The substitute caller for Jason of the Callers has tried to reverse the table and claim Roman Catholicism as the real home of justification by faith:
In the Protestant view, for man to enter Heaven he needs to have kept God’s Law perfectly. This means Salvation for the Protestant is purely based upon human “works,” the catch is that since sin has tainted all we do, it’s impossible for man to keep God’s Law perfectly. This is why Protestants say we need Jesus to keep God’s Law perfectly for us, and impute this “work” to us as if we did all this “work” ourselves. Hence why Protestants say our only hope to stand before God and be seen as “righteous” (i.e. a perfect keeper of the Law) is to trust in “Christ’s finished work” alone. So what does any of this have to do with faith alone? Protestants say the way we ‘receive’ this “work” that Christ did is through ‘the empty hand of faith,’ which reaches out and lays hold of and applies that work to our account.
In the Catholic view, for man to enter Heaven requires that he be in communion with God before he passes from this life. For Catholics, Salvation is not so much about ‘doing’ as it is about ‘being’. Communion with God is principally characterized by being “in a state of grace,” that means us possessing the divine gifts of faith, hope, and charity, as well as the Indwelling of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in our souls. In this view, faith implies the possession of all these other divine gifts for the Catholic. And the means by which a person first acquires all these is through “the washing of regeneration,” also known as Baptism.
Could be, but that would not explain the partial and plenary indulgences which are still very much available. Just imagine how many users of McCheyne’s schedule for reading Scripture entirely in a year could benefit from this one:
50. Reading of Sacred Scripture (Sacrae Scripturae lectio)
A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture.
A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour.
But then again, it could be that faith is really a form of obedience (as Norman Shepherd tried to argue):
Just as Abraham is the model of “the obedience of faith” offered to us by Sacred Scripture, the Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment (cf. CCC, n. 144). “By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’ and so giving her assent: ‘Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word’ (Luke 1:37-38)” (CCC, n. 148). Mary’s response perfectly expressed the disposition of complete and unconditional obedience — she is the model for what our response should be to God’s will in our daily lives. Her faith never wavered, and for this reason “the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith” (CCC, n. 149).
To close this installment, I invite you to reflect on an inspiring excerpt from Fr. Michael Gaitley’s recently published book 33 Days to Morning Glory: “She [Mary] is perfectly united to the Holy Spirit, because she was conceived without sin, never sinned, and always does the will of God perfectly. She allows the Holy Spirit to overshadow her, take possession of her soul, and bear fruit through her. The Holy Spirit delights in always working in and through Mary to save all other creatures made in God’s image” (p. 110).
Is it just (all about) me I or do these guys seem to view Roman Catholicism through a Protestant paradigm?
Old Life 
Baptism saves by putting us in Christ, and as we all know by now, baptism is always by water, and also you have to be in Christ first before justification because otherwise justification would not be real because without Christ in us first we would still really be sinners….
is this “entering heaven” shorthand something people got from Dante and the Roman Catholics? Since when is “entering the kingdom” the same as going to heaven?
Revelation 21: 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place[a] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
Philippians 3: 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
John 18: 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
John 3: 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water AND the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Matthew 5:20 –for I tell you, unless your righteousness EXCEEDS that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
Matthew 19: 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter LIFE, keep the commandments.”
Matthew 23:13–“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
LikeLike
So a half-our reading gets TWO plenary indulgences? How about an hour reading, is that THREE? Or how much of a break do you need between the two half-hours for the second half-hour to count as a separate reading, thus earning you FOUR? Also, where is the conversion chart between units of plenary indulgence, and time in purgatory, or our father’s or hail mary’s or buttonhooks or reverse-fakes or whatever?
LikeLike
RubeR, there should be an app for that so the faithful Papist with wi-fi or a good data package can know where he stands at any given moment.
LikeLike
Rube & Chorty,
Are there restrictions on what version they read? Do they get a double brownie plenary indulgence for reading from the inspired Vulgate? I need details guys, details!
LikeLike
Darryl,
Nick had written:
To which you responded:
I can see why this might seem to be a tension. But under the prima facie appearances, it is no more of a contradiction than JBFA is with the third use of the law. The truth of Nick’s statement does not depend on its being able to “explain” indulgences or their possibility, because two statements can both be true, even if one doesn’t explain the other. Indulgences are only for those already in a state of grace, not a way of earning or meriting being in a state of grace.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Jed & Bryan, I guess the bigger question is, do Protestants (or atheists?) get auto-indulgences for reading the Bible? (Do Jews and Muslims get indulgences for reading the old testament?)
LikeLike
DGH— it could be that faith is really a form of obedience (as Norman Shepherd tried to argue):
Lane Tipton, “Biblical Theology and the Westminster standards”, (WTJ, 2013, p 5) in describing the “location of justification relative to union with Christ”,begins with the assumption that obedient faith is before God’s imputation of righteousness. Tipton also puts faith before “union with Christ”.
Using confessional language( 11:4—”the Holy Spirit doth in due time apply Christ to them”), Tipton reasons that the Holy Spirit has priority over Christ in the event of imputation, because it’s Holy Spirit given faith that precedes both justification and “union”.. Tipton uses the phrase “faith-union” which is NOT confessional.
Instead of exploring any definition or distinction between Christ being in us or us being in Christ, Tipton simply stipulates that “union” is preceded by faith. In this way he eliminates by presupposition the alternative that God’s imputation precedes “union”.
Tipton had decided in advance what “union” is. “Union” is assumed to be “union conditioned on faith” and this means there can be no union by imputation (even though Tipton does not deny that Christ’s work is the basis for effectual calling). Thus Tipton begins with his conclusion, which is that effectual calling is not a result of imputation but instead a condition for God’s imputation.
Tipton asserts that other readings (Berkhof etc) of the Westminster Confession would result in “legal fiction”. If I were to say that God’s legal imputation is first, and not conditioned on effectual calling, that would not be “real” to Tipton, who insists that it’s work of the Spirit which is the location of the “real” and which therefore must precede God’s imputation.
I quote from p 11—”The declaration of righteousness is not prior to the imputation of righteousness. either logically or temporally, because the declaration takes into account the constitutive act of imputation….” exactly so. You can make a declaration about God being just without any prior constitutive act, because analytically God is just. But you cannot make a declaration about an ungodly sinner being just without the prior act of God’s imputation of righteousness to that sinner.
But Tipton insists that God cannot make a declaration about an ungodly sinner being just without the prior “real” act of the Holy Spirit in the sinner, so that Christ is personally present. Thus Tipton calims that effectual calling is what “really” unites us to Christ and therefore must precede the imputation.
“ The transaction of imputation is situated within the broader reality of union by Christ by Spirit-wrought faith.” Would God’s imputation not be real if it came before and resulted in the Spirit’s work? Is the Spirit’s work more real than God’s imputation of the merits of Christ’s work? Tipton is simply begging the question.
When your mind’s made up, that’s as real as it gets and you don’t need arguments.
LikeLike
Bryan,
I am not following your comparrison between the 3rd use and indulgences. How do they function similarly for Prots and Catholics respectively?
LikeLike
Darryl,
The way you worded your post, it seems as if you missed the whole point of the contrast between Catholicism and Protestantism. You fell into the very tangle that the post was trying to get people to avoid. You have framed the issue of indulgences and ‘obedience of faith’ in terms of of ‘justification by works’, and thus projected the Protestant understanding onto them, thinking that these things actually justify (at least in the Catholic view). In other words, you’re evaluating Catholicism through Protestant lenses, which isn’t fair nor accurate.
I’d invite you to stop and consider why the notion of “justification” that you have in mind actually suffers from a serious flaw: Justification in the Protestant view was supposed to come at the *end* of Adam’s life, not during, since it was to be based on a perfectly obedient life *already* lived. But Protestants somehow take this and say that Justification can and normally is to occur during this life, long before a person departs this earth (easily 30 years or more). So what changed? The introduction of sin all of the sudden allowed God to make this Declaration of Righteousness in the middle rather than at the end? The Protestant says this early declaration is done *so that* we can stand before God in the *first place*, yet Adam didn’t (and couldn’t) have this ‘perfect righteousness’ until the very end. So you’re caught in a blatant contradiction: for Protestants, Adam didn’t need perfect legal righteousness to stand before God, but we do need perfect legal righteousness to stand before God.
I’m wondering whether you’ve ever studied the Biblical term “justify,” because most Protestants have not. What I typically hear from Protestants is that since the term “justify” doesn’t mean “make righteous,” then it must mean “declare to have perfectly kept the law,” but that’s a bait-and-switch fallacy. Most Protestants don’t know that the term “justify” never refers to declaring that someone has kept the law perfectly, since it’s always used/applied to someone who is living during the middle of their life. For example, when the Old Testament spoke of being justified-or-condemned before a judge, this was this never referring to a Jew on his deathbed being evaluated as to whether he kept the Mosaic Law perfectly.
LikeLike
hey nick, you could have told us a little more of what’s “real”. Like, being justified now does not mean you are going to be justified tomorrow. On the basis of your last 24 hours, you think you might still be in the family today, because after all you really are in today and that means God won’t be so strict with you. Of course that does not mean for sure (you don’t have x ray glasses) that you are living with enough faith (or graces or evidences) today probably you are but there’s still tomorrow and tomorrow, without end, and even after you are dead, there’s purgatory…
but maybe, nick, you only meant that most “protestants” are really Romanists and don’t know it…
Turretin on faith and justification. (p75, Justification, ed Dennison, P and R, 1994)
First,the false mode of justification by faith (introduced by Romanists) must be removed. The act of believing is not considered as our righteousness with God by a gracious acceptation. A. Because receiving righteousness cannot be our righteousness itself formally. Rom 5:17-18)
B. Because faith is distinguished from the righteousness itself imputed to us, both because it is said to be “of faith” and “by faith” (Rom 1:17; 3:22; Phil 3:9) and because Christ with his obedience and satisfaction is that righteousness which is imputed to us (Is 53:11; Jer 23:6; I Cor 1:30; II Cor 5;21; Gal 3:13-14). Faith has this righteousness as its object, but with which it cannot be identified.
C. Because we are not justified except by a perfect righteousness. For we have to deal with the strict justice of God, which cannot be deceived. Now no faith here is perfect. Nor can it be considered as such by God and a gratuitous lowering of the law’s demands. For in the court of divine justice, there cannot be a room for a gracious acceptation which is an imaginary payment.
D. If faith is counted for righteousness, we will be justified by works because this faith cannot but have the relation of a work that justifies. And yet it is clear that in this business Paul always opposes faith to works as incompatible and two antagonistic means by which man is justified either by his own obedience or by another’s obedience.
“The faith of Abraham,” it is said, “was imputed to him for righteousness” (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3). Not properly because in this way he would have been justified by works. But metonymically, faith is taken for its object (Gal 3:25), ie, for that which faith believes. (ie the promise, Gal 3:16)
Nor is this to wrest Scripture and to expose coldly the power of faith, as it is charged. Nay, no more clearly and truly can the genuine sense of that imputation be set forth. For since that thing which is imputed to us for righteousness ought to be our righteousness before God (that on account of which God justifies us), nor can faith be that, it is clear that this phrase is to be taken metonymically with regard to the object.
LikeLike
Nick,
I’d invite you to ask Bryan to explain the straw man fallacy to you. Then read more Reformed theology so you can analyze what it actually teaches. Start with the covenant of works.
LikeLike
BV,
The ‘trouble’ is that I understand Reformed Theology better than most Reformed folks, so when I connect the dots and show the problems, those who aren’t on par with me think I’m misrepresenting their own theology.
You said we should start with the Covenant of Works. Sure. God allegedly promised Adam that if he lived a life of perfect obedience by his own strength (i.e. not having the Holy Spirit indwelling, since that would be synergism), then Adam would be counted as righteous, i.e. justified by works. But this is a concept never clearly taught in Scripture, and isn’t synonymous with (nor a ‘republication’ of) the Mosaic Law Covenant (see Gal 3:15-18 for a clincher).
Now Reformed would say that Adam began life in communion with God, which didn’t require a perfect legal righteousness, and yet the Reformed would also say that we cannot be in communion with God, nor participate in the other Gospel blessings, until we first have a perfect legal righteousness. So how could Adam walk with God without yet attaining perfect legal righteousness and yet we cannot walk with God without it? (Take care not to confuse Justification and Sanctification when you answer.)
By the way, are you even aware of a single Biblical passage that defines righteousness as perfectly keeping all God’s commandments? I’ve never found one, and I’ve not seen any Reformed scholars find one either.
LikeLike
Who ever said that? I’m just a dude, maybe somebody more informed should weigh in, but I don’t see why God would have removed his Holy Spirit from Adam during his test of obedience any more than God removed the Holy Spirit during Christ’s test of obedience (i.e. incarnate life).
Secondly, we cannot walk with God without imputed righteousness because of original (and actual) sin, and firstly, Adam had communion with God, but was in a probationary state. Attaining perfect legal righteousness would have led to consummation and glorification of Adam to a non posse peccare state.
If you didn’t know that already, maybe you don’t know Reformed Theology as well as you think.
LikeLike
The point being, while Adam lacked perfect legal righteousness, he had a lesser, probationary, fallible communion with God. But while he lacked active righteousness on the one hand, on the other hand at least he also lacked active sinfulness — until the Fall of course.
LikeLike
Nick,
As Bryan would say, simply asserting that you understand more about Reformed theology than most Reformed folks does not demonstrate that you know more about Reformed theology than most Reformed folks. The (primary) problem with your argument is it compares our situation with Adam’s in the garden. Theologically speaking, that’s comparing apples to pomegranates. That’s not even Reformed Theology 101. That’s children’s catechism stuff.
LikeLike
Bryan, Nicky’s latest speaks eloquently enough.
And there’s no tension between being a boorish dunce and the prima facie appearance of one, never mind the mewling and puking of Roman novice with his head exploding from his own self righteous genius.
The WCF is readily available. How come you can’t make sure your apprentices got their elementary facts straight when it comes to what the Reformed faith teaches. I mean the sister in first grade taught me about Original Sin. What happened to Nicky? did he flunk.
Maybe you could explain “posse peccatus, non posse non peccatus, posse non peccatus, non posses peccatus” to the boy and besides the WCF, maybe assign some reading in Thomas Boston for him.
Oh, that’s right. The boys from Utah threw you for a jealous apostolic loop and it’s been all downhill since.
Never mind.
LikeLike
nick—then Adam would be counted as righteous, i.e. justified by works. But this is a concept never clearly taught in Scripture, at (see Gal 3:15-18 for a clincher).
mcmark–assuming that your post was not simply a hit and run, let me ask you about the sentence above. I understand that you may be talking in a shorthand that only you understand (I tend to some of that myself), but how do you think that Galatians 3 proves (clinches) that justification is NOT by the works of Christ? It’s difficult to prove a negative from a text which is silent about your topic. The contrast between law and promise in Galatians 3 certainly does not rule out the idea of Christ having perfectly satisfied the law for the elect. Nor does it rule out the idea that Christ’s perfect satisfaction of the law is counted to the elect….
Galatians 3: 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. ….21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
mark: I take that to deny that “righteousness” is by our attempts to satisfy the law. Imperfect is not good enough. I do not read Galatians 3 as denying that Christ’s death was righteous, and thus the satisfaction of the law.
Again, Nick, I may have misunderstood your point. I don’t know what you think the Galatians 3 text clinches—is it talking about Adam, or about Christ, or about us?
LikeLike
A W Pink—-The Lord Jesus is righteous in His person, in the administration of His office, in the discharge of the great commission given to Him. Before His incarnation it was announced “righteousness shall be the belt of His loins and faithfulness the belt of His reins” (Isaiah 11:5)
In His own words to the Father, Christ prayed— “I have glorified You on the earth, I have finished the work which You gave Me to do” (John 17:4). God’s owning of Christ as “My righteous Servant” signifies that Christ completely executed the work entrusted to Him—as the Holy Spirit declares, He “was faithful to Him who appointed Him” (Hebrews 3:2).
Christ is the righteous Redeemer of His people only because the righteousness to be imputed to them was earned and obtained by Christ while on earth. Christ is “the Lord our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6). God is not only gracious—but “just” at the same time. because Jesus Christ satisfied every requirement of righteousness for every sinner who is elect in Christ.
Smeaton, Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement, p 178–”Romans 8:4–That the righteousness of the law would be fulfilled in us.”That is so like another expression of the same apostle, that the two passages should be compared for mutual elucidation (II Cor 5:21). This expression cannot be referred to any inward work of renovation; for no work of ours can with any propriety of language be designated a “fulfillment of the righteousness of the law”. The words, “the righteousness of the law,” are descriptive of Christ’s obedience as the work of one for many (Romans 5:18).
LikeLike
Nick, not sure what you’re describing there, but it sure isn’t the Covenant of Works. Seems like you have some of your details muddled (see WCF Chapter VII… the strawman is tired and needs a rest).
LikeLike
Also, for YEARS I’ve been reading the Bible daily for 27 minutes. Damn… all the wasted time.
LikeLike
I’m saying this as kindly as I can, but Nick routinely posts stuff that would get him flunked out of hermeneutics 101. He’s also fond of drawing sharp dichotomies between Rome and the Reformed even where we agree.
LikeLike
RubeRad,
You asked:
If you look at how the WCF 7&19 speak of the Holy Spirit, it’s only in terms of the Holy Spirit acting as a crutch for fallen men to be able to come to faith. No mention of Adam being raised to divine life by the divine indwelling. Instead, the mention is of God having to ‘condescend’ by making a covenant that promises eternal life based upon perfect obedience. Even the way faith/belief is spoken of in those sections, faith/belief is not placed as something Adam needed under the CoW, but rather something that applies only to the Elect for their salvation.
This response doesn’t make logical sense: Adam was in communion with God without perfect legal righteousness, so communion with God logically doesn’t require it, and yet you say it does.
——————————–
BV,
You said:
So we cannot compare our situation, goals, etc, with Adam’s situation and goals? If that’s the case, then you have no business talking about the two. You (or at least the WCF) has no business talking about how the Covenant of Works continues to bind. Clearly, what I pointed out is something your position simply cannot address and is a standing contradiction: Adam didn’t need Perfect Active Obedience to be in communion with God, but we need Perfect Active Obedience to be in communion with God.
This is why it goes back to the faulty understanding of “justify” which Reformed scholars (not having actually studied the Scriptures on this matter) have sold the Reformed community at large. It doesn’t mean ‘declare to be righteous’, i.e. declared to have kept the law perfectly. This is also why I brought up the issue of what the Bible means by “righteousness,” which Reformed scholars have also blindly sold the Reformed community. (In my study, there’s only one verse that comes anywhere close to saying ‘righteousness’ means ‘perfectly keep the law’, but even that verse doesn’t demand it, the rest suggest nothing of the sort.)
——————-
Bob S,
That was a sad post you made. It was nothing but insults and didn’t *directly* interact with any questions or statements made. I’ve had these kinds of discussions enough to know that when the quality of engagement drops to that level, then I’ve hit upon something big and the peanut gallery can only turn to mocking the Catholic.
——————-
Mark M,
You asked me: “how do you think that Galatians 3 proves (clinches) that justification is NOT by the works of Christ?”
You’re mixing up my words, not even directly quoting me properly. Please take care not to do that. I said the Mosaic Law is not synonymous with the Covenant of Works, and I quoted Galatians 3:15-18 to show that Paul was concerned with the Mosaic Covenant, without any reference to or idea of a Covenant of Works. I would also add that nowhere does the Bible ever speak clearly on Christ keeping the Law in our place. There are repeated texts of Christ dying for us, but none speaking of Him keeping the law in our place as a grounds to be justified.
LikeLike
Robert,
Please answer this question as clearly as you can: Why was Adam able to walk with God without having perfect legal righteousness and yet we cannot walk with God until we first have perfect legal righteousness?
LikeLike
Nick,
Because Adam wasn’t fallen.
LikeLike
Nick: So we cannot compare our situation, goals, etc, with Adam’s situation and goals? If that’s the case, then you have no business talking about the two.
…Reformed scholars (not having actually studied the Scriptures on this matter)…
BV: Does Bryan let you get away with this sort of thinking at CtC? I’ll let the Mad Hatter tell you which fallacies you’ve committed here.
Don’t expect to be taken seriously when you come to a Reformed community and demonstrate that you haven’t read much/any Reformed scholarship. I get the sense that you haven’t had any theological training, so I’ll keep this brief. Context matters in redemptive history. Like, a lot.
LikeLike
That was a sad post you made. It was nothing but insults and didn’t *directly* interact with any questions or statements made. I’ve had these kinds of discussions enough to know that when the quality of engagement drops to that level, then I’ve hit upon something big and the peanut gallery can only turn to mocking the Catholic.
And you just showed you didn’t read it, much more understand it, Nick.
I was taught original sin in first grade by the nun. You have still yet to learn it or you wouldn’t be comparing Adam as created with us today in our standing before God. That is nothing more than total confusion.
This is like so elementary I am surprised Bryan hasn’t emailed you privately and told you to cease and desist, much more started vetting your posts before you get to sent them. They really are that bad. IOW they stink. You don’t even know the abc’s that your own church teaches. But because I didn’t directly interact with the ridiculous I’m the bad guy. Right.
Likewise, reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument, when all you can give us is straw men.
But you don’t even understand that’s what you are doing which makes it all so pathetic.
You would think Bryan would have a clue, but then again, maybe Mr. Nothing Is Incompatible ain’t quite got the handle on the truth that he thinks he does.
cheers
LikeLike
Nick, you are the one who made a distinction between being justified in the middle of life and being justified on your death bed (or at judgment day). What has that got to do with Christ having satisfied the law perfectly (or not) for his people? You also are the one who made a distinction between righteousness as perfection and righteousness as something less than that.
I did not agree that Christ kept the Adamic covenant. I am supralapsarian enough to deny the “could have” when it comes to the Adamic covenant or the Abrahamic covenant or the Mosaic covenant.
On the basis of your last 24 hours, Nick, you might think you are probably still be in the family today since your god is not that strict with people once they are rightly watered. . But according to the anathemas of Trent that never means for sure (you don’t have x ray glasses) that you are living with enough faith (or graces or evidences) today probably you are. But there’s still tomorrow and tomorrow, without end, and even after you are dead, purgatory….
LikeLike
Robert,
In response to my question, you said: “Because Adam wasn’t fallen.”
So walking with God, being in communion with Him, doesn’t require a perfect legal righteousness, it just requires us to be not fallen? If that’s the case, then why say Active Obedience is necessary? It cannot be two different grounds, unless there are two different standards: communion based upon being unfallen and communion based upon having perfect righteousness. Logically speaking, we should only have to be forgiven of our sins, not needing a perfect obedience on top of that.
——————————
BV,
You said: “Don’t expect to be taken seriously when you come to a Reformed community and demonstrate that you haven’t read much/any Reformed scholarship.”
I have read Reformed scholars on many of the issues I’ve mentioned, and more. I wouldn’t be saying the things I’ve said if I didn’t study the Reformed position carefully enough. Have you read The Doctrine of Justification by John Owen? I consider it one of the finest works on defending Sola Fide from a Reformed perspective. It’s a classic work that puts most modern Reformed works on the subject to shame. But even Owen takes liberties with key Biblical terms, assuming too much about what they mean, such as in Ch4 when he analyzes “justify” and continuously assumes it means ‘declare righteous’ (as opposed to simply ‘Vindicate’). In that same work, you’ll see that Owen assumes ‘righteous’ refers to perfect obedience, but never actually makes any Biblical case.
————————
BobS,
You said: “I was taught original sin in first grade by the nun.”
So you have a first grade understanding of original sin (and thus a first grade understanding of soteriology). How does that help when we’re talking on a far more mature level? You don’t seem to understand the distinction between negative righteousness and positive righteousness, otherwise my claim would make perfect sense. You and others here are confusing/conflating ‘not having sin’ with ‘having perfectly kept the law’, whereas I am distinguishing them (as per classical Reformed orthodoxy). The catch is that you believe Justification (having positive righteousness) is the *first step* (or an early step) towards being in communion with God, adopted, etc, whereas Adam didn’t require such righteousness for those same benefits.
———————–
Mark,
You said: “Nick, you are the one who made a distinction between being justified in the middle of life and being justified on your death bed (or at judgment day).”
Correct, I did say that, because that’s the issue. If justification pertains to one’s *whole life lived* (i.e. perfectly keeping the law throughout all 70 years), then stop and realize the problem in saying justification takes place during *half of your life lived*. Consider Deuteronomy 25:1, “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.” Now, does it make sense to read ‘justifying’ here and ‘righteous’ here as referring to standing before a judge at the end of your life and being judged on your life of perfect obedience? No. But Reformed scholarship would have us essentially believe that very thing.
You asked: “What has that got to do with Christ having satisfied the law perfectly (or not) for his people?”
It has to do with the fact that the Reformed make justification based on *active obedience* “the hinge” on which we are put in a right-relationship with God, despite the fact Adam didn’t need (nor yet have) *active obedience* to be in a right relationship with God. The Bible plainly says a right relationship with God comes about by forgiveness-reconciliation, not by *active obedience*.
LikeLike
Yes, for Adam there were two different standards; initial, probationary, fallible communion, and if Adam had passed probation he would have achieved perfect righteousness and God would have rewarded him with glorification to impeccability and fuller, eternal communion. We, with original sin, do not even have access to probationary communion. I suppose in a RC framework, a just-baptized baby may be restored to a state of unfallenness, but (as you know better than me because you know so much) for Protestants, regeneration doesn’t just remove original sin; Christ’s imputed active obedience puts us beyond that. For us there are two different standards as well; obviously whatever communion with God we have now, is less than the communion we will have after glorification. But also since we have Christ’s perfect righteousness, our communion now is in some sense more than Adam’s probationary communion. We have hope in the biblical sense; Adam only had “I hope so”
LikeLike
Nick,
First you claim that Reformed scholars have not actually studied the Scriptures on the term “justify,” then you you claim Owen takes some liberties when analyzing the term “justify” in the Scriptures. Which is it?
If I were you I would leave the Protestant evangelism to the Cat(holic) in the Hat.
LikeLike
Posing the difference between Protestantism and RCism as a difference between doing and being is indicative of the pervasive role of Neo-Platonism w/in RCism. Righteousness and the lack thereof is the important issue in Reformed thought. But in (traditional) RC theology, it is not just unrighteousness, but humanity itself that is the problem.
That is why in RC theology grace keeps popping up earlier and earlier — there’s grace, and there’s prevenient grace, but you need grace before that as well, so on and etc.
Why is this the case in RC theology? The answer is rather apparent from classical RC theology, humanity is inherently flawed, not because of the fall, but even before the fall because humanity is physical and not spiritual. Hence the RC quest for transcendence over the physical, whether that be through monasticism, mysticism, or the cultivation of spiritual disciplines.
The Reformation was, in part, a movement away from Platonic theology and hence a movement away from seeing the problem, and the solution, as ontological. Rather, the Reformed saw the problem as ethical and eschatological, which requires an ethical and eschatological solution. JBFA is our reception of Christ’s righteousness (ethical) and is a fruit of our regeneration (eschatological). The Reformed discussed such matters w/in the framework of a covenantal system, as opposed to a hierarchical-ontological system.
RC theology is brimming with Neo-Platonism from its hierarchy running from the laity to the pope, its tradition of mysticism and retreat from the world, and its priestly celibacy.
LikeLike
Nick: Protestants somehow take this and say that Justification can and normally is to occur during this life, long before a person departs this earth (easily 30 years or more). So what changed? The introduction of sin all of the sudden allowed God to make this Declaration of Righteousness in the middle rather than at the end?
mark: it’s Genesis that teaches us that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, ie, in the middle of his life.
nick: for Protestants, we need perfect legal righteousness to stand before God….. Most Protestants don’t know that the term “justify” is…. always used/applied to someone who is living during the middle of their life. For example, when the Old Testament spoke of being justified-or-condemned before a judge, this was this never referring to a Jew on his deathbed …
mark: so protestants make two mistakes. One is saying that justification is in the middle of life, and the other mistake is saying that justification is not in the middle of life? Well, one never knows where the middle of one’s life is, which is one reason Luther wrote against praying for the dead,
from Carlos Eirie, A Very Brief History of Eternity, p 108
A mere three years after he challenged Tetzel to a debate on indulgences with his 95 theses, Luther would be arguing that praying for the dead was as wrong as praying to the dead. To believe that the dead in heaven could pray for anyone on earth was dead wrong, as the pun would have it, or even worse. “The Scriptures forbid and condemn communication with the dead”… For Luther, the communion of saints mentioned in the Creed was not to be understood as anything other than a eschatological hope.about the promised resurrection and the kingdom to come.
Luther summed it up in a sermon in 1522—-“The summons of death comes to us all, and none of us can die for another. Everyone must fight his own battle with death by himself, alone. We can shout into each other’s ears, but everyone must himself be prepared for the time of death. I will not be with you then, nor you with me.”
Nick, your idol god is not that strict with people once they are rightly watered. . But according to the anathemas of Trent that never means for sure that you will die with enough faith. And even after you are dead, there’s purgatory, which means you think you will not really die for your sins, but also that you think you must keep on working toward the justification you allegedly already received by water…….
LikeLike
Well, the level of discussion degraded quite quickly. I keep trying to put the spotlight on the major problems with Active Obedience, and the Reformed here are doing everything to get the spotlight off. I’m also fascinated by the fact that despite being accused of not understanding Reformed theology, nobody has pointed out any errors in the first paragraph in Darryl’s opening post where I was quoted.
LikeLike
Bryan, lesson in logic and English language. Tension is not contradiction.
LikeLike
McMark, isn’t the imputation of Adam’s sin also a legal fiction (on the unionist logic)?
LikeLike
Nick, when did you become a bishop? Or when did your bishops let you start interpreting the Bible?
I know it’s a cheap point. But your interpretation of “justify” is like your opinion. I have read Paul. I’ve also read the Bible. I don’t see papal infallibility. I’ve also read Vatican 2. You’re still supposed to be subject to the pope. Francis is a universalist.
So tip off.
LikeLike
What’s degraded? We won’t ask you the questions you want us to ask you? I deny that we need to figure out what Adam “could have” done in order to see the big problems in your self-righteous attitude that you are now in a “state of grace” because of some water.
nick; In the Catholic view, for man to enter Heaven requires that he be in communion with God before he passes from this life.
mark—there’s the rub, the righteousness you think now inherent in you might turn into crap before you “pass”….It might even already be an abomination to God. And since the wages of “mortal sin” is death, there will be no passing from one life to another life, but death.
nick: For Catholics, Salvation is not so much about ‘doing’ as it is about ‘being’.
mark: but of course it’s a little about doing, because if not, how could one manage to lose the state
you got by being in the water….it’s not strict you see, but some doing is required, and only the self-righteous think they have done that little today, much less will tomorrow….
nick: Communion with God is principally characterized by being “in a state of grace,” that means us possessing the divine gifts of faith, hope, and charity, as well as the Indwelling of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit IN OUR SOULS.
mark: because at the end of the day, the death of Christ as satisfaction for sins means nothing because it’s about what your idol god has become in you, and that idol god might just leave you (pass from you) if you don’t do the little and one never knows how much the little might be…
There are various “protestants” (as you like to remind us) and this means we don’t have to know all about the difference between lutherans and anglicans to know that there is no solid hope in the evil traditions of the Roman antichrist.
Calvin: “Osiander objects that it would be insulting to God, and contrary to his nature, to justify those who still remain wicked….. But as it is too well known by experience, that the remains of sin always exist in the righteous, it is necessary that justification should be something very different from reformation to newness of life. This latter God begins in his elect, and carries on during the whole course of life, gradually and sometimes slowly, so that if placed at his judgment-seat they would always deserve sentence of death … But herein is the wondrous method of justification, that, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, they dread not the judgment of which they are worthy, and while they justly condemn themselves, are yet deemed righteous OUT OF THEMSELVES t.” (Institutes, 3:11.11)
LikeLike
Nick, “The ‘trouble’ is that I understand Reformed Theology better than most Reformed folks, . . .”
Pompous jackass alert.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’m just a layman studying my Bible. By Protestant logic, if a doctrine isn’t taught in Scripture, then it’s a tradition of men and not binding. I’m calling Reformed folks out on Active Obedience, since I see no clear evidence for it in Scripture. I believe their error is also rooted in an erroneous understanding of “justify” and “righteousness”. If you’ve studied Paul, then please give a few clear texts from him (or any other Biblical passage) where (a) justification refers to declaring someone righteous (in the Active Obedience sense), and (b) show where “righteousness” in the Bible clearly refers to perfect obedience.
If you cannot show those things from Scripture, then it doesn’t matter what you think of Catholicism or myself, the end result is that your theology would still be flawed on a major point.
LikeLike
Nick, don’t pout. It’s not a work nor a sacrament.
LikeLike
Ok. It was a simple request. If there is indeed Biblical proof for AO, it shouldn’t be like pulling teeth to get it out from someone here.
LikeLike
Nick: I’m also fascinated by the fact that despite being accused of not understanding Reformed theology, nobody has pointed out any errors in the first paragraph in Darryl’s opening post where I was quoted.
BV: I was too distracted by all of the errors in your comments.
LikeLike
Nicky, liars should have good memories. Remember?
. So how could Adam walk with God without yet attaining perfect legal righteousness and yet we cannot walk with God without it?
When you can tell us what Original Sin is and how it resulted from the Fall, never mind the difference between man as innocent, fallen, redeemed and glorified get back to us. Till then shut up. You didn’t even have a first grade understanding of the issues when you started and you haven’t learned much since. Ignorance is one thing, stupidity another.
[Hint. Adam walked with God because he hadn’t sinned. But we are dead in our trespasses and sins because we inherited a sinful nature from Adam after his fall. Not having the righteousness of the first Adam, which has been lost forever, we need the righteousness of another, even the second Adam, who not is perfectly righteous and keep the law for himself, as well as for us, but he also atones/makes satisfaction for our sins. IOW Christ’s perfect life and death on the cross or what is called his active and passive obedience. ]
Oh yeah. What you first wrote.
And the means by which a person first acquires all these is through “the washing of regeneration,” also known as Baptism.
But not all Israel is Israel Rom. 9:6, all your hand waving aside. Baptism is a sign and a seal of the washing of regeneration, not the thing itself. John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: Esau was circumcised and Simon, as well as Judas we suppose was baptized, so what gives? Merely that for Rome the external and physical is all that counts. Blame it on the obsession for a superficial apostolic genealogical succession instead of a substantive succession of apostolic doctrine. As in the Jews thought they should have been saved, on account they were children of Abraham. Yet Christ said he could raise up children of Abraham from stones.
I’m calling Reformed folks out on Active Obedience, since I see no clear evidence for it in Scripture.
That’s rich.
IOW that somebody who at this late date in the discussion is still Actively Ignorant of Adam’s Active Disobedience, i.e. Original Sin which he, as well as we, inherited from Adam thinks they are in any kind of position to credibly call out reformed folks on anything is laughable.
Not only is the gentleman incompetent to the question, never mind WCF 1:6, he’s a fundamentalist amateur when it comes to boorish patronization and theological braggadocio. A pity that. Bryan and Jase could use some help with their schtick.
LikeLike
Perhaps Adam would have got off of probation if Adam had been watered early enough before he sinned. If only Adam had never known he could sin…
I begin with the sarcasm.
Perhaps Adam would have got of probation if he had eaten from the tree of life, at least once or even more often than that.
Or perhaps there is nothing in the text about Adam ever getting off probation–the day you eat of the one tree (not the tree of life) you die.
Since Adam was not immortal, there was nothing Adam could do to get off probation. Adam did not have or need a “value-added” righteousness (the Roman Catholic idea of nature and grace) to walk with God. And no matter how much doing Adam did for however many years, as long as Adam did not sin, Adam was going to live but Adam was going to still be on probation.
We cannot work back from Christ’s satisfaction of the law to the point where we make the Genesis covenant with Adam about something else besides Adam sinning or not sinning. Adam our federal head sinned for us.
But Christ the federal head of all the elect became also human and also mortal, in order to die for all the sins of His federal people, and to give them all other blessings, including immortality.
Adam had no need to die for his people. Nor could Adam die for his people. But Adam did sin for his people.
LikeLike
Nick, you want biblical evidence? And you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Are you for real?
LikeLike
BobS,
You said:
This doesn’t make sense. Here you say “Not having the righteousness of the first Adam, which has been lost forever.” This is wrong from a Reformed perspective. Adam never had the Active Obedience type righteousness in the first place. This is Reformed Theology 101, and I cannot believe people are not getting this. And to go onto say we need the Active Obedience righteousness of another is, again, failing to address the fact Adam never attained this himself and yet was in communion with God.
If all that it takes to walk with God is not having sin, then forgiveness of sins is sufficient to walk with God again. No need for something more, like Active Obedience.
——————
Darryl,
You said: “Nick, you want biblical evidence? And you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Are you for real?”
Just because I could be wrong on Doctrine X does not automatically make me wrong on Doctrine Y. And furthermore, just because I’m wrong on Doctrine X, does not mean the Protestant is free to embrace whatever doctrines they’d like without Biblical proof.
It’s like a Jehovah’s Witness saying to a Mormon, “You want Biblical evidence for our JW teachings, and yet you’re a Mormon who believes in polytheism?” In other words, the JW is fallaciously saying that since the Mormon is wrong on one thing, that the JW no longer has to make a Biblical case for his own teachings. As we all know, both sides are unbiblical and wrong.
I’m very confident that when the Apostles preached in the synagogue and public square, the Apostles didn’t dodge honest inquiries by saying “You want Biblical evidence, and yet you believe in ____?”
Are there not a few clear texts that show “justify” means “declare legally righteous”??
(in the sense of keeping the law perfectly)
Are there not a few clear texts that show “righteousness” means perfect obedience??
Are there not a few clear texts that show Christ kept the law *in our place*??
LikeLike
The confession has proof texts, Nick.
But since you are the one who seems to think that you know reformed theology better than most reformed, your continued presence here must be to do something other than learn about our theology. Why not tell us what you are after, then, with all these questions?
Thanks for dropping by. Take care.
LikeLike
Noted. Here’s what my church says:
LikeLike
The clown show and buffoon extravaganza continues without let up.
Our interlocutor, bereft of coaching from his handler, Bryan and guidance from his auxiliary puppet master in training, Jase, continues to blur categories and distinctions with abandon.
One wonders what it feels like to be cannon fodder/thrown to the sharks. Did Nick cross Bryan or offend Jason? How come they’re letting him twist slowly in the wind? Surely they take no pleasure in his humiliation. Why the reticence in rescuing our novice from the morass he’s conjured up?
For the record, Adam was created innocent and without sin and up until he ate of the forbidden tree, he actively obeyed the moral law – though he was capable of falling, which in the end he did. End of story. End of fatuous objections.
See. That was easy.
Further, yes we are either justified by our works CoW or the works of another who obeyed the CoW, i.e. the CoG.
IOW “doing” on both counts.
See Justification by Faith: Romanism and Protestantism by Robbins for more regarding the distinction between imputation and infusion – or the amorphous indistinct “being” touted by our romanist. Whose demonstrable ignorance is not incompatible with his boast that he knows the reformed faith better than the reformed.
LikeLike
AB,
You said: “The confession has proof texts, Nick.”
Your link was to WCF, Chapter 11, which I am well aware of. But no specific “proof texts” for Active Obedience are indicated. Are you aware of the claim by some Reformed that the WCF was deliberately vague on the issue of AO? If you’re aware of this, then you can see how the wording of Chapter 11 especially can be easily read in a way that denies AO while still being considered ‘orthodox’. Consider the following wording:
If you look at the whole chapter, especially with these texts in mind, you’ll see nothing plainly indicating Active Obedience. Contrast this with the London Baptist Confession, which basically copied the WCF, the LBC in this same place explicitly mentions “Active Obedience.” But here, in the WCF, the only thing suggested is that Jesus “by his obedience and death” was for the sake of pardoning sin and making satisfaction. And if you look at the proof texts corresponding to these footnotes, you will see the almost all speak of having our sins forgiven and Jesus dying for our sins, and nothing more; no mention of AO!
So it’s not out of arrogance or being a jerk that I say I understand Reformed theology better than most Reformed. I’m simply stating the fact that I’ve done the research while most have not, and as a result I’m *often* accused of misrepresenting or not understanding Reformed theology, when the reality is it is they who don’t know it.
Next, you quoted the OPC’s document on Justification. I’m fully aware of this document as well, and I understand what it is teaching, and I don’t believe I’ve said *anything* substantially in conflict with it at any time (!) in this discussion. Now if you look carefully at what you quoted, there wasn’t any specific proof texts focusing specifically on Active Obedience. Instead, as I often find, the doctrine of AO is brought in from the back-door, assumed to be there, when in fact no clear Scriptural proof is given. Consider how the very quote you gave does this very thing:
Notice what happened. As if very common, texts showing Christ’s work in *forgiving sin* are mentioned in abundance, but when it comes to Active Obedience, there is silence. Notice what the quote says about AO: “This is implied, though not stated explicitly, in 2 Cor 5:21.” In other words, AO is being snuck in the back door, assumed to be true and projected onto the text. And to add to this, the quote explicitly says the *very context* is speaking of imputation only in terms of “not imputing sin” and “Christ’s expiatory sacrifice.”
While there are numerous texts that speak plainly and unequivocally on Christ’s work being for the forgiveness of sins, I still have yet to be shown any corresponding texts speaking of Active Obedience, which the Reformed teach is of *equal* importance and the foundation of our declaration before God as righteous.
LikeLike
AB,
You said: “The confession has proof texts, Nick.”
Your link was to WCF, Chapter 11, which I am well aware of. But no specific “proof texts” for Active Obedience are indicated. Are you aware of the claim by some Reformed that the WCF was deliberately vague on the issue of AO? If you’re aware of this, then you can see how the wording of Chapter 11 especially can be easily read in a way that denies AO while still being considered ‘orthodox’. Consider the following wording:
If you look at the whole chapter, especially with these texts in mind, you’ll see nothing plainly indicating Active Obedience. Contrast this with the London Baptist Confession, which basically copied the WCF, the LBC in this same place explicitly mentions “Active Obedience.” But here, in the WCF, the only thing suggested is that Jesus “by his obedience and death” was for the sake of pardoning sin and making satisfaction. And if you look at the proof texts corresponding to these footnotes, you will see the almost all speak of having our sins forgiven and Jesus dying for our sins, and nothing more; no mention of AO!
So it’s not out of arrogance or being a jerk that I say I understand Reformed theology better than most Reformed. I’m simply stating the fact that I’ve done the research while most have not, and as a result I’m *often* accused of misrepresenting or not understanding Reformed theology, when the reality is it is they who don’t know it.
Next, you quoted the OPC’s document on Justification. I’m fully aware of this document as well, and I understand what it is teaching, and I don’t believe I’ve said *anything* substantially in conflict with it at any time (!) in this discussion. Now if you look carefully at what you quoted, there wasn’t any specific proof texts focusing specifically on Active Obedience. Instead, as I often find, the doctrine of AO is brought in from the back-door, assumed to be there, when in fact no clear Scriptural proof is given. Consider how the very quote you gave does this very thing:
Notice what happened. As if very common, texts showing Christ’s work in *forgiving sin* are mentioned in abundance, but when it comes to Active Obedience, there is silence. Notice what the quote says about AO: “This is implied, though not stated explicitly, in 2 Cor 5:21.” In other words, AO is being snuck in the back door, assumed to be true and projected onto the text. And to add to this, the quote explicitly says the *very context* is speaking of imputation only in terms of “not imputing sin” and “Christ’s expiatory sacrifice.”
While there are numerous texts that speak plainly and unequivocally on Christ’s work being for the forgiveness of sins, I still have yet to be shown any corresponding texts speaking of Active Obedience, which the Reformed teach is of *equal* importance and the foundation of our declaration before God as righteous.
Bob S,
You said:
This is equivocation and incorrect use of “active obedience,” Bob. Within the issue of justification, it’s not proper to say Adam “actively obeyed” up until he sinned, since only *perfect*, *entire*, and *perpetual* active obedience suffices for the righteousness which justifies. Nothing less! So Adam was *not* righteous in the sense of having the “entire, exact, and perpetual obedience” (WCF19:1) that God demanded in the (alleged) CoW.
Such issues are too important for me to let such sloppiness just slide. I’m the one properly articulating Reformed theology here, not you (no offense).
You also said:
Yes, when did I ever say otherwise? Recall that it was *I* who originally said the Reformed are the ones who teach Justification by Works, since it’s really the works that justify in your view, even if someone else does them for you. In your view, “faith” is merely an instrument that delivers the “works” to you. So to say “Justified by faith” is misleading, since faith isn’t the *basis* for justification in your view, but rather perfect works are.
LikeLike
Nick, why don’t you use the same scrutiny with papal infallibility or the perpetual virginity of Mary?
LikeLike
Nick, I can’t altogether agree with your “swiss-cheezing” of the confession, picking and choosing (i.e. let’s look at these statements, but not the others) things that seem to agree with your position, and not with mine. But I appreciate your taking a look at this, as well as the report from my church.
As a Roman Catholic, I hope you can appreciate when you find a man who finds himself in agreement with his church, as the language in the aforementioned report from my church seems to make clear on page 73 and before, that,
Any argument that the Westminster Assembly of Divines cast its teaching on justification to allow room for those who would deny the imputation of Christ’s active obedience is, at best, speculative, and does not comport, we would contend, with the tenor of the Standards as a whole or the church’s understanding of its Standards in subsequent years.
Sure, I know not all reformed agree with us, to answer your question. I’ll stand with my church, though.
Take care.
LikeLike
Nick,
We questioned your self-proclaimed mastery of the Reformed faith because of your fundamental confusion over the nature of the covenant of works. Maybe stop learning about Reformed theology from the CtCers.
LikeLike
Nick, I see you took the hint and Bryan gave you some help on your reply. (Hi Bryan!)
Yeah, we know our active obedience is necessary in the Roman paradigm of faith plus works or justification by sanctification. But we are not romanists here.
And yeah, we are justified by faith in Christ’s works, his obedience in life and in death. So what? As in big deal.
But we are not justified by the infusion of the Spirit who enables our works that add to our baptism ala the Roman paradigm where the death of Christ only atones for original sin, for which we also need the mass to atone for the sins we add to our original in daily in thought, word and deed.
IOW I would plead ignorance, i.e. implicit faith and stop bugging Bryan to write your posts for you. (Bye, Bryan!)
LikeLike
So to say “Justified by faith” is misleading, since faith isn’t the *basis* for justification in your view, but rather perfect works are.
There you go again, Nick. Thinking faith is a work, because it is faith in the work of Christ, much more you believed in Christ by the work of your own free will, dead in its sins and trespasses.
OK Ok that’s what arminians believe and your views are still morphing, as Brian keeps up the coaching.
Still Nick,
Don’t be a twit
and pick a nit,
just admit
that brevity is the soul of wit
and you ain’t got it.
cheers
LikeLike
Nick,
I know he isn’t the master of Reformed theology that you are, but this is what Calvin has to say in Institutes 2.16.5:
Now someone asks, How has Christ abolished sin, banished the separation between us and God, and acquired righteousness to render God favorable and kindly toward us? To this we can in general reply that he has achieved this for us by the whole course of his obedience. This is proved by Paul’s testimony: “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience we are made righteous” [Romans 5:19]. In another passage, to be sure, Paul extends the basis of the pardon that frees us from the curse of the law to the whole life of Christ: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, subject to the law, to redeem those who were under the law” [Galatians 4:4-5]. Thus in his very baptism, also, he asserted that he fulfilled a part of righteousness in obediently carrying out his Father’s commandment [Matthew 3:15]. In short, from the time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay the price of liberation in order to redeem us.
Yet to define the way of salvation more exactly, Scripture ascribes this as peculiar and proper to Christ’s death. He declares that “he gave his life to redeem many” [Matthew 20:28]. Paul teaches that “Christ died for our sins” [Romans 4:25]. John the Baptist proclaimed that he came “to take away the sins of the world,” for he was “the Lamb of God” [John 1:29]. In another passage Paul teaches that “we are freely justified through the redemption which is in Christ, because he was put forward as a reconciler in his blood” [Romans 3:24-25]. Likewise: “We are …justified by his blood …and reconciled …through his death.” [Romans 5:9-10.] Again: “For our sake he who knew no sin was made sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” [2 Corinthians 5:21] I shall not pursue all the testimonies, for the list would be endless, and many of them will be referred to in their order. For this reason the so-called “Apostles’ Creed” passes at once in the best order from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, wherein the whole of perfect salvation consists. Yet the remainder of the obedience that he manifested in his life is not excluded. Paul embraces it all from beginning to end: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant …and was obedient to the Father unto death, even death on a cross.”
LikeLike
And while you are still on the phone or your Ipad, Bryan.
Are you still holding prot posts over there at Called to Confusion until one of your stable of writers can come up with a credible rebuttal?
Hey, just asking.
LikeLike
Nick — perhaps it would be illustrative if you could explain why the RC believe in the necessity of grace before Adam’s fall (eg, the donum superadditum).
After all, the Reformed would say that God certainly acted with condescension, but not grace, toward Adam, because Adam was righteous both in his nature (before the fall) and forensically (God said man and woman were “very good”).
If that is the case, they why in RC theology is grace necessary even when Adam is righteous? To phrase the question another way, what was deficient or insufficient about Adam’s unfallen nature that required grace?
I am interested to hear your response. My own hunch is that this is a a bit of RCism’s Neo-Platonism showing itself.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You asked me: Nick, why don’t you use the same scrutiny with papal infallibility or the perpetual virginity of Mary?
That’s a fair question. As I see it, not all doctrines are of equal weight. The less central a doctrine is, the less scrutiny and evidence we should demand of it. Obviously, the Papacy is far more central than Mary’s virginity. I doubt any Reformer would have torn the Church apart over Marian doctrines, especially since things like perpetual virginity, Assumption, etc, don’t negatively affect the Doctrines of Grace, Christology, etc.
As for the Papacy, since it is one of the more major issues like authority and salvation, I do recognize it needs to have a more substantial amount of evidence, and so I have indeed done my best to verify that there’s a more substantial amount available. I would hope Protestants have done the same with their central doctrines as well.
With this in mind, it becomes clear what the big picture is and where the real energy needs to be focused on. For Protestants, they believe that since Catholicism has so badly misunderstood the plain teachings of Paul, that Catholicism has basically lost its credibility and cannot be the true Church. So it really doesn’t matter how good of a case a Catholic makes on any lesser issues, the Protestant quite logically isn’t going to be phased, since Salvation still trumps all those lesser things.
It makes perfect sense for a Protestant to conclude that if Catholics don’t understand the plain teaching of Scripture on Salvation, then certainly Catholics wont understand the plain teaching of Scripture on lesser things. I get it. And that’s why I focus as much on Salvation as I can, using the Bible alone, since I recognize those other things are really a waste of our time.
That’s why I’ve been very successful going immediately to key Biblical terms like Atonement (when opposing Penal Substitution), Justify, Logizomai, Righteousness, and dominate in key texts like Romans 4, 2 Cor 5:21, Gal 3, etc.
LikeLike
AB,
You said: “I can’t altogether agree with your swiss-cheezing of the confession, picking and choosing”
Sorry buddy, but I did no such thing. I quoted the most relevant portions in order to cut to the chase and not distract with large portions of quotes. So I’m going to turn this around on you and call you to the carpet by asking that you show PRECISELY where I didn’t include *key* information. If you cannot do that, then please retract. I spoke directly upon and quoted what the Confession says *specifically* about Christ’s work, and I spoke directly upon the Biblical passages in the footnotes.
As I’ve been trying to get across to you and others, I’m way too informed about these matters to cut corners and misrepresent. It’s a waste of my time to go after strawmen, so don’t think misrepresenting Reformed theology is of any use to me.
Go ahead and prove me wrong by quoting a few of the WCF proof texts that speak directly upon Active Obedience. I don’t believe you can do so, and the track record so far in this thread shows nobody has been able to do so either.
——————-
BobS,
You said: “I see you took the hint and Bryan gave you some help on your reply.”
That’s completely untrue and pretty interesting since it seems you’re more concerned about mocking me and Bryan personally than actually addressing the substance of what I’m saying. You do realize that ad hominem laced in your comments isn’t convincing to anyone and only makes you look bad?
I know what kinds of questions to ask to stop Reformed folks like you dead in their tracks. It’s why all you guys ran away from the Bible when I came into the room and asked you, “Where is that clearly taught in the Bible?”. Protestants think that doesn’t apply to them, only Catholics 🙂
——————-
BV,
You said: “I know he isn’t the master of Reformed theology that you are, but this is what Calvin has to say in Institutes 2.16.5:”
I’m glad you went there. Just so you know, Calvin didn’t believe in Active Obedience! This section along with his big section in Book 3, Chapter 11 devoted to Justification says justification is forgiveness of sins alone and that Christ’s work consisted only in making satisfaction for sins.
Let’s go through your quote and make this clear (cut down for brevity sake, not hiding anything):
WITHOUT being predisposed to accept Active Obedience, the objective reader will see that Calvin NOWHERE speaks of Christ’s Active Obedience, i.e. keeping the Law in our place. Instead, Calvin repeatedly speaks ONLY in terms of forgiveness of sins, redemption, etc, and ONLY speaks of Christ’s work as it touches upon his suffering and death for us. When Calvin talks about Christ’s ‘whole obedience’ through his life, the context is *clearly* speaking of Passive Obedience throughout his life. His whole life was suffering and making satisfaction for our sake. That’s all Calvin is saying. The concept of Active Obedience is strikingly absent here and in Book 3, Chapter 11 (where Calvin defends Justification).
This was the ‘best’ evidence Dr Scott Clark was able to dig up, and as you can see, for the *unbiased* reader not assuming anything, Calvin doesn’t come close to speaking of Active Obedience.
LikeLike
Nick, the pope is more central than Mary? Hello, the Rosary! And you don’t think you pray to Mary because of her perpetual virginity?
If you’ve been very successful Nick, it’s in your own mind.
LikeLike
Mad Hungarian,
You asked: “perhaps it would be illustrative if you could explain why the RC believe in the necessity of grace before Adam’s fall (eg, the donum superadditum).”
Great question. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. This wasn’t a new feature of fallen humanity after the time of Christ. Adam had the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, along with the Father and Son, since the Trinity isn’t separated (perichoresis). That’s *precisely* how Adam was in communion with God.
If you believe that Adam originally had the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then you’ve substantially admitted the “necessity” (more of a supberb gift) of grace before the fall and donum superadditum. You admit Adam was in a synergistic relationship. It was Adam plus the Trinity dwelling in him, just as it is for all Christians in communion with God.
I’m guessing you really do believe Adam had the Divine Indwelling, but in case you don’t, then you’ve got to admit that Adam wasn’t really in any intimate communion with God from the beginning. God was as distant as He could be. And you have to ask yourself, how did Jesus “reconcile” us back to God if we aren’t reconciled back in any substantial sense to the original communion Adam had?
In heaven, we are said to be wearing robes not because we’re hiding something bad, not because we’re hiding nakedness, but because these robes elevate our dignity. Grace ‘building on’ our humanity. The High Priest went into the Holy of Holies decked out in all sorts of garments, not because he was sinful, but because it had to correspond to the massively elevated respect needing to correspond to Whose presence he was in. “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal 3:27)
LikeLike
The gospel is not the death without the resurrection, or the resurrection without the death. The good news about one is good news about the other. Calvin— “When in scripture death only is mentioned, everything peculiar to the resurrection is at the same time included, and that there is a like synecdoche in the term resurrection.” (Institutes 2:16:13)
I am dogmatic that Christ’s righteousness includes His death, which death was uniquely an act of Christ’s will. I am not however dogmatic that the resurrection of Christ is imputed to us, or that His vicarious law-keeping is imputed to us.
This is not to deny that Christ kept the Mosaic law, and fulfilled all that the ceremonies required. Rather, it is to say that Christ was circumcised, and I was never under a covenant which required my circumcision.
Call it “not of the substance” (accident or ceremonial) or “positive law” or what you will. We can say that justification is more than forgiveness, and also the end of probation and the promise of immortality, without agreeing about all the differences between laws and covenants.
John Owen—There has been a controversy more directly stated among some learned divines of the Reformed churches , about the righteousness of Christ that is said to be imputed unto us. For some would have this to be only his death, and the satisfaction which he made for sin thereby,
and others include therein the obedience of his life also. The occasion, original, and progress of this controversy, the persons by whom it has been managed, with the writings wherein it is so, and the various ways that have been endeavoured for its reconciliation, are sufficiently known unto all who have inquired into these things.
Owen– Some difference there has been, also, whether the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, or the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, may be said to be the formal cause of our justification before God; wherein there appears some variety of expression among learned men, who have handled this subject in the way of controversy with the Papists.
The true occasion of the differences about this expression has been this, and no other: Those of the Roman church do constantly assert, that the righteousness whereby we are righteous before God is the formal cause of our justification; and this righteousness, they say, is our own inherent, personal righteousness, and not the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us.
In opposition unto them, some Protestants, contending that the righteousness wherewith we are esteemed righteous before God, and accepted with him, is the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, have done it under this inquiry, –namely, What is the formal cause of our justification? Some have said to be the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, — some, the righteousness of Christ imputed.
But what they designed herein was, not to resolve this controversy into a philosophical inquiry about the nature of a formal cause, but only to prove that that truly belonged unto the righteousness of Christ in our justification which the Papists ascribed unto our own. ..They all deny that in the
justification of a sinner there either is, or can be, any inherent formal cause of it.
Owen–They all agree that God justifies no sinner, — absolves him not from guilt, nor declares him righteous, so as to have a title unto the heavenly inheritance, — but with respect unto a true and perfect righteousness, and also that this righteousness is truly the righteousness of him that is so justified; that this righteousness becomes OURS by God’s free GRACE and DONATION.
LikeLike
Like I said the clown show continues.
Nick prattles on.
He has told us:
So it’s not out of arrogance or being a jerk that I say I understand Reformed theology better than most Reformed. I’m simply stating the fact that I’ve done the research while most have not, and as a result I’m *often* accused of misrepresenting or not understanding Reformed theology, when the reality is it is they who don’t know it.
And he also tells us this:
So you’re caught in a blatant contradiction: for Protestants, Adam didn’t need perfect legal righteousness to stand before God, but we do need perfect legal righteousness to stand before God.
It’s clearly taught in Scripture that Adam stood before God as created innocent and without sin before the fall, while we stand before God as sinners after the fall.
But Nick doesn’t know the difference and this and other items lead him on the Active Obedience kick.
Well, yeah, it’s been disputed in reformed circles, but the salient distinction is that Romanism requires what essentially is our Active Obedience to be justified. It is not enough to receive by faith Christ’s work for us in at least fulfilling the law and paying the satisfaction for our sins, we must co-operate with infused grace and do good works so that God may judge us righteous. Not only was Christ’s work on the cross insufficient, the mass must be sacrificed or sins won’t be forgiven. But this isn’t egregious chutzpah, if not despicable blasphemy and we’re only guilty of ad hominems.
IOW Mr. Know It All is baiting the discussion with red herrings.
Of course as soon as he can show us where Romanism is clearly taught in Scripture, maybe we’ll pay a little more attention to the babble, but not until.
Likewise Mr. KIA doesn’t know it all when it comes to WCF 1:6, i.e. that Scripture doesn’t have to teach something explicitly for Scripture to teach something.
Which means a double standard is in play. The reformed must show where something is clearly taught in Scripture, but Rome not so much. Besides she doesn’t even have a list of the lost oral traditions that are on par with Scripture, which clearly teach . . . .
And he doesn’t have clue why the guffaws.
LikeLike
Nick, fine, you got the main text of WCF 11.3 in your quote, but my point more broadly is that the confession as a whole supports an IAOC position (consider WCF8.5). I’m glad you find this doctrine in reformed theology important, as I do. When I have more time, maybe I can continue to dig deeper with you on this topic. Until then.
LikeLike
Nick — I am afraid that we do not seem to be in agreement. You assume that there must be grace in order for Adam to be in a relationship with God (some might call that begging the question…).
I think we can both agree that one must be righteous in order to be in relation with God, so the question is: how was Adam righteous?
The Reformed answer was that Adam was created righteous and holy, but mutable. Thus, there was need for the imputation of Christ’s active obedience after the fall, but not before it. The key issue in Reformed theology is righteousness, but that is not what is most fundamentally important in RC theology as I attempt to briefly show below:
The classic (eg Thomistic, etc) RC position was that Adam had a special grace, a “donum superadditum.” For Thomas and other RC theologians this grace was conceived of as elevating human nature to a position in which humans could commune with God (“gratia elevens”). Thus, grace is necessary to make up for what is lacking in human nature (even before the fall).
Active obedience doesn’t make sense in the RC system because in the RC system the fundamental problem is not unrighteousness, the fundamental problem is ontological. Human nature needs a boost of divine grace — even prelapsarian human nature!.
I am not sure if you would agree with the Thomistic position or not, but the differences between RC and Reformed doctrine should be apparent.
When I read your response, I honestly see more Karl Barth than John Calvin or Thomas Aquinas, but that is mere conjecture on my part.
Also, I would not characterize Adam’s relationship with the Trinity as synergistic (that’s a four letter word on Old Life, just so ya know).
LikeLike
Darryl,
You said: Nick, the pope is more central than Mary? Hello, the Rosary! And you don’t think you pray to Mary because of her perpetual virginity?
I’m completely baffled here. Please rephrase the question.
LikeLike
Mad Hungarian,
I lost my response I just made, unless it posted and I don’t see it. So here’s a second attempt.
First, I would ask why you didn’t address the issue of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It’s a yes or no question as to whether Adam originally had the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit or not, and I think a lot hinges on your answer.
You said:
This is confusing the Reformed distinction between moral and legal righteousness. The Reformed would say Adam was created morally righteous (sanctified), but he was not legally righteous (justified). He was legally neutral, since legal righteousness only comes from perfect obedience (Active Obedience), and Adam didn’t yet attain that. So to say “Thus” we need Active Obedience (legal righteousness) from Christ because Adam was originally morally righteous (and legally neutral) is a serious category mistake.
I think you’re over-complicating the concept that RC theology is trying to get across. They are speaking of Adam having the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is what divinization refers to, becoming like God, which is done by having God indwelling in you. There’s no need to get hung up on the more elaborate philosophical answer, since this is the essence of what they’re getting at.
The Holy Spirit is not a crutch to help us walk normally, since that would imply Adam didn’t the Holy Spirit since he could walk normally on his own. The Holy Spirit should be thought of as ‘giving you wings’, which raises us up, which no man can do on his own, not even Adam could raise himself up since this is a super-natural ability.
There’s no more intimate communion with God than having the Persons indwell in your soul. I sure hope you can agree with that.
Anyone who is living by the Spirit, i.e. walking by the Spirit, having the Holy Spirit indwell in them, is indeed a synergistic event. The Holy Spirit is working through you, but you’re also doing the action. Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit and full of grace and truth (as John says) from the start, so Jesus was the epitome of synergism.
If you want to deny Adam originally had the Holy Spirit, that’s one thing, but Jesus’ humanity was dogmatically being ‘energized’ by His Divinity and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in His human soul. So the “active obedience” that Jesus won for you was synergistic-active-obedience (and thus S-A-O is the only kind that Justifies).
LikeLike
Nick, it sounds like you are confused about the nature of Adam. He had “justification” (if you can use that term) because he was holy and righteous. To be morally righteous is, de facto, to be legally righteous. Furthermore, there was a declaration of Adam’s righteousness (God called him “very good”).
It appears that our differences stem from a unionist objection to the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Reformed theology certainly does believe in union with Christ, but would not agree with everything you have stated. There have been plenty of posts here on OL about union, it might be profitable to take a gander at some of them.
At the end of the day, your perspective seems more akin to neo-orthodoxy than to classical RC theology. Your objections to AO are not new, they just usually come from less-than-orthodox liberal protestants… just sayin’
LikeLike
Nick, isn’t Mary’s specialness bound up with among other things her perpetual virginity? And it’s hardly the case that Mary is peripheral to Roman Catholicism. So bringing up her lack of sex is germane to the point — except that you like to play by the rules of selectivity.
LikeLike
HWIW about 7 years ago I wrote a long discussion on Roman Catholicism and virginity:
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/07/defense-against-patriarchy-part-3.html
The article itself was directed at the Patriarchy movement (somewhat to the right of complementarianism). But it has a tons of choice theology.
LikeLike
Darryl,
In a sola scriptura schema anything is permissible because nobody knows for sure, so relying just on scripture to inform you, what proofs are there that Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin? Be careful, for if you appeal to scripture without Church tradition, you should consider yourself a “solo” scripturist. If you you allow in the tradition that was before the Reformed tradition you get one that has upheld the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2010/12/i-stand-corrected.html
LikeLike
Susan,
In a sola scriptura schema anything is permissible because nobody knows for sure, so relying just on scripture to inform you, what proofs are there that Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin?
Your version of Roman Catholicism seems very different from someone’s like Nancy Pelosi, but the infallible Magisterium has excommunicated neither one of you. Who is right? Or are you both right?
LikeLike
Mad Hungarian,
You said:
This is not accurate at all. Reformed theology would not say Adam was justified based on his moral righteousness. Reformed theology would not say being morally righteousness means one is de facto legally righteous. Nor would Reformed theology would say God’s declaration of “very good” on Adam was the same as justification.
Adam did not keep the Reformed Covenant of Works in its entirety, so Adam was never legally righteous, and thus Adam was never justified. Period.
Also, I’m not sure why I cannot get a simple Yes/No answer from you as to whether Adam originally had the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit or not. It saddens me to have learned the hard way after many years of apologetics that Protestantism has gotten by all this time on mostly obfuscating and going on tangents. It’s not in accordance with 1 Peter 3:15. It’s a simple yes/no question, and I assume you see where a Yes answer puts you.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You said:
I’ve never read anywhere that the Reformation was about Marian doctrines. I don’t think the Reformers saw Mary’s perpetual virginity as a church-dividing issue. Mary’s “specialness” as a person is centered around the dogmatic truth that She gave Our Lord His humanity, and Protestant theology would heartily agree with that.
Properly defining what Christ’s work for us consisted of, especially His Active Obedience, is far more crucial and central to the Reformation than any Marian doctrine, especially perpetual virginity.
I’d like to know just one thing from you: Have I significantly misrepresented Reformed theology anywhere in this discussion? If yes, please show precisely where. A non-response I will interpret as a No, which would mean I’ve done a pretty fair and honest job here.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
You said, “Your version of Roman Catholicism seems very different from someone’s like Nancy Pelosi, but the infallible Magisterium has excommunicated neither one of you. Who is right? Or are you both right?”
This isn’t a problem for Orthodoxy at all. Where Pelosi( or I )submit to the dogma of the church she(or I) are submitting to truth/orthodoxy. Where either of us depart from what the church teaches she( or I) are in error. If either of us reject( don’t submit) to dogma where we know dogma exists, then we are formal heretics, if I(or Pelosi) are ignorant of dogma we are material heretics. The dogma and doctrine are objectively there for the finding, what we do with it is another question.
Say that I somehow missed the Church’s teaching regarding contraception and continued to use some form. I would be a material heretic because I was ignorant that its use was immoral. Then, when I was told that it was a grave sin, I said that I disagree that it was immoral….well, in this case I would be a formal heretic. And if I stood up against my local bishop or a priest to oppose the doctrine, I would be told that my views were anathemized, and that unless I allowed myself to be corrected by the Magisterium that is guided by the Holy Spirit, my salvation could be in peril if I persisted in using contraceptions and not repenting when I was informed that it was, in fact, a sin. When I go into confession, I willingly follow the guidence of the priest. I have no desire to protest. I do struggle with swearing occasionally, I lose my temper a lot, I tend to drink a bit too much wine sometimes too, and I confess these( and many other) sins. But I don’t purposely go looking to protest what the Church teaches and I don’t sin presumming that I can go to confession afterwards and everything will be hunky dory either. What I don’t do is to seek to make Orthodoxy bend to my wishes. Do you understand the difference?
LikeLike
I’ve never read anywhere that the Reformation was about Marian doctrines.
Among other things, our very own theological l’enfant terrible does not know that the Reformation taught salvation by Christ alone as opposed to Christ and Mary and the saints. Ergo Solo Christo.
Amazing what these tyros learn these days. Why he must have all the papal bulls memorized as well.
I’d like to know just one thing from you: Have I significantly misrepresented Reformed theology anywhere in this discussion? If yes, please show precisely where. A non-response I will interpret as a No, which would mean I’ve done a pretty fair and honest job here.
Let’s just say you have significantly misrepresented Roman theology for starters, if you can’t tell the difference between Adam as created and man as now fallen, never mind the reformed differences with little papa.
Or, as they say, the rest is just icing on the cake.
Have at it, but remember not to talk with your mouth full of the same.
It’s bad manners and Bryan will have a hard time justifying your promotion to full time apologist.
Yet but one other little item.
Does the Bible teach clearly that we are not to praise ourselves or not in Prov. 27:2?
You know. The whole “Soit’snotoutofarroganceorbeingajerkthatIsayIunderstandReformedtheologybetterthanmost Reformed.I’msimplystatingthefactthatI’vedonetheresearchwhilemosthavenot,andasaresultI’m*often* accusedofmisrepresentingornotunderstandingReformedtheology,whentherealityisitistheywhodon’tknowit” schtick.
Meanwhile we await the confessional references for all the handwaving about Adam and reformed theology in the first post to the Rabid Central European.
LikeLike
This isn’t a problem for Orthodoxy at all. Where Pelosi( or I )submit to the dogma of the church she(or I) are submitting to truth/orthodoxy. Where either of us depart from what the church teaches she( or I) are in error. If either of us reject( don’t submit) to dogma where we know dogma exists, then we are formal heretics, if I(or Pelosi) are ignorant of dogma we are material heretics. The dogma and doctrine are objectively there for the finding, what we do with it is another question.
Thanks Susan, but no thanks. It’s so much easier being a separated brethren than untangling the dialectic. There comes a time when the question of how many material heretics can dance on the head of the needle Pope Francis uses to mainline liberalism is just not that riveting.
LikeLike
Susan,
I get the distinctions, I think. The issue I have is this and that is that you (and others, to be fair) routinely despair of Protestants’ ability to accurately interpret the Bible for themselves, but everything you just said depends on you accurately interpreting the Magisterium for yourself. Why is what the Magisterium teaches on contraception or any other topic clearer than what the Bible says?
This is my main problem with the kind of RC apologetic promoted here and elsewhere—radical skepticism when it comes to knowing Scripture’s meaning but radical certainty when it comes to knowing the Magisterium’s meaning. That is a severe disconnect, and it doesn’t even work at the end of the day. If I have to trust the Magisterium to get things right and it does not excommunicate those who appear from my reading to be heretics, how can I trust my reading at all or actually submit to the Magisterium. If someone like Pelosi is kept in the house, why should I think the most conservative reading of the Magisterium’s teaching on abortion and contraception, for example, is the right one?
LikeLike
Robert,
This is my main problem with the kind of RC apologetic promoted here and elsewhere—radical skepticism when it comes to knowing Scripture’s meaning but radical certainty when it comes to knowing the Magisterium’s meaning.
As the proprietor of OL would say, “ding, ding, ding…”
LikeLike
Robert,
“The issue I have is this and that is that you (and others, to be fair) routinely despair of Protestants’ ability to accurately interpret the Bible for themselves, but everything you just said depends on you accurately interpreting the Magisterium for yourself?
Please show how my understanding that, using contraception is a grave moral sin, requires my interpreting the Magisterium’s dogma. The thing is, I don’t have to interpret whether or not contracepting is a sin. Just like all of Christianity doesn’t have to interpret whether or not God is really one God and three persons.
What I said about material vs. formal also doesn’t require that I interpret the definitions.
“Why is what the Magisterium teaches on contraception or any other topic clearer than what the Bible says?”
Well, Catholicism is consistant even when people aren’t( as I explained above). Is Protestantism clear on what the bible teaches concerning what happens during the sacrament of Holy Communion? If it is then why are there differing views of this essential? If it isn’t essential then why would there be disagreement? How do Protestants go about finding concord regarding the sacraments? These kinds of glaring discrepancies never get addressed. What happens is that Reformers just decide that Catholicism is wrong no matter and never mind how much their own theology falls apart.
LikeLike
Bob,
“Thanks Susan, but no thanks. It’s so much easier being a separated brethren than untangling the dialectic. There comes a time when the question of how many material heretics can dance on the head of the needle Pope Francis uses to mainline liberalism is just not that riveting.”
Well, I’d rather you were in full communion( incense and all!) 🙂 BTW, have you taken a look on that other thread here on OLTS, “Hiding Behind Kilts”. Parsing coventant theology is a lot harder than grasping material and formal principles. Is there consensus yet, I wonder.
LikeLike
Nick — you seem very sure of what Reformed theology would or would not say. Yet Reformed theology says very clearly that Adam was created righteous and holy and he did obey the Moral Law / Covenant of Works as expressed to Adam in the Garden (ever heard of republication?) — until he didn’t.
Let me break it down for you:
1) Adam was holy and just/righteous from the moment of his creation to the fall. During the period between those two events, he perfectly obeyed God’s law. Therefore, he retained the righteousness that was his since the moment of creation. He was just. He was right before God. This was based upon his obedience.
2) Legal righteousness is the forensic declaration that one is righteous. If one is actually perfect (as was Adam before the Fall and as was Jesus), then that person could be called morally righteous. Usually we think of legal righteousness in terms of imputation — the declaration that one is righteousness because Christ’s perfect obedience has been imputed to that person. As Jesus said, only God is good, and yet God called Adam “very good.” Why is it that there can be no declaration of Christ’s righteousness or of Adam’s before the fall? After all, in those cases they really are righteous and therefore must also be legally righteous or else you make out God to be a liar.
3) The statement by God that Adam was “very good” is probably not the same as justification (as we experience justification), but it is the same as a declaration that Adam was righteous at creation, before the fall. Calling it justification might confuse matters. The statement is certainly legal, but it reflects the actual status of Adam at the moment of creation — untainted by sin. Legal does not mean fictional.
4) While it is true that Adam did not pass his probationary period, it would be a mistake to write off all of his life as sinful. You have to deal with Adam in two states: pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian. Failure to do so will result in theological confusion.
It seems to me that you don’t really understand Reformed theology as well as you think you do. Also, you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge Adam’s righteousness and holiness prior to the fall.
I’m not giving you a yes/no because I want to focus on the issue of righteousness, not the issue of union. The fact that you have confused the two is very telling. I’m really not interested in re-hashing the union thing. Don’t take it personally, it’s me, not you…
LikeLike
Susan,
Robert already informed you of what the problem was and it isn’t going to go away anytime soon.
The problem is the justification of knowledge and the reformed prot answer is the infallible, inspired, sufficient and perspicuous Scripture.
IOW the “But how can I know” question applies to Rome just as well as Geneva or anywhere else.
So though Mr. Nothing Is Incompatible won’t tell you, and Mr. Know It All About Reformed Theology doesn’t understand, that means the Roman paradigm is fatally compromised, i.e. flawed big time.
Rome claims to know absolute truth. Only Rome can know it. Prots can’t. But then privateers like Bry appeal to our private judgement to bolt our side, which if we bite means we can recognize a divine and infallible truth before we became a romanist. This IS a big time glitch. It even beats any of the old Windows 98 bugs. It is the big time blue screen of death for Bryan the Bellarmine and the boys, but you won’t hear boo about it there.
Covenantal theology?
I got a post awaiting approval on that thread, but David R already compromised himself imo when he quoted Turretin here or here:
https://oldlife.org/2014/07/van-tillian-thou/#comment-145072
It’s not that tough.
Meanwhile it pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in this period under a rigid legal economy–both on account of the condition of the people still in infancy and on account of the putting off of the advent of Christ and the satisfaction to be rendered by him. A twofold relation ought always to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed…. The other relation was evangelical, sweeter, inasmuch as “the law was a schoolmaster unto Christ” (Gal 3:24) and contained “the shadow of things to come” (Heb 10:1), whose body and express image is in Christ.
According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it. The matter of that external economy was the threefold law–moral, ceremonial and forensic. The first was fundamental; the remaining appendices of it. The form was the pact added to that external dispensation, which on the part of God was the promise of the land of Canaan and of rest and happiness in it; and, under the image of each, of heaven and the rest in him (Heb 4:3, 9); or of eternal life according to the clause, “Do this and live.” On the part of the people, it was a stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Dt 27:26; Gal 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom 2:13). But this stipulation in the Israelite covenant was only accidental, since it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law.[12:7:31,32]
LikeLike
Susan, but if I allow in the tradition before the Reformation, I have to buy the Donation of Constantine. Look, the papacy has reversed so many times, how do you know for sure that Calvin was once banned and now he’s not. So should you read Calvin or not? How do you know?
LikeLike
Nick, you misrepresented Reformed theology in your post. And that’s why all this is happening.
Just chill. If you think you’re going to prove your faith and win other through blogs, you really need some help from your Mother of God.
LikeLike
In a sola scriptura schema anything is permissible because nobody knows for sure, so relying just on scripture to inform you, what proofs are there that Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin?
Susan, wow is that a terrible representation of SS. But here is where the prescriptive spirit of the RPW helps, i.e. it’s what the Bible does teach that we’re after and not looking for what it doesn’t so that we may drive all sorts of whacky semi-trucks through. Try a thought experiment: What are the proofs that Joseph wasn’t a perpetual virgin? If you then wonder just what on earth is to be gained by promulgating Joseph’s perpetual virginity in the first place could be, I feel your pain.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Susan, but if I allow in the tradition before the Reformation, I have to buy the Donation of Constantine.
I would say that it is precisely because Catholicism is the new covenant in Christ’s blood that Constantine gets to be part of something greater than the state.
“And even a person who thinks it
fortunate that the Church broke up into sects ought to be able to
distinguish between the little things he likes and the big thing he
has broken. As a matter of fact, in the case of things so large, so
unique and so creative of the culture about them as were the
Roman Empire and the Roman Church, it is not controversial but
simply correct to confine the one word to the one example.
Everybody who originally used the word “Empire” used it of that
Empire; everybody who used the word “Ecclesia” used it of that
Ecclesia. There may have been similar things in other places, but
they could not be called by the same name for the simple reason
that they were not named in the same language. We know what we
mean by a Roman Emperor; we can if we like talk of a Chinese
Emperor, just as we can if we like take a particular sort of a
Mandarin and say he is equivalent to a Marquis. But we never can
be certain that he is exactly equivalent; for the thing we are
thinking about is peculiar to our own history and in that sense
stands alone. Now in that, if in no other sense, the Catholic Church
stands alone. It does not merely belong to a class of Christian
churches. It does not merely belong to a class of human religions.
Considered quite coldly and impartially, as by a man from the
moon, it is much more sui generis than that. It is, if the critic
chooses to think so, the ruin of an attempt at a Universal Religion
which was bound to fail. But calling the wreckers to break up a
ship does not turn the ship into one of its own timbers; and cutting
Poland up into three pieces does not make Poland the same as
Posen.” ~Chesterton
Look, the papacy has reversed so many times, how do you know for sure that Calvin was once banned and now he’s not. So should you read Calvin or not? How do you know?
I don’t understand this. Why don’t you buy that there is a great difference between reversal and clarification? Take the banning of books, for instance. Now that I have gone down the road and read things that put my faith in jeopardy, I now understand why certain books were banned, even though my adult autonomy recoils at the idea of being told that it is better to avoid ideas that harm. I took it for granted that nothing could damage faith and I was wrong. The Church is being a good mother by recommending that her children not read certain material. But if the ban was lifted it doesn’t mean that the Church doesn’t still believe that those same books are problematic, so there is no contradiction, no reversal. Paul burned books remember.
When I became Catholic I read this that was part of the examination of conscience before making my first confession:
•Did I seriously doubt a matter of Faith?
•Did I put my faith in danger-without a good reason-by reading a book, pamphlet, or magazine that contains material contrary to Catholic faith or morals?
Well, yes, uh-huh, I sure did. I wish that I hadn’t but God forgives us and he even heals us by giving us grace to strengthen our faith.
LikeLike
Susan, I’m not talking about lower case donation but THE Donation of Constantine. Turns out the pope’s claims to legitimacy — based on imperial supremacy I might add (so much for papal supremacy) were wrong (may even false — it’s called a forgery; who did it?). So who are you going to believe?
The thing is, Susan, all the history of Roman Catholicism is way above your head. You bought into something that you haven’t yet fathomed. And yet you are an apologist for something you don’t know? How audacious!
LikeLike
Susan,
Please show how my understanding that, using contraception is a grave moral sin, requires my interpreting the Magisterium’s dogma.
Every act of communication and understanding requires interpretation. You have to read what the Magisterium says and think about what it means.
You seem like a lovely person, so maybe this hasn’t happened to you, but my wife and I have misunderstandings at times because we have not interpreted one another properly.
My point is that you treat the Magisterium’s meaning as self-evident but not the meaning of Scripture. Why? There are no fewer disagreements over what the Magisterium means on contraception among Roman Catholics than there are differences on the exact meaning of baptism among Protestants. Priests and parishioners in the RC routinely use the Magisterium’s emphasis on conscience as permission to use contraception. Why are they wrong?
Why can you understand the Magisterium without extra help but not the Bible?
LikeLike
And yet you are an apologist for something you don’t know? How audacious!
Au contraire. As has been well documented by Mr. KIA, just as jihad is a pillar of Islam, the ignorance of implicit faith is fundamental to Romanism. It all comes out in the wash in Purgatory, so no worries, mate.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Susan, I’m not talking about lower case donation but THE Donation of Constantine. Turns out the pope’s claims to legitimacy — based on imperial supremacy I might add (so much for papal supremacy) were wrong (may even false — it’s called a forgery; who did it?). So who are you going to believe?”
Oh, THAT Donation. Ok, gotcha. More importantly than who did it, is who exposed it? A Catholic priests, and a Catholic Cardinal, that’s who.
There isn’t a problem for Catholicism that were power grabbing Popes( except that they were harming their souls and harming others, which is a huge deal!)
Lutheranism and Calvinism were both state sponsored religions. What do you say to that problem?
“At the date we have reached, soon after the middle of the century, Luther was dead, and the churches of the Confession of Augsburg had reached their full measure of expansion. They predominated in Germany, and still more in Scandinavia; but Luther had not endowed them with institutions, or imparted to them the gift of self–government. In religious ideas, he was inexhaustible; but he was deficient in constructive capacity. The local governments, which were effective, had defended the Reformation and assured its success against the hostility of the central government, which was intermittent and inoperative, and as they afforded the necessary protection, they assumed the uncontested control. Lutheranism is governed not by the spiritual, but by the temporal power, in agreement with the high conception of the State which Luther derived from the long conflict of the Middle Ages. It is the most conservative form of religion, and less liable than any other to collision with the civil authority on which it rests. By its lack of independence and flexibility it was unfitted to succeed where governments were hostile, or to make its way by voluntary effort through the world.”~ Lord Acton
Darryly, you’re the historian,and I thank you for challenging my knowledge. As a result learn something new, but it never destroys the truth of the Catholic claim. Never.
Susan
LikeLike
Darryl,
I did it again. I got too much into the conversation again and need to back out. I wish we could have a fruitful conversation, but it always feels that we all keep hitting walls. Sincerely wish you all the best!
LikeLike
Nick: A non-response I will interpret as a No, which would mean I’ve done a pretty fair and honest job here.
Please interpret my non-response as “Error 502: Too many connections to server.”
LikeLike
The Mad Hungarian,
You said:
Sanctification is not Justification, nor is being Legally neutral (a clean legal slate) the same as being Legally righteous (a legal slate that says you’ve positively obeyed your whole life).
The Westminster Confession, Ch 19:1, says: “God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling”
Notice the “entire” and “perpetual” obedience requirement. Adam wasn’t justified upon only partly keeping the covenant of works.
This is a blatant failure to understand and distinguish a key Reformed distinction. Moral righteousness refers to one’s inward sanctity, whereas Legal righteousness refers to one’s actual obedience to the law. If all Justification took were forgiveness of sins and/or inward cleansing, then Christ’s Active Obedience wouldn’t make any sense, because you’d be Justified without AO.
Correct, calling Adam “very good” was not the same as justification. **That’s my whole point.** That’s what you’re confusing this whole time. Adam was not justified, despite being inwardly holy, since he had yet to live a life of perfect obedience. *You* have contradicted yourself in your prior statement about “they really are righteous and therefore must also be legally righteous.”
So you need to be more careful with how you’re saying things, because Adam didn’t have what it too to be justified. And yet he was able to be in communion with God.
I never did such a thing, so this point is moot.
That’s not fair. You brought up the issue of super added grace and you asked me to explain it to you because you didn’t accept it. I said part of understanding the Catholic view is answering Yes/No to whether Adam had the Holy Spirit. You know perfectly well the bind an honest answer puts you in (hint: conceding a truth for the Catholic side).
LikeLike
Nick — Adam was bound perpetually, but he obeyed perfectly for a time (however long or short, we don’t know). When Adam was created he was holy and righteous, hence the declaration that he was “very good.” That declaration seems different than justification as we (Reformed) experience it b/c with us God is justifying the ungodly, but prelapsarian Adam was godly. Postlapsarian Adam was in need of the imputation of Christ’s AO.
To clarify the point about moral and legal righteousness. I guess I would describe it this way: to be morally righteous is to have righteousness by right of your obedience (a la prelapsarian Adam and Jesus), to be legally righteous is to be declared righteous. Those who are not righteous may be declared righteous through the imputation of Christ’s AO. Those who are righteousness (Jesus and prelapsarian Adam) therefore also have legal righteousness as a matter of course (they are declared righteous b/c they are righteous).
It seems to me that we will have to agree to disagree. After all, we are simply talking past each other at this point. The only thing I would say is that you might want to think twice before assuming that you know Reformed theology better than the Reformed. You don’t have to accept it, but if you are going to post so confidently here on OL, you might want to know it… or at least keep that confidence to competence ratio a low one.
LikeLike
Susan, but did the pope expose the fallacy? That’s the one with the infallible charism (until Vat. 2, now that you have it).
And this isn’t about my historical expertise. Don’t you think if you’re going to do sommersaults about the papacy and all its works, you should have your facts checked out? Otherwise, maybe you lay off the grandstanding about what a wonderful friend you have in the Roman pontiff?
LikeLike
Mark Karlberg on mortal Adam before Adam sinned
Click to access adam_karlberg.pdf
LikeLike
Mad Hungarian:
Not quite. He’s holding back discussing the donum superadditum, which doesn’t acknowledge “Adam’s righteousness and holiness prior to the fall” which requires, no kidding, “infused grace” before Adam can truly be “righteous and holy” before the fall.
LikeLike
Nick wants to keep talking about vicarious law-keeping. But it’s important to not be distracted from remembering that Nick also denies that Christ’s death was a penal satisfaction of the law. Those who deny the imputation of Adam’s sin also tend to deny the imputation of Christ’s death.
Romans 3:31 is often used to support “the third use of some of the Mosaic law-covenant” as the standard of conduct for justified Christians. And that debate goes on, sabbath, slavery, gender relationships, theonomy etc. But in context, Romans 3:21-31 is the clearest foundation possible for the doctrine of a definite “limited in extent” atonement, because the apostle in Romans 3 teaches that Christ’s death is a law-work, a satisfaction of law for the sins of the elect. The cross is a penal substitution, a propitiation.
Propitiation means that divine law must be faced. Paul’s gospel does not substitute one kind of righteousness for another kind of righteousness. The gospel is not about an “end-run” around divine law. The righteousness of the gospel comes by Christ taking the law head-on, meeting its every demand and satisfying its curse. This is the conclusion of Romans 3:31.
Paul cannot let the fact that the gospel is “apart from the law” as regards sinners doing the law obscure the equally prominent fact that Christ’s righteousness is a law righteousness.
Romans 3 has been all about showing that God’s law cannot be set aside without rejecting God and His righteousness. Justification cannot be a matter of sweeping sins under the rug of a divine forgetfulness. Gospel righteousness is satisfaction of God’s law. This is why Christ had to die.
IN my view, Romans 3:31 is not about the continuation of the Mosaic law-code (part or whole). But let’s agree (against Nick) that Romans 3:31 is about the satisfaction (and vindication) of the curse of divine law by the cross of Christ.
LikeLike
@Susan
Because the church, the magisterium claims this teaching is based upon a deposit of faith known by the fathers. Quite explicitly over and over again. So the moment you begin to ask what the fathers actually did or did not teach, what is the contents of the deposit of faith you arrive at doctrines in direct conflict with the current hierarchy. Since the church as a whole cannot err on matters of faith and moral, and could not have erred in the past the previous teachings must be correct and the current magisterium just a practice. Hence Pelosi can quite effectively interpret the magisterium because she can point to unequivocal statements by the church fathers which disagree with your theology, in fact statements that consider your theology an outright heresy.
Now one could take the CtC position that Catholic doctrine is whatever the magisterium says it is, whenever they say it and that claims to be upholding a traditional deposit of faith are nothing more than hot air. Then of course Nancy Pelosi is wrong. But then doctrine like the “church cannot err” becoming weakened to the point of meaning nothing because unquestionably important members of the hierarchy have said things that disagree with other important members of the hierarchy.
One has to decide which doctrines from the magisterium are more important when they conflict, that’s interpretation.
LikeLike
Of course it does. See theologians, scholars, priests, and bishops disagree on all sorts of things. Why is Fr. McBrien able to teach that adoration of the eucharist is wrong and continue to celebrate the mass? Why is Wills able to reject papal infallibility and continue to be welcome to the table by his bishop? Why is Sebelius able to fight to require that RC employers be required to purchase BC for their employees and continue to be welcomed to the table by her bishop? Maybe, just maybe these bishops have a different interpretation of the magisterium than you do. Maybe they are purposivists, contextualists, or structuralists rather than textualists or originalists. Since the magisterium doesn’t say *how* it is to be interpreted there is always going to be a lot of wiggle room (which is why the post-facto justifications coming from Bryan and others sound so Jesuitical – i.e. disingenuous). Thus you have Pope Francis recommending that a woman married to a divorced man may receive communion (violating some *interpretations* of the magisterium).
Stanley Fish has written extensively (and compellingly) on the difficulty with finding a single, true, objective meaning from any written text. Adding the magisterium just adds another layer – it is why there are commentaries written on the magisterium. The magisterium alone doesn’t solve the problem. Ultimately you have to decide whether your Bishop is interpreting the magisterium faithfully. Perhaps you choose just to follow whatever your Bishop says. I don’t see how that is tenable given the widespread depth of their deceit at every level but YMMV. Ultimately your position is simply an appeal to authority, but your authorities have proven that they aren’t trustworthy. This is why the scandal of the ongoing coverup of abuse is such a big deal. When a bishop threatens to withhold communion from a parent for pressing charges against a priest who raped their child, it is impossible to trust that bishop’s guidance on anything else. When your cardinals celebrate cardinals who protected such bishops, it is hard to believe anything they say. What good does an infallible magisterium that everyone disagrees about do for you?
Yes. The Belgic Confession, Heidelberg and Westminster catechisms are clear.
The same reason that 95% of Roman Catholics in the US disagree with you about birth control being a mortal sin. A combination of differing interpretations, willful rebellion, and ignorance.
Debate, prayer, study, etc…
Why do you and Gary Wills and Fr. McBrien have different interpretations on the adoration of the eucharist, fallibility of the pope, and propriety of birth control? Your answer is that the magisterium is perspicuous and that they are just some flavor of heretic. Ok, yet their bishop allows them to continue in their roles – I guess he disagrees. Perhaps the Bishop’s reading of the magisterium is different than yours?
But when you turn the table on protestants, you treat us a single alternative denomination. There is a reason that a Baptist couldn’t be an elder in our presbyterian church. We believe the teaching on Baptism in scripture is quite clear and the other is just plain wrong. What is the difference between a presbyterian cooperating with a baptist on areas where they do agree and a Bishop allowing Gary Wills to continue to take communion and Fr. O’Brien to celebrate mass? The only difference I see is that I recognize I could be wrong, and you refuse to allow that you could possibly be mistaken. I don’t think this is a prot/catholic thing though. As the priest in the movie Rudy said,”..in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and I’m not Him.” I know, I know, just a movie, but it was a remarkably common sentiment around ND when I was there.
You have seized on the supposed philosophical superiority of the RC paradigm over the Reformed paradigm, yet the fruit of these paradigms in the US is curious isn’t it? Given all the shortcomings of protestantism, why is it that evangelicals are about twice as likely to be prolife as roman catholics? Why are roman catholics more than twice as likely as evangelicals to approve of homosexuality…indeed they even beat out the mainline (as of 2008 anyway). Perhaps most interesting of all, when Pew asked, “When it comes to questions of right and wrong, which of the following do you look to most for guidance?” They could answer, “Religious teachings, Philosophy, Common Sense, Science, or Don’t Know. Here is the breakdown:
Evangelicals* 52/4/39/2/3
Catholic 22/10/57/7/5
*(in Pew speak a proxy for conservative protestants)
So you have this infallible magisterium that is so much clearer than the bible. It is supposed to create all kinds of unity among Christians and provide the certainty you need to live properly. We prots are left in a raging sea of uncertainty because none of us can agree what the Bible teaches. Yet when the rubber meets the road, these hopeless evangelicals are more likely to go to church, hold to an orthodox Christology (actually believe Jesus was divine and rose from the dead), look to their faith to determine right and wrong (i.e. submit to religious authority), oppose abortion, and think homosexuality is sinful. In words of Bill Parcels, “you are what your record says you are”.
LikeLike
I know, you thought it was all about biblical vs. systematic theology, but I’m here to tell you there is a new category in town and it’s not accidental, Acquinas or Aristotle to the contrary.
Call it vaudeville theology if you will. Depending on whether spearing fish in a barrel or are just a glutton for mental screaming and anguish is your forte, over at St Jason of Woodinville’s site, good ole substitute Saint Nick weighs in.
Right off the bat it’s pretty obvious that he still can’t figure out that Adam was not created a sinner, like us, but became one later and so didn’t need to be justified, at least in the sense we are now in this post fall world. Adam obeyed God until he didn’t.
But finer category distinctions be just beaver damns made to be blown up and that’s what we will do, says our aspiring magisterial theologian.
And then he goes and does it.
You’ve been warned.
It’s not for the faint of heart and weak in dialectical discernment.
http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-need-for-perfect-law-keeping-part-1/
cheers
LikeLike
Susan,
CD-Host and SDB just did an excellent job of showing the problem with trusting the Magisterium in the way which you are wont to do. You have embraced a version of Roman Catholicism that does not exist and chosen a system that has as many differences within itself as professing Protestants have among themselves.
You’ve been sold a bill of goods, and I get that you really want things to be as easy as you think they are with Rome. But they aren’t, and pretending otherwise isn’t faith but credulity. I don’t mean that in a mean way, but those are just the facts of history. It is plain that the Magisterium doesn’t settle anything, even if it once did (and that’s debatable), and with every year that passes it becomes less willing to settle anything. When the Magisterium ignores widespread dissent, it is de facto handing people over to private interpretation. You’ve left one system of private interpretation for another, the difference being, as SDB indicates, that the Roman system is producing people who care far less for Scripture and tradition than Protestantism produces. That’s a problem, and you can’t keep ignoring it.
It’s not to late to jump ship and return to the gospel, however.
LikeLike
John — yeah I asked Nick about the donum superadditum earlier and he basically defined it as union, and not as infused grace or elevating grace. I don’t think that he is a Thomist — he sounds moore neo-orthodox to me than anything else..
LikeLike
Francis continues to be the gift that keeps on giving. I saw this originally via Rod Dreher.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/in-new-declarations-priest-pardoned-by.html#more
LikeLike
OK OK we went to the link and we saw, we clicked on the link for The Purgatorial Society and this came up. (It’s not a mispelling, it’s “Purgatorial” not “paradigmatical”.)
Hmm. Kind of resembles a blind and vicious circular treadmill/squirrelcage routine, but what do we know?
Below, please find the eighty-first posting of enrolled Souls of the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society. It’s another large list this month with over 1,000 Souls. And we are very pleased to see so many come in from Pope Francis’ homeland of Argentina. We have also added yet another priest in the services of the Souls enrolled in the Society.
Priests: The Souls still need more of you saying Mass for them! Please email me to offer your services. There’s nothing special involved — all you need to do is offer a weekly or monthly TLM with the intention: “For the Souls enrolled in the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society.”
How to enroll souls: please email me at athanasiuscatholic@yahoo.com and submit as follows: “Name, State, Country.” If you want to enroll entire families, simply write in the email: “The Jones family, Ohio, USA”. Individual names are preferred. Be greedy — send in as many as you wish and forward this posting to friends as well. And please follow this formatting strictly.
Bryan’s
greedychoice becomes clear. The Mormons only baptize dead people, but in Rome you get to sign up for masses for souls in purgatory which is eminently more ontological. (A pretty quid pro quo strict tit for tat mercantile mentality if you ask us, but how else would you format a works righteousness paradigm as opposed to grace?)Nevertheless as that catholic yahoo, athanasius says “we are very pleased to see so many come in from Pope Francis’ homeland of Argentina.” Indeed.
Brought to you by the church where “Apostolic” really means “apostate” in all its fullness in light of the absence of both purgatory and the mass in Scripture.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Heb. 9:27,28
LikeLike