Posted on 04/26/2007 9:41:46 AM PDT by dangus
The sinner does not draw himself to Christ, but it is Christ who draws the sinner to Himself. Thus, the sinner has no merit of his own when he receives Christ, whether in prayer, or in baptism; the merit is entirely Christ's, earned through the outpouring of His blood upon the cross. Any work which helps draw the sinner to salvation, or any fruitful work at all, is not the work of Man, but is work of God, merely enacted through Man, who needs only submit to God. Man because Man is totally unworthy of receiving Christ, but it is Christ who has condescended to be received by Man.
Christ has chosen that our own faith in Him be the instrument of our salvation. This miraculous grace, the gift of faith, is never fruitless or insufficient. There is a very false notion, however, that this means that this grace may exist without works such as prayer and worship, or striving for sinlessness. As the disciple James teaches us, faith, unaccompanied by such works, is dead; it is not a living faith all. This is confessed by the World Lutheran Federation and the Roman Catholic Church.
Martin Luther first formulated that “God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.”
Truly, it cannot be said that Luther is advocating sinfulness as a virtue. His intent is plain; he is asserting that the experience of forgiveness can help a Christian realize the radical nature of Christ's forgiveness. But it did lead to a German model of sin that supposes that sin is harmless; it's no coincidence that Freud was German. On the other hand, Luther himself was horrified at the sexual liscentiousness unleashed at the time of the German Reformation.
Here's the problem: The experience of sin is, itself, scandalizing. It causes the sinner to be ashamed of his sin, and to experience the presence of God as a torment, rather than a blessing. In fact, shameful acts result in our fleeing from God's presence. Moreso, it further perverts the will. Far from expending the soul's wicked desires, it inflames them.
There is perhaps no better demonstration of this than the modern world's obsession with pornography. According to forementionned German model of sin and redemption, one might infer that a man struck with sudden lust at the site of a woman might indulge in self-gratification. Then, apon realizing that he is still loved by God, he can experience joy, not because he has satisfied his urges, but because he is confident of his salvation.
Is that really the way it works?
In reality, he has rewarded his sinful lust with a reward: the simulation of sexual love. When what he truly desires is love, he will seek out such similation. Ultimately, it will be unsatisfying, so he will seek out far more blantantly sexual images, associating the blatant nature of the depicted woman's sexuality with the presumption of sexual love. Next what he seeks is no longer images of women anticipating sexuality, but desperately experiencing it, until nothing less than women completely depraved by lust will be arousing to him. Innocence, once experienced in sexual shyness, becomes merely fetishized.
What prevents this progression is shame, the very shame that psychologists (in fact, nowadays, most people) call repression. Shame alerts people that what they are doing is wrong, when physical urges can override most other spiritual senses, which tend to be far more subtle. But shame, itself, is toxic. It must be accompanied by acts of the will. The person who experiences shame must be able to say, “I am better than this,” and desist.
Further, the shame must be expunged; Luther is correct in that the knowledge of forgiveness drives away sinfulness. But one doesn't experience forgiveness by adding to his offenses; he experiences it seeking it out.
Here we find the solution to the riddle, “if it is through faith that we are saved, how does one obtain faith?” We must invest the faith we do have, to increase it. But we must invest it in love, not in sinfulness. We do not love God if we sin shamelessly, but we do love God if we confess our sins shamelessly. The Christian is obliged not to indulge in passions, but to purify himself of evil passions. We have all seen the evil unleashed within the Catholic Church by priests who chose to wrestle with evil themselves, rather than confessing their shameful inclinations. Nor is such evil new; Luther seemed to obliquely hint at such goings-on.
Do not do what is shameful, but if you do, confess it, rather than letting the shame further warp your soul. The danger of accepting an esteemed role is that it makes it all too easy to submit to Satan's soft whisper, "you can't let them know about that! The solution is to seek out more grace, through prayer and worship and confession, not to struggle alone against Satan.
A special note to women about pornography (since I raised the issue): What a man chooses to look indicates what he desires. I've known some women to infer that because a man looks away from Victoria's Secret at the mall, or sex scenes in movies that he is repressing secret perversions. Although it is superior to find a man who is so morally strong as to not be tempted, many men aren't tempted because they are so sexualized that comparably innocent images don't mean anything to them. It is healthy and natural to be aroused by nudity since the nude woman is making herself vulnerable to the man, indicating at a primal level, that he is loved and trusted. The moral choice a man makes is to avoid filling his spirit with the illusory promises of intimacy that nudity makes, and thereby preventing his desires from being perverted.
This is a far cry from giving into the complaint that “everyone does it.” A righteous man must be unique in today's world. He does not yield to sinful desires, nor does he permit them to be inflamed. Measure your lover by the standard, “what does what he finds sexy say about how he would like to encounter me?” If you detect that he is attracted to women in sexy lingerie, that means he would like to see you in sexy lingerie. If he is attracted to depictions of women being abused, then he would like to abuse you if he could.
Understand the distinction between degrading women by using them in the picture, and taking a picture of the degradation of women. If he is aroused by depictions of women being gang-raped, he is a pervert. If your guy is aroused by Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendars, you've learned that he likes young, thin, curvy women.
What do you make of it if your guy likes to look at swimsuit calendars? Infer his values by his response: if he defends it (“everyone does it”), he is declaring that he has no intent to resist his passions, or protect them from becoming perverted. If he sincerely confesses it as a sin, do not put him to shame by reviling him, but you can choose to love the sinner while hating the sin.
This is intended to stimulate discussion between Catholics and Protestants, rather than being strictly a caucus post, but I thought you may want to ping anyway.
What about Christians can the join in the discussion?
What’s that to you?
(Only kidding; join in if you have something intelligent to write.)
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
who needs only submit to God.
Is submitting to God a work we do?
Phi 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed,[is obeying a work we do?] not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Christ has chosen that our own faith in Him be the instrument of our salvation. This miraculous grace, the gift of faith.
If faith is the gift then how is it our own ?
dose God give us are own faith?
Grace is the Gift -- faith comes by hearing the word of God and believing it
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
There is a very false notion, however, that this means that this grace may exist without works
NO
The false Notion is that faith can exist without works.
Grace that save us is the Gift of the Gospel of Jesus
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Rom 1:16 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. Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger,
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
>> Is submitting to God a work we do? <<
Well, when Catholics say that works necessarily spring from faith, yes, they are including submitting to God a work. And, of course, if you submit to God, and God is telling you to perform a work, you either perform a work, or you haven’t submitted to God.
>> If faith is the gift then how is it our own ? dose God give us are own faith? <<
You are trying to tease out of that statement a doctrine that it isn’t there.
>> The false Notion is that faith can exist without works.
Grace that save us is the Gift of the Gospel of Jesus <<
By “THIS grace,” I was referring to faith.
>> Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? <<
I didn’t want to get bogged down in a debate over whether Luther had actually meant to encourage people to sin, so I merely removed my refutation from Luther by one step, and instead referred to one popular interpretation of Luther by many Germans, but I do wish I had thought of that passage.
Good article..
Saw one typo.. site = sight.
Apples and Oranges...
For me, salvation was a free gift just for the asking...Nothing I could do to earn it...I could never do anything good enough to merit eternal life...If I would just make him my Lord and follow Him, He would save me...And He did...
For you guys, salvation is (hopefully) at the end of the journey...Since you believe you can and must ‘earn’ it, you apparently do not believe that Jesus willingly died, once, for all...
We can not compare our salvation to yours...I did nothing to earn salvation but ask for it...
There are two things that are certain...There is only one way to Heaven...And one of us has seriously erred in our endeavor to get there...One of us will not make it...
There’s nothing you have written which indicates you read a word of the article.
I don't think Dangus said anything like that. Catholics who believe they can earn their own salvation are heretical Catholics. Canon I of the Council of Trent's decree on grace flatly rejects the idea.
Salvation, from the Catholic POV, is fundamentally divine sonship by adoption. The neighbor boy can't earn adoption into my family by mowing my lawn or washing my windows. In the same way, I can't earn adoption into God's family by doing good works.
We do not do works to save us, for works will not and can not save us. We attempt to do “good works” because of the love God showed in sending His Son to die for our sins.
My four year old niece is not a great artist, but I still hang the pictures on the wall that she sends me. Not because they are good, but because she drew it for me out love. Works are much the same way. No matter how much we do, we can’t earn salvation. But they can show appreciation of the Grace of God.
Very nicely put, and I’m glad you had no major issues with the presentation of Lutheran works. A lot of people believe that the Catholic Church has a very different doctrine relating to salvation by faith than it currently does; Simply because the Catholic Church rejected “sola fides,” they believe the Catholic Church’s position must be opposite what their own understanding of “sola fides” is.
I didn’t want to get into arguments about whether the Catholic Chuch misunderstood what Luther said, or Luther was promoting very different morals than modern Lutherans currently hold; the point is that the Catholic Church’s position on the means of salvation is eminently reasonable, and is not at all the “salvation by works” that people falsely ascribe to it.
Actually, one huge, ironic problem is that a lot of Catholics simply believe Protestants when Protestants tell Catholics what the Catholics church teaches! I would also hugely blame priests who rail endlessly, Sunday after Sunday, about “social justice.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone actually preach that one must perform works of charity and political action to be saved, but I do believe that when one listens to a homily, they are implicitly asking, “what must I do to be saved?” When they hear the priest talking about social justice, instead of faith and prayer and worship and trust in God, the priest is implicitly answering the question, “perform works of corporal charity to be saved.”
[Corporal charity refers to assisting people bodily, such as feeding, clothing, etc. It’s as opposed to spiritual charity, which includes praying for them, evangelization, etc.]
I certainly detect a very gravely misplaced emphasis on corporal charity in most mainline Protestant denominations, (Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, and lately even Baptist, Rick Warren, etc.); I believe that corporal charity is a central work of all good Christians, but in a prosperous nation like America, corporal poverty stems from spirtual poverty: the best corporal charity is to fix the spirit.
Oh, and incidentally, I also believe that when the rich man asked Jesus, “what must I do to be saved,” and Jesus told him to give all his possessions away, it was purely because Jesus recognized that the possessions were causing spiritual harm, not because Jesus was intending to teach that corporal charity was a means to salvation. I only mention this because I unintentionally echoed this passage. I think a far more relevant passage to what goes on in modern churches is when Judas, the evil one, tried to upbraid Mary Magdeline for having lavished attention on Jesus, rather than giving money to the poor.
>> I certainly detect a very gravely misplaced emphasis on corporal charity in most mainline Protestant denominations, <<
I should have stated “I ALSO certainly detect...”, just to be clear that it was the same wrong emphasis I was criticizing the AmChurch Catholic priesthood for.
So many people get hung up excessively on “proving” that they will be saved. Now faith with out works IS dead, the question is what comes of what. Do I do works in order to have faith? Or do I have faith, and so am moved to do good works? The typical Lutheran answer is the latter, but many people think it is the former.
A man dying on his death bed that comes to Christ can be saved, even though he will have no real chance of doing anything with his faith. Many people, Catholic and non Catholic, have a big problem with that. I have heard on this site some saying that the Good Thief on the Cross was saved because during his life he did more good than not. Now that is a bit ignorant theologically speaking, but shows that Grace is really an uncomfortable thing for many.
The opposite extreme is what Bonhoffer called “Cheap Grace”. It is claiming to have faith, but failing to act on it. This is common also, as evidenced by the abortion and divorce rate among self proclaimed Christians. Thinking all since all was forgiven, all must be allowed, and refusing to conform ones life to the will of God, leads to some rather dark places.
Grace is not salvation...And Paul tells us you are wrong...
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Striving for sinlessness in pursuit of salvation is not only a lost cause, it's an admission that one figures he can merit salvation with his own righteousness...
If your works amount to anything you could possibly boast about, those works disqualify you from salvation...Sinlessness is 'imputed' to the sinner because it is unattainable for a human being (other than Jesus, of course)...
I realize Catholics like to try to differentiate between works of the law and social works, but they are the same thing (when striving for salvation)...Working to prove one's own self righteousness...
I don't have a problem with that...I believe that some will just make it to heaven...And others will receive great rewards in heaven for the good works they have done 'after' they were saved...
But just making it is a far sight better than 'not' making it at all...
>> That is part of the problem. The other is that according to the Catholic view of Justification (you knew I was going to throw that one in!), works are required to, for lack of a better term, confirm your election. Yes I know that sounds a bit Calvinist, but it is Friday. <<
This much is true...
>> So many people get hung up excessively on “proving” that they will be saved. <<
This much I don’t see. Truthfully, among the Catholics who don’t get that works can’t save you, the problem is that there is a complete lack of theology at all. I have conceded that there are many ignorant Catholics who just operate on the worldly (not Catholic, just worldly) notion that they can earn their way into Heaven, but I won’t concede that. I’ve observed dysfunctional liberal Catholic
attitudes in several major cities, and I’ve never encountered that attitude, nor have I ever heard or seen it taught... and I went to a Jesuit school, and I’ve read Maryknoll, and TCR.
>> Do I do works in order to have faith? Or do I have faith, and so am moved to do good works? The typical Lutheran answer is the latter, but many people think it is the former. <<
I do sincerely recommend to any friend interested in becoming more active in their faith, “The Soul of the Apostolate,” because it vey powerfully makes the case that the interior life (prayer, worship) is where people truly encounter what GOD is calling them to do, rather than their own presumptions, which may be tainted slightly by the worldly notion that they have to DO something.
>> A man dying on his death bed that comes to Christ can be saved, even though he will have no real chance of doing anything with his faith. Many people, Catholic and non Catholic, have a big problem with that. I have heard on this site some saying that the Good Thief on the Cross was saved because during his life he did more good than not. Now that is a bit ignorant theologically speaking, but shows that Grace is really an uncomfortable thing for many. <<
I think one thing the Church DOES deserve a LOT of credit for its emphasis on how simple, humble expressions of faith (i.e., Mary’s “Fiat” prayer, Therese of Lisieux’s diary, etc., Bosco’s visions, JP2’s graceful suffering) accomplish so much more than grand human designs.
I can’t begin to tell you how many homilies I’ve heard on the how much more the thief’s simple declaration of faith means than all the worldly endeavors.
>> Thinking all since all was forgiven, all must be allowed, and refusing to conform ones life to the will of God, leads to some rather dark places. <<
See, I don’t think that’s what nominal Christians think at all. I don’t think they believe ANYTHING is allowed; just what THEY are doing is allowed. I think most believe that what they are doing is acceptable, and the Church is wrong, and, since all they need is faith, they must be being guided in an acceptable direction. It’s not so much universalism as “personal universalism”: “Whatever I do is OK; it’s the guy who does something different who is going to burn.”
I think, ironically, that cheap grace actually leads people behaving in ways that many Protestants interpret as believing in “salvation by works:” the person who believes in cheap grace actually can be a little discomforted by how little their faith impacts their lives, so that they, in turn, imagine that whatever works they do, must be exactly what God wants of them. Thus, without ever believing that they can earn Heaven by doing so, they believe they know they are saved because they drive a subcompact car, or attended a Planned Parenthood rally, or voted against a pro-war candidate, or eat only Ben and Jerry’s ice cream.
“I’m a good person, I voted for Kerry!”
The test for whether this stems from salvation by works or cheap grace, I would propose is this: The person who believes in salvation by works would do works which they find grueling and quite contrary to their sinful nature. After all, salvation by works is about sacrifice. The person who believes in cheap grace would presume whatever they worldly things they would do must be what God wants them to do, so they do things which are innately appealing. See, that’s the thing: when I was a liberal, I saw that liberals actually ENJOY doing everything they do, or, at least, they do it because it makes them feel good about themselves.
I have known people who I believe are afflicted with a trace of a notion of “salvation by works.” In fact, once in a while, I have even caught myself. It’s a phenomenon which is totally opposite that of the “nominal” or “liberal” Christians.
Ironically, I think even Iscool is succombing to an attitude of salvation by works. He seems to think he is going to Heaven because he has his theology correct, and I must be hell-bound because I have a mistaken theology. Salvation by faith would mean I have more grace when I draw more closely to God, not when I ascent to the proper theology. The correct theology comes from simply finding Christ. And, as a Catholic, I know where to go: the bible, the mass, and the communion of saints which constitute the true Church.
I didn’t say sinlessness accomplishes salvation; Paul is quite plain that sinlessness is impossible, without the grace of God. But the notion that salvation is lisence to commit horrible sin, or that sinlessness is accomplished without striving is nonsense, and quite contrary to the word of God. Rather, the striving for sinfulness is inspired and enabled by God’s grace, through faith. But if anyone claims he is filled with God’s grace, and yet he sins wantonly, he is deceiving himself or others. If he is contrite for his sinfulness, then he can know Christ is acting in his life to accomplish salvation in him. If he continues unrepentant in his sin, and yet claims to be saved, then he blasphemes God, testified to evil, and leads others astray.
>> For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. <<
Truly, a proud heart leads many to a downfall. That’s what this warns against. This certainly does not mean that it is fine to sin and produce no works, and to not even desire to do better! A warning not to take pride in works as if you, and not God, is the source of those works is a thousand light years from insisting that works are not good.
>> Striving for sinlessness in pursuit of salvation is not only a lost cause, it’s an admission that one figures he can merit salvation with his own righteousness... <<
That’s a completely unfounded statement.
>> If your works amount to anything you could possibly boast about, those works disqualify you from salvation...Sinlessness is ‘imputed’ to the sinner because it is unattainable for a human being (other than Jesus, of course).. <<
So why don’t you have fun and go get some hookers, cocaine, whatever? Because you know:
1. God’s salvation does not mean you will not suffer from the temporal effects of your sin (i.e., addiction, STDs, going broke, hurting your wife and kids, etc.)
2. God really doesn’t want you sleep with hookers and snort cocaine.
3. Having received some measure of God’s grace, you probably don’t to do these things.
See, through God’s grace, we are no longer slave to sin. That means we can avoid sin, not that sin is suddenly okay.
>> I realize Catholics like to try to differentiate between works of the law and social works, but they are the same thing (when striving for salvation)...Working to prove one’s own self righteousness... <<
No, that’s absolutely 100-percent worng. The only distinction between different types of works is that some works are inspired by God, and some are products of our own desires and rationalizations. When we do works which are inspired by God, our faith grows; when we do works which are not, our faith is frustrated. No-one’s working to prove one’s own righteousness, let alone self-righteousness. (Speaking of self-righteoussmess, you are the one who declared one of us is going to Heaven and the other to Hell.)
If anything, Catholic spiritual practices are centered around acknowledging one’s lack of righteousness, so one becomes progressively more willing to allow God in. This is experienced as promoting guilt only if one has dreadfully poor religious education, or if such practices are forced apon the Christian by someone else.
Confession, examination of conscience, Holy hours, meditation on the rosary... these are all pious works encouraged by the church to help Christians develop humility in the face of God.
I would think that the Calvinists would have trouble with your statement.
1.Free gift
but you have to ask for it. --------isn't asking a work you do? would that be a work you do?
3. follow him
now that sounds like work to me
The truth is there is noting you can do to earn salvation except be sinless. Once you sin even if you only have just one sin your whole life you are guilty and deserve God's Justice. It don't mater what how much good you do or how kind you are you are guilty. The righteousness of God who cannot lie stated that the soul that sins will die. The only chance you have of escaping the perfect Justice of God is his perfect grace. However Grace is conditional.
Rom 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.
It is condition upon your faith.
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.
There is nothing we can do the earn salvation but there is plenty we can do to lose it.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Heb 4:11 Let us laborer therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
There are two things that are certain...There is only one way to Heaven...And one of us has seriously erred in our endeavor to get there...One of us will not make it...
You are Right when you say there is only one way to Heaven. You are wrong when you say one of us will not make it. The Truth is only one right answer but many wrong one's. All three of us can't be right but all three can be wrong. therefore it behooves us to:
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2Ti 2:15)
you used the word imputed do you know what it means?
will some have bigger mansions? maybe more jewels in their crown will there be upper class, middle class, and the poor?
would some be jelouse of others with greater rewards? How do you harmonize the statement you made with what Jesus taught in Matt 20:1-16 ?
Ya...Jesus and I each wrote a journal of our lives to be presented to God...
Jesus crossed out my name on my journal and entered his name...He then crossed out his name on his journal and put my name in it's place...
The verses have nothing to do with rewards in heaven...The context is the reward OF heaven...Some come early and some come late, but ALL go to heaven...AND,
if you are a dispensationalist, as I am, it is a picture of the Jews who believed Christ, the later Gentile church, and then the Jews in the tribulation...
Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
The reward system was not revealed while Jesus was preaching to the Jews...It was only revealed after Paul revealed the mystery of the Gentile church...
This is a most prevalent error taught by those who choose to blind the eyes of the unlearned. Imputed dose not mean transfered. That would not be logical nor dose it support any know definition of that word
the word means
to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over; hence, a. to take into account of
Let’s illustrate this definition with regard to sin, first. Imputing one to be a sinner involves the process in the mind of God whereby He considers a person’s actions, weighs them, makes a judgment, and puts that judgment to the person’s account; it is imputed. Please note that in the light of the scripture, sin is imputed to the account of the transgressor; it is never transferred to or from another person or is never inherited. This is true of both sin and righteousness (Ezek. 18:1-20; 1 Jn. 3:4). Though a Calvinist, the commentator Albert Barnes saw the truth on this point and stated in his work on Romans: “The word is never used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or of charging that on one which does not properly belong to him” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, pp. 102-103). Also, “no doctrine of transferring, or of setting over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from this word” ibid
Here is a link to a article I posted a while back. If the truth that sets you free is what you truly desire. I pray you will take a look at it with a open mind
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1751700/posts
Since we’re using Latin terms, like impute...
“Pute” is from “putare”, which is to evaluate or reckon.
“Com” means “together”. To “compute” then is to evaluate two things together. For instance, one may “compute” that the value of four and seven is eleven.
“Impute,” then is to evaluate a single value.
(Although, I’m now thinking about whether one should impute the value of the square root of sixteen.)
A good friend of mine (who should be here any minute) is constantly bothered by stuff like that. He has a calling to be a pastor, but for a multitude of reasons dropped out of seminary. He works in a lay ministry right now, and gets worked up when he runs into people who say "Well yes, I did cheat on my husband/wife, but I gave money to a homeless shelter and that is much more important."
Trying to place that understanding into the context we're talking about here & it begins to look like we're gonna get charged for sins we're able to commit, whether or not we actually commit them.
Yikes!
Does this mean that God, in some fashion, transferred our sins to Jesus? In what way did the Lord “lay on him the iniquity of us all?” How did Jesus “bare our sins in his body?”
It is easy to take the Calvinist’s “transfer” in these instances, unsupported by any lexicon or dictionary, and make a case, arbitrarily. However, since no authority recognizes “transfer” to be an accurate definition, it is folly to permit it
How about this authority???
2Co 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.
A lot of you guys travel way outside of God's word to try to figure out what God said, even if it's clear...That's the result of not believing or not liking what God said...
“But the gospel makes men righteous, just as a soiled garment may be made clean, as clean as if it had never been soiled, by carrying it through the process of cleansing. So the gospel takes the sin-defiled persons through a process of cleansing that makes him as clean as if he had never sinned. The Lord does not ‘play-like’ he is righteous; he makes him righteous by the gospel” (R. L. Whiteside, Commentary on Romans).
Now that's as vague as any statement I've ever read...And besides the gospel doesn't make anyone righteous...And the gospel doesn't cleanse anyone...
I'll stick with my definition of impute...
A Christian can’t look at a swimsuit calendar?
I was just looking back at the original Latin to think about the word...
“im” sometimes gets used in a sense of setting something. So, I suppose the court “putes” a value, and then presumes it apon a child-support case. I guess the difference with “compute” is that the figure, once assigned, sticks. (sorta like sticking a dollar sign in front of a variable in Excel.)
So, the point is, God assesses us as righteous, regardless whether the individual data support.
Except your definition is a complete fiction, designed to support a doctrine that doesn’t hold. You call it God’s Word, but you substitute your own.
>>A Christian can’t look at a swimsuit calendar? <<
Why would a Christian look at a swimsuit calendar? To inflame lusts? To get a boner he doesn’t know what to do with? To develop an appetite for the body of a woman he will never meet?
Jesus wasn’t joking when he warned against looking lustfully at women; it’s just that so many people say, “Naw, he couldn’t have meant that!” People think it’s so harmless, but then wonder why they face mid-life crises when they’re 45; they’ve developed tastes that they can no longer meet, and then they’re wracked with sinful desires.
There are three choices, you can either consistently give into your desires, constantly graduating to more and more wicked ones, and go to Hell. You can refuse to inflame your desires, and learn to be happy with godly desires. Or you can inflame your desires and develop illusory expectations, and then suffer on Earth as you wrestle not to give into them and hurt the people around you.
I hadn’t imputed unto you threadjacking. I had imputed only the desire to discuss a corollary topic.
Something like that, but more like there is criteria beyond the basic data taken into consideration.
Your response is shallow and is predicated on pre-conceived erroneous assumption about the faith of Catholics.
Faith is indeed a gift, but as humans, children of our Father in heaven, we are allowed the free will to choose to accept it or deny it. More often than not, we are ambivilous and lazy about the gift of faith. This causes many of us to go into frequent “walk-abouts” regarding the intensity of our faith. We choose every so often to disregard the need to read the bible, go to church, confess our sins, humble ourselves, and generally embrace the world’s vices rather than God’s mercy and forgiveness. Then we complain that going to church “does nothing for us” and we reinforce the legitimacy of become absentees on Sunday.
I once heard a priest talking about such behavior. He compared it to a small boy in a church walking up the aisle toward God. The closer he allowed himself into the presence of God, the greater was his perception that God loved him, Eventually when the boy became really close, God embraced him, and the boy received the abundance of mercy and grace, which fill the him with happpiness. On the other hand when the boy instead decided to walk to the back of the church rather than to approach God, he felt the presence of God less and less in his life. Eventually the boy decided to not enter the church at all. The priest stated, “How can God demonstrate His powerful love and mercy (sort of like giving you a hug), when you are miles and miles away from Him?”
The lesson is that God calls everyone, and the person must choose to accept God into his/her life.
What’s wrong with appreciating a pretty girl’s figure? My wife appreciates that I can appreciate that. Otherwise she might not have gotten my attention.
A man doesn’t need to be shallow or lecherous to admit that he is attracted to physical beauty, long as that isn’t the end-all or be-all.
Your post seems to suggest that it’s not all that bad a thing if a man buys his wife some sexy lingeree. (Did I misinterpret that?).
If it’s okay, then how do you suggest he shop for it? By walking into the lingeree section with blinders on?
Which response??? I made more than one...
And here's your definition:
“Impute,” then is to evaluate a single value.
Jam 2:23 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.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Now let's see you apply your defintion of impute to one of these verses...
Except your definition is a complete fiction, designed to support a doctrine that doesn’t hold.
2Co 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.
God says you have to be filled with the Spirit to understand a lot of these verses...
Maybe you don't see what I see...
Let’s put my definition in, shall we?
Jam 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon as sinful.
No, it works quite fine.
Oops... I realize you’re expecting me to use a different sub-definition. OK:
Jam 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and God used it to calculate that Abraham had righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not calculate as sinful.
You realize you are coming across as Gnostic. You are claiming special and unique knowledge of scripture that has been revealed by the holy spirit to you and a few others alone. That is be definition, Gnosis, or secret knowledge revealed to iscool.
“This is intended to stimulate discussion between Catholics and Protestants, rather than being strictly a caucus post, but I thought you may want to ping anyway.”
***
Good post. However, it seems that these discussions eventually degenerate into a theological wrestling match between Protestant and RC Freepers....
Jam 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon as sinful.
HuH??? OKAY...If impute in the bible means 'reckon', I suspect God would have said reckon, like he did in numerous other places...
A few others??? You mean like the numerous millions of other born again Christians who believe what God says???
Let me ask you something...Do you ever get alone with God, open his book and ask him to show you something out of His book??? Ask Him to show you some truth???
I’ve found the truth. It is His Roman Catholic Church. You on the other hand, I am leaning toward classifying as someone else’s. You are truly a Gnostic. Because if the Spirit has touched you as you claimed, I think you wouldn’t have said many of the numerous falsehoods you have on this forum. By their fruits you shall no them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.