Today I was directed to the following video, in which Doug Wilson answers the question "Will Faithful Roman Catholics go to heaven?"
First of all, for a more in-depth discussion on Roman Catholics and their status, I would suggest people consider the debate between James White and Doug Wilson on "Are Roman Catholics our Brothers in Christ."
Second, I would agree that anyone who is truly repentant for their sins and trusting in Christ alone for salvation will be saved. Communion with Rome is not an unforgivable sin. Nevertheless, one of the fruits of the Spirit is sanctification. One would expect that as a believer undergoes sanctification, they will come to find the idolatry in Rome's liturgy to be the abomination that it is. They will be able to stomach it no longer. That's an expectation, but it is not a strict rule.
Third, the fact that one can be saved in an apostate church is not a good reason to stay in an apostate church, just as the fact that one can be saved even while fornicating is not a good reason to continue fornicating. I'm not saying the two sins are identical, though the Scriptures themselves draw a parallel between idolatry and fornication.
Finally, if you are a Roman Catholic reading this, please know that my primary concern is the state of your soul. I want you to be right with Christ. I'm not pushing some particular denomination or congregation. I'm pushing faith in Christ alone for salvation. Please consider it.
-TurretinFan
Monday, May 09, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
I whole-heartedly agree with both you and Doug Wilson!!
I hope that all your staunch RC interlocutors recognize your love for their soul, TFan.
And that they also know that a good number of conservative Protestants are willing to be co-belligerents with them on pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-religious liberty issues in America and elsewhere.
The "faithful" Romanist will be damned, of course. It's the not-so faithful Romanist that has a chance.
Just another appeal to faith alone theology without any content against the catholic church. The truth is of course that Protestantism, with its many aberrations, inventions and implicit agnosticism came 1500 years after the catholic church.
As such, it is merely begs the question concerning what authority any protestant has to say about the salvation of anyone at all, considering they believe in novel doctrines invented by nobodies such as Luther and Calvin.
The appeal to grace alone is merely a ploy to undermine Trent. Yet the phrases grace alone or faith alone or Christ alone are not found in the scriptures, or church fathers.
Trent is consistent with the sources of the faith and the so called reformers were inconsistent with scripture and tradition and the various opinions of other reformers.
Such a hodge podge of conflicting reformed theologies is not possible to take seriously by the informed catholic. As such, the poorly informed opinion of another reformed theologian is also not to be taken seriously.
johnmartin, nobodies don't usually change the world. And when those 'nobodies' elucidate and champion doctrine that withstands the tribunal of Scripture (and is merely a restating of apostolic biblical doctrine) against a monstrous, worldly opponent that didn't even value the reading and studying of Scripture (perhaps that's changed some, due to those nobody Protestants)... Let history itself finish my clumsy sentence.
Again, nothing here as usual. Only more vacuous claims about a tribunal of scripture that doesn't exist.
The scriptures never say man is justified by faith alone nor can it legitimately be inferred that man is justified by faith alone. This is a simple fact that the reformers refused to embrace when they invented their own novel ideas.
johnmartin:
Your derogatory remarks lack substance. I'm not sure why I tolerate them. Perhaps I just enjoy watching c.t. shred them.
And, of course, that the Scriptures say what the Reformers said that they say about justification by faith alone has been demonstrated now by a myriad of authors for half a millenia.
Moreover, the fact that their comments weren't novel has also been demonstrated.
You come here making hollow criticisms.
-TurretinFan
JM opines,
The truth is of course that Protestantism, with its many aberrations, inventions and implicit agnosticism came 1500 years after the catholic church.
Typical Romish sleight of hand. “Catholic” does not equal “Roman Catholic” and all Protestants claim their “catholic” i.e. “universal” ancestry. Ironically, given that “catholic” means “universal” the very term “Roman Catholic” is an oxymoron.
The appeal to grace alone is merely a ploy to undermine Trent.
Well, this will be interesting. If not grace alone, then what? Grace plus works? Are you espousing works righteousness?
Yet the phrases grace alone or faith alone or Christ alone are not found in the scriptures, or church fathers.
Nor are the phrases “Magisterium”, “transubstantiation”, “forgiveness of sins by a priest”, “Latin Mass”, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Trent is consistent with the sources of the faith and the so called reformers were inconsistent with scripture and tradition and the various opinions of other reformers.
Of course, of course. So when Trent made it a de fide pronouncement that God created the world out of pre-existing matter it was perfectly in line with the “sources of faith”. Didn't realize that Trent was a precursor to Mormonism, did ya?
Such a hodge podge of conflicting reformed theologies is not possible to take seriously by the informed catholic.
What a hodge podge, indeed. Married priests, then celibates. Group confession then private confession. All sex with intent not to have children is a sin then the officially sanctioned “rhythm method”. Official Mass in a foreign tongue, then in the vernacular. And are the Scriptures “materially sufficient” or is only “part of the truth” found therein? Oh, wait.....those are Romish inconsistencies!!!!
Is that what it means to be an “informed catholic”, JM.
If you find one, please send him over.
Peace.
1.) Is it OK to debate "Is Doug Wilson our Brother in Christ?"
2.) How about "Will Federal Visionists go to heaven?"
3.) May we say that when Roman Catholic and Federal Visionists go to heaven, they do so _despite_ their churches, not _because of_ them?
4.) As for Doug, has he heard the faith, professed it, and abandoned it? Don't we have an unpleasant word for people like that?
TF - Your derogatory remarks lack substance. I'm not sure why I tolerate them. Perhaps I just enjoy watching c.t. shred them.
JM - Right. I've been told Roman Catholics go to hell if they follow Trent (which is false) and I reply with the truth that there is nothing in the scriptures or the fathers that teaches faith alone (which is true), and I'm the one being derogatory? I don't think so TF.
When Paul says a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law, the reformers made an error by thinking works of the law refers to any possible work a man can do. Paul's phrase "works of the law" is a covenant term referring to works of the OT, which no longer justify, because Christ ended the Mosaic covenant and fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant on the cross, resurrection and sending of the HS.
Mark 16:16 is a simple answer to faith alone theology. Even so we can see innumerable verses that do not fit with faith alone theology, including the sermon on the mount and the lords prayer. All throughout the sermon we are told men are blessed if they so this and that and therefore there is nothing in the gospels that concludes to faith alone theology either.
The novel reformed teaching of faith alone is probably one of the easiest doctrines to overcome. Another reason to not believe in faith alone theology is to note there is no faith in heaven, yet those in heaven are justified. Therefore a man is not justified by faith alone.
Furthermore, faith alone theology is directly related to penal substitution. This novel theory has many logical problems and also problems that demonstrate the theory conflicts with scripture and the nature of God. Several of these logical problems and absurdities have also already been stated on this blog and none of the problems were adequately addressed.
Matt 25 is yet another simple refutation of faith alone theology. Why do some get to heaven and others do not, because of what they have done in the body to please the Father. James 2:24 is the only time faith alone is mentioned in scripture and here it explicitly states man is not justified by faith alone. Over and over again we see many verses against faith alone theology.
If it is said we are justified by Christ alone, then the work of Christ must be separated from the work of the Father and the HS in the work of salvation. Of course this is never done in scripture and as such, faith alone in Christ alone is merely an anti scriptural cliché that Protestants use in spite of the biblical evidence.
C- Typical Romish sleight of hand. “Catholic” does not equal “Roman Catholic” and all Protestants claim their “catholic” i.e. “universal” ancestry. Ironically, given that “catholic” means “universal” the very term “Roman Catholic” is an oxymoron.
JM – of course the word Catholic means universal, which means the Catholic church has authority from Christ and the apostles over all men for all men to be saved. Roman Catholic only means the chair of Peter in Rome is head of the Catholic church. There is nothing problematic about the title roman Catholic, when correctly understood.
C - Well, this will be interesting. If not grace alone, then what? Grace plus works? Are you espousing works righteousness?
JM – grace alone is understood differently by Protestants to what is understood by the Catholic church. Therefore when a reformed theologian says man is justified by “grace alone”, he isn’t really telling us anything more than a simple cliché, unless he specifically tells his audience the meaning of the words grace and justified. As such, to say man is justified by grace alone and not as is taught at Trent is simply to oversimplify the issue. This too is typical of Protestants who routinely use words without telling us (or knowing themselves) what those words really mean. As an example, Luther couldn’t tell his audience what faith is other than a vague reference to a gift. As such, Lutheran theology suffers from a lack of accuracy regarding the meaning of what a man must do to be justified, even if Lutheran theology says, man is justified by faith alone.
C- Nor are the phrases “Magisterium”, “transubstantiation”, “forgiveness of sins by a priest”, “Latin Mass”, etc. etc. etc. etc.
JM – The phrases “faith alone” and “Christ alone” don’t occur in scripture, nor can they logically be inferred from scripture. I challenge you to do so if you care.
C- Of course, of course. So when Trent made it a de fide pronouncement that God created the world out of pre-existing matter it was perfectly in line with the “sources of faith”. Didn't realize that Trent was a precursor to Mormonism, did ya?
JM – Where does Trent teach this. I am aware Trent taught geocentrism in about five places and modern science has confirmed the universe is geocentric. Check out Galileo was wrong by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett for details.
C- What a hodge podge, indeed. Married priests, then celibates. Group confession then private confession. All sex with intent not to have children is a sin then the officially sanctioned “rhythm method”. Official Mass in a foreign tongue, then in the vernacular. And are the Scriptures “materially sufficient” or is only “part of the truth” found therein? Oh, wait.....those are Romish inconsistencies!!!!
JM – All of these issues are explainable within Catholic theology, or not well understood by you. Yes the reformers were a hodge podge of new theologies, all of which were against Rome, but also against each other on many points. This is historical fact and it undermines the historical value of the reformation and the logical value of the new theologies.
"What a hodge podge, indeed. Married priests, then celibates."
To further confuse the RC scene, the so-called "Eastern Catholic" churches are allowed to have married priests:
http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests/
"Many people are unaware that the Catholic Church actually has two disciplines regarding married priests. The Eastern Catholic Churches (Churches which, for the most part, reunited with Rome after breaking communion with Orthodoxy) actually permit a married clergy. One reason this is not as well known is because Eastern Catholics make up only about 2 per cent of the entire Catholic Church."
"I am aware Trent taught geocentrism in about five places and modern science has confirmed the universe is geocentric. Check out Galileo was wrong by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett for details."
It's nice to see a Romanist with strong convictions. Folks, you may see that John Martin is one of those guys who consider themselves more Catholic than the pope:
http://johnmartin2010.blogspot.com/2011/05/response-to-dave-armstrong-on-pope-john.html
"Dave - I'm not scared of you (what a joke!), or worried about my own position.
JM – If you were not scared of me then you would not have closed down the combox and made allegations about me without directly answering my counter arguments. As the counter arguments have not been answered and you have also deleted part of the message which you posted in the combox recently, then I can only conclude you have been soundly defeated and you are running scared.
JPII is not the Pope that you possibly think he is. JPII was not theologically correct all the time and he was definitely not theologically correct on the matter of universal salvation, as you think he was. JPII’s statements on universal salvation have been exposed, discussed and the arguments for JPII’s statements have been rebutted. Furthermore, the counter arguments in support of JPII have not addressed the substance of the arguments made against JPII. This is very telling against JPII."
"Paul's phrase "works of the law" is a covenant term referring to works of the OT, which no longer justify, because Christ ended the Mosaic covenant"
i. works didn't justify under the old covenant either. The righteous have always lived by faith. That's why Paul cites Hab.2:4 in Rom.1:17, among other things.
ii. If the works of the OT -- which include the 10 commandments -- do not justify today, than what works possibly can?
johnmartin wrote: "I am aware Trent taught geocentrism in about five places and modern science has confirmed the universe is geocentric."
johnmartin, what do you say about the apparent size of Venus? Some people think it doesn't work out right your way.
"When Paul says a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law, the reformers made an error by thinking works of the law refers to any possible work a man can do. Paul's phrase "works of the law" is a covenant term referring to works of the OT, which no longer justify, because Christ ended the Mosaic covenant and fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant on the cross, resurrection and sending of the HS. "
Law used in that verse in Romans 3 refers to all forms of God's law in Scripture and not merely the Mosaic Covenant only. It extends to all forms of God's law in contexts since gentiles were not under the Law of Moses and yet had a " Law " . Scripture condemns all humanity in Adam. Law never brought eternal life in the OT or in the NT. With respect to justification we turn to Gen 15:6 which was greatly expanded upon by Paul in Romans 3 to 5 and the clearness of Hebrews 11.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
"Mark 16:16 is a simple answer to faith alone theology. Even so we can see innumerable verses that do not fit with faith alone theology, including the sermon on the mount and the lords prayer. All throughout the sermon we are told men are blessed if they so this and that and therefore there is nothing in the gospels that concludes to faith alone theology either. "
That passage teaches a person remains eternally condemned for their unbelief. And therefore provides not refutation againist Sola Fide. The Sermon on the Mount is not a means of eternal life. Since no one has ever kept God's law perfectly except the Lord Jesus Christ. The Sermon on the Mount provides the fruit of our faith really. Our faith shows in our good works as evidence for our faith in Christ. I take it you have no idea what Sola Fide really means. Take the sound words of John Calvin who stated " It is faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone . " Good works or following the commandments of God are never merits eternal life not even those done under the grace of God. Good works are just the fruit or evidence of our faith in Jesus. That is something the heretical Roman Church Council of Trent failed to understand. I personally consider Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II as not only invalid Councils but are also heretical because of the great theological heresy it promoted and expressed there. The people of God are not bound by Trent, Vatican I or Vatican II. Repent of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II.
"The novel reformed teaching of faith alone is probably one of the easiest doctrines to overcome. Another reason to not believe in faith alone theology is to note there is no faith in heaven, yet those in heaven are justified. Therefore a man is not justified by faith alone."
You can not overcome the force of the teaching of the Apostle Paul on this matter. You claim there is no faith in heaven yet provide not proof of that claim. Heaven is for the regenerate and not the unregenerate. While there is regeneration there is faith in Jesus Christ. As faith is the proof of one's regeneration by God. It is indeed wild to see you contradict the plain teaching of Scripture.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
"Matt 25 is yet another simple refutation of faith alone theology. Why do some get to heaven and others do not, because of what they have done in the body to please the Father. James 2:24 is the only time faith alone is mentioned in scripture and here it explicitly states man is not justified by faith alone. Over and over again we see many verses against faith alone theology."
Those passages teaches that good works are proof or evidence of living faith in Jesus Christ and the lack of good works is evidence of a dead faith. It provides not refutation of Sola Fide at all there. It appears you have no clue on what it teaches. True living faith in Jesus Christ results in good works in the life of the Christian as the proof of their faith. But neither faith nor works are meriterious in any manner in our justification before God. James 2 has the main theme of works as the proof of faith. Paul and James are in perfect argreement in their Soteriology on this matter.
"Yet the phrases grace alone"
Eph. 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
"or faith alone "
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
"or Christ alone are not found in the scriptures,"
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
"or church fathers. "
Strange claim considering Clement of Rome, Barnabas and Justin Martyr taught expressly justification by faith in their writings. We dont find them teaching what present day Roman Catholicism does. Neither of those men held that good works were meriterious in our justification before God. Trent condemned all who denied that good works done under grace are meriterious. Contradication there between those men and that of Trent.
"I've been told Roman Catholics go to hell if they follow Trent"
Those who believe the heresy of Trent in what they taught will be hell bound. Trent offically and formally denied the Gospel of Scripture. When one does not have the Gospel of Scripture one remains eternally condemned. For all your talk on that Trent itself condemned the Reformers to hell themselves. You practice double standards on that. Complain of Protestants doing that to Roman Catholics yet the RCC itself first done it to them. I take it you never read the decrees of Trent in the condemnations which were pronounced there.
I think I agree with Doug Wilson but I do want some clarification on this video and your post. After an individual is saved by Grace shouldn't they leave their life of habitual practiced sin. Matt 7:23, 1John3:9
I thought a Roman Catholic is constantly in Idolatry towards Mary. You also said in your post that Believers can fornicate I am thinking you mean they stumble not practice it, just want some clarification.
Are you claiming that they can indeed continue in their idolotry and they are simply lacking sanctification? How am I to reconcile that with the fact that they are practicing sin. Are you suggesting they don't know they are sinning? How am I to reconcile that with Romans 2:15. Just looking for some clarification. Thanks.
Watching a Romanist vehemently upbraiding his theological opponents about things like doctrinal innovations and novelties is a bit like watching a drug addled prostitute with a heroin needle hanging out of her arm vehemently upbraiding a young girl for revealing that she has a crush on the neighbor's son.
Hypocrisy thy name is Rome!
In Christ,
CD
Not unless one has been given the gift of the Spirit of His Grace and Faith in Christ by the preached Word to the Glory of God would one realize the catholicity of these verses as a defense, I say, for Faith alone:
Jer 9:25 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh--
Jer 9:26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart."
As a matter of course, all of these spoken of by Jeremiah here, these of Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all those spoken of who dwell in the desert, can trace their flesh and blood back to that of Abraham, his brother or father!
One who has the Spirit should be able to comprehend Paul's teaching then, or not, that it is by Faith alone and this "Faith" is a gift not a work?
Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
I am sure if we were to explore more candidly Douglas Wilson on this point, he would make such a distinction?
What I find ironic though, is the similarity of the pattern of the argument in pious practice and claim between those Jeremiah speaks about, Paul addresses and the Roman Catholic Church.
To be a "true" Roman Catholic, a Romanist for short, one would have to come fully into the practice of works righteousness and not need any other faith, thus condemning them to a certain fate, without the gift of Faith, a Faith that perseveres to the saving of one's soul.
L - i. works didn't justify under the old covenant either. The righteous have always lived by faith. That's why Paul cites Hab.2:4 in Rom.1:17, among other things.
JM – faith is always required in the OT – correct. But the works required in the OT are the covenant works given by God through Moses and the priests as laid out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The works required are meant to keep Israel in covenant relations with God, which ends in Israel participating in the covenant promises made to Abraham and later David.
L - ii. If the works of the OT -- which include the 10 commandments -- do not justify today, than what works possibly can?
JM – Romans 2 says the man who keeps the law is justified. This is the same teaching given by Jesus – if you want life, keep the commandments. We are told in the NT that the commandments are easy to keep, therefore we must keep the commandments to have eternal life. Not once does Paul say the commandments are not required for eternal life. In fact Paul’s sin lists, which excluded person from eternal life mean exactly that man must keep the commandments. Evidently the reformers were wrong about the nature of justification, works, the law and many other notions as well.
C - "When Paul says a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law, the reformers made an error by thinking works of the law refers to any possible work a man can do. Paul's phrase "works of the law" is a covenant term referring to works of the OT, which no longer justify, because Christ ended the Mosaic covenant and fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant on the cross, resurrection and sending of the HS. "
Law used in that verse in Romans 3 refers to all forms of God's law in Scripture and not merely the Mosaic Covenant only. It extends to all forms of God's law in contexts since gentiles were not under the Law of Moses and yet had a " Law " . Scripture condemns all humanity in Adam. Law never brought eternal life in the OT or in the NT. With respect to justification we turn to Gen 15:6 which was greatly expanded upon by Paul in Romans 3 to 5 and the clearness of Hebrews 11.
JM – works of the law primarily refers to the OT Mosaic covenant laws, otherwise the pagans cannot be justified by keeping the law written on their hearts and therefore be justified as Paul states in Romans 2. Alternatively if you insist on works of the law referring to any law of the OT and therefore any law at all, I can reply that the laws referred to by Paul as concerned with natural acts done by man, such as works of justice and prudence and honesty and so on. However Paul knows the supernatural end of man is not the promised land of the OT, but is the vision of God seen face to face. This ultimate end is therefore supernatural and therefore requires that men do a supernatural act to reach that end. As man is required to do a supernatural act to reach the supernatural end, then the natural acts and therefore the natural laws which measure those acts do not justify man.
How according to Paul is a man justified before God? A man is justified before God by being infused with the divine life of God, making the man a son of God by adoption. This adoption occurs at baptism when the man receives the divine life and alone with it the virtues of faith, hope and love, prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude. We know this from the various texts in Paul concerning faith, hope and love and the sin list, which require the moral virtues to prevent man from sinning and thereby losing his salvation.
When we understand the nature of justification of man as a supernatural infusion of the divine life, within a covenant, then the reformed understanding of justification by an imputation of Christ’s righteousness is quite untenable.
C- Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
JM – same explanation as above with the above comments. The faith required is in a supernatural person of the Word who performed a supernatural action in the resurrection. This can only be done by the interior working of the HS to bring man to believe as a gift, which is a habit that resides in the intellect of man. This gift is given along the other theological and moral virtues stated above to direct all of mans powers towards the supernatural end.
C- Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
JM – Paul is referring to the Mosaic law and we know this because he is combating the Judaisers who want Christians to keep the Mosaic law by firstly being circumcised. We also know Paul is not against all law, because he says hen you love your neighbour, you keep the law of Christ. As Christ is the new Moses, the law of Christ is a new law within an new covenant, to bring about a new Israel of God.
Ch - That passage [Mark 16:16] teaches a person remains eternally condemned for their unbelief. And therefore provides not refutation against Sola Fide.
JM – Mark 16:16 clearly teaches more than faith is required to be saved, therefore it is clear evidence against faith alone theology. Faith alone theology is very easy to answer from the Gospels.
Ch - The Sermon on the Mount is not a means of eternal life.
JM – The sermon on the mount is a description of how a disciple must live to obtain blessing. As the blessing includes seeing God, then the sermon on the mount is direct evidence against faith alone theology.
Ch - Since no one has ever kept God's law perfectly except the Lord Jesus Christ.
JM – This is another fallacy. The reformers thought it was impossible to keep the law perfectly, yet the law is kept perfectly in heaven and the NT says keeping the law is easy.
Out of time.
"the works required in the OT are the covenant works given by God through Moses and the priests as laid out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The works required are meant to keep Israel in covenant relations with God"
Sacrifices and ceremonies Didn't justify either. "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Heb.10:4). They pointed to Christ. Justification after the fall was always by grace through faith, looking ahead to Christ.
Ch - The Sermon on the Mount provides the fruit of our faith really.
JM – This is merely eisegesis required of reformed tradition. There is nothing within the sermon on the mount that says or implies what you have said.
Ch- Our faith shows in our good works as evidence for our faith in Christ.
JM – There is nothing in scripture that says good works will necessarily follow from faith. This too is a reformation myth.
Ch- I take it you have no idea what Sola Fide really means.
JM – I have a good understanding that you must reinterpret a reformation tradition into texts wherever sola fide does not exist.
Ch- Take the sound words of John Calvin who stated " It is faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone . "
JM – which is a non statement. I find it amazing Protestants take such poor reasoning seriously. Faith alone but not faith that is alone. Yeh right!!
Ch- Good works or following the commandments of God are never merits eternal life not even those done under the grace of God.
JM – Romans 6 : 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
Romans 2:6 God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
Matt 25: 34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Ch - Good works are just the fruit or evidence of our faith in Jesus.
JM – the verses above and many others show good works merit eternal life. Evidently good works and merit are anathema to the invention of faith alone theology and as such these and many other verses must be either ignored or reinterpreted to mean something other than what they say.
Ch- That is something the heretical Roman Church Council of Trent failed to understand. I personally consider Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II as not only invalid Councils but are also heretical because of the great theological heresy it promoted and expressed there.
JM – I have no doubt you think what you think. But I have no doubt your efforts to defend faith alone theology have utterly failed.
Ch - The people of God are not bound by Trent, Vatican I or Vatican II. Repent of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II.
JM – the people of God are not bound by reformers who had authority given to them from god at all. Furthermore, the very notion of reformer is merely a Protestant invention based upon the reformation myth of returning the church back to its original pristine state as found in the beliefs of the early church. This reformation myth is easily busted by noting the early church did not hold to faith alone theology and did hold to many Catholic distinctives. As such, your position is historically and theologically untenable. Therefore it is you that must repent of your heresy and belief in the traditions of men, such as faith alone theology and imputed righteousness.
JM [old]- "The novel reformed teaching of faith alone is probably one of the easiest doctrines to overcome. Another reason to not believe in faith alone theology is to note there is no faith in heaven, yet those in heaven are justified. Therefore a man is not justified by faith alone."
Ch - You can not overcome the force of the teaching of the Apostle Paul on this matter. You claim there is no faith in heaven yet provide not proof of that claim.
JM – According to Paul faith is removed when the vision of God is given. So there is no faith in heaven and according to your theology, those in heaven are therefore not justified. Again, this shows the absurdity of your beliefs.
Ch- Heaven is for the regenerate and not the unregenerate.
JM – Regeneration is not by faith alone, but by baptism. Therefore faith alone theology is invalid.
Ch - While there is regeneration there is faith in Jesus Christ.
JM – Correct, but not correct according to reformation theology. Regeneration gives an infusion of the divine life and along with this, a living faith, hope and love. All these and many other virtues are needed to be justified as a gift from God. Evidently regeneration is not well understood by faith alone theology.
Ch - As faith is the proof of one's regeneration by God.
JM – Faith is given in regeneration, but definitely not faith alone. Nowhere does scripture say or infer faith alone is given in regeneration, nor does it say faith alone justifies a sinner. Even the concept of regeneration infers more than faith in the regenerated man. Therefore, to correctly understand what regeneration and what causes justification we must understand what a justified man gets when he is regenerated. We can work this out by noting the sin lists given by St Paul and show that a justified man must do actions that are against those sin lists. Those actions are performed by powers within man and the powers require habit for the just man to act well and thereby avoid sin. As such, to avoid the sin lists, the just man must have moral virtues to help him act morally well and direct his actions towards the reasonable good. Furthermore, we see other verses concerning hope and love in relation to eternal life. Placing all these facts together we conclude a justified man is given many virtues when he is regenerated and it is all these virtues and the abiding presence of a habitual grace that makes man just. When we put all the pieces together we see St Paul does not teach faith alone theology anywhere.
Ch- It is indeed wild to see you contradict the plain teaching of Scripture.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
JM – already answered this on another post. Paul is using covenant terms from the OT. As the OT covenant has come to an end, then a man is not justified by keeping the OT covenant laws. This does not mean however that he is not justified without keeping law. For Romans 2 says all men must keep the law to be justified and Paul later says to keep the law of Christ. Christ also tells the rich young man to keep the commandments if he wants eternal life.
Ch - Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
JM – Abraham is exercising his faith in a covenant promise for God the Father to bring about a priestly succession as the real first born son, to then bring about the three promises of land, name and world wide blessing. Gen 15:6 is made in between two sacrificial actions by priests. Abraham is also a priest, who is promised a priest through a supernatural action by God. Abraham’s faith is therefore not against the covenant or outside the covenant, but a preparation for him to enter into the covenant of circumcision in Gen 18.
In short, Paul quotes Gen 15:6 in context to prepare the reader to understand Abraham’s faith was in the middle of Gods covenant promises, sacrificial actions and an ongoing priesthood through Isaac. Paul sees Isaac as a type of Christ who rose from the dead, who now exercises His priesthood for the remission of sins. As Isaac is a type of the priesthood of Christ, then Abraham’s faith is a faith in priesthood and sacrifice from a Father who is to bring about an Exodus event to form a kingdom of priests. We are then told by Paul in Romans 4, to believe in him [the Father] who raised Christ from the dead. This means that the resurrection of Christ is the work of the Father, who is to bring us into the covenant as a type of the covenant made with Abraham, initially preparing us through faith and then justifying us through baptism as the seal of faith.
Gen 15:6 in no way provides any evidence for faith alone theology. Abraham was not credited with righteousness by an imputation of the righteousness of Christ to His account. Abraham was credited with righteousness, because Abraham was already ontologically righteous and then put this into act by believing the Father would give Abraham a son to act as a priest and victim. Gen 15:6 is priestly and covenantal and relational language between a priest and His God as Father. Abraham’s justification took place within a family context and not a legalistic context as required by faith alone theology.
Louis - Sacrifices and ceremonies Didn't justify either. "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Heb.10:4). They pointed to Christ. Justification after the fall was always by grace through faith, looking ahead to Christ.
JM – passages in Leviticus 4 and 5 clearly state sins are forgiven after sacrifices and ceremonies have been completed as required by God. Heb 10:4 taken in context cannot contradict what was said in the OT. As such the OT works to forgive sin were covenant works given by God which are now invalid because the perfect sacrifice has been made and now the new high priest intercedes before the Father for our sins as a new covenant action. There is nothing here that can be used for faith alone theology.
JM1- "Yet the phrases grace alone"
Ch - Eph. 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
JM2 – This is Catholic doctrine and not reformed doctrine. The reformers taught grace is only divine favor as part of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. St Thomas, along with Trent teaches grace is more than mere favor, but is an interior action of God that brings about divine sonship. Once this interior grace is given, then the free, grace prompted actions of the justified man, further justify him. These actions are not a cause for boasting, because they are the works of God freely performed in the just. As such, those works have their origin in something residing inside the just man and not merely some vague divine favor. Clearly Ephesians 2 is Catholic and not reformed.
JM1 -"or faith alone "
Ch- Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
JM1 - "or Christ alone are not found in the scriptures,"
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
JM2 – we also have to take account of the coming to the Father and the sending of the Holy Spirit as the work of justification. God is not “Christ alone and the work of justification is therefore not the work of Christ alone either.
Ch- Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
JM – the name refers originally to the name of Shem, who acted as a faithful son and had the promised blessing passed through his seed. The reference to name infers a dynasty and also anointing. As we have anointing in the offices of priest, prophet and king in the OT, then the name of Christ refers to not only a title, but also the works of Christ functions. As these functions are also performed by members of the church, then Acts 4:12 implies salvation comes through the church.
Ch- 1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
JM2- The text itself is a mediator and also the author of that text, not to mention all those monks who translated the texts. Christ mediation is a priestly mediation whereby He intercedes to the father for our sins. This intercession is priestly and therefore sacrificial. As it is sacrificial it reafers to an ongoing sacrifice, which is to say Christ’s mediation is brought about through the Eucharistic sacrifice as an ongoing sacrifice.
JM1 - "or church fathers. "
Ch- Strange claim considering Clement of Rome, Barnabas and Justin Martyr taught expressly justification by faith in their writings.
JM2- No doubt this is falsely interpreted to mean faith alone when faith alone was an invention of Luther. Evidently Protestantism requires thorough anachronism when concerned with the meaning of the church fathers.
Ch- We dont find them teaching what present day Roman Catholicism does.
JM – Actually the church fathers held to many Catholic distinctives and not any Protestant inventions at all.
Ch- Neither of those men held that good works were meriterious in our justification before God.
JM – I doubt it. Even if this is true, merit is taught in the scriptures and councils, so its part of the faith given by Christ and the apostles.
Ch- Trent condemned all who denied that good works done under grace are meriterious.
JM – Trent was right along with the fathers and the scriptures. It really is stretch to believe faith alone theology because its tied into sola scriptora, which could not have existed in any historical format until the canon was finalized after the 300’s. Evidently faith alone has no credibility historically because sola scriptora has no credibility historically.
Ch - Contradication there between those men and that of Trent.
JM – Lets see what Clement of Rome has to say – “Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30.
Seems odd for good ol’ Clement to say this if he never thought man is justified by any work other than faith. Just to show how confused the reformers were on faith and works, have a look at 1 Thess 1:3 - remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Evidently Paul thinks faith is a work. As faith justifies, then grace empowered works justify and as such hope and love along with any other grace empowered work must justify. Again and again we see faith alone theology is simply not found in the scriptures.
Frederika - johnmartin, what do you say about the apparent size of Venus? Some people think it doesn't work out right your way.
JM – the kinematics of the modified Tychonian system are the same as expected in the heliocentric theory. The change in Venus size is not a problem at all as far as I can tell.
Ch - But neither faith nor works are meriterious in any manner in our justification before God.
JM – If faith is not meritorious before God, then God cannot credit anything to a man of faith. Therefore faith alone cannot be the cause of a man’s justification.
"passages in Leviticus 4 and 5 clearly state sins are forgiven after sacrifices and ceremonies have been completed as required by God. Heb 10:4 taken in context cannot contradict what was said in the OT."
The ceremonies pointed to Christ. They were signs and shadows, accepted by God when offered in faith. He desires mercy, not sacrifice. The prophets repeatedly testified that it wasn't the sacrifice itself that worked forgiveness, but a contrite heart, etc. That's what is being explained in Hebrews. You need to read the old testament in light of the new, rather than the other way around.
JM wrote: "If faith is not meritorious before God, then God cannot credit anything to a man of faith. Therefore faith alone cannot be the cause of a man’s justification."
Faith isn't the cause. Faith is the instrumental means. The cause is the sacrifice of Christ, which is meritorious.
-TurretinFan
JM wrote: Lets see what Clement of Rome has to say – “Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30.
I answer:
You have overlooked that justification can have more than one sense. The sense of justification that the author of 1st Clement had in mind there is not justification in the eyes of God, but of man.
As it says, later in the same (paragraph-length) chapter: "Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers."
-TurretinFan
JM wrote: "These actions are not a cause for boasting, because they are the works of God freely performed in the just."
I answer: If it is entirely of grace, there is no reason for man to boast. But if man must add to grace something of his own, we have a different situation. Trent proposes that latter situation, contrary to Scripture.
-TurretinFan
Louis wrote: "Sacrifices and ceremonies Didn't justify either. "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Heb.10:4). They pointed to Christ. Justification after the fall was always by grace through faith, looking ahead to Christ."
JM wrote: "passages in Leviticus 4 and 5 clearly state sins are forgiven after sacrifices and ceremonies have been completed as required by God. Heb 10:4 taken in context cannot contradict what was said in the OT. As such the OT works to forgive sin were covenant works given by God which are now invalid because the perfect sacrifice has been made and now the new high priest intercedes before the Father for our sins as a new covenant action. There is nothing here that can be used for faith alone theology."
I answer:
It sounds like jm's response is that the blood of bulls and goats could and did take away sins. That's definitely wrong.
-TurretinFan
JM wrote: "For Romans 2 says all men must keep the law to be justified and Paul later says to keep the law of Christ. Christ also tells the rich young man to keep the commandments if he wants eternal life."
If one wishes to be justified by the law, one must obey the law perfectly. But no one can be justified by the law.
-TurretinFan
johnmartin wrote, "JM – the kinematics of the modified Tychonian system are the same as expected in the heliocentric theory."
OK to the best of my knowledge Tycho Brahe's system does not share the Ptolemaic problem with the variation in Venus' brightness. However Tycho's geo-heliocentric system is not what the medievals believed, so what is the point? You are not delivering the continuity your author advertises on his web-site. Does he seriously expect anybody is going to pay $86 bucks for this?
Regarding johnmartin's comments regarding regeneration, I am pleased to think that he believes that faith is something given via regeneration. Therefore, I trust he acknowledges that Baptism does not confer but symbolize regeneration.
We'll make a Christian out of him yet!
-TurretinFan
TF, JM, hmmmm?
I saw JohnMartin respond to my comment, yesterday and at the end asking several questions to it, this portion of my comments above, here:
To be a "true" Roman Catholic, a Romanist for short, one would have to come fully into the practice of works righteousness and not need any other faith, thus condemning them to a certain fate, without the gift of Faith, a Faith that perseveres to the saving of one's soul.
Today, his response is gone?
Any answers why?
John Martin, would you restate your questions so I can answer them?
Why would any Roman Catholic want to convert?
I AM Reformed and belong to a historic Puritan fellowship. Being new to the blogosphere I am staggered by the behaviour of some Reformed folks shown to each other, let alone those they deem as lost.
Thanks for the encouragement to be kind to one another, which is how I'll take your comment.
-TurretinFan
TF- Faith isn't the cause [of merit before God]. Faith is the instrumental means. The cause is the sacrifice of Christ, which is meritorious.
-TurretinFan
JM - Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted (credited) it to him for righteousness.
To count or to credit is the direct result of Abraham doing the believing, therefore Abrahams faith was meritorious.
An instrumental means is really another way of saying a cause, for an instrument is a cause. Therefore the act of faith is meritorious.
Regardless of this problem of merit, the reformed understanding of faith and its role in relation to penal substitution means their understanding of faith is false, for penal substitution is definitely false.
TF - JM wrote: Lets see what Clement of Rome has to say – “Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30.
I answer:
You have overlooked that justification can have more than one sense. The sense of justification that the author of 1st Clement had in mind there is not justification in the eyes of God, but of man.
As it says, later in the same (paragraph-length) chapter: "Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers."
JM – Justification before man doesn’t seem to be the context of the Clements statement. Clement uses the words humility, self control and not entering into sins of speech. The works of humility and self control are therefore the works that justify and the works of whispering and evil speaking are the works that condemn. As such, Clement has taught works justify.
JM wrote: "These actions are not a cause for boasting, because they are the works of God freely performed in the just."
TF - I answer: If it is entirely of grace, there is no reason for man to boast. But if man must add to grace something of his own, we have a different situation. Trent proposes that latter situation, contrary to Scripture.
JM2- Grace is an undefined term, so your claims about what Trent is and is not doing a vacuous. From memory, we had a brief encounter about grace and free will some time ago and you did not enter into the conversation when I asked questions about the workings of grace within the will. If you are not clear about the relationship of grace and the will, then making claims about others who have made statements about grace and free will is simply fallacious thinking.
This brings me back to one of my original comments concerning the comments made by Doug Wilson concerning grace. It’s easy for Doug to say man is made just by grace when grace is never defined. Then again if grace if the cause of justification and acts of the will that cause sin is the cause of damnation, then grace must have some relationship to the will to prevent the will from sinning.
Catholics have investigated the relationship between grace and the will and formulated the statements at Trent. The reformed have also made statements about grace and we have come to different conclusions about the meaning of the word grace and its relationship to the will. For TF to make his bold claims about Trent without any reference to the meaning of the word grace and its relationship to the will is telling against his claims.
JM wrote: "For Romans 2 says all men must keep the law to be justified and Paul later says to keep the law of Christ. Christ also tells the rich young man to keep the commandments if he wants eternal life."
TF- If one wishes to be justified by the law, one must obey the law perfectly. But no one can be justified by the law.
JM – The law doesn’t have to be obeyed perfectly in the OT or in the NT because provision is made within the covenants made by God for the remission of sin through sacrificial actions. In the OT there are the liturgical animal sacrifices and in the NT there is the liturgical sacrifice of the word made flesh.
To claim that the law must be kept perfectly is merely a reformed claim not found in scripture. We see this by the way scripture makes the distinction between mortal and venial sin in 1 John 5:17 - All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. Evidently some sin does not cause death, therefore scripture is clear that the law does not need to be kept perfectly for man to be justified.
Regarding johnmartin's comments regarding regeneration, I am pleased to think that he believes that faith is something given via regeneration. Therefore, I trust he acknowledges that Baptism does not confer but symbolize regeneration.
We'll make a Christian out of him yet!
-TurretinFan
JM – JM thinks the scriptural position along with the church fathers and the church councils teach regeneration is caused by baptism. Regeneration can also be caused by the spirit before baptism and then baptism is given as a seal for the Christian to enter into the covenant with God.
I note you hijack the word “Christian’ to mean you version of Calvinist teaching. Evidently this is merely a self serving strategy to make it out as though Catholics are not Christians, when the history of the church says Calvinism, which came along in the 1500’s only retains some parts of historical Christianity.
Romans 2 says even the gentiles keep the law - 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Therefore if the gentiles can keep the law, everyone can keep the law and be justified. There is nothing here or anywhere in scripture that says the law must be kept perfectly for a man to be justified.
N- To be a "true" Roman Catholic, a Romanist for short, one would have to come fully into the practice of works righteousness and not need any other faith, thus condemning them to a certain fate, without the gift of Faith, a Faith that perseveres to the saving of one's soul.
JM – To be a true Roman Catholic, he would need faith, just as it is taught at Trent and in the CCC. Evidently Nat hasn’t read either or he arbitrarily ignored the passages that speak of the need for faith.
Louis - The ceremonies pointed to Christ. They were signs and shadows, accepted by God when offered in faith. He desires mercy, not sacrifice. The prophets repeatedly testified that it wasn't the sacrifice itself that worked forgiveness, but a contrite heart, etc. That's what is being explained in Hebrews. You need to read the old testament in light of the new, rather than the other way around.
JM – The ceremonies point to Christ, just as the entire OT points to Christ. Then again, those ceremonies are said to forgive sin in Lev 4 and 5. This is what scripture says and stating a faith alone theology is in the OT is clearly not what the scriptures say.
Fred - johnmartin wrote, "JM – the kinematics of the modified Tychonian system are the same as expected in the heliocentric theory."
OK to the best of my knowledge Tycho Brahe's system does not share the Ptolemaic problem with the variation in Venus' brightness. However Tycho's geo-heliocentric system is not what the medievals believed, so what is the point? You are not delivering the continuity your author advertises on his web-site. Does he seriously expect anybody is going to pay $86 bucks for this?
JM – The point is the earth is stationary as we are told in the scriptures and modern science verifies that. This is something we can use to turn this secular state around and back into a society that is directed towards the glory of God.
I see that a certain Roman Catholic left a modified form of Semi-Pegainism in comments. I will deal with them when I get a chance to do so. Alot of errors to correct in there I noticed after going through them. I will also have to point out several misrepresentations that Roman Catholic has done with some of my replies to him. Yet cries when Protestants do that to Roman Catholics. I have noted JM that you provided the best refutation of Roman Catholicism when it comes to the Gospel from your own comments which exposes the unbiblical nature of the doctrine of salvation that is held in Roman Catholicism. I also noticed several departures on your own part from offical Roman Catholic teaching. I will note them when I get to them. It makes me suspect you are an " unorthodox " Roman Catholic.
Mr. Landless,
You don't get a pass for making vacuous arguments just because you wear a big "R" on your lapel.
In Him,
CD
johnmartin wrote: "This is something we can use to turn this secular state around and back into a society that is directed towards the glory of God."
Geo-heliocentrism? I can really visualize that energizing the masses, but don't you think first you need to lower the price on the books, or how else can they become best-sellers. The Bible does not teach it BTW. When the Bible says, "Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob; which turned the rock into a standing water, the flint into a fountain of waters." (Psalm 114:7-8), do you think it is talking about orbits and the motion of the earth relative to the sun? The 'stability' verses are the flip side of the 'tremble' verses. For every 'unmoved' verse there is a 'shake, fall' verse. Some of these verses are about specific events like Noah's flood or God's visitation at Sinai accompanied with earthquake etc., in general they contrast God's blessing and protection (stability, fixed boundaries of earth and water, rainbow sign) vs. judgment (tremble, dissolve). You are placing these verses in a foreign context. Otherwise, if all the 'stable' verses are about orbits, then all the 'shake' verses have to be about planets falling out of orbit.
Or maybe all that trembling and shaking is the sliding 'equant.' It is popularly imagined Ptolemy's system sets the stars and planets to orbiting around a fixed point at the center of the earth, but in reality the whole system wobbles and shimmies like a washing machine with an unbalanced load. Copernicus delivered humanity from the sliding 'equant.' You are only salvaging Aristotle with this geo-heliocentrism not the Bible, and come to think of it not even him because he wasn't a geo-heliocentrist.
There's a real sense where johnmartin is absolutely correct, works are "meritorious" in a particular way, as attested to by the Apostle Paul.
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. - Rom. 4:4
The one who works does in fact merit his due - his "wages" as it were - from God.
Sadly for that man his works do not, and cannot, justify him before God because apart from trusting solely in Christ's all sufficient, once-for-all sacrifice for justification - apart from human works of any kind - one is found to corrupt the Gospel, spurn God's provision in Christ, nullify faith, and trample underfoot the blood of the covenant, thereby outraging the Spirit of grace.
This makes such a man the practicioner of great sin, and the wages of sin - which he earns by his works - is death.
Eternal separation from God in eternal torments in hell is the final payment in full for such a man.
In Christ,
CD
Cor - There's a real sense where johnmartin is absolutely correct, works are "meritorious" in a particular way, as attested to by the Apostle Paul.
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. - Rom. 4:4
The one who works does in fact merit his due - his "wages" as it were - from God.
JM – Paul as always is talking about works not completed in the state of grace, which is a work completed outside a covenant context. Yes, Paul’s example of a man doing a work is taken from a contractual arrangement between a business man and his employee. Paul will later go on an give examples of men in covenant relation with the Father. Paul primarily uses Abraham as an example who had faith within a covenant context. This is why Genesis 15 is used, because Abraham has been given promises and then later enters into a covenant of circumcision. Paul uses the same logic where he introduces justification through faith and later in Romans 6, the Christian enters into covenant relations with the Father through baptism.
Cor - Sadly for that man his works do not, and cannot, justify him before God because apart from trusting solely in Christ's all sufficient, once-for-all sacrifice for justification - apart from human works of any kind - one is found to corrupt the Gospel, spurn God's provision in Christ, nullify faith, and trample underfoot the blood of the covenant, thereby outraging the Spirit of grace.
JM – Such works don’t justify before God because those works are completed outside the family, within a contractual context. Works that are meritorious, are supernatural works performed between a son and the Father, whereby the Father sees the man, no longer merely as a creature, but as a being with a divine nature infused within his soul. As this divine nature transforms his actions from merely natural actions, which require a natural reward, into supernatural actions, which deserve a supernatural reward, the supernatural act of faith merits justification.
Justification occurs when the divine life is infused into the man, making him a son of God by adoption. Once this action is completed, the man can then do actions which merit further participation in the divine life. Every good act done in a state of grace merits further grace, thereby increasing his justification.
When Paul says a man is justified by faith, he has this ontological status of the man in mind. He never ever teaches man only has a forensic status before the Father as the cause of his justification. Paul’s theology of justification is thoroughly Catholic and doesn’t even have a hint of reformed, faith alone theology.
Cor - This makes such a man the practicioner of great sin, and the wages of sin - which he earns by his works - is death.
Eternal separation from God in eternal torments in hell is the final payment in full for such a man.
In Christ,
CD
JM – natural works do not merit hell. Only mortal sin merits hell, which is yet further evidence for the notion of acts justly requiring meritorious rewards. If a man can commit sin and merit judgment, then when God infuses the divine life into the soul, man can than do supernatural acts to merit eternal life. Once this is understood, its very clear what Paul is teaching.
Chaf - It makes me suspect you are an " unorthodox " Roman Catholic.
JM - Many claims made, but no evidence yet presented. We shall see what you have to offer.
Fred - You are only salvaging Aristotle with this geo-heliocentrism not the Bible, and come to think of it not even him because he wasn't a geo-heliocentrist.
JM - This is typical of the Protestant who has divorced himself from tradition. Ad hoc exegesis and a false understanding of science leads him to a false conclusion about the biblical revelation of the geocentric universe.
JohnMartin, who is divorced from tradition? Did you know that Tycho Brahe has intersecting orbits (Mars and the Sun)? But if the orbits intersect, what of the spheres upholding them? The spheres cannot intersect, they touch along their surface. You've got spheres crashing into each other, and you're talking about tradition!:
"Then at [268] he [The Philosopher a.k.a. Aristotle] shows that even the lower heavenly bodies are spherical. And he says that from the fact that the first body is spherical, it follows that the next body 'continuous' to it, i.e., immediately joined to it, is spherical: for that body which is 'continuous' to, i.e., immediately joined to, the spherical body, must itself be spherical...Since, therefore, the spheres of the lower planets touch the higher sphere, it follows that the whole of 'what is carried,' i.e., the whole body which is circularly moved, has a spherical shape, for all those bodies of the heavenly spheres mutually touch and are 'continuous,' i.e., in immediate contact one with the other. And there is no intermediate body that fills up voids between spheres, as some say..." (Thomas Aquinas, Book II, Lecture 5, 352, The Heavens, translated by Fabian R. Larcher and Pierre H. Conway).
What a mess, you've got shattered and broken pieces of spheres littering the heavens. They are made of the 'quintessence' so you will have to pay a lot to clean this mess up. Since you have messed the spheres all up, please do not pretend you are upholding any "tradition."
johnmartin,
Thank you for your reply. Based upon the criteria you set forth, do you personally merit eternal life?
In Christ,
CD
Here's some Vatican science, on the issue of global warming:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/11/green-smoke-mirrors-vatican-weighs-climate-change/
Loved this last line: "The group also noted that another major risk to glaciers is the threat of nuclear war, and advocated a reduction in nuclear arsenals."
Yes, let's reduce nuclear arsenals, because they're a threat to glaciers! lol.
Uh...are like 20+ previously published comments missing from this meta, TF?
What gives?
CD
A bit belated by nevertheless:
Mr Coram Deo: to be perfectly frank, you seem to lack a substantial degree of self-awareness. Someone with pastoral authority over you, really needs to pull you in regarding some of your remarks and your general attitude.
Doug says he believes there are many Roman Catholics who are saved. He believes there are. What does that mean? Does he know there are or does he mean he hopes there are? Trent anathematises anyone who holds to salvation by faith alone. Galations anathematises anyone who doesn't hold to salvation by faith alone. Certainly a person may consider himself a Roman Catholic and be saved by faith alone in Christ even though technically he no longer belongs to the Roman church.
Post a Comment