Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
From Calvin's Commentary:
5 The term faith is employed here to mean a special faith, as we shall afterwards see from the context. A special faith is of such a kind as does not apprehend Christ wholly, for redemption, righteousness, and sanctification, but only in so far as miracles are performed in his name. Judas had a faith of this kind, and he wrought miracles too by means of it. Chrysostom distinguishes it in a somewhat different manner, calling it the faith of miracles, not of doctrines.3 This, however, does not differ much from the interpretation previously mentioned. By the gift of healings4 every one knows what is meant.
Chrysostom's words are: Pi>stin ouj pau>thn le>gei thtwn ajlla< thwn. "By this faith he means not that of doctrines, but that of miraeles." -- It was called by the schoolmen fides miractelorum (faith of miracles. ) -- Ed.
Addedum:
Before I get the question about how can miracles be done outside of God, please remember that the Egyptian magicians were able to imitate some of the miracles of God through Moses.
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Gen 6:6)
"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Ex 32:14)
These and the rest of your examples seem to focus on the idea of repentance. My only knowledge of repentance is in accordance with sin. Since I doubt that you are trying to argue that God needs to repent of sin, I am confused to your point. From the above two examples, in my NIV the word used is "grieved" instead of "repented" in the first example, and the word in my version in Exodus is "relented" (to be sorry), not "repented". In either case, I do not see reasonable evidence that God is wishy-washy or weak. In my personal view, I see God carrying out His plan in perfection, which includes teaching us through these stories. God appears to be weak or at fault, but the truth is that He is not and we are being given an educational, spiritual tool. We obviously learn something by every action God takes.
The Protestant notion of God being a captive of His own Plan is nonsense.
Kosta, as a member of the other side, I must confess that I learn more from you about my own beliefs than from any other poster. This is also a new one to me. On behalf of everyone on my side, I would just like to apologize for not ascribing the human frailties of indecision, personal weakness, and utter dependence on other people to accomplish a goal, to God. (If I may be as presumptuous as you, what I stated seems to fit your model of God rather well.)
"Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness." Matt 10:1
Irrelevant to my point. K did not call you heretics just because you diligently study the Bible. He calls you heretics because you draw new and false conclusions from your study. That you cannot see the difference between these two statements only shows how incapable of reading with comprehension you are. So stop with the triumphalism already. It only makes you look more foolish.
If God knows something is going to happen, what are the odds that it will not happen?
Ah, now you question God's motives. Why does God not prevent any and all calamities?
Who is to say he doesn't cause them? I suspect that the calamities that befall us are all a part of God's eternal plan, don't you?
Why does God not ensure that every Christian lives a happy and joyous life and never doubts?
I don't believe that any Christian on earth gets to fall in that category. Why should all of them? Are you questioning God's motives?
I don't know -- do you?
The Bible says that Judas was chosen "that the prophecy might be fulfilled." I believe that. Do you?
Why did Jesus choose Peter or Andrew?
Certainly it wasn't because of anything they had done. It was simply part of his plan. Why did Jesus choose you?
He gave you the formal definition of heresy as held by both Orthodox and Catholics. You respond with Webster's definition. Do you know anything about language? Websters and all other general dictionaries merely seek to report the common usage for a word. As usage changes, new editions reflect it. The definition you give reflects common usage of the word heretic.
The definition Bohemund posted is the definition the Church has always used. Even Presbyterians and Episcopalians use it when they put someone on trial for heresy, e.g, Charles Finney in the 1800s and more recently, some Episcopalian wackos.
The key element in defining heresy theologically is that it must be a really chosen error in biblical interpretation (in theology). The Greek word simply means choice. To make a real choice one must first have knowledge of the various choices. So no one can be an unwitting heretic. The second major element is that one must persist in this knowing choice. That's why heretics (those making erroneous doctrinal choices knowingly) are first formally put on notice that their beliefs are erroneous. Only if they do not change their position are they heretics because at that point they are pertinacious.
You meet the second criterion (pertinacity) but not the first. Not because you have not been put on notice but because you seem to be incapable of understanding relatively simple reasoning.
This was discussed on FR threads last summer. You may be surprised to find that I agree with you on this point and said so last summer. If one subtracts the "denominations" that really consist only of a single congregation and subtracts the doubtfully "Christian" and scarcely "Protestant" African Independent Churches and similar groups elsewhere, one ends up with about 8-10,000 real Protestant denominations. I would ask Orthodox and Catholic folks to register this point and avoid the 30,000 figure.
But to you, friend, let me point out that the point being made by whoever used the 30,000 figure stands just as strongly whether the number is 8,000 or 30,000. You have scored a pyrrhic victory in the gotcha game.
The existence of, in addition to 8,000-10,000 Protestant denominations consisting of more than one congregation,is already a scandal and makes laughable any claim that Protestants somehow have continued faithfully in Jesus' and the Apostles' teaching.
So don't crow to long or loudly. If I were you I'd be ashamed, as a Protestant, to pin my case on the existence of "only" 8,000 quarrelling, sniping denominations. I'm deeply ashamed and embarrassed and sorry over the existence of the division between Orthodox and Catholics and the dissent among Catholics. I'd never make it cause for triumphal crowing.
Heresy is in the eye of the beholder. Your church defines it in a way that favors its interpretation and everyone else defines it according to their beleif. You think your position is the right one and we are heretics and I happen to think you and your's are heretics. So who is right, only God knows. But this I do know, there will be no excuse at the judgment seat "but that is what the church taught".
And in your answer to the wrong question you implicitly concede my point, though you didn't realize it. Your answer presumes that a gift can be refused because we all know that gifts can be refused and that a "giver" who will not permit his gift to be refused is not truly a giver but a raper, an imposer, someone who does not give generously and give without caring whether his gift is refused but a "giver" who rapes the freedom of the recipient of his "gift." A "giver" who will not let his "gift" be refused is no giver at all but a tyrant. Your answer to the wrong question gave away the anti-free-will case and concede our free-will point.
a. God did not offer them the gift of faith. b. God did offer them the gift of faith but they refused it.
Your three points assumes that only (a)is true. The conclusion of your syllogism requires that only (a) be true. But if both (a) and (b) are true possibliities, then your syllogism is fallacious.
That's my logic. And you say I failed to show where you are wrong. Since you didn't get it the first time around, I'll be more specific as to the fallacy in your reasoning.
For your conclusion to work, your first premise has to be reformulated to read "Faith is a non-refusable gift from God." Only then can the second premise combined with the first yield the conclusion. But I also showed that no gift can be non-refusable--the very nature of gift is to be refusable. So your first premise presumes a meaning for gift that is manifestly false.
I know that I did not show you where your syllogism was wrong, but that's because you are rather slow on the uptake. A lot of others, including Chronos, did understand me to have shown where you are wrong.
If a woman is raped does she consent? Does she receive a gift? She "receives" something (I won't be more specific) but do you call that a gift? Does she "consent"--only in the sense that she chooses not to suffer additional harm or death. But surely you would not call a "non-refusable" offer a "gift" even though you permit it to be placed in your hands rather than die.
Your point actually proves our pro-free-will argument. We do argue that even under duresss we remain free. We do not believe that God forces himself on us against our will. We do not believe that God rapes us or treats us like puppets on his strings. We believe that a tiny bit of consent is involved in in unjust tyrannous forcings of things up on people.
But that was not even the point at issue. We started with the Scripture that says God gives gifts, above all the gift of faith. I pointed out that a gift cannot be forced on someone, that a gift requires voluntary reception.
Now listen very, very carefully, dear Silvanicustos. My illustration of a burning torch claimed that if someone forces a burning torch into my hands, I am not receiving it (as a gift--because the question was whether a non-refusable offer is a gift). You point out that by holding on to it I "received" it. True but I received it not as a gift but as an imposition.
Here's what your crowingly wrote: "For someone who places such import on the meaning of words, I am surprised that you have completely blown it yet again. In your torch example, the answer is that of course you HAVE received it. You may not have received it willingly, but you nonetheless did, in fact, receive it."
You left out one little word, Custos of the Woods: "received it as a gift.
When you play the gotcha game you'd better be sure you have a strong hand before you smirkingly put your cards down face up.
No, heresy is a theological word. That it has crept into common parlance is irrelevant. The issue on this thread was theological. We were asked whether we consider you non-free-willers to be heretics. You asked us what we believe about heresy. Do us the common courtesy of letting us define heresy for ourselves. You can define it for yourself and we won't bug you. But if you ask us whether we consider non-free-willers heretics but insist that you get to define the terms, you are arrogant.
This definition of heresy goes back to the very earliest days of the Church. Calvin agreed with it. Luther agreed with it. All Protestant churches that still have canon law and rules about beliefs still accept this definition. I anticipated your silly response and that's why I mentioned in passing that Charles Finney was tried for heresy under this definition by the very high Calvinist fathers the non-free-willers venerate--the Princeton Old School Calvinists whose legacy was taken up by Hodge and Warfield.
Do you get that, blue-duncan? This definition of heresy which you dismiss as being merely Catholic special pleading was the definition of heresy held by B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary. It is the universal theological definition of heresy. Webster's dictionary simply gives a non-technical, common-parlance definition that is irrelevant to a discussion of what heresy means for the Church.
Here is Paul again "EVEN IF I had ALL faith, SO AS to move mountains, but had not charity, I am nothing".
Paul is clearly saying that an unlimited faith, ALL faith, is insufficient, if it is without love. He isn't talking about miraculous faith, he is qualifying his statement by saying EVEN IF I HAD ALL FAITH... In other words, faith alone doesn't save.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Here is the next verse. Again, no charity, then the things we DO are ALSO worthless. The context of these verses is that without proper interior disposition of love, faith or works of action are meaningless. We must possess love for our faith or our works to have meaning to God.
Paul is merely saying "faith without love is dead" and "works without love is dead". Consider the last verse:
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity.
Love is the greatest of virtues. Without it, you won't be saved,
Regards
"Do you get that, blue-duncan? This definition of heresy which you dismiss as being merely Catholic special pleading was the definition of heresy held by B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary"
Are you saying that Warfield and Hodge agreed that this is the only definition of heretic?
"her·e·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hr-tk) n. A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church."
Are you saying you can only be a heretic if you "publicly dissent from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church"?
Why would Warfield and Hodge or Calvinists care whether Finney held beliefs contrary to "the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church" when as Presbyterians, they also held opposing beliefs? He was deemed a heretic because he was espousing doctrine contrary to their beliefs, not those of the Roman Catholic Church.
Calvin based his response on the writings of the early church father Chrysostom. Are you disagreeing with the traditions handed down by the early church fathers? You are interpreting scripture. You know this makes you a Protestant.
LOL!!! I highly doubt that Calvin based anything on the Church Fathers, unless he found it convenient to take someone's words out of context to show the "unanimous Christian tradition" on such things as no free will! As for me, I am just using common sense and the understanding of the analogy of faith. I haven't read St. John Chrysostom's interpretation of it - you didn't post that. I would like to read it, if you have it. At any rate, I don't think my interpretation is at odds with the Church, which makes one a Protestant, not interpretating Scripture period! A Protester is one who protests the Church's interpretation on Scripture.
Regards
You have an extremely literalist mind. Obviously Warfield and Hodge substituted Calvinist orthodoxy which they would have called "true Biblical Christianity" for Catholic orthodoxy. At issue was whether to a heretic one has to know one is dissenting and be stubborn about it. Hodge and Warfield agreed on those points. The Webster definition would have been laughed at by Hodge and Warfield. No court of law of any sort will punish someone for what he does unknowingly. And the Church is judicious enough to insist that a person has to be given a chance to change is mind before he is found guilty of heresy. Not all courts do that with all crimes, but knowledge of right and wrong is fundamental to all culpability in any justice system.
By the way, the definition you post is the one from Webster and thus not the one I said Hodge and Warfield held. The one I said they held was the one Bohemund posted some time back which included the pertinacious aspect (which presumes the knowing aspect).
No I was speaking of the man in Matthew
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Here is a man that's HEART told him he was working toward his salvation and bearing fruit for salvation , but Christ said that he never even KNEW the man . He called all that self benefiting work a Sin.
I was not discussing the rich young ruler.
Again, I think we can know deep within us whether we do something for ulterior motives or not. Even the little things, we can offer up to Christ
Well you can believe that if you like, but God says otherwise.
Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
The man calling Lord Lord believed in his heart that he was working for the Lord, that is why he called it to the attention of Christ. But Christ called all those works inequity
Pro 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
I think the ones who God will say "I never knew you" will be those who saw themselves as religiously righteous, but were doing so to draw attention to themselves or to bring more power upon themselves.
I agree that is a part of the crowd, but the bible tells me that unsaved man can never please God and that all his works are wood , hay and stubble.
So an unsaved fireman that rushes into a building to save a child might be a hero to men, but if he is unsaved to God that very act is a sin .
When you write "unsaved", are you talking about those who have not yet completed the "sinner's prayer" or Baptism?
The sinners prayer like Baptism is a "work of men" . The prayer saves no one, any more than baptism does. Salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit that brings a man to repentance and faith. When that happens men will testify to the change brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit and they will profess Christ as Lord and Savior. The profess is an outward sign of an inward change, much like baptism
Because quite frankly, we don't KNOW who God's elect are. The Church has taught that God is not bound by the sacraments. He can save whom He will. Thus, strictly speaking, Baptism is not an absolute requirement. The Spirit blows where He wills. Thus, a pagan, with the "Law" written on their hearts (see Rom 2) can act as if they had been spiritually circumcised, as opposed to those who have been physically circumcised, but not of the heart. Thus, it is possible that some people who never are baptised can be saved. We just don't know WHO are God's elect.
I think scripture tells us how to know if a man is saved and it definitely tells us that we have an assurance of our own salvation
Think of what Christ told us. He said that we can know a tree by its fruit, we are all called to be fruit inspectors. We are commanded not to be unequally yoked, that implies that we can know the saved abet not perfectly. I can not judge perfectly if another is saved, but I surely know who is not.
Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Hebrew 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God , purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ?
But as to our own position in Christ. I know that I am saved, I do not doubt that fact, because I have peace with Christ.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. I know that I know. That is the witness of the Holy Spirit that God promises.
When we here on earth say person "x"'s works are as worthless rags, we are pre-judging that person,
I am not saying, God is .He says ALL our righteousness is as filthy rags. ALL of our self serving carnal works. That is me and it is you, it is every man .
Romans 8:8 "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God .That man in Matthew did works in the name of God, GOOD works, yet they worked to his condemnation. That is because the man was not Christ's
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Recall that Christ said that prostitutes and tax collectors are entering the Kingdom first...Thus, we should be careful on whom we exclude from the Kingdom!
Not as they are, but as new creations in Christ. A man may come to faith in Christ on his death bed, there is always a hope, But a man s current spiritual condition is clearly evident in his life.
Faith comes first. But that doesn't mean that we will love. We must do both. If we don't let our faith take action by love, our faith is worthless (1 Cor 13:2). I keep bringing that verse up because I think it is important to see that faith, even ALL faith, doesn't necessarily lead to love. We must have BOTH for salvation to be effective within us.
We disagree, the kind of agape love comes only from the indwelling Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit only indwells the saved. The love a man can self generate is carnal and self serving.
Agape love is a fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit, it is God loving through us, not us loving to earn brownie points.
So the root of that kind of love is our faith . I would say the love is a fruit of our salvation not its roots. It does not make our salvation "effective" but it does make it evident.
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.