Mark Shea explains unintentionally why attention to the forensic aspect of salvation is so important and why efforts to downplay that importance by elevating sanctification need great carefulness:
What then does the word “merit” mean in 1990s terminology? In the words of one of the foremost Catholic theologians of the 20th Century (Hans Urs Von Balthasar), the best modern equivalent for what the medieval and renaissance Church meant by merit is “fruitfulness.” (A term Evangelicals are abundantly familiar with from John 15 and other Scriptures.) Now “fruitfulness” (as all Evangelicals know) refers to the outworking of God’s grace in our lives, both in changing us into the image of Christ and in “bearing fruit for the Kingdom” by, say, winning hearts for Christ, feeding the hungry, caring for the needy, etc. None of this (as I learned long ago in Evangelicaldom) is “works salvation” but is simply the way in which we participate in the divine life, go “from glory to glory” and cooperate with the sanctifying power of Christ. With that in mind, let’s now look at the Trent quote above and see what we can make of it.
The Council says that “the gifts of God are also the good merits of him justified.” Is this saying “Salvation means God does half and we do half?” No. It is saying something far more radical. It is saying that God does it all and we do it all. Following Paul (who urged the Philippians to “work our your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose”), the Council asserts that the fruit borne by the believer is real fruit which is really and truly given by God and therefore really and truly a part of the believer’s life. Instead of seeing salvation as “snow on a dunghill” (a mere legal decree of righteousness which gets us to heaven yet which leaves us unchanged in our inner being), the Council sees salvation as a process which really changes us in our inner being and conforms us to the image of Christ.
If the Obedience Boys, then, are going to talk about what we do in sanctification or encourage us to look to our works for some measure of assurance, they should understand that those who still protest (read Protestants) don’t want a return to Trent:
Trent, then, insists that salvation is incarnational. Just as the Word is made flesh, so (in us) grace is enfleshed in real, solid, tangible change and the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). For the very essence of the saving gospel is that it is to really bear fruit in our lives and become kneaded into our full humanity. Thus, what the Council means is that our good fruit (or merits in 16th Century speak) really are ours as well as God’s great gift. When we, under grace, do a good thing it is really we who do it… because God willed that we do it. (A truth my Evangelical friends believe as much as Trent–when they are not arguing against Rome.)
I don’t know about you (or what tune you use), but I’m not sure how those who put sanctification on a par with justification sing “Rock of Ages” in a good conscience:
Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Savior, or I die.
Old Life 
Compare and contrast:
“When we, under grace, do a good thing it is really we who do it… because God willed that we do it.”
“Sanctification is 100% God, and 100% man, working through the power of the Spirit.”
http://gospelreformation.net/jesusnothing-harry-reeder/
LikeLike
I don’t get David G’s point- is it good news or bad news David? The problem lies in that God wills us to sin too. Is that part of your comparison and contrast? Or, does God will that you stop sinning while still in this body of flesh? 1 John can be confusing here if you think John is talking about Spirit empowered obedience.
LikeLike
An OP elder gave me this a few years back, I think it’s on my bookshelf still, or in my closet (ran out of room. Are Toolian and Reeder buddy buddy?
LikeLike
Yeah, something is short circuiting, can’t be the put on par together if Justification is the ground of our sanctifiation. But with all these new groupings (obedience boys) always forming, I can’t keep up with you all. Just lurking around, trying to avoid posting another comment. Thanks Darryl.
LikeLike
Fixed.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Just like you, Imy conscience accuses me when I sine,and also like you, I know that I do have an advocate before the throne who is merciful( kyrie eleison) so I “go” boldy to Jesus and I “cling ” to Him who poured out His life for us, always “looking” to His grace alone.
Catholicism rejects Pelagianism and semi-Pelagiansim too, therefore any imaginings that I could possibly work for my salvation have been corrected( not that I had any), as well as despairing that I won’t get to heaven because of the sin. Inside the Church I am constantly oriented to the salvific will of God. If I freakout and am, in effect, thinking Semi-Pelagian, I fly again to the throne of grace and mercy. So where you remind yourself of “the gospel”, I remind myself that God loves me and gave Himself for me, then I go to confession, if I need to, or I just go into a time of prayer. Jesus also gave us sacraments because they are vehicles of His grace, and this tells me that there must be something more needed that forensic justification alone can’t provide. Why I would need additional grace, if I have the righteousness of Christ imputed to my account is something Reformed theology doesn’t make clear. So while justification is a biblical concept, the idea of it being forensic doesn’t even fit the Reformed paradigm in practice.
LikeLike
Sorry for the typing mistakes; I’m writing from an ipad.
It isn’t a matter of asking the monergism vs. synergism question. There is God and then there is all else. God doesn’t cause us to sin; that is a heretical thought!
Jesus loves us, and He died for us, and now we are to live in Him as He lives in us. We do however,have to work out our salvation and this means avoiding sin, and walking up the aisle and opening our mouths to receive Him in the Holy Eucharist.
LikeLike
It seems to me that we want to direct our answers to the right question. In terms of what do we do to be saved, the answer is simple. We provide the sin and debt that must be covered and forgiven.
At the same time, what do we say to those who only demonstrate the works of the flesh? We certainly can’t implore them to bear the fruit of the Spirit regardless of the promise of salvation. However, we do need to ask what the works of the flesh indicate. Here we should note that both antinomianism and reliance on obeying the law (works) depend on the flesh.
LikeLike
These have been driven around the block a few times but they keep on tickin’. Mixed metaphors aside they seem quite fitting here.
Calvin from “Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote”:
“…when we say a man is justified by faith alone, we do not fancy a faith devoid of charity, but we mean that faith alone is the cause of justification….”
“…faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.”
“Justification and sanctification, are constantly conjoined and cohere; but from this it is erroneously inferred that they are one and the same. . . . [A]s soon as any one is justified, renewal also necessarily follows: and there is no dispute as to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom he justifies. . . . The whole dispute is as to the cause of justification. The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration. . . . I on the contrary, while I admit that we are never received into the favor of God without being at the same time regenerated to holiness of life, contend that it is false to say that any part of righteousness [iustitiae] consists in quality, or in the habit which resides in us, and that we are righteous [iustos] only by gratuitous acceptance.”
LikeLike
@ Susan: I hear you on the iPad thing. I can’t understand why we all have suddenly thought that slower, less accurate typing devices are a step forward!
You ask, Why would I need additional grace if righteousness is already imputed?
Reformed theology actually does address this in a clear and careful way. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us in justification and infused in sanctification. We need the one as the ground of the blessings we receive, and the other as that which actually changes us.
Why the separation, where Catholicism blends the two together? For the simple reason that imputation is complete in this life, but infusion is not so. So if I need to “fly to the throne of grace”, what confidence do I have that I will be received? I cannot stand upon the ground of the changes God has made in me, for those are not yet complete. I must instead stand upon the ground of God’s declaration that I am accepted in His sight as a son – which in turn rests upon justification.
So it’s not, and has never been, that justification is all there is. Rather, it is that justification is the reason for all the rest.
In the Catholic system, how can you fly to the throne of grace, when you can never be sure of your own state of grace?
LikeLike
Hopefully not to further confuse the issue at hand, I have always had this question in mind:
I live in a suburb of one of the principle US cities, which populated by at least a dozen different immigrant groups that come to mind, ALL of which are heavily dominated by members of the RC church. In the past, several of these different immigrant groups have been known for their participation in organized crime at various levels, for subtly taking advantage of “pay-to-play” politically awarded jobs while living outside the city under false pretenses, for being poor citizens to minority groups attempting to enter their communities, etc.
Please tell me where I see the kind of “gracious works” being described in the preceding discussion, if these people are all truly saved, confessing RC’s. Or are “works,” in their case, merely a matter of showing up on a regular basis for confession, the mass, etc.? Or, better yet, who is their neighbor??
LikeLike
“So if I need to “fly to the throne of grace”, what confidence do I have that I will be received?…
In the Catholic system, how can you fly to the throne of grace, when you can never be sure of your own state of grace?”
RCs can have confidence they are in a state of grace. If they couldn’t, they wouldn’t be counseled to not partake of the Eucharist without examination, nor counseled to partake of confession when they are not in such a state.
“Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;”
Just for fun, I’ll throw in this citation from the CCC on merit:
“The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
[Citing Therese of Lisieux] ‘After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.’ “
LikeLike
God doesn’t cause us to sin; that is a heretical thought!
John Y: That is not what I said although that could easily become an inference without further explanation. God knew that Adam would sin and therefore God willed it. God knows that all of the progeny of Adam follow Adam in his sin- therefore, God willed it. Paul explains all this clearly in Romans chapters 5 and 6. Romans 4-6 is about the federal legal imputation of the two Adams. Without sin there would be no need for the sending of the incarnate Christ, therefore, God willed it. And God willed it before the foundations of the world. The world was created for the revelation of the redemptive plan in Christ. Again, no sin, no need for Christ. All of this causes problems for ideas of universal atonement.
LikeLike
Susan’s writing and Jeff’s response reminded me of something I read from Sinclair Ferguson. I hope the kind and gentle readers in this chat room do not mind some copy/paste (especially this for you, Susan, I’ve seen that you can be handy with the ol’ control C / control V. hope you are well).
LikeLike
When Paul had the opportunity to take credit with God for his works, he didn’t:
And Calvin elaborates:
LikeLike
Cletus, what would be really fun is if you learned to use the “” and “”
Maybe you should post on Called to Communion for a while and come back when you are ready. Or not, whatev. Glad you stick around, amigo.
LikeLike
Nate,
I don’t ding around here, since only one guy gets to do that. So….
LikeLike
I’ve been reading comments at oldlife for nearly 4 years now and I still have not heard a good explanation from the “ontological realists” about where the idea of an “infusion” that changes us comes from. And how does this mystical infusion work? I am all ears.
LikeLike
Calvin’s protest against Osiander, 3/11/4—Paul declares the sum of the Gospel message to be reconciliation to God, who is pleased, through Christ, to receive us into favor by not imputing our sins, (2 Cor. 5: 18-21.)….Osiander leads us away from the priesthood of Christ, and his office of Mediator, to his eternal divinity.
Calvin; “Granting that God was made unto us righteousness, what are we to make of Paul’s interposed statement, that he was so made by God? This certainly is peculiar to the office of mediator, for although he contains in himself the divine nature, yet he receives his own proper title, that he may be distinguished from the Father and the Spirit.
Calvin: Jehovah, when made of the seed of David, was indeed to be the righteousness of believers, but in what sense Isaiah declares, “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many,” (Isaiah 53: 11.) Let us observe that it is the Father who speaks. He attributes the office of justifying to the Son, and adds the reason, – because he is “righteous.” Christ justified us by his obedience to the Father; and, accordingly that he does not perform this for us in respect of his divine nature….
LikeLike
Calvin’s protest against Trent—The Fathers of Trent pretend that righteousness is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration; or, to express their view in other words, as if our righteousness were composed partly of imputation, partly of quality. I maintain that it is one, and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only.
Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine. I, while I have the whole Scripture supporting me, will now be satisfied with this one reason, viz., that when mention is made of the righteousness of works, the law and the gospel place it in the perfect obedience of the law; and as that nowhere appears, they leave us no alternative but to flee to Christ alone, that we may be regarded as righteous in him, not being so in ourselves. (Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote)
LikeLike
Good post. Where should the spotlight be? What should get top billing? What we do, our works, our growth? For thinking Christ, His Person and work should get top billing we are lambasted as Lutherans or antinomians. Further more we are told we just don’t get “Union with Christ”. Good grief! We are in good company though. Another sure sign I am antinomian or at least a “warrior child” is who I quote below. If I were more holy it would no doubt be Edwards or Piper.
“Christian evangelism does not consist merely in a man’s going about the world saying, look at me, what a wonderful experience I have, how happy I am, what wonderful Christian virtues I exhibit, you can all be as good and happy as I am if you will just make a complete surrender of your wills in obedience to what I say. That is what many religious workers seem to think that evangelism is… But they are wrong. Men are not saved by the exhibition of our glorious Christian virtues, they are not saved by the contagion of our experiences. We cannot be the instruments of God in saving them if we preach to them thus only ourselves. Nay, we must preach to them the Lord Jesus Christ; for it is only through the gospel which sets Him forth that they can be saved. If you want health for your souls, and if you want to be instruments of bringing health to others, do not turn your gaze forever within, as though you could find Christ there. Nay, turn your gaze away from your own sin,(or your own sanctification) to the Lord Jesus Christ as He is offered to us in the gospel. It is the same old story my friends–the story of the natural man. Men are trying today,as they have always been trying, to save themselves– to save themselves by their own act of surrender, by the excellence of their own faith (and their own sanctification), by mystic experiences of their own lives. But it is all in vain. Not that way is peace with God to be obtained. It is obtained only in the old, old way–by attention to something that was done once for all long ago, and by acceptance of the living Savior who there, once for all, brought redemption for our sin. Oh, that men would turn for salvation from their own experience to the cross of Christ; oh, that they would turn from the phenomena of religion to the living God!”
— J. Gresham Machen
LikeLike
The Magisterial Reformers understood that grace through our works is a rebellion against God’s way of grace. Justification through our law-keeping means not more obedience but more sin. Romans 5:20–”But law came in, with the result that sin increased.” Not the knowledge of sin increased; sin increased! The result of unity around the law-salvation of the pope is always more sin. To be protestant means saying that we are justified not by our life together or by our works, but only because of the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have “become the righteousness of God in Christ” by God’s imputation of Christ’s obedience even unto death. The Christian life is not the way we make payments back on our justification. The Christian life is the party the Father gives the returning prodigal. Neither our justification nor our lives as Christian saints depend on our moral progress. Indeed, all our works are only acceptable if we are already justified before God.
LikeLike
We have “become the righteousness of God in Christ” by God’s imputation of Christ’s obedience even unto death. The Christian life is not the way we make payments back on our justification. The Christian life is the party the Father gives the returning prodigal. Neither our justification nor our lives as Christian saints depend on our moral progress. Indeed, all our works are only acceptable if we are already justified before God.
John Y: I want to know what Church is throwing that party- I’d go every Sunday. That would be better than a Dostoyevsky novel.
LikeLike
God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect (Heb. 11:39-40).
Lee Irons—That verb made perfect is vitally important. In Greek it is teleioō. Along with the
noun form, teleiōsis, it is a key theological term that occurs in Hebrews about a dozen times. It is central to understanding why the Old Testament sacrificial system was inadequate. Heb. 10:1 puts it this way: “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near” (cp. Heb. 7:11, 19) In these contexts, it is crucial that we not think in terms of moral perfection.5 This is clear when we realize that the term is used of Christ. For example, Heb. 2:10 says that Christ was made perfect through sufferings. And it cannot be said of Christ that he ever was morally imperfect
Click to access atonement_leviticus.pdf
LikeLike
Cletus,
RCs can have confidence they are in a state of grace. If they couldn’t, they wouldn’t be counseled to not partake of the Eucharist without examination, nor counseled to partake of confession when they are not in such a state.
Why, then, does Ludwig Ott say that one can never know if one has done everything necessary for justification? Apart from the few special people that is.
LikeLike
RC is still a soteriology of becoming, of re-justification, of a priestly(levitical) mediated salvation, of God declaring the just; “Just”, as they become so. The forensic in RC is merely a launching point of ontological, renovative, justification. I’ll agree that broader EV is largely a stripped down, pietistically oriented(monastic) version of the same. This is not the Pauline gospel of the confessional protestants. The obedience boys are not precise enough and too pietistically oriented to NOT lose the plot.
LikeLike
Hi John,
Let me try to address what you have added. btw, I am very appreciativeof your kindness.
God doesn’t cause us to sin; that is a heretical thought!
John Y: That is not what I said although that could easily become an inference without further explanation. God knew that Adam would sin and therefore God willed it.
It isn’t necessary that God willed sin, for there to be sin. God allows evil because greater good will come. If you mean that evil was in the foreknowledge of God,then I agree with you because God sees all things.
God knows that all of the progeny of Adam follow Adam in his sin- therefore, God willed it. Paul explains all this clearly in Romans chapters 5 and 6. Romans 4-6 is about the federal legal imputation of the two Adams. Without sin there would be no need for the sending of the incarnate Christ, therefore, God willed it.
God didn’t cause Adam and Eve to disobey, but He did know that giving them a freewill would result in them choosing to disobey.
And God willed it before the foundations of the world. The world was created for the revelation of the redemptive plan in Christ. Again, no sin, no need for Christ. All of this causes problems for ideas of universal atonement.
True, that if there was no sin, there would be no need of the sacrifice of God’s Son, but it wasn’t necessary that God save us and it wasn’t necessary that He save us in the way in which He did. Thiswas all sacrificial Love.
It doesn’t hurt Universal Atonement because the Sacrifice can still be made and available to all,although only the elect( as seen at the end of time not now) will have accepted that loving sacrifice.
LikeLike
Robert,
Ott also says right after that:
“The impossiblity of the certainty of faith, however, by no means excludes a high moral certainty by the testimony of conscience.”
We can have moral confidence, not “mathematical certainty” (as Jeff likes to say). Just as it follows we cannot have absolute certainty we will have the gift of final perseverance.
Calvin: “though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them.”
“Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.”
“Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate.”
“Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition….He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”
Well, that makes me much more certain.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
I wish I had more time to respond,but I’m borrowing my adult daughter’s computer right now. Anyways, I will try to address what I can.
“Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us in justification and infused in sanctification. We need the one as the ground of the blessings we receive, and the other as that which actually changes us.”
Ok, when I became a Christian( I wasn’t raised in a Christian home) I had a conversion experience, where I turned toward God in faith(trust),but I didn’t have faith(knowledge in imputation). At that point I didn’t know that God was Trinity, let alone that I was saved by Christ’s imputed righteousness, but my salvation didn’t depened on the knowledge I possessed. I was ready and willing to be instructed by the church( at that point it was the Southern Baptists) but my standing was my initial sanctification. IOW, knowledge of how I was saved wasn’t prerequisite to being actually saved. I was justified because my faith in Christ actually sanctified me, bringing about a real change/conversion, but justification is only the status of the person who is truly sanctified by infused grace. Can justification ever stand on it’s own or does it necessitate sanctification. If it can’t stand on it’s own it isn’t a state of rightness before God. Have you ever looked a murderer and said, “Now there stands a just man” if that man is not forgiven?
I’m sorry if this is confused. I want to respond to you, but I am also pretty tired tonight. I hope that you can get what I mean. If not, I’m here for future diallogue.
Blessings,
Susan
LikeLike
Cletus, if you don’t mind my asking, what is your point? Here, let me use some language to clear up this assurance confusion:
LikeLike
Round and round the discussions go.
When these will stop, nobody knows. G’night.
LikeLike
Cletus,
We can have moral confidence
So if you can have moral confidence that you are in a state of justification, but not certainty, is your trust in the Magisterium certain or is it just moral confidence?
LikeLike
Cletus,
IOW, is your certainty that Rome is the one true church greater than your certainty that you are presently justified? If so, why? If not, tell me what your complaint about Protestant lack of certainty of faith is again.
LikeLike
RCs can have confidence they are in a state of grace. If they couldn’t, they wouldn’t be counseled to not partake of the Eucharist without examination, nor counseled to partake of confession when they are not in such a state.
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
So the council of Trent tells us one thing and CVD tells us another.
Whoever claims to be infallible the loudest and pounds the table more than Bryan wins.
Implict faith, man,
Implicit faith is the stuff to think
For those who love
The koolaid to drink.
I’ll drink to that.
LikeLike
Robert,
My salvation and predestination isn’t part of revelation and the deposit of faith.
Bob,
I already said we cannot have absolute certainty we will persevere – perseverance is a gift of grace God is not obligated to bestow. But we can have confidence and high moral certainty, as Ott distinguished above and which makes RC practice of the eucharist/confession coherent in the first place. So I told you nothing different than Trent.
LikeLike
Susan, it is too a monergism vs synergism question and Trent embraced synergism — you need to cooperate with God.
LikeLike
lame fox, you think you’ve really confessed all your sins? You think a priest can determine that? No wonder you buy infall(gull)ibility.
LikeLike
lame fox, how’s this register on your certainty meter?
LikeLike
Cletus,
My salvation and predestination isn’t part of revelation and the deposit of faith.
Echoing what Darryl said—isn’t part of the deposit of faith the teaching on justification and what must be done to receive it? So you can have the certainty of faith regarding what must be done to be justified but not the certainty of faith that you’ve met the requirements?
How is your salvation not part of revelation and the deposit of faith when John, in giving (at least part of) the deposit of faith, says he writes so that his readers might know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13). John’s only writing to give people high moral confidence?
Your doctrine of infallibility isn’t helping you where you need it most. You yourself fallibly identify infallible articles of faith (because Rome hasn’t made it clear to you all of what these articles are), you fallibly trust them, and then you can only have a high moral confidence that you have saved.
Meanwhile, us Reformed folk can have infallible assurance even though the church is fallible, and we have toed the line on believing such things such as denying the Trinity cuts one off from salvation while Rome, which professes infallibility, has changed its mind on this.
What gives?
LikeLike
Susan,
From your comment to me I don’t think you ever really had to swim the Tiber- you have always been there. To be fair to the Protestant position you should at least become familiar with the arguments in Luther’s, BONDAGE OF THE WILL, and also know how the New Testament communicates that any type of self induced righteousness is in competition to the righteousness Christ gained for those whom He died for- see especially Philippians chapter 3. But you will probably go different paradigm on me.
LikeLike
Gospel repentance from any type of righteousness besides the righteousness that Christ gained is the starting point of Protestant Christianity. It is a different paradigm than the Catholic paradigm and the differences are irreconcilable. One is right and the other one is wrong. There is no middle road here.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“lame fox, you think you’ve really confessed all your sins?”
Think more Staupitz and less Luther. God isn’t trying to play gotcha with the sincerely contrite and repentant. Venial sin can be forgiven outside of confession without explicitly listing every single one.
“You think a priest can determine that?”
Of course not – they’re not mind-readers.
“Susan, it is too a monergism vs synergism question and Trent embraced synergism — you need to cooperate with God.”
So did the East, and western patristic lights. Except synergism is okay in sanctification. Only it’s not. Well, kind of. Well, we’re not sure how it works – we cooperate and are active, but we actually we don’t. All cooperation is bad so we’ll just nuke many Reformed theologians/tradition in the process.
Robert,
“he writes so that his readers might know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13)”
Yes and Paul writes for man to work out his salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12) and he who imagines that he will stand should take care lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12) and My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor 4:4)
LikeLike
Forgot to mention..Great Machen quote, if I do say so myself. Thx E.B.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Yes and Paul writes for man to work out his salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12) and he who imagines that he will stand should take care lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12) and My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor 4:4)
Yes and none of that is incompatible with the certainty of faith that John says we can have.
Thank you for proving that Rome can’t provide the certainty of faith where it really matters.
LikeLike
lame fox, venial sin? You mean like eating a piece of fruit and sending the whole human race to everlasting perdition? No wonder you guys wink at certain sins.
“So did the East, and western patristic lights. Except synergism is okay in sanctification.”
Not Paul. But if you think the popes have as much authority as the apostles, I guess you can find a way to take comfort from fallible interpreters of Scripture. Whether it will stand up on judgment day may not be so consoling.
LikeLike
Robert,
Do you agree with the Calvin citations? If so, what absolute certainty (not just high moral certainty or confidence) do you have you might not be self-deceived?
Darryl,
Right so Paul didn’t believe in synergism in sanctification. So a good deal of your own theologians and tradition just got nuked, not just the west and east.
LikeLike
The problem with those who protest too much is they end up coming off as fools. As in all things, balance..says the zen master. Yo.
LikeLike
Susan:
Ok, when I became a Christian … I had a conversion experience, where I turned toward God in faith (trust),but I didn’t have faith (knowledge in imputation). At that point I didn’t know that God was Trinity, let alone that I was saved by Christ’s imputed righteousness, but my salvation didn’t depend on the knowledge I possessed.
What you knew, and what you relied on, is that “Jesus paid it all / All to Him I owe / Sin had left a crimson stain / He washed it white as snow.”
Right?
So the ground of your confidence was not your sanctification, which we agree was very incomplete (much more like “slightly less dirty snow”). Rather, it was Jesus’ righteousness applied to you in such a way as to make you completely clean in God’s eyes.
That’s not sanctification, but justification; and the basis for that justification wasn’t the merit of your works, but the merit of Christ.
LikeLike
John – Gospel repentance from any type of righteousness besides the righteousness that Christ gained is the starting point of Protestant Christianity. It is a different paradigm than the Catholic paradigm and the differences are irreconcilable. One is right and the other one is wrong. There is no middle road here.
Erik – How about evangelicalism where the point of Sunday worship is for you to come be fed and entertained so you are energized to go out and “do” the gospel during the week?
Sounds like a rather middle-roadish paradigm.
LikeLike
Cletus,
You have an interesting notion of certainty. You believe that we can know “with certainty” (albeit not mathematical) the state of our soul.
Other Catholics say this:
Who’s right? And are you certain of your interpretation of your magisterium’s interpretation of the word of God?
LikeLike
Susan,
Quit confusing your ifications.
LikeLike
Jeff –
1. If the person sincerely seeks repentance;
2. The last time one received the Sacrament of Confession;
3. The nature of the sin;
4. How many times it was committed;
5. If the person had full knowledge of the severity of the sin;
6. If the person voluntarily consented to the sin;
7. If the person assisted others to sin;
8. If the person by advised someone to sin;
9. If the person commanded someone to sin;
10. If the person provoked someone to sin;
11. If the person consented to someone’s sin;
12. If the person showed someone how to sin;
13. If the person praised someone for his sin;
14. If the person concealed, remained silent or did nothing to prevent someone’s sin;
15. If the person took part in or enjoyed the result of someone’s sin;
16. If the person defended someone’s sin.
Erik – If a priest isn’t around your local Presbyterian or Reformed Church can probably provide you with a Richard Smith, Obedience Boy, or other assorted Pietist/Revivalist to help you go through the list.
LikeLike
Hey, let’s play Mad Libs and substitute various funny verbs for “sin”. I’ll go first:
1. If the person sincerely seeks repentance;
2. The last time one received the Sacrament of Confession;
3. The nature of the fart;
4. How many times it was committed;
5. If the person had full knowledge of the severity of the fart;
6. If the person voluntarily consented to the fart;
7. If the person assisted others to fart;
8. If the person by advised someone to fart;
9. If the person commanded someone to fart;
10. If the person provoked someone to fart;
11. If the person consented to someone’s fart;
12. If the person showed someone how to fart;
13. If the person praised someone for his fart;
14. If the person concealed, remained silent or did nothing to prevent someone’s fart;
15. If the person took part in or enjoyed the result of someone’s fart;
16. If the person defended someone’s fart.
LikeLike
Unfortunately the people who conduct these spiritual inventories are inevitably the ones who end up getting busted for taking a wide stance at the airport restroom or getting caught with the 14-year-old babysitter.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“You believe that we can know “with certainty” (albeit not mathematical) the state of our soul. ”
I believe we can have a high level of certainty and moral confidence, as Ott said, not an absolute certainty that admits no possibility of error. That’s why priestly counsel can be valuable if one has doubts or concerns.
LikeLike
“That’s not sanctification, but justification; and the basis for that justification wasn’t the merit of your works, but the merit of Christ.”
Trent: “we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.”
“Of this justification … the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father”
Erik,
“Quit confusing your ifications.”
So is progressive sanctification synergistic or not? If not, how does one confuse the two?
LikeLike
Cletus, does your priest know you spend time in seedy protestant chatrooms, and if so, what does he think of your efforts?
LikeLike
Erik – How about evangelicalism where the point of Sunday worship is for you to come be fed and entertained so you are energized to go out and “do” the gospel during the week?
Sounds like a rather middle-roadish paradigm.
John Y: Catholics and Evangelicals are swimming the Tiber together- some more furiously than others. My point was that Gospel repentance is first of all about repenting from the false Gospel of trying to establish your own righteousness- no matter how we try to do it.
I am not really sure what you were trying to get at though. Maybe it was in reference to my wanting to find that church that is throwing the party. The party should be a continual one because we can rest assured that the righteousness has been fulfilled. I am not looking to be filled, I am looking to rejoice in the fact that it is already finished. And to be reminded of that on a regular basis. Everything around us tells us differently. Or, as Dylan puts it, “I’m not looking for nothin in anyone’s eyes.” And, “the cards are no good that you’re holdin.” You can’t party hardy with those who are still swimming the Tiber or are enamored with their own infused righteousness- whatever that means. I am still waiting for where righteousness in the Scriptures has any reference to infused habits or anything close to that idea.
LikeLike
I often misinterpret you, Erik so I might have to say my bad again.
LikeLike
lame fox, at least our side still thinks those ideas are important. When’s the last time Francis said salvation even?
LikeLike
I often misinterpret you, Erik so I might have to say my bad again.
Think of how traditionalist RCs must feel like right now as they watch the liberal Francis.
LikeLike
lame fox, “That’s why priestly counsel can be valuable if one has doubts or concerns.”
but for the rest of those who are hoping to wind up in purgatory, or unconcerned about mortal sins (like disobeying the pope), ‘s’all good.
LikeLike
I already said we cannot have absolute certainty we will persevere – perseverance is a gift of grace God is not obligated to bestow. But we can have confidence and high moral certainty, as Ott distinguished above and which makes RC practice of the eucharist/confession coherent in the first place. So I told you nothing different than Trent.
Incoherent much?
Perseverance is not part of saving faith?
(Good works are not of gratitude, but of an earning mentality?)
Makes the RC practice of the eucharist/confession coherent?
Nothing different than Trent?
Disjointed self serving claims and assertions?
Assumption of one’s own clarity, but denying the same to Scripture?
Arrogance much?
Who’s right? And are you certain of your interpretation of your magisterium’s interpretation of the word of God?
No Jeff. CVD is infallibly certain of his interpretations, it is only your fallible impressions of his interpretations that is the problem. Which is why he hangs around seedy protestant comboxes to patronize the fallible/gullible with assertions of the superiority of an incorrigibly blind Roman faith as over and above the true biblical, reasonable and historical Christian religion and faith
LikeLike
Darryl,
Have you read the lead article at CTC? I’d be interested in hearing your feedback,most especially concerning what led to Luther’s two-kingdom model.
LikeLike
Susan, you mean CtC has a new blog post and Darryl HASN’T yet cleared up their confusion and sloppy work? Seriously, I’m shocked too, I used to think higher of him, and that had nothing to do with being in the same church together. No wonder protestants haven’t received a thank you card from your pope yet. The guy is just getting lazy! Thanks for the heads up, yo.
LikeLike
Bob,
“Perseverance is not part of saving faith?”
This may surprise you, but not everyone’s a Calvinist.
“Good works are not of gratitude, but of an earning mentality?”
Of course good works are of gratitude – one can’t do supernatural good without being justified in the first place. You are rewarded for your good works in sanctification right? Does that mean sanctification is an earning mentality?
“Makes the RC practice of the eucharist/confession coherent?”
Yes – if we could not have confidence that we are in a state of grace or not, then it would be a bit incoherent for RCism to teach one must be in a state of grace to approach the Eucharist worthily and one must go to confession if one is not in a state of grace don’t you think?
“Nothing different than Trent?”
Yes your citation said “If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.”
I never claimed one can have an absolute an infallible certainty – that’s why I said confidence and Ott says high moral certainty (though this was in context of state of grace, but same applies to perseverance). So your assertion that “So the council of Trent tells us one thing and CVD tells us another.” is incorrect.
“Assumption of one’s own clarity, but denying the same to Scripture?”
I forget where the OPC/PCA elders teach their members and children to read Scripture outside the interpretive framework of the confessions. Scripture’s clear when understood in its proper context, not when wrenched out of it. You deny the OT scriptures are clear to unbelieving Jews.
LikeLike
If you want, Susan, same question. Yo, yo.
LikeLike
You deny the OT scriptures are clear to unbelieving Jews.
Again, incoherence much?
The WCF is a map, not Scripture.
It is readily apparent upon examination whether or not it is faithful to Scripture.
In contrast the magisterium’s pronouncements are the same as Scripture.
Go figure.
No really.
The magisterium is not on par with Christ and the Apostles,
But if it walks like a duck, talks like . . . . it is Tweety bird?
Incoherent much?
LikeLike
Cletus, as I said, maybe go back to CTC, and learn HTML to break up your quotes? It could help Bob S understand your points (and help me too)..
Hope springs eternal?
LikeLike
Cletus: I believe we can have a high level of certainty and moral confidence, as Ott said, not an absolute certainty that admits no possibility of error.
So certainty comes in levels or degrees?
LikeLike
You deny the OT scriptures are clear to unbelieving Jews.
What does Paul plainly say?
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Cor. 3:12-18
Unbelief much?
Further prot authority is provisional in the sense it is ministerial, not magisterial. It never claims for itself what belongs properly to the Word of God as per Lord Acton’s “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The same which was incidentally written in context of discussing papal infallibility/divine right of kings. Or ecclesiastical and political tyranny.
Imagine that. Who would have guessed?
“Not I” said Baby Bear.
LikeLike
Clete – Erik,
“Quit confusing your ifications.”
So is progressive sanctification synergistic or not? If not, how does one confuse the two?
Erik – I’m pretty monergistic. I just try to show up at church and avoid the big, boneheaded sins when I’m not there. Beyond that, it’s up to God.
LikeLike
John,
Nothing directed at you by me.
LikeLike
John Y,
I’ve been reading comments at oldlife for nearly 4 years now and I still have not heard a good explanation from the “ontological realists” about where the idea of an “infusion” that changes us comes from. And how does this mystical infusion work? I am all ears.
I’m your huckleberry. That’s just my game.
Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.
Romans 4:5 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
Galatians 3:6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”
Question:
1. Would you agree that, grammatically speaking, Paul is explicitly teaching that it is our faith that was credited as righteousness? (not the imputed and alien righteousness of Christ) Was Abraham not able to sing “rock of ages” with a clear conscience?
2. why does not Paul never expressly state that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to a believer?
Romans 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
In what way were the many “made” sinners? Was it in a purely forensic sense? Were all men merely put in the legal category of sin? Or was all of mankind “transfused” on “constituted” with sin? If you will agree with me that an ontological change took place in the first portion of romans 5:19 (made sinners) then you must also agree thatjust as there were ontological changes taking place in the fall- there must also be ontological changes in our justification. If not, the verse will not be in equilibrium.
LikeLike
Paranoid Kenneth,
Can I post creepy comments on your blog?
Can you send me the creepy email?
I’m watching YOUUUUUUUU
Ligthen up.
LikeLike
John Y (continued),
Challenge: why is faith necessary for our salvation? If we come to the cross with nothing in our hands, why is it that only those who have faith will be counted as righteous? Why not just impute righteousness and be done with it? It also seems odd that men can’t just have any old faith it has to be a very high quality of faith. For your theory of imputation to be compatible with the teachings of James, the individuals faith must be of such a measurable quality that it is then, and only then, able to be the instrument that receives the supposed alien righteousness of Christ. Is faith a condition of justification (as scripture teaches all over the place) or no? If yes, why, given the theory of imputation? If no, you have major exegetical problems all over the place. Pick your poison.
LikeLike
Andrew,
What you didn’t know was that I have been video recording your every move on that computer of yours. Don’t believe me? Then how do I have THIS picture of you looking at my facebook page?
LikeLike
Kenneth, you winner you. See you around another conbox ,convo someday,yo.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Your questions are good ones and have been answered by McMark at oldlife for the past 4 or 5 years. Not many have listened or agreed with what he has said regarding justification and regeneration. Faith is the result of the imputation of righteousness. Union with Christ is a legal union and it is caused when God the Father places the elect into the death of Christ (Romans 6:1-3-no water in baptized into Christ). Behind, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness” is the legal imputation. The IT is not the faith. The IT is the bloody death of Christ for those whom He died for. There would be no justification of the ungodly if the Holy Spirit caused faith was the union. The imputation of righteousness has the logical priority- this causes the Spirit caused faith. The result is justification. They happen temportally together. Again, the imputation of righteousness (or the placing of the elect into the death of Christ by God the Father) must have the logical priority. As Romans 8:10 asserts, “the Spirit is life BECAUSE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.” There is no sending of the Spirit without the imputation of righteousness.
Peter states in his 2nd letter that faith is the result of the righteousness of Christ (the inference is the imputation): “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.”
The fall of Adam, first of all, was about legal guilt and condemnation that resulted in pollution and corruption. “Transfusion” and “constitution” are philosophical terms injected and conjectured by Augustine and Aquinas. Luther did separate himself philosophically from both. I don’t think Luther went far enough with his thinking and the sacraments were a philosophical distraction that caused all sorts of ontological problems in Christian theology.
The Holy Spirit does not change someone ontologically. The cause of faith is not an ontological change but a legal transaction. Michael Horton covered this issue pretty cleary in his ,COVENANT AND SALVATION UNION WITH CHRIST, book. Speech-Act theory challenges all onto-theology, as Horton calls it. That is a short answer to this easily confused issue.
LikeLike
loser ken, Thanks for writing this:
LikeLike
Darryl, I think Kenneth is finally listening to his papi. He’s all about making things messy like silly links to pictures, and off topic discussion. He appears to be well on his way to a true Vat 2 kinda cat..IMHO
LikeLike
DGHART,
You are welcome.
LikeLike
Bob,
“What does Paul plainly say?”
I thought you said elsewhere Paul was just an OT sola scripturist, so why do I need to rely on him for understanding how the clarity of the OT scriptures operates?
“Unbelief much?”
Bosom burning is not an effective apologetic towards those outside one’s own camp.
“Further prot authority is provisional in the sense it is ministerial, not magisterial. It never claims for itself what belongs properly to the Word of God”
Why should I trust that authority to properly identify the Word of God in the first place then?
“as per Lord Acton’s “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.”
Would the Jews have been justified in telling the Apostles they are corrupted?
LikeLike
John Y,
Behind, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness” is the legal imputation. The IT is not the faith. The IT is the bloody death of Christ for those whom He died for.
Instead of reading our own systems into the text I propose you allow scripture to speak for itself. The “it” is identified plainly in Romans 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness
The fall of Adam, first of all, was about legal guilt and condemnation that resulted in pollution and corruption. “Transfusion” and “constitution” are philosophical terms injected and conjectured by Augustine and Aquinas. Luther did separate himself philosophically from both.
OK…. but surely you have some kind of word to use dont you? How do you describe the way in which we all “became” sin in Adam? Was it by mere imputation? Were we merely placed in the category of sin after the fall or was there something more?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Instead of reading our own systems into the text I propose you allow scripture to speak for itself. The “it” is identified plainly in Romans 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness
As John Murray has pointed out, the “it” is not faith. Faith is credited unto righteousness. Paul in many places says that Christ or what Christ did is our righteousness. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Cor. 1:30; Rom. 5:18–19. And this is exactly what the OT would lead us to expect:
Jer. 33:16: “In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’”
Even Trent says that Christ is the meritorious ground of justification. So on that point Rome and Protestantism are in at least formal agreement. Where we differ is how one lays hold of that righteousness or participates in that righteousness.
LikeLike
Robert,
You are still not letting scripture speak. Romans 4:5 and 4:22 make no use of the word “it”.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Even Trent says that Christ is the meritorious ground of justification. So on that point Rome and Protestantism are in at least formal agreement. Where we differ is how one lays hold of that righteousness or participates in that righteousness.”
It is ontologically meritorious to us that we take the news of what Jesus has done for us, intellectually, and trust ourselves to this knowledge, whereby we have living faith(.For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation).
But what is inacted in us at that time is the Holy Spirit’s work of grace and is sanctifying. We lay hold of Christ by faith and always participate in that righteousness by faith. IOW, yes, a person must have faith in the person of Christ. Further participation( not less than faith) is had throught the sacraments, the litergy, prayer and serving where He would have us serve.
LikeLike
Ken says: Instead of reading our own systems into the text I propose you allow scripture to speak for itself. The “it” is identified plainly in Romans 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
John Y: I thought the other 3 scripture versus clearly revealed the cause of faith, ie. the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Reading our own system into the text is what you guys say all the time. Maybe I was not clear- Imputation of righteousness by God the Father, Christ sends the Spirit and the elect one believes when the Gospel is “heard.” Without the work of Father, Son and Spirit there is no faith. The elect one does believe by the effectual call of the Gospel. Behind the effectual call is the work of the Trinity. The faith then justifies. It is the elects personal faith that justifies but the Trinity caused the faith. Show me where your “high quality” , ie. infused faith is caused in scripture since you are trying to pit the protestant system against itself .
Key says: OK…. but surely you have some kind of word to use dont you? How do you describe the way in which we all “became” sin in Adam? Was it by mere imputation? Were we merely placed in the category of sin after the fall or was there something more?
John Y: I thought I already stated that- guilt, condemnation and then how about death. Death is what is passed on when we all became sin in Adam.
http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/infused-and-imparted-esteemed-among-humans-abomination-to-god/
LikeLike
KW your’s an improvement but you are still not letting tota scriptura speak. WCF1:9.
IOW cherry pick much?
DVC would the Jews have been justified telling Jesus he was corrupted?
Wait a minute, that’s pretty much what they did.
Wait a minute, that’s pretty much what Rome does.
Unbelief much?
LikeLike
Bosom burning is not an effective apologetic towards those outside one’s own camp.
You’ve told Bryan of course that because of that little insight the whole CtC website/apologetic needs to be revamped?
No worries, we’re all just separated subjective brethren. B just hasn’t outgrown his delusions quite yet.
LikeLike
Along with Horton’s, COVENANT AND SALVATION, here is a long post about imputation with commentary from Nick the Catholic in the comments, I’m sure all you Catholics will jump right into reading them- not!!!:
http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/guilt-transferred-to-christ-for-the-elect-alone-2/
LikeLike
Kenneth,
You are still not letting scripture speak. Romans 4:5 and 4:22 make no use of the word “it”.
I only said “it” because you talked about “it” being identified. Faith is simply not what is accounted as righteousness. What is accounted as meritorious is Christ. Even Rome agrees with that. It just thinks that we lay hold of Christ via faith plus something else—works done in Christ that are ours as well and by which we merit heaven, with God’s help.
IOW, there’s no grace in Rome.
LikeLike
John Yeazel, thanks for the Nick link. The Stellmanites love that guy.
LikeLike
Robert,
Faith is simply not what is accounted as righteousness.
But scripture says….
Romans 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
You are “simply” not submitting to scripture
LikeLike
Kenneth,
So what you are saying is that it is faith that saves rather than the object of faith?
If so, then my faith can be in Jesus, the Pope, Jimmy Swaggart, Buddah, my own works, or whatever?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Why are you, Susan, and Bryan calling us to a church in crisis?
Could you maybe suspend the call, get your own house in order, then call back once everything is in better shape?
LikeLike
Susan,
If you had to guess, how long do you think you’ll have to spend in Purgatory before you fully lay hold of and participate in that righteousness?
Looking forward to those pains that are greater than anything you have experienced on earth?
That doesn’t make Jesus a very sufficient savior, does it?
LikeLike
Erik,
So what you are saying is that it is faith that saves rather than the object of faith?
I am not saying very much at all actually. I am happy to let scripture do the talking. I thought exegesis was supposed to be the Reformed mans cup of tea? I am not impressed. Does God view our faith in Christ as meritorious of salvation? Is our personal faith in Christ reckoned as righteousness? According to you guys the answer is no…. according to Paul the answer is yes. Hmmmm….When Paul says “faith” is that some kind of cryptic code word for “alien righteousness of Christ”? Do I need a Reformed decoder ring to understand the book of Romans? lol
LikeLike
Erik,
Why are you, Susan, and Bryan calling us to a church in crisis?
Could you maybe suspend the call, get your own house in order, then call back once everything is in better shape?
Having a hard time handling the hot seat? I thought you all would welcome a walk through scripture… instead you want to go back to comparing paradigms? Interesting.
LikeLike
Relax tool boy-Ken, your own church isn’t even with you much less you with your church. A million popes, indeed. Sola Ecclesia, sorta, sometimes, maybe, depends how Vat II they wanna be, I really mean it today, we’ll see how I feel tomorrow and whether Francis or Kasper talk to the press, please Mary, make them stop talking, I’d submit better if it were Lefebvre, my submitting is the kind where you hedge.
Oh wait, are you gonna hit us with examples of your private, personal devotion? How very monastic and suffering of you. Let me take my klonopin first………………………Ok, go ahead
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The proof-texting isn’t very Roman or Reformed. When you want to actually exegete those verses in the context of the chapter and the entire book, such as when Paul says in Romans 5 that it is the obedience of Christ that makes the many to be accounted righteous, then you might be able to make a coherent point.
You don’t need a Reformed “decoder ring,” just a willingness to read the whole letter. A little knowledge of Greek would help also, but it’s not required.
LikeLike
Sean,
your own church isn’t even with you much less you with your church. A million popes, indeed. Sola Ecclesia, sorta, sometimes, maybe, depends how Vat II they wanna be, I really mean it today, we’ll see how I feel tomorrow and whether Francis or Kasper talk to the press, please Mary, make them stop talking, I’d submit better if it were Lefebvre, my submitting is the kind where you hedge.
Oh wait, are you gonna hit us with examples of your private, personal devotion? How very monastic and suffering of you. Let me take my klonopin first………………………Ok, go ahead
hahaha. is this what happens when a reformed person gets stumped with the bible? Reminiscent of an R2D2 meltdown.
LikeLike
Come on Ken. Man up. Jase at least made it through Rom 2 before he went for the justification of drunk obscenity route and handed off the
tooth fairy’s wandbaton to Nick who as the cleanup hitter? is still confused about something to do with Adam and why he didn’t need the active obedience of Christ before the fall. (Original Sin? What’s dat?)Why don’t you pick up in Rom. 3 and walk us through it?
Unless you just want to cherry pick.
Hey, that’s understandable, Bry’s thing is begging the question and CVD likes straw men and red herrings. To each his own fallacy/diversion.
LikeLike
TBK, I’m just trying to find the level. It’s been a few years since I dealt with the all mouth, no heart crew at the edge of the circle. No worries, I’ll find you with the rest of the buffet line RCers, I’m sure. SO audacious, yawn.
LikeLike
Stumped with the bible? Nah, that’s your boy, Cross bailing on Gal. 1:8, cuz it wasn’t part of his paradigm. Since then, I don’t bother with the prot-cath’s who can’t reckon with either side of the aisle. Maybe Burke has a place for you in his seminary of misfits and ‘failure to thrive’-diagnosed.
LikeLike
I am not saying very much at all actually. I am happy to let scripture do the talking
If only that were the case.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God whichEven the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:Rom. 3:21, 22
While it may come as a surprise to some, faith in faith is not what Paul in Romans is teaching, much more the immediate/obvious inference is that when he talks about faith, he’s talking about faith “in Jesus Christ”.
That is after all, the point of the entire book of Romans.
It is not faith in faith as righteousness itself. It is not faith in the magisterium. Or the lost apostolic traditions. Or implicit/ignorant faith in what Rome implicitly teaches somewhere. Or even Bryan’s phd. dissertation.
But if the usual suspects care to major in obscurantism, that is their free and damnable choice.
LikeLike
Robert,
The proof-texting isn’t very Roman or Reformed. When you want to actually exegete those verses in the context of the chapter and the entire book, such as when Paul says in Romans 5 that it is the obedience of Christ that makes the many to be accounted righteous, then you might be able to make a coherent point.
Oh, OK, so the context of romans 3 and 4 is actually found in chapter five. Awesome. Lets look at some context.
Romans 4:19-25
19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness[c] of Sarah’s womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
The context of this passage has absolutely nothing to do with an “alien righteousness of Christ”. It focuses on the amazing faith of Abraham, who was fully convinced of the promises of God. No unbelief made him waver and he grew strong in his faith and gave glory to God. THAT IS WHY (key words) his faith was counted as righteousness.
23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Notice how “it” is revealed as “faith”. When God looked at Abraham he saw that he was in the black. Abraham had something to his credit. What was it that credited Abraham as righteous? His faith. This is not just for Abraham, but “it” (our faith) will also be credited to all who believe. There is no grammatical escape. No twisting of words or greek lexicons that can save you.
You don’t need a Reformed “decoder ring,” just a willingness to read the whole letter. A little knowledge of Greek would help also, but it’s not required.
Has John Murray read the entire book? Does he understand the greek? Because he admits these verses are problematic. He writes that “…in New testament teaching the righteousness contemplated in justification is not faith itself but something that comes into our possesion by faith. The question remains why, in the formula of Gen 15:6 as quoted by Paul, is faith represented as reckoned for righteousness? It may not be bpossible to answer this question with any decisiveness.” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 1965, p. 358).
What about Charles Hodge? Does he have “OK” understanding of the greek? Because he admitted the grammatical meaning of Romans 4:5, 9, 22, but says that it is “inconsistent with other things we know about Scripture.” (Justification by Faith Alone, p. 48).
Or maybe you just have no idea what you are talking about?
LikeLike
Sean,
Did you give your car keys to the nurse before she tucked you in? Mayyyybe one too many drinks tonight
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Or maybe those who don’t know what they are talking about understand that exegesis does not proceed by facile application of grammatical rules. That would be you.
The context of Romans 3 and 4 is the entire book of Romans. You know, that same book that says none does good of any kind (Rom. 3), that justification brings peace (shalom, eternal peace) with God, not the temporary cease-fire of Roman sacerdotalism and purgatory, and that it is the one act of obedience of Christ by which we are made righteous.
There’s no admission by either man that these verses are “problematic.” And you need to read Murray’s commentary on Romans where he goes into the matter in much greater detail.
And again, this really shouldn’t be an issue. Even Rome says (traditionally, but you know, it ain’t clear what Rome believes anymore since its going around justifying Trinity-haters and atheists) the meritorious ground of justification is Christ. The issue is how one lays hold of that righteousness—faith alone (Paul) or the Roman sacerdotal treadmill. Trust me, no one picks up a Bible and finds the latter there. You need the help of the undefined apostolic tradition that Rome has hidden in a vault somewhere.
LikeLike
Come on Kenny. You can do it. Keep backing up to Rom. 3:21 where Paul kicks in after his preliminary remarks beginning at 1:17.
Notice how “it” is revealed as “faith”. When God looked at Abraham he saw that he was in the black. Abraham had something to his credit. What was it that credited Abraham as righteous? His faith. This is not just for Abraham, but “it” (our faith) will also be credited to all who believe. There is no grammatical escape. No twisting of words or greek lexicons that can save you.
I know. Faith is a work > we’re saved by works > Rome 1 Prots 0.
Been there done that Kenny.
IOW again, here’s somebody that’s got more credibility than you or me.
2.1 Not so our father Abraham. This passage of scripture is meant to draw our attention to the difference. We confess that the holy patriarch was pleasing to God; this is what our faith affirms about him. So true is it that we can declare and be certain that he did have grounds for pride before God, and this is what the apostle tells us. It is quite certain, he says, and we know it for sure, that Abraham has grounds for pride before God. But if he had been justified by works, he would have had grounds for pride, but not before God. However, since we know he does have grounds for pride before God, it follows that he was not justified on the basis of works. So if Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified?� The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; Gn 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith.
[Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification]
3.0 Now when you hear this statement, that justification comes not from works, but by faith, remember the abyss of which I spoke earlier. You see that Abraham was justified not by what he did, but by his faith: all right then, so I can do whatever I like, because even though I have no good works to show, but simply believe in God, that is reckoned to me as righteousness? Anyone who has said this and has decided on it as a policy has already fallen in and sunk; anyone who is still considering it and hesitating is in mortal danger. But God’s scripture, truly understood, not only safeguards an endangered person, but even hauls up a drowned one from the deep.
3.1 My advice is, on the face of it, a contradiction of what the apostle says; what I have to say about Abraham is what we find in the letter of another apostle, who set out to correct people who had misunderstood Paul. James in his letter opposed those who would not act rightly but relied on faith alone; and so he reminded them of the good works of this same Abraham whose faith was commended by Paul. The two apostles are not contradicting each other. James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith. I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God’s command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, “No, I won’t. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,” his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit.”
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 3, Vol. 15, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), pp. 364-365.
LikeLike
Robert,
Still waiting on your exegesis of the texts. Is faith a code word? What do the texts in question actually mean if not what they clearly appear to say
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
You said, ” Faith is simply not what is accounted as righteousness. What is accounted as meritorious is Christ. Even Rome agrees with that. It just thinks that we lay hold of Christ via faith plus something else—works done in Christ that are ours as well and by which we merit heaven, with God’s help.”
I don’t understand why our faith in what Christ had done would not be reckoned( seen as) righteousness. The scriptures say that without faith it is impossible to please God, so if we have faith it’s meritorious because we have properly lay hold of what has been revealed; but we only have faith because God lives and we only have faith in Jesus because He has revealed Himself more fully in space/time and the inscripturization of space/time events. In this way we cooperate with the Holy Spirit and believe” because of the authority of God Himself Who reveals them, Who can neither deceive or be deceived.” The CCC says “that with regard o God, there is no strict right to an merit on the part of man. Between God and us, it says, there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator Man’s “merit”, moreover, itself is due to God, for His good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit”
Maybe you don’t understand fully, because I myself don’t see how anyone would have difficulty with this:
” for the “merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of His grace. The fatherly action of God is first on His own initiative, and then flows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful.
LikeLike
loser ken and daffy susan, you sort of missed the context yourself:
Faith is the instrument of receiving the perfect righteousness of Christ. Protestants are not in denial about sin or justice. You sin, you die. That’s obvious to most writers of cop shows. But somehow, you guys think if you spend enough time in purgatory you can turn arsenic into honey. If you read the Bible, bad things happen to bad people. But you guys don’t think we are really bad, all that Aristotelian virtue and human flourishing jazz.
Have your perpetual virgin and your “venerated” saints. Sin needs something stronger.
LikeLike
Maybe the Reformation was about trying to clarify a faith that was bloated:
LikeLike
So, TBK, you were a protestant who lost the plot. Then you became an RC who can’t reconcile with it’s pope or trajectory and pine away for the days you weren’t around to experience and can’t be sure ever existed. Then when you try your solo hand at scripture you can’t seem to harmonize or distinguish means from objects or faith’s role from Jesus’ redemptive work(Gal 3). You seemed to have missed some of the better parts of Rome, an RC remedial education, and latched on to an internet invention as an adult, while despising the ordinary form(reality in the parish). Maybe this whole ‘religion’ thing just isn’t for you.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Your hot seat is about as lukewarm as Tom Van Dyke’s. Never before have I seen two guys who perpetually think they have people on the ropes while they are actually still sitting in the dressing room.
LikeLike
Kenneth – hahaha. is this what happens when a reformed person gets stumped with the bible? Reminiscent of an R2D2 meltdown.
Erik – You’ll have to take that one up with Andrew.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Even if we granted your point that it is faith that justifies, note that it is faith in Christ, sans the 17 intermediaries that you & your church put between the believer and Christ – Mary, The Pope, Five non-blliblical Sacraments, Monasticism, Celibate Priests, Relics, Saints, Indulgences….
LikeLike
Kenneth,
A piece of advice: Don’t play this kind of game with Sean. I’ve seen it unfold before it it usually ends with him smiling and his adversary on the back of a milk carton.
LikeLike
So far everyone has answered the challenge by posting other scriptures they like more, rambling on about Church discipline, or saying my interpretation of the scriptures is wrong because I am dumb…. But why cant anyone tell me what the actual verses I brought up mean? Where is the exegesis of Romans 4:22? This should be a cakewalk. Still waiting…..
LikeLike
Erik, I will send him creepy emails or find him on another blog. Don’t worry about me and TBK. s’all good, hermano.
LikeLike
Susan, your many ideas are quite interesting. I would to subscribe to your newsletter (Ht Chortles Weakly).
LikeLike
TBK, I agree. We should all stick with the response of; “you’re dumb”. It most readily fits the opportunity.
LikeLike
loser ken, you brought up context. Now you can’t handle it?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
So far everyone has answered the challenge by posting other scriptures they like more, rambling on about Church discipline, or saying my interpretation of the scriptures is wrong because I am dumb…. But why cant anyone tell me what the actual verses I brought up mean? Where is the exegesis of Romans 4:22? This should be a cakewalk. Still waiting…..
You aren’t paying attention. I noted that in Rom. 4, faith is imputed “unto the end or goal” of righteousness, per Murray. Faith is the means—the instrumental means—unto righteousness.
And it’s not a matter of other passages we “like better.” It’s a matter of taking into account the entire letter, which says it is Christ’s one act of obedience that leads to righteousness. Moreover, you still haven’t dealt with the fact that even Rome says Christ—not our faith—is the meritorious ground of justification. The difference between us is in regard to the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness (insufficient for you all, hence purgatory) and the means by which it is obtained by the believer (for us grace alone through faith alone; for you, grace plus the faith that grace enables plus the works that grace enables plus the temporal punishment you finally get rid of in purgatory).
LikeLike
Kenneth, in other words, your biblicist slip is showing. Fundamentalists and Callers Together.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I’m gonna jump in real quick to comment about the passage from Romans you brought up. I’m surprised that you think you can make such a strong argument from this passage — it doesn’t seem to help your cause at all.
Kenneth, your interpretation of this passage rests on several unstated assumptions:
1) that faith is a work performed by Abraham for which he can be credited
2) that faith precedes regeneration
3) that Abraham’s righteousness is independent of Christ’s imputed righteousness.
Romans 4 does nothing to help your cause — you only think it does because you import definitions and theology from outside of the text (either from the larger context or from yourself — one is exegesis and the other is eisegesis).
First of all, you assume that Abraham’s act of faith is a work that he can take credit for. But Paul explicitly denies this possibility in 4.1-12. In fact, verses 13 and following appear to be built upon or comment upon the foundation of the first twelve verses (you can even tell this is so in the English, look at all the verses that start w/ the word “For”).
Second, you assume that Abraham does a work of faith and is then regenerated. This is a problematic interpretation for the same reasons that your first assumption is problematic. Just from the context of Romans 4 it is clear that faith is a gift of God, Romans 4.1-2 and following (note how later Paul contrasts wages earned from work w/ a gift and then goes on to show how Abraham didn’t obtain righteousness by works of the law, but by faith [that is, not by earning righteousness, but by being gifted w/ faith]).
Furthermore, the larger context of scripture doesn’t support your position that faith is a work we can take credit for (if the plain meaning of Romans 4 wasn’t enough for you).
Finally, you argue against the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The first problem is that your argument is an argument from silence (not every passage has to mention imputation). The second problem is that the immediate context directly affirms the imputation of an alien righteousness.
Romans 4.5 refers to God as the one who justifies the ungodly. Romans 4.11 explicitly refers to receiving a seal of righteousness that he didn’t yet have. The entire passage deals w/ God counting Abraham righteous when Abraham wasn’t righteous — how is this not an affirmation of imputation??
Kenneth, it seems clear to me that your theological assumptions have blinded you to the plain and clear meaning of the text. You attempts at explaining this passage have resulted in an interpretation that says the exact opposite of what Paul is teaching. You are opposing the Apostolic Tradition as taught by Paul in Holy Scripture — I will say a prayer for your soul.
LikeLike
Kenneth’s mouthiness provides a nice contrast to Bryan’s “no love, no truth” ethos. Hey – one church, big tent.
LikeLike
Kenneth – So far everyone has answered the challenge by posting other scriptures they like more, rambling on about Church discipline, or saying my interpretation of the scriptures is wrong because I am dumb…. But why cant anyone tell me what the actual verses I brought up mean? Where is the exegesis of Romans 4:22? This should be a cakewalk. Still waiting…..
Erik – What backwoods Bible College did you study at again?
LikeLike
You guys made the mistake of thinking that Kenneth wanted to actually discuss theology when what he really wanted to do was spout three flimsy prooftexts, declare the win, and take 17 victory laps. Just bow down and admit defeat.
LikeLike
We haven’t seen this degree of sophisticated exegesis since Doug Sowers presented his “you can’t fly a plane with one wing” argument and then defended it by repeating the phrase 983 times.
LikeLike
Douggles was the good ole days compared to a few the last two months…
LikeLike
DGHART,
loser ken, you brought up context. Now you can’t handle it?
You didn’t supply context. You brought up some other chapter that you think you have an easier time exegeting. Essentially you are saying the same thing as Hodge which is “that verse appears to say X but cant be because it is inconsistent with my other pet scriptures”. WHy pick Romans 3 as the context? WHy not this?
6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking[a] and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
See? We can both play that game. You post your very chapter of romans and ill post mine and we can both pretend we are looking at context. Or…… we can look at the actual texts and see what they say….. your move.
LikeLike
Robert,
You aren’t paying attention. I noted that in Rom. 4, faith is imputed “unto the end or goal” of righteousness, per Murray. Faith is the means—the instrumental means—unto righteousness.
I understand that you think that. The only problem is that theology isn’t found in the text itself. You are forced to read that into the text.
And it’s not a matter of other passages we “like better.” It’s a matter of taking into account the entire letter, which says it is Christ’s one act of obedience that leads to righteousness.
The way in which you read “the whole letter” should be harmonious. From what I have heard from you all so far, you have absolutely no answer what-so-ever as to why Paul says that it is faith that is counted as righteousness. All you can do is ignore those texts completely and point to your pet scriptures that pretend to supply “context”. Only they dont supply any actual context. The only thing they supply are verses that you believe prop up your presuppositions. Thats not supplying “context” but it is supplying a counter “prooftext”. I want you to deal with the passages supplied. Still waiting…..
LikeLike
Zrim,
Kenneth, in other words, your biblicist slip is showing. Fundamentalists and Callers Together.
Another comment that serves as evidence that you have no way of dealing with the texts at hand. Thats not a slam dunk against reformed theology…. but it should at least make you pause. WHy can anyone deal with the text? Still waiting….
LikeLike
Kenneth, two things.
1. Then you have to admit that your theology – the one you’re using to interpret holy writ – really is more or less a works-righteousness theology, that God only saves those who help themselves, that men must make up where God does incomplete work, etc. In which case, stop with any meaningful talk of grace because justification is a cooperative work between God and sinners. At least The Bryan has admitted this on various occasions, somewhere or other.
2. Have you considered that what Paul is describing here is what the covenant of works looks like for those who want to be justified by their own bare-knuckled works? It’s bleak, to say the least. And if you want to go with that arrangement, fine, but it’s a losing one for those who descend from Adam and conceived in sin (read: everybody except Jesus). The doers of the law will indeed be justified and not merely hearers, but there is only one doer and his doing can only be imputed to the rest of us by faith alone. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE WHOLE BOOK OF ROMANS.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I addressed your interpretation of the text, scroll up a bit.
LikeLike
loser ken, except that Paul says justification, a forensic reality, is by faith. Your church says it’s ontological. Your church disagrees with Paul.
Na nana nana na.
LikeLike
Mad Hunger,
Thank you so much for having something interesting to say. Thats half the battle.
Kenneth, I’m gonna jump in real quick to comment about the passage from Romans you brought up. I’m surprised that you think you can make such a strong argument from this passage — it doesn’t seem to help your cause at all.
It is ironic that one of the favorite reformed proof texts against Catholicism is giving you all so much of a head ache. These texts do “help the cause” in the sense that all of the texts explicitly and clearly teach that faith is counted/reckoned/meritorious of righteousness. Which is what Robert just got done telling me was “simply” not the case. Dr. Hart just got done saying that we couldnt sing “rock of ages” with a clear conscience if that was the case….. insinuating, I suppose, that Abraham was unable to sing “rock of ages”.
Kenneth, your interpretation of this passage rests on several unstated assumptions:
1) that faith is a work performed by Abraham for which he can be credited
2) that faith precedes regeneration
3) that Abraham’s righteousness is independent of Christ’s imputed righteousness.
I must protest! My interpretation of these texts hinges on no such presupposition. My only presupposition is that words have meanings, and the best way to interpret scripture is to examine the context, grammer, syntax, etc. of any given verse and allow the Word to speak for itself. When we apply these principles tot he texts provided we see that the Reformed view of imputation must be fatally flawed. Charles Hodge, commenting on the arminean view that faith is the grounds of our justification writes:
Nothing here about resting on presuppositions. All that is needed is a straightforward approach to the text coupled with a willingness to submit to scripture.
Romans 4 does nothing to help your cause — you only think it does because you import definitions and theology from outside of the text (either from the larger context or from yourself — one is exegesis and the other is eisegesis).
This would assume that I am tinkering with the definitions of words. Won’t you please supply the correct definitions? We can begin in verse 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” I am all ears. Tell me how I have misconstrued the definitions of “faith”, “counted”, and “righteousness”. Dig into the greek if you would like. Im your huckleberry.
First of all, you assume that Abraham’s act of faith is a work that he can take credit for. But Paul explicitly denies this possibility in 4.1-12. In fact, verses 13 and following appear to be built upon or comment upon the foundation of the first twelve verses (you can even tell this is so in the English, look at all the verses that start w/ the word “For”).
Actually romans 4:1-12 just dig your hole even deeper, because we see Paul insist several more times that Abrahams was counted righteous because of his faith. Let us look at the verses you insist must be read to understand verse 22….
These 12 verses do nothing but work against you. Why was Abraham counted as righteous? Because of the imputed and alien righteousness of Christ? Nope. because of his faith. At least according to the texts.
Second, you assume that Abraham does a work of faith and is then regenerated. This is a problematic interpretation for the same reasons that your first assumption is problematic. Just from the context of Romans 4 it is clear that faith is a gift of God, Romans 4.1-2 and following (note how later Paul contrasts wages earned from work w/ a gift and then goes on to show how Abraham didn’t obtain righteousness by works of the law, but by faith [that is, not by earning righteousness, but by being gifted w/ faith]).
1. You are assuming that when Paul condemns “works of the law” he is condemning any and all things that a creature could ever do. This does not follow from the text in romans 4.
2. You are assuming that faith being “a gift from god” means that it is impossible for our faith to be meritorious and credited as righteousness. This is an assumption that you will have to prove.
Furthermore, the larger context of scripture doesn’t support your position that faith is a work we can take credit for (if the plain meaning of Romans 4 wasn’t enough for you).
1. I just cant help but point out that it is actually YOU or are arguing against the plain meaning of Romans 4.
2. I can supply proof texts from numerous books of the bible (if the plain meaning of romans 4 isn’t enough for you) that teaches that our faith is in fact a work.
Finally, you argue against the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The first problem is that your argument is an argument from silence (not every passage has to mention imputation). The second problem is that the immediate context directly affirms the imputation of an alien righteousness.
My contention is not that “there arent enough” verses teaching imputed righteousness. My contention is that there are ZERO verses teaching imputed righteousness. Certainly none that explicitly say that Christs righteousness is imputed to believers.
Romans 4.5 refers to God as the one who justifies the ungodly.
Everytime I leave confession we see an example of this taking place.
Romans 4.11 explicitly refers to receiving a seal of righteousness that he didn’t yet have.
Yes, and he received that seal because of his faith….. as is explicitly taught in that passage.
The entire passage deals w/ God counting Abraham righteous when Abraham wasn’t righteous — how is this not an affirmation of imputation??
The entire passage speaks of God counted Abrahams faith as righteousness and not by fleshly works of the law. This does not imply imputation.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Kenneth, two things.
I am not concerned with what the implications might be for me if such and such verse teaches X. i am only interested if in fact it does teach X. We will worry about the implications for both of us after we have discovered what scripture is saying. Still waiting for you input….
LikeLike
Darryl,
I should probably start showing some brain and follow the lead of Jason Stellman the rest the callers who gave up commenting here, long, long ago.Too bad there isn’t a better place on the internet to talk where things are relaxed without being mean spirited…..Some Lockean tolerance ain’t a bad idea about now.
Zrim,
“Kenneth, in other words, your biblicist slip is showing. Fundamentalists and Callers Together.”
Honestly, this is far from true. The Catholic Church has been confessional all along. Want to explain how it is that when Catholics utilize scripture, we are fundamentalists yet when Reformed utilize it and yank it out of an earlier tradition, they are the real purveyor of biblical Christianity?
Talking about private judgement the authors of the lead article at CTC say,
“The principle of private judgment is the Protestant principle that the individual Christian is ultimately responsible for determining the correct interpretation of Scripture. It entails that a Christian has the right, if his conscience demands it, to interpret the meaning of Scripture in a way contrary to the tradition of the Catholic Church, which had heretofore served as the communal context in which Scripture’s meaning was to be understood. The principle of private judgment is captured vividly in Martin Luther’s famous words at the Diet of Worms:
“Unless I am convicted by scripture and by plain reason (I do not believe in the authority of either popes or councils by themselves, for it is plain that they have often erred and contradicted each other) in those scriptures that I have presented, for my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me, Amen.”124
But of course if Luther himself could judge the meaning of Scripture without reference to the authoritative pronouncements of the Catholic Church, there was no good reason in principle why others could not do the same.”
So Luther could use his own private judgement to interpret scripture because traditional interpretation was wrong,but when others ( Fundies)used private judgment they were reeled back to the tradition(private judgement) of Martin Luther.
“The net result of the hermeneutical trajectory set in motion by the principle of private judgment was the growing conviction that there simply was no privileged Tradition by which one’s own interpretation of Scripture must necessarily be formed or moderated.”
Yup, I went through the suspicion that no one knew “what” Christianity consisted of. I mean if others have erred on matters where error was detrimental to the faith, then how was I to know that Luther, so late in Christian tradition, had not also erred on essential doctrines? The way the thing called “tradition” is expressed in this article makes explicit that whatever it is, it absolutely must be privileged as the legitimate one up against other claimants, otherwise tradition will mean whatever man over time makes a longstanding doctrine or practice.
Call me daffy but I smell a rat.
LikeLike
Kenneth, oh, so the point is to play webbernet exegete and pretend you’re really just after “what the text is saying.” More biblicism. But the work has been done establishing the Protestant doctrine. Some adhere, others don’t. Some who are less biblicistic are honest about their theological grid and how they use it to read the Bible, others want to display how they haven’t shaken off all the biblicism in the direction of Rome. Yawn. Now your earnest youth is showing.
LikeLike
Want to explain how it is that when Catholics utilize scripture, we are fundamentalists yet when Reformed utilize it and yank it out of an earlier tradition, they are the real purveyor of biblical Christianity?
Susan, not Catholics, but Kenneth (and Stellman). If it helps, plenty of Reformed behave like biblicists also.
LikeLike
Kenneth, you are missing the point of the first twelve verses. For example
1) Paul states in the first two verses that Abraham didn’t contribute to his righteousness — thus he has nothing to boast about.
2) Paul works with two contrasting pairs A) wages that are earned by work v a gift and B) works of the law v faith. Therefore, (follow the logic) faith is not a work and we do not contribute to our own righteousness; rather, faith is a gift and thus righteousness is not earned by us (hence the language of “reckoning” or of imputation).
Thus, Paul is dealing w/ two different ways of standing before God, 1) by the righteousness that is earned through perfect and sinless obedience under the law; and 2) by the righteousness that is given to us from Christ by grace (ie, an unearned gift) through faith. There is nothing here that contradicts what the Reformed confess regarding salvation.
Kenneth, this is really not very difficult. You are trying to read too much into Paul when his intent and even his words are quite clear: Faith is not a work under the law and our righteousness is not our own!. There is no need for word studies or arguments from the Greek — the meaning in English is plain enough those willing to hear the truth.
LikeLike
I would like Kenneth to describe how his Catholic paradigm explains the cause of faith. Susan has already acknowledged that she denies the bondage of the will (I am assuming Kenneth does to). So, where does this quality faith come from? Is it something you have to work for?
To Zrim, I have read Scott Clark’s definition of biblicism and I want to know if it pertains to Reformed Baptists who disagree with confessional statements about water baptism and infusion in sanctification. Does that make one a biblicist and fundamentalist too? Or, do you give leeway with the label if you are proposing some changes in the confessional statements?
LikeLike
Maybe this faith, that the scriptures plainly teach is a gift, springs from the virtuous Catholic heart.
LikeLike
daffy susan, no where to talk on the internet about your concerns? I told you our church has the lines of communication open. What gives? No thanks for Darryl and the OPC?
LikeLike
But, Steve, Reformers were the first biblicists because scripture already belonged to a privileged Tradition, that has been reading and teaching scripture since the first century.
How do you prove someone is a fundamentalist? They could make up their own confessions ,you know, but that wouldn’t make them the tradition that is connected, by succession,to the apostles, nor the tradition that can rightly interpret scripture even if they interpret correctly 80% of the time, right?
The place of priviliged tradition would still be lacking which in effect makes tradition a empty concept if it can’t be place of doctrinal appeal, authority etc…
Priviliged tradition,aka the church has to be one in the same, otherwise everyone is a sect and a legitimate contender, which means no one is.
LikeLike
The OPC listens and responds to even those such as my wife and I. Hope springs eternal, as Cletus Van Damme told me..
LikeLike
Andrew,
Darryl calls me names and he ignores you, neither of us gets any respect.
LikeLike
How’s that hiatus treatin’ you, PB?
LikeLike
Lithium kicking in now, my hatted amigo. Like a mist I’m back
in controlwith cloaking device activated. You won’t see me. I’ll even refrain from correcting Susan again, watch me..LikeLike
John, I’m not sure simply revising confessional statements is a function of biblicism so much as it is Protestantism–whatever else “Reformed and always reforming” means it sure seems to suggest that confessional statements are binding and authoritative but never infallible and always vulnerable to scrutiny. But to demand an explicit proof-text in order to justify baptizing an infant of believers (as plenty of Baptists do) is biblicist.
LikeLike
Susan, wrong. The Anabaptists were the biblicists (and their descendants the eeeevangelicals). I know, you guys lump the Radical Reformation in with the Protestant Reformation, but some of us still think there were three essential schools in the west. Solo scriptura isn’t sola scriptura.
LikeLike
““Reformed and always reforming” means it sure seems to suggest that confessional statements are binding and authoritative but never infallible and always vulnerable to scrutiny.”
“Solo scriptura isn’t sola scriptura.”
Riiiight.
Just as church trials are binding and authoritative, except when they’re not – http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-leithart-verdict/
LikeLike
Susan, I’m pretty sure you’re discriminated against because you’re a woman. At least that’s why I do it.
“How do you write women so well?”
“I think of a man and I remove reason and accountability.”
It’s a joke, laugh. But, I just really mean it.
“Kenneth, you’re missing the point of the first TWELVE verses………..” That sounds about par. Biblicist, sophist, and “I just read Catholic Answers, again, and I need you to answer the question ‘this’ way, so that I can respond in ‘that’ manner. I’m not at the level where I’m allowed to audible.” All fit as well.
LikeLike
Cletus, if you would, help a protestant out, yo.
LikeLike
What is sadly hilarious is that the same people who are demanding what they think is a literal reading of faith and righteousness in Romans 4 will also take references in Ezekiel about temple gates being shut as proof of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
You can’t make this stuff up.
LikeLike
What I say every time I see Robert post a comment.
LikeLike
CvD, but with no prior claims of infallibility the imperfections of Reformed ecclesiology and discipline are par for the course. With such prior claims your imperfections are like the self-proclaimed genius who keeps flunking school.
LikeLike
Sean, I might be the only person on the face of the earth that knows you’re the greatest woman on earth. And the fact that I get it makes me feel good, about me.
LikeLike
Someone said my favorite I-word.
LikeLike
sean, ditto what zrim said.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Glad to see you back, and not just for the Napolean Dynamite reference.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“CvD, but with no prior claims of infallibility the imperfections of Reformed ecclesiology and discipline are par for the course.”
Right so solo scriptura.
Robert,
Your side is the one claiming ghm exegesis alone; it’s just holding you all to your own principles and standards (again).
LikeLike
No, James, no solo at OL:
What does your wife think of you goofing off on the internet, wasting all your precious time you could be spending together?
LikeLike
Susan,
If you leave, all the plants are gonna die.
Bear with us, we are the little acorns that become the oak.
Plus, who else is gonna play you Tito Puente albums all night long?
LikeLike
Erik, I missed Susan’s taste in music comments, thnx for that. Since apparently Darryl doesn’t respect me, Susan, or Rodney, us lonely bulls always need a good tune to help drown our sorrows.
LikeLike
lame fox, your side (James Schall) claims the possibility of heretical popes:
Doesn’t that put a dent in papal infallibility? How can an office be both infallible and its bearer a heretic? Who determines when the pope is a heretic? Someone higher than the pope? Doesn’t the possibility of heresy always imply you will have protesters with you?
LikeLike
CvD, conflating biblicism with sola scriptura is just another way of showing ignorance of the fact that the Reformation involved three distinct schools (Radical, Reformed, and Roman) and perpetuating the modern myth that there is Catholicism and everyone else is Protestant. But if you really think confessionally Protestant churches (Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican) are no different from Bible churches you need to get out more.
LikeLike
Andrew – It’s still 2014…
LikeLike
i’ve been waiting for you to show up. thx, amigo for the reminder, whoever the h**l you are (emoticon)
LikeLike
Eric,
I’m too young to appreciate Tito, too old to get the Napoleon Dynamite references, too sensitive not to be appreciated around here( as you all have surmised). And I’m hurt that after all this time you don’t know me.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Doesn’t that put a dent in papal infallibility?”
How hypotheticals and thought experiments put a dent in PI escapes me.
“How can an office be both infallible and its bearer a heretic?”
Easily – if he doesn’t teach his heresy or error infallibly.
In all my points examining your principles/standards I have had no need to resort to hypotheticals. This is just another flavor of “RCism is totally going to implode with Francis” nate silver predictions mentality here that so far have been a bust.
Zrim,
I understand you think biblicist and sola churches have a difference and superficially they obviously do. But if confessions and church councils are authoritative only insofar as they conform to (your interpretation of) Scripture and can err and are always reforming, it reduces to solo. You don’t subscribe to Augsburg Confession or affirm the Leithart verdict because they don’t conform to your interpretation of Scripture. WCF and its “authority” just encapsulates what you (currently) believe conforms to Scripture; if it ever stops doing that you’ll have no problem subscribing to some other confession or church (just as you have no problem rejecting Augsburg or Leithart verdict) – and importantly, you’d be fully consistent with the principles enshrined in WCF in doing so. So “confessionalism” is just a smokescreen hiding the underlying biblicism.
LikeLike
lame fox, but if the pope can say something heretical, that means he can also think heretically. So what if his judgment of a matter before the church is clouded by heresy? Why do you go so logocentric, as if it’s only about teaching? What about appointing heretics?
Your view of PI is simply magic. It always works and it always works infallibly. Nothing can ever happen to make it untrue. Not even someone holding the office who might need to be vacated from the office.
Do you believe in Santa too?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Nothing can ever happen to make it untrue.”
Sure it can. If Francis teaches infallibly tomorrow that the Resurrection never happened, there goes PI. Even Cross has given a condition in the context of the synod talks on marriage that would falsify it. No magic.
Of course there’s a difference between thought experiments and hypotheticals versus reality. Just as nothing in science or history/archaeology can make Scripture’s inerrancy untrue in your view, unless say Jesus’ bones were found or some indisputable scroll by the Apostles says it was all a fabrication or something. Is the denial of that hypothetical actually occurring any more “magic” than the hypothetical that Francis won’t implode RCism by teaching heresy infallibly?
LikeLike
lame fox, that’s the threshold? Deny the resurrection? You have never heard of liberalism have you? You take everyone at their word. No one ever says one thing and means another.
And when was the last time a bishop spent as much time defending the resurrection as natural family planning? Don’t you ever think there’s a subtext, like the resurrection isn’t that important?
Why don’t you take me at my word? I love you.
LikeLike
CvD, neither does Stellman adhere to anything Protestant–because it doesn’t align with his read of Scripture. But the biblicism doesn’t apply because he concludes Roman, right? As I say, plenty of those who conclude Reformed behave biblicist. But if upon desiring membership some of us have baptized our children before completely shedding the credo-baptist read of holy writ (because understanding isn’t always prior to obedience), the charge of biblicism rings off key.
LikeLike
Susan,
I’m hurt that you spelled my name wrong. Get it right on my birthday card for Friday.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Your side is the one claiming ghm exegesis alone; it’s just holding you all to your own principles and standards (again).
If you think that Kenneth is holding us to GHM exegesis, you don’t know GHM exegesis.
And I don’t know anyone that says only GHM exegesis. GHM exegesis provides a control on the interpretation so that we don’t have nonsense such as locked gates being a sign of perpetual virginity; Mary asking Jesus to turn water to wine as a sign that if we’re nice to Mary, Jesus will do anything we want; etc. etc.
But when your rule of faith is the Magisterium alone, then tradition and the Bible can mean whatever the Magisterium wants them to mean.
LikeLike
Erik, oops! Haha. Sorry! I should have remembered. It’s spelled the French way, like in Erik Satie.
LikeLike
Susan,
But then there’s Eric Rohmer:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006445/
LikeLike
If you do Netflix and have the 2 DVD plan (not many here will, I realize), I have the perfect weekend double feature for you. The subject: Men as tools.
(1) “Claire’s Knee”
(2) “Sideways”
It doesn’t get much better than that.
LikeLike
Susan,
I know you married at 17. What age did you start having kids?
How many years have you worked outside the home?
There’s a point to this, and it’s not to put you down, I promise.
LikeLike
Susan,
One more:
What was your dad like when you were young and how was your relationship with him?
LikeLike
Darryl,
The threshold is negating infallible doctrines. Here’s another test – if Francis teaches infallibly the book of Mormon is inspired or that the Eucharist is just bread or Mary is a goddess, that would also falsify PI. There are endless examples.
“And when was the last time a bishop spent as much time defending the resurrection as natural family planning? Don’t you ever think there’s a subtext, like the resurrection isn’t that important?”
When was the last time you spent as much time defending the resurrection as defending 2k or criticizing neo-Cals and evangelicals or writing about liberals in RCism? Don’t you ever think there’s a subtext, like the resurrection isn’t that important?
It’s a silly false dichotomy – the resurrection is affirmed at every mass.
Robert,
“GHM exegesis provides a control on the interpretation so that we don’t have nonsense such as locked gates being a sign of perpetual virginity;”
Or nonsense like the Apostles use of allegorical interpretation of OT passages/events to prove their points. Once again, a Jew would have no problem using your arguments.
LikeLike
lame fox, is the resurrection affirmed when popes pray with Muslims? If the resurrection is infallible, do you do half of what bishops do?
So let me see if I have this right. You have an understanding of infallible doctrine apart from infallible popes/magisterium. That’s why you can spot whether the pope goes heretical.
But wait, the only way you know these doctrines are infallible — silly you — is because you have an infallible pope who is in turn capable of heresy.
That’s not exactly a recipe for certainty or for refuting Protestants who apparently confess infallible doctrine (we profess the resurrection at least twice every Sunday and we never play Bingo) without an infallible magisterium.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“is the resurrection affirmed when popes pray with Muslims? ”
Is it affirmed when military chaplains supported by OPC do it?
“You have an understanding of infallible doctrine apart from infallible popes/magisterium. That’s why you can spot whether the pope goes heretical.”
Nope that’s what the crazy sedes do.
“That’s not exactly a recipe for certainty or for refuting Protestants who apparently confess infallible doctrine (we profess the resurrection at least twice every Sunday and we never play Bingo) without an infallible magisterium.”
One can affirm that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. The former remains as perpetual matter of opinion.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Is it affirmed when military chaplains supported by OPC do it?
How many OPC military chaplains are praying with Muslims and telling them that they are going to heaven even though they hate the deity of Christ? Hint: Zero. How many RC priests? Hint: almost all of them.
Or nonsense like the Apostles use of allegorical interpretation of OT passages/events to prove their points. Once again, a Jew would have no problem using your arguments.
Sorry Charlie, the Apostles don’t use allegory, at least allegory in any traditional sense. The one place where Paul talks about something as an allegory, the interpretation he gives is still grounded in the original meaning of the text.. Children of Jerusalem above—heaven—come through Isaac, the one whom Abraham did nothing to receive except trust God. Children of Jerusalem below through Ishmael, born because Abraham took matters into his own hand; i.e. relied on his works. Fits the original text perfectly.
Locked gates of a temple equaling perpetual virginity have nothing to do with the original text.
Traditional Roman exegesis is, quite frankly, embarrassing. That’s why none of your Vat Approved Scripture scholars practice it. Well, I guess there’s Scott Hahn, largely irrelevant outside of former Protestants trying to find Rome in the Bible.
LikeLike
lame fox, so you do depend on a pope to know what is infallible. How would you ever know if he is a heretic? He has to tell you.
for sure.
Your priests minister right alongside the Wiccans. At least our pastors don’t claim to be infallible. You do really bring this on yourself, though wouldn’t it be nice for you if your pope was as intent on defending his prerogatives as you are.
The thanks you get.
LikeLike
KW: THAT IS WHY (key words) his faith was counted as righteousness.
So your position is that God looked at Abraham’s faith and accepted his faith was meritorious, so that Abraham was reckoned as righteous on the ground of the merit of his faith?
Trying to be clear here.
LikeLike
zrim,
Kenneth, oh, so the point is to play webbernet exegete and pretend you’re really just after “what the text is saying.” More biblicism. But the work has been done establishing the Protestant doctrine.
So, what does that work have to say about the verses in question. Just an explanation from ANYBODY would be welcome.
Some adhere, others don’t. Some who are less biblicistic are honest about their theological grid and how they use it to read the Bible, others want to display how they haven’t shaken off all the biblicism in the direction of Rome. Yawn. Now your earnest youth is showing.
I am asking for an honest exegesis of the text in question. How is that “biblicism”? You are stupid.
LikeLike
Jeff,
So your position is that God looked at Abraham’s faith and accepted his faith was meritorious, so that Abraham was reckoned as righteous on the ground of the merit of his faith?
Trying to be clear here.
Bingo. If you have some other way to interpret the verses in question please explain (without jumping to other texts)
LikeLike
Mad Hunger,
1) Paul states in the first two verses that Abraham didn’t contribute to his righteousness — thus he has nothing to boast about.
Does he say that?
What then shall we say was gained by[a] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Only if you interpret “works” in some kind of ridiculous, wooden sense. Ive always marveled at how protestants can have all these distinctions on the word “faith” (dead faith, saving faith, etc) but “works’ can only have one possible (universal) meaning. I take Pauls condemnation of “works” to be things that we do outside of the economy of grace. No one can EARN their way to heaven through fleshly deeds. however, that doesn’t mean that we can not truly merit eternal life and be reckoned righteous by cooperating with the Holy Spirit and performing Spirit wrought works of charity. After all, didnt Paul just say in Romans 2 that:
He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking[a] and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury……. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
2) Paul works with two contrasting pairs A) wages that are earned by work v a gift and B) works of the law v faith. Therefore, (follow the logic) faith is not a work and we do not contribute to our own righteousness; rather, faith is a gift and thus righteousness is not earned by us (hence the language of “reckoning” or of imputation).
We can not earn heaven as though through a wage. That view was condemned by the Church as early as the Council of Orange:
Canon 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.
Canon 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?
Canon 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.
Also, the language of “reckoning” (logizomai) is not the language of “imputation”. The New Testament uses logizomai around 40 times. Most of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing (cf., Luke 22:37; Rom 3:28; 6:11; 9:8; 1 Cor 4:1; 13:5, 11; Phil 3:13; 4:8; Heb 11:19, et al).
Thus, Paul is dealing w/ two different ways of standing before God, 1) by the righteousness that is earned through perfect and sinless obedience under the law; and 2) by the righteousness that is given to us from Christ by grace (ie, an unearned gift) through faith. There is nothing here that contradicts what the Reformed confess regarding salvation.
I actually dont disagree with this much…. As i have already explained, RCs do not believe that we can EARN heaven…. however, that does not mean that we can not merit heaven and be reckoned as righteous through our cooperation with Gods grace.
LikeLike
John Weasel,
I would like Kenneth to describe how his Catholic paradigm explains the cause of faith. Susan has already acknowledged that she denies the bondage of the will (I am assuming Kenneth does to). So, where does this quality faith come from? Is it something you have to work for?
See my previous post that refers to the council of orange. You should also read trent if you havent yet had the chance
LikeLike
The most relevant session of Trent is found here
http://www.coffeehouseinquisition.com/justified-trent/
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God……..
And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
LikeLike
Jeff – So your position is that God looked at Abraham’s faith and accepted his faith was meritorious, so that Abraham was reckoned as righteous on the ground of the merit of his faith?
Kenneth – Bingo. If you have some other way to interpret the verses in question please explain (without jumping to other texts)
Erik – Congratulations to Kenneth to lowering Catholicism to the level of the shadiest Protestant faith-healer.
Do you think through these campaigns for more than 15 seconds before you start them?
LikeLike
Why should we view Trent as anything more than a church that hadn’t actually thought much about its doctrine of justification doubling down on a plan to maintain its hold on people once the jig was up?
LikeLike
Erik,
Why should we view Trent as anything more than a church that hadn’t actually thought much about its doctrine of justification doubling down on a plan to maintain its hold on people once the jig was up?
Bingo
LikeLike
@Ken:
For starters, Zrim is far from stupid.
But back to the text. We must first consider the spectrum of possibilities. When Paul says
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness
τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ, πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην
there are (at least) two possibilities here.
(1) The historic Catholic option is to understand “faith was reckoned” as literally teaching that faith was a righteous act that merited (congruently) justification.
(2) The historic Protestant option is to understand “faith was reckoned to him” as a metonymy for “he was reckoned as righteous through faith.”
In the first option, faith is the content or matter of what was reckoned. In the second, faith is the instrument through which the matter (the merit of Christ) was reckoned.
I think the second is clearly what Paul intends. It doesn’t make sense to turn this thread into a detailed blow-by-blow, but here is the argument in brief.
Arguments against (1)
* As was observed above, if faith were meritorious, then the ad absurdum of verse 4 would apply. Paul clearly contrasts being justified by faith with being justified according to merit.
* Being “justified by faith” in the sense of (1) results in an endless loop. How did Abraham believe? Because God first made him able to believe, thus making him capable of a righteous act. Thus, justification (making righteous, in the Catholic sense) precedes all merit. But how did God justify? Paul clearly says, by faith. So faith precedes justification, which of course precedes faith, the meritorious act.
Catholics, not being stupid, see the problem. So they carve out an exception and say that God first works faith in the hearts of people, but that people must then cooperate with God’s work in order to merit. This then leads to a huge quandary concerning freedom of the will, which Luther effectively showed is a fiction.
* In verse 6, Paul gives further evidence to support his point. Yet this further evidence (of David) contains no mention of faith as a meritorious work. Rather, we see God as not reckoning David’s sin to him. In other words, the point of 6 is to defend the notion of “justifying the unrighteous.”
* If we wish to pound the table and insist that *faith* was credited as righteousness, and that *before* circumcision, then the true Catholic position falls to the ground.
For the Catholics teach that faith brings a person to the Catholic church, where their sins are actually washed away in baptism. And yet here, Paul insists that Abraham received the righteousness of faith *prior* (15 years prior) to circumcision.
So for these reasons, we can safely reject (1). I’ll get to arguments for (2) when I have time.
LikeLike
Erik said:
Congratulations to Kenneth to lowering Catholicism to the level of the shadiest Protestant faith-healer.
Which of course explains Luther’s insight. How can you ever be sure your faith is good enough when your faith is in your faith to save you. You can’t. Hence assurance being the greatest of all Protestant heresies (Bellarmine).
Now it makes perfect sense why the pope said a Trinitarian and Christological heretic such as Kenneth Copeland is on his way to heaven. The object of faith doesn’t matter. All that matters is that you have faith.
Reminds me of politicians who talk vaguely about faith and family. Francis must have studied at their feet.
LikeLike
Kenneth, “stupid”? There’s that youth thing again. But the Biblicism is in how you’re taking verses piecemeal and coming up with a conclusion that doesn’t fit a plain reading of the whole of Scripture. And the upshot?
As i have already explained, RCs do not believe that we can EARN heaven…. however, that does not mean that we can not merit heaven and be reckoned as righteous through our cooperation with Gods grace.
What? Sinners can’t earn heaven (whole of Scripture) but they can merit heaven (wrenched reading of some verses). Your right eye doesn’t know what the left is doing.
LikeLike
Kenneth Losermann,
I am, for the most part, in agreement with DGH, Jeff, Zrim, Eric and the regulars at oldlife in regards to rejecting free-will and viewing faith as non-meritorious, albeit something that the elect receives as a gift and then continues its seal or attachment to its object- the perfect work of Christ and his imputed atonement. The atonement and the imputation of that atonement is the priority. That is where I differ from the regulars at oldlife. Call me Weasel all you want- you struck a chord though. I hated when others called me that while growing up in the public school systems of the suburbs of Chicago. I do have Weasel tendencies too. All covered under the imputed righteousness of Christ. However, I may be exercising presumption instead of that quality faith. For the most part though, my assurance is getting stronger due to the standard of teaching to which I have submitted (see Romans 6: 10-15).
LikeLike
Kenneth, I know you think I stalk, and whatever. That’s fine. The fact is, we all have the internet and wonder what people like <a href="http://heavyforthevintage.com/2014/10/23/give-peace-chance-something/" title=""Jason and those who comment at his blog, etc, think:
You are calling people names and I think you should take stock of that. Now, I when to cut out, so, sorry, because I know I’m past my limit and meant stop a while ago. The folks here watch out for me. That’s all I’m trying to do by hitting post now. Take care friend.
LikeLike
Mulligan link.
LikeLike
Kenneth, you assume that “works” includes cooperation with grace. If Abraham cooperated with grace then he would have something to boast about — his cooperation.
You argue that no one earns justification — but then you turn around and say that although we don’t earn it, we do contribute to it — though cooperation.
But such a position fails to see the contrast that Paul makes, the contrast between earning wages and a free gift. For Paul, it is all or nothing, either one must perfectly obey under the law (thereby truly earning righteousness) or one receives faith and righteousness as a gift (to which one contributes nothing).
The contrast is clear — wages v gift, earned v unearned. But on what basis does Paul exclude human cooperation? Why, it is on the basis of the previous two chapters — all of us are dead in sin. Thus, those who are sinners cannot earn righteousness because of our sinfulness, so therefore we must receive it all as a gift. We cannot cooperate with grace because we are dead in our unrighteousness.
In Romans 4 Paul only recognizes two extremes, one of righteousness wholly earned and one of righteousness wholly given. The RC semi-Pelagian position of “grace and cooperation with grace” is nowhere present in Romans 4.
The RC scheme plays fast and loose with the text by saying on the one had that righteousness is not “earned” but saying on the other hand that we still have to do something so that we can be credited righteous. The exegetical gymnastics have resulted in a position between the two types of righteousness that Paul presents in Romans 4 — a kind of righteousness foreign to the apostle Paul and opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Let ‘er rip on this one! Kenneth needs his ears boxed.
LikeLike
Erik,
Why should we view Trent as anything more than a church that hadn’t actually thought much about its doctrine of justification doubling down on a plan to maintain its hold on people once the jig was up?
A few reasons.
1. Trent is brilliant and offers a coherent and well thought out explanation of Salvation and Church teaching
2. Trent accurately captures a more historical understanding of salvation.
3. Trent offers a more biblically coherent understanding of salvation
4. Apostolic succession
5. Petrine primacy
Cheers
LikeLike
John and Zrim,
I am sorry for calling you both names. Blame it on the youth. Blame it on the Captain Morgan. Maybe some combination of the two. You are both still wrong though and I am right about everything. 😉 (blame that on the youth too)
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thank you for taking the time to type out that response. That is exactly what I had been looking for. Im bogged down with school work but hopefully I will have time to respond soon. God bless.
LikeLike
AB,
LikeLike
I told you that I am done, mr ken. Please don’t tempt me, frodo.
LikeLike
Kenneth:
Trent is brilliant and offers a coherent and well thought out explanation of Salvation and Church teaching
Except, of course, where this “infallible” council anathematizes Protestants for believing things no Reformer taught:
CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.
CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.
2. Trent accurately captures a more historical understanding of salvation.
Except, of course, where it disagrees with Chrysostom, the epistle to Diogenetus, 1 Clement, and most importantly, the Apostles
4. Apostolic succession
Except, of course, where Apostolic succession crashed and burned in the Avignon papacy.
3. Trent offers a more biblically coherent understanding of salvation
Except, of course, where it says that our non-merit is merit and that grace only gets you part of the way to heaven and your cooperation does the rest.
Doubling down on Trent as an expression of biblical and historical Christianity is about as compelling as advocating the Book of Mormon and the sermons of Joseph Smith as faithful to the tradition.
LikeLike
but through me…
LikeLike
Ken, you are a punk and/or a clown, but you have one thing going for you that Bryan Cross can only dream of (in binary code) — you are a human. I salute you for that and for your good humor. And since you’re a clown that humor thing is kinda important.
LikeLike
KW: Im bogged down with school work
Teaching or taking?
LikeLike
Jeff, you may not use Greek. Don’t you know the Bible came in Latin?
LikeLike
loser ken, and only converts like you care about Trent any more. When was the last time Francis mentioned Trent? And to think he wouldn’t be a Jesuit without Trent’s “reforms”. The thanks Trent gets.
LikeLike
MH,
“The RC semi-Pelagian position of “grace and cooperation with grace” is nowhere present in Romans 4.”
Of course semi-Pelagianism had nothing to do with cooperation or efficacy of grace – that’s why Orange – which Schaff and others agree condemend SPism – wasn’t SP which it would be according to your criticism. That’s why Warfield had to resort to calling RCism semi-semi-Pelagianism.
Robert,
“Except, of course, where this “infallible” council anathematizes Protestants for believing things no Reformer taught:”
Except it does evidently anathemize accurate Protestant doctrine, otherwise you wouldn’t reject it. Trent was countering many errors, not just “no True Scotsman confessional Protestants”.
“Except, of course, where it disagrees with Chrysostom, the epistle to Diogenetus, 1 Clement, and most importantly, the Apostles”
Chrysostom was a synergist (you know, that evil boastful grace-empowered cooperation).
Clement: “The fundamental idea at the back of the words dikaiosunē, dikaioumai seems to be the moral qualification which avails before God conceived as a quality of the soul. That is achieved by faith which is fear of God working itself out in obedience. And so Clement can say that we are “justified by works, not by words” ergois dikaioumenoi, mē logois, and insists that we are not justified by pistis alone but by pistis and eusebeia, by pistis and philozenia, by pistis and alētheia. (Thomas F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace In the Apostolic Fathers)
“It is obvious that in asserting justification by faith Clement was simply reproducing Paul’s idea without appreciating what it involved, and that he really agreed with the other Christians of his day that salvation is to be had only by obeying God and his will. That the early Christians should have departed from Paul in this matter is not surprising at all. (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought)”
Of course he didn’t actually depart from Paul but that shows Protestant scholars recognize he was not anticipating extra nos forensic justification.
Diognetus:
“By righteousness of the Son man’s sins are ‘covered’ (see note on ix. 3). “In that righteousness we are justified. The Pauline term is used, but the meaning has become much less forensic. The thought is not that of an externally imputed righteousness, but of a real change in the sinful heart of man, and the writer seems to feel that the righteousness of Christ actually becomes ours” (Henry Meecham, The Epistle To Diognetus – The Greek Text With Introduction, Translation, and Notes)
It’s interesting that Protestants always try to appeal to Clement and Diognetus rather than the later fathers who wrote far more extensively on the matters related to justification and grace. Odd that the Apostles taught it but the great lights and councils of the west and east failed to see the clear teaching for 1000+ years.
“Except, of course, where it says that our non-merit is merit and that grace only gets you part of the way to heaven and your cooperation does the rest.”
We can only merit when in a state of grace. Initial justification/translation to a state of grace is wholly unmerited as Trent states – that’s why deathbeds and infants can be saved. Following that translation/adoption, we can then merit..
LikeLike
DGHART,
He mentioned Trent just last year actually….
it behooves the Church to recall with more prompt and attentive eagerness the most fruitful doctrine which came out of that Council convened in the Tyrolese region. Certainly not without cause, the Church has for a long time already accorded so much care to the Decrees and Canons of that Council that are to be recalled and observed, since, indeed the most grave affairs and questions having appeared at that time, the Council Fathers summoned all diligence that the Catholic Faith appear more clearly and be better understood. No doubt, with the Holy Ghost inspiring and suggesting, it especially concerned the Fathers not only to guard the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine, but also to more clearly enlighten mankind, so that the saving work of the Lord may be poured out onto the whole world and the Gospel be spread through the entire world.
Graciously hearing the very same Holy Ghost, the Holy Church of our age, even now, continues to restore and meditate upon the most abundant doctrine of Trent.
LikeLike
Loser Ken, then why is he friendly with Loser Ken Copeland? Don’t you have to act on what you believe? Can you say that contraception is wicked and then use it?
LikeLike
CVD — that’s just playing the definition shell game. For RCs, SP = bad, therefore RC can’t be SP. I’m calling BS. Cooperation with grace is synergistic and thus semi-Pelagian (that is, it is between Pelagianism and orthodoxy).
LikeLike
MH,
No, that’s just using terms accurately. That’s why scholars on your side such as Schaff and Warfield recognize it. Pelagianism was fought and condemned, then a variation of it later surfaced that caused Augustine to come out again in his later years along with his protege Prosper to combat it: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm
For a thing to be “semi” anything, it has to share the principles of that something. The principles of Pelagianism was not the presence of cooperation with grace, nor the efficacy of grace. Both P and SP share in denying the necessity of grace to differing extents. RCism does not deny the necessity of grace to any extent.
So your “thus” in “Cooperation with grace is synergistic and thus semi-Pelagian” doesn’t follow. Orange was SP by your lights then when condemning SP, which is nonsensical.
LikeLike
DGHART,
Loser Ken, then why is he friendly with Loser Ken Copeland? Don’t you have to act on what you believe? Can you say that contraception is wicked and then use it?
Because the Church today has decided that it may be beneficial to be “ecumenical”. As an interesting side note, my father is a “Word of Faith” pastor. (not a huckster, but earnestly deceived a la John Samson in the 90s) He was at the Copeland Conference when Pope Francis sent that first video. I am told the connection between the two men was the late “bishop tony palmer” who was a friend of the popes from Argentina. My old man tells me that when Copeland played the video a sizable minority got up and walked out in consternation. They were later chastised by Copeland, who assured everyone that the Pope was not the “antichrist” in the book of revelation. Pope Francis prayed over the meeting and called for everyone to stop arguing and come together in unity. Kenneth Copeland and a few thousand others sent a video back to Rome of a few thousand people praying in tongues for Rome. Hooray for ecumenism.
LikeLike
Ken, I’ve heard “earnestly deceived” can run in families.
LikeLike
Chortles,
Youre not lying. My entire family is still a mash of charismatic wof non denominational. I escaped via apologetics to a local lutheran parish before getting bashed over the head with a 2×4 of Catholic truth. Thank God for Thomas Aquinas.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Would you prefer Francis to act like Westboro towards Copeland’s camp? I’m sure that would be very effective. Dominus Iesus was issued back in 2000. Whining ensues. Francis engages Copeland. Whining ensues.
LikeLike
Kenneth, continuationists coming together? Three cheers for ecumensim indeed. Woot.
LikeLike
CVD, The council of Orange didn’t resolve the debate in favor of Augustinianism, but rather a position between Pelagius and Augustine. You can dispute that it shouldn’t be called SP (but I’ll keep calling it that), but the council’s result certainly wasn’t Augustinian. The Council of Orange effective enshrined a compromise position.
If you don’t believe me, check out this excerpt from the Conclusion below. I would maintain, along with the Reformers, that this cooperative and synergistic expression of justification is not biblical and is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ — no matter what term you wish to call it by.
From the Conclusion:
“According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.”
Doesn’t exactly square with Romans 4, let alone the rest of Scripture.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Except it does evidently anathemize accurate Protestant doctrine, otherwise you wouldn’t reject it. Trent was countering many errors, not just “no True Scotsman confessional Protestants”.
Keep on believing that if you would like. O’Malley—one of your own—says Trent certainly thought it was anathematizing Protestantism and its doctrine of justification.
Of course he didn’t actually depart from Paul but that shows Protestant scholars recognize he was not anticipating extra nos forensic justification.
Except, of course, for those Protestant scholars who don’t, such as Needham.
It’s interesting that Protestants always try to appeal to Clement and Diognetus rather than the later fathers who wrote far more extensively on the matters related to justification and grace. Odd that the Apostles taught it but the great lights and councils of the west and east failed to see the clear teaching for 1000+ years.
Yea, and its amazing nobody saw the infallibility of the papacy for 1900 years, so it must be wrong.
Oh, and give me a council before Trent that actually deals with justification. The very fact that you had RCs at Trent who didn’t believe Luther was going against the tradition is proof enough that things just weren’t settled. Quit reading Augustine et al as if they were Tridentine RCs. They weren’t. I freely admit nobody before the Reformation was Protestant. I also freely admit there are certain anticipations of Tridentine RCism before Trent. And yet for some reason no RC apologist can admit the same for Protestantism (your RC scholars are different, of course). Admitting such would destroy your paradigm, so I understand. Just be honest about your presuppositions: There is absolutely nothing in any possible world that would convince you that Roman Catholicism has gotten things fundamentally wrong.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Francis’ fraternizing with Copeland proves that heresy has no meaning for Rome anymore. If Copeland is in, we who are much closer than you are in. Invincible ignorance covers a multitude of sins.
LikeLike
MH,
“You can dispute that it shouldn’t be called SP (but I’ll keep calling it that)”
I’m glad you favor polemics over historical accuracy. It’s not just me who disputes it.
“that this cooperative and synergistic expression of justification is not biblical and is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ”
You seem to think synergist systems do not have a place for the distinction between operative and cooperative grace. You also seem to think RCism must reduce to only Arminian or Molinist views of grace rather than allowing for Thomist views.
You assert the following “certainly wasn’t Augustine”:
“According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.”
Augustine – On Grace and Free Will written near end of his life reflecting his mature thought – “Who was it that had begun to give him his love, however small, but He who prepares the will and perfects by his co-operation (cooperative grace – synergism) what He initiates by his operation (operative grace)? For in beginning He works in us that we may have the will (operative), and in perfecting works with us (cooperative) when we have the will…He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we will.”
I fail to see how Orange contradicts that. And Trent simply expounds upon Orange’s foundation.
Calvin got it as well: “Even the sentiment of Augustine, or at least his mode of expressing it, cannot be entirely approved of. For although he is admirable in stripping man of all merit of righteousness, and transferring the whole praise of it to God, yet he classes the grace by which we are regenerated to newness of life under the head of sanctification [so, synergism]. Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ.”
LikeLike
Cletus,
You also seem to think RCism must reduce to only Arminian or Molinist views of grace rather than allowing for Thomist views.
The fact that all three are possible for good RCs shows that Rome is all over the map on grace.
LikeLike
Robert,
All over the map would entail Pelagianism and SP are permitted options. They aren’t. So the boundaries of the map are already limited.
Is Calvinism all over the map on grace because there are disagreements on whether progressive sanctification is best described as synergistic, monergistic, or some hybrid?
LikeLike
Cletus, Ken, MH, Jeff,
I have a question. I’ve been told that every heresy is a Christological error. So if Jesus has a Divine nature and a human nature, then is it right to say that Christ’s human nature had a freewill? And if we are according to His likeness, not only by having bodies, but also in having human souls,shouldn’t our souls also have a freewill?
Please correct me, if I am wrong!
LikeLike
Cletus,
All over the map would entail Pelagianism and SP are permitted options. They aren’t. So the boundaries of the map are already limited.
Since Francis is hobnobbing with Muslims and Word of Faithers, apparently they are permitted as long as your union to the church is only imperfect.
Is Calvinism all over the map on grace because there are disagreements on whether progressive sanctification is best described as synergistic, monergistic, or some hybrid?
Even those who say progressive sanctification is synergistic in some way affirm that monergism guarantees it. Meanwhile, RCs are allowed to disagree as to whether Rome’s “gracious” predestination is based on foreseen faith and merits or not.
LikeLike
CVD, the historians I have read have characterized Orange as a blow against Pelagianism, but also as not doing much to arrest the fusion of Pelagianism w/ Augustinianism (eg co-operation w/ grace). I guess I find them more trustworthy over against a RC apologist.
LikeLike
Susan,
So if Jesus has a Divine nature and a human nature, then is it right to say that Christ’s human nature had a freewill? And if we are according to His likeness, not only by having bodies, but also in having human
In a compatibilist sense, yes. But since Christ could not sin, He did not have the ability to choose otherwise than good, which is usually what freewill advocates are trying to preserve for other human beings.
LikeLike
Susan,
From an EO convert from Calvinism – http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/01/23/why-i-stopped-being-a-calvinist-part-5-a-deformed-christology/
That Christ could not sin does not mean his acts were necessitated – one can have a limited sphere of choices (no sin, but rather a plurality of goods) – that does not mean one can only choose one way.
MH,
If “co-operation w/ grace” is the fusion of Pelagianism with Augustinianism, why does Augustine affirm cooperation with grace?
LikeLike
@ Susan: So if Jesus has a Divine nature and a human nature, then is it right to say that Christ’s human nature had a freewill?
Not to be dodgy, but free from what? The problem is always with the specification of what exactly our wills are free from.
If they are free from outside coercion, then (compatibilist) Calvinists would say that people in general have a free will.
If the will is free to make any hypothetical choice whatsoever (libertarian free will), then you and I would agree that not even God has this kind of free will — inasmuch as He cannot sin, nor tempt others to do so (James 1).
So to answer this, we would first have to wade some philosophical waters.
LikeLike
Cletus,
That Christ could not sin does not mean his acts were necessitated – one can have a limited sphere of choices (no sin, but rather a plurality of goods) – that does not mean one can only choose one way.
That’s a dodge. You know that most people when they are talking about freewill are wanting to preserve the notion that human beings have the true ability to choose either good or evil. Jesus could only choose one way—good, even if there were many goods he could choose from.
IOW, He had compatibilist freedom. He could not choose contrary to His character. He could choose only from a number of goods, evil wasn’t included.
His character most certainly necessitated that whatever choice He made, it would be a choice for something that pleased God. Compatibilism.
LikeLike
Robert,
“That’s a dodge. You know that most people when they are talking about freewill are wanting to preserve the notion that human beings have the true ability to choose either good or evil. Jesus could only choose one way—good, even if there were many goods he could choose from.”
Libertarianism says you have a plurality of live options. Determinism says you only have one. So it’s hardly a dodge to say Christ had libertarian will if he could choose from a plurality of goods. Libertarians don’t posit man can choose to fly or choose to become a dog – limited sphere of options is irrelevant. The saints have libertarian will in heaven even though they can’t sin. God has libertarian will even though he can’t sin – otherwise you are left saying God’s acts of creation, redemption, etc were necessitated.
“IOW, He had compatibilist freedom.”
Compatibilism says human responsibility is compatible with determinism and your acts are not coerced against your will. Your acts are still determined/necessitated even if they are not coerced (the prior motives/intents/desires/character determining those acts are themselves determined).
If Christ’s human will was used by and subordinate to the divine will in a deterministic fashion, I fail to see how that does not lead to monothelitism or monoenergism – as Aquinas said “[Monothelites] saw the human will in Christ ordered entirely beneath the divine will so that Christ willed nothing with his human will except that which the divine will disposed him to will.”
“He could not choose contrary to His character. He could choose only from a number of goods, evil wasn’t included.”
Right. Which is perfectly compatible with libertarian will.
LikeLike
@ Ken W:
OK, the argument for (2).
First, we need to deal with a canard that has circulated concerning the word λογιζομαι. It is alleged by Catholic apologists that λογιζομαι means “to reckon”, and specifically “to reckon according to what is true.” (Bryan Cross and Nick the Blogger have both put this forward).
So, the Catholic argument goes, imputation is a legal fiction because it would have God reckon people to be righteous who are not, in ontological point of fact, actually righteous.
This linguistic claim is only half-true. It is very true that λογιζομαι means “to reckon.” But it is false that it means “to reckon according to what is true.”
In fact, λογιζομαι can mean (among other things) “reckoning X because of X” OR “reckoning X because of Y.”
In other words, we can reckon X because X is actually true, OR we can reckon X for some other reason Y.
Here are some instances of each.
“Reckon X because X”
1 Cor 4.1: This is how one should regard (λογιζέσθω) us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Paul is to be regarded as a servant of Christ because he is, in fact, a servant of Christ.
Job 31.27-28 (LXX): and if my heart was secretly deceived, and if I have laid my hand upon my mouth and kissed it: let this also then be reckoned (λογισθείη) to me as the greatest iniquity: for I [should] have lied against the Lord Most High.
Job is here asking that if he has committed sin, that it be reckoned (truly) to himself.
But also we have
“Reckon as X because of Y”
Prov 17.28 (LXX): “Wisdom shall be imputed (σοφία λογισθήσεται) to a fool who asks after wisdom: and he who holds his peace shall seem to be sensible. ”
Here, the fool is regarded as wise because he asks after wisdom. He is not in fact (yet!) wise, but is regarded so for a different, though related, cause.
Lev 25.31 (LXX): “But the houses in the villages which have not a wall round about them, shall be reckoned as the fields of the country (πρὸς τὸν ἀγρὸν τῆς γῆς λογισθήσονται): they shall always be redeemable, and they shall go out in the release.”
Here, certain houses in villages are reckoned as if they were fields of the country because they have no wall around them. They are thus classified, legally, as fields of the country and not as what they are in point of fact, which is houses in the village.
Three very important instances of this latter usage occur in Romans. The first is in Romans 2:
Rom 2.25-26: 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? (εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται)
Here, the one who is in point of fact uncircumcised, but who keeps the precepts of the law will be regarded by God as something that he is not: as circumcised.
An ambiguous usage occurs in Rom 9.8:
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring (λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα).
Here, those who are not sperma in point of fact are regarded as so because they are “children of promise” — that is, of faith.
This passage is ambiguous because there are two words going on here: τεκνα as in “children of God” and σπερμα as in “descendents.” Those who are children of promise are both; those who are of the flesh but not of faith are neither.
And this brings us now to Romans 4. Paul is clearly stating that God reckons people as righteous. On what ground? Because they are in point of fact righteous? No. That is the burden of chapter 3, that people are not in point of fact righteous. How are they then reckoned as righteous? It is because God does not impute their transgressions to them. (Rom 4.6 – 8).
David in point of fact sinned; God did not reckon that sin to him. He treated David as if innocent, because David believed the promise.
Is that faith then a meritorious act? No, for if it were, then righteousness would not be a gift, but something due (says Paul). Instead, the righteousness is imputed because of faith. And the specific nature of that cause is not here specified, but it *is* specified in 5.2: We obtain access (τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν ) to righteousness, the righteous act of Christ giving himself for us.
In other words, Paul is saying that it is the merit of Christ (not the merit of our faith) that is the ground of our righteousness, and we obtain access to it by faith.
Imputation.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Libertarianism says you have a plurality of live options. Determinism says you only have one. So it’s hardly a dodge to say Christ had libertarian will if he could choose from a plurality of goods. Libertarians don’t posit man can choose to fly or choose to become a dog – limited sphere of options is irrelevant. The saints have libertarian will in heaven even though they can’t sin. God has libertarian will even though he can’t sin – otherwise you are left saying God’s acts of creation, redemption, etc were necessitated.
Depends on how the terms are being used. What advocates of libertarian free will in sinners argue for is that the plurality of live options includes options that go against one’s character. In most discussions of free will between Calvinists and others, the non-Calvinist does not want a libertarianism that just means a plurality of live options. He wants a plurality of live options that includes both the option to obey God and the live option to disobey God. That is precisely the kind of freedom Christ did not have.
In any case, if you want to reduce libertarianism to a plurality of live options, then Calvinists affirm that.
Compatibilism says human responsibility is compatible with determinism and your acts are not coerced against your will. Your acts are still determined/necessitated even if they are not coerced (the prior motives/intents/desires/character determining those acts are themselves determined).
All depends on what you mean by determined/determinism. But I agree they are determined freely and contingently.
If Christ’s human will was used by and subordinate to the divine will in a deterministic fashion, I fail to see how that does not lead to monothelitism or monoenergism – as Aquinas said “[Monothelites] saw the human will in Christ ordered entirely beneath the divine will so that Christ willed nothing with his human will except that which the divine will disposed him to will.”
The problem, of course, is that once you have prophecy, you have Christ’s choices being predetermined in some sense. They’re determined freely and contingently.
LikeLike
Ken,
One of the key points here is,
Does God justify by reckoning, or does He first justify, and then reckon accordingly?
The Catholic position is the latter — that God reckons merit where it has been merited. First, He makes ontologically righteous (diakaiosune), then He reckons truly.
But the Protestant position is the former — that God justifies (declares righteous) in the act of reckoning.
And this is in fact what Paul says:
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
The justifying happens by the reckoning.
LikeLike
jeff,
there are (at least) two possibilities here.
(1) The historic Catholic option is to understand “faith was reckoned” as literally teaching that faith was a righteous act that merited (congruently) justification.
(2) The historic Protestant option is to understand “faith was reckoned to him” as a metonymy for “he was reckoned as righteous through faith.”
Could you please cite any protestants who make this argument? I can’t find any.
* As was observed above, if faith were meritorious, then the ad absurdum of verse 4 would apply. Paul clearly contrasts being justified by faith with being justified according to merit.
Nice slight of hand there! He does not contrast faith with “merit” but contrasts it with “work” and “works of law”. But what does he have in mind here?
1. Why should we insist that there is a distinction in the way that Paul uses “works”?
In short, because of what we read in Romans 2: God “will repay each person according to what they have done.7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good…. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
If some kind of distinction of the word “works” we have a contradiction between romans 2 and romans 3 and 4, not to mention James and numerous other passages of scripture. However, once we distinguish between “spirit wrough works of love and charity” with “fleshly works done outside of the economy of grace” we see that all of the apparent contradictions on the topic are harmonized. On the flip side, if this distinction is rejected, you would be left with the unwelcome task of coming up with new and different explanations for each and every one of the verses in scripture that indicate that our works do factor into our salvation. (including Romans 2)
2. What kind of works does Paul have in mind in verse 4?
Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.
Paul is condemning the idea that we can “earn” heaven, as if through a wage, by our own natural powers apart from Gods mercy and unearned grace. Obviously we all agree on this truth. However, Spirit wrought works and faith are not credited as righteousness out of obligation, but only in the sense of condign merit. The Council of Trent stressed: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008). So, again, with these distinctions in place, the surrounding context does not negate the plain meaning of the verses in question.
* Being “justified by faith” in the sense of (1) results in an endless loop. How did Abraham believe? Because God first made him able to believe, thus making him capable of a righteous act. Thus, justification (making righteous, in the Catholic sense) precedes all merit. But how did God justify? Paul clearly says, by faith. So faith precedes justification, which of course precedes faith, the meritorious act.
There is no problem here nor is there an endless loop.How did Abraham believe? By the Grace of God.Thus GRACE, precedes all merit. Abraham cooperates with said grace and has a faith that is counted as righteousness and justifies the sinner in Gods sight. (not out of obligation but as a gift)
* In verse 6, Paul gives further evidence to support his point. Yet this further evidence (of David) contains no mention of faith as a meritorious work. Rather, we see God as not reckoning David’s sin to him. In other words, the point of 6 is to defend the notion of “justifying the unrighteous.”
So then would you say that Paul is using David as an example of how one is justified? (as he did with Abraham) I need to know the answer to this question before I can respond.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
In short, because of what we read in Romans 2: God “will repay each person according to what they have done.7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good…. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
If some kind of distinction of the word “works” we have a contradiction between romans 2 and romans 3 and 4, not to mention James and numerous other passages of scripture. However, once we distinguish between “spirit wrough works of love and charity” with “fleshly works done outside of the economy of grace” we see that all of the apparent contradictions on the topic are harmonized. On the flip side, if this distinction is rejected, you would be left with the unwelcome task of coming up with new and different explanations for each and every one of the verses in scripture that indicate that our works do factor into our salvation. (including Romans 2)
You are not following Paul’s argument. Having set up that the doers of the law will be declared righteous in Rom. 2—in order to counter any claims that Jews by nature have an advantage simply because they possess the law—Paul goes on to summarize the problem in Romans 3 that nobody has done, nor can any sinner do, the law. Hence justification by faith.
The idea that there is a separate category of works by which we are justified does not hold up under any close scrutiny. Both Abraham and David had good works, and the only good works they could have had were works of the law. And yet Paul says their justification is entirely apart from those works. David is even explicitly said to have the Spirit, and yet there is no mention of the works wrought by that Spirit availing for justification.
The Roman position fails because it won’t follow Paul’s actual argument. It’s why you keep failing in your reading of Romans 4. The Roman position also won’t follow James’ actual argument. These notions of condign merit and congruent merit are entirely absent from the text. There is not one kind of merit that is works with grace and one kind that does not. It’s just not there.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I don’t have the time to cite the sources, but this is really basic Reformed theology and was taught as the classic Reformed interpretation of this passage in seminary
What exegetical warrant do you have for drawing these distinctions? Based on what you’ve said from Romans 2-4, could you try to explain how “ergon” functions in two senses?
I’ll post the relevant passages for quick reference,
2:12-13
3:19-20
3:27-28
4:2-3; 23-25
It’s also worthwhile to point out the how Paul characterizes faith since he juxtaposes faith and works in Chapter 3. In 4:20-21,
Finally, you have the issue that us Reformed Protestants normally cite as providing a prima facie rejection of your proposed distinction of works, namely, how can Paul’s opponents charge him with,
And why does Paul himself, at the conclusion of Chapter 3 counter,
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
And at the beginning of Chapter 6,
How does your insistence that Paul is arguing for justification by Spirit wrought works of love make sense of this objection that Paul’s opponents charged him with and that Paul felt compelled to address at particular points in Romans?
LikeLike
Robert,
“What advocates of libertarian free will in sinners argue for is that the plurality of live options includes options that go against one’s character.”
So Adam and the angels had LFW? Since they were created good and chose to sin?
If character determines choice, why do regenerate believers sin?
“He wants a plurality of live options that includes both the option to obey God and the live option to disobey God. That is precisely the kind of freedom Christ did not have.”
Yes, but that is still compatible with Christ having libertarian will.
“In any case, if you want to reduce libertarianism to a plurality of live options, then Calvinists affirm that.”
If it’s a plurality of live options without the choice being determined/necessitated, I fail to see how Calvinism affirms that. Compatibilism is not indeterminist. If by “plurality of live options” you actually mean “only one live possible option” then I can see that.
“All depends on what you mean by determined/determinism. But I agree they are determined freely and contingently.”
It all depends on what I mean by determined but I agree they are determined? I don’t mean anything different by determinism then what compatibilists hold – you choose what you want according to your desires and so are not coerced, but could not have chosen otherwise – your choice was necessitated – and your desires themselves were determined.
“The problem, of course, is that once you have prophecy, you have Christ’s choices being predetermined in some sense. They’re determined freely and contingently.”
There’s no problem affirming prophecy and libertarian freedom, unless you assume that foreknowledge entails determinism.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Robert,
So Adam and the angels had LFW? Since they were created good and chose to sin?
If character determines choice, why do regenerate believers sin?
Regenerate believers aren’t perfected, that’s why they sin.
If it’s a plurality of live options without the choice being determined/necessitated, I fail to see how Calvinism affirms that. Compatibilism is not indeterminist. If by “plurality of live options” you actually mean “only one live possible option” then I can see that.
If God knows what I will certainly have for breakfast this morning, then my choice is determined/necessitated.
It all depends on what I mean by determined but I agree they are determined? I don’t mean anything different by determinism then what compatibilists hold – you choose what you want according to your desires and so are not coerced, but could not have chosen otherwise – your choice was necessitated – and your desires themselves were determined.
Depends on what you mean by could not have chosen otherwise.
There’s no problem affirming prophecy and libertarian freedom, unless you assume that foreknowledge entails determinism.
I guess not if you believe God is a passive observer and learns things. Otherwise, foreknowledge entails determinism of some kind, particularly since foreknowledge in Scripture does not refer merely to knowledge of information but knowledge of persons.
You have no “live” option, or at least no more of a “live” option than is true under Calvinism, if God’s knowledge cannot be falsified. Your ability to choose otherwise is theoretical at best.
LikeLike
Cletus,
I said: If God knows what I will certainly have for breakfast this morning, then my choice is determined/necessitated.
I meant to say:
If God knows what I will certainly have for breakfast this morning, then my choice is determined/necessitated. The only way around that is to make God a passive observer who learns things and to view him as having knowledge in the same way that we have knowledge. My knowledge doesn’t determine reality. God’s does. If it doesn’t, He’s learning new stuff all the time.
LikeLike
loser ken, so don’t you see a potential problem in the church’s “decision” to be ecumenical. If being a Protestant at one time was a mortal sin (because you knowingly refused to obey the pope), how can it now be better to be ecumenical with those going to hell?
Oh, well, we’ll adjust what sin means so that Protestants really aren’t sinners. Huh?
Have you never heard of liberal Christianity? Have you never heard of Christians adjusting hard truths so that the look more tolerant and nice?
LikeLike
Robert,
“Regenerate believers aren’t perfected, that’s why they sin.”
So what character do they have? I thought character determines choice.
And if character determines choice, how did Adam and the angels sin?
“If God knows what I will certainly have for breakfast this morning, then my choice is determined/necessitated.”
If God knows what you will choose for breakfast or your sin, that does not mean your choice was determined. God’s foreknowledge cannot be falsified; he knows with certainty. If foreknowledge entails causation and determinism, then the acts of Adam, the angels, and God himself are all determined and necessitated.
LikeLike
lame fox, so was Pius X ineffective, or Boniface VIII? You seem to forget (conveniently) that most popes between the French Revolution and Vatican 2 were not exactly kind and gentle.
So as I said to loser ken, if something qualified as sin at one point and the church no longer acts like that same activity is sin, hasn’t doctrine changed (liberalism set in)? You can keep up with your stupid analogies, as if Westboro Bapt. is the equivalent of condemnation (as opposed to the Syllabus of Errors), or as if praying to Mary is no different from asking my mother to pray for me. But your answer doesn’t satisfy.
LikeLike
Susan, haven’t you heard of original sin? After the fall, does anyone have a free choice to choose God?
How much of Calvinism did you understand?
LikeLike
Cletus,
So what character do they have? I thought character determines choice.
They have a character that is not yet perfectly conformed to Christ.
And if character determines choice, how did Adam and the angels sin?
That’s part of the mystery of iniquity.
If character doesn’t determine choice, then God can sin.
If God knows what you will choose for breakfast or your sin, that does not mean your choice was determined. God’s foreknowledge cannot be falsified; he knows with certainty. If foreknowledge entails causation and determinism, then the acts of Adam, the angels, and God himself are all determined and necessitated.
God’s decree determines what Adam and the angels will do freely. God’s knowledge is preceded logically by His decree, and He won’t do other than what He has decreed to do. But He didn’t have to decree what He has decreed.
IOW, it’s probably better to say that the decree is what determines all things. The only question then is whether the decree precedes or follows foreknowledge. For non-Calvinist positions—including the various options approved by Romanism such as Arminianism, Molinism, and Thomism (though Thomas seems to have held differently, at least when it comes to election), the decree is in response to His foreknowledge. God must first learn something before He can decree it.
So again, apart from Calvinism, you have a God who is continually learning new things. Talk about making him in our image.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I know that you get mistreated at this site, but you aren’t behaving any better when you resort to name calling. You owe Steve an apology. I am sick of the division, sick of us huddling in our groups mocking and ridiculing, and besides this, I consider him a friend. Please make things right.
LikeLike
If Papal Infallibility is so clear cut, why would Benedict XVI have to worry about his non-papal words?
Isn’t this just a question of explaining and defending revealed truth when the ex cathedra light is on?
LikeLike
lame fox, see, it’s okay to give up papal infallibility. No reason to be afraid.
LikeLike
Robert,
“They have a character that is not yet perfectly conformed to Christ.”
So if a believer sins grievously one minute, then performs a good work the other – his character determined both actions?
“If character doesn’t determine choice, then God can sin.”
Rather, if character doesn’t limit or circumscribe the range of options, then God can sin. You keep thinking limited sphere of choices entails determinism – that’s only true if it’s limited to one choice.
“That’s part of the mystery of iniquity.”
So we can appeal to mystery here because it undermines the argument for determinism rather than trying to synthesize it. If nature and libertarian will are compatible pre-fall, there’s no reason to assume they cannot be post-fall.
“God’s decree determines what Adam and the angels will do freely.”
By freely, you mean as necessitated by factors which are themselves determined. A rube goldberg machine only gets you away from the puppet.
“God’s knowledge is preceded logically by His decree”
So God’s acts of creation and redemption and every other act of His that He foreknows were necessitated.
“But He didn’t have to decree what He has decreed.”
So did he have foreknowledge of his decree which determined/caused his decree? If no, then according to your logic, does God’s decree eternally exist outside of Him and He passively learned it?
“So again, apart from Calvinism, you have a God who is continually learning new things. Talk about making him in our image.”
This would be true if we modeled God’s omniscience in our image. So the irony in this statement is rich.
Circling it back, please explain how Calvinism does not fall prey to monothelitism or monoenergism in Christ given its views on determinism and synergy (and no, saying Calvinism affirms two wills is not sufficient – many monothelites affirmed same).
LikeLike
Darryl,
Susan, haven’t you heard of original sin? After the fall, does anyone have a free choice to choose God?
I think I’ve answered this before. Man in his natural state cannot seek God, there always has to be a movement of the Holy Spirit, for us to be able to respond. When God acts on us it isn’t a one time event though(if our lives continue beyond that point),because we who began in faith can lose sanctifying grace through mortal sin.Think of it as a mini recapitulation of the events in Eden.
This is why there is grace given in the sacraments for those properly disposed. How does one become properly disposed? By hearing the offer of Christ’s one time merciful atonement for all sins, and accepting this love and mercy, by faith. No one can receive forgiveness without having true humility.
How much of Calvinism did you understand?
I understand that man is fallen in his whole person yet each person is not as bad as he could possibly be. So the whole man is said to be fallen, body and soul, so as to protect the goodness of the body against Platonic idealism.To whom do you credit any spark of light remaining in the soul after the fall? Can man naturally do the works of the law? Is it possible to mechanically do one’s duty without having the spirit of the law? If a person obeys the spirit of the law, will the author of the law condemn them?
LikeLike
Cletus,
If nature and libertarian will are compatible pre-fall, there’s no reason to assume they cannot be post-fall.
Unless of course you believe the fall actually did something to humanity. Since Rome denies that the fall really changed anything, I can see why you deny depravity.
This would be true if we modeled God’s omniscience in our image. So the irony in this statement is rich.
Hey, you are the guys who believe that God can’t ordain evil because they he would be morally responsible for it, based for no other reason then the fact that if human beings do it they are morally responsible for evil.
Non-determinative knowledge is exactly the same kind of knowledge human beings have, so your conception of omniscience is that God just knows a lot more stuff than we know.
Circling it back, please explain how Calvinism does not fall prey to monothelitism or monoenergism in Christ given its views on determinism and synergy (and no, saying Calvinism affirms two wills is not sufficient – many monothelites affirmed same).
Because the human will of Christ freely chooses to act in concert with the divine will.
Ultimately, you have to be willing to define freedom according to how Scripture does it. Precious few Christian traditions will do that. You simply cannot find free will in Scripture in the nature that you want sinners to have it.
But that’s because you all think we’re barely wounded by sin, not dead. That we are free, not slaves to sin. IOW, your system has no real place for the sinfulness of sin. Our primary problem is that we are creatures and inherently defective. We have to be more than creatures to fellowship with God.
LikeLike
Robert: “They have a character that is not yet perfectly conformed to Christ.”
Cletus: So if a believer sins grievously one minute, then performs a good work the other – his character determined both actions?
Is this hard to believe? Check your headlines for “Bill Cosby.”
LikeLike
Darryl,
“lame fox, so was Pius X ineffective, or Boniface VIII? You seem to forget (conveniently) that most popes between the French Revolution and Vatican 2 were not exactly kind and gentle.”
So if most popes were not exactly kind and gentle, then some popes were kind and gentle. Why were some popes kind and gentle if not being kind and gentle was a requirement for the doctrine to make sense? Could it have been due to prudential judgments on what might be most effective?
“So as I said to loser ken, if something qualified as sin at one point and the church no longer acts like that same activity is sin, hasn’t doctrine changed (liberalism set in)?”
What doctrine do you think changed in such a way as to contradict previous teaching?
“You can keep up with your stupid analogies, as if Westboro Bapt. is the equivalent of condemnation”
You’re the one whining about Francis talking to Copeland. I seem to recall similar whining from Protestants when Dominus Iesus came out (what do they mean we’re just ecclesial communities – jerks!). Can’t win I suppose. Talking to Copeland does not make the catechism vanish into thin air.
LikeLike
Robert,
“But that’s because you all think we’re barely wounded by sin, not dead.
When a person sins so grievously that they lose sanctifying grace, they are said to have sinned mortally, and at that point they are dead to the Divine life. They can still, walk, and talk, breath, hug their children etc., but in regards to their relationship with God, it is destroyed by their own freewill. So “dead” is a metaphor for not having the life of God in you.
LikeLike
Susan,
When a person sins so grievously that they lose sanctifying grace, they are said to have sinned mortally, and at that point they are dead to the Divine life. They can still, walk, and talk, breath, hug their children etc., but in regards to their relationship with God, it is destroyed by their own freewill. So “dead” is a metaphor for not having the life of God in you.
The problem is that you all posit that those who don’t have the life of God in them can ask for the life of God to be in them. If you’re dead to God, you’re dead to God. It seems to me that in RCism, dead is a metaphor for not having the life of God in you except for that tiny, tiny little bit that can still recognize who He is and either ask for baptism or reconciliation.
LikeLike
lame fox, was Protestantism something that was sinful to the point of banning books on the Index? Now Protestants are okay and have the truth (though not fully)? Oh, I get it. No doctrine has changed. But the attitude of your bishops to doctrine has. That is more significant than a change in doctrine. Again, if you ever studied or thought about liberalism you’d be up most nights.
LikeLike
Robert,
You are not following Paul’s argument. Having set up that the doers of the law will be declared righteous in Rom. 2—in order to counter any claims that Jews by nature have an advantage simply because they possess the law
What do you mean when you say “set up”? Whenever Paul writes
” God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life……glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile…..For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
By “set up” do you mean teaching something that is true? Do you mean making up something that is false to make them feel guilty? Please explain further. It seems to me that there is nothing in the context of the chapter that would hint at Paul is setting up the impossible. If you disagree… please show where in the chapter such hints are found.
—Paul goes on to summarize the problem in Romans 3 that nobody has done, nor can any sinner do, the law. Hence justification by faith.
I think you are taking this too far. His point in romans 3 and 4 is that no one can earn heaven by performing works that obligate God. No one can earn heaven through their own natural goodness. Chapter 3 and 4 does not teach that it is impossible to persist in doing good, seek glory, honor and immortality. These chapters do not teach that it is impossible for man to fulfill the law through spirit wrought love and be blameless according to the law.
We know that, for example, Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. We know that Job was blameless and upright; fearing God and shunning evil. We also read in the new testament that Zechariah and Elizabeth were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. Finally, as I have been pointing out repeatedly on this very thread, Abraham we reckoned righteous because of his faith. The bible over and over describes men as possessing righteous qualities. The bible never,ever, speaks on the alien imputation of Christ. Your paradigm is leaky.
The idea that there is a separate category of works by which we are justified does not hold up under any close scrutiny. Both Abraham and David had good works, and the only good works they could have had were works of the law. And yet Paul says their justification is entirely apart from those works. David is even explicitly said to have the Spirit, and yet there is no mention of the works wrought by that Spirit availing for justification.
Who says that the only good works they could have possibly done were works of the law? That is exactly what is under dispute. When Paul says “works of the law” does he mean love, charity, hope, faith, etc? Or does he mean something else? The protestant formula of Works of the law = any and everything that a person could ever conceivably do is a massive presupposition. One that leaves problematic scriptures in nearly every book of the new testament.
The Roman position fails because it won’t follow Paul’s actual argument. It’s why you keep failing in your reading of Romans 4. The Roman position also won’t follow James’ actual argument. These notions of condign merit and congruent merit are entirely absent from the text. There is not one kind of merit that is works with grace and one kind that does not. It’s just not there.
The difference is not spelled out in scripture but it is inferred. The distinction of works and merit is an interpretive key that instantly reconciles numerous texts on salvation. Sola fide leaves you having to explain away hundreds of verses that fit very uncomfortably in that paradigm.
LikeLike
Brandon Addison,
I don’t have the time to cite the sources, but this is really basic Reformed theology and was taught as the classic Reformed interpretation of this passage in seminary
I believe you. I just cant find anyone that holds that view. I know that Beeke, Hodge, and Murray do not defend that view…. or at least not in the works that I own. I cant even find a defense of this assertion on google. When you get the time shoot me a resource. It seems to me that there is not even the smallest indication that this is some kind of figure of speech or metaphor. Im happy to hear the view defended… but I dont know where to look.
What exegetical warrant do you have for drawing these distinctions? Based on what you’ve said from Romans 2-4, could you try to explain how “ergon” functions in two senses?
Sure. The first is that if a distinction is not made we are facing a contradiction between romans chapter 2 and chapters 3 and 4. When faced with apparent contradictions we are sometimes forced to make distinctions (if we wish to defend biblical inerrancy). Protestants use this (apparent contradiction) as a warrant for distinctions all the time. For example, most protestants attempt to explain the apparent contradiction between james and Paul by making a distinction on the word “faith”. In verse 14 of James chapter two, the literal translation reads “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” Yet, many translations insert the words “can such faith” or “can that kind of faith” save him. For protestants, if they do not tinker with the word faith and make a distinction the jig is up. What is so sad is that these kidns of mental jumping jacks are required over and over again, all over scripture, in order to avoid our works playing some kind of role in salvation. Such exercise is not necessary. Just one distinction on “works” is necessary and everything falls into place perfectly.
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
How does your insistence that Paul is arguing for justification by Spirit wrought works of love make sense of this objection that Paul’s opponents charged him with and that Paul felt compelled to address at particular points in Romans?
Pauls focus in romans is not to argue for spirit wrought works of love. His focus is on justification by faith through grace to the exclusion of fleshly and natural works of obligation
LikeLike
Kenneth,
y “set up” do you mean teaching something that is true? Do you mean making up something that is false to make them feel guilty? Please explain further. It seems to me that there is nothing in the context of the chapter that would hint at Paul is setting up the impossible. If you disagree… please show where in the chapter such hints are found.
By set up I mean that Paul says that all doers of the law will be justified. Everyone who keeps the law will be justified. The problem is that nobody keeps the law. That’s the whole point of Romans 3. That’s why justification by grace through faith is necessary. If we could perfectly obey God, they wouldn’t be necessary. Grace is not necessary apart from sin.
I think you are taking this too far. His point in romans 3 and 4 is that no one can earn heaven by performing works that obligate God. No one can earn heaven through their own natural goodness. Chapter 3 and 4 does not teach that it is impossible to persist in doing good, seek glory, honor and immortality. These chapters do not teach that it is impossible for man to fulfill the law through spirit wrought love and be blameless according to the law.
You are reading all sorts of Roman distinctions into Paul that are foreign to Paul. Paul doesn’t distinguish between a “natural” good and a “supernatural” good. 3:1–20 says that no one has done good, no not one. There’s nothing in there about not dong supernatural good but doing natural good.
We know that, for example, Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. We know that Job was blameless and upright; fearing God and shunning evil. We also read in the new testament that Zechariah and Elizabeth were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.
Sure, but none of them are perfect, and perfection is required for justification and entrance into heaven. This is true even in Roman Catholicism, you just have a different way of getting there: sacerdotalism and purgatory.
Paul’s statement in Rom. 3 that none is righteous is a universal. He was well aware of examples such as those you cite. He had every opportunity to point to Abraham and David’s “Spirit-wrought” works of love. In fact, that’s exactly what the Jews thought Abraham and David had done. In any case, the only reason Paul can say that none is righteous in his discussion of justification in light of these examples is that blamelessness is not enough. Absolute perfection is required. You can’t mess up even once.
Finally, as I have been pointing out repeatedly on this very thread, Abraham we reckoned righteous because of his faith. The bible over and over describes men as possessing righteous qualities. The bible never,ever, speaks on the alien imputation of Christ. Your paradigm is leaky.
And as several of us have been pointing out on this thread, Abraham’s being declared righteous because of His faith does not mean what you think it means.
Who says that the only good works they could have possibly done were works of the law? That is exactly what is under dispute. When Paul says “works of the law” does he mean love, charity, hope, faith, etc? Or does he mean something else? The protestant formula of Works of the law = any and everything that a person could ever conceivably do is a massive presupposition. One that leaves problematic scriptures in nearly every book of the new testament.
Works of the law in Paul refers to that which the law commands, and the law commands love. And it’s not a presupposition. The only works Abraham and David could have done were works of the law because all they had was Moses. When Scripture praises them and others whom it describes as blameless under the old covenant, it is talking about people who have kept the Mosaic law.
IOW, David had the Spirit. By the Spirit He kept the law. And yet He was still justified apart from this law-keeping.
The difference is not spelled out in scripture but it is inferred. The distinction of works and merit is an interpretive key that instantly reconciles numerous texts on salvation. Sola fide leaves you having to explain away hundreds of verses that fit very uncomfortably in that paradigm.
Interpretative keys based on medieval Aristotelianism don’t solve anything. Sola fide is drawn very easily from Scripture. To make Romanism work you not only have distinguish between congruent merit and condign merit, but then you have add layer upon layer of other things—saintly veneration and intercession, the Marian dogmas, the papacy, etc. etc. to hold the entire unstable system together. And all this based on extra biblical tradition that no one can give us.
It doesn’t work my friend. By grace we are saved through faith, not of works lest any man boast. We are saved not by works wrought in holiness of heart.
LikeLike
Papalism is necessarily a more serious form of religion.
Fr John Hogan: @timothy_stanley Just read your piece in Herald. Confession once a fortnight is fine, don’t worry. Offer up the casserole for the Holy Souls
Priests shouldn’t tweet.
LikeLike
And Mariolatrous kudos to you Cats! Apparently you sin so little that every two weeks is just right for confession.
“I’ve got it down to about once a fortnight, because doing it any more leaves me with only the smallest of sins to confess.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/11/21/is-it-really-possible-to-go-to-confession-too-often/
LikeLike
BA: I don’t have the time to cite the sources, but this is really basic Reformed theology and was taught as the classic Reformed interpretation of this passage in seminary
KW: I believe you. I just cant find anyone that holds that view. I know that Beeke, Hodge, and Murray do not defend that view…. or at least not in the works that I own. I cant even find a defense of this assertion on google. When you get the time shoot me a resource. It seems to me that there is not even the smallest indication that this is some kind of figure of speech or metaphor. Im happy to hear the view defended… but I dont know where to look.
Ah, there’s the problem. Metonymy is not a metaphor or figurative language, but the use of one term to indicate another (usually related) term. So when I say to my class, “Give me your papers”, they understand that this means “your test papers”, not “every single paper in your possession.”
Here, the Protestant argument is that when Paul says “faith was imputed”, he means “righteousness was imputed by faith.” It is a metonymy (not a metaphor).
And that argument is in fact the standard Protestant argument, and Calvin’s commentary on Romans 4.1-3 gives a good contrast between the two positions.
More later, including answers to your questions from before. Meanwhile, Ken, I notice that you continue to assert
KW: Abraham we reckoned righteous because of his faith. The bible over and over describes men as possessing righteous qualities. The bible never,ever, speaks on the alien imputation of Christ.
Would you mind interacting a bit with my post on logizomai above?
LikeLike
The level of discourse on these threads has been slipping. I think we need to turn to the wisdom of Martin Luther to bring things up a notch. Enjoy! And if you happen to know whether any of these lines are apocryphal, keep it to yourself. They are too good to check.
LikeLike
sdb, proof of why the new “Calvinists” don’t like Lutherans. Potty mouth.
LikeLike
@ Ken: This could go on forever, so I am going to limit myself to three rounds and done.
Answers
Could you please cite any protestants…
I’m a protestant making that argument. 😉 Look at Calvin’s commentary on Romans 4.1-3.
So then would you say that Paul is using David as an example of how one is justified?
Yes.
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works… Rom 4.5-6.
Responses
KW: Why should we insist that there is a distinction in the way that Paul uses “works”?
In short, because of what we read in Romans 2 … If [there is not?] some kind of distinction of the word “works” we have a contradiction between romans 2 and romans 3 and 4, not to mention James and numerous other passages of scripture.
What you see as a problem to be solved by distinguishing types of works, I see as the whole point of Romans 2-5.
Romans 2: It is those who obey the law that are regarded as righteous.
Romans 3: But no-one obeys the law, so that “no one can be justified by observing the law.”
Romans 4: How then were our forefathers justified? By faith, righteousness was reckoned to them. God justified the ungodly by reckoning righteousness to them.
Romans 5: On what ground? On the ground of Christ’s righteous act.
This seems like a clear and obvious reading of the text. The only point that is even minorly difficult is understanding “faith reckoned as righteousness”, which is dealt with above.
Distinguishing types of works, on the other hand, is not a clear and obvious reading of the text, for two reasons:
* The language of “works of the law” in contrast to “works of faith” (or “works of love”) is simply absent, not only from Romans 2, but from the entirety of Scripture to my knowledge. That whole distinction is inferred in Catholic theology in order to resolve some alleged difficulties. However, if those difficulties are resolved in another way, then there is no need for the distinction.
* Recent (last 50 years) research shows that the Pharisees were not Pelagians. They did not, as you allege, believe that man could keep the law unaided by grace. Rather, they believed that they were within the covenant by grace, and that it was their keeping of the law – with God’s help – that allowed them to remain within the covenant.
This being so, it is clear that when Paul refutes justification by works of the law, he is not refuting only law-keeping unassisted, but also law-keeping with the assistance of grace.
In other words, there is no room in Paul for a distinction between “works of the law” (meaning meriting by fulfilling the law unaided) and “spirit-wrought works of love and charity.” (meaning meriting by fulfilling the law through grace). That kind of distinction is a historical anachronism, wrongly attributing Pelagianism to the Jews.
Instead, Paul means what he says: To the one who works, wages are given as a due. This is excluded. Hence, all merit is excluded.
* And this brings me to the issue that I have always had with the Catholic apologetic. What is the keeping of the Law? According to Jesus, it is loving God with heart, soul, mind, and strength; and loving neighbor as self.
Accordingly, “works of the laws” ARE “works of love and charity.” There is no distinction.
Paul says as much in Romans 2. Who is righteous? Those who obey the law. The Catholic says, “Those who obey the law through love.” And Paul responds, “Yes, there is no other kind of obedience.”
So I find this alleged distinction between “works of the law” and “works of love” to be nonsensical, a contrivance that aims at resolving difficulties that are not even actual problems.
So you say,
KW: Paul is condemning the idea that we can “earn” heaven, as if through a wage, by our own natural powers apart from Gods mercy and unearned grace.
But Paul says nothing of “by our own natural powers.” He is condemning the idea that we can “earn” eternal life by any manner whatsoever. That’s what the text says.
Finally, we consider the endless loop issue.
JRC: Being “justified by faith” in the sense of (1) results in an endless loop. How did Abraham believe? Because God first made him able to believe, thus making him capable of a righteous act. Thus, justification (making righteous, in the Catholic sense) precedes all merit. But how did God justify? Paul clearly says, by faith. So faith precedes justification, which of course precedes faith, the meritorious act.
KW: There is no problem here nor is there an endless loop.
Hm. I don’t think you’ve appreciated the problem sufficiently.
Your position is that
(1) Abraham merited grace through his faith.
(2) Abraham was justified because of the merit of his faith.
But Trent says,
(3) but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. — Trent, Canons, 6.8
So we have from (1) and (2) that Abraham merited grace by his faith, resulting in his justification. We have from (3) that faith does not merit the grace of justification.
This is clearly a contradiction leading to an endless regress: justification is logically dependent upon faith, but faith must logically depend upon justification for merit.
Trent recognizes this and attempts to deal with it by placing the beginning of Justification prior to faith:
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace… — ibid, 6.5
But then it cannot get entirely away from Paul, so that they admit
And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; — ibid, 6.8.
So once again, faith is the root of all justification and faith is the beginning of human salvation – but the beginning of justification is prior to faith.
In computer parlance, you have mutually recursive dependencies.
LikeLike
Questions
For Ken or other Catholics
* Paul says,
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
If the “works of the law” are limited to those performed unassisted by grace, why does Paul here make no mention of grace assistance?
He instead says that the purpose of the law is to make us conscious of sin. Why does he not say that the purpose of the law is to provide for merit, when fulfilled by grace?
* If the “works of the law” are different from “works of charity”, then why is charity the summation of the law?
* On the topic of free-will and assistance, what exactly (in your view) are our wills free from?
LikeLike
CW,
If our sanctification starts in this life shouldn’t we have a lessening of actual sins? We, of course, cannot sanctify ourselves, so when our sins decrease, it is only because our contrite confession will bring actual absolution.
LikeLike
Brandon Addison,
I was too tired to continue last night, but I would like to continue my response to your question regarding exegetical warrant for the distinction on Pauls use of “works”. As I have already said there is an apparent contradiction in the letter of romans and thus already we have exegetical warrant to look for some distinction. The offered Catholic solution is to place a distinction on what Paul means by “works” or “works of law”. (the distinction being between works in an economy of grace and works done in an economy of fleshly obligation) I noted that protestants use a similar distinction in the book of James. The main difference, so far as i can see, is that the distinction protestants use to describe “faith” is only really helpful in explaining the book of James. Its explanatory scope ends there. For example, it doesn’t do anything to help ease the tension in Romans 2. This protestant distinction also does nothing to ease the tension in numerous other passages such as Matthew 25:31-46, Rev 20:11-12, Matthew 16:27, 1 Peter 1:17, mark 11:25-26, Acts 5:32, etc etc etc. The distinction just doesn’t come in to play. I realize that you can account for all of these verses, but many times we have to hear many different and competing explanations for each one. I think that the Catholic alternative of placing the distinction on “works” rather than “faith” is much more helpful, and has an explanatory scope that is vast and satisfying.
Beyond this, I think we have warrant for making the distinction even if there was not any apparent contradiction. This warrant is based on the context and the way in which Paul describes the works that are condemned. Paul is very specific. These are works of the law, works that can be boasted of, works that earn a due, works of obligation, etc. Do all works fit into this category? Clearly not. All sides agree that works done in the Spirit are all together different. As Augustine says God crowns not so much our own merits but His own gifts.
I will finish (as every good Catholic should) with an appeal to the early church fathers. Lets let Saint Augustine speak from the grave:
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
Fortunately, we don’t have to give our view of free-will and assistance, because we are confessional, trusting the Magisterium to be guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. I hope that you understand that I don’t say this to jab at you or anything because I know that Reformed Protestants are also confessional; it’s just that before when I was Reformed I trusted that the theology done by the Reformed was an exhaustive school and that there where no other feasible options on the table. IOW’s I trusted hat their theology was not only airtight but,conversely, without error.
“Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possesses an infallible knowledge of man’s future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man’s future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind as a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man’s freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church–both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas–attempt to solve in different ways.
LikeLike
Susan, what’s that deal y’all made up that gets Amazonian headhunters and American Southerners off the hook — colossal ignorance? Where do I sign up?
LikeLike
Susan: I hope that you understand that I don’t say this to jab at you or anything
No, I understand where you’re coming from, thanks.
And not to jab back, but what does it mean to assent and submit to something that one does not understand?
It’s an interesting question. I do a certain amount of “submitting to the incomprehensible” with regard to some doctrines — say, the Trinity — but I understand my submission to mean that there are certain boundary posts that mark error, and the truth is located somewhere within those boundary posts.
If you use the same kind of method, what boundary posts mark your understanding of “free will”?
LikeLike
Jeff,
“Rather, they believed that they were within the covenant by grace, and that it was their keeping of the law – with God’s help – that allowed them to remain within the covenant.”
One cannot keep or fulfill the law without Christ and the infused gifts of faith, hope, charity. Jewish attempts to keep the law in opposition to or neglect of that therefore would fail no matter how they qualify it – they are missing the fulfillment and what it points to.
“He is condemning the idea that we can “earn” eternal life by any manner whatsoever.”
Initial justification and translation into righteousness is unmerited as Trent states. Once in that state, believers can merit. Merit is reward given by God’s gracious promise. If you think that also equates merit to earning as a strict wage, I don’t know how you view that in light of other Scripture teaching “eternal life” as a reward such as:
“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.”
“As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day”
“God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.”
“whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”
“And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.”
“Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward”
““Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.”
“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you”
“Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”
Given the above, I fail to see how “any manner whatsoever” applies.
LikeLike
Cletus wrote:
Initial justification and translation into righteousness is unmerited as Trent states. Once in that state, believers can merit. Merit is reward given by God’s gracious promise.
And thus proves that Rome is covenantal nomism with a little bit of Jesus thrown in on top.
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeff.
“If you use the same kind of method, what boundary posts mark your understanding of “free will”?”
That man will isn’t coerced. That each moment he can make real decisions that will effect the end towards which he is moving. That not only can I choose not to hit my children when I’m angry but I can also choose not to covet my neighbors possessions.
LikeLike
From this point we don’t know infallibly where we end up, but we can tell which way we are tending towards by our behavior and our thoughts about deeds done in the flesh( Rom 2:15,16). The reason we don’t give up hope is that we trust in the mercy of God and his universal salvific will( not willing that any should perish…)
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”
LikeLike
Susan,
That man will isn’t coerced. That each moment he can make real decisions that will effect the end towards which he is moving. That not only can I choose not to hit my children when I’m angry but I can also choose not to covet my neighbors possessions.
And of course the Reformed don’t deny any of this. God doesn’t coerce anybody, and my decisions really effect the end toward which I am moving.
LikeLike
affect
LikeLike
Robert,
So your sinful actions could result in your damnation? For the will to be free it also cannot ,as of yet, have a permanent place in Heaven.
LikeLike
Susan,
So your sinful actions could result in your damnation?
Sure. Anybody’s sinful actions can result in their damnation. They won’t for the elect. God preserves them. The issue, then, is whether everyone who is truly justified is truly elect. Rome says no. The Reformed say yes.
For the will to be free it also cannot ,as of yet, have a permanent place in Heaven.
I don’t know if you’ve been following my discussion with Cletus on freedom, but this quote shows the problem. Under this definition, God’s will isn’t free. There’s something wrong when creatures are freer than God is.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Susan said: For the will to be free it also cannot ,as of yet, have a permanent place in Heaven.
This is the kind of equivocating on libertarian freedom that I’ve been talking about. Do you agree with this statement?
LikeLike
Robert,
I presume Susan was talking just in reference to humanity given the context of her discussion with Jeff. Libertarian freedom just posits the plurality of live options – that those options may be circumscribed is compatible with that and compatible with acts that are not necessitated, unless of course they are circumscribed to just one option, but that would no longer be a plurality. So God has libertarian will, as do the saints in heaven, as did Christ (even though they cannot sin) as did pre-fall man, as did the angels (even though they could sin). If all that is true, it is not impossible for post-fall man to have it as well. And post-fall man having libertarian freedom does not entail man does not need grace to choose God – it does not entail Pelagianism or that the fall did not greatly weaken and wound our natural powers (rather than corrupting them entirely). So obviously creatures are not freer than God when a) their freedom is dependent on God being the transcendent cause of that freedom and b) God’s grace is required to enable them to believe and do supernatural good.
LikeLike
Kennybunkport – I am sorry for calling you both names. Blame it on the youth. Blame it on the Captain Morgan.
Erik – Youngsters on booze should not blog theologically.
LikeLike
Cletus: Initial justification and translation into righteousness is unmerited as Trent states. Once in that state, believers can merit.
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with Ken that in Romans 4, faith merits justification?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Abraham did not merit justifying faith. But his faith was reckoned as righteousness. Thanks for your thoughts ill get around to responding as soon as I grab an hour or so of free time (these comments can be time consuming)
LikeLike
Paul’s argument throughout the book of Romans is a legal argument. Imputation, reckoned, accounted, declared, baptized into Christ, are all legal terms. There are no terms in the book of Romans that even hint of any kind of infusion of righteousness. There is no Gospel in Romans chapters 1 and 2 and most of chapter 3. Those chapters are all about how the Law condemns all of those who are in Adam from birth, ie. who are under the Law and its bondage and condemnation.
In Romans chapter 2, Paul is challenging his audience that if they can do the Law they will obtain immortality. This presupposes that man is mortal, ie. the body and soul are one. The soul that sins shall die. There is no dichotomy of body and soul in Paul and in the Old Testament. Man was not created with an immortal soul. Christ won immortality by his being resurrected from the dead. Resurrection is tied to immortality and glorification. The elect will be transformed with immortal bodies at the resurrection. There is no ontological change in the book of Romans, it is all about legal imputation of righteousness that makes the elect justified before God. God only accepts Christ’s righteousness and that righteousness imputed to those whom He died for.
Romans is Paul explaining how the elect are delivered from being in Adam to being declared to be in the Last Adam. Romans 6 is Paul describing what happens when the elect are baptized into Christ. They are declared righteous because they are no longer in Adam and the guilt of his sin. Paul expounds on what the Gospel is from the end of chapter 3 to the end of chapter 11. This still does not explain what the cause of faith is. Catholics argue that faith and cooperation with grace can be generated in the will of man without coercion or influence by God. That is why this guy can argue that Calvinism is a monothelite and monoenergistic heresy. They claim that these heresies were already dealt with in a 6th century ecumenical council:
“What was lacking for both Theodore and Calvinism is the assertion of synergy between the human and divine will which seems to have been the understanding behind the verdict of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. In the teaching of Saint Maximus the Confessor (the principal theological architect of the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s vindication of Dyothelitism), Christ’s human will is not determined by the divine will but self-determined. “If the Logos did not assume the self-determining power of the nature that he had created, “he either condemned his own creation as something that is not good… or he begrudged us the healing of our will, depriving us of complete salvation… Maximus repeatedly states his belief that the human soul is not moved by another, but is self-moving. Moreover, he elsewhere says that man has by nature a ‘self-moving and masterless power’. In addition, he repeatedly characterizes the human will as self-determining. As has been shown, for Maximus the human will is characterized so fundamentally by self-determination that it can be identified with it…. The incarnate Logos possesses a self-determining human will in virtue of which he is able to will as man in a self-determining way, and thus to actualize the self-determining power of his human will” (Bathrellos, The Byzantine Christ, 131 & 166–7 & 169).
Hence, this is what Catholics mean by free-will- “that man has by nature a ‘self-moving and masterless power’.” And then they tie this into their Christology. This is where philosophical speculation and ontological ideas about the influence of infused grace comes from. However, there is no hint of any kind of infusion of grace throughout the book of Romans. Romans and Galatians are throughout- legal arguments.
LikeLike
@ Susan: That man will isn’t coerced.
Agreed there. When a Calvinist speaks of effectual calling, he is speaking not of coercion of the will, but of change of nature.
Susan: That each moment he can make real decisions that will effect the end towards which he is moving.
Right. So one of my daughters, once, tried the “but I can’t help it” faux-Calvinist routine on us. We let her know that while we cannot control our hearts, we are in fact responsible for our actions. It may not be a righteous act to refrain from hitting your sister when you have hate in your heart — but it is a necessary act.
But this raises a question: is the “end towards which he is moving” already written and known by God?
If so, then you actually have a “compatibilist” free-will, one that is compatible with determinism.
If not, then you have open theism rather than either Augustianism or Molinism.
Susan: That not only can I choose not to hit my children when I’m angry but I can also choose not to covet my neighbors possessions.
Yes, generally, to the first. But can you choose what your heart desires? Augustine didn’t think so. Doesn’t God have to forgive who we are as well as what we do?
LikeLike
Ken: Abraham did not merit justifying faith.
Right, I understand that you aren’t saying that.
But his faith was reckoned as righteousness.
OK. I don’t agree, but what you’re saying is consistent with your earlier statements. However, it does seem to sit uncomfortably with Trent, which seems to say that faith prior to justification does not merit justification. That would seem to be a synonym for “is not reckoned as righteousness.”
So perhaps you could untangle that for me.
At the same time, perhaps you could also untangle the mystery of how faith is possible for a person not already made righteous — that is, justified. I understand that you say (and the CCC says) that this is made possible by God’s prior act of grace.
But does that grace make the person ontologically righteous? If so, then is he not justified prior to faith? If not, then how is he able to believe?
LikeLike
John,
“Catholics argue that faith and cooperation with grace can be generated in the will of man without coercion or influence by God.”
I don’t know any Catholics who argue that.
CCC:
“1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:”
2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of “eternal life” respond, beyond all hope, to this desire”
“That is why this guy can argue that Calvinism is a monothelite and monoenergistic heresy. They claim that these heresies were already dealt with in a 6th century ecumenical council:”
So do you agree or disagree with the 6th ecumenical council?
LikeLike
I agree with contrast between works and grace, between works and faith. But I disagree that God counts faith as the righteousness. You could say that God “swaps” wages for works, or that God rewards for works, but we should NOT say that God “swaps” faith for righteousness. God does NOT count faith as something else.
The Second London Confession (1689) addresses this question: “Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting them as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone. They are not justified because God reckons as their righteousness either their faith, their believing, or any other act of evangelical obedience. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ’s righteousness. “
Most Reformed folks seem to know on one level that God does NOT count faith as the righteousness. “Faith must not be thought of apart from its object.” Good. “Justification is not because of faith but by and through faith.” Correct. “If faith is the righteousness in question, then faith is a work.” Again, needed qualificationa, but this don’t help much because Romanists and Arminians and Neonomians tend to stipulate that faith is NOT a work, and therefore on that basis they then argue that it’s just for God to count faith (and works of faith) as the righteousness….
Faith is a work. No, it’s not a work. The debate won’t take us very far. Even if the debate is about if faith comes from fallen man’s freewill contribution, the accusation that says “well then it’s a work” does not do much because those on the other side of the divide explain that they never say it’s a work and that they know that faith is not a work.
God’s “imputation” is not God counting something as what it is not. Our faith is not in faith but in the object of faith and God imputes the object of faith as Christ’s accomplishment of atonement by His death, as that which was done once for all time outside of us, back there and when Christ bore all the sins of the elect and took them away. If Christ has not yet taken taken away your sins, then Christ will never bear your sins.
LikeLike
Cletus,
What I failed to point out is that this: ” Maximus repeatedly states his belief that the human soul is not moved by another, but is self-moving. Moreover, he elsewhere says that man has by nature a ‘self-moving and masterless power’. In addition, he repeatedly characterizes the human will as self-determining. As has been shown, for Maximus the human will is characterized so fundamentally by self-determination that it can be identified with it”… is the same thing as saying this: that faith and cooperation with grace can be generated in the will of man without coercion or influence by God.” So, how can the Catholic believe that faith and cooperation with grace cannot arise without the influence of an infused grace? I am not seeing how these seemingly contradictory statements can be reconciled. Nor do I see how his argument is valid.
LikeLike
Cletus,
I presume Susan was talking just in reference to humanity given the context of her discussion with Jeff. Libertarian freedom just posits the plurality of live options – that those options may be circumscribed is compatible with that and compatible with acts that are not necessitated, unless of course they are circumscribed to just one option, but that would no longer be a plurality. So God has libertarian will, as do the saints in heaven, as did Christ (even though they cannot sin) as did pre-fall man, as did the angels (even though they could sin). If all that is true, it is not impossible for post-fall man to have it as well.
You’re equivocating again. Based on what you have said, libertarian freedom for the saints in heaven is not equivalent to libertarian freedom for people who have not yet been glorified. The saints and heaven cannot choose otherwise than to do what is good. Fallen man can. So it would seem that in some sense the non-glorified man in your system is freer than glorified man under this discussion. He’s freer than God as well, because God can’t choose evil.
Furthermore, if the circumscription of one’s choices is compatible with libertarian freedom, then Calvinism can affirm libertarianism for fallen man since we have live options only to sin, but several live options. It all depends on what you mean by libertarianism. You guys seem to want to say that man’s freedom before and after sin is identical and then yet you want to say that man’s freedom in glory isn’t identical. What is it?
The issue seems to be what you all say are “live” options. You want to say that Calvinists deny human freedom because before regenerate we say there is no live option to do good and that apart from regeneration man can’t do good. You want to say that the determination of God’s decree takes away true freedom. But you guys have the same problem—or actually one that is much, much worse. If God knows that I will wear a yellow shirt today, I simply do not have the kind of “live” option you want me to have to choose a blue shirt if God’s knowledge cannot be falsified. And when it comes to sin, if it is not a part of God’s decree, God’s knowledge that my autonomous will shall choose to sin reduces to some kind of dualism. Evil has an independent existence apart from God’s decree, if only in His mind. But if it is only in His mind. You also have a form of deism. God from all eternity decided to be entirely hands off when it comes to man’s evil desires.
And post-fall man having libertarian freedom does not entail man does not need grace to choose God – it does not entail Pelagianism or that the fall did not greatly weaken and wound our natural powers (rather than corrupting them entirely). So obviously creatures are not freer than God when a) their freedom is dependent on God being the transcendent cause of that freedom and b) God’s grace is required to enable them to believe and do supernatural good.
The problem is that all of these things that you assert are not found in Scripture. If the fall only weakened or wounded our natural powers, then there should be somebody since the fall who could do what is fully and truly pleasing in God’s sight. This idea that there is a supernatural good vs. a natural good isn’t found in Scripture and that man can do one but not the other is not there either. Romans 3 is very clear.
Further, as Jeff has been pointing out, its unclear what the real need for grace is in Romanism if the soul can predispose itself to receive it. Without monergism, you don’t have grace making the final decision; you have the goodness of man’s will.
If God cannot sin but human beings can, and their sin is not a part of His decree, then God is less free than human beings. You essentially end up with some such nonsense as God sovereignly limiting HIs sovereignty. You might as well go all the way and become a process thinker, feminist theologian, or Open Theist.
LikeLike
Jeff,
So then would you say that Paul is using David as an example of how one is justified?
Yes.
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works… Rom 4.5-6.
Perfect. I am happy that we got a straightforward answer on that. Now that you have granted that David is being used as an example of justification, I wonder if you will agree with the following
Your thoughts?
What you see as a problem to be solved by distinguishing types of works, I see as the whole point of Romans 2-5.
Romans 2: It is those who obey the law that are regarded as righteous.
Romans 3: But no-one obeys the law, so that “no one can be justified by observing the law.”
Romans 4: How then were our forefathers justified? By faith, righteousness was reckoned to them. God justified the ungodly by reckoning righteousness to them.
Romans 5: On what ground? On the ground of Christ’s righteous act.
This seems like a clear and obvious reading of the text. The only point that is even minorly difficult is understanding “faith reckoned as righteousness”, which is dealt with above.
Yes but your interpretation of this reading relies heavily upon the understanding that God demands perfection and that the “none is righteous no not one” is to be interpreted literally. Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 which says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” But then that same psalm goes on to talk about the “righteous.” Well, if none has done good, who are these righteous the psalm is talking about? Obviously, when the psalmist says that none has done good, he is talking about the fools who say there is no God. He is not talking about absolutely everyone.
The same goes for St. Paul when he quotes from this psalm. Paul is not saying absolutely no one is righteous; if he was, then how we would have a hard time explaining all the Old and New Testament passages that refer to the righteous. In Romans 3:11 it says that no one seeks for God. Does that mean that absolutely no one is seeking God? This also is true for verse 23, which says that “all have sinned.” Babies haven’t sinned. This is not an absolute. There are exceptions. So, it is perfectly legitimate to say that these passages from Romans, when interpreted in context, in no way show that “no one obeys the law”. Rather, they show that no one can earn heaven through their own natural goodness and works of law done in an economy of obligation.
* The language of “works of the law” in contrast to “works of faith” (or “works of love”) is simply absent, not only from Romans 2, but from the entirety of Scripture to my knowledge. That whole distinction is inferred in Catholic theology in order to resolve some alleged difficulties. However, if those difficulties are resolved in another way, then there is no need for the distinction.
See my post addressed to Brandon addision for the exegetical warrant to make the distinction between works.
Recent (last 50 years) research shows that the Pharisees were not Pelagians. They did not, as you allege, believe that man could keep the law unaided by grace. Rather, they believed that they were within the covenant by grace, and that it was their keeping of the law – with God’s help – that allowed them to remain within the covenant.
Pshhhh! Whatever. I do not buy into NT Wrights new perspective on early Judaism.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Ah, there’s the problem. Metonymy is not a metaphor or figurative language, but the use of one term to indicate another (usually related) term. So when I say to my class, “Give me your papers”, they understand that this means “your test papers”, not “every single paper in your possession.”
Here, the Protestant argument is that when Paul says “faith was imputed”, he means “righteousness was imputed by faith.” It is a metonymy (not a metaphor).
Ahhhh, so then Paul was using code words! I wonder why it is that so many well known Reformed theologians do not appeal to this argument? I think the reason why, is because it is far too much of a stretch.
Lets first take some literary examples of Metonyms:
The automobile is clogging our highways. (= the collection of automobiles)
We need a couple of strong bodies for our team. (= strong people)
There are a lot of good heads in the university. (= intelligent people)
I’ve got a new set of wheels. (= car, motorcycle, etc.)
We’ve got some new blood in the organisation. (= new people)
And now lets examine the text:
18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness[c] of Sarah’s womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
You propose that “faith counted to him as righteousness” is a metonym for “faith was the empty hand the receives the alien imputation of Christ which was reckoned as righteousness”.
Its just not a very feasible option.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”
In Genesis 15.6 all Abraham is doing is trusting in the promises of God. Not very complicated when compared with the convoluted, wordy, highly uncertain Roman Catholic scheme of Soteriology and Justification.
A million words from you here won’t change that.
LikeLike
This is why at some point it becomes a total waste of time to read things like Called to Communion and follow these debates here.
If you have set your mind to trust in Christ and His righteousness to get to heaven, you frankly have better ways to spend your time.
If you’re convinced that it can’t be that simple, that somehow more is required of you, and you just have to figure out what the steps are to please God, then Rome becomes appealing and they have a Catechism with over 2,000 questions and answers just waiting for you.
It’s a straightforward choice.
LikeLike
Round 2 …
KW: I wonder if you will agree with the following
Paul is using David AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE IS JUSTIFIED, just as he did with Abraham a few verses earlier. In other words, David is the chief example of Paul’s case against the self-righteous Jews! David didn’t depend on any works (like circumcision) to clear his guilt with God. (source omitted)
Agree
Rather, he pleaded, from his faith, for forgiveness, and God was merciful to him. This is why Paul says that God justifies the “ungodly,” for when David committed adultery and murder he BECAME an ungodly man. In Catholic theology we call these kinds of sins mortal, because they kill the soul and make one ungodly.
Disagree, and with the remaining. Certainly, you must admit that Paul does not in Romans 4 assert anything about David becoming ungodly, then becoming godly again. You would have to infer that from something in 2 Sam 11. However, there is nothing in the text of 2 Sam 11 that indicates that David went from being godly then ungodly, then godly back again in his being. We know that he was told that “the Lord is with you.” (2 Sam 7). We know that he sinned. We know that he was forgiven. That’s what we know from the text.
The rest of the argument depends upon the Catholic understanding of how sin and forgiveness work. So if the Catholic position were to be correct, then 2 Sam 11 would be an example of it. But 2 Sam 11 is not evidence for the Catholic position, because it does not teach the Catholic position. The underlying theory of losing justification, then having it restored, is simply not there.
So your inference really rests upon “because the Church tells me that this is what the passage means”, rather than on the text itself.
Not only so, but 2 Sam 11 creates a new problem for you: David does not undergo any sacrament of penance. The entire dialog is,
David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.”
If you therefore want to posit that “David was justified by faith” here, then you have to admit that he was justified by faith apart from sacraments. Are you prepared to do that?
KW: Yes but your interpretation of this reading relies heavily upon the understanding that God demands perfection…
I agree. I would say I have pretty good warrant for that understanding, since it is taught in several places in Scripture.
KW: … and that the “none is righteous no not one” is to be interpreted literally.
Yes, I would say that this is clearly intended. Paul’s assertion that “no-one is righteous” is the ground for his assertion that “no-one will be justified by the works of the law” in verse 20.
Are you suggesting that Paul actually means in verse 20 that some people will be justified by works of the law?
What my rhetorical question is pointing out is an inconsistency in your method, in two parts.
First, you are literal when it suits your purpose, but not literal when that suits your purpose. So here: the “no-one” of v 10 correlates with the “no-one” of v 20. Yet you wish for the first to be figurative and the second to be literal, without any reason that I can see. That’s not GHE.
Second, you have a hard time distinguishing examples from evidence. As noted above: If the meaning of the text is actually established by assumptions supplied by the magisterium, then the text is not evidence for your position, but only an example of it.
If on the other hand, the text itself establishes the position, without having to resort to assumptions supplied by the magisterium, then the text is actually evidence for the correctness of the Catholic position.
So far, you haven’t been able to get Romans 3-4 to be evidence, since you continue to have to rely on categories supplied by the Catholic church that are foreign to the text, such as a distinction between “works of the law” and “works of charity”, and here, an assumption about “subsequent justification” that is entirely foreign to Rom 4.
LikeLike
Jeff – So far, you haven’t been able to get Romans 3-4 to be evidence, since you continue to have to rely on categories supplied by the Catholic church that are foreign to the text, such as a distinction between “works of the law” and “works of charity”, and here, an assumption about “subsequent justification” that is entirely foreign to Rom 4.
Erik – Yeah, but since the Roman Catholic Church gave us the Bible, that’s allowed.
Sola Ecclesia.
LikeLike
Erik says: “This why at some point it becomes a total waste of time to read things like Called to Communion and follow these debates here.”
John Y: It depends on if the argument is important or not. If you are trying to distinguish a false Gospel from a true one then the argument is worth pursuing. False Gospels are subtle, slippery and slick. Hence, defining the false from the true can get wearisome but you cannot say it is a waste of time unless you are convinced the other person is just playing games. What your “some point” is and what someone else’s “some point” is are going to be different. Tune in or drop out, it is a straightforward choice.
LikeLike
John,
“Waste of Time” is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
My point is, the two sides are pretty much talking past each other (Bryan’s “different paradigms”) and the conversation becomes like beating one’s head against a brick wall.
I agree there can be some benefits to “impartial” onlookers on occasion.
I mentioned to a friend that I had been listening to Stellman’s podcast. His response was that “no one in our movement finds anything that he is saying (about his conversion) compelling.” First off, the podcast really isn’t about his conversion. Second, that’s not true — we will continue to have Reformed people converting to Catholicism and Catholics converting to Reformed churches — and existing converts will likely have a role to play in that.
For the most part these new converts won’t be the principles in these debates, though. It will be the onlookers.
LikeLike
“Principals”, not “principles”.
LikeLike
So to shorten my point — don’t write to convince Kenneth, Bryan, Cletus, or Susan — they’re minds are likely made up. Write to convince someone who you don’t even know is reading.
LikeLike
This is why the Callers tightly screen comments. They really don’t want a conversation – they want an apologetics site that will look good for seekers. If they get a question they can’t answer that is inconvenient to them or that doesn’t help their apologetic, they just flush it.
LikeLike
Erik,
You have some valid points. However, I am of the persuasion that the power of salvation is in the Gospel accurately proclaimed and argued. Intellectual arguments do not draw the elect but they can clarify the system. The system should be consistent. The Law and the Gospel is what convicts and then comforts those whom it effectually calls. It can even effectually call those who seem to be the most settled and resistant.
LikeLike
btw, I get a kick out of listening to Stellman and his ex-Pastor, now agnostic, friend rant on too. Although, at the same time, a lot of what they say is troubling and grieving. And he never answers my inquiries. I do enjoy hearing about Stellman’s trials and tribulations working as a car salesman. Landing on the street may do him more good though.
LikeLike
KW: Ahhhh, so then Paul was using code words! I wonder why it is that so many well known Reformed theologians do not appeal to this argument? I think the reason why, is because it is far too much of a stretch.
No, I think you are getting hung up on the word metonymy, which also does not mean “code word.” Put that word aside for a moment.
Do you agree that Reformed theologians take Rom 4 to mean that God justifies by imputing righteousness through faith? If so, then you have understood the meat of the position.
Here is the exact position. You overstated it as
You propose that “faith counted to him as righteousness” is a metonym for “faith was the empty hand the receives the alien imputation of Christ which was reckoned as righteousness”.
You’ve added some words in here that I haven’t used, so let’s refine that. I’m proposing that
“faith counted to him as righteousness”
is a metonymy (not ‘metonym’) for
“Righteousness was reckoned to him through faith.”
So that’s my position. Paul is not using code, but is rather being concise. (See here). I hold that the Catholic position over-reads his concise expression by taking it in a woodenly literal manner.
Now, you raise an interesting question:
And now lets examine the text:
18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness[c] of Sarah’s womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
Your interesting question is whether 4.22 requires us to read ‘faith was counted as righteousness’ according to the Catholic option. You don’t connect all the dots, so let’s see if I can reconstruct your argument correctly:
(1) Paul observes that Abraham’s faith “did not waver” and “grew”
(2) He connects this fact in a causal way to Abe’s faith being reckoned as righteousness (‘That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”’)
(3) This shows that the faith itself was being counted as righteousness.
Is that your argument?
LikeLike
John,
I agree on the podcast. Interesting, but not much is accomplished. Engaging guys, though. Still trying to find themselves a bit and pushing 40. Will make the mid-life crisis interesting.
LikeLike
Here is some relevant thoughts from the writing of Luther himself:
1) LISTENING TO LUTHER
I want to believe
that there is another way.
I want to think
that I am the exception to the rule.
I grasp at the thought
that my righteousness is enough.
I hold to the hope
that my behavior satisfies you.
I want to think
that you judge me worthy.
It is my evaluation
that I am capable of your standard.
I want to hold onto my assessment
that I am not like others,
I can plainly see
that they offend your law.
I get the fact
that they fall short of your glory.
I know very well
that they can’t stand before you.
But I still want to think
that I am not like them.
I want to hold your Word
and my righteousness at the same time.
I want to celebrate the Gospel
and my worthiness together.
But it is
a self-sufficient delusion.
It aggrandizes me and diminishes You.
It minimizes sin and devalues grace.
It asks the law to do
what only grace can accomplish.
It denies the daily evidence
of my sin.
It ignores the true condition
of my heart.
It turns away
from the sacrifice that you have made.
It omits the sovereign plan
of your grace.
It forgets the desperate condition
of my need.
And so I turn
to what I know is true.
I am nothing
without you.
I run to the sacrifice
of the Cross.
I cry for the help
of your Spirit.
I accept the diagnosis
of your Word.
I trust the faithfulness
of your love.
I seek the forgiveness
you alone can give.
And I reject
the righteousness that is my own.
2) The Cross Against Human Glory, by David Engelsma
On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Eerdmans, 1997).
In the book, Lutheran theologian Gerhard O. Forde gives a brief commentary on the 28 theological theses that Luther presented and defended at the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518. In addition to the commentary, the work is valuable simply in that it makes available Luther’s 28 marvelous doctrinal propositions, in full.
The Heidelberg Disputation was convened on April 26, 1518, a mere six months after Luther’s posting of the 95 theses. The Disputation was a direct result of the posting of the 95 theses. The pope had instructed the head of Luther’s Augustinian order to silence the monk. vonStaupitz instead asked Luther to acquaint the Augustinians with his new, evangelical theology by means of a disputation on certain theses which Luther was to draw up.
Luther came to the meeting with 28 theological and 12 philosophical theses, or propositions. Each of the theological theses was followed by a brief explanation and defense. To the theses, Luther appended an “explanation” of the question, “Is the will of man outside the state of grace free or rather in bondage and captive?” This amounted to an important treatment of the fundamental theological issue of the freedom or bondage of the will of the natural man.
The complete text of the theological and philosophical theses, of Luther’s own explanation of the theological theses, and of the appendix on the bondage of the will is found in Luther’s Works, vol. 31, ed. Harold J. Grimm (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), pp. 39-70. It was at the Heidelberg Disputation that Martin Bucer was won to the cause of the Reformation, and captivated by Luther.
Gerhard Forde comments on the theological theses. These theses set forth Luther’s beliefs concerning sin, the bondage of the human will, the inability of the unsaved man outside of Christ to perform any good work, and salvation by grace alone in the cross of Christ.
In these theses, Luther spoke explicitly of the “theology of the cross,” which he explicitly contrasted with the “theology of glory.” Thesis 21 reads: “A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.” The theology of the cross is the biblical gospel of God’s salvation of dead sinners out of mere grace only through the suffering and death of the cross of Jesus Christ. The theology of the cross not only rules out, but also curses all human worth, will, and working that would accomplish or account for the salvation of sinners, in whole or in part. Thesis 16 reads: “The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him ADDS SIN TO SIN so that he becomes doubly guilty.”
the theology of glory is the corruption of the biblical gospel, consisting of attributing to man some “little bit” (to use Forde’s description) of cooperation with God in salvation. The glory that the theology of glory is concerned to preserve and promote is the natural glory of man. The theologians of glory are offended by the cross’ exposure of man as utterly helpless in his own salvation and utterly hostile to the God who saves him. The theology of (man’s) glory is pitted against the theology of (God’s) grace.
3) Luther opposed the Roman Catholic form of the theology of glory: “Do what is in you, and God will reward you with grace and salvation.” Basic to Rome’s theology of glory was (and is) their doctrine of the freedom of the human will: the sinner has of himself the ability to choose God and salvation. Against the Roman Catholic theology of glory, therefore, Luther (in 1518!) laid down Thesis 13: “Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin.”
Forde comments on Thesis 13: This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause” (p. 53).
Central to Luther’s theology of the cross was justification by faith alone. Luther expressed this doctrine in Thesis 25: “He is not righteous who works much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ.”
Very definitely and prominently “looming in the background,” as Forde puts it, “always is the troublesome question of predestination.” In its repudiation of free will, Forde points out, the theology of the cross unmistakably proclaims that “we are saved by divine election.” “The cross itself is the evidence that we did not choose him but that he, nevertheless, chose us (John 15:16)” (pp. 50, 51). The protest is always raised, “We aren’t puppets, are we? If everything happens by divine will, how can we be held responsible? We just can’t accept such a God! There must be some freedom of choice!” As Forde observes, “This is evidence of theologians of glory at work defending themselves to the end. They actually admit that they cannot and will not will God to be God (p. 51).
A theologian of the cross, according to Luther in Theses 9 and 10, judges all works done “without Christ” as “dead” and as “mortal sin.” In his own defense of the theology of the cross, Luther condemned as sin, and nothing but sin, every work done by unbelievers:
“Every one who commits sin is a slave of sin” (John 8:34). How is it possible that a slave of the devil and a captive of the sin he serves can do anything else but sin? How can he do a work of light who is in darkness? How can he do the work of a wise man who is a fool? How can he do the work of a healthy person who is ill? … Therefore all things which he does are works of the devil, works of sin, works of darkness, works of folly…. Everything that does not proceed from faith is a mortal and damnable sin (Luther’s Works, vol. 31, pp. 65, 67).
This exposes the “common grace” theologians in Calvinist churches, who approve the works of unbelievers as good and righteous. Outside of Christ, according to the flattering theory of ‘common grace”, is something, even much, that is not accused, judged, and condemned by the law of God, contrary to the confession of Luther in Thesis 23.
“To defend themselves,” says Forde, ‘theologians of glory are always driven to claim at least some freedom of choice and to play theological games, bargaining for little bits. In one way or another the claim is made that the will must have at least a small part to play (pp. 49, 50).
The theological game that many play today, exactly as in Luther’s day, is to concede that “without grace the will (can) do nothing to merit eternal salvation” and to acknowledge that we are saved by grace. But immediately they add that “the will must at least desire and prepare for grace” (p. 50).
In his appendix to the theses that he brought to Heidelberg in 1518, Luther himself passed a devastating judgment upon the theology of the preachers who make the grace of God depend on anything at all in the sinner. “Such teachers attribute nothing to the grace of God except a certain embellishment of our works.’ (Luther’s Works, vol. 31, pp. 67).
Those who believe and confess the theology of the cross are a mere remnant, a little flock. As soon as a a denomination of churches show that they take divine predestination seriously as the source and foundation of all salvation, the churches are surrounded in protests and judgments— “You make us puppets! You make God the author of sin! You deny human responsibility
LikeLike
Here are, not here is- I don’t want the grammar cops on me.
LikeLike
An Alien Pebble says this:
Luther says: disbelieving that Christ has forgiven all of your sins is a mortal sin.
But I say, so what? If Christ has truly forgiven all of my sins, then that sin of disbelief is also forgiven. If not, then the statement is a lie, and the disbelief is not a sin at all.
“Unconditional forgiveness” either leads to universalism or a double-minded conditionalism on belief (in a lie). Forgiveness is conditional on Christ alone.
LikeLike
Correction- quote 1 was from Paul Tripp who wrote that after reading Luther’s Commentary on Galatians. He says:
“Whenever I get up to speak, I feel as if there are 30 or 40 people standing behind me who have contributed to everything I’m about to say. Each of those people did one thing: they helped me to understand grace.
By the time I was midway through college, I would have characterized myself as a depressed legalist. I was trying please God and earn His favor on my own merit, and it was killing me.
That’s when I got introduced to grace. Through the writing and teaching of historical and contemporary theologians, the Lord opened my eyes to grace. Ever since, my life and ministry has been a meditation of, a celebration of, an explanation of, and an application of God’s liberating grace.
MARTIN LUTHER
One of the most influential theologians that shaped my understanding of grace was Martin Luther. Below is an excerpt from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, followed by a poem I wrote in response to his exegesis.
Luther wrote: “With Paul we absolutely deny the possibility of self merit. God never yet gave to any person grace and everlasting life as a reward for merit…
The true way of salvation is this. First, a person must realize that he is a sinner, the kind of sinner who is congenitally unable to do any good thing. “Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.” Those who seek to earn the grace of God by their own efforts are trying to please God with sins. They mock God, and provoke His anger. The first step on the way to salvation is to repent.”
LikeLike
John,
“So, how can the Catholic believe that faith and cooperation with grace cannot arise without the influence of an infused grace?”
Influence does not equal determined. So I’m not sure what the problem is. RCism distinguishes between operative and cooperative grace – both are in play in justification and Trent/CCC statements.
“I am not seeing how these seemingly contradictory statements can be reconciled.”
Do you cooperate with grace in progressive sanctification? Does that mean your cooperation and work in sanctification is itself not a result of grace and that you can boast about your heavenly rewards?
“Nor do I see how his argument is valid.”
So do you agree or disagree with the 6th ecumenical council?
Robert,
“Based on what you have said, libertarian freedom for the saints in heaven is not equivalent to libertarian freedom for people who have not yet been glorified.”
They both have libertarian freedom. That their options are circumscribed differently does not invalidate that (again).
“So it would seem that in some sense the non-glorified man in your system is freer than glorified man under this discussion. He’s freer than God as well, because God can’t choose evil.”
God can create the universe. Man can’t. I guess God is freer than man. Glorified man is free in heaven to choose from an infinite plurality of goods given God (the good) is infinite. Man on earth is limited. I guess glorified man is freer than non-glorified man.
You don’t prove libertarianism false by foisting upon it a foreign definition of your own making; circumscribed options is perfectly compatible with it.
“Furthermore, if the circumscription of one’s choices is compatible with libertarian freedom, then Calvinism can affirm libertarianism for fallen man since we have live options only to sin, but several live options.”
So you’re not determined to your single act of sin? I thought you said your choice of cereal was determined. So you only have one live option circumscribed, and thus not a plurality by definition, which is what I pointed out in the previous reply.
“You want to say that Calvinists deny human freedom because before regenerate”
You say the same thing for the regenerate so I don’t know why you qualify here.
“I simply do not have the kind of “live” option you want me to have to choose a blue shirt if God’s knowledge cannot be falsified.”
Once again, assuming foreknowledge entails causation/determinism to then disprove libertarianism.
“And when it comes to sin, if it is not a part of God’s decree”
God knows perfectly well sin and evil happen and uses it to work his purposes.
“Evil has an independent existence apart from God’s decree, if only in His mind.”
Did God foreknow his decree?
“If the fall only weakened or wounded our natural powers, then there should be somebody since the fall who could do what is fully and truly pleasing in God’s sight.”
Does not follow.
“This idea that there is a supernatural good vs. a natural good isn’t found in Scripture and that man can do one but not the other is not there either.”
Ever see an atheist take care of his family or feed the homeless or go nurse patients in Africa? Or an atheist soldier jumping on a grenade? Natural good is all over the place – as Christ said even the pagans love those who love them.
“You essentially end up with some such nonsense as God sovereignly limiting HIs sovereignty.”
No God does not limit His sovereignty. Man can though, by modeling him in his own image in saying libertarian freedom and sovereignty are impossible. We already see how the two are not impossible in the examples of God, Christ, angels, pre-fall man.
LikeLike
Cletus,
You don’t prove libertarianism false by foisting upon it a foreign definition of your own making; circumscribed options is perfectly compatible with it.
You continue to equivocate. The nature of the libertarian freedom that glorified man has and the nature of the freedom non-glorified man has is not identical. There is a smaller set of circumscribed options.
So again, fallen man is freer than God and freer than glorified man. He has both an infinite number of natural goods, an infinite number of supernatural goods, and an infinite number of evils to choose from.
We can keep going at this if you like, but if God’s foreknowledge is not determinative, then his knowledge is identical to ours, it just is filled with a lot more stuff.
God knows perfectly well sin and evil happen and uses it to work his purposes.
Yes, in your system he passively knows it. He learns stuff. He takes in information outside of himself. He looked down the corridors of time or looked at the eternal present and saw it. He grew in knowledge. And since He didn’t decree evil, it has an independent eternal existence. It knocked at His door, and then He agreed to allow it.
LikeLike
Cletus,
I don’t believe there is such a thing as progressive sanctication and I think the reward for those who have repented of any hope of gaining salvation by their own righteousness, rather than what Christ accomplished by his life, death and resurrection, will gain immortality as their reward. That is the only reward and it is perfect.
LikeLike
And you did not address my main point in your first question- the main point being, what is the point of infused grace if man’s will is self-determined and is by nature “a self-moving and masterless power?” What does this infused grace do to the self-determined will?
LikeLike
Cletus,
Would you say that you decide between your own desires according to what you truly desire, or at random, or by some other principle?
Say hypothetically that a choice lies before you: To consider the possibility that the Church has erred, or to reject that possibility. You choose to reject that possibility, which you consider to be a moral act.
I would presume that you exercised your free will in rejecting that possibility.
If you had to make that choice a second time, and a third, and a tenth, would you make the same choice every time? Or would you make different choices on different days?
LikeLike
Meanwhile, the one true church continues to have no officially enforced view on human sexuality:
So let’s review — an instructor at a Catholic university taught material that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and when a Catholic student brought this information to the attention of Catholic administrators – the student was the one who got rebuked.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/22/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork
LikeLike
Commentary on what happened in Ireland? Nah. Mark decides to go after evangelicals:
And where exactly does this put Mark on Trent? Hermeneutic of continuity, discontinuity? Nutty.
LikeLike