I now see why the The DaVinci Code was so popular. All the exciting elements of the conspiracy theories that we love to believe about the Catholic Church and religion in general are brought into this complicated movie. When I finished watching it yesterday afternoon, I became convinced that this kind of nonsense could only be believed by people thoroughly ignorant of history.
Yes, the movie did get a couple of facts right. There was a Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Yes, there was a woman named Mary Magdalene. Yes, there was an Emperor named
No, Nicea had nothing to do with throwing books out of the Canon. No, Christians were not killing the pagans which brought about Nicea according to the movie. No, there was no conspiracy (Christians were in no position to conspire since being burned at stakes and running for their lives tended to prevent that). Yet, the movie was fun to some extent because hey, who doesn’t like conspiratorial murder movies?
The problem for me about the movie was its silly conclusion. It is just about belief and not truth or facts according to Tom Hanks’ character. I must say I think that is just dumb. Jesus was a great man (no one knows why) but He was no Son of God according to the movie.
What is strange about all of this is that the movie and its book heavily rely on Gnostic writings. Now I am not an ancient historian, but I know enough about Gnosticism to know that for those relying on Gnostic works to disprove Christ’ Deity prove too much. Let me explain.
Gnostic Christians (that’s what they called themselves while denying the faith) were heretical not because they denied the Deity of Christ, but because they denied the Humanity of Christ. This is irony to the max! For the first several centuries, Christian writers fought against Gnosticism arguing 1 John 4 that those who denied God came into the flesh were in fact antichrists.
What does this have to do with the Council of Nicea? Nothing. That council was convened simply because of a guy named Arius was denying that Jesus was God. This was something that no one denied prior to him but instead assumed. So the movie’s premise was only partially correct. The entire film does this with many historical facts, but hey, it is fiction.
In conclusion, the author denies the Christian faith due to his claim of certain historical facts, while making up facts that are ridiculous or misrepresenting them in the worst of ways possible. The Director’s ending (Ron Howard) was most dissatisfying. Believe just because? If he thinks that is a rational way to view religion, then does the religion of the Left justify its own existence the same way while often mocking Christianity as being irrational? I just can’t bring myself to be so irreverent for truth.
Tomorrow is Christmas Eve. I will be worshiping with my family. We will be worshiping the Risen Christ who first came into this world as a baby, born of Mary in Bethlehem (maybe the movie should try considering those historical facts). We do this because Jesus of Nazareth was no mere man. He was in truth, the Son of God, who became flesh, walked among His people, laid His life down for His people in history. Because of these historical facts interpreted for us by God Himself, we have every rational reason to bow down in true piety.May you have a blessed Christmas knowing that your faith is based on solid historical facts and in God's truth.
23 comments:
Good post. I never watched the movie myself. But I appreciate your review and I will probably go my way without watching it. Thanks for the heads up about it. People, especially hollywood, love to rewrite history in an attempt to make money or make themselves feel good. Thanks for exposing these fact. Stay with it!
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
From the Tiber Jumper
www.crossedthetiber.com
Merry Christmas Tiber.
I was reading your post today, The Incarnation, Divine Helplessness. You stated, "God'’s choice to give human beings free will was, from the beginning, a decision to be helpless in human hands."
There is a vast difference of how we see God and man and how God chooses to save man. Yet, it is obvious why so many are converting to Rome. As I wrote on the 19th, my Evangelical friend would have no idea that his view is just like yours. Yet he doesn't see his need to return to Rome. This is due to his inconsistency. I find you are far more so than he is. I say that shamefully.
I have a view of Christmas that God entered humanity not because He was taking some kind of chance, but because He has a perfect purpose in Christ, which man may never thwart.
Merry Christmas again.
God Bless
"I have a view of Christmas that God entered humanity not because He was taking some kind of chance, but because He has a perfect purpose in Christ, which man may never thwart."
I have the same view, and I have little doubt but that Tiber Jumper also has it. Please keep in mind that IF God's plan and purpose is that we should have free will, then our exercise of it, even to reject salvation does not thwart God's perfect purpose in Christ.
Free will does not deny God's absolute power, purpose or sovereignty. It proclaims it! As I said before, compelled devotion is not love. Compelled obedience is not fealty.
Though we do not agree on the nature of will, we can agree on this: Merry Christmas to you and peace on earth to all men of Good will!
T. O. A.
First of all, I hope TOA had a Merry Christmas as well. It was a nice break from work around here.
"Free will does not deny God's absolute power, purpose or sovereignty."
I realize that everyone claims this. Even Mormons do and their God isn't even really that powerful since he is just an exalted man. Obviously, we must look into what is meant.
Open Theists believe God must be really powerful if He is able to create creatures with as free and powerful of a will as His own. Yet logically, their position leads to all sorts of problems as history has argued. Their God becomes Deistic and must not truly have knowledge of the future.
"It proclaims it! As I said before, compelled devotion is not love. Compelled obedience is not fealty."
This argument has nothing to do with my position. What you and Arminians do is assume your philosophical view of the will, then hear something we Calvinists say, and conclude that we believe men are saved against their wills.
You must try to understand the Biblical position of man before God.
John 6:37-39 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
Notice in this text that Jesus is explaining man's UNBELIEF. He explains that men believe because they are given by the Father to the Son.
I believe because Christ by His perfect life and His sacrificial death and in the power of His resurrection had my faith secured at the cross. I believe because of Christ granting me life in Him.
I have come to believe that if men understood Original Sin and their own sin and union with the First Adam, they would understand their true need. This would also greatly assist the Christian understand His Original Righteousness in Christ.
In my Union with Adam I sinned and died (yes, I was born dead and I had no free will). In my Union with Christ I did the act of righteousness and gained eternal life.
It is by faith alone that I lived my perfect life in Christ's life. It is by faith alone that I died with Christ on the cross. It is by faith alone that by his resurrection, I was raised from the dead and seated with Him in the heavenly places.
To God Alone be the Glory
Soli Deo Gloria
"Open Theists believe God must be really powerful if He is able to create creatures with as free and powerful of a will as His own. Yet logically, their position leads to all sorts of problems as history has argued. Their God becomes Deistic and must not truly have knowledge of the future."
I do not come to that conclusion. I think you misunderstand the nature of what omnipresence must be if it exists (and I believe for God, it does.)
God sees all by virtue of his Omnipresence. This includes his presence in time. Because God is no less present in all times than He is present in all places, He observers all things in all time. Obviously, to observe one doing something does not make one do it. Predestination does not negate free will and free will can no more negate God's knowledge of the future than it can His knowledge of the past and present.
Howdy again TOA,
Although I was hoping you'd get into the Original sin verses Original righteousness issue (that is the heart and soul of the Gospel), I'll bite anyway.
I realize that one does not have to conclude Open-theism, I was simply using it as an example of how men may claim God is Sovereign while not having a real theological system to undergird the claim. If it is true for them, it is mostly certainly true for anyone who might claim it.
"God sees all by virtue of his Omnipresence."
Is that the only reason?
"This includes his presence in time. Because God is no less present in all times than He is present in all places, He observers all things in all time."
Who would argue that this is not true, but is it the source of His knowledge?
"Obviously, to observe one doing something does not make one do it."
Is God merely the great observer? There is a vast difference between God decreeing something and bringing that event to pass and God forcing that event to happen against the will of creature.
Let me offer an example. God's decree of Adam's fall does not mean that God held a gun to the back of Adam saying, "Eat this fruit or else."
Here is another Biblical example from Acts 4. God predetermined the cross to take place. This was not an event that God saw would happen. This is an event God predetermined by His sovereign good pleasure to happen. Yet he holds men accountable for their sin that they freely chose to do!
"Predestination does not negate free will and free will can no more negate God's knowledge of the future than it can His knowledge of the past and present."
This is a great assumption for the philosophers, but it has nothing to do with the Biblical picture of God. Again, I ask. How does God know the events in time? Does He know by His own decree or does He know by passively taking in knowledge? If the latter, why is He glorified in the end by time doing what it just does or by what it was going to do by itself anyway? How is this different from Deism? How are you able to form a Biblical argument to support such an idea unless you borrow the Open-theist's argument?
Have you even read Ephesians 1?
“Have you even read Ephesians 1?"
My friend, I have read all of Holy Scripture, many times over, and please forgive my boldness if I am confident that this is not the case for you.
God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (Sir 15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him" (GS 17 § 1)
"I ask. How does God know the events in time? Does He know by His own decree or does He know by passively taking in knowledge?”
I’m afraid that you’ve created a false choice between two options that are not mutually exclusive. As you pointed out yourself, you do not argue against God knowing all by reason of His seeing all over all time. Further, as you also pointed out, God’s decree that things shall be as they shall be is not “putting a gun to the head” of the universe. We know this specifically because God Himself said that we have choice, and further He many times over commands us to make choices and even condemns us for failing to choose. I will not tacitly insult you by asking you whether or not you have read the parable of the talents or the book of Revelations.
You ask for scripture. Please take up a concordance and look up the many hundreds of passages having the word “choose” in it. See that God holds us responsible for our choices. He asks us, “what have you done?”
If you imagine that I am arguing against predestination, you are mistaken. The idea of predestination is a firmly established doctrine of Christianity, established in Sacred Tradition and supported by Sacred Scripture. It is also a natural philosophical conclusion when one denies dualism. I simply do not see that it negates the free will of individuals to choose or reject salvation, nor that it implies fatalism or determinism.
Your implied demand (in your merely dismissing philosophy) that I cite Scripture only as authoritative, places our communication in awkward state that I hope to remedy. You seem to imply that I must limit my support to what you deem Holy Scripture while knowing that at the same time I acknowledge the authority of all of Scripture, the Magesterium and Sacred Tradition; yet even so, (from my perspective) you are allowed to reject parts of Scripture while at the same time claim it is your sole rule of faith, while still at the same time appear to draw your faith from Calvin’s TULIP interpretation of the subset of Scripture you wish to recognize. Therefore, rather than attempting to convince you of teaching that I already know you have strong reason to not recognize as authoritative, perhaps it will be better to lay out what it is I do believe, so that at least we will be talking about the same thing.
--- What T.O.A. believes about Free will, Freedom and Personal Responsibility in God’s Plan --
I’m simply not able to explain what I understand and how I understand it if I’m disallowed the means to do so. For this reason, please understand that the following calls upon a great and ancient storehouse of Christian wisdom, including, but not limited to the subset of writings that you deem authoritative. I’m afraid this is a gap we must live with if we are to communicate.
God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him." (GS 17; Sir 15:14)
“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.” (St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,4,3:PG 7/1,983)
According to our teaching (Catechism of the Church), freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God.
As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes human acts. It is the basis of praise, blame, merit or reproach.
I take it as a part of the economy of Heaven that the more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the willful service of what is good and just—and God alone is good and just. I believe that even among the redeemed, the willful choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom that leads back to the slavery of sin. (Rom 6:17) No doubt you read Romans 6 in a different light.
This implies that God-given freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. If this is so, then voluntary willful progress in virtue and knowledge of good enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. This is meritorious by definition (not to be confused with meriting salvation, but merely to understand that God deems some things “good” and others “bad” and that indeed we are commanded to do good and justly commended for it). (Catechism of the Church)
The natural corollary then is that imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. In short, except for Original Sin, we do not sin apart from an act of will.
Regarding personal responsibility, I believe that every act directly willed is imputable to its author:
This is why we see that the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?" He did not ask her what He had decreed. (Gen 3:13.) He asked Cain the same question.( Gen 4:10.) On the Lord’s behalf, the prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah murdered.(2 Sam 12:7-15 )
Regarding freedom and sin, I believe that unregenerated man's freedom is greatly limited and fallible, and this is indeed where Original Sin comes into play. We know that man failed. Adam freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin.
This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.
Yet, because I believe in this freedom, I also believe it is necessary that by his glorious cross, Jesus Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. (Jn 3:16) Yet it is Jesus who says “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me” that it is we who must choose life. (Rev 3:20) Thus by God’s plan we are free to choose or reject the greatest freedom, "For freedom Christ has set us free." (Gal 5:1)
In Jesus we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." (Jn 8:32.) The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." (2 Cor 17) And we who are redeemed glory in the "liberty of the children of God." (Rom 8:21)
I believe that the grace of Jesus Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that is God. Christian experience attests (especially in prayer) that the more open we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials. (Catechism of the Church)
By the working of grace, the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world.
Almighty and merciful God,
in your goodness take away from us all that is harmful,
so that, made ready both in mind and body,
we may freely accomplish your will.
(from the Missal, 32nd Sunday, Opening Prayer)
Howie, I know that this is a lot of writing, and I understand if it is simply too much to tolerate in one sitting. If you actually read it all, I appreciate your patience and endurance. Please do know that I do not share these things lightly, nor offer them so much as an argument than as an explanation. But also know that I do not offer this in vain, as I deem this issue is an essential difference between us that if understood properly has a great effect on how we go about practicing our Christianity.
So it is that we see that our free will and God’s decree are intertwined, and we therefore see why it is with “fear and trembling” that we are to “continue to work out our salvation.” (Phil 2:12)
Howdy again TOA,
1) "My friend, I have read all of Holy Scripture, many times over, and please forgive my boldness if I am confident that this is not the case for you."
I was waiting for this shot. :-)
I know this is where you want to go. For the issue with you and mormons and others is always the conversion to the church and its authority. If you want to discuss Sola Scriptura ("Your implied demand (in your merely dismissing philosophy) that I cite Scripture only as authoritative, places our communication in awkward state that I hope to remedy."), then we need to pick another spot.
There is simply not room here and I know you are desperate in going to the RC apologetics stuff and arguing the authority issues. I really do not want to get into all of that here. I have been down that road many many times and the RC apologist is always left with his circular argument claiming it is not circular (spiral or something).
2) "Further, as you also pointed out, God’s decree that things shall be as they shall be is not “putting a gun to the head” of the universe."
Sir, there is a massive difference between what I am saying and what you are saying. I am not saying there are 2 equal truths. I am saying that God knows all things because He decrees them to happen. Therefore our wills do what they choose because He brings them about to will it without making Himself the Author of evil. He may use secondary causes and ect..
Electing grace however is something God positively does since we are dead, dead, dead.
God unites us with Christ in His death through Election. When Jesus died, so did His elect. When Jesus was raised, so were His elect. This comes to us through faith which Jesus secures at the Cross and in His Intercession.
Is this not vastly different from your view? This is Grace Alone.
3) As for your arguments of grace and free will, they may shock the ignorant Protestant, but I am well aware of your beliefs.
You may quote passages about choice and then infer with certain logical arguments about free will. However, we must not take texts that we make inferences from and overthrow clear didactic texts that directly and specifically say otherwise. This you (as well as my own pastors have done again I say this to our shame) have done.
Sir, simply because God says obey, does not mean we have the ability. I know you have the system of cooperating or prevenient grace ect. to help man's free will. However, none of this deals with the arguments I have put forth.
4) Sir, you do not possess the imputed alien righteousness of Christ. Rome has anathemtized the Gospel. Therefore the "awkward" state comes from Rome. Again, you will make the authority appeal. Let me remind you that there are RC apologists who do not even know if the Canon of Scripture is closed. Therefore, you may really not have read all of Scripture.
TOA, do we by chance already know each other? I am beginning to wonder why the anonymous. Do you think I would hold it against you personally or something? I like catholics. Some of my best friends are catholics.
OK, I shouldn't use cliches.
:-)
"There is simply not room here and I know you are desperate in going to the RC apologetics stuff and arguing the authority issues"
:-) No, I'm not in the least bit desperate. Neither am I pumped up to attack sola scriptura or bang the drum for Church authority. These issues tend to come up in these sorts of conversation not because they are on an apologetics list of talking points (although I'm sure they are on somebody’s), but because they are indeed the real reasons that I and many others hold fast to the ancient Christian faith.
If for example, we were discussing the doctrine of Mary's virginity even after the birth of Christ, I would tell you plainly that were it not for the Apostolic authority of the Magesterium of the Church and the weight of Sacred Tradition, I would not profess belief in it. This might seem outrageous for you who believe sola scriptura is the rule of faith--but for me, I also would not believe in Sacred Scripture were it not for the Apostolic authority of the Magesterium of the Church and the weight of Sacred Tradition.
As before, I offer this as an explanation, not an argument for your (or anyone's) conversion.
As for my remaining anonymous, Howie, it is nothing personal. I simply feel that keeping the conversation focused on content rather than personality is more constructive.
Please don't read this the wrong way when I say that I doubt that any of your Catholic friends who truly embrace Catholic Christianity are worried about your personal disapproval. They answer to a higher authority. Those who might be concerned are not likely built up in the faith enough that they would talk about these issues this way, anyway (Does that make sense?).
Here's praying that this Epiphany will be just that for us all.
"As for my remaining anonymous, Howie, it is nothing personal. I simply feel that keeping the conversation focused on content rather than personality is more constructive."
Why is that? Are you well known? Would I know you? If so, that's cool someone well known would bother to comment here. :-)
As for my friends worried about personal disapproval, that was exactly my point. They ought not to worry.
"These issues tend to come up"
Of course they do for you. You have been trying to bring them up since your first comment. I knew you were a RC from that first comment, and you were not being forthright about your intentions.
Remember that I was writing about one topic and you were most certainly trying to make the authority argument in a conversation that wasn't in need of it (although it is from your perspective).
The problem I have about your approach is that it is meant to appeal to Protestants who do not realize that RCs actually talk about the necessity of grace. What is lacking in those presentations is the fact that RCs have the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice that never takes away sins, that RCs reject the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ, that RCs must go through purgatory (unless perfected in this life), that RCs must be Justified through the Sacraments but able to lose that Justification via Mortal Sins (thereby rejecting Christ Alone), ect..
I ask you sir, Who is the Blessed Man of Romans 4?
"What is lacking in those presentations is the fact that RCs have the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice that never takes away sins"
That would be because we do not believe, teach or practice that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that never takes away sins.
T.O.A.
The blessed man of Romans 4 is the man whomever God Himself deems ready to fellowship with God forever in heaven. Scripture specifically and didactically tells us that Christians were saved, are being saved, are continuing to work out their salvation (with fear and trembling) and will be saved--if obey Him. But then you also know that this denies the eternal security doctrine common to many but not all Reformed. I expect that your interpretation of Romans is not based on scripture in its entirety, but on your forcing one portion to fit your model. This is (of course) mere speculation on my part.: my mind-reading abilities being what they aren't. :-)
Now it is your turn:
Why should the Blessed Man of Romans 4 as you imagine him need to work out his salvation and what ought he fear while doing so?
T.O.A.
"...but able to lose that Justification via Mortal Sins..."
I'm curious. When Reformed Christians become Catholic, is it a "mortal sin?"
"I knew you were a RC from that first comment, and you were not being forthright about your intentions"
As a point of order and for the sake of truth, please know that I was never deceptive about my intentions or my theology.
As I recall another of your readers did not perceive where I was coming from, and accused you of putting more into my words than I'd intended. I stepped up to knowledge that your accuser was mistaken, and indeed that I am a Catholic. Had I remained silent and simply withdrawn to let your local issues boil over thanks to added heat I could prevent it would have been a sin. Please do not hold that good will and honesty against me or use it to imply that I've been dishonest.
T.O.A.
"Sir, simply because God says obey, does not mean we have the ability"
Lack of ability to obey does not negate making the willful choice to attempt it. The law was indeed impossible for all men to follow in its entirety. We do not have the ability; and thus it served as an illustration of the need for grace; however, this does not mean that the commands of God are a hoax or that he issued them while at the same time wills that men should disobey them. Doing so attempts to make disobedience to God into "obedience."
Not only is it logically absurd but it counters scriptural mandates that we do not call "good" what is "evil" and vice versa--and all of God's edicts are good.
God commends those who to choose to obey and condemns those who choose to disobey--both in the OT and NT.
----
PS. Sorry about breaking posts out like this, but I got so long-winded I felt it would be easier to handle the discussion in "chunks."
T.O.A.
"...RCs reject the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ"
All who sin reject that imputation to a degree. I'll take Jesus' words over yours: You are my friends IF you love one another and do as I commanded you.
"...that RCs must go through purgatory (unless perfected in this life), "
All who are to inherit the incorruptible shall be purified whether in this life or as a process after this life is over. Purgatory means simply, purification. You would call it sanctification. Why should sanctification of a Christian end with his physical death? This isn't some detour taken only by Catholics. As CS Lewis (a Protestant) observed, the human soul not only needs Purgatory, it demands it. Even so, if you believe that the redeemed must also be sanctified before entering heaven, then you believe in a purgatory process.
"...that RCs must be Justified through the Sacraments"
If you wish to degrade sacramental grace to that of an option, you can argue with Jesus and the vast majority of Christians over the course of the last 2000 years about the need for sacraments. However, to say it is an "RC" thing is laughable.
"... but able to lose that Justification via Mortal Sins (thereby rejecting Christ Alone) "
It does not follow that willful rejection of Christ's freely offered salvation constitutes a denial of salvation by Christ alone. You are coloring your interpretation with Calvin's utter depravity doctrine. Further Catholics are by no means alone in their understanding that what a man does in life affects his reward. We would not be warned against apostacy were it not possible to be apostate.
Regardless, your implications, whether intended or not, that my testimony is in any way misleading is wrong. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, neither do I hide it under a basket, nor do I preach it by way of lies or deception. Given who the author of lies is, it would be a bit of a farce, wouldn’t it?
T.O.A.
I wrote: "It does not follow that willful rejection of Christ's freely offered salvation constitutes a denial of salvation by Christ alone."
This is ambiguous. I meant to say:
It does not follow that willful rejection of Christ's freely offered salvation constitutes a denial of the doctrine of salvation by Christ alone.
This conversation is complicated enough as it is. I'm sorry for any confusion.
T.O.A.
TOA,
1) Again, this isn't a debate board, and I'd really appreciate it if you could find a different and less complicated place to do this. CARM maybe? Whatever you'd decide I would be happy to go to. All of these different posts of yours would make great separate strings on the old BBS style boards.
2) "That would be because we do not believe, teach or practice that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that never takes away sins."
I was simply trying to give a quick response (again the problem of this format). I do not believe the Mass is propitiatory as Rome says it is since it must be repeated. Hebrews 10 comes to my mind as you are obviously are aware of.
3) "Why should the Blessed Man of Romans 4 as you imagine him need to work out his salvation and what ought he fear while doing so?"
Sir, I have written about this. There is a vast difference between justification and sanctification. Yet it is the same faith that justifies and sanctifies. If you do not make the distinction between Justification and sanctification, then you will inevitable fall into moralism. Isn't this Joel Osteen to the max?
Also, the fear and trembling passage is exactly as Paul says. Yet your interpretation of the fear and trembling is being forced backwards into Romans 4. To act as if there is no external authority that interprets Scripture and that you are just taking Scripture alone (while I am forcing Calvin's view) is ironic indeed. Your interpretation overthrows the scope and force of Paul's argument.
I also believe in the Perseverance doctrine, not the "Once Saved..." I have made that clear before.
4) "I'm curious. When Reformed Christians become Catholic, is it a "mortal sin?""
This assumes that the Bible never speaks of things as they appear as opposed to how they truly are. The Bible speaks of both. The parable of the soils explains that quite well.
5) "Lack of ability to obey does not negate making the willful choice to attempt it. The law was indeed impossible for all men to follow in its entirety. We do not have the ability; and thus it served as an illustration of the need for grace; however, this does not mean that the commands of God are a hoax or that he issued them while at the same time wills that men should disobey them. Doing so attempts to make disobedience to God into "obedience.""
Not only in its entirety, but any law is impossible to keep. See Rich Young Ruler and the Sermon on the Mount.
Simply adding grace into the pot doesn't solve the problem. Many RCs argue (similar to how they argue in Romans) that the works in the Galatians passage is only the works of the law. This again overthrows Paul's argument. This is exactly what the Reformation was fought over. The Judaizers were not saying go back to the Law without Grace. They were adding the works to grace. Not only did they profess Christ (doesn't Rome?) but they believe that one must have faith in Christ. They ONLY added one thing. Circumcision! That pales in comparison to what Rome has added.
Please read the LBCF before you confuse me with Protestants that are basically Pelagians, if you desire to know my position on works and working out our salvation with fear and trembling.
God Bless
Howard
"Again, this isn't a debate board, and I'd really appreciate it if you could find a different and less complicated place to do this"
Sorry. No offense intended. Please forgive me. nce I started I just kept on a-goin'
TOA,
"All who sin reject that imputation to a degree. I'll take Jesus' words over yours: You are my friends IF you love one another and do as I commanded you."
There are no degrees of Justification. Sungenis was flat wrong in his assertion that the Greek terms for Justification are never used for declaration (listen to recent White Horse Inn interview). Leon Morris' book as well as others (Even RC scholars recognize this!) more than demonstrate that all to well.
This is the heart of the Gospel. Christ's Life is my life. It is the Life I stand before God with. That is why I do not need to undergo satispassio (I hope I spelled that right). Christ could take me to glory today! There is no need to go to Purgatory since in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, I will be in glory! (see 1 Cor 15)
There is nothing in the NT that teaches such a concept.
Of course you will appeal to external authorities. Such is a separate conversation.
God Bless
"Sorry. No offense intended. Please forgive me. nce I started I just kept on a-goin'"
Sir, first, no offense taken. I just think it would be easier than wading through all of these posts vertically. Nobody is reading this anyway. Is there another forum you'd rather go to? Would e-mailing be better?
Post a Comment