Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I don't follow this analogy. Mary was the mother of God, she was not the partner or "other half," as in cleave unto...become one flesh.
That part is understandable. I didn't understand the analogy of Mary to Eve, since Adam was not born of Eve's body, Eve was Adams mate not mother. There is a difference isn't there?
You would never compare your mother's role to that of your wife would you?
You offered, "... drew His human flesh from her, and his fetal nourishment from her ..." May I humbly point out to you that He drew none of His human flesh from Mary, though He did draw fetal nourishment from Mary's body if His gestational development was as typical human gestation. From the moment of conception (and He was conceived prior to being introduced to Mary's womb), the embryo then fetus builds ALL of the cells/tissues of his or her fetal body AND placenta and amniotic sac. Jesus made His own human flesh. [Pardon the intrusion ... I'll step back out of the way now.]
Every once and awhile it's helpful to see just how different the RC approach to salvation is from the Protestant understanding of salvation.
The work of the Holy Spirit is faith being made visible in our hearts and minds. But the only thing that saves is God's grace by the shed blood of Christ, who put Himself on the cross to pay for our sins so we can be judged innocent before God. Nothing more is "required."
"The necessity of Christ's satisfaction to divine justice is, as it were, the center and hinge of all doctrines of pure revelation. Other doctrines are of little importance comparatively except as they have respect to this." -- JONATHAN EDWARDS
Q29: How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A: We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us (1), by his Holy Spirit (2).
~~1. "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12).
~~2. "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; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." (Titus 3:5, 6).
The Bible teaches that God accepts men solely on the merits of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-4:8; Phil. 3:8-9). Men are declared righteous because their guilt is imputed to Christ on the cross, and Christ's perfect righteousness is imputed to the believer's account. Romanism teaches that grace is infused into man and that people are justified only after becoming righteous. Justification is subjective; it is the internal renovation and renewing of man. Men are justified because of what the Holy Spirit does in them. "Justification means that man himself is made just—made pleasing to God in his own person.... A devout Catholic may say: 'Righteousness by faith means that I cannot save myself, but by faith I can receive God's transforming grace. His grace can change my heart, and by His grace in my heart I can be acceptable in His sight....' The focal point of Catholic theology is God's work of grace within human experience." The Scriptures teach that justification is an instantaneous act of God. It is whole, never repeated, eternal and perfect, not piecemeal or gradual (Jn. 5:25; Lk. 18:13, 14; 23:43; Rom. 4:5; 5:1; 8:3-8). Romanism teaches that justification is a gradual process which may not even be completed in this life. It usually is completed by the tortures of purgatory. The Bible teaches that sinners are saved solely because of what God has done in Jesus Christ. Papal doctrine affirms that justification is a cooperative effort between God and man. Man must cooperate with inward grace until he achieves justification. The Roman Catholic believes that good works contribute to his salvation..." -- Justification by Faith - Part II: The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Justification by Brian Schwertley "The Bible teaches that justification is a legal declaration of God in heaven regarding the sinner who believes on earth. Justification is objective. The Romanist confounds the doctrine of justification with sanctification. "The Tridentine theory makes inward holiness in conjunction with the merits of Christ the ground of justification. It founds human salvation upon two corner-stones.... The unintentional confounding of the distinction between justification and sanctification, which appears occasionally in the Patristic writers, becomes a deliberate and unemphatic identification, in the scheme of the Papal church."
"There is no such thing as merit; but all who are justified are justified for nothing (gratis), and this is credited to no one but to the grace of God..." -- Martin Luther
"One of the great truths of salvation is that of justification. But what is justification? The heart of the Reformation controversy was over the meaning of this word and despite the impression given by ECT, the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches are still very much at odds with one another on this issue.
"The Reformers claimed that the Roman Catholic Church had perverted the true biblical meaning of the term by insisting on the necessity of works and sacraments as the basis for justification. And the Roman Church charged that the Reformer's teaching of faith alone (sola fide) and imputed righteousness was unbiblical and itself a perversion of the gospel message. In order to properly evaluate these two positions it is essential that we understand correctly what the bible teaches on this subject. And this begins with a biblical understanding of the nature of God. Why? Because all biblical teaching on salvation is rooted in the character of God himself..."
And finally, that most excellent essay by Charles Hodge...
In opposition to this doctrine, the Reformers maintained that by justification the Scriptures mean something different from sanctification. That the two gifts, although inseparable, are distinct, and that justification, instead of being an efficient act changing the inward character of the sinner, is a declarative act, announcing and determining his relation to the Law and justice of God. In the second place, the Symbols of the Reformation no less explicitly teach that justification is not simply pardon and restoration. It includes pardon, but it also includes a declaration that the believer is just or righteous in the sight of the Law. He has a right to plead a righteousness which completely satisfies its demands. And, therefore, in the third place, affirmatively, those Symbols teach that justification is a judicial or forensic act, i.e., an act of God as Judge proceeding according to Law, declaring that the sinner is just, i.e., that the Law no longer condemns him, but acquits and pronounces him to be entitled to eternal life...""By this the Reformers intended, in the first place, to deny the Romish doctrine of subjective justification. That is, that justification consists in an act of God making the sinner subjectively holy. Romanists confound or unite justification and sanctification. They define justification as "the remission of sin and infusion of new habits of grace." By remission of sin they mean not simply pardon, but the removal of everything of the nature of sin from the soul. Justification, therefore, with them, is purely subjective, consisting in the destruction of sin and the infusion of holiness.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." -- Romans 3:23-26
Saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
"But the only thing that saves is God's grace by the shed blood of Christ, who put Himself on the cross to pay for our sins so we can be judged innocent before God. Nothing more is "required."
Amen!
Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind,
Yea, all I need in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, Thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because Thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, Thy love unknown
Hath broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, of that free love
The breadth, length, depth, and height to prove,
Here for a season, then above,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!
Of course we can know the truth. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit based upon God's word. We are to pray for wisdom, understanding and knowledge which God will grant us.
I had hoped that others would realize this is an analogy, not taken to perfection in every sense. Paul was quite comfortable calling Jesus the Second Adam - but Jesus was God. Was Adam the first "God"? Did Christ ALSO sin? Jesus is the first of a New Creation, the Church, just as Adam was a new creation. In the same sense, Eve was the Mother of the Living, while Mary is the Mother of the Church, the Mother of Christ.
The Church only takes it as far as the Bible allows it to go in the sense implied by the Scripture and Tradition of the Church.
Regards
Amen.
The sheep have always been His sheep. The goats have always been goats. That is how God chose to order His creation.
At a time of God's choosing, the Holy Spirit leads us to the truth -- that the shed blood of Christ has paid for our every sin.
Or else what does "redeemed" even mean?
"By our fruits are we known," not "by our fruits are we saved."
Thank you, that helped me to clarify your statement.
Amen! "Every barrier." Even the barrier of our disbelief.
As long as it is done CORRECTLY, I see no problem, and find this quite useful to both of us. However, what disappoints is when our (Catholic) view is misrepresented - or worse - the person is misled by partial truths. Satan has a knack for doing just that intentionally. I hope you are not doing the same intentionally.
The work of the Holy Spirit is faith being made visible in our hearts and minds. But the only thing that saves is God's grace by the shed blood of Christ, who put Himself on the cross to pay for our sins so we can be judged innocent before God. Nothing more is "required."
That is a partial truth. Yes, Jesus blood is objectively the only thing that saves. However, since Christ died for ALL men (and women), then something "else" is needed to separate the "saved" from the "unsaved". What is it that, despite Christ's Redemptive Work, that sends some to hell (according to Christ's implications)? The missing piece of the formula is man's response - guided by the Spirit - to the initiative of God's Calling. Faith is a gift from God - and a response from man. A "yes" to the will of the Father.
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; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." (Titus 3:5, 6).
Yes, now we introduce Baptism into the formula of salvation. Men come to be baptised, a response to the Call. Man is not initially justified by any work. But just the same, man must respond to that call, that gift of faith - for man can reject the Spirit.
The Tridentine theory makes inward holiness in conjunction with the merits of Christ the ground of justification.
As does Christ. I again mention Matthew 5:20, which you have never effectively responded to... Man's holiness, his righteousness, is based on our sharing in the life of Christ, not on the man's own work - another half-truth expressed by the "Protesters". John's Gospel makes it clear that a disciple of Christ can perform "works even greater than these" BY ABIDING in Christ - the Divine Life of the Father and Son are shared with the Disciple, enabling the Disciple to BECOME righteous.
The Romanist confounds the doctrine of justification with sanctification.
And the "Protester" seperates the doctrine of justification from sanctification, making the former a one-time event ONLY, when Scriptures CLEARLY make salvation a PROCESS. Was David justified in God's eyes when he committed adultery? Not according to Paul in Romans, or David in the various Psalms of contrition, such as Ps 51... Before the adulterous murder, an action that causes one to be disinherited from the Kingdom, according to Paul, David was the "apple of God's eyes". He lost this "status" as a result of his sin. However, due to the promptings of sorrow brought on by the Spirit, David realized that he had sinned and was considered wicked. By throwing himself at the mercy of God, trusting that God would forgive him, David again became righteous in God's eyes, justified again.
Papal doctrine affirms that justification is a cooperative effort between God and man. Man must cooperate with inward grace until he achieves justification. The Roman Catholic believes that good works contribute to his salvation..."
This is the Church's interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition passed down from the Apostles. Perhaps part of the confusion is our differences in terminology. YOU use "justification" to mean that one-time acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. We call that "initial justification", "initial righteousness". THIS is based on faith without any merit on our part. However, justification is an ongoing process. Thus, we see that being seen by God as righteous ultimately depends on faith AND good works imbued within us by the Spirit. Faith alone doesn't save.
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith [without works] save him?" James 2:14
Now, perhaps you will say that works are a fruit of faith. But note the highlighted part above. The QUESTION James asks is "Can faith [without works] save him?" Obviously, a rhetorical question with the answer "NO". Thus, the "Protesters" fail to include the entire Scriptures into their "system". Rather than taking this into account, they prefer to ignore it or pretend it doesn't say anything about salvation. Quite clearly, it does!
CAN FAITH [without works] SAVE HIM? NO!
I do not intend on reading William Webster's diatribes. If you think you can defend your position, use your own words. Please do not refer me to some long-winded post that would take a book to refute.
Saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
IF that was the "formula" of our religion, it seems funny to me that the Bible DENIES parts of it... "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." James 2:24
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." Gal 5:6
"though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:2
"...God, who will render to each one according to his deeds, eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil" Romans 2:6-9
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Rev 20:12-15
Clearly, yours is a formula that fails to take into account parts of Scripture. It should not come as a surprise that Luther wanted to toss James or Revelation out of Sacred Scriptures because it didn't fit into his little theological constructs. By ignoring Scriptures, how can you conclude that you are a "Sola Scriptura" person? Is the Bible your final authority, or Martin Luther's invention?
Regards
What is unfortunate regarding that idea is that we cannot identify the sheep from the goats, from our point of view. Recall the parable of the wheat and the weeds, or more properly, the wheat and cockles? Cockles and wheat look remarkably similar. Thus the order not to try to single out the wheat from the weeds before the harvest. In the same way, we don't know who the elect are, from our point of view.
In John 10, the Evangelist implies that SOME of those in the sheepfold (those of the Church) do NOT follow Christ's voice. We all hear it, but some do not follow it. Only those who HEAR AND FOLLOW will enter into green pasture. All those in the sheepfold are not necessarily sheep, as Christ makes clear:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." John 10:1
Some are in the sheepfold (Church) who don't belong. Only those who CONTINUE to FOLLOW the voice of the Shepherd are considered "sheep".
Regards
From an Orthodox perspective, all grace involves synergia. There are certain ways in which grace is absolutely imparted to someone -- as in the Mysteries of the Church. But they, too, involve synergia. One must voluntarily submit to these Mysteries.
Most relevant to what you are talking about are the services that involve the ordaining of clergy. Whether it is an altar-boy being blessed to begin serving in the altar, a reader being tonsured, a deacon or priest being ordained, or a bishop being consecrated, there are gifts that come along with that. We understand that these gifts are generally two-fold -- one is the grace to do what one is being set apart to do for the service of the Church, and the other part is that with increasing levels of service to the Church come increased attack from the devil and temptations. If one is not to lose one's salvation in the process of helping others, special grace is needed.
At each point along the way, it is within the person himself as to whether he will apply those gifts properly and humbly, and as to whether he will work to develop those gifts for the good of the Church.
As jo kus says, there are particular gifts of different kinds (knack for languages, natural speaking ability, the ability to talk to people one-on-one in a way that brings help and healing, the ability to sing) that are things one is born with -- but even those can be developed or squandered at the discretion of the individual.
There exists, both within and without this formal sacramental structure, the multitude of gifts spoken about in the Scriptures, including discernment. There are laymen (both monastics and in the world) who possess these gifts to great extents that sometimes exceed those of any clergy. Some of the greatest spiritual fathers in the history of Orthodoxy were never so much as tonsured to be a reader, let alone ordained. But they never presumed to act sacramentally!
There is a separate issue that does not involve service to the Church as such, and that is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit -- theosis. On this personal matter of salvation, there is no difference between people. All have equal access to the saving grace of Christ. There are those who have achieved great holiness and sainthood who were not apparently given any specific gifts for serving others (although their prayers probably help uphold the entire Church.)
There are others who are ordained, who bring life, health, and healing to others -- but who themselves will end up in a state of separation from God. (Consider Kolokotronis' icon of the Ladder) We see this in Scripture, where the high priest speaks prophetically *because of his office* when he says that it is better for one man to die for all the people. Yet he is conspiring to murder Christ!
So yes, I would definitely say that the Fathers were more grace-filled than I ever will be. It is the result of their obedience to God and submission to his will -- their acting in syngergia with God. My wife and I met a Serbian bishop who I believe is probably a saint himself. I can't reproduce his exact words, and can't do them justice, but he essentially said this to us: Do you know what makes the saints different from everyone else? It is simply that they actually take their faith seriously -- they believe it and live their lives as though it is true. We so often say we believe, but our actions say that we don't really believe it to be true. If we did, we would take it seriously.
Synergia involves taking deadly seriously the idea that what the Church teaches is true, and that aligning ones thoughts, heart, and body with the will of God will bring us to life, health and salvation.... and discernment, as much of it as we need to save our souls and help those whom God intends for us to help. God does not call all to do everything -- the process by which he puts things in front of us to do is a great mystery. What is not a mystery is that he intends for us to do them, and that he will give us the ability to do them if we act in accordance with his will.
Absolutely! That's the backbone of Orthodoxy, firmly established as such by +Gregory Palamas, and manifested by the Hesychastic and Chappadocian and Desert Fathers.
I'm really not sure what you would think that St. Theophylact would be misinterpreting in St. John. Maybe I'm missing a subtlety in your argumentation here.
What you highlight in St. Theophylact are his statements that Elijah the Tishbite will come as a forerunner of the second coming, and that he will bring the Jewish people (at least all that are teachable) to faith in Christ.
St. John says that "the Tishbite comes before that other advent, which hath the judgment..."
This identifies him as a forerunner of the second coming of Christ and the last judgment.
He also says that the reason for his coming is specifically to "persuade the Jews to believe in Christ" and that by saying 'he shall retore all things" Christ means that Elijah the Tishbite "shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being."
The section you highlight in St. John's writings basically makes the point I have been explaining all along about the Orthodox view of these things:
When Christ says that “'Elias indeed cometh, and will restore all things,' He means Elias himself [i.e. the Tishbite -- the same Elijah who appears in the OT], and the conversion of the Jews which is then [i.e. in the last days, prior to the second coming] to take place;"
When Christ says “'Which was for to come,” He calls John, Elias, with regard to the manner of his administration [i.e. he is an Elijah in his type of ministry and calling]."
Christ says that Elijah *will* come (i.e. the Tishbite) and that he *has* come (i.e. John the Baptist, who came with the same ministry, characteristics, and power as Elijah). One is literally Elijah the Tishbite (at the second coming), and one is "another Elijah" in a figurative sense.
Sts. Theophylact and John are saying exactly the same thing. Again, perhaps I'm missing a fine point that you are making. I think that at the root of Calvin's problem was the characteristically Protestant tendency to view prophecy in a single dimension. Prophecies occur in the OT, and then are checked off as they are fulfilled.
Orthodoxy just doesn't look at prophecy that way. When Christ is talking in the sections of the Gospels about the destruction of Jerusalem, we believe that he is in some cases referring only to the immediately coming destruction, in some places only to the tribulation and his second coming at the end of time, and in other places he is speaking simultaneously of events that will shortly take place *and* about events in the distant future. The Apocalypse speaks both of contemporary events and events at the end of time -- sometimes one, sometimes the other, much of the time both simultanteously.
This exercise we have gone through regarding Elijah is quite representative of general Orthodox understandings of Biblical prophecy.
The general Orthodox approach, following the Holy Fathers, has been to leave eschatological speculation alone. I am unaware of any commentary on the Apocalypse by a major Father. There is a commentary attributed to St. Hippolytus, but the authorship and authenticity is questionable -- it is not a work that was really preserved within the Church, and was fairly recently discovered. I don't put much store by it.
The later Abp. Averky of the ROCOR felt the need to write a commentary on the Apocalypse because of the wild speculations surrounding us in the 20th century. It is pretty simple.
The relevant sections in St. John of Damascus are very instructive because of their straight-forward simplicity *and* by reason of the fact that virtually none of what he says is drawn from the Apocalypse. The only piece of his summary that comes from the Apocalypse is actually the reference to the two witnesses -- Enoch and Elijah.
Everything else in St. John D comes from elsewhere in the Bible.
All we need to know is that the end of time for each of us is going to come sometime between now and however many years someone our age reasonably has left to live. We need to be ready now.
That is a fair question. But I would like to ask you why is our intellect required to make the work of the Holy Spirit effective?
It is not that we adopt God at baptism, but God adopts us, whether we know it or not.
In the end, we have to trust in God to judge the heart and know that we can never practice the faith in absolute perfection
It's always what's in your heart thta matters to God the most. If the Heart of Christ beats inside your Christian soul, you have nothing to fear. :)
Beautiful.
Many spiritual writers say the same thing. The only thing that keeps us from being saints in the formal sense is our lack of will. God provides everything we need. It is our refusal on even the smallest of scale that keeps us from being "saintly".
Regards
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.