Jonathan wrote something about repentance removing sin. So you think our human repentance can actually remove sin? Amazing.
Our repentance means something because God Himself paid the price. We are sorrowful over sin because our sin killed Christ on the cross. We turn from sin only because He gives us, grants us power to do it -- "if perhaps God may grant repentance" 2 Timothy 2:24, Acts 5:31, 11:18. The kindness and patience of God in Romans 2:4 that leads us to repentance is so effective and great because the person understands sin and the law and the holiness and wrath of God first. The law came through Moses, but grace and truth through Christ. John 1:16-17
The Demonstration of God's Righteousness, Part 2
John Piper
. . .
"By His Grace"
Now this is underlined in the third phrase, "by his grace." "Being justified is a gift by his grace . . ." This is one of the most important words in the letters of Paul. He uses it 95 times. What does he mean here that God's act of justifying is "by his grace"?
The easiest way to see it is to look a few verses later in Romans 4:4, which we will come back to again and again on this matter of grace, because here is a fundamental insight. I am going to translate it literally so that you can see that the very same word "grace" is here in this verse. Romans 4:4, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited [or counted] according to grace, but according to debt." In other words, if you work for somebody, you don't get grace, you get wages. If you relate to somebody as one who works for them, what you bring about is not grace, but debt. They owe you wages. This is why it's an abomination to try to work for God. God cannot be put in anyone's debt. As Romans 11:35 says, "Who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" The answer is "no one," and the reason given is that "from him and through him and too him are all things" (Romans 11:36).
So if you are going to get something by grace, you can't work for it. Grace is the good that you get from someone when he owes you nothing. So what Paul means when he says that we are "justified as a gift by his grace" is that we can't work for justification. So the phrase "as a gift" means you can't pay for it. And the phrase "by his grace" means you can't work for it.
Well, then how can this be? How can God declare a sinner to be righteous? If we don't pay for it, and we don't work for it, then what's the basis of it? How can it be just to justify the ungodly?
Romans 4:4
Now to the one who works, his is not reckoned as grace, but as what is due. (debt)
Here is the word that is used in the Lord's model prayer, "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors". Here is probably where Anselm saw the connection that justice was paid for at the cross.
And also, Hebrews does teach substitutionary atonement, propitiation (the satisfaction of the wrath of God) all over the place. Hebrews 2:17, he uses the same word for propitiation as in Romans 3:25-26 and I John 2:2 and 4:10. Hebrews 9:12-14 -- the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience; 9:22-28, chapter 10. That is why after all that discussion on the completed once for all work of Christ on the cross, those that go back and begin to reject Christ and His sacrifice (going back to the temple sacrifices, pulling away and stop going to church(v. 25), falling away (chapter 3-4) are given such a stern warning in 10:26-31 -- about wrath and vengeance and judgment. To reject Christ and His atonement is to bring the wrath of God upon themselves; because Christ paid the price and extinguished the wrath of God. Those who reject Him are still under the wrath.
Repentance so that there is no sin to annihilate?
there is the exact line from Jonathan on the previous forum line towards the end.
Dave, was that the longest thread you every had or was there another one with more than 274 ( exactly? ) comments?
Jonathan wrote something about repentance removing sin. So you think our human repentance can actually remove sin? Amazing.
Of course it can. That's what repentance is. What it can't remove is the consequence of sin, i.e., death. Even if you repent, you still face the consequence of sin. Look at David.
2 Sam. 12:13-23
David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die." Then Nathan went to his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uri'ah's wife bore to David, and it became sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, "Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us; how then can we say to him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm." But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; and David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" They said, "He is dead." Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house of the LORD, and worshiped; he then went to his own house; and when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate. Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, `Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."
To remove the consequence of sin is solely a matter of God's mercy. Even if someone has repented, and his sin is forgiven, the consequence is a separate matter, which man is solely dependent on God's grace and mercy to permit or to take away.
Don't listen to me; listen to St. Peter:
Acts 2:22-36
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, `I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my h
(cont.)
Acts 2:22-36
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, `I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.'
"Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and ear. For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Cf. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15, who says the same thing. Christ suffered the consequences of sin so as to remove them, which even repentance could not remove before.
italics closed
You've also confused two distinct aspects of salvation and righteousness: remission of sins and being made holy.
With respect to our nature, once our nature is damaged by sin, we have no power to heal the consequences. We can repent, but our repentance is ineffectual in terms of saving us from the consequences. That is what is taught by the moral Law, as explained by both nature and the Jewish Law. The soul who sins shall die.
There is also the question of holiness to approach God. That deals with our creaturely limitations, our inability to stand the holiness of God. This part was foreshadowed by the ceremonial law and people being struck dead for its violation, even unintentionally. The point was that we need grace to be able to withstand the holy presence of God, and any attempt to bypass the path that God must open for us through grace will result in our destruction.
Exodus 33:18-23
Moses said, "I pray thee, show me thy glory." And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name `The LORD'; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But," he said, "you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live." And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen."
You don't get what the Pharisee had in mind by imposing the ceremonial laws for the priests on everybody. They made the same mistake that you did; they thought that the human nature was capable of attaining holiness through the Law. They didn't understand that holiness, being actually made righteous to serve in God's presence, always requires grace (this is the subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews).
And St. Paul quotes the same verse I quoted in response to the Pharisees who view the Law as a promise to be justified to the Jews exclusive of the Gentiles. His point is that even people who are not under the Law can be made holy by God's grace. Likewise, he chastises the Pharisees for not even complying with the moral Law, which even Gentiles like Abraham did. He's basically mocking them for their claim to attain holiness before God through the law when they can't even keep themselves from sinning or save themselves from the consequence of sin (death). Instead, God justifies the un-godly (asebes) through His grace.
There is an excellent book by Father J. Patrick Mullen called Dining with Pharisees on who the Pharisees were and what they were about. (N.B., I also attended one of his lectures on sharing Scripture with Evangelicals that was simply brilliant, centering on using what Biblical scholarship tells us to better understand the Apostles and their message). And he is a
(cont.)
There is an excellent book by Father J. Patrick Mullen called Dining with Pharisees on who the Pharisees were and what they were about. (N.B., I also attended one of his lectures on sharing Scripture with Evangelicals that was simply brilliant, centering on using what Biblical scholarship tells us to better understand the Apostles and their message). And he is a legitimate Biblical scholar and exegete, not just someone who went through basic seminary training. Moreover, his position on the Pharisees is only a more detailed expansion on John Cardinal McKenzie's basic thesis on the Pharisees advanced in his books on the theology of the Old Testament, and McKenzie was no slouch himself. Reading Fr. Pat's book could turn your entire reading of the whole New Testament around, because once you realize that the Pharisees were confusing holiness under the Law with righteousness before God, everything in the New Testament said against them makes perfect sense.
I should also mention that attmepting to bypass the channels of God's grace and reach up to God directly and individually (rather than corporately as mediated by a covenantal relationship) was the core of the Gnostic heresy. This notion of a special knowledge delivered straight to the heart of the Gnostic that the unenlightened could not perceive was an attempt to bypass the forms and channels of God's grace in the Church. Clement of Alexandria and Ireneaus both excoriated their Gnostic opponents for this view.
OK, one more NT footnote, and then I'm really done.
With regard to Gnosticism, there is also New Testament evidence to what I mentioned before. For in asserting that they had privileged access to God, they asserted themselves also to be perfect and to deny they had sin. Thus, 1 John 1:6-10 summmarized everything I have said perfectly:
If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Ken,
That passage you quoted from Piper is irrelevant to the discussion of penal substitution. Even if we can't work for grace, it hardly follows from this that there's such a thing as penal substitution.
In fact, Piper's point here contradicts penal substitution. If grace is a gift, then it is something that is not paid for. As Piper wrote, " So the phrase 'as a gift' means you can't pay for it," and "it" here is justification. Therefore, no one paid for it -- or at least didn't pay the Father for it -- and that includes Jesus. If Jesus paid for grace or our justification, then it wouldn't be a gift because, quoth Piper, "a gift means you can't pay for it."
Ken: Jonathan wrote something about repentance removing sin. So you think our human repentance can actually remove sin? Amazing.
Adomnan: You never cease to be amazed.
Ken: Here is the word that is used in the Lord's model prayer, "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors". Here is probably where Anselm saw the connection that justice was paid for at the cross.
Adomnan: But didn't you just cite Piper as saying that justification (same as justice in this instance) is a gift and so can't be paid for? Or are you saying that grace can't be paid for, but justice and justification can be? Well, that would mean that justification isn't a grace, or that justice isn't justification even though Paul calls God "just and the justifier."
Ken: And also, Hebrews does teach substitutionary atonement, propitiation (the satisfaction of the wrath of God) all over the place. Hebrews 2:17, he uses the same word for propitiation as in Romans 3:25-26 and I John 2:2 and 4:10. Hebrews 9:12-14 -- the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience; 9:22-28, chapter 10.
Adomnan: You're assuming two false things. One is that the word used in Hebrew 2:17 ("hilaskesthai") means "propiate." It doesn't. It means "expiate." This is shown by the fact that the object of this verb is "hamartias," i.e., "sins." If it meant propitiate, the object would be "theon" (God) because one propitiates God, but expiates sins. Since sins are the object, it must mean expiate. But you admit this essentially when you quote Hebrews 9 as teaching that Christ cleanses the conscience; you just don't realize it. To expiate sin is to cleanse it.
The second is that propiation implies penal substitution. I do agree that Christ's sacrifice can be said to propitiate God, because once sins are expiated, the motive for God's wrath is removed. However, that is not the focus in Hebrews; expiation is. Besides, propitiation does not imply penal substitution. The Catholic Church teaches propitiation, but rejects penal substitution.
The easiest way to see it is to look a few verses later in Romans 4:4, which we will come back to again and again on this matter of grace, because here is a fundamental insight. I am going to translate it literally so that you can see that the very same word "grace" is here in this verse. Romans 4:4, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited [or counted] according to grace, but according to debt." In other words, if you work for somebody, you don't get grace, you get wages. If you relate to somebody as one who works for them, what you bring about is not grace, but debt. They owe you wages. This is why it's an abomination to try to work for God. God cannot be put in anyone's debt. As Romans 11:35 says, "Who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" The answer is "no one," and the reason given is that "from him and through him and too him are all things" (Romans 11:36).
So if you are going to get something by grace, you can't work for it. Grace is the good that you get from someone when he owes you nothing. So what Paul means when he says that we are "justified as a gift by his grace" is that we can't work for justification. So the phrase "as a gift" means you can't pay for it. And the phrase "by his grace" means you can't work for it.
I don't understand why protestants keep coming back to this. Catholics do not say we are working for God's grace. We say we are cooperating with God's grace. So there is not issue with Rom 4:4. Protestants seem to have some sort of mental block that prevents them from understanding this. No matter how many times you tell them that Catholics don't believe this and have never taught this they keep repeating it. It is hard to comprehend
Ken,
Leo the Great wrote to Julian (letter 35, June 13, 449, my emphasis):
For [Christ] is at once both eternal from His Father and temporal from His mother, inviolable in His strength, passible in our weakness: in the Triune Godhead, of one and the same substance with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but in taking Manhood on Himself, not of one substance but of one and the same person [so that He was at once rich in poverty, almighty in submission, impassible in punishment, immortal in death ]. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
3604035.htm
The same passage, worded differently:
“The same Christ is eternal from the Father and temporal from the Mother. In His power He is unchangeable; in our weakness He is capable of suffering; of one and the same nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit as part of the triune Godhead, but not of the same nature as the divinity in the taking on of humanity, even though He is of one and the same Person. In that way the same Christ might be rich in poverty, omnipotent in subjection, incapable of suffering while enduring the passion, dying yet immortal.”
http://thumbsnap.com/v/s6Y3R5JH.jpg
The Fathers of the Church; A New Translation, St. Leo the Great, Letters, tr. Edmund Hunt, C.S.C, Catholic University, 1957, vol. 34, p. 112.
Now I'm just wondering how you would reconcile penal substitution with this passage? In other words, how does PS relate to Christ’s suffering which continue in His Mystical body, the Church?
Btw, just an aside, you may want to note what Leo says in this passage about Blessed Mary.
“He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence from a stainless Virgin; for another, became He proceeded from His Mother’s womb in such a way that her fecundity gave birth wild her virginity remained. – ibid, p. 114.
Randy,
Catholics do not say we are working for God's grace. We say we are cooperating with God's grace.
Yes!
Again, the Holy Father:
“And assuredly to this form the Saviour's grace is daily restoring us, so long as that which, in the first Adam fell, is raised up again in the second.” - Leo the Great, sermon 12.
“Thus it is that God, by loving us, restores us to His image, and, in order that He may find in us the form of His goodness, He gives us that whereby we ourselves too may do the work [i.e. co-operate] that He does…” - ibid.
“For by prayer we seek to propitiate God, by fasting we extinguish the lusts of the flesh, by alms we redeem our sins: and at the same time God's image is throughout renewed in us, if we are always ready to praise Him, unfailingly intent on our purification and unceasingly active in cherishing our neighbour.” - Ibid.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
360312.htm
Ken,
In the previous forum you said:
Jesus cried out, "My God, My God why have You forsaken Me? on the cross. Why? Two reasons, 1. He was quoting Ps. 22:1 proving prophecies of His death and agony ( Psalm 22:16-17); and 2. God the Father laid all the punishment, justice, wrath against sin on Him and He bore it; causing the Father to turn away -- He who knew no sin became sin for us -- all of our sin was transfered to Him -- 2 Cor. 5:21, Mark 10:45, Galatians 1:4 "who gave Himself for (huper= in place of) our sins".
I think Leo, to whom I again appeal, offers some helpful insights here. On the notion that the Father “turned away,” as it were, from Christ during his passion, Leo, in sermon 68, says:
“[W]e bade the simple and unthinking hearer not take the words "My God, &c.," in a sense as if, when Jesus was fixed upon the wood of the cross, the Omnipotence of the Father's Deity had gone away from Him; seeing that God's and Man's Nature were so completely joined in Him that the union could not be destroyed by punishment nor by death.”
And again, a little further on, he says:
“Jesus, therefore, cried with a loud voice, saying, "Why have You forsaken Me?" in order to notify to all how it behoved Him not to be rescued, not to be defended, but to be given up into the hands of cruel men, that is to become the Saviour of the world and the Redeemer of all men, not by misery but by mercy; and not by the failure of succour but by the determination to die. But what must we feel to be theintercessory power of His life Who died and rose again by His own inherent power. For the blessed Apostle says the Father "spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all Romans 8:32;" and again, he says, "For Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify it ." And hence the giving up of the Lord to His Passion was as much of the Father's as of His own will, so that not only did the Father "forsake" Him, but He also abandoned Himself in a certain sense, not in hasty flight, but in voluntary withdrawal. For the might of the Crucified restrained itself from those wicked men, and in order to avail Himself of a secret design, He refused to avail Himself of His open power. For how would He who had come to destroy death and the author of death by His Passion have saved sinners, if he had resisted His persecutors? This, then, had been the Jews' belief, that Jesus had been forsaken by God, against Whom they had been able to commit such unholy cruelty; for not understanding the mystery of His wondrous endurance, they said in blasphemous mockery: "He saved others, Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we believe Him Matthew 27:42 .”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
360368.htm
I hope Leo’s words shed more light than heat in this discussion.
Peace.
I don't understand why protestants keep coming back to this. Catholics do not say we are working for God's grace.
Because generally Roman Catholics do seem to say and act that way; even though, as you say, you do not.
Lugwig Ott: “The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.”
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 262.
Catechism: 2010 “. . . 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.”
Ludwig Ott:
“By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.” Ibid, p. 264
Karl Keating:
“The Catholic Church, not surprisingly, understands justification differently. It sees it as a true eradication of sin and a true sanctification and renewal. The soul becomes objectively pleasing to God and so merits heaven. It merits heaven because now it is actually good.”
Ben M,
I'm not sure your quote about impassibility is necessarily directly relevant. It seems to be a statement about the Chalcedonian doctrine on the hypostatic union, namely, that the person of Jesus has the attributes of either nature predicated of him. Hence, He is passible according to his human nature and impassible according to His divine nature. It doesn't directly speak to whether the Father punished Him or not (which would be the central question of penal substitution).
The second set of Leo quotes, I think, is quite excellent.
Ken,
Do you think that Catholics teach that man can merit from God according to strict merit? (That is, according to commutative justice.)
Do you understand our distinctions between strict merit and congruent merit? The difference between commutative justice and grace?
-Rob
I don't understand why protestants keep coming back to this. Catholics do not say we are working for God's grace.
Because generally Roman Catholics do seem to say and act that way; even though, as you say, you do not.
Yes but there are temporal and eternal consequences. Protestants don't talk about the temporal so assume Catholics don't either. Still when you read these entire documents it is clear they don't teach about earning salvation. So somebody reads these things and intentionally quotes them in a way that makes them sound like they do.
For example look at the entire CCC 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.
Ken,
I see you're trying again to switch the discussion from penal substitution to works righteousness. And I guess that's fine, if people want to discuss this with you. It is, after all, an open forum.
However, can I take it that you concede my point that Hebrews 2:17 is talking about expiating or cleansing sins and not propitiating God, because the object of the verb (hilaskesthai) is "sins" and not "God?"
I might add that there was a typo in the following sentence of my post: "One is that the word used in Hebrew 2:17 ("hilaskesthai") means 'propiate.'" The last word should of course be "propitiate."
And to my fellow Catholics: I we often go too far in denying that Chtistians "earn salvation" in discussions with evangelicals. While it's true that salvation can't be earned or merited by our own unaided efforts, it can be earned and merited with God's grace.
St. Paul says this explicitly: Phil. 2:12-13: "Earn your salvation in fear and trembling. It is God who, for his own generous purpose, gives you the intention and powers to act." The word translated "earn" here is often translated "work out." However, that makes no sense. Whatever "work out" meant in King James's time, when people came up with this translation, it means something different today. The original Greek word ("katergazesthe") should be translated "earn, achieve or acquire with effort." No other meaning makes sense in this context.
Therefore, the inspired Paul says we "earn salvation." I'm sticking with him on this.
Here are some passages that prove we can "merit grace" in the sense of paragraph 2010 (eg prayer):
26The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, "He's dead." 27But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up. 28After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"
29He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer."
- Mk 9
30Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.' 33So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us."
- Acts 10
24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. 29To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.
- Col 1
16Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
- 1 Tim 4
19My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
- James 5
and one of my favorites:
6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."
7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you.
-James 4
"Come near to God and he will come near to you"? Wow, are you sure James isnt a semi-Pelagian or something?
Combox for:
Open Forum
[30 April 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...n-
forum_30.html
Adomnan proved my point even more!
Thanks.
The Roman Catholic Church emphasizes a works-righteousness salvation and earning merit in order to finally be accepted by God; and one can never know for sure if God loves them and accepts them or not.
This is the opposite of grace and salvation and the good news.
katergazomai does not mean "earn" or "work for" -- it does not give indication, by grammar or by context that it is "earn" or "Work for".
Rather, it is "work out" -- work it out practically, because ( gar - verse 13) it is God who is in you to will and to work for His good pleasure.
The Christian life is not passive. We must choose and strive and be disciplined and obey; and we can because we have God in us and He gives us grace and power to choose the right way and crucify the flesh. He both wills and works in us. But we must do the moving and choosing; and give glory to Him for doing the work.
You are wrong on that one.
katerga,zomai verb part pres mid or pass dep gen masc
sing , from katerga,zomai do, accomplish; produce,
bring about, work out; prepare, make ready; overcome,
conquer (Eph 6.13)
Rom. 1:27
Rom. 2:9
Rom. 4:15
Rom. 5:3
Rom. 7:8
Rom. 7:13
Rom. 7:15
Rom. 7:17
Rom. 7:18
Rom. 7:20
Rom. 15:18
1 Co. 5:3
2 Co. 4:17
2 Co. 5:5
2 Co. 7:10
2 Co. 7:11
2 Co. 9:11
2 Co. 12:12
Eph. 6:13
Phil. 2:12
Jas. 1:3
1 Pet. 4:3
The distinctions between congruent merit and condign merit seems like a tricky way to say "we don't teach works salvation",( but really we do, because one can never be sure if he did enough works, etc.); which the comments show and point to. Merit is the opposite of grace. You can boast. It is the opposite of the gospel.
Ken,
Romans 4:4 lays out a basic principle: we cannot enter into a relationship of commutative justice with God. That is, we cannot obligate Him on the basis of strict merit, like a worker obligates his employer. This you surely agree with.
This is also common sense. God, being who He is, cannot be obligated to do anything. We have the testimony of Scripture and reason against this.
But condign merit is not on the order of commutative justice. We are not obligating God to pay us according to strict merit when we do good works.
When we approach God from the perspective of a worker, and treat Him as an employer, it is then that we come under Paul's condemnation.
But Paul-- and the entire NT, with the entire Christian tradition-- recognizes another type of relationship with God. A filial relationship, where we become sons crying, "Abba! Father!" When we are adopted as sons we try to please our Father in the way that sons try to please their fathers. And our Father is happy to reward us for what we do-- in the kind, benevolent way that the greatest Father would.
It is this distinction which baffles Protestants. Nowhere do the Scriptures condemn condign merit. Paul condemns the idea that we can enter into a relationship of strict justice with God, but not that we can't please Him when we do good in accord with grace.
That's why the Bible constantly says that God will reward people according to their works. In Matthew 25 the very basis of our judgment is on our works-- good or bad. The same thing is repeated by Jesus at the end of the book of Revelation. He says, "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." (Rev 22:12)
And of course, James says that we are justified by our works in this same sense (Jm 2:24).
And so it should be no surprise that Paul also agrees. He talks about " God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works" (Rom 2:5-7).
And so it's quite clear that God does reward us for our good works. Paul says it undeniably: God will reward with immortality those who persevere in good works. And this is not strange, for Jesus says the same thing about those who perform the corporal works of mercy (Matthew 25).
What it comes down to is that our good works are always done in cooperation with grace, and that we never merit apart from grace. That's why Augustine said that in crowning our merits, God is actually crowning His own gifts.
As you can see, what I've presented is pure Gospel.
-Rob
Rob,
I'm not sure your quote about impassibility is necessarily directly relevant. It seems to be a statement about the Chalcedonian doctrine on the hypostatic union, namely, that the person of Jesus has the attributes of either nature predicated of him. Hence, He is passible according to his human nature and impassible according to His divine nature. It doesn't directly speak to whether the Father punished Him or not (which would be the central question of penal substitution).
I understand. And I didn’t mean to stray (like I’ve ever done that before 
). I was just trying to better understand (from the Calvinist perspective) the meaning and ramifications of substitutionay atonement SA or penal substitution PS with regard to Christ’s continued sufferings.
What I was driving at was basically this:
If the Father punished Christ (in the PS sense), and yet Christ indeed continues to suffer in His Mystical body, the Church, where exactly then is this so-called substitution, since Christ not only suffers in his own person and nature, but also in, with and through us as well? (keep in mind that Christ is in agony until the end of the world (in his Mystical body, the Church) and that many (if not all) of the Fathers, taught explicitly that we are Christ, that is, “we too are Himself” (Augustine, Sermon 263A:2:2).
Put another way, are the sufferings of Christ’s Mystical body, which are the continuation of His passion until the end of time, also to be considered a result of the Father’s “wrath” which was PS teaches was poured out on Him during His passion? And if so, then where is the so-called “substitution,” since we too, as well as Christ, are all suffering together?
Ken: katergazomai does not mean "earn" or "work for" -- it does not give indication, by grammar or by context that it is "earn" or "Work for".
Rather, it is "work out" -- work it out practically, because ( gar - verse 13) it is God who is in you to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Adomnan: That's not true, Ken. This verb never means "work out practically" in Greek. It can only mean "earn" in this context. That's just the way it is.
The first three synonyms you provide subsequently in your post mean the same thing as earn: accomplish, produce, bring about. Of "prepare, make ready, overcome and conquer," "conquer" has the same significance. If you "conquer" salvation, you earn it. Same if we "prepare" or "make ready" our salvation. "Work out" may have meant "earn" in the 16-17th century. If so, it no longer does. "Overcome" clearly isn't relevant in this context.
You cited "apanta katergasamenoi" in Eph 6:13. This literally means "having gained all by effort." The KJV translates it as "having done all."
In Rom 1:27, "katergazomenoi ten antimisthian" clearly means "earning the reward (or payback). "
In Rom 2:9, "katergazomenou to kakon" means "accomplishing evil" or "producing evil." If you want to translate Phil 2:12 as "accomplishing salvation" or "producing salvation," I have no problem with that.
Rom 4:15: The Law accomplishes or earns wrath. The NJB translates "produces."
And the same with the rest. None of these verses uses katergazomai to mean "work out practically." The object is always something that is acquired or accomplished or produced by effort or doing. With an object like "reward" or "salvation," it can only mean "earn."
In sum, Paul writes "earn salvation," and so "earn salvation" it is.
"work out" your salvation; not "work for" your salvation
given the context of verse 13, Philippians 2
Of course "practically" is my interpretation, which is necessary. Paul is saying, "demonstrate that your Salvation is real, work it out, let it come out in your life by obedience and love and discipline, and not complaining and being shining lights in a dark world; because God has already worked it in and is in you in a relationship to will and motivate you and move you and act. Give Him the glory.
"earn salvation" it is not -- as Romans 4, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2:8-9 prove; along with the rest of NT.
You really prove what I was saying; that RCC emphasizes "earning your salvation" and that is against the gospel. That is at least Semi-Pelagian in practice; and your emphasis even pushes more toward outright Pelagianism.
on propitiation
No time to give a full explanation. I remember in Seminary studying the issue. Romans 3:25-26; I john 2:2, 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; 9:5
Leon Morris proved in his book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, what the hilasmos word group meant. Propitiation
http://www.amazon.com/exec/
obido...process=default
Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
Hi Ken (and everyone else),
Augustine’s letter 186 has some important things to say about grace, merit, and our friend, Pelagius. I don’t have the letter handy, but I’ll try to get over to St. Thomas later this week and get some specific quotes from it.
In the meantime, here’s part of the introduction to letter 186 (which I scanned) and which presents the various chapters in outline. This will give you a good idea of the overall idea of the letter which has 41 paragraphs. I should’ve scanned the whole thing last time I had the book checked out.
I suspect the sub-text to this whole penal substitution business is the faith vs works debate. And I suspect that the sub-text to both of those is this business of “eternal security.”
Anyway, here’s the editors into.
“Toward the middle of 416, Alypius, the bishop of Thagaste, and Augustine wrote
to Paulinus, the bishop of Nola in Italy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pau...aulinus_of_Nola
Augustine and Alypius explain to Paulinus that, after having read a work of Pelagius, namely, Nature, they have come to realize that the Briton is an enemy of the grace of God (paragraph 1).
They tell Paulinus that Pelagius' errors were reported to the Apostolic See by those who attended the Councils of Carthage and Milevis and that Pope Innocent had confirmed the condemnation of Pelagius (paragraph 2).
The true grace of God not only wipes away sins but also helps us to avoid sin and to live rightly (paragraph 3).
It is not our faith, good will, and good works that have saved us from the mass of perdition but the grace of God from which good works come (paragraph 4).
Even our good thoughts do not come from ourselves but from God (paragraph 5).
Before receiving grace no one has any good but only evil merits, even if his life has lasted only a single day on earth (paragraph 6).The love that faith obtains is itself a gift of God (paragraph 7). The righteousness that makes us righteous comes from faith as a gift of God (paragraph 8 ). But the righteousness that comes from the law does not come from God (paragraph 9).
Though faith merits righteousness, faith itself is a gift, so that no human merit precedes grace (paragraph 10).
They quote a passage from a letter of Paulinus that reveals the desperate need on the part of human beings for God’s grace as we await the redemption of our body (paragraph 40).
As long as we are in this life, we need to pray that we may not be brought into temptation (paragraph 41).”
I do have a couple of quotes from letter 186.
“Though faith, then, obtains justification, as God has also granted to each the measure of faith itself, no human merit precedes the grace of God, but grace itself merits an increase in order that, once increased, it may also merit to be made perfect with the will accompanying, not leading, following along, not preceding.” (186:10)
And this, along with some notes, which concludes Augustine’s letter:
cont...
Augustine writes:
‘For what could be richer or more filled with a most true profession than that passage in a letter of yours where you humbly deplored that our nature did not remain as it was created, but was damaged by the father of the human race. You [ Bishop Paulinus] said,
"I am poor and sorrowing (Ps 69:30), since I am still fashioned from the squalor of the earthly image and still carry more of the first than of the second Adam in the senses of my flesh and in my earthly actions. 44 How shall I dare to make a portrait of myself for you when I am shown to reject the image of the heavenly man by my earthly corruption? 45 Shame encloses me from both sides. I am ashamed to portray what I am; I do not dare to portray what I am not. I hate what I am; I am not what I love. But what good will it do wretched me to hate iniquity and to love virtue, 46 since I do rather what I hate and I do not in my laziness strive to do what I love? In my discord I am tom apart by inner warfare, while the spirit has desires opposed to the flesh and the flesh has desires opposed to the spirit (Gal 5: 17) and the law of the body attacks the law of the mind with the law of sin. 47 Unhappy man that I am, who have not eliminated the poisoned taste of the hostile tree even by the wood of the cross!48 For there remains in me that paternal poison by which through his transgression our father infected the whole of his race," 49 and the many other things that you put together concerning this misery, while groaning in expectation of the redemption of your body, IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE NOT YET SAVED IN FACT BUT IN HOPE.’ 50 (186:40)
We "ARE NOT YET SAVED IN FACT BUT IN HOPE.”
In other words, penal substitution or not, there’s still no such thing as “guaranteed salvation.” Luther, Calvin, are you listening?
Notes:
44. See I Cor 15:47-49.
45. Paulinus wrote this letter to Bishop Severus who had asked him to have a painting of him and
his wife sent to him.
46. See Ps 45:8; Heb 1:9.
47. See Rom 7:23.
48. See Gn 3:6.
49. Paulinus of Nola. Letter 30, 2.
50. See Rom 8:23-24.
Source: Works of Saint Augustine, Letters (Epistulae) 156-210, New City Press, 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id...=156548200x&
lr=
Ken: Of course "practically" is my interpretation, which is necessary. Paul is saying, "demonstrate that your Salvation is real, work it out, let it come out in your life by obedience and love and discipline, and not complaining and being shining lights in a dark world; because God has already worked it in and is in you in a relationship to will and motivate you and move you and act. Give Him the glory.
Adomnan: I know what you'd like the word to mean, Ken. But, unlke Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass," you can't make a word mean whatever you want:
"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
"Katergazomai," when followed by something sought after, like victory, or a reward or salvation, always means "gain by effort; earn."
The word cannot mean "work out practically." It never meant this in any context. This is simply a matter of definition.
Ken: "earn salvation" it is not -- as Romans 4, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2:8-9 prove; along with the rest of NT.
Adomnan: "Earn salvation" it is. None of those texts you refer to imply that salvation is not earned. Paul does not contradict himself. In Romans 4 and Gal 3, he is simply saying that one is not justified by works of the Jewish Law (primarily circumcision). He does not expand his meaning beyond that. Besides, these chapters speak of justification, not salvation.
Paul probably did not author Ephesians, but even the one passing reference to "works" in this epistle refers to works of the Jewish Law, not good works in general; that is, "works" has the same import in Ephesians as in Romans. (In Gal, Paul only employs the phrase "works of the Law," as far as I can see, never the shorthand "works," which he adopts in Romans starting in chapter 4.)
Ken: on propitiation No time to give a full explanation. I remember in Seminary studying the issue. Romans 3:25-26; I john 2:2, 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; 9:5
Adomnan: All of these passages refer to "expiation," not propitiation. I proved this with Hebrews 2:17 -- which YOU wrongly cited to prove your point -- and you have nothing to say to contest that.
Ken: Leon Morris proved in his book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, what the hilasmos word group meant. Propitiation
Adomnan: I don't have to read his book; I can see he's wrong. I know it's impossible that he proved that hilaskesthai in Hebrew 2:17 means "propitiation" because it can only mean propitiation when the object of the verb is God. When the object is sins, as in Heb 2:17, it must mean expiation. It's simple, Ken. You can't propitiate sins; you can only expiate them.
From my notes.
Here is the only comment I wrote down from Augustine's sermon 131 regarding grace.
“There are people, you see, who are ungrateful for grace, who attribute too much to a helpless and wounded nature.” Sermon 131:6:1, p. 319
And here's the translators note ( no. 20 ) to the same sermon. I'll look up the passage to which it refers next chance I get.
"It is worth noting that Augustine’s doctrine of grace does not exclude the possibility of merit, of in some sense earning a reward, as I rather think Luther and Calvin supposed. There is a place for the concept of merit- but it is firmly within a total context of grace. God’s gift, his grace, comes first, and last; human merit only comes in the middle, as an effect of grace, entirely dependent on it."
SERMONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT (94A-147A), 1992. VOLUME 4, PART 3.
http://books.google.com/books?
id...FHYm6zASt2Ki8Ag
Now back to bed! Later gators.
Ben,
You seem to have a very good grasp on the Fathers. I've been trying to read the Fathers myself, in bits and pieces. Any advice on reading the Fathers which you can give?
As for what you said about the suffering of the Church and Christ's body, it's very interesting. The puzzle pieces might not fit together under penal substitution, as you can see.
-Rob
This has been a very informative thread for me to read, but at the end of the day, Ken, what is the peasant to do regarding the translation and understanding of the scriptures? I don't have to go to school to learn how to read Greek and Hebrew, nor do I have to try to decide whether you or Adomnan has the correct understanding of Sacred Scripture. How do I settle this argument, Ken?
For us unlearned simpletons, we simply have to listen to the Church about this particular issue. THAT is how Christ intended it to be. Christ instituted a living, teaching Church to innocultate us illiterate peasants from erroneous understandings of scripture. You have no such protection, you rely on your own intellect.
Rev. Temple:
Morris isn't going to help you. He says the same thing Admonan says, albeit not quite in the same way. Here's a nice word study that summarizes Morris's position.
And after examining all the words in the "hilaskomai" word group in the Septuagint, Morris says,
"we accept the verdict of such scholars as Westcott and Dodd in their demonstration that in the Old Testament there is not the usual pagan sense of a crude propitiation of an angry deity, and that this is shown in the LXX use of hilaskomai, etc. The usage with God as the subject of the verb, the paucity of examples of its use with Him as the object, the study of the Hebrew words translated by hilaskomai and it cognates all alike draw us to this conclusion.... It is of the utmost importance that we should understand that propitiation in the crude sense is not possible with the God of Israel, and that the Greek words used reflect this view of the deity. We cannot be too grateful to Dodd and others for their convincing demonstration of this truth.
However, it is the present writer's conviction that, in stating this great truth, most who have treated it have tended to go too far. When we reach the stage where we must say 'When the LXX translators used "propitiation" they did not mean "propitiation"', it is surely time to call a halt. No sensible man uses one word when he means another, and in view of the otherwise invariable Greek use it would seem impossible for anyone in the first century to have used one of the hilaskomai group without conveying to the readers some idea of propitiation.
It is contended that while care is taken to avoid the crude use natural to pagans, yet the words of the hilaskomai group as used in the LXX were not eviscerated of their meaning, nor were they given an entirely new meaning. Rather there is a definite continuity, and in particular the removal of wrath seems to be definitely in view when the word group is used."
It is also clear from this study by Leon Morris that propitiation does not mean a satisfaction of the justice of God for the transgressions of the law.
With this expanded secondary meaning, which Admonan rightly says is better captured by the term "expiate" anyway, "propitiate" simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Rather, Morris is simply saying that there is an associated meaning of appeasing the wrath of God through the cleansing of sin.
David Petersen says the same thing about Hebr. 2:17 in the NBC (21st c. ed.):
However, the climax of his earthly struggle was his deal, by which he was able to make atonement for the sins of the people (17). This expression is the first indication that Jesus fulfilled the role of the high priest onf the annual Day of Atonement (cf. Lv. 16), offering a sacrifice to cleanse his people from the defilement of sin and placate the anger of God."
It's that cleansing part that A
David Petersen says the same thing about Hebr. 2:17 in the NBC (21st c. ed.):
However, the climax of his earthly struggle was his deal, by which he was able to make atonement for the sins of the people (17). This expression is the first indication that Jesus fulfilled the role of the high priest onf the annual Day of Atonement (cf. Lv. 16), offering a sacrifice to cleanse his people from the defilement of sin and placate the anger of God."
It's that cleansing part that Admonan is repeatedly emphasizing by the use of the word "expiate." Because some people take this to mean that God's wrath is not implicated at all, Morris argues that "propitiate" should be used, but that is based on a secondary sense of appeasing the divine wrath through expiation that Adomnan is not even denying.
Bottom line: As Morris uses the term "propitiate," he does NOT support your position that this means satisfaction of divine justice.
typo: "his deal" -> "his death"
evidently, this pagan notion of bargaining with a deity that I was trying to answer was too much on my mind. 
Peter,
Of course he'll say that the Bible is the "final court of appeals" or some such thing, but... he has yet to show the Bible teaches such a thing...
It seems more a more clear to me that the God Ken is painting a picture of is a glory-mongering despot who arbitrarily nabs, from the mass of damned sentient beings, a few wicked folks to save... and that only these souls can respond to His call to repentance... the rest, while called, are damned... the lucky elect get the alien righteousness of Christ who is murdered/crushed by a blood-thirsty Deity in to exact a payment for the sins of the lucky/arbitrarily selected elect - and this is called free grace, this is called 'good news' - this is a horror story, and it's not what the Bible teaches, as Adomnan and Mr. Prejean are showing us.
This sounds more like Allah than Yahweh to me...
Of course he'll say that the Bible is the "final court of appeals" or some such thing
I know he will, but it doesn't answer the question I ask of him:
What is the peasant to do when he is faced with two opposed, learned men parsing the grammar of the scriputres in an attempt to give said peasant the correct understanding of Scripture?
I maintain that Christ provided for the peasant's authentic Christian education by instituting a Church to teach such things correctly. He gave this Church a visible leader so that our humble, illiterate, peasant who is busy trying to scratch out a meagre sustainence on his farm can see where this Church is in times of doctrinal confusion.
I have brought this to Ken's attention before, but he skirts the issue with a comment similar to what you posted above and then returns to his scripture parsing with his participles, definite articles and future perfect tenses to try to impress upon the ignoramous out in the field that he has the correct understanding of scripture.
All that being said, I do immensely value your, Johnathan's, etal learning and how you employ it to confirm those in the faith.
The big thing that Ken and most protestants can't comprehend is the difference between objective truth and their own opinion. When Ken says the bible teaches x he thinks that is objective truth. Anyone who disagrees can see it is just his opinion but Ken cannot. It requires some abstract thinking to step outside yourself and see your opinion as possible tainted by things you are not aware of. That is to stop trusting your own mind. It is a hard thing to swallow for a protestant because they have no other way to approach objective truth except to declare their own subjective interpretation to be objective.
Paul probably did not author Ephesians,
Wow. That is just, unorthodox and liberal.
Who, pray tell, then wrote Ephesians?
I could comment on lots of things; but I am still trying to read it all and comprehend it all!
Thanks for all your interactions from all of you; you are all very zealous and diligent in your answers; except for the liberal view that Paul didn't write Ephesians.
Adomnan: Paul probably did not author Ephesians,
Ken: Wow. That is just, unorthodox and liberal.
Adomnan: It's the view of the preeminent Catholic Pauline scholar (in English at least), Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, and the consensus of the overwhelming majority of other distinguished scholars who write on this subject.
But I have no problem with your asserting that Paul wrote Ephesians. It doesn't have any impact on our discussion whether he was the author or not. I just couldn't in good conscience ascribe the epistle directly to Paul once it came up.
Ken: Who, pray tell, then wrote Ephesians?
Adomnan: Some disciple of Paul's, name unknown.
Ephesians is inspired and canonical, even if not penned by Paul.
Randy's back !
on objective truth vs. opinion --
Your assumption basically guts us all of any certainty of our own understanding at all. How do you know anything? You have to also use your mind to come to the conclusion that the RCC is right; or it is just blind faith in a human institution. (But you would say it is God's institution on earth.)
Peter,
Koine Greek was the common Greek for the man on the street; so at that time it was very peasant/ farmer/ shoe- cobbler friendly.
We have to constantly translate the Scriptures into languages and help people understand, yes.
Yes, we all have to depend to some degree on others, teachers, scholars, books, pastors, teachers in the church, etc.
Even Fitzmeyer, has written things that are against RC Dogma; it seems (others lump him in with Raymond Brown and other liberal scholars. ( I don't have the backup for that, I just did a quick search and Dave A. said it in an earlier debate that Dave and I had on Mary in 2006. When Svendsen quoted Brown and Fitzmeyer in favor of the protestant undersanding of the Greek; they were discounted as liberals.
"Nearly all Roman Catholic NT scholars in recent years, including Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmeyer, agree that the older Roman Catholic interpretations of the this word [kexaritwmevn, Luke 1:28] "clearly go beyond the meaning of Luke's text." ( p. 130, Who is My Mother?, Eric Svendsen)
Learning languages and cultures is just part of the Great commission to disciple all nations. Matthew 28:18-20 (nations, from Greek "ethna" where we get "ethnic" from; and I Cor. 9:19-23, "I have become all things to all men."
Anyway, I understand your point and you guys win the argument as far as which view seems more humble, because you are not depending on your own self and mind to figure things out, it seems. But ultimately you are also leaning on your own mind to decide that RCC makes more sense to you.
The authority of the RCC would have more credibility if it would repent of false doctrines and practices on Mary, admit they are not infallible; see that justification by faith alone is true because it depends on salvation by grace alone (Romans 4:16 -- For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace . . . Yes, I know the word "alone" is not there in Romans 4:16
by faith alone, does not mean, "faith remains alone". No, true faith produces good works, change, fruit, etc.
And Paul's argument in Romans 3:21-28 shows that substitution and God's wrath being propitiated does go with the issue of justification by faith alone, apart from any merit of works.
Jonathan,
You did a very clever job of turning Leon Morris against me! Since I don't have his whole book, [ I was too poor in seminary to buy lots of books and I remember reading him; but cannot regurgitate it.]
No protestant agrees with the pagan/angry deity emphasis; and so I don't think what Leon Morris wrote goes against anything I have written; I just don't know enough; or have forgotten the details to go any further.
but you have stimulated me to do some further study and go to the library and try to go over these things again.
Peter,
Koine Greek was the common Greek for the man on the street; so at that time it was very peasant/ farmer/ shoe- cobbler friendly.
Ken, are you saying that the peasant in a field in Germany around 1540 knew Koine Greek well enough to parse the sacred Scriptures for himself?
no, read the rest of what I wrote about translating, matthew 28:19, reaching the nations, cultures, etc. That is one reason Luther wanted a fresh new translation of the Bible into German.
That is also why the Latin Vulgate eventually faded as useful; it became a dead language after all the barbarian invasions and the fall of Roman Empire.
Don't hold me to when exactly Latin became a "dead language" --I did not mean "immediately after barbarian invasions", mind you -- 1600s ? 1700s ? When did Italian replace Latin? How is Romanian so close to Latin? it seems still used into 19th and 20 th century and the society of St. Pius XII (Traditionalists, Ultra-traditionalists) want to go back to Latin Mass, etc.
Ken,
Why would Catholics repent of 'false doctrines' if you've yet to show us that they are false? We've given you many reasons to reject 'sola fide' taken in the wrong sense. Why not address the types of arguments we've made, like mine here,
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9110374/
#162025
rather than just tell us that our doctrine is false.
-Rob
Jonathan,
Thanks for going to the trouble of looking up that reference to Leon Morris. His nuanced opinion, as it turns out, hardly supports the Rev. Temple's concept of propitiation.
I do think, though, that the following statement by Mr. Morris is overreaching: "it would seem impossible for anyone in the first century to have used one of the hilaskomai group without conveying to the readers some idea of propitiation. "
Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer makes reference to Leon Morris's view in his discussion of propitiation/expiation in "Paul and His Theology: A Brief Sketch," writing about the word hilasterion (sometimes translated "mercy seat") that occurs in Rom 3:25:
"Some commentators have tried to relate hilasterion to the Greek verb hilaskesthai, which was often used in the Hellenistic period with a god or hero as its object and meant 'to propitiate, placate, appease' such an angry being. This might suggest that Paul was saying that Christ was so displayed with his blood in order to placate the Father's wrath (see L. Morris, "The Meaning"). This is, however, far from certain. In the LXX, God is at times the object of hilaskesthai (Mal 1:9; Zech 7:2; 8:22); but in these three places there is no question of an appeasement of his wrath (see the RSV). More frequently hilaskesthai is used either of expiating sins (i.e., removing them or their guilt, Ps 65:4; Sir 5:6; 28:5) or of expiating some object, person, or place (i.e., purifying from defilement, Lev 16:16, 20, 33; Ezek 43:20, 26; etc.)."
Consistent with this, Fr. Fitzmyer understands "hilasterion" in Rom 3:25 as an adjective describing Christ and meaning "expiating."
Thus, we see that expiation is the most likely meaning of the "hilas-" word in Paul, and it certainly has that meaning in Hebrews, as I explained earlier, because, when used as a verb in Heb 2:17, it takes "sins" as an object.
The other occurence of a word of this group is "hilasmos" in I John 2:2: "and he is a 'hilasmos' (i.e., expiation) for our sins, not for ours only but also for those of the whole world." Here the word clearly means "cleansing, expiation" because John has just finished saying "the blood of Jesus Christ, His son, cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:7) and "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all iniquity" (I John 1:9)
Dear Anon --
It seems more a more clear to me that the God Ken is painting a picture of is a glory-mongering despot
[not at all -- God knows His glory is best for us. He is good and pure and holy and pure love and mercy. You mis-understand Reformed theology. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons . . . Ephesians 1:4-6]
who arbitrarily
Islam, yes; is arbitrary; but not the God of the Bible; God so loved the world that He gave . . . He is motivated by love
nabs, from the mass of damned sentient beings, Islam does not believe in original sin nor a fall; rather it teaches that all humans are born good; and in fact, "Muslims". Quran, Surah 30:30 "Allah created man with an upright nature (fitrah) . . . "
a few wicked folks to save... and that only these souls can respond to His call to repentance
"if perhaps God should grant repentance" 2 Timothy 2:24 ; Acts 5:31; 8:22; 11:18]
... the rest, while called, are damned
see Romans 9:19-23
... the lucky I would not use the word "lucky", it comes from the same roots as "Lucifer"
elect get the alien righteousness of Christ who is murdered/crushed by a blood-thirsty Deity
those are your gross words to describe the holiness of God and His just wrath against sin -- so why did He require lambs and goats and bulls to be slaughtered and sacrificed? "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" Heb. 9:22, Leviticus 17:11
in to exact a payment for the sins of the lucky/arbitrarily selected elect
already defeated your use of the words "lucky" and "arbitrary" -
and this is called free grace, this is called 'good news' - this is a horror story, Original horror/ghost stories such as Dicken's A Christmas Carol and Frankenstein had moral lessons pointing towards repentance
and it's not what the Bible teaches, that's your view and opinion
as Adomnan and Mr. Prejean are showing us. their views and opinions, all human
This sounds more like Allah than Yahweh to me...
No, God is holy and love and cannot sin (I John 1:5; Titus 1:2 "God cannot lie"). In Islam, Allah can sin if He wants to; His will is paramount. In Biblical Christianity, God is Love ( I John 4:8-16) and humbles Himself, becomes flesh, and dies on the cross in order to save His people from their sins. He rose from the dead to prove His sacrifice was a powerful, atoning, all propitiating sacrifice. The god of Islam is power and aloof and far off; and is not a person and cannot be known. In Biblical Christianity, God is Tri-une, personal, and available to us. I reject your characterization, for it is just wrong.
Ken: And Paul's argument in Romans 3:21-28 shows that substitution and God's wrath being propitiated does go with the issue of justification by faith alone, apart from any merit of works.
Adomnan: There's no "substitution" in Romans 3:21-28, no wrath being propitiated (in fact, no propitiation, just expiation), no justification by faith alone (as Protestants understand it) and no discussion of works other than the works of the Jewish Law (i.e., circumcision, food laws, etc.).
Ken citing the Quran: Surah 30:30 "Allah created man with an upright nature (fitrah) . . . "
Adomnan: Actually, this is true. Man was created with an upright nature. It was only after man's creation that he fell.
Ken: I would not use the word "lucky", it comes from the same roots as "Lucifer"
Adomnan: Actually, this isn't so. The "luci" of Lucifier comes from the Latin lux, lucis meaning "light." So, lightbearer. "Lucky" is from Middle English and is akin to the modern German word Glueck ("e" represents an umlaut), which means happiness. This isn't from the Latin. So the two words appear unrelated.
Rob,
You are right, I was just asserting without arguing. Your post below is pretty good.
Romans 4:4 lays out a basic principle: we cannot enter into a relationship of commutative justice with God. That is, we cannot obligate Him on the basis of strict merit, like a worker obligates his employer. This you surely agree with.
yes, very good.
This is also common sense. God, being who He is, cannot be obligated to do anything. We have the testimony of Scripture and reason against this.
But condign merit is not on the order of commutative justice. We are not obligating God to pay us according to strict merit when we do good works.
When we approach God from the perspective of a worker, and treat Him as an employer, it is then that we come under Paul's condemnation.
But Paul-- and the entire NT, with the entire Christian tradition-- recognizes another type of relationship with God. A filial relationship, where we become sons crying, "Abba! Father!" When we are adopted as sons we try to please our Father in the way that sons try to please their fathers. And our Father is happy to reward us for what we do-- in the kind, benevolent way that the greatest Father would.
No problems at all here; as far as I can see. Yes, there will be rewards in heaven and degrees of rewards and degrees of punishment in hell. Several parables and I Cor. 3:9-15 seem to indicate this.
It is this distinction which baffles Protestants. Nowhere do the Scriptures condemn condign merit.
What does "condign" mean? Jimmy Akin said it means "reward" (he also said "meritos" or "Meritus" just means "reward" in Latin. Debate with James White on the Bible Answer Man Show.
Paul condemns the idea that we can enter into a relationship of strict justice with God, but not that we can't please Him when we do good in accord with grace.
Yes, all believers who are truly regenerate operate in God's grace when obeying Him and doing good works out of love and for His glory. no problem.
That's why the Bible constantly says that God will reward people according to their works. In Matthew 25 the very basis of our judgment is on our works-- good or bad.
Yes, but the good works flow out of a changed nature first. One must become a new creature, a sheep first. Those that are "goats" (have not had nature changed; are the ones who don't do good works, or do them with wrong motives, etc. or do evil works.
The same thing is repeated by Jesus at the end of the book of Revelation. He says, "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." (Rev 22:12)
no problem with Protestant doctrine. We also believe in rewards and that good works prove one has first been saved or born again or changed into a new creature. If anyone is in Christ, behold, he is a new creature, the old has passed away; behold; new things have come." 2 Cor. 5:17
And of course, James says that we are justified by our works in this same sense (Jm 2:24).
James indicates that those good works prove and vindicate that they were true believers, not in order to make them into believers. The order of the quotes from Genesis is very important. Faith comes first (Genesis 15:6) and that is what justifies ( Gal. 3:6-8; Romans 4:1-
; then good works (Genesis 22). that was the work that "justified" Abraham. The word justified there is used like it is used in Luke 7:35 "But wisdom is proved right by all her children". also Matthew 11:19
And so it should be no surprise that Paul also agrees. He talks about " God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works" (Rom 2:5-7).
Yes, if they are changed first into new creatures; otherwise you have a contradiction here with Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:19-20; 3:28; 4:1-8; 5:1-11; Galatians chapter 3, etc.
And so it's quite clear that God does reward us for our good works. Paul says it undeniably: God will reward with immortality those who persevere in good works. And this is not strange, for Jesus says the same thing about those who perform the corporal works of mercy (Matthew 25).
Yes works done by the power of the spirit presumes t
Ken: those are your gross words to describe the holiness of God and His just wrath against sin -- so why did He require lambs and goats and bulls to be slaughtered and sacrificed? "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" Heb. 9:22, Leviticus 17:11
Adomnan: They were going to be slain to be eaten anyway. In fact, as sacrifices they were eaten in communion.
I hope this isn't your attempt to resurrect the penal substitution business, after we've shown how unbiblical it is. Do we have to rerun that whole thread?
Ken: as Adomnan and Mr. Prejean are showing us. their views and opinions, all human
Adomnan: And so I take it your views are divinely inspired?
Yes works done by the power of the spirit presumes that they have been regenerated first.
What it comes down to is that our good works are always done in cooperation with grace, and that we never merit apart from grace. That's why Augustine said that in crowning our merits, God is actually crowning His own gifts.
As you can see, what I've presented is pure Gospel.
Yes, and no contradiction to justification by faith alone, given my stipulations to your bare statements.
-Rob
Adomnan: They were going to be slain to be eaten anyway. In fact, as sacrifices they were eaten in communion.
Then why the worship, spiritual aspects; tabernacle, temple, ceremonies, sprinkling blood on the horns of the altar and other places, the holy of holies, on the mercy seat? What does it mean that "God smelled the soothing aroma" ? It was much more than just eating meat for food.
I hope this isn't your attempt to resurrect the penal substitution business, after we've shown how unbiblical it is. Do we have to rerun that whole thread?
Adomnan
You did not prove it unbiblical, but you just spin it to look "mean and nasty" like pagan gods and cruel despots, "Allah", etc.
A merit is a deed or a virtue that receives or should receive a reward. All rewards presuppose merits. Since the Bible says Christians receive rewards, then Christians must have merits. QED
What does QED mean?
Ken: Then why the worship, spiritual aspects; tabernacle, temple, ceremonies, sprinkling blood on the horns of the altar and other places, the holy of holies, on the mercy seat?
Adomnan: Because the victim's body, and particularly its blood, was made holy by being offered to God and brought into contact with the presence of God at the mercy seat, temple, etc. Once it was made holy, the victim provided not only the boon of food for the body, but of cleansing for the soul. The holy blood in particular was seen to expiate or cleanse sin and pollution, sometimes from people, sometimes from objects and places.
Ken: What does it mean that "God smelled the soothing aroma" ? It was much more than just eating meat for food.
Adomnan: This is an anthropomorphic image, and it simply means that God was pleased with the sacrifice.
Ken: You did not prove it unbiblical, but you just spin it to look "mean and nasty" like pagan gods and cruel despots, "Allah", etc.
Adomnan: Well, people can read these exchanges for themselves. If you think penal substitution is biblical, then where do you find it in the Bible?
Ken: What does QED mean?
Adomnan: Latin, "quod erat demonstrandum." It means "which was to be demonstrated or proven" and is put after a final statement that has been proven.
I thought most people knew this abbreviation because it's used a lot in math classes.
I was terrible at math.
At one time in Algebra in the 9th grade, I made an 11, a 0 and a 22; on three big tests in a row; for an average of an 11.
I finally pulled out with a "c"; but never enjoyed math or algebra or calculus in college. Never saw that QED either; but thanks for the Latin education!
This is an anthropomorphic image, and it simply means that God was pleased with the sacrifice.
Yes, I agree, but why? Because it satisfied His justice against sin. The wages of sin is death; execution. The execution of the animal was a substitutionary sacrifice. The innocent for the guilty. I Peter 3:18 "the just for the unjust" or "the righteous for the unrighteous, that He may bring us to God." Not hard to see. it is all over the place all the way through the Bible
Ken,
Thanks for your response. You're much closer to us Catholics than you might think!
You said:
"No problems at all here; as far as I can see. Yes, there will be rewards in heaven and degrees of rewards and degrees of punishment in hell. Several parables and I Cor. 3:9-15 seem to indicate this."
This is true, but Matthew 25 and Romans 2 indicate that whether or not we enter into eternal life is also based on this, so both eternal life and the degree of glory is determined by this. Hence, in Matthew 25 those who do good works enter into glory, and those who do evil works are damned. It's also true that our degree of cooperation with grace determines our degree of glory.
"Yes, all believers who are truly regenerate operate in God's grace when obeying Him and doing good works out of love and for His glory. no problem."
In fact, the Catholic Church solemly dogmatized, at the Council of Trent, that:
"If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."
Which I think you'd agree with. No one may merit anything, or do any work which justifies/sanctifies apart from God's grace. Anyone who says otherwise is 'anathema.' You and the Church agree here.
" Yes, but the good works flow out of a changed nature first. One must become a new creature, a sheep first. Those that are "goats" (have not had nature changed; are the ones who don't do good works, or do them with wrong motives, etc. or do evil works. "
That the works are truly meritorious is only possible because God indwells in us and moves us by His grace.
"no problem with Protestant doctrine. We also believe in rewards and that good works prove one has first been saved or born again or changed into a new creature. If anyone is in Christ, behold, he is a new creature, the old has passed away; behold; new things have come." 2 Cor. 5:17"
Great quote Ken. Beautiful Scripture.
But we must be more precise. Good works come out of faith and grace, but they also lead to greater justification/sanctification. They not only 'prove' our stuff, but also advance us in favor with God. And, as Matthew 25 and Romans 2 show, in absence of good works we are liable to damnation-- people can have faith, which is true, and yet if they don't pair it with love it is hopeless. Hence Paul saying that, if we have faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, we are nothing.
"James indicates that those good works prove and vindicate that they were true believers, not in order to make them into believers. The order of the quotes from Genesis is very important. Faith comes first (Genesis 15:6) and that is what justifies ( Gal. 3:6-8; Romans 4:1-; then good works (Genesis 22). that was the work that "justified" Abraham. The word justified there is used like it is used in Luke 7:35 "But
...But wisdom is proved right by all her children". also Matthew 11:19 "
Quite frankly, the vindication thesis is not credible (that is, that works only vindicate, and don't also justify). Faith is always a necessary condition for justification. However, it is still true that works justify, as James says. I don't have time to argue it now, but I think Robert Sungenis tackles it pretty extensively in his book, 'Not by Faith Alone.'
I think part of your conceptual roadblock is that you think of justification as a one-time event. Catholics-- and the Bible-- don't look at it that way. Justification is very intimately connected with sanctification (because Catholics always think that justification involves the interior renewal of man). Hence Abraham was actually recorded as being justified multiple times by the various NT authors. Once this conceptual problem is pointed out, it becomes clear that there is no problem with saying that Abraham was justified by his works.
"Yes, and no contradiction to justification by faith alone, given my stipulations to your bare statements. "
But if by "faith alone" you mean, faith, informed by the virtues of hope and love, which is doing good works, then don't we agree in the end, regardless of the name we give?
Quite honestly, when we get past verbal differences, we substantially agree on the issue. You said before that if the Church repented of false doctrine, it would have more credibility. But if what I've presented is substantially true doctrine, then on what grounds need the Church repent? Can't we rejoice in truth instead? God bless.
-Rob
Ken: thanks for the Latin education
Adomnan: You're welcome. Happy to oblige.
Adomnan: This is an anthropomorphic image, and it simply means that God was pleased with the sacrifice.
Ken: Yes, I agree, but why? Because it satisfied His justice against sin
Adomnan: God was pleased with the sacrifice, and therefore there's penal substitution? That's quite a stretch, Ken, and it's NOT QED!
Ken: The wages of sin is death; execution.
Adomnan: Everyone dies. Few are executed.
Ken: The execution of the animal was a substitutionary sacrifice.
Adomnan: The animal was not "executed." Only criminals are executed. Besides, you're confusing the sacrificial offering with the scapegoat again. Sins were put on the scapegoat, not on the offering. A sin-laden offering would be unclean and could not be sacrificed to God.
The animal was killed so that it could be offered. How could its life (which was "in the blood") be given to God and thus sanctified if it weren't killed? It was killed to rise to a higher life in that its blood, where the life was, became holy. In the same way, we die to rise to a higher, holy life. That's why Paul calls us "living sacrifices." According to you, if we've living sacrifices, that must mean we're criminals constantly being executed.
Ken:The innocent for the guilty.
Adomnan: Yes, and the innocent stays innocent. He does not become guilty. His blood makes the guilty innocent, because it's holy.
Ken: Not hard to see. it is all over the place all the way through the Bible
Adomnan: Only if you have the special decoder glasses. Because in ordinary ink, the Bible doesn't say anything about penal substitution.
http://www.sourceflix.com/
vid_sa...d_sacrifice.htm
A graphic illustration of the passover sacrifice. Watch it and see Leviticus and John 1:29 come alive in your heart with fear and trembling!
at Justin Taylor's blog
A Lamb That Was Slain
7 comments | Permalink
Todd Bolen links to a Passover Sacrifice video and explains:
Recently I noted an article about a planned animal sacrifice in Jerusalem. This event was controversial because 1) there is no temple or altar in Jerusalem today; 2) killing an animal makes some people mad.
Friends in Jerusalem went to the Old City that day and saw a guy they suspected of carrying a ritual knife in his briefcase and followed the guy through a wild maze of streets in pursuit. It turned out they followed the right guy. They filmed the service.
We talked about the appropriateness of putting this online. The 5-minute video is as graphic as it gets. More and m