Posted on 12/15/2012 2:10:56 PM PST by narses
Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII
When the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, "without which it is impossible to please God" and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, "if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise," as the Apostle says, "grace is no more grace." The Council also reiterated the relationship of good works to man justified by faith.
Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. XVI
Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: "Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name"; and "Do not lose confidence, which hath a great reward." Hence, to those who work well "unto the end" and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.
Except that did not teach what you are saying they taught. If you say, justified by Faith, yes, but never did they say that it was Faith alone in the sense of Luther and Calvin and more to the point, you will never find Calvins Monogersim. It was always Christ saves thru his Grace [that is where the alone stops] and faith is necessary but Faith has to expressed thru the Christian virtue of Love as Christ said over, and over, and over again as well as St. Paul [cf. Gal 5:6] and among the three Theological Virtures, faith, hope and love, it is love that is the greatest [1 Cor 13:13].
As GK Chesterton stated, the Reformers right on many things they affirm, but they are always wrong on what the reject. So affirming Faith, absolutely, but separating it from living the Christian moral virtues [10 commandments, Beatitudes] of which Love God with all your heart mind and soul and neighbor as yourself fullfill.
Protestant thelogy separates these which is why Calvins Forensic Imputed can’t ever reconcile God’s Love, if God Loves me, he never comes into communion with me under Calvins Forensic Faith alone/Divine Monogersim. Love implies a giving of ones total self just as CHrist did on the Cross, in response to his call and because of Grace [ALone here is fine with me], we come into Faith and Live the virtue of Christian Love, both of which we can only do because of God’s Grace, which would be more synergestic [both the Catholic and Eastern ORthodox view]
You and your heretical cut-n-pastes, out of context and off point are boring.
That you denigrate those who are Catholic or choose to worship on Sunday or celebrate Easter and Christmas and even those who venerate the Cross tells me and all how small and narrow the cult you adhere to is.
BORING. REALLY BORING.
I don’t denigrate those who are Catholic. I feel sorry for them for having been duped by the RCC.
“I don’t denigrate those who are Catholic.”
You claim they are not Christian, you also denigrate those who celebrate Easter, Christmas and venerate the Cross as “PAGAN”.
And you are a BORE.
When have I denigrated them? I have simply stated my views on the subjects. What they do with that information is not my problem. If it causes them to feel denegrated for whatever reason is not a reason to stop explaining what my views are.
Calling people PAGAN is a denigration. And you are a boor and a BORE.
Saying I believe something is pagan is only saying it is pagan. If the person feels it applies to them and feels denigrated it’s not my problem. It certainly would be something they would need to do some self examination to understand why they thought it applied to them however.
“The Church is a bit confusing when it comes to understanding what it believes.”
Not at all. Unless you think Our Lord is confusing, and many do.
Matt. 7:18 - Jesus says that sound trees bear good fruit. But there is no guarantee that a sound tree will stay sound. It could go rotten.
Matt. 7:21 - all those who say “Lord, Lord” on the last day will not be saved. They are judged by their evil deeds.
Matt. 12:30-32 - Jesus says that he who is not with Him is against Him, therefore (the Greek for “therefore” is “dia toutos” which means “through this”) blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. This means that failing to persevere in Jesus’ grace to the end is the unforgivable sin against the Spirit. We must persevere in faith to the end of our lives.
Matt. 22:14 - Jesus says many are called but few are chosen. This man, who was destined to grace, was at God’s banquet, but was cast out.
Luke 8:13 - Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it.
Luke 12:42-46 - we can start out as a faithful and wise steward, then fall away and be assigned to a place with the unfaithful.
Luke 15:11-32 – in the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that we can be genuine sons of the Father, then leave home and die, then return and be described as “alive again.”
John 6:70-71 - Jesus chose or elected twelve, yet one of them, Judas, fell. Not all those predestined to grace persevere to the end.
John 15:1-10 - we can be in Jesus (a branch on the vine), and then if we don’t bear fruit, are cut off, wither up and die. Paul makes this absolutely clear in Rom. 11:20-23.
John 17:12 - we can be given to Jesus by the Father (predestined to grace) and yet not stay with Jesus, like Judas.
John 6:37 - those who continue to come to Jesus He won’t cast out. But it’s a continuous, ongoing action. We can leave Jesus and He will allow this because He respects our freewill.
John 6:39 - Jesus will not lose those the Father gives Him, but we can fall away, like Judas. God allows us not to persevere.
John 6:40 - everyone who sees the Son and believes means the person “continues” to believe. By continuing to believe, the person will persevere and will be raised up. Belief also includes obedience, which is more than an intellectual belief in God.
John 6:44 - Jesus says no one can come to me unless the Father “draws” him. This “drawing” is an ongoing process.
John 10:27-28 - when Jesus says, “no one shall snatch them out of my hands,” He does not mean we can’t leave His hands. We can choose to walk away from Him.
Rev. 2:4-5 – Jesus tells the Ephesians that they abandoned the love they had at first and have fallen. Jesus warns them to repent and do the works they did at first, otherwise He will remove their lampstand (their awaited place in heaven).
Rev. 3:4 - in Sardis, Jesus explained that some people received the white garment and soiled it with sin.
Rev. 3:5 - Jesus says whoever conquers will not be blotted out of the book of life (see Exodus 32:33). This means that we can be blotted out of the book of life. We can have salvation, and then lose salvation by our choice.
Rev. 3:11 - Jesus says to hold fast to what we have, so that no one may seize our crown. Jesus teaches us that we can have the crown of salvation and lose it.
Rev. 13:10; 14:12 - we are called from heaven for the endurance and faith of the saints, keeping the commandments and faith.
Rev. 21:7 - we must conquer in order to share in our heritage and become a true son of Jesus.
Rev. 22:19 - we can have a share in the tree of life in God’s holy city and yet have that share taken away from us.
From http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/04/doctrinal-chaos-argument-one-of.html:
There was no infallible teaching authority under the Old Covenant system, and this even resulted in a number of competing viewpoints once the idea of theology began to develop after the death of the last prophet. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, the schools of Hillel vs. Shamai were all sects in existence at the time of Christ. If God did not find it necessary to install an infallible teaching authority under this covenant with the competition of viewpoints that resulted, then why should we think that any disunity under the New Covenant is unacceptable?
Of course, at this point, the Catholic or Orthodox apologist may retort that because there has been a change in covenants to a “better” covenant, the New, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then the gift of infallibility has been given and God’s standard of unity has changed. There are a few problems with this that come to mind. First, it assumes that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is supposed to cause institutional unity. Where’s the exegetical argument? Second, as it applies to the Roman Catholic Magesterium, the counter-argument assumes that the Holy Spirit would only be given to a teaching authority. Thirdly and related to the second point, Scripture, especially in the Old Testament prophets, says that not only will the teaching authority not be more centralized, it will be more decentralized! The prophets make it clear that what was given exclusively to the teaching classes of the prophets, priests, and kings, namely the charismata, would be given to all the members of the New Covenant:
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:33-34)
“You will have plenty to eat and be satisfied and praise the name of the LORD your God, Who has dealt wondrously with you; then My people will never be put to shame. Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and there is no other; and My people will never be put to shame. It will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” (Joel 2:26-29)
Of course you will trust the Bible, Arius had his view of the Bible, Nestorius had his view, going back to the 2nd Century, Marcion and the Gnostics had their view. The funny thing is everybody claims that they are reading the Bible and they have the correc interpretation. So, you join a great tradition of folks thinking they have read the Bible and come up with orthodox Doctrine.
Comments such as this ignore the fact that even among the Apostles, their "authority" was not infallible. Peter, for example, had to be corrected by Paul concerning the doctrine over Gentiles needing to be circumcised to be Christians. God has given us His inspired (God breathed) Scripture so that it contains the infallible truths the Apostles DID teach and it insures we can remain faithful to those revealed truths even two thousand years later. On the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, there is unity - even among "Protestants" - as long as the Scriptures remain the authority that governs our rule of faith. From the same link above concerning the necessity of "unity":
In fact, according to Reformed theology, God in His providence allows for competition among viewpoints so that the truth will be revealed and refined (1 Corinthians 11:19). In this case, disunity is a means unto an end. Lastly, the appeal to John 10:16 and John 17:20-21 is eisegetical since the unity being spoken of there refers to a unity of all people groups (i.e., ethnic and diachronic) rather than an institutional unity (see John 11:51-52).
In summary, to assume that the main function of one’s rule of faith is to be a problem-solving device which brings about visible unity simply begs the question in favor of high-church ecclesiology. Rather, the rule of faith is only supposed to show us what we should believe about God and our duty to Him. Thus, the argument is dead because it commits this fundamental fallacy.
Overstatement of Division: The argument overstates the differences between Protestant groups. In reality, most Protestant groups are very much united doctrinally. As J.I. Packer noted:
“The extent of unanimity among its adherents has been remarkable. If one reviews the historic Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Congregational and Baptist confessions, or compares, for example Calvin’s Institutes with the systematic theologies of F. Pieper the Lutheran, Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof the Presbyterians, E.A. Litton and W.H. Griffith Thomas the Anglicans, W.B. Pope the Methodist and A.H. Strong the Baptist, or if one examines the preaching and spirituality of churches which actively upheld sola Scriptura as a principle for determining faith and action, what impresses is the oneness of overall outlook and the width of the area over which substantially identical positions were taught. Whether those involved felt close to each other as they sparred over points of specific agreement, or defended their denominations against criticism, is perhaps doubtful; but what is not doubtful is that those who historically have held to sola Scriptura, recognizing no magesterium save that of the Bible itself, have been at one on all essentials and on most details too, in a very striking way. If evidence tending to confirm the clarity of Scripture is called for, this fact will surely qualify.”
I don’t think CB is a bore at all and continuing to call him that is making it personal - something that you seem to complain to the moderator about on a regular basis. I think hypocrisy is boring.
Is it all that much different when we get called "heretics" and "anathematized" and going to hell because we aren't Catholic like them? I think some people would be delighted if they could stop others from posting their beliefs. That way, they could make Free Republic the All Catholic/All the time website. They certainly dominate the Religion Forum enough. One wonders why they continue to post provocative threads that denigrate all the Non-Catholics here and then complain when anyone dares make a peep in protest. I wonder how much money they donate collectively to this site?
Personally I don’t get offended at whatever they call me. It’s interesting to me that they take it personally when we quote scripture which points to error in the RCC teaching. If one is assured in their beliefs and that they conform to scripture why would they be offended?
The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.
This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Quote the actual scriptures not YOPI
Quote the actual scriptures not YOPI
boatbums:
You have articulated a Reformed view, which is a view that did not exist until the 16th century. Philip Schaff, the German Reformed Church Historian, who was among the 1st Protestant Church Historians to go back and examine the Church Fathers makes the point. If one believes that from the Time of Christ and then the death of the last apostle, that Christian Doctrine was absent till the 16th century, I find that totally heretical in that it goes against Christ and the Incarnation that he came and passed on the faith to the apostles and that faith was handed on and as Christ said, I will be with till the end of the ages and I will send the Holy Spirit to you to lead you to all truth. That occurred at Pentecost. So from basically from the death of St. John the Apostle, nobody had a source of orthdodoxy.
This line of thinking is similar to the Marxist, in that they hate “History” for to them, History has been shaped by Western Culture and Christianity. Therefore, it has produced a culture bias that goes against the marxist view that “We [a set group of marxist elite]” can shape the future into what “We [a set group of marxist elite” think it should be. In other words, History is shunned and the future is “what the marxist say it is in terms of morality, social virtures, law, family, etc”.
Now, not that I am suggesting that Reformed Christians are marxist. No, but the underlying principle is not dissimiliar in that both the Protestant principle of sola scriptura and modern secular individualism/marxism, etc are both rooted in the rationist thought that came out of the 16th century and was a direct consequence of the Protestant movement.
Packer can make that claim all he wants, I think he is an Anglican who is Reformed in his theology. I don’t even need to go any further than the Anglican Community that at the Doctrinal level [Individuals in any confession may embrace said Church’s doctrines at different levels, that applies to Catholics as well] is split among several factions, Reformed, Evangelical, those similar to the Methodist, those that are similar to the Unitarians (think Espicopalians in the U.S.] and those with more Catholic leanings [referred to as Anglo-catholics, many of which have recently come into full communion with Rome].
Now, I do agree with you that Jewish Beliefs were not monolothic, that is correct, but that doesn’t translate into thinking that Christ, who was the 2nd Person of the Trinity and thus was God’s Eternal Word, came into the world to leave humanity with no objective doctrine. That to me flies in the face of Incarnational Theology.
Christ became Incarnate to reveal the Truth of God [Truth/True and Love are the 2 words Christ used the most in the Gospels] thus I can’t accept that Christ when he founded a Church [St. Matthews Gospel states that He did, Mt. 16:18-19 and St. Paul refers to as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, c.f 1 Timothy 3:15] decided to leave those followers who came after the Apostles grasping at straws to determine what is orthodox Doctrine.
Ulitimately, all of those Protestant groups you cite embrace some in total, or some in degree, the confessions of the 3 Main Reformed Protestant groups, Anglican [39 articles], Reformed [Westminister] or Lutheran {Aubsberg] and each of those where shaped by the theology of the authors, in the case of the Anglican it was Crammer then later Parker who shaped the final 39 articles, the Westminiser is JOhn Calvin and the Augsberg are Martin Luther.
Now, despite what A.J. Packer states, none of these are in agreement on the Justification [100%], Sacraments [100%}, Liturgy and Worshp [100%] and that is just the start. Yes, they all uphold to some degree sola Scriptura but that has not led to a Doctrinal consistency at the Confessional level, again, not withstanding that in any Protestant Confession as well as the Catholic Church, you will find individuals at various ends of the spectrum in terms of how much of said Confession they embrace.
Even though the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church have not been in Full COmmunion since the 11th century, it is remarkable how similar they are in Doctrine and Liturgy [say 99%]. the Only thing really still a major stumbling block is the nature of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as even the Orthodox concede Rome did have a Primacy in the early Church, now what is the nature of it and how it is exercised is the major question there.
They embrace the Councils and Creeds [thus Holy Tradition] in the same fashion as the Catholic Church and maybe more so thus It is the Church and 1) Sacred Scripture and 2) Sacred Tradition that are one unified reality in that they all flow from Christ. It is the protestant position of sola scriptura that is the historical novelty and that is the reality whether you or any of the other Protestant guys/ladies here will acknowledge it.
Totally heretical? But what of the novelties developed, then many times later rammed through various councils with the claim the Holy Spirit was behind the process? The fruit produced in 1870 was quite sour. The various Orthodox of the brethren to the East took offense at that one. Many bishops in the Latin church took offense too, though were eventually pressured to bend, facing the choice of submitting to decree, or become "Old Catholic". Since personal positions, office & mens' livelihoods were on the line, the stubborn & proud seem to have gotten their way, by hook, crook, & slide (subtle substitutions, both of precise phrasings, and implied meanings) causing a few notables whom opposed the process & it's eventual result, to need abandon their own previous understanding of both the Word, and "Tradition" itself! It's becomes apparent that it's always been that way (to limited but SIGNIFICANT aspect) the more carefully into history one looks.
Looking back merely to 1870, there is this analysis from an Eastern brother which closely examines details of the process concerning papal supremacy, over & above that produced of previous councils, was finalized (calcified?).
The process itself was appalling. The Vatican Dogma
Rationist thought a consequence of the Reformation? Yes, to an extent. Reason & investigation opposed to bowing before sola ecclesia, which itself is not the firmest of foundations, "evolving" as it can shown to have...
At the same time, it was much the Hellenistic "rationist" process long applied to scriptural understandings, which lead to all the man-made embroidered finery associated with interpretations of the texts themselves, producing such things as Purgatory & Indulgences (with all their extended meanings) the abuse of the latter being much a justification for challenging the then status quo in the first place.
So don't think! Surrender rational thought, if it lead anywhere but to bowing before Romish dogmatic proclamations, crafted under the loose mantle of "infallibility" which is found to be much like the hide of living animal, which scurries away when fully confronted, claiming then itself to be only strictly limited. IT IS NO WONDER MUCH OF THE WORLD IS IN REBELLION. They have been given yet another excuse for it, which is today quite difficult to overcome, by anything other than the Word, promised to not return to Him void.
Tradition must follow scripture. Not the other way around. Works (actual good works) follow, spring to life in the freedom of being cleansed of sin. That the cleansing is to occur repeatedly in process, can be seen in the foot washing Christ Himself humbled himself to perform. We of course should do likewise, for one another, not casting fears upon one another that the original sacrifice was not enough to seal us unto him (simply for reason of having dirty feet, from walking through the dust from which we were formed) with our baptisms signifying our own deaths to our own previous lives. For now, those of us whom have been born of Him & sanctified of Him, need only our feet washed...to better enter in to join Him at His Supper which we must partake of, or He will have no part with (in?) us. That food, is what gives us life, draws us closer to Him.
Is what I say here not lawful? By letter, spirit, and tradition? I speak of proper order of operations, putting not the cart of our own response, before the power of His own pull of ourselves to Himself (the Father) by Christ His only begotten, broken for us, so that we may live.
This is where the difference truly lay, between much of the way the process is spoken of, a "which comes first" then "what can follow". Our own efforts simply cannot suffice. It is ONLY Him in us, living within us, that brings the proper fruit, the works which will withstand the testing fires of His judgement. Romans chpt 7
That is backwards. Shall we once again need show here Patristric Fathers whom indicated that scripture itself must be foremost & final test of doctrine? that can be easily enough done. For the umpteenth time.
The bible says many times to individuals to seek and search
after the things of God. Paul writes of convincing and comparing words to scripture, calling the men of Berea “noble-minded”.
2Tim. 3:15 speaks of scripture giving the wisdom leading to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
God saves and chastens Israel as a group, but each individual Jew will be born again unto salvation, or not, as the rest of us, by his own belief in Jesus as Savior.
As for killing, I misread a history book, probably from my unloving heart, and posted here an unloving statement. It was stupid of me, further, to seem to tell the Holy Spirit
what He would do.
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.