Posted on 06/17/2009 9:48:34 AM PDT by NYer
.- He grew up an evangelical Protestant in Oregon, suspicious of Marian theology. Now he’s a Catholic priest and a physicist. Dominican Father Raphael Mary Salzillo was ordained last month in San Francisco and will take up an assignment at the University of Washington Newman Center and Blessed Sacrament Parish in Seattle.
Born Wesley Salzillo in 1976, he grew up in Florence, a small coastal town. The family converted to Catholicism in the early 1990s.
"My family raised me with a strong Christian faith and a very clear sense that Christ should be the most important thing in my life," Father Raphael Mary recalls, explaining that his faith after conversion remained "generic."
"I was not fully open to the truth that the Catholic faith has to offer," he says.
But when he was 16, a spiritual experience at Mass gave him the strong feeling he was being called to priesthood or religious life. He was not open to it at the time, so tried to convince himself it was just his imagination.
A top graduate from Siuslaw High, he went on to Caltech, earning a bachelor’s degree in applied physics. He attended graduate school and there he felt his vocation being clarified. At the same time, this scientist wrestled with turning over his will so completely.
"I wanted to choose my own religion rather than accepting the Catholic one as a coherent whole," he says, aware that many people today pick and choose within a body of faith. "In a way, choice had become a God for me, as it has to so many in our society."
Through study of church history and theology and deepening prayer life, he discerned that his own intellect and judgment alone could not fulfill his deepest yearnings. He decided to trust Jesus and the Church fully.
"It was through submission of my power of choice in matters of faith, that I came to know Jesus Christ in a much deeper way," he says.
The last part of his faith to fall into place was an acceptance of Mary. That spiritual movement allowed him to love Jesus more, he explains.
"It was Mary who brought me to finally accept my vocation, and it has been her who has sustained me in this life," he says.
He chose the Dominicans for their emphasis on doctrinal preaching and study, as well as their strong community life with "a streak of monasticism."
He studied philosophy and theology in Berkeley, Calif. and also served at the University of Arizona Newman Center.
But the wider context, say, verses 26 through 39 speak in several places of our response to divine love: we are to search for the right prayer with the help of the spirit (vv 26-27); we are to have hope in our ability to overcome,with divine help, the evil "principalities" (v 37-38).
God must grant it first, then they repent
Yes, of course. The order, from the human temporal perspective is:
The order for God does not exist, because He acts outside of time. God both sends the grace and predestines the elect in the same eternal act of love.
why is the order of a person responding first, then getting forgiven now an issue?
It is an issue because we are discussing free will. You say that because God knows his elect from the foundation of time, man has not free will. I say that it does not follow because God also knows the free-willed responses to grace before the foundation of time. This nuance is escaping you and I need to magnify it in order to make the explanation that you asked for.
clearly the order of the Acts 13:48 states that those who had been appointed unto eternal life then believed
Yes, but they also responded to grace, in that case, to Paul's and Barnabas's preaching (Acts 13:42ff). We see the same pattern in Matthew 25: those who did good works: fed the hungry, clothed the poor, etc., are proclaimed the elect "from the foundation of the world". But nothing in Matthew 25 or here in Acts 13 suggests that these righteous responces to grace (feeding the hungry, spreading the faith, and so on) were somehow not freely chosen.
I'll take it one step further and say that the Bible contains passages that would seem to have no other purpose but to teach us that God waits (in a metaphorical sense) for our response, then metes justice. God the Father, following the fall of Adam, is depicted not knowing where Adam and Eve were. Why did Holy Moses put that inspired passage in the book, and risked us doubting the absolute omniscience of God? The only reason I can think of is to underscore that Adam and Eve acted on their own free will in the garden (the hesitation accompanying the eating of the forbidden fruit also points to their free will). Similarly, Jesus acts as if He does not know that the woman with a blood disease touched His garment, yet He proclaims the woman saved. In all the healing episodes there is a pattern: the one being healed has to do something himself or someone has to intercede for him or her, and then the healing is granted. But we are to see the paradigm of salvation in the healing episodes, are we not? And then it is the same order again: grace is present; response to grace is freely made; salvation "from the foundation of the world" is granted.
The concept of a “wider context” argues against your view. Consider the wider context to include then the entire message of the letter to the Romans. Clearly, Romans 9 (the follow on of chap. 8) underscores that there is no human input into the decision God makes regarding whom He will rescue. I reproduce much of that argument here...
11 “...for though the twins were not yet born (Jacob & Esau) and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose ACCORDING TO HIS CHOICE WOULD STAND, not because of works but BECAUSE OF HIM WHO CALLS, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ SO THEN IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MAN WHO WILLS (chooses) OR THE MAN WHO RUNS (behaves), BUT ON GOD WHO HAS MERCY...
16 You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you O man who answers back to God?...”
The wider context is arguing that God alone is deciding the fate of men, not the men themselves. The order of choosing to trust Christ is critical here. You argue that God bases His rescue on your response. We argue that you respond because of His rescue. Notice, the order of these events is very important to both sides of this issue. Your view has got to have the man act first (following the common grace bestowed on all mankind). We have got to have God acting first, because we contend that is what the Scriptures state.
And, yet we notice that you continue to say, “Yes, but they also responded to grace, in that case, to Paul’s and Barnabas’s preaching (Acts 13:42ff).” Of course they responded to grace BECAUSE THEY WERE APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE. The appointment occurred first, then the response occurred. That is what the text teaches. “...and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Notice, it does not say, “They responded and were then appointed to eternal life.” That is what makes the report of Luke so very powerful and central to the point he was trying to make. The Gospel is not about men coming around, but God reaching out to rescue the unlovely. Then the men begin to come around to trust, obey and respond to grace.
But, you continue to argue that the issues of the order of acting make little difference. Then you contend that the response of man HAS TO OCCUR FIRST. Can you see this happening?
The paradigm of salvation is the raising of Lazarus. He is dead three days, beginning to stink from the rotting flesh. The crowd is angry that Jesus waited so long. He could have come earlier and maybe something could have been done. But, now...it is hopeless. Really? Jesus simply walks in to the smelly toe-tag dead corpse and orders Lazarus to rise. The dead man gets up and comes out of the tomb. This is analagous to salvation. Now, do you contend that the “free will” of Lazarus saying, “Okay, let me think about this and if I personally choose to respond, I will come back to life and get up.”?
Another part of the wider context is then the first passages of Roman 2, where St. Paul teaches the role of works presumably undertaken freely, in our justification. In a condensed reprise of Matthew 25, he says:
[God] will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)
In the raising of Lazarus Mary and Martha interceded, Apostle Thomas volunteered his own life to persuade Jesus to come to Bethany, and of course Lazarus had earned somehow Jesus's friendship, -- we just don't know the details. It is indeed another example when God in the person of Jesus allowed a period of time for people to act without His divine intervention, and even, it seems, contrary to His expressed wishes.
Last to first...
You have manufactured an event around Lazarus that flies in the face of the text. You have Mary & Martha being “rewarded” for their concern by having Lazarus given back to them. The point of the story, however, is Lazarus raised from the dead as a picture of men being dead, helpless, hopeless in their sin. He even waited two more days just to make the scene more dramatic. Why would He do that if it were a reward?
As for Romans 2, if you continued to read on from Chap. 2, you will see that Paul is walking the Italians into a corner. Jews and Gentiles will be judged based upon their works and from that, “...There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.” And on he goes to prove that the Scriptures have taught all along that man is helpless, hopeless, worthy of death based upon their own performance.
Rom. 3:19ff “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;...” No one will survive the judgment based upon works. You have that a man could and should choose by his own free will to obey God. If that were possible, he could have performed the Law and eliminated the need for Christ.
You will need to follow the arguments of the writers through to see what concept they are contending for. You have turned these arguments on their heads to prove what they are railing against...self righteousness.
There is no earning of anything connected with righteousness, it is a gift from God. Herein is another distinction between the Catholics and the true Gospel. Rome does not want this to be away from their control. They don’t want faith to be a gift of grace given to whomever Christ chooses, irrespective of merit because then they cannot dictate who would merit. Again, the chains of Rome. Yes, they have a dog in this “free will” fight.
One thig we know is that Mary and Martha interceded, and Thomas expresed readiness to die. That “[t]he point of the story [...] is Lazarus raised from the dead as a picture of men being dead, helpless, hopeless in their sin” is your spin, — the story does not mention anyone’s sin. What you say may very well be a profitable interpretation of the Lazarus story as well, but the plain reading of the Gospel is that Jesus allowed people to act in seeming contradiction to his expressed desire to not go to Lazarus’s deathbed. Again, this is just one of the several miracles of healing, all with the same pattern of Jesus waiting for some movement of the will on the part of the one being healed.
To say that the passage in Romans is some kind of a trap to catch the Romans in is likewise an interpretation, this time an implausibly far-fetched one; the plain reading of the Gospel is that St. Paul repeats to them the same thing Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 (and in many other documented cases), that we are judged by our works. It is very much true that good works require grace for us to choose them, but the point remains that we are called to make that choice.
Please...you asked for patience. I ask you for the favor of not mangling my words. I did not say that there was “some kind of trap” in a “far-fetched” interpretation.
You clearly are not reading my posts any more than you read the arguments of Paul. His point was that all men will be judged by their works and found wanting. They are all going to be found to have fallen short whether the measurement was the Law (for Jews) or their consciences (for Gentiles). For you to call this “far-fetched” demonstrates either an inability or unwillingness to follow the argument. I said, Paul was walking them into a corner to get them to admit something. That is precisely what he did by saying, in the surrounding verses: Look at all the ways men have sinned (murder, disobedience to parents, lying, etc.). You think all of this sin is bad, don’t you? Well, you do it yourselves whether you notice it or not. And you will be judged for it. All men are failures, evil, hateful, and do not seek God. All of them. So, what can be done? Nothing if God does not come to rescue you.
Read the text. You are manufacturing your unsubstantiated interpretations of “free will” choices to be good and obey out of whole cloth. There is no support in the text, but you continue to repeat these traditions of men. The ridiculous claim that Martha was rewarded demonstrates an utter disregard for the truth. She was scolding Jesus (...if you had been here, my brother would not have died) and only believed that on the “last day” would her brother rise. She did not want Him to open the tomb for the “stench”. You cannot possibly hold that all this should be “rewarded”. Astonishing that you present this as a possible understanding. No wonder the believing world rejects Catholicism as a self-serving cult.
Please feel free to respond here, but I believe I cannot invest any more time contending with you in the face of your refusal to address the texts.
How is “walking someone into a corner” different from “setting a trap”? Either way, your interpretation is that the choices between good and evil, clearly described in both Matthew 25 and Romans 2, are somehow not choices. I prefer to read the Scripture as written; there is nothing in the text of either Romans 2 or Matthew 25 that suggests absence of free will on the part of either the elect or the reprobate.
I never said that Martha was rewarded. I said that this episode and many others illustrate Jesus allowing people to act on their own before He heals them, or, in the case of Lazarus, raises them from the dead.
Anyway, you originally asked me to explain how the concept of free will works, and I believe I did so. If you have further questions, please pose them. You also wanted to talk about how justification works, and something about indulgences, so maybe now is a good time to switch to these topics.
The point of the story, however, is Lazarus raised from the dead as a picture of men being dead, helpless, hopeless in their sin. He even waited two more days just to make the scene more dramatic. Why would He do that if it were a reward?
The RCC is all about the carrot and the stick.
Christ purposely waited until Lazarus had died before even setting out to go to him. Why?
And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him." -- John 11:14-15
"Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
Giving life back to Lazarus had nothing to do with rewarding Martha and Mary. They didn't even understand what Jesus was telling them about the dead (not sleeping) Lazarus. Christ waited until Lazarus had died to show them that He alone gives breath to dead people who cannot bring themselves back to life. They must be born again by God.
To alter the conversation to justification or indulgences would be unproductive, if we cannot find some common ground on the “will” of man. So, I will offer a little more discussion material here.
You maintain that the will of man is “free” to choose among all selections physically possible. You maintain that this freedom is because God has given enough grace to all men to allow them to freely choose unaided and unifluenced. This is so they alone are responsible for the moral outcomes of their lives. Please comment upon what Paul continues to argue when he presents his “bondage of the will” passage in Romans 7. I reproduce it here...
14 “For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; FOR THE WISHING IS PRESENT IN ME, BUT THE DOING OF THE GOOD IS NOT.”
Much more is said by Paul about this dilemma, but the ordinary sense is that his will is, in fact, not free. He laments that he, and all men, are trapped in this wicked carcass worthy of death. “Who will set me free from the body of this death?” He cries.
What the Law could not do, God did.
Now, if the sin is dwelling in Paul and renders him unable to choose that which is good, even as he sees the right thing to do, how is it that you maintain man is perfectly free to choose good and reject evil? And how do you distinguish this from Pelagianism (or Semi-pelagianism)?
Then St. Paul concludes:
24 Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.
This shows that the will is present even when it is not strong enough to "accomplish that which is good".
Pelagianism would say that man alone and without assitance of grace, can reach salvation. The doctrine of free will does not teach that.
I am not sure what semi-pelagianism is.
Indeed.
Again you ignore the text.
Martha and Mary didn't "intervene." Jesus actually ignored their pleas and waited until Lazarus had died before going to him. Why would He do something seemingly so callous? He tells us why...
And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him." -- John 11:14-15"Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
Jesus waited until Lazarus was dead and molding before He went to him so his friends could understand He does not just heal the sick; He brings dead men back to life.
And there is no evidence Lazarus "earned somehow Jesus' friendship" and that's why He brought him back to life. No man can "earn" eternal life. It is a free gift of God's mercy. The RCC just makes stuff up.
no evidence Lazarus "earned somehow Jesus' friendship"
He was a friend (John 11:11) without doing anything?
You have again wandered far afield from the original issue on the table. Does a man possess the “unaided self-will to decide what moral choices he makes, uninfluenced and unguided?”
We contend that any decision which is foreknown is fixed in history to have a specific outcome. Since God’s knowledge is “pre” that decision, all decisions are fixed even if you “feel” free to make them. Your perception is not at issue. What a human feels is not what is necessarily the real situation.
In Peter’s case, he did not feel any “hand” guiding him to deny Christ, yet, right on cue, he did the deed. It felt like this was all his own will, his own choice. But, Jesus was clear, He knew what Peter was going to “choose” because being God, He knew all things, past and present. You argue that this gave Peter utter freedom to deny or not deny. We argue that Peter was not free to not deny. By extension this is the situation of every man.
Just as Paul lamented that he was not free to choose that which was good over that which he hated. You mangle this into, “Well, then Paul could have had a chance to think about choosing what he might have had to choose if he really thought about what he might want to think about.” Huh? Speak english, Annalex.
The facts presented in John 11 do not support your contention that Jesus acted because Mary and Martha asked Him to. Lazarus was Jesus' friend. One way or another, He would go to him.
The point of the event was how and why Jesus went to him. Jesus waited purposely until Lazarus was dead. If Jesus wanted to simply acquiesce to the requests of Martha and Mary, He would have left right away and not tarried so long that Lazarus died. The verse you quickly glossed over tells us why...
"And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him." -- John 11:15
Jesus had healed the sick and fed the multitude. He now would raise a dead man back to life in order that His friends would believe He was God. You miss the heart of the Gospel if you think this episode occurred in order to show us the result of "a physical effort of the part of someone pleading to Jesus."
Lazarus is raised from the dead not because of an "expression of faith" by any believer, but because a man's rebirth is the predetermined intent and purpose of God alone who breathes life into dead and fallen sinners.
AMEN!
One more excellent reason sola Scriptura is sound and sensible doctrine.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." -- Psalm 12:6-7"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
I explained what free will is several times. It is a capacity to choose between courses of action that is left after all the limitations and influences have been counted in. The passage from Paul only says that choices for the good are difficult to make, and were it not for the grace of Christ, impossible. But they do not deny free will — it is referenced right in the passage, as I pointed out.
This capacity to choose is not mere feeling, it is real. The scripture tells us that we are judged by our works (Romans 2, Matthew 25, James 2). God would not judge us by illusory things that we actually have no input into.
I understand that Calvinism teaches different. My job here is to explain what the Catholic Church teaches. I believe I did that exhaustively, but if you have further questions, please pose them.
You argue against points I did not make.
Thank you for making it so simple to identify a key heresy of Roman Catholicism.
May Christ increase; may Mary and the Vatican decrease.
The Jesus you know was not son of Mary?
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.