This is TOOOOOOOO precious.
Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
:::22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? :::
Yes? What if? And what if not?
FRUMANCHU: That's just an outright LIE! It is the ROMAN CATHOLICS who believe in the infusion of Christ's righteousness to MAKE them actually righteous, whereas the Reformed believe in the impartation of His righteousness that they may be regarded as righteous.
Mark, you've now been corrected on your slip-up several times. When one errs on the forum, it's best to come clean and admit the error. Harley (post 9,909), Frumanchu (10,027), me (post 9,921) and probably others I haven't read yet highlighted your mistake which incorrectly stated that the Reformed believe in infused righteousness.
As your own catechism states, it's YOU who believes the "infused" error.
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification
SECTION ONE
CHAPTER THREE
ARTICLE 2
There it is -- "infused." And further, the error is compounded by the RCC belief that salvation is conferred at baptism; same old baptismal regeneration error which says the church alone holds the keys to a man's eternal soul. Adding insult to injury, it's referred to as "deifying grace!" Again, the RCC believes we become God, rather than possessed by Him.
2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.
"Infused." Wasn't it you who just said (incorrectly) "Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ." If we believed that, we would be agreeing with your catechism! But you will find that word nowhere in the Reformed vocabulary (and probably not in any of the Protestant church.)
2024 Sanctifying grace makes us "pleasing to God." Charisms, special graces of the Holy Spirit, are oriented to sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us.
Let's all note that's FOUR KINDS OF GRACE -- sanctifying grace, special grace, actual grace and habitual grace! Whew!
2025 We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God.
Please note here man's merit is "due to God." It is therefore not Christ's merit that saves us; it is merit made possible by Christ. "Infused" to make us good, rather than "imputed" and therefore reckoned as good by His goodness. According to the RCC, men actually become good and that is what God judges, rather than given the goodness of Christ and being judged by HIS goodness. It really is a fascinating and very telling distinction upon which the Reformation was waged. Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.
2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God's gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.
Again, we "merit" salvation by our "charity."
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
Not only do we merit salvation, but we can actually merit it for others!
As Harley wrote in post 9,909...
The reason traditional Protestants never believed in infused righteousness is because the term "infused" is never used in scripture. Instead scripture uses the term imputed righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him [Abraham] for righteousness.
Oh, the humanity. My apologies...
The silence on the heresies other than Gnosticism was (and still appears to be) deafening.
Gnosticism was, as was said, probably the most prominent heresy mentioned in the New Testament. Its name comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “knowledge”, but what the Gnostics were promoting was not the true knowledge of God as taught by the Apostles, but a sort of esoteric pseudo-knowledge or mysticism derived from personal, direct spiritual experiences which they took to be Divine revelation.
Some of the most prominent characteristics of this ancient heresy that so destabilized so many early Christians included the following:
A disdain for and impatience with the orthodox process of presenting God’s propositional truth to the believer for him to understand and process with his reason, in favor of direct, intuitive insight gained by experience. The effect this had was to produce a sort of intellectual anarchy wherein the spectrum of Gnostic belief, though always having certain characteristics, was so broad as to almost defy definition, since its beliefs were determined by individual speculation.
Now to be sure, receiving spiritual insight and revelation directly from the Holy Spirit is very Biblical. We need to remember that the heroes of the faith all got what they did directly from God long before there even were any holy writings. Moses and Paul for instance, received truth from God this way and what they got became what we now today call the Holy Scriptures. Abraham likewise was willing to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering based solely on a subjective experience (Gen 22). If that were you or I, we would probably have said, “I rebuke you Satan in Jesus Name!” But today we have a “more sure word of prophecy” (II Pet 1:19), the Word of God, and the Word and the Spirit agree.
Therefore whatever we get by revelation must agree with the basic revelation of God as already given in the Scriptures. And it is here where the Gnostic error manifested, because for whatever reason, they would either take this principle too far or they would just come to the wrong conclusions.
Whether it was out of vanity, stubbornness, a desire to be different, an honest misunderstanding or whatever, only God knows the motives lurking within the human heart. But regardless, it must be one of the great ironies of the Scriptures to read the Apostle John telling the believers that they can overcome the subversions of the Gnostics because “ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (I Jn 2:20), such an unction in fact that they didn’t even need a man—even John himself—to teach them (2:27)!
A tendency to spiritualize the Scriptures, always looking for deep symbolic and allegorical meanings to everything. For the same reasons the Gnostics were given to myth and poetry more than to literal meanings and historical accounts of things. In so doing they were turning on its head the orthodox dictum of, “Be literal where possible, and allegorical when necessary” in favor of, “Be allegorical as much as possible. It sounds more impressive.”
What we have to understand about this factor is the paradoxical nature of so much that we find about Biblical truth. For instance, First Corinthians 2:10 speaks of “the deep things of God” that the Holy Spirit “searches out”, so there is a valid concept involved here. The works of say, Kevin Connor, who has written much about the types and symbols found in the Bible is an example of the good side of this.
But there is a bad side too, a kind of “deep things” that are so deep and “spiritual”, no one can understand what’s being talked about! The Gnostics were given to this sort of thing in such extremes or in ways that were so out of bounds as to take a good concept and turn it into a bitter poison. In fact, the Gnostics had a phrase for this—”the depths of God”. But their version of such things was so perverse as to prompt Jesus in Revelation 2:24 to sarcastically refer to them as, “the depths of Satan, as they speak.”
The Gnostics also regularly claimed that their teachings did in fact come from the Apostles, but were secretly handed down to them because only the very spiritual could handle such deep things. I imagine they used Jesus’ words to great effect here when He said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” (Jn 16:12), as well as similar sentiments (Mt 13:11; 19:11, etc.).
The apostles strongly condemn the ways of these false Gnostic teachers who are “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness”, who “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness”, (Jude 47,8,16; II Pet 2:10, 14, 18), etc. etc. As well, we have where Paul speaks of those who follow practices which have “the appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:23 NKJ).
In other words, here we have another great irony, (something Paul especially loved to savor), in that although these people go to great lengths to deny their physical flesh, they’re walking in a kind of “spiritual flesh”, that is, a kind of spiritual pride or showboatism.
The Example of John
There is the ever-evolving and ever-individualistic Gnostic dogma, which much of the New Testament is directed at correcting Gnostic ideas. But it’s like listening to a phone conversation. You only hear one person talking and you have to speculate or ask for more information before you can find out what the other party was saying.
The writings of John for example, were much given to dealing with this error. John did not write until toward the end of the first century, by which time the Gnostic influence was tearing apart the churches of the empire. In his Gospel for instance, when he said that Jesus is “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” (Jn 1:9), he was making a concession to the Gnostics about that last characteristic. He was stating that, in essence, there was a half truth involved here, that the Holy Spirit can bear witness to every man’s human spirit to bring that Light Who is Christ Jesus into a person’s heart. But the thrust of his words is that Jesus is that uncreated God; not the human soul.
Likewise, the First Epistle of John is almost totally devoted to helping people deal with the seductive Gnostic error in their midst (I Jn 2:26). When John writes, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1:8), he is actually addressing that Gnostic lie that there is no sin, only ignorance. In other words, what the second “we” in the verse is referring to is not “we Christians”, but “we, the human race”. Many times Bible teachers have used this verse to excuse sin in Christians, but they are always hard pressed to explain then John’s obvious contradiction in 3:6-9 where he says among other things, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed [i.e., the believer] remaineth in him; and he cannot sin [in good conscience, at least], because he is born of God.”
Then in chapter 2 verse 2 John addresses another Gnostic error. Like the Calvinists years later, Gnostics taught that Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect (i.e., those who come into this wonderful “knowledge”). But John says here that, “He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” In other places, John accuses the Gnostics among them of professing much love, but in reality “hating” the believers because they are trying to seduce them away from the true faith into a pseudo knowledge of God . He calls them “murderers” for this (3:15), following in the example of Cain who brought an offering that God did not accept (3:12). Yet their apparent superior “knowledge” was causing the believers to feel very inferior and condemned (3:20).
John says these Gnostics were operating under the influence of deceiving spirits (4:1), and that they denied Christ was God in the flesh, but rather an enlightened adept who learned the gnosis way and upon whom the “Christ spirit” came while He was on the cross (4:2).
Gnosticism Today
To be sure, the early Gnostic heresies were serious errors, serious enough to damn the soul according to the Apostles (II Pet 2:3,12,17; I Jn 2:22,23; II Jn 9, etc.). If any of these doctrines are still around today, they’re found in outright cults and New Age circles. But what I am alarmed at are the tendencies of similar principles to be found within orthodox Charismatic and Pentecostal circles today. And these principles follow the sorts of patterns outlined in the first two characteristics mentioned above.
from http://intotruth.org/apostasy/NewGnostics.htm
Maybe that's why I am a Biblical Unitarian. I do not insist it is necessary for each person to interpret Scripture exactly the same as I do.
You see, in my naivete I believe God has made room for all uf us.
The intent was to show that salvation under the Gnostics and under the Calvinists are remarkably similar.
The nature of God is superimposed on the Calvinists and therefore they are saved. They have indwelling secret knowledge that has no outward signs. The mechanism is a secret and mystical one. Similarity.
Now, what about the rest of the heresies? Is this merely a smokescreen that furious debate about terms comparing Gnostic to Calvinist practices will obscure and hopefully leave behind the further comparison of Calvinistic and other 1st millennium heretical practices?
Thanks for your faithful pings.
LUB
We are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone as revealed to us in Scripture alone via the Holy Spirit alone who works in us to bring us to understanding and to produce good fruit.
It is ALL of Him; and none of us. Thank God.
Christ's righteousness is counted as ours, and therefore we are acquitted of our sins and welcomed by God who sees His Son within us, according to His gift of the Lamb slain for His flock from the foundation of the world.
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." -- 1 Corinthians 1:30-31
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
"...a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into His favor as if we were righteous. And we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. ..."
"...clothed in the righteousness of Christ." Amen.
You are correct. I was not using the correct terminology or definitions.
Although Catholics affirm many of the central Christian doctrines that Evangelicals affirm (i.e. the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the existence of hell, etc.), Catholics also affirm certain early Christian doctrines that Evangelicals adamantly reject (i.e. the perpetual virginity of Mary, the doctrine on the communion of saints, existence of purgatory, etc.). The doctrine on justification is one such example. For the Reformers in the sixteenth century and Evangelical Protestantism in the twentieth century, man’s righteousness is not inherent or intrinsic to his being since it was forever lost in the fall of Adam and Eve. The justification offered by Christ, says the Reformed tradition, is a legal declaration. It is an attribution or ‘imputation’ only.
This righteousness does not indwell in us; instead, it is a righteousness or justification that exists outside or apart from us [institia extra nos]. The remarkable aspect of this ‘justification by imputation’ doctrine is that it is not predicated on a comprehensive biblical defence. In fact, this doctrine is based on a relatively few number of biblical passages which have been grossly misinterpreted. They are understood out of context (Cf. Romans 3:10) and, as a consequence, contradict other scripture (Cf. Matthew 25:46). The Reformed notion of justification is, therefore, a legal declaration only since we cannot actually be holy ourselves.
Both Catholic and Reformed believe that a legal declaration by God is made. However, the Catholic does not hold to the belief as a legal declaration only. For the Catholic, the righteousness of Christ is not only imputed to the believer but is infused as well. When the faithful person co-operates with this infused righteousness, he then possesses an inherent righteousness, which subsequently becomes the grounds of justification. For Catholics, man’s righteousness becomes inherent rather than simply imputed or ‘credited’ to his account. The righteousness which man receives from God is located within man, existing as part of his being and intrinsic to his person.
While a comprehensive discussion on this question is beyond the scope of this paper, it would be useful to examine two difficulties with the Reformed view of justification. The Reformed way of making sense of Jesus’ commandment to be ‘perfect’ (Cf. Matthew 5:48), Saint Peter’s exhortation to be ‘holy’ (Cf. 1 Peter 1:15), or the plethora of other Scriptural references commanding us to be holy, clean, and pure (Cf. Leviticus 11:44, 2 Chronicles 23:6, Isaiah 6:3, Matthew 5:48, Hebrews 12:14, 1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 21:27, Revelation 22:11), is to conceive of these passages in the declaration sense. Evangelical Protestants claim that people cannot be holy but can claim Jesus’ holiness and, in that sense, ‘be’ holy. Yet, the Scriptures cited above, as well many others, do not say that at all. Jesus was not saying ‘I will credit righteousness to your account’. He said, “you are to be perfect. “ (Matthew 5:48). Likewise, Saint Peter does not say, ‘You can be holy by imputation of Jesus’ holiness’. He says, “Be holy yourselves. “ (1 Peter 1:15).
The only biblical way of initially making the person holy is the way that Jesus established it - in being ‘born of the water and the Spirit’ (Cf. John 3:5), and the way that the prophets had foretold long before - through baptism: “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” (Ezekiel 36:24-27). It is inconceivable to understand these passages in the Reformed tradition without entering into absurd speculation about what ‘to be’ really means. [Incidentally, this is the same problem that Protestants run into when Jesus says ‘This is my body’ at the last supper.]
Another point of contention arises when the whole concept of declaration is considered. Is it possible, for instance, for God to ‘declare’ something and it not actually ‘be’? This is a theological impossibility. When a human being declares something, it is not necessarily true or complete, but if God declares something, it comes into being and it is. To suggest that God can declare something and it not ‘be’ would contradict God’s perfect nature. In Genesis, God said “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), and there was light. The Pharisees were called hypocrites by Our Lord because they were hypocrites. Satan was called the ‘Father of Lies’ because he is the ‘Father of Lies’ - not simply ‘considered to be’ the ‘Father of Lies’. Hence, when God cleans us and makes us righteous, He really does make us righteous and holy. It is not a mere legal declaration or ‘accounting entry’. In essence, therefore, Evangelicals believe in a kind of ‘legal fiction’ which is captured by Luther’s rather absurd belief that we are ‘at the same time just and sinner’, meaning, we are just by imputation even while sin remains in us. The obvious difficulty with this teaching is that, at any particular time, a person is either righteous or he is not, just as he is either saved or damned. He cannot be both at the same time.
The Reformed believers with the indwelling Holy Spirit can fade away and will always be called back before he dies. A nice and satisfying doctrine, if you are one of the elect.
Luke 1:
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, * the Lord is with you!" *
29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
30* And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31* And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
A fine declaration.
You dismiss Irenaeus, and, I suppose, all the other Church Fathers who wrote on heresies, and quote Calvin. That’s a way to convince. The Church Fathers knew less than and were less holy than Calvin. Have you noticed that almost all of the verses that you quote support single predestination, by the way, and do not address double predestination at all?
:::”But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” — 1 Corinthians 1:30-31:::
I agree whole heartedly. Let all of us glory in the Lord.
Any further commentary on the other heresies?
Amen !Impute or to add to our account as credit by someone else.
GSN-3049
Good point.
The thing is, though, that in verse 38, Mary says:
Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.
My reading of this is that, while Gabriel laid some pressure on her, she accepted. Gabriel didn’t leave until she had agreed to the task and the role assigned to her. Now if she had declined, what would have happened? Hmmm.
This is TOOOOOOOO precious.
The L-rd would have found another Jewish virgin with
the same required credentials to fulfill prophesy .
So you keep playing the Gnosticism tune as loud as you can, and then commit YET ANOTHER logical fallacy (argument from silence) when I spend my time directly addressing the lie you persist in shouting out?
It's painfully obvious that you have no interest in honest discussion at all. You just keep spreading lies and refusing to acknowledge them when you're called on them.
The truth of Reformed doctrine certainly doesn't rest upon my willingness to defend it against intellectually dishonest people such as yourself.
Feel free to have the last word, but don't both copying me on it. In fact, please do not post to me any more in this thread until such time as you are willing to admit your clear and blatant misrepresentation of my beliefs in the face of repeated correction.
But then, He would not have foreordained it. :)
Precious, yes, but not too precious.
Only God is ultimately precious.
...of your own church.
Why should I, therefore, or anyone listen to what you (and your cut-and-paste jobs) have to say about other faiths when you can't even get your own church's teachings straight?
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.