Butt reemember, that smart 'ol CTD axtuellee foold us stupiz peepul. He naver spessificully sed wut Saterdey he wood possed hiss "Saterdey Nite Speshel" on.
Silley us!
Jean
Posted on 12/10/2003 4:11:16 AM PST by drstevej
Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam...
Arise (some mss read Swarm), O Calvinists, and plead your cause. The doctrines of grace are mightily assailed by those who would proclaim with their father, “I will be like the Most High.” Set forth the biblical case for a sovereign God who is jealous for His glory. Disallow through disputation (and lampooning when needed) the damnable errors of those who have refashioned the great sola doctrines into a salvation-helper gospel that exalts the fallen will of man.
From every corner, in every thread exalt the right of God to do whatsoever He pleaseth. Be not dismayed by persistent anthropocentric rantings. Blessed are you when they revile you for the sake of the truth. Happy are ye when the Servetus card is played and the strawmen are paraded before you for He who is enthroned in heaven reigns.
– Pope Piel I, Thread Pope
I think it most likely that the OT saints were regenerated when Christ descended to Hades to preach the gospel to them on Holy Saturday. Until that time no human being had entered heaven.
Gosh, now I'm going to have to go and form the Circumcisionregenrationalromeisbabylonwestatlanticchurchofgodinchristcatholic. ;-)
Seriously though ...
On the contrary, Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian (De Nup. et Concup. ii): "From the time that circumcision was instituted among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the faith,' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man."I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Rm. 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Rm. 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc.
Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does not remove a privation save by informing the subject.
Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; 2, 4). But if one consider the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves "thousands of gold and silver" (Ps. 118:72).
We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Rm. 4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith": because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 70, Art. 4)
Also:
On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 20:8): "I am the Lord that sanctify you." But nothing unreasonable is done by God, for it is written (Ps. 103:24): "Thou hast made all things in wisdom." Therefore there was nothing without a reasonable cause in the sacraments of the Old Law, which were ordained to the sanctification of man.I answer that, As stated above (101, 4), the sacraments are, properly speaking, things applied to the worshippers of God for their consecration so as, in some way, to depute them to the worship of God. Now the worship of God belonged in a general way to the whole people; but in a special way, it belonged to the priests and Levites, who were the ministers of divine worship. Consequently, in these sacraments of the Old Law, certain things concerned the whole people in general; while others belonged to the ministers.
In regard to both, three things were necessary. The first was to be established in the state of worshipping God: and this institution was brought about--for all in general, by circumcision, without which no one was admitted to any of the legal observances--and for the priests, by their consecration. The second thing required was the use of those things that pertain to divine worship. And thus, as to the people, there was the partaking of the paschal banquet, to which no uncircumcised man was admitted, as is clear from Ex. 12:43, seqq.: and, as to the priests, the offering of the victims, and the eating of the loaves of proposition and of other things that were allotted to the use of the priests. The third thing required was the removal of all impediments to divine worship, viz. of uncleannesses. And then, as to the people, certain purifications were instituted for the removal of certain external uncleannesses; and also expiations from sins; while, as to the priests and Levites, the washing of hands and feet and the shaving of the hair were instituted.
And all these things had reasonable causes, both literal, in so far as they were ordained to the worship of God for the time being, and figurative, in so far as they were ordained to foreshadow Christ: as we shall see by taking them one by one. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 102, Art. 5)
Israel in the flesh and the righteous of the nations could not enter heaven before the resurrection because they had not yet been redeemed by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10.19, Isaiah 35.8, Zachariah 9.11).
Butt reemember, that smart 'ol CTD axtuellee foold us stupiz peepul. He naver spessificully sed wut Saterdey he wood possed hiss "Saterdey Nite Speshel" on.
Silley us!
Jean
Of course not. The Jews were regenerated at circumcision (see my previous post on this topic upthread just a bit and Romans 4.11).
Cornelius received the Gifts of the Holy Spirit before Baptism, which only goes to prove that Regeneration is prior to Baptism.
On very rare occasions.
Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification before the external sacraments be received. But here we also learn one necessary lesson: that such persons must of necessity receive the Sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever condemns, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, Homilies on Leviticus, Q. 84, T. 4)
Peter explicitly tells us in Acts 10, Cornelius was already a Believer in the Messianic Promises of God:
The knowledge of events does not equal faith in Truth. Caiaphas also knew what Jesus had done. So did King Agrippa. So did any number of other people. Knowledge of His life didn't mean their salvation. They all did not yet possess faith in His salvific work, or knowledge of the New Covenant. Otherwise the Angel of the Lord would not have told Cornelius: "[Peter] shall tell thee what thou must do." (Acts 10.6), and Peter would not have preached to him: "that through [Jesus's] name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him." (Acts 10.43). Wouldn't he have already known that all by your theory of his being a Messiah believer? Why bother?
Therefore, Cornelius spiritual position was precisely that same as the Old Testament Saints -- who believed in God's Messianic Promises, and were saved through their Faith in the Messianic Promise even before the Messiah had actually come
Not at all. The great saints of the Old Testament had a personal relationship with Jesus himself as the pre-incarnate Word, who manifested Himself to them at many different times. They did not believe in a promise but in a person they knew intimately: "this is our God, we have waited for Him, and He will save us" (Isaiah 25.9). Abraham's faith was not in a promise of innumerable descendants, but in his friend, The Lord, who made the promise.
And what about Jonah's Repentant Ninevites?
One might reasonably speculate that the external ritual of adopting fasting, sackcloth and ashes sufficied as a sign of faith in the promises of God, as circumcision did for the Jews. Remember to, of course, that Nineveh was the capital of Assyria, who were the people, the Aramaeans, of whom Abraham and Israel descended, and with whom they shared a common language.
what of all those AD 1st-Century Believing Jews who were Circumcised prior to the institution of Christian Baptism? Did they "lose" their Regeneration at the point that Baptism was instituted, so that their Regeneration could then be "restored" when they were Baptized?
Regeneration, as I understand it, is the taking away of original sin (and actual sins) by the infusion of grace into the soul. No Jew would have lost his regeneration by the institution of Baptism, because obviously the institution of Baptism did not reinflict the loss of grace associated with original sin. He was now able to remit his actual sins and be joined to the Church by Baptism.
Scripture clearly declares that an Unregenerate Man will never be "Devout", God-fearing", or a Believer in the Messianic Promises while yet unregenerate.
Despite fond hopes on your part, the verses quoted do not actually say that. They say that all men are sinners, and sinners who wallow in the flesh cannot come to God. But sinners who seek repentance can. You simply ignore the ability of pagans to respond to actual graces to avoid sin and follow the natural law written upon their hearts and receive justice in recompense (Romans 2.13-15, 26-28). Justice is a recomepense for them, not a prerequisite. "For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the Law, do by nature those things that are of the Law, these having not the Law are a law unto themselves." (Romans 2.13-14). Note carefully the word order. "The doers of the Law shall be justified." Not "The just shall be doers of the Law."
You Calvinists have it totally bassackwards. God does not sanctify unrepentant sinners - "God doth not hear sinners" (St. John 9.31). In fact, He leaves such hellions to wallow in their fleshly misery as is their fondest desire. Rather, by His grace, He makes sinners to come to faith and repent, and then sanctifies them, giving them the forgiveness of their sins and the indwelling of Himself.
Again, note the order of events carefully: "Repent, and be baptzed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2.38)
Not: "Receive the remission of your sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, every one of you, and you shall be able to repent and be baptized."
Just because I said: "This light, however, does not nourish the eyes of irrational birds, but the pure hearts of those men who believe in God and turn from the love of visible and temporal things to the fulfilling of His precepts; all men can do this if they will," the new Pelagian heretics are not to suppose that it was said in agreement with them. For it is quite true that all men can do this if they will; but the will is prepared by the Lord, and is strengthened so much by the gift of love that they are thereby eneabled. (St. Augustine, "Retractions", 1.9.2, [AD 426 aut 427])
The ability of a man like Cornelius to pray to God and give alms is not a matter of his prior sanctification, but a preparation for it. Hence, Cornelius was not regenerate. Which is why he could make the absurd error of "falling down at [Peter's] feet and adoring." (Acts 10.25).
Pings to the peanut gallery.
Let's define "Regeneration" correctly before we proceed:
Regeneration is the monergistic creation of Spiritual Life in those who were formerly Spiritually Dead.
Let us note that, before we proceed -- Spiritually Dead, not spiritually sick or spiritually wounded. Spiritually DEAD.
Now let us attend to the Biblically-defined condition of the Spiritually Dead:
So, then... before we proceed, let us affirm the TWELVE SPIRITUAL LAWS of Fallen-Adamic, Unregenerate Spiritual Death:
And so, in sum... before we proceed... will you Hermann, affirm that:
Answer me this, and then we shall proceed.
(Oh, and yes... ping to the peanut-gallery. Most definitely).
best, OP
And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins... But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved; (Eph. 2:1,4-5).
Unfortunately, these sort of redefinition of the common terms of theology simply hinder any coming to mutual understanding. The Church has always understood regeneration as Baptism. One needn't rattle off the numerous obvious witnesses to this truth. Your acceptance that this is explicitly taught by the Council of Orange suffices (even if you wish to twist their words into Baptism of Desire instead of meaning Baptism of Water). St. Augustine's blessing to the Catechumens "God regenerate you!" is also proof enough. If the Catechumens were still spiritually wicked, they wouldn't be coming to Church to receive instruction in the faith, would they?
Catholics have no problem recognizing that the initial creation of spiritual life in a man is an action of the grace of God. What we would not accept is that these promptings of actual grace are somehow sufficient to sanctify and regenerate the man, which is an action which requires his cooperation, and which is the work of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, produced by reception of the Sacraments in faith.
The word "regeneration" - "paliggenesia" is used a grand total of one time in the context of birth into the new spiritual life in the New Testament:
St. Titus 3.5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
It doesn't take much intelligence to understand what "washing of regeneration" refers to - Baptism.
The very closely allied phrase "born again" from "gennao" is well know in its Baptismal context also of "born again of water and the Holy Ghost":
St. John 3.3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again?
5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Wonder not that I said to thee: You must be born again.
8 The Spirit breatheth where he will and thou hearest his voice: but thou knowest not whence he cometh and whither he goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Though the word "born/generate" - "gennao" is used elsewhere in the New Testament, these are the only times it is explicated in its process, and it is spoken of as a "washing" in "water and the Holy Ghost".
Since we cannot agree on terminology, we are going to need to set down instead what time is in reference here. Speaking for the Catholics, the first turning of man towards God is produced by actual grace working upon a man's soul (and a man could never do anythign spiritually good for himself without God), but this does not suffice to do what we would call the regeneration/justification/sanctification of the man, which is the work of habitual sanctifying grace, which is the remission of sins and indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the effects that this indwelling creates in the human person.
It seems to me that you Calvinists wish to call the initiation of the spiritual life "regeneration". I'm not going to quibble with your terminology, though I choose to use the terms differently and more in line with what I see as their Biblical use sanctioned by millenia of use in the Catholic Church.
I would ask though, do you understand "regeneration" in the Calvinist sense, as including the sanctification/justification of man, such that when a man is "regenerated" by God as you call it, at the initiation of the spiritual life, his sins are taken away and the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within him? Or, is this sanctification of man a later event in his spiritual life after what you term "regeneration"?
If it is the latter, it would seem we essentially agree, but are using words differently which causes confusion. If the former, I believe we very sharply disagree, since we would see it as a denial that the forgiveness of sins involves repentance by man using his free will. We Catholics would see that implying that God simply comes and arbitrarily chooses to forgive the sins of some men without their willing this to occur, while others are passed over and left to die.
And so, in sum... before we proceed... will you Hermann, affirm that:
The Unregenerated and Spiritually-Dead Man will always conform to the Infallible Biblical Description of the Unregenerated and Spiritually-Dead Man, while he is yet spiritually-dead and unregenerated?
Unfortunately, I cannot answer this, because your terminology still appears confusing to me. If you are using "regeneration" to mean "initation of spiritual life, but not forgiveness of sins", I would agree. The Catholic explanation is well known.
Actual grace prompts a man to faith, contrition, hope, love, and repentance, which when the man uses what is given him here by God with additional graces with follow and cooperate with his freely willed actions, allows him to request Baptism and come to the new life in Christ. It is then at Baptism that (normally), the man becomes sanctified and his sins are forgiven, and he fully aquires faith, hope, and love by infusion of these virtues into his soul by working of the Holy Spirit.
A brief Calvinist explanation would be most helpful, to understand if you see events proceeding in the same manner, or whether some of the events I outline above are transferred in order according to your beliefs. Once we are working with a correct understanding of the terms of the other, we can discuss things further.
We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
As Lord Protector of the Fraternal Order of the Knights of the Eternal Time Table and Grand Advocate for the High Council of the Eternal Exclamation Point (without Asterik) and the Knights who say Neener Neener Neener, I hereby challenge you to accept The Gramarian as a member of your fraternity of GRPL's.
Failure to reject him will be seen as tacit approval of his doctrines and theologies.
The Ball is in your court.
Neener Neener Neener.
{!}
<><
Marlowe
Lord Protector of the Fraternal Order of the Knights of the Eternal Time Table and Grand Advocate for the High Council of the Eternal Exclamation Point (without Asterik) and the Knights who say Neener Neener Neener.
Hang him by a thick hemp rope?
Hmmm. Is it time to pull out the Servetus Card?
Neener Neener Neener.
{!}
<><
Marlowe
Lord Protector of the Fraternal Order of the Knights of the Eternal Time Table and Grand Advocate for the High Council of the Eternal Exclamation Point (without Asterik) and the Knights who say Neener Neener Neener.
Did god mean "all", without exception; or "all of some of all" of the Amalekites. I would suggest that in the context, God meant 'all, without exception', wouldn't you?
And again, ever hear of the 'New Covenant'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.