:35 am
CB Moss, de Havilland, etc. … these are a mixture of Roman Catholic liberalism (not to be confused with the liberal-mindedness in pastoral application of the magisterium), Protestant liberalism, Trent, EO, or even the Tracts, with a good does of Wesleyan Arminianism thrown in for good mixture …
That’s not Catholicism … it’s as subjective as papal subjectivism one can get … the bottom line is … it is the church that interprets scripture … that’s the model … so it is in the end of mixture of fundamentalism and liberalism … two-sides of the same coin …
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:36 am
Which Anglo-Catholic jurisdiction do you belong to, Vincent?
Reed Here said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:37 am
O.k. men, or at least a hundred comments this thread has drifted away from the main point of the post. Sometimes this is necessary to do with a sub-topic related to the main topic. But often these just become rabbit trails, never ending rabbit trails with nary a fluffy white tail in sight.
It is my opinion that this thread has dissolved into the classic free-for-all pattern when sincere RCC and reformed guys debate – any and all subjects are brought up. One can almost guarantee that this is where things lie when the Lutheran-Anglican-EO differences are also brought into the mix.
So my suggestion is simply this, unless you really have something compelling to say about the main point (Why Imputation is NOT legal fiction), then conclude your final thoughts and offer the other guy the final comment.
Merely as a means of hopefully closing off as many rabbit trails as possible, maybe I can refer y’all to this article: How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome. It surely does not cover all that separates us but it does present a pretty good summary of the main issues between us.
Maybe we could leave the conversation here, and resume again on another topic.
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:37 am
Where does Augustine or even Chrysostom ever taught that the sacraments of the gospel are sacraments of the new law??
Were they ever aware that the sacraments were such?
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 9:42 am
Can you elaborate on this?
The old/ new law distinction is a Tridentine innovation of entrenching certain viewpoints. That the sacraments are considered new law is peculiarly Tridentine which is tied to a juridical authority of the Church.
Vincent said,
October 29, 2014 at 10:46 am
Jason do you mind giving me your email so we can continue this discussion elsewhere?
Jason Loh said,
October 29, 2014 at 10:49 am
JasonLohBCP1549@yahoo.co.uk
and jasonloh@um.edu.my
just in case … since yahoo is vulnerable to “hack ins” …
Don said,
October 29, 2014 at 12:37 pm
In closing per Reed’s overdue request,
In 876,
No. Not all doctrines are intended to equally apply to humanity and angels.
You need to be more careful about Paul’s use of “heavenly places” throughout Ephesians (not just this passage). Calling it hyperbole might be really oversimplifying things.
No, he was an Apostle who represented Christ.
In 881,
So here perhaps is the explanation for the vehement refusal to clearly articulate, let alone accept, the doctrine of perspicuity: If we deny perspicuity, then we are free to import various Roman capital-T Traditions into the way the church is run and the way doctrine is understood. A few verses that discuss Peter’s importance can be used to justify the existence of the Pope, without the need for any Scriptures that discuss the importance of the Bishop of Rome.
De Maria, I don’t personally care whether you accept the doctrine of perspicuity, as you are a Roman Catholic I wouldn’t expect you to, but it is rather disappointing that despite numerous explanations from numerous commenters you have been unable to express it in anything other than a straw-man caricature.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 29, 2014 at 1:20 pm
Reed, thanks for providing that article by Davis. Everyone should read it. But in reality Rome can never change, because it is infallible and unable to repent. Spurgeon said for the Ethiopian to shed its spots it would have to show 10000 years of holiness and philanthropy to the Christians it has killed. We can check back in 14014.
De Maria said,
October 29, 2014 at 2:01 pm
I disagree Don. I’m simply taking the words from the WCF to their logical conclusion. A conclusion with which you disagree but which makes sense none the less.
Let me explain.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them
Now, you claim that “may” here means “possibly”, but the context belies your understanding. The context says that “not only the learned, but the learned” will come to a sufficient understanding eventually.
Unless you wish to claim that the WCF claims that the “learned” will only possibly come to a substantial understanding.
Essentially, then, the WCF teaches that everyone, both the learned and unlearned, will come to a sufficient understanding of the Scriptures.
Now, I’m assuming that this understanding will be the same understanding. Or do the Scriptures not teach one Gospel?
So, no, I don’t believe I’m making any straw man. I’m following the claim of the WCF to its logical conclusion. If everyone, learned and unlearned, eventually come to a proper understanding of the Scripture, then everyone should come to agreement on the meaning of Scripture.
Per Reed’s #889, this is my summation on perspicuity of Scripture per the WCF. Feel free to have the last word.
roberty bob said,
October 29, 2014 at 2:27 pm
this thread no longer goes through the eye of the needle . . .
Don said,
October 29, 2014 at 2:32 pm
De Maria 896,
I’m unclear what context makes you feel impelled to cast “may” as meaning “must” rather than “is able to.”
Again, feel free to disagree with it; but I don’t see why you need to describe the doctrine as something it’s not.
De Maria said,
October 29, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Don 898,
The WCF is an archaic document:
From the Webster dictionary:
1may verbal auxiliary \ˈmā\
past might present singular & plural may
Definition of MAY
1 a archaic : have the ability to
De Maria said,
October 29, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Don,
Sorry, misunderstood your question. I also believe it means “able to”.
But it doesn’t mean, “maybe”. The unlearned, according to my understanding of the WCF, will be able to understand the Scripture given due diligence and use of the ordinary means, whatever those might be.
Don said,
October 29, 2014 at 2:59 pm
De Maria 900,
OK, yes, “will be able to understand,” but not “must necessiarly understand” which is what I thought you meant.
“Ordinary means” refers to learning, reading, listening, thinking. Having the Scriptures in translation if one doesn’t know Hebrew or Greek. It doesn’t mean “not having teachers.” But it does mean “not needing a supposedly infallible teacher who alone can dispense spiritual understanding.”
Kevin Failoni said,
October 31, 2014 at 8:56 am
Jim, this is a Reformed blog. Out of love we have to warn you Revelation 18:4 ” come out of her my people” God is calling you out from idolatry and worshiping the bread God, and worship Him in Spirit and truth thru fath alone. It is a death wafer Jim, Exodus, dont make for yourself a graven image. You must partake in the communion table rightly. Why would the owner of this blog take away that warning? Your soul is in peril. God bless Jim, we are praying for you.
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 9:34 am
Kevin,
That is actually a reference to Jerusalem. Protestants claim that the woman, Babylon, in Revelations Chapters 17 and 18 is a reference to the Catholic Church. A study of the Scriptures does not bear this out.
Babylon, represents Jerusalem and Israel. Let us correlate some Scriptures:
Babylon described as a whore:
Revelation 17 1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Israel is described as a whore:
Hosea 9 1Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.
Jerusalem described as a harlot (which is another word for whore):
Isaiah 1 21How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
Ezekiel 16 1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, ….15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.
Babylon is clothed in finery:
Rev 17 4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Jerusalem clothed in finery:
Ez 16 10I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD. 15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.
Babylon kills the prophets and saints:
Rev 17 6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Jerusalem kills the prophets and saints:
Matthew 23 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Babylon is described as “that great city”:
Rev 17: 18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Rev 18: 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
The “great city” is the city in which Jesus was crucified:
Rev 11: 8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. . The Kings of the earth gathered in Jerusalem to crucify Christ.
Rev 17: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication
Acts 4: 26The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Babylon and Jerusalem are built on seven mountains:
Revelation 17: 9And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings:
Jerusalem is built on seven mountains: Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and Mt. Moriah.
Babylon is destroyed by fire:
Rev 18: 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire
Jerusalem is destroyed by fire:
Ez 23: 25And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.
God calls His people out of that city:
Rev 18: 4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Paul calls people out of Jerusalem:
Heb 13: 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
All of that is directly from Scripture. In Scripture, there is no reference to the Catholic Church as Babylon.
Reed Here said,
October 31, 2014 at 9:36 am
Jim, the Scripture teaches a real, factual imputation of justification. The interaction with you and other RCC apologists helped to make both the case clear, and why the differences with y’all.
Thanks for the conversation. Goodbye.
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 9:45 am
Good choice of words. But not an imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Just wanted to make that clear.
Reed Here said,
October 31, 2014 at 9:57 am
Well DeMaria, you know you’re trying to sneak an oil tanker through a crack that is non-existent. It is the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness that accounts for the legal, factual status of our justification.
But I know you know this. No fair trying to hijack my words to say something you know I do not mean.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 31, 2014 at 11:11 am
We become the righteousness of God, in Him. Jesus said unless you come as a child, having achieved nothing of virtue or value. This would be perspicuous to a child. He became sin and we became the righteousness of God, in Him. B.B. Warfiled said the Romanist read the bible like a metaphysical essay. Jesus said come as a child. Not many none, not many wise, …… fools for Christ.
TurretinFan said,
October 31, 2014 at 11:29 am
Hi DM,
Per Reed, I’ll make this final comment on these off-topic threads, and leave you to provide a “last word” if you wish.
Gregory the Great was not a pope. He even denied that there was any universal bishop.
He wrote: “I exhort and entreat that not one of you ever accept this name, that not one consent to it, that not one write it, that not one admit it wherever it may have been written, or add his subscription to it; but, as becomes ministers of Almighty God, that each keep himself from this kind of poisoned infection, and give no place to the cunning lier-in-wait, since this thing is being done to the injury and rendering asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the contemning of all of you. For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf213.ii.v.xxxiv.html
Jerome wasn’t persuaded to “include them in the Vulgate.” Jerome was persuaded, in the cases of *some* of the books to provide a new translation from the Greek.
You also wrote:
You’re mistaken again. This is one of those common Roman Catholic myths. Jerome was persuaded to provide a translation of some of the deuterocanonical works and parts, but not all. And providing the translation was not equivalent to agreeing that they were inspired Scripture.
The Vulgate you have today was not a bundled package handed on to you by Jerome. It includes books he did not translate or revise. You should not rely on this kind of misinformation.
I had written: “That’s what it means to say that they are merely edifying and not canonical, as he did.” You responded “That’s what you claim it means. But his use of the word Scripture to describe other deuterocanonical books belies your claim.”
Your argument doesn’t follow. You’re assuming that it’s a bundled package, but Gregory does not treat them as a package. You’re also assuming that “Scripture” can only refer to inspired, canonical Scripture. But the first point is the main point -it’s wrong to assume that even if Gregory accepted Sirach as canonical he accepted all the other books you view as canonical.
I had written: “Accepting Sirach as Scripture is a mistake, of course, but it doesn’t mean that he accepted Maccabees as Scripture.” You responded: “It goes to show that he accepted all the deuterocanon as Scripture.” It doesn’t, because there is nothing to show him treating those books as a package deal.
I had written “It’s not reasonable for you to impose a late medieval context on Gregory I.”
You responded: “You’re mistaken. The question of the deuterocanon was handled one century before Pope St. Gregory the Great was born, by St. Jerome and Pope Damasus.”
You’re the one who is mistaken, according to Cardinal Cajetan:
For more:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/search/label/Cajetan
I wrote: “The term “second canon” – depending on the author – may mean that the book is not inspired Scripture.” You responded: “Depending upon whether the author is Catholic or Protestant.”
If you are calling Cardinals Cajetan and Ximines “Protestants,” ok – but surely Denis of Chartreux, Tostatus of Avila, Nicolas of Lyra, William Occam, and so on “Protestants” would require Protestants to be the inventors of time travel. Good luck with that theory!
I had written:
You responded:
God is omnipresent, but omnipresence is not communicated to the human nature of Jesus. Jesus’ flesh and blood are not omnipresent. If they were, transubstantiation would be impossible, because if Jesus were already omnipresent, the words of consecration could not change the elements into the body and blood. So, that argument is not sound.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
October 31, 2014 at 11:31 am
DM,
On topic, I had written:
You replied:
The problem is that but for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you are seeking justification by the law.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Reed – it seems my last comment probably went to a spam filter because of its links. Any chance of releasing it?
roberty bob said,
October 31, 2014 at 11:55 am
in reply to #904 De Maria . . .
You are right about the identify of Babylon; it is the code word for Jerusalem, the city which persecuted the saints and crucified our Lord. The Hallelujah Chorus was the original outburst of praise unto God at the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the judgment stored up for this great city.
Martin Luther and the Protestants totally misread the Revelation so that they linked, or equated, Babylon to Rome. This is what happens when you lose the thread of the original message of Revelation, which was to encourage the first generation catholic church to remain steadfast in the face of Jerusalem’s unholy warfare. The synagogue of Satan was out to destroy the church in those days, so they needed a shot of courage. The Reformers and their followers had fanciful notions on how to interpret the Revelation, one of the most common being to see this as prophetic key to the way the church would deteriorate in the seven ages that would ensue until the end of the [church] age. So, of course they would find the corrupt Roman Catholic Church in that scheme.
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Lol! I was hoping.
Reed Here said,
October 31, 2014 at 1:17 pm
DeMaria: gotta laugh with you. ;)
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Hi TF,
You said:
I think we have a difference in how we interpret those verses by St. Paul which use the word, “impute” and “law”.
To me, impute means “judge” not “transference”. And to me, when in those verses, St. Paul refers to “law”, he is usually talking about the Old Testament.
I was writing about this on the blog which Reed recommended.
When St. Paul said, “justified by faith apart from works”, Luther interpreted that as faith “alone”: But that s not what St. Paul meant. St. Paul was teaching the justification which occurs in the Sacraments.
Let me explain:
St. Paul taught the Catholic Teaching that only those who do the works of the Law are justified:
Romans 2:13
King James Version (KJV)
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
In Catholic Teaching, we are justified by faith and works. That is the foundation and root of all justification. Faith is expressed and perfected in works.
However, the Church also teaches that we are justified in the Sacraments where we are washed in sanctifying grace. Especially Baptism. Sacraments are God’s mighty works. We don’t do anything except submit to His works in the proper dispostion, which is that of faith.
This is the Justification by faith apart from works to which St. Paul referred.
The process is evident in every semester of RCIA. By faith, we seek the Lord and study to show ourselves approved. Only those who undergo this process are then JUSTIFIED in Baptism.
Now, when we see the word, “imputed” in Scripture. Protestants interpret, I assume, as “impart”. But it seems clear to me that it means to “judge”.
The KJV says:
Gen 15:6, Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
The blb says the word “chashab” used and interpreted as counted means, “to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count”.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
The blb says the underlying word, logizomai, used and interpreted as counted means to “to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over”.
Notice that it does not mean to “transfer”. It means to “judge”.
God looked into Abraham’s heart and judged him righteous. And if God judges someone righteous, who can deny it?
In Abraham’s justification, there was no transference. But there is a transference, which we call “infusion” of the grace of God which occurs in Baptism. This is why we are born again in Baptism, washed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
Reed Here said,
October 31, 2014 at 1:47 pm
DeMarie, very helpful clarifications.
I’ll let TF follow up in detail if he prefers. One short response your observation about “transference” is a reasonable question. To be sure some within Protestantism may not understand their own Church’s teaching (as in yours), but the term “transference” is not something we would ordinarily use to explain imputation. Instead we would use a term like “credit.”
If qualified, “transference” could be used. But it certainly does not apply in terms of some material or spiritual transference, as is the essence of your infusion distinction. Rather the transference in view is one of relational qualities, not material/spiritual, i.e., tangible qualities.
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 3:06 pm
Reed,
I am very comfortable with the use of the word, “credit”, if we are both using it in the sense of “give credit where credit is due”.
I’m not sure how that sense of the word would fit in Lane’s opening statement above:
A very common objection from Roman Catholics against the Protestant doctrine of imputation is that God declares someone to be innocent who is not, in fact, innocent. This is legal nonsense, to them. They believe that God would never declare a person to be righteous who is not, in fact, righteous…..
That would be giving credit where credit is not due. And I don’t see that in the words, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited unto him for righteousness.”
Reed Here said,
October 31, 2014 at 3:17 pm
DeMarie, indeed you are hitting at the core of the difference.
You are using the word credit a bit differently than what we’re thinking. We mean exactly what you don’t agree with. God credits us with what Jesus deserves. Justification in our view is never something in which we participate in terms of deserving, your sense of credit.
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 6:31 pm
By “us”, do you include Abraham? Did God credit Abraham with what Jesus deserved?
The reason I’m asking is because, according to Heb 11, neither Abraham nor any of our Jewish Patriarchs, went to heaven after they died. But they had to wait for us before they could receive the promise (v. 39).
In my opinion, Jesus would have deserved to go directly to heaven. That, in fact, is why, in the New Testament, we can go directly to heaven. Again, Hebrews sheds some light:
Hebrews 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,….22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,….
Fair enough. Wow! This is why I love debating. It really makes you think through all that you believe. As the Scripture says:
Proverbs 27:17
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
This is complicated. What I mean is, that its very simple, actually. But its so sublime that it is difficult to put into words.
Back to my sense of credit. Yes. In the Old Testament sense. Abraham received credit where credit was due. That is why the Scripture says:
Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
That is also why, he did not go directly to heaven. Neither faith alone nor faith and works can get us into heaven.
It remains true in the New Testament. Again, this is why Scripture says:
Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
We receive credit where credit is due. God looks at our faith as He did Abraham’s and credits it to us as righteousness, as He did Abraham. That is why Scripture says:
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
But then, we receive a gift, to boot. The gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
This is why, we “may” go directly to heaven even in this life:
Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
That’s what we call being “born again”.
Kevin Failoni said,
October 31, 2014 at 6:56 pm
DeMaria said” I dont mind credit if we are talking about credit where credit is due. Unfortunately for your theology Paul says God credits someone to who it it isnt due. Justification in Rome is the recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, but for Paul it was the declaration of someone intrinsically and utterly unqualified. Romans 4:5, you can never get around. God justifies the ungodly by faith. So the only thing you can do is add instalments that arent there. No lay away plan. K
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 7:05 pm
God justifies the ungodly, if they repent. There is no justification for anyone who does not repent.
Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Eric W said,
October 31, 2014 at 7:54 pm
De Maria, you wrote to Reed:
The reason I’m asking is because, according to Heb 11, neither Abraham nor any of our Jewish Patriarchs, went to heaven after they died. But they had to wait for us before they could receive the promise (v. 39).
In my opinion, Jesus would have deserved to go directly to heaven. That, in fact, is why, in the New Testament, we can go directly to heaven.
Response:
I should be noted that the Reformed confess a “waiting” in heaven.
…waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.-WCF
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 8:02 pm
So, what was the promise that Scripture says they didn’t receive?
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 8:10 pm
And, aren’t we all awaiting the full redemption of our bodies in the Resurrection on the Last Day?
Romans 8:23King James Version (KJV)
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Did Abraham and our Jewish Patriarchs receive it before us?
roberty bob said,
October 31, 2014 at 8:10 pm
“”God credits us with what Jesus deserves.”
What does Jesus deserve [for his faith and obedience]? He deserved to be justified, so God justified Jesus — credited righteousness to him — by raising him from the dead!
When a member of this human race of ungodly sinners confesses his sins, repents of them, believing God is faithful and freely forgives, then he also is justified — credited with righteousness — and God raises him to newness of life.
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 8:20 pm
In y’alls opinion, is the justification of Abraham equal to the justification we receive in the New Testament? When he was justified, did Abraham receive new life in Christ?
roberty bob said,
October 31, 2014 at 8:47 pm
to #925 . . .
Our NT justification [as to is basis] is the same as Abraham’s justification. We, like he, believe God, and it is credited to us as righteousness. The Apostle Paul commends Abraham’s justifying faith to all who would be justified; that kind of faith is a necessary.
Did Abraham receive new life in Christ upon being justified by faith? No. Christ had not yet been revealed to the world. Abraham hoped for what he did not yet have — for all that God had promised, but had not yet delivered.
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 8:51 pm
I agree with that rb. Does anyone else?
Jason Loh said,
October 31, 2014 at 11:35 pm
“In y’alls opinion, is the justification of Abraham equal to the justification we receive in the New Testament? When he was justified, did Abraham receive new life in Christ?”
Yes.
Abraham is the father of all believers. We are descended from him by faith and election. He was believed in the promise of God and was justified.
Was Abraham aware of justification by faith alone as gospel – as articulated by Paul, the author of Romans 4? No.
Was Abraham (fully) aware of faith alone as constituting his relationship with God? Probably.
All that matters is the promise of God and that the promise was applied personally to Abraham. IOW, the Abraham heard the promise (and knew that the promise was meant for him).
Faith is profoundly unreflective.
Faith is not looking back and therefore looking inside to ascertain whether or not one has faith. It is not about propositions — where the truthfulness or falsity can be immediately verified. Faith is about the spoken word that performs the deed.
In the context of OT, the promise of God as it was then tied to the physical situation of the saints, faith was forward looking — it trusts in what the promise of God will do in the future despite contradictory experience.
The difference, therefore, between the OT and NT is that the OT saints looked to the future whilst the NT saints know that the future is present —it is already here — despite contradictory experience.
Jason Loh said,
October 31, 2014 at 11:37 pm
“Did Abraham receive new life in Christ upon being justified by faith?”
Yes.
Was Abraham aware that he received new life in Christ? No.
Does it matter? No.
Only the promise of God matters.
Jason Loh said,
October 31, 2014 at 11:47 pm
Now Abraham committed mortal sin before (lying to Pharoah that he was not married to Sarah or allowing Pharaoh to think that he was not married to Sarah) and after receiving the promise of God (had carnal relationship with Hagar).
Was the promise of God dependant on Abraham or the way round? A natural reading clearly it is the other way round.
As an elect of God — the very father of all believers — did Abraham kept himself from mortal sin? No. Was he preserved by God from the consequences of mortal sin? Yes. That is to say, Abraham remain justified in God’s sight.
So, the Catholic understanding is not compatible the testimony and witness of scripture.
De Maria said,
October 31, 2014 at 11:57 pm
Interesting questions and answers, Jason. But the one I’m most interested in, is this one.
So, I’d have to ask you the same question I asked Eric W. If he received the promise in the OT, then what was the promise that Scripture says he didn’t receive?
Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:18 am
I think this verse from Scripture makes the point clear:
Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
At the time when Jesus made this statement, the OT Patriarchs had not been Baptized of the Holy Spirit. They were only born of woman. They had not been renewed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
And Jesus said that John the Baptist was the greatest of these. John the Baptist had also not received the Baptism of Jesus Christ.
But we, who are baptized, are citizens of the Kingdom of heaven.
Hebrews 12:22King James Version (KJV)
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Therefore, justification in the NT is greater than justification in the OT.
roberty bob said,
November 1, 2014 at 1:46 am
Yes, De Maria . . . and in John 3 we find the lone [overlooked] gospel account of Jesus baptizing. So many people are coming to Jesus in order to be baptized that it gets the attention of John the Baptist’s disciples, who reflexively think that their master will be jealous of Jesus’ sudden popularity. But they are mistaken. Instead John rejoices in Jesus the Baptizer! He realizes that Jesus is Heaven’s Bridegroom, and that Heaven is giving to Jesus all of baptized to be his Bride. In this magnificent wedding John the Baptist is the Best Man who shares in the joy of Jesus receiving his true Bride.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 2:35 am
De Maria,
Yes. The promise was none other than Jesus Christ Himself. Abraham could only looked to the future for the fulfilment of the promise. But he was justified by that promise.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 2:39 am
“Therefore, justification in the NT is greater than justification in the OT.”
Justification in the OT is the same as justification in NT. The only difference is that in the OT, there were no sacraments but shadows or types. But the promise was there — in the types and shadows, nonetheless.
The OT saints were justified by faith alone though the Promised One had yet to come but was nonetheless present in the PRE-incarnate form (christophany). This is why the church fathers spoke of the God who revealed Himself (self-disclosure) as referring to the Son …
The NT saints are justified by alone by, under and in the Promised One Who is here in sacraments.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 2:47 am
Justification is not by the law — but apart from the law.
Galatians 3:
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the GOSPEL unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Abraham was justified apart from the law. Paul was justified apart from the law.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 4:52 am
The interpretive role of the NT, i.e. to say, in light of the NT, the distinction between law and gospel in the OT can be made clear …
The promise or the gospel (eschatological) is contained within the broader covenantal conditional (ontological) promises of the law (pertaining to the old creation). It is for the NT to sort out which is the gospel promise which is unconditional and which is law promise which is conditional, e.g. re Galatians 3:
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 5:03 am
Furthermore, the Catholic Church will cease to be the Catholic Church if it becomes liberal (in the Protestant sense) …
When it comes to doctrine which are not dogmas — the doctrines in the hierarchy of truths which have never been infallibly pronounced upon by the pope and the magisterium, the Church has always allowed a diversity of views … a change from rejection of modernism which include higher criticism and evolution to allowance and tolerance and even qualified acceptance is not liberalism in the Protestant sense since fundamentals in Protestant is different from the Catholic faith — which is based on the same principles of catholicity: confessed and believed “everywhere, always and by all.”
The Catholic Church will only become liberal if papal infallibility and the claims universal jurisdiction is abandoned, i.e. its teaching authority. That would be tantamount to the very rejection of the teaching authority of Christ (and the apostles themselves). This would be apostasy from the faith … defectibility of the church … contrary to the promise of Christ that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church …
Eric W said,
November 1, 2014 at 8:56 am
De Maria, you asked:
So, what was the promise that Scripture says they didn’t receive?
Response:
…for He has prepared a city for them. (Heb.11:16) Even this city, or general assembly, is not fully realized and it waits for the consummation. All of us wait for a new heavens and earth of resurrected bodies.
Vincent said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:22 am
Jason would you say that Rome is still in some sense a Christian Church? Are their saved people in their? Are you a Lutheran by the way?
Vincent said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:24 am
Are you saying Pope Francis believes in the law/gospel distinction in some vague sense?
Vincent said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:30 am
I get what you are saying Jason, that Rome still has some vestiages of the gospel. A good example is their teaching on Justification., They agree that justification is a free gift of God, unmerited, undeserved and that our adoption is a free gift. They say all that free stuff happens at baptism.
Reed Here said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:53 am
Eric, no. 940: ding, ding, ding!
Reed Here said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:56 am
Vincent, no, 943: Paul’s argument in Galatians differs. The gospel less than as explicitly constructed in Scripture is another gospel, a different one, one altogether and wholly other, calling for nothing but complete anathematizing.
I.o.w., even a vestige of the gospel is not actually gospel. It all hangs together or it is condemned.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:58 am
Jason, I assume you intended to respond to my question, “what is the promise that Scripture says Abraham didn’t receive?
Therefore, when Scripture says in Gen 15:6 “He believed and it was credited to him as righteousness”, Abraham did not receive at that moment, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit nor a new life in Christ. He was not born again.
Certainly, after many centuries, he received what we receive the moment we are justified. And of course, the Catholic Church teaches that this happens in the Sacrament of Baptism.
But that brings us back to “imputation”. And I think I can ask this in a different manner.
“Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”
Protestants frequently say it this way, “The righteousness of Christ was imputed unto Abraham”.
Does that Protestant terminology mean the same thing as “being born again in the image of Christ”?
and does it result in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
Because I don’t see that in Scripture.
Reed Here said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:58 am
Jason: do you consider the RCC apostate at present?
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:59 am
I ask those questions as it pertains to Abraham in Gen 15:6
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:12 am
Soooo? Are you saying that neither they nor we have received the promise? No one has received the promise?
But Scripture says:
Acts 2:37-39King James Version (KJV)
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:12 am
Reed,
Yes, I do. How is Rome apostate?
The gospel can be a summary of the catholic faith. Rome is apostate not by directly renouncing and denouncing the gospel. But by indirectly distorting and perverting the gospel.
Is that gospel anathema according to Paul? Yes, indeed, it is/ should be.
But does it make Rome to be less Christian? Yes and No.
For example:
Rome is no different from Arminianism or even the Reformed faith including Anabaptist “off-shoots” such as Gospel Standard (UK) or Landmarkian Baptists in understanding passages such “Repent and believe and ye shall receive the promise of Holy Ghost.” The words in their entirely are understood as a command: That is, one “word.”
Luther would have construed the apostolic declaration not as one but two “words”: Repentance is a command belonging to the demands of the Law; believe and receiving belong to the gospel promise.
Belief and receptivity are passive orientation that presupposes and imply the sheer efficacy of the gospel word, i.e. the word does what it says and says what it does.
IOW, the apostolic declaration functions as law even when intended to lead to or be understood as part of the gospel. The critical difference is of course monergism vs synergism — at the risk of oversimplification.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:26 am
Show me from Scripture, Jason. I guarantee, just as I’ve been disproving your understanding of justification from Scripture, I will prove to you that your beliefs are unbiblical and that Catholic Teaching is the basis of the New Testament.
Anytime you’re ready. I’ve already shown your unbiblical belief that Abraham received new life in Christ in Gen 15:6. What else do you want to compare with Scripture.
And Reed, since you’re inviting rabbit trails away from “imputation”, I am assuming you will permit this new branch.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:29 am
Vincent,
Of course, Rome is a Christian Church. We came out of Mother Church. She will never cease to be a Christian Church just as the Corinthian churches rifed with charismania and habits of the old religion never ceased to be a Christian Church.
St Paul, on one hand, addressed the Galatians as saints; OTOH, he excoriated them for having fallen from grace and for having a false gospel.
Yes, the free stuff happens at baptism; and then they go on to add to the free stuff.
BTW, as you would agree, Rome cannot alter her moral teachings without at the same altering her dogmatic theology such as the distinction between venial and mortal sin and the distinction between temporal and spiritual debt, and the sacramental theology vis-a-vis penance and marriage.
Rome tacitly acknowledges predestination in its understanding of marriage – Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride imagery. But that is clouded and obscured by purgatory. Purgatory is grounded in a one-sided dimension of the sacramental understanding of marriage, i.e. to the marginalisation of predestination. The indissolubility of marriage is based on the Christic injunction. The nature of marriage is based on the spiritual marriage. Mary predestined to be the Mother of God is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost and the Icon of the Church and Mother of believers. Rome is inconsistent, as you say.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:36 am
De Maria,
Why complicate things? Scripture is clear, is it not that Abraham was justified apart from the law.
Did he receive the Holy Spirit? Yes, he did. How? We don’t know.
Just like David prayed in Psalm 51 that the Holy Spirit will not be taken away from him because of his mortal and grievous and serious and abominable sin of having Uriah killed so that he was free to commit adultery with Bathsheba.
What did the prophets and even St Stephen the martyr say? Ye always resist the Holy Spirit …
The Holy Spirit as God has always been present in the OT. This is why the Pharisees can also commit the unpardonable sin. They of course pre-figured the legalism of the Roman hierarchy who approved the Tridentine decrees ….
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:46 am
De Maria,
How have you disproved the Reformation understanding of justification?
That justification is apart from the law is clear from scripture.
That justification is imputed to the believer/ saint is clear from scripture.
That forgiveness of sins and imputation refer to the act of justification is clear from scripture …
Quoting from NIV instead of the customary practice from KJV:
Romans 4:
5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who JUSTIFIES the UNgodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the SAME thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those
whose transgressions are FORGIVEN,
whose sins are COVERED.
8
Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”
a) Justification of the ungodly makes sense only if justification is imputed and not infused … and by extension, destroys any distinction between uncreated and created grace …
This is obvious since infusion means that one has to be healed and elevated or made fitting and worthy first before being justified. Justification by infusion means that justification is an EFFECT of infusion.
Imputation, on the other hand, is the re-creative word of God that re-creates of out nothing. This of course turns Aristotle and Plato on their head.
b) Forgiveness of sins is the same thing as justification of the ungodly … Our Saviour prayed on the Cross: Father, forgive them for they know not what they DO — that is, in the present tense …
Eric W said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:08 am
De Maria, you asked and cited:
Soooo? Are you saying that neither they nor we have received the promise? No one has received the promise?
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Response:
Yes, no one received the promised of the New H&E or resurrected bodies. Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection.
They received the promise of God, namely the Holy Spirit. God makes us first fruits of the Spirit, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. He is also a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory
If you want to divide things into distinct dispensations (covenant theology is not excluded by this), then the OT saints didn’t receive promises the same way as NT saints. Do we see things as additive or disjunctive ?
Eric W said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:10 am
Reed, you wrote:
Eric, no. 940: ding, ding, ding
Coldplay-
I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
roberty bob said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:27 am
In reply to #940 and #944 [ding! ding! ding!] . . .
“. . . even this city, or general assembly, is not fully realized . . . ”
You are right that this city, the Heavenly Jerusalem, does not come into full flower until the consummation of all things at the re-appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. However, the truth is that this city, which Abraham and the OT saints longed for, was founded by Jesus Christ at his first appearing — as Hebrews 12:22 indicates. The faithful are here and now members — yes, citizens! — of that great city: the City of the Living God! This unrealized OT hope has been realized through Christ.
God’s promise to prepare a city [Hebrews 11:16] has come true; a city has been prepared, and the faithful participate in its worship and life.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:33 am
I have disproved you. You claim that Abraham received new life in Christ when he was justified (#929). And you said that Jesus Christ is the promise (#934). But the Scripture clearly says that he did not receive the promise (Heb 11:39).
Therefore, your belief is unbiblical.
THAT is Catholic Teaching.
That justice is imputed to the believer is Catholic Doctrine.
That is also Catholic Doctrine.
All of that is Catholic Doctrine. None of that says that Abraham received the promise of new life in Jesus Christ when he was justified.
Justice is credited (i.e. imputed). Grace is infused.
Gen 15:6 says nothing about new life in Christ being imputed or infused into Abraham.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and it is besides the point. The point being that your belief that Abraham received new life in Christ is unbiblical.
You’ll have to show me a dictionary that says that “imputation” means to create or re-create. Otherwise, you’re simply making something up and throwing it in to distract from your unbiblical belief.
Not to the point. You asked me what I had proved was unbiblical. It was your claim that Abraham received new life in Christ when he was justified. I have shown that you are reading that into Scripture.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:45 am
It is you complicating matters because you want to distract from your unbiblical beliefs. But I am not easily distracted.
That is Catholic Teaching.
Show me from Scripture. Otherwise you are reading into Scripture, your unbiblical belief.
As for me, Scripture says that we are promised the Holy Spirit in Baptism:
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
And Scripture says that Abraham did not receive that promise:
Hebrews 11:39New International Version (NIV)
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised,
Nor could he, since the Holy Spirit was not yet given:
John 7:39
New International Version
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
Are you saying that Scripture errs when it says that the Holy Spirit was not yet given until Christ was glorified?
John 7:39
New International Version
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
What did the prophets and even St Stephen the martyr say? Ye always resist the Holy Spirit …
Still not to the point. But please continue, as you are contradicting the Word of God more and more. Pray tell, where does Scripture say that the Holy Spirit was indwelling the Jews before Christ was glorified? Show me from Scripture.
Reed Here said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:46 am
DeMarie, no. 951: no you are assuming wrong. Again, loops into sub-topics that eventually get back to the main point are appropriate, simply because it is necessary at times for clarification on sub-points to secure clarification on the main point.
My question to Jason was not an invitation to a rabbit trail, but a request for brief clarification on something that struck me as needing that for me to understand his broader point(s). Nothing more. A simple “yes” from him would have sufficed.
Having said that, of course I’m not going to ding you or Jason for misunderstanding and assuming the rabbit trail is now open. :)
Please, though, you and Jason, don’t follow that topic unless you intend to relate it to the main topic of imputation. I recognize that the “apostasy” topic is painful for you to hear brought up. I did not do so to invite open season on you or your faith. Thanks for understanding.
Eric W said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:49 am
roberty bob,
I take a Baptistic view with some underdetermined points.
———————-
B.H. Carroll, Ekklesia The Church:
But while nearly all of the 113 instances of the use of ecclesia belong to particular class, there are some instances, as Heb.12:23, and Eph.5:25-27, where the reference seems to be to the general assembly of Christ. But in every case the ecclesia is prospective, not actual. That is to say, there is not now, but there will be a general assembly of Christ’s people, that general assembly will be composed of all the redeemed of all time.
Here are three indisputable and very significant facts concerning Christ’s general assembly:
1. Many of its members, properly called out, are now in heaven.
2. Many others of them, also called out, are here on earth.
3. An indefinite number of them, yet to be called, arre neither on earth nor in heaven, because they are yet unborn and therefore nonexistent.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:56 am
Who is “they” which received the Holy Spirit? And since you say, “they” do you exclude yourself?
If I understand you correctly, additive. Jesus deconstructed the Old Testament but maintained the Ten Commandments:
Matt 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
But, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that we have not received the Holy Spirit. Do you deny the Scripture?
Acts 5:32New International Version
We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
Eric W said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:12 pm
De Maria, you asked:
But, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that we have not received the Holy Spirit. Do you deny the Scripture?
Response:
I’m happy to clear it up. Act 2 & 10 are about NT believers receiving this:
God makes us first fruits of the Spirit, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. He is also a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory
I include myself as a NT believer.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Eric W, #953
Did Abraham receive the Holy Spirit in Gen 15:6 when Scripture says, “Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited to him for righteousness”?
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Sorry, that’s Eric #963
Kevin Failoni said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:36 pm
DeMaria, HE was raised for OUR justification. We got the life He lived and He got the one we lived.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Jason Loh, did you have an Epiphany? some of the stuff your saying is flat out righteous. I didn’t harden my heart like you asked me to.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Jason, you do know that Reformed denounce liberal Protestantism.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Did Abraham receive the Holy Spirit in Gen 15:6 when Scripture says, “Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited to him for righteousness”?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:55 pm
To say that Pope Francis understands law gospel distinctive is naive. He is the guardian of Roman dogma. And until Trent repents of it’s false gospel, which it can’t, it will be apostate. It can’t because it is infallible and can’t repent. It also can’t because it is antichrist. And this hasn’t been removed in any sense from our confessionals. Is there a trace of christianity in rome, sure, but so what. The true church go christ has ALWAYS separated itself from Rome and suffered greatly for it. I don’t believe in any universal visible church. God dwells in the heart of His people, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, not in buildings, especially the one’s full of Gold, full of 10000 dollar vestments and diamond hats, and where the abomination of the Mass ” the work of the people” takes place. The reformers were clear when Rome said the sacraments were merit for the strong instead of mercy for the weak, finito baby. The only mention of vestments i the bible are with the kingdom of bale.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 1, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Paul used the church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. When i am with my ten Christian friends at the fair, we are incarnational, because the Spirit of God dwells in us.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 1, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Jason, Loh I’m reading your arguments to DeMaria and thinking are you the same cat that was on CCC. Man your defense of justification and imputation is stellar!
Eric W said,
November 1, 2014 at 1:09 pm
De Maria,
We have two orders: (a) those who give (b) those who receive. Sometimes these orders can mix together. For example, Jesus received the Spirit and baptizes with the Spirit (gives). I will go out on a limb and say that Abraham belonged (perhaps belongs in a deeper sense) to the order of those who gave the Spirit. The gospel was preached when God said to Abraham, ” All the Nations will be blessed in YOU” Also, the promises were spoken to Abraham AND to his seed.
So, if I distinguished reciprocal aspects correctly, then it seems that Abraham didn’t receive the Holy Spirit in Gen.15:16. However, it’s not unreasonable to think he received the Spirit as one who gives. God gives the Spirit promised through faith in Christ, while Abraham is still our father in faith.
I’m open to any criticisms after writing this !
Kevin Failoni said,
November 1, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Eric W, may I add, we are sealed in the Spirit, seated in the heavenly places, with an inheritance that cannot fade away. An heir to the Kingdom, adopted, sealed waiting for the older brother to come back for the crop in the already/ not yet. Judgment is moved up for the believer to our time of faith. The same righteousness we received then is the same which will bring us to glory. And the whole church said Amen!
Eric W said,
November 1, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Kevin,
I tend to focus on the mortification of “waiting and groaning” more often than not. You gave me a good reason to set my mind on things above, AMEN
Vincent said,
November 1, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Jason you are aware that according to Aquinas and Rome the infusions makes man righteous instantly and that Justification for Aquinas and Rome mean to make righteous? Man is made rightous instantly within seconds of being baptized according to Aquinas/Trent.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 2:22 pm
I agree with this:
So, if I distinguished reciprocal aspects correctly, then it seems that Abraham didn’t receive the Holy Spirit in Gen.15:16.
There’s a lot of things that don’t seem unreasonable. But if they contradict Scripture, they are unreasonable.
John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
John 7:38-40King James Version (KJV)
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:
for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
Eric W said,
November 1, 2014 at 2:39 pm
De Maria, you cited:
for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
If we follow your lead, then the Holy Spirit contradicted himself. The Holy Ghost was given to Jesus before the Holy Ghost was given and Jesus was glorified.
Acts 10:38
And you know that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.
————————-
John 7 doesn’t contradict the affirmation that Abraham received the Holy Spirit in Gen.15:16
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 3:16 pm
Eric W, #978,
Jesus is God. By definition, the Holy Spirit is in Him.
The Father is in the Son. But the Son is not the Father.
The Holy Spirit is in the Son. But the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Spirit of God
Spirit of Christ
Not two different spirits. But one.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 9:51 pm
“Jason you are aware that according to Aquinas and Rome the infusions makes man righteous instantly and that Justification for Aquinas and Rome mean to make righteous? Man is made rightous instantly within seconds of being baptized according to Aquinas/Trent.”
You’re right, Vincent. That is the position approved by Trent. The state of being a son and daughter of Adam and Eve to the state of being in Christ is instantaneous. But that’s not the end of the story …
Tridentine dogmatic decree on justification is opposed to justification by faith alone. Trent *anathematised* the Protestant position.
This is why Contarini, Gopper, Pole et al’s proposal of “double justice” where infusion of grace is predicated upon imputation was decisively and unequivocally REJECTED by Trent (which instead upheld the other way round). Double justice was something Calvin was prepared to countenance but definitely not Luther since he had rejected the same thing in relation to the Regensburg/ Ratisbon Colloquy.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:06 pm
“Show me from Scripture. Otherwise you are reading into Scripture, your unbiblical belief. As for me, Scripture says that we are promised the Holy Spirit in Baptism:”
Yes, we are promised the Holy Spirit in baptism.
“But it does not mean that Holy Spirit cannot be given apart from baptism. Don’t you know that the “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit”?
I’ve shown you how the either OT saints knew that they had the Holy Spirit or that they had the Holy Spirit even if they weren’t aware.
In fact, for you to insist that only the Catholic Church has proper sacraments, e.g. baptism, is wholly unbiblical. Where in scripture does it say that there is such a thing as created grace?
The love of God is created grace?
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:09 pm
Kevin Failoni,
I’ve always been the same person. I’m neither a conservative nor a liberal; just someone who distinguishes between law and gospel.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:15 pm
De Maria,
Hebrews 11:39 doesn’t say that the prophets and patriarchs did not receive Christ, only that they did not receive the heavenly inheritance of which Israel as the earthly type. That is the meaning.
The OT saints did receive Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the SAME SPIRITUAL FOOD 4 and DRANK the SAME SPIRITUAL DRINK; *** FOR they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was CHRIST.*** 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
Now, what was the context of 1 Corinthians 10?
14 THEREFORE, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.”
The context was the Lord’s Supper, of course … (this why John 6 is so remarkably identical) …
As I’ve said before, Christ was indeed given, not in the sacraments in the physical types and shadows — pre-incarnate to be sure but given nonetheless …
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:18 pm
Don’t you agree that what applies in Hebrews 11 vis-a-vis the OT saints applies equally to US also? Isn’t that what the author was saying?
Before the author went on to recount the deeds of the heroes of faith, he gave a definition of faith. Definition is something general and universal … an example is something concrete and particular. To give a general definition at the beginning of Hebrews 11 is to say something that applies equally to both OT and NT saints.
The examples of the OT saints, therefore, serve us OUR examples …
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:34 pm
That’s not to the point. Was Abraham given the Holy Spirit when he was justified in Gen 15:6?
I know precisely.
No. You haven’t. I have shown you that we are indwelt of the Holy Spirit when we are justified. Are you insinuating that the OT saints were indwelt of the Holy Spirit when they were justified? A yes or no will suffice.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:36 pm
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit even before conception.
Luke 1:
“Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.”
Abraham is the patriarch and father of all believers, is he not? How can he not have the Holy Spirit? How can David the serial adulterer prayed in Psalm 51 that the Holy Spirit will not be taken away from him but Abraham lacked the Holy Spirit?
How can the Holy Spirit be resisted if not present in OT Israel?
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:38 pm
Continuing on from Luke 1:
“39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Did Elizabeth needed to be baptised to receive the Holy Spirit?
See how unbiblical and pretentious Romanism is, De Maria?
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:43 pm
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with EVERYONE born of the Spirit. This includes Abraham.
Now, the word of the promise that justified Abraham gave Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The manna gave BOTH Christ and the Holy Spirit. Are not spiritual things related to the Holy Spirit also?
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:46 pm
What applies to the NT saints applied equally as well to the OT saints. Forgiveness of sins in the NT — same as in the OT. If baptism gives the Holy Spirit and forgive sins and therefore justifies; then an OT saint who was justified received the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins.
Now, where is such a thing as created (sanctifying grace (as necessary for justification)?
I can prove that Abraham received the Holy Spirit when justified but you can’t created grace …
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:46 pm
And untrue. The Catholic Church recognizes several Sacraments outside the Catholic Church. All of them, in fact, when it comes to the Orthodox. So, you’ll have to prove that I said such a thing.
When it comes from man is one instance:
Genesis 33:7-9King James Version (KJV)
7 And Leah also with her children came near, and bowed themselves: and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed themselves.
8 And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord. 9 And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself.
Sanctifying grace is a participation in God’s life. It is uncreated.
But all other grace is given by God as He sees fit. It is created by God.
Show me where Scripture says that God doesn’t create grace.
Also, did you not read what Reed said?
Please tell me how this relates to imputation and I will be happy to continue responding. Also, show the Catholic Doctrines to which you are objecting.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:48 pm
Justification is the salvific work of God that precisely involves all Three Persons of the Trinity. It is impossible for Abraham to be justified and yet not receive the Holy Spirit.
All Three Persons were involved in creation. All Three Persons are involved in re-creation.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 10:55 pm
De Maria,
1. You still haven’t proved created grace is from scripture. it is an invention of the Roman Church. Why, the Orthodox REJECT created grace as a medieval innovation. That should tell you something.
2. You referred to the example of someone in Genesis looking for grace. And what is the definition of grace? Favour. Favour is RELATIONAL; it cannot be poured into a person (ontological).
Your rhetorical finding a needle in the haystack is not helping. Stop it.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:01 pm
Where does scripture says that Esau was in a position to give grace? Was he an ordained Roman priest in apostolic succession and in submission to the Roman pontiff?
Doesn’t this contradict your position that created grace which is an EFFECT of the HOLY SPIRIT since it is a gift of the Holy Spirit can only be given baptism?
Your scrambling to find biblical support for created grace is obviously futile …
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:07 pm
By Trent rejecting imputation and dogmatising infusion a the basis of justification, the Roman Church became definitively apostate. The anti- as in the place of Christ became full-fledged and came into clear dogmatic expression …
Imputation is by the external word of God — Who promises and delivers on that promise one and the same time and the promised is none other than the Promised One …
He gives wholly and entirely and personally and substantially and really, holding nothing back …
THAT is divine love … the love of God in the imputation of justification loves the UNWORTHY …
There is NOTHING that stand between the Incarnate Son of God and the sinner … not even so-called created grace …
Don’t you know that Jesus Christ is the Prima Sacramentum — the Primal Sacrament or the Sacrament par excellence? A sacrament by definition is mediation and a sacrament mediate God Himself.
Created grace CONTRADICTS all this …
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:07 pm
The Holy Spirit was imparted to him by the intercession of Mary and his mother Elizabeth through Jesus who was present in her womb when they met.
Luke 1:40-41New International Version (NIV)
40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
But this imparting was of a different quality than being born again of the Holy Spirit.
Yes.
He was not born again nor regenerated of the Holy Spirit. Nor was he indwelt of the Holy Spirit since it was not yet given.
The Holy Spirit did not indwell the believer in the OT. That is why they did not walk amongst the Saints.
Scripture is very clear on the difference between the OT and the NT:
Hebrews 12:18-24New International Version (NIV)
The Mountain of Fear and the Mountain of Joy
18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”[a] 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.”[b]
22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
The difference between the two is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Scripture says that we are given the Holy Spirit when we are justified in the New Testament. Scripture says that we are renewed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
Titus 3:5 New International Version (NIV)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Spirit is God. So the Holy Spirit was present in the OT. But the Holy Spirit was not given to man until Christ was glorified. That is the Teaching of Scripture:
John 7:39 New International Version (NIV)
39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:10 pm
To receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, yes.
It is you who is unbiblical and pretentious. The Gospel tells us that the Holy Spirit was not yet given. Therefore, we know that this imparting spoken of in this verse is not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which results from Baptism.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:12 pm
Kevin,
The pope does understand the law-gospel distinction. To refuse to see this is plain naive and uninformed — lack of exposure to the other side of the story, so to speak. Come out of your shell … and see the world for what it is …
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:15 pm
So, you have conceded my point, pretentious and unbiblical De Maria.
In your scheme of things, to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit means that the person is justified(!) So Elizabeth as an OT saint was justified when she received the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Abraham too received the Holy Spirit when he was justified.
Or are you saying that Abraham was too far up the line so to speak in salvation history to receive the Holy Spirit?
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:17 pm
Kevin,
Of course it does not mean that he accepts or embrace the full implications of law-gospel distinction?
Did Wesley accept although he claimed that reading Luther’s intro to Galatians “warmed his heart”?
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:18 pm
Created grace is all over Scripture. What do you want, an explicit definition? First produce the explicit teaching that Abraham was born again, then I will produce the explicit teaching for created grace.
The Orthodox church is not infallible. It lost its infallibility when it broke form the Catholic Church.
Christ uses the figure of water to refer to grace. Therefore, it can be poured in a figurative manner.
John 4:10
New International Version
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
By claiming that Abraham received the same justification as that which Jesus provides in the NT, you are denying the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Justification of Jesus Christ makes us children of God and empowers us to call out, “Abba, Father!” But you have us back on the mountain of fear.
Shame on you!
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:20 pm
Jason, you’re talking in riddles. Provide the Teaching from Trent that you claim opposes Scripture.
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:21 pm
The intercession of BVM is not denied. That, however, is not the priority and precedence.
Precedence is always the word of the Lord. The word of God always come first. The external word gives the Holy Spirit and so prayers are answered. But prayers do not give or mediate; these are requests.
What gives? The external word … the same word that justifies … no infusion, nonewhatsoever …
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:25 pm
It is clear, De Maria … that you just can’t prove created grace from scripture.
Can you prove created grace from St Paul’s Romans 4? Where does St Paul place created grace and justification side-by-side?
Can you prove created grace from the patristics? From St Augustine? I’m not even referring to the Eastern fathers(!)
Jason Loh said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:30 pm
I shall end the debate and discussion here since it is clear and obvious that the Protestant position of rejection created grace and the concomittant upholding of imputation as justification is well proven and grounded and based on and comes out of scripture.
Trent was dead wrong. it continues to be Trent nearly 500 years later. But the Roman Church cannot change and will not change … to do so would be to shatter the “alter ego” of its proponents and adherents … the whole theological worldview would just collapse and that is unthinkable …
All is not lost … forgiveness of sins is ALWAYS available from people who dare to preach and proclaim the word of God without any sacramental connection to Rome …
And is all that it takes … a WORD that is spoken …
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:33 pm
Anyone can give grace. Grace is simply favor. It isn’t even, necessarily the favor of God.
This sounds like a straw man argument. Sanctifying grace is a participation in the life of God and it is uncreated. That is what is dispensed by Jesus Christ through His Sacraments.
a. Priests don’t create it.
b. Christ was not yet glorified so this could not be given in the Old Testament.
There is a natural body and a spiritual body. Created grace is spiritual substance. Do you deny that God can create spiritual substance?
You’re mistaken. You are simply creating a rabbit trail to distract from the fact that your belief in the born again justification of Abraham is unbiblical.
The fact is that YOU don’t know what the term “created grace” means, therefore you can’t find it in Scripture. But it is there. From one end of Scripture to the other.
De Maria said,
November 1, 2014 at 11:40 pm
No problem. You haven’t provided any proof from Scripture for your position that Abraham received new life in Christ when he was justified in Gen 15:6. Therefore, your claim remains, unbiblical.
I note that you also did not provide the quote from Trent which you claimed was unbiblical. All you did was make a straw man argument which you attributed to Trent and proceeded to knock it down. Therefore, you were simply arguing against your own fiction.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 2, 2014 at 12:04 am
Jason said ” don’t you know that Jesus is the sacrament primal. Thats exactly right. And Rome can’t usurp that position.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 2, 2014 at 12:14 am
Jason, my contention is that the abuses and corruption throughout history in the church has been the conflation of law and gospel. It has corrupted faith at its core. would you agree? Rome can only see the gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is compensation for their lack., not realizing law requires perfection. To confuse them is to corrupt faith at its core. Law could do nothing but condemn man. Rome was teaching that the gospel was simpler easier law than the OT. Instead of following a whole lot of rules, God expects only love and heartfelt surrender. Calvin said ” as if we could consider anything more difficult than loving God with all of heart soul and mind.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 2, 2014 at 12:16 am
Jason said ” Trent was dead wrong” Amen brother.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 12:46 am
In other words, that Jesus is the source of the Sacraments. Of course. That is Catholic Teaching.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that Abraham was not born again when he was justified in Gen 15:6.
Vincent said,
November 2, 2014 at 6:46 am
Jason if Rome is apostate, how can you suggest that it is still a Christian church? Do the EO accept the doctrine of imputation as it is expressed by the Reformers?
Eric W said,
November 2, 2014 at 6:56 am
De Maria,
We have the pre-Mountain of fear believers, the under the mountain of fear believers, and mountain of joy believers ? What exactly is common about their justification ?
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 8:51 am
There is one thing in common amongst all who believe in God. The Ten Commandments.
Abraham was a pre-mountain of fear believer. Scripture says:
Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Of course, Moses was given the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God upon the fear mountain:
Exodus 24:12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
And we have the Ten Commandments still:
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Any one who wants to enter life in the final justification on the day of Judgement, must keep these Commandments.
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:21 am
If none are good but God and only a good person can keep the commandments, how can anyone enter into life by keeping the commandments? Or, maybe Jesus’ offer was intended to lead people to the realization that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in God’s sight.
One thing I do know is that those who have entered into life grow in their understanding that in and of themselves they have nothing to offer God but their sin. Their only hope in life and death is Christ and Christ alone.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:32 am
Vincent said to Jason ” if Rome is apostate, how can it be a christian church” thats the question. It isnt a christian church. Paul said the apostasy would come from within the church by a man putting himself up in the church as God. Our confessionals say that it is antichrist, therefore Rome cannot be a true church in any sense. The apostasy came right on time 4th century. God has always marked out His true church from that system. Paul used church as a metaphor for the body of Christ.I believe in a visible church, just not a universal visible church. His church is known by its apstolicity befor the rise of romanism and its protestantism after th ed reformation. The rise of roman catholicism by Tim Kauffman, read it.
Eric W said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:16 am
De Maria,
Ok, disagree if you must, but I see the ten commandments as articulations of the natural moral law. I stress the sameness in substance. What about the origin of this moral law ?
Adam and Eve were created with an original justice or habit of justice. God justified them in the very act of creating them. But, according to your view, this habit was a superadded grace. It didn’t belong *per se* to the moral law within.
Grace, and not commandments or moral law(s), seem to be the commonality of all who believe in God. Here we need to discuss how much, or what exactly, is in the NT grace-justifications common to Pre-OT / OT grace justifications.
Vincent said,
November 2, 2014 at 12:53 pm
DeMaria by day of judgement do you mean the judgment at the end of the world?
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm
to #1014 . . . “how can anyone enter into life by keeping the commandments?” Anyone who is in Christ, who is led by the law of the Spirit of Life [instead of the flesh], will fulfill the righteous requirements of the law and enter into life. So says the Apostle Paul in Romans 8.
Vincent said,
November 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Rob how much law-keeping is required to go to heaven? Do we have to fulfill the law perfectly?
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 5:23 pm
RB,
I find no significant difference between DM’s understanding of the gospel and that of the Judaizer’s. One would think it wasn’t the poor in spirit who enter into the kingdom of God. Rather than receiving comfort through mourning over sin I detect celebration over self-righteousness.
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 5:25 pm
I don’t know how much law-keeping is required. I know what Jesus said to the man who asked him what he must do to enter into life, and I know that Paul said that the doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), and I know that James proclaimed that faith without works is dead.
So, I would say that anyone who thinks that he can enter the life of the age to come without obeying the Lord’s commandments is playing the fool. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
No one obeys the Lord perfectly, but we have a faithful savior who made atonement for our sins, and who forgives us when we repent and confess our sins.
You know that God’s law is good and right and holy. God requires us to live lawfully, does He not?
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Ron, I do not detect in DeMaria that spirit of self-righteousness that mirrors that of the Judaizers. He humbly and patiently states his case that God does justify all who with contrite heart turn from sin to the Lord. Such persons will go forth in the power of the Holy Spirit to sin no more and to do all, out of love for Christ, that he commands.
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 8:01 pm
On the question of who is to be given eternal life [or heaven, if you will]:
To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He [God] will give eternal life. — The Apostle Paul, Rom. 2:7
The final assessment will be based on what each person has done: all thoughts, words, and deeds — each man’s works — are evaluated by the standard of God’s righteous requirement.
This does not mean, however, that sinners are disqualified. Sinners who hear the gospel of their salvation will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who made atonement for their sins; they will repent of their sins as they call upon the name of the Lord. They will love the Lord their God and their neighbor; and they, being filled with the Spirit of Christ, will begin a lifelong journey of following Jesus. They will trust and obey!
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Where does Scripture say that only good people can keep the Commandments?
The Commandments are the law of God. And sin is the transgression of the law.
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
And Jesus was calling sinners to repentance from sin.
Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
We can offer to God, our obedience:
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Jason Loh said,
November 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Roberty Bob,
The fool is he who thinks that good works are NECESSARY for salvation.
Good works are DETRIMENTAL for salvation …
The parable of the Pharisee and publican perfectly illustrates the point …
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 8:48 pm
to #1025, Jason . . .
“Trust in the Lord and do good.” — Psalm 37:3
Doing good is DETRIMENTAL for salvation — Jason Loh
What God has joined together, let not man separate. Trust & obey!
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 8:53 pm
RB,
You don’t seem to distinguish conditions from causes.
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 8:58 pm
Jason,
Salvation includes sanctification. Good works are indeed a necessary condition for salvation. Don’t commit the same fallacy as those who think works are a cause of salvation.
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:14 pm
#1027 . . .
my condition is that I am a sinner in need of salvation
all the good works that I have done cannot atone for my sin
only the sinless Christ can pay my debt, and he has done so
so I confess my sins and trust in Christ in as my Savior
now I am justified by faith, my good works in no way contributing
having been justified, I begin to do the good works that please God
but those good works are being caused by the indwelling Holy Spirit
I have trusted the Lord, so that now I am able to do good
Vincent said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:15 pm
RB does God owe us heaven as a debt that is due to us? Does meriting eternal life mean earning eternal life on a strict quod pro quo basis? How many good works does God require from us to go to heaven RB?
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:26 pm
On the question, Who will be given eternal life?, I have cited Romans 2:7 as the correct answer — which puts perseverance in doing good at the center.
My sense is that most of the contributors here disagree, or they wish the Apostle Paul offered a different answer.
Jason Loh said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Ron,
Thanks for the concern.
Following Luther on justification by faith alone, good works are indeed detrimental to salvation.
God does not need our good works; these are for the neighbour.
Salvation is about being and doing. It is all about being alone.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:47 pm
What?! That is a twisting of Scripture if I ever saw one.
Let me show you what the Scripture says:
Matthew 7:21-25King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;
Not all who claim to have faith shall be saved.
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
But only those who do the Will of God (i.e. the Ten Commandments).
The parable of the Pharisee and publican perfectly illustrates the point …
Not so. The Pharisee has pridefully claimed salvation for himself, much like the Protestants do when they claim they are saved.
The publican casts himself upon the mercy of God. That is what Catholics are taught to do. We don’t judge ourselves saved. We leave the judgment of souls to God.
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:52 pm
#1030 . . .
I only know that at the Last Judgment when every person’s life is evaluated on the basis of God’s righteous standard, each of us will be judged for what we have done — whether good or evil. God doesn’t tells us how many good works are required. When the Lord forgives our sins, He commands us to go and sin no more [remember how Jesus gave such commands!]. He requires us obey all of his commandments. This is how He knows that we love him — when we keep his commandments. Whenever we fail at this, we repent and return to the Lord so that we may [again!] walk in his ways. So, we persevere in a lifetime of trusting, loving, obeying discipleship. To have a share in God’s eternal life [heaven] is the fitting reward or gift to all who are bound to him in this kind of communion. I’ve never thought of it as something God owes us, as if he is indebted to any man, nor have I conveyed that in my writing.
I don’t know about earning, or meriting, eternal life. I’ve never thought of it in those terms. I only know that the final assessment takes all of our works into account. This assessment, I’m sure, would show to what extent we have faith in Christ, or love for Christ.
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:57 pm
Right, DeMaria . . .
The Pharisee thanked God that he was not like other people — so full of disgusting sin. He believed that all was well, so that he would never be in need of The Great Physician.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 9:58 pm
An articulation which comes directly from God:
Exodus 24:12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
In fact, the Ten Commandments are the only Scriptures we have which were written by God. No man was inspired to write them. They were written by God.
God is He who wrote the moral in man’s hearts.
Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Have you not seen the connection between stone and heart. God didn’t write the Comandments on those stones by coincidence.
Zechariah 7:12 Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts.
I don’t remember mentioning Adam and Eve. I remember talking about Abraham.
The Law written in our hearts is a grace of God. But you are right. It is grace which leads the way.
You have a lot of articulating to do to make your idea clear.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:00 pm
Why do you ask?
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:02 pm
How much faith alone is required to be saved?
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:08 pm
I don’t know about earning, or meriting, eternal life. I’ve never thought of it in those terms
RB,
Until you begin thinking about what those terms mean, I don’t think you’re in a position to say this: “Ron, I do not detect in DeMaria that spirit of self-righteousness that mirrors that of the Judaizers.”
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:09 pm
That’s so hard to understand. If you ask a Catholic if he is saved, he answers, “I don’t know. I hope so. But God is my Judge.” That is the Biblical answer:
1 Corinthians 4:3-4King James Version (KJV)
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
So, between you and I, you’re the one who boasts of being saved by your faith alone. That is the epitome of self-righteousness.
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:10 pm
Jason,
Is there a typo in that? I’m referring to the two sentences in the last line.
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:12 pm
So, between you and I, you’re the one who boasts of being saved by your faith alone. That is the epitome of self-righteousness.
Faith alone is a boast that pertains to the cross alone.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:16 pm
God is the cause. Obedience is His condition:
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:18 pm
Who is declaring himself faithful?
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:21 pm
RB understands the Gospel better than you:
Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:23 pm
You follow Luther. I’ll follow Christ:
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:25 pm
RB, #1034,
Beautiful!
It is those who obey Christ, who love Christ.
Deuteronomy 30:20 That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, ….
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:27 pm
@1043 Your response does not touch the relevant distinction between cause and condition.
@1044 Nobody is declaring himself faithful. Protestants declare that God saves those He effectually calls and grants the gift of faith. That hardly entails boasting in anything other than the work of Christ alone.
Ron said,
November 2, 2014 at 10:36 pm
Such proof-texts do not address the disagreement, DM. That keeping the law is a necessary condition for entering into the joy of the Lord on the final day does not imply RC doctrine or refute Protestant doctrine.
“Necessary conditions” is a philosophical phrase that deals with states of affairs. Take, If Y then X: That X is a necessary condition for Y means that Y cannot exist without X also existing, since Y is a sufficient condition for X.
1. If I’m regenerate, then I’m united to the risen Christ.
2. If I’m united to the risen Christ, then I’m regenerate.
1 means that it is impossible to have regeneration without union with Christ. It also means that the absence of union with Christ guarantees the absence of regeneration.The same sort of logic applies to 2.
Both 1 and 2 are true, yet neither proposition implies, logical order, temporal order or cause.
James teaches: If I’m justified, then I have good works, which is to say, good works are a necessary condition for one who is in a state of justification. Such a statement, although true, is rather uninteresting to one inquiring as to whether another believes that good works are the cause or grounds of his justification. The same can be said of love.1 Corinthians 16:22
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 11:05 pm
I have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ [X], so I am justified [Y].
I am justified [Y] because I have faith in Jesus Christ [X].
My faith in Jesus Christ is the ground of my justification.
Now, at the Last Judgement, Jesus is going to test my faith to see if it has any substance. If there are no works to show for it, then my professed faith will not have been faith at all.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 11:08 pm
Its a surprise to me that “faith alone” equates to “keeping the law as a necessary condition for entering into the joy of the Lord on the final day.”
Faith alone means that the only condition is faith. Otherwise, it is a misnomer.
How do you define “entering into the joy of the Lord”?
Does it mean the same thing that it means in plain English? Because in plain English, whether philosophical or otherwise, it simply means a “qualification which is required”.
You’re mistaken. In the logical statement “if Y then X, Y is the necessary condition for X. X is not the necessary condition but the result. If you want X to be necessary for Y, then the conditional statement becomes “if X then Y”.
Y being necessary for X does not imply the reverse. It is very possible that X can exist without Y. For instance. Having a battery in my car is a necessary condition for my car to run. But once my car is running and is running, I can remove the battery. It is no longer a necessary condition. The car continues running because there is another condition which is also necessary, the alternator. The battery is only necessary at the start of the process.
Agreed.
Ok.
Only because you’ve left them out of the proposition.
If one is an unrepentant sinner, one is not regenerate. If one is not regenerate, one is an unrepentant sinner.
Get the picture? Or do I need to go on.
Correct. And the reverse is true. If I do not have good works, then I am not justified. And if I am not justified then I don’t have good works.
You may find it uninteresting. But Jesus Christ finds it highly interesting, according to Scripture:
Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
De Maria said,
November 2, 2014 at 11:31 pm
Ron, what is the necessary condition in this statement?
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
The way I see it,
If you obey Jesus Christ, then He will grant you eternal life.
If you do not obey Jesus Christ, then He will not grant you eternal life.
How about this one:
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
If you obey God, then He will give you the Holy Ghost.
If you do not obey God, then He will not give you the Holy Ghost.
roberty bob said,
November 2, 2014 at 11:39 pm
The Gospel is full of X’s and Y’s.
I especially like the ones that Jesus Christ finds interesting!
Thanks for pointing these out, DeMaria
roberty bob said,
November 3, 2014 at 12:05 am
So you acknowledge, Ron #1049, that keeping the law is a necessary condition for entering the joy of the Lord at the Last Day.
So, then, you agree that your salvation — your final / ultimate justification — depends on your obedience to the commandments of Christ. But the salvation you are enjoying here and now, for the time being, consists in you meeting the necessary condition of being justified by faith alone unaccompanied by works.
present justification: necessary condition is faith alone / no works
final justification: necessary condition is obedience to law / good works
Is this what you believe?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 3, 2014 at 1:21 am
Roberty bob, Romans 8:4 says that the righteous requirements of the Law were fulfilled in us not by us. The verb is passive. Most theologians agree it’s Christ who fulfilled the RROTL in us by condemning sin in the flesh. What the law could not do. See Romans 7:6.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 3, 2014 at 1:28 am
Robertybob. You misread Romans 2. It says the doers of the law will be justified. But it doesn’t say the doers of the law will be justified by doing the law. Paul was using the jealousy metaphor, like Jesus did, and God in the OT. He was telling the Jews that the Gentiles are better at doing the Law that you are. Why, because they had the law written on their hearts. They were believers. And the Jews didn’t keep the law because they didn’t believe. In the next chapter he says no one will be justified by observing the law.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 3, 2014 at 1:34 am
DeMaria, Catholics wrongly see those verses as prescriptive for justification. But they are descriptive of someone who has been jbfa.
Eric W said,
November 3, 2014 at 6:19 am
De Maria (re: 1036),
You wrote:
You have a lot of articulating to do to make your idea clear.
Unfortunately, no one has enough time to articulate for someone reticent about Adam and Eve. By the way, they are part of the pre-mountain of fear believers. I had a feeling that the 10 commandments as a commonality was a detour. You make them a grace common to all believers.
————————
You wrote:
The Law written in our hearts is a grace of God. But you are right. It is grace which leads the way.
Response:
You have your answer. Catholic theology teaches that the accident of grace in the soul was given by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is enthroned over the whole man. If Abraham had grace, then the Holy Spirit was given to him. Even as a Protestant, I can cautiously agree if it’
s only sanctification.
————————-
Now we come full circle. Catholic theology disallows the arguments you made against Reed’s comment:
(#918) God credits us with what Jesus deserves.
De Maria said,
November 3, 2014 at 7:10 am
Eric W. #1058
That’s a copout. I answered all your points except that cryptic sentence at the end. When you can explain that, I will respond.
De Maria said,
November 3, 2014 at 7:18 am
Moreso than yours, Ron.
Protestants do so every time they declare themselves saved by their faith alone.
If Christ is our judge then no one else is the judge.
If no one else is the judge then Protestants are not the judge of their own salvation.
1 Corinthians 4:2-4King James Version (KJV)
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
That is what Scripture says.
Ron said,
November 3, 2014 at 7:58 am
DM,
The antecedent, in this case Y, is the sufficient condition. The consequent is the necessary condition, in this case x. Secondly, if-then propositions are typically concerned with states of affairs, not “results” or causal relationships.
Same mistake.
Jason Loh said,
November 3, 2014 at 8:01 am
Ron,
Thank you for your concern and understand your point. I’ve no wish to contribute further at this point except to say that I’ll stick to Luther. The distinction between law and gospel, being and doing, the two kingdoms, passive and active righteousness, are very sharply distinguished. Besides, faith for Luther is unlike the Puritans and the WCF. It is unreflective and not syllogistic. Faith clings to the external or oral word and sacraments alone.
Unlike RB, if and should Our Saviour were to ask “Why should I let you in?”
The answer is only thus: I am baptised.
Ron said,
November 3, 2014 at 8:19 am
Blessings, Jason.
Eric W said,
November 3, 2014 at 8:44 am
De Maria (re:1059),
You wrote:
… I answered all your points except that cryptic sentence at the end. When you can explain that, I will respond.
Response:
More explanation will produce more trees. Any new points are trees. If I respond to them, then we will miss the forest for the trees. My copout is a forest and anyone following the thread from #918 can see why. Thanks for the exchange.
De Maria said,
November 3, 2014 at 5:43 pm
In your simplistic proposition. But, there are many more conditions to salvation according to Scripture. Faith alone is not sufficient. Which, curiously, you seem to agree with this in an earlier message:
So, if X then Y.
X being the keeping of the Law
Y being entering the Joy of the Lord.
The consequent is the consequence. It is not a necessary condition. It is the result of the statement.
I don’t know where you get that. If/then statements are typically concerned with causes and consequences. You want to depict this as a state of affairs in order to support your view. But that is simply your desire and does not reflect the truth.
De Maria said,
November 3, 2014 at 5:46 pm
Our Saviour won’t ask you anything. He’ll tell you why you are going where you are going:
Matthew 25:31-46King James Version (KJV)
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
De Maria said,
November 3, 2014 at 5:48 pm
As I suspected. Even you don’t know what it is you said.
Bye.
Ron said,
November 3, 2014 at 7:14 pm
DM,
Earlier you showed you don’t understand the meaning of sufficient and necessary conditions (in fact you had necessary conditions confused with sufficient conditions), and now you wish to suggest that it’s my “simplistic proposition” that caused you to miss something? I’m not looking to prove you wrong or embarrass you just for the sake of doing so. Rather, a significant point is being made: Every time you argue your position by pointing to verses that teach works as necessary for salvation you are not advancing your position over against the Reformed view of salvation. Both sides agree with the premise. So, once and for all, quit arguing your conclusion that we’re saved by good works based upon the uncontroversial premise that all who are saved have good works.
You seem to think that if faith is a sufficient condition for justification, then keeping the law cannot possibly be a necessary condition for salvation. There’s no fallacy in arguing for the sufficiency of faith and the necessity of works. You might begin to grasp this point if you internalize the Reformed maxim that we’re saved by a faith that is not alone.
roberty bob said,
November 3, 2014 at 7:23 pm
We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves us is not alone.
I think that’s the entire maxim, as I remember it. I also remember the phrase “faith is the alone instrument of justification.” And I remember who said it.
Ron said,
November 3, 2014 at 7:35 pm
I stated: “Secondly, if-then propositions are typically concerned with states of affairs, not “results” or causal relationships.”
DM responded: “I don’t know where you get that. If/then statements are typically concerned with causes and consequences. You want to depict this as a state of affairs in order to support your view. But that is simply your desire and does not reflect the truth.”
From here: “In ordinary English, ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ indicate relations between conditions or states of affairs, not statements. Being a male sibling is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a brother. Fred’s being a male sibling is necessary and sufficient for the truth of the statement that Fred is a brother.”
DM,
From time to time I track this thread and every time I make the same point to you, which you have yet to grasp. That Scripture teaches: “If we are saved, then we have good works” does not support Rome anymore than it supports Geneva.
De Maria said,
November 3, 2014 at 9:45 pm
The only danger is of your embarrassing yourself. Didn’t you read the entire link you provided?
It is not a premise. It is a condition.
Agreed. That is usually the main thing I’m arguing in Protestant blogs and websites. That and the fact that Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture.
That is correct. If faith alone is a sufficient condition, there is no need for any other condition.
This is the explanation of the meaning of a sufficient condition from the article which you linked as support for your understanding:
Sufficiency
….To say that P is sufficient for Q is to say that, in and of itself, knowing P to be true is adequate grounds to conclude that Q is true.
Yes it is. If faith is sufficient, nothing else is necessary.
THAT’s the Catholic Teaching. Here’s the Protestant maxim that I’ve heard:
“faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone.”
That is an “oxymoron”. Its a self contradicting statement and makes no sense. The first part of that maxim, “faith alone saves”, is plain error. The second part is Catholic Teaching and is correct.
De Maria said,
November 3, 2014 at 10:35 pm
That’s not what your own supporting article says, Ron.
In logic, necessity and sufficiency are implicational relationships between statements.
In ordinary English, ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ indicate relations between conditions or states of affairs, not statements.
Neither of those means what you said in your statement. They mean something totally different. “If-then” propositions” are not the same thing as “necessity and sufficiency”. Necessity and sufficiency are qualities of conditions. If-then propositions are logical statements which describe states of affairs, results and also causal relationships.
The idea that they are “typically concerned” with anything is misplaced since they can be concerned with any of those things depending upon what the person is talking about.
Yea. Now compare to what you had originally said.
Of course, I disagree. And I think, if you continue to apply logic to Catholic Doctrine, you will begin to see why it is true and why Protestant doctrine is false.
1. It is you who have boiled down my message to this logical equation.
2. It is true, to a point. If you recognize that the Catholic Church does not teach that faith or works are absolutely necessary in all cases. Take for instance, the case of an infant.
De Maria said,
November 3, 2014 at 11:28 pm
Ron, here’s why I said your logical statement was simplistic to describe Catholic Teaching on the conditions for salvation.
Faith alone is not sufficient for salvation.
Faith is necessary but not sufficient for salvation.
Good works are necessary but not sufficient for salvation.
Faith and good works, together, are necessary but not sufficient for salvation.
In the New Testament, Baptism is necessary but not sufficient for salvation.
Love of God and neighbor is necessary and sufficient for salvation.
God ALONE is the judge of who meets the test of sufficiency in all these necessary conditions.
Ron said,
November 4, 2014 at 7:59 am
DM,
This will be brief.First, what you put in italics is your own quote. It’s no wonder you agreed.
Sufficient conditions don’t exist all by themselves. If it’s raining, the street is wet. Rain is a sufficient condition for a wet street. Notwithstanding, the street’s existence is necessary for a wet street. Accordingly, as a general rule it’s false that if x is sufficient, nothing else is necessary. I make that point because it would seem you’d have us to believe that a sufficient condition cannot be accompanied by a necessary condition, yet sufficient conditions guarantee that something obtain. That which the guarantee contemplates is a necessary condition.
Now moving to our discussion with that premise in place, (a) if I have the gift of faith, then I’m saved.(b) If I am saved, then I have good works.(c) If I have the gift of faith, then I have good works. You might not like the theology, but the logic stands. Saving faith can be sufficient for salvation while accompanied by the necessity of good works. In other words, if the sufficiency of saving faith guarantees the consequent of good works (which is what sufficient conditions do), then good works are a necessary condition for saving faith, (which is why the falsity of good works guarantees that faith is not present).
I’m sorry it doesn’t make sense to you. It probably seems rather foolish to you. It is certainly something you are stumbling over.
Ron said,
November 4, 2014 at 8:25 am
“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” Article 28
Jason Loh said,
November 4, 2014 at 8:25 am
“God ALONE is the judge of who meets the test of sufficiency in all these necessary conditions.”
The sentence is an oxymoron.
The judge does not meet the test. The judge is the one who sets the test.
It is the judged who is supposed to meet the test set by the judge.
Also, scripture doesn’t say that God is the judge who meets the test. Scripture clearly teaches that God tests His people and church in this world.
Testing and this old creation belong together — they are law (i.e. wrath). It is through testing that God saves His remnant — the elect. The purpose of testing is to destroy so that the word of promise can create anew. For the non-elect, they are destroyed for good. For the elect, they rise up from the ashes.
This is how the OT is to be read: law and gospel.
Isaiah 1:27:
“Zion shall be redeemed with judgment.”
1 Corinthians 14: 21
In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,
says the Lord.”
Those who pass the test did so because God the Saviour Himself delivered them; those who failed the test did so because they were never predestined to pass the test in the first place: Romans 9.
So, yes, God “meets” test — not as judge. As judge, He sets the test. But as Saviour, He delivers His people amidst the test and keep them throughout the test by the word of promise alone. Two words: law and gospel.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 4, 2014 at 10:08 am
Jason, Im sure you know this. Catholics conflate law and gospel into gracious law. So Jesus becomes a kinder gentler Moses with an easier law. It corrupts faith at its core.
De Maria said,
November 4, 2014 at 4:51 pm
It would have been bad if I didn’t.
But (a) is false. Therefore your syllogism is false.
If I have the gift of faith but do not have works, I have nothing.
If I have the gift of faith, then I will produce good works.
If I have the gift of faith and good works, I will be justified.
That sounds like Catholic Teaching to me.
Which still sounds like faith and good works.
Agreed. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Faith alone saves, says one thing.
The faith that saves is not alone, says a contradictory thing.
The two are incompatible.
De Maria said,
November 4, 2014 at 4:54 pm
I believe transubstantiation is clearly expressed in these powerful words:
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
De Maria said,
November 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm
I didn’t say that God had to meet the test. Nor did I say that the Judge had to meet the test.
I said, and I quote, ““God ALONE is the judge of who meets the test of sufficiency….”
In other words, God decides who meets the standard.
De Maria said,
November 4, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 4, 2014 at 5:54 pm
DeMaria, then why does Rome put thecyoke around the neck of its people of the sacraments of the new law to be justified. As if loving God with all of your heart soul and mind isnt big enough. Justification was Augustines no to Pelagious and it was Luther’s no to sacramentalism. Simultaneous justified and glorified.
Ron said,
November 4, 2014 at 6:10 pm
DM,
In a recent post of yours you quoted back to me my words, which expressed basic Reformed theology as it relates faith to works. You expressed not once but twice that it sounded like Roman Catholic theology. That is quite telling. This too is quite telling:
I would like to think that if this thinking is corrected, an understanding of the doctrine of faith alone and the necessity of its accompanying fruits would be understood and embraced. After all, not in logic or in any colloquial sense is the antecedent of an if-then proposition a necessary condition – even when causality is in view! If it’s raining, then the street is wet does not imply that rain is a necessary condition for a wet street. Yet in the blockquote above you assert otherwise.
I’m comforted by the fact that you reject what you don’t yet understand.
De Maria said,
November 4, 2014 at 7:58 pm
I don’t know why this is being blocked.
First, I wanted to thank you (and forgot) for that wonderful explanation about sufficiency in your previous message. I think I now understand what I was missing. Sorry for the oversight.
The logic is not being expressed correctly. You know that the maxim,
“faith alone saves but faith that saves is not alone” is self contradicting.
So, let’s put that into a logical statement.
If faith alone saves, then faith that saves is not alone
Huh? That makes no sense on its face.
But these statements do.
If faith alone saves, then the faith that saves is alone.
If faith alone saves, then faith that saves does not include works.
If faith alone saves, then works are not necessary for salvation.
These make logical sense.
But, if you disagree, then put your maxim into a logical statement.
But there are situations where the conditions are necessary. In this case, God set the conditions for salvation. And He requires faith to be proven by works before one is saved.
AND He doesn’t want us speculating who is saved. He wants us to do our best and mind our own business and leave judgement of souls to Him.
I’ve enjoyed our conversation and learned something. Thanks.
God bless you, Ron.
De Maria said,
November 4, 2014 at 8:05 pm
That’s not a yoke, Kev.
Its illustrated clearly in the parable of the Labourers (Matt 20:1-16).
The Jews are those who started to work early in the morning.
Christians are those who started to work late in the evening.
In the end, in the final judgement, we will all receive our compensation. But, Christians, if we submit to the Sacraments, will receive our compensation in our lifetime. Whereas, everyone else will have to await the Judgement for theirs.
Another good comparison of OT to NT is Heb 12:18-24.
As the Scripture says:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Ron said,
November 4, 2014 at 8:58 pm
DM,
Thank you for your post. It means a lot.
“We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.” By that cliché Protestants do not mean that we are justified by faith alone and also by something else. That would be a self-refuting. What we mean is that although we are justified by faith alone, the faith that justifies is not a dead faith but a living faith that always bears fruit. Without the fruit bearing the faith would be alone, all by itself. It would be a sham faith. We believe that justifying faith is always and without exception accompanied by good works. So, although we believe that we are saved by grace through faith alone (and not by works), we also maintain that God has prepared in advance that those recreated in Christ will perform the good works.We simply believe that the faith that lays hold of the Son is not “alone” but works itself out in acts of charity. But again, we maintain without apology that we are accepted in the beloved solely because of Him whom faith lays hold of, namely the Lord Jesus, the Holy One of Israel. We so love to tell the story! :)
Alone but not alone…
So in sum, a sinner receives pardon for sins and is accounted and accepted as righteous solely on the basis of the perfect righteousness of Christ received by faith alone. We are justified once and for all by faith alone. That’s the first “alone” part. The second “alone” part means that a person who is truly justified will by grace, out of gratitude and through a recreated nature, perform good works by the enabling of the Holy Spirit. So, although sinners are justified by faith alone, the faith that justifies is not a dead faith. It’s not “alone” in the sense of not having anything to vindicate and accompany its genuineness. Justifying faith is accompanied by good works that although don’t contribute to our right standing before God in Christ, they are nonetheless pleasing in God’s sight, being wrought in Christ by the Spirit.
Although I don’t expect you to accept this doctrine (at least not yet), I do hope that you might see that it’s not self-refuting. Also, I sincerely hope this recent exchange can be built upon if not by me then by others.
De Maria said,
November 4, 2014 at 9:35 pm
You’re welcome.
It just seems a long and convoluted way of saying, “we are saved by faith and works.” If the faith that saves is not alone, then you agree with Catholic Doctrine. If you can show your faith in your works, then you agree with Catholic Doctrine.
What’s the big deal in saying my “faith is alone, yet not alone”? It seems a pretext to dissent with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
I know you believe what you are saying. But I don’t see the sense in the word “alone” being added to faith. Especially when Scripture says that faith alone is dead.
I know that I am saved by faith. But I know that my faith is accompanied by works. There is nothing “alone” about my faith. I can say, “I am saved by faith and my faith is not alone.” I can say it loud and clear. I don’t have to worry about contradicting myself. And I know that this is Catholic Teaching. And I know this is the Teaching of Scripture.
Nor do I have any qualms in saying that I am saved by works. Because by works my faith is made perfect. And I know that my works are not alone. But they are the result of my faith. So, I can say with the Apostle, “You tell me you have faith, but I can show you my faith by my works.”
So, no, I don’t accept the doctrine of faith alone. I hope you understand what I mean. I hope you can also see why I believe that my faith is entirely in line with the Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Ron said,
November 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
DM,
Like usual, I’m going to deal with only what I find most essential. I do, however, find many problems with your last post.
That works can prove one’s faith does not imply that works, therefore, contribute to our pardon and right standing before God. One can maintain, as Protestants do, that justifying faith must be accompanied by good works while rejecting Trent’s Canon 32 on Justification, which deals with the alleged meritorious nature of works. It’s the place of works we disagree on, which is no small matter.
So, I’m not sure how you can say that I’m saying that I’m putting forth a doctrine that suggests we are “we are saved by faith and works.” I must believe that lurking Roman Catholics that are more acquainted with Protestant theology than you appreciate that I’m not. But, if I am putting forth such a doctrine, do you suppose I disagree with the Reformers? Or, do you suppose that both the delegates to the Council of Trent and the Reformers were all saying the same thing?
Protestants believe that faith yields both justification and good works. Rome believes that faith plus works yields justification. Certainly you recognize the difference between:
(i) Faith ==> Justification + Works
&
(ii) Faith + Works ==> Justification.
To bring this full circle, every time you point to verses that teach that works must be present in the life of the Christian you are not refuting justification by faith alone, construct (i). To refute the doctrine of justification in this way you must show that works have merit before God. You must prove (ii). You must prove that our works are a basis upon which we are pardoned and meet the requirements of the law. That’s been my gripe all along. Your argue by false disjunction, assuming that the necessity of works as a fruit is mutually exclusive to justification by faith alone. You think that by proving the necessity of works you also prove Rome’s doctrine of merit.
You and I both agree that works must be present to be saved. The difference is that you’re depending upon your works, as (ii) implies, whereas as Protestants see their own works as the fruit of faith that accompanies salvation, as (i) depicts.
De Maria said,
November 4, 2014 at 10:47 pm
Good. I like that as well.
Are works an integral part of your faith? Or not?
Remember that you agreed that faith without works is dead. If that is true, then works are an integral part of faith. If, therefore, works contribute to faith and in fact, make that faith, perfect. Then they contribute to pardon and right standing before God.
And, in fact, works are the measure of our faith before God. Scripture doesn’t say, “You will be judged by your faith.” But indeed, it says:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
And again:
Romans 2:6-10King James Version (KJV)
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
So, in fact, Scripture frequently says that the measure of our standing before God is our works. Stating very clearly that our works contribute to our pardon and right standing before God.
roberty bob said,
November 4, 2014 at 11:25 pm
So you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
— from the right strawy apostle of the right strawy epistle, chapter 2:24
Jason Loh said,
November 5, 2014 at 2:32 am
De Maria,
Sorry — I misread your statement.
Nonetheless, where in scripture can we find that God sets the test and it is PRESCRIBED that we are to meet the test?
Scripture is clear, is it not, that God sets the test in order to EXPOSE us for who we are, i.e. to judge and condemn us AND God DELIVERS us from the test that He has set …
The prophet Habakkuk lamented under the test (trials and tribulations). He could do NOTHING but hang on to the word of promise: The just shall walk by faith alone … that he could only await the deliverance of God …
Romans 1:
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who BELIEVES: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by FAITH from FIRST to LAST, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
Why is God righteous? God is righteous because He keeps His promise … it is not we who are supposed to keep our promise to God in exchange for God keeping His promise to us. But God ALONE is the One Who performs the promise in which our entire being and life is dependent on …
Nothing about we sharing in the righteousness of God so that we conform to His righteousness …
Only that faith in the gospel alone matters …
Ron said,
November 5, 2014 at 8:54 am
DM,
I’m afraid that using phrases such as “integral part” can be hazardous if not parsed out with precision. Certainly faith is not works. They are distinct. After all, James as well as Paul pits faith against works. So, by “integral part” you should mean only something like “related to” or “inseparable from” as opposed to collapsing works into faith. If I contribute money to an account, the deposited money becomes an integral part of the account. What the money produces, say goods and services or jobs, is not “part” of the account. It’s distinct. Let’s not get too wrapped up in the analogy other than to see that faith and works although related are to be distinguished. Faith produces works, just like money can produce jobs, but works are not part of the deposit of faith, though they are related.
Yes, saving faith cannot but produce works. They are inseparably related. However, by calling works “part” of faith is to conflate the two, as we see here:
Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Faith has different functions than works. Faith appropriates the person and work of Christ. Also, faith produces works. Yet you want to conclude from the latter that works contributes to the perfect righteousness of Christ (that which faith appropriates), and/ or that works contributes to an alleged righteous-work of faith. Aside from my disagreeing with these theological conclusions, the logic that gets you there is flawed. The position you are advocating is tangled because of the equivocal nature of phrases like “integral part” and “contribute to faith.” You’ve blurred the very distinction that James and Paul strenuously maintain between faith and works. That faith appropriates Christ’s perfections while working itself out in love does not suggest that works contribute to Christ’s perfections.
That works will in the end vindicate faith does not imply that works must, therefore, add to the Righteousness that faith appropriates. You’re simply asserting your conclusion.
You’ve conflated the objective with the subjective. My children are my children based upon something other than their behavior. It’s an objective standing. Their behavior can only influence the subjective good pleasure I might derive from them.They cannot gain the status of child.
DM, I don’t think we’d be having this discussion if you grasped how spiritually bankrupt you are in and of yourself. That you have any confidence that your works can contribute to what Christ has accomplished for sinners is contrary to the gospel. Not good.
Vincent said,
November 5, 2014 at 8:55 am
I think this conversation has run its course. Its time to shut it down.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm
DeMaria said ” our works contribute to our pardon” Here is what the Apostle Paul says to DeMaria ” not by works” “to the one who does not work but believes” “if it is of works it is no longer of grace” ” not that of yourselves” ” not according to your works.” So we would deduce that Paul is correct and DeMaria preaches a false gospel, the only one that Galatians 1:9 is speaking of. Remember the Kevin principle read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, and arrive at biblical truth. If they say many mediators, believe scripture says one. If they say pope is head of the church, believe it is Christ, if they say they say the eucharist is physically Christ’s body, believe it is to be understood spiritually. If the say it is a sacrifice, believe it is done ion remembrance of the one true sacrifice. If they say by works, it is by faith. And if they say Mary was co mediatrix of all graces, that means she was a sinner and a bond slave of her Lord. If they say wear a scapular, don’t wear a scapular, if they say buy indulgences Christ’s merits, expect them for free thru faith. If they say salvation is in installments, believe it is always and ever by faith alone. For Satan will make good look evil, and evil look good. If you haven’t gotten my drift, Roman Catholicism is the complete antithesis of Christianity. Put away the ECT documents and tell them the truth .Kevin
roberty bob said,
November 5, 2014 at 12:50 pm
Therefore being justified by faith that is alive, obedient to Christ’s commandments, and productive unto every good work, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Vincent said,
November 5, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Rob we have peace with God when we are justified in baptism, before we do a single good work. That is the teaching of your own church. And DeMaria good works do not contribute to our pardon. Our pardon and forgiveness of sin is gratuitous and unmerited. That is what your own catechism teaches. Pardon and forgiveness of sin is independent of any works.
Vincent said,
November 5, 2014 at 1:23 pm
The question of what is the “formal cause” of justification is often said to be the real, fundamental difference between the soteriologies of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and Protestants by theologians on both sides. We can find this assertion made by theologians such as the Anglican Richard Hooker in the 16th Century, all the way down to the Anglican C. Fitzsimons Allison and the Jesuit Robert W. Gleason in the 20th, among many others.
A number of theologians on both sides have noted that the Protestant principles of sola gratia (salvation “by grace alone”) and sola fide (“by faith alone”) are not the real difference, since both are effectively asserted in traditional Roman Catholic (RC) doctrinal sources. The Council of Trent affirms that both the forgiveness of sin and the gift of new life (which together make up “initial justification” in Tridentine terms, but justification plus initial sanctification in Protestant terms) cannot be earned, but are gratuitously given in response to living faith, that is, faith informed by love. Both sides agree that forgiveness and renewal are distinct but cannot be separated, and are given simultaneously by God.
The difference of terminology abovementioned rests upon the apparent disagreement over the “formal cause”, not merely upon how broadly one takes the connotations of the word “justification”, nor how one differentiates it from “sanctification”. There is a logomachy here, but that is not the only problem. That is shown by the fact that Protestants such as Hooker have been quite willing to call sanctification “second justification” sometimes, and so have Roman Catholic theologians in the past.
No, the essential problem is indeed the understanding of what exactly constitutes the “just-ness” of the justified, that is, the “formal cause” of justification.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 5, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Simultaneously justified and glorified. Jason Loh said it from faith first to last. The righteous shall live by faith. He calls us righteous and says live by faith. We aren’t to seek justification in our obedience or works. And its clear what happened to those who tried in Galatians 5, and Romans 9:32-10:4, its ain’t good. K Justification was Augustine’s no to Pelagious and Luther’s no to sacramentalism.
De Maria said,
November 5, 2014 at 4:03 pm
It is spelled out throughout Scripture. But most clearly in Matt 25:31-46.
If anyone would be delivered from the test, it would be the Apostle. But he says:
Romans 14:10 …. for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Romans 2:
Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
That’s the whole point about the Sacraments. God keeps His promises. Therefore, we believe and obey.
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Yeah, that’s the entire point. We are supposed to become like Jesus Christ.
Philippians 1:10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ.
11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.
Thanks for not saying faith alone in the gospel. That makes a difference.
Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
De Maria said,
November 5, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Actually, faith itself is a work (John 6:29). But yes, they are distinct works. Faith in God is the spiritual work which gives us the impetus to produce good works of love for God and our fellow man.
I disagree. St. James pits faith alone against faith and works.
St. Paul pits the OT Covenant of works against the NT Covenant of faith.
For St. Paul, works are integral with faith. As is revealed in Heb 11:
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Well, the important thing for me, from that is that you seem to agree that faith and works are inseparable.
What does this mean, then?
James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
De Maria said,
November 5, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Here is what the Apostle Paul also says to De Maria:
Romans 2:6-13King James Version (KJV)
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
De Maria said,
November 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Not so. Remember that in Catholicism, Justification is a process. And conversion is the first step in that process. And it happens long before one is baptized, since one will not seek baptism without first being converted.
We receive the unmerited grace of conversion before we do a single good work. But turning to God and repenting of our sins, we begin to keep the Commandments. The Commandments is a list of “thou shalt nots”. If we keep the Commandments, all we can do is good works because the Commandments keep us from sin.
Here is what the Catechism says:
1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39
That is actually true. Pardon and forgiveness are independent of good works. But God will not pardon anyone who has not produced good works. As the Scripture says, “doers of the law will be justified”.
Its a very simple picture, Vincent.
Whom will God justify? Unrepentant adulterers, murderers, conmen, etc. etc.?
Or repentant sinners who have turned to God? People who do not lie, do not steal, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and study the Bible with the intent to obey its word?
Which group is just in the eyes of God?
De Maria said,
November 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Vincent #1097,
I’d like to see you quote the Council of Trent on the things you allege it teaches.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 5, 2014 at 5:43 pm
DeMaria said the doers of the law will be justified. Ya but it doesn’t say the doers of the Law are justified by doing the Law. In the next chapter he says no one will be justified by doing the Law. Calvin said those who misinterpret Romans 2 to say one is justified by works in some way will get their just recompense.
De Maria said,
November 5, 2014 at 5:49 pm
NOW you’re getting it!
But only those who do the law will be justified (Rom 2).
Any lightbulbs come on yet?
Lol! You follow Calvin, I’ll follow Christ:
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Vincent said,
November 5, 2014 at 5:58 pm
DeMaria the church teaches that we are justified before we do a single good work. Good justifies and accepts us before we do a single commandment. That’s trent. Its not true that before baptism we have to keep the commandants and then God will eventually justify us. Nothing that preceded our justification in baptism is meritorious of our justification. If what you teach is true than babies can never be justified, but they are at baptism justified freely and so are adults. I think you are getting confused with the idea that our preparation before baptism is what justifies us.
Vincent said,
November 5, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Here is Trent:
And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
See nothing that precedes justification is meritorious. What justifies us formally is the grace of justification that is infused at baptism.
Vincent said,
November 5, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Adults begin to keep the commandments after they are baptized because only after baptism are good works meritorious. No obedience before baptism counts for anything.
De Maria said,
November 5, 2014 at 9:03 pm
No, Vincent. Let’s go through Trent.
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
Note, first of all, that Trent is speaking of the Justification of adults. I mention this because you mentioned infants later in your comment.
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ,
The beginning of justification is called “conversion”.
1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.
that is, from His vocation,
His vocation means God’s calling.
whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called;
This is the prevenient grace which we receive without any merits on our part.
that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves
Note that God’s grace “helps” us to convert “ourselves”. That means that God’s grace invites us to turn to God. But does not force us to do so.
to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; </b
We then seek justification in Baptism by cooperating with that grace.
so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it,
When we receive the call, we must do something in response. We can accept or reject it.
nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.
But without that initial call from God, we can do nothing good of our own free will.
Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.
And so the grace of God precedes us and we must follow.
This is all before Baptism. And we must “freely assent and cooperate” with that grace. We must turn to God and away from sin. And when we turn away from sin, we are obeying the Ten Commandments.
No. It isn’t.
The Catholic Church is the best interpreter of its own documents. And the RCIA program is designed based upon the Teaching of Trent. Go and see if anyone can be accepted in that program who has not sincerely accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ and begun to live its precepts.
CCC#1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.
You need to understand that correctly. We can’t merit anything in the strict sense. In other words, we can’t do something and then twist God’s arm and say, “YOU owe me!”
But, by the mercy and grace of God, He grants us merit when we do as He commands.
Trent is only concerned with the justification of adults. Infants are a separate case and they are justified by the faith of the parents.
No. Although you are correct that there are two justifications going on. Our own conversion by which we reject sin prior to and after Baptism. And the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit which we call the Sacrament of Baptism.
First Trent says, “justified by faith”.
And again, freely, because nothing which we do, neither our expressions of faith in words or by works, are worth the gift of union with Christ.
Note who faith and works are BOTH considered works in this sentence.
And yet, God is still pleased to grant His gifts upon those who obey His Son.
If one did not begin to obey God before Baptism, why would he seek God’s face? Why would he seek Baptism?
No, Vincent. Its another very simple picture to draw.
A drunken man comes to Church with a floozy under one arm and a bottle of whiskey in the other, cursing like a sailor and asks the Priest for Baptism.
The Priest might say, “You and your wife will have to stop your drunken behavior and stop cursing first.” The man might say, “Dis ain’t my wife. She’s at home mindin’ the kids. Disssth ma woman.”
The Priest might then say, “You’ll also have to stop cheating on your wife. And next time, if you return, bring your wife.”
The Catholic Church follows Christ and calls sinners to repentance. Then, they will be baptized. Not before.
Whether works are meritorious before Baptism is another question. I believe they are, based upon the fact that no one in the Old Testament was baptized and yet, many of them pleased God (Heb 11).
Ron said,
November 5, 2014 at 9:08 pm
DM,
Faith being made perfect by works merely means that faith has reached its prescribed goal when it has expressed itself in good works. Perfect in this sense has to do with the telos of faith. For instance, God’s power is perfected in our weakness. (ii Cor. 12:9) Certainly our weakness does not contribute anything to God’s power, but rather God’s power achieves its salvific design in our weakness. So, why should we think that works contributes to faith, let alone to the perfect righteousness of Him whom faith lays hold of, simply because faith’s salvific design extends beyond receiving Christ unto serving Him by serving others with good works? If you wish to turn the perfection of faith (i.e. works) into a contribution to faith, then you must also maintain that your weakness contributes to God’s omnipotence. We can say the same thing about Jesus coming to accomplish, or perfect, the Father’s will. (John 4:34) It contemplates the reason or goal for which He came.
De Maria said,
November 5, 2014 at 10:04 pm
Telos=purpose? Or telos=end?
Hm? It seems to make the opposite point. Let’s compare:
2 Corinthians 12:9King James Version (KJV)
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Note how God’s power is perfectly expressed IN an object that is weak. This is essentially the same reason why God selected Israel instead of another nation. Scripture says:
Deut 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. 7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
And He chose 300 to defeat thousands (Judges 7).
Judges 7:2 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.
Therefore, God’s power is more clearly shown where there is weakness.
God’s power is more clearly shown in something or someone with no power.
The same with St. Paul. St. Paul is weak and God’s power shows forth more powerfully.
Now, let’s look at James.
Note how faith is more perfectly expressed BY the presence of works. Not by an absence of works.
James 2:22
King James Version
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Note how they works made the faith perfect by their presence, not their absence. In this case, the existence of works do affect and contribute to the faith.
If this were to say, “faith is made perfect alone”. Then, I think we could compare them. But, they do not compare, they contrast.
Because one is speaking of the interaction of two beings. The other is speaking of the expression of one attribute by the actions it produces.
A strong faith produces powerful works:
Romans 4:19-21King James Version (KJV)
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
You introduced this idea. I simply said it made faith perfect as Scripture says.
You added the idea that it contributed to the perfect righteousness of Christ. Our faith is not the same as Christ’s righteousness. And it doesn’t sound the same as the previous statement where you said:
To me, Christ’s perfections are virtues which we practice. And which Scripture says:
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But now, you seem to be saying that Christ was not perfectly righteous. That is an idea which is foreign to me and to Catholicism.
On the contrary, those are two totally different ideas. You can’t compare them. God’s power is made perfect in weak vessels because they have nothing to offer. But faith is made perfect by the works of those who have much to offer.
This is why Abraham is again highlighted:
Hebrews 11:17-19King James Version (KJV)
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
To offer up his son, believing that God would bring him back from the dead, that is a POWERFUL WORK. And by this work, was his faith shown perfectly.
Again, this is why the Apostle says:
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Works are the expression of faith.
That brings us back to telos, end. If works are the end of faith, then faith is transformed into works. Faith is expressed in works. Good works are faith in action.
Ron said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:08 am
Telos=purpose? Or telos=end?
same thing.
DM,
The rest of your post doesn’t interact with anything I’ve said, like this: “And He chose 300 to defeat thousands (Judges 7)”
Ron said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:10 am
But now, you seem to be saying that Christ was not perfectly righteous. That is an idea which is foreign to me and to Catholicism.
Someone want to take this up with DM?
Ron said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:15 am
DM,
I must ask this one question. Are you saying that those with faith aren’t weak vessels but are instead one’s with much to offer? I know you’re counting on your works to save you, but does your confidence go as far as all that? I sincerely hope I’m missing something here.
Jason Loh said,
November 6, 2014 at 3:37 am
De Maria,
Good works are not prescribed by God so that we can prove before Him that our faith is genuine. Not one verse scripture teaches that.
Matthew 25 teaches that good works are done without any self-awareness other than to serve the neighbour. That is, if good works share a close relationship to faith, it is that both are unreflective.
We do good works because it comes naturally to us — without any calculation or motivation apart from that of service.
God doesn’t need our good works but our neighbour does.
Matthew 25: 34
“Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your INHERITANCE, the kingdom PREPARED FOR YOU SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.”
We do not merit the kingdom of heaven but the kingdom of heaven merits us.
Good works therefore serve the NEEDS of the neighbour. God is IN creation wearing the “masks” of His creation — USING us to serve the neighbour and USING the neighbour that is being served …
*And then only does the following make sense*…
Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, WHEN did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? (God doesn’t need our good works; good works are unreflective). WHEN did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 WHEN did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ (good works are DIRECTED towards the neighbour alone) …
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (The neighbour is a mask of creation as much as we are the masks of creation in which God works to sustain the creation) …
Jason Loh said,
November 6, 2014 at 3:44 am
James 2 doesn’t teach that we are prove our faith before God as if that faith was defined according to the medieval and Roman notion of radix or root — the very definition that Luther broke away from …
Faith encompass the whole of the Christian life … it IS the Christian life … the just or righteous shall walk by faith ALONE …
James 2 precisely says that we are prove our CONFESSION of faith before the WORLD with our good works … since our neighbour needs our good works …
“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone CLAIMS to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister (the NEIGHBOUR) is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But SOMEONE will say, “YOU have faith; I have deeds. Show ME your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.”
Jason Loh said,
November 6, 2014 at 4:04 am
How can we make sense of the following in James 2:20-24?
You foolish person (coram mundo or hominibus), do you want evidence that faith without deeds is USELESS (of no use and NOT UNMERITORIOUS)?
Was not OUR father Abraham considered (by WHO? By the faith community/ coram mundo) righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
*You see* that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. AND (Two propositions joined together — justification AND vocation — distinguished but not confused or conflated) the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed GOD (faith ALONE is directed towards God/ coram Deo, hence:), and it was CREDITED to him as righteousness,” (i.e. justified by faith alone) and he was called God’s friend.
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone (that is the DIALECTIC shifts back to coram hominibus).
Two (2) perspectives — law AND gospel … passive (divine) and acive (human) righteousness … the two kingdoms …
Vincent said,
November 6, 2014 at 7:49 am
Then you are at odds with Trent DeMaria. Trent makes clear that nothing which precedes justification is meritorious of that justification. Here is Trent.
but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification.
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 8:11 am
That is how power is made perfect in weakness. The 300 couldn’t have defeated the 20,000. God did it.
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 8:17 am
But, in Matt 25, the test is works. Not claims of faith. Both the sheep and the goats called our Saviour, Lord. Thus, they both would have claimed faith. But the sheep produced good works. Thus, they were saved.
But still, the test which God uses is works. As again, St. Matthew says:
Matthew 7:21King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Jason Loh said,
November 6, 2014 at 8:31 am
De Maria,
1. The goats have always been goats; and the sheep have always been sheep. Goats do good works out of wrong motives. Sheep do good works simply to serve the neighbour. That’s the whole point.
2. What is the wll of the Father? John 6:
“And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and BELIEVES in him shall have ETERNAL life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Clear as daylight …
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 9:58 am
NOT UNMERITORIOUS)?
I’m assuming you mean, “totally unmeritorious”, correct?
Who else was there when he offered Isaac? Only the Angel of God. If anyone else had been there, don’t you think they would have tried to stop him?
So, no. Not the faith community. But God alone.
Come on?! Have you ignored these words?
“his faith was made complete by what he did”
There is nothing there about being justified by faith alone.
There is no shift. The reference to Abraham is precisely a situation where no one else is there besides Abraham, Isaac and the Angel of God.
Gen 22:3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. 4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
No. Just one. You have read into this Abrahamic episode, the presence of a faith community within which Abraham offered Isaac. But the fact is, the action took place when they had gone to the mountain, alone. Just the two of them.
Therefore, it is only the divine perspective. If he had not offered Isaac, God the only witness, would not have justified him.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 6, 2014 at 9:59 am
DeMaria, Jason Loh is right on with this. We were chosen before any infused juju. K
Kevin Failoni said,
November 6, 2014 at 10:04 am
DeMaria, law is natural and can only lead us to Christ. Gospel is supernatural, come form heaven. The antithesis in Paul is between doing and hearing by faith. And he is pretty clear with those who would conflate them.
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 10:05 am
That is not mentioned in the Scripture. Nor is it to the point we are discussing.
On the contrary, it is very clear that the goats did not do good works. It is also clear that this is why they were condemned.
Again, the point of our discussion is that God measures belief by our works. Therefore, this verse is not to the point.
Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 6, 2014 at 10:42 am
DeMaria said God measures faith by good works. Paul said when we are faithless , He remains faithful. DeMaria you are one Pelagious cat man. Abraham simply believed the promise and God counted him righteous.
Jason Loh said,
November 6, 2014 at 10:50 am
De Maria,
It’s funny how the CLARITY of scripture can be had without recourse o the magisterium.
There are two types of clarity of scripture, according to Luther. The first is external and the second is internal. Internal clarity requires the distinction between law and gospel, that is TWO WORDS of God and not one …
Now, James in James 1 says quite clearly that the word of God regenerated and gave birth to us AND that as a result, we ARE THE FIRSTFRUITS of God’s creation. There is no growing in holiness to be the firstfruits. We ARE the firstfruits solely by the word of God — that’s the external clarity of scripture.
As regarding there being no one to witness the sacrifice of isaac, are you implying that therefore no one else witnessed by way of the passing down of the story? That would be absolute nonsense. The fact that you are aware shows that you too have become a witness to the story. That’s the internal clarity of scripture which requires the distinction between Abraham’s relationship to God and the community. Coram Deo, Abraham was justified by faith ALONE — hence his faith was credited as RIGHTEOUSNESS … otherwise you are contradicting the James himself who made the DISTINCTION between faith and good works …
Internal clarity: the distinction between law and gospel … TWO words, not one, which cannot be reconciled or dissolved into a higher unity but remains in perpetual tension and opposition on this side on the eschaton …
Jason Loh said,
November 6, 2014 at 11:11 am
As Kevin says, God is righteous because He is faithful to His promise. There is no need for us to share in God’s justice as the “formal cause” of our justification.
The word of God judges and justifies one and the same time — it destroys in order to make alive.
1 Samuel 2:6
“The Lord brings death and makes alive;
he brings down to the grave and raises up”
Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets,
I killed you with the words of my mouth—
then my judgments go forth like the sun.[a]
Hosea 6: 5-6
“Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets,
I killed you with the words of my mouth —
then my judgments go forth like the sun
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”
God is merciful/ mercy; and if God is merciful, He doesn’t require good works in order to be merciful to us. There is no preparation other than the killing work of the law which results in repentance … (and faith by the justifying work of the gospel):
The parable of the Pharisee and the publican(!)
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 11:51 am
After 25 years of obedience:
Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
roberty bob said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Blessed are they whose ways are blameless,
who walk according to the law of the Lord. — Psalm 119:1
Great peace have they that love your law,
and nothing can make them stumble. — Psalm 119:165
I long for your salvation, O Lord,
and your law is my delight. — Psalm 119:174
……….
If you want to enter life,
obey the commandments. — Jesus, in Matthew 19:17
………..
Just wondering, Jason, how you apply the above Scriptures to your own salvation and justification. Do you see these words as law which kills us or as gospel which gives us life?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:17 pm
DeMaria, listen to what Jason told you. There is no reason to mix our righteousness and His as the formal cause of our justification. Our justification is solely based on His righteousness alone, and its apprehended by faith. Catholics try to smuggle their character into God’s works of grace. Jason has rightly said that works are simply result of saving faith. God doesn’t need our works, they are for our neighbor. They can play no part in our pardon. Your faulty view of PSUB is your problem. God’s wrath and our sin’s were nailed to the cross. He was numbered as a sinner and we were counted righteous, forgiven all our sins.” He OBTAINED eternal redemption and sat down. Now He applies that perfect sacrifice on our behalf. We have a high Priest in heaven who intercedes on our behalf, who is the ONLY mediator between man and God. Jesus isn’t angry at us and we need Mary to propitiate His anger, He is the one who removed the anger of the Father toward us. Our salvation is guaranteed and promised by Him, we cannot affect that. We simply live by faith. What you cannot deny is we HAVE BEEN reconciled and justified by His blood and faith alone because it embraces perfect righteousness.
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Then why are you and I having this discussion? If Scripture were clear, we would both agree. But I have recourse to the Magisterium, therefore, I understand that Scripture is speaking about faith and works.
Apparently, Luther is your Magisterium (i.e. Teacher).
James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
As I can see, St. James is still extolling the virtue of good works:
St. James said exactly the opposite.
James 2:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
And it is by the aid of the Magisterium that we come to understand that St. Paul and St. James are speaking about two different justifications.
I believe that St. James and St. Paul agreed. But I don’t think they did so intentionally. I think they wound up agreeing because their Teaching was protected by the Holy Spirit. Just like the infallible Catholic Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit today.
In the meantime, did St. Paul and St. James, agree on justification?
Yes. These two verses show that both St. Paul and St. James agreed in the idea of justification by works.
Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
But those aren’t the verses which we normally compare. We normally compare these two:
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Sooo, what’s the problem here? Is St. Paul contradicting St. James? Let’s compare these two statements.
Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
St. Paul contradicting St. James is the least of our worries. Does St. Paul contradict himself?!
Thanks be to God that a long time ago, I learned that the key to understanding Scripture is to FIRST understand the Doctrines of the Catholic Church. You see, the Doctrines of the Catholic Church are based upon the Traditions of Jesus Christ. And it is upon these Traditions that the Apostles based their writings.
In Romans 2:13, St. Paul is speaking about the final justification when we stand before the Just Judge. Scripture says:
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
In Romans 3:28, St. Paul is speaking about the justification which occurs in the Sacraments. Scripture says:
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Ok, so that takes care of St. Paul vs St. Paul. How about St. Paul vs. St. James. After all, St. James isn’t talking about the final justification. He is talking about Abraham’s justification when he offered up Isaac.
What? Read that again. Abraham’s justification WHEN HE OFFERED UP ISAAC.
Abraham did not offer up Isaac until Gen 22. But Protestants claim that Abraham was justified in Gen 15:6. That isn’t true. If it is, then you make Scripture contradict itself. Because St. James is clear:
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
So, what about Gen 15:6?
Its a narrative commentary which anticipates his justification in Gen 22:
23 And the scripture was FULFILLED which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
That’s a reference to Gen 15:6 and says that Gen 15:6 was not fulfilled until Gen 22. Therefore, according to St. James, Abraham was not immediately justified in Gen 15:6.
You can keep on repeating “internal” and “external” clarity all you want. But Luther is not my magisterium for the simple fact that he misunderstood the Apostles Paul and James significantly.
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm
That’s the whole basis of our justification in the Sacraments. Something which Kevin does not accept.
I think then, that RB’s question is right on the money. I’m curious as to how you answer #1130?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm
Roberty bob, those scriptures are descriptive , not prescriptive. Otherwise they would violate “if its by works it is no longer by grace” ” not of works” ” not of yourselves”. If nothing we do can justify us, then the warning passages that speak about obeying describe what a true believer does. In Romanism you do and God gives you grace= law, in Christianity God gives us grace and we do= gospel. Look at Ephesians 2:8, right after he says we are saved by grace thru faith and not that of ourselves or our works, its a gift, 2 verses later he says we were created for good works. Catholics conflate justification and sanctification into gracious law. They fail to see the distinction Paul makes in doing and hearing by faith in justification. Jesus isn’t a softer Moses, He brought a radically different way of salvation, the Spirit rewords us and we believe. If you notice in Romans 8:1 Paul says we are now justified and we walk by the Spirit. Jesus was born under the law and redeemed those who were under the law, He condemned sin in the flesh and fulfilled THRRROTL, what the law could not do. He was our substitute, that why its called good news, news comes from the outside, not the inside. K
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Jason Loh said,
November 6, 2014 at 11:11 am
I’m not certain. Just guessing. But I think you might be suggesting that the publican was justified by faith alone.
You would be mistaken. Turning to God, is a good work. Repenting of sins he committed towards God and his fellow man, is the epitome of keeping the Commandments. Humbling oneself before God, another good work.
Not to mention the fact that he came to the Temple to pray and beseech God for mercy. All, good works of faith and love towards God.
De Maria said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Kevin, #1134,
No Kevin. It must be that part of Scripture that is not perfectly clear, but they look prescriptive to me. They prescribe “keeping the commandments” to gain eternal life. The is the Doctor’s prescription.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 6, 2014 at 12:51 pm
I just read an article by Michael Horton called ” The Vossed World” I think everyone should read it, especially Catholics. Its very interesting, and alludes to modern misunderstanding of the gospel. Thanks K
Vincent said,
November 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm
What modern misunderstanding does Horton speak of Kevin? Who is he targeting in his article?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 6, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Vincent, He is attacking synergistic salvation which has always been Roman Catholic, and is leaking into Protestantism. When a church sees itself as the substitute for the unique ministry of Christ or a continuation of Christ’s incarnation or atonement it is flawed. Churches can imitate Christ, witness to His finished work, continue His mission, obey Him, but they can’t finish or be a substitute themselves for what was uniquely His work, namely the accomplishment of eternal redemption. The church sings the Amen to a past event and becomes a witness of the good news, that Christ has purchased your salvation and you might have it by simple faith. Most of the thinking that collapses incarnation ascension parousia into an over realized eschatology and ecclesiology where the church substitutes itself for the natural body of Christ and His unique atoning ministry came from the influence of the philosophers on many Fathers, who got their world upside down, So when the church sees itself as a continuation of the incarnation thru the acts of the church, its false. . We are the body of Christ. His physical body isn’t available to us. We are incorporated into His body by the Spirit, not the flesh, the Spirit who delivers all of Christ’s spoils to us. Radical Orthodoxy is the threat. Jesus has a new kingdom coming, and this old world is passing away and becoming obsolete with its sins and pain etc. Jesus said I go to prepare a place for you and I won’t eat with you until I return. So we look for his return. We are then in that age between the already/ not yet. The eucharistic tension that exists as He meets us in the supper thru faith, the word and the Spirit. Hope this helps. But Horton’s book Covenant and Salvation. K
Vincent said,
November 6, 2014 at 6:18 pm
So he is attacking some current trends in the Protestant world? Does he mention Rome by name explicitly? I think he might be attacking Arminianism. .
roberty bob said,
November 6, 2014 at 7:08 pm
in reply to #1134 . . .
” . . . he [Jesus] brought us a radically different way of salvation [than Moses?].” — Kevin Failoni
Well, now you’ve said it. So, you do believe that God, under the administration of Moses, established a way of salvation rooted in obedience to the law and in the doing of good works; but then God replaced this with a better faith-based plan with no ties to law keeping and good works.
Is this why the piety of the psalmist [O how I love Thy law!] does not resonate with you? Is this why you take our Lord’s words from Matthew 19:17 as a description rather that a prescription?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 6, 2014 at 8:23 pm
roberty bob. I love God’s law, but I’m not justified by the law. Reformed believe in what is called the 3rd use of the Law which in the NT has been subsumed into love they neighbor, and the love the Lord God etc. We are to obey God’s commandments, but we aren’t justified by obeying God’s commandments. Ignorance of the distinction between law and gospel is one of the principle sources of abuses which corrupted Christianity and still does today. The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that the gospel was a simpler and easier law than the one of the OT. Instead of following a lot of rules, God expects only love and heartfelt surrender. Calvin replied” as if we could consider anything more difficult than loving God with all of heart soul mind. Law can do nothing but condemn man. Rome can only see the gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is compensation for their lack, not realizing the law requires perfection. To confuse law and gospel is to corrupt faith at its core. ” Law is not faith” Gal 3
roberty bob said,
November 6, 2014 at 10:34 pm
Kevin, you say “we aren’t justified by obeying God’s commandments.”
James says “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” — James 2:24
When James says “by what he does,” is he referring to doing acts of obedience which conform to God’s Law — to the commandments?
If so, then . . . .?
roberty bob said,
November 6, 2014 at 11:03 pm
“The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that the gospel was a simpler and easier law than the one of the OT.” — Kevin
Jesus did say something to that effect in Matthew 11:28-30, not because the Law was itself burdensome, but because Israel’s elders made the Law unbearable for the people in their care.
The truth remains that Christ’s yoke is easy and his burden is light. Our Lord did not intent for the [Christian] Life to be difficult.
…………..
“The Law requires perfection.” — Kevin
Says who?
The Law requires obedience. By faith we obey the Law.
Don said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:02 am
roberty bob 1144,
Says James 2:10.
roberty bob said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:50 am
James 2:10 says that to break one commandment is to break the law, since the law is a single entity. Disobedience to one commandment makes one a law breaker — even if all the other commandments are obeyed.
I said that the law was given by God to his [sinful] covenant people in order that they might obey it, and enjoy the blessing that obedience brings. When the law of the covenant was proclaimed in their presence, the people responded, “All that the Lord has spoken, we will do.” Thus they declared their loyalty to their Sovereign, intending thereby to honor Him.
God’s will for his chosen people was that they trust / believe the promises and obey the commandments. In giving them the Law, God was not setting them up for failure. This was not some cruel experiment in which God required perfect performance, as if the slightest failure or act of non-compliance would doom the entire nation. No. God knew that His people were made of dust [of sinful, mortal flesh], so He provided the means for atonement, forgiveness, and restoration. Failure to keep the Law to perfection was never a disqualifier as long as the people availed themselves of the God-given means of grace.
Don said,
November 7, 2014 at 1:09 am
roberty bob 1146,
You really don’t make any distinction between Law and Gospel? I guess everything that Jason Loh has been writing doesn’t make any sense to you?
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 2:37 am
Roberty Rob,
Since Matthew 19:7 is prescription, then we shouldn’t be addressing Jesus as God in the first place. Your logic proves too much …
In addition, by the same logic we have Jesus preaching a Pelagian gospel. In fact, your interpretation of that passage fits nicely with gospel of Pelagius.
Distinguishing law and gospel, between passive (gifted/ “inner”) and active righteousness (acquired/ “outer”) Matthew 19:7 is not a prescription but judgment. Jesus was EXPOSING or laying bare the young rich ruler’s HEART …
The rich young ruler was not aware at the time — he certainly interpreted Jesus’ response in the same way as you did. But that’s not how Jesus interpreted His own words …
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I DO, that I may have eternal life? [Notice that the rich young ruler had a different idea of the theological good. Theological good, i.e. good in the sight of God, is acquired rather than given. IOW, the rich younger ruler had that Aristotelian idea of the good. One becomes good in the sight of God by DOING good]
And he said unto him, WHY callest thou me good? there is NONE good but one, that is, GOD [Jesus *countered* by shifting the attention from doing to BEING]: [Does the next part of the sentence indicate that Jesus is PRESCRIBING good works as a CONDITION for entering heaven?] but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
[Jesus said if you are or WILL/ WOULD be entering heaven (descriptive/ indicative), keep my commandments. That is to say, the commandment or the prescriptive use of the law (1st use — political, civil & social use) is re-established in those who HAVE eternal life. Isn’t that a response to the rich young ruler?
The rich young ruler had asked what SHOULD (prescription) he do to have eternal life? Jesus replied by REVERSING the sequence or order. Having eternal life comes BEFORE keeping God’s commandments in the form of the 1st use of the law and so exercising external or civil righteousness. IOW, civil righteousness can NEVER be basis for us to gain acceptance before God].
He saith unto him, Which? [Unaware of Jesus’s COUNTER-reply] Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [All of these relate to the communal good of society and NONE of which relate to the personal quest of holiness and so on] ……
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect (i.e. according to 1st use of the law], go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. [notice how following JESUS – and not doing good in COMMON with the unbelievers – comes AFTER having treasure in heaven: predestination? Yes, it is.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions (his heart was finally laid bare or exposed for what it was].
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this IS impossible, but with God ALL things are possible.” [Good works? Jesus said ALL things are possible. This EXCLUDES good works. This is so since good works are exclusive.
>>>> Good works OR faith alone <<<
If good works, the publican is damned. But not good works as faith alone embraces the publican, prostitute, social pariahs (who are not in a position to do good works), the demon-possessed, etc.
roberty bob said,
November 7, 2014 at 6:42 am
I see. As for you . . . You have sold everything that you have. You have given away all your money to the poor. Your treasure is in heaven now, for you are one of the predestined ones. And you are following Jesus by faith alone.
No, I don’t make the same law / gospel distinction that Jason makes.
Let Jason tell me what James 2:24 means, in its context . . . where it is shown in the life of Abraham that a man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 7:05 am
Yes, Abraham was justified in the sight of the community with his faith and deeds. That’s what James 2 says.
Show me … Who’s saying this? God or human? Who’s ME? God or human …
Predestination means that your treasure in heaven is not earned in any way — meritorious or not. It is there so to speak BEFORE you even born … that’s predestination …
Not sure why you’re saying that I’ve sold everything …Did I make the claim or was it Jesus who told the rich young ruler to do so?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 7, 2014 at 8:43 am
roberty bob Jesus said if you even lust in your mind for a woman you have committed adultery. How you doing with that? Jesus set the standard of law. Now keep it. The law drives us to the gospel, and you better run as fast as you can. The rich young ruler tried to bring his resume and what did Jesus say, nice boy, come on in. Know he showed him his sin, and then told the disciple that with man it is IMPOSSIBLE, but with God , all things are possible. Rome misinterprets Romans 2 and other passages to teach our pardon comes someway thru our deeds. The law can only drive us to Christ, because we can’t keep it.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 9:39 am
Don,
What do you make of this?
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
What is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus?
Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
What is the law of Christ?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 7, 2014 at 9:52 am
Galatians 3;12 ” However, the law is NOT of faith”
Kevin Failoni said,
November 7, 2014 at 9:55 am
DeMaria, the law of the Spirit is His operative power as opposed to the law of sin, its operative power. Please see romans 7:23 to properly understand this verse.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 10:05 am
Exactly.
As Kevin says, the law of the Spirit is the law re-established for its proper purpose — which is to serve the neighbour exemplified by “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.”
>> Nothing about gaining acceptance from God or meriting grace and the like. <<
The law used as a way of righteousness hinders justification. The law is used as SELF-defence. But as St Paul knows, the law judges and kills and destroys … there is no escape …
The law in its theological use kills; the law in its political use preserves and curbs …
As Romans 3 states, the law not only claim your works but your whole person …
"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, in order to shut every mouth and make it so the whole world has to answer to God. 20 It follows that no human being will be treated as righteous in his presence by doing what the Law says, because the knowledge of sin comes through the Law."
How to use the law in the sight of God? We can't … God is the One Who uses the law to judge us and the law can only judge us …
roberty bob said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:18 am
to #1150 and 1151 . . .
Christ did not fault the rich young man for his obedience to the commandments of the Law; his fault was not that he didn’t have works, but that he did not have faith in Jesus. Christ’s call to this rich man to divest himself of all his worldly wealth and to “follow me” is a call to put faith into action. This call he did not heed.
That is why I assumed that Jason, being a man of faith alone, had heeded that very same call.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:20 am
Read it in context, Don.
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
This is Christ’s Gospel.
Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
So, St. James is saying, “you do well to keep the Gospel.”
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
But if you claim to follow Christ and sin against your neighbor, you sin against God.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
And it follows, that faith in Christ requires that we do the will of our Father in heaven.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:24 am
To all,
What is the Law of Liberty which St. James mentions in James 2:12?
Is it not the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:27 am
Roberty Rob,
The question is this: Whether we put faith into action to gain acceptance from God, or complete or perfect faith?
OR we put faith into action in order to serve the neighbor? Since faith towards God FREES us from having to justify ourselves. Recall that the rich young ruler wanted to justify himself by his good works — SELF-justification.
Faith precisely frees you from that … good works are for THIS world NOT for the next …
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:34 am
No. James 2 says he was justified in the sight of God. There was no one else there when he offered Isaac on the altar.
And it doesn’t matter that the community would have heard about it afterwards. It was not for the community that he did it. But because of his faith in God. Scripture says nothing about Abraham trying to please the community. It says that it was by his strong faith that God would even bring Isaac back from the dead:
Hebrews 11:17-19King James Version (KJV)
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Accounting – logizomai, reckoned, credited, computed, imputed
Aside: Yea, that’s the same word used in Rom 4:3 He believed God and It was “imputed” him for righteousness.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:42 am
How can there be liberty when instead being bound to Christ ALONE one is still bound to good works to merit acceptance into heaven? This is not freedom but bondage …
Continuing on from Romans 3 …
21 But now the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God WITHOUT (apart from) the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith OF Jesus Christ (i.e. God’s faithfulness to His promise) unto all and upon all them that BELIEVE (our faith is grounded in Christ’s faith): for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which BELIEVETH in Jesus (= justification by faith ALONE).
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. [WHOSE faith is it here? CHRIST, of course!)
28 Therefore we CONCLUDE that a man is justified by faith (ALONE) without the deeds of the law.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:45 am
De Maria,
Abraham was justified in the sight of God by FAITH ALONE.
AND the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was imputed unto him for RIGHTEOUSNESS: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:48 am
De Maria,
The law plays NO role whatsoever in our justification before God. Apart from the law EXCLUDES works, totally and completely …
To repeat St Paul: We are justified APART from the law — the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is APART from the law …
Therefore, we are justified by faith ALONE …
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:51 am
Galatians 3:12King James Version (KJV)
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Because he is comparing the Old Testament to the New. The Ten Commandments to the Sacraments.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God,
No one is justified by the law.
it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
But those who are righteous will keep the law because of their faith in God. As it is written:
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
The law is separate from the Sacraments of faith. But the man that keeps the law will be saved. As it is written:
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Jesus Christ has paid for us with His life. As it is written:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Christ died for us in order that the Old Testament would be fulfilled and the sins of the Jews be redeemed. Thus, they would be given that which was promised to them. As it is written:
And Christ died also for those who are alive, that they might turn to Him who rose again and live:
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:54 am
He was justified by works and not by faith alone. As it is written:
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Yea, because he ACTED upon his belief. Not faith alone.
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 11:57 am
Therefore it is of faith (ALONE), that it might be by grace (yes, only then can it be by grace!); to the end the PROMISE might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he BELIEVED, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and CALLETH those things which be not as though they WERE. Indeed, God kills AND makes alive … God destroys in order to re-create …
Justification as imputation exclude good works …
Romans 5:
“Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” The BLOOD of Jesus Christ DELIVERS us from wrath, Good works? NONE …
Romans 6:
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 LIKEWISE reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Good works? You don’t hold to active obedience, do you? So, to be resurrected in Christ is to share in Christ’s glory — EVERLASTING glory …
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Apart from the Law, means apart from the Old Testament. When he says,
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
He means that we are justified by the Sacraments of Jesus Christ, which are the Sacraments of faith in Jesus Christ without the requirements of the Old Testament because Jesus Christ nailed those to the Cross.
This is why, in the very next verse, he asks the question:
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Jews – Old Testament\
Gentiles – New Testament
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Yeah, you have to be well versed in the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are passed down by the Catholic Church to understand St. Paul. Otherwise, you will twist his words. The entire New Testament, in fact, is written based upon those Traditions. It isn’t as though the Traditions of Jesus Christ were spawned by Scripture. Jesus Christ spoke them. The Church taught them. And then the Church wrote them down in the New Testament.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:01 pm
“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
Who is demanding the “shew me this faith without thy works”?
God or human, De Maria?
In the sight of God or the world?
The answer is obvious … in the sight of the world …
We are justified by faith ALONE …
Other than that is sheer heresy …
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:06 pm
It isn’t Abraham.
It is St. James speaking by the inspiration of God.
In the sight of God.
You are reading it as such. But St. James is also the one who talks about not judging anyone:
James 2:3-5King James Version (KJV)
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
St. James doesn’t approve of anyone being judged by externals.
St. James says no such thing.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:06 pm
No, it doesn’t. Apart from the law means apart from the law … NOMOS …
That is the whole law … which encompasses the whole of this old creation …
The OT law is simply a time-bound, context-specific, locally conditioned and contingent expression of the law and based on the exigency of the given concrete situation peculiar to the Hebrews ,,,
St Paul is clear … the law means universal law … that is why he says:
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
OT law? Pagans obey OT law?
Is the magisterium that parochial minded when it comes interpretation of sacred scripture, De Maria?
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
Self justification is what Protestant practice when they claim they are saved by their faith alone.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:10 pm
What is the context of James when he insists on faith and works … in the sight of God or the world …?
Show me? OR show God?
It’s show who? Show the world … you confess that you’ve faith, you prove it …
God does NOT need our good works … He sees our WHOLE life … he foreknows our destiny … God doesn’t need our good works to prove our faith …
St James never said that … ever …
Instead St James teaches us by his apostolic authority that WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE …
JUST LIKE ST PAUL AND ST PETER … AND SO ON AND FORTH …
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Faith is a GIFT of God given in the proclamation of the external word of God in its oral and sacramental forms … so, NO, it’s not self-justification …
On the contrary, your good works will be a form of SELF-justification since it is YOUR good works in cooperation with the grace of God …
REMEMBER, YOU’RE THE ONE DENYING THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL AND THE PASSIVITY OF THE CHRISTIAN IN JUSTIFICATION …
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Face it, De Maria … the pope’s not infallible, the magisterium’s not infallible …
And whatever problems the Reformed tradition has and also the Lutheran tradition (I include my own tradition), Jason Stellman made a horrendous mistake in crossing the Tiber …
A belief-system based on theological fantasies …
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:19 pm
Why not let St James preach the gospel to us, De Maria … in James 2 of all places …
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is GUILTY of ALL. [Good works? None at all] …
11 FOR he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment WITHOUT mercy [the law that judges], that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth AGAINST judgment [the gospel that is merciful – mercy by definition OVERRIDES legal standards which is to say the law] …
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:19 pm
It is because we are bound to Christ that we perform good works in obedience to His will (Matt 25:31-46).
To Christ:
Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
That is a reference to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ.
All who believe in Jesus Christ and submit to the Sacraments will be justified by grace through faith.
Because we are all under the power of sin.
But if we turn to Jesus Christ and obey His word, we will be washed of our sins.
Therefore, he died to pay for the sins of the Old Testament in order that the Jews would receive the promise:
Hebrews 9:15King James Version (KJV)
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
That those who are alive might turn to him and be saved by their obedience:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Therefore, we are not justified by the Law of Moses which is the law of works, but by the Sacraments of Jesus Christ, which is the law of faith.
Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith in Jesus Christ through the Sacraments and not by the Old Testament law of Moses.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:22 pm
As I noted before, the Royal Law is the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Once you figure that out, the rest follows naturally. To sin against one of the Commandments of God the Father, you sin against the entire law of Christ.
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:25 pm
The word of the promise can be resisted and frustrated and thwarted by lack of good works, De Maria?
What says St Paul in Romans 9?
6 NOT as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are NOT all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the PROMISE are counted for the seed.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth MERCY.
We agree that James 2 is INSPIRED by the HOLY SPIRIT, don’t we? So, when James used the word “mercy” he means the same thing Paul …
UNCONDITIONAL MERCY …
Which is why to repeat James 2: mercy rejoices AGAINST judgment …
Mercy overcomes judgment …
The God Who is against you in the law is for you in the gospel …
This is not Aristotle but the gospel of Jesus Christ …
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:27 pm
You said De Maria,
To sin against one commandment is to sin against the ENTIRE commandment
Which means what?
You have to start all over again …
You can NEVER EVER even HOPE to BEGIN …
Good works? Keeping the commandments to gain God’s acceptance?
No way …
The only way is CHRIST alone …
It is Jesus alone or nothing …
Faith alone OR the law …
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Remember De Maria,
You cannot have something or even someone else stand between you and Jesus Christ.
This is why the external word in absolution, baptism and the Lord’s Supper justifies …
The oral and sacramental word applies the blood of Christ …
And the blood of Christ delivers us from the wrath of God …
And if delivered we are saved …
And once saved ALWAYS saved — since to be saved is to be in Christ and to be in Christ is to be buried in His death and raised up anew in His resurrection unto everlasting glory …
This is why St Paul says …
Jason Loh said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Jesus Christ is exclusive noun-verb Who (literally) says everything there is about our salvation …
Good works? None … it is self-justification … it is contrary and OPPOSED to the Person and Work of Christ …
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Sure are. And the first proof of that infallibility is the New Testament.
Jason seems to me the kind of person who follows Jesus Christ wherever He leads. And I’m sure he will say, with the Apostle:
Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Yes, Jason. So says Jesus Christ:
Matthew 7:21King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
So says St. Paul:
Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Not all the Jews are true to God’s word.
And not all the seed of Abraham are called to be children of God.
But only those who are born of Abraham through Jesus Christ. Because is the seed descended from Isaac.
Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
And God has told us upon whom He will have mercy:
Exodus 20:6King James Version (KJV)
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
God is not arbitrary and capricious, as though He will have mercy upon people at random.
So, if you keep think you’ve done something, don’t brag. Because it is God who judges and will show mercy upon those who do His will.
Are you saying then, that all people in the world will be saved? Without any conditions? But Scripture says:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Come now? You don’t understand what that means? Have you ever heard of corporal works of mercy? Read Matt 25:31-46 and then read James 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
If you don’t show mercy to your fellow man, God will not have mercy upon you. It is written:
Matthew 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Matthew 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
But if you show mercy to your fellow man, God will forgive you and you can rejoice:
Matthew 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
If you keep the Commandments.
Yes. The Gospel of Jesus Christ:
John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Agreed.
Those who keep the Commandments:
Romans 2:13King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Agreed.
Agreed.
agreed.
That goes against Scripture:
Hebrews 6:4-6King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
If we persevere in good works to the end:
Romans 2:6-7King James Version (KJV)
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
And if we expiate our sins in suffering:
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 1:11 pm
Jason,
Self justification is practiced by those who judge themselves saved by their faith alone:
1 Corinthians 4:2-4King James Version (KJV)
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Vincent said,
November 7, 2014 at 1:45 pm
Jason and DeMaria what do you guys think about the following? It comes from an Anglo-catholic priest named Father Matthew Kirby. This is what he says when it comes to the debate of justification:
The RCC defines justification to include both forgiveness of sins and initial sanctification. Many protestants have strictly distinguished the words, but acknowledged the forgiveness and renewal aspects are inseparable anyway. It should not be forgotten that the Council of Trent said that the forgiveness aspect of justification is entirely gratuitous and earned by Christ’s merits, not by his disciples’ merits or infused virtues. So this is a mere logomachy. Indeed, I think it is one founded in St Paul, who seems to use the j-word in the imputational Lutheran sense in Romans 4.2-8 but the impartational Tridentine sense in Romans 5.19 and Ephesians 4.24, for example. Mind you, even Trent only condemned the view that justification in that broader use of the word was solely imputational, so imputational aspects are not exclude even there.
…
1. Rom. 4.17 shows God’s declarative word is also intrinsically a creative word. Ergo, cleansing decreed is cleansing done.
2. The underlying Gk verb translated “made” includes the meaning “to be in a certain state” and “to be established”, and is clearly used in a more than imputational sense in James 4.4, for example.
3. The verb “put on” in Eph. 4.24 takes on an object which renders its meaning impartational: “the new man, created by God”. Comparison with other Pauline usages establishes that this “new man” is no external status existing only in a legal fiction but the renewed inner nature given by grace.
4. Neither the RCC nor the EOC has now or ever understood “justification” to be solely and strictly imputational. This interpretation, especially if it is applied as a test of orthodoxy to exclude others as heretical in soteriology, has no authority from the patristic consensus and is thus ruled out for Anglican Catholics (if adhered to as mandatory or de fide).
5. Anglican divines have in fact never consensually agreed to the Lutheran interpretation and soteriology. Even the early Homily on Salvation contains elements inconsistent with pure imputationlism, never mind the teaching of such men as Bp Bull et al.
6. The Lutherans themselves seem to agree now that this is not a Church-dividing issue between them and the RCC.
Finally, while I agree the stereotyped separation of the temporal penalty from the eternal guilt due to sin in mediaeval RCism is problematic, and does tend to undermine the joy of justification unnecessarily by leaving a dread of the God who still demands his “pound” of pain, this distinction contains a truth. This truth needs integration with the Eastern and Anglican perspective, which emphasises the spiritual growth and purification needed after initial justification to “fulfill” it and to deal with the internal consequences of sin. This perspective was never entirely absent from the mediaeval RCC, but was obscured. It is now being re-captured.
…
You said, “the CCC knows of Justification only in the progressive and subjective sense (properly called Sanctification, not in its forensic and objective sense–the sine qua non of the Gospel.” Well, it certainly assumes justification includes both forgiveness and sanctification, but it does distinguish these two aspects within it (1989 and 1990 make this clear) and, just as importantly, refuses to make the forgiveness depend meritoriously on the regeneration/sanctification, which really addresses your concern. If you doubt this last statement, then re-read the following from the CCC: “no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness” from 2010 and “All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.”
As for objective vs subjective senses of the word, I must disagree with your application of these terms, though I know they are popularly used this way. It seems to me that imputational justification is subjective in God, in that it is an attitude he takes toward us based on nothing objectively within us. The only “objective” aspect of this connotation, it seems, is it meritorious ground in the Cross (and the will of God to forgive insofar as this can be said to subsist in the Divine Nature). The righteousness of the “not guilty” verdict, isolated in the abstract from other aspects of salvation, has no objective or substantial existence as an entity in itself. It is “relation”.
However, the broader sense of justification includes, in addition to this changed relationship with God, and as a result of the said change (i.e., “Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness”: CCC, 1990), an objective reality subsisting in the person justified. It is commonly claimed that under the RC definition of justification, this grace depends upon the “subjective” aspect of salvation, that is, the change in our moral behaviour, our acts of will. This is untrue. The Formal Cause (in modern language, the effect on our inner nature as it is “informed” by Grace) of justification, the very thing that is said to make us justified in this sense, is not our experienced growth in virtuous living but the divine creation of the “New Man” which enables such growth. This creative act in itself is monergistic and purely Divine, though its effect is to allow synergy between us and God. Our subjective experience of “increased righteousness” in the ethical sense is not the ontological basis of justification in the Tridentine meaning, then, properly speaking, but one consequence of it.
…
I do see the distinction you make in both Trent and the CCC, its just that they say “forgiveness” where you say “justification”. But they state that it is unmerited by us, but merited by Christ. It is not dependent on how sanctified we are, at least with regard to the eternal guilt. That there is no justification without regeneration of sanctifying grace is also implied and is not problematic for us, being taught in the Prayer Book Baptismal rite, where we pray for “remission of sin by spiritual regeneration”.
As for your objection to the “merit” word, are you sure that you are not over-reacting? Merit only relates to what you and they would call sanctification, but they would include as a second dimension of justification as whole salvation. Note three things about this merit. It is not “strict” to quote the CCC, i.e., based on a true equality between the good work and the reward. Instead, it is based on God’s gratuitous promise to reward such works. And it is really equivalent to the biblical “reward”, which is to be “plenteously” given to our good works, according to the Prayer Book Collect for the Sunday Next Before Advent.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Yes, that’s why Baptism is called the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit:
1989 ….”Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.
I always thought so, since they claim to believe in being born again. But apparently, the renewal of the man seems to be in a different sense than we believe as Catholics. We believe in a true renewal, true new birth.
Whereas, Protestants seem to believe that the man remains unchanged but only covered in the righteousness of Christ. That’s not renewal.
Not true. Only the initial grace is unmerited:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion….
When we first hear the call of God and turn to him in faith, there is a forgiveness of sins and justification which occurs. It is called, “conversion”. At this point, we must begin to seek God in faith and ask for Baptism. Then…
….Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
Note that this movement towards God happens before Baptism.
We ALL do a lot of that. Unfortunately, we are limited to human language to communicate ideas.
It needs to be made clear, that “imputation” means “reckoned, credited, computed”. The Catholic Church condemned the idea, that in the New Testament, justification in the Sacraments is merely forensic or external. The Catholic Church condemns the idea that Baptism is a mere sign. Justification effected by Baptism is the new birth of the man of God:
TRENT VI
CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
That all sounds right.
Not certain.
I disagree vehemently.
The Catholic Doctrine needs no integration with any other source. Catholic Doctrine is the Teaching of Jesus Christ and any who disagree with His Doctrine, need to repent of their error.
…
God to go. If I have time, I’ll look at the rest. This is enough to chew on for now.
Vincent said,
November 7, 2014 at 3:24 pm
.Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
This movement happens after baptism. We cannot merit eternal life nor increase in charity if we have not been already baptized. Our forgiveness of sins happens in baptism freely and it is unmerited.The anglo-catholic priest is right on the money you are not.
Vincent said,
November 7, 2014 at 3:31 pm
You seem to have a very peligian understanding DeMaria. Trent is clear that there is no merit before baptism and that our movement away from sin and towards God (what you call conversion) is not the basis of our justifcation nor is it meritorious. I don’t know how you can think that we can merit graces for our sanctification and eternal life before baptism.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 7, 2014 at 4:05 pm
Jason Loh said” A belief system based on theological fantasies.” Preach it brother, thats good stuff. Simultaneously justified and glorified.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 7, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Jason Loh, said ” this is not Aristotle but the gospel of Jesus Christ” preach it brother. And the Lord said rise up! Good stuff.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Vincent, the problem for the Reformers wasnt merit, it was the location of merit.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Ugh. Everything is wrong in that statement.
First, the Catholic Church teaches both justification and sanctification. They both occur simultaneously and throughout one’s life.
2nd, Conversion is what you are calling “forensic” justification. It is receiving of God’s call to faith, turning away from sin and the turning to God and beginning to keep the Commandments.
3rd, Justification is the process of turning away from sin. It is fear of the Lord.
4th. Sanctification is the process of turning to God. It is love of God. It is what St. Paul calls the more perfect way:
1 Corinthians 12:31King James Version (KJV)
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
5. Justification (i.e. purgative way) and Sanctification (illuminative way) are both oriented towards union with God (Unitive way) or what we call Divinization.
I don’t understand what he means.
982 There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. “There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest. Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.
That’s only the initial grace. And it is also dependent upon repentance.
Note also, that this is a “by that repentance that must be performed before baptism”.
This is true. I don’t see what it has to do with merit.
Me too.
I disagree with that as well.
God doesn’t lie. He justifies the just. He doesn’t justify unrepentant sinners.
This is why Jesus Christ was calling sinners to repentance (Matt 9:13). So that they could then turn to Him and be saved.
That sentence is too complicated for me. He’d have to explain what he said.
“God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness” is the “the initial grace of forgiveness” which no one can merit mentioned in CCC 2010.
This change occurs before one is justified in Baptism.
On the contrary, it is absolutely true. Unless we change, despise our sins and move towards God, we will not be justified by God.
Still Trent VI, Chapter VI, Preparation for justification
Of this disposition it is written:
He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him;[24] and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee;[25] and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin;[26] and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;[27] and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;[28] finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.[29]
Yes, it is. In Gen 15:6, it says, “He believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness”.
That is what is happening here. If you believe God you will do what he said and He will credit you righteousness.
This is a very nice summary of what happens in the Sacraments.
Agreed. We don’t judge ourselves. God is our Judge.
True. Frequently, those who turn to God will say, “I was another person back then.” In recognition that they have set aside their evil ways. By no means does this mean that they are justified simply because they say so.
For God alone is the judge of our righteousness in His eyes.
You both seem to be confusing forgiveness before baptism and forgiveness with and through baptism which is the washing of regeneration:
TRENT VI CHAPTER VII
…..For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]
What that says in very concise language is that the initial grace of faith by which we turn to God, affects a forgiveness of sins and unites us to God, imperfectly. But in Baptism, God pours into our hearts all three of the cardinal virtues in order that we are united to Him perfectly and are born again sons of God:
For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts[38] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.
I think that is right. See my example of the promised gift of the car in message #414.
Hope that helps.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm
You don’t understand Trent.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 7:02 pm
It doesn’t sound to me as though you know what the word pelagian means. First, define the word and then show me the part of my explanation which sounds pelagian to you.
I’ve explained that to you over and over and the Anglo-Catholic explained it to you as well. It is obvious to me that you don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches in that respect.
Show me a case where it happened without it. There are many cases of justification in Scripture. Not one happened without repentance which is the first step in conversion.
Its very simple. God is sovereign. In order to be sanctified and to gain eternal life, we must obey Him:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
De Maria said,
November 7, 2014 at 7:13 pm
That one does. But conversion happens before.
TRENT VI
CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION
Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.
No one can “strictly” merit eternal life nor any grace from God. But if we obey Him, He will give us what He promised. It is in that sense that we merit. Because He mercifully gives us what we can’t get for ourselves, if we obey Him.
If our repentance is true.
Then why is repentance required?
Anglicanism is not Catholicism. They rejected the Catholic Church long ago. Therefore, the Anglo-Catholic priest is not teaching you Catholicism.
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 12:18 am
I thought of taking a break but since Vincent, you, have posted a commentary by an anglo-catholic priest concerning justification, I’d like to respond.
The anglo-catholic priest is right and you’re right about Trent whereby the free stuff happens in baptism.
But he is dead wrong when he says that Paul also uses the language of infusion or impartation in the Tridentine sense. Paul never uses the language of infusion but imputation only.
Romans 5:19 …
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
This is not the language of infusion but imputation. If at all, it SUPPORTS the Reformed and Lutheran Orthodox doctrine of the imputation of the ACTIVE obedience of Christ (even though I don’t hold to it)(!)
Ephesians 4:24 …
“And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”
Putting on the NEW MAN is not infusion but imputation — since this is the language of baptism as the DEATH of the Old Man & RESURRECTION of the New Man IN CHRIST.
Paul only knows imputation and imputation by the external word of God. he anglo-catholic priest’s understanding of imputation is a mish-mash of Protestant Orthodoxy and Trent.
>> Luther understood imputation to mean BOTH forensic in the sense of a pronouncement and effective in the sense that the word is external and does what it says and says what it does. But Luther like Paul REJECTS infusionism in toto. GRACE IS NOT A REPAIR JOB. RECALL THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL/ TOTAL DEPRAVITY. <<
Matthew Kirby wants to reconcile Protestantism and Trent concerning justification — combining both imputation and infusion. You can't for the reason that Luther rejected it and Trent rejected it.
And I take umbrage with Kirby for saying that Lutherans have accepted Trent's understanding in the JDDJ. NOT all Lutherans subscribe to it. Confessional Lutherans who subscribe to the Book of Concord DON'T. Confessional Lutherans who read the Book of Concord via the Bondage of the Will such as myself DON'T.
Vincent, instead of listening to Kirby let me recommend a book to you which you can get either second hand or better still directly from the publisher, Peter Lang …
Engrafted into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration by Christopher J Malloy who is a Catholic priest and scholar … (have been skimming through the book) …
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 12:20 am
Romanism is not true and authentic catholicism. In fact, anglo-catholicism and Old Catholicism and even EO represents a much closer approximation of the ancient apostolic and catholic faith.
Some of Romanism’s new-fangled doctrines and novelties are pure heresies …
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 12:40 am
In fact SS Peter and Paul will condemn Romanists such as yourself, De Maria, as heretics …
The Church is a creature of the gospel, not the other way around …
You reject the perseverance of the saints …
What says Hebrews 6:
4 For it is IMPOSSIBLE for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall FALL AWAY, to renew them AGAIN unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
This is why there is only one baptism for the remission of sin.
You say that Hebrews 6 teaches that it is POSSIBLE to fall away. But that’s not what Hebrews 6 is saying. A natural reading is that it is IMPOSSIBLE (that means NO EXCEPTION) for those who have been baptised that they should repent and and return to the fold. IMPOSSIBLE.
By reading the passage the way you do you are endorsing the Novatian and Donatist heresy and schism(!)
What is the implication then?
Premise 1: It is impossible for anyone who have been baptised to be renewed by the Holy Spirit again.
Premise 2: Someone who had been baptised falls away.
Conclusion. That someone was NEVER a true partaker of the Holy Spirit in the first place.
Wrong conclusion? Let’s see what the FOLLOWING verses says …
7 FOR (the CONCLUSION) the earth which DRINKETH (Lord’s Supper?) in the rain that cometh oft UPON it (yes, I think should be … the language of imputation!), and bringeth forth herbs MEET (“earmarked,” chosen! ELECTED!) for them by whom it is DRESSED (interesting word — justification by imputation!), receiveth blessing from God:
8 BUT (the CONTRAST …!) THAT which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Not convinced …?
The ULTIMATE … CONSOLATION … found only in confessional Protestantism:
13 For when God made PROMISE to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the IMMUTABILITY of his counsel (PREDESTINATION!), confirmed it by an oath:
18 That by two IMMUTABLE things, in which it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us …
There you have it De Maria … the promise of God cannot be thwarted, resisted or rejected or whatever …
The promise of God STANDS …
See how unbiblical and heretical the Roman interpretation of scripture is, De Maria?
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 12:44 am
Jason,
I don’t care which denomination you feel like representing. Lets compare your doctrines to Scripture and Catholic Doctrine to Scripture.
Is that fair? Or not?
Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 12:57 am
Exactly. By searching scriptures, Christians such as Luther came to reject the papacy …
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 1:16 am
That is true. The Gospel which Jesus Christ taught to the Church and which the Church proclaimed and enscripturated.
Correct, that is why it says, “6 If they shall FALL AWAY….”
No, that’s not a grammatical reading. It doesn’t say that it is impossible for them to fall away. It says it is impossible for them to repent if they should fall away.
Nope. Let’s look at that again:
7 FOR (the CONCLUSION) the earth which DRINKETH (Lord’s Supper?) in the rain that cometh oft UPON it (yes, I think should be … the language of imputation!), and bringeth forth herbs MEET (“earmarked,” chosen! ELECTED!) for them by whom it is DRESSED (interesting word — justification by imputation!), receiveth blessing from God:
That is a metaphor for those who have been enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (i.e. the rain) and have not fallen away. They will be saved on the last day.
8 BUT (the CONTRAST …!) THAT which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
The contrast is with those who have equally received the rain, that is to say, who have been enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, BUT have fallen away. They shall be condemned on the last day.
No, actually. The Catholic Church teaches that we are born again in Baptism. I’m pretty certain that Lutherans claim that Baptism is merely a symbol.
That doesn’t cancel out Heb 6:4-6. And not only that, but there are other verses which teach that Christians can fall away. For instance:
2 Peter 2:20-22King James Version (KJV)
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
I see how unbiblical and heretical are the doctrines you proclaim.
Luke 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 1:28 am
I have yet to find in Scripture, any Lutheran doctrine which contradicts the Catholic Church.
Is Sola Scriptura a doctrine of Luther’s? Care to show me where it is in Scripture?
2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 2:48 am
De Maria,
Its funny. You refuse to let the plain meaning of scripture to speak for itself and also like to mispresent Protestantism.
Baptism is a symbol for Lutheranism?
You’ve just conceded that you’ve no case to answer.
Romanism is heresy(!)
Vincent said,
November 8, 2014 at 3:39 am
Can you give some examples of these Jason?
some of Romanism’s new-fangled doctrines and novelties are pure heresies …
Are you referring to the dogmas of the Immaculate conception and the Assumption?
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 4:23 am
There’s the plain meaning of Scripture:
“6 If they shall FALL AWAY….” meaning that they can fall away.
In what way? Because I said, “No, actually. The Catholic Church teaches that we are born again in Baptism. I’m pretty certain that Lutherans claim that Baptism is merely a symbol.”
If I’m wrong, then Lutherans got one right. But I’m pretty certain I’ve met Lutherans who don’t believe in baptismal regeneration.
Just as you claim you are a Lutheran and you believe Once Saved Always Saved. Yet, this Lutheran, does not:
Holy Baptism, Regeneration, and Faith
Your final point asks if it is possible for people to fall away from the faith by not continuing in it or by trusting that they are baptized and have no need for repentance and forgiveness any longer. Yes, it is possible to deny the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The parable of the sower indicates that some seed fell among the rocks and thorns. Both grew for a while then died for lack of depth or were choked out by the cares of the world (Matthew 13:3-9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). If we say we have not sinned we deceive ourselves. Thinking that we are above or beyond sinning is dangerous. It is the height of self-deception and a denial of clear Biblical teaching (1 John 1:8-10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). If we confess our sins God is faithful and just. He forgives us our sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. The thought of cleansing takes us back to the font where we receive the new birth from our gracious Lord. Repentance and forgiveness, confession and absolution, mark the life of the baptized this side of heaven.
Timothy J. Scharr, President
Southern Illinois District – LCMS
Soooo? Are you misrepresenting Lutheran beliefs?
I suppose I was wrong about that. But I’m sure I’ve met Lutherans who argued that it is a mere symbol. Just as I’ve met Lutherans who deny OSAS. Its hard to keep track of everything that Protestants believe since they contradict themselves continually.
On the contrary, I’ve shown that you twist the Scripture to get your meaning. The Scripture is clear that Christians do fall away from salvation. And, you are not teaching what all Lutherans believe on that matter. Not all of them anyway.
I don’t know what Romanism is. But the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ established and which leads men to salvation in Jesus Christ.
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 4:40 am
The Immaculate Conception is grounded in the fact that the New Testament is a New Creation. Jesus is the Last Adam. Mary is the Last Eve. We see in the Old Testament that a fallen angel appears to the first Eve. We see in the New Testament that an Arch Angel appears to the Last Eve.
The New Testament is greater than the Old. And the Old Testament begins with two immaculately conceived persons. The New Testament can do no less.
And in the Greek, the term “kecharitomene” is used with regards to Mary. The word means, ever full of grace. Which means that Mary was always without sin.
As for the Assumption. Rev 12:1 depicts Mary, being crowned in heaven. This could not happen unless she had been assumed into heaven.
Now, can you prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture? How about Sola Fide?
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 5:32 am
De Maria,
You’re a Romanist. Ergo, you’re a heretic.
The papacy is the very seat of the Antichrist. The pope is the very Antichrist.
All for the sake of the GOSPEL …
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 5:39 am
Vincent:
What is Rome’s new-fangled doctrine and heresy?
1. Justification by faith and good works (material heresy)
2. Papal infallibility (formal heresy)
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 5:46 am
James 2:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Romans 2:13King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Matthew 16:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 6:04 am
The claims of Rome are ridiculous. The Old Catholics reject papal infallibility. It is really sectarian … Trent is sectarian … Rome is schismatic — it broke away from the Eastern Church over the filioque. Imposing the filioque is schismatic … that the pope is PRIOR to the bishops is a heretical notion … each bishop possesses full eclesial jurisdiction … the pope is not ABOVE the bishops but AMONGST the bishops …
THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL OR UNIQUE ABOUT THE APOSTOLIC SEE OF ROME …
Each LOCAL church or group of churches is a FULL manifestation of the Body of Christ …
All it takes are the proclamation of the word and sacraments … that is all …
NO NEED TO SUBMIT TO ROME AT ALL …
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 6:24 am
Where is papal supremacy taught in scripture and tradition? None …
Where is papal infallibility taught in scripture and tradition? None …
Matthew 16 doesn’t say that Peter will be the first pope and that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, and that the pope has universal jurisdiction … nothing of the sort … nothing about LEGAL authority but ALL about EVANGELICAL authority, namely the CONFESSION of Peter that the Man Jesus Christ is the Son of God … that is, the GOSPEL which is the power of God unto salvation … which is why the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church … this is the guarantee upon which Jesus Christ Himself stake His very own life, body and blood, His person …
But no, for the Romanist, the gates of hell can prevail against part of the Church — that part which has not cooperated with the grace of God …
But no, for the Romanist, Peter and Church seemed to be synonymous or identical so that he alone as pope is indefectible but others aren’t … so theoretically we could be left with only ONE member of the church who is also the head which isn’t really a proper definition of a church in the first place(!)
But no, for the Romanist, when Jesus committed the keys of the kingdom it must mean that Peter was the first pope and apostolic succession must pass through him and his successors … ignoring the fact that Peter NEVER EVER made the claim to be pope … isn’t is clear as daylight that Matthew 16 was retrospectively hijacked to bolster the claims of popes that came much later?
Not only that, Peter himself stated quite clearly that he was NOT above the bishops but amongst them ..
1 Peter 5:1:
To the bishops among you, I appeal as a fellow bishop and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed.
Pretentious and snobbish claims made by brainwashed adherents whose worldview really depend on such silly claims … fancy that … oh my …
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 8:40 am
Can the Romanist confess with St Paul that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation?
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 9:35 am
Jason, you sound desperate.
That’s cause they don’t understand the Word of God:
Matthew 16:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 9:51 am
John 21:17 [Full Chapter]
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Matthew 16:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 9:55 am
Romans 1:16King James Version (KJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Yes. And it is through the Sacraments that we are given access to this power, by faith.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm
DeMaria, it says it is the power of God for salvation to all who believe. No mention of sacramentalism in that verse. The gospel is the power of God. It is irresponsible to read sacraments into this verse.
Vincent said,
November 8, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Jason I thought we agreed that Rome does not teach justification by faith and works. Is not justification by baptism according to Rome free and not merited. Also you as a Lutheran also subscribe to the filoque. All the Western churches do. The reformers all believed that the doctrine of the filoque was biblical. Are you opposed to synegry? What is wrong with cooperation with grace? The EO and Arminians also believe in synergy. Do you subscribe to 5 point calvinism or Tulip?
Vincent said,
November 8, 2014 at 1:11 pm
Jason do you consider Rome part of the visible church? How about EO and Anglo-catholics?
Vincent said,
November 8, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Jason I sent you an email. But you have not responded. Can we dialogue through email if that is ok with you?
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 1:59 pm
The Good News of the Gospel is that we receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
It is through the Holy Ghost that we receive the power of God.
Romans 15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Doesn’t Scripture compare it to a “new birth”? That seems the best metaphor to describe the Catholic understanding of Justification.
John 3
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. …
Do Protestants believe they are “born again” when they are justified? Or do they not believe this either?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 8, 2014 at 9:01 pm
Vincent, you do realize that Catholics dont merit their initiation into grace, but they sure merit their continuance in it. Grace is the means of exchange on the church merit system. Roman Catholicism is a false visible churc, apostate gospel, antichrist, 2 Thess. 2.
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Vincent,
Are you a fantasist too?
If you are not teachable, then I’ve nothing to further to say except that Rome teaches justification by faith and works.
Please don’t embarrass yourself in front of both Protestants AND Romanists.
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 9:54 pm
Vincent,
If you want to dialogue, then first you’ve to listen to me and stop trying to me Trent sound like whatever you want it to be. Don’t listen to Kirby. He doesn’t know what he’s on about. For all we know, he and the anglo-papists have their own agenda. These people are ecclesial retards who crave the approval of Rome. IT’S THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.
We are respectful to Rome and at the same time denounce Rome. Kirby wants to reconcile everything. You can’t — there’s always a tension, and existential, that is a real, actual, relationship type of tension based on the distinction between law and gospel.
Trust me.
Jason Loh said,
November 8, 2014 at 10:08 pm
Vincent,
This is why I’m telling to stop listening to Kirby or stop reading anglo-catholic stuff.
It’s not about synergism.
The word and sacraments kills and makes alive. WHAT IS THERE TO COOPERATE?
There is no infusion, only imputation. The old man is DESTROYED and the new man is RAISED UP again. Anglo-romanists don’t pay attention to St Paul in Romans 6.
And then only we cooperate with God with respect to this old creation — serving the neighbor in our vocation as well in relation to the commission of the church.
Romanists such De Maria don’t believe in Romans 6. Precisely. Grace is ADDED to the person. But this UPSETS the powerful and effective signs of the word and sacraments which are nothing more and nothing less than the word of the cross — since the sign IS the reality.
a) There is no infusion in absolution. The words are forensic and effective.
b) There is no infusion in baptism. It overwhelms, or sprinkled on or poured over. No other imagery than these.
c) There is no infusion in the Lord’s Supper. We eat the Body and drink the Blood of the Saviour. How can a physical body be INFUSED into another?
This brings us to this point: Which one reflects a much closer and more intimate union: infusion or imputation? It’s imputation. Recall that the person is the work and the work is the person. The external word is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. It is not created grace.
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 10:29 pm
I believe the entire Bible.
De Maria said,
November 8, 2014 at 10:45 pm
Its because the words are effective that they produce the infusion of grace which washes away our sins and reconciles the soul to God.
Soooooo…you don’t believe in the efficacy of Baptism?
The water symbolizes the infusion of grace in our soul by the power of the Holy Spirit which washes away our sins.
The Holy Spirit is in the physical body of Jesus Christ. When we eat His Body and drink His Blood, the Holy Spirit infuses us with grace.
Imputation is merely a forensic crediting of righteousness. According to Greenbaggins, “A very common objection from Roman Catholics against the Protestant doctrine of imputation is that God declares someone to be innocent who is not, in fact, innocent.”
Therefore, nothing actually happens.
But the infusion of grace in the Sacraments of Jesus Christ is real.
The grace of the Sacraments is not created grace. It is a participation in the life of God. It is, in fact, union with God through His Son, Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Vincent said,
November 8, 2014 at 11:22 pm
Jason you never told me whether you think Rome is part of the visible church. I am listening to you but where does Trent say we are justified by works? I found the following from Anglican historian Alister Mcgrath:
“It will therefore be obvious that the Roman Catholic understands by ‘justification what the Protestant understands by ‘justification and ‘sanctification’ linked together. The same word is used by both – but it has a different meaning in each case. This has led to enormous confusion. Consider the following two statements.
We are justified by faith alone.
We are justified by faith and works.
The former broadly corresponds to the Protestant, the latter to the Roman Catholic position. But what do they mean?
For the Protestant, statement A means that the Christian life is begun through faith, and faith alone, which appears to be the New Testament teaching on the question. For the Roman Catholic, however – who understands ‘justification’ in a different way – statement A means that the Christian life as a whole is begun and continued by faith alone, which seems to exclude any reference to regeneration or obedience. For the Roman Catholic, statement B means that the Christian life is begun in faith, but is continued and developed through obedience and good works – which appears to be the general position of the New Testament. But the Protestant – who understands ‘justification’ to refer only to the beginning of the Christian life – would regard this as a totally unacceptable doctrine of justification by works. In fact, there is general agreement between Protestant and Roman Catholic that the Christian life is begun through faith and continued and developed through obedience and good works – the Reformation slogan ‘faith is pregnant with good works’ embodies this principle.”[ix]
Vincent said,
November 8, 2014 at 11:28 pm
There is this from Bryan Cross who is a Romanist:
What makes this difficult to understand, from a Protestant point of view, is that in Catholic theology there is a distinction between justification and an increase in justification. There is no such distinction in Protestant theologies, and for that reason Protestants not infrequently treat Catholic statements about the increase in justification as though they are about justification itself.
Justification is defined by the Council of Trent as “translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.” (Trent VI.4)1 Justification takes place through the sacrament of baptism, and then, if a person falls into mortal sin, through the sacrament of penance. At the instant of justification, the person receives sanctifying grace and the theological (supernatural) virtues of faith, hope and charity (agape). This does not mean that these cannot be received prior to the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism. Even then, however, they come through the sacrament, and anticipate its reception.
An increase in justification is not the same thing as justification. An increase in justification is not the translation from a state in which one is deprived of sanctifying grace to a state in which one has sanctifying grace. An increase in justification is an increase in sanctifying grace from a condition in which one already has sanctifying grace. This is what St. Peter means in exhorting believers to grow in grace. (2 Pet 3:18) An increase in justification is not receiving sanctifying grace where there is none, but a movement of growth from grace to more grace, and thus a growth in conformity to the likeness of Christ, by an increase in the capacity of our participation in the divine nature. (2 Pet 1:4)
The reason this distinction between justification and its increase is important for understanding the Catholic doctrine concerning justification is that although a person can and should prepare for justification (Trent VI.6), he cannot merit justification by any works. But, a person who is already justified and in a state of grace, can merit an increase in justification by doing good works out of love (agape) for God. Among these good works are works in keeping with the moral law, done out of love (agape) for God. God rewards our works done in agape by increasing our capacity to participate in His divine nature, and thus by increasing our participation in His agape. He Himself is our reward, and growth in grace is growth in Him, a reward we receive already in this present life, to be multiplied abundantly in the life to come.
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:07 am
Vincent,
But that’s not how Protestants understand the phrase “justified by a faith that is not alone.” (I myself do not subscribe to that). Good works do not continue or develop faith in any way at all. Faith by itself is COMPLETE.
Faith IS the WHOLE of the Christian life. The just shall walk by faith. The righteousness of GOD is revealed FROM faith TO faith.
Good works are not done coram Deo. Good works are strictly for this world only. Good works that graced do not act as a bridge to the other world. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Sowing by the Spirit is DIFFERENT from sowing by the flesh. Do we use the Holy Spirit to sow unto eternal life? Obviously, no. It is the Holy Spirit that uses us. There is no synergy at all in this sense.
Eternal life, the kingdom of heaven is a GIFT. It cannot be merited in any sense at all. At present, there is a GULF between the old and new creation. To be sure, both overlap. But that they cannot be mixed oe confused. Listen to me, do not follow Rome is allowing the two to be confused.
Good works are strictly for this old creation only. These do not extend into the kingdom of heaven. If it does, it would destroy the eschatological character of faith. The difference between Protestantism and Rome is also, therefore, over grace as eschatology and grace as ontology. You can’t reconcile the two.
To make it clearer to you:
THE KINGDOM OF GOD COMES TO US, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. IT COMES SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY BY THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL IN WORD AND SACRAMENTS.
WE DO NOT, THEREFORE, PROGRESS OR MOVE TOWARDS HEAVEN WITH GOOD WORKS ALONG THE WAY …
BUT WE ARE ***ALREADY*** IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN … BY FAITH ALONE … ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE OF GOD ALONE … REMEMBER THE THIEF ON THE CROSS … OUR SAVIOUR SAID TO HIM: TODAY YOU SHALL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE …
THIS IS THE MEANING OF SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR …
So, you see how unbiblical Rome is, Vincent?
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:13 am
Newman was a third rate theologian. In fact, I’ve never come across an anglo-catholic theologian who was impressive. Yes, they are knowledgeable, well-read, scholars and so on. I mean I enjoyed reading The Shape of the Liturgy by Dom Gregory Dix. But when it comes to the things that finally matter such as the GOSPEL, they are hopelessly muddled …, you see …
We are 100% in heaven already and 100% still on earth … You’re already in heaven by faith in the triune God Who has baptised you …
THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO DO — BUT TO SERVE OUT YOUR TIME HERE ON EARTH … BY DOING GOOD TO YOUR NEIGHBOUR WHO NEEDS YOUR GOOD WORKS AND NOT OUT OF ANYTHING ELSE …
WHETHER IN YOUR WORK WHERE YOU GET PAID OR OUTSIDE OF YOUR WORK … IN THE HOUSEHOLD, COMMUNITY …
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:25 am
And yes, of course, Rome is part of the visible church.
Only then can she rightly be denounced as the church of the Antichrist …
Please do not be naïve …
We came out of Mother Church … Rome can trace her apostolic succession back to St Peter …
But along the way she became corrupted to the core …
Don’t you know that the pope and the Jesuits are in TOTAL control of the whole wide world including the US of A?
Rome does good works for God? No, it’s for Satan … good works for Satan who is the prince of this old creation …
Now, listen to me. This does not mean we become paranoid and remove ourselves from the world which is precisely what Rome wants … no matter what God is still in total and complete and ultimate and sovereign control over Satan and this old creation …
We continue to serve the neighbour in politics and civil society … we hold offices …
What we try not to do is to be ideologically-bound … we can only be bound to the gospel …
IOW, extreme political views such that capitalist system is the perfect, noble, divinely-inspired, impeccable, indefectible, one plays into the hands of the real rulers of the world … or even that Christianity is about conservative (or liberal) views …
The distinction between the two kingdoms is of absolute importance. Despite the Reformation, Rome has never given up its temporal ambitions …Rome confuses the two kingdoms … hence the powers of the kingdom is used instead to prescribe earthly works in relation to the release from temporal debt … this makes a mockery of Christology and soteriology … the Christological and soteriological heresies …
Vincent, we do see don’t we that any slightest deviation from the gospel, according to Paul, comes under the apostolic anathema? Rome’s gospel comes under Paul’s anathema …
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:29 am
Vincent,
Hm? That’s troublesome. I think what he means is that we can’t merit justification in a “strict” sense. Only Jesus can do that. But we do merit in a sense because of God’s merciful promise, as explained by Catholic Answers:
The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).
Trent says:
CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION
Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.
Of this disposition it is written:
He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him;[24]
Now, reward is the same side of the coin as merit. Merit is rewarded. Therefore, justification is merited but not in a strict sense.
And CCC 2008 says:
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
The thing which is not merited is the initial call to conversion at the beginning of justification (CCC2010).
2025 We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.
But the grace of Baptism is merited.
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
The gift of eternal life is given to those who repent, turn to God and ask for Baptism. Those are the conditions we must meet in order to merit that gift.
And all you have to do is ask yourself whether attending RCIA classes falls under the category of a good work. I say it falls under the category of seeking God. And God rewards all who seek Him in faith.
This is absolutely correct.
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:29 am
So, Vincent, in the name of the gospel which is alone eternal, I beseech you come down to earth …
Let’s have a balanced perspective here … let us be fanatics, radicals, hyper-conservative/ liberal for the gospel …
This includes not mixing the law, active righteousness, the old creation, old man, doing, etc. with the gospel …
Vincent said,
November 9, 2014 at 4:39 am
The grace of baptism is not merited DeMaria. Our justification at baptism is not merited. Bryan Cross is correct you are not.
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 6:39 am
Vincent,
Let me come back to you via email.
And yes, Bryan Cross is correct.
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 6:47 am
Let the Romanist confess that “we are unprofitable and unworthy servants who only done what we ought to do in the first place as — SERVANTS = SERVICE.”
Good works are for the neighbour — serving God by serving the neighbour …
Luke 17:
7 “Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? 8 Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? 9 Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘WE ARE UNWORTHY SERVANTS; WE HAVE ONLY DONE OUR DUTY.”
THERE IS THEREFORE NO MERITING AN INCREASE OF GRACE IN ORDER TO MERIT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN …
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 7:40 am
None of the parables talk about meriting the kingdom of heaven. None.
Where the examples are ambiguous instead of emphasising the passivity and receptivity of the hearer (such as the parable of the sower), there is neither talk of faith nor of obedience.
Parable of the talents:
The good works stem from the CHARACTER or NATURE of the servants (according to their several ABILITIES). That is, the good servants do good works because they ARE good. Nothing about increasing in goodness. Nothing about doing good to merit goodness. Nothing about doing good to merit heaven.
Parable of the ten virgins:
Likewise, NONE of the ten virgins did any good work. It is just that the five ones had oil with their lamps and the other didn’t. It’s not doing as much as be-ing, i.e. character. This is underscored by the “introductory” sentence: And five of them were WISE, and five were FOOLISH.
According to the parable of the Sower, character/ characteristic or nature is a given — the CONDITION of the soil is already PRE-existing. If we transfer such characteristics of the soil to theology, then what we have is PREDESTINATION.
That is the NATURAL meaning of the parables …
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 7:44 am
Predestination? What …?
This is not my teaching but the Saviour’s …
Continuing on from the same parable of the sower in Matthew 13:
“10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’”
Predestination …
Nothing about synergism, cooperation, meriting, fulfilling conditions …
All the exegesis written by the Auburn Avenue guys despite good intentions (at least perhaps earlier on), NT Wright and the NPP and whatever are not worth the papers they’re written on …
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 7:45 am
Vincent and Jason,
Ask yourself these questions.
Is repenting of sin a meritorious work? (i.e. That is the epitome of keeping the Commandments, 1 John 3:4).
Is turning to God a meritorious work?
Is seeking God a meritorious work?
Is studying the Word of God a meritorious work?
Is attending RCIA a meritorious work?
All those things must happen before an adult is baptized in the Catholic Church. Therefore, the grace of Baptism is merited.
I don’t think that Bryan Cross is saying that the grace of Baptism is not merited. But if he is, he is wrong.
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 7:46 am
Oh, yeah, and in Catholicism, faith is also considered a meritorious work and must be exercised before one is baptized.
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 7:59 am
Bryan Cross is wrong, fancy that … so what Bryan is saying is not official teaching of the Church, eh? Interesting …
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 8:04 am
You know, De Maria, despite your Bible-thumping, you give me the impression that, rightly or wrongly, you are that person who is not adverse to burning Bibles, especially Protestant ones if you had the chance … IOW, you come across as a pre-Vat 2 Romanist … to hell with the Church’s presentation to the outside world …
Vincent said,
November 9, 2014 at 9:12 am
Faith is a free gift in Catholicism not a meritorous work. The grace of baptism is not merited. That is official catholic teaching. I can quote from Akin and tons of other apologists who back up what I am saying and not you. Here is Trent speaking about the grace of baptism:
” but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.”
Jason Loh said,
November 9, 2014 at 9:32 am
Indeed. The grace of baptism is not merited. De Maria belongs to the group of Romanists who want to go beyond Trent in their OVER-reaction to Protestantism.
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 10:39 am
Are you a native English speaker? You seem to have some trouble with comprehension. Here’s what I said:
I don’t think that Bryan Cross is saying that the grace of Baptism is not merited. But if he is, he is wrong.
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 10:41 am
That’s very Protestant of you, Jason. But, as the Apostle says:
1 Corinthians 4:2-4 King James Version (KJV)
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 11:06 am
I went through the official teaching point by point. Catholic Teaching is clear that the grace of conversion is not merited. Everything else, is.
Actually, I’ll get more specific. THE CALL to conversion is not merited.
Just as you don’t understand Trent. I don’t think you understand what they are saying. In addition, Akin and many other Catholic Apologists are former Protestants who bring Protestant baggage with them when they convert. I remember when Akin used to preach “justification by faith alone”.
The Catholic Church is the best interpreter of Catholic documents.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace.
That’s the unmerited grace of the Call to Conversion.
The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
After that Call, if we turn to God in faith and seek His Face, we begin to merit. This is before Baptism.
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification,
at the beginning of conversion.
Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.
Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
Look at the chapter right above that one.
Trent VI
Chapter V
CHAPTER VII
IN WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER CONSISTS, AND WHAT ARE ITS CAUSES
This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[30]
The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one’s disposition and cooperation.
For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts[38] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.
For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]
For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[40] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.[41]
This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give.
>>>>Note: This ought to remind you of:
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.<<<<
Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[42]….
There you go.
Eric W said,
November 9, 2014 at 11:23 am
(re: 1241)
De Maria is fallible. He is willing to be corrected by authoritative documents of the church.
Council of Trent, Justification:
…and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 9, 2014 at 11:25 am
DeMaria said ” the Holy Spirit is the Physical body of Christ” He’s called the Spirit of Christ. Last time I checked the Physical body of Christ was at the right hand of God. The church doesn’t have access to the physical body of Christ. He left us the Spirit. If the Spirit were the physical body of Christ, why would He say He will return someday. Grace is an infused physical soul substance, it is the unmerited and demerited favor of God. Again Jesus came to incorporate us into His body thru the Spirit, not the flesh. We are the body of Christ. The church can’t substitute itself for the historical body of Christ. You guys have a faulty view of the Trinity.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 9, 2014 at 11:26 am
That should be grace isn’t an infused physical soul substance.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 9, 2014 at 11:34 am
Vincent, the gospel isn’t do your part. It is that Christ did His part and fulfilled all righteousness. The law requires perfect, personal, perpetual obedience, and Christ accomplished this for us. Rome acknowledged that the law required these things, but the medieval church thought that Christ only merited the ability for the believer to accumulate these things through ” the sacraments of the new law. False gospel. It is finished, He is Risen. !
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 11:43 am
They seem very clear to me. And they are perfectly in line with Catholic Teaching.
Let’s go over our Lord’s explanation of the parable:
8 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom,
This is the unmerited grace, God’s call to conversion.
and understandeth it not,
This person rejects that call and is condemned.
then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
As it says in the parable of the talents. Even that little which he had, is taken away. This person does not merit salvation. He merits condemnation.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
This person receives the unmerited call and converts to God joyfully.
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
But, he finds that the world does not conform to the Word of God and instead of rejecting the world, he rejects God, who called him. Because of his lack of faith, this person merits condemnation.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word;
This person also receives the Word of God and turns to God.
and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
But the temptations of the flesh and world make him forget the Word of God and he produces no good works. Therefore, he is also lost. He merits condemnation.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it;
Now, we’re talking about a sower. Farms don’t sow ground that is untilled. Therefore this ground is prepared. When this person receives the call, he has already been studying the Word and is ready to turn to God and do good.
Then when he receives the Word, he studies to show himself approved and begins to act upon the Word with faith.
And his faith produces many good works and this person merits eternal life in the Kingdom of heaven.
Lets go over this one line by line:
14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants,
This represents the unmerited call to conversion.
and delivered unto them his goods.
And this, the gift of faith.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
Note that he doesn’t give everyone the same amount. But gives more to some than to others. The reason being that some are more “open” and “disposed” to the grace. Some are more willing to cooperate with the grace of faith.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
The one with five, put his faith to work and merited more.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
The one with two, worked and merited more as well.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
But the last one, did not act upon his faith at all. But did nothing with it.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
Then, our Lord came back. This represents the Judgment.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Now, because of his great faith and the great works he did by his faith, he merits eternal life and a great crown in the Kingdom of heaven.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
The second one as well.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
But the last one, who had little faith, did nothing, produced no good works. And he merited condemnation.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
And so, those who did good, merited more grace and eternal life.
While the one who did nothing good, merited condemnation to eternal punishment.
The oil in the lamps represents faith. These virgins are awaiting the coming of the Lord. In Latin, waiting and hoping, are the same word.
wait in Latin – expectatio, expecto, exspecta, exspectatio, exspecto,
hope in Latin – expecto, expect
Scripture says:
Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
So, the virgins are hoping for the glory of the Lord.
But five are foolish and five are wise. The wise have much faith and endurance to wait on the Lord. That is what the extra oil represents. And because of their strong faith, they merit salvation when Our Lord comes.
But the foolish, get tired and don’t endure to the end. They leave, they literally “fall away” and go to enjoy the temptations of the world and the flesh. And when they claim that they want to come back, Our Lord does not let them come into the wedding chamber.
Hm, yes. I agree. Predestination is a Catholic Doctrine.
600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
No. That is your interpretation.
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Thank you, Eric.
I understand that Trent statement in accordance with the explanation of the CCC:
1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
Note that after receiving the unmerited first grace of conversion, which is the beginning of justification, if we accept and cooperate with it, we can then begin to merit further justification.
Its very simple and I don’t understand why anyone has trouble with this. The Catholic Church expects any adult who wants to be baptized to go through the Rite of Christian Initiation for adults.
This entails study, prayer, Mass attendance (but no sacraments) and many other good works. Unless the person undergoes this process, he will not merit Baptism.
The assumption being that the person who wants to be baptized has already received the initial grace of justification which is conversion and faith in God. That faith then pleases God and he begins to merit more grace for his salvation and the salvation of others. But it is an immature faith.
That faith is then nurtured and fed in RCIA. And when we are Baptized with the right disposition of faith, we are prompted to ask for more faith in order that we may persevere in faith and good works to the end.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:04 pm
DeMaria, the parrable of the wages, the man who came latter got the same wage as the first man. The gospel isnt do your part, but Christ did his part by fulfilling all righteouness. Even the medieval church understood the law required perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. But they narrow mindidly missed tha Christ fulfilled this for us. They thought thatHe only gave us the oppurtunity to fulfill the law by accumlating this righteouness thru sacraments. False gospel.a
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:12 pm
True. But they both worked.
The meaning of that parable is portrayed very clearly in Heb 11:39-40.
You see, the Jews are the laborers who worked from dawn to dusk. They had to await their “payment” until Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.
But, Christians are the laborers who worked at the end of the day. In Baptism, we receive the same “payment” that the Jews received only after they died.
Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Vincent said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:15 pm
DeMaria you are dead wrong. I don’t know where you did your Catholic studies, but what you say is contradictory to what every Catholic theologian and apologist has said since Trent. You are a Peligian heretic even by the standards of your own church. We cannot merit before we have sanctifying grace, and that is given in baptism FREELY! The initial grace of forgiveness and justification that the catechism talks about is the grace of baptism not conversion. Give me a quote from one catholic theologian that agrees with your interpretation of Trent? I can give plenty that agree with mine.
Vincent said,
November 9, 2014 at 12:20 pm
DeMaria do we merit heaven like an employee earns his wages and paychecks? What is the difference between Condign Merit and Congrous Merit?
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 1:00 pm
No, Vincent, you can’t. You will produce the same things I produce but you interpret them with Protestant presuppositions.
You have to get over your aversion to “merit in the eyes of God” before you can understand this subject matter. Even the Anglican said to you:
Eric W said,
November 9, 2014 at 1:04 pm
De Maria (re: 1255),
You wrote:
That faith then pleases God and he begins to merit more grace for his salvation and the salvation of others. But it is an immature faith.
Response:
The grace of baptism is a habitual grace. Every grace preceding it is actual. Yes, cooperation with any actual grace (after the initial unmerited grace is disposed) can merit an increase of actual graces. The person becomes more disposed to receive the grace of baptism.
Nevertheless, actual graces prior to baptism can’t merit the grace of justification. It is acknowledged that the grace of justification can be bestowed on disposed adults before the sacrament of baptism. But God bestows freely without merit.
RC theology teaches three unmerited graces:
1. Grace of conversion
2. Grace of justification (grace of baptism)
3. Grace of perseverance
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Vincent, how many times have I answered this question? Reread our discussions.
Let me google that for you.
Eric W said,
November 9, 2014 at 1:07 pm
(re: 1261),
(after the initial unmerited grace is disposed)
Correction…..(after the initial unmerited grace is bestowed)
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Now you’re getting it.
Correct.
Hm….no. Once we act with faith, we please God (i.e. merit) and he rewards (i.e. merit) our efforts in seeking Him.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
One unmerited grace. The grace of conversion at the beginning of justification which happens before Baptism.
Unless you mean that Jesus Christ made the grace of Baptism available carte blanch to the entire human race. In that sense, the grace of Baptism is not merited since it is available to the righteous and the unrighteous.
However, before they actually receive the grace, the unrighteous must merit Baptism by repenting of their sins and being numbered amongst the righteous.
A good way to visualize this is to remember that the righteous Jews awaited the grace of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the after life and did not receive it until Jesus came (Heb 11:39-40). That is the same grace we receive in the Sacrament of Baptism.
They merited it after a life of faith. We merit it after turning to God and exercising our faith.
Newman reader:
Discourse 7. Perseverance in Grace
{124} THERE is no truth, my brethren, which Holy Church is more earnest in impressing upon us than that our salvation from first to last is the gift of God. It is true indeed that we merit eternal life by our works of obedience; but that those works are meritorious of such a reward, this takes place, not from their intrinsic worth, but from the free appointment and bountiful promise of God; and that we are able to do them at all, is the simple result of His grace.
The definition of perseverance is that we merit eternal life by continuing in good works.
Romans 2:6-7 King James Version (KJV)
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
In other words, the grace of perseverance is merited.
P.S. I don’t see anything in Trent about perseverance except to say that you shouldn’t presume to have it. Do you have a quote to support your claim? Well, it does say you should “strive” for it. But that implies merit.
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Disposed also has the meaning of bestowed or distribute and that is the way I understood your first statement.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 9, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Vincent, your question should be do we merit salvation at all. No we dont. In Rome grace is simply the means of exchange on the church merit system. Its antichrist, stay far away. Roman Catholicism has never been part of Christ’s church. Who cares if intialt jstification is unmerited , the rest of it is, Christ fulfilled the law, He didnt die to give us the oppurtunity to fulfill the law thru sacraments, and acumulate the righteouness necessary for salvation. Christ provides that for us.Its about what He did for us not in us. All of salvation is by faith in that righteouness. The same righteouness when we believed is the same one that allows us to pss thru judgment.
Merit before Baptism? | catholicbibletalk said,
November 9, 2014 at 3:52 pm
[…] been having an interesting conversation in Greenbaggins blog, where the folks I’m talking to equate justification and Baptism. They keep saying to me, […]
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Would it help to remember that the Catholic Church teaches that justification is a PROCESS?
And that it begins well before Baptism and does not end until we die?
Well, at that point its put on hold until the final judgement where we will stand before the King of Kings for our final justification.
So, when the Church says that the grace of justification is not merited, She means that grace which we receive to begin the process of justification at the beginning of conversion is not merited. We begin to merit as soon as we begin to cooperate with that grace.
The point being that Baptism and justification are not completely synonymous. Baptism is only one part of the process.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm
DeMaria said justification is a process in Rome” unfortunarely for you its not s not in scripture. Therefore having been justified by faith. You going to tell me that verse means sacraments too.
roberty bob said,
November 9, 2014 at 5:03 pm
in reply to #1266 . . . Kevin . . .
It sounds to me like you are saying that Christ fulfilled the law so that you don’t have to.
Maybe you are saying that if you commit one sin, you have disqualified yourself from fulfilling the law [since you have to be 100% perfect]. So, why even bother to try.
Not only did Jesus die in your place when he laid down his life as a sacrifice of atonement for sins so that you might receive the forgiveness of sins, but first [before the cross] he obeyed in your place by keeping the law to perfection. And it is this perfect performance that gets credited to your account when you call on the name of the Lord to save you. So, for you, it is not enough to be forgiven of your sins by Christ’s atoning sacrifice; you need Christ’s perfect law keeping performance credited to you, so that when God looks at you, He doesn’t see you because he can only see Jesus. And it is Jesus who is approved of God.
With this belief, it does not matter how grievously you sin — and you have mentioned on more than one occasion that I could commit adultery and break my marriage covenant, and that would be alright — because you — and I — are covered by the righteousness of Christ through his 100% perfect law keeping credited to you — and I.
If this is your view, then I reject it on the grounds that our ultimate justification — the verdict that will be announced at the Last Judgment — will be on the basis of what each one of us has done, whether unto good or unto evil.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 9, 2014 at 5:41 pm
Roberty bob said ” if this is your view then I reject it on the grounds that our ultimate justification the verdict that will be anounced at the final judgment based on the life lived. Ultimate justification, now thats a new term. Could you point me to that in scriptue.My bible tells me I have been justified aorist past tense, and noone can bring a charge against Gods elect. No one can snatch us out of His hands. John 5:24 tells me I have already passed out of judgment and death into life, and Hebrews 9:28 says that when He returns for believers next time it wont be in regard to sin, but to gather His people. . And Peter says I have an inheritance that can never fade awy, reserved in heaven for me. Sealed in the Spirit adopted. Paul could have never ever ver meant with dikaiou, the state of affairs inside a believer at the end of his life. Lets face it without the safety net of Purgatory, Romanism is a hard sell.
roberty bob said,
November 9, 2014 at 6:19 pm
Kevin, I’m talking about the coming judgment that Paul tells of in Romans 2, in which each person will be judged according to what he has done (vs. 6) and in which the doers of the law (vs.13) will be justified.
You may keep your aorist tense, but that will not exempt you from the judgement on the Last Day. Or will it? Those who claim be justified by faith alone will still have to give an account of what they have done. Won’t they?
Do you believe that I am accurately describing what Paul is telling of in Romans 2 [I’m practically quoting it!]?
De Maria said,
November 9, 2014 at 11:18 pm
According to Heb 11:8, Abraham came to faith in Gen 12:1-4, but was not justified until Gen 15:6. Abraham is further justified in Gen 22:1-18.
2 Corinthians 4:16King James Version (KJV)
16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
St. Paul says we are justified (i.e. renewed) day by day.
1 Sam. 13:14; 1 Sam. 16:13; 1 Sam. 17:37-54;
David is justified over and over again in 1 Sam.
2 Sam. 6:9,14
And in 2 Sam.
2 Sam. 12:7-15
Then he loses his justification and gets it back when he sins by adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, then begging forgiveness.
In the New Testament, all the Apostles and disciples were justified by Jesus Christ and then they fell away when He was arrested by the Jews. Then they came back when He rose again from the dead.
Yep.
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 12:20 am
Vincent,
To paraphrase Kevin:
I don’t give a snap about the difference between condign and congruent merit ..
That’s because Our Lord doesn’t give a damn about that difference … to hell with the distinction …
That’s not what the gospel is about …
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 12:49 am
Roberty Rob,
What are you? A Federal Visionist trying to peddle your theological fantasy around here?
If you’re a Protestant, you’d know that the justification by faith alone means that the verdict that acquits you is BROUGHT FORWARD FROM JUDGMENT DAY — hence this is why it is ESCHATOLOGICAL …
There is no initial or final justification. Only ONE … the same voice that justifies will ALSO JUSTIFY YOU ON THAT DAY … WHAT YOU BELIEVE NOW WILL BE SEEN AND HEARD …
Sight will catch up with faith on that day …
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 12:54 am
Then why does St. Paul say:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Notice that he includes himself.
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 12:58 am
De Maria,
Work or not, the parable of the workers contradict Roman teaching that one can merit INCREASE of grace …
In the parable, the wages is NOT dependent on the work but the work is dependent on the wages …
THE FIRST SHALL BE THE LAST AND THE LAST SHALL BE THE FIRST …
So much for the magisterium interpreting scripture …
We are PREDESTINED unto good works not doing good works in order to be predestined or merit heaven …
Ephesians 2:10
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
This fits well with the natural reading of the parables …
I agree with Kevin … damnable heresy of the Roman Church is exposed every day …
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 1:12 am
Yes, we must all appear before the judgment seat.
Everyone will be found guilty. BUT those who have been predestined, justified, sanctified (set apart) which comes down to it means the same thing will be acquitted.
Law and gospel.
2 Corinthians 5:10 is about judgment (law).
The earlier verse in 2 Corinthians 5:5 says that:
“Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, GUARANTEEING WHAT IS TO COME.” (GOSPEL)
The later verse in 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that:
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the NEW is HERE!” (GOSPEL) … Take verse 5 and 17 together, the gospel is the FINAL word, not the judgment …
So, yes, judgment. That is guaranteed. But so is the gospel, the new creation … is law the final word or gospel? The gospel … it overrides the law …
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 1:18 am
1 Thessalonians 1:10
“And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.”
We wait for the “Second Coming” of Jesus. Yet this same Jesus has DELIVERED us from the WRATH TO COME.
We HAVE BEEN delivered from wrath …which is to say, we have been (judged under the wrath of God and) justified … justification is the FINAL word …
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 1:21 am
It doesn’t address this question at all. But the parable of the sower does. And it shows that some can merit 30, 60 and a hundred fold.
That doesn’t even make sense.
Because the Jews started early in the day and did not receive their reward until after they died. And we started work late in the day, but we receive the reward of the Holy Spirit when we are baptized.
I’m happy with the Catholic Magisterium. You seem to consider yourself a magisterium to Vincent and Kevin though. At least, you talk to them as though you think you have some sort of authority over them.
Those good works are encapsulated in the Ten Commandments. That is what is preordained.
You and Kevin sound more and more alike. Soon, you will also be discarding the Sacraments.
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 1:34 am
By God. But not by you. Scripture admonishes you not to judge yourself:
1 Corinthians 4:2-4King James Version (KJV)
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Note the big, “if”.
IF you are in Christ.
What do you do with the rest of Scripture? Throw it away?
Let’s look at some of these verses that you ignored:
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
Clothed means protected. The metaphor speaks of a house in heaven. But then he says, “if so be” that we not be found naked. In other words, that we are not clothed by the heavenly house.
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
We all hope to be present with the Lord. Therefore, we work, in order that He will approve of us, because we must all appear before God to be judged according to our works.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
And believe me, it is a terrible thing to make the Lord angry. Therefore, do not sin and keep your conscience clean.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
We have been sent by Christ to speak to you on His behalf. Therefore, turn from sin and be reconciled to God.
Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 1:43 am
That is the final word in chapter 1. But if it is the final word altogether, why does he warn them not to sin in chapter 4?
1 Thessalonians 4 King James Version (KJV)
1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 2:18 am
>> It doesn’t address this question at all. But the parable of the sower does. And it shows that some can merit 30, 60 and a hundred fold.<<
No, it doesn't.
Matthew 20:
10 But when the first came, they (like you) SUPPOSED that they should have received MORE; and they LIKEWISE received EVERY man a penny.
11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but FEW ***CHOSEN.***
You are twisting scripture, De Maria. And because you think the magisterium is above scripture, you're allowed to do that.
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 2:21 am
So, the final word is the warning not to sin which takes place here on earth? But not the deliverance from the wrath TO COME? “To come” means the day of reckoning which is in the future … the end of the world …
The magisterium’s a joke and you’re a joke. Catholic, yeah, fake Catholic that is …
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 2:30 am
Why should I discard the sacraments?
Absolution is the gospel — the voice of the priest in absolving sins is the voice of Jesus Christ Himself … the priest stands in persona Christi …
Baptism is the gospel … it justifies, sanctifies, regenerates, converts, glorifies all at once …
The Lord’s Supper is the gospel: I receive the physical flesh and physical blood of my Saviour …
The word and sacraments kill and make alive …
The word and sacraments are the word of the cross which applies the blood of Jesus Christ …
On the other hand, Rome teaches a very defective view of the sacraments.
Thankfully, the word and sacraments do not depend on the sanctity and impeccability or even indefectibility of the Roman Church …
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 2:33 am
So, see how unbiblical Rome is, De Maria?
But you’re not worried it makes perfect sense for the church to be above scripture …
Yeah, I can also create a religion and say that the church is above scripture … not to rival Romanism, of course but a non-Christian one …
That’s so human …
IOW, what’s so divine about the Roman Church?
Vincent said,
November 10, 2014 at 4:48 am
Jason in what way is the Roman understanding of the sacraments different than the Lutheran one?
Eric W said,
November 10, 2014 at 6:46 am
De Maria (re: 1264),
I wrote:
Nevertheless, actual graces prior to baptism can’t merit the grace of justification.
Response:
I don’t understand why this is correct. How can it be correct and still say that the grace of baptism is merited. The grace of baptism, or laver of regeneration, translates someone into a “state of grace.” This phrase signifies the same thing that “grace of justification” signifies.
—————————–
(re: 1268)
So, when the Church says that the grace of justification is not merited, She means that grace which we receive to begin the process of justification at the beginning of conversion is not merited. We begin to merit as soon as we begin to cooperate with that grace.
Response:
She does mean the beginning of conversion. Trent says this here Ch.V:
…the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposiing grace of God through Jesus Christ, this is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits or their part…
Trent:
Ch.VI. …they are disposed to that justice..
Ch.VII….This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself
Now, look at how justification itself is described:
Ch.VII…the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend.
Compare this description with the beginning of conversion:
Ch.V..that they who by sin had been cut off from God…
The grace that calls and the grace that justifies are unmerited. I know this because the subject is still in a pre-translation state.
Ch.IV…that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam…
Jason Loh said,
November 10, 2014 at 7:45 am
Vincent,
Luther’s understanding of the sacraments:
IMPUTATION (not infusion)
ESCHATOLOGICAL (not ontological)
The WHOLE of the Christian life (not initial)
The death of the OLD and the resurrection of the NEW
DISCONTINUOUS progression instead of continuous progression
SIMULTANEOUSLY sinful and just
Elected, justified, converted, regenerated, sanctified, glorified all at once …
Baptism, for example, is really entry into the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven has come, is here …
What does your Anglo-Catholic understanding of baptism?
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 8:45 am
Because grace doesn’t merit grace.
Our response to grace merits more grace.
That is correct. That is God’s work wherein He bestows His gift upon those whom He has “forensically” declared just because of their merits.
Depending on the context.
This is the justification which occurs in Baptism. But notice that in chapter V, they mention that the “beginning of that justification” begins at conversion.
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation,
So, they are using the word “justification” to mean “the process of justification” and “baptism” interchangeably. The way to know the difference is by looking at the context.
Take a bigger snapshot of Chapter V:
It is furthermore declared that in adults, the beginning of that justification
beginning, process, before baptism.
must proceed
process, proceed means “begin or continue a course of action.” In other words, a process.
The call to justification is the unmerited grace. Vocation comes from “vocal” or call. Still at the beginning of justification. Still talking about a process. Still before baptism.
whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification
“convert themselves to their own justification”
This is not Baptism which is here being described. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of “extra nos” justification. It is the same thing as “forensic” justification. This is the process of justifying ourselves.
In Baptism, God justifies us. But, before we are justified by God, we must establish holy habits and justify ourselves. As St. Peter says:
2 Peter 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; etc. etc. til v 10.
by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace;
Notice, how so far, it is speaking of our part in the process. Assent and cooperation with God’s grace.
And remember that it is God grace working through us, so, even that which we merit is a grace, since God does it all.
True. This is speaking of Baptism.
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 8:50 am
Look at the context. This is isn’t talking about predestination. It is talking about the Final Judgment wherein God will judge our works.
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 8:55 am
That deliverance won’t happen if they don’t avoid sin as explained in ch 4.
Sounds as though you yearn to be a “magisterium”. It almost sounds as though you resent the Magisterium of the Catholic Church because of the authority She commands, but no one listens to you.
Vincent said,
November 10, 2014 at 9:32 am
DeMaria your interpretation is still very faulty. We do not justify ourselves before baptism. God does not justify our mêrits at baptism considering that we have no merits when we come to that sacrament. Have you ever read any books on catholic theology by any catholic theologian? I doubt that you have, because if you did you would not be saying what you are saying?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 10, 2014 at 9:37 am
Jason, are you in seminary. If not, thats your calling. God bless.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 10, 2014 at 9:45 am
Jason, exactly, I have said this before too, refuting Roman Doctrine, The first shall be last and the last shall be first. So much for the hierarchy of saints in Rome. Also Paul says when we are faithless, He remains faithful.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 10, 2014 at 9:49 am
Jason, yes the gospel is the final word. We will stand clothed in His righteousness.
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 11:59 am
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification….
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Vincent,
I’d like to chime in here because not only is this is a great opportunity to contrast Catholic and Protestant beliefs. But it brings the discussion back to the subject of imputation.
After you read my answers, you should be able to understand why from a Catholic perspective, as Greenbaggins says, we object that God declares someone to be innocent who is not, in fact, innocent. This is legal nonsense, to them. They believe that God would never declare a person to be righteous who is not, in fact, righteous.
Catholic Teaching is imputation (i.e. crediting) and infusion.
In the Sacraments, we approach God in a disposition of faith, He acknowledges our faith and credits (i.e. imputes) us righteosness and then infuses sanctifying grace in our souls by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Catholic Teaching is eschatological and ontological.
It is eschatological in the sense that the Sacraments are pre-judgement events. We literally stand before the Throne of God and God judges our souls, credits us with righteousness and rewards us with eternal life.
From that moment, we walk with the Saints upon Mt. Sion (i.e. heaven).
It is ontological because we believe that in Baptism we truly are purified of our sins by God in order that we attain the holiness without which one can not see God (Heb 12:14). That purity without which one can not enter heaven (Rev 21:27).
Catholicism is for the whole of the Christian life. It is not a once pronounced formula which empowers the individual to pronounce himself saved.
1 Corinthians 4:2-4King James Version (KJV)
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
But one must persevere in good works to the end:
Romans 2:7King James Version (KJV)
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
That is Catholic Teaching. Note that in Catholic Teaching, we are truly renewed. Not a simple covering over of sinfulness.
Yes, in Catholicism we believe in continual progression to holiness:
2 Corinthians 4:16King James Version (KJV)
16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
Catholic Teaching says that we must be pure to enter heaven. And this is the Teaching of Scripture.
Revelation 21:27New International Version (NIV)
27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
In Catholic Teaching it is a process.
Rom 8:
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
It is for us. That is why God washes us of sin, in order that we be pure enough to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And this is a true washing, not a covering of sin. Not simultaneously sinful and just. But regenerated and renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit.
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Yes. Scripture says:
Proverbs 17:15 English Standard Version
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.
So, why would God do something He considers abominable?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 10, 2014 at 1:29 pm
All, imagine Jesus who “was raise for our justification” hearing the Roman doctrine ” converted to their own justification” It won’t be a fun day when God drops the hammer on the Pelagians!
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 2:16 pm
1 Timothy 4:15-16King James Version (KJV)
15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Romans 6:21-23King James Version (KJV)
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
2 Peter 1:4-10King James Version (KJV)
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
Kevin Failoni said,
November 10, 2014 at 3:58 pm
DeMaria, you said to Jason ” You sound more and more like Kevin all the time, pretty soon you will be chucking the sacraments too.” No DeMaria, I look back on my baptism with great assurance of having been regenerated by the Spirit thru the Word and having been brought to faith and repentance and FREE justification in the gospel. And the Lord’s supper is God’s confirmation of the grace He offers us. But Rome destroyed the sacraments so bad, they were unnoticeable. This was a big issue for the Reformers. Instead of free grace for the weak, Rome made them merit for the strong. Shame on them. Jason and i may have differecnces, but 2 things we agree on, we are forever justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that comes thru faith, and Rome is despicable. K
De Maria said,
November 10, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Kevin,
What about confession? Did you chuck that Sacrament, or not?
How about confirmation?
Yeah, yours is an impoverished gospel. Not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
catholicbibletalk said,
November 10, 2014 at 10:03 pm
[…] Why Imputation Is Not a Legal Fiction August 18, 2014 at 11:23 am (Justification) A very common objection from Roman Catholics against the Protestant doctrine of imputation is that God declares someone to be innocent who is not, in fact, innocent. This is legal nonsense, to them. They believe that God would never declare a person to be righteous who is not, in fact, righteous. So, the Protestant idea that an alien righteousness, that of Christ, is reckoned to the sinner, is nonsense to them. It would be God declaring something to be true which is actually false. […]
Eric W said,
November 11, 2014 at 6:48 am
De Maria (re: 1290),
You wrote:
“convert themselves to their own justification”
This is not Baptism which is here being described. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of “extra nos” justification. It is the same thing as “forensic” justification. This is the process of justifying ourselves.
Please elaborate.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 11, 2014 at 7:46 am
DeMaria, I confess my sins to God just like David. And I confess one to another. I don’t believe in confirmation. I believe salvation is in the gospel.
Jason Loh said,
November 11, 2014 at 8:09 am
De Maria,
Confirmation is not a sacrament (of the gospel). There are only two sacraments “instituted” by Our Lord, namely baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
There is NOT one verse in NT that teaches infusion of grace. Not one …
De Maria said,
November 11, 2014 at 9:29 am
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Justification:
The formal cause of justification
….By this, however, we do not assert that the “justitia Dei extra nos” is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God’s own holiness…..
So, by the grace of God, we seek to imitate God’s holiness. How do we do that?
Forensic, means “legal”. It recognizes the fact that God is our Judge and does not declare anyone righteous if they are not, in fact, righteous.
Before, God justifies us, we must, of our own efforts, be seeking holiness. Again, the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
The process of justification (processus justifications)
We now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled “the beginning, foundation and root of all justification” (Trent, l.c., cap.viii). Cardinal Pallavicini* (Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, iv, 18) tells us that all the bishops present at the council fully realized how important it was to explain St. Paul’s saying that man is justified through faith. Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation (l. c.: “illumque [Deum] tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt”).
The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God.
>>>>This is the process of “convert themselves to their own justification” in Trent VI, Ch. V
>>>>And then follows Baptism<<<<
The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God.
Vincent said,
November 11, 2014 at 11:31 am
DeMaria:
That is a gross misunderstanding. Those things do not merit the graces of baptism before God. And indeed I know many adults that converted without RCIA (they had private instruction).
All that is necessary for a valid baptism is an unbaptised person who consents, and someone who does the baptism. All that is necessary for a fruitful baptism, in addition, is sorrow for sin and faith. Neither of which are merited, and neither of which merit justification, though justification presupposes them.
We may say that a sinner who has an ethical epiphany and starts trying to be a better person, on a natural level, disposes himself better to grace, but you wouldn’t say he merits it.
Nothing which we do before baptism merit our justification in baptism. You are as far as the mark as always. DeMaria you have not told me if you have read any books by catholic theologians.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 11, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Vincent, do you know when someone goes thru RCIA they have like 27 things to do, perform, before they can be initially justified and baptized. It can take up to a year. And Rome gets around this by saying the works salvation saying they do these things by actual grace. Right! I say when they finish RCIA to be justified, just give them a certificate for justification by keeping the Law. Nonsense. Salvation is by faith in the gospel. Believing the words of God in the gospel. Vermigli said faith was the firm and constant assent of the soul to the Word of God.
De Maria said,
November 11, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Kevin,
Does faith have anything to do with obedience, in your opinion?
Romans 16:25-27King James Version (KJV)
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 11, 2014 at 2:22 pm
DeMaria, faith is not obedience. Saving faith always leads to obedience. But faith receives, obedience does. Thats why faith justifies alone because it receives Christ our righteousness and brings Him to the heart. Love always stretches out to neighbor, and is always second in natural order. It cannot justify. Luther was correct in saying Roamnsim robs from faith and gives to love what exclusively belongs to faith. Remember the scripture says without faith it is impossible to please Hm, not love. The bible never says that we are justified by love, nor does it say faith disobedience. Paul calls us to the obedience OF faith. Hope that helps.
De Maria said,
November 11, 2014 at 2:36 pm
If saving faith leads to obedience, then obey:
Hebrews 5:9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Kevin Failoni said,
November 11, 2014 at 2:57 pm
DeMaria, you have quoted that verse about 9 thousand time in your life. It is descriptive of a believer, not prescriptive. ” The righteous shall live by faith. And incidentally I do obey god, although not perfectly. But DeMaria as turretinfan told you if you are looking to your obedience or doing in any way to justify you, it won’t go well. Look at the Jews in Romans 9:32, Paul prayed for their salvation. Why? Because they went after it as if it were by works. They believed in grace DeMaria, but they tried t smuggle their character into the work of God’s grace. ” If its by works it is no longer of grace. Romans 4:16 says if you want to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. K
De Maria said,
November 11, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Kevin,
What’s the difference?
Either way, it either describes that a man who obeys God will be saved. Or it prescribes that a man who wants to be saved should obey God.
De Maria said,
November 12, 2014 at 12:11 am
It’s very hard to take your comments seriously, Vincent.
You say that they didn’t have RCIA. But they had private instruction.
Hm? Think about that.
Now, when you can go through the Doctrine of Trent, in minute detail, to support your argument, as I have to prove my position to you, then I will answer your question about whether or not I have read any books by Catholic Theologians.
In the meantime, it is obvious that no matter how many books you have read, you have not understood what they were teaching. Because you neither understand Trent nor the Catechism on the subject of merit. Nor the Bible for that matter.
Eric W said,
November 12, 2014 at 5:24 am
De Maria (re: 1308),
Ok, the process is very clear to me. I still don’t know why habitual grace is merited. Faith and works precede it and they are necessary conditions to receive habitual grace through baptism. If we add desire for baptism to this condition, then they always merit and receive the grace of baptism before the sacrament.
Place all of this in the OT context because I still have blind spots. When in Abraham’s life did God infuse habitual grace ? Or was he infused with it ? Was “justitia Dei extra nos” the only part of the process he had.
Vincent said,
November 12, 2014 at 7:04 am
DeMaria when does an man receive sanctifying grace or habitual grace for that matter? Before Baptism or at baptism?
Eric W said,
November 12, 2014 at 7:38 am
De Maria,
Let me add…Is the catholic free to think and teach habitual grace is unmerited ?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 12, 2014 at 8:52 am
Habitual grace or sanctifying grace is the means of exchange on the Roman merit system. Here is how it works. ” For God so loved the world that He gave them all sufficient grace to choose whether or not to enter into sanctifying grace, but not enough grace to keep all these things in a state of sanctifying grace since He has not predestined them to glory and therefore withheld from them the final grace of perseverance that would have prevented them from losing the state of grace.”
Jason Loh said,
November 12, 2014 at 9:10 am
True … what Kevin said is true …
So much being scriptural …
Reed Here said,
November 12, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Kevin, good snapshot.
roberty bob said,
November 12, 2014 at 1:32 pm
in reply to #1184 . . . Kevin says . . .
“Faith is not obedience.”
“Paul calls us to the obedience of faith.”
“Remember the scripture says without faith it is impossible to please Him, not love.”
…………….
You have tied yourself into knots. Let me tell you the truth.
Faith is obedience. Those who have faith do what God tells them to do.
Love is obedience. Those who love Christ keep his commandments.
Without faith it is impossible to please God.
Without love it is impossible to please God.
De Maria said,
November 12, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Because God promised to show mercy upon those who keep the Commandments.
Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Agreed.
By God’s grace.
My answer:
He didn’t. Sanctifying grace (i.e. habitual grace) was given to us from the Cross. That is why Scripture says:
Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Sanctifying grace makes us perfect. Without it, the Patriarchs could not be made perfect. They had to wait in Purgatory (i.e. Limbo) until Jesus died upon the Cross to set them free.
St. Augustine’s answer:
So, according to St. Augustine, the OT Jews would have received sanctifying grace when they were circumcised.
St. Thomas Aquinas’ answer:
I agree with St. Thomas. I believe this is what the Catholic Church teaches.
Curiously, neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas consider that the OT Jews could have received Sanctifying grace at any other time but circumcision. If they wrote on the question, I’m not aware of it.
Yes. But I think Catholics and Protestants have a different understanding of the term. For us it means that he received the holy desire to be righteous in the eyes of God. He sought the justice of God which is outside of himself. And he did this by obeying God’s will.
At least, that’s the way I understand it. I think, to Protestants, it means “imputation of the righteousness of Christ”.
Depends upon the context by which he says that.
If they mean in the sense that Trent says:
In that sense, it is unmerited.
But if they mean in the sense that Trent says:
In that sense, it is merited.
Or, if they mean in the sense that Jesus Christ gave sanctifying grace to the whole world when He died upon the Cross. Thus the Scripture says:
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
In that sense, it is unmerited.
But if in the sense that only those who obey Christ will receive sanctifying grace. Thus Scripture says:
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
And again:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
In that sense, it is merited.
Thanks for the questions.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Vincent said,
November 12, 2014 at 2:50 pm
DeMaria this Quote from trent demolishes your Interpretation:
we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
See habitaual or justifying grace is not merited before baptism.
De Maria said,
November 12, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Vincent,
I already answered that. See #398.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 12, 2014 at 4:51 pm
roberty bob said : you have tied yourself in knots. Let me tell you the truth.” Take it up with Paul Galatians 3: 12 ” However, THE LAW IS NOT FAITH.” You probably don’t get around to that Epistle or chapter to often because its detrimental to your semi pelagian gospel. The antithesis for Paul in justification in the book of Galatians was between hearing by faith an works. Faith and doing. Don’t conflate law and gospel. K
Tim Harris said,
November 12, 2014 at 5:34 pm
Reed invited us to make a final statement on these tangential issues and then let it go. So here is my final statement on the subject of perspicuity.
dM asked for a proof of perspicuity from Scripture. So here it is:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(and lest anyone jump in and suggest “testimony” means “tradition,” a quick google search of correlative passages will soon disabuse of that mistake)
Thus, what we have is that Scripture is sufficient both in content and clarity to settle the question whether a new doctrine, however sensible and persuasive it might seem on its own terms, should be accepted. The clarity of Scripture is prior to, and makes possible, the clarity of any subsequent doctrine or tradition. Thus, dM has it exactly backwards.
But as I pointed out when dM asked the question, the Scripture proof of perspicuity also presupposes perspicuity. For, if Scripture is dark and obscure, then the verse purporting to prove the opposite is also dark and obscure, awaiting the Magisterium to tell us what it really means, with clarity. Thus, whether you think Scripture is clear or obscure, fundamentally is not based on a verse (though taught by Is. 8:20), but on the meta-understanding of what Scripture actually is.
So here is a meta proof, based on the nature of linguistic communication and persons.
1. Language is s shared possession of a community, not something private.
2. Every honest speaker intends his utterance to be understood.
3. The greater the speaker’s competence, the greater his success at this.
4. God is a supremely honest and competent person.
5. Therefore, when he speaks, it is clear.
This does not mean I can pick up Habbakuk, or a book on Thermodynamics, and instantly and with ease understand every sentence.
But it means I can in principle — if I am smart enough, know enough about the language, am not spiritually resistant to its meaning, and so forth. At no time would the meaning be obtained or settled just because a man wearing a mitre said it meant such-and-such. Neither in the case of Habbakuk, nor Fermi.
The man wearing the mitre might bring considerations to the table that were very helpful in understanding a text; just as a Physics prof might be very helpful in understanding Fermi.
So, when papists aggressively cite Scripture to prove popish distinctives, there is something fishy going on. The form of the argument must be hypothetical, something like this:
IF (Scripture were perspicuous) THEN (verse such-and-such proves the immaculate conception or whatever)
The punchline is not this or that isolated doctrine, but popery as a system. So it’s going to be a stretch to get from a sack of isolated doctrines to popery. However, let that go. Let’s give them that. Thus, the argument seems to be
P —> Q
“if Scripture is perspicuous, then popery is true”
Otherwise, if the Scripture quotes are just a proxy for “whatever the infallible Magisterium teaches,” then the quotes prove nothing. It would be question-begging.
Of course, they don’t believe that Scripture is perspicuous, and indeed, say that this is one reason we need popery, i.e.
~P —>Q
“if Scripture is not perspicuous, then popery is true.”
Of course, this is also not very plausible unless you already “buy into” many things as beyond dispute on other grounds. If Scripture is not perspicuous, how do we know Talmudism isn’t true? But again, let it go for now.
It is a theorem of logic that
(p->q) & (~p->q) -> q
that is, if q is entailed both by something and its denial, then q is true.
Thus, the strategy for using Scripture proofs, which they don’t really think is possible to give, must be part of a larger structural argument as just outlined.
But on their terms, P being false means they have no basis for believing their exegesis of P based on linguistics. It could only be assertions learned from the perspicuous Holy Tradition or the Magisterium.
In other words, the papists’ use of Scripture is entirely ironic or even subversive, since it is naught but a subterfuge for listing doctrines derived from the Magisterium, not from Scripture.
This has been amply demonstrated in the discussion, since when the exegesis is disputed on linguistic grounds, then (and only then) the true basis for the doctrine is finally revealed.
This is why I say Popery is power religion. The truth is defined by the most powerful. The citation of Scripture is a judo argument, hoping to trip up the Christian in terms of his own foundation.
De Maria said,
November 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
No need, Tim. The verse is not about perspicuity. It is about inerrancy which the Catholic Church upholds.
Anyway, thanks for permitting to post here. Since Reed is getting ready to close the thread, I’d like to say farewell.
Blessings to all,
Sincerely,
De Maria
roberty bob said,
November 12, 2014 at 8:24 pm
There is no antithesis between believing and doing.
By faith Abraham . . . did such and such. By faith they all did . . . !
So we see that a man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
Trust and Obey.
Salt and Pepper.
All the best, you guys!
De Maria said,
November 12, 2014 at 8:30 pm
Hey, RB, visit me on my blog sometime.
Jason Loh said,
November 13, 2014 at 3:24 am
Of course, there is the antithesis between believing and doing.
We are justified APART from the works of the law …
We are justified APART from the righteousness of the law …
We are justified APART from the law …
The law is NOT of faith …
THE JUST SHALL WALK BY FAITH ALONE …
******* END OF STORY *******
Ron said,
November 15, 2014 at 6:46 pm
dM asked for a proof of perspicuity from Scripture. So here it is:
DM often tried to derive and defend dogma from Scripture.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm
Great point..
Ron said,
November 15, 2014 at 8:05 pm
The irony becomes most acute when appeals are made to the authoritative Word in all its clarity to establish the necessity of a magisterium to give us the interpretation of that very Word. As soon as a Roman Catholic reaches for his Bible he undermines Roman Catholicism.
De Maria said,
November 15, 2014 at 9:23 pm
So, is the thread closed? Or what?
If not, then,
I would say that as soon as a Protestant reaches for the Bible, he undermines the word of God because he reads into it his traditions of man.
A perfect example is the idea of the clarity of Scripture. Scripture itself says that it isn’t perfectly clear:
2 Peter 3:15-17King James Version (KJV)
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
Ron said,
November 15, 2014 at 11:16 pm
Is Scripture clear about that or did the magisterium reveal that to you? Does Scripture reveal to you which portions of Scripture need to be interpreted for you or does the Magisterium inform you when to rely solely upon her? Seems you have an epistemological problem of insurmountable proportions.
De Maria said,
November 16, 2014 at 7:59 pm
The Magisterium instructed me in two ways.
1st, the Catholic Church teaches to understand Scripture in accordance with the Tradition which is the basis of that Scripture.
2nd, the Catholic Church wrote that Scripture. 2 Peter, is a part of the New Testament. As such, it was was written by the Catholic Church. As such, it contains the first infallible written instructions of the Catholic Church.
I understand all Scripture as instructed by the Catholic Church.
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).
The key words there are “seems to me”. In reality, there is no problem for Catholics. The ones with the insurmountable problems are Protestants, since their doctrines which contradict Catholic Teaching, also contradict Scripture.
Ron said,
November 16, 2014 at 9:44 pm
Given the context of my query you’re saying that you can understand the true meaning of Scripture because it’s the church speaking. Accordingly, the magisterium can only confirm what is already knowable apart from and prior to their interpretation of a given text. So much for the necessity of her interpretation, which probably explains why the OT people of God were responsible for what they could know apart from an infallible ecclesiastical interpreter.
Ron said,
November 16, 2014 at 10:26 pm
I understand all Scripture as instructed by the Catholic
The Roman communion has not interpreted the majority of Scripture. Consequently, the only latitude you have with most verses is to interpret them in a way that does not undermine Rome. By these calculations you really can’t know what “Jesus wept” means. You can just “know” that whatever it means it cannot undermine Roman dogma. You must allow for the possibility that it means we are justied by faith plus works or that motorcycles don’t have doors. It can at most affirm dogma and at least not refute it. Your mediator, the “church,” by her design would prevent the possibility of you understanding God’s word if not for the omnipotent grace of God. Christians praise God that He continues to penetrate the darkness Rome casts with the light of the gospel.
Don said,
November 16, 2014 at 11:49 pm
De Maria 1210,
“According to a saying of the Fathers, …” which we accept because Origen was never wrong?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 17, 2014 at 9:44 am
If Origen was never wrong then he was God. and the deposit which the Apostles gave us once and for all needed amending. when Revelations says let no one add or subtract from these words, it meant except for Origen and a few of his buddies. A canon isn’t open for changing, its perfect. The scripture is infallible because it is God breathed, and when a church misinterprets it, it is the duty of every believer to locate the error. The fathers were continually worried that error and apostasy was among them. So many wrote this, because they knew that the apostles constantly had to pushback error in the church and they knew according to Paul in 2 Thessalonians the apostasy was already at work in the church. It came on time. 4th century. The rise of Roman catholicism. It is the synagogue of Satan. To the Law and to the Testimony.
roberty bob said,
November 17, 2014 at 1:46 pm
to #1215 . . . you say:
“The scripture is infallible because it is God breathed, and when a church misinterprets it, it is the duty of every believer to locate the error.”
No doubt you have done your duty in locating all of the errors of a particular church’s misinterpretation. My, oh my, have you ever done your duty!
Now, I’m wondering what will happen when you make an error in your interpretation. Every believer, I’m sure, will do their duty and locate that error. Some of them will even point out your error so that you can see clearly where you went wrong. Then, what will you do?
You haven’t done anything yet! And I think I know why not.
Don said,
November 17, 2014 at 2:33 pm
Roberty bob 1215,
Did Kevin actually say he did this? No? Then stop making up nonsense.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 17, 2014 at 2:44 pm
roberty bob, we all have error in our theology right. We all have a fallible judgment informed by the” Holy Spirit.” But you put your trust in a church, and we put ours in the Word. But a church can’t save you, only the Word.
De Maria said,
November 17, 2014 at 7:17 pm
No. I don’t know how to make it any clearer, so I’ll just copy what I said:
The Magisterium instructed me in two ways.
1st, the Catholic Church teaches to understand Scripture in accordance with the Tradition which is the basis of that Scripture.
2nd, the Catholic Church wrote that Scripture. 2 Peter, is a part of the New Testament. As such, it was was written by the Catholic Church. As such, it contains the first infallible written instructions of the Catholic Church.
I understand all Scripture as instructed by the Catholic Church.
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).
De Maria said,
November 17, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Hello Don,
I think I’ve explained before that it is the Church who sifts through the teachings of the Fathers and decides which are orthodox.
You’re talking about this one which I quoted in my answer to Ron:
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).
This is one of those sayings which the Church accepted.
De Maria said,
November 17, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Don, #1213, I never claimed that Origen was never wrong. Yet you applied that nonsense to me. How is it that you permit yourself the luxury of using hyperbole to make a point, but deny it to Roberty bob?
De Maria said,
November 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm
No. The Catholic Church teaches the infallible Theology of Jesus Christ.
No. The Catholic Church teaches the Wisdom of God.
In Jesus Christ through His Church.
You put your trust in your fallible interpretation.
But God does save us, through His Church.
Don said,
November 17, 2014 at 7:52 pm
De Maria 1219,
It’s my understanding that Origen was rather deeply sifted thru, and a lot of his (what was later judged to be) nonorthodox work was thrown out. I wouldn’t trust his exegesis of Matthew 19:12, anyways.
De Maria 1220,
What are you talking about? 1216 is not addressed to you. I am not using any hyperbole here.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 17, 2014 at 9:17 pm
DaMaria said ” I understand all scriptureas taught by the Cathokic church” And I understand all scripture as taught by the Holy Spirit 1 John 2:27. And Jesus words were clear to me , unless a man is born again he will not see the kingdom of God. Molto perspicuoso. Does that seem reasonable?
roberty bob said,
November 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm
Hi Kevin #1223 . . .
Paul says to Timothy that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15 . . . so those of us who understand all scripture as taught by the church have solid ground to stand on.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 17, 2014 at 10:16 pm
roberty rob We all listen to our teachers but 1 John 2:27 is clear, in the end we have no need for a teacher, but the Holy Spirit teaches us all things. Thats what that verse says. According to Calvin, God alone is the Lord of the conscience, not the church, and the church has no legislative power. it has only to proclaim the Law of Christ. The church and its leaders and sacraments do not function between God and His people in a mediatorial manner, because in scripture Jesus Christ alone is clearly said to be the only mediator and means of saving grace. 1 Tim. 2:5. There is no evidence anywhere in the NT that Jesus christ or his Apostles called the church into being with such a rigidly structured institutional hierarchy as purported by Catholicism. Outside of scripture the history of the early church denies that it organized itself in a manner described by the Catholic church. RC Priesthood is a contradiction of the NT. 1 Pet 2:5-9, Rom5:1-2, Eph 2:18, James 5:16, Col3:16. RC hierarchy were not godly followers and obedient servants of christ. K
roberty bob said,
November 17, 2014 at 10:19 pm
Furthermore, even the Presbyterians who monitor this blog site belong to a denomination that pledges doctrinal conformity to the Westminster Confession of Faith. So, these men are being taught by that standard how to understand and rightly interpret scripture. It has been agreed by these men that the Holy Spirit guided the Westminster Assembly into all truth; therefore, the church must adhere to it.
Kevin, you are a free-wheeler who does not need the church to tell you how to understand scripture. You — all by yourself — have the Holy Spirit to teach you. Does your doctrine conform to the Westminster Confession of Faith? If it does not, you would be found to be in error by the churches who conform to that standard. Being found in error by the Presbyterians would not trouble you much because you are a Baptist who is not beholden to Westminster. You would even testify that the Holy Spirit led you to become a Baptist and not a Presbyterian. And certainly not a Roman Catholic.
Reed Here said,
November 17, 2014 at 10:52 pm
Roberty, you don’t understand Presbyterians’s use of their standards.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 18, 2014 at 7:43 am
Roberty rob, I attend a bible church. I am Reformed. I consider guys like Reed or any Reformed Presbytyrian dear brothers in Christ. We may differ in a few things, church government, baptism, although I havent finalized my opinion on that yet. We all agree on the hinge and the WCF is the greatest confessin ever written.I listen to my Pastors but in the end I have the Holy Spirit who teahes me with and by the word.
De Maria said,
November 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Now you see why the Catholic Church sifted through the teachings of the Church Fathers.
F’rgetaboutit. ;)
De Maria said,
November 18, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Not to me.
Outside the Church, many interpret those words to mean by a proclamation of faith alone. I believe you adhere to this belief.
While within the Catholic Church, we hold to being born again of water and Spirit. Therefore, we believe we are born again in the Sacrament of Baptism.
If these words were perspicuous, everyone would get the same understanding. So, these words are not understood the same way by all and therefore are not perspicuous.
De Maria said,
November 18, 2014 at 8:40 pm
What that verse says is that those whom St. John addressed had received the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation. The verse has nothing to do with exegesis of Scripture.
Is Calvin your magistro? Your magisterium? Is he the one that interprets Scripture for you?
Here’s the difference between you and I.
The Bible clearly says that the Church is infallible:
Ephesians 3:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
But you follow a man which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. He came many centuries too late.
The institutional hierarchy is everywhere in the Bible.
Jesus Christ made many disciples and from them appointed 12 Apostles and from them selected one Leader. He then commanded that Church to make disciples of the world the way that He had made disciples. And he said that any person who did not listen to the Church should be treated as a heathen.
And the Apostles immediately began to appoint more officers to take their place.
On the contrary, a reading of the history of Christianity shows that the early Church was organized almost exactly as the Catholic Church is today.
That is wrong.
When the Apostles were picking corn on the Sabbath and the Pharisees complained, Jesus Christ compared them to the ministerial priests of the Old Testament, saying that they could work on the Sabbath and remain innocent.
The lesson being that the Apostles were His priests:
Matt 12:3-7
Don’t believe the hype. Jesus Christ said that His Church would not fall to the gates of hell. Believe Jesus and ignore those who hate His Church.
De Maria said,
November 18, 2014 at 8:42 pm
I’ve sort of noticed that they use them when its convenient and ignore them otherwise. Is that the impression you get as well?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 19, 2014 at 7:30 am
DeMaria, in all due respect, you no nothing about Calvin or Reformed. Reformed and always being reformed, not always reforming. The Reformers reformed the church to the word of Godand to keep from the errors of Roman Catholicism and their human traditions, the reformers dismantled the ecclesiastical machinery that had developed which was mostly human in content and orgin.
Reed Here said,
November 19, 2014 at 9:31 am
DeMarie, are you directing that charge of hypocrisy at me? Or just making a general accusation?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 19, 2014 at 10:11 am
DeMaria, said ” 1 John 2:27 means confirmation, and the verse has nothing to do with exegesis of scripture. This is ridiculous and your showing that you are interpreting fallibly for the church. Giving your private interpretation. Welcome to Protestantism. Does your church have an official position on this verse. I think not since they only have an official position on a small number of verses, something like 10 or so. The verse denies the need of a teacher, and is talking about the personal anointing of the Holy Spirit to yeah us all things. If this weren’t true, how could we as believers locate error in the church which we are called to do? How could we keep ourselves from idols as John instructs his little children?We aren’t to blindly trust any church. So, why do you? Look at the Bereans who were searching scripture to make sure Paul was right. Again this verse doesn’t abrogate the necessity to listen to our teachers, but it says in the end the Holy Spirit is responsible for teaching me, and it says its true and not a lie. I have no idea what you mean it has nothing to do with exegesis of scripture. If your saying that this scripture isn’t profitable for instruction, reproof, and training in righteousness, your wrong. All scripture is. You continue to pied pipe Reformed are lone ranger christians. But we are informed in the word and therefore Reformed. And may i suggest unless you take your implicit faith out of a self said perfect interpreter, and put it in the Word, you will end up short. The Pope can’t save you, only the real head of the church, Jesus Christ. God bless DeMaria. Hi ho silver!
roberty bob said,
November 19, 2014 at 2:21 pm
I don’t recall DeMaria ever saying that the pope is his savior. What I hear him saying is that he believes God’s promise, trusts in Jesus Christ as his Savior, and obeys the commandments of Christ the Lord out of a heart of love. All of this is done through the Holy Spirit’s leading, and out of respect for the ordained authorities in Christ’s church.
I recognize that as the same path of life that God has illuminated for me.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 19, 2014 at 5:07 pm
roberty bob, oh I thought a Catholic had to submit to the Pope as head to be saved? Enlighten me.
roberty bob said,
November 19, 2014 at 7:08 pm
A Catholic would acknowledge the Pope as the God-ordained appointee to the Apostolic office which is foundational for Christ’s church. The Pope is a father in the same sense that the Apostle Paul was a father to the churches that he helped to establish. Thus, the Pope would be held in high honor for his office and ministry. A Catholic would submit to the Pope out of reverence for Christ, not in order to be saved. Somewhere in the NT epistles you will come across the command to submit to those in the church who rule over you, and even to give double honor to certain ones. So, submission is not a strange idea at all.
De Maria said,
November 19, 2014 at 8:04 pm
Just agreeing with you Reed. Its impossible to know how Presbyterians use their standards.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 19, 2014 at 10:04 pm
Roberty bob, I submit to my church leaders too. Thats not what I asked you. Colossians 1 says Christ is the head of His church. The Catholic church says the pope is head. Do you submit to Chist or the pope as head. It cant be both. Who do you submit tto as head?
roberty bob said,
November 19, 2014 at 10:45 pm
The Catholic church agrees with the Apostle Paul — that Christ is the head of his church, which is his body.
Don said,
November 20, 2014 at 12:55 am
Says the Roman Catholic, lol.
Don said,
November 20, 2014 at 1:09 am
More seriously, it’s becoming clear to me that their Rome-based worldview makes it impossible for De Maria et al. to understand how the Protestant church operates–he admits as much in 1239 (although it seems like he’s trying to project and say it’s a general problem, not merely his own). That’s the only reason I can irencally imagine that e.g., he keeps trying to insist that Calvin is some sort of Magisterium.
De Maria said,
November 20, 2014 at 8:43 pm
Which one? Do you consider him to have an account of your soul?
Hebrews 13:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
And John 21:17 says that Jesus appointed Simon as Shepherd of His Church:
John 21:17King James Version (KJV)
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
The Catholic Church says that Christ appointed the Pope as shepherd of His Flock.
I submit to the Pope because He represents Christ on earth:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Does anyone on this earth represent Christ to you?
De Maria said,
November 20, 2014 at 8:52 pm
I see the Catholic Church in the Bible.
The Church remits or retains sin when the sins are confessed to a Priest (John 20:23).
,
Mary is described as “kecharitomene”, ever full of grace. Where one is full of grace, there is no sin (Luke 1:28).
Mary’s Assumption into Heaven,
Rev 12:1
indulgences,
Matt 19:21;
Purgatory,
Rev 2:10
the Treasury of Merit,
Matt 6:19
the office of pope,
Matt 16:18
praying to saints,
Matt 10:41; Luke 16:24
Every Catholic distinctive is in Scripture. But I don’t see faith alone or Scripture alone. In fact, they contradict Scripture:
Not by faith alone:
James 2:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Not by Scripture alone:
2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
De Maria said,
November 20, 2014 at 9:04 pm
The opposite is true as well, Don.
It is equally that their Reform-based worldview makes it impossible for Don et al. to understand how the Church.
If he ‘s not your magisterium, why do you and others, refer to him to explain certain doctrines and passages of Scripture? It is his world view that you accept. That’s why. Very simple.
Here’s the difference between us. Jesus Christ established a Church and said that we must obey that Church. Scripture calls the Church the Body of Christ and the Pillar of Truth and we therefore believe that we must submit to that Church and obey because we believe she speaks for Christ.
You, obviously don’t believe the Church speaks for Christ. You don’t believe the Church is infallible. Christ is obviously, infallible. Therefore, you set the Church aside.
But when you come to difficult passages and doctrines, you turn to Calvin. From my perspective, In a very real sense, he has replaced Christ for you.
Now, you’ll say, as Kevin has said, “the Church has replaced Christ for you.” But that would be false. I believe that Christ is speaking to us through His Church. This is why the Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Don said,
November 20, 2014 at 9:50 pm
De Maria 1245,
No wonder you can’t believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, if Rev. 12:1 is your proof text for Mary’s assumption, etc.
De Maria said,
November 20, 2014 at 10:26 pm
The Woman portrayed in Rev 12:1 is the Mother of the Messiah, therefore, she is Mary. And St. John saw her being crowned in heaven.
That is clear enough for me. But if it isn’t clear to you, then you have just disproved the Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture.
Jason Loh said,
November 21, 2014 at 9:55 am
De Maria,
Where in Matthew 16:18 does it say anything at all about establishing the office of the pope?
Where is the office?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 21, 2014 at 11:54 am
DeMaria said” what does represent Christ on earth for you” we are the body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The church isnt the same as Jesus in this world. He meets us in the gospel where and when He chooses. Thru the Spirit . Again, churches dont connect us to God by joining them. No church owns God. They can obet God, continue His mission, but the bible never mentions ongoing atonements. The church cant take from Him what is his uniquely finnished work. We are incarnatioonal in the sense we posses the spirit of Christ. But again He incorporated us into His body thru the spirit, not the flesh.
Don said,
November 21, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Jason Loh 1249,
I think the point in De Maria denying the perspicuity of Scripture is that the Pope tells him that Matthew 16:18 establishes the office of Pope. Kind of convenient. But you can’t argue that it’s not self-consistent.
roberty bob said,
November 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm
While the Protestant understands the ROCK in Matthew 16:18 as the true confession of Peter [along the rest of the Twelve] upon which He will build His church, the Catholic tradition maintains that Jesus is singling out Peter, whose very name means rock, as that ROCK upon which He will build his church. This text along with the John 21 text of the restored Peter being personally commissioned to feed Christ’s sheep serve as powerful proofs that Peter was appointed by Christ himself to be the chief shepherd of his church. The Acts of the Apostles opens with Peter ministering as the church’s foremost leader; this substantiates the claim of Peter’s primacy.
In the City of Rome is the historical marker at the place where both Peter and Paul were imprisoned for the sake of the gospel. It is the belief of the Romans that Peter was the bishop of the Church of Rome for a time. Succeeding bishops were always held in high esteem by virtue of their link to the Apostle Peter. In the early centuries of the NT when the church assembled in Council to seek God’s will, it was essential for the Roman bishop to take part in the Council’s business. It was just a matter of time before the relationship was formalized by the Spirit’s leading so that the Bishop of Rome received the official appointment to be the Principal Bishop — or Primate — of the entire church, by Catholic Church Council decision.
So, there was a time when the Catholic church was saying that it seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit to appoint the Bishop of Rome as the most holy father [or pope] of the entire church. As much as Protestants want to deny the biblical basis for the office of a pope, they cannot deny that the church early on claimed biblical justification for the decision. The reasons make no sense to Protestants, but the reasons are there nonetheless.
roberty bob said,
November 21, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Furthermore . . .
The same Church, assembled in Council, led by the Holy Spirit, decided which scriptures were to be treasured as holy, and incorporated into the Canon that we call the Holy Bible.
God did not reveal this to isolated individual Christian believers, but to the unified Catholic church. The church had to discern what was, and what was not, the Holy Bible.
Don said,
November 21, 2014 at 2:55 pm
roberty bob 1252,
As you know, James ran the council in Acts 15, making it difficult to claim that Peter’s “primacy” was permanent let alone inheritable. We understand that Roman Catholics believe that Peter was a bishop of Rome; if your evidence for this is a “historical marker” then it had better have been placed earlier than, let’s say, 150 AD if you expect this to be taken seriously. We completely understand the political forces leading the Roman bishop to declare himself leader of the church. Do not confuse “The reasons make no sense to Protestants” to “Protestants do not accept this narrative.”
Kevin Failoni said,
November 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Lets see, Peter calls himself a fellow elder. The Papacy is an invention of man.
Eric W said,
November 21, 2014 at 4:13 pm
robertybob (re:1253),
You wrote: As much as Protestants want to deny the biblical basis for the office of a pope, they cannot deny that the church early on claimed biblical justification for the decision…
,,,,decided which scriptures….
Response:
Protestants can’t affirm or deny because what you wrote is nonsense. You have an early decision based on “biblical justification” BEFORE they “decided” which scriptures.
Jason Loh said,
November 21, 2014 at 9:39 pm
Roberty Rob,
There is no doubt that Peter was singled out by Jesus amongst the apostles. But it is a quite a leap from apostle to being the first pope.
1. For Peter to be (the first) pope, there needs to be a separate apostolic office above the rest of the apostles. Evidence: None.
Primacy of apostleship and primacy of jurisdiction are two different things.
2. Matthew 16:18 is about the gospel as embodied in Peter’s confession. The form of transmission is the Church. The Church transmits, passes on the gospel. Hence, the passage is talking about evangelical authority.
But papal authority is about legal authority & legal infallibility — juridical power to bind consciences with infallible pronouncements on matters of dogma. Two different things.
3. One is pre-resurrection; the other is post-resurrection/ post-Pentecostal. One is the foundation; the other is that which is built on the foundation.
Can there be more than one foundation of the Church?
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 12:35 am
Do you want to see the words “Pope” and “office”?
If so, then I’ll show you the words, Pope and office when you show me “sola Scriptura” and “sola fide”.
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 12:37 am
No. I asked, “Does anyone on this earth represent Christ to you?” Big difference. Now, will you answer the question?
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 12:39 am
And Calvin tells you to believe his gospel. Kind of self convenient.
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 12:44 am
Because Jerusalem was his jurisdiction. And the council was held in Jerusalem. But it was Peter whom they listened to and obeyed.
Even today, the bishop of a diocese presides over his diocese. But the Pope is still the first amongst equals.
I don’t confuse it. I understand that Protestants are simply do not accept the narrative. They simply reject anything they don’t want to believe, no matter how much evidence is presented to support it.
And they accept anything they want to believe. No matter how much evidence is presented to disprove it. Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are prime examples of this.
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 12:46 am
The Pope is a fellow elder. He is the Bishop of Rome. And the Papacy was established by Jesus Christ.
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 12:49 am
The term “biblical justification” means that the Bible (NT) confirms what was already established.
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 1:16 am
On the contrary, Jesus Christ appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. This is precisely the office of the Pope:
John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
On the contrary, in the person of the Pope, they are one and the same. Jesus Christ singled out one man to be over the entire Church. That was Peter. Where Peter is, there is the Papacy.
On the contrary, by centering on the confession, you center upon the man who uttered the confession. St. Peter is not the first man to utter this confession in the New Testament.
Nathaniel does it the very first time he sees Jesus:
John 1:47-49
King James Version (KJV)
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Yet Jesus does not give Nathaniel any keys.
Another man also does it, Thomas:
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
So, the simple confession is not enough. The confession was uttered by a particular man and that man is the subject and object of the Master’s lesson.
And its not as though Jesus Christ only did this once. What I mean is that, this is not the only time Jesus singled out St. Peter and made it clear that He considered St. Peter the Leader of the Apostles and of His Church.
Luke 22:30-32
King James Version (KJV)
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
If Jesus had only done it once, it could be dismissed as coincidence. But Jesus reiterated the fact that He considered St. Peter the Leader of His Church, several times. Here’s another:
Matthew 17:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
For me and thee. Why “for me and for thee”? Because Jesus Christ confirms that St. Peter is His representative upon earth.
The form of transmission of what? Are you still talking about Matt 16:18?
And the Pope is given authority over said Church, by Jesus Christ.
The Church certainly transmits the Gospel. And infallibly. And Matt 16:18 is part of that Gospel and the Church says that verse establishes the Papacy. Whereas, there is nothing in that verse about transmission of anything.
You haven’t figured out the significance of the name, Peter, have you?
Jesus gave Simon the name, Peter, because He wanted all to know that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will.
There is a precedent for this in Scripture:
Exodus 7:1
King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Exodus 18:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Exodus 19:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.
God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. God covered Moses with the Cloud, Jesus gave Simon His own name, Rock, along with the keys to the Kingdom (Matt 16:18-19) and appointed him Shepherd over the Church (John 21:15-17).
Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. And in order to bring this point home, Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.
This is to signify the type of authority which Jesus has given to Simon. He has the authority to bind and loose in the God’s name.
What are you talking about now? Please provide the verse and walk me through your thought process. There is nothing in Matt 16:18 which says this holds only in the pre-resurrection of Christ.
Can there be more than one foundation of the Church?
There is one foundation, Jesus Christ. But the Holy Spirit inspired these words:
Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
So, Jesus Christ, the cornerstone, Himself appointed St. Peter the leader of the Apostles and the Apostles as the foundation of the Church.
Scripture is clear to me that Jesus Christ appointed St. Peter the Leader of the Church and the Apostles as officers over the Church. Essentially, the Scriptures depict the Church as Christ’s corporation. He appointed St. Peter as His executive officer and a board of Apostles to guide the Church, an ongoing concern to the end of the age.
But perhaps Scripture isn’t clear to you.
Don said,
November 22, 2014 at 1:21 am
De Maria 1258, 1260, 1261, and I think 1263,
All you are doing is providing evidence for what I said in 1243: You are severely, severely confused about Reformed Protestantism.
Eric W said,
November 22, 2014 at 5:41 am
De Maria (re:1263),
You wrote:
The term “biblical justification” means that the Bible (NT) confirms what was already established.
Roberty bob was focusing on the “same church”. Somehow, and this is why I regard it as nonsense, members of the earlier church went to the Bible to justify its claim. This Bible was the undecided Bible. Deciding which books can be called the Bible belonged to the church of later times. An Undecided Bible in earlier times can’t provide the conditions for biblical justification.
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 8:33 am
I think you are overcomplicating the situation and what Roberty bob said.
1. Roberty bob was focusing on the “same church”.
It is the same Church. The Catholic Church today is the Church which Jesus Christ established, the same Church which wrote the NT and the same Church which put the Bible together.
2. Somehow, and this is why I regard it as nonsense, members of the earlier church went to the Bible to justify its claim.
He said, “the same Church assembled in council” to put the Bible together. That was centuries later. He didn’t mean right then.
3. This Bible was the undecided Bible.
In fact, there was no concept of one book containing the entire Scriptures. The OT Scriptures was a collection of books.
And the NT books were being written.
However, we can see from Scripture that the Church was already using reading the writings of the Apostles as Scripture.
4. Deciding which books can be called the Bible belonged to the church of later times.
That is correct.
5. An Undecided Bible in earlier times can’t provide the conditions for biblical justification.
as I read Roberty’s statement from a Catholic perspective:
a. Roberty meant that the Bible as it was approved by the Church centuries later, contains the confirmation of the existence of the authoritative Church in the Apostolic age within its pages.
b. Roberty may have also meant that in those Apostolic days, the writings which would be inserted in the Bible later, would already contain the record of the activity of the Church.
c. Which, if you think about it, a and b say the same thing but have a different perspective in time.
What you call the “undecided Bible” may have contained other books which were not written by the Apostles, but even those books which were not included in the Bible contain much information which supports the authority of the Church.
And finally, after the Apostolic age but before the Bible was put together, the Early Church was using the NT Scriptures authoritatively to confirm that which was being passed down in Sacred Tradition. That is the three legged stool of the Catholic Church. Its still standing because it still works.
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 8:38 am
I’m just giving my perspective, Don. I’ve explained why we believe that Christ speaks through His Church and I’ve provided the Scripture which supports our belief.
But I don’t see in Scripture, why you would discard the Church and rely upon Calvin. I simply don’t.
roberty bob said,
November 22, 2014 at 11:48 am
The point that I intended to get across is that the Catholic church, from the earliest days, always held the Bishop of Rome in the highest esteem because they regarded this ministerial office as being in the line of the Apostle Peter for the very biblical reasons specified by DeMaria.
Of course the Protestants reject the Catholic church’s original decision to honor the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor — they were protesting against all manner of things — but their protest cannot negate the fact that the Catholic church early on believed that Christ appointed Peter to be the chief shepherd of His church, and that a line of succession would ensure that the church would remain in good hands. Therefore, the church’s decision was not without biblical grounds; the church was in agreement on what those grounds were.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 22, 2014 at 12:04 pm
roberty bob said ” the point that I intended to get across is that the Catholic church, from the earliest days, always gel the Bishop of Rome in highest esteem…..” This is propaganda fed to you by the Roman Catholic church. In the early church their was a collegiality of Bishops, on a few occasions other Bishops having to straighten the Bishop of Rome out. See Tim Kauffman’s The Rise of Roman Catholicism. And may I also suggest a site called “one fold blog” Evidence against the real presence in the Early Fathers. What is clear is the early church didn’t believe in transubstantiation, not even close, nor did they believe in a sacrifice of the bread for sins. The flesh that died for our sins was not yet glorified and it was on the cross, once. It wasn’t the bread of the memorial of His passion as Christ in His glorified state. Roman Catholicism has put men like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Justin Martyr under the rug because of their symbolic belief of the supper. One thing Christians know for sure, the rise of Roman Catholicism in the 4th century came on time 2 Thess 2, and brought with it forbidding marriage, abstaining from foods, veneration of relics, elevation of Mary, and a mistranslation of justification. What is clear is idolators and those who seek their favor before God thru love or obedience, their justification, will not enter the Kingdom of God. Such is Roman Catholicism.
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Wrong Kevin.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).
The word Transubstantiation was not yet coined, but as you can see, the Early Church believed in it from the beginning.
I have already posted the Scriptures for all the Catholic Doctrines throughout this thread. But all you do is ignore them and continue saying the same thing without producing one shred of evidence from Scripture for your personal beliefs. Indeed, you can’t. Every belief that you hold against the Catholic Church, also contradicts the Scriptures.
roberty bob said,
November 22, 2014 at 4:17 pm
to Kevin #1270 . . . You say . . . “What is clear is idolaters and those who seek their favor before God through love and obedience, their justification, will not enter the kingdom of God.”
…………..
Are you saying that someone like me who loves the Lord and obeys his commandments will not enter the kingdom of God?
Or, are you saying that if I love God and obey him in order to get into His good graces, then I am operating in the domain of establishing my own righteousness? If I approach God this way, then I’ll be damned.
Or, are you saying that love and obedience are disconnected from faith, so that when I seek God’s favor I must come before Him with my faith alone? My love for the Lord and my obedience to His commandments are obstacles to my justification. However, after I am justified by faith alone, then I am free to follow through with loving and obeying God.
……………
The Holy Scriptures enjoin us time and again to love the Lord and obey His commands. I cannot imagine those who love and obey being shut out of the kingdom of God!
Kevin Failoni said,
November 22, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Robertry bob said ” the scriptures enjoin us time and time again to love and obey his commands” I agree, but not to be justified before God. That comes simply comes thru believing the promise, trusting in Christ’s righteousness alone for our salvtion. Justification is always pass tense for the believer. Dikaiou can never mean the state of affairs inside you at the end of your life. ” being found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but a righteouness that comes thru faith in Christ, the righteouness that comes from God that depends on faith.”
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 8:43 pm
Romans 2:13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Galatians 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
But not by faith alone.
1 Corinthians 13:2 …. and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
roberty bob said,
November 22, 2014 at 8:50 pm
I’m curious, Kevin . . .
If I should preach a sermon on God’s love revealed in Christ, and call on the congregation to respond in love to that greatest of all loves, will those who are moved in their hearts to love the Lord be saved? Will such a response be sufficient for their justification? Or, would I, in my preaching, be in the wrong for calling the congregation to love instead of calling them to faith?
De Maria said,
November 22, 2014 at 8:53 pm
Kevin,
Here’s a hint from Scripture:
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Don said,
November 23, 2014 at 12:53 am
De Maria 1268,
Once again, you are demonstrating that you do not, or will not, understand Protestantism. No one is “rely[ing] upon Calvin.” If that is what you really think Protestants are doing, and if you are not simply being obdurate, then it is apparently because your Roman Catholic worldview makes it impossible for you to imagine that human mediators might be unnecessary (yes, that’s a reference to I Timothy 2:5).
De Maria said,
November 23, 2014 at 4:36 am
Who brought up Calvin? I know I didn’t. The person who brought him up was using him as some sort of authority for his argument.
But feel free to demonstrate how Calvin is not your authority.
Whether they are unnecessary or not is besides the point. Scripture says the Church mediates between God and man:
1 Thessalonians 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2 Corinthians 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Romans 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;
1 Timothy 2:5King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
It is because Christ mediates that we also mediate. Have you not heard that we are the body of Christ?
Have you not heard that Christ is our example?
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Is that Scripture not clear to you? Christ mediates, therefore follow His example and mediate as He does.
Vincent said,
November 23, 2014 at 5:01 am
DeMaria is Christ the only mediator to man? Or are Saints and Mary also?
De Maria said,
November 23, 2014 at 8:07 am
We all are:
1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Christ is mediator by nature. We are mediators by His Grace:
James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 23, 2014 at 11:09 am
Robert bob , I Section 6 of Trent, there are 9 canons that specificaaly condemn the gospel with frases like ” to the one who works well to the end” as a reward to their merits and good works,” who truly merit eternal life” converted to their own justification” ” if anyone says that one is justified by confidence in divine mercy let him be anathema” if someonesays that nothing else is required …… let him be anathema. So tell your congregation to love, but that God is just and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus. Rom. 3:26. Tell them not to trust in their love or obedience for their justification, but in the perfect righteouness of Christ, and then send them out to love the world. Calvin told Cardinal Saldoletto it is allot easier to love your neighbor when you know your not obligate to.
De Maria said,
November 23, 2014 at 11:30 am
Kevin, we aren’t the ones who proclaim to have saved ourselves by our faith alone. It is you and the Protestants who do that.
We leave judgment of our salvation to Christ.
1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
roberty bob said,
November 23, 2014 at 4:55 pm
Hi Kevin . . .
I didn’t say a word about anyone trusting in their own love or in their own obedience in order to be justified. I did ask whether those who hear the gospel of God’s great love manifested in Christ, and who respond by loving the Lord and obeying His commandments, will be saved? And if saved, justified.
What I think I hear you saying is that everyone is under obligation to have faith in Christ’s perfect righteousness, but that no one [as Calvin apparently said to Saldoletto] is under obligation to love. Therefore, love and obedience are inadequate [faulty?] responses to the gospel since no one can be justified before God by loving Him and obeying Him. Faith alone justifies.
De Maria said,
November 23, 2014 at 6:10 pm
Which goes smack dab against Scripture! Or is Scripture not clear when it says?
1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
Romans 13:8
Love Fulfills the Law
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
1 John 4:8
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
theoldadam said,
November 23, 2014 at 8:35 pm
De Maria has placed his trust in his church and in himself. Instead of where it belongs…the finished work of Christ on the Cross.
But, that is what religionists do.
De Maria said,
November 23, 2014 at 8:39 pm
On the contrary, TOA, I’m not the one who has claimed to save himself by his faith alone. That is what Protestants do.
I have placed my complete trust in Christ through His Church.
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
roberty bob said,
November 23, 2014 at 8:56 pm
to #1285 . . .
I’ve been reading [listening to] DeMaria over these many postings. You seem troubled by the fact that DeMaria, like any true disciple of Jesus, loves God and obeys the commandments . . . thereby demonstrating his faith by what he does. Yet, you conclude that DeMaria loves and obeys only to make himself look good in God’s eyes, so these things can in no way be shown as evidence that he believes in — or places his trust in — the Lord Jesus. You really do regard him as a self-righteous unbeliever.
This is an astonishing judgment to make!
Kevin Failoni said,
November 23, 2014 at 9:22 pm
Roberty bob, we are troubled by anyone who seeks the favor of God thru their love or their works specifically because we love you. Paul is clear if it is by works its no longer by grace. If a Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by faith oalone, Romans 4:16.And tell DeMaria although we will all satand before God, John 5:24 tells us we have passed out of judgment and death into life. Its past tense. You Catholics have trouble with tenses and putting justification after sancification. The dog wagging the tail. Adoption comes in the beggining of a relationship. You dont adopt a kid after he lives his life and is ready to die. Remember my rule, read Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth.
roberty bob said,
November 23, 2014 at 9:49 pm
Kevin, will you explain to me what the Apostle Paul means in Romans 2:7, where he says, “To those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, God will give eternal life.”
You are troubled by anyone who seeks the favor of God through their love or their works, yet here the Apostle Paul encourages everyone to persevere in doing good as we seek to attain glory, honor, immortality. Is the Apostle Paul having trouble with his tenses here? Has he put the tail in front of the dog, or the cart before the horse?
De Maria said,
November 23, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Then you are troubled by Scripture:
1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
This is very clear. If you do not love your neighbor, you do not KNOW God.
Here’s another:
1 John 3:10 …. whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
If a man does not love his brother, he is not of God. Nor is a man who does not do right.
1 John 3:10 …. whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, ….
A man who does not do good is not of God.
It is from love that I also admonish you. Listen to the Word of God.
St. Paul is clear that faith without love is useless. St. Paul is also clear that if one does not do good, throughout his life, he will not see the Kingdom of heaven:
Romans 2:7-13King James Version (KJV)
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Romans 4:16King James Version (KJV)
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
This is a Sacramental Teaching. It is in the Sacraments that we stand by faith and receive the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in the washing of regeneration of the Holy Spirit. It is here that we stand, as sons of Abraham, God sees our faith and credits us with righteousness and then gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Divide rightly the Word of God!
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
You should not parse out that with which you disagree and pretend that it is not binding upon you. God will judge. He that believes the Son will do good. He that does not, will not.
Our faith is not judged by our claims of faith but by our works of love.
On the contrary,
Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Do you not understand that if you believe in Christ, you will not die but enter into life?
John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
But who do you think that you are? I remember what Scripture says:
Romans 14:10 …. for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Who are you to reject the Word of God? I choose to believe the Scriptures rather than you.
Don said,
November 24, 2014 at 12:10 am
De Maria 1278,
I’m _quoting_ your words in 1268.
Show me where we are to follow Christ’s example in His role as mediator. Not be His ambassador, not teach His Word, be a mediator.
1282,
Seriously, stop trying to talk about what Protestants believe. You are nowhere close to getting it correct.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 24, 2014 at 12:35 am
There is NOW no condemnation for thos7e in Christ Romans 8:1. That isnt a statement about sanctification, it is a judgment. And it says nowcwe arent condemn. Find a different way to read your works verses. Here is a hint. They are descriptive of a beliver not perscriptive. There is now no condemnation for God’elect. ” Who can bring a charge against God’s elect, can you DeMaria, or Roberty bob. I think not. who are you to reject the word of God. I choose to belive the script9urerather than you.You tell me every scripture means sacraments. You had no answer for Romans 4:16 or Ephesians 2:8 which eliminate works as being meritorious in salvation, and you say sacraments. Who is following scripture.The book of John and the book of Romans , 2 of the books that talk most about the gospel and faith make no mention of the Lord’s supper, and you say sacraments. There are only 4 verses in all the epistles on the Lord’s supper and you say sacraments. The philippians jailer asked Paul how to be saved and Paul says believe on the Lord and you will be saved, and you say sacraments. Learn the word of God, and dont rebuke me. I rebuke you.Old Adam said it corectly to you, you trust in your church and yourself instead of the finished work of Christ.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 24, 2014 at 12:58 am
DeMaria, We get it, you are trusting the sacraments of the new law to accumulate enough righteousness to get into Purgatory. But the gospel is we can never be good enough. He was good. And you can’t hold a good man down. He was delivered over for our transgressions and raised for our justification. He did it all DeMaria. The Medieval church missed this. They thought He came to help them accumulate the righteousness necessary for salvation. What they missed was the law required perfection, and that He was born under the law to redeem those under the law, and fulfilled the law in our place. One word in Greek Tetelestai. It is finished! ” Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all who BELIEVE. Incidentally, you and Roberty rob need a hermeneutic fleas on Romans 2. Maybe they can do a thing on Romans 2 here. Because Rome has it way wrong. K
De Maria said,
November 24, 2014 at 6:53 am
Ok. This is the definition of mediator in the online dictionary:
Note the words that I bolded in the synonyms.
Here is what Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Again, note the bolded words. Christ is mediator between God and man because He prays for us to the Father, correct?
Here, St. Paul prays for us instead of Christ. In other words, he is performing the role of Christ. He is standing between us and the Father. He is mediating.
An even more shocking revelation is this:
as though God did beseech you by us
He is also performing the role of God to us. He is speaking for God to us. He is mediating in both directions.
You might say, “well, that’s Paul, but how about us?” Well, St. Paul said,
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
In other words, “Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ.”
That’s plain enough for me, Don. Tell me why it isn’t plain enough for you.
I’ve got it right on the button, Don. Protestants proclaim to save themselves by their faith alone. God doesn’t make that proclamation. Protestants say that about themselves.
Here’s the difference, Don. Protestants claim they are saved like Abraham. God saw his faith and credits him righteousness. Read that again. God sees his faith and credits him righteousness.
But God is out of the picture with Protestants. They claim faith and credit themselves righteousness. Abraham didn’t do that. Abraham didn’t say, “I’m saved by my faith alone! You’re not saved! And you’re not saved! But I’m saved!”
Uh, uh.
Abraham simply obeyed God because of his mighty faith. And Scripture says:
Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
De Maria said,
November 24, 2014 at 6:59 am
You always stop at v. 1. What about the rest of Romans 8:
Romans 8 King James Version (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
You shouldn’t discard the parts of the Word of God with which you disagree.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 24, 2014 at 11:07 am
DeMaria, I only stop at verse one to show you that justification happens when we believe ” NOW no condemnation” This destroys you and your false religion’s notion that justification is a final test based on your accumulated righteousness thru your work in sacraments. Christians stan presently righteous, it has to be imputation Romans 5:19, 2 for. 5:21, because no of us are ever internally righteous in this life. DeMaria watch, the is NOW no condemnation. Alternative interpretation, there is NOW justification for those in Christ 5:1. The rest is descriptive of a Christian. who walk by the Spirit, obey his commandments. Works in the NT serve as reasonable service of worship, never the meritorious cause of salvation. But you, robbery bob, and the medieval church never got the message. Thats on you, and you will pay a heavy price for trying to save yourself by God’s help, your soul. You are under the delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Those who know this are those in John 1:12 who are born of God, and those who don’t know this are those born of the will of the flesh and of man. Blessings.
De Maria said,
November 24, 2014 at 11:27 am
Kevin, by stopping at verse 1, you falsify the Bible. Verse 1 needs to be understood in context of all the rest of those verses. And if you understand the lesson of Rom 8, you see that St. Paul is saying that there is no condemnation FOR THOSE WHO WALK RIGHTEOUSLY and keep the Law of God. Because those who walk by the flesh are lawless:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Keep the Law, Kevin. That is the lesson of Rom 8. Keep the Law and you will be saved. Those who keep the Law of God belong to God and please God. Those who don’t, please their own flesh and are enemies of God. They are lawless. They are outlaws. They are enemies of God’s law and thus enemies of God.
roberty bob said,
November 24, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Those who are “in Christ Jesus” are not condemned because they have been set free from the Law of Sin and Death by the Law of the Spirit of Life.
Having been freed in this manner, those who are “in Christ Jesus” live in accordance with that Life-giving Spirit by submitting to God’s Law. The mind of the sinful man who follows the impulses of his flesh does not submit to God’s Law — he has not been set free to do so; thus, he is unable [lacking the power] to do so. Those who are “in Christ Jesus” have the capacity now [by the Spirit] to please God as they put to death the misdeeds of the flesh. All of those who are so led by the Spirit to live in submission to God’s Law are [shown by their obedience to be] the sons of God.
God is pleased, says Paul, when we submit to God’s Law. Those who live by faith will aim to do just that.
Don said,
November 24, 2014 at 4:25 pm
In 1295 De Maria is telling Kevin to not ignore context. While in 1294 he is referring to the dictionary to determine what king of mediator Christ is. Rather than I Timothy 2:6. Christ is not our mediator because He prays for us; He is our mediator because He died for us.
Of course we are all ambassadors, we are all royal priests, if you want to think about it that way. But there is only One who gave Himself for our ransom, and we do not place our reliance on anyone else.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 24, 2014 at 4:40 pm
DeMaria, roberty bob, Romans 10:4 ” Christ is the END of the law FOR righteousness to all who believe. He is the end of the law because He fulfilled the law. We are bad, the scripture says real bad. ” The heart of a man is evil and desperately wicked” He was good, perfect. And its hard to keep a good man down. He paid for our sins and provided us with the righteousness to enter heaven. Jesus is not a gentler Moses with an easier law and a NT sacrificial system. For if you confess with your mouth Jesus christ as aLord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead you WILL be saved, For with the heart a man believes RESULTING in righteousness, and with hi s moth confesses RESULTING in salvation. Do you guys get it the RESULT of believing is guaranteed pay dirt. Saved people want to keep his commandments. But our salvation depends on Him, not on us. You guys are lost in a false Christianity, trusting a church and your imperfect righteousness to get you to Purgatory. Catholics is a replay of OT Judaism. K
De Maria said,
November 24, 2014 at 10:07 pm
It is both, Don.
Romans 8:34King James Version (KJV)
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
For Christ. Therefore, we mediate between man and Christ.
And what are priests if not mediators between man and God.
Yeah. Think about it that way. It is the Biblical Truth.
And we are all members of His Body. And we are all alive in Him. Or do you dispute that?
Actually, you do, but you won’t admit it.
You place your reliance on Calvin. You accept his doctrines. You place your reliance on Luther. You accept his reforms. You place your reliance upon the people who wrote the WCF. You place your reliance upon many human beings who came before you whose doctrines you accept and who reject the Church which Jesus Christ established upon this earth.
But we, Catholics, obey Scripture. We put reliance upon those men whom Christ set up as our Rulers in the Church:
God covered Moses with the cloud in order that the people would have faith in him.
Jesus covered Peter, James and John, the foundation of the Church, in a cloud and a voice spoke to them from heaven, in order that the people would have faith in them.
These are the men whom Jesus prayed for when He said:
Therefore, Scripture is telling you to have faith in the Church, but you refuse to believe the Scripture:
Even though the Word of God tells you in no uncertain terms, to believe and submit to the men whom God has placed over you:
De Maria said,
November 24, 2014 at 10:23 pm
Kevin, Romans 10 describes the Catholic Church. Read it with understanding. You are reading it with the presuppositions instilled in you by the followers of Calvin. Listen.
Romans 10
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
That compares the OT to the Sacraments of the NT. Christ is the end of the Law because it is in the Sacraments that we are saved, if we believe in Christ.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
This tells you that the Law of Moses is still efficacious, for those who obey God.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
These two verses destroy the false doctrine of presumption of salvation.
Here in 6, St. Paul says not to judge yourself or anyone saved. For, in so doing, you are putting Christ down. You are usurping His Role as Judge of Mankind.
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Here, in 7, St. Paul tells you not to condemn any man to hell. For in so doing, you are usurping God’s Role. You are exalting yourself as though you have the power of life and death.
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
This is describing what we do in the Sacraments. We profess our faith in Christ and God pours into our hearts the grace of the Holy Spirit.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek because those who hear the voice of God and believe will obey and do His works:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
That doesn’t say, “pick up the Bible and read for yourself”. That doesn’t say, “pass out bibles and figure it out for yourself.”
That provides the Catholic Teaching which says that we learn our faith from our Priests. They are the ones who preach to us the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Faith comes from hearing. Not from reading the Bible. From hearing the Church which is the infallible Teaching of the Wisdom of God:
Ephesians 3:10King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Don said,
November 24, 2014 at 11:43 pm
De Maria 1301,
And you are bearing false witness.
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 12:40 am
Don,
Do you reject Calvin and Luther and their doctrines? Do you reject the WCF?
If you don’t and if you accept them, how am I bearing false witness?
Don said,
November 25, 2014 at 1:09 am
De Maria 1304,
Now you’re equivocating on “reliance.”
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 11:35 am
Don 1305,
And you’re not answering the questions.
Do you reject Calvin and Luther and their doctrines? Do you reject the WCF?
If you don’t and if you accept them and rely upon them, how am I bearing false witness?
Answer the questions, Don. Because all you’re doing is playing word games. If you accept and profess Calvin and Luther’s doctrines, then you rely upon them, lean upon them and depend upon them and thus show your faith in Calvin and Luther.
Are you going to find another hair to split? Or are you going to address the questions?
re·li·ance
rəˈlīəns/
noun
dependence on or trust in someone or something.
“the farmer’s reliance on pesticides”
faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
“this restores one’s faith in politicians”
Don said,
November 25, 2014 at 12:35 pm
De Maria 1306,
“Depend upon” vs. “reject” is a false dichotomy. No, I am not going to answer your loaded questions. Good luck trusting your denomination.
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 1:07 pm
How about “accept” vs “reject”? I said:
Why don’t you answer that part of the question?
If you don’t and if you accept them and rely upon them, how am I bearing false witness?
Do you accept the teachings of Calvin or not? Do you accept the teachings of the WCF of not?
Where is the question loaded? Do you not believe the WCF? If you do, is faith, believing? or not?
Do you believe Calvin and Luther or not? Is faith, believing?
I don’t need luck. I know that God speaks through the Catholic Church. I know that the Church prays for me in Christ’s stead:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Who speaks to you “as though God did beseech you”? Who prays for you ” in Christ’s stead”? Calvin? Luther? Who?
Do you even believe these verses?
Reed Here said,
November 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm
DeMarie: indeed you are equivocating.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 25, 2014 at 3:16 pm
DeMaria said ” I know God speaks thru the Catholic church” Through your fallible informed judgment based on the ” Holy Spirit” Welcome to Protestantism. Only we put our faith in the Word and you put your faith in a church and a man. They can’t save you. Only the Word. But if you come to the Word for salvation, you’ll have to come in faith alone according to Romans 4:16, Ephesians 2:8. And if you try to bring your obedience resume, you will find what the Rich young ruler found. With man it is impossible, only with God its possible. You’ll have to come solely on the righteousness of Christ. Your convoluted system of love based on works righteousness based n merits and demerits will find the same end as this in Romans 9:32- 10:4. K
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Explain how.
Don said,
November 25, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Reed Here 1309,
I may be too harsh here. Perhaps De Maria has bought into the Magisterium concept so fully that he can’t even conceive of the idea, that one can learn from a source of spiritual instruction without putting one’s faith in that source of instruction. Maybe the idea that there are variations in what it means to rely upon someone in spiritual matters, has never occurred to him; that someone can teach you without being an infallible authority to whom you must trust your soul. Kind of sad if that’s so.
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 3:43 pm
I’m giving you straight up Catholic Doctrine from the Scripture.
1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23
It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24
Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.25
1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church: (1481, 234)
God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and the resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins;
through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.48
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Don’t worry about being harsh. Just show me from Scripture.
I have bought into the Scripture. Why don’t you answer my questions?
I know that God speaks through the Catholic Church. I know that the Church prays for me in Christ’s stead:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Who speaks to you “as though God did beseech you”? Who prays for you ” in Christ’s stead”? Calvin? Luther? Who?
Do you even believe these verses?
Please answer these questions.
Really? You can believe something without believing that it is true? That’s what you’re saying. Or how do you define “faith”?
variations in what it means to rely upon someone in spiritual matters
So, you’re saying that you don’t really believe what Calvin, Luther or the WCF is teaching is completely true?
You only rely upon them partially? But doesn’t that mean that you have a sort of partial faith in them.
I think its sad that you said what you said. You claim to believe Scripture. But you are contradicting Scripture directly:
Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
But maybe that isn’t perspicuous. How do you read it?
Don said,
November 25, 2014 at 4:13 pm
De Maria 1314,
Once again, you show you have no understanding of what you are talking about, of how Protestants use their confessions. I have no faith in Calvin or Luther, regardless that their teachings are very valuable. I have faith in Christ.
Read WCF chapter 31, section 4, and get back to me once you understand what it says.
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 4:35 pm
That’s good. A breakthrough. We finally have an answer to some of the questions.
So, you have no faith in Calvin or Luther. But you believe their teachings are “very valuable”?
And you don’t see the contradiction in those two statements?
Since you believe their teachings are “very valuable”? Do you place any “reliance” upon these teachings?
So, do I.
Hm? So, you want me to study a document in which you have no faith? Or, why did you present it, again? (Remember you presented the WCF proof texts and then refused to show me their pertinence to the question).
Oh, wait, you haven’t answered that question. Do you believe the WCF is teaching the truth? Do you have faith in this document? Do you place any reliance upon this document?
Or why are you asking me to study it? In order to show me something in which you don’t believe or place any reliance?
Pick any question that you don’t feel is loaded and answer it.
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Don,
I’m rather more interested in Chapter 30 of the WCF:
CHAPTER 30
Of Church Censures
1. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.
3. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.
4. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.
Don said,
November 25, 2014 at 5:08 pm
De Maria 1316,
Your seeing everything thru the framework of a Magisterium is your problem, not mine.
You are the one who chose to criticize my providing you with Scriptural support for the various Protestant doctrines you randomly named rather than interact with those Scriptures. These were suggested in response to a tangential question that you asked.
1317,
That’s nice. But let’s try to stay on topic, OK? Since you can find the WCF, I suppose you will be able to find 31.4.
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Its a Biblical framework.
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Christ, the Master, speaks to us through the Church. That is why the Catholic Church is called “Magisterium”, the Latin word for “Master”.
You did not even attempt to prove that the so called “proof texts” were legitimate.
This is precisely the same topic, Don. Don’t you see? Let’s take the first sentence of Ch. 30:
CHAPTER 30
Of Church Censures
1. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
This is Catholic Teaching. The difference being that we believe that Jesus Christ speaks to us through this government which He appointed.
Therefore, we place our faith in that government.
But you don’t place any faith in this government which Jesus Christ appointed. Why?
How does that make any sense? How do you claim to have faith in Jesus Christ but reject His government?
Do you see where this is the same topic?
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 5:22 pm
Oh, Don, and you see the word, “magistrate”. The WCF distinguishes between the Civil Magistrate and the Church “Magistrate” or “Magisterium”. Note that the Church Magisterium has been appointed by Jesus Christ and has the power to bind and loose.
Don said,
November 25, 2014 at 5:26 pm
De Maria 1319,
It’s Catholic teaching that the church is, quote, “distinct from the civil magistrate”? So the Pope is no longer the head of the Vatican city-state? Roman Catholics have repented of all those kings and emperors they have crowned over the centuries?
You are not carefully reading what you are copying and pasting.
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 5:51 pm
Now who’s changing the subject?
The Vatican city-state is the doctrinal development of the government which Jesus Christ established.
No. We still believe that all authority comes from God.
You are avoiding the questions because you have deduced that your Protestant presuppositions are completely anti-biblical. And you are doing your best to change the topic.
Now, the WCF, which you brought up, says that there exists a government established by Jesus Christ, which has the power to bind and loose.
The Catholic Church agrees with that part of the WCF.
But, you have so far claimed to have faith in no one but Jesus Christ.
How do you claim to have faith in Jesus Christ but deny or reject that authority which He, personally, established upon this earth to govern mankind?
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Oh, sorry, I didn’t answer your question. That has always been the case Don. Jesus said:
Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
Don said,
November 25, 2014 at 6:06 pm
De Maria,
I am responding to an (off-topic) quotation _you_ pasted. Why is this so hard to understand?
Kevin Failoni said,
November 25, 2014 at 8:02 pm
DeMaria, you get on Don for relying on Calvin’s teaching, and you rely on fallible me who u ave been more corrupt than all in history. Thats why you cant deal with the sin in your church. Because they are infallible and cant reform, is it any wonder that Ratzinger resignedd because of what he called the filth in the church. Up to 60% of Priests are homosexual and you give the Jesus wafer to Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi. You cant exercise church discipline, yet you want us to l I sten to Rome. If you havent figured it pout yet, you have an opinion, and opinions are like shoes, everybody has a pair. Go no furthr than the donan the donation of Constantine. Infallible indeed. You bought the lie DeMaria, it has bewitched the gullible world.
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 8:13 pm
It is not off topic, as I have shown. I have asked a simple question which you continue to ignore.
If Jesus Christ established a government, why don’t you have faith in it?
Then, why haven’t you answered the question?
Do you limit the authority of Jesus Christ? Is Jesus Christ not the King of heaven and earth?
If I believe Jesus Christ speaks through the Church, as I have continually said, why would I limit the Church’s authority to any sphere? Does not Scripture say that the Church will Teach the Wisdom of God even in the heavens?
De Maria said,
November 25, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Scripture says that the Church which Jesus Christ built will not fall to the gates of hell (Matt 16:18-19).
I believe Scripture. Sue me.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 26, 2014 at 8:49 am
DeMaria said ” I believe scripture” No DeMaria, you believe what the Pope and his religion tells you scripture says. I agree that the gates of hell won’t prevail against Christ’s church. But your church isn’t Christ’s church. It’s the one in Galatians 1:9. The one that said grace was no longer grace. I don’t need to sue you, only pray for your salvation. Have a great thanksgiving. K
De Maria said,
November 26, 2014 at 9:33 am
Kevin, your church already fell to the gates of hell, as of 2007, there are 55,000 Protestant denominations according to Gordon Conwell. That is chaos. Jesus Christ only established ONE Church.
Our God is not a God of confusion.
And yes, I believe the Pope. He is part of the Government appointed by Jesus Christ.
De Maria said,
November 26, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Correction: As of 2007, according to Gordon Conwell, there are 39,000 Protestant denominations.
Sorry about the confusion. (pun not intended).
De Maria said,
November 26, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Hello, Reed, Don, and all,
I hope I’m not belaboring this point, but I would like an answer to this question. I believe that God speaks through the Catholic Church. I believe that the Church prays for me in Christ’s stead, because Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
How do you understand these verses?
Anybody?
Don said,
November 26, 2014 at 1:51 pm
De Maria 1331,
Already answered in 735.
De Maria said,
November 26, 2014 at 5:55 pm
No, Don. There is no mention of 2 Cor 5:20 in 735. Read it below.
This is the question I asked above:
Or are you simply setting 2 Cor 5:20 aside?
De Maria said,
November 27, 2014 at 5:30 pm
May God continue to bless all of you on this day of Thanksgiving.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 27, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Happy Thanksgiving DeMaria and everybody!
Kevin Failoni said,
November 27, 2014 at 9:50 pm
DeMaria said ” I believe God speaks thru the Catholic church.” The Scripture says in these last days God has chosen to speak thru His Son.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 27, 2014 at 9:53 pm
DeMaria, its better to have 1000 different denominations united over the gospel than have 2000 billion unified Catholics ( which there is as much disunity under Rome as anywhere else) with the wrong gospel.
De Maria said,
November 28, 2014 at 7:50 am
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Scripture also says that the Son, speaks through His Church. As you can see.
How do you understand that verse Kevin?
De Maria said,
November 28, 2014 at 7:56 am
There is no unity amongst Protestants concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have simply agreed to disagree and in so doing set aside the Scripture which says:
Galatians 1:8King James Version (KJV)
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Because every denomination believes a different version of the Gospel. Some believe in baptism, some don’t. Some believe in absolute assurance, some don’t. Some believe in ordaining women, some don’t. Some believe in ordaining gays, some don’t. Some believe in abortion, some don’t. etc. etc.
But in the end, we submit to the authority of the Church.
The Catholic Gospel is the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Kevin Failoni said,
November 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm
DeMaria said ” some ordain gays, some belueve in abortion.” No body ordains more homosexuals than Rome. Have you checked the amount of gay Priests.And you give the wafer to Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi.
De Maria said,
November 29, 2014 at 12:28 am
1. That isn’t true.
2. Any which do get ordained are done in disobedience to Catholic Doctrine. Not because of it.
3. Whereas, gays ordained to Protestant churches are done so because of their change in doctrine to accommodate them.
Under latae sententiae, Every time that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi receive communion in flagrant disobedience to the Word of God, they destroy their own souls.
The Role of the Holy Spirit in Justification – Ken Hamrick said,
December 22, 2018 at 11:13 pm
[…] Lane Keister, “Why Imputation is Not a Legal Fiction,” published 8-18-2014 at 11:23 a.m., at https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-imputation-is-not-a-legal-fiction/ [6] Samuel J. Baird, A Rejoinder to The Princeton Review, upon The Elohim Revealed, (Phila.: Joseph […]
The Role of the Holy Spirit in Justification – The forgotten Realist said,
April 23, 2023 at 9:21 pm
[…] Lane Keister, “Why Imputation is Not a Legal Fiction,” published 8-18-2014 at 11:23 a.m., at https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-imputation-is-not-a-legal-fiction/%5B6%5D Samuel J. Baird, A Rejoinder to The Princeton Review, upon The Elohim Revealed, (Phila.: Joseph […]