PREDESTINATION; LIVE BY GRACE; NOT BY WORKS (WEEK 8)

St. Louis Center for Christian Study ^ | Greg Johnson

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If salvation is all of grace -- if God is God and he has chosen us for salvation even though we did nothing to deserve it -- then we ought to live by the grace we have received. Of course, some of you will look at that and say to yourselves, “Yeah, I really need to do better at living by grace. I’ve really been a failure there. I hope God will forgive me again.” If that’s you, you still don’t get it. Go back and re-read the last seventeen pages and (if you’re a believer) remember that you’re one of the elect!

Our hearts so quickly try to relate to God on a works-basis! It’s our pride, really. I’m convinced that that’s the problem with free-will Arminianism. People naturally process it like this: God requires one work from me, to believe. Once I believe, I’ve done my work and deserve heaven. Of course, in more hard-line Arminian circles, it goes a step further. Unless I’m holy enough, I’ll still go to hell, and maybe I’ve even committed the unpardonable sin and will be damned even if I’m sinlessly perfect from here on out. Legalism. Legalism. Legalism. Such a religion is barely recognizable as Christianity.

But Calvinists can fall into legalism just as easily. You see, I understand predestination. I’m a superior Christian. I’ve got all my theological “t”s crossed and my Reformed “i”s dotted. I sure am close to God. Pride is the Presbyterian’s favorite form of legalism, so watch out! But if God really is for us, and if we had nothing to do with that decision -- if even our faith was given to us by the Father -- then there’s no room for boasting. God’s sovereign choice of us leaves us free from pride. It leaves us aware of our brokenness and humble before God, but all the while confident that his eternal purpose will stand, that we will glory in God forever as objects of his saving mercy. As God’s eternal blessing really begins to sink from our heads into our hearts, we see a new freedom that we never would have imagined when we first encountered the raw, holy, sovereign power of God. Among the newfound freedoms:

1. Freedom from shame, guilt & Insecurity

Read Romans 8:28-39. Nothing can separate you from God’s love -- nothing in the past, nothing in the future. No one can stand against you. No one can accuse you. Even bad things (“all things”) are working right now to your benefit, to make you more like Jesus. God didn’t choose you because of your faith, and Jesus is not ashamed of you—even at your worst (Hebrews 2:11). He’s proud to have you in the family, proud to call you brother or sister -- even knowing what he knows. He’s displaying the glory of his mercy, remember. God’s law is no longer your enemy, but a friend. You can have confidence before God.

2. Freedom from destructive Perfectionism

If God really is for you, then you can quit trying to look good. If you’re trying to be good enough for God, he’s not buying it -- he didn’t choose you because of your great faithfulness. If you’re trying to be good enough for other people, don’t bother. God wants to display his mercy -- that means we have to be broken. God’s glory is not displayed by trying to look like you have it all together. Faith is not a work, and even if it were it still wouldn’t earn you any brownie points. Let God be God. If you won’t show your weakness, then others won’t see God’s power displayed in it.

3. Freedom from legalistic man-made rules

Some of the biggest practical opponents to living by grace are those legalistic little rules that we live by. We love to judge other with them -- they make us look good, and help us feel better about ourselves. (Pride again.) Dress this way, not that way. Wear this much makeup, not that much. Work. Don’t work. Home school is God’s way. Public school is God’s way. Christian school is God’s way. Drink. Don’t drink. Smoke. Don’t smoke. Dance. Don’t dance. This is God’s worship style. If we’re all about God’s glory, there’s no room for any of this. Do whatever you do for God’s glory without comparisons. God has freed you from judging others. You don’t understand God’ sovereign grace until you realize you are a beggar who’s been blessed without cause. You had nothing to do with it -- you’re just a receiver.

4. Freedom from Penance

Even repentance can be a sham if we’re trying to approach God with some vestige of self-reliance. Biblical repentance is a freedom we can enjoy daily, while penance is its counterfeit.

Repentance/Penance

Comes with empty hands/Tries to bargain with God

Acknowledges real sin as against God/Makes excuses for sin

Grieves over displeasing God/Grieves over getting caught

Asks for help to do better/Promises to do better

Is willing to publicly confess, if needed/Is too proud to publicly confess

Relies on God's promises to us/Relies on own promises to God

Turns outward, away from self, to God/Turns inward on self

Produces freedom, joy, and confidence/Produces guilty feelings, anxiety

God has obligated himself to receive any repentant sinner who comes to him. Without this realization, true repentance is impossible. Until we realize that God is for us, we cannot truly be for God.

[Alamo-Girl]

The encoding and decoding we call language is indeed ordered, i.e. semiosis.

However - a big however - an argument or statement made by use of words and syntax is not necessarily logical as is evidenced by the existence of "logical fallacies" per se.

In sum, if the practice of using words constitutes logic then there could be no illogical statements whatsoever.

[hosepipe]

[ The encoding and decoding we call language is indeed ordered, i.e. semios ]

So true.. The vista of "The Observer" becomes then pregnant with 2nd reality..

What a blessing it will be when language becomes obsolete..
Its such a clumsy way to communicate..

[Alamo-Girl]

What a blessing it will be when language becomes obsolete.. Its such a clumsy way to communicate..

It certainly is! Thank you so much for your insights.

[adiaireton8]

All statements presume the fundamental principle of logic, which has its foundation in metaphysics (i.e. the science of being as being). In isolation there can be no "illogical" statements (not to be confused with unintelligible statements). Only *combinations* of statements can be illogical, when the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Reformers do not believe that baptism has any salvific effects.

See here .

Why then do you baptize infants? (Or are you a Reformed Baptist?)

-A8

[adiaireton8]

I have been told that in Catholicism, once a person is baptized he is saved ONLY until the commission of the first mortal sin (upon reaching the age of reason). At that exact moment, and barring some special dispensation by God, the person is no longer saved and is forever destined to hell IF nothing changes and he dies. I have been told that during this time the Holy Spirit departs the body. The good news of course is that the person can confess his sin to a priest and the priest can reinstate the person to saved status. At this time the Holy Spirit re-enters the body. This process is then repeated throughout life. Does this square with your understanding?

I have never heard that before. Neither baptism nor confirmation are repeatable. Even after mortal sins, if one goes to confession (sacrament of reconciliation) and receives absolution, then one can receive the Eucharist. But the sacrament of reconciliation, so far as I understand, is not (or does not effect) a re-entering of the Holy Spirit into the body of the penitent; it restores the penitent into communion with the Church and with God (including with the divine Person of the Holy Spirit). Therefore, if the Holy Spirit were completely gone after a confirmed Catholic commits a mortal sin, that person would have to be re-baptized, and re-confirmed to restore the presence of the Spirit. But since the Church does not re-baptize or re-confirm, it seems that according to Catholic theology and praxis the Spirit does not "depart the body" of the Catholic who commits a mortal sin.

-A8

[HarleyD]

Where in the article does it deny that the Holy Spirit indwells a person? And where does the Catholic Church deny the "blood atonement of Christ"?

The Holy Spirit, according to Catholic definition, is nothing more that the Word, and wisdom, of God.

Holy Spirit But though we distinguish absolutely and essentially between generation and spiration, it is a very delicate and difficult task to say what the difference is. St. Thomas (I, Q. xxvii), following St. Augustine (Do Trin., XV, xxvii), finds the explanation and, as it the were, the epitome, of the doctrine in principle that, in God, the Son proceeds through the Intellect and the Holy Ghost through the Will. The Son is, in the language of Scripture, the image of the Invisible God, His Word, His uncreated wisdom. God contemplates Himself and knows Himself from all eternity, and, knowing Himself, He forms within Himself a substantial idea of Himself, and this substantial thought is His Word. ...

The Holy Spirit, as His name indicates, is Holy in virtue of His origin, His spiration; He comes therefore from a holy principle; now holiness resides in the will, as wisdom is in the intellect. Holy Spirit

Now I will confess the article is extremely unclear on the precise doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I've read the article four times now and can't make heads or tails out of it. FK could be right that the Catholic belief is that He pops in from time to time. However this isn't the way I read the article nor is it what I've been told by some Catholics. I read the doctrine of the Church and have been told by Catholics that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than the wisdom of God coming from His word (oops).

All this makes me wonder what do the Catholics believe on the Holy Spirit? It is confusing because different Catholics denominations as noted in the article (another oops) hold all sorts of differing opinions on the matter. If you so believe in the Holy Spirit, how do you know that you have Him? Isn't that all part of our faith discussion? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and does He guide you? How do you know?

Atonement - As far as atonement, get with the times. The blood atonement was sooooooo 15th century. You need to update your theology with the latest thought coming out of the Vatican for the last 500 years. I would suggest reading up on the Atonement

More than twelve centuries before this, the same dogma was proclaimed in the words of the Nicene Creed, "who for us men and for our salvation, came down, took flesh, was made man; and suffered. "And all that is thus taught in the decrees of the councils may be read in the pages of the New Testament. ...The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics.

(d) These ideas retained their force well into the Middle Ages. But the appearance of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement. It may be said, indeed, that this book marks an epoch in theological literature and doctrinal development.

A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected

the views of St. Anselm and Abelard, the two men who in different ways were the fathers of Scholasticism, shaped the course of later medieval theology. The strange notion of the rights of Satan, against which they had both protested, now disappears from the pages of our theologians.

As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart.

According to Catholic theology for the last 500 years, Christ did not pay any penalty for our sins. It was only a sacrafice of love. Christ set the example of love. The first 1500 years the Church fathers were just barbaric savages to believe Christ ACTUALLY paid our sinful debt. I would have expected that they taught you this in Cathecism.

[HarleyD]

If you know of even one verse that gives one infallible knowledge *now* that one is elect for glory, I would like to see it.

If you don't know that your "elected" *now* these verses are utterly stupid...

Col 3:12-15 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender feelings of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another and forgiving yourselves, if anyone has a complaint against any. As Christ forgave you, so also you do. And above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which you also are called in one body, and be thankful.

If you don't know that you are the elect *now* then how can you do any of this?

[.30Carbine]

For who could discern the totality of good and evil except God himself.
For men can easily see good as evil and evil as good

Dear Pipe, thanks so much for the ping!

I have been listening with great pleasure to Focus on the Family Radio Theatre's presentation of George MacDonald's At the Back of the North Wind, which wonderfully portrays this concept through story.

[Forest Keeper]

Whatsit cost for a caucus speedo and ceremonial toupe'?...

You know ... to look good at the pool..

Why, only three easy payments of $19.99. Plus, if you order now, you'll also get the Wonder-Mop (the one used by the astronauts) with three extra replacement chamois.

[adiaireton8]

First, how do you know that the word "elect" in Col 3:12 is referring to "election to glory" and not merely "election to grace"? Without knowing *that*, this verse would not show you that you are elect for glory.

Second, how do you know that no apostates-to-be ever read this verse and interpret it to mean that they are elect for glory? If apostates-to-be can read this verse and interpret it that way, then just because you interpret it as meaning that you are elect for glory does not show infallibly that you are elect for glory. You could still turn out to be one of those apostates-to-be who mistakenly think the verse is referring to them.

-A8

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Reformers do not believe that baptism has any salvific effects."

[From your post on the Westminster Confession:] It also teaches that [in the sacrament of baptism] "the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost" . (Chapter XXVIII.6)

I admit that this one is tricky. However, take a look at what it says one chapter earlier:

WCF - Chap. XXVII . 3 - III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Now, let's quote your section fully:

WCF - Chap. XXVIII . 6 - VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

Therefore, when we put the two together we may conclude that the actual "act" of baptism confers no salvific grace at all, however, the Holy Spirit will confer grace at baptism as He so desires. Reformers do not believe that one minute before baptism a person is unsaved and one minute after he IS saved. Reformers believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith (Eph. 2:8-9).

Why then do you baptize infants? (Or are you a Reformed Baptist?)

I am a Reformed Baptist who attends a Southern Baptist church. My understanding of why most Reformers baptize infants is that it is a Covenant Baptism. It is a sign and a seal, but it is NOT salvific.

[adiaireton8]

Regarding the New Advent article on the Holy Spirit, nowhere does it deny that the Holy Spirit indwells believers. Nor does the Catholic Church. So, your charge in posts #405 and #427 that the Catholic Church does not believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was incorrect.

Regarding the atonement, I've read St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, and you are misunderstanding the line in the New Advent article that you underlined. In the New Advent article on the atonement, by "innocent man", it is referring to a mere man, not the incarnate Christ. That can be seen if you read the end of the sentence (which you failed to include in your quotation). That ending reads: "on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature." But Christ is not a mere creature.

The Catholic Church nowhere denies the "blood atonement of Christ". Catholics believe that we are reconciled to God through the blood of Christ.

But how about focusing on one thing at a time? Let's resolve this question of how you know now with certainty that you are elect for glory.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

When people claim that the sacraments are means of grace, and then deny that the sacraments are in any way salvific, it is hard for me to see how they are not contradicting themselves. And if it is not in any way salvific, then *why* do it? As Flannery O'Connor once said, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it."

-A8

[adiaireton8]

A thing is true because He(God) says it.

Then all 'sola scriptura' types must believe that that sentence itself is false, because that sentence is not in the Bible.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost,

If the Holy Spirit does not do anything in baptism, then there is no "efficacy of Baptism". And if grace is not conferred by the Holy Spirit in baptism, then the claim that "by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost" is simply false. They can't have it both ways. Either grace is conferred through the sacraments or not.

-A8

[Forest Keeper]

Neither baptism nor confirmation are repeatable.

Yes, my error in not being clear. I meant that I've been told that the process of committing mortal sin, losing salvation (Spirit gone), confessing, regaining salvation (Spirit back), is repeated.

But the sacrament of reconciliation, so far as I understand, is not (or does not effect) a re-entering of the Holy Spirit into the body of the penitent; it restores the penitent into communion with the Church and with God (including with the divine Person of the Holy Spirit).

OK, I don't claim to know what is correct Catholic theology on this matter, I was just reporting what I have been told by those who have convinced me they know what they're talking about. :) If I read you correctly above, then a person who is in a damned state (post-mortal sin, but before reconciliation) still has the Spirit within him (all this is in the alternative to what Harley has found on Catholic websites :) but is just not in communion with the Spirit. If so, then what do you say happens when such a person dies before reconciliation? Wouldn't the only conclusion be that the Spirit has failed in His job? Wouldn't that be a breakage of the holy seal that the Spirit IS and represents?

[HarleyD]

First, how do you know that the word "elect" in Col 3:12 is referring to "election to glory" and not merely "election to grace"?

Are you trying to make the distinction that there are two separate elections; election to glory and election to grace or simply saying election in scripture does not refer to election to "glory" at all but only election to grace?

If the first interpretation is correct then it's rather interesting because this is what the Methodists believe with their two forms of graces. Two graces, two election. Problem solved. Trouble is scripture makes no such distinction. This is manufactured. The burden would be on you to prove to me that there are two forms of election talked about in scripture.

If the second is correct that election is only in reference to elected to grace, then you would have a problem with verses like the following:

Mar 13:27 And then He shall send His angels and shall gather His elect from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven.

or

Isa 65:9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah one who inherits My mountains; and My elect will inherit it, and My servants will dwell there.

These verses (and others) would not support your theory that the term "elect" in scripture refers only to elected to grace. By your definition, with the verse in Matthew, anybody who is elected to grace (persumably everyone) would be gather together.

So that leaves you with trying to convince me the scriptures talks about two sets of elections and how you know which election is being talked about.

Second, how do you know that no apostates-to-be ever read this verse and interpret it to mean that they are elect for glory?

I would say an apostate (probably several) have read this verse and probably used it on a number of occasions. So? An apostate might be able to imitate many of the things Paul lays out in Col 3 but they will NOT be able to "let the peace of Christ rule in your heart". They are like the magicians of Egypt who could imitate some of God's miracles to Pharaoh but not all.

Under your interpretation, if this was written to those "elected to grace", then Paul would be telling apostates to let the peace of Christ rule in their heart. Obviously this wouldn't make any sense.

[HarleyD]

Can you point FK and myself to some concise doctrinal writing that clearly defines the purpose of Holy Spirit from the Catholic perspective? I'm sure we would be appreciate the clarification.

As far as the Atonement, you might have read St. Anselm' Cur Deus Homo but you must not have read newadvent. It was from St. Anselm's writings, in the spirit of the traditions of the fathers, the Church reinvented themselves in regards to the Atonement. The blood atonement is no longer the Catholic belief. Instead they hold to an Orthodox belief that the atonement was only a sacrifice showing love.

I find the article extremely interesting because they say the early church fathers for 1500 years believe in a blood atonement but Anselm came along providing clarification. Even though this wasn't a big deal to the Reformers they went back to the teachings of the early fathers while the Church "progressed". They insinuate this as a reason why Protestantism is bad because they don't have all these "wise" teachers to evolve the Church. HA!

What the article fails to mention is that the atonement wasn't an issue simply because it didn't come up until after the Protestants left. The Protestants are following the original teachings of the atonement in the western church while the Catholics have adopted the Eastern Orthodox position.

We've had this discussion out on the Luther/Eramaus thread with several Catholic, including members of the clergy. I verified what they stated through the newadvent site which clearly states this and I even posted snips. Sorry, but I would like Catholics to understand the official teachings of the Church. It helps all of us in our discussions. The atonement to a Catholic is nothing more than the supreme act of love. Nothing more. Write the Vatican if you don't believe me.

[adiaireton8]

As my priest has told me, it is precisely the presence of God in hell that makes hell so miserable for the damned. The love of God is for them like a burning fire that is painful and repulsive. In other words, God never leaves; it would be impossible for Him to do so. He is necessarily everywhere, sustaining all things by the word of His power. And of course the Holy Spirit never "fails". But in Catholic doctrine humans have free will. Humans put themselves in hell; the Holy Spirit does not force anyone into heaven or hell.

-A8