Of this Justification the causes are these:Trent immediately explains:
the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting;
while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance;
but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;
lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.Whether or not other aspects of Trent can be reconciled to Augustine, these conceptions are not consistent with Augustine. Augustine took the position that the thief on the cross had the faith that justifies without having baptism. To use Trent’s categories, the instrumental means for the thief was (in Augustine’s view) faith, not baptism.
Augustine connects the dots with Cornelius as well. Clearly he had the Spirit before baptism, which demonstrated his right standing with God (compare the argument about circumcision in Acts 15).
Augustine points out that the fact that the benefit can be invisibly applied (applied without the sacrament, the visible sign) should not lead us to scorn the sacrament. After all, even Cornelius was subsequently baptized.
Acts 10:30-48
And Cornelius said, "Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, 'Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.' Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God."
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
Then answered Peter, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Augustine goes on to say: “But what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want of will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say.”
That’s perhaps the most troubling piece of all for those hoping to make Augustine in the image of Trent. Trent treats baptism itself as the instrumental means of justification, but it seems pretty clear that’s not what Augustine thinks.
And in case you think I’m speculating about his view on Cornelius, look at the parallel Augustine himself draws just shortly after:
And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.Notice what Augustine concedes: he concedes that baptism and circumcision are parallel, that Abraham was justified before circumcision, and that Cornelius was analogously “enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit” before baptism.
If Rome would concede the same, we would find faith alone as the instrumental means of justification, rather than baptism. Moreover, we would find reputed righteousness, rather than actual righteousness, the formal cause. Whether that latter point is something that Augustine himself held, perhaps we can consider another time.
- TurretinFan
Sorry for my English, I don´t talk it so much but I understand it very well. I am catholic, of course...
ReplyDeleteI don´t see your point about St Augustin against Trent.
Augustine defended the necessity of baptism even more than many modern(and traditionalists) catholic theologians. Don´t you remember the notion of "limbo", for kids who died without baptism...you neither seem to know his battle against pelagianism, that you protestants like to resuscitate. Nothing to say, it is the inheritance of calvinism,and gnosticism by the way.
Thanks. I've been reading your blog on and off for a few years. I spent about three years reading the Fathers and interacting with Eastern Orthodoxy. I Have backed off that road now and finding myself in a magisterial Lutheran...mode of thinking or something. I would like to bounce a few thoughts off of you since you seem to be well-read on this.
ReplyDeleteThe "Institutes of Elenctic Theology," by the real Francis Turretin provides a mature Reformed position that responds (often obliquely) to the earlier Lutheran position(s). But if there is something specific I can provide thoughts on, let me know.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "I don´t see your point about St Augustin against Trent."
Augustine viewed faith itself as what justifies a man, even in terms of initial justificaion. Trent views Baptism in that role.
"Augustine defended the necessity of baptism even more than many modern(and traditionalists) catholic theologians."
Perhaps from certain angles he did. But the necessity is a necessity of obedience (like in Reformed theology) not one of cause, at least not in adults.
"Don´t you remember the notion of "limbo", for kids who died without baptism...you neither seem to know his battle against pelagianism, that you protestants like to resuscitate. Nothing to say, it is the inheritance of calvinism,and gnosticism by the way. "
The limbus infantum is not really consistent with Augustinian theology. Augustine held that there are only two eternal resting places: heaven and hell. But yes, Augustine believed that infants who died without baptism were subject to the guilt of original sin, whereas those who received baptism were freed from the guilt of original sin. How much of that is a "presumption" as opposed to a "fact," is hard to say, since that particular issue was not the point of difference between him and the Pelgians, Donatists, or any of the other groups that he opposed.
Ultimately, Augustine's theology does not map perfectly either to Reformed theology or to Roman theology. However, where there are differences, Reformed theology has reasons for the differences that are superior to the reasons Rome can offer for her differences.
-TurretinFan
No, Augustine's view of baptism is not one of obedience, like in Reformed theology.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite wrong.
I will quote Augustine more fully here, from the source you linked:
"But what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want of will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say. Still, had it not been of the greatest value, the Lord would not have received the baptism of a servant. But since we must look at it in itself, without entering upon the question of the salvation of the recipient, which it is intended to work, it shows clearly enough that both in the bad, and in those who renounce the world in word and not in deed, it is itself complete, though they cannot receive salvation unless they amend their lives. But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting. And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants, who certainly are as yet unable "with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation," as the thief could do; nay, who even, by crying and moaning when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in opposition to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose." (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.iv.vi.xxiii.html)
"BOTH IN THE BAD, AND IN THOSE WHO RENOUNCE THE WORLD IN WORD AND NOT IN DEED, IT [BAPTISM] IS ITSELF COMPLETE, THOUGH THEY CANNOT RECEIVE SALVATION UNLESS THEY AMEND THEIR LIVES."
That is compatible with Roman Catholic theology; that is incompatible with your personal theology.
Very well said Ghest, in fact the theology of Trent find his source in Aquinas and Augustin.
ReplyDeleteBoth Doctors(and the Bible)and the rest of the Fathers through the centuries have defended the need of Baptism for remission of sins.
Turretin:
"Augustine viewed faith itself as what justifies a man"
You need to prove that. Where did Augustin say that sola fide was the standard in justification. Nowhere. He taught exactly the opposite. His sacramental view of the Church is contrary to the magisterial reformation, to Calvin and especially to Zunglio.Of course, out of context you can convert to the saint in a Jehova´s witness, but who knows his theology in depth won´t belive your theory, ever.
"Ultimately, Augustine's theology does not map perfectly either to Reformed theology or to Roman theology."
First: In which aspects do you consider that Augustine's theology does not map perfectly with Roman theology?
Can you prove it? Because as I see it, roman theology is basically augustianan and thomistic theology. I have good reasons to belive it, but I want to see your reasons, I´d like to understand a calvinist mind.
Second: Do you consider that the council of Orange is coherent with catholic and agustianan theology? If no, why not?
However, where there are differences, Reformed theology has reasons for the differences that are superior to the reasons Rome can offer for her differences."
Reformed theology has reasons that matter only to a few: calvinists.
And there is no unified calvinism, there is no a calvinist church founded by an apostle ... and there is no catholicity in calvinism, because those theories born with Calvin 16 centuries later(too late). In fact Calvinism even is repudiated among historical protestants like lutherans and even anglicans. My point is that the calvinist´s reasons and the CHURCH´s reasons are not in the same level.
Again, forgive my English
Good bye.
"In fact Calvinism even is repudiated among historical protestants like lutherans and even anglicans. My point is that the calvinist´s reasons and the CHURCH´s reasons are not in the same level."
ReplyDeleteI want to clear up an error by that person in his or her comments. The fact of the reality is that the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England are Calvinistic. More specifically on Predestination that is stated in article XVII . So you were mistaken. It's historical position is that of Calvinism . This is likewise found in 2 Anglican systematic theology books that I own such as Introduction To Dogmatic Theology On The Basis Of The Thirty-Nine Articles ( 1912 ) by E.A. Litton and also in The Principles of Theology An Introduction To The Thirty-Nine Articles by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas. More evidence is found that the most early commentaries or expositions of the 39 Articles embraced Calvinism in it. It is usually Anglicans who do not follow the Thirty-Nine Articles who are the ones who basically reject Calvinism. But on this issue though the historical position of Anglicanism as it relates to the reformation is that it was indeed Calvinistic.
ChaferDTS said...
ReplyDelete"The fact of the reality is that the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England are Calvinistic"
I agree in part. But remember that Anglicanism in general rejects the notion of the TULIP(and this is the heart of calvinism), even when its theology(of Anglicanism) is basically calvinistic, as you note. Besides, the high church of anglicanism is theologically more catholic or than calvinist.
Don't you mean to say that the formal cause of justification is the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, rather than Christ's righteousness per se? That seems more logical to me.
ReplyDeleteI have also heard of Faith being called simultaneously the formal and instrumental cause of justification. The problem is, that does not answer the question of precisely how the Imputation of Christ's righteousness is a cause.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why we are justly declared righteous is because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. In contradiction to Trent, it is not our actual righteousness.
ReplyDeleteRight, and that Imputation of Christ's righteousness, it seems to me, is more properly and precisely considered the formal cause, rather than Christ's righteousness considered in se.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a while since I've thought about Aristotle's "causes." I remember being impressed at that rigorous way of looking at "cause." Even though it was a Lutheran college, I think both of my intro to philosophy professors were Calvinists. They were very good at making us kids think.
What produces the declaration of righteousness is the observation of Christ's righteousness in our account, so to speak. The way it comes to be in our account is by imputation. So, the proximate formal cause is Christ's righteousness, while imputation is a more distant cause.
ReplyDelete"Canon 5 is inconsistent with Trent.
ReplyDeleteCanon 4 is also inconsistent (though perhaps less obviously so) with Trent.
Canon 3 is inconsistent with (for similar reasons as 4) with Trent."
I would like to see this expanded upon and substantiated. I'm also curious if you think those canons are inconsistent with Aquinas' thought (and consequently Trent diverged from both Orange and Aquinas in this regard).
TF: "Trent is much more Aquinas than Augustine."
ReplyDeleteWhere do they differ about the nature of Baptism?. Because I don´t see any inconsistency in their own views on this matter.
TF:"Augustine's meaning is not Trent's meaning."
You cited widely the canons of Trent on this matter, but I never saw in the article too many references from St. Augustin that could prove your case, which is:
...faith alone as the instrumental means of justification, rather than baptism.
But Augustin never said that faith replaces Baptism, this is only your calvinist conclusion . He affirms both are necessary. In the same source you use Augustin says : "But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting" This is what Church calls Baptism of desire.
In other texts he teaches clearly the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water for salvation:
St. Augustine: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7.)
St. Augustine: “What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism. It is, then, by water, the visible and outward sign of grace, and by the Spirit, Who produces the inward gift of grace, which cancels the bond of sin and restores God’s gift to human nature, that the man who was born solely of Adam in the first place is afterwards re-born solely in Christ.” (“On John,” 15:4, Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, Fr. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1855, vol. 35.)
St. Augustine: “Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, ‘The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.’ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.” (On Baptism (De Baptismo), 5:28.)
I'd rather not get too much into the question of how close Aquinas is to Trent and how close is Aquinas is to Augustine here. Also an interesting question is how close Orange was to Augustine. It was viewed as a victory over the Pelagians, but was it at the expense of a compromising semi-pelagianism? But this is a topic for another thread, clearly.
ReplyDeleteTF: There are plenty of other areas, such as papal infallibility, the bodily assumption, the immaculate conception, the number of sacraments being seven, the use of images in worship, and so on.
ReplyDeleteThere are many doctrines that were developed and clarified later on, that´s not a secret. The question is: are those doctrines contrary or complementary to the testimony of the whole church through the ages?
Among the Fathers(latin or oriental) there are plenty of evidences that support those doctrines. When they agree, perfect, there´s no problem. When they don´t, the Church has Councils and popes with the charism of infalibility, to determine the truth. So, is the Church, not the individual (reading his Bible at home) who has the authority. It was the error of Calvin.
"Calvin's theology is Biblical."
I am sure Arminius won´t agree with your theory. Saint Augustin neither.
"The Bible is the best example of pure Apostolic tradition"
I agree. But I don´t agree with your theory of Sola Scriptura
"Rome's religion is not Biblical."
You are free to belive what you like. Just be careful, because remember the pack of theology you accept as orthodox (creeds, the Scripture) were deliver by the awful Rome.
Just a few words: Calvinism(and Protestantism in general) in my opinion is not a devil, or a false religion. But its has failed in its original purpose (reform the Chuch). The true reform came with Trent. God´s objective was completed there. Now Protestantism wanders as men in Babel. You don´t understand each other.
Rome is where always has been(stability), she celebrates councils, sacraments etc... as usual(continuity), there is no other institution in the earth with such moral and theological strength (authority).
So let see where the wind blows.
I think the Federal Vision has good points on this matter, at list for Calvinists. Imputation is absurd and contrary to the Scriptures: "Be saints as your Lord is Saint"
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, maybe tomorrow I will answer.
ReplyDelete"You are free to belive what you like. Just be careful, because remember the pack of theology you accept as orthodox (creeds, the Scripture) were deliver by the awful Rome."
ReplyDeleteThe creeds predated modern Roman Catholicism. The RCC formed it's own sect in 1054ad when it split from Eastern Orthodox. But as often Roman Catholicism always does historical revisionism . The last time I checked the west had very few bishops ( less than 6 bishops ) at the Council of Nicea. That consisted almost entirely of bishops from the East ( about 310 or so give or take ) . What is rejected is specific doctrines that are particular to Roman Catholicism. The last time I checked the Old Testatement predated Roman Catholicism too. Let's not forget the RCC did not know what the Old Testament was until 1546ad at the Council of Trent when it dogmatically and infallibly claimed to define the Old Testament. It is to be remembered Christinanity started in Jerusalem in Asia Minor and not in Rome or the West. :) Creeds are only accepted because they are supported by Scripture. Seems you are operating from a Sola Ecclesia position.
"I think the Federal Vision has good points on this matter, at list for Calvinists."
ReplyDeleteFederal Vision has soundly been refuted exegetically already by reformed scholars. Evidently your communion shares with Federal Vision it's distaste and unbelief of what is taught in Scripture. :)
" Imputation is absurd and contrary to the Scriptures: "Be saints as your Lord is Saint" "
Strange considering Cardinal Newman did a bad job in his sermon on Romans 4 where he avoided the proper meaning of the NT Greek.Imputation is on solid biblical exegesis on this point. The best refutation of the claims of the RCC is their own writings at they try and explain away Romans 3 to 4 to no use at all. May Protestant scholars exposed the seriously false expositions of Newman on this point of issue. But Roman Catholics ignore this and a great many things.
"Just a few words: Calvinism(and Protestantism in general) in my opinion is not a devil, or a false religion. But its has failed in its original purpose (reform the Chuch). The true reform came with Trent. God´s objective was completed there. Now Protestantism wanders as men in Babel. You don´t understand each other. "
ReplyDeleteTrent was the worst thing to ever happen to the Roman Church. Bishops who did not know. Trent basically was a rejection of the teaching of Scripture. True reform is to correct false teachings within itself and subject itself to the authority of God and Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith.
"Rome is where always has been(stability), she celebrates councils, sacraments etc... as usual(continuity), there is no other institution in the earth with such moral and theological strength (authority). "
Rome was far from stable considering the heresy of Liberius Bishop of Rome in his Arianism, his taking part of Arian councils and his signing of Arian creeds. Let's not forget ole Pope Honorius who was condemned for formal heresy by the 6th General council of the church by name along with other heretics. All that is brush aside from the RCC who do not want to see realit and live in a world of denial. As proof of this the RCC denial of the 6th general council regarding Honorius. Come to think of it Eastern Orthodox regards the claims of the RCC as well. They claim that they are Apostolic like the RCC yet both are in disagreement with one another doctrinally on serious issues. Yet the RCC still wants to make claims for itself.
"I agree. But I don´t agree with your theory of Sola Scriptura"
ReplyDeleteAt this point I do not believe you know what the reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura really is . You already gave some indications of this. It does not deny the teaching authority of the church. It rather claims Scripture is supreme over the church. The church is fallible while Scripture is infallible. Plus no such thing as infallible councils of the church or even a so called Papal infallibility either.
ChaferDTS:
ReplyDelete"The creeds predated modern Roman Catholicism. The RCC formed it's own sect in 1054 and when it split from Eastern Orthodox. But as often Roman Catholicism always does historical revisionism ."
Me:
That´s a great theory. But you are projecting your own deficiencies and uncertainties to the Catholic Church, and this is not about historical revisionism, is a matter of facts. Even the holy Eastern Orthodox Churches lack of certainty and unity. The fact that since they left Rome(1000 years) they have not celebrated not even one Council is a symptom. But at least, they have preserve true faith and true sacraments while calvinists have destroyed them.
ChaferDTS:
"The last time I checked the west had very few bishops ( less than 6 bishops ) at the Council of Nicea. That consisted almost entirely of bishops from the East ( about 310 or so give or take ) . "
Me:
The last time I checked the pope's legates presided over the council together with its president Hosius of Cordova. The champion of the catholic doctrine Athanasius, to whome appealed when the East obliged him to reject the orthodox doctrine of Nicea. I respond you, to the pope Julius. So, you can see where rests the final authority.
ChaferDTS:
"Let's not forget the RCC did not know what the Old Testament was until 1546ad at the Council of Trent when it dogmatically and infallibly claimed to define the Old Testament."
Me:
…. in the Council of Trent was dogmatically and infallibly REAFFIRMED the already well-known Old and New Testaments. And it was motivated because heretics (Luther and others) didn´t like 2 Macabeos, the letter of James and Apocalipsis
ChaferDTS:
"It is to be remembered Christinanity started in Jerusalem in Asia Minor and not in Rome or the West. :)"
Me:
Actually, Christinanity flourished in Rome too as capital of the Empire, the apostles(Peter and Paul) preached in Rome and died there. Even there is a book called The Bible where one of those apostles wrote a letter to the comunity on that city.
You seem to ignore History of the Church and the Bible too.
ChaferDTS:
ReplyDeleteCreeds are only accepted because they are supported by Scripture. Seems you are operating from a Sola Ecclesia position.
Me:
Who has the authority to determine which council or creed is supported by Scripture? Institutes of the Christian Religion? Calvin? …Zuingli?...the Anabaptists? Obviously none of them. Their heretic ideas don't fit with the testimony of Tradition.
ChaferDTS:
Strange considering Cardinal Newman did a bad job
Me:
Bad job? Jah. The greatest convert from Anglicanism, with the best arguments about Christian History, Development of Doctrine… and you say he did a bad job. Of course he dosn´t agree with your ideas of justification, imputation because are innovations from your reformers. Neither the Bible, nor the Fathers or councils, ever taught those ideas
ChaferDTS:
Many Protestant scholars exposed the seriously false expositions of Newman on this point of issue. But Roman Catholics ignore this and a great many things.
Me:
Again, false expositions according to which approach?. Because Calvin´s truth is not the TRUTH. I like your emphasis and conviction, but I don´t buy it.
ChaferDTS:
Federal Vision has soundly been refuted exegetically already by reformed scholars. Evidently your communion shares with Federal Vision it's distaste and unbelief of what is taught in Scripture. :)
Me:
Are reformed scholars, orthodox in their theology???. No, they aren´t …Reformed scholars accept as orthodox many formal heresies: nestorianism, inoclasm, maniqueism, monofisitism, and gnosticism in a high level.
FV is a logical reaction to Calvinism and essencially to your views on Justification. Reformed scholars could refute, from their standards(calvinist Confessions maybe) the FV´s ideas. But calvinist confession are not a pure exposition of the Scriptures and, calvinist confessions are not authoritative in Christian faith.
ChaferDTS:
"Trent was the worst thing to ever happen to the Roman Church. "
Me:
You think? Let see your theory.
ChaferDTS:
"Bishops(in Trent) who did not know much on theological or historical matters. ...
Seriously, which library are you visiting?
Here I present a few examples of the main bishops and theologians in the Council
Lorenzo Campeggio: cardinal and eminent canonist.
General of the Augustinian Hermits: was the most prominent of the heads of the orders.
Dominic Soto: renowned theologian. works: "De natura et gratia libri III (Venice, 1547); "De ratione tegendi et detegendi secretum" (Salamanca, 1541); "De justitia et jure libri X" (Salamanca, 1556); "Comment. in Ep. ad Romanos" (Antwerp, 1550); "In IV sent. libros comment." (Salamanca, 1555-56).
True reform is to correct false teachings within itself and subject itself to the authority of God and Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith. "
Again and again. Who has the authority in Protestantism to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible?. No one
TF: Where Trent differs from Augustine is already in the post. Whether that is due to the influence of Aquinas or other influence is really beyond the scope of what I intend to discuss.
ReplyDeleteME:Where does St Augustin makes “faith alone” the instrumental cause of Justification. That´s what you need to prove.
TF: Well, until I see some evidence that you've read the parts of the post that deal with this, I'm going to just refer you back to the post.
ME: I read the post, all of it. Maybe I am unable to understand English, because I don´t see where Augustin said: "faith alone is the instrumental means of justification, rather than baptism"
TF: ROFL - Nor did I. Trent replaces faith with Baptism, though - that's the problema
ME:Yes, you did. You said explicitly: “ we would find FAITH ALONE as the instrumental means of justification, RATHER THAN baptism”
TF:“Trent replaces faith with Baptism”
ME: False. Apart from Baptism is necesary faith, conversión and other virtues. Here is the prove:
The alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper DISPOSITION AND CO-OPERATION.
TF: No doubt. We do too, as you would know if you paid closer attention to the post and thread of comments.
ME:Is good to know you think that : BAPTISM AND FAITH ARE BOTH NECESARY FOR JUSTIFICATION. It is a great day for calvinism
TF: Indeed, that is the term your church uses. But one desires what one doesn't have
ME: I don´t understand
TF: So, Augustine definitely did not hold to the absolute necessity of the sacrament.
ME: Neither do I. Neither RCC. Mea culpa, I should say "in some texts saint Augustin hold to the absolute necessity of the sacrament"
TF: He(saint Augustin) is addressing those who learn a lot but never actually want to be baptized.
ME: Really?
Saint Augustin: "For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and IT IS NOT TAKEN AWAY UNTIL HE HAS BEEN BAPTIZED"
TF: Again, is there any water in the baptism of desire? Surely not. If there were water, it wouldn't just be desire. So, if this proves what you seem to think, it proves to much.
ME: And your point is??
TF: But again, it's not suggesting that faith is not enough, but merely that baptism is necessary in a different sense.
Never I have said faith is not enough. I said faith alone is not enough
Could you please explain what means: "that baptism is necessary in a different sense"
First: "the Catholic Church doesn't have authority to determine which the correct interpretation of the Sacred writing is because the postmodernism affects her too."
ReplyDeleteAnd I respond: postmodernism affects everybody. But the Catholic Church,and in certain ways the oriental churches too, have appropriate tools to face it:
1- The CHURCH has the unanimous voice of the Tradition that constitutes a permanent testimony of fidelity to the apostolic message.
1.1- Protestantism (in particular Calvinism) rejects the testimony of the Tradition when it doesn't coincide with its theories and inventions.Calvinism has rejected a grosso moddo the patristic message , for this reason old heresies have been resuscitated and you have accepted them as true (maniqueism, nestorianism, iconoclasm, gnosticism).
2- The Church has the apostolic authority (Magisterium) that avoids the individualism and the anarchy. The Catholic theologians cannot go inventing new doctrines somewhere around.
2.1-The Calvinism lacks any type of authority, calvinism was born being anarchist, and is anarchist even today. The Calvinism has generated all type of sects (Jehova´s Witness , Christian Science). All the founders of those sects have been in a way or another, doctrinally Calvinists
3- The Church has the testimony of the Sacred Scripture, which assures that: "The doors of the Hell won't prevail"
Mt 16.18.
Calvinism, has broken the evangelical message, reducing it to a doctrinal system (reductionism ad absurdum). Calvinism has transformed the whole biblical message into 5 letters (TULIP)
Hector
"That´s a great theory. But you are projecting your own deficiencies and uncertainties to the Catholic Church, and this is not about historical revisionism, is a matter of facts. Even the holy Eastern Orthodox Churches lack of certainty and unity. The fact that since they left Rome(1000 years) they have not celebrated not even one Council is a symptom. But at least, they have preserve true faith and true sacraments while calvinists have destroyed them. "
ReplyDeleteDeficiencies and uncertainties ? I grew up and raised in Roman Catholicism and left it in June 1992. Yet you claim of me deficicencies and uncertaintites. Well I have news for you . I am very certain in what I believe and why. I learned long ago that the Catholic Church is never to be understood to be defined in terms of modern Roman Catholicism. The RCC on this point has deceived itself. I was the RCC that left Eastern Orthodox. The Roman Pope tried to do a takeover with them and failed. Thus showing the Roman pope NEVER had any authority except within the Roman See. All the RCC does is resort to histrocial revisionism in order to hide it's own short comings theologically and historically. I have other news for you. The RCC itself is guilty itself of not having any ecumentical councils either. That is impossible since the RCC and Eastern Orthodox are in schism. I do not consider so called Roman Church councils as ecumentical at all.
"The last time I checked the pope's legates presided over the council together with its president Hosius of Cordova. The champion of the catholic doctrine Athanasius, to whome appealed when the East obliged him to reject the orthodox doctrine of Nicea. I respond you, to the pope Julius. So, you can see where rests the final authority."
Ok you are backdating the papacy. No Pope presided over Nicea. That is a historical reality. Last time I checked they functioned together. We dont have the Roman See doing a takeover in Nicea. Intresting historical revisionism.
"…. in the Council of Trent was dogmatically and infallibly REAFFIRMED the already well-known Old and New Testaments. And it was motivated because heretics (Luther and others) didn´t like 2 Macabeos, the letter of James and Apocalipsis"
That is historically incorrect. The RCC documents itself says it was offically defined infallibly for the first time in 1546ad. Dont do any historical revisionism on this when it is so clearly false based on the evidence of church fathers such as Jerome, Athanasius himself and others rejected the apocrypha as being part of the OT Canon in the strict sense. Let us not forget Trent rejected books that were affirmed by Hippo and Cartage. Thank you for showing your true feelings of Luther and that of protestants.
I am sorry but we dont see any type of supremacy of the Church of Rome at all in the book of Acts at all. That happened much later in history. I agree that Paul preached in Rome. With Peter, he DID NOT GO THERE UNTIL AFTER 62ad where he was killed by the Roman Empire. He did not found the church of Rome. Nor was Peter the first bishop of Rome either. So he was not bishop there for the 25 claimed years that the RCC makes. In fact in the church of Rome they had two orders of ministry plus a plurality of Bishops/ Elders until after 140ad.
The reality is that is you who ignores Scripture and history. I will tell you how . 1 ) The most early record of claimed apostolic succesion list Linus and not Peter as the first Bishop of Rome. Yet the RCC wishes to claimed Peter was the first bishop there for 25 years ! My bad that is selective reading by Roman Catholicism. 2 ) We have no specific record of Peter even founding the church of Rome in the book of Acts at all from Acts 2 to 15.
Hey TurretinFan!
ReplyDeleteSince I didn’t hear back from you, I went ahead and responded to your article beginning here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=578070&page=2#25 .
I hope you have a blessed day!
In Christ,
Pete
Was Augustine a Christian?
ReplyDeletehttp://catena-aurea.blogspot.com.br/2012/11/augustinus-totus-noster-est.html
Ricardo: As far as we know, yes, Augustine was a Christian. That is not to say all his doctrines or practices were correct, but he was to outward appearances a Christian.
ReplyDeleteThen why Catholics are not Christians (by outward appearances) and Augustine was? What heresy of today´s Catholicism has crossed the line between Christianity and non-Christianity?
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of heresies - perhaps the most obvious one is mentioned here:
ReplyDeletehttp://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-rome-teach-false-gospel-let-me.html
Wait a minute. So the Gospel preached by Catholics is a false Gospel because of the infallibility and temporal power claimed by the Popes? Is it not because Rome teaches salvation by infused righteousness and merit?
ReplyDeleteWhat about Eastern Orthodoxy? They have the true Gospel?
I have to ask: do you agree with this text (http://www.justforcatholics.org/a21.htm)? This is an article explaining "why Catholics are not Christians". If you agree with the reason used by this article, then you cannot say that Augustine was a Christian. But you just said he was Christian.
ReplyDeleteRicardo: You seem to have trouble thinking through these issues. I admit I may have written less than perfectly transparently, but I'm sure I didn't say it is simply because the pope claims infallibility or simply because the pope claims temporal power, or both of those. I set forth my reasons in the article. Perhaps you should read it more carefully.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is just one reason. There are other reasons why we think Rome has a false gospel.
Eastern Orthodoxy has a very different structure. It doesn't teach what Unam Sanctam taught, but that does not mean that all EO churches proclaim the true gospel. Simply avoiding one heresy is not enough.
-TurretinFan
Have you asked the author of the article about whether he thinks Augustine was a Christian? The author states "if he follows the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, regretfully I must say that he does not really believe in Christ nor does he know the grace of God." At a minimum, that cannot be said of Augustine, who came centuries before the Roman Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteAugustine believed and professed salvation by infused righteousness. He believed that the grace of God enables man to merit eternal life. He believed that true Christians could lose salvation. He believed in intercession of saints in heaven, that they "share merits" with us. He believed in honoring their relics. He believed that some practices not found in Scripture have been handed down by the Apostles themselves. He believed that almsgiving must be used to propitiate God for past sins.
ReplyDeleteAnd not only he believed those things (as if he were some exception), but he represented a great part of the Church. If you look to others great Teachers of Church History, you will find a very similar list: in Cyprian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Bernard, etc. Those are the man that John Calvin quotes in his Institutes as Christians and Teachers...
So, I have to ask: does anyone, today, believing those things that Augustine believed, could be considered a Christian in your eyes?
I´m asking sincerely. I even think that you could be right in some controversial issues. I don´t think that because Ambrose and Augustine and others Church Fathers believed "x", we must believe "x". I believe the Church has the right to progress, to become more scriptural and faithful to the Truth.
What I don´t understand is how can you think that anyone holding to some things are apostate and false Christians, and than say that the Church Fathers were true Christians.
Protestant apologists typically says: Catholics are false Christians BECAUSE they believe in infused righteousness, merit, intercession of saints, relics, oral tradition, etc. But, at the same time, they say: Augustine was a Christian, DESPITE the fact that he believed in in infused righteousness, merit, intercession of saints, relics, oral tradition, etc. Isn´t it an incoherence?
I don´t believe Christ would abandon His Church for centuries in heresy, blasphemy and apostasy. Therefore, a doctrine that IMPLIES it should be rejected. Don´t you think that, if your interpretation of Scripture looks SO opposite to what Christians interpretate for centuries, you could be wrong?
Augustine believed and professed salvation by infused righteousness. He believed that the grace of God enables man to merit eternal life. He believed that true Christians could lose salvation. He believed in intercession of saints in heaven, that they "share merits" with us. He believed in honoring their relics. He believed that some practices not found in Scripture have been handed down by the Apostles themselves. He believed that almsgiving must be used to propitiate God for past sins.
ReplyDeleteYou said that these statements can be misleading. And that there are "qualifications". I don´t understand. What are these qualifications? For example, every time a Catholic try to explain their doctrine of merit (that it flows from grace, that it is God crowning his own gifts, that it is based on the promise and covenant, that works in themselves have no merit, etc) Protestants respond by saying: "doesn´t matter, you teach merit, you are an apostate". But now you´re saying that Augustine´s doctrine of merit have qualifications?
Look these quotes from Augustine: http://catena-aurea.blogspot.com.br/2012/11/augustinus-totus-noster-est.html
I´m not a Roman Catholic.
ReplyDeleteI just want to know which group to follow. For every statement I made about Augustine, you said "misleading" and "necessary to qualify". But I think you´re wrong, and I´ve been studying Church Fathers and Church History a long time. But, of course, I´m open to listen. But, remember: Catholics also qualify a lot their statements. It´s a oversimplification when Protestants describe their position as "they believe in merit and salvation by works". The Catholic Catechism states clearly that "in strict justice, there is not merit", and that merit procedes from grace, etc. I think there is too much uncharitable interpreation on the part of Protestants (in fact, on the part of both Catholics and Protestants).
ReplyDeleteIf you have time, please read my link with quotes from Augustine, and I also recommend Robert C. Koons: "A Lutheran´s Case for Catholicism" (the part about justification). This text made a real impact in my mind.
I´m trying to make sense of the Protestant view of Church History. You said that don´t think God would mind letting churches apostatize". But Christ promised: I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (Mat 28:20). The idea that, at the very first centuries after the Apostles, Christians from England to Syria - including the great evangelizers that brought the name of Christ to distant islands, and the great teachers, martyrs, giants like Augustine and Bernard - were all blasphemers, apostates, idolaters, heretics, etc. is absurd to me. Seems incompatible with the promise of Christ.
I just want to know which group to follow. For every statement I made about Augustine, you said "misleading" and "necessary to qualify". But I think you´re wrong, and I´ve been studying Church Fathers and Church History a long time. But, of course, I´m open to listen. But, remember: Catholics also qualify a lot their statements. It´s a oversimplification when Protestants describe their position as "they believe in merit and salvation by works". The Catholic Catechism states clearly that "in strict justice, there is not merit", and that merit procedes from grace, etc. I think there is too much uncharitable interpreation on the part of Protestants (in fact, on the part of both Catholics and Protestants).
ReplyDeleteIf you have time, please read my link with quotes from Augustine, and I also recommend Robert C. Koons: "A Lutheran´s Case for Catholicism" (the part about justification). This text made a real impact in my mind.
I´m trying to make sense of the Protestant view of Church History. You said that don´t think God would mind letting churches apostatize". But Christ promised: I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (Mat 28:20). The idea that, at the very first centuries after the Apostles, Christians from England to Syria - including the great evangelizers that brought the name of Christ to distant islands, and the great teachers, martyrs, giants like Augustine and Bernard - were all blasphemers, apostates, idolaters, heretics, etc. is absurd to me. Seems incompatible with the promise of Christ. But I think it is reasonable to suppose that the Church is fallible, the Church Fathers committed some erros, and the Church could correct it, if it is clear in Scripture.
"Augustine does not call those who are not given the gift of perseverance "True Christians" nor does he say that they "lose salvation." Those are glosses on essentially one passage where Augustine seems to be pointing out that baptized people may not have the gift of perseverance"
ReplyDeleteSee for yourself: "to some of His own children— whom He has regenerated in Christ— to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also" (On Rebuke and Grace, Chap. 18). He even make it clearer, asking: "For who of the multitude of believers can presume, so long as he is living in this mortal state, that he is in the number of the predestinated?" (Chap. 40). And: "it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive" (On the Predestination of the Saints, Book II, Chap. 1). These are three passages, and Augustine made pretty clear that he was not talking about baptized people.
"So, do you think that the Church of England apostatized when it separated itself from communion with Rome? What about when the Eastern Churches separated themselves from communion with Rome and when Rome separated herself from communion with them? If you don't think that, then you can't possibly agree with Rome. Rome seems to think churches can and sometimes do apostatize - just not Rome."
That is not my point. Rome believes that SOME churches can apostatize, but not the WHOLE Church. Of course, they believe that the Church of Rome cannot apostatize. But that´s not what I´m defending here.
"You should read Jesus' letters to the seven churches to see whether Jesus is willing to let them go into apostasy. Christ's promise to be with us has certainly been maintained, but that says nothing about any one particular church."
Of course Jesus is willing to let a particular church apostatize. I´m not questioning that.
"Obviously, you know that wasn't the position of John Calvin nor is it my opinion."
I know. But the position of John Calvin and others Reformers seems to be incoherent. At the same time, recognizing the Ancient Church as a True Church but saying that the Church of Rome is a false Church because it hold positions that the Ancient Church already held!
"And keep in mind that Bernard is a medieval author. I am fond of a lot that he wrote (as was Calvin) but he is from a complete different era than Augustine."
Yet, both Calvin and Luther seems to saw in Bernard a true Christian. How can anyone think that Bernard is a true Christian and than say that, for example, "you cannot be a true Christian believing in intercession of Mary and the divine origin of Papacy"?
"The idea that whole body of all believers can act as "the Church" was not realistic even in the time of the apostles and is even less realistic now.
So, look to churches (plural) to take on that task, not to a monolith."
It doesn´t matter. I feel you don´t get my reasoning. I can say that Calvin´s view implies that the Ancient Churches (plural) was full of blasphemers, apostates and heretics. And, at the same time, he views these people as true christians and true churches (plural).
I'm not affirming the infallibility of any particular writer in Ancient Church, nor even using the doctrine of "ecclesiastical consensus". I'm pointing this problem: if Protestantism affirms that the RC and EO doctrines of justification, merit, intercession of saints, relics, penance, etc. are, not only wrong or imperfect, but blasphemies, abominations, idolatries and that they're not Christians for that... it means that the Ancient Churches and Teachers are all blasphemers, idolaters and false Christians. And I don't see how can this be compatible with the promise of Christ.
ReplyDeleteAs Norman Geisler said, "one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness during that period!". I´ve read a lot a apologetic texts saying that RC and EO simply "don't have the Gospel" because they believe in infused righteousness and merit instead of sole imputation. The inevitable conclusion of this is that Augustine didn't have the Gospel either, and scarcely anyone have the Gospel along Church History.
Someone said: "Whatever be historical Christianity, it is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it...This is shown in the determination already referred to, of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men would never have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it...To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant".
The more I learn Church History, the more I agree with this quote. Please, read, as an example, my compilation of Augustine quotes ( http://catena-aurea.blogspot.com.br/2012/11/augustinus-totus-noster-est.html ). You said you would accept an Augustine's clone, but I don't think it is true.
"I'm not affirming the infallibility of any particular writer in Ancient Church, nor even using the doctrine of "ecclesiastical consensus"."
ReplyDeleteOk.
"I'm pointing this problem: if Protestantism affirms that the RC and EO doctrines of justification, merit, intercession of saints, relics, penance, etc. are, not only wrong or imperfect, but blasphemies, abominations, idolatries and that they're not Christians for that... it means that the Ancient Churches and Teachers are all blasphemers, idolaters and false Christians."
No, it doesn't mean that, for a variety of reasons.
"And I don't see how can this be compatible with the promise of Christ."
a) Christ didn't promise that there would be a constant stream of easy-to-find believers.
b) Christ promised to be with the believers.
c) But ***IF*** the famous early Christian writers were not believers, then the promise was not to them, just as it was not to Mohammed and his followers, or to Arius and his followers, or to Joseph Smith and his followers.
"As Norman Geisler said, "one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness is an essential part of the true gospel."
Read that carefully. I don't know any Reformed theologians who would disagree with Geisler on that.
"I´ve read a lot a apologetic texts saying that RC and EO simply "don't have the Gospel" because they believe in infused righteousness and merit instead of sole imputation."
Maybe you have. You should take your complaint to them, instead of here where it hasn't been said.
"Someone said: "Whatever be historical Christianity, it is not Protestantism.""
a) Yes, the man who said that was an apostate from the faith and accursed of God.
b) The man's point is true but misleading. Obviously, calling the fathers "Protestant" would be anachronistic. Their debates were not ours. They never faced a papacy - they never faced modern Rome. They had a variety of views about things with which they disagree with "Protestants," such as ascetic errors that were widespread through much of the patristic and medieval period.
c) And maybe to be deep in history is to cease to be "Protestant," in the sense of desiring a connection with Christians of previous generations, but it is for the same reason to cease to be any other modern label (including "Eastern Orthodox" or "Roman Catholic").
-TurretinFan
Then what are you ?
ReplyDeleteVery good points TF ! I agree with you fully on that.
ReplyDeleteAlot of what did claimed did need qualification otherwise it would be misleading. I agree with TF on that. Robert Koon is an apostate. He converted from Luthernism to Roman Catholicism. So he is a former Lutheran. You did present a strawman againist TF. TF never claims the entire church became apostate. But that part of it did and can. With this I agree. The apostles themselves in their life time had to deal with false teachers and false doctrine as Acts 15 being a prime example. Many of the Epistles in the NT were written to correct false doctrine that was being taught in the professing church in the life times of the apostles. The church fathers were never infallible in doctrinal teaching nor did they think of themselves in that manner. Since none were infallible in doctrinal teaching they in general taught truth mixed with error. The issue would be the extent of each with respect to each individual church father. Augustine while he was catholic he did not embrace in full of what is today known as " Roman Catholicism " . Roman Catholics and Protestants can equally cite him for various issues. In truth , Protestantism does have an " continuity " with the church historically speaking. This doctrinal continuity exist within the Creeds of the church such as for example The Apostles Creed. The Creeds of the church provides no evidence againist Protestantism at all as it contains no distinctive Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrinal teaching. TF did not claim all of the church fathers were false teachers either. Things like that can be judged on a case by case basis instead of one big broad brush. In this you misrepresented TF. It would not matter if each and every church father were all false teachers or not as none of the church fathers were infallible in teaching doctrine. On the issue of justification Roman Catholicism had no " offical " teaching on the matter until the Council of Trent in which its position was dogmatically and infallibly defined for them. In the writings of the church fathers different views of justifiication were taught and not one singular position. Likewise there were several different OT Canon listings in the church prior to the Council of Trent when it was finally dogmatically and infallibly defined for them. Some held the apocrypha was part of the OT Canon and some held it was not . The same thing can be said on Papal supremacy and papal infallibility as defined and affirmed by Vatican I. Over 44 church fathers held to a different view on Matthew 16:18 than the view presented by Vatican I. Yet if we apply the RCC's claimed standard of the unanimous consent of the church fathers on these examples than we find that the RCC fails on this. The simple fact is modern Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox or Protestantism can claim the church fathers in full. Protestants dont need the church fathers to be doctrinal clones of them in order for them to be right or true at all. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox claim more than what reality calls for when it comes to the church fathers. You seem to be unaware of the historical debate concerning statue and icon use in the church that existed in which various councils contradicted one another same thing with the church fathers on this. Reality is the church was never a clone of your own doctrinal beliefs. That is something that you must face and accept. If you want to study " church history " than you should read HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 8 Volumes by Schaff.
ReplyDeleteThe context of some of your quotes can be questioned and selectively cited and leaves out parts of which you would disagree with Augustine on. I noticed that you did not cite Augustine as teaching that unbaptized babies of unbelievers are hell bound. Your own link incorrectly linked prayers for the dead with a belief in purgatory. Eastern Orthodox for example has prayers for the dead without a belief in purgatory which is a false assumption anyway. Christians can never atone for their own sins. Christ bore the sins of His elect and purged all their sins on the cross. That aspect of purgatory contradicts passages such as 1 Pet. 2:24-25; 1 Jn 1:8-9 and Heb. 1:3. Purgatory is a denial and rejection of the sufficent nature of the value of Christ blood. Purgatory was never the universal belief or doctrine of the church. Good luck in finding purgatory being in the Creeds of the church.
ReplyDeleteThank you, "Turretinfan", for your atention and your answers. I will meditate on these issues. The post about Augustine on my blog was deleted.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I´m not a Roman Catholic. I´m currently attending a Presbyterian Church and I´m very confortable with it´s doctrines and practices (that is, my conscience is fine with them). My only problem is that, sometimes, I see protestants manifesting some views in Church History and in regard to others Christians (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and even Arminians) that I find very disturbing, absurd, contrary to the demands of Christ for unity and with promise of Christ for preserving His Church. I do not want to follow a sect.
(If my english sounds strange to you and I write somethings the wrong way, that´s because I´m a brazilian).
Peace,
Ricardo
Since you are Presbyterian you should take the time to read the writings of great Presbyterian theologians so that you would be familiar with of their own arguments againist Roman Catholicism. Check out Dr. Charles Hodge Systematic Theology 3 Volumes and the writings of Dr. B.B. Warfield. On the issue of justification we have to take a stand between a true doctrine of it and a false view of it. It was the reformers who affirmed a true view of it while the Council of Trent offically / formally and dogmatically denied the biblical doctrine of justification and denied the true Gospel. There is a great gulf fixed between Roman Catholicism and essential Protestantism on the matter of justification. As long as the RCC does not repent and correct itself from what was proclaimed at Trent for it than there can be not communion with them at all. You must also see that we can not broad brush the various arguments that Protestants use againist Roman Catholicism. Some are very good while some are very bad. An example of a bad one is by Jack Chick and an example of very good arguments are found in men like Dr. Charles Hodge and Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas and in the present time by Dr. James White. It was Roman Catholicisim that has pushed everyone away. It pushed away Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestantism. The RCC is the one who claims to be the only one true Catholic Church. Unity is never easy in professing christianity. What all born again believers have is the spiritual unity and oneness due to their union in Christ rather than their specific sect.
ReplyDelete