Posted on 10/25/2013 1:32:26 PM PDT by Gamecock
"I defy the pope and all his laws; and, if God spares me, I will one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!" So said translation pioneer William Tyndale.
Born near Dursley, Gloucestershire, UK, between 1484 and 1496, Tyndale developed a zeal to get the Bible into the hands of the common man—a passion for which he ultimately gave his life.
Educated at Oxford and Cambridge, Tyndale became fluent in at least seven languages. In 1522, the same year Luther translated the New Testament into German, Tyndale was an ordained Catholic priest serving John Walsh of Gloucestershire. It was during this time, when Tyndale was 28 years of age, that he began pouring over Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. The more he studied the more the doctrines of the Reformation became clear. And like a great fire kindled by a lighting strike, so Tyndale’s heart was set ablaze by the doctrines of grace:
By grace . . . we are plucked out of Adam the ground of all evil and graffed in Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us openeth our hearts and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the spirit of Christ in us: and we know him as our Father most merciful, and consent to the law and love it inwardly in our heart and desire to fulfill it and sorrow because we do not.
Rome’s Opposition to an English Translation
Nearly 200 years earlier, starting in 1382, John Wycliff and his followers (known as Lollards) distributed hand-written English translations of Scripture. The Archbishop of Canterbury responded by having Wycliffe and his writings condemned.
But Rome was not finished. In 1401, Parliament passed a law making heresy a capital offence. Seven years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury made it a crime to “translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue . . . and that no man can read any such book . . . in part or in whole." The sentence was burning. Across Europe, the flames were ignited and the Lollards were all but destroyed. Rome was determined to keep God’s Word out of the people’s hands.
. . . as a boy of 11 watched the burning of a young man in Norwich for possessing the Lord’s Prayer in English . . . John Foxe records . . . seven Lollards burned at Coventry in 1519 for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer in English.
John Bale (1495-1563)
Rome was not finished with Wycliffe either: 44 years after his death, the pope ordered Wycliffe’s bones exhumed, burned, and his ashes scattered.
Tyndale was truly in great danger.
Tyndale’s End
Fearing for his life, Tyndale fled London for Brussels in 1524 where he continued his translation work for the next 12 years. Tyndale’s time in exile was dreadful, as he describes in a 1531 letter:
. . . my pains . . . my poverty . . . my exile out of mine natural country, and bitter absence from my friends . . . my hunger, my thirst, my cold, the great danger wherewith I am everywhere encompassed, and finally . . . innumerable other hard and sharp fighting’s which I endure.
On the evening of May 21, 1535, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities by a man he trusted, Henry Philips. For the next 18 months, Tyndale lived a prisoner in Vilvorde Castle, six miles outside of Brussles. The charge was heresy.
The verdict came in August, 1536. He was condemned as a heretic and defrocked as a priest. On or about October 6, 1536, Tyndale was tied to a stake, strangled by an executioner, and then his body burned. He was 42 years old. His last words were, “Lord! Open the King of England’s Eyes!”
Tyndale’s Legacy
Tyndale’s translations were the foundations for Miles Coverdale’s Great Bible (1539) and later for the Geneva Bible (1557). As a matter of fact, about 90% of the Geneva Bible’s New Testement was Tyndale’s work. In addition, the 54 scholars who produced the 1611 Authorized Version (King James) bible relied heavily upon Tyndale’s translations, although they did not give him credit.
Tyndale is also known as a pioneer in the biblical languages. He introduced several words into the English language, such as Jehovah, Passover, scapegoat, and atonement.
It has been asserted that Tyndale's place in history has not yet been sufficiently recognized as a translator of the Scriptures, as an apostle of liberty, and as a chief promoter of the Reformation in England. In all these respects his influence has been singularly under-valued, at least to Protestants.
“Somehow the Supplementary bookmark paer of the link you posted got turned into ixzz2imIFZOMi, but it is”
Oops, I’ll have to be careful with those links then from your very useful website. The link appeared automatically with my initial copy and paste, so I assumed it would be fine without double checking it.
Thank you for such a resource filled site though!
“You of course have proof of this ridiculous statement.”
Well of course I do, if you’d bother to read my posts without the Papal glasses. Those things have a way of blocking out the light.
Got it, as usual, no proof at all. Just wild assertions.
William Tyndale has been rejoicing in the glory of heaven through Christ for all this time. May Jesus find us faithful at this present time and strengthen our hearts to bear all adversities for the cause of the Gospel. Thanks for the article!
“Yes, responsible enough to give up the right to think for themselves, and come to Rome to grovel at the feet of ignorant Priests for a chance at forgiveness.”
Your characterization hints more at an anti-Catholic prejudice than judicious thought.
“Yeah, those dang Protestants and their Final Perseverance and doctrines wherein we are saved by grace and not by works!”
The Catholic Church teaches we were saved by grace.
“The Catholic Church teaches we were saved by grace.”
Only the initial grace, which, even then, you are free to accept or reject. The rest, after that, you have to earn, and can apparently even earn them for others:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
After that, you can get your “grace” by praying Rosaries and sucking up to Mary, who will save you from the wrath of Jesus Christ:
For example, from the ‘Secrets of the Rosary” endorsed by Pope John Paul the second:
“One day the King fell seriously ill and when he was given up for dead he found himself, in a vision, before the judgement seat of Our Lord. Many devils were there accusing him of all the sins he had committed and Our Lord as Sovereign Judge was just about to condemn him to hell when Our Lady appeared to intercede for him. She called for a pair of scales and had his sins placed in one of the balances whereas she put the rosary that he had always worn on the other scale, together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example. It was found that the Rosaries weighed more than his sins.
Looking at him with great kindness Our Lady said: “As a reward for this little honor that you paid me in wearing my Rosary, I have obtained a great grace for you from my Son. Your life will be spared for a few more years. See that you spend these years wisely, and do penance.”
When the King regained consciousness he cried out: “Blessed be the Rosary of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, by which I have been delivered from eternal damnation!””
http://www.rosary-center.org/secret.htm
Consequently you deny the scriptures:
Rom_4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom_11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
As well as Final Perseverance, Sola Fide, and, as a necessity, Sola Scriptura, contrary to the fathers I cited.
“That is simply an undocumented assertion.”
By me, perhaps, but not by other historians. Cardinal Gasquet - look him up.
“What we do know from actual scholarship, including Catholic, testifies not to easy access, but (in contrast with attitude) to a long term hindrance of reading Scripture via forbidding reading of it in the common tongue without special permission. And which power to grant permission (under Sixtus V and Clement VIII) was even reserved to the pope or the Sacred Congregation of the Index of Prohibited books. And sometimes a local decree could forbid reading the vernacular altogether. .”
False. How do you explain, for instance, the 22 editions of the Bible - the Catholic Bible - before Luther’s? Does that sound like there were many restrictions on the translating or production of Bibles in Germany? What you need to do is look at the specific situations and see why things happened as they did. Protestant anti-Catholics generally don’t do that because they like to make sweeping generalizations that serve their side of the argument.
“And which restriction testifies to the second class status to which Rome relegates the wholly inspired words, exalting herself above it.”
Actually the opposite. If you believe in something you want it protected and handled properly. That means some rules come into being when that thing is abused. That’s just common sense. That’s why it eludes Protestant anti-Catholics.
The quotes you posted actually only show that the Church reacted - and understandably over reacted - to the depredations of Protestant anti-Catholics after the start of the Protestant Revolution. Other quotes I already dealt with if I am not mistaken.
“If one justifies RC censorship in the past then he must explain why that is not necessary now.”
I believe it is necessary now. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Catholic Church refusing to publish, pay for, give an imprimatur to, or provide a nihil obstat to any material whatsoever, any translation whatsoever, any book, any DVD, any CD, any document, website, etc. that is contrary to the Catholic faith. Why would you have a problem with that? Do you expect the Lutheran sects to publish materials contrary to their own sectarian beliefs? Do you expect the Presbyterians to provide materials to their sect members that are contrary to their sectarian beliefs? Seriously do you think before you post this stuff? It’s as if Protestant anti-Catholics never think of the obvious.
“Only the initial grace, which, even then, you are free to accept or reject. The rest, after that, you have to earn, and can apparently even earn them for others:”
False. There is no way to “earn” grace, nor does the Catholic Church teach that there is a way to “earn” grace.
The passage you posted from the CCC never mentions “earning” grace. No surprise there. If you’re going to attack the Catholic faith, I suggest you actually attack what the Church believes and not claim it believes in something it doesn’t.
“The passage you posted from the CCC never mentions “earning” grace.”
Except it does when it says that one can merit grace for eternal life, and not just for yourself, but for others also, and not just for goodies, but for eternal life.
It’s also logically necessary, since if we aren’t saved by our merits earning grace, then Final Perseverance, Sola Fide, etc, must be true.
“Except it does when it says that one can merit grace for eternal life, and not just for yourself, but for others also, and not just for goodies, but for eternal life.”
False. Theologically “meriting” is NOT “earning”. There is no relationship between the two. God decides who merits and who does not. That means there is no “earning”. It is a logical impossibility.
“It’s also logically necessary, since if we aren’t saved by our merits earning grace, then Final Perseverance, Sola Fide, etc, must be true.”
No. Sola fide denies the role of works in our salvation. In direct terms it has nothing to do with either “meriting” or “earning” because - just as the Church teaches - the works in question are not our own but Christ’s. We co-operate with those works. We do not begin them. Christ does. He begins them within us. So, not only are you wrong, but you’re even wrong in your secondary claim as to what must be right.
You might want to read this:
Reward and Merit
Paul tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).
In the second century, the technical Latin term for “merit” was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for “reward.” Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.
Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).
The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).
Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul’s command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology.
Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord admits: “We are not putting forward an empty quibble about the term ‘reward.’ . . . We grant that eternal life is a reward because it is something that is owed—not because of our merits [in the strict sense] but because of the promise [of God]. We have shown above that justification is strictly a gift of God; it is a thing promised. To this gift the promise of eternal life has been added” (p. 162).
The following passages illustrate what the Church Fathers had to say on the relationship between merit and grace.
Ignatius of Antioch
“Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armor. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you” (Letter to Polycarp 6:2 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man’s actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed” (First Apology 43 [A.D. 151]).
Tatian the Syrian
“[T]he wicked man is justly punished, having become depraved of himself; and the just man is worthy of praise for his honest deeds, since it was in his free choice that he did not transgress the will of God” (Address to the Greeks 7 [A.D. 170]).
Athenagoras
“And we shall make no mistake in saying, that the [goal] of an intelligent life and rational judgment, is to be occupied uninterruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him Who Is, and of his decrees, notwithstanding that the majority of men, because they are affected too passionately and too violently by things below, pass through life without attaining this object. For . . . the examination relates to individuals, and the reward or punishment of lives ill or well spent is proportioned to the merit of each” (The Resurrection of the Dead 25 [A.D. 178]).
Theophilus of Antioch
“He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works [Rom. 2:7], he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither eye has seen nor ear has heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man [1 Cor. 2:9]. For the unbelievers and the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity . . . there will be wrath and indignation [Rom. 2:8]” (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus
“[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle and which does not grow upon us spontaneously. . . . Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care” (Against Heresies4:37:7 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“Again, we [Christians] affirm that a judgment has been ordained by God according to the merits of every man” (To the Nations 19 [A.D. 195]).
“In former times the Jews enjoyed much of God’s favor, when the fathers of their race were noted for their righteousness and faith. So it was that as a people they flourished greatly, and their kingdom attained to a lofty eminence; and so highly blessed were they, that for their instruction God spoke to them in special revelations, pointing out to them beforehand how they should merit his favor and avoid his displeasure” (Apology 21 [A.D. 197]).
“A good deed has God for its debtor [cf. Prov. 19:17], just as also an evil one; for a judge is the rewarder in every case [cf. Rom. 13:3–4]” (Repentance 2:11 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
“Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: ‘Just is your judgment,’ and the justice of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment” (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord denounces [Christian evildoers], and says, ‘Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, and in your name have cast out devils, and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you who work iniquity’ [Matt. 7:21–23]. There is need of righteousness, that one may deserve well of God the Judge; we must obey his precepts and warnings, that our merits may receive their reward” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 15, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).
“[Y]ou who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the collyrium of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living” (Works and Almsgivings 14 [A.D. 253]).
Lactantius
“Let every one train himself to righteousness, mold himself to self-restraint, prepare himself for the contest, equip himself for virtue . . . [and] in his uprightness acknowledge the true and only God, may cast away pleasures, by the attractions of which the lofty soul is depressed to the earth, may hold fast innocence, may be of service to as many as possible, may gain for himself incorruptible treasures by good works, that he may be able, with God for his judge, to gain for the merits of his virtue either the crown of faith, or the reward of immortality” (Epitome of the Divine Institutes 73 [A.D. 317]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The root of every good work is the hope of the resurrection, for the expectation of a reward nerves the soul to good work. Every laborer is prepared to endure the toils if he looks forward to the reward of these toils” (Catechetical Lectures 18:1 [A.D. 350]).
Jerome
“It is our task, according to our different virtues, to prepare for ourselves different rewards. . . . If we were all going to be equal in heaven it would be useless for us to humble ourselves here in order to have a greater place there. . . . Why should virgins persevere? Why should widows toil? Why should married women be content? Let us all sin, and after we repent we shall be the same as the apostles are!” (Against Jovinian 2:32 [A.D. 393]).
Augustine
“We are commanded to live righteously, and the reward is set before us of our meriting to live happily in eternity. But who is able to live righteously and do good works unless he has been justified by faith?” (Various Questions to Simplician 1:2:21 [A.D. 396]).
“He bestowed forgiveness; the crown he will pay out. Of forgiveness he is the donor; of the crown, he is the debtor. Why debtor? Did he receive something? . . . The Lord made himself a debtor not by receiving something but by promising something. One does not say to him, ‘Pay for what you received,’ but ‘Pay what you promised’” (Explanations of the Psalms 83:16 [A.D. 405]).
“What merits of his own has the saved to boast of when, if he were dealt with according to his merits, he would be nothing if not damned? Have the just then no merits at all? Of course they do, for they are the just. But they had no merits by which they were made just” (Letters 194:3:6 [A.D. 412]).
“What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?” (ibid., 194:5:19).
Prosper of Aquitaine
“Indeed, a man who has been justified, that is, who from impious has been made pious, since he had no antecedent good merit, receives a gift, by which gift he may also acquire merit. Thus, what was begun in him by Christ’s grace can also be augmented by the industry of his free choice, but never in the absence of God’s help, without which no one is able either to progress or to continue in doing good” (Responses on Behalf of Augustine 6 [A.D. 431]).
Sechnall of Ireland
“Hear, all you who love God, the holy merits of Patrick the bishop, a man blessed in Christ; how, for his good deeds, he is likened unto the angels, and, for his perfect life, he is comparable to the apostles” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 444]).
Council of Orange II
“[G]race is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed, but grace, which is not due, precedes [good works], that they may be done” (Canons on grace 19 [A.D. 529]).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/reward-and-merit
“False. Theologically “meriting” is NOT “earning”. There is no relationship between the two. God decides who merits and who does not. That means there is no “earning”. It is a logical impossibility.”
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Notice how you do not actually define “merits,” and as far as I can tell, you must think the word “merits” means nothing at all. You must believe it means nothing, because the catechism directly says that we can ‘then’ merit grace. Now if the initial movement of grace we cannot merit, then what is the difference between that initial grace, and that grace that you do merit, if you define both of them as not having been earned? But then you go on to say:
“We co-operate with those works.”
Now if God creates in you a good work, perhaps He causes you to go out and help your neighbor, what part of that good work is yours, and what part of it is God’s? But if any part of the work is actually your own, cooperating with the God part, it is the same as saying that God’s power was not enough to cause you to do it, but your goodness meeting God in the middle in order to make it happen. In which case, you contradict the scripture which says that grace is not the reward for works.
“Reward and Merit
Paul tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).”
This is a rather contradictory view of scripture, since if we are rewarded for our works, which you already denied, then grace is the reward for works.
Paul’s purpose in these verses is not to demonstrate that any man is saved by his works, since he says immediately after:
“For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;” (Rom 2:11-12)
And again, in the third chapter, when he has finished showing both the Jews and the Gentiles as guilty under the law:
“What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”
(Rom 3:9-11)
His purpose in those original verses was merely to demonstrate that there is no partiality with God, but that He judges both Gentiles and Jews as equally condemned under the law (or outside of it):
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
If one is to be saved by the law, then one must follow the law perfectly, with no sins:
Gal_3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Therefore we are saved by grace, because we cannot save ourselves. Exactly as Chrysostom pointed out: ““For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,)”
Therefore salvation cannot have anything to do with works, because unless one performs perfect works, they cannot profit you in any way.
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
“I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.”
That’s hysterical coming from YOU!
“Notice how you do not actually define “merits,””
Did you define “earn”? Would you care to define the word “hypocrisy” while you’re at it?
“and as far as I can tell, you must think the word “merits” means nothing at all.”
No, I think it means what it means. I also think that you probably assume you know what it means on secular definitions - as is so often the case with Protestant anti-Catholics. Hence, I posted the article from Catholic Answers to you. I knew this is where it would go next because Protestant anti-Catholics are almost entirely predictable in these threads.
“You must believe it means nothing, because the catechism directly says that we can ‘then’ merit grace.”
According to God DECIDING who merits and who doesn’t. Again, that’s not “earning”. The “then” is after “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can...”
Thus, God MOVES us. And we CAN merit. That means NO “earning”.
“Now if the initial movement of grace we cannot merit, then what is the difference between that initial grace, and that grace that you do merit, if you define both of them as not having been earned?”
The difference is that they are different. They are different in time, effect, and relationship. God rewards in the way of merit when a relationship has been established after the initial grace. That is necessary because God wants free lovers rather than slaves.
“Now if God creates in you a good work, perhaps He causes you to go out and help your neighbor, what part of that good work is yours, and what part of it is God’s?”
We don’t reflect on that because that is not the point. as CS Lewis - through the voice of Screwtape - admonishes us we must not spend time thinking about the idea of (I’m paraphrasing here) “I am now being good”. What we focus on instead, is humility before God, following the prompting of the Holy Spirit, prayer and examinations of conscience. Those things - all of which require God’s help - allow us to be more open to Him and to follow His will.
“But if any part of the work is actually your own, cooperating with the God part, it is the same as saying that God’s power was not enough to cause you to do it, but your goodness meeting God in the middle in order to make it happen.”
No. Jesus is the “middle” in that He became Man so that we could become like Him. He took on our flesh, but without sin, in order us to redeem us and offer us what we need for sanctification. he also gives me grace along my journey here as a pilgrim on earth. The “beginning” is also Jesus - for He begins the works in us. The “end” is also Jesus for He gives us merit. Jesus is the beginning, middle and end always.
“In which case, you contradict the scripture which says that grace is not the reward for works.”
Jesus’ work on the cross led to grace itself. I am not contradicting scripture in the least. It’s all His works. He gives us His gifts as He sees fit.
“Therefore salvation cannot have anything to do with works, because unless one performs perfect works, they cannot profit you in any way.”
Christ’s work of redemption on the cross WAS PERFECT. Anything we lack He supplies.
“Dumb” of course means it does not speak for itself and that is true. For if the Bible truly spoke for itself there would be no disagreement as to what it should contain (canon) or what it means (interpretation).
“Difficult” - the Bible clearly is difficult in parts.
So?
“Did you define “earn”? Would you care to define the word “hypocrisy” while you’re at it?”
Besides getting upset, do you intend to actually answer my questions or not? Or, is the problem that you don’t understand it yourself?
“No, I think it means what it means. I also think that you probably assume you know what it means on secular definitions - as is so often the case with Protestant anti-Catholics”
Obviously everyone with a brain defines merits and works as meaning the same exact thing.
“For who makes thee to differ, and what has thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. iv. 7). Our merits therefore do not cause us to differ, but grace. For if it be merit, it is a debt; and if it be a debt, it is not gratuitous; and if it be not gratuitous, it is not grace.” (Augustine, Sermon 293)
Obviously grace can never be earned by anything, and can only be given gratuitously to someone who does not deserve it in any way.
“According to God DECIDING who merits and who doesn’t. Again, that’s not “earning”. The “then” is after “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can...””
Do you even understand what this actually means? It’s basically like you’re saying, “God will decide who is worthy to be saved, therefore it is not by our worthiness.”
“The difference is that they are different. They are different in time, effect, and relationship. God rewards in the way of merit when a relationship has been established after the initial grace. That is necessary because God wants free lovers rather than slaves.”
Notice that you don’t actually explain “how they are different,” and now you are lapsing back to the obvious, that you say that it is not God who makes us righteous through his infallible power, but man who meets God in the middle, and is therefore earning the grace of salvation as a reward for his obedience.
So, can you please tell me exactly “how” they are different? What is the difference between that initial grace that we do not merit, and that grace which we do merit? And what does “merit” even mean, to you? And do you know what grace means?
“Thus, God MOVES us. And we CAN merit. That means NO “earning”.”
So then we’re back to the question I asked you before. If God is doing the work, how is it that we merit anything at all? What part of the merit belongs to you, as the man, and what part of it belongs to God? And if you are putting in your two cents, in order to make the dollar, then isn’t it accurate to say that it is not by the working of God that we earn our merits, but the man who meets God with His obedience, therefore earning the reward?
But if your merits are earning a reward, then it is debt for a work, and is not gratuitous.
“We don’t reflect on that because that is not the point. as CS Lewis - through the voice of Screwtape -”
So now you’re getting your theology from someone who isn’t even a Catholic? And what do you even MEAN by it? You should spend more time answering my questions instead of saying random stuff about screwtape.
“No. Jesus is the “middle” in that He became Man so that we could become like Him. He took on our flesh, but without sin, in order us to redeem us and offer us what we need for sanctification. he also gives me grace along my journey here as a pilgrim on earth. The “beginning” is also Jesus - for He begins the works in us. The “end” is also Jesus for He gives us merit. Jesus is the beginning, middle and end always.”
What exactly are you saying “no” to? I don’t understand how this is a response to anything I said. Obviously, if you claim that Christ is supplying what you lack, it means that there is something in you which is not lacking, which Christ is only finishing.
In other words, you are already somewhat good, and God makes you all the way good, provided that there is that “goodness” in you upon which to improve upon.
But the scripture says there is nothing good in us at all:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
(Rom 3:10-11)
Furthermore, if there is goodness in you, then that means that you are saved by that goodness, and not by that mercy of God. Since, even though the mercy of God is making your goodness “perfect,” if you did not have that goodness and obedience to work with, then you would not be saved. Therefore, it is not by God who wills and works or has mercy, but the man who obeys.
The Bible can be difficult to our fallen minds. Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would help them with understanding.
But of course we all know the Scriptures cannot be that difficult if Fishermen and goat herders got it.
The "pair of scales" is very Muslim. Muslims believe Allah will measure out on the last day. If "Allah" is having a bad day, not good for you.
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.