tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post7841732965925573906..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: NOT as a result of worksJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-63241617318602611322007-10-31T11:49:00.000-04:002007-10-31T11:49:00.000-04:00Rhology,I think we are talking past one another, a...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>I think we are talking past one another, and, unfortunately, I haven't much time today as I have gotten slammed with a project here at work.<BR/><BR/>I will have to keep this short.<BR/><BR/>The "idiot" comment was preemptive in the sense that you if had posited that Trent contradicted itself in the same session on the same matter that would be a mistake that only idiots would make. Many Reformed like to point out (ones who aren't experts in Catholic theology) many "contradictions" that they find all the time in Catholic theology.<BR/><BR/>The quote you provide from Trent is one of the Canons from Session 6, correct? The 9th?<BR/><BR/>The quote I am providing is from the Decree on Justification. Those canons are tied to the decrees. I suggest you read the decrees before reading the canons.<BR/><BR/>I submit to you that <B>"none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification."</B><BR/><BR/>That is my position.<BR/><BR/>We also might be getting tripped up because Trent seems to use the term "justification" to refer to a continual process. I would say that your canon reveals that usage. It's also important to understand how the Tridentine Fathers might have understood and been using the terminology "faith alone."<BR/><BR/>BC<BR/><BR/>p.s.<BR/>I am not the person that you thought I might be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40802665659048132862007-10-30T15:24:00.000-04:002007-10-30T15:24:00.000-04:00BC,The only usage of the term "idiots" I can find ...BC,<BR/><BR/>The only usage of the term "idiots" I can find in this thread is by you in this last comment. This is hyperbole. <BR/>And dialogue with me if you want. Don't do so if you don't want. I can't fathom why you'd want to make me say you're an idiot or something, but... whatever.<BR/><BR/>OK, let's try for some better understanding here. I had said this:<BR/><BR/><B>If sthg more than faith "is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification", what is it? Works, no?</B><BR/><BR/>You are now responding with a quote from Trent:<BR/><BR/><B>none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification.</B><BR/><BR/>Is the problem in that your statement says "merit" whereas I'm asking about the means by which grace is obtained? <BR/>I want to get to the heart of the matter, indeed I have wanted that for 120+ comments, and a misunderstanding about merit vs. non-merit doesn't seem useful to me. Maybe that's where we've gone wrong. What I'm interested in is an answer to my question.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67353832336769209342007-10-30T11:52:00.000-04:002007-10-30T11:52:00.000-04:00Rhology,I feel like you might just say that, "Tren...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>I feel like you might just say that, "Trent contradicts itself here, no surprise there..." but I will then know you have no real desire to dialog on these issues and our discussion will be over.<BR/><BR/><I>And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the <B>perpetual consent</B> of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that <B>we are therefore said to be justified by faith</B>, because <B>faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification</B>; 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 <B>none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification.</B> For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.</I><BR/><BR/>Find the quote yourself since you seem to sure of your grasp of Trent (hint: it's in session 6). Then try, if you please, to find a way of harmonizing what they could possibly have been thinking aside from making contradictory statements that could only be made by idiots. If you want to take <B>that</B> route, then I will know that our discussion is over. As I will <B>not</B> dialog with a person who leaves leaves the only status open for people who disagree with him is "because they are idiots."<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-4957420603403184842007-10-30T09:18:00.000-04:002007-10-30T09:18:00.000-04:00You and Rhology have gotten the impression (I have...<I>You and Rhology have gotten the impression (I have no idea how, that I am a Catholic trying to show that the Catholic Church actually affirms JBFA.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I never thought that.<BR/>But let's be clear - there are three options for the justification of the sinner.<BR/>1) Faith alone<BR/>2) Faith + works<BR/>3) Works alone<BR/><BR/>We hold to #1. I know you don't hold to #3. But I present #2 as the RC position, and you keep denying it, which is disingenuous, since everyone knows RCC's position here. We're just trying to help you keep track of your own position.<BR/><BR/><I>Initial justification does not logically,infallibly end in final salvation for every person.</I><BR/><BR/>I deny that, but that's not what we've been discussing here.<BR/><BR/><I>We can do no work to earn the grace giving by God when we are initially justified. </I><BR/><BR/>See, there you go again. You're talking like Sola Fide, even though we both know you don't really believe that.<BR/>Is the key to this in the word "initial"? I wouldn't think so, but maybe I'm missing sthg. <BR/>If that's not it, I have no idea; this is maddening.<BR/><BR/>Remember, Trent says this:<BR/><BR/><B>that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary</B><BR/><BR/>Looks like you don't understand Trent as well as you thought.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-92077568111595446072007-10-29T11:42:00.000-04:002007-10-29T11:42:00.000-04:00Carrie,You quote of Trent only affects my argument...Carrie,<BR/><BR/>You quote of Trent only affects my argument if I am trying to argue that Trent (or any other Magisterial pronouncement) affirms Reformation theology as it relates to Sola Fide.<BR/><BR/>You and Rhology have gotten the impression (I have <B>no</B> idea how, that I am a Catholic trying to show that the Catholic Church actually affirms JBFA. I am not.<BR/><BR/>HINT: Initial justification <B>does not</B> logically,infallibly end in final salvation for every person.<BR/><BR/>We can do no work to earn the grace giving by God when we are initially justified. <BR/><BR/>That's what Trent teaches.<BR/><BR/>I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE REFORMATION DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE NOR DO I CONTEND THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES IT.<BR/><BR/>Ok?<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-53966007816014945032007-10-27T18:16:00.000-04:002007-10-27T18:16:00.000-04:00Hi BCcath,BTW, have you ever gone by the handle "B...Hi BCcath,<BR/><BR/>BTW, have you ever gone by the handle "BobCatholic" or "BobCat", particularly in Steve Ray's DCF forum? I'm just curious.<BR/><BR/><I>When did I "decline?" What does "decline" mean to you?</I><BR/><BR/>You and I both know what "decline" means. Let's not waste time.<BR/>You declined b/c I asked and you didn't do it.<BR/>And you still haven't done it. You can't back up what you said. <BR/>Here is what I asked for:<BR/><B>Educate me - is the statement "The idea that a sinner's initial justification is by faith alone is the position of official RC dogma" correct?<BR/>If not, please correct the statement.<BR/>If so, please provide a magisterial proclamation expressing that very thing.</B><BR/><BR/>You provided a statement from Trent that condemns Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Yes, I know that much. <BR/>Trent does not affirm justification by faith alone. EVeryone knows that, but you seem loathe to affirm it, which is why I said you don't seem proud to be RC.<BR/>But the heart of the matter is: does RC dogma affirm that a man must MERIT justification at least partly? And your statement from Trent doesn't count THAT out either. RC dogma is that man merits justification, but somehow it's still "all grace". That makes no sense, either to me or biblically, but that's the most you could say. Trent does not proscribe what I said. Point out to me *specifically* where it does, if you disagree. Otherwise, provide another RC magisterial statement or please retract your assertion.<BR/>(I'd add that I've been a few times in your situation of having to locate a statement by the RC Magisterium, and it can be tough. So I empathise. ;-) )<BR/><BR/>And Carrie's post right before this provides a statement relevant to this. And the following statement is *vitally important*:<BR/><BR/><B>that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary</B><BR/><BR/>If sthg more than faith "is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification", what is it? Works, no?<BR/><BR/>(thanks much, Carrie)<BR/><BR/><I>you seem to believe that initial justification implies seeing God when you die</I><BR/><BR/>I do, but I'm not making that part of my argument. But I am at least arguing that justification could be defined loosely as "the state in which one, if he were to die in that state, would go to eternal life." I think we agree on that.<BR/><BR/><I>it is you who claimed that the texts in question here tell us that the "2 works mean the same thing."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and I've made arguments to that effect.<BR/>And it's the plain reading of the text. Why <B>*would*</B> they be different? That's my question.<BR/><BR/><I>unless you can show where the text claims that the "2 works" of the texts we are examining "mean the same thing," you are wrong in making that claim. </I><BR/><BR/>That's just grandstanding. Neither of our positions is the "neutral, default" position. We need to find out which is correct. Please, present your arguments, and please remember that "I don't think they are the same" is not an argument.<BR/><BR/><I>You seem to have made this verse an island.</I><BR/><BR/>I am not discussing any systematic theology. I just want to know what this verse says.<BR/>At the same time, however, yes, if this verse means one thing unequivocally, then God-inspired Scripture will not teach elsewhere anythg contradictory. I think you see that and are trying to wriggle out of the implications.<BR/><BR/><I>You are assuming that St. Paul means the same things when he uses certain words as you do say he means when he uses them.</I><BR/><BR/>Umm... guilty as charged? If I *thought* Paul means sthg ELSE, then I'd believe THAT thing, not the thing I believe now. This claim applies to you as well.<BR/><BR/><I>You claim (with no proof whatsoever) that the text itself "tells" us that it's using words in a certain way.</I><BR/><BR/>Anyone can see that I've made multiple arguments for my position.<BR/><BR/><I>When reasons are offered for one's not understanding a word or a text differently than you do you ignore them </I><BR/><BR/>I challenge you to cite any opposing argument in this thread that I've ignored.<BR/><BR/><I>St. Paul makes no such claim that what you have offered is what he means by the words "that no one may boast" in the passage.</I><BR/><BR/>Then what does that statement mean?<BR/><BR/><I>I even told you that we can do nothing to merit initial justification. </I><BR/><BR/>In opposition to RC dogma, yes.<BR/><BR/><I>I will listen to the clip this Sunday or Monday, alright? </I><BR/><BR/>OK, sounds good. What I refer to occurs fairly early in the interview, when Slick asks Staples what we must do to be saved.<BR/><BR/><I>If Mr. Staples says that this passage is teaching </I><BR/><BR/>He doesn't talk about this psg much at all, just FYI.<BR/><BR/><I>If those reasons don't satisfy you, that's perfectly fine, but it's silly to act as if I never gave you any reasons at all, IMO.</I><BR/><BR/>You're right, it is overstatement to say you've not given ANY reasons, much like it is to say that I've "ignored" counterarguments here.<BR/>That said, I don't see you dealing substantively with my rebuttals to your initial reasons.<BR/><BR/><I>I probably won't be able to respond till Monday so don't think I have run out on you, ok?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, that's fine. God knows there are more important things in life than blogposts, especially posts that only like 8 people are reading anymore. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16013101549901148722007-10-27T16:44:00.000-04:002007-10-27T16:44:00.000-04:00CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone th...CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. (Trent)Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-45124434402319117562007-10-26T19:50:00.000-04:002007-10-26T19:50:00.000-04:00Rhology,By the way, I probably won't be able to re...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>By the way, I probably won't be able to respond till Monday so don't think I have run out on you, ok?<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42134209361631452302007-10-26T19:39:00.000-04:002007-10-26T19:39:00.000-04:00Rhology,It seems painfully obvious to me that you ...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>It seems painfully obvious to me that you don't understand me any better than I understand you.<BR/><BR/><I>I asked you to provide the quotation for, and you declined. Would you mind?</I><BR/><BR/>When did I "decline?" What does "decline" mean to you?<BR/><BR/><B>If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.</B><BR/><BR/><B>If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.</B><BR/><BR/><B>If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.</B>[Trent: S6-C1,2&3]<BR/><BR/>If Mr. Staples says that the passage we are discussing teaches that we merit our initial justification by works <B>in any way</B> he is at odds with Trent.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I think that you see my use of "initial justification" as being "meaningless" and a "distinction without a difference" because you seem to believe that initial justification implies seeing God when you die. I understand that's what you believe, but it's not Catholic theology... even if you disagree with that don't pretend like you've shown some kind of contradiction in the Catholic understanding of the subject when you clearly have not.<BR/><BR/>Now, sir, it is <B>you</B> who claimed that the texts in question here tell us that the "2 works mean the same thing."<BR/><BR/>The text <B>never</B> tells us such a thing. Thus, unless you can show where the text claims that the "2 works" of the texts we are examining "mean the same thing," you are <B>wrong</B> in making that claim. <BR/><BR/>Your claim that St. Paul's use of "works" in these passages means "any human effort" as it relates to seeing God at death is <B>a separate claim!</B> It's distinct from the claim that the texts <B>tells</B> us they mean the same thing. Can you not see that?<BR/><BR/><I>Should I count how many requests I've made for someone to explain how they could be different in this thread? It is easily over a dozen. </I> <BR/><BR/>Yes, yes... I know... we just keep seeing shoddy "RC" theology "breaking against the rock of God's Word." *sigh*<BR/><BR/>I guess some of the problems we are having in this discussion include:<BR/><BR/>1. You seem to have made this verse an island.<BR/><BR/>2. You are assuming that St. Paul means the same things when he uses certain words as you do say he means when he uses them.<BR/><BR/>3. You claim (with no proof whatsoever) that the text itself "tells" us that it's using words in a certain way.<BR/><BR/>4. You claim that you understand "RC" teaching, but continue to say things that imply that you don't.<BR/><BR/>5. When reasons are offered for one's not understanding a word or a text differently than you do you ignore them and claim that no one has offered anything but denials of your position.<BR/><BR/>And many more, to be sure...<BR/><BR/><I>Prove my claim wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>The claim I was speaking about, which I made fairly clear, was your claim that the text tells us that the word "works" is being used in the same way in both instances.<BR/><BR/>Your claim is clearly wrong as the texts tells us no such thing.<BR/><BR/><I>BCcath:St. Paul doesn't tell us what you claim... that, "God wants to be the One Who can boast and not leave room for any human boasting." Sorry, that's YOUR presupposition.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Rhology: Then what does "not as a result of works, lest anyone should boast" mean?</I><BR/><BR/>That's a good question!<BR/><BR/>Did you not see that you claimed that, "God wants to be the One Who can boast and not leave room for any human boasting."<BR/><BR/>I simply wanted to point out that St. Paul makes <B>no such claim</B> that what you have offered is what he means by the words "that no one may boast" in the passage.<BR/><BR/>The question about what St. Paul means by the words "so that no one may boast" is separate from you claim that, "God wants to be the One Who can boast and not leave room for any human boasting" which is <B>not</B> stated by in the passage. Can you not see that???<BR/><BR/><I>I note, finally, that BCcath, despite quite a few lengthy comments, has not attempted to take up the challenge of the original post either.</I><BR/><BR/>I am not denying one word of the text, Rhology. Which word have I denied? I even told you that we can do <B>nothing</B> to merit initial justification. I have now provided some quotes from Trent that I think agree with that premise.<BR/><BR/>I have seen <B>no one</B> (unless Tim Staples specifically says otherwise) that this passage teaches we can come into "right relationship" with God by works.<BR/><BR/>I will listen to the clip this Sunday or Monday, alright? <BR/><BR/>If Mr. Staples says that this passage is teaching that we can come into right relationship with God by faith <B>and works</B> then I will gladly tell you he is wrong, as the passage doesn't say <B>that</B> anymore than it says, "the 2 works mean the same thing" or "God wants to be the One Who can boast and not leave room for any human boasting." Deal?<BR/><BR/>I gave you some reasons (from the text alone) why I believed that it was possible that St. Paul might have been using the word "works" differently in each instance. If those reasons don't satisfy you, that's perfectly fine, but it's silly to act as if I never gave you any reasons at all, IMO.<BR/><BR/><I>Rhology:Oh, but they MUST be different! They simply MUST be! If they're NOT, then RC dogma is in conflict with Scripture, and that just COULDN'T be!</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe I am not the only one capable of making cheap insults?<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67566926001617832062007-10-26T17:33:00.000-04:002007-10-26T17:33:00.000-04:00BCcath,"RC" apologists don't know anything about C...BCcath,<BR/><BR/><I>"RC" apologists don't know anything about Catholic theology when they disagree with the likes of James White on it, but if you think they are proving your point they are trustworthy.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know what you mean here, so I'll just note its quality as a cheap insult.<BR/><BR/><I>He would be contradicting Trent as well</I><BR/><BR/>Which I asked you to provide the quotation for, and you declined. Would you mind?<BR/><BR/><I>Admit you would wrong about the text telling us they both mean the same thing, would you?</I><BR/><BR/>Absent any argument from you that they are different, why would any reasonable person do sthg like that?<BR/>Should I count how many requests I've made for someone to explain how they could be different in this thread? It is easily over a dozen.<BR/><BR/><I><B>I wouldn't have to offer an alternative to show that your assertion that the text says that they mean the same this is wrong, by the way. That is a separate issue.</B></I><BR/><BR/>I highlight it just to showcase. To let the admission sink in.<BR/><BR/><I>The text doesn't say that they mean the same thing, which is what you claimed.</I><BR/><BR/>Prove my claim wrong. <BR/><BR/><I>St. Paul doesn't tell us what you that, "God wants to be the One Who can boast and not leave room for any human boasting." Sorry, that's YOUR presupposition.</I><BR/><BR/>THen what does "not as a result of works, lest anyone should boast" mean?<BR/><BR/>I note, finally, that BCcath, despite quite a few lengthy comments, has not attempted to take up the challenge of the original post either. You're not alone, BCcath. You had given me some hope, though, and you still have a chance. I don't know why you're dilly-dallying, except that you have no idea how the two "works" could be different.<BR/><BR/><I>Oh, but they MUST be different! They simply MUST be! If they're NOT, then RC dogma is in conflict with Scripture, and that just COULDN'T be!</I><BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-90450305702643161592007-10-26T17:24:00.000-04:002007-10-26T17:24:00.000-04:00Rhology,I don't get what you are saying at all...L...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>I don't get what you are saying at all...<BR/><BR/><I>Look, *you* listen to Catholic Answers' Tim Staples on a radio show with a Reformed apologist. He's a professional apologist; you're an anonymous Internet commenter. I think I trust him to teach RC dogma more than you.</I><BR/><BR/>When I have time I will I will listen to it.<BR/><BR/>"RC" apologists don't know <B>anything</B> about Catholic theology when they disagree with the likes of James White on it, but if you think they are proving your point they are trustworthy. Duly noted.<BR/><BR/><I>He says RCs must contribute at least some merit to their own justification. You apparently disagree, but that's not my problem.</I><BR/><BR/>It would be your problem if you weren't representing him completely accurately, would it not?<BR/><BR/>And, of course, he says initial justification, right? Because would prove the "disagreement" you seem to eager to prove.<BR/><BR/>He would be contradicting Trent as well, I would say I assume you already know that, but I am now having my doubts about what it is you know.<BR/><BR/><I>Now, in the Eph 2 psg, "works" means SOMEthing, as I'm sure you'd agree. What in the text would lead you to think that the 1st "works" is diff from the 2nd? </I><BR/><BR/>We both agree that it means something, just not on <B>what</B>.<BR/><BR/>You said they meant the same thing. You said, "UM, yes it does" when I denied that the text told us they meant the same thing.<BR/><BR/>Admit you would wrong about the text telling us they both mean the same thing, would you?<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't have to offer an alternative to show that your assertion that the text says that they mean the same this is wrong, by the way. That is a separate issue.<BR/><BR/><I>Paul gives no indication that one "works" is different than the other.</I><BR/><BR/>The text doesn't say that they mean the same thing, which is what you claimed.<BR/><BR/>Your "no indication" thing is as subjective as you might claim the reasons I offered for thinking that he might have meant something different by them. <BR/><BR/><I>1) No one who's in slavery to Satan does good works.<BR/>2) No one who's in slavery to Satan CAN do good works.<BR/>3) B/c God wants to be the One Who can boast and not leave room for any human boasting.<BR/>(Sorry if you don't think that RC dogma leaves room for it; Paul seemed to think that injecting ANY works into the equation means there's room for human boasting.)</I><BR/><BR/>1. Where did I disagree?<BR/>2. ""<BR/>3. St. Paul doesn't tell us what you that, "God wants to be the One Who can boast and not leave room for any human boasting." Sorry, that's <B>YOUR</B> presupposition.<BR/><BR/>I realize that you probably like to "boast" about your theology being more "God-glorifying" while mine is more "man-glorifying," but I think this is just posturing more than anything. Do you know why? Because if God didn't actually do the things the ways you are claiming that He did it isn't God-glorifying to say that He did.<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, b/c that's one of your possible disproofs of what I'm saying. I'm waiting for a full-fledged exposition of what Paul is saying, but you seem to be flitting at the edges.</I><BR/><BR/>You missed my point about adding "of the Torah" to both of the "works" I think, since only <B>one</B> of the "works" has good in it either way.<BR/><BR/>Also... I wouldn't have to show anything to disprove your claim that the text tells us that St. Paul means the same thing in both instances other than the fact that the text itself does not make this claim. These things are separate issues.<BR/><BR/><I>"The idea that a sinner's initial justification is by faith alone is the position of official RC dogma" correct?</I><BR/><BR/>It is official "RC" teaching that we can do <B>nothing</B> to merit the grace of initial justification. It's free... it's Trent.<BR/><BR/>Does that help?<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-8080474242582607082007-10-26T16:57:00.000-04:002007-10-26T16:57:00.000-04:00BCcath,I am looking forward to those "other things...BCcath,<BR/><BR/><I>I am looking forward to those "other things."</I><BR/><BR/>All in good time.<BR/><BR/>You keep saying that I don't understand RC theology on salvation.<BR/>Look, *you* listen to Catholic Answers' <A HREF="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/10/staples-vs-slick.html" REL="nofollow">Tim Staples</A> on a radio show with a Reformed apologist. He's a professional apologist; you're an anonymous Internet commenter. I think I trust him to teach RC dogma more than you. He says RCs must contribute at least some merit to their own justification. You apparently disagree, but that's not my problem. This post is designed to interact with RCC dogma in contrast with the teaching of Eph 2:8-10, not "what BCcath thinks".<BR/><BR/>Now, in the Eph 2 psg, "works" means SOMEthing, as I'm sure you'd agree. <BR/>What in the text would lead you to think that the 1st "works" is diff from the 2nd? <BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><I>As far as #3 goes... St. Paul uses "good" to modify "works" in the 2nd usage of the word. You are the ones claiming they mean the same thing. I was simply giving my reasons that they might, indeed, be being used differently.</I>\<BR/><BR/>But you didn't explain what that could mean nor why it's even relevant. <BR/>As an example, look at these last 2 sentences you just wrote. You used "they" in each one. Each of the 2 "they"s means the same thing.<BR/>Similarly, Paul gives no indication that one "works" is different than the other. <BR/>What's more, he's clearly extending his thought from just a few verses before, where the children of wrath who followed Satan's leading in everything were saved by God's mercy. How? By grace thru faith. Faith AND works, or just faith? Just faith. Why? <BR/>1) No one who's in slavery to Satan does good works.<BR/>2) No one who's in slavery to Satan CAN do good works.<BR/>3) B/c God wants to be the One Who can boast and not leave room for any human boasting. <BR/>(Sorry if you don't think that RC dogma leaves room for it; Paul seemed to think that injecting ANY works into the equation means there's room for human boasting.)<BR/><BR/><I>You really want to see me compare "works of Torah" and "good works of Torah?" </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, b/c that's one of your possible disproofs of what I'm saying. I'm waiting for a full-fledged exposition of what Paul is saying, but you seem to be flitting at the edges.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I want to go back to this "you don't understand RC theology" thing. Educate me - is the statement "The idea that a sinner's initial justification is by faith <B>alone</B> is the position of official RC dogma" correct? <BR/>If not, please correct the statement.<BR/>If so, please provide a magisterial proclamation expressing that very thing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79678041313357595202007-10-26T16:13:00.000-04:002007-10-26T16:13:00.000-04:00Rhology,I am looking forward to those "other thing...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>I am looking forward to those "other things."<BR/><BR/>Re: "Initial justification."<BR/><BR/><I>This is a meaningless statement given RC theology. Fine. As opposed to my theology, in which, yes, I agree with it 100%.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think initial justification necessarily ends in final salvation. You sound almost surprised to hear this... I assure you that I can hold this belief as a Catholic and meaningfully so.<BR/><BR/>You use the word "meaningless" quite liberally here, by the way. If you think it's a distinction without a difference you either don't understand Catholic theology, are imposing your definitions on it in places, or both things.<BR/><BR/><I>BCcath:I don't think that one can come into "right relationship" with God by earning it.</I><BR/><BR/><I>You're being disingenuous here. Look, either you're a maverick or you're a Roman Catholic. You have to choose. If you're a maverick, welcome to the "schismatic" crowd like EgoMakarios (and me, as other RCs would have it).</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't said anything outside the pale of orthodox Catholic teaching on the matter. You obviously aren't getting me or the teaching of the Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/><I>If RC, your own merit is partly in play in the salvation of your soul.</I><BR/><BR/>In crowning our merits, God is merely crowing His own gifts. <BR/><BR/>You do call yourself "Augustinian," do you not? ;)<BR/><BR/>Seriously though... it seems to me that God's grace <B>enables</B> us to do the works that merit His crowning them. The giving of that grace do be able to do them in the 1st place seems (to me at least) presuppose the God will that they be done. And when done, crowned.<BR/><BR/>"New creations" (not as before) that were "created in Christ Jesus" (creations with 2 natures, just like their Master) to do "good works" (when these "new creations" do "good works" they merit God's crowning. Just like the works of their Master). Gee, sounds fine to me! ;)<BR/><BR/><I>You're talking like you're sola fide without using the words 'sola fide' or 'faith alone.' You're trying to ride the fence, making distinctions that imply no difference. But RC dogma does not allow you to play this game, and I'm getting a little tired of it too. Are you proud of being RC or not?</I><BR/><BR/>1. There is <B>nothing</B> "sola fide" about saying that <B>initial</B> justification cannot be earned. That has <B>always</B> been the teaching of the Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>2. As I said before, if you are going to keep making the charge that I am making "distinctions without a difference," you aren't getting what I am saying <B>or</B> Catholic teaching on the matter. <BR/><BR/>"RC" (yeah... you <B>obviously</B> really well versed in all things Catholic. I can tell by your use of the terminology. ;)<BR/><BR/>You don't seem to understand what "RC" theology teachings on these matters, as it seems that you keep conflating your understandings of biblical and theological terms with the ways that I am using them and then find contradictions (so-called). I, for one, am getting a little tired of <B>that</B> game.<BR/><BR/>I am proud to be a Christian in communion with the Pope of Rome, yes. Any historically-minded Christian who considered it to be anything other than a good thing just boggles me, if I am being honest.<BR/><BR/><I>BCcath:I have the idea that you understand "works" (where the word is used in these verses) to mean "any human effort."</I><BR/><BR/><I>But what does it mean IN THE TEXT? Look at it one more time.</I><BR/><BR/>*SIGH*<BR/><BR/>The "text" does not tell us how it is using the term <B>at any point in the passage!</B><BR/><BR/>You seem to be claiming that "works" boils down to "any human effort" in these passages, and that both times the passages mention "works" they are referring to the same works. <BR/><BR/>Got news for you friend... the "text" doesn't tell us any of these things. Your claims are merely assumptions that you <B>cannot</B> prove from the text of these passages.<BR/><BR/>Your constant quoting of the text (that seems to imply that you think that I didn't read it) doesn't show you to be correct. You claimed something based on your theological presuppositions, and not on something the text is telling you.<BR/><BR/><I>The works that do not result in our salvation:<BR/>1) are not our own doing<BR/>2) are not the gift of God<BR/>3) would apparently merit boasting before God</I><BR/><BR/>It's obvious that we are disagreeing on how "saved" is being used here. It's also obvious that we disagree on how "works" is being used here.<BR/><BR/>ISTM that you threw in the word "merit" to reference your caricature of Catholic teaching on the subject since the passage says nothing of "merit" leading to the "boasting." That's productive.<BR/><BR/>If we ourselves could "earn" our initial justification (by faith <B>or</B> works) the we would, indeed, have something to boast about, but Catholic theology <B>doesn't</B> make that claim, and I don't make it either. <BR/><BR/><I>Why do I think the 2 "works" are the same?<BR/>1) B/c they occur in consecutive sentences.<BR/>2) They are the same Gk word (ergon).<BR/>3) It matches the rest of Paul's theology, where men are totally depraved and do NOT seek to do good at all (Rom 3, Eph 1-2:3). So how could we do works to be saved, since no one does good works?</I><BR/><BR/>1. It doesn't mean that they mean the same thing, as there is some presuppositional understanding of terms going on, and there are also some (I think, anyway) important words in between the 2 occurrences.<BR/>2. Same words with some important words in between them.<BR/>3. Only true if we presuppose that you are right about the rest of St. Paul's theology... which <B>we</B> certainly do <B>not</B>.<BR/><BR/>I won't comment on the "totally depraved" bit...<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that no one who is not "(re)created in Christ Jesus" is able to do anything worthy of merit. That seems to be where our agreement ends.<BR/><BR/><I>Please explain why any of these make any difference.<BR/>Re #3 in particular, you think that the 1st "works" would not be good? You think that Paul could be saying "not as a result of (evil) works"? What sense would that make?<BR/>Re #4, he doesn't say that. Also, why wouldn't the 2nd "works" be "works of Torah"?<BR/>This seems to be grasping at straws.</I><BR/><BR/>I am making the argument to counter you assertion that both usages of works mean the same thing. You cannot show that from the text.<BR/><BR/>As far as #3 goes... St. Paul uses "good" to modify "works" in the 2nd usage of the word. You are the ones claiming they mean the same thing. I was simply giving my reasons that they might, indeed, be being used differently.<BR/><BR/>You really want to see me compare "works of Torah" and "good works of Torah?" ;)<BR/><BR/>When beings are given the gift of partaking in the divine nature (which is a gift of God) do "good works" they are meritorious in the sight of God. Jesus is a perfect (take that both ways) example of that. :)<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-48097479706642383942007-10-26T11:49:00.000-04:002007-10-26T11:49:00.000-04:00BCcath,oh, I have plenty to say about those other ...BCcath,<BR/><BR/>oh, I have plenty to say about those other things, but I want to focus the convo. :-)<BR/><BR/><I>I agree completely that nothing we do as individuals can earn us initial justification.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a meaningless statement given RC theology. Fine.<BR/>As opposed to my theology, in which, yes, I agree with it 100%.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't think that one can come into "right relationship" with God by earning it.</I><BR/><BR/>You're being disingenuous here. <BR/>Look, either you're a maverick or you're a Roman Catholic. You have to choose. <BR/>If you're a maverick, welcome to the "schismatic" crowd like EgoMakarios (and me, as other RCs would have it).<BR/>If RC, your own merit is partly in play in the salvation of your soul. You're talking like you're sola fide without using the words "sola fide" or "faith alone". You're trying to ride the fence, making distinctions that imply no difference.<BR/>But RC dogma does not allow you to play this game, and I'm getting a little tired of it too. Are you proud of being RC or not?<BR/><BR/><I>I have the idea that you understand "works" (where the word is used in these verses) to mean "any human effort." </I><BR/><BR/>But what does it mean IN THE TEXT? <BR/>Look at it one more time.<BR/><BR/>8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.<BR/><BR/>The works that do not result in our salvation:<BR/>1) are not our own doing<BR/>2) are not the gift of God<BR/>3) would apparently merit boasting before God<BR/><BR/>Why do I think the 2 "works" are the same? <BR/>1) B/c they occur in consecutive sentences.<BR/>2) They are the same Gk word (ergon).<BR/>3) It matches the rest of Paul's theology, where men are totally depraved and do NOT seek to do good at all (Rom 3, Eph 1-2:3). So how could we do works to be saved, since no one does good works?<BR/><BR/>You say they're not the same b/c:<BR/>1) The text does not say the 2 usages of the words are the same.<BR/>2) The second usage occurs after "created in Christ Jesus."<BR/>3) The second usage is modified by "good."<BR/>4) The 1st "works" could be "works of Torah". <BR/> <BR/>Please explain why any of these make any difference.<BR/>Re #3 in particular, you think that the 1st "works" would not be good? You think that Paul could be saying "not as a result of (evil) works"? What sense would that make?<BR/>Re #4, he doesn't say that. Also, why wouldn't the 2nd "works" be "works of Torah"?<BR/>This seems to be grasping at straws. <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-36176176299347409772007-10-26T11:26:00.000-04:002007-10-26T11:26:00.000-04:00Rhology,I am a little surprised that you had no co...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>I am a little surprised that you had no comments on some of the other things I said in my last post, but...<BR/><BR/>I think a lot of this controversy still boils down to words, what words mean in certain contexts, etc.<BR/><BR/>You're position (and the questions you are asking me that are based on it) seems to understand "saved," "through faith (possibly)," and "works" a bit differently than I do.<BR/><BR/>I agree completely that <B>nothing</B> we do as individuals can earn us initial justification.<BR/><BR/>Now, you might not like the way I have phrased that, but you can probably agree with it to a point, no?<BR/><BR/>I have the idea that you understand "works" (where the word is used in these verses) to mean "any human effort." I think we agree that we cannot come into "right relationship" with God (initially) by "earning" it.<BR/><BR/>However, is St. Paul using "works" primarily to express "any human effort" here in this passage? Is he concerned at all with "works of Torah?" Does "saved" here carry the meaning "reckoned righteousness?" <BR/><BR/>I think we probably disagree on all of these things to some extent.<BR/><BR/>You want to know how I differentiate between the "2 works," as you called them, in these Ephesians passages...<BR/><BR/>We... as I told you before... I don't think that one can come into "right relationship" with God by earning it. I think this is a gift of free grace. We agree thus far, I think. I am not sure that St. Paul has "earning" in mind when he speaks of "works" the first time...<BR/><BR/>The 2nd occurrence of the word "works" comes <B>after</B> the words "created in Christ Jesus." I think this is significant as it pertains to several of the things we discussed earlier (Christology as it relates to justification, partaking of the divine nature, etc.). <BR/><BR/>Is the first "works" any different that the 2nd "works?" You say no... I say that I see no reason at all to think they are the same (the text <B>never</B> says that they are) and some reason to think that St. Paul might be expressing something different the 2nd time...<BR/><BR/>As I said... the 2nd usage occurs <B>after</B> "created in Christ Jesus" (I am going to presuppose that means after coming into "right relationship") and the word works is now being modified by "good."<BR/><BR/>So there are two reasons I think St. Paul might be trying to express something else with the 2nd usage of works.<BR/><BR/>The text does not say the 2 usaages of the words are the same.<BR/><BR/>The second usage occurs after "created in Christ Jesus."<BR/><BR/>The second usage is modified by "good."<BR/><BR/>Those reasons are based on the text alone.<BR/><BR/>Why do you say they are the same? Can you show me that the text means to express that they are the same from the text alone?<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54009168594908189032007-10-25T19:59:00.000-04:002007-10-25T19:59:00.000-04:00BCcath,That's fine, we can wait on the perseveranc...BCcath,<BR/><BR/>That's fine, we can wait on the perseverance thing.<BR/>But you need to tell me <B>on what basis</B> you think the 2 "works" are different. That's the question, and has been the question all this time.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23618998529896733702007-10-25T19:25:00.000-04:002007-10-25T19:25:00.000-04:00But, on the other hand, we've been here already, d...But, on the other hand, we've been here already, done that, and covered this issue as well, now, haven't we?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88807989244236435892007-10-25T19:21:00.000-04:002007-10-25T19:21:00.000-04:00Alan, First the fishes, now the sheep ... do You h...Alan, <BR/><BR/>First the fishes, now the sheep ... do You have a fauna-phobia, or? :-) <BR/><BR/>The sheep are those that hear Christs voice and hearken to it (<I>John 10:4, 27</I>). Compare with <I>Matthew 7:21</I>. To these faithful men a promise is given by God, that He will NOT let any of them perish, or be plucked out of His hand (<I>John 10:28, 29</I>). St. Paul testifies to the same in <I>Romans 8:28</I>. <BR/><BR/>Once a frog always a forg does not apply to sheep ... whereas sheep are so by nature, we are so by choice (if we obey God, we're His sheep, if not, then not). Same thing with the fig-tree: "it wasn't time for the figs yet" ... but can this be said of men also? Is there a "specific time" for us to be fruitful? Do we await "special inviattions"? Can we honestly say to the Son of Man, whose Day comes as a thief, that "we're not ready yet", when he comes to judge the quick and the reposed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70417397888442166852007-10-25T19:02:00.000-04:002007-10-25T19:02:00.000-04:00Rhology,Ok... a couple of points...In order for yo...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>Ok... a couple of points...<BR/><BR/><I>In order for your Eph 2 argument to stand up to anythg, you need to show how the 2 "works" are different. That is fundamental, and that's the bottom line.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't agree with you. <BR/><BR/>You are the one who asserted that they are "the same works," not I. <BR/><BR/>That being said, I don't see any reason to believe that they have to be. The text certainly doesn't tell us that they are "the same works" even though you seemed to indicate it does).<BR/><BR/>Also... I think it important to point out that the forensic language which you seem to concentrate upon so much in Romans 4 (though not in James 2) is absent from the Ephesians passage we have been dealing with ("sōzō" [translated as "saved"] is used here and not any form of "dikaioō" [to justify] like in Romans 4, for example).<BR/><BR/>As far as Romans 4 goes... You seem to have backed off of saying that the the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ to the account of the believer is to be found in the text of this passage, and I, for one, am glad of it. ;)<BR/><BR/><I>whence cometh the righteousness that God imputes to the sinner apart from works, then? If not Christ?</I><BR/><BR/>I think that's a good question, but the text might answer it for us without <B>any</B> reference at all to the righteousness of the penal substitute being imputed to the account of Abraham being forced into it. :)<BR/><BR/>I happen to think that Abraham's faith (Grk: pisteuō) is what "was counted" (Grk: logizomai) as righteousness.<BR/><BR/><I>Sheep - so those that are in the Church never perish? You don't believe a fully-committed RC who's been baptised and confirmed can commit a mortal sin and perish? I ask b/c Christ says the sheep will never perish.</I><BR/><BR/>I do believe that apostasy can lead to eternal death. I think that this has been the historical understanding of the biblical teaching the subject since the dawn of Christendom.<BR/><BR/>To me the Scriptures seem to indicate that just as much as they seem to indicate that the sheep cannot be lost. <BR/><BR/>There is certainly a tension in this area that I feel inadequate to resolve as these things are mysteries to all of us.<BR/><BR/>The Catholic Church gives a lot of latitude on the questions surrounding predestination so...<BR/><BR/>I will think on it some more, ok?<BR/><BR/>But our discussion seems to be more about the passages from Eph, Rom, and Jas and how they relate to (if at all) the 16th century Reformation teaching "Sola Fide," so... can we wait on predestination and perseverance a bit?<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9927525587749897232007-10-25T17:31:00.000-04:002007-10-25T17:31:00.000-04:00BCcath,In order for your Eph 2 argument to stand u...BCcath,<BR/><BR/>In order for your Eph 2 argument to stand up to anythg, you need to show how the 2 "works" are different. That is fundamental, and that's the bottom line.<BR/><BR/>Rom 4:6 - whence cometh the righteousness that God imputes to the sinner apart from works, then? If not Christ?<BR/><BR/>Sheep - so those that are in the Church never perish? You don't believe a fully-committed RC who's been baptised and confirmed can commit a mortal sin and perish? I ask b/c Christ says the sheep will never perish.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81737956700856829932007-10-25T16:52:00.000-04:002007-10-25T16:52:00.000-04:00Rhology,I am sorry for posting again so quickly. I...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry for posting again so quickly. <BR/><BR/>It's just that I just now finished reading what I wrote to you concerning the "sheep," and I wasn't sure how to express myself on the matter.<BR/><BR/>I think the the "sheep" are those that are in the Church (which is Christ's Body). Those that are not in the Church are <B>not</B> sheep.<BR/><BR/>Do you see what I am <B>trying</B> so desperately to express?<BR/><BR/>I don't see the "Church" as synonymous with the "sheep," but those that are <B>in</B> the Church as being closer to the mark... <BR/><BR/>I hope I am making some sense here... :)<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20845696941105370072007-10-25T16:32:00.000-04:002007-10-25T16:32:00.000-04:00Rhology,I will try to keep it short this time too!...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>I will <B>try</B> to keep it short this time too!! ;)<BR/><BR/><I>BCcath: I don't want to make it say th(at) we are saved by "faith + works" - It doesn't say that.</I><BR/><BR/><I>But what's the alternative if not faith alone? I'm not following you. And why is Tim Staples on record saying that justification is by faith + works, if that's not the case? Do you disagree? </I><BR/><BR/>I don't have time to listen to a whole program right this minute, so I can't say...<BR/><BR/>That being said, I have a hard time believing that Mr. Staples read the verse you are touting here as proof that St. Paul is in agreement with the Reformers on "Sola Fide" and remarking something akin to, "See? Like the verse says, 'faith + works.'" If he says something like that, that the verse says "not by works," but really means "faith + works," then, yes, I disagree with Mr. Staples. However, I would disagree with your reading of James 2:24 if you said, "He says, 'not by faith alone,' here, but what he <B>means</B> is 'by faith alone.'"(that's an example, not a critique of your position)<BR/><BR/><I>BCcath:The text doesn't say this.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Rhology:Um, yes it does.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't. The text says <B>nothing</B> about those works being the "same works" that don't save us.<BR/><BR/><I>BCcath:Do you think St. James is using "justified" in a different way than St. Paul?</I><BR/><BR/><I>Paul doesn't say "justify" in Eph 2 at all, so I don't know what you refer to.</I><BR/><BR/>I never said he did. <BR/><BR/>This question was after the numbered section(s) where you had been bringing up Romans 4 where St. Paul <B>does</B> use "justified" (Grk: dikaioō), which is the same word that St. James uses in chapter 2 of his epistle.<BR/><BR/><I>If you mean the Pauline definition of "justification" in general, then yes, he means it differently than James does. We can tell from the contexts of the psgs in question.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think you mean that St. Paul and St. James have different definitions of "justification" in general. ISTM that you mean that they are using the word "dikaioō" differently in these passages. Passages in which they both reference the same passage.<BR/><BR/>As far as "contexts" go... I think you are saying that St. Paul is speaking about justification "before God" and St. James is speaking about justification "before men," no?<BR/><BR/>Ok, ok so... you say that St. Paul and St. James are using it differently. Do you say this because of what you understand St. Paul to be saying in Romans 4 when he uses it? (Y or N will do here too) ;)<BR/><BR/>I assume your fuller quotation of Romans 4 was to show me that:<BR/><BR/>1. Justification has a forensic component (something I never denied).<BR/><BR/>AND<BR/><BR/>2. Christ's alien righteousness is imputed to the believer's account.<BR/><BR/>I still miss the bit about Christ's alien righteousness... no objective change... etc. :)<BR/><BR/><I>So a sheep will perish?</I><BR/><BR/>I will think on this as I may have misstated my position on this. That being said, I am not sure that I am willing to say that all of the "justified" are, indeed, "sheep."<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52401366418985396382007-10-25T13:45:00.000-04:002007-10-25T13:45:00.000-04:00Hey, I'll keep it short and sweet this time. ;-)I...Hey, <BR/>I'll keep it short and sweet this time. ;-)<BR/><BR/><I>I don't want to make it say th(at) we are saved by "faith + works" - It doesn't say that</I><BR/><BR/>But what's the alternative if not faith alone? I'm not following you.<BR/>And why is Tim Staples <A HREF="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/10/staples-vs-slick.html" REL="nofollow">on record</A> saying that justification is by faith + works, if that's not the case? Do you disagree? <BR/><BR/><I>Rhology: The works that don't save us are the same works we are created in Christ Jesus to do.<BR/><BR/>BCcath:The text doesn't say this.</I><BR/><BR/>Um, yes it does.<BR/>Please justify, then, from the text, the differentiation of the two "works" in Eph 2:8-10. This is one of the linchpins of my argument.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you think St. James is using "justified" in a different way than St. Paul?</I><BR/><BR/>Paul doesn't say "justify" in Eph 2 at all, so I don't know what you refer to.<BR/>If you mean the Pauline definition of "justification" in general, then yes, he means it differently than James does. We can tell from the contexts of the psgs in question.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>4. I guess I missed the part about the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ in the passage.</I><BR/><BR/>Rom 4:5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,<BR/><BR/> 6just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man <B>to whom God credits righteousness apart from works</B>:<BR/> 7"BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN,<BR/> AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.<BR/> 8"BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT." <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>5. I don't think that justification implies "eternal sheephood." </I><BR/><BR/>So a sheep will perish?<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25749057700566720592007-10-25T12:29:00.000-04:002007-10-25T12:29:00.000-04:00Rhology,Time for some more fun!!B/c no one will ow...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>Time for some more fun!!<BR/><BR/><I>B/c no one will own up to the fact that that's what it says.</I><BR/><BR/>You can't be serious... really?<BR/><BR/>I have not seen anyone deny what the text says. I don't deny it. I deny that St. Paul had a Reformationesque concept of justification in mind when he wrote it, that the word "works" have to mean what you are claiming it does, etc etc. <BR/><BR/>We are going in circles...<BR/><BR/>"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;<BR/>not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." -Eph. 2:8,9 <BR/><BR/>I deny that St. Paul had the concept of justification that the Reformers taught in the 16th century in mind when he wrote this. And if no one "got" what you call "the gospel" until the 16th century. Christianity is a sham religion...<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know about you, but I don't accept the Scr contradicting itself, especially when there's an easy harmonisation to be made.</I><BR/><BR/>There is <B>only</B> a contradiction if St. Paul had your concept of justification in mind when he penned the words.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know how you could make Eph 2:8-10 say that salvation is by faith + works.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't want to make it say the we are saved by "faith + works" - It doesn't say that. I <B>can</B> read.<BR/><BR/><I>Once again, that's the question I've been asking. Are you ever going to get around to answering it?</I><BR/><BR/>You were asking how I was going to make the text of your favorite verse (seemingly) say that we are saved by faith + works? I missed that, I guess. I can't make the text say what it doesn't say.<BR/><BR/>Is that all you wanted to hear?<BR/><BR/><I>The works that don't save us are the same works we are created in Christ Jesus to do.</I><BR/><BR/>The text doesn't say this.<BR/><BR/><I>That's what's at stake here, let's not kid ourselves. Will you submit your tradition to God's Word or not? So far, the answer is no. </I><BR/><BR/>Nice rhetoric.<BR/><BR/><I>How "extensive" it is is in the eye of the beholder. I'd be happy to see any counteroffer you have. </I><BR/><BR/>The "counteroffer?"<BR/><BR/>Look, I am saying that I think that you are wrong on St. Paul's doctrine of justification, that he didn't have what they were teaching in the 16th century on the subject in mind when he wrote the passage we are discussing. And, I think, you shoehorn the above baggage onto St. James and call it "harmonization" when it's really HARMonization because of the violence it does to the text of his epistle.<BR/><BR/><I>You could start by answering my one single question.</I><BR/><BR/>How much clearer do I need to be? When in heaven's name did I <B>ever</B> claim that the Ephesians passage said that we are saved by faith + works?<BR/><BR/><I>I thought you would. Maybe sometime we can talk about that too.</I><BR/><BR/>If you wish, but I believe it do be a "doctrine of devils." I see no "glory" in it at all.<BR/><BR/>"He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD." -Proverbs 17:15 [NASB]<BR/><BR/><I>1) OK. You're wrong, but OK.<BR/>2) It's not SOLELY forensic, but Rom 4 makes it clear it is a huge part of it.<BR/>3) Only in terms of distinguishing HOW those two things occur.<BR/>4) How else can one read Rom 4:6-8?<BR/>5) John 10:28-29 says that Christ's sheep will never perish. I don't know what else to do with that. </I><BR/><BR/>What?<BR/><BR/>1. No, YOU'RE wrong. ;)<BR/>2. I didn't deny a forensic component.<BR/>3. Don't you mean that you want to distinguish between them in the WHAT they do category? Like only one of them has anything to do with your seeing God, the other is merely some manner of by-product? <BR/>4. I guess I missed the part about the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ in the passage.<BR/>5. I don't think that justification implies "eternal sheephood." <BR/><BR/>Question: Do you think St. James is using "justified" in a different way than St. Paul? Yes or no will do. :)<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6190172536698414382007-10-24T18:22:00.000-04:002007-10-24T18:22:00.000-04:00It's my pleasure to continue this convo.You are sc...It's my pleasure to continue this convo.<BR/><BR/><I>You are screaming the words "not of works" from the rooftops.</I><BR/><BR/>B/c no one will own up to the fact that that's what it says.<BR/><BR/><I>Then you have to "exegete" the epistle of St. James (the "faith and works" discourse) with the idea in your head (from a couple of misinterpreted words in a couple of misused passages) that St. Paul is teaching a Reformationesque "sola fide" doctrine that, frankly, I don't think existed at all until the 16th century.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know about you, but I don't accept the Scr contradicting itself, especially when there's an easy harmonisation to be made. <BR/>I don't know how you could make Eph 2:8-10 say that salvation is by faith + works. Once again, that's the question I've been asking. Are you ever going to get around to answering it?<BR/><BR/><I>I am telling you I don't think there is any evidence that St. Paul is using the word "works" in the way that you are, that he has a 16th century Protestant's idea of justification in mind when using it.</I><BR/><BR/>Naked assertions can be answered with naked assertions.<BR/>Only this time I've been pointing out the actual thing you need to deal with. The works that don't save us are the same works we are created in Christ Jesus to do. Why is that so bad? <BR/>(I mean, other than the fact that it would destroy your tradition. That's what's at stake here, let's not kid ourselves. Will you submit your tradition to God's Word or not? So far, the answer is no.)<BR/><BR/><I>You shout the words "NOT OF WORKS" and then have to do some pretty extensive "harmonization" of the 2nd chapter of St. James epistle to make your shouting stick?</I><BR/><BR/>How "extensive" it is is in the eye of the beholder. I'd be happy to see any counteroffer you have.<BR/><BR/><I>Nothing have seen you writ on the subject proves to me that St. James was also a 16th century Reformer when it came to justification.</I><BR/><BR/>Strawman, of course.<BR/><BR/><I>I have a feeling that here is where we will run into "Sola Scriptura," "plain meaning," lexicons.</I><BR/><BR/>You could start by answering my one single question.<BR/><BR/><I>I do find the penal substitutionary model (as it has been broken down for me by some Reformed I know) more than a bit disturbing, sickening...</I><BR/><BR/>I thought you would. Maybe sometime we can talk about that too.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't believe justification to be:<BR/>1. A one-time event.<BR/>2. Solely forensic (maybe not even primarily forensic).<BR/>3. Disconnected in the way I would suspect you would say it must be from sanctification.<BR/>4. To be connected to the imputation of Christ's (the "penal substitute") alien righteousness to the "account" of the sinner.<BR/>5. A guarantee of entrance into heaven.</I><BR/><BR/>1) OK. You're wrong, but OK.<BR/>2) It's not SOLELY forensic, but Rom 4 makes it clear it is a huge part of it.<BR/>3) Only in terms of distinguishing HOW those two things occur.<BR/>4) How else can one read Rom 4:6-8?<BR/>5) John 10:28-29 says that Christ's sheep will never perish. I don't know what else to do with that.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com