Why waste a logical response on an illogical comment? And how long do you suppose it takes to "spin" a reply of 2-3 sentences? Perhaps you type just with your thumbs, but for the rest of us it takes >1 mintute.
"it is a common custom to attack."
Posted on 05/12/2015 4:21:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Let us begin with a church history exam question. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) was a figure not to be taken lightly. He was Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian and one of the most able figures in the Counter-Reformation movement within sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism. On one occasion, he wrote: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is _______ .” Complete, explain, and discuss Bellarmine’s statement.
How would you answer? What is the greatest of all Protestant heresies? Perhaps justification by faith? Perhaps Scripture alone, or one of the other Reformation watchwords?
Those answers make logical sense. But none of them completes Bellarmine’s sentence. What he wrote was: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance.”
A moment’s reflection explains why. If justification is not by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone — if faith needs to be completed by works; if Christ’s work is somehow repeated; if grace is not free and sovereign, then something always needs to be done, to be “added” for final justification to be ours. That is exactly the problem. If final justification is dependent on something we have to complete it is not possible to enjoy assurance of salvation. For then, theologically, final justification is contingent and uncertain, and it is impossible for anyone (apart from special revelation, Rome conceded) to be sure of salvation. But if Christ has done everything, if justification is by grace, without contributory works; it is received by faith’s empty hands — then assurance, even “full assurance” is possible for every believer.
No wonder Bellarmine thought full, free, unfettered grace was dangerous! No wonder the Reformers loved the letter to the Hebrews!
This is why, as the author of Hebrews pauses for breath at the climax of his exposition of Christ’s work (Heb. 10:18), he continues his argument with a Paul-like “therefore” (Heb. 10:19). He then urges us to “draw near … in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22). We do not need to re-read the whole letter to see the logical power of his “therefore.” Christ is our High Priest; our hearts have been sprinkled clean from an evil conscience just as our bodies have been washed with pure water (v.22).
Christ has once-for-all become the sacrifice for our sins, and has been raised and vindicated in the power of an indestructible life as our representative priest. By faith in Him, we are as righteous before the throne of God as He is righteous. For we are justified in His righteousness, His justification alone is ours! And we can no more lose this justification than He can fall from heaven. Thus our justification does not need to be completed any more than does Christ’s!
With this in view, the author says, “by one offering He has perfected for all time those who come to God by him” (Heb. 10:14). The reason we can stand before God in full assurance is because we now experience our “hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and … bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22).
“Ah,” retorted Cardinal Bellarmine’s Rome, “teach this and those who believe it will live in license and antinomianism.” But listen instead to the logic of Hebrews. Enjoying this assurance leads to four things: First, an unwavering faithfulness to our confession of faith in Jesus Christ alone as our hope (v.23); second, a careful consideration of how we can encourage each other to “love and good works” (v.24); third, an ongoing communion with other Christians in worship and every aspect of our fellowship (v.25a); fourth, a life in which we exhort one another to keep looking to Christ and to be faithful to him, as the time of his return draws ever nearer (25b).
It is the good tree that produces good fruit, not the other way round. We are not saved by works; we are saved for works. In fact we are God’s workmanship at work (Eph. 2:9–10)! Thus, rather than lead to a life of moral and spiritual indifference, the once-for-all work of Jesus Christ and the full-assurance faith it produces, provides believers with the most powerful impetus to live for God’s glory and pleasure. Furthermore, this full assurance is rooted in the fact that God Himself has done all this for us. He has revealed His heart to us in Christ. The Father does not require the death of Christ to persuade Him to love us. Christ died because the Father loves us (John 3:16). He does not lurk behind His Son with sinister intent wishing He could do us ill — were it not for the sacrifice his Son had made! No, a thousand times no! — the Father Himself loves us in the love of the Son and the love of the Spirit.
Those who enjoy such assurance do not go to the saints or to Mary. Those who look only to Jesus need look nowhere else. In Him we enjoy full assurance of salvation. The greatest of all heresies? If heresy, let me enjoy this most blessed of “heresies”! For it is God’s own truth and grace!
Colossians 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,
Thanks for the answer bear... Thought I would add the literal translation
Young's Literal Translation
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,
My guess is the work is from an uncredited source ... thus the format
There once was an exaggeration
Almostc like an abomination
They don't seem to care
To the Lord they do dare
To mess with their operation.
And for all the vapid stupidity contained in his comments, I never said he was a fool (although he may very well be) -- but merely acting like one on this thread.
Why waste a logical response on an illogical comment? And how long do you suppose it takes to "spin" a reply of 2-3 sentences? Perhaps you type just with your thumbs, but for the rest of us it takes >1 mintute.
"it is a common custom to attack."
OK, that is nice, but I just want to know who is on first, and what’s his name on second?
Yes!
Aw shucks...I am, aren't I?
Joking aside, there is nothing either clever or funny about foreign languages, they simply are as they are. If I were truly a language aficionado I would have chosen a non-dead language, or at least kept up with the dead one and not forgotten 90% of it.
It is not difficult to both love and understand the scriptures I post if one has the engrafted word written on his circumcised heart. However if one is walking in the flesh instead of the Spirit, or does not yet have a circumcised heart, he may well reject both the scriptures I post and me for posting them.
DING DING DING
We have a winnah!
Hoss
Sola scriptura, without a doubt. There’s not one verse anywhere in the Bible in which it is taught, and it therefore becomes a self-refuting doctrine.
Let’s consider sola scriptura from the vantage point of history. If the notion of the absolute sufficiency of Scripture were indeed part of “the faith that was once for all handed on to the saints” (Jude 3), we would expect to find it everywhere taught and practiced in the early Church. We would expect to see the ancient Christian liturgical life dominated and shaped by the rule of sola scriptura. But we don’t see anything of the sort. The fact is, the writings of the Church Fathers and the councils, both regional and ecumenical, reveal that sola scriptura was completely alien to the thought and life of the early Church. Mind you, the early Church placed an exceedingly great emphasis on the importance and authority of Scripture to guide and govern the life
of the Church, and Scripture was employed constantly by the Fathers in their doctrinal treatises and pastoral directives. But Scripture was never regarded (or used) by the Church Fathers as something that stands alone, self-sufficient and entirely independent of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
Sadly, kayaker seemingly received no such advice.
"Act like a fool, be treated like a fool" were the sage words from your mother... and then you say WVKayaker "seemingly received no such advice."
It appears you called him a fool by implication. And then, seemingly have the temerity to deny it.
Sad, sad, sad.
My Dad once told me that people who talk a lot but say nothing are "all hat and no cattle."
Seemingly you have no cattle.
Hoss
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.