In the previous clip of Sungenis’ interview on the White Horse Inn, Sungenis argues that James uses Genesis 15:6 in the manner according infusion and not imputation. At one point in the program he argued that when David sinned, he needed to be justified again. David seemed to be considered lost during his mortal sin of murder and adultery.
In The God Who Justifies, James White demonstrates that the Old Testament’s usage of justification, especially in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), most certainly used the term in a forensic manner. One example used on page 79 is from Proverbs 17:15.
"He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."
"Here again, ‘justify’ and ‘ condemn’ are placed in contrast. Now if ‘justify’ meant ‘to change a person inwardly so as to make him holy or good,’ this passage would make no sense at all…It is not viewing this act of justifying as changing the person; instead, the writer is clearly speaking of the sinfulness of declaring a person who is evil to be just, as well as the outrage of declaring an innocent person to be guilty. Both are abhorrent to God, and both are clearly declarations relative to law.”
White then argues for the consistency of the text. Paul must be using justification in the forensic sense. The scope of Paul’s argument is more than demonstrated. He says on page 84:
“The righteousness that is imputed to the believer comes from outside himself: it is something given to him, not something done within him. The free character of this justification is further demonstrated by pointing out that Abraham was justified before he received the sign of circumcision: no acts of obedience to God figured in the imputation to him of righteousness based on free and nondemanding faith.”
This argument is key. In order to be consistent with what comes before and what follows, justification must be imputed or declared upon the sinner freely. Now Sungenis argued that King David would have lost his justification while he was living during his time when he had murdered Bathsheba’s husband.
This is where Roman Catholic apologetics derails. In the next chapter, Paul argues for Christ’s righteousness alone is the basis of our righteous standing before God. It not piece-mealed out to us. It is fully ours by Faith Alone. If we allow the understanding that David had lost his justification, then David under Rome’s theology would have to do something to merit it back (though they will argue by faith and grace). He was actually lost and then saved again. How many times could a person be lost and saved again? A thousand? What if he died while in that particular sin? Do we really think God would have sent David to hell?
If we reject that Christ’s life is our life by faith, an external life given to us, then we reject Christ Alone as the basis for salvation. We may never have peace with God (Romans 5:1). We may never be the “Blessed Man” of Romans 4. We may never be righteous before a Holy God. We will simply have the same view of Christ’s work on the cross as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and all of the others who deny Christ’s righteous life as the sufficient basis for our own standing before God.
The question is always, “What about our sinful lives?”, ignoring our wickedness even while saved. So many ignore the Descriptive or Indicative passages as the basis for the Imperative or Commands throughout the New Testament. Roman Catholics are simply backwards at this point. Roman Catholics point to James 2:23. After much exegesis, White comments that one must precede the other:
“James connects the demonstration of faith in the offering of Isaac upon the altar with the fulfillment of Genesis 15:6. How so? Again, his consistency is striking: Abraham’s confession of faith is recorded in Genesis 15:6. God justified Abraham upon exercise of that faith. The reality of the faith Abraham had, upon which he was justified, is demonstrated in the offering of Isaac. Hence, Genesis 15:6 is fulfilled in that act not through the addition of something to faith as the means of justification, but by the demonstration that Abraham truly did believe in genesis 15.”
27 comments:
When I wrote, "The question is always, “What about our sinful lives?”, ignoring our wickedness even while saved.", what I meant was that if God took any Christian and peeled back his skin to reveal much of his thinking, would he be any better than David? If you think you are any better than David, then I suspect you do not realize your own sin and your desperate need for Christ's alien righteousness to be imputed to your account!
"...if God took any Christian and peeled back his skin to reveal much of his thinking, would he be any better than David?"
This statement reveals much. Carefully consider its implications:
Peel back a Christian and find the same old man? Christians are to be nothing more than white-washed sepulchers? I don’t think so, and I bet you don’t either.
The imputation you describe merely covers. It fails to transform.
You know that God demands we (not just He, but we, His children) be holy to inherit the incorruptible. As you said elsewhere, sanctification must follow. As the Apsotle instructs us:
"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."
(Romans 12:1-3) and
"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."
(2 Cor 3:17-18)
If the imputation you describe is an utterly done deal, why are we being transformed? what's left to transform?
You must choose to obey that you will be transformed by God. Remember the vine and the branches. God would not warn against the grafted vine being cut off if it were not possible.
T.O.A.
"Peel back a Christian and find the same old man? Christians are to be nothing more than white-washed sepulchers? I don’t think so, and I bet you don’t either."
We always must guard against having defeated sin on the one hand and antinomianism on the other. 1 John explains this all too clearly.
Abiding sin keeps us continually at the foot of the cross. We are to remain in this struggle with our sin till God sets us free.
"The imputation you describe merely covers. It fails to transform."
Again this denies the Indicative as the basis for godly living.
I am glad you opposed the imputation so clearly. It shows that Christ Alone is not the basis of a right standing before God within Roman Catholicism. Therefore you must deny Grace Alone as a sufficient basis for your salvation. In your view, you are not Justified till you have cooperated with God's grace to become righteous within yourself.
The Gospel is an announcement. It is external. We are to always look to Christ who is lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent.
The total glorification of the believer will happen in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye.
The inner renewal flows from such a finished work of Christ. Paul deals with your argument in Romans 6 and 7. "Shall we continue in sin...?"
Romans 5:1 says we have peace with God. Why? Because we were dead in our sins and Christ has made us alive in Him. This is not some temporal peace that comes and goes with my doing but abides because of Christ's finished work.
Also, how do you break the Great Chain of Salvation in Romans 8? If it is totally moral renewal, then you may of your own freewill be severed from Christ forever. Without Substitutionary Atonement, you have no substitute that takes away your sin fully and fully gives you the righteousness of God in Christ.
I realize there is the problem of said faiths verses true saving faith, but that is not the issue being discussed here necessarily.
"I am glad you opposed the imputation so clearly. It shows that Christ Alone is not the basis of a right standing before God within Roman Catholicism"
If you insist on twisting my words, I will gladly go away; however, if that is your wish, simply asking me to leave would be more polite, and much easier.
I said "The imputation you describe” this “imputation” that leaves a stinking filth under the skin as you believe, merely covers. This clearly is not the meaning of salvation and sanctification. Obviously noting that it is so does not deny Christ alone as our savior... for we have only one lord and savior, Jesus Christ. However, it does deny the "once saved, always saved" fallacy and the "I'm saved and sanctified so whatever sin I commit does not matter" fallacy. The way you live your life has consequences both before and after you first receive the Lord. If it did not, God would not have warned you.
I ask you again, what has the blessed man of Romans 4 as you imagine him, have to fear? Why should he continue to work out his salvation with fear and trembling? Why should God warn us that we who are grafted onto the vine will be cut off if we fail to bear fruit, if we have no choice but to bear whatever He wills? Do you honestly think He makes idle threats?
Sir, you accuse me of twisting your words, yet how many times have I responded to your objection?
You said, "I said "The imputation you describe” this “imputation” that leaves a stinking filth under the skin as you believe, merely covers."
This is the most common objection, yet who is saying this? have I said God merely leaves us in this merely legal fiction? Have I said there is no sanctification and nothing changes under the skin? Do you want me to go away? Then deal with what Reformed Baptists actually believe.
Sir, there is a covering of sin, but that doesn't mean there isn't an also.... It is a "both, and".
I also stated that Paul deals with your objection in Romans 6, "Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?"
Why would Paul ask this question if it wasn't the common objection of his day as well as our own? Every generation attempts to answer the question you ask. Perhaps it is intuitive, but the basis of the answer is Justification!
If we have truly been set free from our sin and have truly died with Christ, then His death is our death, then His burial is our burial, then His resurrection is our resurrection.
There is both a positional reality and an inner reality. One precedes the other. How many times do I have to say it? All of the doctrines of salvation in the New Covenant tie together.
But you will still respond, "But why bother?"
The answer is again obvious. Paul says that we who have been set free shall not continually live in sin. One gives rise to the other.
You are living to get free. I am living the Christian life because I am free. The New covenant is written on my heart and mind and is sealed in the righteous blood of Christ.
You may think I am twisting your words, but I am not. I am coming to the Biblical conclusion that in your system, it is not Christ alone. You may argue otherwise (how many former Prots to RCism keep talking like Prots), but the reality is what it is. You must cooperate with God's grace to make it effective. My position is that God's grace is effectual and causes me to do what I do.
God Bless
"My position is that God's grace is effectual and causes me to do what I do."
I understand your position as well as I am able, I think. This is not to say that I understand it perfectly, for to me it seems a contradiction that you should say that God's grace alone causes you to do what you do and at the same time claim you live in liberty.
Even so, without free will there is no love. If some lad in your church slipped a magical love potion into the drink of a young lady that compelled her to "love" him against her own natural will, would you deem this wholesome? Were she your daughter would you commend the man as righteous or condemn him as a cad and scoundrel?
God calls us each to love the Lord with all our heart mind and spirit. He is all Good and deserving of all our love. Neither cad nor scoundrel is He.
It is neither a contradiction nor unbiblical to observe that He offers everlasting life to whosoever shall believe on Him, that it is by His grace alone that we (unlike the dumb animals who follow their nature without willful choice to love God) are enabled to respond to this offer and that by His sovereign will, as He has explicitly instructed us, we must choose to accept or reject His love and grace.
This I believe is the Good News: that God so loved the world that by Jesus' death and resurrection men may be saved, whosoever believes. This he did once and for all.
This I believe is not the Good News: That God hates the vast majority of humanity and He delights in the death of the wicked.
I think in the end we do understand one another well.
You earnestly believe that anything done by any man (even to the merest act of will) in cooperation, with God's plan constitutes a violation of the fundamental Christian principle of salvation by Christ alone, who is the narrow gate by which all who enter Heaven, enter.
To you, free will is an illusion that is no more available to a human than it is to a goldfish. Salvation is a stroke of luck: winning the lottery against the odds. True, it is the greatest and most wonderful lottery that anyone should be eternally grateful to win; but it remains a mere lottery nonetheless.
Still, you depend upon Jesus as your advocate with the Father; and whether or not you believe you will to follow Him, follow Him you do--and I call you "brother."
I earnestly believe that because God explicitly wants us to love Him he necessarily made free will a part of His great plan, and that it is by His sovereign will that we are given the freedom to accept or reject his love and salvation; and therefore, this freedom being His will, it is also a gift of grace and a part of salvation by Christ alone.
I depend upon Jesus as my advocate with the Father, even while I believe I remain accountable for my willful actions--and even as a regenerated man, I must regularly confess my sins, do penance and amend my life.
I do not depend upon a "system" any more than you depend on a "system," yet I think I understand how it seems so to you.
----
Regarding your comment regarding former Protestants, please know that I am a life-long Catholic.
T.O.A.
PS to the anonymous person who asked whether I have a blog: Sorry. I don't.
You said, "I said "The imputation you describe” this “imputation” that leaves a stinking filth under the skin as you believe, merely covers."
This is the most common objection, yet who is saying this?
You:
"what I meant was that if God took any Christian and peeled back his skin to reveal much of his thinking, would he be any better than David? If you think you are any better than David, then I suspect you do not realize your own sin..."
T.O.A.
Although I do not have a blog, I just happened across what I think would be a good representative blog of the same view I hold. In particular, if you're interested in the Catholic view of how free will relates to salvation and sin and how it contrasts with some other views, I suggest you read this article found here: http://pontifications.wordpress.com/mortal-sin/
The author is a conservative Catholic Priest. I'd expect you'll get a much better picture there than I am able to provide.
T.O.A.
Correction:
After looking at that web site some more, I'm unsure whether the author is either Anglican Priest or a Catholic Priest, newly converted from Anglicanism. Either way, I still find his writing encapsulates much of my own understanding and does it far better than mine.
Thank you.
1) “You:
"what I meant was that if God took any Christian and peeled back his skin to reveal much of his thinking, would he be any better than David? If you think you are any better than David, then I suspect you do not realize your own sin..."
T.O.A.”
I guess I need to clarify since my other statements on this are not clear. I was attempting to say that imputation alone is the basis for our right standing before God, but it is never alone, hence my citation of James White on James 2.
Have you read the LBCF? Today I was reminded while listening to a radio program talk about John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. John Bunyan was very much a Calvinist and one who proclaimed the doctrine of Justification in the reformed camp. Yet his entire book shows the life of a true Pilgrim. Again, the basis for the Christian life is that the Christian possesses the perfect life of Christ by faith alone. His works are my works. His life is my life. His righteousness is not infused into me through the sacraments until I cooperate enough to be justified in the RC sense. This BTW is the reason why RCs seek to convert everyone to Rome since she is the great dispenser of grace through the sacraments.
Paul is answering your objection in Romans 6. It is interesting that you are taking the position of an objector of Paul’s arguments.
2) “I understand your position as well as I am able, I think. This is not to say that I understand it perfectly, for to me it seems a contradiction that you should say that God's grace alone causes you to do what you do and at the same time claim you live in liberty.”
The reason you do not understand is that the Christian also possesses the internal life of Christ along with his abiding sin. Therefore the inner struggle during this life.
You also do not understand that there are only two humanities. Adam and Christ’s. Since Christ’s life is now my life and I am hidden in Him, His grace compels me.
2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
3) “Even so, without free will there is no love. If some lad in your church slipped a magical love potion into the drink of a young lady that compelled her to "love" him against her own natural will, would you deem this wholesome? Were she your daughter would you commend the man as righteous or condemn him as a cad and scoundrel?”
Sir, you do not understand what you are writing against. You are assuming a philosophical definition that is not derived from Biblical theology. Does God have free will? Could God do something other than have inter-Trinitarian love?
This also assumes that man is not raised unto spiritual life. You do not really believe Adam died. You believe that men have the ability if God would just offer us an opportunity (even if that opportunity is by grace).
4) “God calls us each to love the Lord with all our heart mind and spirit. He is all Good and deserving of all our love. Neither cad nor scoundrel is He.”
Again, this is law as love is the heart of the law. Righteousness is never attained by law nor could it be. It is Christ’s life and righteousness that is ours by faith alone.
5) “It is neither a contradiction nor unbiblical to observe that He offers everlasting life to whosoever shall believe on Him, that it is by His grace alone that we (unlike the dumb animals who follow their nature without willful choice to love God) are enabled to respond to this offer and that by His sovereign will, as He has explicitly instructed us, we must choose to accept or reject His love and grace.”
Although this sounds good at points, it is not fully Biblical. John 6:35-45 soundly refutes such a universal idea.
6) “This I believe is the Good News: that God so loved the world that by Jesus' death and resurrection men may be saved, whosoever believes. This he did once and for all.
This I believe is not the Good News: That God hates the vast majority of humanity and He delights in the death of the wicked.”
????
7) “To you, free will is an illusion that is no more available to a human than it is to a goldfish. Salvation is a stroke of luck: winning the lottery against the odds. True, it is the greatest and most wonderful lottery that anyone should be eternally grateful to win; but it remains a mere lottery nonetheless.”
I have dealt with this before. The fact that God saves anyone is grace. The fact that God freely chooses to save anyone is His purpose. If God freely chooses to “pass over” the reprobate, is He obligated to even offer salvation to them? Is God not free to choose Jacob over Esau even before they do anything good or bad? Before they were born?
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
Rom 9:13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
Rom 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
Yet you seem to be upset with God’s Word…not me.
8) “Still, you depend upon Jesus as your advocate with the Father; and whether or not you believe you will to follow Him, follow Him you do--and I call you "brother."”
I have no idea what this means. Mormons will tell me the same thing. The Council of Trent specifically has condemned me with the same anathema Paul calls down on the Judiazers. They were condemned to hell. I have much more respect for a RC who would not play this we are all just “separated brothers” in this ecumenical age of “let’s all just get along”.
The Gospel defines what a brother in Christ is. The Gospel defines the church. I understand that many RCs are ignorant of Rome and when they lay their heads down at night they are trusting Christ for salvation. However, Rome’s gospel is no gospel, and I stand with the Reformers against it. Being that you are a lifelong RC, then I assume you fully embrace the sacramental system. I would not be loving if I said that is fine. This system keeps men outside the Kingdom of God. As you would call me to come to Rome, I call you to come out of it and come to Christ alone and be fully Justified today by possessing Christ’s righteousness by faith alone.
God Bless
"3) “Even so, without free will there is no love. If some lad in your church slipped a magical love potion into the drink of a young lady that compelled her to "love" him against her own natural will, would you deem this wholesome? Were she your daughter would you commend the man as righteous or condemn him as a cad and scoundrel?”
Sir, you do not understand what you are writing against. You are assuming a philosophical definition that is not derived from Biblical theology. Does God have free will? Could God do something other than have inter-Trinitarian love?
This also assumes that man is not raised unto spiritual life. You do not really believe Adam died. You believe that men have the ability if God would just offer us an opportunity (even if that opportunity is by grace)."
Sorry, Howie, but this utterly sidesteps the question. To me it seems that you merely assert that I believe something I do not and add that in your view of Scripture, God is indeed a scoundrel, but it is OK because He is God (I’m sure that is NOT what you actually believe, but it is what your argument seems to boil down to.). However, your view does not square with all of scripture, with the opinion of the Church over the ages, or with simple logic--all of which God ordained we should consider. (Come let us reason together.)
Regardless, I've offered these thoughts not as a device by which to convince anyone--that is not for me--but to merely explain.
"I have no idea what this means.” (I call you “Brother”). “Mormons will tell me the same thing. The Council of Trent specifically has condemned me with the same anathema Paul calls down on the Judiazers. They were condemned to hell. I have much more respect for a RC who would not play this we are all just “separated brothers” in this ecumenical age of “let’s all just get along”."
Peace be with you. I'm sure that by now at least someone as explained to you that:
1) Anathema does NOT mean "condemned to hell." And it NEVER has.
2) The anathemas of Tent have been further developed and explained in subsequent ecumenical councils and encyclicals, the latest of which assures us that even the Protestant churches spawned by the Reformation, although not Church in the proper sense themselves have been and continue to be a means by which God makes his salvation known; and that to that extent, they function (whether their members know it or not) as if under the True Church.
Just because YOU, Howie, want to hold on to the rancor of five centuries past, does not require that I do so, in direct violation of the explicit instructions of the Holy Spirit through Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Authority. If you imagine my writing is some sort of a "game," you are greatly mistaken. If you imagine that I call you a brother in Jesus Our Lord, because of any reason other than divine mandate, you are most sadly mistaken indeed. It is for the sake of that brotherhood that I take the time I do to proclaim to you the truth. As profoundly imperfect as I am, at least in this one small thing I choose to humble myself and obey.
I fear we are crossing the boundary between the realm where we each explain our own beliefs (a subject each of us is greatly qualified to describe) and into the realm where we start asserting the other's supposed beliefs (a subject that we are hardly qualified to describe). It might be most constructive (especially for any who might be reading this other than you and me) for us to leave it at this point, lest we simply devolve into polemics.
Thanks for the conversation. I appreciate the time you have taken to correspond and I pray you are blessed for it, especially in this time of Epiphany.
T.O.A.
1) "Peace be with you. I'm sure that by now at least someone as explained to you that:
1) Anathema does NOT mean "condemned to hell." And it NEVER has."
Sir, you may say this today, but the fact is, the time of Trent meant exactly that. Revisionism of that era is not going to be a search for truth. Ask any Protestant of that time wearing a hat that says "heretic" while being burned at the stake if he thinks anathema means just separated brethren.
2) "2) The anathemas of Tent have been further developed and explained in subsequent ecumenical councils and encyclicals, the latest of which assures us that even the Protestant churches spawned by the Reformation, although not Church in the proper sense themselves have been and continue to be a means by which God makes his salvation known; and that to that extent, they function (whether their members know it or not) as if under the True Church.""
Now we have Rome infallibly interpreting Rome of past centuries, or should we say, reinterpreting?
3) "Sorry, Howie, but this utterly sidesteps the question. To me it seems that you merely assert that I believe something I do not and add that in your view of Scripture, God is indeed a scoundrel, but it is OK because He is God"
Sir, you have no idea what you are talking about, while you complain I am misrepresenting you. To compare the Calvinist view of love to a "love potion" is silly. I likened it to resurrection since we do not have the NATURAL ABILITY to love God.
You may ignore Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 and John 6 all you want. They are emphatically clear passages.
4) "Just because YOU, Howie, want to hold on to the rancor of five centuries past..."
This is a silly comment. You think the Council of Trent is just something that may be glossed over. She condemned the Gospel. This has nothing to do with what I want, but it has everything to do with Truth.
If I sit here and say your soul is fine while believing Rome's false Gospel is to say I don't believe in truth and become relativistic and ecumenical at the expense of Christ's Gospel. That is not love.
Call it rancor if you wish, I will not be bullied into lying to make you feel better while watching you remain in your sin.
God Bless
"Call it rancor if you wish, I will not be bullied into lying to make you feel better while watching you remain in your sin."
Please go back and carefully re-read what I've shared with you. I'm not bullying you or in any way asking you to call me "brother." I merely explain why I call you "brother" and why your "take" on the meaning of Trent is incorrect. By your tone, I take it that you wish to (perhaps need to) hold onto your hatred. I choose otherwise. A bruised reed He shall not break and a smoldering wick He shall not put out. (Is 42:3, Mat 12:20) Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! (Js 2:12,13)
Part of what you call the Gospel in its entirety (the "Fide" of "Sola Fide"), the Church recognizes as only one part of the Gospel. She is absolutely correct to condemn the "sola" and utterly in line with Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Teaching to say that those who preach it are separating themselves from the main body of Christ.
Sola Fide is a theological innovation and not the full Gospel; for by explicit Scriptural definition it is dead faith that cannot save. “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? … As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” (Js 2:26) “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (Js 2:24) This ready, clear and explicit teaching trumps Luther's incorrect interpretation of Romans (which is why he wanted it removed from the Bible.). It is only by sheer determination to ignore this plain teaching that I imagine any claimant of “Sola Scriptura” can deny it without also willingly denying the very authority he claims Scripture to have. Whether it is the entire Magesterium and Scripture together that point this out (as with Trent) or if it is a sinful man such as I, it makes no difference.
As to my sin, if I am not in a state of grace before God, may He so place me. If I am, may He keep me there--and likewise, I pray for you too.
As to the Gospel itself, you preach a segment as if it were the whole, and in as much as your doing so furthers the Gospel, may you be blessed. The Church preaches the whole as it has from the beginning. All will do well to repent and come to the fullness of the Gospel; however, as in all things we do, the choice is ours and ours alone. "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Jsh 24:15)
I leave you to your choices.
T.O.A.
"By your tone, I take it that you wish to (perhaps need to) hold onto your hatred."
This is what I mean by the statement I won't be bullied into a corner. You assume that because I believe in truth and not ecumenicalism for the sake of false unity is somehow arrogant or mean spirited, while you paint yourself as the nice guy because you are willing to call me brother. It is a tactic that works very well in a post-modern eraa. I would love taling to a Gerry Matatics over against a mushy gushy ecumenical person that doesn't believe our Gospels radically differ.
2) I merely explain why I call you "brother" and why your "take" on the meaning of Trent is incorrect.""
My take? How about the take of all of those at the time. It is anachronistic to give Trent's meaning the modern ecumenical meaning. Also, are you in a position to speak in behalf of Rome? How do I know your position is correct. Many RCs would disagree. Gerry Matatics would.
I have already addressed the other issues you raise again. You refuse to deal with what I have said. I firmly believe in the Penal Substitutionary atonement. You do not. Hence the major difference in our positions.
3) "As to the Gospel itself, you preach a segment as if it were the whole, and in as much as your doing so furthers the Gospel, may you be blessed."
I am amazed that you make this claim. You obviously are either not informed about what I believe or just blind to what I have written. Yet I am the "hateful" one?
I have referred you the the LBCF which states very clearly the opposite of your claim. I have also written about James 2, thereby disproving your claim.
4) "the choice is ours and ours alone"
Man-centered verses God-centered. Monergism verses Synergism. For you , it is all up to you. From the Biblical perspective, God chooses us in Christ. That is why I believe. The New Covenant is not something I cooperated with to bring about, it was perfectly done in Christ.
The funny thing is, many Prot. pastors today would fundamentally agree with you, thereby putting themselves in a very awkward position. Please keep in mind I am a Reformed Baptist, not a general atonement, free-will baptist.
"...Protestant of that time wearing a hat that says "heretic" while being burned at the stake if he thinks anathema means just separated brethren."
There has never ever been a capitol offense in cannon law in the Catholic Church. The burnings of heretics were undertaken under the laws of civil governments; often tied to similar laws regarding sedition.
These laws were enforced rather stringently regardless of whether the country was Protestant or Catholic and considered necessary to keep order--the conventional wisdom was that if a man could be hanged, drawn and quartered for saying the King had a funny hat, then it seemed only natural that the penalty for blaspheming God should be at least as steep.
This does not mitigate the culpability of any Church official whose the Holy Spirit prompted to appeal for mercy but did nothing to stop the secular authorities from carrying out these acts--and indeed to our shame, many may even have encouraged them; however, it does indeed again illustrate that you do not understand that "Anathema," does not mean condemned to hell" or condemned to death." (How can you do either to a doctrine?) It does not now, nor has it ever. It is you who is the revisionist. I suggest you look to better sources than whomever you bought your polemic from.
This of course differs a bit from Calvin's theocracy under which indeed men were murdered as a matter of church doctrine and at the urging of Calvin himself--which is why you might be forgiven for expecting the same had applied under Catholic cannon law. But that too is not relevant.
You should note that very many, even some famous bishops of that era and well before (Nestorius comes to mind) had been anathemized because of their heretical doctrine, but this in no way translated as "damned to hell" or "sentenced to death." Many were later reinstated into full communion with the Church.
T.O.A.
"This is what I mean by the statement I won't be bullied into a corner. You assume that because I believe in truth and not ecumenicalism for the sake of false unity is somehow arrogant or mean spirited"
No, I assume by your tone that you harbor hatred. I've been addressed by many a person who believes I am not his brother in Christ who does not resort to vitriol. I could be mistaken, and you might actually be brimming with Christian charity and all good will--and if so, I am sorry. But I do not see it in your demeanor and I do not read it in your language. You seem more intent on "being" right than doing right. And this comes from one who prays that he is wrong.
Again I say, peace be unto you. Deny my brotherhood all you like, I do not deny yours unless you deny Christ. (2 Tm 2:11) Deny the Church all you like. It stands regardless, for Christ has made her the pillar of all truth. (1 Tm 3:15) However, hate your neighbor at your great peril. (Mt 5:43)
The choice is yours and yours alone, Howie.
T.O.A
"I have referred you the LBCF..."
Why should you need to do so, if Scripture is clear?
"I have also written about James 2, thereby disproving your claim."
James has already written clearly about James 2, disproving your claim and advancing his with Apostolic authority. I see no reason to take your word over his. Please forgive me for flatly contradicting, but you must understand that you have not "proven" anything.
T.O.A
1) "Anathema," does not mean condemned to hell" or condemned to death."
Sir, this language comes right from Paul's usage of it in Galatians. This is exactly what Paul meant and it is exactly what Rome meant. I respect that. I am not offended by it in the sense they believed what they did. Rome believed what Rome believed and still does to some extent.
I am well aware that the times of civil government thought what they thought. But to think the Pope of Rome desiring Luther to be killed or any person by the power of the state makes this the problem. The Pope believed what he did whether or not the state would execute anyone.
2) "men were murdered as a matter of church doctrine and at the urging of Calvin himself"
Are you speaking of Servetus? Could you cite a source that Calvin urged anyone be put to death, even Servetus?
3) "No, I assume by your tone that you harbor hatred."
This sounds good for you. You are trying to make yourself look like the nice guy who is so willing to be brothers while I say you're not. You may say that my tone is hateful, but resorting to saying you are my brother would be a lie. Lying is not loving. To redefine things in a post-modern (mushy gushy) way doesn't make me unloving.
I am saying you need to embrace the heart of the Gospel in order to have true peace with God. I understand that at the end of the day there are RCs who have peace with God. this is not because of Rome's doctrine but in spite of it.
4) "James has already written clearly about James 2, disproving your claim and advancing his with Apostolic authority. I see no reason to take your word over his. Please forgive me for flatly contradicting, but you must understand that you have not "proven" anything."
Sir, this was in response to your claim that I only discuss one aspect of salvation as if it were all of salvation. Nothing could be further from the truth since I responded to your claim about James.
5) "I have referred you the LBCF..."
Why should you need to do so, if Scripture is clear?"
I referred you to this confession in order that you might stop accusing me of things that are not true (and I am seen as unloving?). You were accusing me of not addressing other aspects of salvation like the James 2 issue and the relation of works and election and ect... I also cited for you Ephesians 1 and John 6 and Romans 9 which you dismissed.
In your world there is no God who speaks clearly and authoritatively from Scripture. If you do think otherwise then let us go to the relevant text and exegete it (IE; John 6?)
A point of clarification.
"it does indeed again illustrate that you do not understand that "Anathema," does not mean condemned to hell" or condemned to death."
Perhaps you are interpreting my meaning of the term anathema as meaning that when Rome anathematized the Reformation, that it somehow MUST mean death by the sword.
Although Rome most certainly was the major influence in the death of Christian men, that is only because the church was the state church, therefore had the authority to influence the state in this matter. If Rome had not that kind of influence, (say it was the year 200) then obviously the sword would not have been used.
Paul also (as our Baptists confession explains) tells us in the Bible that the role of the state is to maintain justice, but the Gospel is never to be advanced by the sword. Therefore, when Paul gives his anathema in Galatians, he may call for the curse of God upon false teachers without requiring any sword to advance this curse.
"In your world there is no God who speaks clearly and authoritatively from Scripture."
You are in no position to speak for me on this issue, my friend. I do believe God speaks authoritatively from scripture and that He is well able to speak clearly from scripture. I have demonstrated that I believe so. For example, I do not obfuscate the clear meaning of St. James regarding faith that saves and justifies. In contrast you deny the clear message of scripture, and perform contortions that would break Gumby's spine in order to deceive yourself about that denial.
I also believe that (as happens to be clearly recorded in and spoken by this same authoritative scripture) that Jesus promised us the Church and the Holy Spirit also--that He personally instituted that Church and He made many other promises about what she is and shall be.
We both recognize that Jesus clearly instituted the Church and her authority in scripture. Now I ask you to tell me where Jesus clearly instituted the New Testament and clearly said that its words and only its words shall be our authority.
The question is rhetorical, for you and I both know perfectly well that He did no such thing. Rather, it is based on the mandate of the Church herself acting in the very authority Jesus gave her that we have a New Testament we call inspired and authoritative.
Which of us apparently believes God does NOT speak clearly through scripture? Not I.
Does this mean that the New Testament lacks primacy in authority over the Church? No. It is the Church herself that says it does! Does this also mean that for the Church to give it that authority, she must also have authority? If Christ Himself did not personally mandate and institute the New Testament during his earthly ministry, then absolutely, yes. If it is your claim that He did so, then you make it by adding to scripture, which has no record, or even hint of it.
Sadly, as you deny this truth and go so far as to actually attack the Church that authoritatively gives you the very scripture you claim as your sole authority, you unwittingly align your efforts with the very forces that desire to prevail against her. It is with our Lord Himself that I add my own prayer: Father forgive him, for he does not know what he is doing.
T.O.A.
"Now that's the spirit!"--Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner
1) "You are in no position to speak for me on this issue, my friend."
You are right. I am making an assertion based upon my understanding of what RCs have told me over the years. Although it is difficult because you seem to say that Scripture is clear, but others have told that is not the case.
Also, Mormons make a similar claim Rome does about the nature of Scripture verses other authorities. I conclude the same for them.
Are you of the Partim/Partim of Material sufficiency?
2) "For example, I do not obfuscate the clear meaning of St. James regarding faith that saves and justifies. In contrast you deny the clear message of scripture, and perform contortions that would break Gumby's spine in order to deceive yourself about that denial."
As I argued, how do you know your position is correct. Did you infallibly interpret James 2? This is a hermeneutical argument. I believe Paul means one thing therefore.... You believe James means something different therefore....
3) "Sadly, as you deny this truth and go so far as to actually attack the Church that authoritatively gives you the very scripture you claim as your sole authority..."
When did I make this claim? Remember I am a Reformed Baptist, not an Evanjellycal. Of course the meaning of "authoritatively" is different for us. I do not claim infallible authority for the church to be able to authoritatively give us the Scriptures.
Also, Roman Catholicism is nothing like the church in the early centuries. I don't define church in the same way as you do. The church of that day would not recognize Rome today at all.
4) Now the heart of the matter.
"I also believe that (as happens to be clearly recorded in and spoken by this same authoritative scripture) that Jesus promised us the Church and the Holy Spirit also--that He personally instituted that Church and He made many other promises about what she is and shall be."
How do you know He instituted the church? I assume you would say Matt 16. Is it Scripture when you argue from this text for that position? How do you know it is Scripture? Oh, the church says so. How does the church know? Well, the text says so. So the church by its infallibility declares Matt Scripture in order to declare it is the true church.
Fascinating.
I'm afraid you've badly missed the point, Howie. Until you get to the point where it is Jesus himself assigning the document its authority, you must rely upon the authority of another to assign it. Jesus himself instituted the Church and Jesus himself said that the Church shall bind and loose, that it shall be built upon the solid rock, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and that He would be with it always even unto the ends of the earth. The 'sola" of sola scriptura denies that, which at the same time therefore denies the principle of sola scriptura itself, as all of the above are also mentioned in scripture.
Let's return to what I'd thought should be considered a mere rhetorical question:
Where and when did Jesus clearly institute the New Testament as our authority?
Let's compare so far:
The Church:
--Instituted by God through Jesus’ personal promise to eyewitnesses who testified to this in the early Church before any of the gospels were written.
--Given authority by God through Jesus’ personal promise (etc.).
--Preserved by God through Jesus’ personal promise (etc.).
The New Testament
--Instituted by God through the Church after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension.
--Given authority by God through the Church after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension.
--Preserved by God through the Church after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension.
Not only do both have authority, but even a blind man can clearly see where each derives its authority.
When a Christian of the year 40 spoke of an epistle of Apollos as inspired, who had the authority to tell him otherwise? When a Christian of that same time took it upon himself to reject St. Paul's writings over those of Apollos, who had the authority to tell him otherwise?
To whatever degree you submit to the authority of the New Testament you are also by necessity submitting to the authority of the Church by that same degree. Whether you like it or not, to that degree you sir, are Catholic! Now ain't that amazing? :-)
But this too is fitting, for all Christians are built together into the house of the Lord. “Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.” (1 Cor 3:16,17) May God have mercy on the the schismatic who attacks that same temple in God's name. But for ignorance it is a grave sin. Yet He cried "Father forgive them" for those who crucified Our Lord. Then we too can can cry, "Father forgive them" for those who would do the same to His bride.
T.O.A.
"How do you know He instituted the church? I assume you would say Matt 16. Is it Scripture when you argue from this text for that position? How do you know it is Scripture? Oh, the church says so. How does the church know? Well, the text says so...."
Are you actually one of those poor misguided souls who thinks that the only things ever written by Christians of the first century were what are preserved in the New Testament? If so, you are indeed one confused fellow. Don't you know that before there ever was a New Testament, there was a Church? The Church is no more a product of the New Testament than the Ford Motor Company is a product of the 1964 Mustang.
I believe in that Church as did those who first believed: because I believe the witness of those who saw and handled these things. Their witness testifies that Jesus founded and preserved a Church that in turn authorized a New Testament. I suggest you look into the Didache (a first-century collection of the teachings of the apostles as recorded by the early church), which is actually an older document than is most of the New Testament. Your attempt to make a circular argument out of a well recorded, historically linear series of events is silly.
T.O.A.
"I'm afraid you've badly missed the point, Howie. Until you get to the point where it is Jesus himself assigning the document its authority, you must rely upon the authority of another to assign it."
No, I didn't miss the point. I simply reject it. To assume that the people of God are not able to know what is Scripture until Rome says it is Scripture is an assumption that can't stand under its own weight. Why should I accept Rome's authority? Because Rome says so.
Sir, we have vastly different views of how the Canon comes into existence. Your entire post is not even in the same epistemological park.
When Jesus arrived on the scene, was there Scripture? Did Jesus appeal to it? How did the people of His day know about it? Why was Jesus able to declare men accountable for their sinning against it and holding them accountable to it.
You see, your framework for how you know what you know is completely foreign to the Biblical text itself. If Isaiah was able to claim his words were from God and Jesus held men accountable to his words without Rome's authority, then your argument fails.
2) "Are you actually one of those poor misguided souls who thinks that the only things ever written by Christians of the first century were what are preserved in the New Testament? If so, you are indeed one confused fellow. Don't you know that before there ever was a New Testament, there was a Church? The Church is no more a product of the New Testament than the Ford Motor Company is a product of the 1964 Mustang."
This doesn't answer my question. Plus you are not understanding the definition of Sola Scriptura.
God Bless
Perhaps I could put it another way. I do not reject the church's authority. I just reject some kind of infallible authority. So perhaps I could ask some questions in a different way.
How does the church know what is scripture? (a) Is it through some special revelation? (b) Does she actually make arguments for what is canonical (ie: historical (witness of churches, ect), doctrine within the pages, recognition from God's people, consistency with Old Testament, ect....)
If (b), then is that not what Protestants do as well?
But your arguments go much farther. You are making the case that we must know infallibly by an infallible church. This is what has been called the "infallible fuzzies". I reject that epistemology and framework.
God Bless
Howard
"You are making the case that we must know infallibly by an infallible church."
Nope. I'm stating the historical fact that Jesus instituted the Church and it was the Church that instituted the New Testament. No matter how you try to revise history or scripture, these remain true--and if they are true (and they are) then obviously if you believe in the authority of the New Testament, you MUST believe in the authority of the Church. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. This argument stands if you wish to assert any combination of fallibility to either the church or scripture.
"Sir, we have vastly different views of how the Canon comes into existence."
The process was documented--or are you claiming that Catholics forged these lies 15 centuries before Luther as a pre-emptive strike against sola scriptura?
Regardless, unless you claim that the NT came into existence while Jesus was still ministering on earth prior to his ascension or that the cannon of the NT was spontaneously accepted by every Christian on earth via osmosis, the moment St. John wrote the last word of the Revelation and not one contended otherwise on any article down to the last jot, the process of canon formation does not change anything. The issue is authority--and this is demonstrated by the order:
1. Jesus instituted the Church.
(Note that Jesus did not institute the NT.) This Church He said is his mystical body here on earth, and shall be led by the Holy Spirit in all truth.
2. The Church, led by the Holy Spirit instituted the NT.
(Note that the NT did not institute the Church.)
The fact is that as far as we know, Jesus NEVER even spoke about the NT, but he spoke plenty about the Church. For a sola scriptura fellow, you sure seem to shy away from citing Scripture as your sole authority a lot!
If I'm wrong, please forgive me and show me where Jesus institutes the NT and commands us to make it the sole rule of our faith.
I will then gladly surrender to Our Lord's command and repent of my ignorance while making every effort to reconcile the fact that He also gave authority to the Church, which being now excluded us by the "sole" nature of NT authority, He must have given with the intent that she should NOT use it.
T.O.A.
Post a Comment