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.
Because you initially said something that sounded as if penance was for demonstration purposes. So to be thourough, I had to mention that proper place for public penance exists, even though at the core it is an internal matter for the penitent.
I probably won’t access the Internet till tomorrow. Good night.
To keep the discussion on track, I restate the question in front of us...“What does the Bible say the point is of all of the requirements to act holy and righteous, if men are not free?”, that is, “What is the Gospel getting at?”
I noted we are going to see enormous, cavernous differences between our views...as different as our view on “free will”. I then tried to represent your perspective on this, not to set up a straw man, but to assure you that I am aware of your understanding.
Now, to my view...
The Scriptures tells a story much different than that which first appears on the surface. Not mystically different, but actually different. In the same way you noted that God surely knew where Adam was in the garden when He asked, “Adam where are you?”, the Scriptures tell us a story that lays ever so slightly below the surface. Many folks (Unitarians, Mormons, etc.) would argue, “God doesn’t know everything, since it says right here in black and white He didn’t know where Adam was!” We would respond, well, it does say that, but keep reading...you will find a very different story as you go further.
So, what is the different story we claim that the Scriptures tell? God is the manager of all minutae of the universe, bringing the climax of all activity to rightly glorify Himself. He is transcendent, sovereign and holy. He is righteous and worthy of all reverence and praise.
Man, on the other hand, is broken, sinful and desparately rebellious. This is his inherent nature. While he should love righteousness, holiness and godliness, he doesn’t and cannot because his nature is incapable of this requirement. Thus, the requirements found in the Scriptures are set in front of him like a mirror. The so-called “10 commandments” are really part of a larger Law given to Israel to put them on stage and demonstrate just how broken mankind really is. No matter what benefits, blessings, favors are extended to them, they cannot rise to goodness. They are all men. While Israel had the Law, the rest of us Gentiles had our consciences to prove the same fact. We are dead in our trespasses and sin. And, this state of failure and rebellion has left all men under the wrath of God, worthy of eternal death. Such failure left all men hopeless, helpless.
In ages past, before the foundation of the world, God determined to rescue some individual men from this tragic situation. Part of the perspective He held was that the problem of rebellion and sin was so large that no man was suitable to solve it for themselves and certainly not for anyone else. Thus, He concurrently determined that He, Himself, would have to solve the problem. He determined that His only Son would become a man, fulfill the Law perfectly and become the unblemished Lamb provided by God. Thus, He sent the One that is both the Just and the Justifier. The One Who set the standards, fulfilled them, and earned the right to be a sacrifice for all whom He would rescue. The great majority of what Jesus “taught” during His stay on earth was, “Here is what the Law says you Jews should do. Now do it or...” Then He did for us what we could not do for ourselves.
When He had accomplished this sacrifice He brought Himself back from the dead to prove His power over death and sin. He then applied this to all who had been chosen by Him in the past (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc.) both well known and nameless millions around the world. These had not known how He would solve their problem (Abraham), but they all knew from the revelation of the Spirit that they had a problem of rebellion, evil, and helplessness before a holy God. This is faith...a trust that God can forgive me and make me righteous.
Then, as people were born, He added them to His family of faith. Paul, Timothy, John, etc. Both well known at the time of Christ and millions of nameless around the world since then that share this same perspective. The Holy Spirit revealing to them that the requirements for holiness are beyond their reach; they are dead in sins and trespasses. There is no hope unless God reaches for them. Toe-tag dead (like Lazarus) and raised only by the operation of God. Monergistic, not synergistic. Here is the great difference of our views.
The Law and requirements, as Paul writes to Timothy, are not for rescued people, but for evil people to see how bad they are, if they are allowed to see. The rescued people have a renewed heart, and cling to Christ to continuously wash them before God. They know that they still do not deserve fellowship with God, they still do not have any personal righteousness, but they view all righteousness ascribed to their account as being a cloak of Christ’s righteousness, not theirs.
The “church” is simply the common name used in Koine Greek for the “gathering” the “assembly” of all believers in the world of all time. If you trust him for righteousness, seeing nothing in yourself of merit, and I share this same view, then we are brothers in Christ, both in the “church”. There is no central headquarters, except in Him, seated in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. The Holy Spirit administers this fellowship to encourages us to set aside the deeds of the flesh and take on the characteristics of Christ. But, no ceremony, no sacraments, no other person but the Spirit can make this happen.
So, the “requirements” remind us of our failure, they do not give us a pattern for living. The Spirit leads us into all truth, not the organization. The organizations are often hinderances to us understanding this, since they routinely place themselves ahead of Christ in our daily lives. Should I gather with other believers to learn from the Scriptures, pray and fellowship? Yes, of course. Is this somehow a requirement? No, there are no “requirements” that add righteousness.
Everything is an expression of what God is managing inside of me (Work out your own salvation for it is God at work in you BOTH to WILL and to DO His good pleasure. Phil. 2:11) So, should I sin all the more that grace can abound? Absolutely not...that just caused me grief in the past, so why add to the trouble? But, as I see these things arise in my life, I should cling to God and recognized they are really the product of God working in me.
There, you can see just how great the differences are in our answers.
I should cling to God
Where did the monergism go? That is the crux of the matter is it not? Why does the Scripture spend so much effort in teaching you how to cling to God if it is God monergetically working in you?
It is monergistically not monergetically. And, as I said, the effort I should exert is, according to the Scriptures, itself initiated by God. In your paradigm, this is your part of the agreement. Ergo...synergism. You must work together with God to effect the result of grace. Traditional believers in Christ see Christ working in us, alone. And when He lays hold of you (like He did Paul), you cannot stop Him changing your heart and dragging you into His kingdom. Even the effort we exert is a gift of grace, not as a result of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 2. Now that is Good News!
Several posts ago, you asked “What is semi-Pelagianism?” It is what your organization teaches: There remains an island of goodness inside of lost humans such that the common grace of God has done enough that they may, on their own, recognize what they have done and turn to God in repentence. This is semi-Pelagiansim. That is why you think you can do anything on your own. It is rampant in many evangelical circles as well as your organization. It is not the Gospel. It is Catholicism and Evangelicalism. You folks are not far apart. But, it is a heresy from hell.
So, there is one of the great differences, annalex. Your organization teaches that man has a “free will” sufficiently graced to make it guilty for rejecting salvation made available to everyone. We see no such offer in the Scriptures: I chose you, you did not choose me, Jesus said. There is no one who has sought God, no, not one. Paul and John wrote. And John told us that Jesus said, “No man can come to the Father unless He draws Him. And every man you have given me I have rescued.”
But, your group claims it should create and administer the list of “efforts” or “works” that are appropriate unto salvation; we see that the Spirit encouraging us from the Scriptures is the only authority. You admire an organization that is a pretender to a throne it claims exists by its own authority. Your organization likes the feeling of its own power and its ability to inflict responsibility on those outside its boundaries. Those of us that reject such fictitious claims see the Bible’s message as more than adequate for explaining the truth.
And, I can tell from your abbreviated remarks, you don’t read my posts. But, such is what God has given you.
I still don’t see an answer: why does the scripture spend such an effort in telling us to act ethically?
Is it only to prove to us our total depravity? Or are there other reasons?
It is a simple question.
It may be, annalex, you will not be given eyes to see exactly what the Scriptures spent 1500 years teaching (from Moses to John). Perhaps, the most succint passage the Scriptures provides with respect to the purpose of all of the requirements comes to us from Paul when he wrote to the Galatians.
Gal. 3:24, 25
“Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”
The “requirements” of righteousness are there to be a tutor, a teacher, that you are incapable of goodness, holiness, righteousness. It does not come out of you because the equipment in you is not capable of producing it. That “total inability” is what “total depravity” is attempting to describe. These are not catch phrases; they are explanations of Scriptural teachings.
That is what I meant by the message of the Bible being different than what the casual reader thinks it means. Just as the casual reader thinks God can’t find Adam, the casual reader is tempted to think,”God just wants us to be nice.” That is what darkened eyes see. That is Reader’s Digest religion.
But, the faith of the Bible knows that the message is much heavier. Yes, we are totally unable, totally depraved, not because John Calvin said it, but because this is what the Scripture has been teaching all along. Some groups have re-written this to say, “Oh, just be good since He asks that of us. If we slip, then Jesus will forgive.” This is utter nonsense.
The demands of righteousness are a million tons of purity and utter, unblemished holiness. How does a mortal get that? By effort? By trying?
Not according to the Scriptures. But, by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, given as a gift (Eph. 2) as grace poured on God’s elect. (Eph. 1). This is not Calvinism, it is the Gospel. Your organization mangled this story some 1500 years ago and stuck with that aberration. Around 500 years ago, some men stood up and said, “Enough. We need to return to the truth.” One of those happen to be a guy named Calvin. Granted, he added some bad ideas along the way that need thrown out, too. But, the question is, “Did he get this part about requirements correct or is the RCC correct?”
You decide. But, I offer this...whatever you decide, you are not without God’s influence poured upon whatever you choose. He is managing your decision, whether you feel it or not. Proverbs 21:1 “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.” You are in bondage to God, either way.
So would my summary, that the ethical teachings of the Scripture are there solely in order to prove to us our total depravity, be in any way inaccurate?
Of course it is inaccurate. I said that the Law and the “requirements” for righteousness are there to teach you about your depravity and inability.
Once we are rescued, we have encouragements to do that which avoids more death: Love one another, forgive one another, rebuke one another.
What is quite different about our views on this is:
You contend the obedience to these creates righteousness.
We contend that the righteousness granted to us
creates the interest in doing these.
Obedience that we display, the success to which we may rise is all a product of God working in us to WILL and to DO His good pleasure. You see this as human response worthy of reward for your cooperation. Catch the difference?
Grace creates righteousness, obedience helps.
Once we are rescued, we have encouragements to do that which avoids more death: Love one another, forgive one another, rebuke one another.
Why, that could have been written by a Catholic. But how do you square that state of being "encouraged" with absence of free will on the part of the one doing the loving, the forgiving, etc.?
Helps what? Create righteousness?
And, again, you are not reading my posts. The will to do whatever we might do toward obedience is managed there by God Himself. That is what the Scriptures tell us. We are moved, managed, by God. Our wills are in bondage to whatever He desires.
Your organization is at odds with this claim, since it is persuaded that Semi-Pelagiansim is true. That is heresy, but it hasn’t stopped them for 1500 years.
In reality, there is no free will.
Got to run for the evening.
If the will to do good works is "managed by God Himself" then why does the scripture spend to much effort teaching us how to become righteous? Trust me, I read your posts, and I do not see an unambiguous answer. You pointed out, correctly, that sometime the Scripture should not be read literally, but you did not link it to the question posed. Then, a few times you said that the ethical teaching is there to convict us of our depravity, but you did not agree that that is the only purpose the ethical teaching is there. Then you said that the elect "cling to God" and are "encouraged" to do righteous things. Now you clarify that the clinging and the encouraging is managed by God. This does not add to a logical answer for me. Please explain.
If we have no real choice in how we behave, why does the scripture teach us how to behave?
I will respond to your questions and assertions on what the scripture really teaches and how the Church is wrong after I receive an answer I can understand, on this question.
I certainly respect your interest in getting to the bottom of these questions and am willing to do so, under one or two conditions...
1. You agree to not simply answer, “Well, that is Calvinism.” I really have no idea what “Calvinism” is, and I am not a proponent of any particular group. My interest is what the Scripture teaches and I am as willing to recognize Augustine as I am Calvin. I would be willing to recognize a truth taught by the RCC, such as the Triune God of Israel.
2. You agree to read the passages I present, even in their larger contexts. That is, to quote a certain verse from, say, I Cor. about “wisdom” misses the larger argument Paul is making about the tendency of the Corinthian believers to be enamored with scholasticism, a public hobby at that time. This subtlety cannot be captured in just one verse, but when you read the entire letter a person should be able to notice that the various encouragements to do this or that are not just a laundry list of do’s & don’ts, but part of a larger argument that the Gospel is not another “scholastic” fight between Paul & Apollos. Good theology recognizes the big picture, context, time lines and the audience spoken to.
Okay?
Of course. I only refer to Calvinism for brevity but I really am asking for your personal views. Surely I will not say “because that is Calvinism, that is wrong”, but I reseve the right to say “Because of X, Y and Z, Calvinism is wrong on that point”. If I was guilty of argument by labeling, I apologize, it was not my intention. Obviously, a good deal of what you say or other non-Catholics say is nevertheless gospel truth.
While on that topic, as Catholic I am attempting to present the doctrines of the Catholic Church and so I try not to engage in personal interpretation of scripture. If I inadvertently fail to do so, I ask to be corrected by readers who understand Catholicism better than I. So it is fine for you to say “That’s Catholicism”.
I read your passages but since they usually cover several aspects in my response I concentrate on what I think is the key difficulty. One thing I avoid is responding to every phrase I might have a disagreement with or a question as it tends to dilute focus. I trust that if some larger context is relevant you will point that out and I will read it, and if you think I missed your point, well, correct me.
That is all very agreeable. And, of course, disagree with me because of “X, Y and Z”. Those are legitimate positions to take, and I very much want an argument to be either truthful or shown to be incorrect, primarily by Scripture. I care little if Calvin believed it or not. We have no heroes (save for One).
And, I recognize you are somewhat constrained to avoid what the Catholic Church deems “personal interpretation”, although I admit I have a hard time understanding what that means exactly. Do you have to refer to a particular reference manual that is the authorized commentary about a passage? For example, did you have to consult a scholarly text to state that, “God knew all along where Adam was (paraphrased)”?
Finally, that is fine to focus on the apparent central issue you believe is presented in any given passage; I, too, must do that for the sake of brevity and continuing the focus. And, I extend the same offer to you to argue a “larger context” point and correct me if I miss it on the first pass.
Now, could you repeat the question you proposed?
I have to leave for much of the afternoon, now. Will respond when I return.
The idea that the apparent ignorance of Adam's whereabouts shows Adam's free will is my own; I woudn't be surprised if someone pointed that out before me, and even that I have read it somewhere, but at this point I am not aware of such point being made.
The point that all the exhortations to virtuous life in the Scripture would be pointless if man had no free will is from Aquinas: Article 1. Whether man has free-will?
The earliest definitive teaching on free will is, to my knowledge, in Irenaeus: St. Irenaeus on Free Will (Adversus Haereses IV,37)
The question is, again, why does the Bible, and especially the New Testament make so many calls to righteousness and virtue if man has no free will to choose between behaviors?
I am referring to the exhortations to love God, love the neighbor as oneself, forgive others, be kind to the lowly and needy, give example of virtue to others, avoid judging others, avoid sin even at the cost of injury to oneself, and be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, all made by Christ Himself. A good summary of those is in the concluding chapters of the Letter to Romans starting with Chapter 12, -- the same letter that contains several prooftexts that you used.
Can you clarify what “private interpretation” is supposed to mean to you and other Catholics, then? I am aware that it is a partial quote from I Peter, but it seems to mean something different to you than I am used to hearing from other Catholics. They use it to set aside arguments that disagree with the official positions of the Catholic Church, claiming that my view is some spurious “private interpretation” and therefore invalid. This, although it is the plain sense of the text.
You, OTOH, used it to imply it would condition a response you might have otherwise made. Advise.
My understanding is that everyone reads the scripture and interprets it for himself under various cultural influences. A Catholic is advised to read the scriptures in the company of the entire Church, that includes the Fathers of the Church, the magisterial teaching, as well as with his own mind. However, since most Catholics don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of the entirety of the Church doctrines, — I don’t, — it is possible for me or for others to offer something that is at variance with the Church’s teaching. I would not consciously do that, and I believe that so far I presented the Catholic doctrine accurately, but still since we are on this topic, I should give this disclaimer.
I won’t, however, insist on my interpretation if it is shown to me to be at variance. I will instead study and adopt the magisterial teaching. That is, perhaps, the difference between the Protestant (speaking loosely) approach and Catholic or Orthodox approach.
There is a great diversity of interpretations that are available to a Catholic. The Church does not usually define doctrines unless some controversy forces her to it, and she moves very slowly even when the need arises. For example, very little is fixed in how the Revelation is interpreted, or where the covenant with the Jews stands today. There are subtle differences on our topic as well: Thomism sees a bit more active role of God in how He leads his elect compared to Molinism, and both are available to a Catholic.
I would say that it is incorrect to simply say “Your interpretation is private, therefore it is incorrect”. I am sure many would do so here in the heat of the rhetoric, but more accurately they should be saying: “This interpretation is perhaps among the several logical interpretations, but it is not what the Church has taught through the ages. Therefore, it is not what the inspired author meant when he wrote that passage, therefore it is incorrect”.
For example, if someone would argue that God is sometimes not all-knowing based on how the story of the Fall is told, and that the passages where He is described as omniscient are to be read figuratively, that would be a logical (let’s grant him that) interpretation that happens to be not patristically and magisterially correct, because the Church teaches that God is in fact all-knowing. However, if someone argues as I just did, that this passage is there to underscore that it was not God’s active will that Adam and Eve should sin, then that is a private interpretation that does not contradict anything the Church teaches, and so it is an available to a Catholic interpretation.
Thank you for that more complete explanation. I still have a question before we launch back into our discussion...
When you refer to the collective Fathers, it seems improbable that they are not at some slight variance with each other as to emphasis, or perhaps centrality of the issues in a passage. If this is the case (and you refer to a “diversity of interpretations”), how can there be a common understanding that becomes the “Church’s” position, the Catholic position on a passage?
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.