It is often stereotyped that Roman Catholics believe in purgatory and Orthodox/Protestants do not. In reality, the Orthodox position is far closer to the Roman Catholicism’s than Protestantism’s. However, to appreciate this, it requires understanding the Orthodox view of merit and how this ties into the afterlife.
The Orthodox View of Merits. At first glance, the idea of “merits” seems irreconcilable with Orthodox soteriology. For example, Saint Nikolai of Zica wrote that “we are saved by God’s grace, and not by our merits and work” and Vladimir Lossky observed the following: “The notion of merit is foreign to the Eastern tradition.”
However, the term “merit” has been used in Orthodox writings. For example, the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 adopted the Confession of Dositheus which asserted:
[Works are] not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad [2 Cor 5:10] (Decree 13).
At first glance, the document appears to be “Roman Catholic” in its usage of the term “merit.” After all, it seems to say that works “in themselves” merit justification. Hence, the works of the individual, on top of Jesus Christ’s works, are awarded with justification.
As we discussed in the previous article, while Roman Catholicism affirms that God rewards man’s merits “gratuitously,” this gratuity is in name-only as in fact God obliges Himself to recompense man to the point of mathematical exactitude.
This is not true in Orthodoxy. Decree 13 must be understood within an Orthodox context in which a “tit for tat” view of God is not what is being communicated. Man does not accumulate merits in order to attain salvation as a gratuitous, yet obligatory gift from God. Rather, Orthodoxy focuses on what salvation is: Theosis.
Orthodoxy teaches that works are “fruits in themselves” of salvation and not merely “witnesses” of salvation. Good works are our salvation, they are the new creation (2 Cor 5:17) that God is making us into (Eph 2:10)–this is why “faith…justifies through works.”
Because salvation is Theosis, we will have an eternity of bearing “fruits,” becoming evermore Christlike so that we actually are one with Christ. We are meriting salvation by virtue of experiencing it, becoming God by participating in His divine energy (Gal 2:20). So, merit is not something we give to God in exchange for the grace of salvation, but it is within the Orthodox context an experience of God’s goodness–a literal participating in His divine energy.
Theosis and the Energy/Essence Distinction. A brief and clumsy summary of the energy-essence distinction is as follows: God may be understood as both energy and essence. God’s “substance” i.e. what He is “made of” if we may conjure such a thing, is His essence. God’s essence’s effects are His energies so that they may be categorized, but not separated from, one another in that we are not dividing God into different kinds of gods.
A rough analogy would be equating God’s essence with a flame and His energy with the effects of the flame. One cannot divorce a flame’s heat and light from the flame itself. Yet, the heat and light are not the flame. Hence, men cannot share God’s essence as we cannot become a flame while still being men–we would be destroyed for “God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29). But, we can participate in the energies of the flame. The closer we walk to it, the brighter and warmer we get.
The Orthodox view of salvation, therefore, is that the works being “fruits in themselves” are literally us participating in God’s energy, as it is God who works in us to will and to act (Phil 2:13). This acting in a Godlike manner and being conformed to Him is salvation. Hence, the working of God’s will is an experience His “energy,” which literally effects salvation itself.
God has saved us by atoning for our sins on the cross, as He has paid our penalty and we no longer have a debt. Getting out of jail is far short of living in Paradise. God continues to save us by not only forgiving debt, but by increasing our sanctification, provided we work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). This fear and trembling is simply us drawing closer to the flame, and as a result getting brighter and warmer.
Theosis and Merit. Hence, we are not meriting salvation in the sense that our works atone for sins (this is effectually the Roman Catholic view,) but rather we are experiencing salvation in our works. So, when Decree 13 uses the term “merit” it is with a completely different context than the Roman Catholic usage.
Further proof of this may be seen in how Orthodoxy speaks of the “Treasury of Merits.” Saint Philaret of Moscow writes as follows:
His [Jesus’] voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of One sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction of the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death (Large Russian Catechism of Philaret, 208).
While there is a sense that certain actions Christians perform effect the forgiveness of sins (i.e. confession in James 5:15-16, almsgiving in Luke 11:41, Tob 12:9) we must not understand these things as adding on top of the “perfect satisfaction” and “infinite merit” that Christ provides us. Rather, they are actions in which the heavenly reality becomes available to us within our material existence by virtue of our metaphysical union with Christ and our conforming ourselves to Him (Phil 3:10).
As Saint Augustine asserts, “passages of Holy Scripture…teach us that no man can obtain eternal life without that union with Christ which is effected in Him and with Him, when we are imbued with His sacraments and incorporated with the members of His body” (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book III, Chap 19).
This is why when Orthodoxy teaches we are saved through faith and not works, the teaching is that faith includes not only the intellect, but also the body and soul living out the faith and making it real. As Jeremias II of Constantinople wrote, “good works are not separate from, but necessary for, true faith.” (See also what the early church fathers wrote about faith here.)
Through faith, Christ’s infinite merit is applied to us and transforms us. It is not a mere financial transaction that pays the Father back for injustice done, but it is a wealth of goodness intrinsic to Christ Himself that both grants “us sinners pardon of our sins and the grace to have victory over sin and death.” In short, a real participation in God exists when we are in metaphysical union with Him–not a theoretical financial accounting of merits and demerits. Because we are literally living “in Christ,” this participation in God’s energies applies the atoning effects of the cross to us. All things that assist in our Theosis, such as correct belief, almsgiving, fastings, and the sacraments, tap us into Christ’s infinite merit because we are literally experiencing Christ in us through these things.
Conclusion. In a typical Orthodox matter, there is no short way to elucidate how merits relate to salvation. What we can affirm, in a short amount of words, is something very similar to what Roman Catholics teach: that good works merit heavenly rewards in the judgement. However, while Roman Catholics essentially treat merits as if they were assets used to purchase salvation, Orthodox reject this. Orthodoxy teaches that salvation is a literal experience of God Himself and that the works that merit salvation are the actual fruit of salvation–they are God’s salvation manifesting itself in our lives.
Perhaps the chief difference between the Orthodox and Western-Christian paradigm is that the West views salvation chiefly as a reward given by, and therefore separate from, God. Grace is created. Orthodox view salvation as a participation in God’s energies which conform us increasingly into the likeness of Christ. Grace is uncreated.
What are the ramifications of Orthodoxy’s view of salvation and the afterlife? We will cover this in our next article.
Your wrote: Roman Catholicism affirms that God rewards man’s merits “gratuitously,” this gratuity is in name-only as in fact God obliges Himself to recompense man to the point of mathematical exactitude.” Where did you get the idea there is such Catholic teaching? Catholics believe that our merits are God’s grace and being grace means it is something we actually do not deserve. God is not under any obligation to recompense us – if He is, then it is no longer grace but like you pay wages to your workers for their works. You can read official Catholic teaching on merits in Clause 2006 to 2011 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available online for free).
You wrote: Hence, we are not meriting salvation in the sense that our works atone for sins (this is effectually the Roman Catholic view,) ” Again, where did you get this “Catholic teaching”?
You wrote while Roman Catholics essentially treat merits as if they were assets used to purchase salvation” The Catholic Church does not and never teach that merits can be used to purchase salvation. Salvation comes from God’s grace and in everything grace synergistically works in us, from believing in Christ to obeying His Commandments and repenting from sins.
The merits are part of a transaction which give the believer atonement in the RC view of Purgatory. I try to give a charitable view of this, but obviously the transactional emphasis is not popular within Orthodoxy.
I set out below what I have gleaned about the nature of good works at this stage. I’d be glad to have both your comments.
The Nature of Good Works.
John 14:10 “10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? What I say to you I do not speak of my own accord: it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his works.
Acts 26:20 “20 On the contrary I started preaching, first to the people of Damascus, then to those of Jerusalem and all Judaean territory, and also to the gentiles, urging them to repent and turn to God, proving their change of heart by their deeds.”
1 John 2:3-4 “3 In this way we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 Whoever says, ‘I know him’ without keeping his commandments, is a liar, and truth has no place in him.’”
Jesus says in Matt 7:22 “22 When the day comes many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?
23 Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, all evil doers!”
The point Jesus is making here is that someone who is cut off from Him by doing evil is not going to be helped if they “prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?” Someone who is cut off from God by the evil he does is incapable of doing something truly good and pleasing to God, because his heart has turned away from God. Therefore “driving out demons”, “prophesying”, “working miracles” are not good deeds for him in the first place, because he is an unrepentant sinner.
That tells us a few things. Those who prophecy in Jesus’ name do not necessarily go to heaven. Those who drive out demons in Jesus’ name do not necessarily go to heaven, those who work out miracles in Jesus’ name do not necessarily go to heaven. That is if they do evil. Paul lists a few of these evils, adultery, slander, sodomy, etc, those who practice these things Paul tells us, will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor 6:9-10 “9* Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, * 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Some Christians do evil deeds, or fail to do good deeds, which is also evil. Matt 25:41-43, 46 “Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42 For I was hungry and you never gave me food, I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, lacking clothes and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me.”
“46* And they will go away into eternal punishment,”
Paul tells us that we are saved by faith working through love. Gal 5:6 “6* For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” Good works are prompted by love. They are not things that we do in our own strength, but God works through us to enable us to do the good works. We are his “co-workers” (1 Cor 3:9 “ 9* For we are God’s co-workers; * you are God’s field, God’s building.”
He has prepared good works for us if we co-operate with His grace. It is impossible for anyone to do a good work pleasing to God if God is not working through that person, otherwise it is done out of duty or philanthropy, but not out of love.
Paul tells us that we can have faith even to move mountains, but that if we have no love, we have nothing. Love is the engine of good works, without love they are empty dead shells. God’s grace, which you respond to, gives you your faith. God’s grace, which you respond to, produces good works. In neither case are you doing something in your own strength.
Phil 2:13 “13 It is God who, for his own generous purpose, puts into you both the will and the action.”
That is what is meant by good works, doing the works that God has prepared for you, through His grace, not in your own strength.
Luke 11:41 “41 Instead, give alms from what you have and, look, everything will be clean for you.”
2 Peter 1:4-7 “4 Through these, the greatest and priceless promises have been lavished on us, that through them you should share the divine nature and escape the corruption rife in the world through disordered passion. 5 With this in view, do your utmost to support your faith with goodness, goodness with understanding, 6 understanding with self-control, self-control with perseverance, perseverance with devotion, 7 devotion with kindness to the brothers, and kindness to the brothers with love.”
Eph 2:10 “10 We are God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life.”
Rev 19:8 “8 His bride (the church) is ready, and she has been able to dress herself in dazzling white linen, because her linen is made of the good deeds of the saints.’”
John 14:11 “11 You must believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe it on the evidence of these works.”
Col 1:24 “24 It makes me happy to be suffering for you now, and in my own body to make up all the hardships that still have to be undergone by Christ for the sake of his body, the Church,”
Col 1:29 “29 And it is for this reason that I labour, striving with his energy which works in me mightily.”
John 3:1-2 “ … Nicodemus … said ‘Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one could perform the signs that you do unless God were with him.’”
John 5:19 “Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, by himself the Son can do nothing; he can do only what he sees the Father doing: and whatever the Father does the Son does too.”
John 5:30 “30 By myself I can do nothing;”
John 14:12 “12 In all truth I tell you, whoever believes in me will perform the same works as I do myself,”
John 14:14 “14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”
John 15:5 “5 I am the vine, you are the branches.
John 15:16 “16 You did not choose me, no, I chose you; and I commissioned you to go out and to bear fruit, fruit that will last; so that the Father will give you anything you ask him in my name.”
John 15:2, 6 “2Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts away…. 6These branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt.”
John 15:6 “17 My command to you is to love one another.”
Prayer is a good work.
Prayer (Gk. euchesthai, Lat. precari, Fr. prier, to plead, to beg, to ask earnestly), an act of the virtue of religion which consists in asking proper gifts or graces from God. In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God. This may be done by acts of praise and thanksgiving, but petition is the principal act of prayer. The words used to express it in Scripture are: to call upon (Gen.4:26); to intercede (Job. 22:10); to meditate (Is. 53:10); to consult (1 Kings. 28:6); to beseech (Ex.32:11); and, very commonly, to cry out to. The Fathers speak of it as the elevation of the mind to God with a view to asking proper things from Him (St. John Damascene, “De fide”, III, xxiv, in P.G., XCIV, 1090); communing and conversing with God (St. Gregory of Nyssa, “De oratione dom.”, in P.G., XLIV, 1125); talking with God (St. John Chrysostorn, “Horn. xxx in Gen.”, n. 5, in P.G., LIII, 280). It is therefore the expression of our desires to God whether for ourselves or others. This expression is not intended to instruct or direct God what to do, but to appeal to His goodness for the things we need; and the appeal is necessary, not because He is ignorant of our needs or sentiments, but to give definite form to our desires, to concentrate our whole attention on what we have to recommend to Him, to help us appreciate our close personal relation with Him. The expression need not be external or vocal; internal or mental is sufficient.
By prayer we acknowledge God’s power and goodness, our own neediness and dependence. It is therefore an act of the virtue of religion implying the deepest reverence for God and habituating us to look to Him for everything, not merely because the thing asked be good in itself, or advantageous to us, but chiefly because we wish it as a gift of God, and not otherwise, no matter how good or desirable it may seem to us. Prayer presupposes faith in God and hope in His goodness. By both, God, to whom we pray, moves us to prayer. (Catholic Answers).
Repentance is a good work
Repentance is a good work.. Good works are necessary for salvation. Salvation is not possible without repentance.
Acts 2:38 “38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
1 John1:8 “8 If we say, ‘We have no sin,’ we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth has no place in us;”
Forgiveness is a good work
Matt 6:15 “15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”. Salvation is not possible if we are unforgiving.
Because David is forgiving and forgives Saul, God forgives David. If God had not forgiven David, Heaven would have been closed to him.
Council of Trent; Decree Concerning Justification.
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, (Rom 3:24 “24* they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” ; Romans 5:1 “1* Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we * have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”) 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 (Heb 11:6 “6 And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”) 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. (Rom 11:6 “6* But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.).”
Matt 28:19-20 “19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Which commandments? These are summed up in Matt 22: “37* And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39* And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”
How do we love our neighbour? By good deeds.
1 John 4:20 “19* We love, because he first loved us. 20* If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot * love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.”
James 2 on Faith and Good Deeds.
14 How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?
15 If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on,
16 and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,’ without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that?
17 In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead.
Once.
18 But someone may say: So you have faith and I have good deeds? Show me this faith of yours without deeds, then! It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith.
Twice.
19 You believe in the one God — that is creditable enough, but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear.
20 Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless?
Three times.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did.
23 In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name ‘friend of God’.
Four times.
24 You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by faith alone, that someone is justified.
Five times.
25 There is another example of the same kind: Rahab the prostitute, was she not justified by her deeds because she welcomed the messengers and showed them a different way to leave?
Six times.
26 As a body without a spirit is dead, so is faith without deeds.
Seven times.
James repeats his teaching on Faith and Good deeds seven times in 13 verses.
Romans 2:6-7 “For God will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well doing (good works) seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life” – note “by patience in well doing….. he will give eternal life.” Eternal life.
1 Cor 13:13 “13 As it is, these remain: faith, hope and love, the three of them; and the greatest of these is love.”
Rev 3:15 “15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.”
Rev 20:12 “the dead were judged from what was written in the books, as their deeds deserved.”
Things that build up the Body of Christ.
Worshipping and praising God.
Prayer of praise, thanksgiving and petition.
Reading and meditation on the Word of God.
Proclaiming the Gospel.
Repentance.
Teaching the Word of God.
Love of neighbor.
Forgiving our neighbor.
Feeding the hungry.
Clothing the poor.
Visiting the sick and those in prison.
Reading and meditation on the lives of the saints.
…….
All of these are Good Works. The first effect of a good work is to increase the faith and charity of the one who practices it, as it flows from God’s grace. This in itself builds up the Body of Christ, as the good of one member of the Body of Christ results in the good of the whole Body of Christ, just as the hurt felt by one member of the Body of Christ results in the hurt of the whole Body of Christ.
Your understanding of merits in Catholicism is questionable. Yes, we can pray and do indulgences for souls in purgatory, but we neither atone their sins nor make transaction with God for their release from purgatory as if we have business deal with God, i.e. paying ransom for them. Even when we pray or do indulgences for souls in purgatory both action come and only possible with God’ grace. As a parallel example, God’s grace moves a person to works as missionary and his missionary works bring (thus meriting) some to Christ. That person does not become Saviour, neither does he become subcontractor for God’s works of salvation, i.e. a kind of business deal that always requires transaction (when you do something you will get something in return).
You are fully entitled to disagree with Catholicism and champion eastern orthodoxy – it is your business. But do not caricature Catholic belief “charitably” in order to give negative impression to your readers.
The article quotes of Roman Catholic source that literally says Purgatory atones for sins
Show us that source – it must be authoritative source of the Catholic Church. Source from a written/oral statement of any Catholic person is not authoritative.
Catholic Encyclopedia new advent
I cannot find that information. Can you copy and paste and indicate the source in detail?
“Whether our works of satisfaction performed on behalf of the dead avail purely out of God’s benevolence and mercy, or whether God obliges himself in justice to accept our vicarious atonement, is not a settled question.”
It says “it is NOT a settled question” but you make it de facto Catholic teaching. Which entry in Catholic encyclopedia that statement comes from?
It comes from the article on “Purgatory.” Why am I being criticized for saying that X is a RC teaching when we have a RC article that allows for it? No where did I say it was settled. In fact, I explicitly said the RC has in the last few decades began distancing themselves from popular RC doctrine on the afterlife and has began adopting a more Orthodox view.
Being that it is hard for you to stomach the ramifications and teachings of your own communion, hopefully this gives you sympathy for Orthodox who find it entirely disagreeable and alien.
As a FYI, I am working my way to defending the RC view, but this is an Orthodox site, don’t think I am going to do so without qualification!
Yes, no where it said it was settled but you took the initiative to make it settled by choosing the second one. If I were you I will put both options, indicated that the issue was not settled and provided link to the source.
We are free to write whatever we want but be ready to be scrutinized! Don’t expect our readers swallow whatever we write. And don’t be mad!
Yes, the author doesn’t have a proper understanding of Catholic metaphysical philosophy, whereas the Thomist would assert that Grace Alone saves, our will is actualized by God toward God through our free actions of faith, charity, practicing the sacraments etc.
Furthermore, all those in purgatory are assured their salvation. The concept of a “transaction” is rooted in Second Temple Judaism. Scripturally, it can be found in Proverbs 10:2; Sirach 5; Sir 31; Sir 35, as well as Tobit. This is all the foundation of when Christ calls those to store up their heavenly treasury.
Craig–
In your view, how do Protestant beliefs on faith, works, and merit compare to Orthodoxy’s? I didn’t see much here where we differ.
For example, you say that the application of Christ’s righteousness grants the repentant sinner both pardon for his sin and victory over sin and death. This is directly analogous to Calvin’s view of “double grace” whereby the believer is both justified AND sanctified and to August Toplady’s lyrics in “Rock of Ages” where he speaks of the “double cure” of Christ’s grace, saving us from sin’s guilt and from sin’s power.
There are, however, a number of phrases you use whose logic I cannot discern. You say that in EO one is saved through faith and not works, but you also say that one is justified by faith through works. Sorry, but I cannot figure out a way to jibe those two statements. Also, you observe (in your conclusion) that works not only merit salvation but are the fruits of that selfsame salvation. Again, I apologize, but I simply cannot make sense of such a claim. What’s that supposed to mean?
Perhaps the simplest way to put it are that works are our salvation. So we are justified by grace through faith, not by works, but the faith that justifies does so because the works are the transformation that justification enacts.
To speak Protestantese, Orthodoxy does not have a justification/sanctification dichotomy. Because of this, works do not earn salvation but they are inseperable from salvation.
To complicate matters further, it is pretty clear that Orthodoxy (until perhaps the late 1600s) defined faith as including works and did not view the two as dichotmous. This is why CHrysostom, Marius Victorinus, and etcetera wrote we were saved by “faith alone.” My spiritual father took some issue with this until he read CHrysostom, and realized the faith works paradigm as we see it today was completely different in the fathers.
In a sense, Luther’s paradigm opened a can of worms that when no responded to with the language of the patristics starts sounding Roman Catholic very quickly.
Close to a Catholic understanding.
I am working there but obviously there are nominal differences in language
You seem to be working on congruences/differences in Catholic/Orthodox theology. We have a great deal in common in our understanding of Mary. I recommend you have a look at the Virgo Immaculata, which expresses the Catholic view beautifully.
Virgo Immaculata blog I mean.
Craig–
Works are the transformation that justification enacts NECESSARILY…or contingently?
That is the argument. If you choose the former, you are functionally Reformed. If you choose the latter, you are saved by your works.
Justification does not enact transformation, it includes transformation. Even the Reformed admit that God regenerates the heart simultaneous to faith and justification.
Craig–
I was merely parroting your own words: “…works ARE the transformation that justification enacts.
Regardless, if salvation is contingent on works, even those works which are part and parcel of living faith, then it is salvation by works. If grace is merely an essential component of justification–which must be supplemented by our cooperation with that grace–then our works are also essential to bring it about. Sola Gratia not Prima Gratia.
As a Catholic, I affirm this belief in justification: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works.
“For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Gal. 5:5-6
You’re putting the cart in front of the horse. The works are salvation, they do not precede justification through faith but they necessarily proceed from it and are part of the continuing sanctification that occurs during continued faithfulness.
You’re saying two different (and incompatible) things:
1. Works proceed NECESSARILY from justification.
2. Salvation is maintained only contingently “during continued faithfulness.”
What in compatible for continued faithfulness to be necessary for continued justification? The Scriptures use the continuing present when speaking of “being justified” in three instances.
Philip–
I like what you say here but question the use of the Galatians passage…because it is used as a prooftext by Catholics to negate what you said in your first paragraph.
The first text is the 1999 agreement on Justification agreed upon by the Catholic Church within the frameworks of the understanding of that particular text in Galatians.
So there’s no contradiction, so far as the Church is concerned. Rather than just asserting your positive claim without evidence, you can attempt to build a case for your claim.
If I had to guess, your issue lies in your statement, “used as a prooftext by Catholics”
Craig–
Someone once said, “If you actually believed one tenth of what you say you believe, you’d be ten times as excited about it.”
I don’t know if you remember Keith Green, but he was highly influential in Evangelical circles as I was maturing in the faith.
He was famous for reading the Parable of the Sheep and Goats and concluding, “The only difference between the sheep and the goats was what they did and did not DO!!!
Of course, due to his trademark zealousness, he had glossed right on over the other obvious distinction:
Sheep…are sheep.
And goats…are goats.
So we have a decision to make:
1. Are sheep, sheep because of what they do?
2. Or do sheep do what they do…because they’re sheep?
You can say all day long that justification and sanctification are one process. In the end, it’s beside the point. The journey of the sheep into the sheepfold is indeed one process. We become sheep. We are kept in line by the Good Shepherd and learn to respond to his voice. We are lovingly brought back to the flock when we stray. And we eventually reach the safety of our pen, with its quest meadows and streams. It’s all one journey, but being birthed as a lamb is not the same thing as being disciplined with rod and staff, which is not the same thing as being hunted down when lost and returned to the fold.
But the crucial question is this: is the Good Shepherd the Author and Finisher of our faith, or is He not?
1. Can we opt out? (Sorry, Mr. Good Shepherd, sir. But this trek is not for me. Next time you don’t see me, it’s not because I’m lost. I’ve simply chosen another trail. No hard feelings, ok?)
2. Can we make it partly on our own?
(I couldn’t have made it this far without you, Mr. Shepherd, sir, but I’m gonna go it on my own for this last stretch. It’s all downhill anyway….)
3. Do we make it–while others don’t–based on our cooperation with grace? (I thank you, Shep, that you didn’t make me like other sheep: lazy, careless, falling by the wayside, tripping over rocks, slipping over precipes, getting sidetracked into the wilderness….)
Yes, there is continued faithfulness correlated with justification. But do WE stay faithful, or does He KEEP us faithful? Does the Good Shepherd lose a few dumb, wooly animals along the path? Or is he a competent shepherd who safeguards each dearly loved lambkin, come what may?
“[Is] the Author and Finisher of our faith, or is He not?”
He is.
“1. Can we opt out?”
Orthodoxy says yes and Calvinism says yes in a round about way (“those apostates said they believed, and they really felt that they did, but they must have not the whole time.”)
“2. Can we make it partly on our own?”
No.
“3. Do we make it–while others don’t–based on our cooperation with grace?”
Yes, see Phil 2:12-13, but even our cooperation is entirely by God’s grace.
“But do WE stay faithful, or does He KEEP us faithful?”
Both.
Philip–
Traditional Lutherans (such as the Missouri Synod Lutherans) don’t hold ecumenical talks with the Lutheran World Federation because there’s nothing to talk about. Every member of the LWF apostatized a good long time ago. I grew up in the ELCA, so I know first hand: It’s not a Christian church in any meaningful sense.
And yes, the World Methodists and World Reformed followed suit in endorsing the JDDJ. Mainstream Protestants all, with a couple of exceptions (CRCNA and EPC, both increasingly leftward leaning).
JDDJ is couched in ambiguous language much like Vatican II documents are. What’s the purpose for this sort of “ecumenism” anyway? Genuine ecumenism should cut to the chase, struggling through the remaining conflicts with conciseness and candor, not disguising them with imprecise rhetoric. (Plus, genuine ecumenism should be between groups that actually believe something.)
I don’t know what type of Catholic you are (from geocentrist RadTrad to neo-Marxist SJW) but the official Church appears to be little more than a Mainstream Protestant denomination tenuously holding onto a few traditional ethical positions (on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality).
It looks like the current pope is out to change all that…and wipe the remaining veneer of “tradition” forever away.
Since we’re talking here about basic differences between RC/EO soteriology and Evangelical/Reformed soteriology. I’m not sure why I need to make a case for my “claim.” Catholics may indeed think that no contradiction exists, but almost every single Evangelical denomination DOES. Try holding ecumenical discussions with Evangelicals and see how far you get.
Hans,
Your comment has nothing of substance as it’s filled with nothing more than a diatribe red herrings, ad hominems, and straw man. It doesn’t matter what type of Lutherans there are, what type of Catholic I am, or what is the purpose of ecumenism, or who the Pope is.
You asserted that my interpretation of Galatians is different from that particular statement from the JDDJ—when you agreed with it until I pointed it out. I was expecting that you would provide, being what seems to be a reformist, a scriptural refutation but it appears you can’t muster it. I’m not surprise you lack the evidence because in the end, I’ll ask by what authority do you interpret scripture? Your reply will be “my personal conscience.” The irony there is there’s now no logical foundation to refute anyone’s proof text at that point—which is why there is so many Evangelical dominations.
Philip–
You and I must be in different conversations. I didn’t say word one about your interpretation of Galatians since you never gave me one.
I don’t really involve my conscience much in hermeneutics. Like most, I use reason, tradition, and experience (which, despite your protestations, are probably what you use, as well).
What we have here with our back-and-forth is chit chat, not some formal debate, so your complaints as to my tangents and whatnot are totally irrelevant. I don’t owe you argumentation, and frankly, you haven’t given me much to argue against. (I can’t “straw man” arguments that aren’t there to begin with!)
So chill…and start again…if you so desire.
(I had to chuckle a little that your evaluation of my comments as a “diatribe of red herrings, ad hominems, and straw men” could itself be taken as a red herring, an ad hominem, and a straw man!)
No harm, no foul. But in the future…play nice. OK? I wasn’t being derisive or judgmental. Just jabbering. Not sure what offended you, but we all need to wear our thickest skin in these jousts.
All glory be to Christ.
Craig–
You said (that Calvinists would say):
“Those apostates said they believed, and they really felt that they did, but they must have not the whole time.”
That’s not quite true. Sure, they may have “believed” (after all, demons “believe”), but they never trusted in Christ. They were never regenerate…not for one instant. They may have been enlightened mentally. They may have been emotionally uplifted, even enthusiastic. They may have cleaned up their lives to some extent. But they never truly repented. They were never rooted and grounded in Christ.
Perhaps I’ve already told you this, but I tend to call the Parable of the Sower and the Seed, the Parable of the Roots. Those that grow and thrive and produce have deep, healthy roots. They’re plugged into the source of nutrients. The others either have no roots, shallow roots, or roots choked by the roots of weeds.
*************
If you believe that even our cooperation with grace is all of grace, then you’re functionally a monergist.
Monergism doesn’t mean that there’s only one actor. That would be tantamount to Antinomianism. We have a free and independent will…and we exercise that will. We display genuine contrition and strive our utmost to repent. There is an intense, concerted effort on our part. We do indeed cooperate with grace. We PERSEVERE with sweat and blood and toil and tears.
But our efforts are on an entirely different plane. They’re not worthy of being compared to Christ’s efforts. Plus, all of the necessary resources are provided. As many have noted (including Catholics and Orthodoxy, I believe), our efforts are like the child upon his or her father’s lap, “driving” a tractor. The kid may even be allowed to “steer” momentarily. But the father is totally in control the entire time. Technically, the child isn’t even necessary:
Monergism.
And that, by the way, is exactly what Philippians 2:12-13 is saying.
(Now, a good father slowly teaches a child to drive on his or her own. And that is definitely a part of sanctification. But a good earthly father oversees that process and–if he’s good enough–more or less controls it. With our Heavenly Father, it’s more, rather than less.)
How do you know you trusted in Christ?
Craig–
Also, could you answer the question:
Are we sheep because of the good things that we do?
OR
Do we do good things because we’re sheep?
Aren’t we getting of the tracks with these questions? Are we not what we eat? If we do good by God’s grace, are we not experiencing God’s gooness? And, if justification is transformative, becoming the goodness of God, then what said herein is inconsistent with this truth?
Craig–
No, fundamentally, we are NOT what we (spiritually) eat. We ARE what our spiritual DNA “programs” us to be. Yes, what we experience–what we learn by–is important. It helps us grow and to do good things (better and better).
But we simply cannot DO anything good until we ARE UNITED to Christ, who is the very embodiment of good. One isn’t transformed by doing good. One does good by first being transformed.
I think the problem for me, Craig, is that I am still unsure of what you mean by grace.
Most Catholics will say that grace is essential in everything we do, but they only mean that it assists in everything.
But God is at work in us to will and to do. Not assist. Do.
I get the same impression from Orthodoxy. There is no foreordination. God is not in control. He merely foreknows those who will respond to his grace in willing cooperation.
An Orthodox blogger, commenting on Philippians 1 (He who began a good work in you will complete it unto the day of Christ Jesus), said this:
“He was confident that they would keep themselves in the love of God, and God, who is able to keep them from stumbling, would finish the work that He had started in them.”
In other words, the blogger added the necessity of our maintaining ourselves in the faith.
You do the same thing:
“A correct understanding of ‘merit’ requires that we view such merit as entirely the work of God, and so man adds nothing to his salvation OTHER THAN HIS FAITHFULNESS to God. In effect, our faith saves us because faith is a trust in Christ that surrenders our will to His, so that we allow His grace to transform us into the image of Christ.”
Sorry, Craig, but we add nothing to our salvation…period. That’s what Sola Gratia means. We are justified by grace alone…through faith alone. You’re correct on this score. Faith–the total gift of faith–is indeed “a trust in Christ that surrenders our will to His.” Just keep the rest of your remarks consistent with this.
It seems like such a tiny thing, and yet it’s huge.
Augustine had it right. We have absolutely nothing we weren’t given. And God crowns his own gifts when he rewards us. He cannot hope to “keep us from stumbling” if he can fight off everything imaginable except our worst enemy: ourselves.
So we dont have faith, God has faith for us? God enables faith but faith is something we do because God is a doer and we are made in His image. It seems you think that we have completely lost the image of God Himself, a complete depravity as compared to a total depravity.
A complete depravity as opposed to “concupiscence”?
“Complete” or “total” depravity is not my experience,
Total Depravity is a doctrine which is understood. Total Depravity does not mean we are not in the image of God and have lost all goodness. Rather, we are good, but we are totally affected by the fall. This is consistent with the prayerlife of the Orthodox Church, though they do not endorse the term (again, due to misunderstanding.)
I agree that we are totally affected by the fall, and I also I find the term repugnant.
Fall or total depravity lol
Hans,
You say: “Most Catholics will say that grace is essential in everything we do, but they only mean that it assists in everything.”
That is actually not the case. It would be good if when you make assertions like that you quoted the Catechism, which is the official teaching of the Church.
Para 1989 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“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.”(Matt 4:17) 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.”(Council of Trent -1547: DS 1528.)”
You say: “In other words, the blogger added the necessity of our maintaining ourselves in the faith.”
Scripture is full of teachings validating this position. Here are a few examples:
Gal 5: 1, 4 “1 Christ set us free, so that we should remain free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be fastened again to the yoke of slavery.
4 …. then you have separated yourself from Christ, you have fallen away from grace.”
1 Tim 5:15 “15 there are already some who have turned aside to follow Satan.”
Heb 3:14 “14 because we have been granted a share with Christ only if we keep the grasp of our first confidence firm to the end.”
Heb 6: 4-6 “4 As for those people who were once brought into the light, and tasted the gift from heaven, and received a share of the Holy Spirit,
5 and tasted the goodness of God’s message and the powers of the world to come
6 and yet in spite of this have fallen away — it is impossible for them to be brought to the freshness of repentance a second time, since they are crucifying the Son of God again for themselves, and making a public exhibition of him.”
2 Pet 2:15, 20 “15 They have left the right path and wandered off to follow the path of Balaam son of Bosor, ….. 20 and anyone who has escaped the pollution of the world by coming to know our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and who then allows himself to be entangled and mastered by it a second time, ends up by being worse than he was before.”
1 Sam 11:6, 18 : 12
11: 6 “6 And the spirit of Yahweh seized on Saul when he heard these words,
18: 12 “12 Saul feared David, since Yahweh was with him and had withdrawn from Saul.”
Ezek 33:13 “13 Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die.”
You say: “Augustine had it right. We have absolutely nothing we weren’t given.”
Of course Augustine is right.
The Catechism states:
“1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.
1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:
Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.”
Hans,
You say: “So, according to you, then, a faithful Catholic may not seek to depose Francis.”
David never sought to depose Saul.
You say: “But he can in good conscience disagree with him, even vehemently.”
In good conscience yes, so long as he is faithful to the teaching of the church.”
You say: “And he can pray for God to depose him.”
If the prayer is qualified by: “if that is God’s will.”
You say: “Pray that his error might not infect the whole church.”
That assumes that there is an error in the first place. The church needs to make that judgement, not the individual. What is seen as an error in most cases is a failure to understand.
You say: “I’m more of the opinion that the last person to preside over the church was James the Just in Acts 15.”
Your opinion stands against the body of the church fathers, Tradition and church teaching.
You say: “They’ve changed over time on salvation outside the church, on the singularity of penance, on slavery, on capital punishment, on modern science, on higher criticism, on the inviolability of the Vulgate, on whether the papacy has to remain in Rome, on the selling of indulgences, on simony, on investiture, on Crusades, on the burning of heretics (and on freedom of religion, in general), Erastianism, colonialism, and on and on and on. The only way that Rome is infallible is through 20/20 hindsight and constant revisionism.”
For one thing, the Holy Spirit is constantly leading the church into the fullness of the truth.
The church has never taught that the sale of indulgences or simony was ok, despite abuses by some clerics at times, the other matters are not matters of faith.
You say: “Anti-schismatic sentiments are often nothing more than a convenient dodge for being soft on the purity of the church.”
Go and tell that to Korah, Dathan and Abiram. (Numbers 16).
Craig–
I can’t even imagine where you gleaned from my comments that I thought God has faith for us. You DID say that you used to be Reformed, right? Have you forgotten it all?
God does not have faith for us, but our faith comes from him. It is total gift on his part. Justification by faith alone is more or less shorthand for justification on account of Christ alone. Union with Christ is the ground for our justification.
It is a gift we exercise on our own, but we are saved by the gift and not by the exercise thereof. There’s nothing close to a denial of the Imago Dei in anything I said.
But you, of course, should know that, given your background in Calvinism.
So what kind of a game are you playing?
No game, I just said Orthodoxy teaches this, but we add our faith (by God’s grace.) The jailer said “what must I DO to be saved,” faith is something we do through God. See https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2018/05/12/augustine-versus-chrysostom-on-predestination/
Absolutely right Craig.
Faith can be considered as a “work”. It is something that we do (with God’s grace). It is not sufficient that Jesus died and paid for our sins 2,000 years ago. We have to play our part. We need to respond to God. Without our response in faith, we are not saved.
This does not seem a hard thing to grasp, but it appears to me that some of the most intelligent people around simply cannot grasp it. Hard to comprehend!
As Paul says, God puts into us the will and the action (Phil 2:13). But we have to co-operate with God’s grace, as God’s co-workers.
As long as we affirm that faith is not a work in the sense we see in Eph 2:9 🙂
Absolutely Craig, as we’ve been saying any good work has as its cause God’s grace, and is primarily the work of God. I will post an article on the nature of good works soon.
Craig–
Faith produces good works and is demonstrated by good works, but faith is NOT an action. Faith is trust, and if you have it, you have it while you sleep, or even while you have your feet up, relaxing, watching “Game of Thrones.”
By the way, Mark 16:16 says that “whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.” No works mentioned. We can’t base our theologies on passages read in isolation.
Hans,
This is a passage in isolation!!!!
Rewind–is faith some we DO or not?
W & S–
St. Peter’s Basilica was built on the life’s blood of the German poor through the sale of indulgences. You can’t get much more official than that. Whole generations of the Roman hierarchy were completely corrupt. We can easily talk about the “Gates of Hell” prevailing against the Catholic Church in this era here or that era there. And it’s sophistry to speak of some ideal existing somewhere, a few faithful monks in Citeaux or Clairvaux.
The Catholic Church is a man-made, man-centered institution. No shame there. It’s true of every Christian denomination. You just need to ditch the arrogant presumption that your church is somehow “special.” Evidence states otherwise. Get your head out of the sand. Development of Doctrine would have to show a consistent trajectory. It doesn’t. How can you even entertain that it does? How can antimodernism followed by its direct opposite, modernism, display a trajectory?
Hans,
It would be useful if you stopped talking in generalities.
Jesus founded the church, and no other. I’m glad you concede that your church is a man made institution.
Water & Spirit–
Good, you’re catching on!
Yes, I met a passage in isolation WITH a passage in isolation to show that “duelling Scriptures” gets us nowhere fast.
W &S–
You might be surprised to learn that virtually every church believes that it was founded by Christ. Jesus, after all, is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. How many denominations do you think there are out there who believe themselves to be an innovation and thus false?
Ze-ro!
Besides, if we judge by Scripture–which is the nearest we can get to the actual founding of the One Church–your church is far more innovative than any Protestant ecclesial group I’m aware of.
I mean, it’s not even close!
Hans,
First you say that every church is a man made institution, then that virtually every church believes that it was founded by Christ. There is a bit of an inconsistency here you know.
What you call “innovative” is only innovative for someone with a different tradition.
If you read the church fathers with some degree of honesty, you will not fail to see that what they teach the Catholic ( and largely the Orthodox) church teaches today. That is what the early Christians believed and practiced, not Luther’s or Calvin’s or anyone else’s innovations.
W & S–
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you’re reading the Fathers through Rome-colored glasses! Genuinely honest inquiry reveals the ECF’s to be neither proto-Protestant nor proto-Catholic, but a tertium quid.
Quite frankly, your statement strikes me with about the same force as a Mormon claiming that the Church Fathers were clearly LDS! I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me. Not a single unambiguously RC distinctive can be mined from church texts prior to 300 AD!
On the other hand, JBFA is explicitly set forward in both 1 Clement and the Epistle to Diognetus.
What do you think the Re-formers were trying to do, anyway? These theologians were attempting to clear away centuries of accretions and innovations added by the Roman hierarchy. Thus, their writings are chock full of patristic citations!
If you want to debate the issue, have on! But don’t you dare assert that the texts are self-evidently on your side. It’s simply not so….
Hans, I’m trying this again, my comment seems to have gone to the wrong spot and you may not find it. Here it is:
Hans,
Here are a few examples for you:
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
St Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 110.
Speaking about heretics, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ”
St Justin Martyr, c.a. A.D. 148.
“We call this food Eucharist. … 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 nourished, is both the blood and the flesh of that incarnated Jesus.”
St Iraneus, C.a. 180.
“When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ …. “
Tradition has always been regarded as the rule of faith.
St Iraneus, A.D 180.
“ She (The church) likewise believes these things just as if she had just one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same.”
From the earliest times, the church showed that it was a single unified body.
St Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 110.
“Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions”
The martyrdom of St Polycarp, A.D. 155.
“The church of God which sojourns in Smyrna, to the church of God which sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place:”
St Iraneus, A.D. ca. 180
“neither do the churches among the Germans believe otherwise or have another tradition, nor do those among the Iberians, nor among the Celts, nor away in the East, nor in Egypt, nor in Lybia, nor those that have been established in the central regions of the world. But just as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men who desire to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
From the earliest times the primacy of the bishop of Rome was affirmed.
Iraneus, c.a. A.D. 180, after naming the first twelve popes, says. “In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.
St Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 251.
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere is scattering.
Works too are necessary for Justification and the concept of Merit.
Origen, C.A. 232.
“whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in Him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself”
St Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 256.
“… so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living.”
Justin Martyr, c.a. A.D. 148.
“Neither would man deserve reward or praise if he did not himself choose the good; nor, if he acted wickedly, would he deserve punishment, since he would not be evil by choice, and could not be other than that which he was born.”
Mary is the Mother of God.
Iraneus, c.a. 180.
“The Virgin Mary, … being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God.
The church has received from Christ the power to remit sins.
Firmilian of Caesarea, A.D. 255.
“Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place.”
St Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 251.
“Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who, … since did take thought of doing such a thing, confess even to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience.”
The souls of the dead can be aided by the suffrages of the living.
Tertullian, A.D. 211.
“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their anniversaries.”
“A woman, after the death of her husband, …. She prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice.”
No, Craig, faith is NOT something we do. And no English dictionary, theological reference text, or Greek/Hebrew concordance will say otherwise.
Craig,
Is repentance something we do?
Acts 2:37-38 “37 Hearing this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘What are we to do, brothers?’
38 ‘You must repent,’ Peter answered, ‘and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Is believing in Jesus something we do?
John 11.25 “25 Jesus said: I am the resurrection. Anyone who believes in me, even though that person dies, will live,”
Not something we do?
I mean Hans!
Apparently not lol
Then why did the Philippian jailer ask “what must I do to be saved” and Paul responded that he must believe?
Philip–
I’ll give you a brief reply to Galatians 5, just in case that’s really what you were wanting.
Of course conformity to the law means nothing, but instead faith working through love means everything. A living faith produces Spirit-wrought works of love. Are you somehow thinking the Reformed contest this?
All we are saying is that sometimes, this is not the point. Benedict XVI said that he agreed with Luther on justification by faith alone, as long as the faith in question is formed by love.
In other words, B16 gave with one hand and took away with the other. Why, you ask? I’ll give you an illustration:
If I wish to vacuum a filthy rug, I need a functioning vacuum, a power source, and a bit of a work ethic. That last is incredibly important if I want a clean rug. But if I want to figure out what’s wrong with the vacuum once it’s on the fritz, the troubleshooter I send it to doesn’t want to know about how responsible and energetic I am. He wants to determine if the inner workings are functioning properly. He might also ask to make sure that my electrical outlet hasn’t shorted out.
In terms of justification, Protestants are asking whether there is a working vacuum. And whether or not it is plugged in. A living faith doesn’t produce good works 24/7, and yet it is still a living faith.
A working vacuum, sitting in the closet, is still a working vacuum. We don’t say, “It’s broken because no one is using it right now.”
Don’t push the analogy. We can never detach from our spiritual power source, nor should we sit in the closet gathering dust.
Nevertheless, being a working vacuum IS different from a vacuum doing work.
We’re sheep because of who we are in Christ. And such sheep naturally do good things in and through the Spirit.
We are NOT sheep because of what we do. Goats may go over and over a dirty carpet with an unplugged vacuum and make it none the cleaner. Not only that, but their actions will achieve nothing toward getting the vacuum to work.
Hans,
Here are a few examples for you:
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
St Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 110.
Speaking about heretics, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ”
St Justin Martyr, c.a. A.D. 148.
“We call this food Eucharist. … 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 nourished, is both the blood and the flesh of that incarnated Jesus.”
St Iraneus, C.a. 180.
“When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ …. “
Tradition has always been regarded as the rule of faith.
St Iraneus, A.D 180.
“ She (The church) likewise believes these things just as if she had just one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same.”
From the earliest times, the church showed that it was a single unified body.
St Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 110.
“Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions”
The martyrdom of St Polycarp, A.D. 155.
“The church of God which sojourns in Smyrna, to the church of God which sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place:”
St Iraneus, A.D. ca. 180
“neither do the churches among the Germans believe otherwise or have another tradition, nor do those among the Iberians, nor among the Celts, nor away in the East, nor in Egypt, nor in Lybia, nor those that have been established in the central regions of the world. But just as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men who desire to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
From the earliest times the primacy of the bishop of Rome was affirmed.
Iraneus, c.a. A.D. 180, after naming the first twelve popes, says. “In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.
St Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 251.
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere is scattering.
Works too are necessary for Justification and the concept of Merit.
Origen, C.A. 232.
“whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in Him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself”
St Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 256.
“… so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living.”
Justin Martyr, c.a. A.D. 148.
“Neither would man deserve reward or praise if he did not himself choose the good; nor, if he acted wickedly, would he deserve punishment, since he would not be evil by choice, and could not be other than that which he was born.”
Mary is the Mother of God.
Iraneus, c.a. 180.
“The Virgin Mary, … being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God.
The church has received from Christ the power to remit sins.
Firmilian of Caesarea, A.D. 255.
“Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place.”
St Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 251.
“Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who, … since did take thought of doing such a thing, confess even to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience.”
The souls of the dead can be aided by the suffrages of the living.
Tertullian, A.D. 211.
“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their anniversaries.”
“A woman, after the death of her husband, …. she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice.”
W & S–
1. The Real Presence is not a Catholic distinctive, being believed and practiced by Calvin, Luther, and Cranmer…and their successors down to the present day.
2. In the early days, Scripture and Tradition almost completely overlapped. Everything was to have a Scriptural basis: their apologetic arguments–and their pragmatic correspondence, for that matter–are inundated by biblical passages!
3. Again, the unity of the church is not a Catholic distinctive. We center our unity on the truth of Scripture. You center yours on the continuity of hierarchy. The early church’s hierarchy was patchwork, organic, ad hoc. It was really rough around the edges. It almost certainly was not the center for their unity.
4. Works are necessary for salvation in every communion in Christendom.
5. Likewise, Mary is the mother of God in virtually every communion.
6. I don’t know of any Christian group where the clergy don’t have the power to absolve sin. Perhaps there are some…or some who don’t like it worded that way.
7. You all make sacrifices on the anniversary of loved ones’ deaths? This is news to me! (The citation says that SHE, the wife, made sacrifice, so we’re not talking about the Eucharist here. Is there a larger context?)
8. Do you have any real evidence? Or is this it?
W & S–
Oh, and there’s pretty much a consensus among scholars–Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and secular–that the papacy does NOT reach back all the way to Peter.
Hans,
I’ve never come across any such consensus among Catholic scholars. You must live in dreamland.
Hey Hans,
Ever thought of becoming a Catholic? I’ve never met a Protestant like you. Any of the above would be red rags to a bull to the ones I talk to.
You seem a bit disconnected to reality!
Try talking to Evangelicals/Assemblies of God types and you’ll see what they have to say. Or maybe words have no meaning for you.
W & S–
The consensus of academia is indeed that the papacy does not go back to the beginning. You must be in a bubble of conservative Catholics.
Many, if not most, Evangelicals stem from the Radical Reformation. On the other hand, Anglicans, Lutherans, and the Reformed groups (such as Presbyterians) come from the original Reformation, the Magisterial Reformation. These are high-church groups that are sacramental in nature and have far more in common with Catholics and the Orthodox.
Gentlemen:
All birds have these frilly things called feathers, with which some of them fly.
The sun is unbearably hot in Death Valley in the summertime, right around noon.
Newly fallen snow can be glaringly white and dazzlingly sparkly and beautiful.
Faith is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, something we do.
Please, remind me. Why on earth are we arguing over this? It’s not like it’s even remotely a debatable point.
We can EXERCISE faith. That’s something we can do. Is that what you guys are talking about?
Faith is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, something we do.
Please, remind me. Why on earth are we arguing over this? It’s not like it’s even remotely a debatable point.
Me-don’t know if this is official teaching or not but I would replace the faith in the first sentence with grace.
God gives all the grace to have faith but you must act on it (exercise it). To exercise it is an act of the will. A work if you will.
Even taking your view on faith, if you choose not to exercise your faith (an act of the will/a work) your salvation is at risk. So it still comes down to whether or not work plays a part in our salvation. By choosing to exercise our faith we are making an active decision to cooperate with His grace (a work) or choose not to (also a work). There are several passages of someone flat out asking Jesus what must one do to be saved and all the answers require what you would call exercising their faith (a work).
So the question to you now is, must one exercise their faith to be saved? Does one have the free will to exercise their faith?
Well spoken CK.
Hans, this is heretical and mincing over words. Do is not a bad word. Exercise is something done by the one who exercises by the way. The Scriptures use the word DO. You can write your own Bible and make up your own theology from it bit please dont denigrate the word do when God uses it.
Craig–
I could throw accusations of heresy right back at you, but most of this should be considered miscommunication until we know one way or the other.
I agree that “do” is not a bad word. We should all strive to employ it as God employs it in his Word. I believe that I am doing just that, and that you are not: thus the argument. I will not stoop to impugning your motives and methods. How about your extending me the same courtesy?
You’re dodging, you said we cannot “do” faith or repentance, now we say we can, which is it? I honestly want to know your position.
Craig–
I’m not dodging anything! (Watch your words. You’re being extremely careless with them.)
I never said we could not “do” repentance. And I never went back and forth on whether or not faith was an action. I’ve been quite clear and entirely consistent.
Hans,
Excercising faith is something we do. That we have to do to be pleasing to God.
Craig–
One thing I think you should keep in mind: when folks in the Bible ask, “What must I do to be saved?” nobody actually answers their question…at least not directly. Nobody says, “Pray five Hail Marys, six Our Fathers, and help seven old ladies across the street!” They’re told to believe. Repent and believe. Believe and be baptized. Sell all that you have and come follow (i.e., totally commit yourself).
In other words, the answer to “What shall I do to be saved?” is the following:
No do. Trust.
Repenting is somethi g we do…
Repenting is indeed something we do, once we have faith and can see our sin as sin.
Aren’t “have” and “see” verbs? Don’t the connote response on the part of the individual? You are splitting hairs.
Good grief, Craig, this has gone on long enough! I’m not splitting hairs; you’re twisting things! Yes, as a matter of fact, “to have” is quite different from “to fetch” and “to see” is quite different from “to watch” or “to look” in terms of personal initiative.
But this is not even about that. You claim to understand Reformed soteriology. If that is true, quit being obtuse.
For it is God who is at work in us both to will and to do.”
Is God at work in us, him willing and him doing? Or is God at work in us that we might will and do (or that we might be assisted in our willing and our doing)?
The grammar doesn’t separate between these possibilities. It could be an austere, puppet-like control, or it could be a mere “pitching in to help.” Or anything in between!
I happen to think it’s both. WE work out our salvation with fear and trembling and sweat and blood and tears because he has already worked out our salvation with sweat and blood and tears. There are two planes of effort: one is God’s. It comes first (in time and significance) and it is completely effectual. You like recapitulation I think. Well, that’s basically what our efforts are like. But they are secondary, contingent. We tread the path he has already trod. Our efforts are important in their own way, but they do not affect the outcome. He has already accomplished everything. It is finished!
If you somehow feel I’m diminishing the significance of good works and progressive inherent righteousness, find another whipping boy! Some Calvinists actually do tend toward Antinomianism, but I’m not one of them! Keith Green was a hero of mine for a reason: I cannot stand the basic do-nothing attitude of the huge majority of Evangelicals. (Though it’s not like Catholics and Orthodox are really any better!)
I’m not denigrating the verb “to do” nor the studied increase of personal righteousness. They’re just not involved in the event which Protestants call justification (which isn’t at all the same thing as the process which RC/EO theologians call justification).
Hans,
You say “but they do not affect the outcome.”
That is not what Jesus says:
John 6: “53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
“You have no life in you”. You get that?
The scriptures use the word “do” and you are the one posing other words. Neither of us have better grammar than God. We must DO something to be saved…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you want to wrangle over words, try reseArching why the word “on” instead of “in” is used in acts 16.
W & S–
We Protestants believe in the Real Presence, so as long as it is Jesus vouchsafing the Eucharist and not your church, I’ll be just fine.
(I like your church and all–as churches go–but I’d rather throw in my lot with the Savior himself…not supposed proxies.)
Hans,
There is so much smoke in Catholic /Protestant “dialogue” it’s not funny. Of course Christ is the one who turns the wine into his blood and the bread into his body in the mass, the priest stands for him, as he instructed the apostles to “do this in memory of me”.
The church is not a proxy for Christ, he is its head.
If you want to know something about Catholic teaching, read the Catechism, don’t rely on what you’ve heard or read.
Craig–
Boy, you really dig in your heels! Is there a reason you’re obsessed with the word “do” and wish to defend it to the death?
Nobody on this side of the argument has proposed that we get rid of it by retranslating it or just leaving it out of the text. Nobody here thinks it is uninvolved in the process of salvation. In fact, I’ve said I really like the word. Holy living is really important to me like it was to the Puritans. And a large majority of them were Reformed.
Anyone who has genuinely spent time in the Reformed camp–as you say you have–would question what I am saying or why I’m saying it. More or less for fun, I asked my wife, “What do you think? Is faith something we do…or not? Immediately, she quipped an emphatic “Not!!” and then added as if almost annoyed at the self-evident nature of my query, “Duh!”
Pretty much anything, even tangentially about us, can be said to be an “action,” no matter how passive: We “have” blue eyes. We are “getting” some rest. We have “received” an email. We are “waiting” by the curb. We “realized” the bedroom was getting brighter near dawn.
The Rich, Young Ruler basically asked the same question as the jailer, “What must I DO to be saved?” What can I add to my already impressive resume of doing to assure my salvation?
Jesus answered, “No do. Commit!” Put your money where your mouth is. Entrust your life into my hands.
You can say these were actions if you want to. And technically, they are. They’re not even particularly passive. But the fact of the matter is that this self-reliant Doer of Good Deeds refused to do them.
We are justified by faith…not by works lest any should boast.
Did that get clipped out of your Bible?
(And I have no clue why you wanted me to go through the various translations of “epi” in Acts 16. The Greek preposition doesn’t mean “on” all of the time or even most of the time. In the passage in question it is translated as “in” in more than half of the versions (close to 30) that I checked.. So why is it “on” instead of “in”?
It’s not.)
Hans,
Jesus says to the young man to and sell all he has, give it to the poor, then to come follow him. He asks him to DO something.
W & S–
Yes, the Rich, Young Ruler is asked to DO things. And why is it that he cannot? After all, he’s a doer from the word “go”!
He cannot because he doesn’t have faith. He doesn’t trust the ways and teachings of Jesus. He finds comfort in his wealth rather than in the love and wisdom of the Redeemer.
Jesus’ request for these particular actions lays bare the depravity of this man’s heart. It’s not as if these tasks (as tasks) would have done anything to supplement or perfect the Ruler’s exemplary resume. The fact of the matter is that he has a heart problem, not a work ethic problem!
W & S–
1. I was merely venting there, not presenting an argument. I’m sure it’s true on your side, too. Interfaith dialogue is so messy that one is tempted to scream and tear one’s hair out…and curse the fool out of the opposition! This “rant,” as it were, was intended to be non-specific. If you want me to flesh it out, I’ll be glad to do so. It was, more or less, an invitation for you to make such a query.
2. I grew up in the LCA (Lutheran Church in America), a mainline Protestant denomination. Detractors of theological liberalism would joke that if we made it to heaven, it would only be by LCA=luck, chance, or accident.
My statement concerning luck had to do with Catholic soteriology. In the Protestant view, all sin is mortal. (In Catholic theology, there’s no way to know for sure if you’ve committed a mortal sin: no definitive list exists, plus, you have to be aware of the intentions of your heart and the state of your knowledge of each sin’s gravity.) if mortal sin constantly places us outside of God’s good graces, then our only chance is dumb luck…if that.
We Protestants, on the other hand, don’t go in and out of grace with every sin. Righteousness is imputed to us that doesn’t ever leave. Our union with Christ keeps us covered.
On my view, it is you who are entrusting your fate to chance…and the odds are very slim. (Well, more like non-existent, but why quibble?)
Hans,
That is called once saved always saved.
As you say, faith calls one to “do”, in this case to repent and confess your sins, to forgive from the heart. If you do not forgive, your “Christ keeps us covered” will be of no avail.
Water–
It is most definitely NOT OSAS. Do some reading. Get it straight. I tire of ceaselessly correcting.
You had better hope you’re covered for more than those sins you remember and repent of. You had better hope that you are not held to blame for those you forget to forgive.
Of course, Catholic theology has a million loopholes for you to take advantage of. If you forget…if you’re unaware of the gravity of the sin…if you’re less than a totally willing participant…this mitigating circumstance here…that mitigating circumstance there…walk through these holy doors…wear this brown scapular…say this novena…go on that pilgrimage…walk this labyrinth.
Heck, just be a half-way decent person, go to Mass somewhat regularly, and don’t kill anyone. At the very least you’ll find yourself in Purgatory.
Once Saved, Always Saved, Catholic-style!
Yours is the ultimate we’re-covered-for-this, we’re-covered-for-that faith tradition. So, Mr. Antinomian, sir, quit calling the kettle black!
We as Protestant feel ourselves just as liable as you to confess our sins and seek absolution. We’re huge on repentance and holy living. We’re big on forgiving others from the heart…as many times as it takes. We grieve over our sins…on our knees…in tears.
We’re covered, as it were, because we’re part of a family, part of a flock herded by a good-hearted Shepherd. We’re rebellious and hypocritical and sanctimonious and deceitful and rude.
But we will always respond to reproof…at least eventually. And we will never be allowed to run away…for very long. It’s really not so radical. Think Catholicism, and then add a God who loves his children through thick or thin.
Just get it through your head that God’s children–nuts that we are–do not fall far from the tree. In so many, many ways, we take after him. As a result, we don’t–indeed, we cannot–strike out on our own, never to return. Love for the Father burns within us and cannot be quenched. Plus, his love for us will not be thwarted.
The poem–The Hound of Heaven–was written by a Catholic. We Protestants take it to heart.
Whoa Hans,
You say: “go to Mass somewhat regularly, and don’t kill anyone”.
I thought in your world every sin was mortal!
Water–
In speaking of Mass attendance and the avoidance of unambiguously mortal sins (such as murder), I was, of course, referring to Catholicism and her deficient hamartiology that is tough on sin on paper, but which is de facto Antinomian (as some Catholics have acknowledged to me face to face…highly Catholic communities can be veritable dens of iniquity).
Hans,
More generalities. You come with a negative attitude to the church, in a cynical way, so the truth eludes you.
The church is fully comprehensible only from within.
As to dens of iniquity, any and all Christian communities can go there; when the self takes over, the grace of God leaves.
Feed the poor, forgive another. etc… actually if you don’t forgive you won’t be forgiven. That’s pretty straight forward and makes no sense to bring up if is a reflex for the elect like breathing.
CK–
It’s not so much like an involuntary reflex, I suppose. But it comes naturally. It comes as a matter of course. It never doesn’t come. Think “learning to walk and talk” perhaps, speaking of infants to toddlers.
Guess what. Before that matter of course comes you are not in unity with Christ. So if you die during that period your soul is danger. Now you can say the elect will always repent before they die, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are not in Christ during the interim. If you are not in Christ you are not saved. Period. There are plenty of warnings in the Bible to be prepared at all times. If you somehow believe you are elect you may not heed the warning with haste and find yourself being judged in your interim period.
CK–
There is no interim in which I am not united to Christ. He has made that exasperatingly clear to me. (And in Catholicism, there is no interim unless you fall out of a State of Grace through mortal sin.)
We take sin more seriously than you guys do. For us, every sin is mortal. (And if we’re correct, you are REALLY up a creek due to your laxness toward becoming righteous.) We are CONSTANTLY confessing and repenting of sin. We don’t wait for the weekend. As John Owen famously said, “Unless we are busy killing sin, it will be busy killing us.”
Ah. So you are constantly working out your salvation with fear and trembling!
Welcome to Catholicism!!!
I’m glad you take sin seriously.
CK–
Catholicism with a twist. We have a God who stamps his name on us. We’re his legally adopted children, and he is obsessed with watching to make sure we make it all the way home.
As the hymn, “How Firm a Foundation” puts it:
“The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose
I will not, I will not desert to his foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake!”
I much prefer our Christ to yours, who seems to be constantly giving up on people.
Hans,
God will never forsake us. He is always faithful. It is us who move away from him.
Hans-Catholicism with a twist. We have a God who stamps his name on us. We’re his legally adopted children, and he is obsessed with watching to make sure we make it all the way home.
Me-Nice but watching and guiding is different then forcing. You say you believe in free will but if there is no choice there is no free will.
Hans-I much prefer our Christ to yours, who seems to be constantly giving up on people.
Me-ah I was waiting for the dishonesty to show its head. You know full well we don’t believe this. God never gives up on us but we can give up on Him. The Prodigal Son is a good example. The reason you can’t wrap this around your head is because, contrary to what you say, you don’t believe in free will.
CK–
If you go into a prison and spring the doors, telling each inmate, “You’re free to go,” how many of them will refuse the offer, on average?
Zero.
Does that mean they don’t have free will? Or does it mean they received a darn good offer?
Now, why it that you say that God doesn’t give up on us, but WE can give up on him? (And that if it isn’t so, we have no free will.)
In Romans 7, St. Paul notes that if he does what he does not want to do, it is no longer he who is doing it, but the sin indwelling him is perpetrating the wrongdoing. For children of Christ, sin runs counter to free will. If we are new creatures, we have passed from death to life.
Do you imagine that those who have been made new in Christ can freely sin? Can turn against God and leave him? Does that actually make sense to you?
Wouldn’t they have to be tricked or tempted or manipulated or coerced into turning their backs on God? Wouldn’t behavior that ran counter to their new natures have to be considered less than free?
And if the Goid Shepherd is faithful in keeping watch, isn’t he going to be able to thwart these attempts to muddle the minds of his beloved sheep? Our greatest enemy is always ourselves. Self-deception runs deep and is incredibly difficult to defeat.
And yet YOUR God has no means to defend you from these deceptions. He must simply let you go because you ask him to…in order to respect your so-called “freedom of will.”
A “freedom” that has you bound hand and foot through the machinations of the Evil One. A “freedom” that will see you cast into the outer darkness.
Forgive my impertinence, but you can take your version of freedom and “shove it” as far as I’m concerned. There’s nothing free involved.
And your Christ is anything but faithful, surrendering sheep to any old wolf in sheep’s clothing as long as the sheep goes willingly. Faithless…and not particularly bright, to boot. Not very Christ-like attributes if you ask me. We should start calling him the Not-So-Good Shepherd.
Witless. Incompetent. Lazy. Cowardly. Lacking in common decency and basic compassion.
Tell me again. Why is it that you worship this ne’er-do-well? You could do so much better.
W & S–
Oh, believe me, I check in with the old CCC on a frequent basis. I’ve read a goodly chunk of it by now. Extremely well written.
You can check my reply to CK for a fuller response, but I have real trouble with the whole “He’s always faithful to us, but we can turn our backs on him” paradigm. He’s a shepherd. We’re sheep. What part of oversight responsibility are you relieving Christ of?
Is that how you parent? Are you faithful to watch over your fourteen-year-old daughter as long as she chooses to live under your roof?
If she goes out and gets arrested for drug use or comes home pregnant, do you just say, “Oh, well, that’s just her exercising her free will. I can’t do anything about that. But I’ll always be here for her.”
Yeah, that’ll get you multiple father-of-the-year awards!!
Hans,
Good to hear about the CCC.
Are you a parent?
You are always there for your kids, but sometimes they turn away and it tears your heart. But you can’t force them, because they do have a free will. God willing, they may turn back. Sometimes they don’t.
W & S–
I do have children. Little children. And when they try to escape out the front door, I “force” them to remain. If they momentarily escape, I immediately fetch them and drag them back, kicking and screaming…kind of how C. S. Lewis describes his conversion!
Freedom–true freedom–isn’t getting to do what we want but what is good for us. A truly Good Shepherd coerces his sheep to stick with the flock.
W & S–
Sometimes we even coerce grown children and adults to do what is good for them. Parents will hire “deprogrammers” to extricate their college-aged kids from the hands of a cult. Courts will require addicts to go into rehab to keep their kids or their jobs or to stay out of prison.
But you also forget an important point. Our children, at a certain point–when they turn 18, or when they move out of the house–are emancipated out from under our control.
Exactly when were you emancipated from our Heavenly Father?
Hans-If you go into a prison and spring the doors, telling each inmate, “You’re free to go,” how many of them will refuse the offer, on average?
Zero.
Does that mean they don’t have free will? Or does it mean they received a darn good offer?
Now, why it that you say that God doesn’t give up on us, but WE can give up on him? (And that if it isn’t so, we have no free will.)
Me-Jesus dumbed things down for us with parables. The Prodigal Son was had a good thing going yet he walked away from the father. Feel free to ignore the how Jesus tried to explain it.
Hans-In Romans 7, St. Paul notes that if he does what he does not want to do, it is no longer he who is doing it, but the sin indwelling him is perpetrating the wrongdoing. For children of Christ, sin runs counter to free will. If we are new creatures, we have passed from death to life.
Me-So no more temptations and falling to those temptations?
Hans-Do you imagine that those who have been made new in Christ can freely sin? Can turn against God and leave him? Does that actually make sense to you?
Me-Yes! You are describing Adam. He had no sin, was in union with God and freely sinned!
Me-Wouldn’t they have to be tricked or tempted or manipulated or coerced into turning their backs on God? Wouldn’t behavior that ran counter to their new natures have to be considered less than free?
Me-Again I point you to Adam. In your new nature are you closer to God than Adam was before the fall?
Hans-And if the Goid Shepherd is faithful in keeping watch, isn’t he going to be able to thwart these attempts to muddle the minds of his beloved sheep? Our greatest enemy is always ourselves. Self-deception runs deep and is incredibly difficult to defeat.
Me-Yes God gives us all the tools to thwart these attempts but our hearts need to be open to them and we need to use them. He tells us its incredibly difficult to defeat. The road is narrow.
Hans-And yet YOUR God has no means to defend you from these deceptions. He must simply let you go because you ask him to…in order to respect your so-called “freedom of will.”
Me-My God is the God of Adam. God did not fail Adam, Adam chose not to obey and God allowed him.
Hans-A “freedom” that has you bound hand and foot through the machinations of the Evil One. A “freedom” that will see you cast into the outer darkness.
Forgive my impertinence, but you can take your version of freedom and “shove it” as far as I’m concerned. There’s nothing free involved.
And your Christ is anything but faithful, surrendering sheep to any old wolf in sheep’s clothing as long as the sheep goes willingly. Faithless…and not particularly bright, to boot. Not very Christ-like attributes if you ask me. We should start calling him the Not-So-Good Shepherd.
Witless. Incompetent. Lazy. Cowardly. Lacking in common decency and basic compassion.
Tell me again. Why is it that you worship this ne’er-do-well? You could do so much better.
Me-hmm. Again you are inconsistent. If things worked the way you say then sheep would never get lost to begin with and need to be found, but go ahead and keep that not so sheepy attitude.
CK–
My point on sheep was not that they never go astray, but that they never completely turn their backs on the Shepherd to find their own way. They hear and respond to his voice. They rejoice to be found and rescued.
The Prodigal Son DOES find his way back, perhaps reaching the end of his rope due to the intervention of God in the form of famine.
Adam is not in the same state as a believer in Christ. St. Augustine writes of the four-fold state of mankind in terms of our ability or inability to overcome the temptation to sin. Until he sinned, Adam had the ability to withstand temptation and not sin. After the fall, it was impossible for mankind NOT to sin. With the coming of the Gospel, we regained the ability to overcome sin but not on a perfect, ongoing basis.
There are many differences between us and Adam:
1. We can sin more than once without losing grace.
2. The incarnation and atonement: our sins are forgiven us, and we are put in mystical union with Christ.
3. We have other graces…the church and the sacraments.
4. We are freed from sin and death in the resurrection.
5. We are in a state of grace rather than a state of innocence. Adam hadn’t experienced sin. He didn’t know what it was.
Hans-My point on sheep was not that they never go astray, but that they never completely turn their backs on the Shepherd to find their own way. They hear and respond to his voice. They rejoice to be found and rescued.
The Prodigal Son DOES find his way back, perhaps reaching the end of his rope due to the intervention of God in the form of famine.
Me-I haven’t read the parable in some time but I don’t believe it says the father caused him to starve (that’s you forcing it to fit your theology). He was starving because of his actions, but it does say he realized how good he had it and it does say he completely turned away from the father. He did cut himself off from the father and the father let him. He took his inheritance and considered his father dead. The implication is obvious!
During that time he was a goat and yet the father never gave up on him.
The point you are missing is that a goat is never in a state of grace and sheep are never not in a state of grace. If at anytime you are not in a state of grace you are a goat. If you are lost but still calling out to Christ you are still a sheep if not, like the prodigal son was in the beginning, you are a goat.
Don’t call it free will (I tend to agree with what you said earlier about what true free will is) but we are free to make choices and these choices affect our salvation. In the parable we saw a son choosing to completely cut himself from the father and the choosing to come back. The father sadly let him go and was overcome with joy when the son came back.
CK–
But you are forgetting a few things.
1. The story of the one sheep who is lost as opposed to the ninety-nine already in safety. The Shepherd DOES leave the others to rescue the one, bringing him back to the flock with great rejoicing! This sheep doesn’t simply “come to his senses.”
2. Ever hear of another story involving a famine in a faraway Gentile land that brought a whole people back home to the Promised Land? These stories aren’t told in isolation. A Jewish audience would have naturally seen famine as the hand of God, stimulating a return.
3. There are no stories where a sheep becomes a goat or vice-versa. There are a number of stories where something is lost and then found, but coins remain coins, sheep remain sheep, and sons remain sons.
1. The story of the one sheep who is lost as opposed to the ninety-nine already in safety. The Shepherd DOES leave the others to rescue the one, bringing him back to the flock with great rejoicing! This sheep doesn’t simply “come to his senses.”
Me-no but the prodigal son does.
2. Ever hear of another story involving a famine in a faraway Gentile land that brought a whole people back home to the Promised Land? These stories aren’t told in isolation. A Jewish audience would have naturally seen famine as the hand of God, stimulating a return.
Me-possibly but funny you can’t see how a Jewish audience would naturally see the how Christ implement a new Passover that requires that we acts eat Him ie. the lamb, but I digress.
3. There are no stories where a sheep becomes a goat or vice-versa. There are a number of stories where something is lost and then found, but coins remain coins, sheep remain sheep, and sons remain sons.
Me-really? Do we actually have to see the word sheep? In the parable of the unmerciful servant the king forgives the servant. No jail! Saved! What is he at this point? Sheep, adopted son? This servant did not forgive his fellow servant so the King throws him in jail until he pays a debt that can’t be paid. In jail forever! Not saved! No way out. What is he now? A goat, never adopted? And what did he do? He chose not to forgive others so he was not forgiven. Where have we heard this before? Maybe a prayer given to us directly from Jesus?
Ever heard of Judas or Saul of Tarsus?
CK–
1. The Prodigal Son doesn’t just “come to his senses,” at least not in Catholic theology! His conviction of sin (and his repentance of it) must be fueled by the Holy Spirit. He must be prepared for faith by Prevenient Grace. And he will not be truly regenerate until he is baptized.
What you’re describing instead is Semi-Pelagianism.
2. I have no problem with Jesus’ having implemented a New Passover, nor of his being the new Paschal Lamb upon whom we feast. Why did you imagine that to be a Catholic distinctive?
3. The Unmerciful Servant was clearly never contrite. He went from a justifiably unforgiven nitwit to a (temporarily and mistakenly) forgiven nitwit to a brazenly unforgiving and thus justifiably unforgiven nitwit once again. It’s goats all the way down!!
Hans-1. The Prodigal Son doesn’t just “come to his senses,” at least not in Catholic theology! His conviction of sin (and his repentance of it) must be fueled by the Holy Spirit. He must be prepared for faith by Prevenient Grace. And he will not be truly regenerate until he is baptized.
Me-I know this but he still had to actively repent. He had to “do”.
Hans-What you’re describing instead is Semi-Pelagianism.
Me -no.
Hans-3. The Unmerciful Servant was clearly never contrite. He went from a justifiably unforgiven nitwit to a (temporarily and mistakenly) forgiven nitwit to a brazenly unforgiving and thus justifiably unforgiven nitwit once again. It’s goats all the way down!!
Me-Ok this is where the rubber meets the road. Tell me, in your theology will God forgive you if you are not clearly contrite? Nowhere in the parable does it imply he was clearly not contrite. As a matter of fact it clearly implies the opposite. Please show me the verse that implies this. Your theology forces you to say he was not contrite.
He wasn’t mistakenly forgiven he was forgiven! God doesn’t make mistakes. The servant was forgiven until he refused to forgive another. His actions saved him and later condemned him. The king was just.
This parable lays out exactly what I have been trying to communicate to you this whole time, assuming you don’t try to add to it. Should have started with it but somehow I’d forgotten about it.
CK–
First off, hermeneutically there are strict limits as to how far we should be pushing the analogies in these parables.
We’re probably both guilty of wrenching them all out of whack. They have simple messages for the most part. The lost-found stories tell us that salvation is about faith and repentance rather than a physical inheritance. More joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 (or an older brother) who need no repentance.
The grafted branches on the olive tree are probably more about our covenantal/communal connection to God: being in or out of membership in the OT congregation of Israel, or in or out of membership in the NT church. Jews are ripped off through lack of faith and repentance but can be easily grafted back into their own tree. Gentiles can become members of the church without being genuinely saved and then later need to be kicked out.
Your point about the Unmerciful Servant is ludicrous. The better part of contrition is realizing the gravity of what we’ve done wrong…how it adversely affected other people. “Contrition” without compassion is not genuine remorse. That’s why we cannot be forgiven if we cannot forgive.
Hans,
I ask you specific questions and you answer with generalities. I understand parables can be taken too far so let’s stick to the one we are talking about.
This was answer. “Your point about the Unmerciful Servant is ludicrous. The better part of contrition is realizing the gravity of what we’ve done wrong…how it adversely affected other people. “Contrition” without compassion is not genuine remorse. That’s why we cannot be forgiven if we cannot forgive.”
You gave me the definition of contrition. Again please stop waving your hands and pounding the table.
The servant begged the king to forgive the servant ‘s debt. A debt that he could never repay. The king showed mercy and the servant avoided spending the rest of his life in jail. The king forgave the servants trespasses. This theme is throughout scripture. No twisting!
My question to you is, was the servant truly forgiven or not? Why?
The servant LATER did not show the same kind of mercy to his servant. Because of this the king in turn did not forgive the servant for not showing mercy and threw him in jail for eternity.
Again, not being forgiven if you don’t forgive others is comes straight out of Jesus mouth.
The parable doesn’t say anything about the servant not being contrite but actually implies the opposite. You bring that in because it doesn’t fit your theology.
Show me where I’m wrong but not with generalizations. Try to address the parable directly and answer my question without muddying the water.
CK–
Can we both try to be more civil? I was overtired while writing my last reply and called your argument ludicrous. I apologize from the heart. I’ve got a lifetime of bad habits to overcome being loose with words. I come from a family where we loved playing with words and took no prisoners, lavishing on the sarcasm and enjoying the game of it all. I have come to learn that doesn’t describe most people’s experience.
Accusations of “table pounding” and “hand waving” are not honest evaluations of your opponents’ arguments. They are mere ad hominems meant to express contempt. They are no more appropriate for friendly conversations than “ludicrous” is. My advice is that you clip them out of your vocabulary.
On to the parable.
I have heard dozens of sermons on the Unmerciful Servant, many of them before I became Reformed. Almost without fail, they focus on the immense monetary disparity between the two debtors’ debts. (Basically, the one is 600,000 times more than the other!)
This is like a man being accosted upon his arrival at work and threatened with having his $3 million-dollar business establishment locked up and sealed for non-payment, but he tells an effective sob story and the man not only lets him off the hook for the month but–somehow or other–hands him the deed to the place, free and clear!
He then scurries home to embrace his wife in celebration of the great news, but as he is pulling into the drive, he spies his next door neighbor’s child scooting joyfully around on a tricycle. Well, it so happens that the neighbor hasn’t repaid the $5 he borrowed to procure the tricycle when they were both at a neighborhood garage sale. So, anyway, this guy who was on his way in to bear hug his wife, stops and, in a fit of rage, rips the trike out from under the hapless toddler, badly scraping the poor tike’s knees and elbows in the process. Then–after an ear-scorching expletive or two–he proceeds into his house and slams the door.
Most preachers and commentators wax eloquent on this fellow’s hypocrisy and insensitivity and ingratitude. One I consulted called him despicable. This was a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, horribly bad man! Nobody I have heard or read thinks his contrition was genuine (though his desire for mercy certainly was: he genuinely wants to save his own skin). This is not a man who had a change of heart between the moment he was forgiven and the moment when he refused to forgive. He is a blackguard of epic proportions. His actions are the actions of a stereotypical movie villain: cold-blooded killers who will squeal like a stuck pig when begging for their own lives to be spared.
So, was this idiot genuinely forgiven? Yes and no. The king in the Parable, though representing God, is dealing with finances, not sin…and is NOT omniscient like God. So yes, the king lets him off the hook for a day or two. Nevertheless, the Unmerciful Sevant asks for forgiveness…and ends up in prison without hope of parole. This is where he belongs. This is where he has belonged all along. Justice is served.
Was he momentarily forgiven? What does that even mean? Catholics talk about losing one’s salvation when they’re really talking about the loss of a State of Grace. But being in God’s good graces momentarily never saved anyone. You have to be there at the end of your life, or it’s all for naught!
Hans-So, was this idiot genuinely forgiven? Yes and no. The king in the Parable, though representing God, is dealing with finances, not sin…and is NOT omniscient like God. So yes, the king lets him off the hook for a day or two. Nevertheless, the Unmerciful Sevant asks for forgiveness…and ends up in prison without hope of parole. This is where he belongs. This is where he has belonged all along. Justice is served.
Me-The parable is not about how much monetary debt one should forgive. The parable was prompted by peter’s question.
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[a]
The parable is about sin. You do know how parables work right? Peter is not asking about how much monetary debt should be forgiven. But how many time he should forgive someone who SINS against him. It says nothing about the servant not being truly contrite. It says nothing about him always belonging in jail. That’s all you.
Another point, why did the king throw the servant in jail? The king didn’t request that the servant forgive people who owed him. The point is clear, Jesus was tying everything back to His teaching. We owe God a debt we cannot repay. If we ask God He will forgive us (just like the parable) and if we don’t forgive others we will not be saved (just like the parable). The king didn’t temporarily forgive the servant for the initial sin and he was not unforgiven for the initial sin. It was a new sin that did him in!
Hans-Was he momentarily forgiven? What does that even mean? Catholics talk about losing one’s salvation when they’re really talking about the loss of a State of Grace..
Me-so you believe you don’t need to be in a state of grace to be saved? The servant was permanently forgiven for the sin he begged and received from the king. Clean slate. The servant lost his salvation because of what he did.
Hans-But being in God’s good graces momentarily never saved anyone.
Me-exactly. That is why it’s not a one time event. You agreed with me earlier that you don’t believe in OSAS.
Hans-You have to be there at the end of your life, or it’s all for naught!
Me-exactly! That is why scripture tells us to always be prepared as we don’t know when the time will come.
Hans,
What I like here is your apology, not your exigesis.
A loss of the state of grace, as you point out, is fatal unless you repent before you die.
CK–
1. Peter’s question is a different pericope. It’s on a related topic, but doesn’t obviously lead into the Parable.
2. The Parable is about sin, and I said it was about sin. I’ll try to make things clearer for you in future.
3. If the Parable is not about hypocrisy and lack of genuine contrition, I’ll have to contact all the exegetes out there who think it is and inform them that they are wrong. (CK has said so and must be right!)
4. If it’s ALL me, it’s a whole bunch of other people, as well…including plenty of Catholic scholars.
5. So let me see if I’ve got this right. The king didn’t expect the forgiven man to forgive his own debtors, or at the very least, had no rule against not forgiving them. But when it occurred, he still considered it a new infraction, and threw Mr. Unmerciful into prison for it.
6. The servant never had any “salvation” to lose. At best, all he had was a 24-hour reprieve from being heaved into a dank, dark dungeon.
7. It both is and is not a one-time event. I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints, which St. Augustine wrote on and with which Aquinas concurred. So it used to be Catholic…until you all ditched Trent. (“Once Saved, Always Saved,” by the way, is a whole nother thing.)
8. It seems to me that your interpretation of this Parable involves the opposite problem from the usual slip up. All kinds of people push the analogies too far, coming up with correspondences that Jesus quite certainly never intended. You appear to be truncating the analogies so that there are even fewer matching points. It’s like you don’t even wish to engage the narrative, instead leaping ahead to the spiritual truths you think are there. I’ve never seen anyone do that before. It’s kind of fascinating. Of course, my guess is that you won’t be able to find a single other Catholic voice to join you in this highly unique interpretation.
1. Peter’s question is a different pericope. It’s on a related topic, but doesn’t obviously lead into the Parable.
Me-it’s about forgiveness.
2. The Parable is about sin, and I said it was about sin. I’ll try to make things clearer for you in future.
Me-gracias
3. If the Parable is not about hypocrisy and lack of genuine contrition, I’ll have to contact all the exegetes out there who think it is and inform them that they are wrong. (CK has said so and must be right!)
Me-it can be those and more! I’ll inform those who disagree with you and let them know their error!
4. If it’s ALL me, it’s a whole bunch of other people, as well…including plenty of Catholic scholars.
Me-no my problem is that you wave off that the servant was forgiven and it wasn’t his original sin that for him thrown is jail but the sin of following the kings model and forgiving others. An unforgiving nature is offensive to God.
5. So let me see if I’ve got this right. The king didn’t expect the forgiven man to forgive his own debtors, or at the very least, had no rule against not forgiving them. But when it occurred, he still considered it a new infraction, and threw Mr. Unmerciful into prison for it.
Me-I worded that paragraph badly. The expectation for the servant to forgive was there. It was his new infraction that got his behind thrown in jail. What was the king angry about? I mean the parable is called the Unmerciful Servant not the Hypocritical and Un-Genuinely Contrite Servant.
6. The servant never had any “salvation” to lose. At best, all he had was a 24-hour reprieve from being heaved into a dank, dark dungeon.
Me-WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT??? If the story had ended with the king you would of said he was saved! You don’t know that at best he had a 24 hr reprieve. It could have been 50 years and if it was your answer would be the same! He was never saved and if not what’s the difference between 1 day or 50 days other than time? The Scripture specifically describes salvation as a process. We are saved, we are being saved and we will be saved.
7. It both is and is not a one-time event. I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints, which St. Augustine wrote on and with which Aquinas concurred. So it used to be Catholic…until you all ditched Trent. (“Once Saved, Always Saved,” by the way, is a whole nother thing.)
Me-one time event for the elect?
8. It seems to me that your interpretation of this Parable involves the opposite problem from the usual slip up. All kinds of people push the analogies too far, coming up with correspondences that Jesus quite certainly never intended. You appear to be truncating the analogies so that there are even fewer matching points. It’s like you don’t even wish to engage the narrative, instead leaping ahead to the spiritual truths you think are there. I’ve never seen anyone do that before. It’s kind of fascinating. Of course, my guess is that you won’t be able to find a single other Catholic voice to join you in this highly unique interpretation.
Me-generalities again. I broke it down to simple points above under your 4-6. Address those please and tell me why it’s impossible to interpret it the way I am. I agree, you “can” look at lack of contrition, what I can’t see is how the things that are plainly stated can’t be considered. I’m open to change. You’ve got me thinking on my use of free will so anything is possible.
Since you mentioned St Augustine this is part of his homily on the parable. He says some or the things you’ve said though he never said he was never saved…at least I didn’t see it. It’s long.
“For God says, Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. For I have forgiven you first; you at least forgive after that. For if you will not forgive, I will call you back, and put upon you again all that I had remitted to you. For the Truth does not speak falsely; Christ neither deceives, nor is deceived, and He has said at the close of the parable, So likewise shall your Father which is in heaven do unto you. Thou findest a Father, imitate your Father. For if you will not imitate Him, you are devising to be disinherited. So likewise then shall My heavenly Father do also unto you, if you from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. Say not with the tongue, I forgive, and put off to forgive in the heart; for by His threat of vengeance God shows you your punishment. God knows where you speak. Man can hear your voice; God looks into your conscience. If you say, I forgive; forgive. Better is it that you should be violent in words, and forgive in the heart, than in words be soft, and in the heart relentless.”
W & S–
I’m glad you appreciated the apology. It’s like stepping gingerly through a minefield to engage Catholics in discussion. It’s as frustrating as all get out! Catholics resort to all sorts of “paradoxes” to explain apparent incoherence and self-contradiction in their arguments. Quite frankly, I don’t believe there’s anything “apparent” about these inconsistencies. They’re just flat out inconsistent.
So what didn’t you like about my exegesis?
Hans,
You resort to even more generalities.
Read CK’s exigesis.
W & S–
By the way, a loss of the State of Grace is meaningless once you make reconciliation. Heck, you can lose it thousands of times as long as you’re sincerely contrite enough to receive absolution each time! You really haven’t lost anything valuable unless you’re unlucky enough to die without it.
Hamlet is careful not to kill King Claudius while the scoundrel is in the throes of remorse, thinking that even the appearance of “contrition” might send his father’s murderer to heaven! What a capricious God you all serve!
Hans,
If you are happy to entrust your fate to “luck”, I am not. ( Read what you said.”You really haven’t lost anything valuable unless you’re unlucky enough to die without it.”
W & S–
So what are these “generalities” of which I am supposedly guilty?
Can you be specific?
Hans,
here is an example: “It’s like stepping gingerly through a minefield to engage Catholics in discussion. It’s as frustrating as all get out! Catholics resort to all sorts of “paradoxes” to explain apparent incoherence and self-contradiction in their arguments. Quite frankly, I don’t believe there’s anything “apparent” about these inconsistencies. They’re just flat out inconsistent.”
CK–
Sorry. Haven’t had an adequate amount of time available to answer you properly.
I will say that I really appreciated your tone. I hope you continue to rethink free will. Read Augustine on the Gift of Perseverance, and you’ll see that Protestants are not completely out to lunch.
Thanks for the homily of his. Catholics and Protestants should no doubt utilize him more since there is mutual admiration for the guy.
Quickly, this section you cited argues against your point that the Unmerciful Servant is punished for a new infraction:
“For if you will not forgive, I will call you back, and put upon you again all that I had remitted to you.”
In other words, the punishment which had been taken away is restored to its full force.
I’ll try to cover the rest soon!
Thank you Hans. I’m always open to learning more.
Hans-In other words, the punishment which had been taken away is restored to its full force.
Me-this is my point. We don’t know the future. All we know is we’ve done in the past and doing presently and what is expected of us to continue to do in the future (all with God’s grace). So if I commit a mortal sin and I confess, repent and promise to mend my ways (and I mean one is truly contrite) that sin no matter how horrible is forgiven. I have a clean slate (I am currently saved) but I must follow Christ’s law so stay in a state of grace (I’m being saved). It will take another mortal sin in order for me to lose that state of grace (lost my salvation). You’ll notice I have to decide to take action for these things to happen. God makes clear what the right thing to do is but we have to make a choice. Not committing a mortal seen is not hard. I think our difference is in looking to the future. God knows the future but we don’t. What we do know is that God is just and as long as we follow the His roadmap we are going to be rewarded (I will be saved).
Very well put CK.
Thank you waterandthespirit
CK–
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re not even talking about the Parable any longer. You’re just spouting off Catholic talking points and pretending that they have something to do with the biblical text.
I showed you that Augustine makes it very clear that the king in the Parable is an Indian Giver: he takes back his forgiveness of the great debt. The Unmerciful Servant pays dearly for his FIRST offense. And that only makes sense. Had the lack of mercy come first, he probably would have been let off with a slap on the wrist…if that. After all, the king himself plainly shows no mercy upon occasion or the Servant wouldn’t have had to have begged for leniency. Almost certainly there was no law against the Servant treating his underling’s debt status harshly. It was NOT his lack of mercy that got him in so much trouble, but his ingratitude and hypocrisy…the huge disparity between what he had been forgiven and what he was willing to forgive.
Even with the caveat–all with God’s grace–you express an extremely works-based salvation here. This is not Tridentine Catholicism. It’s thoroughly modern and thoroughly heretical.
If, as Paul maintains in Romans 7, it is no longer he who sins, but sin dwelling in him seizing opportunity, then why should there be this in-and-out crap concerning a State of Grace? Exactly how does a “new creature,” exercising its newfound freedom in Christ walk away from its Redeemer of its own free will? (A transformed and redeemed will?) The whole argument that Christ will never be faithless but we might end up being so…assumes that we have not been made new, have not been bought with a price, have not been mystically united to our Savior.
If it is our sin nature, our flesh, that is acting up, then our Shepherd is duty bound to protect us. If it is our new nature, it’s not going to act up. In essence, if “we” are free to leave, then that supposed “freedom” is actually slavery to sin. God would not be “respecting our freedom” in letting us go. Instead, he would be a party to our being in bondage. His actions would lack both compassion for our plight and faithfulness to his promises.
Hans,
You say: “It was NOT his lack of mercy that got him in so much trouble, but his ingratitude and hypocrisy…”
This is the typical Protestant/Catholic disconnect. It is “BOTH” his lack of mercy, his ingratitude, and his hypocrisy that cause his downfall. Not one or the other. Not EITHER/OR but BOTH.
Hans-This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re not even talking about the Parable any longer. You’re just spouting off Catholic talking points and pretending that they have something to do with the biblical text.
Me-I notice you don’t take on what I say point by point and tell me where I’m wrong. I’m beginning to understand why.
Hans-I showed you that Augustine makes it very clear that the king in the Parable is an Indian Giver: he takes back his forgiveness of the great debt.
Me-What caused Him to take it back? This is a chicken or the egg situation. The parable plainly says exactly what happened and in what order.
Hans-The Unmerciful Servant pays dearly for his FIRST offense. And that only makes sense. Had the lack of mercy come first, he probably would have been let off with a slap on the wrist…if that.
Me-Seriously? Lack of mercy will cause you to lose your salvation. Forgiving is an act of mercy!!!! Where do you get all of this?
Hans-After all, the king himself plainly shows no mercy upon occasion or the Servant wouldn’t have had to have begged for leniency. Almost certainly there was no law against the Servant treating his underling’s debt status harshly.
Me-What is your point other than try to muddy the water?
Hans-It was NOT his lack of mercy that got him in so much trouble, but his ingratitude and hypocrisy…the huge disparity between what he had been forgiven and what he was willing to forgive.
Me-Are we even talking about the same parable? The name of the parable is UNMERCIFUL SERVANT!
Jesus ends the parable with
35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
Please tell me how Jesus got the parable so wrong? Forgiving is an act of MERCY. Can it also be ingratitude sure, but Jesus specifically says mercy yet you wave it off.
Hans-Even with the caveat–all with God’s grace–you express an extremely works-based salvation here. This is not Tridentine Catholicism. It’s thoroughly modern and thoroughly heretical.
Me-I’ve said it before we make choices. It’s how we develop virtue and become holy. Work out our spiritual muscles. None of this is possible unless we are in Christ. As you put it one must act on their faith (of course acting upon something in your wold is not really doing anything) You said you constantly asking for forgiveness. Is the Spirit forcing you to or are you listening to the Spirit and making a conscious decision? You make it sound like we are robots. This is modern and heretical.
As a matter of fact you are so caught up that you ignore what Jesus is saying about the parable to make your theology work! Amazing.
Hans-If, as Paul maintains in Romans 7, it is no longer he who sins, but sin dwelling in him seizing opportunity, then why should there be this in-and-out crap concerning a State of Grace?
Me-Because Paul warns Christians not to fall from grace. If there is no in and out then you didn’t speak the truth when you said you believe one can lose their salvation. Please elaborate.
Hans- Exactly how does a “new creature,” exercising its newfound freedom in Christ walk away from its Redeemer of its own free will? (A transformed and redeemed will?) The whole argument that Christ will never be faithless but we might end up being so…assumes that we have not been made new, have not been bought with a price, have not been mystically united to our Savior.
Me-You don’t have true free will until you are free of sin, that is why. You are not perfect yet. That is why saints in heaven are locked in and you are not.
Hans-If it is our sin nature, our flesh, that is acting up, then our Shepherd is duty bound to protect us. If it is our new nature, it’s not going to act up. In essence, if “we” are free to leave, then that supposed “freedom” is actually slavery to sin. God would not be “respecting our freedom” in letting us go. Instead, he would be a party to our being in bondage. His actions would lack both compassion for our plight and faithfulness to his promises.
Me-Well in that case you wouldn’t even feel temptation or He let’s you feel the temptation but He keeps you from acting on it and makes you do the right things thus in a sick way preventing you from developing any virtue/holiness. So when God judges you He sees His Son and you get into heaven based on a lie?
So as usual you I respond to specific paragraphs and you don’t address mine in it’s entirety. I looks like that is part of your strategy.
Water–
I think it rather obvious that I wasn’t dismissing a lack of mercy in general as a problem for the Servant. To make it clearer for you, it wasn’t the “simple fact of his lack of mercy” that got him in trouble. Or to put it another way, it wasn’t his lack of mercy in isolation that got him pitched into a dungeon.
In saying it was his hypocrisy, what did I mean? He was a Golden Rule breaker. He wanted grace for himself that he wasn’t willing to give to others. The mercy granted to him he would not grant to others. So (a lack of) mercy is right in there. But its significance is in the disparity. He was forgiven a ton. He wouldn’t forgive an eensy-weensy bit.
So no real or imagined distinction between Catholic and Protestant thinking is in play here.
CK–
Now there’s the CK I’ve come to know and love, full of spit and vinegar. Welcome back!
So, you want things to be point by point, huh? Do you always get exactly what you want?
Here you go:
1. Augustine made it quite clear that the Servant’s original forgiveness was rescinded. You had said before that such a thing never occurred. Now, you ask what caused it to be taken back. Smooth. You capitulate to my point and then make it sound like it was your position all along.
Chicken or egg? Not really. He is punished for his first offense–the huge debt–as that is the one that would carry with it a life sentence. The second offense is merely the catalyst for his loss of grace.
2. Yes, a lack of mercy will lose you your salvation, but only because it shows you shouldn’t have been granted grace in the first place. In isolation, your lack of mercy is just a small part of your overall problem: s systemic rebellion against God.
3. I made a point that the king himself didn’t always show mercy. So mercy, in and of itself, is not the highest virtue. Part of the problem in our current postmodern society is that many who should NOT be shown mercy are nonetheless indulged. Augustine makes the point that to indulge school children (rather than showing them proper discipline) actually does them harm.
Perhaps the point is not thoroughly relevant. But there’s no way to know one way or the other. The underling who begs mercy from the Unmerciful Servant may or may not have deserved what he got. He may have been humble and contrite, full of compassion for his fellow man. Or he may be a complete scumbag, just trying to save his own skin. We’re not told. Of course, the Servant is in error no matter what: he treats his subordinate without respect. He is insensitive, brusque, and incredibly harsh.
At any rate, my point was that a lack of mercy, in and of itself, is not unethical. Indeed, there are certain circumstances which require it.
4. The Parable is NOT officially titled “The Unmerciful Servant.” The paragraph headings you find in your Bible are not part of the original text. This Parable has been variantly called “The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant,” “The Parable of the Ungrateful Servant,” “The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant” (as you termed it), and “The Parable of the Wicked Servant” (which is what Jesus called the man).
5. I’m not “waving off” the significance of showing mercy. We must forgive in order to be forgiven. I’m rejecting your notion that we must continuously pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to stay in God’s good graces. If we’re not quite as forgiving as we ought to be, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, God will yank the rug out from under us. Well, all of us would end up flat on our backs, all of the time, if such a scenario were true.
6. My Jesus didn’t get the Parable all wrong. YOUR Jesus got it wrong. (All you’re really talking about is your interpretation vs. my interpretation. Surprise! I agree with me.)
I will say, in rethinking things, that Peter’s question concerning the frequency of forgiving is more closely related than I thought. Jesus is telling him that forgiveness should have no limits. As Augustine observed, Jesus DIDN’T mean that we were to quit forgiving on the 78th offense! Like it was 77 and no more. Likewise, the Servant’s debt is unrealistically huge. Like a couple of BILLION dollars if we were to translate it to our culture. Who ever receives a loan for a couple of billion, anyway? Corporations, maybe, but I sincerely doubt individuals ever do. This is an immeasurable debt.
So forgiveness covers both immeasurable number and immeasurable quantity.
7. Whoever told you that Calvinism has anything at all to do with coercion or robotics? I never did. You supplied that on your own. A puppeteer God is, of course, heretical. But so few people believe in one. How about if we stick to reality?
Yes, we make choices, and, yes, that’s (partly) how we develop virtue and become holy. And we cannot do a thing unless we are in Christ. Do you have a point in telling me these things? That we hold much in common?
What do you mean, by the way, that we are “in” Christ? Kind of like my iphone is “on” a charger? Plug it in. Rip it out. Plug it in. Rip it out.
I could easily say the same thing about you that you say about me. You twist this Parable so thoroughly that I don’t recognize it. I follow the text. You follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whether or not it fits whatsoever.
And what is MY paradigm? Sola Scriptura. Read the text and follow it where it leads. What is YOUR paradigm? Sola ecclesia. Read the text and ask the church what it means.
Yours is far more conducive to leaving the text behind as irrelevant.
8. I never said that I believed one could lose his salvation. I said that I didn’t believe in “Once saved, Always Saved.” Instead, I believe in the “Perseverance of the Saints.” They’re two different things.This is why you really should read more before engaging in dialogue. You’re running blind. You’re stuck inside your tiny Catholic bubble and thus unable to compare and contrast competing ideas with any accuracy.
9. Sure, Paul warns us against apostasy, but he also states that nothing but nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. If you were a parent of a young high-wire performer, wouldn’t you warn them against getting careless and falling, no matter how confident you were in their ability to complete each walk? Let’s say you had magical abilities to make sure they never fell. How often would you need to use these abilities? Maybe never? Your kids would be trying their darnedest to succeed, to excel, by their own efforts. They would be avoiding a fall with every ounce of their energy. And yet they would be vouchsafed to finish their walk, every time, without fail.
10. OK, our free will is not perfected on this side of the grave. But that’s not the point. We have been made alive in Christ on this side. We are his, and he has promised not to abandon us. In fact, we have been sold into slavery. We are his bondservants. (And the only other option is to be a slave to sin and death. As Bob Dylan sang, “You’ve got to serve somebody!”) in other words, we are under new ownership. We have been set free…completely, in terms of our former captivity to death. We will never be turned back over to the enemy. Christ’s blood has paid out ransom.
11. We genuinely feel temptation, and we genuinely give into it at times. So I have no clue what you’re talking about. We have all kinds of opportunities to develop our virtue. Many, if not most, of us will have a good deal of inherent righteousness by the time we die. We were reborn as new creatures in Christ, and we grow in him throughout our days. We’ll make it into heaven because we belong to him. (Where’s the “lie” in that?) We will be purified. We will be raised incorruptible into glory. We we will be given robes of righteousness. (I’m still hunting for the “lie.”)
12. I don’t live a life of leisure. I can’t do this every time. And the fact that I don’t do it every time is no evidence that I’m out to confuse you or manipulate you or bully you. I have no stinking agenda. I just do my best to respond as truthfully as I can. You can quit insulting me any time you so choose. I’d kind of like it.
You are stuck in an either/or world when it’s a both/and. You will never get it as long as you limit God. The following is a timely relevant post. It’s short.. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2018/07/on-denying-the-gospel-for-the-sake-of-gods-glory/#comment-282869
Sorry first link took you to the comments. This one takes you to the blog post http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2018/07/on-denying-the-gospel-for-the-sake-of-gods-glory/
Very good indeed CK.
I have an article on the nature of Good Works on my blog (WordPress.com) if you’d like to have a look.
Hans-Sell all that you have and come follow (i.e., totally commit yourself).
In other words, the answer to “What shall I do to be saved?” is the following:
No do. Trust.
Me-you only have half the equation. You must do things to help the body of Christ. Feeding the poor, visit those in prison etc… he doesn’t just ask us to do these things to show our trust in Him but to show compassion and be more like Him and if you don’t DO those things you will be judged accordingly. Works of mercy are a must.
CK–
I’m not missing that point at all. As Christians, we don’t do good deeds merely out of trust or thanksgiving. We do good, compassionate deeds because our lives have been transformed: we have been united to the Vine–the source of compassion–and have his sap flowing through us.
We do sheepy things because we’re sheep! You seem to think if we do “compassionate” things, we’ll become sheep…or we’ll remain sheep. You’ve got it all backwards!
Get connected to Compassion. Then–and only then–will you be capable of genuine compassion.
Hans-we have been united to the Vine–the source of compassion–and have his sap flowing through us.
We do sheepy things because we’re sheep! You seem to think if we do “compassionate” things, we’ll become sheep…or we’ll remain sheep. You’ve got it all backwards!
Me-The Vine!!! Yes, once grafted always grafted? Scripture tells us otherwise. Sheep get grafted to the vine and produce good works. But something happens to some sheep (they must be sheep to be united to the vine right?) and they stop producing and are cut off.
Now you’ve been telling me God would never allow this to happen only “an unfaithful Christ” would allow this.
So explain how a sheep can be cut off from the vine. If they were never a sheep, how can a goat trick God into grafting them to the vine? Or is God tricking the goat into thinking they are sheep? Surely not since only the devil deceives!
Please try to be consistent with your other comments.
Water–
And where did I get this supposed anti-Catholic bias? Just from being Protestant?
I live in a heavily Catholic area and get along fine with everybody. I don’t think I’ve ever heard an anti-Catholic sermon in my life (most Protestants, believe it or not, almost never think about Catholicism and certainly don’t discuss it). I have studiously avoided anti-Catholic literature and have spent tens of thousands of hours reading Catholic materials and engaging with Catholics on blogs.
My negative view stems from an honest evaluation of Catholicism. (Oh, and I haven’t avoided one profoundly anti-Catholic book…the Holy Bible.)
Hans,
It must be inbred then.
W & S–
Perhaps.
So where does your intractable anti-intellectualism come from? 😁
You call that anti-intellectualism.
I call your argumentation squabbling and fudging, arguing for argument’s sake.
Water–
I come with a negative attitude toward the Church because the Church is demonstrably bad. I could just as well say that you come with a negative attitude toward the Mafia. Well, you should!
Yes, I understand that the Church has done a lot of good: hospitals, orphanages, homeless shelters and on and on and on. But no institution has ever brought more disrepute to the name of Christ. It is head and shoulders above the rest.
The Reformation happened for theological reasons but also because of the runaway corruption and tyranny of the Church. And in many ways that tyranny only intensified during the Catholic Reformation. Given its history, there are plenty of reasons to hate the Catholic Church. The Mongols presided over many peaceful years–as long as you paid tribute, you were more or less left alone. But we don’t speak of them as kind and gentle. The Thirty Years War by itself pretty much besmirches any good the Church may ever attempt in order to rehabilitate its reputation.
And the fact that it “makes sense from the inside” is nothing but a red flag. Heck, the Mafia probably seems like a “band of brothers” to those within its walls. You need to study the history of your Church. It’s not a pretty picture!
And it’s all the worse when your apologists stoop to revisionism to wave off the Crusades and the Inquisition and countless pogroms. Plus, you arrogantly claim infallibility and thus, your mistakes in theology are explained away. And your ethics–your practical theology–needn’t have been followed by much of anybody (laity, clergy, episcopacy) in any given period to be considered alive and well.
As far as I’m aware, I’ve given the Church the benefit of the doubt every step along the way. I have no blatant built-in bias. You EARNED my disrespect inch by inch by inch through misuse of power and by turning a deaf ear to Christ (and fellow Christians). Sure, every church has made mistakes, but that cannot excuse the cornucopia of errors perpetrated by Rome. At some point in time, one shakes the dust from one’s sandals and moves on.
To me, the Church’s one redeeming factor is its rich history of thought: in philosophy, theology, literature, and the arts. There and there alone do I find it appealing. So I interact on that level. If I were looking for the one, true church based on adherence to Scripture in thought and deed–if I were making a comprehensive list–the RC would not appear in my top 100. Neither would the EO, for that matter. You all interest me, but you’re not good churches. Craig sometimes cracks that I’ll end up on the trail to Constantinople soon. Never in a hundred million years!
Hans,
There you have it, anti Catholic bias. It’s all over Protestantism. It is the one thing you guys have in common. Not much else. Sad to see.
Anti Catholic literature and sermons (to say nothing of the media today) is what you have been fed for five hundred years, and it shows.
Hans, if you shrink your view of the church to 50 or 100 people in your local congregation, then perhaps you will feel free from the guilt of being part of a corrupt body. Ironically if some corruption broke out you would simply bolt for greener pasture. This reveals that your criticism has no grounds and you are a congregation of one. And if we had humble views ourselves we would be ashamed even of our own solitary congregations, we, chief of sinners.
We should seek to be obedient to Christ and not judge Him by the actions of fallible men.
Very well put Craig.
I cannot agree more. We can be quick to judge others who live in a different environment, culture and times than ourselves, and yet fail to see our very failings. The time will come when we too will be shown up for our faults, and those of others we have castigated will be of no help to us.
Craig–
I understand the sentiment you’re putting forward here. The whole “If you find a perfect church, you shouldn’t join it because then it won’t be perfect anymore” mentality.
Pretty much everyone acknowledges that the church is a mixture of wheat and tares. It will never be free and clear from error and hypocrisy on this side of the eschaton.
But there is another side to this equation. Scripture doesn’t tell us NOT to evaluate. (We are told that we will be judged according to the standards we judge by, so we better proceed with caution. We ought, nevertheless, to “judge righteous judgment.”)
Certainly, we should never expect to find perfection, but we are expected to discern good churches from bad churches. Some churches are filled with wheat with a stalk or two of tares thrown in while others are standing-room-only tares with a few sheaths of wheat in their midst.
Your view, that all churches are more or less equally bad, is simply not the case. If you were a member at Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS, I’d be warning you much more urgently than I do now for your EO adherence.
I judge churches by what they are now, not by the mistakes they have committed in the past…unless their claims of infallibility make the past not only relevant, but definitive. As Luther stated, popes and councils have erred. Not only that, but dogmas have changed, in clearly non-developmental ways. Plus, church-wide ethical error has often stretched on for generations, putting the lie to any possible claim for magisterial infallibility.
So, yes, in a certain sense, you are correct, Craig. My little church is not so terribly good and W & S’s church likewise is not so terribly good. The difference is my church doesn’t claim to be wonderfully wonderful. (Semper Reformanda and all that.) His church claims to be–at its core–perfectly perfect.
But it is not.
The difference is that you are comparing apples and oranges. It reminds me of debating with socialists in college that think just because socialism works in Denmark it does not mean it will work in a larger, more diverse nation (i.e. Brazil, USA, etcetera.) So sure, I am sure your tiny church and tiny denomination is probably on paper better than the 200+ million strong Orthodox Church. But, this is an unfair, and unreasonable, comparison. How would your church stack up against ROCOR for example? It is not so much whose church is better, but rather, if you decrease the sample size and control for dedication (and to some degree doctrine) but can change the results.
CK–
Have you ever known anybody with a really strong work ethic or a really strong sense of self responsibility? If you have, then you will know that they don’t have to choose when responsibility comes their way. It is second nature to them. It is like breathing. They don’t “decide” whether or not to tackle the task. They roll up their sleeves and jump in.
That’s what obedience is like for the elect. It’s a thing of joy. It’s what they were designed to do. There is no “if you choose not to exercise your faith.” The new creature exercises its faith like physical creatures breathe. It’s not that there are no competing impulses. It’s not that we don’t fall down on the job. But we never fail to breathe. Our salvation is never at risk.
CK–
And one more thing:
The groups which deny free will are infinitesimally small and dwindling every day. They don’t warrant our attention. It’s a complete red herring.
But you are denying free will by playing word and definition games.
One can’t choose not to breath. It’s a reflex not a choice not free will.
The elect either have free will or don’t. You say they do, but they somehow don’t have a choice and naturally embrace their crosses. Rolling up one’s sleeve and jumping in is a reflex if it’s immediate as in you have a couple of seconds to decide. This is very different from not doing the right thing when it can cost your job, forgiving a spouse who cheated on you, forgiving some one who committed a crime against you or your children, giving up luxuries so you can help the poor, turning a physical suffering into a prayer, giving your life for another, etc…
Carrying one’s cross is not a joy and it’s not supposed to be. It can only be a joy if it’s turned into a sacrifice. It can only be a joy if we exercise our faith and one can only exercise it if the spirit overcomes the flesh. This is a constant struggle that can only be overcome with daily prayer, fasting, etc..(all work btw). It’s certainly not a reflex. If it were, Jesus would not have been sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. He was in anguish and through prayer overcame it.
CK–
One cannot fall from faith once genuinely regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Why do you imagine that one can be put into Union with Christ and then be disentangled? Who could possibly manage such a thing? No one has that kind of power.
CK–
Think about what your saying here. Are you honestly motivated only by the fear of hell? That’s a shame!
Was Christ capable of falling?
No!!!!!
Did he feel no joy? Did he have no sense of sacrifice? Did he have no free will?
Where are you coming from?
CK–
Also, if it helps, I do not subscribe to Once Saved, Always Saved. That’s actually a Baptist doctrine.
The Reformed put in great effort to make our calling and election sure. We are not presumptuous. We cannot be absolutely “certain certain” of our faith and accordingly, must guard against falling. Therefore, we work, we sweat, we sacrifice, we grind it out.
We hold the two realities in tension. We never even think about “letting go and letting God.” (That’s a Quietist notion.) We never rest on our laurels. We are never satisfied with our progress in righteousness.
But we are confident in our hope, even as Scripture tells us to be. We are not on a precipe where any little misstep will be our undoing. We can fail pretty miserably and not be disheartened. We are not relying on ourselves. Jesus never fails.
Thought you were OSAS. Apologies!
If you work to keep from falling how is your work not part of your salvation? I don’t mean your work alone, but you working in Christ and Christ working in you? How is this unbiblical?
CK–
Hans-Think about what your saying here. Are you honestly motivated only by the fear of hell? That’s a shame!
Me-Hell is being separated from God, so yes. There is no shame in that.
Hans-Was Christ capable of falling?
No!!!!!
Me-I agree but the point is He is being an example. By struggling He showed us it’s not a reflex (as you say) and easy. That with Him we can also do what He did. He also didn’t need to be baptized but He set an example.
Hans-Did he feel no joy? Did he have no sense of sacrifice? Did he have no free will?
Me-Show me where He showed joy in the garden. He anguished even though He sacrificed Himself for us. He did have free will. Through His humanity He set an example. He showed what is possible, but didn’t go around promoting the Christian easy button.
Hans-Where are you coming from?
Me-Simple. He set an example. Being Christian is not easy and not a reflex like “breathing”. There is suffering/angst and the joy comes from the ability, through Christ, to turn it into a sacrifice.
CK–
Hans-One cannot fall from faith once genuinely regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
Me-How is one “genuinely regenerated by the Holy Spirit” as opposed to “not” genuinely regenerated by the Holy Spirit. How does one know before death?
Hans-Why do you imagine that one can be put into Union with Christ and then be disentangled? Who could possibly manage such a thing? No one has that kind of power.
Because of this.. Matthew 10:22
You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.
1 Corinthians 15:1-2: “Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.” Hmm. you are saved but not so much unless you believed in vain. So the ones which are saved here seem to have the power to be disentangled….How can Paul say they are saved if they are not truly saved?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Do any elect that have committed any of these sins (even in their thoughts) at least once no matter how small they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. That means they lost their salvation and can’t be saved again unless they confess and repent. So they were in union with Christ, then by their own actions (again free will), became disentangled and then by God’s grace and another free will action (repentance) they are again in union with Christ. In, out, in, out, how it ends only God knows…
It’s not that we don’t fall down on the job. But we never fail to breathe.
Me-If its a reflex to do do God’s will then you can’t fall on the job! You are not exercising your faith.
Please tell me can one choose not to exercise one’s faith?
Why do you all so desperately wish to limit grace?
(Don’t forget us! We did part of it! We had our role! Don’t forget us! Don’t forget us!)
What???
CK–
From a Reformed perspective, this is what you all sound like: whining, self-centered school children.
I’m sure it’s something less objectionable, at least consciously. But I have trouble comprehending it as anything else.
My problem perhaps.
Sometimes children ask tough questions that the adult can’t objectively answer so they act like children by telling them they are whining and self centered.
CK–
Certainly. But at other times, children refuse to share (even with their best friends) and hog their parents’ attention and cry over the silliest of imagined slights.
I have my own. I know these things first hand.
the only one crying is you… 🙂
Great, heaving, heartfelt sobs for your soul….
I wish for you a permanent union with our most excellent Christ!
Water and Spirit–
Good grief! I was jesting with you. (Didn’t you see the little smiley face? My way of saying, “Let’s bury the hatchet.”)
Obviously, there is no love lost for me when it comes to Catholicism…and for you when it comes to Protestantism.
Is that really much of a shock?
That said, I don’t know you. I cannot say that you haven’t done your level best to evaluate Protestantism. I happen to disagree with your evaluation, but that alone doesn’t indicate some sort of bias on your part. We simply disagree!
And yeah, I don’t think much of your argumentation skills either. 😉
Hans,
I have a lot of respect for some Protestants. But they do not have a good grasp of scripture, although they do not stop talking as if they do.
W & S–
There are all kinds of Protestants (and Catholics, for that matter) who have PhD’s in NT or OT or Biblical Theology or Systematics, who are experts in their fields and leave us in the dust when it comes to having a “good grasp of Scripture.”
All that you can possibly mean when you say such things is that these scholars disagree with you!
Also, due to our greater emphasis on Scripture, I’m guessing Evangelicals would outstrip Catholics (as well as Mainline Protestants) in terms of basic Bible knowledge. Tom Howard, a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism, has estimated that nine out of ten American Catholics is poorly catechised. It’s worse than that among the Mainlines. They’re usually biblically illiterate and quite secular.
At any rate, I don’t know what to make of your comment. I can only guess that it’s an over-generalized emotional sentiment. I do that too…all the time.
Take care!
Hans,
There is one truth, one faith, not a multitude of opposing doctrines. Jesus is the truth, undivided and one, and so is his church, which proclaims it to all men. We all have to grow into that one truth, and are all deficient, not only the poorly catechised.
W & S–
There is indeed one truth and one faith which stand opposed to multitudes of other beliefs. However, we cannot hope to grow into this one truth until we are first united to the one Lord and Savior of us all.
One truth. (What is it?)
One faith. (Which one?)
One Lord. (Who is this Jesus?)
One baptism. (Whose?)
How do we know? Historical continuity of a hierarchy? Hardly. History is replete with organizations that haven’t stayed true to their founding principles. In fact, it’s far more common to change over time.
(When it comes to groups claiming to be uniquely founded by Christ, groups who come and knock on my door and decry the disunity caused by “all those denominations which have gone astray,” you’re in pretty bad company. That’s what Mormons and JW’s and Campbellites tell me!)
Instead, we need to look back to the founding documents…which is what Protestantism does.
Are there lots of candidates to choose from? Sure, but that may actually be a good thing. As Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:
“In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”
Having plenty of possibilities makes it easy to spot which groups have changed the least.
Hans,
Jesus founded one church. He is the head of the church. The church is his Body. He is faithful. He promised to be with it till the end of time. It will be so.
Hans,
It does not sound as if you have a clear idea as to what infallibility means.
W & S–
I know what infallibility should mean. I know what it needs to mean to have any significance whatsoever.
And I do know how Catholics try to save it by careful, careful, careful circumscription. It is, however, unsaveable. It’s nothing but a wax nose that you all reshape and reshift and reshuffle until the rest of us are dizzy.
Hans,
That’s a good one! You know what it “should” mean. Here we go again, preconceived ideas and faulty logic.
W & S–
I know that it “should” mean NOT fallible (rather than “obviously mistaken…over and over again”).
CK–
I read the Jeremy De Haan piece. I don’t think, however, that he presents a both-and thesis. It looks to me very much like an either-or proposition. He states on a number of occasions that justification is ALL of grace. That even our cooperation with grace is a gift of grace. That justification is FULLY God working through us.
This comports well with the Council of Trent which says that “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.”
Classic Catholicism embraces Sola Gratia…and foreordination rather than simple foreknowledge. Modern Catholicism waters these down or throws them out altogether. (Robert Barron, for example, speaks of Prima Gratia. That justification is first and foremost of grace…but not entirely. We add to our own justification independently.) Countless modern Catholics downplay or jettison the clear teachings of Augustine and Aquinas on predestination. Trent reflects this same teaching, railing against ASSURANCE of election…not election itself.
(So, can I assume–since you chose not to rebut my last point-by-point response–that you are in full agreement with all that I wrote?)
Hans,
You say: “Classic Catholicism embraces Sola Gratia…and foreordination rather than simple foreknowledge. Modern Catholicism waters these down or throws them out altogether. ….. Trent reflects this same teaching, railing against ASSURANCE of election…not election itself.”
This is another assertion you make that evaporates on closer scrutiny, because you take a quote from the Council of Trent as a proof text.
Consider the following:
Council of Trent on The Gift of Perseverance.
“let those who think themselves to stand, take heed lest they fall, and, with fear and trembling work out their salvation, in labours, in watchings, in almsdeeds, in prayers and oblations, in fastings and chastity: for, knowing that they are born again unto a hope of glory, but not as yet unto glory, they ought to fear for the combat which yet remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil,”
Extract from Council of Trent Anathemas.
CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.
As to Robert Barron and others, they do not speak for the church.
Water–
Your quote from Trent on the Gift of Perseverance could have been written by a Reformed theologian without any change whatever.
Canon XV. Clearly concerns assurance.
Canon XVII. This opposes double predestination (also called supralapsarianism). This is the belief of Augustine and Calvin, but is a minority report within the Reformed world. The canon certainly doesn’t oppose foreordination as such.
Canon XXIV. Yes, we are preserved through good works “prepared by God beforehand that we should walk in them.” Foreordination! (Protestantism has never said that works are “merely signs of a justification obtained.”)
Canon XXVI. Reformed thought is fully compatible with this statement. We expect recompense for good deeds performed in this life.
(Why doesn’t Fr. Barron count, pray tell? He’s a conservative Catholic…and a bishop, for goodness’ sake! What could possibly disqualify him?)
Hans,
Canon XVII: “CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; … let him be anathema.
That is pretty clear to me.
Robert Barron, conservative Catholic that he may be, still does not speak for the church.
W/S–
Pretty clear to me, too! It doesn’t say what you think it says.
Here it is:
CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
******************
“Let him be anathema” is in response to EVERYTHING before it. The gist of the canon is this:
“If anyone says that some are predestined unto life but that all others are predestined unto evil, let him be accursed.”
In other words, it is the second part of the canon that is at issue: You’re not allowed to say that anyone is predestined to damnation (i.e., double predestination).
Now, Augustine did say exactly that, but his teaching was overruled at the Second Council of Orange in 529 AD. Thereafter, Catholic soteriology was termed semi-Augustinian since it didn’t follow him to the letter.
At any rate, this canon is certainly not anathematizing the predestination of the elect (or Aquinas himself would fall under anathema).
Hans,
At the end of the day, it boils down to what people understand predestination to mean.
Could you enlighten me as to what the council of Orange said?
If you say that some are predestined to life, it is implied that the others are predestined to evil.
Predestination goes further than foreknowledge.
Water–
Both Catholic Thomists and Infralapsarianistic Calvinists
(the majority of Calvinists) embrace foreordination unto life without accepting foreordination unto evil.
Here are a few canons from the Second Council of Orange. I have highlighted a few key phrases. This Council articulated that we basically bring NOTHING to the equation when it comes to salvation. Neither willingness nor desire nor obedience nor good works nor cooperation. Nothing.
(In the conclusion, the Council also forbids belief in foreordination to evil.)
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace DEPEND ON THE HUMILITY OR OBEDIENCE OF MAN and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, WHO MAKES ALL MEN GLADLY ASSENT TO AND BELIEVE IN THE TRUTH, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).
CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.
CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, “For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21); and “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else “even what he has will be taken away” (Matt. 25:29).
CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.
CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. NO MAN HAS ANYTHING OF HIS OWN BUT UNTRUTH AND SIN. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.
From the conclusion:
“According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. WE not only DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY ARE FOREORDAINED TO EVIL by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.”
Hans,
We are going round and round here. We are all agreed that apart from God’s grace man can do nothing. Grace precedes, sustains and accomplishes man’s repentance and return to God as well as any good works. It is through grace that man can believe. It is by “the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought;”
All that does not mean that we are “predestined to life”. We are called to repent and turn to God, although we are helpless without him, but with him what we could not do becomes possible. We need to assent, and his grace is necessary for us to achieve that too.
Water–
Clearly, you don’t like the whole notion of foreordination. So what on earth do you think those Bible verses trumpeting “predestination” are talking about?
Ephesians 1:
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, that He lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And He has made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to bring all things in heaven and on earth together in Christ.
“In Him we were also chosen as God’s own, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything by the counsel of His will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, would be for the praise of His glory.”
I mean, seriously, what do you do when the text says that “those whom he foreknew he also predestined”? Putting aside the fact that “predestined” means exactly the same thing as “foreordained,” what do you twist it around to say? That those whom he foreknew would cooperate he graced efficaciously? He helped them out? Supplied what they were lacking?
But Orange says that he GAVE the cooperation. He knew about it beforehand NOT because he looked down the corridors of time and saw our free-will response. No, he knew about it beforehand because he purposed our response…he gave us the will, the desire, the strength, the humility, the obedience, and the cooperation…in short, he foreordained the response.
You may not like it, but that’s what Orange says and what Augustine said and what Aquinas said. It is what the Catholic Church used to say without the slightest bit of ambiguity,
Hans,
The translations vary:
New Jerusalem bible: Eph 1: “7 in whom, through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins. Such is the richness of the grace
8 which he has showered on us in all wisdom and insight.
9 He has let us know the mystery of his purpose, according to his good pleasure which he determined beforehand in Christ,
10 for him to act upon when the times had run their course: that he would bring everything together under Christ, as head, everything in the heavens and everything on earth.
11 And it is in him that we have received our heritage, marked out beforehand as we were, under the plan of the One who guides all things as he decides by his own will,”
Knox bible: Eph 1:“ 7 It is in him and through his blood that we enjoy redemption, the forgiveness of our sins. So rich is God’s grace, 8 that has overflowed upon us in a full stream of wisdom and discernment, 9 to make known to us the hidden purpose of his will. It was his loving design, centred in Christ, 10 to give history its fulfilment by resuming everything in him, all that is in heaven, all that is on earth, summed up in him.11 In him it was our lot to be called, singled out beforehand to suit his purpose (for it is he who is at work everywhere, carrying out the designs of his will)”
The canons you quote from the council of Orange do not address predestination.
You say: “he gave us the will, the desire, the strength, the humility, the obedience, and the cooperation” and that is right.
But Jesus says: “Repent and believe the Good News”.
Peter says in Acts 2:38 “38 ‘You must repent,’ Peter answered, ‘and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
If our turning to God was foreordained or predestined, the call to repentance would be unnecessary, and preaching futile. But it is not so because we have free will. Predestination wipes out free will. And we have free will, viz Adam in the garden.
Water–
Translations may vary…or even be out-and-out mistaken. But the Greek still says “predestined,” “foreordained.” There’s nothing to debate.
Besides, your “translations” still say things like “determined beforehand” and “singled out beforehand to suit God’s purposes.” That’s predestination.
I see what your problem is. You don’t believe predestination and free will can work together. Therefore, you take biblical passages on free will and good works at face value and explain away those verses that speak of foreordination. You could do the exact opposite and say that there is no such thing as free will…that we are all merely puppets on a string, waiting for God to move us. Hypercalvinists interpret Scripture in this way.
Both of these interpretations end up IGNORING part of the message. Thomists and Calvinists hold onto BOTH meanings:
Though God foreordains, we retain our full abilities of free will. God’s sovereignty and Man’s free will are considered “compatible” (which is, of course, only possible as an unexplainable mystery that we must accept by faith).
Thomist semi-Augustinianism and Calvinist Infralapsarianism basically posit a difference between sufficient grace (which renders the non-elect without excuse because they had enough grace bestowed upon them had they chosen to cooperate with it) and efficient grace (which renders the elect capable of persevering to the end…and they all do so).
You, of course, quite sensibly maintained that predestination to life would logically entail predestination to evil for those not granted it. This is the position of both Augustine and Calvin, so you’re in good company. Others, however, see the situation as another unexplainable mystery. They cannot accept that God would foreordain anyone to condemnation.
Hans,
I definitely reject predestination to evil, and so does the church.
Heaven is not attained by an arbitrary act of God’s will, but is also a reward for the personal merits of those who are justified, otherwise free will is negated, and sins cannot be the cause of damnation.
The Catholic understanding is that salvation comes from God’s grace, but secondarily is the reward for good works, which of themselves are preceded, effected and completed through God’s grace. It is God’s will from all eternity that the elect will be saved and no others, but God’s foreknowledge cannot coerce man’s free will. No one is saved against his own will so the lost perish solely on account of their wickedness.
2 Peter 1:10-11 “brothers, never allow your choice or calling to waver; then there will be no danger of your stumbling,
11 for in this way you will be given the generous gift of entry to the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
We are called to action, not to waver, or we will fall. Man is free whether he chooses to accept grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil, and the consequences are eternal.
God holds out the grace of conversion to sinners, they die because of their own choice.
Water–
I may be misreading you, but I don’t think so. You reject predestination to life in favor of mere foreknowledge. Jesuits do this, and the Eastern Orthodox do, as well. But not Catholics in general. You need to quit flattering yourself that YOUR take on things is necessarily Catholic. It’s not.
According to Catholic dogma–across the board–salvation is never ever initiated by our own personal will. Our hearts must be prepared in advance by Prevenient Grace. Thus, at least in this sense, salvation is ALWAYS against one’s will.
Free will is in no wise negated by God’s sovereignty. You’re big on insisting on straightforward logic when it suits your purposes and rejecting it for paradox–what you call both/and thinking–when it doesn’t happen to coincide with your agenda.
Hans,
You are misreading me. We have been saying all along in other words that “salvation is never ever initiated by our own personal will. ”
We both agree that: “Our hearts must be prepared in advance by Prevenient Grace.”
We have agreed on this all along.
But “against one’s will”?
Acts 2:38-42 “8 ‘You must repent,’ Peter answered, ‘and every one of you must be baptised 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 that was made is for you and your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself.’
40 He spoke to them for a long time using many other arguments, and he urged them, ‘Save yourselves from this perverse generation.’
41 They accepted what he said and were baptised.”
They “accepted what he said and were baptised”. Not “against one’s will”.
Water–
My point was that Prevenient Grace makes it possible to “accept what he said and be baptized.” Otherwise, no one ever would have faith and repent: it would be, so to speak, against their will.
Unless our hearts are changed BY GOD, we are lost and without hope. Faith is “against the will” of the natural man. Why does that bother you so much? Have you made an idol of self-reliance and unrestrained personal freedom?
Hans,
“Prevenient Grace makes it possible to “accept what he said and be baptized.” Yes.
“so to speak, against their will.” No.
“our hearts are changed BY GOD”. No.
Grace enables to choose to change our heart, that is why the unrepentant are condemned.
That is why Peter urges his listeners to repent. God will give them the grace to do so if they will only turn to him, enabled by his grace to do so.