Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
I think that’s a MOST EXCELLENT INTERPRETATION.
The more ‘conventional’ one has always troubled me.
Certainly the text is clear that it is something in the suffering of Christ that is lacking. It is also most surely true that something is lacking in the suffering of Paul, but the text is about something still wanting in the suffering of Christ. To confuse the two, or, worse, to substitute one for another is, like Barnes puts it ever so mildly, “not to suit the genius of Paul”. So why then does Barnes even mention these obfuscations?
His (4) is not altogether off the mark. Indeed, what ultimately saves us — what applies the supernaturally redemptive suffering of Christ to our own justification is the desire to imitate Christ in full; that is the only kind of faith that can be said to be alone sufficient for individual salvation.
The part that St. Paul suffers not for his own salvation but for the Church as a whole, — without considering himself “saved”, — he completely missed. His analysis shows all the limitations of Protestant exegesis: timidity of thought, counterscriptural focus on individual personal relationship with Christ, lack of attention to the Holy Scripture, and overriding fear to say something in agreement with “the Romanists”.
Merely?
I'm guessing:
There are two ways the question will be addressed. Some will take what you are calling the Augustinian Visible/invisible view. To them, I would think, NO organization could call itself Catholic (or Orthodox or any thing other than about comparative accidental matters like Anglican, Lutheran, Wesleyan .....
Others would take a view sort of in our ball-park: that while the furthest boundaries of the Church are not known, and wheat and tares grow in one field, still some visible shoppe can be thought of as the Full or blue-ribbon or sho' 'nuff real deal Church.
So there will be two arguments:
(1)Are the "invisible" people right; and
(2)if they're not which of the many contenders for "read deal" is right?
This question will not be settled any time soon. So in the meantime there is the question of what to call the Caucuses. Nobody will agree with all the designations of all the caucuses, and since we make the most outrageous claims we will take the most hits.
I think to call the question "mere" is optimistic.
I'm happy to call Vatican Affiliates et al
FOYF Folks Of Your Fellowship
or
Vaticans et al
OR
something else agreeable.
I'm not willing to use a label I consider heretical, sinfully arrogant, historically inaccurate--i.e. a historical lie etc.
And, just as most of the rabid Vaticans et al cliques have 1,001 things that their posting style and !!!!CONTROL!!!! PHREAQUE !!!!DEMANDS!!!!! about Trinitarian Protty Christians !!!!REQUIREMENTS!!!! to kowtow, submit, grovel, kiss toes, bow and scrape before the INSTITUTIONAL ALTAR of Romanism etc . . . . just as they indicate that they have 1,001 things that are NON-NEGOTIABLE,
This issue and my now deep seated convictions about it, are non-negotiable.
Doesn't mean I love anyone any less. Doesn't mean I respect anyone any less. Just means I've been forced to draw a line in the sand and I've drawn it, as best as I can discern, where The Lord would have me draw it.
I hope that's clearer.
All that you and Mr Rogers say is true, but the solution is not for thoughtful people capable of rational discussion to retire from the forum. When good posters leave, trolls fill the vacuum.
The solution is to present a clear exposition of our belief systems, and in doing so take the toxic threads away from the trolls.
I am as indignant as anyone when someone from another confession pretends to know that a Catholic praying to Mary is having idolatrous thoughts. But getting into a back and forth with a mindless propagandist is not resolving the issue. Explaining why prayers to Mary are worded and structured as they are is a teachable moment. It also is an opportunity to offer these same prayers publicly. If we explain the Catholic theology and praxis calmly, we will not silence the trolls but we will make their work serve a useful purpose.
Whut a surprise!
Not!
Great seeing you posting again.
Prayers and hugs.
And may God insure low levels of everything good to be low and high levels of everything good to be high.
LUB
REALLY!
I know you are right.
I find that one of the real challenges here is that people have different agendas and different understandings of argument, debate, discussion, etc. Sometimes verses are hauled out as triumphant refutations or confirmations of some point and yet to the dispassionate observer there is no necessary connection between the adduced text and the point it is supposed to support.
And there is little appreciation for the different sorts of proof possible when different sorts of things are being considered. There is less ability to turn back and examine an argument and determine what its rules, tacit or express, are.
And then there are people here who do not intend to converse. They deal almost exclusively in blesses and curses. Either one agrees or one does not.
These latter sometimes seem to follow the school of "If you did not agree with me, it MUST be because you did not hear me." So they say the same thing again and again, maybe a little louder or more confrontatively.
All this passion, little skill and less desire for negotiation. No wonder it's a scandal!
REALLY!
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/
But what are we to do? I think the label Pentecostal or Charismatic is misapplied often, becuase in my view ecclesiology, right ecclesiology, is an essential part of the entire saving work of Christ.
I'm remembering in the book Prince Caspian when Peter, true King of Narnia, writes his challenge to Mizar he uses this language "Styling himself King of Narnia." It seems to me that when we ask to be called Catholic, or you ask to be called Pentecostal or Charismatic it is, so to speak, "pending a final determination." I don't think that by acknowledging what we call ourselves and, for the time being, provisionally, using our self-bestowed title, you are ceding anything at all to our claims.
It just saves time and bandwidth and we don't have to go around saying stuff like "the conventicle formally known as Catholic/Charismatic/Pentecostal/whatever."
“an individual is not saved until he is justified by his works, as the gospel makes clear (Romans 2:6-10, 2 Peter 1:10, Matthews 25:31-46).”
Romans 2 does NOT teach that we must obey the law and be saved by our works!
In Romans 1, Paul states as an introduction: “ 16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
In Romans 1:18-32, he talks about the righteousness of God’s wrath on man. After getting us to nod our heads and agree that God deservedly punishes sinners such as those, he then says, “1Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.”
What? I do the same things? 2:1-11 shows that Jew or Gentile, God will judge all who are sinners. 2:12-29 addresses Jews & the Law, ans shows the Law will not save them.
Romans 3 continues to discuss our sin, concluding that:
For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
And then, in Romans 3:21-31, he returns to the Gospel, and what God has done for us:
“21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith...27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
Romans 2:6-10 is not the Gospel, but what we deserve apart from the Gospel. CONTEXT!
2 Peter 1 starts off thus: “3His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature...”
Peter talks about what GOD is doing, by “His divine power”. And why is this important? “8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I’m old enough to have experienced times when I was content to stagnate, and be unfruitful. But praise God! He doesn’t give up. And in verse 10: “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.”
Our calling and election...HarleyD & Dr. Eckleburg will enjoy an area we disagree, but not completely. We are called by God...but the qualities Peter mention are NOT our justification, but develop after we are justified. Until one is born again, these qualities are dross. These MANIFEST the new birth. They do not cause it.
Matthew 25:31-46...while it is always a bit dicey to derive doctrine from parables, consider this: the folks who did good didn’t realize they were doing so...”saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you”
They were not doing good works to be saved, but being saved, did good works without even knowing!
And the evil THOUGHT they were doing all God required of them. The true law of God was NOT written on their hearts.
“And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” 17then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” - Hebrews 10
As Luther puts it:
“But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.
That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.”
You wrote: “an individual is not saved until he is justified by his works, as the gospel makes clear”
That is explicitly denied by Jesus:
“18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” and,
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
It is explicitly denied by Paul:
“8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
It is explicitly denied by Peter:
“Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.”, and,
“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
You wrote: “we need prayers of others, especially of the righteous ones for our own salvation: Acts 7:59, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Timothy 2:1, James 5:16”
Hmmm...
Acts 7:59 59And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
That teaches we need the prayers of the righteous ones to be saved?
2 Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
That teaches we need the prayers of the righteous ones to be saved?
“the suffering itself build up a merit that the Church can then apply to those in spiritual need.”
Colossians 1 says:
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him...proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister...to make the word of God fully known...which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
How does that teach that suffering builds up a merit that the church applies to others?
It is the work of God in our lives that matters so much.
Those mature in their faith understand that God works with us as He knows best with our own unique personhood—that personhood of ours that is his own marvelous creation. He Who made us knows us best and knows how best to draw us to Himself. In the end it is Gift-and-Response which come into existence as we “work out our salvation in fear and trembling”.
Sooner or later we finally get it—that God is bigger than we can ever express in our feeble human terms; that we know we are called to love Him and serve Him in this life and to be with Him forever in the life to come.
############
MUCH AGREE.
As to the other . . . ridicule etc. . . .
For the first 20 or so years of my life . . . I was fragile enough in personality, emotionality etc. that I would easily cry out right or go hide and cry because someone had looked at me funny or made a joke about me or ridiculed me either in a clear way or a way I did not understand.
By God’s strengthening and mercy, I eventually grew out of that level of insecurity.
In College, in my Navy Human Relations job, in my PhD program, through 3,000 hours of intense group process experience—mostly in leadership—I learned that life is a contact sport.
And some issues, some principles and even some participants take no prisoners.
Please bear with me, RM, I don’t have a better example than myself, or I would use it.
On this forum, I do not believe that any other single poster has been
—MORE RIDICULED,
—MORE PERSONALLY ASSAULTED,
—MORE MALIGNED,
—MORE DERIDED,
—MORE PERSONALLY INSULTED,
etc.
than I have.
I think that’s exceedingly documentable almost any given month for over 10 years—though some few years I lurked.
So what. Life is a contact sport.
Some have been perceptive enough to notice that when they engage me in a civil fashion—even if we had theretofore been fierce with one another—I will immediately become quite civil and almost affectioinate—or as affectionate as one can be over the wires.
It has been my tradition and habit to take enormous amounts of attack, ridicule, assault before I take a very vigorous stand against it.
That has been true here.
I will defend in a flash ideas etc. yet take personal attack after attack . . .
TO A CERTAIN POINT.
We are well past that point with 1-3 dozen folks in the more rabid Vaticans cliques.
It has become abundantly clear—SCREAMINGLY CLEAR—that the only language they understand is ridicule, satire etc.
I’m quite flexible. I’m usually pretty well able to communicate in the style that the folks on the other end of the phone engage in/require.
I don’t believe that many will learn tons thereby. They seem immune to learning at all.
HOWEVER, THE LURKERS WILL OBSERVE THAT AT LEAST
THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF REALITY THAT IS JUST AS FORCEFUL, JUST AS VERBALLY SKILLFUL, JUST AS INTENSE etc. as the words and style of the other side.
There IS a time to return a fierce stimulus with a soft reply.
And I’ve done that repeatedly hereon.
I’ve very rarely observed the opposite.
While I don’t expect a ton of learning on the part of any of the 1-3 dozen in the rabid cliques,
I also know that ON OCCASION, EVEN SUCH HARDENED, BITTER, VENGEFUL, RESENTFUL folks as that
CAN have a light bulb go off and change.
I have virtually NEVER observed that with a gentle soft approach from someone cast in the role I’m in. I actually much prefer the soft gentle approach as little as some would believe that hereon.
Such folks are somehow quite immune. They want compliance with their reality totally or they insist on fighting tooth and toenail.
Welllll, I’ve learned that such folks, to some degree NEED someone to stand up to them tooth and toenail with the altnernate reality vividly displayed. That’s virtually their only hope of ever waking up.
It occasionally happens . . . that they wearily realize the brick wall is not moving and that bloodying their head on it further makes little sense.
It’s not ideal. It’s not my preferred.
Yet, I don’t know
ANY OTHER WAY
to present an equally forceful view of reality to lurkers
OR
to offer any genuine loving hope for the bitter, resentful, vengeful than to present to them an equally fierce reply.
I have learned this: when we have been treated badly we have 2 choices; we can either learn to understand woundedness and overcome it without becoming a perpetual victim to it, or—we can become those who hurt in return.
I don’t want to consider life a “contact sport”. I don’t see that as obedience to the counsel of Christ—”learn from Me for I am meek and humble of heart”
This generation doesn’t seem to comprehend the true meaning of meekness—or humility.
How does it NOT teach that?
Seriously. I've never been nuts for the "treasury of merit" image. But I AM nuts for the life of Christ living in the redeemed so that they say, with Paul, now I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me.
And what Christ does on earth is suffer and die a lot. And the benefits of His atoning suffering and death are applied as He, the Head of the body, the Church. wills
As we participate in his life, as we put off the old man, as the flesh dies and we put on Christ with whom our life is hid, we, in our view, put on an incredibly undeserved intimate union with Him, so that we may share in his work, and in His love, soaked in the torrent.
Of course, to the extent that I consider this MY work in any proprietary way, that is old man, that is flesh, that is death and rags. There is no room for pride, only for astonished gratitude.
Now as to the other half, The Church "applying," well, I don't expect to close the sale, but you know what we think apostle means, and the rest follows from that.
Darn, this is so inadequate. It'll serve as a token, a marker, maybe.
it is I reckon...but it’s not my fight...this stuff gets pretty contentious
Catholics on conservative forums where there are a lot of non Catholic conservatives get pretty defensive
maybe they have good reason...maybe not....I’m not sure, they seem to dish it out as well as they get it
the Greeks?
man....I love their churches and incense but I am no authority
I offer below Calvin’s commentary on Colossians 1:24. For any Catholics reading it, remember the time & by whom it was written...he isn’t very PC about ‘papists’, but that doesn’t mean what he writes is in error. The essence of his interpretation is to point to the unity between Christ and His Body - US!
And note what Augustine says...
Christ suffers when we do, but the suffering is not from anything wanting in His redemptive work, but in OUR being changed into the image of Christ. THAT suffering continues, and Paul is glad that he has a part. It is in line with Barnes, that Paul rejoices in his union with Christ, without thinking he is buying anyone’s forgiveness.
“And fill up what is wanting. The particle and I understand as meaning for, for he assigns a reason why he is joyful in his sufferings, because he is in this thing a partner with Christ, and nothing happier can be desired than this partnership. He also brings forward a consolation common to all the pious, that in all tribulations, especially in so far as they suffer anything for the sake of the gospel, they are partakers of the cross of Christ, that they may enjoy fellowship with him in a blessed resurrection.
Nay more, he declares that there is thus filled up what is wanting in the affliction of Christ. For as he speaks in Romans 8:29,
Whom God elected, he also hath predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ, that he may be the first-born among the brethren.
Farther, we know that there is so great a unity between Christ and his members, that the name of Christ sometimes includes the whole body, as in 1 Corinthians. 12:12, for while discoursing there respecting the Church, he comes at length to the conclusion, that in Christ the same thing holds as in the human body. As, therefore, Christ has suffered once in his own person, so he suffers daily in his members, and in this way there are filled up those sufferings which the Father hath appointed for his body by his decree. Here we have a second consideration, which ought to bear up our minds and comfort them in afflictions, that it is thus fixed and determined by the providence of God, that we must be conformed to Christ in the endurance of the cross, and that the fellowship that we have with him extends to this also.
He adds, also, a third reason — that his sufferings are advantageous, and that not merely to a few, but to the whole Church. He had previously stated that he suffered in behalf of the Colossians, and he now declares still farther, that the advantage extends to the whole Church. This advantage has been spoken of in Philippians 1:12. What could be clearer, less forced, or more simple, than this exposition, that Paul is joyful in persecution, because he considers, in accordance with what he writes elsewhere, that we must
carry about with us in our body the mortification of Christ, that his life may be manifested in us? (2 Corinthians 4 10.)
He says also in Timothy,
If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him: if we die with him, we shall also live with him, (2 Timothy 2:11-12)
and thus the issue will be blessed and glorious. Farther, he considers that we must not refuse the condition which God has appointed for his Church, that the members of Christ may have a suitable correspondence with the head; and, thirdly, that afflictions must be cheerfully endured, inasmuch as they are profitable to all the pious, and promote the welfare of the whole Church, by adorning the doctrine of the gospel.
Papists, however, disregarding and setting aside all these things, have struck out a new contrivance in order that they may establish their system of indulgences. They give the name of indulgences to a remission of punishments, obtained by us through the merits of the martyrs. For, as they deny that there is a gratuitous remission of sins, and allege that they are redeemed by satisfactory deeds, when the satisfactions do not fill up the right measure, they call into their help the blood of the martyrs, that it may, along with the blood of Christ, serve as an expiation in the judgment of God. And this mixture they call the treasure of the Church, the keys of which they afterwards intrust to whom they think fit. Nor are they ashamed to wrest this passage, with the view of supporting so execrable a blasphemy, as if Paul here affirmed that his sufferings are of avail for expiating the sins of men.
They urge in their support the term “hysterema”, (things wanting,) as if Paul meant to say, that the sufferings which Christ has endured for the redemption of men were insufficient. There is no one, however, that does not see that Paul speaks in this manner, because it is necessary, that by the afflictions of the pious, the body of the Church should be brought to its perfection, inasmuch as the members are conformed to their head. I should also be afraid of being suspected of calumny in repeating things so monstrous, if their books did not bear witness that I impute nothing to them groundlessly. They urge, also, what Paul says, that he suffers for the Church. It is surprising that this refined interpretation had not occurred to any of the ancients, for they all interpret it as we do, to mean, that the saints suffer for the Church, inasmuch as they confirm the faith of the Church. Papists, however, gather from this that the saints are redeemers, because they shed their blood for the expiation of sins. That my readers, however, may perceive more clearly their impudence, allow that the martyrs, as well as Christ, suffered for the Church, but in different ways, as I am inclined to express in Augustine’s words rather than in my own. For he writes thus in his 84th treatise on John: “Though we brethren die for brethren, yet there is no blood of any martyr that is poured out for the remission of sins. This Christ did for us. Nor has he in this conferred upon us matter of imitation, but ground of thanksgiving.” Also, in the fourth book to Bonifacius: “As the only Son of God became the Son of man, that he might make us sons of God, so he has alone, without offense, endured punishment for us, that we may through him, without merit, obtain undeserved favor.” Similar to these is the statement of Leo Bishop of Rome; “The righteous received crowns, did not give them; and for the fortitude of believers there have come forth examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. For their deaths were for themselves, and no one by his latter end paid the debt of another.”
Now, that this is the meaning of Paul’s words is abundantly manifest from the context, for he adds, that he suffers according to the dispensation that was given to him. And we know that the ministry was committed to him, not of redeeming the Church, but of edifying it; and he himself immediately afterwards expressly acknowledges this. This is also what he writes to Timothy,
that he endures all things for the sake of the elect, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus.
(2 Timothy 2:10.)
Also, in 2 Corinthians 1:4, [The reference would seem to be more appropriately directed towards 2 Corinthians 1:6 — probably a typesetting error in the original text. — fj.] that
he willingly endures all things for their consolation and salvation.
Let, therefore, pious readers learn to hate and detest those profane sophists, who thus deliberately corrupt and adulterate the Scriptures, in order that they may give some color to their delusions.
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.