Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
Your haughtiness is such a clear exposition of the spirit that remains within you.
That's right. Perseverance is necessary, and it is also guaranteed by God. Man does nothing of his own for salvation.
It would be senseless to be commanded to do anything if we didn't have the ability (with God's aide) to do it.
That's also right. God enables us to obey His commands. The difference is that by the time this happens, salvation is already "accomplished". Sanctification is the operative process at this point.
All wisdom, for example, comes from God. But He willingly GIVES it to those who ask. Thus, it is indeed OUR righteousness, given to us by God.
We would agree that all wisdom comes from God. We would continue that He willingly GIVES it to those whom He chooses. Thus, it is indeed HIS righteousness that is imputed to us.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Spoken like a true humanist.
Scripture says otherwise. God loves righteousness and hates sin. And those not acquitted by Christ's work on the cross on their behalf remain condemned in their sins.
God does not love sin.
For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee." -- Proverbs 25:21-22
"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." -- Romans 12:20"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Is the act of "heaping coals of fire" on someone's head a pleasant thing? Something God would do to one whom He loves?
"But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." -- Luke 13:27"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." -- Psalm 5:5
acquittal and condemnation become oxymorons.
Nope. They become what they've always been -- God's immutable, perfect, holy, predestining and transformative will from before the foundation of the world, according to His purpose in creation. It all revolves around a correct understanding of justification -- salvation is not due to what we do, but what Christ did.
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5] III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them;[7] and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[10] IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13] V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the sate of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16] VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.[17]"I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]
Thanks for the tip.
I went a-googling and found http://www1.biu.ac.il/indexE.php Bar-Ilan University.
Bar-Ilan University is the second largest university in Israel, with a student population of approximately 24,500 at the main campus in Ramat Gan, and at the four regional colleges operating under its auspices – in the Jordan Valley, in Safed, in the western Galilee and in Ashkelon.
http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html says that:
Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e.
The comparative anthropological study of illiteracy began relatively only recently, and therefore it is no wonder that most of its research is devoted to contemporary societies. Only few studies are related to literacy in Antiquity from which we obviously do not possess such data as we have from Europe in recent centuries.
...
Conclusion:
Conclusion
...
Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past.
So what makes Scripture as accurate as it is?
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html#chauv says that:
...
Oral recall was far more important in ancient socities, particularly Judaism, than we have commonly allowed for; and the techniques used for memorization by ancient societies as a whole have a remarkable similarity to techniques promulgated by today’s “memory improvement” seminars we now pay exorbitant fees to attend. Byrskog notes that “...as we know today from modern studies of visual memory, most people recall — correctly or not — the past through images impressed on their memory. The ancient people were aware of this basic, human characteristic.” He also reports exceptional (and very likely exaggerated, in some cases!) examples from ancient texts of memory feats [162-3]:
Plato says that the Sophist Hippias of Elis “was able to repeat fifty names after hearing them only once.”
Pliny the Elder reports that Cyrus was able to name every man in his army, and that Lucius Scipio remembered the names of every person in the Roman Empire, and that one named Charmadas “recited by heart any book in the libraries.”
Seneca boasted of being able to his youth to repeat 2000 names read to him “and recite in reverse order over two hundred verses his fellow students told him...” He does regard this as miraculous, however!
Though indeed these from Pliny are likely (!) exaggerated, “it is evident that the more detailed and the more voluminous the scope of information stored in the memory could be shown to be, the more impressive it was.” The ideal was to recall exactly, “as detailed as possible,” though obviously the ideal would have limits. Among the Jews, rabbis were encouraged to memorize entire books of the OT, indeed the whole OT, and all of Jewish education consisted of rote memory. Students were expected to remember the major events of narratives - although incidentals could be varied, if the main point was not affected [Wilk.JUF, 32]. (This is reflected well in the differences in reportage that we find in the Gospels, for there we find an 80% agreement in the words of Jesus [Linn.ISP, 106]; see also [More.ScCy, 144], and see comments about ma besay-il here.). Many of the disagreements are cultural variations of the sort we might expect, such as Luke, out of consideration for his Gentile readers, not using the Jewish term “Son of Man” where Matthew or Mark do.) This was a society well-attuned to preserving oral tradition; and as Charlesworth notes, “Oral tradition is not always unreliable; in fact, sometimes it is more reliable than the written word.” [Chars.JesJud, 19] Skeptics who compare oral transmission to the modern children’s game of “telephone” are engaging a hopeless anachronism.
The Seminar also ignores the general Jewish regard for the work of respected teachers. Witherington, writing of the Jewish tendency and capability to preserve such material, says [With.JQ, 48, 80]:
In view of the fact that the earliest conveyors of the Jesus tradition were all, without exception, Jews, we would naturally expect them to treat the teachings of their master with as much respect as did the disciples of other Jewish teachers such as Hillel and Shammai. This is all the more likely if, as happened with Jesus of Nazareth, the teacher suffered an untimely and unexpected end and was highly criticized by some Jews. The need to remember, preserve and defend him against false charges would be acute...
Disciples in early Jewish settings were learners, and, yes, also reciters and memorizers. This was the way Jewish educational processes worked. In fact it was the staple of all ancient education, including Greco-Roman education....those who handed on the tradition would not have seen themselves primarily as creators but as preservers and editors.
In this regard, many have cited the work of Scandanavian scholar Birger Gerhardsson, who argued some years ago that “based on clear parallels of oral transmission processes between early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, one could conclude that the oral Jesus tradition was passed along with a high degree of care and continuity.” [Boyd.CSSG, 121] Gerhardsson’s work was, and still is, attacked on the basis of his concentration on Rabbinic practice after 70 AD, which may or may not have had any bearing upon the time of Jesus c. 30 AD [Klopp.FQ, 44]. However, such Rabbinic practices certainly had their precedents, and these may be found in the general Jewish system of education in the first century [Boyd.CSSG, 121-2]:
Here, it is important to recognize the place that ancient Jewish educational practice gave to the memorization of both oral and written tradition...
...Reisner has done a thorough study both of educational practices within the first-century Judaism, as well as the evidence within the Gospels’ tradition related to Jesus and his teaching methods. He has concluded - quite apart from a dependency on Rabbinic parallels - that memory of sacred teachings and traditions was a vital part of both Jewish life in general and Jesus’ teaching program in particular.
And Glenn Miller has added in this regard:
Part of this growing confidence in the accuracy of oral transmission, is the growing awareness of the easy-to-memorize structure of many of Jesus sayings. So Stein (SPI: 200):
It is now clearer than ever before that Jesus was a teacher. In fact the Gospels describe him as a teacher forty-five times and the term ‘rabbi’ is used of him fourteen times. One of his prominent activities was teaching. Like the rabbis, he proclaimed the divine law, gathered disciples, debated with the religious authorities, was asked to settle legal disputes, and supported his teaching with Scripture. He also used mnemonic devices, such as parables, exaggerations, puns, metaphors and similes, proverbs, riddles, and parabolic actions, to aid his disciples and audience in retaining his teachings. Above all he used poetry, “parallelismus membrorum”, for this purpose.
Jeremias has listed 138 examples of antithetical parallelism in Jesus’ teaching that are found in the synoptic Gospels alone (NT Theology, 15f), and to these over fifty other examples of synonymous, synthetic, chiasmic, and step parallelism can be added (Stein, “The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings”, Westminster, 1978: 27-32).
In light of all this, it is evident that Jesus ‘carefully thought out and deliberately formulated [his] statements’ (Gerhardsson).
...
But even these variants, Vansina adds, are minor, and seldom occur, so that even within one or two generations “beyond the eldest living members of a community,” there is little change. Then even when changes do occur, there is “no doubt as to the actual message and the wording of the tradition.” How much better, then, would the Gospels reflect the words of Jesus in this regard, with the short span between their composition and publication, even by late-date standards?
Boyd (ibid.) also notes that general studies of oral transmission have shown it to be more reliable than critics would presuppose:
Studies by anthropologists such as Albert B. Lord and Jan Vansina have demonstrated that the transmission of traditions in oral societies follow a generally fixed, if flexible pattern - similar to the type witnessed to in the Gospels themselves. Related to this, comtemporary psycholinguistic studies have served to confirm that the techniques that charactrerized Jesus’ oral teaching methods would have made for ‘very accurate communication between Jesus and his followers’ and would have ‘ensured excellent semantic recall.’
Currently, Boyd notes, some NT critics are beginning to acknowledge this kind of data, albeit reluctantly - but the Jesus Seminar has yet to make note of it in any significant fashion. Kloppenborg [Klopp.FQ, 44] dismisses this argument by claiming that there is “no evidence that Jesus himself taught by memorization” - which is patently false, as we have seen above; Jesus used teaching forms that encourarged memorization. But even if He did not, the nature of the society within which Jesus taught would still preserve through memorization. Moreover, we should keep in mind this suggestion by Wright [Wrig.PG, 123]:
If we come to the ministry of Jeus as first-century historians, and forget our twentieth-century assumptions about mass media, the overwhelming probability is that most of what Jesus said, he said not twice but 200 times, with (of course) a myriad of local variations.
Thus, even if we dismiss the mnenomic nature of Jesus’ teaching; even if we ignore (as the Seminar has, in their own Western-mindset fashion) the tremendous capacity of the Oriental memory, we still have to consider that whatever Jesus taught, He would, like any teacher, have taught it many, many times - enough times so that His disciples would have the entire set of lessons committed to memory! Given the data above, we have every reason to believe, in this regard, that the material within the Gospels is historically reliable.
“All good and well, Holding, but MY objection has to do with Acts 4:13. It tells us that John and Peter were illiterate. How did they write the books attributed to them?
Acts 4:13 does NOT indicate that Peter and John were nonliterate — only that they did not study under the Pharasaic Rabbis; and at any rate, that only accounts for 2 out of hundreds of Jesus’ original group of disciples who could act as scribes (like Matthew!) — plus, perhaps it doesn’t occur to you that John and Peter learned to read in the years that followed? Illiteracy is a social problem, but it is not an incurable disease! However, John’s being known to the high priest, as noted in his Gospel, would indicate a certain level of breeding and perhaps literacy; and at any rate, how could the priests have known from a SPEECH that John and Peter could not read or write?
It is well known that the Jews prized literacy more than most cultures, but it is less well know that their oral skills were at least as great as their written ones.
And we must remember that the Gentiles, with the exception of the small population of upper class and merchants, were less literate than the Jews.
God chastens believers here on earth to conform to His will so that we are not judged with the rest of the world. God will repay everyone for their works. They will be measured by the Law and will get exactly what is coming. Those who accept God's grace are judge by liberty.
Indeed. On his own strength, man is hopeless before God:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. – Romans 3:10-11
But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. – Isaiah 64:6
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
We love him, because he first loved us. – I John 4:19
How do read these similar verses:
Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Another possibility is to not modify 'without passions' but 'interpret' the following clauses differently.
Or one could surmise the Westminster Confession was self-contradictory. ;)
With your modification, passions="weakness of passion" you still have the problem of violating immutability, unchanging..
I'm not sure also what distinction you make between "passion" and "weaknesses of passion that humans so often fall into". Are there passions with weakness and passions without?
Thanks for your reply...
Now, you’re not answering the question. You may be an OT sort of guy (you’re not Jewish are you?), but the Reformers weren’t. My question is why they based the largest portion of their beliefs on Paul rather than the Gospels?
Let us discuss actual grace.
Actual grace is transient; that is, it is given to us only when we need it, to perform a good act, or to overcome a temptation. An example of the wonderful action of the Holy Ghost in enlightening the mind and strengthening the will is the First Pentecost. Before the descent of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles were ignorant and afraid; after His descent, His grace made them wise and fearless men, going forth to preach Christ everywhere, ready to die for their faith.
God gives us always sufficient grace to be saved. This is because He will all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4) So God gave his only Son as the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world (John 1:9). And My grace is sufficient for thee (2 Cor. 12:9). Further, of His fullness we have all received, grace for grace (John 1:16). A true Christian should view his whole life in the light of grace. All God’s gifts granted for man’s salvation are graces. A good family, a good education: these are graces. But even sickness and hardships are God’s graces, and may be the steps by which to ascend to heaven. And God grants graces to protect us against temptation, never permits us to be tempted beyond our strength (1 Cor. 10:11).
We all need actual grace. Sinners need it to rise from sin. The just need it to persevere in good. Without grace, we fall into sin. Herod was offered actual grace when he heard of the birth of the Messias from the three wise men; but Herod rejected the grace, and added to his sins.
Grace is given to all men, although not in equal amounts. Some receive more, some less. Some ordinary graces are granted to all men; certain extraordinary graces are granted to chosen ones.
God is free to bestow His gifts as He likes. The Blessed Virgin received more than other mortals. Christians receive more than pagans. Those in the state of grace are likely to receive more than those in the state of mortal sin. In a way, our graces depend also on our dispositions.
Grace does not force us. It leaves us free to choose between good and evil. The Holy Ghost guides and enlightens, but we can still close our eyes to His grace. If we cooperate, we gain other graces. As Christ said, For to him who has shall be given, and he shall have abundance (Matt. 13:12). He who persists in rejecting the gift of God’s grace and refuses to be converted will die in his sin and will be forever excluded from the sight of God. From him who does not have, even that which he seems to have shall be taken away. But as for the unprofitable servant, cast him forth into the darkness outside, where there will be the weeping, and the gnashing of teeth (Matt. 25:29-30).
God grants us the right to a heavenly reward for the most ordinary good actions in the supernatural order, provided we are in the state of grace. God does not ask us to do extraordinary things. If we do the most ordinary tasks of the day, like cooking, studying, doing small chores, carpentry work, sewing, and such, in a spirit of love and obedience to Him, our acts will deserve merit before God’s eyes.
All God wants is our love; and this we can give in the most ordinary daily actions. Whether you eat or drink, or whatever else you do, do all to the glory of God (Col. 3:17)
By mortal sin one loses the merit he has gained from his good actions. It is necessary that he regain that state of grace before he can regain that merit. To regain God’s friendship, we must be sorry for our sins, make a good confession, and resolve never to displease Him again. Then He will give us back the gift of His grace and love, and the merit of all our good works.
Is this making more sense? I’m not necessarily asking for agreement, just asking if it is clearer.
You’re funny, accusing us of Pelagianism.
Pelagius denied:
Death came from sin, not man’s physical nature.
Infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
Justifying grace covers past sins and helps avoid future sins.
The grace of Christ imparts strength and will to act out God’s commandments.
No good works can come without God’s grace.
We confess we are sinners because it is true, not from humility.
The saints ask for forgiveness for their own sins.
The saints also confess to be sinners because they are.
Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life (later amended to: children who die without baptism are entrusted to the mercy of God)
Which amongst these am I guilty of denying?
There may only be one work of God - to Create and guide His Creation.
A little essay that I found:
In the early church we find fundamental forms of heresy which reappear with various modifications almost every subsequent period. The judaizing tendency, the heretical counterpart of Jewish Messianic Christianity, so insists on the unity of Christianity with Judaism as to sink the former to the level of the latter and make the gospel merely a perfected law. The Paganizing or Gnostic heresy exaggerates the Pauline view of the distinction of Christianity from Judaism, Christianity from its historical basis, resolves the real humanity of the Savior into a Docetistic illusion. Heresy disturbed the unity of doctrine and of fellowship in the early church, which was therefore forced to exclude those holding false doctrine from its communion. Once excluded, the heretics formed societies of their own. This was the case with the Novations, Gnostics, Donatists, etc., and many of the modern denominations of our day.
You responded: That's right. Perseverance is necessary, and it is also guaranteed by God. Man does nothing of his own for salvation.
Forgive me, but WHOSE perseverance? God's? If God's perseverance is the ENTIRE focus, then what is the point of the entire Bible's direction to persevere, written to men??? Who exactly is judged? God's perseverance??? Logically, this makes no sense to me.
God enables us to obey His commands. The difference is that by the time this happens, salvation is already "accomplished". Sanctification is the operative process at this point.
Yes, God enables us to obey. Regarding salvation, it depends on your definition of salvation. Are you refering to that past event where you first accepted our Lord as your Savior and repented of your sins? Because we have not yet received the other kind of salvation, our entrance into heaven, which is not yet secured. It is based on hope (and OUR perseverance in Christ!)
We would agree that all wisdom comes from God. We would continue that He willingly GIVES it to those whom He chooses. Thus, it is indeed HIS righteousness that is imputed to us.
It's more than that, because you admit that we have been given the ability to obey. This cannot happen unless the man is ALSO involved. It cannot be said that we obey anything if God does it all. We certainly cannot take credit for anything, whether natural or supernatural gifts. However, as St. Augustine says, we ARE merely returning the good gifts that our Father has given us. Even that implies a decision and an act on the part of man. And that is what God desires - a free-will response from man. For otherwise, there is nothing to save if man has no free will.
Regards
That is a Spiritual Truth we are to learn from the law. (Romans 7) No one can ever be "good enough" – and the more we understand the law, the more clearly our sins stand in evidence against us. But Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death!
Amen!
And how much more glorious the gift when it's freely given.
In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man" -- Ephesians 3:11-16"According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
Praise God! We're "family!"
Your question is in error. The Reformation was an articulation of the Gospels after centuries of denial and abuse. While Reformers were urging all men to read the Gospels, the church in Rome was still chaining it to the altar, keeping it under lock and key.
My question is not in error. The Reformation largely drew upon the Marcion heresies, and those to whom Paul was the greater and Jesus the lesser.
The Church was still changing itself and its rules regarding the Bible after Gutenberg, but had not the manpower or the resources in order to ensure an accurate translation into all the different languages.
Wyclif’s translation was a horrible one. The KJV has been proven to be substantially in error. Ditto all those unauthorized versions in all the other languages.
We know the choice between good and evil. We will always choose evil. If Adam, being a perfect man, would choose evil what does that say about any of us? That's simply the way God planned it.
Conversion of the Will is the Effect of Divine Grace Inwardly Bestowed by John Calvin
Dr. E will tell you that I became convince of the Reformed position based upon Augustine's writings-not Calvin. You'll find that Calvin quotes from a number of early church fathers. I think you're caught in a Marcion loop. Calvin also did extensive writings in the Old Testament.
Wyclif’s translation was a horrible one. The KJV has been proven to be substantially in error. Ditto all those unauthorized versions in all the other languages.
I'll take some of these translations over the Catholic version any day with some of it's questionable translations. This is the 21st century. There are plenty of websites devoted to showing the existing text and the correct translation. And we don't need a Pope to tell us what it says.
This, I maintains is wholly the work of God, because, as the Apostle testifies, we are not "sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves," (2 Cor. 3: 5.) Accordingly, he elsewhere says, not merely that God assists the weak or corrects the depraved will, but that he worketh in us to will, (Philip. 2: 13.) From this it is easily inferred, as I have said, that everything good in the will is entirely the result of grace. In the same sense, the Apostle elsewhere says, "It is the same God which worketh all in all," (I Cor. 12: 6.) For he is not there treating of universal government, but declaring that all the good qualities which believers possess are due to God. In using the term "all," he certainly makes God the author of spiritual life from its beginning to its end. This he had previously taught in different terms, when he said that there is "one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him," (1 Cor. 8: 6;) thus plainly extolling the new creation, by which everything of our common nature is destroyed. There is here a tacit antithesis between Adam and Christ, which he elsewhere explains more clearly when he says, "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. 2: 10.) His meaning is to show in this way that our salvation is gratuitous because the beginning of goodness is from the second creation which is obtained in Christ. If any, even the minutest, ability were in ourselves, there would also be some merit. But to show our utter destitution, he argues that we merit nothing, because we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has prepared; again intimating by these words, that all the fruits of good works are originally and immediately from God. Hence the Psalmist, after saying that the Lord "has made us," to deprive us of all share in the work, immediately adds, "not we ourselves." That he is speaking of regeneration, which is the commencement of the spiritual life, is obvious from the context, in which the next words are, "we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture," (Psalm 100: 3.) Not contented with simply giving God the praise of our salvation, he distinctly excludes us from all share in it, just as if he had said that not one particle remains to man as a ground of boasting. The whole is of God..."...If it is like turning a stone into flesh when God turns us to the study of rectitude, everything proper to our own will is abolished, and that which succeeds in its place is wholly of God. I say the will is abolished, but not in so far as it is will, for in conversion everything essential to our original nature remains: I also say, that it is created anew, not because the will then begins to exist, but because it is turned from evil to good.
Harley;
You are wonderful and I would like to hug you and kiss you on both cheeks. You are honest and you are accurate and you are absolutely wonderful. If there is anything that I can reasonably do for you please let me know.
“If that sounds a bit self-serving, please keep in mind that we, the elect, have been invited to share in that glory. God doesn’t want it muddy for us. What a blessed honor that is.”
I have been searching for words, phrases and prose of any kind in order to illustrate the theory that John Calvin’s theology is not Christian. You have provided it for me throughout your entire post, and you have summarized it in such a fashion that we shall never forget.
Thank you ever so much.
Mark
The church lacked the "manpower and resources" to get the Bible to the people, even after Gutenberg? LOL. That sure wasn't very good planning on the part of God, was it?
Meanwhile the magisterium managed to find the cash to build St. Peter's. Apparently the magisterium's priorities were gold and silver and earthly temples over the word of God.
Wycliffe's translation was a horrible one. The KJV has been proven to be substantially in error. Ditto all those unauthorized versions in all the other languages.
Yeah, right. Everyone's wrong, in every nation and language and age, except the RCC.
I have faith God will continue to get His word to His people, just like He always has done -- unchained.
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.