The entire article by Webster is very good; I just wanted to highlight this helpful chart, which shows the similarity between the Roman Catholic system of salvation and justification with the Judaizers of the book of Galatians, that Paul says twice are accursed for teaching a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9; 2:4; 2:21), because they added the merit of good works to Christ's final work of redemption on the cross, as more conditions for justification. Man's responsibility is faith alone in Christ alone. Good works are the necessary result of true faith and justification, (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-26), but good works are not conditions that one must fulfill in order to earn one's final justification.
Note: I had trouble getting the chart to come out exactly right; but I guess this is close enough. | 2. Baptism 15. Tradition of the Church Fathers |
Saturday, August 03, 2013
Helpful chart that compares the Judaizers with Roman Catholic system of salvation
William Webster on Roman Catholicism's teaching on Salvation and Justification.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
55 comments:
How do RC's typically summarize their salvation message in layman's language, for example, for a very short gospel tract?
I don't think they can, (make a simple gospel tract, since salvation depends on keeping up going to the whole church and sacramental system), and since they have to be either cradle catholics or converts, and converts have to go to classes, (read and study the hefty Roman Catechism and accept all of it), and they have to believe in all the dogmas of the RCC and they have to be baptized, go to confession and do penance that the priest assigns them, and then they have to participate in the Mass/Eucharist all their lives, loosing salvation by mortal sin and gaining it back hopefully until the end of life, then most have to go through purgatory.
Greetings in Christ, Ken!
The question of whether bodily circumcision is “the necessary result of true faith and justification” will help you to see a key difference between Catholicism and the Judaizers.
Rooney!
Our gospel message is one of faith, hope, and love being poured out in our hearts by the free grace of God when we are baptized, washing away our sins; and it includes the invitation to become Catholic in living out the obedience of faith. Let me know if you have any questions. :)
In Christ,
Pete
The issue is baptism. The Romanist Church adds baptism as a condition and work, in fact for infants who cannot repent or exercise faith, but only if they are children of at least one Roman Catholic parent.
But this is wrong, as there must be faith first - Colossians 2:11-12 - "faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead".
Biblically -
Baptism is one of the steps of obedience that are "the necessary result of true faith and justification"; not the "cause of initial justification" as the Roman Church puts it. Baptism in water does not cause anything ex opere operato, rather it is a sign and symbol and outward obedience that signifies an inward reality that one already has been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, at the point of genuine repentance and faith in Christ. (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1-7; I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:12-14)
The Romanist system is not free grace alone, (although it claims it is), since you have to continue to work to earn and merit your salvation by participating in the church life of the RC priests doling out grace in the sacraments of penance, confession, and going to the mass, alms giving, praying to Mary and the saints, etc. Then you have to have sins burned off and purged in purgatory for years before you can merit heaven. A very unbiblical and heretical system.
Hi Ken!
The issue is baptism. The Romanist Church adds baptism as a condition and work, in fact for infants who cannot repent or exercise faith, but only if they are children of at least one Roman Catholic parent.
Jesus said of infants that “to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16; cf. v. 15). He also said that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). If the kingdom belongs to them, and John 3:5 has reference to water baptism, then it follows that we are called to baptize our infants. Also, Paul tells us that the children of believers “are holy” (1 Cor 7:14). And to Timothy he says that “from infancy you have known the sacred writings” (2 Timothy 3:15). How can I but believe that the children of Christians—who are holy, who know the Sacred Scriptures, to whom belongs the kingdom of God—are to be baptized with the baptism that provides entrance to the kingdom of God when Jesus said that the kingdom belongs to them? During His earthly ministry, the people were bringing their infants to Jesus “that He might touch them.” Having commissioned His Church at His Ascension to baptize all nations, He touches them now “with a circumcision made without hands” in His baptism (Colossians 2:11).
Perhaps a person may not concede that John 3:5 refers to baptism, but the entire early church believed that it did and in such a situation the Bible says, “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16). Augustine pointed out that the Pelagians were forced to “admit the necessity of baptizing infants—finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles” (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Bk. 1, Ch. 26:39). How could I resist the authority of the Churches of God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth, with a contumacy exceeding that of the Pelagians?
You say that infants cannot have repentance or faith. I say that they have no personal sin to repent of and that baptism is the sacrament of faith through which infants do have faith.
Peter called the people to repentance and to baptism on the day of Pentecost, quoting at length from the prophet Joel. The text of Joel that Peter drew from tells the people what is needed for the repentance that God is calling them to in preparation for this salvation: God says through His prophet that the people are to “rend [their] hearts and not [their] garments” (Joel 2:13), and that they are to “[c]onsecrate the congregation… even nursing infants” (Joel 2:16). Then comes the promised salvation in which all participate: adults through their own actions and infants through the actions of those who care for them. God is going to pour out His Spirit “on all flesh” (Joel 2:28). He draws specific attention to sons, daughters, old men, young men, male and female servants (cf. Joel 2:28-29); and He leaves it to us to infer from the larger context that “all flesh” includes, not only young and old women, but also the “nursing infants” who were explicitly mentioned earlier as participants in the corporate act of repentance leading to this salvation. To conclude: Peter said that the promise of salvation that rests upon repentance and baptism is “for your children” (Acts 2:39); the specific text he draws from says that infants are included in the corporate act of repentance and consecration leading to this salvation; the covenants made with the Jews in Abraham and in Moses declared that infants are included in the covenants. How could I think that infants are not included in the command to repent and be baptized into the new covenant?
Baptism is one of the steps of obedience that are "the necessary result of true faith and justification"; not the "cause of initial justification" as the Roman Church puts it.
Baptism in water does not cause anything ex opere operato, rather it is a sign and symbol and outward obedience that signifies an inward reality that one already has been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, at the point of genuine repentance and faith in Christ. (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1-7; I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:12-14)
We actually don’t have a single text to show that baptism is an act of obedience that follows justification, and we are unable to prove from the Bible that the purpose of water baptism is to serve as the sign of the fact that the person has already been baptized by the Holy Spirit in a prior event. Rather, the Bible presents water baptism as the outward sign of the Spiritual baptism taking place then and there.
You cited Acts 2:38 in connection with this point. However, baptism precedes the reception of the Holy Spirit in this passage. Peter does not say that those who are baptized will know themselves to have been already baptized by the Holy Spirit; rather, he says that those who first repent and are baptized “will,” having met these conditions, “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
This is why Paul asked into what the disciples were baptized when they said that they had not received the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 19:1-7); the logic of Paul’s question is simple: you receive the Spirit when you are water baptized.
This explains Peter’s amazement at the baptism of Cornelius. His question, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” asks nothing else than, “How can we withhold the sacramental sign, which sign’s purpose is to bestow the Spirit through human agency, from those who have already miraculously received the Spirit without human agency?” God jumpstarted the apostolic ministry to the gentiles in this case, it is true. But He did this because it was not known to the Church whether the gentiles should be incorporated into the Church or not. And God is free to do such things whenever and however He wants, but this is not the norm. Rather, God’s norm is for His plan of salvation to be offered and effected through human agency: “How then will they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of Whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14)
Those are some of my thoughts on baptism. If you’d like to talk about any of the points you raised in your final paragraph, let me know.
With love in Christ,
Pete
We already hashed the issue out a lot - with 250 comments. (I think that was the longest of all comment boxes) I see no need to argue over that again. You should read the book that is at my article, by Stander and Louw, Baptism in the Early Church. And the other books referenced also in the article.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/ex-opere-operato-baptismal-regeneration.html
Hi Ken,
I remember that thread. The following is one of the comments I posted:
>>Have a couple of points to make: first, three very important works on this subject are absent in this discussion (at least I did not see them mentioned, but may have missed it)— Baptism In The Early Church, Everett Ferguson, 2009, 953 pages; Did The Early Church Baptize Infants? , Kurt Aland, English trans. 1963, 119 pages; The Origins of Infant Baptism, Joachim Jeremias, English trans. 1963, 91 pages. Ferguson's work it far and away the most comprehensive, and up to date, treatment on this subject, while the latter two are essentially a published debate between two brilliant NT scholars.
Second, I find much of the polemic against infant baptism to be quite similar to approach anti-Trinitarians take when arguing against the doctrine of the Trinity—e.g. teaching not found explicitly in Scripture; teaching was a post-Apostolic development/corruption.>>
To be brutally honest Ken, seems your position is even more inconsistent now, than it was then, for I have clearly demonstrated that your view of the doctrine of the Trinity was non-existent before Augustine, and is the result of centuries of doctrinal development. Infant baptism has a similar history, though with a somewhat stronger pedigree than Augustinian Trinitarianism (historically speaking). That you accept one of the two developed doctrines, while rejecting the other is inconsistent. You seem to be quite comfortable with this, while I remained quite frustrated as to why...
Grace and peace,
David
Hey, Ken!
I remember seeing some of that discussion unfold back when it happened, but I don’t think I had the time to get involved at that time. Waah!
In that article, you wrote that we Catholics “teach that the water of baptism literally washes their souls…”
I’d like to point out here that we do not believe that the physical water washes the soul, but that it serves as a symbol of the Spiritual “water” that washes the soul when the physical water is ministerially applied. Whenever someone is baptized in accordance with the Latin Rite, the water is first blessed by saying that “In Baptism we use your gift of water, which you have made a rich symbol of the grace you give us in this sacrament” (CCC, 1217).
You also mentioned in that article that “we are unified in the gospel and in Christ against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, and specifically here, ex opere operato and baptismal regeneration”; and you also pointed out that “Luther’s justification by faith alone is the key,” but that “the Roman Catholic form of baptismal regeneration is totally unbiblical.”
But Luther’s gospel of justification by faith alone included a place for baptismal regeneration, and so I’m not sure how you can try to hold on to him by the arm while pushing us away, when he and we stand arm in arm in assent to this doctrine. He complained in his Large Catechism of the “would-be wise, new spirits assert[ing] that faith alone saves” to the exclusion of baptismal regeneration. Luther did well to preserve the objectivity of the gospel by pointing out “that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests,” and “[t]hus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life.”
You mentioned Justin Martyr in your article. Going a little earlier, I wonder if the book that you referenced has anything to say about Ignatius of Antioch’s exhortation to “[l]et your baptism endure as your arms” (Epistle to Polycarp, Ch. 6). Do you remember whether they discuss this? This statement seems to me to imply a doctrine of baptismal regeneration, of baptism being a source of grace and strength for our lives as Christians.
Thanks!
With love in Christ,
Pete
David Waltz!
Why aren’t you Catholic!?!? Or are you again? I seem to remember people saying that you were at one point.
I have big hopes for all of you.
With love in Christ,
Pete
David Waltz wrote:
your view of the doctrine of the Trinity was non-existent before Augustine, and is the result of centuries of doctrinal development.
Isn’t “my view of the Trinity” the orthodox view today? Isn’t the standard understanding of Augustine, Calvin, etc. explained in systematic theologies like Berkhof, Grudem, Hodge, Turretin, and books on the Trinity like Dr. White’s, Robert Bowman, Millard Erickson, Michael Reeves, etc.? ie, That the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal with the Father- meaning that the three persons are eternal and always God; whereas your “Monarchy of the Father” view, if I understand it right; (and I still admit I don't know if I even understand you, or Drake Skelton - you guys are difficult to understand.) it is hard to even understand with all the blog articles you did with lots of interaction with Eastern Orthodox commentators)
Your view seems to be that we can only call the Father “the one True God” and the Son and the Holy Spirit are some kind of lesser beings. if the Son and the Holy Spirit are homo-ousias (same substance) with the Father, and there is only one God, then all three are eternal and equal. Augustine and Calvin's view naturally and logically came from the NT and Ignatius and Tertullian and Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers, it seems to me.
I asked you about the nature of the Son/Word, and you said, if I remember right, that you have not yet decided what the nature of the Son/Word is.(?) But you agreed that the Son/Word is eternal, and is like the eternal generation of the Son, like the illustration that the rays from the sun are always coming from the Sun itself, but eternally into the past for God (the Son is the rays that have always been flowing out from the Father (Sun in the illustration).
Infant baptism has a similar history, though with a somewhat stronger pedigree than Augustinian Trinitarianism (historically speaking).
I don’t think the comparison is parallel. The mere existence of infant baptism
(around 215 AD seems to be the first clear instance of it - Hippolytus)
The earliest explicit reference to child or infant baptism is in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, about 215 A.D.
The existence of it has to be paralleled with any simple expression of the doctrine of the Trinity, (starting with Scripture (Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14, etc.) , the Deity of Christ(John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1:18; 20:28; Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; Revelation 5, etc.), the Deity of the Spirit (John 14, 16, Acts 5:3-5), Ignatius’ clear statements that Jesus is God, Tertullian’s “trinitas unitas” and 3 persona (180-200 AD) and the Cappadocian fathers (350-381 AD ?) three hypostasis (all before Augustine, right?) not Augustinian Trinitarianism – one is the existence of the doctrine / practice, whereas the other is a further development of one form of an already existing doctrine.
Peter Holter wrote:
David Waltz!
Why aren’t you Catholic!?!? Or are you again? I seem to remember people saying that you were at one point.
David doesn't think the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which Augustine articulated, developed from Tertullian and Athanaisus, the Cappadocian fathers, Ambrose, Hillary, etc. - which I would assume is the same in the Roman Catholic Church - David doesn't think that is correct.
If I understand his position rightly, he along with some others like Drake Skelton and I guy named Mark and another named Ryan, who comments sometimes here and at his blog - he seems to say that we cannot call "The Trinity" the one true God, but only God the Father, "the one true God" and the Son is just the eternal Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit of God. They claim that the Trinity introduces a fourth idea along with the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
But, Pete, David Waltz is open to the possibility that Bahai'ism might be a further development of revelation from God, which means he is open to Muhammad and Islam as an in between stage of true revelation between the NT and Bahai'ism.
To me, just being open to that, means that one does not have a true understanding of what NT Christianity is. If one does have a proper understanding of the once for all atonement of Christ and His final revelation through His apostles - Hebrews 1:1-3; Jude 3 - "the faith once for all delivered to the saints"; that person would not be open to anything else.
David is very knowledgable about the early church, historical theology, development of doctrine, Islam, Shiite islam, Bahai'ism, Mormonism, etc. But, if one is truly in Christ, he would be be satisfied with Christ alone, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3) and "in whom, all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form". (Colossians 2:9)
Christ should satisfy you, if you are in Christ, and you would not be open to more revelation after the NT revelation.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by[f] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:15-20
Peter wrote:
Whenever someone is baptized in accordance with the Latin Rite, the water is first blessed by saying that “In Baptism we use your gift of water, which you have made a rich symbol of the grace you give us in this sacrament” (CCC, 1217).
Latin Right = doing the ceremony itself, performing the ritual ex opere operato, magic, mechanical, automatic.
= when the RC priest, who is an alter Christus (another Christ, mediating, doling out grace to the person, either in baptism or in the Eucharist/mass), when the RC priest says the words in Latin, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit", it automatically (ex opere operato = from performing the work/duty/ceremony correctly, grace automatically comes into the soul) gives the recipient regeneration.
That is just wrong and too mechanical and too rigidly tied to the RC church building, and the priest and the ceremony and ritual itself.
CCC 1987
The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism. That phrase "and through baptism" is parallel to the Judaizers saying, "they must believe in Christ, and be circumcised and obey the law of Moses." book of Galatians; Acts 15:1-5
it is faith plus works results in justification rather than faith results in justification and good works.
Catholic Church Catechism - 2010
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.
"We can merit for ourselves" ( !! ??*7 !!!)
2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."
Faith + baptism + keeping the commandments = attaining salvation.
This is the same as the Judaiazers adding to faith.
Galatians 2:16
"yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."
The Romanist Church is a contradiction to the gospel - adding baptism and keeping the 10 commandments of the law of Moses, in order to attain to salvation = violation of all of Galatians, Romans, John, Acts, Philippians 3:9, Ephesians 2:8-9.
Hello again Ken,
Thanks for responding. You wrote:
==Isn’t “my view of the Trinity” the orthodox view today? Isn’t the standard understanding of Augustine, Calvin, etc. explained in systematic theologies like Berkhof, Grudem, Hodge, Turretin, and books on the Trinity like Dr. White’s, Robert Bowman, Millard Erickson, Michael Reeves, etc.?
Me: Augustine's view is certainly the dominant view (official ???) among Catholics; but, not so among the Orthodox. As for Prots, there is much more diversity than you seem to realize. (BTW, Millard Erickson is a social Trinitarian; as such, he should not be in the list you provided.)
==ie, That the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal with the Father- meaning that the three persons are eternal and always God; whereas your “Monarchy of the Father” view, if I understand it right; (and I still admit I don't know if I even understand you, or Drake Skelton - you guys are difficult to understand.) it is hard to even understand with all the blog articles you did with lots of interaction with Eastern Orthodox commentators)
Me: Since the Father causes both the Son and Spirit (Son being begotten, HS proceeding), how can they be absolutely co-equal ???
==eYour view seems to be that we can only call the Father “the one True God” ==
Me: Yes, following both Scripture and the early Church Fathers, including Athanasius.
and the Son and the Holy Spirit are some kind of lesser beings. if the Son and the Holy Spirit are homo-ousias (same substance) with the Father, and there is only one God, then all three are eternal and equal.
Me: Same substance only affirms same nature. Once again, you fail to appreciate and account for the fontal attribute/being that the Father alone possesses.
==Augustine and Calvin's view naturally and logically came from the NT and Ignatius and Tertullian and Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers, it seems to me.==
Me: "Augustine and Calvin's view" is not that of "Ignatius and Tertullian and Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers". They share some common elements (as does my view), but the differences are substantial.
==I asked you about the nature of the Son/Word, and you said, if I remember right, that you have not yet decided what the nature of the Son/Word is.(?) But you agreed that the Son/Word is eternal, and is like the eternal generation of the Son, like the illustration that the rays from the sun are always coming from the Sun itself, but eternally into the past for God (the Son is the rays that have always been flowing out from the Father (Sun in the illustration).==
Me: I have affirmed for that the Son and HS are homoousios with the Father for over 2o years now, though I understand homoousios in the original Nicene sense, not in the later developed monoousios sense.
==Infant baptism has a similar history, though with a somewhat stronger pedigree than Augustinian Trinitarianism (historically speaking).
I don’t think the comparison is parallel. The mere existence of infant baptism
(around 215 AD seems to be the first clear instance of it - Hippolytus)
The earliest explicit reference to child or infant baptism is in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, about 215 A.D.==
The first explicit reference to the Trinity being "the one God" is circa 361/362 A.D.
cont'd
cont'd
==The existence of it has to be paralleled with any simple expression of the doctrine of the Trinity, (starting with Scripture (Matthew 28:19 ; 2 Cor. 13:14 , etc.) , the Deity of Christ(John 1:1-5 ; 1:14 ; 1:18 ; 20:28 ; Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1:3 , 6 , 8 , 10-12 ; Revelation 5, etc.), the Deity of the Spirit (John 14, 16, Acts 5:3-5 ),
Me: The "one what and three who's" doctrine (which is the Trinitarianism you espouse; see J. White's, TFT, p. 27) is not in the NT. The "one God" of the Bible is God the Father, and never a "what".
Ignatius’ clear statements that Jesus is God, Tertullian’s “trinitas unitas” and 3 persona (180-200 AD) and the Cappadocian fathers (350-381 AD ?) three hypostasis (all before Augustine, right?) not Augustinian Trinitarianism – one is the existence of the doctrine / practice, whereas the other is a further development of one form of an already existing doctrine.
Me: Jesus is God, but he is not "the one God".
Grace and peace,
David
The first explicit reference to the Trinity being "the one God" is circa 361/362 A.D.
I would say that Tertullian's "Trinitas Unitas" and 3 persona and Theophilus of Antioch (180 AD) are earlier examples of the Trinity and even Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 indicate it (50s AD), whereas there is just no infant baptism at all until Hippolytus in 215 AD.
Lutherans:
I did not intend to get into the issue of the Lutheran form of baptismal regeneration.
Keep the discussion to the issue of the Roman Catholic Church adding works to faith, violating Galatians 2:16, Romans chapters 3-5, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.
David Waltz wrote:
Me: "Augustine and Calvin's view" is not that of "Ignatius and Tertullian and Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers". They share some common elements (as does my view), but the differences are substantial.
It naturally and logically flowed out from Ignatius and Tertullian and Athanasius. Since there is only one God, yet the Son and Spirit are homo-ousias (same substance), then it follows that there is only one substance, since there is only one God - Augustine and Calvin preserved Monotheism and the three persons into all eternity past.
Once again, you fail to appreciate and account for the fontal attribute/being that the Father alone possesses.
But if you emphasize that too much, it sound Arian and Jehovah's Witnessy; sorry; but it does. How can someone be the source or font (like an underground spring), but only when the water starts flowing out of it does it make the river or stream or canal etc. ? It sound like, "there was a time when the Son/canal/river/stream/ rays of the Sun was not"
Acts 2:38 - "for" is used as a "causal eis" - because of
Causal eis /εις - Some point out that the preposition translated "for" in v. 38 (Greek, eis) can also be translated "because of" (it may be used this way in Matthew 3:11; cf. also Mt. 10:41; 12:41 – they repented at (εις) the preaching of Jonah” = “they repented because of the preaching of Jonah”).
Thus the idea would be that a person should be baptized not in order to be saved and forgiven of sins but because they are already saved and forgiven.
David, what is social trinitarianism?
David,
What scholarly book discusses comprehensively the differences between
1. The Augustinian/Calvin view of the Trinity - One substance in three persons.
2. The Monarchy of the Father view
3. Social Trinitarianism (that you say M. Erickson is)
4. The economic Trinity - the differences of roles within the Trinity. (isn't that just one aspect of # 1)
If they are all clear in denying Arianism and modalism, and tritheism; then are they not all orthodox?
Thus the idea would be that a person should be baptized not in order to be saved and forgiven of sins but because they are already saved and forgiven.
The fact that the reception of the Spirit takes place upon the two conditions having been met, i.e., repentance and baptism, is not effected by the use of eis in Acts 2:38. And if the Spirit is not received until then, this should be the guiding factor for the meaning of eis in this passage when talking about the forgiveness of sins. And we have explicit witness within the Book of Acts to both aspects of Acts 2:38 (the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Spirit) to help guide our interpretation: Acts 19:2-3 shows us that Paul understood the Spirit to be received in baptism, and Acts 22:16 shows us that sins are forgiven when we are baptized. Please also notice that Paul’s first question to the disciples in Acts 19 was not about baptism, but about the first moment of faith: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 19:2). Paul’s seamless transition from speaking of “when you believed” to his next question of, “Into what then were you baptized?” (Acts 19:4), clearly demonstrates that faith and baptism are both constitutive elements of that first moment of salvation when we receive the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins. This passage in Acts 19 also helps us to understand the answer to Paul’s question in Galatians: “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:2) The answer is “by hearing with faith” when we were baptized.
Will we follow the text, or will we follow John Calvin? He said that “[a]lthough in the text and order of the words [of Acts 2:38], baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order” (Commentary on Acts 2:38); and he said that Acts 22:16 did not mean that you will actually “wash away your sins” in baptism, but, “Be baptised, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you” (Institutes, 4.15.15); and their being “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5) meant, not that they were water baptized as it incontrovertibly does in Acts 8:16 and 10:48, but that “the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit were given by the laying on of hands” (Institutes, 4.15.15). Evidently, when it comes to texts pertaining to baptism, the words never mean what they say, and nothing is clear. :)
That is just wrong and too mechanical and too rigidly tied to the RC church building, and the priest and the ceremony and ritual itself.
Oh, I was just quoting from that so that you could see that the physical water is considered a symbol of the cleansing Spirit and is not itself the cleansing agent. All that is needed is water and the Name of God, but the ceremony, when celebrated, helps us to prepare our hearts and minds.
"We can merit for ourselves" ( !! ??*7 !!!)
I’m always happy to talk about merit because it gives me a chance to share the beauty of what sounds ugly to so many. Our understanding of “merit” is most beautifully expounded by Augustine:
“ ‘[T]hee He crowneth with pity and mercy;’ and if thy own merits have gone before, God saith to thee, ‘Examine well thy merits, and thou shalt see that they are My gifts’ ” (Sermon 131, 8).
“Even as the Psalmist says to his soul, ‘Who crowneth thee with mercy and compassion.’ Well, now, is not a crown given as the reward of good deeds? It is, however, only because He works good works in good men, of whom it is said, ‘It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure,’ that the Psalm has it, as just now quoted: ‘He crowneth thee with mercy and compassion,’ since it is through His mercy that we perform the good deeds to which the crown is awarded” (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 9.21).
“[A]ll is imputed to His Grace, not to our merits” (Second Exposition on Psalm 32, 9).
“[W]e confess that our good merits themselves are but the gifts of God” (Against Julian, Bk. 6, Ch. 12.39).
The Catechism picks up on this, drawing also from the Council of Trent:
“The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness (cf. Council of Trent: ‘God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, Whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits’ [Session 6, Ch. 16]). ‘Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts’ (Augustine, Sermon 298, 4-5)” (CCC, 2009).
The Romanist Church is a contradiction to the gospel - adding baptism and keeping the 10 commandments of the law of Moses, in order to attain to salvation = violation of all of Galatians, Romans, John, Acts, Philippians 3:9, Ephesians 2:8-9.
We see the keeping of the commandments as necessary because the grace of Christ and His gospel bring about “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26). We do not see works as the cause of salvation except insofar as these works are driven by faith, hope, and love for the glory of God and His grace.
The following are some passages that help us to see the difference between Catholic Christianity and the Judaiazers who demand circumcision:
“For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19).
“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6).
“For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:15).
“By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:3-4).
“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8).
“[W]hoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10).
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. […] And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us” (1 John 5:3; 3:23).
Faith working through love = keeping the commandments of God.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Hi Ken,
Wow, you were busy last night and this morning !!! You posted:
==I would say that Tertullian's "Trinitas Unitas" and 3 persona and Theophilus of Antioch (180 AD) are earlier examples of the Trinity and even Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 indicate it (50s AD), whereas there is just no infant baptism at all until Hippolytus in 215 AD.==
Me: Tertullian's trinitas (as well as Theophilus' τριαζ) is not the same as Augustine's. In THIS THREAD, I cite John Henry Newman, who discusses the important change/development that Augustine made.
As for infant baptism before Hippolytus, I would point to the household baptisms in Acts.
Ken: ==David Waltz wrote:
Me: "Augustine and Calvin's view" is not that of "Ignatius and Tertullian and Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers". They share some common elements (as does my view), but the differences are substantial.
It naturally and logically flowed out from Ignatius and Tertullian and Athanasius. Since there is only one God, yet the Son and Spirit are homo-ousias (same substance), then it follows that there is only one substance, since there is only one God - Augustine and Calvin preserved Monotheism and the three persons into all eternity past.==
Me: Since the Bible when referencing "the one God" never refers to a "what", and when the phrase is linked to a person it is always the Father and never the Son or HS, I deny that the Augustinian development is either a 'natural' and/or 'logical flow' "out from Ignatius and Tertullian and Athanasius".
Ken: ==David, what is social trinitarianism?==
Me: See the following links. (I own the book previewed in the 3rd link which has pro and con essays on social trinitarianism).
Google Books search
Wikipedia
The Trinity - An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity
Ken: ==What scholarly book discusses comprehensively the differences between
1. The Augustinian/Calvin view of the Trinity - One substance in three persons.
2. The Monarchy of the Father view
3. Social Trinitarianism (that you say M. Erickson is)
4. The economic Trinity - the differences of roles within the Trinity. (isn't that just one aspect of # 1)==
Me: Dr. Holmes' book, which I review HERE, is perhaps the best single resource (IMO) that delves into the above aspects of the Trinity. (With that said, I firmly believe that no single work is truly adequate.)
Grace and peace,
David
Ooops...bad link to Dr. Holmes' book in my above post. Go HERE for the correct link.
Pete,
If what you are saying is true, then why did the Council of Trent anathematize the teachings of Luther and Calvin and the Reformers?
You seem to be trying to saying that good works are the results of true justification, but that is not what Trent all the way to Vatican 2 said, and even with the "Joint Declaration on Justification" with liberal Lutherans, etc. (Conservative Lutherans did not sign it; I wonder why?)- The Roman Church has still never agreed to the Protestant/Evangelical understanding that one is justified by Christ alone, by faith alone; and that good works are results of true faith. (sanctification) and baptism is a natural result of being born again by the Spirit of God.
Faith working through love, the obedience of faith - these are results of true faith; if the love of God is poured out within our hearts (Romans 5:5) by faith alone (Romans 5:1, 4:5, 3:28; Gal. 2:16); - if you are defining things by Protestant language, and if what you say is true and the Pope would agree with you without any qualifications, then the Roman Church must make a full confession of being wrong and sinful from Trent onward and turn from the whole sacramental system.
Of course, they can never admit that, as that would also destroy the whole 1870 dogmatic declaration that basically says that Roman Church and the Pope has never made a doctrinal error in all of history. It admits they have sinned, and some Popes are in hell, because of their evil character (at least according to my friend Rod Bennett said. Author of Four Witnesses, and former Evangelical. We debated for 8 solid years from 1996-2204 and then he told he didn't want to debate anymore.)
It does not seem honest the way you are trying to prove your point to Protestants here, although, you have probably the best attitude of any other Roman Catholic I have seen on the web in interacting with Reformed Protestants;
Your leaving out all the other stuff that the Romanist Church has taught for 500 years seems to be greatly ignoring lots of problems and contradictions to what you seem to be trying to say.
And yet, as many here have asked other Roman Catholics - you are not a priest or cardinal or bishop or Pope, so, how can we take your word on what official RC doctrine is?
David,
Thanks for the links to Dr. Holmes book and other links.
I remember reading some of the old posts and I interacted with you on the Newman one in the comboxes about "Deity" / "Godhead" in Colossians 1:19 and 2:9.
It is all very deep, I admit.
I am wondering why Berkhof or Grudem or J. I. Packer in his book, Knowing God; or Sproul or Bowman or White or Reeves, etc. or any of my professors in seminary, ever talk about this stuff? (if they did , I missed it)
I would have never heard about this distinction, except for your blog articles.
The one substance - mono-ousia just seems to be logically correct given that Christ and the Holy Spirit are homo-ousias with the Father and eternal and the truth that there is only ONE God.
You view seems to emphasize too much that the Father alone is the one True God, and the other 2 persons of the Trinity are lower "side-kicks" (as one Eastern Orthodox commenter put it with you in the combox) - but that seems to communicate 3 gods to me; and that is wrong. The one substance protects Monotheism, in my opinion.
The first explicit reference to the Trinity being "the one God" is circa 361/362 A.D.
Who wrote that?
-----
By the way, the subject of this post is on justification and the Roman Catholic Church adding works to faith for justification, and Webster's entire article. The subject is not the Trinity, although I don't mind discussing it some; it is too deep and off the original subject of this post. (smile)
Hi David!
Concerning the Trinity, Augustine wrote that “in no other subject is error more dangerous” (On the Holy Trinity, Bk. 1, Ch. 3.5). I think that sets the tone for this exchange. :)
Jesus is “the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us” (1 John 1:2), and God the Father “gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:11). So that if Jesus is The Eternal Life, then the “the true God and eternal life” of 1 John 5:20 would most naturally be Jesus. But if Jesus is “the True God,” then He and the Father together are the “only True God” mentioned in John 17:3. How do you handle these texts?
In the thread you just linked us to, you noted…
This "subtle expansion", becomes more definitive with a change made by Augustine. Newman (pages 169-172) notes that the Latin used to translate "one" in the Biblical phrase, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), was the neuter unum, which is in line with the Greek , ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (ἕν also being neuter). Tertullian also used the neuter unum when writing on the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, Augustine changed the neuter unum to the masculine unus.
I am not sure where this is coming from. Augustine has unum for the “one” of John 10:30 in On the Holy Trinity, Bk. 4, Ch. 9.12 where the difference between unum and unus is being discussed. He elaborates on this in Bk. 6, Ch. 3.4 of the same work, and again in his Answer to Maximinus:
“Here too I will explain the meaning of the words, ‘The Father and I are one (Ego et Pater unum sumus)’ (Jn 10:30)… Pay careful attention, then, to what I say. When one says of two or more things, they are one (unus or una) and adds that they are one of this sort or that, he can say this of things which have a different substance or of things which have the same substance. After all, the human spirit and the Spirit of the Lord have a different substance, and yet scripture said, ‘He who clings to the Lord is one spirit’ (1 Cor 6:17). Human souls and human hearts have one substance; scripture says of them, ‘They had one soul and one heart’ (Acts 4:32). But when one says of two or more things, they are one (unum) and does not add what kind of thing they are, they are understood to have not a different substance, but one substance. Thus scripture says, ‘He who plants and he who waters are one’ (1 Cor 3:8), and ‘The Father and I are one.’ You will not find where the scripture says of different substances that they are one” (Answer to Maximinus, Bk. 2, Ch. 20, 1).
As to your other concern:
“The Son comes from the Father; the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The former is born; the latter proceeds. Hence, the former is the Son of the Father from whom he is born, but the latter is the Spirit of both because he proceeds from both. When the Son spoke of the Spirit, he said, ‘He proceeds from the father’ (Jn 15:26), because the Father is the author of his procession” (Answer to Maximinus the Arian, Bk. 2, Ch. 14.1).
“[I]n their mutual relation to one another in the Trinity itself, if the begetter is a beginning in relation to that which he begets, the Father is a beginning in relation to the Son, because He begets Him; […] If, therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source that which proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit” (On the Holy Trinity, Bk. 5, Ch. 14.15).
Maybe this is not enough for you, but it’s something. I don’t even hear you saying anything wrong. I appreciate your concern to bring us back to focus on the personal nature of God. That we should be talking more about a Who than a What. This resonates with me. Come back to your love for Augustine (I saw your email address in your profile), and come back to the Church of Christ. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete
Thanks a lot, Ken. You and James are always kind to me.
I could offer my understanding of any particular anathema if you’d like. And if you ever head up to MD, I’ll try to arrange for us to get together with my priest. :)
In Christ,
Pete
Hi Pete,
Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my musings. You wrote:
==I am not sure where this is coming from. Augustine has unum for the “one” of John 10:30 in On the Holy Trinity, Bk. 4, Ch. 9.12 where the difference between unum and unus is being discussed.==
Me: It seems that when Augustine quotes from the Bible he retains the neuter form (unum); however, when he expounds on the Trinity itself, he substitutes unus for unum. For some examples, see De Trinitate 1.2.4; 1.5.8; 2.13.23; 5.8.9; 5.11.12; 5.14.15.
[Newman did not provide reference from Augustine for the change he mentioned, but 2.13.23 (et hi tres unus Deus) 5.8.9 (quia Trinitas unus Deus) and seem to be a good 'fits'.]
== Maybe this is not enough for you, but it’s something. I don’t even hear you saying anything wrong. I appreciate your concern to bring us back to focus on the personal nature of God. That we should be talking more about a Who than a What. This resonates with me. Come back to your love for Augustine (I saw your email address in your profile), and come back to the Church of Christ.==
Me: Sincerely appreciate your concerns. I have not entirely 'closed the door' on the RCC, and have recently been reexamining Augustine and Aquinas concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. The following threads relate some of these studies:
Which Augustine ???
Michel René Barnes and the Dé Regnon theory
Aquinas and Drake Shelton's...
Dr. Gilles Emery's book, The Trinity
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Ken,
I was a bit off on the date, instead of circa 361/362 A.D., it should be circa 370 A.D. The reference I had in mind is from the "Divine Liturgy of St. James". An English text is available online HERE.
Concerning the author and date of the text, note the following from Orthodox Wiki:
>> One leading theory today is that of John Fenwick, who argues that the similarities between this liturgy and that of St. Basil demonstrate their respective developments from a common source, now lost, but which is best preserved in the Egyptian recension of the Liturgy of St Basil. Fenwick suggests that the Liturgy of St. James was composed by St. Cyril of Jerusalem c. 370.>> (LINK)
Grace and peace,
David
I’m sorry for the deletions. I just needed to add a reference, remove a question mark, etc.
Greetings in Christ, David!
It seems that when Augustine quotes from the Bible he retains the neuter form (unum); however, when he expounds on the Trinity itself, he substitutes unus for unum. For some examples, see De Trinitate 1.2.4; 1.5.8; 2.13.23; 5.8.9; 5.11.12; 5.14.15.
I think that all of these instances (I think you meant 1.4.7 where you have 1.5.8) are simply due to the fact that unus goes with Deus. And if it’s in the accusative, then unum goes with Deum. See On the Trinity, 1.5.8 for an example of the latter: “… and yet that this Trinity is not three Gods, but one God.” Latin: … et tamen hanc Trinitatem non tres deos sed unum Deum.
One text that Augustine used to show that the Trinity is the One God of our faith is Deuteronomy 6:4:
“Why do you ask that I prove that ‘the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God’? The divine scripture established this as clearly as possible, when it says, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord is your God, the Lord is one’? (Dt 6:4) […] Beyond any doubt, the truth forces you to admit that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the one Lord God” (Answer to Maximinus the Arian, Bk. 2, Ch. 23.1; see also On the Trinity, 5.11.12, 7.4.8, & 15.28.51). Latin: Quid est autem quod poscis ut astruam: ‘Si Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unus est Deus’; cum hoc astruat voce clarissima Scriptura divina dicens: ‘Audi, Israel; Dominus Deus tuus, Dominus unus est’? […] Procul dubio quippe vos veritas cogit Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum confiteri unum Dominum Deum.
I should also point out that the quotations of this verse in On the Trinity, 7.4.8 & 15.28.51 appear to be corrupted where Augustine quotes it as, ‘Hear, O Israel; the Lord thy God is one God’ ” (Latin: ‘Audi, Israel: Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est’). But the force of his argument doesn’t rest on this corruption.
Thanks, David. May the grace and peace of Christ be with you, too, and with your loved ones.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Good morning Pete,
Last night, you poste:
==I think that all of these instances (I think you meant 1.4.7 where you have 1.5.8) are simply due to the fact that unus goes with Deus. And if it’s in the accusative, then unum goes with Deum. See On the Trinity, 1.5.8 for an example of the latter: “… and yet that this Trinity is not three Gods, but one God.” Latin: … et tamen hanc Trinitatem non tres deos sed unum Deum.==
Me: You are correct on all points. Seems I was much to eager to find a supporting text(s) for Newman's claim. With that said, the question now becomes does Augustine ever use the neuter form (unum), or does he only use the masculine form (unus, unum, etc.).
Grace and peace,
David
Oooops...typing too fast. "poste" should read "posted".
Hi, David!
Thanks a lot for the exchange. If I understand things correctly, Augustine thinks that when two or more subjects are said to be “one” by using the neuter and without saying one what, then this always entails a unity of substance among the subjects that are mentioned. Here is the quotation from his Answer to Maximinus again. I mutilated the last part of it in my first posting of it. I’ll try to identify where the neuter is used as it comes into play in his argument. After giving the text of John 10:30 with the neuter unum, he says,
“Pay careful attention, then, to what I say. When one says of two or more things, they are one (masculine, unus or feminine, una) and adds that they are one of this sort or that, he can say this of things which have a different substance or of things which have the same substance. After all, the human spirit and the Spirit of the Lord have a different substance, and yet scripture said, ‘He who clings to the Lord is one (masculine, unus) spirit’ (1 Cor 6:17). Human souls and human hearts have one substance; scripture says of them, ‘They had one (feminine, una) soul and one (masculine, unum) heart’ (Acts 4:32). But when one says of two or more things, they are one (neuter, unum) and does not add what kind of thing they are, they are understood to have not a different substance, but one substance. Thus scripture says, ‘He who plants and he who waters are one (neuter, unum)’ (1 Cor 3:8), and ‘The Father and I are one (neuter, unum).’ You want the Father and the Son to have different substances, though you could not find where scripture says of different substances that they are one (neuter unum)” (Answer to Maximinus, Bk. 2, Ch. 20, 1).
Latin: Diligenter itaque attende quod dico. Quando de rebus duabus aut pluribus dicitur: Unus est, vel, una est, et additur quid unus vel quid una; et de his quae diversae, et de his quae sunt unius substantiae dici potest. Diversae sunt enim substantiae spiritus hominis et Spiritus Domini; et tamen dictum est: ‘Qui adhaeret Domino unus spiritus est’ (1 Cor 6:17). Unius autem substantiae sunt animae hominum et corda hominum; de quibus dictum est: ‘Erat illis anima una et cor unum’ (Acts 4:32). Ubi autem dicitur de duobus aut pluribus: Unum sunt, nec additur quid unum sint; non diversae intelleguntur, sed unius esse substantiae; sicut dictum est: ‘Qui plantat et qui rigat, unum sunt’ (1 Cor 3:8); et: ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus’ (Jn 10:30). Tu autem qui Patrem et Filium diversas vis esse substantias, invenire non potuisti, ubi de diversis substantiis dictum fuerit: Unum sunt.
And he argues similarly in On the Trinity, 6.3.4 where he says that he is not aware of an exception to this rule regarding unum sunt.
But as for what Cardinal Newman is saying, I’d have to read more of his tract than I think I have time for in order to see what he’s saying specifically. I’ve read next to nothing of his. Pretty much just the exchange that he had on biblical inerrancy, and a paragraph or two from his work on the development of doctrine. I think that this last one is required reading for Catholic apologists, but I’m just not there yet. UH OH!
I see you like weightlifting. If you make it east, let’s go lift! You can find my weightlifting credentials on the Body for Life website. Heh, heh. I’m seven weeks into recovery after umbilical hernia surgery, so I should be good to go in a month or two. No karate chops, please! :)
In Christ,
Pete
Hi Pete,
Thank you so much for your last post; very informative. It leaves me 'scratching my head' as to exactly what Newman was attempting to convey. It seems that the quote you provided from Augustine's Answer to Maximinus is pretty much in agreement with Tertullian's somewhat famous phrase: qui tres unum sunt, non unus (Adversus Praxean, ch. 25). Going to reread Newman's essay and Augustine's Answer to Maximinus later today to see if I can get a better grasp on Newman's claim.
Hope you get a chance to read Newman's essay soon. Would love to discuss it in depth with you (perhaps it would be best to do so in the Newman thread at Articuli Fidei).
As for weightlifting, at 58, I am pretty much in a 'maintain mode'; I never do singles anymore, and rarely lift a weight that would require me to do less than 5 reps. (I used to concentrate on the 3-5 reps range which my high percentage of fast twitch muscles seemed to thrive on, but my old joints just won't allow me that type of routine anymore.) I shall extend a west coast welcome to you; the beach and my well equipped home gym awaits !!!
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David!
Your place sounds really nice. And thank you.
I had forgotten until I was just now looking back over his Answer to Maximinus that Augustine comes back to this same discussion in Bk. 2, Ch. 22, 2 (top of page 307). I thought I’d point it out so that you could easily jump to it. Not that you sound like you’re a slow reader. :)
I will keep your thread in mind for future exploration. And I will pray for your journey of faith, that you will quickly find yourself home and happy to be Catholic.
In Christ,
Pete
Ken,
in the spirit of this insightful list, I recommend to you the following book: "Surprised by Christ: My Journey From Judaism to Orthodox Christianity", by Father James A. Bernstein. (Link).
Rooney,
"For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
If you believe in Him, you keep His commandments.
When it comes to "saving faith," there is no such thing as "faith alone," for a faith which is alone is a "dead faith." True saving faith is never alone.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Here's yet another similarity between Catholicism and Judaism... :-)
Lvka - or "the blogger formerly known as Lvka" - Did you get a sex-change operation? Your blog is full of things and implications that point to that; and you changed your picture to a woman and you say "formerly known as Lvka" - you is that just your weird sense of humor?
You are very difficult to understand.
Scott,
What you wrote, just laying there by itself with no more explanation, is also compatible with what Protestant Evangelicals believe.
The way you wrote it, it can be taken that keeping the commandments are the necessary and inevitable result of a true saving faith, but not a condition of merit before one actually gets justification.
And the Reformers were careful to write and preach that "faith alone" justifies, but that faith does not stay alone". Faith alone or Sola Fide does not mean mere intellectual assent or claiming to believe in God or Christ - James 2:19 - the demons believe and shudder.
So, you would need to provide Rooney with more from official Roman Catholic doctrine to explain all the gospel according to Rome - which includes all the de Fide doctrines that you must believe and submission to the Pope and keeping the sacramental works - penance, Eucharist, confession, alms, prayers to Mary, suffering in Purgatory, etc.
As it stands, you little tract by itself is Evangelical, and not Roman Catholic.
> Scott,
> What you wrote, just laying there by itself with no
> more explanation, is also compatible with what
> Protestant Evangelicals believe.
sw: What I wrote is a rejection of sola fide, so I
don't believe Protestants, Evangelical or otherwise,
would be accepting of it... unless they are beginning
to embrace the One, True Faith.
> The way you wrote it, it can be taken that keeping
> the commandments are the necessary and inevitable
> result of a true saving faith, but not a condition
> of merit before one actually gets justification.
sw: I did not speak of a "condition of merit," but
merely that it is necessary to keep His commandments.
> And the Reformers were careful to write and preach
> that "faith alone" justifies, but that faith does
> not stay alone". Faith alone or Sola Fide does not
> mean mere intellectual assent or claiming to
> believe in God or Christ - James 2:19 - the demons
> believe and shudder.
sw: And what do the demons lack? A: A working
Faith. The demons have a dead faith. Beyond
that, you're getting into the verbal gymnastics of
doublespeak. Either faith is alone or it is faith
with works which justifies - James 2 makes it clear
that faith alone (sola fide) does not justify.
> So, you would need to provide Rooney with more
> from official Roman Catholic doctrine to explain
> all the gospel according to Rome - which includes
> all the de Fide doctrines that you must believe
> and submission to the Pope and keeping the
> sacramental works - penance, Eucharist, confession,
> alms, prayers to Mary, suffering in Purgatory, etc.
sw: Nothing more is needed. If you keep to His
commandments, the rest fall into place.
> As it stands, (your) little tract by itself is
> Evangelical, and not Roman Catholic.
sw: Well, the bottom line is that Roman Catholic is
the true Evangelical. Protestantism is a schism
from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
which Jesus Christ Himself built. He built One
Church - not thousands.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
I always liked the joke that Prince pulled, when he changed his stage name from "Prince" to "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince". I always found it to be so funny.
And I've also had a crush on the young Shirley MacLaine, ever since I've seen her in "The Children's Hour". Were I to have used some naked bimbo as avatar, no one would have asked me a single question... but a classy, fully-clothed girl !? That's just *SO* GAY! Because NOTHING screams "heterosexuality" *BETTER* than having a random picture of some meaningless empty-headed chick with no personality as avatar ! Or maybe I should just replace it with that of a dude... because *NOTHING* screams (male) heterosexuality BETTER than having the picture of a young sexy male stud as avatar... :-\
He built One Church - not thousands.
Amen, brother ! Tellin' it like it is! So... when do you plan on becoming Orthodox ? :D
Post a Comment