Tiber states:
In my Christmas Eve blog post, I was reflecting on how beautiful it is to receive Christ and I was attempting to make the point that Catholics don’t re-crucify Jesus with every Mass as we are often accused. The Altar of the Mass is where Christ’s sacrifice accomplished once and for all 2000 years ago is re- presented. In the spirit of charity, I do admire his heart for Catholics that he perceives as being in slavery and I appreciate his prayers for me. (we all could use more prayer). You are in my prayers too, brother James!
I don’t think “Brother James” was trying to argue the “recrucify” argument. Instead Dr. White was arguing for the idea that the Mass never actually accomplishes anything. It never actually takes away sin. Tiber seems to believe in experiencing the Mass, yet is not the picture of the treadmill a perfect description of the very Treasury of Merit system that enslaves millions of people? To this day I have never received from him an answer as to how one is saved and has peace with God.
What troubles me the most about Tiber’s post is reflected in this statement, “It's a mystery not easily explainable or "exegeted" but yet experienced by the people of God for two millennia.” Here experience trumps the clear revelation of God and his purpose in Christ to perfectly redeem and save a people. Penal Substitutionary Atonement must be denied. There is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. Sin is never forgiven.
Dr. White is right on when he says the Mass is part of a man-centered system that enslaves men, and Tiber never was able to deal with that. He simply can’t. He admits God’s Word may not be “exegeted” to understand the meaning of the atonement. Then again, what should one expect when it is assumed God is not able to speak clearly in His Word to His people.
Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [exegeted] Him.
35 comments:
Howard wrote:
"I don’t think “Brother James” was trying to argue the “recrucify” argument."
Dr. White had written in the referenced article:
“I am so thankful that I have a finished sacrifice that does not need to be "re-presented" on an altar. I am so thankful that the death of Christ perfects. What a tragedy that so many will be going to Mass, thinking they are approaching a "re-presentation" of the Cross, but will go away once again imperfect, without lasting peace, for they have no finished work, no imputed righteousness, upon which to stand. May God be pleased to continue to free men and women from slavery to such a treadmill of sacramentalism and bring them into the glorious truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
I offer some commentary:
Howard:
We ought to note that Dr. White's comment, "What a tragedy that so many will be going to Mass, thinking they are approaching a "re-presentation" of the Cross" *seems* to reveal that he holds the mistaken belief that Catholics believe that they "recrucify" Christ. My initial reaction to your comment was "What? Did Howard actually read Dr. White's article?" However, as I carefully re-read Dr. White's paragraph above, I believe I see the fine distinction you are making. As always, if my perception is incorrect, I ask you to set me straight.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Tiber misunderstood Dr. White's main point: that the issue was not whether Catholics believe that they "recrucify" Christ, but whether the sacrifice of the Mass is in any way effectual. In short: you understand his point to be something like "because only the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus' death can truly atone for sin, all other sacrifices, petitions, rituals or whatnot are mere mumbo-jumbo--and if depended upon for salvation, are also in vain."
Provided that I've got this right, may I humbly suggest that you look at Tiber's responsive article again. You might also look over the comment that I'd submitted as well.
I hope you will see that Tiber addressed the misconception that the sacrifice of the Mass is a recrucifying of Christ, while also producing documented records dating from the very first generation of Christians and through the ages that Christianity has always taught that the Eucharist is connected to Christ's sacrifice, that He commanded it to be done and that it ought to be a normative part of our Christian lives. Thus, we do not have the Mass as some sort of auxiliary salvific method, nor do we expect to gain meritorious salvation, but we do this because He instituted it and He Himself commands it. Any and all power to save comes from Christ's own sacrifice. Were we to never celebrate the
Mass again, we would be the poorer for it, but salvation would continue according to God's will and plan.
Yes, this does conflict with the form of Calvinism that ontologically sets a limit to God's power: saying in effect that Almighty God is limited by a man-made philosophy that concludes that "perfect" salvation is not "perfect" if God chooses to make obedience part of its means."
To obey is better than sacrifice, says the Lord. Your problem is not with Tiber, but with God. Ultimately, you shall have to take it up with Him--as also shall I and all who have heard the call.
I remain,
Your Brother in Christ,
Theo
PS.
For reference, I also include the commentary I'd sent to Tiber's article:
---------
Theo said...
"Blessed are you who believed
that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Blessed indeed! One of many great lessons illustrated in the very Word of God becoming flesh is that God neither gives His word in vain, nor abandons His work; and even if he appears to tarry, it is truly not so--for to Him who is the maker of all things, time is no master.
How amazing! By God's own word, the perfect eternal sacrifice made once and only once upon the cross for *all* so that sins may be forgiven is present to God the Father throughout all time--and by His word (whether we are able to believe Him or not), we are buried with Him in baptism and rise with Him in faith as we humbly receive Him, depending upon His righteous merit.
He is risen! Never again shall He be crucified; yet, ever and ever again; forever and always the Lamb who was slain is present before the Father as our advocate. Ever is His eternal sacrifice offered for us--and ever and again is it also presented in the sacrament instituted by Him through His own word, that we might be able (by God’s gift and grace) again offer to God the only worthy and living sacrifice, which is Jesus, the Lord.
What freedom we have by God, not to be consumed with doubt whether our own statement of faith , (or more sadly, whether that of our children or of the infirm) measures up to some man-made system of theology as though entrance into heaven were based on some sort of doctrinal SAT test.
What peace we each have with God, not to agonize over whether one is by mere chance a soul who God chose to love from the beginning or to hate, as though the maker of time itself were bound by time.
What comfort and confidence we have in God whose omnipotence and sovereignty were clothed in flesh like our own, and whose kingdom’s reign is by his own choice, not a tyranny in servitude to his banqueting table, but a wedding feast at which He makes of us His bride and guest.
What Joy!
Joy to the world; the Lord is come!
May God bless us all this Christmas season.
--Theo
December 26, 2006 11:29 AM
Tiber,
What is interesting to me is that the question of how one has peace with God is not answered in any substantive way. You may say that you believe, “By God's own word, the perfect eternal sacrifice made once and only once upon the cross for *all* so that sins may be forgiven is present to God the Father throughout all time--and by His word (whether we are able to believe Him or not), we are buried with Him in baptism and rise with Him in faith as we humbly receive Him, depending upon His righteous merit.” Yet you agree that Christ’s merits in now obtainable through a meritorious system of works done by faith?
Therefore you have no objective imputed righteousness. Your system calls you to have your sins supposedly done away with at least in part with every Mass and other sacraments. Therefore White’s arguments stand. You may call me a philosopher. I will take Hebrews 10 and Romans 4 & 5 over your system any day.
“Thus, we do not have the Mass as some sort of auxiliary salvific method, nor do we expect to gain meritorious salvation, but we do this because He instituted it and He Himself commands it. Any and all power to save comes from Christ's own sacrifice. Were we to never celebrate the Mass again, we would be the poorer for it, but salvation would continue according to God's will and plan.”
Do you admit that Jesus only makes men savable? It ultimately is up to the man as to whether or not he will cooperate?
Your system does not believe man is really dead. It also does not believe Christ raises the spiritually dead. Atleast not until the spiritually dead cooperate.
“What freedom we have by God, not to be consumed with doubt whether our own statement of faith , (or more sadly, whether that of our children or of the infirm) measures up to some man-made system of theology as though entrance into heaven were based on some sort of doctrinal SAT test.”
Who is saying we need an SAT test or anything of that sort? As far as my children, I actually believe in original sin (not as in Rome’s semi-pelagian view). I believe the Judge of heaven and earth will do right. Therefore I call my children to faith and repentance. I also raise them in the admonition of the Lord. That is my duty. My duty is not to get them to some fount and get them sprinkled (to remove original sin) so that I can feel better at night.
I think 1 John explains very clearly how we may have assurance and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Savior.
In conclusion, I am saying (not in a mean spirited way, but in a manner that truly wishes to follow the Apostolic command) that the Roman Catholic system is not proclaiming the Gospel. I know you believe it does. I believe the Gospel defines the church and who are its members. I simply suggest Romans 5 is clear and sufficient (based on Romans 4, the imputation argument) to explain that all who are in Adam are all dead and by the same logic Paul argues therefore all who are in Christ are made alive.
It would be another way of saying Original Sin verses Original Righteousness. Your system denies this. I possess Christ’s Righteousness.
“What peace we each have with God, not to agonize over whether one is by mere chance a soul who God chose to love from the beginning or to hate, as though the maker of time itself were bound by time.”
Whoever does this is not a Calvinist. Although I know many like to destroy strawmen and draw Calvinism into this argument. I am sure you are not really attempting to do this though.
God Bless
Dear Howard:
You write:
"Yet you agree that Christ’s merits in now obtainable through a meritorious system of works done by faith?"
I reply...
Ultimately, I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.
You plainly tell me that you do not believe I follow or preach the Gospel. You also say of yourself, "I possess Christ’s Righteousness" (and AMEN! May it be so by God's will.). Am I correct in my perception that you also believe that I do not or cannot possibly possess Christ’s Righteousness?
In short: are you telling me that you know that you are saved and that you know that I am not?
If this is so, and if you are indeed correct regarding my own state, what must be done?
With prayer for our mutual growth in divine truth and grace,
--Theo
PS. I assume that you meant to address your reply to me and not to Tiber. Lest there be any confusion, please do know that he and I are indeed different people. :-)
Theo,
“I reply...Ultimately, I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.”
Do you accept the RC sacramental system of receiving the merits of Christ through the sacramental system?
“You also say of yourself, "I possess Christ’s Righteousness" (and AMEN! May it be so by God's will.). Am I correct in my perception that you also believe that I do not or cannot possibly possess Christ’s Righteousness?”
This is the problem of equivocation. I have used specific terms such as imputation and penal substitutionary atonement. These terms have meaning and they have been anathematized by Trent.
“In short: are you telling me that you know that you are saved and that you know that I am not?”
If you were consistent with Trent, would you not be saying I am lost?
The fact that Trent is overturned by modern decisions is irrelevant to me. Galatians 1 defines the meaning of the Gospel which in turn defines who is saved. I am not your judge. I only go by a person’s profession of faith.
If a Mormon comes to me and says he believes in Jesus, I simply judge what he means by that statement in light of Scripture. If his profession is outside the Gospel then he is lost. I am not going to be caught in some kind of subjective relativism of the Gospel. The Gospel is what it is.
“If this is so, and if you are indeed correct regarding my own state, what must be done?”
I would suggest reading Romans 1-5 very carefully. See if what Paul says is consistent with RCism. A man must have the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to him by faith alone…hence the Doctrine of Christ alone.
I realize that if you do this, you will still read it with Rome’s glasses on so to speak. But I am confident enough that God’s Word is sufficient. As you are always quoting to me, “To day if you will hear His voice, do not harden….”
God Bless
I asked:
"If this is so [that you know that you are saved and that I am not], ... what must be done?”
Howard replied:
"I would suggest reading Romans 1-5 very carefully. See if what Paul says is consistent with RCism. A man must have the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to him by faith alone…hence the Doctrine of Christ alone."
I answer:
I don't think you actually mean to say that by my reading Romans 1-5 very carefully while comparing Paul's words with Roman Catholic you will then know that the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to me by faith alone.
I humbly ask you to be clear, concise and truthful. Howard, please tell me plainly and clearly, what must I ("Theo") do to be saved?
With continued prayers for us both to grow in truth and grace, I remain,
Your friend,
--Theo
"I humbly ask you to be clear, concise and truthful. Howard, please tell me plainly and clearly, what must I ("Theo") do to be saved?"
As Paul said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"
However, this salvation account in Acts does not present to us all that the Gospel entails. It is that simple, yet as we grow in our understanding, we see Paul's doctrine of salvation as taught in Romans clearer.
"I don't think you actually mean to say that by my reading Romans 1-5 very carefully while comparing Paul's words with Roman Catholic you will then know that the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to me by faith alone."
I don't even think you need to compare. Paul's words are clear and men have been trying to insert themselves into them ever since.
The Gospel is quite simple. We are dead sinners. We do not need a chance or prevenient grace or a sacrament. We need resurrection.
When the Son of God calls a man effectually, he will hear and believe and be saved perfectly apart from any sacrament or ordinance.
From your (man's) perspective, you must trust in the finished work of Christ as your complete righteousness that you have fully and perfectly NOW. It is not imparted or infused or anything else. It is an alien righteousness imputed to you by faith alone.
I didn't mean to refer to you as Tiber.
:-)
God Bless
I wrote...
"I humbly ask you to be clear, concise and truthful. Howard, please tell me plainly and clearly, what must I ("Theo") do to be saved?"
Howard graciously replied...
"As Paul said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"
---
I humbly reply...
With all my heart, soul and mind I do so confess that I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
------------------------
Howard also clarified:
"From your (man's) perspective, you must trust in the finished work of Christ as your complete righteousness that you have fully and perfectly NOW."
----
With fear and awe of God, and knowing that I shall be held accountable for my words, I reply...
I dare confess that I do so trust in the completed work of Christ.
I also confess that salvation was gifted once to all by Jesus' single sacrifice, and that sacrifice was and is effectual for all and across all time so that sins may be forgiven.
I also confess that His is the eternal sacrifice and also that this is one reason why it is no contradiction to testify (as did Paul), that by trusting in Jesus' finished sacrifice we know:
-> We who believe and trust God in faith were saved.
-> We who by grace obey God in love are being saved.
-> We who call on the name of the Lord in hope for forgiveness and mercy shall be saved.
I also confess that though I was dead in sin, yet shall I live because Jesus is the Author and Finisher of Life.
I also confess that that what He has begun in me, he continues and He shall complete.
I also confess that by His allowing me to share in His suffering, He shall also allow me to share in His glory.
I also confess I shall be judged by God through and in Jesus alone, and He shall judge me on what I have and have not done.
I also confess that all of my vain works shall be consumed by God's cleansing fire.
-------
Howard,
I solemnly testify that I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you still know that you are saved that I am not saved, please tell me plainly and clearly what I must do to be saved.
With joyful hope,
--Theo
"I also confess that salvation was gifted once to all by Jesus' single sacrifice, and that sacrifice was and is effectual for all and across all time so that sins may be forgiven."
It is statements like this that are difficult to interpret. I believe Tiber and I have already had this conversation on Tiber's Blog.
If you are being consistent with Rome's meaning of words then what you are saying is vastly different from what a Reformed Protestant would mean. Should I accept a Mormon's confession at face value? He could just as easily have said everything you have said. Yet you certainly know about the language barrier...right?
The fact is, justification as taught by Romans 4&5 and Galatians and taught in the Reformed Confessions everywhere has been condemned as heresy by Rome.
Trent says,"CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema."
Since Trent is clear in denying justification [declared righteous via imputation] by faith alone, do you accept Trent's teaching?
Perhaps another question, do you accept Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or do you subscribe to the Satisfaction view of the atonement which merits are gained via the sacraments?
In other words, is the Mass a propitiatory sacrifice that takes away some sins? Or is Christ's righteousness fully imputed to you by faith alone?
Do you have peace with God? You seem to imply that you do. Without the Justification as taught by the Reformers, you are not justified.
Could you agree with these paragraphs from the LBCF (similar to other Protestant Confessions)?
1. Those whom God Effectually calleth, he also freely (a) justifieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by (b) pardoning their sins, and by accounting, and accepting their Persons as (c) Righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith it self, the act of beleiving, or any other (d) evangelical obedience to them, as their Righteousness; but by imputing Christs active obedience unto the whole Law, and passive obedience in his death, for their whole and sole Righteousnnss, they (e) receiving, and resting on him, and his Righteousness, by Faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
5. God doth continue to (o) Forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of (p) justication; yet they may by their sins fall under Gods (q) Fatherly displeasure; and in that condition, they have not usually the light of his Countenance restored unto them, untill they (r) humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith, and repentance.
Therefore, if you are saved, it not because of your faithfulness to Rome.
God Bless
Howard wrote in part:
"Therefore, if you are saved, it not because of your faithfulness to Rome."
I patiently reply:
Yes, you already know that Roman Catholics believe that one does not need to be "Roman Catholic" in order to be saved. Obviously Rome itself does not teach that "faithfulness to Rome" saves.
Regardless, you have not yet answered. I hope you recognize this is the most important question anyone can ask you--and I sincerely pray that you are not avoiding answering it because you want me to be damned to Hell--Howard, what must I do to be saved?
Sincerly,
--Theo
Yes, I have answered it.
The point is what is the Gospel? The Protestant definition is not the same as Rome's. I think we ought to both know that. This is not an issue that we can just say, "Well, that is your understanding, and I have mine."
Paul's letter to the Galatians is quite clear. If anyone preaches another Gospel, it is no Gospel at all.
Paul's gripe was against adding circumcision. That (in his preaching) destroyed the Gospel. The Judaizers false Gospel pales in comparison to Rome's view.
If you are not willing to discuss imputation and substitutionary atonement, then I have nothing else to offer you.
God Bless
Dear Howard:
What must I must do to obtain imputation (of righteousness?) and substitutionary atonement?
What must I do to be saved?
--Theo
I have already told you.
Here is an example of the Blessed man from Romans 4
2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Are you the Blessed man? Do you possess the full alien and objective righteousness of Christ apart from any deeds?
I asked Howard:
"... what must I do to be saved?"
Howard answered:
"If you are not willing to discuss imputation and substitutionary atonement, then I have nothing else to offer you."
I asked Howard:
"What must I must do to obtain imputation (of righteousness?) and substitutionary atonement?
What must I do to be saved?"
Howard answered:
"I have already told you.
Here is an example of the Blessed man from Romans 4 [...]
I reply:
Describing the attributes of saved man does not tell me what I must must do to be one.
What must I do to be saved?
--Theo
Sir, I have told you already several times. I cited the Acts 16 account of the Jailer's question and gave the answer that Paul gave. I cited from the LBCF of the doctrine of faith alone.
I have cited from Romans 4 which tells us Abraham believed and is therefore the Blessed Man.
You respond with, "Describing the attributes of saved man does not tell me what I must must do to be one."
Sir, Paul explains what Abraham did to be counted righteous before God.
What else do you want me to tell you? It seems you are missing the obvious.
Perhaps you are trying to discuss repentance? Moral renewal? Obviosuly the LBCF has already been cited elsewhere on Tiber's Blog about these issues. Yes, men must repent and believe. But isn't that the description you are refering to in my quote of you?
God Bless
Howard
Howard, my brother:
So far you have told me that you know that you possess Christ's righteousness (that righteousness being what shall keep you from Hell and gain you Heaven).
You implied that you (Howard) know that I ("Theo") do not possess that righteousness.
I asked you if this is so--do you know that you are saved and do you know that I am not saved.
You did not tell me whether you know you are saved. Neither did you tell me whether you know that I am not saved; however, you did tell me that you used specific language and that the council of Trent ruled similar language was contrary to Catholic doctrine.
You then told me that the Gospel (that you know and preach and that I do not know) defines salvation. Then you tell me that you are not my judge; followed directly with "I only go by a person’s profession of faith."
[[Note 1: Apparently you wish me to understand "go by" to mean something other than "judge." This leaves me perplexed by your answer to the question, "Do you Howard, know that I, Theo am not saved?" as it translates into something like: "I know whether or not you are saved, but I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no, and I'm not being indecisive." This might be the very first use of "splunge" as a gospel message.]]
I had also asked you to tell me (if I am indeed not saved) what I must do to be saved.
You "suggested" that I carefully read Romans, especially Chapters 1-5.
I reread the entire epistle that evening. I again asked you what I must do to be saved?
You told me that I must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
I do so believe. I told you.
You then told me that I didn't do it right: tht I need to believe Jesus' work completely saves, and that no work of my own saves.
I so believe and I told you I so believe.
You then told me that I didn't do it right and that because I seek forgiveness of sins at Mass and when receiving sacraments it proves this.
[[Note 2: Again, your stance perplexes more than clarifies. You seem to be telling me you believe something that I expect you really do not: that God continues to forgive the sins of those that are justified, although they can fall from the state of justification by going to Mass; and that if by their sins they might fall under God's displeasure it can be restored unto them, if they are not Catholic and they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, renew their faith, and repent. If they are Catholic and they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, renew their faith, and repent, then to Hell with them.]]
Nevertheless, having not done my believing properly, I again asked you what must I do to be saved.
You then answered, "if you are saved, it not because of your faithfulness to Rome."
I said "Yes, I know that, as does Rome, but what must I do to be saved."
You replied that you have nothing else to offer if I am unwilling to discuss imputation and substitutionary atonement.
So I asked, what must I must do to obtain imputation (of righteousness?) and substitutionary atonement? What must I do to be saved?
You then said you already told me!
Then you followed this with descriptions of a saved man, but did not tell me how I can become one.
I pointed out that
Describing the attributes of saved man does not tell me what I must do to be one. Again I asked what I must do to be saved?
Again you told me that you already told me!
Howard--by now I have little doubt that you know full well you are avoiding directly telling me how I can be saved because you realize in your heart that you actually believe one must *do* things and continue to do or not do things in order to be saved, yet you recognize that your theology does not merely assert that *nothing one can do* contributes to salvation, it also asserts that all who believe otherwise deny the Gospel. You realize that in practice you demand that one absolutely must believe that nothing one does can contribute to salvation and that such belief must be demonstrated via compliance with a highly complex, man-made code. Your Cintonesque equivocations speak more clearly about your actual belief than do your actual words.
I believe you are at a crossroads. Today if you hear His voice, Harden not your heart.
With sincere prayer for your blessing and growth in truth and grace,
--Theo
"You then told me that I didn't do it right: tht I need to believe Jesus' work completely saves, and that no work of my own saves."
Sir, as I said to you, a Mormon could profess much of what you said. Does that mean I should now accept a Mormon's profession of faith? Obviously there is a language barrier.
You stated, "You seem to be telling me you believe something that I expect you really do not: that God continues to forgive the sins of those that are justified, although they can fall from the state of justification by going to Mass; and that if by their sins they might fall under God's displeasure it can be restored unto them, if they are not Catholic and they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, renew their faith, and repent."
Justification here is defined????
Rome has declared the Protestant's definition of Justification as heresy. Therefore when you say, "You then told me that I didn't do it right: tht I need to believe Jesus' work completely saves, and that no work of my own saves.
I so believe and I told you I so believe."
Again is this Rome's theology being portrayed as how Rome sees things? Are you really saying that faith alone saves? If so, then how are you Roman Catholic?
Grace is dispensed through the sacraments in the RC system. Are you denying this?
You said, " Apparently you wish me to understand "go by" to mean something other than "judge." This leaves me perplexed by your answer to the question, "Do you Howard, know that I, Theo am not saved?" as it translates into something like: "I know whether or not you are saved, but I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no, and I'm not being indecisive." This might be the very first use of "splunge" as a gospel message."
The reason why I said I would not judge is because I do not really know what it is you believe. You say you trust in Christ alone. Then you say that going to the Mass is just asking for forgiveness. You are seeing my words "Christ Alone" as equal to that of the Mass. The problem is your system believes a man can lose his justification. Therefore how am I supposed to know what you mean? Should I go by your interpretation of Rome or my life long Roman Catholic friends?
Are you the Blessed man of Romans 4? Have you been Justified according to Romans 5:1 and therefore having now peace with God? When I say Justified, I do mean fully declared righteous forever from a past action by God in you life? No sacraments, no human effort. Just faith alone.
You keep saying I didn't give you an answer. I did give you the answer. I defined what that answer means according to Romans 4 and Galatians and a specific definition from the LBCF.
Do you believe in Jesus Christ. Then you ought to be able to say that you have peace with God because you have been [past tense] fully justified or declared righteous with Christ's imputed righteousness.
You can not do this however because then by definition you would become a heretic like me.
God Bless
Here is an article that may help.
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC2W0802.pdf
Howard asked:
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ."
I answer, Yes. I solemnly testify: I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Howard added:
"Then you ought to be able to say that you have peace with God because you have been [past tense] fully justified or declared righteous with Christ's imputed righteousness."
I reply:
Yes.
I believe that I and all who believe and trust God in faith have been [past tense] fully justified (or declared righteous) with Christ's imputed righteousness; furthermore...
Whosoever of these obeys God in love is being [present tense] fully justified (or declared righteous) with Christ's imputed righteousness.
Whosoever of these repents and calls on the name of the Lord in hope for forgiveness and mercy shall be [future tense] fully justified (or declared righteous) with Christ's imputed righteousness.
Howard:
It is only by God’s grace that I was fully justified by faith (manifest in acts of trust in God's promise and saving power); that I am being fully justified with divine love (manifest in acts of praise, worship, charity, obedience, repentance and forgiveness); that I shall be fully justified in hope (manifest in the peace of Christ that passes all understanding).
We were saved.
We are being saved.
We shall be saved.
I trust all is true for you too; and that is why I remain (whether you like it or not—and whether you believe it or not),
You Brother in Christ,
--Theo
Pros Gloria Deo sic ut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saculi saculorum! Amen.
SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).
Theo you said, “I believe that I and all who believe and trust God in faith have been [past tense] fully justified (or declared righteous) with Christ's imputed righteousness; furthermore...”
Are you now a heretic according to Trent?
“Whosoever of these obeys God in love is being [present tense] fully justified (or declared righteous) with Christ's imputed righteousness.”
What does this mean? How is one “being justified” with imputed righteousness? Sounds like you are reading RC theology into this term. Or are you saying this as a description of a man who loves God in Christ is currently a justified man? If so, are the works here descriptive or necessary to gain the grace of God? If you say not, then you are a heretic (not by my standard though).
“that I am being fully justified with divine love (manifest in acts of praise, worship, charity, obedience, repentance and forgiveness);”
I assume this defines the above “being justified”? Again, is it in the acts that you are being justified?
“I trust all is true for you too; and that is why I remain (whether you like it or not—and whether you believe it or not), You Brother in Christ,”
I am simply not going to fall for relativism. The Gospel defines who are brothers. I am not a Rodney King that just wants everyone to get along because it is the thing of the day.
You speak and act as though all those of the Reformation ear, whether RC or Protestant, were complete idiots. You seem to be saying that they were just misunderstanding each other. You seem to be saying that they were all just saying the same thing, just in a different way.
Trent is very clear. It was the anti-Reformation Council. It spoke clearly and forcefully against the Reformation. It pronounced as heresy what I believe. Are you a heretic too?
Howard my brother:
Alas, that you apparently missed the "furthermore’s."
Indeed, much of what the Council of Trent produced was in reaction to the Reformation movement; and as I've also pointed out before, much of its reactionary language has been either clarified or obviated since then.
Regardless, the passage you cite does not say that anyone who believes that God saves by justifying faith apart from works is "anathemized." In fact it is explicit Catholic doctrine that God saves by justifying faith apart from works.
The pronouncement is more concerned with what "justifying faith" actually is. The council correctly identified and condemned the false teaching that "justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy": the teaching that if you believe in God's mercy you are forever justified--and therefore one has total license.
Thus one need not make so much as a confession of faith; one need not repent of any sin; one need not avoid *any* sin; one need not obey God.
For those who sought to justify their own misconduct, the practice of this teaching became an exercise in claiming full justification in Christ while thumbing their noses at God. I'm sure you recognize that such teaching and practice are contrary to Christian doctrine. [BTW: (Chick tracts notwithstanding) "anathema" refers to any doctrine, practice or practitioner thereof operating contrary to Catholic doctrine.]
Unless I greatly misunderstand your confession of faith, you, Howard, also consider such teaching and practice "anathema," relative to true Reformed doctrine. I am confident that the charge that Reformed Theology teaches licentiousness is a false charge.
We know that such "faith" has no power to save (justify) and that faith without action (even if such action is no more than humble contrition) is dead faith--and therefore, not justifying faith. This is why (for example) we in the Catholic tradition call any true acknowledgement of God's total righteousness and our need to depend upon His mercy alone, an "act" of contrition.
No such action is meritorious, but a mere vehicle of justifying faith.
You continually identify Catholic teaching as something like a "system of meritorious works to confer grace." However, Howard, my brother, you judge what you do not understand: the Catholic definition of Grace is "undeserved favor."
We absolutely believe that no work we do earns us merit. We *do* believe that God has instructed us and that He has made promises to us.
You have no trouble understanding that God promises to give us grace when we believe in particular ways, even though we do not merit favor in the believing. God also promises to give us grace when we obey Him in particular ways—even though we do not merit favor by obeying. That is His business! You can take it up with Him if you insist that He ought to cut it out, but in the meanwhile you might want to stop chastising those who take Him at His Word.
When God promises you that if you do "x", He will give you a gift, which response is the response of faith?
A. Believe God, but do nothing, because if you "do anything,* then the gift is not a "gift" but merit pay; or,
B. Believe God and do "x", while knowing that doing "x" is of no value but the gift is priceless?
For the answer: read both St. Paul's and St. James' descriptions of Abraham's justifying faith.
After you consider that, ask *yourself* what must I do to be saved?
In the meanwhile, I remain, whether you like or not, and whether you believe it or not,
your Brother in Christ,
--Theo
Ok Theo, I am convinced. The Reformation was a big mistake. The Reformers were totally misunderstanding Rome and Rome was totally misunderstanding the Reformers. They were all really just saying the same thing. When you say you believe in “faith alone” I am convinced you are not using Protestant terminology and redefining it.
BTW: Jack Schick and I have nothing in common.
Ok Ok, I am being sarcastic. Am I really to believe that kind of postmodern thinking?
In reference to Trent you say, “I've also pointed out before, much of its reactionary language has been either clarified or obviated since then.”
I find these kinds of reading back into Trent ridiculous. Trent meant what it meant. The fact that later RCs change the meaning of Trent to mean something else only shows that one must start with Rome as their ultimate authority and that she can not err. If one shows that she is in error here, it is simply assumed that there is no error. So there is no way to demonstrate the error due to presuppositions that I do not have to accept.
“Regardless, the passage you cite does not say that anyone who believes that God saves by justifying faith apart from works is "anathemized." In fact it is explicit Catholic doctrine that God saves by justifying faith apart from works.”
"Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte 'a new creature,' an adopted son of God, who has become a 'partaker of the divine nature,' member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit" (Catechism 1265, emphasis added). "... Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians" (Catechism 1271).”
Does this sound like faith alone? You sound to me as a former Protestant who desires to make Roman Catholic Theology and Protestant theology to be the same. I honestly expect this from Mormons and JWs when they use Christian terminology while redefining Christian terms. I do not however expect RCs to try to say they believe in “Faith Alone” just like Protestant do. That is dishonest.
Sir, the issue between RCism and Reformed Theology is monergism verses synergism.
“You continually identify Catholic teaching as something like a "system of meritorious works to confer grace."”
I will quote Canons of the Sacrament in general:
“Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.”
Baptism:
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism[9] and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,[10] let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema.
Men must be baptized with physical water? Our confessions deny this, sir. I grew up with RC friends who baptize their children who had died to make sure their original sin was forgiven. If that is not a work, I do not know what is.
“The pronouncement is more concerned with what "justifying faith" actually is. The council correctly identified and condemned the false teaching that "justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy": the teaching that if you believe in God's mercy you are forever justified--and therefore one has total license.”
There is some confusion here. I am saying that the belief in God who justifies the ungodly by their belief alone. The reason is simple. Christ’s righteousness is forever imputed to them. The idea that the “therefore one has total license” is not a logical conclusion of that belief. I fully by faith alone possess the full righteousness of Christ now as if it were my own. It is an alien righteousness credited to me. No works necessary for that righteousness.
Yes, truly saved men and women will have works as a result of the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
Council of Trent: “Canon XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof: let him be anathema.
Again, I am anathematized. You can redefine that term all you want. I understand what that would have meant in the year it was written. It would have meant I was condemned to hell and to be burned at the stake.
“You have no trouble understanding that God promises to give us grace when we believe in particular ways,…”
This is a form of Covenant Nomism.
Sir, I am a monergist. I believe that man will never believe no matter how much prevenient grace God gives. Because the Biblical model is that man is dead and needs resurrection. This is “Irresistable Grace” that saves the Elect of God perfectly and no other. Jesus not only gives grace to raise a man from being a God-hater to a God-lover, He perfectly is able to give sufficient grace to sustain that man to the end of his life and He does so perfectly. Man does not cooperate with God to become saved or to remain saved. He is a new creature in Christ and by nature loves Christ. He is IN Christ just as dead sinners are IN Adam.
I realize we use similar language, so I’ll close with Ludwig Ott:
“According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, sanctifying grace is the sole formal cause of justification...This means that the infusion of sanctifying grace effects the eradication of sin as well as inner sanctification. With this the Council rejects the doctrine of double justice which was expounded by some Reformers (Calvin, Martin Butzer), and also by individual Catholic theologians (Girolamo Seripando, Gasparo Contrarini, Albert Pighius, Johannes Gropper), which taught that the forgiveness of sins was accomplished by the imputed justice of Christ, positive sanctification, however, by a righteousness inhering in the soul.”
God Bless
Howard
ps
"After you consider that, ask *yourself* what must I do to be saved?"
I highly suggest Sam Waldron's dissertation if you truly wish to understand the differences among those who desire to add the necessity of works to saving faith to remain justified.
BTW: Jack Schick and I have nothing in common.
Howard wrote:
"I do not however expect RCs to try to say they believe in “Faith Alone” just like Protestant do. That is dishonest."
My dear brother,
Indeed, we Catholics do not say or believe in "faith alone" in the same way you claim that you do. The Church teaches as Scripture says, that it is *not* by faith alone that we are saved. You will need to edit scripture to have it otherwise.
The Church does teach that faith saves us *apart* from works--that works are not faith, but the mere vehicle of faith. For example, as we look at the "good thief" to whom Jesus personally promised paradise, we do not see any act other than contrition.
You wax sarcastic over the notion that the Reformation was just a big misunderstanding--and indeed, such a simplification would be absurd. A church that cannot repent is not the Church—at any given time we should expect that the Church could benefit from some forms of reformation and renewal. Nevertheless, a huge part of the history of the Reformation *is* founded upon either mere human politics and misunderstandings (and in many cases, these were deliberately propagated misunderstandings) than actual differences.
No, I am not saying that the Church teaches "once saved, always saved" theology. It emphatically does not. However, we do not teach or believe that those who believe in that doctrine are damned. We do believe such people are mistaken and we do not allow it to be taught or practiced by those who are in full communion with the Church; and also, many Catholics (of which I am one) note that most people who claim "once saved, always saved" (OSAS) neither teach nor practice licentiousness, but require of themselves and their fellows obedience to God, and that should they sin, they must confess and repent.
Regardless of their stated belief in "OSAS" we observe that professed followers of that doctrine usually also teach and practice doctrines of personal responsibility regarding salvation and sin. Otherwise they would not hold altar calls, pray for the salvation of others, baptize, ordain, sacramentally marry, or teach and practice repentance and holiness as integral manifestations of genuine conversion and normative Christian life; neither would they *require* of themselves and others charity and adherence to any standard of behavior.
Similarly, in practice, those who preach utter depravity of man that results in his utter inability to do so much as will to heed the call of God, nevertheless call upon themselves and others to turn to God to be saved.
In these things, though you say that you will not work in the vineyard as your father commands (as in the parable), you nevertheless go off and work there--because you love your father.
What makes your apparent flavor of OSAS and Utter Depravity theology problematic (for those who profess it) is your insistence (that you appear to require all must proclaim as infallible) that whoever believes otherwise is hearing and preaching a false gospel, and therefore is not only unsaved, but an enemy of the true gospel: an agent of Hell. Thus, you demand that no person is saved who does not believe your theology--and that no person *can be* saved who does not *first* believe your theology.
I've previously noted that your claims about how you know what is and is not Holy Scripture boil down to a combination of Gnosticism and a belief in your own personal magesterium or papacy (or all). The more you reveal about your theology of salvation and how you actually practice it, the more this also boils down to Gnosticism and magesterium; For you demand that all must first possess the same special revealed understanding that you have in order to be saved.
With joyful hope in the coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, I remain
Your Brother in Christ,
--Theo
"For God commended his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Theo,
“The Church does teach that faith saves us *apart* from works--that works are not faith, but the mere vehicle of faith.”
I am aware of this sir. I am not a Jack Schick. I am not saying that RCs believe they must do good works to get saved. I am saying what the Reformers were saying. For you, grace is necessary. For the Reformers, grace is sufficient. Monergism verses Synergism.
I will restate the Reformer’s position as reflected in the LBCF:
“1. Those whom God Effectually calleth, he also freely (a) justifieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by (b) pardoning their sins, and by accounting, and accepting their Persons as (c) Righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith it self, the act of beleiving, or any other (d) evangelical obedience to them, as their Righteousness; but by imputing Christs active obedience unto the whole Law, and passive obedience in his death, for their whole and sole Righteousnnss, they (e) receiving, and resting on him, and his Righteousness, by Faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”
This is clearly not the same thing as Rome’s view. This is the heart of the matter.
“Regardless of their stated belief in "OSAS" we observe that professed followers of that doctrine usually also teach and practice doctrines of personal responsibility regarding salvation and sin.”
This is because Protestants make a distinction between “saving faith” and faith that is lived. They are not to be separated but they are to be distinguished. Hence, the Reformers were not ignoring many passages of the NT. In fact, if you have ever read the Reformers, you might understand the basis for such a distinction.
You might think a distinction should not exist in theology, but do we not distinguish other facets of salvation?
“Similarly, in practice, those who preach utter depravity of man that results in his utter inability to do so much as will to heed the call of God, nevertheless call upon themselves and others to turn to God to be saved.”
We do this sir, not because we believe we are contradicting ourselves, but because we believe in the power of the Gospel to save dead sinners and raise spiritually dead people. Jesus’ voice may be heard in the proclamation of the Gospel call. Simply because we believe we are the means in how God proclaims the Gospel does not in any way confuse totally depravity and man’s responsibility.
Since I am not privy to whom the elect are, I am not to discriminate in the Gospel call. I am commanded to call all men to repentance in Christ.
“In these things, though you say that you will not work in the vineyard as your father commands (as in the parable), you nevertheless go off and work there--because you love your father.”
You seriously have no understanding of Reformed theology. Again there is no contradiction in believing that God is saving an elect people through the means of the proclamation of the Gospel.
“What makes your apparent flavor of OSAS and Utter Depravity theology problematic (for those who profess it) is your insistence (that you appear to require all must proclaim as infallible) that whoever believes otherwise is hearing and preaching a false gospel, and therefore is not only unsaved, but an enemy of the true gospel: an agent of Hell. Thus, you demand that no person is saved who does not believe your theology--and that no person *can be* saved who does not *first* believe your theology.”
Where have I done this? The fact that many are inconsistent in their theology or do not have perfect knowledge does not mean they are damned. I have never stated this to be the case.
Adrian Rogers is a good example. He used to preach against Calvinism. Yet his theology concerning Romans 8 and justification were exegetically spot on. Then he would come to Romans 9 and fall off the truck. He was simply inconsistent. Not heretical.
“that you appear to require all must proclaim as infallible”
Kind of ironic, from someone who believes in an infallible magesterium. Because you believe in an infallible magesterium, shouldn’t you believe that I should believe your beliefs over my own?
“The more you reveal about your theology of salvation and how you actually practice it, the more this also boils down to Gnosticism and magesterium; For you demand that all must first possess the same special revealed understanding that you have in order to be saved.”
As I have demonstrated before, Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ would have to be Gnostic. I have also explained that the early church was told to search the Scriptures. But then how would they have known that without Rome? Perhaps they were Gnostic? Perhaps when Peter preached at Pentecost, everyone said, “Is this more revelation? Well, Rome hasn’t spoken in a council yet so….” But you would respond that that is different from the written Word. But I am simply arguing in principle. How would the people around Peter know that Peter wasn’t just making stuff up? How would they know what Peter was preaching was actually taught by Jesus? Did they have Gnostic knowledge too?
As for the magesterium, I have stated from the beginning that I recognize there is a magesterium. Yet I do not have to invest that magesterium with infallibility do I?
Another important problem with those who say we (Reformed) teach that you must agree with our position without being dogmatic is to say we don’t really believe what we believe. Am I supposed to say that the Gospel could be as wide as Rome seems to be making it today? To say someone is wrong may be culturally unacceptable to you, but the Apostles had no trouble in doing so. Have you read the Pastoral Epistles? Galatians?
Besides, are you not saying I am wrong by responding? You seem to have a moral relativist stripe that is quite large.
You also state “we” quite a bit. Are your beliefs representative of all RCs? Do you have an infallible interpretation of Rome’s teachings? I firmly believe those in Trent’s Day would reject your attempt at trying to say we are brothers. Yet we have Rome interpreting Rome, therefore….
I am glad ultimately you admit that you do not actually believe Sola Fide. You may think I am accusing you of salvation by works, but I have only referred to the sacramental system in gaining God’s grace through works of faith. Is this not New Perspectivism or Covenantal Nomism being taught today? This is what the Reformers rejected. I stand on their shoulders.
your "catholic friends that you grew up with"is that what we are to you? no wonder you won't call Theo "your brother" as he wanted you to {for some reason.} when you deny your only brother on the same post and for the record 1. I did not have my "dead children baptized" They were born alive and baptized before they died two hours later.2. the catholic church does belive that a physical water baptism is not always necissary, we belive in things called baptism by desire, baptism by blood and a few others. 3.Seth, Hope and faith were pure and beautiful babies,they were your neice's and your nephew but you just denied them and called them "children of your friends" why? and why use them to try to win an argument over the internet with some one you never met? It seems to me that you would do anything to be "right" to win an argument and to shut the other person up I suppose thats your problem but next time leave my kids out of it!
Jen,
I confess freely that I was conflating my statement of "friends that I grew up with" and actual recent experience. It would be impossible for me to have spoken about that without thinking of your situation.
The fact is I was told about your statement, "2. the catholic church does belive that a physical water baptism is not always necissary, we belive in things called baptism by desire, baptism by blood and a few others." by friends that I knew. I was in no way referring to you there as far as doctrine. But the fact you experienced this isn't something I thought I needed to explain to Theo, someone I do not know personally.
I am not really sure what you mean by my denying Seth Hope and Faith. This is highly emotional. In no was I denying the freedom of God to save their souls if that is what you mean.
The point of my argument is that I am a Baptist, and as a Baptist, I believe the proper subjects of Baptism is believers only. This is because Baptism is directly tied with the proclamation of the Gospel and men hearing it and believing. Children doo not have the ability to do that.
Therefore when people have the babies baptized, they do so for different reason depending upon which faith they are a part of.
For instance, the Lutheran church I used to attend believed in some kind of Covenantal admission through Baptism. Other Lutherans believe in a form of baptismal regeneration. All of these positions are inconsistent with the Reformed faith. but they donot deny justification by faith lone (hence the inconsistency).
Rome's position is different, which is what I was discussing with Theo.
This is a personal and emotional issue. If you'd like to chew me out on the phone, please do so. I'll listen.
God Bless
I tried to follow this, but I'm afraid I can't even follow the logic of a position I used to hold. Maybe I'm getting old.
As a former evangelical, now catholic, let me say this:
1. That evangelicals have been so carefully instructed to think of the Catholic faith as a "system of merit by works", that they are itching to find there some kind of "salvation by works".
2. That evangelicals tend to place words in the Catholic church's mouth, and teach things as if the Catholic church taught them, without understanding them.
3. That language (not from Scripture, but from one's own evangelical personal "System") undermines the logic of the Evangelical's own theological framework, to such a degree, that I find it almost impossible to understand (i) where on earth said evangelical got his theological points from, (ii) which evangelical scholar this particular guy worships, and thus (iii) the particular way to respond, such that my answer might be understood.
I find it kind of like discovering a new tribe, speaking a new language. Somehow, the sounds are familiar, but the meanings are lost on me.
But I used to be here. I used to be just like this. I can only pray that the Lord will continue to work in your life, dear Salty and well Lighted one!
Warren
“1. That evangelicals have been so carefully instructed to think of the Catholic faith as a "system of merit by works", that they are itching to find there some kind of "salvation by works".”
Agreed. If you have followed anything I have written, you would know that I see Evangelicalism disintegrating before our very eyes. The fact that the Great Creeds and Confessions of old have been neglected is probably a large part of the problem. Another part is that most Evangelicals have no idea that they often confuse their Traditions as being God’s Word itself since they think they have no Traditions. Tiber is right with that criticism.
But you seem to be saying I do not know the distinction. If you bothered to read the post, it is clear that I do see the distinction between Covenant Nomism and outright Pelagianism.
“2. That evangelicals tend to place words in the Catholic church's mouth, and teach things as if the Catholic church taught them, without understanding them.”
Did that happen here?
If anything, I spent a lot of time explaining that Theo was trying to sound Evangelical while rejecting it.
“3. That language (not from Scripture, but from one's own evangelical personal "System") undermines the logic of the Evangelical's own theological framework, to such a degree, that I find it almost impossible to understand (i) where on earth said evangelical got his theological points from, (ii) which evangelical scholar this particular guy worships, and thus (iii) the particular way to respond, such that my answer might be understood.”
Ultimately, you deny God’s ability to speak and instead mute His voice by your Traditions. Your presuppositions are nothing akin to mine. Hence the disagreements that you and Theo raise.
I have also cited the LBCF as an authority which is in line with the Confessions of the Reformation. Go read to your hearts content if you truly wish to understand.
“But I used to be here. I used to be just like this. I can only pray that the Lord will continue to work in your life, dear Salty and well Lighted one!”
Really? You used to be Reformed? You used to have peace with God and have now entered a man-centered Gospel system? Do not confuse me with the standard Evangelical. You must reject Substitutionary Atonement. You must reject justification by imputation. You must reject Sola Fide and Sola Gratia. You in fact, must reject the Gospel.
"Really? You used to be Reformed? You used to have peace with God and have now entered a man-centered Gospel system? Do not confuse me with the standard Evangelical. You must reject Substitutionary Atonement. You must reject justification by imputation. You must reject Sola Fide and Sola Gratia. You in fact, must reject the Gospel. "
Has UltraCrepidarian lost his or her salvation? If he had stayed "Reformed," but merely became a petty liar, or a thief or an adulterer or a child molestor or a murderer, would he be more secure? What good is eternal security that can be erased so easily?
"merely became a petty liar, or a thief or an adulterer or a child molestor or a murderer, would he be more secure? What good is eternal security that can be erased so easily?"
Again, from my perspective it is patently obvious there is no understanding of the Reformed position. I have stated definitions by the Confessions. I have explained other aspects of salvation that can not be divorced from one another. I suppose I should not expect much from those who refuse to understand the Reformed view.
So, has UltraCrepidarian lost his or her salvation?
As the old saying goes, "Time will tell."
Remember the parable of the seeds?
You pay lip service to the doctrine of election and security.
It does not matter if the saved man is unaware of his eternal security--the gift is not conditional.
If a saved man suffers a stroke and no longer understands doctrine, does God take away what He already gave him?
No.
If he contracts Alzhimer's disease or amnesia, does God take away what He already gave him?
No.
If he becomes delusional and imagines that he is Nepolean, does God take away what He already gave him?
No.
If he commits murder, does God take away what He already gave him?
No.
If he goes to a Catholic service, does God take away what He already gave him?
Anonymous,
You are kidding...right? I had to laugh pretty hard when I read what you last wrote.
Not only do you have no idea what I believe, but you then make rhetorical assertions.
So having a stroke...Alzheimer's disease...amnesia...or being delusional is in the same category as going to a Roman Catholic church? This is just too much.
Thanks for demonstrating my exact point.
Obviously then, your exact point is that salvation is conditional, and can be undone by man's will.
"Obviously then, your exact point is that salvation is conditional, and can be undone by man's will."
Please pay close attention. I believe in the Doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints. I do not believe in the doctrine of "Once saved always saved". I realize that on a propaganda level they may look the same to you, but they are not.
Your conclusion is based upon false premises that I have fully stated that I do not believe.
You assume there is no such thing as a false faith. I referred to the parable of the soils for that particular reason.
Try to understand the full orbed Reformed view before you throw out things that I don't even recognize as being part of my beliefs. Election is something God positively does from Eternity past.
Keep in mind, that your position needs to answer the same questions. They simply can't. You have a world of people that will perish and in your system there is no purpose to it at all. God made Billions of people knowing that they would go to hell, and He was not able to do anything about it and He did it anyway for no reason.
Post a Comment