This is not Reformed theology. There absolutely IS a transformation, a real one. We are a "new creation". The old has gone, the new has come. A remnant still remains however. Thus Paul says that whatever he wants to do he doesn't, and whatever he does not want to do, this he keeps on doing. But Paul's message is not that we can't live for Christ. His message is very positive.
THAT, my friend, is EXACTLY the problem! Your view of philosophy sees God and man on an equal plane acting on the same level. Thus, you see God and man pulling the same cart with the same tools! If man pulls 1% of the cart, you claim it takes away from God's Sovereignty. You cannot comprehend that God and man work on different levels. God is transcendent, beyond our level. Thus, we can attribute to God the primary cause of our salvation. ONE HUNDRED percent on that level, God grants graces and without those graces, man can do nothing good. Meanwhile, at the same time and on a different level, man is RESPONSIBLE to ACT upon the graces he has been given.
I would say that we understand primary and secondary causes just fine. We just define and use them differently from you. (You may have seen some of the recent discussion of them in the context of the WCF.) Anyway, in the theater of sin, we say that God ordains it as a primary cause, but man carries it out as the secondary cause. Thus WE say that man gets the blame for it. You, OTOH, apparently say that primary and secondary causes do not apply to sin. But if they did, you would say that God as the primary cause gets all the blame, thus you accuse us of believing that God is the author of sin.
Now, in the theater of salvation, you give credit for salvation to both God as primary cause and to man as secondary cause (grace + works = salvation). We, OTOH, give all the credit for salvation to God as primary cause. Thus, you say that for us man is "crushed" or "worthless" since we glorify God alone. We will never apologize for giving God all the glory.
So, I really don't think your criticism regarding man and God being on the same or different planes applies. We know man and God are on different planes. You and I disagree on the correct application of primary and secondary causes.
By dragging God into the empirical world, by ignoring universals, by rationalizing and simplifying the utterly transcendent, by forcing an "either/or" choice in the typical paradoxical points of Christian theology, by ignoring great swathes of Scripture, you must choose one extreme OR the other...Either God is Sovereign, OR man contributes and thus, God is no longer sovereign. Scriptures CLEARLY indicate BOTH occur - but you won't have it because your philosophy does not allow it. This a priori philosophy prevents you from seeing the seemingly paradoxical proposition that Christianity had held for 1500 years.
What are you talking about? The Reformers were the ONLY ones who clung to universals and antithesis. The Reformers combated the Renaissance philosophers and later modern philosophers, who were forced to give up their attempt to find a universal to reconcile man and God. They were forced to give up because they allowed things like secular humanism, existentialism, and rationalism to enter their models. It was the Roman Catholics who supported this growing humanism!
For example, the Catholics were pushing the idea of an incomplete Fall, thus leaving man with an autonomous intellect. The Renaissance philosophers LOVED THIS! The Reformers, OTOH, held to the Biblical view of a complete Fall. They said that only God was autonomous. The next 500 years have sadly led us to where we are today in modern philosophy. A philosophy with no absolutes that is controlled by relativism. Again, the Reformers were the ones who fought against this.
“The Reformers combated the Renaissance philosophers and later modern philosophers, who were forced to give up their attempt to find a universal to reconcile man and God. They were forced to give up because they allowed things like secular humanism, existentialism, and rationalism to enter their models. It was the Roman Catholics who supported this growing humanism!
For example, the Catholics were pushing the idea of an incomplete Fall, thus leaving man with an autonomous intellect. The Renaissance philosophers LOVED THIS! The Reformers, OTOH, held to the Biblical view of a complete Fall. They said that only God was autonomous. The next 500 years have sadly led us to where we are today in modern philosophy. A philosophy with no absolutes that is controlled by relativism. Again, the Reformers were the ones who fought against this.”
And then, of course, there are we Orthodox, doing and believing the same things for 2000 years. How do the reformers account for, or better said, dismiss us, FK?
Forgive me, I can't keep up with all the Protestant beliefs... Unfortunately, I mixed Lutheranism and Calvinism there in my sentence. Disregard the "extrinsic justification" part. However, it is my belief that Calvinism crushes man so that God can 'retain' His sovereignty. Anything credit to man, even under the auspices of grace, is discounted by the 'reformed'.
I would say that we understand primary and secondary causes just fine. We just define and use them differently from you. (You may have seen some of the recent discussion of them in the context of the WCF.) Anyway, in the theater of sin, we say that God ordains it as a primary cause, but man carries it out as the secondary cause. Thus WE say that man gets the blame for it. You, OTOH, apparently say that primary and secondary causes do not apply to sin. But if they did, you would say that God as the primary cause gets all the blame, thus you accuse us of believing that God is the author of sin.
Really? Well, if man is the secondary cause of sin, why is it so difficult to understand that man is the secondary cause of his own salvation? I do not understand your refusal to attribute to man anything of value - although you claim that man is transformed and is a new creation in Christ - and cannot be so of his own effort, but of God.
Now, in the theater of salvation, you give credit for salvation to both God as primary cause and to man as secondary cause (grace + works = salvation). We, OTOH, give all the credit for salvation to God as primary cause. Thus, you say that for us man is "crushed" or "worthless" since we glorify God alone. We will never apologize for giving God all the glory.
IF you understand "primary" and "secondary" causes, then why is God alone glorified when it is God Himself who raises up man and saves Him? Why do you continue to not accept that secondary causes ARE real, and not abstract? Will man be saved if He refuses? Secondary causes are not fictional.
What are you talking about? The Reformers were the ONLY ones who clung to universals and antithesis. The Reformers combated the Renaissance philosophers and later modern philosophers, who were forced to give up their attempt to find a universal to reconcile man and God.
I think you need to consider that the roots of the Reformation PRECEDE the Reformation... Nominalism, that corrupted result of Scholasticism, an empiricism that wounded the mystery of the faith, was the philosophy that Luther and Calvin operated under. Ockham, for example, was Luther's hero.
For example, the Catholics were pushing the idea of an incomplete Fall, thus leaving man with an autonomous intellect.
Whether the Fall was incomplete or not does not take away the necessity of grace entirely dependent upon from God.
A philosophy with no absolutes that is controlled by relativism. Again, the Reformers were the ones who fought against this.
If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Protestantism is BUILT upon the individualism of relativism. The current Pope has strongly written against relativism. Meanwhile, more and more relativists form more independent communities based upon their OWN opinions. Apparently, Christianity is no longer a revealed religion, in their eyes, but one of relativism.
Please.